1928-04-20

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1927. and the public accounts for the year ending March 31, 1927, be referred to the select standing committee on public accounts.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to direct attention to
the fact, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to these public accounts now being referred to the public accounts committee, when we are within reasonable distance of the end of the session, something should be done so that they may be studied in the meantime and brought before the committee at the next session. The public accounts committee has not been sitting for two years or more, and there is a great deal of work to be done by it. Many things in the Auditor General's report should be inquired into, and it should be understood that the passing of this motion will not preclude the public accounts committee being set up next session and dealing with these accounts, because they are for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, a year ago, and they were not brought down in the early part of this session. I shall probably have something to say about the fiscal year and the public accounts on another occasion, because our budget is only as of March- 31, 192S, so far as that feature is concerned. If these public accounts cannot be considered by the public accounts committee next session great injustice will be done.


James Alexander Robb: I admit at once, Mr. Speaker, that this motion should have been made on the day the accounts were tabled. It was an omission on my part.
Procedure in Divorce Bills


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I was
directing attention to. Would there be any objection on the part of the administration to these accounts and the Auditor General's report being studied and made available for consideration by the public accounts committee to be set up next session? I think there should be no objection.


James Alexander Robb: There will be no objection on the part of the administration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IV. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:
That for the balance of the session all divorce bills received from the senate be read a first and a second time forthwith and referred to the select standing .committee on miscellaneous private bills; and that standing order 22 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawreoce-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, why should senate bills have a preference over other private bills? As a matter of fact, this session we proceeded-as usual, I suppose-by unanimous consent of the house to give the debate on the address precedence, and then again by unanimous consent to give precedence to the debate on the budget, with the result that there has been less opportunity for private bills to be dealt with this session than in any of the previous sessions during which I have been in the house. If this course is continued, it will be impossible in subsequent sessions, unless I very much mistake the temper of hon. members, to secure unanimous consent to precedence of public business. Public business will have to take its proper place on the order paper, and private members will at least have Wednesday afternoons and one hour two nights a week in order to present and discuss their private measures. But under present conditions, with the great mass of private legislation held up without any chance, as it seems to me, of securing the approval of the house during the present session-some of it private legislation which is just as important to the country as many of the public bills that have been introduced-I see no reason why we should give to senate bills precedence over any other private legislation.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The motion relates only to divorce bills, and I think it facilitates what the hon. member has in mind, namely, the getting out of the way of some of the legislation that in procedure helps to block
Procedure in Divorce Bills

the way when we are trying to reach other private ibiliLs. In short, this motion is simply intended to expedite to some degree other private legislation on the order paper.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no right to speak again, but I would suggest to the Prime Minister that the passing of this motion will simply give precedence to senate bills over other private legislation which is coming before this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend insists on his objection I shall not hesitate to withdraw the motion until he has had time to consider its significance. Then I think he will find that what I am saying is quite correct, that the purpose of the motion is simply to permit of the disposal of certain divorce bills that come from the senate, to which this house does not give time in debate or committee, but which have to be read a first and a second time. This motion would send them immediately to the private bills committee. To that extent the way is left clear for other private legislation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: 
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to protest as strongly as I can against the disgraceful way in which we are dealing with these divorce cases. I heartily agree with the member who has just spoken with regard to the necessity of having these divorce cases transferred to some court where they can be properly dealt with. At the present time, as we all know, they come before this house and are given three readings, and we are getting into the habit of lumping them together and passing batches of ten, twenty and thirty without giving them the slightest consideration. For some years I sat on the private bills committee where the same thing was done. I doubt whether the ordinary member of the private bills committee read one case in fifty of those coming before him. If some uniusual protest came before the house regarding some particular case we were forced to read the evidence in that case. Although we are supposed to have certain safeguards in this house in the passing of legislation, provided for by a distinct reading three times of each bill and also by dis-

eussion in private committees, as a matter of fact, so far as the house is concerned, there is absolutely no investigation into any one of the cases-not one. I feel that we as members here are not justified, in what is supposed to be, as regards such cases, a more or less judicial committee, in continuing in this most perfunctory way to pass these bills without any investigation whatever. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the very near future I shall insist that a test case be made in connection with one of these divorce bills and that we discuss in this house the merits of the case. I fancy that if we-did so the first thing we should have to do would be to ask the one lady member oif the house to withdraw. The next thing would be to ask that the galleries be cleared, and in the next place, to have the Hansard reporters leave the chamber, because I submit that the evidence which would be produced in this house would be such as to constitute obscene literature which would be refused carriage through the mails of the country. I submit that we are placing ourselves in an unfortunate position if, to avoid publicity of this kind, we condone the manner of granting divorce as at present observed. In my judgment whether we regard divorce as good or bad, we are submitting to a course of procedure that involves the maximum of expense and the maximum of publicity-


Mr. BOURASSA:: And the minimum of
safeguard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite right, the
minimum of safeguard with regard to the granting of divorces. It is a public disgrace, and I for one do not propose indefinitely to submit to this kind of thing. And if it came to insisting upon the discussion of these bills one by one I for one feel that perhaps the session would not be in vain provided such a course led to a revision of the rules of procedure.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: I should like to refer to the publication of these divorce cases. Now, we have many committees-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
member to speak to the motion, which is that for the balance of the session all divorce bills received from the senate be read a first and a second time forthwith, not discussing the evidence in any case.


James Charles Brady: I am not referring to evidence, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking with reference to the publication of these cases at great expense. The divorce publications are considered by hon. members to be of a revolting

Private Bills
nature, and they are torn up and thrown into the waste paper basket the moment they reach their hands. I think these publications involve unnecessary expenditure of public moneys, and I submit for that reason that the evidence should not be published and distributed.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried on division.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Is it possible to pass that motion on division? I thought there had to be a notice of motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Under standing order 45 it is provided:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper, but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
This motion relates to private bills. I would direct the attention of the hon. member to No. 358 under this standing order:
Motions applying to the business or arrangements of the house as a rule require notice, but some are of such a purely formal nature that by general consent notice is not insisted upon.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand that this is to be regarded as a purely formal matter and that tve can, without any notice of motion, and not by unanimous consent, but in the face of decided opposition in the house, set aside the rule which requires three readings of each bill before it may be passed?


Hewitt Bostock: I do not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose
of the motion was to save the time of the house. Possibly I had better ask, Mr. Speaker, that you allow the motion to stand as a notice in the regular way, and it can be brought up again at a subsequent sitting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is that the motion has been declared carried and the objection was not taken before that declaration was made by the chair. I submit that, the chair having given its ruling and the motion having been declared carried, it is rather late for the hon. member to intervene. Under the circumstances the declaration of the chair that the motion is carried should stand.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that a
point of order with reference to a ruling of the chair should be considered.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion has been declared carried and under the rules it must stay carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I appeal against the ruling of the chair.


Hewitt Bostock: It is too late.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think there is
something more important than losing time. In fair play I appeal against the ruling of the chair.


Hewitt Bostock: Introduction of bills.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I have a
right to speak to the point of order. I appeal against the ruling of the chair in this matter.


Hewitt Bostock: The appeal is against a judgment of the house and not against a ruling of the chair. The motion was put. I asked the question whether it was the wish of the house that the motion be carried. There was apparently some dissent and I declared the motion carried on division. Had it been a substantive motion I would certainly have had regard to the difference of opinion in the house, but as this is purely a formal motion I declared it carried. It is too late now to appeal. The motion having been declared carried, no appeal lies against the judgment of the house.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out, in fear and trembling lest I be declared out of order, that a motion made in a case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover may be made by unanimous consent of the house. In this case unanimous consent was not given, so there is no reason why the motion should be declared carried.



HUDSON BAY


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I lay on the table of the
house the report of the Hudson strait expedition, December 31, 1927.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 206 for the relief of Esther Brand. -Mr. Garland (Carleton)
Bill No. 207 for the relief of Irene Adela Crann.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 208 for the relief of Jessie Ferguson.-Mr. Casselman.
Athabaska Election
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 209 for the relief of William Herbert Gamble.

Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 210 for the relief of Mabel Maude Giles.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 211 for the relief of Alice Mock-ford.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 212 for the relief of Alvah Arthur Norris.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 213 for the relief of Eleanor Porter. -Mr. Geary.
Motion for second reading of bills Nos. 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, agreed *-o on division, and bills read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. W. BOWEN (Durham):: In the
absence of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) I would ask the Prime Minister a question based on a telegram which I received to-day. This telegram states that last night the lighthouse at Port Hope disappeared into the lake, owing to the fact that the government has not kept the pier in repair. Will the government look into this matter and take some action?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure there must be
some error in the message if it attributes this incident to any neglect on the part of the government. I have no doubt that it was due entirely to the elements, but the matter will be looked into immediately, and I have no doubt some means will be taken at once to have the lighthouse rebuilt.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the government to the situation which exists with regard to one of the standing commitees of this house, and to ask a question based thereon. The committee on privileges and elections has been called once-on March 29, I think-since it was appointed, and at that time there was not a quorum present. An important matter has been referred to this committee, namely the investigation of the report made by Mr. Justice Clarke on the Athabaska election scandal. If it is because the chairman of the committee cannot attend its meetings that the committee is not being called, I ask the government if they will
* 
now consider again calling the committee together and appointing another chairman or deputy chairman in order that the business of the house in relation to that committee may be proceeded with.


Mr.  J. J. DEMS@Joliette: As chairman
of that committee perhaps I may answer my hon. friend. On several occasions I have asked the clerks of committees to call meeting of this particular committee, but as an hon. member stated in this house yesterday, it has happened that a number of other committees were meeting on those particular days. The clerks have not found it possible to have the sittings of the committees except under the conditions mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I have therefore given instructions to have this committee called practically every day in the week in order to try to get a quorum. The committee will be called next Tuesday, and if there is no quorum a meeting will be summoned every subsequent day during the week until a quorum is secured.



ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE FOR MEETINGS OF COMMITTEES-STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER

Hewitt Bostock: The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), on the orders of the day yesterday, stated that the accommodation for the committees of the house was very inadequate, that important committees had to depend on temporary rooms provided at the last moment, and asked that this condition of affairs ibe looked into.
lbe information I have in respect to this matter is to the effect that there were seven meetings held yesterday morning. There are four rooms always at the disposal of the committees, namely, 231, 375, 424, 429, and one room. 268, a spare room which is usually at the disposal of committees. The government caucus room, 497, and the opposition caucus room, 116, are, with the consent of the chief whips, frequently used by the committees. This happened yesterday when both rooms were in use by committees. The rooms had been prepared by the staff the night before for the meetings.
The accommodation I have mentioned is the maximum space available for the use of the committees. The only method of increasing the space would be to enlarge the parliament building, as all the space for the accommodation of members and committees is completely taken up.


Mr. DUNNING:: May I say that the complaint of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, and the complaint of other members, especially of the railway committee, were not

Fisheries Commission
confined to the committees sitting yesterday, especially the committee on railways and shipping. The chairman of the general railway committee is unfortunately not in his place, but I feel sure that if he were he would be saying on behalf of that committee what I am now saying. It is a fact' that on no occasion this session has the railway committee occupied the room designated as the railway committee room, and on no two occasions has the railway committee met in the same room; it has been a movable feast all session, and the same applies to the special committee on railways and shipping. Now as pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre yesterday, in connection with both these committees there are always present a large number of officials and experts of one kind or another, and in connection with the general railway committee there is a very large number of persons interested in the bills before the committee. Therefore I would on behalf of these committees request your honour to take the special circumstances into consideration and endeavour to make the conditions a little better for us than has been the case this session.


Hewitt Bostock: I stiall do that with
pleasure.



BRITISH EMPIRE STEEL CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) if he would kindly give us some further information with respect to a report in this morning's press concerning an agreement entered into between the Nova Scotia miners and the British Empire Steel Corporation on a profit-sharing basis.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) :: I am sure my hon. friend does
not want me to go into the details of the agreement, which has not yet been signed. I can say, however, that a vote of the miners was taken the day before yesterday and the proposed agreement, which involves a two years contract, was adopted by a majority of 5,688.



CANADIAN NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Last year, if I recall aright,
the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart!
promised us that this year he would introduce legislation providing that no portion of the national parks would be alienated in the future without the consent of parliament. I would ask the minister if he intends bringing down the legislation at this session.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: No, we will not be able ,to
bring down the legislation this session. I may say that the difficulty we have met with has been the necessity of having a realignment of boundaries and an agreement with the provincial government as to those boundaries. We have almost completed the desired arrangement, but matters are not sufficiently advanced to permit the introduction of the necessary legislation this session. However, as soon as an arrangement has been concluded the necessary legislation will be introduced.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: May I remind the Minister of the Ii srior that he promised to have the necessary steps taken for the printing of the papers laid on the table last night in connection with the Chicago drainage diversion?


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry, but I forgot my hon. friend's request. I will move on Monday to have the papers printed.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: I would again ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) if he is able to give the house any definite information as to when the report of the Royal Commission on Fisheries will be tabled, and will be in the possession of members? The session is drawing to a close and if any action is to be taken with respect to that report it will have to be taken soon.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to
state definitely when the report of the commission will be tabled. The report is now being prepared and I expect that it will be tabled during the course of next week.
Export of Electric Power



EXPORT OF ELECTRIC POWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I would
draw the attention of the government to Bill No. 2, relating to the export of electric power and its position on the order paper under public bills and orders. The government has on more than one occasion expressed its entire approval of the principle of this bill which, in its present form, is the result of consultation and conference with the Department of Trade and Commerce and is, I think, satisfactory now to all concerned. May I ask the government if, under these circumstances, they will consider the advisability of allowing the bill to pass, as it is one very much in the public interest, and if that cannot be done, whether they will take it over as a government measure with a view of its being enacted into law at this session? I do not press for an answer to-day, as I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) is not here, but I should like the Prime Minister to make inquiry and consider the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I had better give my hon. friend an answer at once. The request he makes opens the question whether other public bills should not receive like treatment. I am afraid that if the government expresses a preference for any one measure other hon. members having bills they wish to have considered would have reason to feel that the government was probably favouring one more than the others. Under the circumstances the most I can say to my hon. friend is that the government will at his suggestion consider how far the public interest is likely to be affected by the bill being delayed until a subsequent session. In any event I should not like to promise my hon. friend that this particular bill can be taken up this session.



VALIDATION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 10 consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, relating to the submission to parliament of certain regulations and orders in council.-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton).-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	I think a word of explanation
would be in order here. When I explained the provisions of the bill to the house I pointed out that a difficulty arose owing to the fact that all the orders in council passed
[Mr. Card in. 1
in accordance with the statutes had been tabled, but by reason of a neglect extending over a considerable number of years they had not been validated by a resolution of the house and all I was asking to do was to have them validated. It has been pointed out to me since the bill has been under consideration that I am actually doing a little more than that; that I am putting those orders in council in a little different position from what they would be in if they had been simply by resolution validated in the house, and I am going to move an amendment which, I am informed by the Justice department, will place them in exactly the same category as if they had each year been validated by resolutions. I beg to move to amend Bill No. 62 by adding the following sentence at the end of section 1:
Nothing in this act shall operate to place the crown in a better position than it would have been had the said orders in council been approved by resolution in the manner provided by the respective acts.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned this matter the other day to the Minister of the Interior and he was good enough to place before me a copy of the proposed amendment. I was thinking about it as he was mentioning it and it occurs to me that possibly it should go further and say:
Nothing in this act shall operate to place the crown or any -person in a better position.
I think that is what I had in mind in discussing the matter with the minister. Not only the crown but individuals might be affected by giving the orders in council the force and strength of a statute, which is the effect of the bill. I take'it that the minister does not intend to place either the crown or anybody else in a better position than they would be in if the orders in council had been merely approved. There are orders in council which affect the rights of individuals, and if they had no foundation in law this statute would now make them a valid statute of the parliament of Canada so that the defence that might be open to one individual as against another would be ineffective. I do not suppose it is intended to do more than to say that to the extent to which an order in council had validity, it shall now have validity notwithstanding the fact that it was not approved in the manner prescribed by the act under which it was issued. That is the position; but that need not interfere with the matter, because if the officers of the crown so advise, words can be added

Validation of Orders in Council
when the bill is again before the house. The amendment brings at least the subject matter before the house, and it might be dealt with in that way.


Charles A. Stewart: Not having a legal training I am not just sure as to amendment my hon. friend suggests to the amendment I have just moved, but I can assure him that neither the department nor I want any person to be in a superior position to the crown-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles A. Stewart: -and if it is necessary from a legal standpoint to add the word "person", then I shall be glad to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be a very proper place when the Prime Minister is in his seat to direct attention to the fact that these orders in council-and the minister invited me to inspect them-are very numerous. I should think there must be not less than four or five thousand of them altogether. This brought to my attention the fact that many orders in council affecting public rights are from time to time passed and there is no record of them so far as the public is concerned. I suggested to the minister-and this is not a new suggestion because I had occasion to think it necessary some time ago during the brief period that I was acting in the department-that these orders in council should be published in the Canada Gazette at the end of every month. I can conceive of no other way in which the public interest can be served and in which those interested would have an opportunity of observing just what legislation is enacted by the executive; because after all an order in council has all the effect of a statute, its validity depending upon the statute authorizing it and the order in council being the executive act of the crown's advisers in pursuance of the power conferred upon them by statute. Therefore, so far as the public is concerned, they have all the effect, force and power of a statute. The public in many instances can know and learn nothing unless the order in council is printed in the Gazette. Therefore I suggested to the minister the other day that it is very desirable that such a practice should be followed so that every person concerned might have an opportunity of observing just what executive actions were taken by the government from day to day and week to week in connection with various public interests that are affected by order in council.
I know how difficult at times it has been to follow these matters. In the Poison case it will be recalled that the Privy Council set
aside a judgment that was predicated upon an order in council because the conditions with respect to the publication of the order in council had not been observed. Last night I directed the attention of the minister to a case in which a difficulty had arisen by reason of parliament having taken certain action with respect to an order in council. I am not asking the minister to answer at the moment, but I think all orders in council affecting public properties and public rights should be published in the Gazette as soon as possible after they have been passed; I can conceive of nothing more important in the public interest than that this should be done. For instance, the Department of National Defence has a rule that certain orders in council must be published in the Gazette, and the Department of Interior has a similar rule. I am not now referring merely to the formal business, for instance the cancellation of a quarter-section or something of that sort that requires the action of the governor in council; I am referring to those matters that affect largely public interests and public rights. I think the question of how this can be dealt with is worthy of consideration. In our statute we have only such orders in council published from year to year as may be regarded as important, and the Gazette should be the medium through which the public is informed as to every order in council that affects public interests and public rights.


Mr. CANNON:: Does my hon. friend mean, first, all orders in council which affect rights of either individuals or public property, and, second, orders in council which are passed in accordance with the provisions of previous legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. CHURCH:: As a humble member of
the house I wish to protest against this procedure. You have the Liberal party to-day proposing to govern by commissions, by ordei's in council, by governor general's warrants. Although in opposition they condemned all these ways and means. We have to-day this honourable house proposing to pass a bill to validate government by order in council in regard to properties in the western provinces of which no one knows the present value. Even if it does relate to the past it governs also the future. The other day we had before us a bill in regard to the Peace River valley. The Department of the Interior, like the Department of Marine and Fisheries, seems to-day to be nothing but a political machine. Just the other day what did they do

Validation of Orders in Council
by order in council? They granted in effect to Mr. Backus, an American millionaire, a subsidy of $700,000 of the taxpayers' money of this country in connection with his power and light and transportation proposition in the Lake of the Woods district. We have a government in this country that is supposed to consist of the Governor General, the Senate, and the House of Commons, but now it is proposed to take away all the powers of this house in regard to such great questions as those affecting the Dominion lands and Dominion forest reserves and Dominion parks, water powers-mines andi minerals and rule by order in council and delegate to this house powers the potential value of which no one can estimate to-day. The value of these properties not even the minister who presides over the department of the Interior can tell. What this government is doing in connection with the Chicago water diversion is done very largely by order in council.
We have private bills on the order paper today relating to the mergers of the banks of this country, and let me say that the people of this country will soon not own our Canadian banks at all, because American stock-jobbing interests are buying up the stock of the chartered banks of this country in New York. If a bank failed to-day you could not proceed against the shareholders for double liability because the banks are falling into the hands of the Americans, and the stockholders are Americans with no property within the juris-piction of Canadian courts. We have public bills on the order paper seeking amendment to the Insurance Act (lapsed policies) and dealing with bank mergers and water powers, all with the object of protecting the people and the resources of the country, and yet we cannot get these measures discussed at all or passed a first reading simply because they are standing in the names of private members. But a minister of the crown can come down to this house and get amendments to acts relating to our Dominion lands and Dominion forest reserves and parks, and mines and minerals of an enormous potential value and rule by order in council. But the closure rule is applied against the private members. If private members want to put up with that sort of thing, well and good; now is the time to protest and get our rights, but so far as I am concerned, I wish to protest against private members not being allowed to proceed with legislation that is in the interest of the working classes of this country, measures dealing, for instance, with the banks, loans and trust companies, insurance companies, and the exportation of water powers from this country.

Under public orders there are three pages of important progressive public bills standing in the name of private members, and the most consideration they can get all session is a first reading, but there is no difficulty at all when the Minister of the Interior seeks to give Mr. Backus a subsidy of $700,000 to protect his light power and timber domain. Sir Adam Beck was opposed to that measure, so was the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, and many public bodies in Winnipeg are opposed to it, but it has been made a government bill and passed. Even if it was O.K.'d by the Ontario government, they are not protecting the municipalities to-day so far as the hydro electric movement is concerned, because they have sounded in the Gatineau deal the death knell of the hydro. The Gatineau Power Company and the International Power Company contract makes the Ontario Hydro to-day just a filling station for Mr. Graustein and these big American power companies. As a private member, I protest against this way of doing business by order in- council. This is not a free parliament when a private member cannot bring in and have considered a measure that is in the interests of the public and force it to a vote; it is not a free parliament; we are just degenerating into a mock parliament. We [DOT]have rules which are a hundred years old, and so far as the private member of parliament is concerned, he might just as well go back home and stay there because he can accomplish nothing in this house under the antiquated rules we have. If this is responsible government, all I can say is that it is a sorry day for the people of this country.
The report in regard to the St. Lawrence waterway was brought down to the house only a day or two ago, whereas on the other side of the line it was published in nearly every American newspaper nearly three months ago. I read it myself in the New York Times and the Detroit Free Press about a month ago. Why does not the government give us an oportunity to consider, for instance, the bill standing in the name ofi the hon. member for Leeds, to regulate the exportation of electric power, or the bill standing in my name relating to bank mergers or to lapsed insurance policies? The government will not advance these bills, which are all in the interests of the public, at all. I am surprised that the two Labour members from the city of Winnipeg, who are in favour of public ownership and stand for the public, as far as I can see, do not protest against this way of doing business.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Labour members are just waiting until they get a chance.

Validation of Orders in Council


Thomas Langton Church: You have it now. I wish to protest against this way of doing business. In the Quebec legislature and the Ontario legislature a private member can bring in a bill to amend a government statute, and have his bill read a first and second time, and then have it referred to the private bills committee, where it will receive ample and fair consideration, but when a private member brings a bill into this house which is in the interest of the public, he cannot get it considered at all after a first reading-a fine free parliament! I would appeal to the Minister of the Interior to take over the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Leeds and give it preferred treatment in this house, and I would suggest to the Minister of Finance, if he wants to do anything to improve the banking law of this country and banking conditions in Canada, that he should find out who owns the eight banks now remaining in this country and take over the bank mergers bill and the lapsed insurance policy bill. Formerly we had eighteen banks in Canada, but now we have only eight, and I venture to say that before parliament reassembles next year, those eight banks will have dwindled down to four or five, unless parliament in the meantime does something to prevent further bank mergers without its consent.
The Prime Minister stated the other day that we would be given an opportunity to discuss the St. Lawrence waterway. He made that statement during the discussion on the motion which I had before the house, and I would have pressed that motion to a vote before six o'clock, but I understood from the Prime Minister that the debate would be reopened after the papers had been brought down, and yesterday we were told that the debate would not be reopened and that we would not be given any special day to discuss that question. I am surprised that the Progressive party does not protest against these antiquated rules. We might as well abolish the House of Commons if we are to have government by commission. The St. Lawrence waterway, the Alberta resources and other economic questions have been referred to the supreme court and commissions; but Mr. Backus is not sent to the supreme court when he wants a hand-out of $700,000 in the shape of water-powers, dams and regulation. I protest against this way of doing business. This is not a free parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite to-day have abandoned all the principles of Liberalism by introducing this bill A bill similar to this could not get through the British parliament, it could not get through 56103-141
the Australian parliament, it could not get through congress; not one of those bodies would delegate its powers to outside authorities or government by commission or government by order in council. Dear knows who is going to be the next American millionaire to file a claim under the Railway Belt Water Act, the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, the Dominion Lands Act, the Rocky Mountains Park Act, or the Yukon Act, for some rich timber resources, water-powers or mines and get away with the title deeds and to find Canada a happy hunting ground.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is it the purpose of this
act to ratify certain orders in council?


Charles A. Stewart: No, these
are all orders in council which have been cancelled, whatever rights may have existed under them; but the act calls for a resolution validating the orders placed upon the table year by year, and this is necessary because of the failure to take that procedure in former years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You are not granting new powers or new rights?


Charles A. Stewart: Not a single right in the world; it is simply to validate what has been cancelled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not all cancelled.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, practically nil.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask for a
little fuller explanation of the amendment which I think has been moved? Unfortunately we cannot hear very well at this end of the chamber. It reads as follows, I believe:
Nothing in this act shall operate to place the crown in a better position than it would have been had the said orders in council been approved by resolution in the same manner provided by the respective acts.
I confess that I cannot quite understand this. If it means anything at all, it seems to me it may very easily invalidate the purpose in view.


Charles A. Stewart: The object
of the original bill was to validate by statute those orders in council, but under the provisions of the act-this was pointed out to me by the leader of the opposition-we were taking greater power than we would otherwise have had by a simple resolution validating the orders as provided for in the act. This is to give us no more power than we would have had had we simply year by year passed the requisite resolution validating the orders then upon the table. That is why I am



Validation of Orders in Council
inserting in the amendment the word "person" after the word "crown", as suggested by my hon. friend. As amended it will read:
Nothing in this act shall operate to place the crown or any person in a better position than it would have been had the said orders in council been approved by resolution in the manner provided by the respective acts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: After the word
"than" the word "either" should be substituted for "it".


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has asked a question that I myself asked when the legislation was first introduced. The fact is the law requires that orders in council shall be laid upon the table, and not ratified by statute but by a resolution. The distinction between the two is of course well known to hon. gentlemen. A resolution does not give any greater validity to the act done under the orders in council than merely to indicate that it was before this -house; but a statute gives it life and validity, whether it was within or beyond the -power of the minister. Having regard to that fact, I pointed out to -my hon. friend that I thought it -desirable to make it clear if an}' orders in council-they are very numerous, some five thousand, extending over a number of years- affected rights and were in law beyon-d the power of the governor in council to pass, it should not be taken that this validation, so-called, g-ave life and validity to what would otherwise have been an illegal act, or an abuse-using the word in its pro-per sense-of the power of the governor in council under the various statutes. So the amendment that has been drawn indicates -clearly that this act of this -parliament -does not give the -crown or any person any greater rights than either would have possessed had the orders in council been approved by resolution, as provided by the several statutes under which they were authorized. I think that sufficiently protects the public interest, although I am bound to say to the hon. minister and the hon. member, that the matter is of very grave concern, for it affects so many orders in council. Until I went through them last night I had no idea how many there were. I suggested to the minister that he might prepare a schedule t-o attach to the act, but it is quite clear that this would be impracticable. A preamble, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) suggested, might possibly be inserted, but to give a 'history of all the transactions would involve specifying the numbers of the various orders in council, which in itself would be a considerable task. I think the minister is not quite correct in 
saying that only cancellations are affected, for in turning over the various volumes I recall one that made a grant of public lands thp provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, and another that affected matters dealt with in the Forest^ Act.


Charles A. Stewart: I failed to remember that -they go back to 1906.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I noticed that a few did. There is, of course, some force in what the hon. gentleman from Northwest Toronto (Mr. Church) said, that there is grave danger of validating what was not contemplated by the original statute; but I think after the discussion we have had the amendment amply protects the interests of any person that may have been affected either directly or indirectly by reason of the enactment -of this legislation. If the law officers of the crown are satisfied with it, -certainly I should be.


Charles A. Stewart: My instruction to the law officers was not to place us in any better position-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles A. Stewart: -than we should have been in had the resolutions been passed by parliament year by year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We simply wish to be assured that in this form it will not do more than that. It seems to me that the amendment as read a few moments ago was rather crude. It referred to a person as " it


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been
changed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the Prime Minister has had it under consideration I am sure it is improved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that when the bill is prepared the amendment will be expressed in better language.


Charles A. Stewart: What I instructed the officers to d'o was to prepare an amendment that would leave us in exactly the same position as we should have been in had the orders been validated by resolution. That is all. In the original bill we were doing more than that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is the form in which the amendment now stands?


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendment now reads:
Nothing in this act shall operate to place the crown or any person in a better position than either would have been in had the said orders in council been approved by resolution in the-manner provided by the respective acts.

Validation of Orders in Council


William Irvine: Very few members know
what we are doing. How does the minister explain the failure of governments from time to time to bring the resolutions before parliament according to the law? It seems to me that we should have before us a copy of every order in council; otherwise we cannot act intelligently.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend would need to have considerable time at his disposal to go through them all.


William Irvine: I appreciate that.


Charles A. Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that there are no actions pending. On one occasion we were approached by a Winnipeg solicitor with respect to an order in council, and upon following the matter up we discovered-this is the information I received from them-that in the opinion of the officials they were doing their full duty in listing the orders in council and giving them to the minister to be tabled. What would then follow, that is to say the resolution to validate, would be prepared by the officers of the house. This does not in any way affect the order in council except that action might be taken as to the validity of the cancellation of any order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since the minister has assured us that this proposed legislation applies merely to the cancellation of certain orders in council conferring rights on individuals, it is far less objectionable than I had thought it to be. At the same time, how can we tell what rights are involved? It may very well be that certain individuals or corporations may have rights that should be recognized, and there is nothing here to protect such rights. We are practically signing a blank cheque and after thait it is left to the administration to carry out. It seems to me, even though this is largely a formal matter, that before we pass it we should have some suoh arrangement as is suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), a sort of schedule giving the number of orders passed, limiting in that way the application of the measure. I do not think that is asking too much, even if the matter has to be held over another year. No one will suffer in the meantime. It has been carried on in this way for a long time and no one has challenged the validity. I think the minister would then be on safe ground. Even although this is legislation of a negative character, I confess I do not like it, because every measure of the kind should be definitely agreed to by parliament itself.


Charles A. Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that where any private rights
56103-141i
were involved no officer of the crown nor any minister would undertake to deny a fiat in order to test the matter in court. That would be unthinkable. On the other hand, where we are dealing with thousands of orders in council it is well that the provisions of the statute regarding them be carried out. Why the slip should have occurred as between 1906 and 1917 I do not know. The explanation I received was that dependence had been placed on the officers of the House of Commons. All the other provisions of the statute have been complied with. I want to impress upon my hon. friend that wherever there was even the semblance of a legitimate claim-wherever any party was prejudiced owing to any act on the part of parliament or of the department- I have never yet refused a fiat to test the question in court. I repeat, that is something that is unthinkable. All these orders in council are in my office and I would lay them on the table, but I am sure my hon. friend would not look at a tenth part of them. No attempt is being made to deprive anyone of any right whatever.


Mr. FRASER:: Where does the minister get his authority for saying that this act refers to the cancellation of orders in council? I cannot see any reference to cancellation of orders in council.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
have been more explicit in that regard. There may be some orders in council that have not expired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Water rates in connection with Jasper, for instance.


Charles A. Stewart: There may be some in 1909 and 1910 that have not expired.


John Anderson Fraser: This has reference to the
passing of orders in council and not to cancellation.


Charles A. Stewart: It simply
carries out the provisions of the statute with respect to orders in council; that is all.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I do not like the addition of a section by way of exception to the act, especially as it is better draftsmanship to include it in the only clause of the act. I do not care for the omnibus designation "crown or any person", which of course includes the whole world. If it would be of any assistance to the law officers of the crown

Validation of Orders in Council
I would suggest this amendment. After the word "approved", in the fourteenth line of the bill, add the words:
and as if the same had been approved, byresolution in the manner provided by the said acts respectively.


Charles A. Stewart: It means the same thing.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It means the same thing, without lugging in the crown and all and sundry.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
admit that it serves the same purpose, but I should prefer to leave it as it stands. I discussed the matter with the law officers and I have given what they suggest.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does seem to me that the suggestion is a fair one. Where we are asked to validate some four or five thousand orders in council, it is better that the language should be so expressed as to give only the same validity that these orders in council would have had if they had in due course been approved by both houses of parliament in accordance with the acts mentioned in the the draft bill. Therefore I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) is one which should be considered. As it now stands, the bill provides that orders in council or regulations previously made by the governor in council under the authority of certain acts cited are hereby declared to be and to have been valid, notwithstanding any failure to have the same approved by both houses of parliament as required by the said acts respectively. I would suggest that it should read, "-are hereby declared to be and to have been valid to the same extent as if the same had been approved by both houses of parliament as required by said acts respectively", thereby indicating that we are giving no new validity to the orders in council by reason of a confirmatory statute. I think that would cover all we should be asked to grant, and I believe that is in conformity with the suggestion made by the hon. member for East Toronto.	*


Mr. EVANS:: I would draw the attention
of the minister to the fact that all the acts mentioned in this bill have to do with that part of Canada which does not as yet enjoy the right to its own natural resources; this bill refers to the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, the Dominion Lands Act, and so on. I must confess that I do not quite understand the purport of this legislation, but

we are evidently asked to validate certain orders in council which were made under certain acts the passage of which was felt by many of us to have been a usurpation of power by the Dominion government. I confess that I am suspicious of this legislation.


Charles A. Stewart: These are
only orders in council which were passed under such statutes as the Dominion Lands Act. We are not touching the acts at all.


John Evans: Since we are now on the verge of placing these resources under the control of those who rightfully own them, I think this legislation might be well postponed for a time.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I am not quite so
optimistic as the hon. member for Rosetown with regard to the transfer of these natural resources to the provinces which legitimately own them. It seems to me that this legislation together with something which was passed a few days ago clearly indicates that the government have not in mind at present the transfer of these resources. If they are contemplating doing so, I think legislation of this kind should be left in abeyance. I understand that a provincial conference has been called for after the close of the session to consider this whole question, so why should anything be done with regard to these natural resources in the meantime unless the government have made up their minds that this provincial conference is only a gesture as far as they are concerned? I think we should have something from the Prime Minister with regard to what the government propose to do, and I think he should tell us something of what they are prepared to place before that conference with respect to the transfer of natural resources.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must correct my friend at once with regard to a provincial conference. There is no intention to have such a conference with respect to the question of natural resources. The government intend to discuss with the government of Manitoba matters affecting the Manitoba resources; we intend to discuss with the government of Alberta matters pertaining to the natural resources of Alberta, and possibly with the government of Saskatchewan matters pertaining to the natural resources of Saskatchewan. It is not to be a conference of the three western provinces with the Dominion, but separate conferences intended to carry a little further the progress which

Toronto Terminals Railway
has been made already towards a final arrangement which will effect the transfer of the resources.
With regard to this legislation, it has nothing whatever to do with the question of the transfer of the natural resources. Certain orders in council were passed under statutes enacted by this parliament, and those orders in council should have been confirmed by a resolution of this house. Through inadvert-ance on the part of departmental officials those resolutions were not brought to the house, and as a consequence individuals who are fond of raising technical objections or finding reasons which may have some force at law in delaying procedure or invalidating the orders altogether, might be tempted to take advantage of the fact that the procedure called for by the acts has not been fully complied with. The government admit that there has been oversight in the matter in not having these orders confirmed as they should have been. The orders go back, I understand, to 1906, and the whole purpose of this amendment is to ask parliament to say that notwithstanding this omission these orders in council shall stand as though they had been regularized in accordance with the original intention of the legislation, and that in virtue of this legislation no person or the crown shall be put in a better position than would have been the case had the regular procedure been followed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have a suggestion to make to the Prime Minister. I would suggest that all the words after "declared" in the twelfth line be struck out and that the following be inserted: "To have the same force and effect as if they had been approved by both houses of, parliament as required by said acts respectively."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think that gives them the validity they would have had, which is the intention of the house. I submitted this amendment to the Solicitor General, and he quite aproves of it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: And if that is not accepted, I submit that the amendment as proposed will not do. I submit it would be an arguable case whether an order in council which has been cancelled or a regulation which has been repealed would be set up again notwithstanding the amendment. The possibility' of that situation arising is obviated by the language suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Charles A. Stewart: Then. I will ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Motion agreed to and amendment withdrawn.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Cahan moves that all the words after the word "declared" in the twelfth line be struck out, and that the following words be added.
To have the same force and effect as if they had been approved by both houses of parliament as required by said acts respectively.


Mr. SPENCER:: I understand that the main aim of this resolution is to keep the country out of possible litigation? .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And to protect individuals also.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the title:
William Irvine: Perhaps the title is not very important, but it seems to me that the present title is not correct. This is n-ow called "An Act relating to the submission to parliament of certain regulations and orders in council." I think it should be, "An Act for the failure to submit to parliament certain regulations and orders in council."


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 204, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Issue of securities by C.N.R. to purchase securities of company.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We should have some explanation of this bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the bill which
was referred by the house to the special committee on national railways and shipping, and was there examined in detail. The officers of the company were brought before the committee, and the evidence taken before the committee was printed and supplied in due course to all members of the house. I have the material here to go over the same ground if the committee desires, or as much of it as is within my personal knowledge.
Toronto Terminals Railway


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister might make a very short statement as to the purport of the bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount in the
original authority of $7,000,000 for the Toronto viaduct scheme has proven insufficient. It has proven insufficient partly because of changes-the usual changes which take place in the development of a scheme over a period of years-and partly because of the construction of additional facilities for the Canadian National Railways within the terminal area. For instance in the original estimate there was no provision for a Canadian National railway engine terminal which it has been found necessary to erect within the area of the terminals, but which is owned by the Canadian National Railways and not by the terminals company. Another difficulty lies in the fact that with respect to certain property purchases and certain property sales there is quite a difference between the original estimates of the engineers and the actual results in the relative value of these properties. That, I think, is broadly the situation. It is, as my hon. friend I think knows, a joint undertaking between the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Candaian National Railways, and the city of Toronto. I may say that negotiations, subsequent to the original legislation, rather reduced the share of the city of Toronto and increased the share of the railway companies, which again somewhat affects the total amount required.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will this cover the entire
expenditure and complete the work?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, from experience
with large engineering works I seldom take the word of an engineer on such a point until the undertaking is definitely completed. I would prefer not to commit myself to a statement that there will be nothing further, but this at least was estimated to cover all the work which is presently planned in connection with the enterprise.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Would the minister
state the nature of the agreement between the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and the city of Toronto?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the complete
agreement here but I may say briefly that the undertaking was to create union terminals in the city of Toronto in order to bring all railways into the one terminal. The city was greatly interested in having that result brought about as were also the railways. Following lengthy negotiations, indeed following the commencement of a union passenger 
terminal, this arrangement with the Toronto Terminals Company was brought into being by legislation in 1920. Speaking from memory 50 per cent of the stock is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway and 50 per cent by the Canadian National Railway Company. As I understand it, the city is not a partner in the terminal company itself but with respect to the cost of the terminals work which affects city streets, city sewers, city parks, and a thousand and one things, there was an apportionment of the cost as between the city on the one hand, and the terminals company composed of the two railways on the other. I cannot say offhand what the city's share is but I will give it to my hon. friend later.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I understand the minister to say that the new agreement reduced the city's obligation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no. If I did say that it was not my intention to do so. What I intended to convey was this, that when the original scheme was prepared it was merely an estimate as to what the share of the city would be on the one hand and what t'he share of the railways would be on the other. Subsequently, following the original legislation, an agreement was prepared, and when the principles of the legislation were translated into action the city's share, by virtue of that agreement, did not turn out to be as much as was anticipated when the legislation of 1922 was before the house. I think I have the actual figure here. The city's proportion is $441,000, less than was anticipated when the original legislation was passed in 1922.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I suppose it is quite proper to pass legislation of this character with respect to terminals in the city of Toronto, but I would remind the minister that a similar agreement was entered into between the government, the Canadian National Railways and the city of Quebec. T know that the minister is sympathetic toward the city of Quebec and I hope he will receive with favour the remarks I am about to make. I should like him to try and make Sir Henry Thornton understand that Quebec has some rights in the matter of terminals and that those rights should be considered by the national railway management. An enormous sum of money is being expended upon terminals in Toronto but I do not believe that city was ever callpd upon to pay interest on that investment. On the other hand, altogether different treatment, it would seem, is being extended to the city of Quebec. Therefore I would direct the attention of the Min-

Toronto Terminals Railway
ister of Railways to the railway situation in Quebec and the agreement that was entered into between the Canadian National railways and the city of Quebec under which that city, as I said yesterday, sacrificed a property worth $5,000,000, which represents a great deal of interest on money invested in different improvements, in order to get certain railway improvements and improvements to the port of Quebec.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would expect in a
case of this kind the Minister of Railways would take up the cudgels for Toronto. Let me assure the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency that in this case Toronto is paying fully everything that could be expected from that city. As the matter turns out Toronto does not have to pay as much as it was thought in the first place and what I believe a tribunal decided that it should pay. The fact is that the city pays its own share of the shops. It provides business for this railway, of which we are very proud; it increases the receipts of the Canadian Pacific; it betters the country, and all through you will find that the city of Toronto is paying its full share without help from anybody.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend was
scarcely fair to me when he said he did not expect me to take up the cudgels for Toronto.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I said that I would
expect him to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have made precisely
the same explanation to my hon. friends from Quebec as the hon. member for East Toronto has just made. I can understand the feelings of members representing the city of Quebec when one considers the history of past railway agreements with that city. May I, however, respectfully say that that fact has no more to do with the Toronto terminal than the tirade of the hon. member for Toronto Northeast yesterday had to do with the Quebec harbour? I am merely endeavouring to discuss this question on the basis of a railway business matter and not on the basis of whether it is in Toronto or Quebec or anywhere else. If we have regard to the history of the matter, the railways, through their Toronto Terminals Company, have done very well, and having regard to our experience with similar large expenditures I do not think it has taken a very considerable percentage beyond what was first anticipated, if we take into account what has been added in the way of necessary new work to the original basis on which the original estimate was made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is costing forty per
cent more than the estimate.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would not be correct
to say forty per cent more than the estimate for the work then estimated. For instance, the new engine terminals were not planned in the original work in 1913.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was an arrangement made between the three railways, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly, and in the legislation of 1922 I am advised-I was not here at that time and I have had to study the history of the matter-the new engine terminals were not taken into account as part of the expenditure under the statute. They have since proved to be absolutely necessary with the growth of business, the extension of motive power and the construction of the terminals themselves. That has necessitated a great deal of the increase of forty per cent in the expenditure.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am not the hon. member for Toronto Northeast, but I assume the Minister of Railways referred to me. He has given rise in my mind to the difference between the two situations.


Charles Avery Dunning: I referred to the hon.
member for Toronto Northeast, not to my hon. friend who has just spoken.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not think the
hon. member for Toronto Northeast spoke yesterday.


Charles Avery Dunning: I mean the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). I am sorry.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Let me point this out- and it is a lesson to be learned. In my opinion it shows what splendid work has been done by the Department of Railways and by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the city of Toronto. This work is a joint work; it is overseen by both the railways. The terminal company is just the agency of the railways and I believe not a dollar of the expenditure is misplaced. There is no danger of any political heeler receiving any of that money. There is no danger of a job being made for anyone. Every account is strictly audited; every cent is accounted for, and it is to the credit to the railways and, of course, to the Minister of Railways, that that situation exists.	.
Toronto Terminals Railway


Thomas Langton Church: There is only one point
in this bill to which I wish to refer and that is why the amount is being increased from $7,500,000 to $10,500,000. The city of Toronto has contributed $32,000,000 to rebuild the harbour plus $10,000,000 for the cost of the viaduct making $42,000,000 in all for grade separation and waterfront development. The chairman of the railway board found that the city was not liable for any part of this cost of grade separation, inasmuch as the Railway Act did not provide for it, and the city went in voluntarily. Many years before the agreement known as the Toronto viaduct agreement of 1913 was entered into in regard to the division of the cost between the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and the city, it was decided that the city was not obligated for one cent. What we say to the committee is this, that Toronto is the only city in the Dominion that is to-day paying for grade separation an amount of about $43,00,000 all told. A large part of the Sunnyside harbour improvements east of the Humber river was for protection of the right of way of the national railways and the city has expended more than $5,000,000 there. As regards the Canadian National in Toronto, a large part of this extra money is to provide for the Canadian National's share of the cost of the new Union station, and works ancillary to the viaduct. I may put the situation in three or four paragraphs in Sir Henry Thornton's own words when he was giving evidence before the select standing committee on railways and shipping. The Minister of Railways said that, to start the ball rolling, he would ask the question:
Why the increase from $7,500,000 to $10,500,000?
Sr Henry Thornton: The amount of money asked for is for certain works which are ancillary to the construction of the Toronto terminal, and which have grown out of the Toronto viaduct proposition. For example, it was necessary to construct for the exclusive use of the Canadian National railways an engine house, and a number of other things of that character have been necessary and have been occasioned by the Toronto viaduct and the new Toronto terminal.
Mr. Jelliff: What was the cost of the rew engine house?
Mr. Brown: The engine house and coach facilities, about $2,000,000.
Sir Henry Thornton: In addition to the engine house there was an additional express house and express facilities; there were jfiices for the Canadian National railways, which represented $300,000. The finst item, "express facilities," amounted to $346,000. There was also a power house, which was not originally included. which represented $665,000. That totals $1,306,000. In the adjustment of our relations with the city, the city was unable to bear as large a proportion of some of the expenses as

we expected, and that had to be cared for. There was also a difference of about $1,000,000 in regard to land. We expected to get about $3,000,000 for certain lands we were going to sell, but we only got $2,000,000. Briefly, this represents necessitous work which had to be done as growing out of the construction of the Toronto terminal.
Mr. Jelliff: Work not contemplated in your original arrangement?
Sir Henry Thornton: Partly not contemplated, and partly underestimated.
Hon. Mr. Stevens: Does this $10,500,000 represent the total investment of the National railways in the Toronto viaduct?
Sir Henry Thornton: No, the total cost of the Toronto viaduct-
Mr. Brown: It will be about $17,500,000.
Hon. Mr. Stevens: The National Railways' participation will be about $17,500,000?
Sir Henry Thornton:	Eventually, yes.
Hon. Mr. Stevens: Including the station?
Sir Henry Thornton: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Stevens: All the terminals?
Sir Henry Thornton: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Stevens: And the viaduct?
Sir Henry Thornton: Yes.
Mr. Milne: Has the C.P.R. a like amount invested as compared with the C.N.R.?
Sir Henry Thornton: I should think approximately. yes.


John Frederick Johnston: The proportion between the two you would say is about half and half?
Sir Henry Thornton: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Stevens: Is the seventeen millons in addition to the ten and a half?
Sir Henry Thornton: No, the seventeen million is the total.
The city of Toronto has contributed $32,000.000 to eliminate all these level crossings, and one-third of the amount of the cost of the viaduct, $10,500,000. This bill is for $7,500,000 for ancillary works for the Canadian National, growing out of the viaduct, namely, a new engine house, express terminals, offices, land and incidentals.


Charles Gavan Power: I would not for one moment oppose any vote for Toronto. I think that Toronto is entitled to the greatest possible consideration from this house. I think all the members on this side of the house will agree with me in saying that Toronto is a magnificent city and a magnificent port, one which will no doubt one day become an ocean port, and certainly we should not begrudge one cent to Toronto provided there can be shown some justification for the expenditure. There is no sectional feeling on this side of the house, I can assure my hon. friend of that. I sat silent in my seat yesterday listening to my hon. friends opposite assuring me that they loved Quebec, though, may I add, with a purely platonic friendship, because we do not get much from them. I have the same feeling of affection for Toronto as they have for Quebec.
As I understand this vote, it was originally intended to permit the city of Toronto, in con-

Toronto Terminals Railway
junction with the two railways, to bring the railways into the city, but unfortunately they began apparently by putting the cart before the horse; for they built a magnificent station in the centre of the city of Toronto and then came to parliament to ask us to purchase the necessary property and to build tracks into that station. That may be the proper procedure, but we in Quebec, not having had the benefits of any favours from the Canadian National Railways, are not in a position to say whether it is or not. In any ease the fact is that millions of dollars have been spent on a station in Toronto, and then parliament is asked to bring a railway into that station.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The station was built by the railways.


Charles Gavan Power: It is immaterial to me by whom the station was built. The fact is that the station was built, and then parliament is asked to vote millions to bring the railway to it. In our part of the country we build the railway first and then think about the station. That brings me to the point I wish to bring before the committee. As I said before, there is no objection to voting this money for Toronto, even although the estimate has been materially increased and there is no assurance that the revenues are going to be any higher than before.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure they will
not be.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite sure that if
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had admitted in this house yesterday that there would be no justification for the Quebec harbour vote from an increased revenue standpoint there would have been a howl from all sides of the house, but here is the Minister of Railways boldly, and almost brazenly, telling this house that we are expending offhand $84,000,000 or $35,000,000 for which there is no justification from a revenue standpoint.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Charles Gavan Power: It is the most extraordinary statement I have heard from a minister of the crown in the last ten years.	.
Following the line of the argument which has been developed in this house, and which I think is a most effective and a logical one, we in the city of Quebec have been asking for station terminal accommodation from the Canadian National Railways, and at one
period of our existence, thinking that we might obtain some favour from the government if we gave them something, we handed over to the railway property worth $2,000,000.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: No, $5,000,000.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend was mayor
of the city of Quebec at the time, and he should know. We handed that amount over to the Canadian National Railways on condition that they would give us something in return. But not only did we receive nothing in return, but the Canadian National Railways instead of building a station, rented accommodation from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in Quebec. At the present time the Canadian government railway is paying something like half a million dollars a year to the Canadian Pacific Railway in order that Canadian National trains may run into the city of Quebec, in spite of the fact that a site for the building of the station has already been given to the railway by the cits'- of Quebec itself in order that proper terminal facilities should be built. We naturally think that fhe Canadian National Railways, before seeking such an enormous sum for Toronto, should show some consideration for the smaller communities in this country, and we think that a small community like Quebec, though possibly it does not produce such returns to the Dominion as other larger communities, should at any rate receive reasonable accommodation and get something in the way of a station and terminal facilties of which the country need not be ashamed. I do not wish to stress the point with reference to Montreal, because I see my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George in his seat, and to my knowledge he has never missed an opportunity of setting before parliament and the country the claims of the city which is distinguished by having him as its representative, and when the proper time comes, I am sure that he will see to it that that rat-trap which is called Bonaventure station is torn down and a proper station built in the metropolis of Canada. It would perhaps have been well for his own sake and the sake of his city if he had had a measure of that kind tacked on to the bill which is now before us. He might have had more chance of getting it through-not that I wish to make any insinuation about what is called in the United States logrolling-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are casting our bread
on the waters now, expecting a return later.
Toronto Terminals Railway


Charles Gavan Power: Does my hon. friend expect any gratitude in politics? If so, I am surprised that he should still retain after so long a political experience some of the illusions of his youth. So far as I am concerned I should like him to see to it, whenever he wants anything for Montreal, that it is tacked on to something else, though not to something for Quebec. Of course we have always believed that anything that benefits Montreal benefits Canada, and we have always said so, though perhaps not out loud. Now, Mr. Chairman, I did not desire to take up so much of the time of the committee.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Elaborate further your
love for Toronto.


Charles Gavan Power: On a previous occasion when this matter was discussed I said it was a good thing that Toronto should be beautified, at least on the exterior, that it would be of advantage to the Dominion for strangers to find Toronto a beautiful city. If they do not remain there very long, so much the better for the reputation of the city. I hope the minister and the members for Toronto will take my observations in good part-especially the latter, for whom I have such an undying love. I hope that on some other occasion they will not forget the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but live in hopes that some day one good turn will deserve another. If I do not strenuously oppose this measure, but simply call the attention of the minister to the fact that other communities throughout the Dominion are really in need of government assistance, and ask him to cast his benign glance on the district from which I come, then I think I shall hare done my duty to my country and to the constituency which I represent.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I think the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) overlooked the fact that we have a Canadian National Railway terminal station in Quebec city. It was erected on the very valuable property known as the Champlain market site on the harbour frontage, which was handed over to the railway by the city of Quebec. This station was built two years ago at the enormous cost of 825,000! In 1910 under the agreement then entered into between the Canadian Natioanal Railways, the government and the city of Quebec, it was arranged to build a station at a cost of two million dollars. Tenders were called, and contracts were let. Then in 1911 came a change of government, and all those plans, which had been prepared by railway, steamship and other experts, were
[Mr. Cahan.J
set aside, and this little 825,000 station was substituted for the two million dollar structure. To-day the Canadian National Railways system brings passengers into Quebec and hands them over to the Canadian Pacific Railway hotel. Year after year we have been asking for the terminal facilities that were promised us, but without success. I think that Sir Henry Thornton, who seems to have so much time to spare, should give more attention to the rightful demands of the city of Quebec and remedy the very unsatisfactory situation which we now have to endure.


Thomas Langton Church: Might I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a triplicate agreement to build the Toronto viaduct at a cost of thirty-three million dollars, of which the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways and the city each bear a third. All the works ancillary to the viaduct are to be paid for by each of the parties. Recently Sir Henry Thornton told a committee of this house that the central regional area of the Canadian National Railways yields about 75 per cent of the whole revenue of the system. The Laurier administration took 8122,000,000 credit and 823,000,000 cash out of the old Grand Trunk in the central region and put it into Quebec to build the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to encourage any sectional discussion as to where the revenues of the Canadian National Railways come from and where they are expended. I do not think either the management or parliament would desire the system to be run on that basis, but rather on the basis of rendering the best possible sendee to the country as a whole. With regard to my statement which the hon. member for Quebec South described as "bold and brazen", it does happen to be the truth. Whether or not the condition is similar to the condition in respect of Quebec harbour, which was dealt with yesterday by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is neither here nor there. But it is a fact with respect to our large terminals, more especially Toronto and Montreal

there are others-that our two railway systems are facing in the not distant future tremendous expenditures on improved facilities, expenditures which cannot in the nature of things increase the revenues of the railways at all proportionately. Reference was made by the member for Quebec South to what he described as the "rat-trap" Bona-vent-ure station at Montreal. I say quite frankly that I do not know of any city of the size of Montreal with railway terminal conditions at all comparable with those now ex-

Toronto Terminals Railway
isting there so far as the Canadian National is concerned. The Canadian Pacific conditions in Montreal are of course considerably better; bub it is well known that the Canadian National conditions are very bad indeed. Due to the merging of the former government line, the former Canadian Northern Line and the former Grand Trunk Line, we have a very difficult situation indeed in Montreal which will cost a great deal of money to bake care of, involving an investment which, I repeat, cannot produce an increased revenue in proportion. Such investments do however tend to reduce expenditure in operating along some lines, but even in that connection it is too much for this parliament to hope that the large expenditure which will be necessary in these congested terminals will represent a revenue at all proportionate to the outlay. Even a considerable contributory factor cannot be looked for. The expenditures must be made, both from the point of view of public safety and of giving service to the public. The entrance to the city of Montreal over the Canadian National lines at the present time, as is well known, with its number of level crossings, gates and so forth, is a constant source of danger. That condition has to be faced on every railway system wherever there is a quickly growing centre of considerable size. In Toronto we have got along very far with the work. And it has been expensive work. It will not tend to increase the revenues of the railway; in some measure it may tend to reduce expenses of operation, although not in any very great measure even in that direction. We have the Montreal problem to face, and the Quebec problem is of a slightly different character, -as the city is not of such great size, and the terminal is not so congested. But there again we have another problem. In the cities of Ontario and in the west, to a greater or lesser degree, we have this terminal problem to deal with, and during :he next ten or fifteen years at the outside it will be necessary for the railways of Canada, not only the Canadian National, to face the question of relatively unremunerative expenditures on improved terminal facilities.


Mr. BOYS:: I have no desire to prolong
the discussion, but there is one point which it might be advisable to make clear. It seems to me there is a misapprehension, either imaginary or real, on the part of my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavigueur) regarding this bill. One would imagine from what he has said that the city of Toronto was receiving in this connection a grant or gift or loan, with or without interest, or something of that sort. He shakes his head; if I am wrong I shall be glad to withdraw the suggestion. But when he discusses this question in connection with Quebec and evinces what seems to be a desire to get back a little bit at some of the discussion that took place yesterday and the day before, it does give me the impression that he is under a misapprehension. The city of Toronto as a municipality is getting nothing whatever out of this legislation in any shape or form. This is nothing more than an authorization from parliament to enable the Canadian National Railways to issue bonds for the sum of money in question in order that they themselves may carry on their undertaking in that city. Whether the stand some of us took regarding Quebec was right or wrong, this matter certainly is not in any shape or form a parallel with the Quebec harbour resolution. The whole of the Canadian National Railways will become responsible for the repayment of these bonds when they are issued.


Mr. DUSSAULT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, when I shall next meet my constituents, they will certainly ask me to explain the vote that I shall cast to-day. We are asked to vote 810,500,000 to the Canadian National for improvements to the station at Toronto. Each time that the least thing is asked for my county, even if its is simply a spot where our farmers can sit down and relieve themselves of their parcels while awaiting the train, we are told: if you can guarantee us some return we shall accede to your request. Will there really be, in the present case, an increase in earnings which, even in the first year, will pay the interest and a portion of the sinking fund on the amount we are asked to vote? You are aware, Sir, that such will not be the case. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) told us a few moments ago that this could not be.
Wlien the house was discussing, yesterday, a loan to the Quebec Harbour Commission, we were told: Gentlemen, you have not paid any interest, nor have you a sinking fund for your prior loans. These gentlemen, Sir, sitting on your left were shocked and asked for a special committee to investigate the matter. Why do they not ask for a special committee, to-day, to inquire if really the amount asked for will bear interst the very first year.
May I ask the hon. Minister of Railways if he can point out, in the Province of Quebec, one single railway station which is in keeping with the earnings to which we con-
Toronto Terminals Railway


Mr. SYLVESTRE:: Mr. Chairman, I read
in the Ottawa Journal yesterday that the Quebec members had been dumb this year. After all we have heard in English from hon. gentlemen across the way about the love they have for Quebec, I think this is a good opportunity to reciprocate in French, and tell the committee about the love of Quebec for Toronto.
(Translation):	Mr. Chairman, this is certainly a special opportunity for us, members of the rural districts, to discuss the question of railway stations. I wish to assure the house that our feelings, like those of the hon. members for Ontario who spoke yesterday, are of the best.
We do not wish to criticize the amount which it is proposed to grant Toronto for the

Toronto Terminals Railway
embellishment of its station, however there is one thing which must be borne in mind: there alsix exists beside large towns, small centres which deserve consideration. In our Chicoutimi and Lake St John districts, located on the other side of the Laurentian hills, the only means of communication we have is the national railway. Some years ago, the city of Quebec and the provincial government made quite a considerable grant to the Lake St. John railway to further its expansion and give us suitable stations. Now what strikes us on our arrival at Quebec, at the station known as that of Parent square? There is not a shed, there is not a station site throughout the whole system of the national railway, from ocean to ocean, which can compare in ugliness and discomforts with this station The same may be said on our arrival in Montreal, at the station known as the Moreau station. The Bonaventure station is a palace compared with the Moreau street station, where there is not even a suitable waiting room, and where in winter the wind not only penetrates through the windows but also through the walls, to the great discomfort of the travelling public. We should be treated in a more decent manner, because of all the lines of the Canadian National, there is not one which equals the Chicoutimi, Lake St. John, Montreal and Quebec line, in volume of both passenger and freight traffic. The mills erected within the last few years ship by the means of this railway thousands and thousands of tons of freight, and the travelling public which congregate there from all parts of Canada, when getting off at a station, find only sheds. And as just stated by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Dussault), when we ask for improvements, we are answered: the traffic and returns do not justify such a step. The amount which it is proposed to grant for the Toronto station, even the half of it would allow us to have suitable stations from one end to the other of the railway in the districts which I have just mentioned. It is more than time to grant us the improvements which have been asked for ever so long. It is not only a question of comfort but also one of public safety and hygiene. It is most discouraging to observe the condition of stations especially between Quebec and Chicoutimi. The length of trains has increased considerably, within the last few years, with the result that platforms have become too short; people are forced to alight from trains at some distance from the platform, in the mud or dirt. Accidents have even happened owing to this state of things. The same condition exists as regards the cars themselves. I acknowledge and I am aware that the railway company has certainly made considerable improvements, however in view of the expenditure which we are making for other localities, for the embellishment of large towns and especially for that of Toronto, we are entitled to request not things of a decorative (nature, but decent improvements. I therefore take the opportunity to repeat my request to the hon. Minister of Railways, so that he may insist, with his advisers as well as with the President of the National Railways, that urgent improvements be carried out from one end to the other of our line. I am not criticizing what is being done elsewhere but I am simply asking that a small portion of the enormous sums spent elsewhere be granted to us.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: When this estimate was before the committee on railways and shipping I took the trouble to direct the attention of the chairman of the national system and his officials to the condition that existed on the railway in the lower part of the province of Quebec, the condition of our railway platforms and of our stations; and I even went as far as to say that that part of the eastern division was, as we say down there, the "orphan' section. I took occasion also to direlct the attention of the officials of the Canadian National Railway to the quite apparent discrimination that existed as between the treatment accorded to the eastern division on the one hand and to the remainder of the system on. the other. Personally I have no objection whatever to the proposed expenditure for Toronto; but, sir, it seems to me that in justice to our own section of the country it would be advisable for the minister, if he could do so, to vouchsafe us an inkling as to what is going to be done to remodel the station at Quebec, to say nothing of stations elsewhere. I understand there is an agreement between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National as to the use of what is called the central station at Quebec. I also understand that a tentative program has been prepared by the officials of the national railway to provide adequate station accommodation. I should like to know if the management of the system intend to submit this program to the committee on railways and shipping at its next meeting, or later on when the estimates for the system are being considered. In the second place I shoulld like to know if it is the intention of the management to treat the eastern section as really a part of the system. We are afraid that owing to the deficit on the eastern section being made good by parliament, the management are disinclined to undertake any expenditures whatever in connection with that section. I do hope that these matters will be brought
Toronto Terminals Railway

to the attention of the manager of the system and that by inaugurating improvements he will make it manifest thait we are entitled to consideration notwithstanding the fact that parliament has to make good any deficit on the eastern division.


Charles Avery Dunning: Plans for station accommodation in Quebec have been under the consideration of the management for some time past. As to whether definite conclusions have been reached, I cannot say from memory. I can, however, say that my hon. friend and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) are both members of the committee on national railways and shipping, and therefore can obtain any information from the officials before that committee with respect to station plans anywhere. I know my hon. friend will take advantage of his opportunity in that regard.
As to the general question of the eastern line, I may say that I have not found the management backward at all in making the necessary expenditures in that region since the Maritime Rates Act came into force. As a matter of fact I rather fear consequences opposite to those feared by my hon. friend. Very naturally when those managing a railway are aware of the fact that any deficit in operation will be borne from the national treasury instead of charged against the system they are not likely to be more miserly, shall I say, than they would be if deficits were charged to the system treasury instead of being voted by parliament as the Maritime Rates Act contemplates. I think my hon. friend is very capable of looking after the necessities of his own section, especially as now, in consequence of an act which passed this house a few days ago, he will have an opportunity, in regard to matters of maintenance and otherwise, to go to the railway commission and get an order from that body the same as is possible in the case of railways in other parts of the country.
I did not catch the remarks of the hon member for Lake St. John (Mr. Sylvestre) in their entirety, owing to my non-familiarity with the Frendh language, but I gathered that he is calling attention to the lack of decent station accommodation in the province of Quebec.


Armand Sylvestre: Especially in the province of Quebec.


Charles Avery Dunning: As regards Canada generally there are very few cities where first class terminal railway accommodation exists. The terminal facilities at Toronto are not yet completed, and speaking offhand I cannot think of any city, outside of Winnipeg, on the

Canadian National, where it may be said that the terminal conditions are reasonably adequate. At Winnipeg, owing tj, the tremendous volume of grain needing to be handled, action with respect to terminal facilities was expedited. I think it may be said from the point of view of adequacy that the Winnipeg terminals, which were undertaken before the Canadian National came into being, are possibly the most up to date; but otherwise-and it is true not only of the province of Quebec but of every other province in the Dominion-we have not yet established what would be regarded in other countries as the type of terminal facilities required for great cities; we have been too busy stretching out in order to serve the country generally. Nor have we yet done very much in the way of providing what may be described as the frills of a railroad. Indeed it may be some years yet before we are able to meet that condition satisfactorily.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The minister stated a few minutes ago that the provision of terminals in other cities, especially in Montreal and Quebec, would have to be considered in the near future. He also stated that an enormous amount of money had been spent in the city of Toronto and that the work is not yet completed. He might have said that this expenditure runs into hundreds of millions when the waterfront of Toronto is taken into account.


George Reginald Geary: We have built a new city hall too, don't forget that.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: If I may be permitted I would suggest that this matter be allowed to stand until it has been investigated by a special committee.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member has
spoken of the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in Toronto when the cost of the viaduct will only be $33,000,000.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: But I was referring also to the enormous sums expended on the waterfront at Toronto which, of course, came from the national treasury.


George Reginald Geary: The hon. gentleman is having recourse to poetic licence.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I do not think there is any reason for urgency in this matter. It can well stand over until it has been investigated. There should not be any greater hurry to vote this amount of money than there was when we were asked to vote money for the Quebec harbour, in connection with which the suggestion was made that the matter be investigated by a committee of the house.

Toronto Terminals Railway


Charles Avery Dunning: This matter has been
investigated by a committee.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Yes, but I should like to see more than that. I should like to see the matter investigated by a special committee which should be given power to inquire into the question of terminals in Montreal, Quebec and other large cities as well as Toronto. My fear is that after the $33,000,000 have been granted and spent in Toronto, when we come to ask for reasonable terminal improvements in other cities, parliament and the railway authorities may say to us: We have spent so much money in Toronto that we shall have to let this matter stand for some time. The result will be that the city of Quebec, which has been waiting so long to get justice, will, as usual, again have to wait for the good will of parliament and of the railway authorities in the matter of getting some kind of decent railway facilities. I suggest to the minister and the committee that this matter should stand and that a special committee be appointed to consider the advisability of granting a reasonable amount of money for railway terminals in the other large cities I have mentioned as well as in Toronto.


Mr. LAFLAMME (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have but a few words to add as I do not wish to delay any further the committee. As the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Sylvestre), mentioned a short while ago, in answer to the Ottawa Journal which intimated that less French speeches are heard this year than in previous sessions, I wish to state that if we do not make use oftener of our mother tongue, it is because the majority of members in the House cannot follow us.
I wish to support the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset), who a short while ago told us of the difficulties encountered in the eastern portion of our province in obtaining necessary improvements in the way of fences and ditches. Personally, since I have the honour of representing the riding of Montmagny, I have had great difficulty in obtaining work of that nature. I must congratulate the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), for having so smoothed the way as to enable us now to apply to the Railway Commission in order to obtain these improvements, instead of applying to the board of management of railways, as it has been the practice heretofore, without the slightest chance of success. The present bill under discussion requests that we should vote
810,500,000	to build a station at Toronto. Quite so, but if the city of Toronto wishes this embellishment, I think that its contribution should be greater. After all, this is in the interest of the city of Toronto; the object, if I am not mistaken, is to lessen accidents and so forth. If the government is to help in the embellishment of Toronto, I think that this city should itself contribute more effectively.
While we are on the subject of stations,
I wish to tell the committee that there are still in my riding two stations which are not provided with electric lights. It strikes me that in the year 1928, there should not exist any stations lighted by lamps; it is certainly not very satisfactory for the travelling public. This goes to show that we are entirely deprived of modern improvements which, after all, are not more costly than the old methods of lighting. It cannot be gainsaid that this part of the national railway, which in the past was known by the name of Intercolonial, is the most paying portion of our railways. For the last few years it is with the profits realized on this portion of the national railways that the board of directors has been able to meet the deficits of the other parts of the system. It seems to me that if the traffic is sufficiently large to realize such considerable profits, this section of the national system should be treated as fairly as other parts of the Dominion. If the sections of the national railways to the east of Sainte-Rosalie, Levis and Quebec are the most paying ones, we certainly have a right to request equal treatment with the other parts of the national system. It is our duty while discussing this bill, to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways to the existing conditions in this part of the province of Quebec, in order that he may advise the management of the national railways to grant us what we request simply because it is fair to do so.


Joseph-Étienne Dussault: Mr. Chairman, since it is a question of an expenditure of $10,500,000, and the earnings which may be derived from such an investment, would it not be possible to obtain from the hon. Minister of Railways, a statement of returns and expenditure for the various sections of the Canadian National Railways. We maintain that the two sections from Montreal to Levis, and Levis to Campbellton, are the best paying sections of the national railway system, but we have never been able to obtain from the management of the national railways the statements which would allow us to establish before this house the financial situation as it exists in regard to net profits in the various sections. This is very detrimental to us.
To-morrow the western members will ask this house to vote them money for branch
Toronto Terminals Railway

lines, when the main line in their districts does not even pay any interest on the outlay of its construction. The main line in certain localities return but deficits, yet we are asked to vote $2,000,000, $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 to further build branch lines, and we comply. We vote those amounts because we do not really know what are the various sections in this country that are responsible for the surpluses or deficits of our railways. We are asked $10,500,000 for improvements in the city of Toronto. Does the management of the various railway sections around Toronto show surpluses or deficits? We are anxious to know. We are asked to vote this amount, while on the other hand we are told by the Minister of Railways that this expenditure of $10,500,000 will produce no further earnings and will only be for the embellishment of the city. Must we vote such amounts for the embellishment of the city of Toronto?
If the city of Montreal has been able to earn such good returns heretofore with the only station of Bonaventure, I wonder why Toronto cannot wait ten years more with the present station which is a much better one than that of the national railways at Montreal. Unless we get further explanations. I do not think that the house can vote this amount.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 49, to incorporate the Canadian Credit Institute- Mr. Thorson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-administration of the institute.
Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the promoter
of this bill how it comes to this parliament? I think it is purely a provincial matter and should go to the provincial legislature.


Mr. THORSON:: The bill was thoroughly
discussed in the private bills committee, and it passed that committee without any controversy save for one or two very slight amendments. The purpose of the bill is set forth in clause 2:
The objects and powers of the institute shall be:

(1) To organize, promote, operate and control a national institute of credit men and to examine into and improve conditions relating to the work of credit men throughout Canada.
Then it goes on to specify the manner in which those objects shall be accomplished.
The idea behind the bill briefly is this, that it is desirable now to have uniformity in the standards, and to improve the standards, of credit men who are engaged by commercial houses throughout Canada. Formerly, every man who was engaged in business knew his customers personally, and knew the extent of credit that he might safely afford to them, but that time is now past. Our business houses to-day are engaged in business the ramifications of which extend from one end of Canada to the other, and it is impossible for the proprietors of them to know personally their customers and the amount of credit that may safely be extended to them. In addition, much of the business of Canada is now being conducted by corporations, and the business of many of these corporations is not confined to a particular part of the country but extends throughout the various provinces. In order that a man may be assured that the credit department of his business is being properly run, it is desirable to have some sort of institute at which credit men can be properly trained, and being so trained can get from the institute a certificate that they are thoroughly familiar with credit matters. The purpose, therefore, is to set up a Canadian institute of credit men which shall have power to set examinations and grant certificates to the members who have qualified. The business men of this country who are seeking a competent credit man can then have some degree of assurance that they are getting a qualified man from the fact that he has become a member of the Canadian credit institute.
The jurisdiction of this parliament to incorporate an institute of this sort is, I think, entirely beyond dispute. There will be nothing to prevent provincial legislatures from incorporating provincial credit institutes. The Dominion of Canada has already incorporated similar associations-the Dominion association of chartered accountants, for instance, which was organized in 1902 along similar lines to those proposed here. Similar legislation was passed in 1913 with regard to general accountants, and later with regard to stationary engineers, and so on. I think that answers the question of my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

Private Bills
On section 11-Suspension and expulsion.
John Frederick Johnston: Clause 11 has been amended by inserting in the 17th line after the word "writing" the following:
After reasonable notice in writing to the person against whom the complaint is made
And in the 18th line the word "the" is inserted between the words "into" and "same".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Right to use designations.
John Frederick Johnston: This section is amended by inserting in the 29th line after the word "use" the words "in Canada".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 50 to incorporate the United Theological College, Montreal-Mr. Cahan-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
John Frederick Johnston: In this section the
word "hereinafter" in the 17th line has been struck out, and the words "in this act" substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-General powers.
John Frederick Johnston: The words in lines 30, 31 and 32 on page 1, and the words in lines 1 and 2, up to the word "corporation" have been struck out and the following substituted: otherwise dispose of and alienate so much of such real estate in Canada, not held by way of security, which it shall not have used within ten years after its acquisition, or within ten years after ceasing to use the same, as the case may be;


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 4 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Conferring degrees.
John Frederick Johnston: This section has been
amended by striking out the following words 5610S-142
in the 28th and 29th lines: "and in any other subjects which may be included in its curricula," and the following substituted:
It may also confer degrees in any other cognate subjects which may be included in the curricula, provided that if McGill University grants degrees in such cognate subjects its consent to the granting of such degrees must be first obtained.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 11 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 68 to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church-Mr. Brown-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Investment of funds.
John Frederick Johnston: In this section, subsecsection (b) has been struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 13-Limit of time for holding unused real estate.
John Frederick Johnston: The word "and" in
the 31st line of this section has been struck out and the word "or" substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 18 respecting a certain patent owned by Canadian Cinch Anchoring Systems, Limited-Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

John Frederick Johnston: There are a number of private bills beginning with No. 74. If it would serve the purpose of the committee,

Procedure in Divorce Bills

time would be saved by having the first clause of Bill No. 74 read and taking the other bills as read. Is that the wish of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This afternoon I
rose to protest against this procedure, and I do so again on principle. I have no immediate concern with any one of these bills, but I am decidedly interested in seeing that something be done to remove what I regard as a standing disgrace to this house. Steadily through the years this practice has become more and more objectionable and to-day hundreds of divorce bills are coming before parliament. I do not see any other way of calling the attention of the house to this abuse than by objecting to such a procedure as this.


John Frederick Johnston: If the hon. member objects the rule may not be suspended without unanimous consent, and we shall have to take the bills one by one. Do I understand that the hon. member objects?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. I object to this procedure for the reasons I have given.


Charles A. Stewart: I understood the hon. gentleman to object merely to the procedure, but he knows perfectly well that these bills are carefully examined by a committee of the senate and the evidence taken. Everything possible is done to safeguard the interests of the parties applying for divorce. It has not been the practice of the House of Commons to go to that extent, but inasmuch as these bills require validation by this house we have accepted the work of the senate committee in ascertaining the facts. The mere fact- that my hon. friend thinks there should be a divorce court in Ontario should not affect the consideration of these bills. I have no quarrel with his view; I agree with him thoroughly in that respect, as to a court where these matters could be tried. But I do think that to delay the work of this house by an examination of these cases in detail- if that is the idea-is hardly necessary as a means of safeguarding the interests of those concerned.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask, then,
whether the government is prepared to afford facilities for the discussion in this house at this session of a bill regarding the divorce court?


Charles A. Stewart: The government has no desire in the world to thwart the discussion of any bill; that is not the object in view. The government is perfectly willing that there should be the fullest discussion of
fThe Chairman.]
matters of this kind. But to pick out any particular measure for discussion at length, and to fix upon that one as a precedent, is a matter involving some difficulty.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would call attention to the fact that this was done last year.


Charles A. Stewart: I repeat, there is no desire to thwart the discussion of any measure of great public interest, such as a proposal with regard to the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario. Speaking for myself, I should be very glad to see the discussion take place on the 'bill which deals with that matter.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae):: WThat progress has been made with the bill before the senate, the object of which is to establish a divorce court in Otario? Will that bill come before this house at this session?


Lucien Cannon: It is before the house
now.


Alexander McKay Edwards: When it
comes before the house I presume my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) and the rest of us will have an opportunity to discuss this point.


John Frederick Johnston: I must point out that at the moment there is nothing before the committee and' this discussion therefore is out of order.


Charles A. Stewart: I was hoping that my hon. friend would not press his objection.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Possibly there is some
merit in what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has said, and if a special committee were appointed consisting, say, of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) to deal with the matter, it might result in something.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that we can make better progress by discussing the bills individually. If there is an objection to taking them en bloc we may as well proceed with them individually; it would save time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Order No. 34, Bill No. 27,
letter A of the senate, which is the measure respecting the proposed divorce court in Ontario, cannot come before the house during this session unless the government is prepared to facilitate its discussion. The position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is-

Procedure in Divorce Bills


John Frederick Johnston: I regret having to
interrupt the hon. member, but I would point out that we have a considerable bulk of bills before us and we are losing valuable time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You are liable to lose very
much more time.


John Frederick Johnston: There is nothing before the committee and therefore the discussion is out of order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will move, then, that we
take the bills one by one. Speaking to that motion, I wish to say-


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order,
I must point out that there is no necessity for such a motion inasmuch as it merely proposes to adopt what is the regular procedure of the committee. A motion would be necessary to do otherwise than what my hon. friend is proposing.


John Frederick Johnston: Under the circumstances, I will call the first bill, No. 74.



DOROTHY ESTELI.E MCCUTCHEON

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Dorothy Estelle McCutcheon.-Mr. Casselman.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On this motion I wish to
say this. I think 1 appreciate the temper of this house so far as this question is concerned. Bill No. 27 from the senate proposes the establishment of a court in the province of Ontario for the consideration of divorce cases. That bill came from the senate during the last session but made no progress in this house. It is before the house at the present time and again it is making no progress, and the temper of this house-at any rate of a considerable number of hon. members-is that these senate bills shall be discussed one by one, if it takes weeks, in order to force some understanding as to what is to be done with that bill. It seems to me therefore that it would facilitate the discussion of these matters if we could have some undertaking on the part of the government-


John Frederick Johnston: I hesitate to interrupt
the hon. member, but he must know, from his experience in parliament, that he is not in order at the present moment in discussing any measure under public bills and orders. Just now we are considering private bills.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not discussing anything under public bills and orders. In the consideration of this particular bill before us I am simply pointing out that the opposition is not to the bill itself. But there is a feeling 56103-142J
in the house-and I have heard a considerable number discussing the matter from time to time-that these bills should not be facilitated in any way unless there is to be an understanding regarding senate bill No. 27.


William Irvine: Who is sponsoring this bill?


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for
Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman).


William Irvine: I would like to ask the sponsor of the bill to tell the committee the original cause of the trouble in this family. This is a very important question indeed; we are asked to vote on a bill which is going to break up a home, so I would like to know the full details in order that I may be able to vote intelligently. I insist that the sponsor of the bill give us some details; we do not know the evidence which was given before the senate committee and there are a lot of things I would like to know about the bill. I want to know the original cause of the trouble from the beginning to the climax.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, Mr. Chairman.
I object to being a rubber stamp, and I desire to have the sponsor of this bill give us some information, as would be done with any other bill. We have not had an opportunity to discuss the bill, and if we are to act reasonably I think we should have that information.


John Frederick Johnston: I may say that this
bill, together with the others, has been before the private bills committee, and it is customary to accept bills coming from that commit-tee. The sponsor of this bill is not in the house at the moment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I would ask
that the bill stand until the sponsor is here.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the
committee that this bill shall stand?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I do not
think my hon. friend can be really serious; I cannot believe that he wants this house to listen to all the evidence taken in each of these divorce cases. I quite agree that Dorothy Estelle McCutcheon should have been able to appeal to an Ontario divorce court rather than to the Senate of Canada in order to get the relief given by this bill, and that Adelaide Marie Moore should have had the same opportunity. That is a point which we should like to discuss, but if those hon. members in whose names these bills stand have
Procedure in Divorce Bills

to give a summary of the evidence given before the senate divorce committee, I must say they have my profound sympathy in their task. It will challenge all their tact and ability to present that evidence in such a way as we could listen to it, and in such a way as those in the galleries could listen to it. Really I cannot think the hon. member is serious in wanting that evidence gone over in this house; I do not think any good purpose would be served by so doing. The question of an Ontario divorce court has come up time and again; it was passed upon by the senate this year. The government should recognize the wish of the people to have such a court established in Ontario, and we should have an opportunity to discuss that question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the hon. member for Frontenac is really very much afraid of the evidence which might be brought forth I am quite willing to move that the galleries be cleared in order that we may hear the evidence.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the committee that bill No. 74 shall stand?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I would like to
say one word to my hon. friend. I believe every member of this house thinks we should discuss this question of the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario, and it should be discussed very seriously. It is true that the bill which came from the senate was passed by that body early in the session, but it has been sponsored here by a private member and therefore appears under public bills. At the same time it must be remembered that the evidence in this case and in all these cases has been printed and distributed to all the members of this house, and if my hon. friend wants to go over that evidence he is at liberty to do so. My own feeling is that the senate goes into these matters very carefully, and it never has been the custom in this house to go into them unless some particular case about which there is trouble is brought up for discussion. Our system here has been to accept the evidence taken before the senate committee and to accept the findings of that committee, because they go into these matters very carefully. It seems to me very hard on the people who have gone before the divorce committee and proved their case to have that bill gone into here again. I think we should carry out the suggestion made by the chairman and pass these bills as they have been brought down by the senate, unless there is some difficulty with some bill which a member of the house wishes particularly to discuss.
TMr. J. W. Edwards.]


John Frederick Johnston: The question immediately before the committee is whether or not we shall proceed with this bill. All those in favour of proceeding with the consideration of Bill No. 74 will please say, Yea.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that even the Chair cannot proceed in this arbitrary manner to prevent discussion on a bill before the house.


John Frederick Johnston: There is no desire whatever to do that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It looks very much like it to me.


John Frederick Johnston: Bill No. 74 is before
the committee at the moment. All those in favour of proceeding with consideration of Bill No. 74 will please say, Yea.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The discussion is
still going on.


Charles Avery Dunning: Until it is decided
whether or not we shall proceed with this bill nothing is before the committee. Once the question is decided my friend will be perfectly free to discuss the matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The bill is before
the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: The bill is not yet before
the committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; we are discussing section 1, and we have a perfect right to discuss it as we have a right to discuss any other bill.


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to a point of order.
The sponser of this bill is not in the house, so I suggest that we cannot proceed. I think this bill should stand and that we should take up the next bill.


John Frederick Johnston: I think my hon. friend is wrong in his position; the bill is before the committee and it is for the committee to say whether or not we shall proceed in the absence of the sponsor. If we decide that point we can proceed.	,


Charles Gavan Power: Then I would ask who moved that this bill be before the committee? It has been called, but someone has to move to bring it before the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: The bill appeared on
the order paper in the regular way; it is before the committee in the regular way at present, and it is for the committee to decide whether we should proceed with the consideration of the bill.

Procedure in Divorce Bills


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that that is an extraordinary position to take; if we are not to proceed with it the motion should be that we refuse to consider it.


John Frederick Johnston: I think my hon. friend is a little mixed in the procedure. We were considering the bill when he, or some of his friends, objected, and now it is for the committee to decide whether or not we will proceed. If the hon. gentleman would allow that question to be decided we would get somewhere.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think I
am very much mixed in the procedure. The first section was called; we were discussing that section and we asked that before the bill be proceeded with the sponsor of the bill be here to give us some information. I think that is a reasonable request, and if he is not here the bill should stand until he comes.


John Frederick Johnston: I put the question to
the committee whether or not we should proceed in the absence of the sponsor, and I took it that the committee wanted to proceed. I am now asking the committee to decide the point as to whether or not it is the desire of the committee to proceed to a consideration of Bill No. 74. All those in favour of proceeding with Bill No. 74 will kindly say, Yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


John Frederick Johnston: I would ask hon. members to stand so that the clerk may count them.
And on the count being taken:


John Frederick Johnston: Yeas, 48; nays, 13
The committee has decided to proceed with the consideration of the bill. Section 1 has been called.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
know under what rule we proceed with this bill when its sponsor is not in the bouse.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not know that
there is any rule in our rule book which says that the sponsor must be in the house. The committee has charge of its own work and it has decided to proceed with the bill.
M.r. POWER: I do not know whether the bill has been printed in French. If it has not I do not think we can consider it. I do not think the evidence has been printed in French, and that is another reason why we cannot proceed with the bill.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend should have raised his objection before the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
William Irvine: In the absence of the sponsor of the bill I suggest that either the chairman of the private bills committee or the chairman of this committee should enlighten us as to what we are dividing on and what this clause proposes. I notice that the chairman of the private bills committee has just come in. I would ask him, in the absence of the sponsor of the bill, to tell us what the trouble is. We want to know what has happened in this particular case, and what caused the family disruption.	,


Mr. PARENT:: My hon. friend informed the committee that I had just come in. Well, he cannot be surprised if I do not know what he is talking about.


William Irvine: The matter before the committee at the present time is a bill sent down to us from the senate, and which has been considered by the private bills committee. It is a bill for the relief of Dorothy Estelle Mc-Cutcheon. We want to know what the facts are so that we can give an intelligent vote. As there is nobody else here who is in a position to give us information, I direct to the chairman of the committee my question for enlightenment.


Charles Gavan Power: The discussion affords ground for the objection I made a few moments ago. That objection was not quite overruled because I did not make it in a formal way. I suggested also that the evidence was not printed in French. I cannot tell what the facts are unless I read the evidence in French. I have been told that matters of this kind appear much better in French than they do in English, and unless the evidence in this case is before us in French, I must make a formal objection to proceeding with the measure.


Mr. STEVENS:: I have been a member
of this house for eighteen years and during that time I have been opposed to the system of granting divorces through the medium of parliament. I have consistently refused on all occasions to take any part in the passing of a divorce bill. I have done that as consistently as any hon. members of the house who claim to be particularly prejudiced against this class of legislation. I agree in large measure with the view expressed by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), that one glance at the order
Procedure in Divorce Bills

paper must convince one that the passage of these bills in this manner, there being at least seventy-five of them in one string on the order paper, is not calculated to increase respect for the procedure adopted here. I recall twelve years ago a lengthy discussion in this house on the biH to provide for a divorce court. That proposal has not advanced during the long period which has intervened, and I do submit that while the efforts of my hon. friends to my left may not have my approval or the approval of the house in full measure, there is some justification for their course. They say: We object to this kind of procedure because it is not conducive to the good name of the house. I direct my next observation with all due respect to the Prime Minister and to the government. I think the Prime Minister ought to be in his seat. He ought to be here as the leader of parliament to note the difficulty in which the house now finds itself, and the very great danger of making sport out of perhaps some of the most serious breaches that are brought to the attention of parliament. We have undoubtedly during the last half hour been making parliament more or less of a farce in the case of seventy-five bills that I hold in my hand and anyone of which might very well be and is undoubtedly a serious human tragedy. Let me say this in answer to the request made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) for certain details. I might preface that word with the word "sordid" and say "sordid details". I am sure that neither I nor any other hon. member desires to have these details read to the house. In fact, if he will glance at the language in the preamble to this bill, he will find there a complete answer to his query, an answer that I am quite sure no one desires to read nor to treat frivolously; but there it is.
This brings me to the question of our method of procedure in dealing with this bill as with other similar bills. These unfortunate people, in one respect blameworthy people, bring their suit in the senate and before a committee of the senate their case is tried. There is no committee of parliament that is held in higher regard throughout the Dominion of Canada than the committee of the senate which sits on divorce.


Charles Avery Dunning: And no court.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was coming to that.
There is no committee of parliament that discharges its duty more faithfully and with more judicial care, thought and procedure than the committee of the senate on divorce. Furthermore, I had occasion this week to

discuss the matter with two very able lawyers, friends of mine, not members of the house, and I question whether there is a divorce court in provinces where such courts exist, or any other court in Canada that treats the subject matter brought before it more carefully and judicially than does the divorce committee of the senate. Therefore I submit to my hon. friends that this case, the immediate bill before us, being Bill No. 74, letter E of the senate, having gone to that court, having been dealt with, the evidence having been heard in all its sordid details and the bill having been passed on to us, it is unnecessary for the house or for the private bills committee to go into extreme details in the matter unless the decision of the senate committee is called in question. In such a case the House of Commons acts in a measure as a sort of court of appeal, but in none of these cases has the bill been called in question. In every instance, so far as I know, both sides have concurred in or at least have not complained of the decision. I suggest that we should cease the controversy. On the one hand I appeal to the government as the leaders of the house-if the Prime Minister were in his seat I would appeal to him frankly to face the situation that has arisen and that will arise again next year-I have forgotten the number but I think there are two hundred and some odd divorce bills before parliament this year-and to allow parliament to disentangle itself from the mess in which it finds itself involved. On the other hand I appeal to my hon. friends to my left to allow these bills to pass in the usual orderly manner so that we may proceed with the business of parliament and not make a farce out of wihat is a most serious human tragedy.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise largely to concur in the main with what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has just said. I desire however to point out that even if the senate bill, which now stands as a public bill, were dealt with and passed by the house, the problem of the 'house dealing with divorce bills would not be entirely eliminated. Under our rules it would still be possible for any hon. gentleman to do what hon. members have been doing to-night, because divorce would still be granted with respect to the people of some provinces, one province at any rate, in the manner which has been prevalent in Canada since confederation. We would merely to some extent lessen the difficulty; we would not altogether remove it.


Alexander McKay Edwards: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I agree that we would remove it to a large extent. I would point out however that it is and has always been possible for obstruction of the kind we have experienced to-night to take place, and I am finding no fault with hon. gentlemen. I know their motive is to force this question. What they desire to do is to substitute another court for the court of parliament in connection with this matter. But I submit that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was entirely right in his description of the dignified and proper manner in which these cases have been tried. It is not correct to allow the impression to go out to the country that parliament does not give proper and judicial consideration to these divorce bills. It is true that it has not been the custom of this chamber to give such consideration. The court has been set up in the senate for many years and the judicial committee of the senate which tries these cases supplies us with the evidence. When the bills come before this chamber it is competent for every hon. member to read the evidence in connection with every case and to make a specific objection on a specific bill if in his judgment the evidence there recorded does not warrant the action of parliament in the matter. Therefore while we may have objections to this method of granting divorces, we should not convey to the country by our actions or by our speeches the impression that divorce is lightly granted by the parliament of Canada. In reality divorce is less lightly granted by parliament than by any court in Canada or indeed by any court that I know of anywhere else. Whatever objection we may have to the procedure, there is possible through the machinery of parliament, a more complete check upon divorce than exists in the machinery of the courts. I do not think the lawyers in the house will disagree with that statement. I join with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre in appealing to the committee to maintain the dignity of this House of Commons and to proceed in the regular manner with these bills, having regard to the evidence which is printed and in our hands with respect to every particular case.


Charles Gavan Power: Just before nine o'clock may I remark that if I made what appears to have been a formal and technical objection, I did so in order to add weight to the words of the hon. member for Wetaskiwan who said that when a person introduces a bill of this kind, he should at least be present to see it through the House of Commons.
Progress reported.



ELECTRICITY INSPECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 16 consideration in committee of Bill No. 36, to amend and revise the Electricity Inspection Act

Mr. Malcolm-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 34-procedure.
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: When this bill was last before the committee, objection was taken to section 34 by the hon. member for North Simcoe in connection with the judges before whom these cases should be tried. I have an amendment to submit to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section which has been drafted by the law clerk, and has been submitted to the hon. member for North Simcoe to meet his objection. I move to substitute the fallowing for paragraphs (a) and (b):
(a)	Before any justice of the peace, police, district or stipendiary magistrate for the district, county or place in which the offense was committed if the penalty does not exceed twenty-five dollars; or
(b)	before any two justices of the peace, police, district or stipendiary magistrate or any magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, if the penalty exceeds twenty-five dollars.
I may inform the committee that this meets with the objections of the hon. gentlemen opposite who wanted the section changed to meet existing conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 18 consideration in committee of Bill No. 196, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)-Mr, Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Annual royalty payable to the crown.
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Representing the *constituency in which this legislation when enacted will solely apply, I am happy to say that I can commend it to the house. In principle and in effect this is legislation which has been asked for by the people of that constituency now for some years past. It has been my duty, as representing that district, to present in successive years the views of the mine owners, the miners and producers of ore in that territory to the Minister of the Interior.
Yukon Quartz Mining Act

shippers, that is to say eleven operating mines, one on a large scale and the others on more modest lines, the quantities and value of silver and lead ore shipped from that territory were:
Tons Value
Concentrates	
2,689	$1,031,690Ore	
1,425	241,290Total	
$1,273,980
For the year 1928, on a very close and accurate estimate, the shipment will be:
Tons Value
Concentrates	
3,650	$1,390,000Ore	
2,670	620,000Total	
$2,010,000
This represents an estimated increase for the year 1928 of about three-quarters of a million dollars. The average value of the ore per ton shipped this year from the territory is $232 which, if the ore were more accessible or located in this part of the world, would create an excitement greater than that caused by the discoveries in northern Ontario and Quebec.
In addition to these exports the existence of thousands of tons of ore has been demonstrated, and the prospects are that ore will be discovered in such quantities as to justify the establishment of smelters and refineries and possibly the extension of a railway into that country. There is one feature of the situation which I should like to call to the attention of the government, and particularly of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). I refer to the desirability of introducing an airplane service into Yukon territory. The Postmaster General at the present time has before him a proposal whereby an airplane mail service can be introduced in the Yukon without costing the treasury of the country one cent in addition to the present cost of the mail service in that territory. I desire to quote briefly from a letter from the superintendent of a mining company in Yukon concerning the use of airplanes in connection with prospecting for mineral deposits. Referring to the use of airplanes for this purpose he says:
This does not mean in any wild and uninhabited country but if you will look on any map of this territory you will notice three large blank areas, one between the Yukon and Pelly rivers w-hich includes lake Taltmain, lake Drury and Little Salmon lake. Few rivers are shown in this area and what are shown are indicated flowing the wrong way. Another area is between the Pelly and McMillan rivers with the Ross on the southeast. The third area includes the McArthur group of mountains, is between the McMillan and Stewart rivers. A few creeks are shown in this third area but I understand 
they flow- in the opposite direction from those shown. Any one of these three areas is more accessible than the Mayo district and as near as I can learn from studying various geological reports of the Yukon and descriptions from trappers and others who have been through these areas. The rock is very favourable for mineral deposits-not particularly for placer but for gold, silver and lead lodes. Some lead and silver has been reported from the Ross district and some gold quartz from the Pelly. With a plane the company could do more prospecting in these areas in one year than it could in ten by the old poling boat and traveling afoot methods.
I trust the government will be able to extend its aerial service through this territory before long. It is very much faster and cheaper than the packhorse method. In studying over several maps I was very much surprised that the very centre of this territory had been overlooked by government geologists. If we are fortunate enough to get a plane I would like to make some arrangement with the Geological Department rvhereby they could send a man with the necessary equipment to do the aerial mapping of one or more of these districts and we would supply the pilot and gasoline.
That is a suggestion for the Postmaster General in connection with the effort now being made for the establishment of an airplane mail service in that territory, and I trust he will see his way clear to consider it favourably in co-operation with the Geological branch of the Department of the Interior, so that before long we may have an airplane service established there. The great mineral deposits in that territory warrant some effort on the part of the government in aiding prospectors and miners in opening them up, There is a vast store of mineral wealth there which will add to the commerce and trade of this country. Everything must be imported into that region for the development of these mines; even oil is imported by the operators of the silver mines for use in their engines. That country provides a good market for all kinds of Canadian goods; they produce nothing but minerals and in order to produce those minerals they must have a supply of tools, machinery, food and everything else which is used in an operating mine. The government would do well to direct its attention to aiding in further development of the mineral resources of that territory. The bill now before the committee will go a long way towards encouraging the development of lode mining in that territory in that it is a relief from an unfair system of taxation. There may be a few suggestions which I would like to offer to the minister in committee, but after all this is new legislation even in the province of Ontario. It was only placed on the statute books of that province about a year ago and there has not been

St. John Harbour Commission
time as yet to try it out. However, I venture to say that it will work satisfactorily and will be of great benefit to the mining industry of the territory to which it applies.


Charles A. Stewart: In reply to
the hon. member for Yukon I would say that that was one of the reasons we thought it wise to read the provisions of the Ontario act, since it is new legislation However, knowing the desire of the mining population in particular to have a statute which cannot be changed, we have decided to incorporate the statutory provisions of the Ontario act into our legislation, together with the small changes required so far as the office of gold commissioner is concerned. So I would ask that we give this legislation a trial for one year; if we find some unworkable provisions they can be amended later, but this has been given very careful consideration by the geological survey, by the mines branch and by the Department of the Interior, and we have profited by the experience of the province of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title:	[DOT]
Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to me it might be well to add, at the end of the regulations, words to indicate that such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette. At the end of the regulations as now set out in the reprinted bill there is a clause which provides that additional regulations may be made, and I think it desirable to provide that these shall be published in the next issue of the Canada Gazette.


Charles A. Stewart: I propose
doing that with all our regulations, particularly those affecting the mining interests and those having to do with forestry. That is my intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be better to
have that stated in the act, but the minister has said he will do it and I know he is anxious to get his bill advanced to-night. For the moment it will be quite satisfactory to let it go at that, because he will probably deal with the whole problem at another time.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 19 consideration in committee of the following proposed
resolution-Mr. Cardin-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Saint John in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 to enable the corporation to construct such terminal facilities as are necessary properly to equip the port of Saint John, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of the details
which I gave yesterday in regard to this resolution, and in view of the fact that when the bill is introduced it will have to go to committee where we shall have the opportunity of getting all the details, I suggest that the resolution be put through now and that I be given permission to introduce the bill, with the understanding that all details required will be furnished when the bill is in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have only one observation to make with regard to the statement of the minister. This legislation involves the payment of public money to this harbour board and contemplates the delivery of the securities of that board to the Minister of Finance. I submit that the Duncan report did not contemplate that sort of national port development; it contemplated a direct expenditure of public money for the purpose of developing the ports of St. John and Halifax.


Mr. VENIOT:: Under a harbour commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under a statutory commission. This contemplates a harbour commission, but the Duncan report contemplated and stated in terms a statutory commission. In my judgment Sir Andrew Rae Duncan had in mind a statutory commission which would be an administrative body, not a body charged with the responsibility of issuing securities which would not be of value to this country. If this harbour cannot earn 5 per cent upon $5,000,000, as it may not, and as is not intended it would by the Duncan report any more than Quebec has been able to do so, it seems to me an improper thing that it should issue securities and place them in the treasury against grants of public money, when we know that so far as the payment of interest is concerned the securities are of no real value. That is the point we endeavoured to make yesterday, and I cannot help but think that the principle with respect to both Halifax and St. John is not sound, because it imposes an obligation upon those ports
St. John Harbour Commission

which we do not expect they will be able to discharge. We have imposed such an obligation upon the port of Quebec, and obviously it is not expected that the port of Quebec will be able to discharge that obligation. So it does occur to me that if we are to make a national port, as the words were used by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan, we should do it directly, and not by this indirect means which is adopted for the purpose of placing in our treasury securities which are without value. That is the point I desire to make with the minister, because there is a very serious principle involved in it. That has led to all the difficulty in Quebec; there can be no doubt about that. If we had continued to expend public moneys at Quebec as we have done at other ports at the head of the lakes, without taking promises to pay from the port, the present situation would not have arisen. The difficulty with port administration under a commission is that they become political commissions rather than national port commissions; the minister knows that very much better than I, because in small communities such a commission is bound to be a political commission. We must remember that when the statute was first passed it contained a provision whereby at least one of the commissioners was elected by the community. I daresay the minister recalls those days when there was an election held for the selection of a commission by the ratepayers of the community. Now the real truth under existing conditions is that as soon as there is a change of government there is a change of the commission, and the harbour commission instead of being a body constituted to develop the port becomes nothing more or less than a political commission. I am not saying that of one government only; I am very careful not to do so, because virtue does not rest in one particular set of men and lack of it in another. The real fact is that the circumstances and conditions under which these commissions discharge their duties lend themselves to political purposes, very often to the finding of employment for political followers. That, as I say, is not applicable to one side more than to the other, but the fact remains thlat it operates against the efficiency of the commission. Take for instance the harbour of Montreal. A change of government in 1911 was followed by a change of the personnel of the commission, and there was a change of government in 1921, followed by another change of commission. There was a change of commissioners in the harbour of Quebec in the same way. The harbour of St. John, so far as the commission is concerned, is now dealt

with in the same way as Halifax. The commission is appointed from political followers pure and simple, all Liberals. Now a national port is not a Liberal port, it is not a Conservative port; it belongs to Liberals and Conservatives. Because a Liberal government is in power is no reason why only Liberals should find employment on the harbour commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is not the case in Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Peter John Veniot: With respect to St. John.


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to all of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Railways says with respect to Regina they do not desire public expenditure.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to see that
Regina does not require anything.


Charles Avery Dunning: It does.

St. John Harbour Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I did not misunderstand the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: Like Calgary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It wants a post office.
May I suggest to the minister that if a little more consideration is given to this matter from the standpoint of the determination of particular items and evidence given as to just how the money was to be expended, that would create public confidence. The matter could be threshed out by hearing witnesses in a way that could not be otherwise possible. For instance the minister very frankly read to us the reports which he did last night, and he has some with respect to the port of Quebec. In that instance it was the old story of default in the payment of interest. In the present case it is a new venture. We would have an opportunity by a reference to the committee of examining witnesses with respect to the railway question, because the railways are affected. There is no doubt that having regard to closing the St. John gateway the national railway is tremendously interested in St. John harbour. I think the minister would agree too that it is the only railway that carries traffic to any considerable extent to Halifax; of course there is the Dominion Atlantic which carries traffic to Yarmouth or some other port rather than Halifax. Under these circumstances I should like the minister to take into consideration the suggestion I have made. I believe it would go far to satisfy the public mind with respect to the expenditures on all these ports. It would do something to indicate that the house was making an intelligent study of all the circumstances connected with them, because it would have before it. as the Minister of Railways remarked very properly, a transcript of the evidence given, and every member instead of having to ask questions in this committee would be able to read the evidence and satisfy himself in every particular with respect to the matters in question.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think I am bound to answer the observation made by the leader of the opposition in so far as the recommendations of the Duncan report are concerned. I contend that we are following exactly those recommendations. To establish the truth of that statement may I quote these words from page 30 of the report:
It is to be remembered, too, that even in Canadian ports-and particularly at Montreal where port development has reached a very high level indeed-considerable tonnage is being handled which is not Canadian, either in origin or in destination.
We had. at our request, a private session with the Montreal harbour commission and, by hearing from them the steps they took to survey and stimulate production in their immediate territory as well as wider afield, we are confirmed in our view as to what harbour commissions (constituted of business and experienced persons) at Halifax and St. John could do in stimulating the trade of the maritime provinces.
Having had that conference with the harbour commiasion at Montreal the Duncan commission made that recommendation, and they discovered that an organization of the kind wouia oe efficient and would prove satisfactory to the maritime provinces. As far as the expenditure is concerned I submit that the house is committed to the development of the ports of St. John and Halifax, and to the expenditure of money for this purpose- money which is absolutely necessary, because we read at page 29 of the same report these words:
-it will be necessary to create facilities even ahead of expansion of trade.
These are the recommendations of the Duncan commission, and the house has accepted the obligation of carrying them out. Such being the case I submit with all deference to the leader of the opposition that notwithstanding the evidence which may be given before a committee we are bound to carry out whiat has been requested by the harbour commission. We cannot say that we have met the recommendations of the Duncan commission merely by the incorporation of a body to look after the affairs of the ports of St. John and Halifax when it is stated in the Duncan report that the present facilities are not adequate and it is recommended that those facilities be increased. What are we doing to-day? We are endeavouring to develop the facilities in accordance with a plan that has been prepared by very competent engineers. In view of the fact, theerfore, that the house is committed to the fulfilment of all the recommendations in the Duncan report, I submit respectfully, with all due deference to the views of the leader of the opposition who, I admit, is looking upon these matters from a broad point of view and with the idea of giving all passible assistance to the development of all the facilities existing in our Canadian ports, that we are committed to the point that nothing ought to be done to stop the passing of the measure and granting the request which has been made to us. Under these circumstances, with the details that I have already given, and in view of the fact that the conditions in the ports of St. John and Halifax are pretty well known and that an opportunity will be given later on to supplement the information which has already been given. I ask that I may be permitted to have the resolution carried and the bill introduced.
224S
St. John Harbour Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought I made it quite clear that I had no intention of interposing any serious obstacle to the passing of the resolution. I asked the minister to consider the suggestion I made for the purpose of dealing with it on the second reading, and I think the statement made by the Postmaster General as to a larger sum being sought would in itself constitute some reason why that should be so. I wholly concur in, and desire to associate myself and those who sit to the left of the Speaker with, the sentiment expressed by the minister that we must implement the recommendation made in the Duncan report. But the extent and purposes of present expenditures cannot be fully ascertained by all hon. members merely from the minister being able to answer questions. A committee is very useful even if it serves only the one purpose that, if a record is taken of what occurs before the committee, it is made very easy for every hon. member to have that knowledge which is sometimes denied him on account of backwardness in asking questions in the house or of difficulty in making himself heard or hearing what is said. I always regard a small committee of the house as having very great value. I observed that on at least one occasion in the British house, when a somewhat similar matter involving the expenditure of certain moneys was being considered, a small committee was appointed for the purpose of making a report to the house in order that there might be a record of the proceedings; because it is almost impossible for six or seven hundred members to be cognizant of everything that is going on. I offer the suggestion merely for the consideration of the minister and not for the purpose of obstructing the passage of the resolution. I endeavoured to make that clear yesterday in respect to another resolution, so that we may proceed with full information and knowledge of the facts and avoid committing the public to an expenditure which the public might regard as being unwarranted. If need be, the public can read for themselves the evidence that is adduced before such a committee. It is that principle I have in mind with respect to this matter, just as the Minister of Justice the other day felt that it was desirable that the question of judges' salaries should be considered by a select committee. There the public interest is involved without regard to party, and we might consider the question of our ports in much the same way. The question of the Toronto terminals, for instance, is a matter affecting everyone who travels, and the same thing is true in regard to ports of St. John and Halifax; they belong to the west as well as to the east. The tolls
[Mr. Cardin.J
to be collected will depend upon the character of the expenditure and the broad vision of the engineers who superintend the work of construction. In fact I had almost made up my mind the other evening, having read these matters with some care, to suggest to the minister that the course pursued by the Minister of Railways with respect to Fort Churchill and Port Nelson, namely, the calling in of the greatest experts whose services he could command for the purpose of getting a report upon the harbour facilities, might be justified with regard to these harbours, having regard to the fact that, as I endeavoured to say yesterday, these are harbours that should be considered not from the standpoint of Quebec or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia but from the standpoint of the whole of Canada. If they are to succeed far beyond being merely ports for the incoming and outgoing of ships, which is not the important matter; if the trade of Canada is to be served by them, we should try to get the last word in technical service and advice with respect to the development of the ports. Probably upon this continent you could get expert advice of the highest character with respect to ports of that kind, just as the Minister of Railways last year sought the opinion of an estuarial engineer in connection with the Hudson bay ports. I had that suggestion in mind; whether or not it is of value is another matter, because the minister knows better than I do the character of the advice he will receive from his engineers. But I do not believe we can afford to play with these matters and run the risk of our money not being properly expended, having before us the interests of the country as a whole with respect to these harbours. That matter might be considered by the minister between now and the second reading of the bill. I have no further observations to interpose with respect to the passage of the resolution as such.


Peter John Veniot: Before this resolution is
passed I should like to say a word in connection with it. I am not going to undertake to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposition set forth by the leader of the opposition as to how this money should be expended, but I do not think I would be doing my duty as a representative of the province of New Brunswick if I allowed the impression to be left on the committee to-night and to go abroad by the words of the leader of the opposition that St. John harbour would not be able to pay any part of the interest on the loan that would be made to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say any part.

St. John Harbour Commission


Peter John Veniot: Or even the whole of it.
If St. John harbour is developed as it should be in order, together with Halifax, to take care of transatlantic shipments, especially in the winter time, there is no reason to suppose that as regards the amount of money necessary to prepare the port of St. John for that transportation it cannot secure sufficient revenue to pay at least the interest, if not the sinking fund. St. John harbour is, or was prior to a year ago, the only harbour in Canada owned directly by a city. Under a royal charter that harbour was conceded to the city of St. John, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries had no control in any way over that harbour. Over a period of several years, considering that in years gone by, at least prior to 1910 or 1911, St. John harbour was not getting sufficient recognition from the different governments at Ottawa, the corporation of the city of St. John undertook to improve the harbour at its own expense, and to that end it expended in the neighbourhood of between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000. It paid the interest on that expenditure and it set aside a sinking fund to the extent that last year there was in that fund an amount of $667,000 to meet maturing bonds. Not only did it pay interest and provide sinking fund payments, but each year it had a surplus, and its surplus would have been greater had it not been that in 1925, St. John, seeing that it was necessary to divert Canadian export trade to Canadian ports and not being able to get a proper freight rate which would warrant grain going through that port, diminished its side wharfage and top wharfage charges on grain from six cents to one cent a bushel in order to encourage the western farmers to ship their freight through Canadian ports. Had St. John not done that, its surplus in 1925, 1926 and 1927, after meeting interest and sinking fund payments, would have been a great deal larger. But St. John was acting from a national point of view; its interest was the development of Canadian ports, and the encouragement of Canadian trade to go through Canadian ports. I think all will admit that it is diversity of freight that makes up the revenues of a port. Any port on the Atlantic that depends entirely for its revenue upon the shipment of grain cannot be a financial success. Last year 25,000,000 bushels of wheat passed through the port of St. John. It had six million tons of export trade and one and a half million tons of imports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not the minister wrong about six million tons of exports other than grain?


Peter John Veniot: I did not say other than
grain. Grain did not amount to more than 850,000 tons of the 6.000 000 tons exported. St. John's trade is not all transatlantic. St. John has a large exportation of farm products to other than transatlantic countries. Furthermore. for its size St. John is equipped to-day for the cattle trade in a way that no other port in Canada is equipped. There is room in our newly constructed sheds at St. John to-day to accommodate at one time 1.353 head of cattle. St. John has also some of the best frost-proof warehouses to take care of agricultural produce, such as potatoes and other produce which has to be shipped in winter to prevent perishing. With all these advantages, and with the amount of money that St. John is asking for to-day, $5,000,000 -it is true that they did ask for $10,000,000, which would have completed the program in five or six or perhaps seven years, and would have put the port in a position to handle double the grain and double the mixed freight which it is handling to-day-when you consider that Vancouver, with all its facilities and improvements, handled 43,000,000 bushels, I believe, of grain last year, and that St. John handled 25,000,000 bushels-and the quantity would have been much larger last fall and this winter had it not been for a restriction, if I may use that term, on the exportation of grain transatlantic-you begin to realize the possibilities of the harbour of St. John.
It is true that large sums of money have been expended by the government in the past on the harbour of St. John. I am not going to say that the money has always been judiciously expended. But leaving aside the Courtenay bay proposition and taking St. John harbour as we look upon it to-day, together with the improvements that are to be made on the west side, where the Canadian Pacific is bringing large quantities of grain and has not the facilities necessary to bring larger quantities, and considering that the Canadian National has no way of reaching the west side of the harbour except with the special privilege of running over the lines of the Caandian Pacific from east to west; considering also that St. John is prepared as a city to-day, if I can believe the officials of the city, the mayor and the commissioners, and I believe that I can, to expend still further sums of their own in aiding the railways and giving greater facilities in the way of a bridge across the harbour so that the

St. John Harbour Commission
Canadian National may have extended privileges on the west side-all these things considered, I feel that St. John deserves a great deal of praise for what it has done, and further that any sum of money which this parliament may vote to St. John will be judiciously expended.
The leader of the opposition referred to the political aspect of these commissions. It is true that when this new commission was appointed it was tainted with Liberalism.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not tainted, surely.


Peter John Veniot: But it is also true that
the full harbour organization of the city of St. John, without regard to political affiliations, was taken over by the present harbour commission; not one single dismissal was made. Let me go further. The engineer in charge of the harbour works in St. John to-day is the same engineer who was in charge of expenditures in the main harbour, the present harbour for which we are seeking improvements. He is the engineer of the Department of Public Works who has been in charge of those works during the last eight or ten years. His name is Mr. Gray, and I think I am safe in stating that no more efficient and no more capable engineer on harbour construction and improvements can be found in the Dominion of Canada. He has had a vast experience. No engineer could possibly be obtained to-day who knows more about the peculiar tidal conditions in the harbour of St. John and the bay of Fundy than does the present engineer, due to the long experience he has had there.
The work in St. John perhaps will be more costly than in any other harbour in the Dominion, for this reason: the heavy rise and fall of the Fundy tides necessitates the construction of piers of a much greater depth and far more costly than are required in any other harbour in the Dominion.
When the bill is in committee I expect to go into further details, but lest I may not have that opportunity let me say now that so congested are conditions in the harbour of St. John that in December, 1926, and January, 1927, ships coming in for grain and other cargoes lost no less than 155 days demurrage, mostly because they were lying in the stream awaiting berths. That is the condition. St. John and Halifax are the only two ports on the Atlantic coast through which Canadian trade can go in and out during the winter season. May I point this out also, that in the winter time the United States ports of Portland and Boston are losing so much of their trade to Halifax and
fMr. Veniot.]
St. John that there is a movement on foot in the senate at Washington to devise some means of preventing this loss. To my mind Halifax and St. John, being the only Atlantic ports that are open the year round, like Vancouver on the Pacific, are really our two national ports on the Atlantic coast, and for that if no other reason they should receive all the encouragement that I feel this house will give them.
I wish to thank hon. members on both sides for the very generous support they accorded to the maritime provinces last winter when their case was before the house. I do not accept the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition as made in a spirit of criticism or opposition to this grant, but rather in an endeavour to find a better method of carrying on these works. Speaking for myself, I court the most rigorous investigation of all expenditures for the development of the harbours of the maritime provinces.


Mr. RALSTON:: Mr. Chairman, I would
not have the committee think from what the hon. leader of the opposition has suggested with regard to the personnel of the commission that I do not consider those gentlemen in every way qualified for their job.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not mention their qualifications-except politically.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it a qualification?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend stated that they were politicians, leaving the impression on the committee that they were appointed primarily because they were adherents of the Liberal party. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) does not happen to know those gentlemen personally as I do. The leader of the opposition probably knows them pretty well, andi I think he will join with me in what I am about to say, because I quite realize that he did not single them out particularly because of their political views. But I want to take the committee into my confidence to convince them that political considerations had not primarily to do with the appointments. In the city of Halifax there has been a good deal of criticism of the government for their selection of those gentlemen, simply because they were not regarded as dyed-in-the-wool, hard-shell partisans. It seems you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Our endeavour was to select as commissioners those who had the widest experience and the best qualifications, which, combined with their personality and long residence in the city, admirably adapted them to discharge the duties of their office. Mr. Peter R. Jack, the

St. John Harbour Commission
chairman of the commission, was bom in the city of Halifax; he is a bright, energetic, young business man and has been associated with many of the most progressive activities of the city, and I think everyone agrees that he is well qualified for the position. Mr C. W. Ackhurst is a shipping man, has been connected with the waterfront all his life, and is a very able and efficient man of business. Mr. John Murphy was controller for two or three terms, and then mayor of the city for two terms, and is regarded as one of the ablest of its citizens, thoroughly imbued with its civic spirit and point of view. Those are the type of men appointed to administer the harbour. Tree, they happen to be Liberals, but I do not think that should be regarded as a disqualification, provided they have the proper business experience and capacity to discharge the duties of their office. That a man happens to be an adherent of the party in power has never been regarded as a disqualification for office by this or any other government, provided he possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment.
I may be permitted to read to the committee the resolution which was passed by the Halifax board of trade immediately after those gentlemen were appointed. And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Halifax board of trade is not by any means composed wholly of supporters of the Liberal party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Judging by the last
election.


James Layton Ralston: Judging by the last election, as my hon. friend interjects. I do not think there can be the least doubt about that. At any rate I have no doubt myself. This is the resolution:
This board appreciates Hon. J. L. Ralston telegraphing them of the appointment and personnel of the Halifax harbour commission and wishes to commend him on his selection and assure him of the board's assistance and cooperation; also.
The board wishes to congratulate the harbour commissioners on their appointment and assure them of the fullest co-operation and assistance.
That is the personnel of the Halifax harbour commission to whom this house will be asked to vote a certain sum of money when the bill is introduced, and I can honestly, sincerely, and frankly say that I believe those men are amply qualified to discharge the duties of their office, even though they may happen to be adherents of the Liberal party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have to make another observation in respect to this matter. The point I was endeavouring to make was that the political *character of the commission involves political
patronage in the expenditure of moneys, and all we on this side have been suggesting is the desirability of assuring one hundred per cent of effort for every dollar of expenditure.


James Layton Ralston: May I interrupt my hon. friend? If the statutory commission is appointed at all, would my hon. friend suggest that something should be inserted in the act that the appointees be not supporters of the government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The Minister of
National Defence is too astute to put that construction on what was said. I pointed out that originally the constitution of harbour commissions provided for the election of at least one member. That was done away with and the appointment of partisans substituted. I was careful to say that either party would do the same thing; I did not say that my hon. friend's party was responsible.


James Layton Ralston: I did not suggest it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I pointed out that the appointment of your own partisans assured patronage being relied upon in connection with expenditures, and we in this house know that in small communities the tendency is to prevent a hundred cents of effort resulting from a dollar's expenditure. This being a national port, so vastly different from anything else we have, a port in which we are all interested, I am sure the minister realizes that the pressure put upon him-the minister from Nova Scotia-to have his friends looked after with respect to the work of the harbour will be very great indeed. I am sorry to say it is so, human nature being as it is. I see my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) smiles, for he knows just what it means in New Brunswick-and just what it will mean in Nova Scotia also. That patronage evil might be overcome in two ways. First, t'he personnel of the commission should not wholly reflect the view of the party in power. This practice is followed in England, as my hon. friend knows. For example, the head of the port authority of London on one occasion was certainly everything else than a supporter of the particular government of the day, and the government itself, except through the Board of Trade, had nothing to do with the matter at all. Secondly, it is desirable that this parliament should have some control over that expenditure, direct through the Auditor General and through the public accounts committee. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and I placed that before the house two years ago with some degree of force. Once more I say to the Postmaster General



St. John Harbour Commission
so far as Now Brunswick is concerned, that every hon. member in this house is to my knowledge in favour of these expenditures in St. John; but what we fear is that the result of this effort will not be to get 100 cents of value for 100 cents of expenditure. And I need hardly say to my hon. friend that those of us who are familiar with what has transpired in days gone by in the public accounts committee and in other investigations as well have some reason to realize that public moneys expended, not by the city of St. John but by the government of Canada, in connection with dredging contracts for instance, were not wholly beyond suspicion. I will use only the words that came out in connection with one or two investigations, and the Postmaster General will understand the rest of it. And that was not limited to any particular class of individuals.


Peter John Veniot: Or to any particular party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. I want the
minister to understand that I was only suggesting that St. John might not pay interest. But if we expect to recover the interest it will involve the payment of tolls, wharfages and other charges such as might make it disadvantageous to the port; and I want the lowest possible tolls to be exacted and the lowest possible dues to be charged, for a reason I did not care to mention, but which I communicated to my hon. friend to my right, namely, the effort of seaboard ports on the United States front to take away from us a part of the traffic we now have. For this reason we shall have to maintain the lowest possible tolls and charges to insure success in our operations. Therefore we must not regard these moneys as loans in connection with which interest and sinking fund are to be taken care of, but rather as contributions made by the parliament of Canada towards the development of a national port. I am sorry if I did not make that clear, for it was the purpose of my observation. Regardless of what the return may be, the most efficient method should be pursued, under the direction of the most competent engineers, and the charges imposed should have some regard to the service rendered, irrespective of the question of interest or sinking fund. I do not think the minister should place in the treasury of the country the bonds and debentures of these commissions and find himself, in a year or two, faced with the statement, "We are unable to pay interest because the tolls are not sufficient to enable us to do so." I do not want to see this port labouring under the handicap that has hampered the port of

Quebec, as indicated by the minister yesterday. That is the position I take with respect to this matter and which I wish to make quite clear. The Postmaster General misunderstood me if he thought for a moment that I suggested that the harbour of St. John could not earn charges, for it undoubtedly could if the tolls were high enough. But that might have an adverse effect on its traffic, and our business is to provide traffic, making these facilities thoroughly effective and useful in the national interest of Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Was it not argued yesterday
that the port of Quebec should earn enough to pay interest on the money?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was argued was
that the port of Quebec, had it been efficiently conducted and a proper ratio of gross and net earnings preserved, as has been done in the case of St. John, would have paid interest on the present investment. St. John last year not only took care of interest and sinking fund but it had a surplus of $40,000. That port had net earnings of $218,000, including interest and sinking fund charges, as against $257,000 odd of gross earnings. The argument that has not been answered and cannot be answered is that the expenditures in Quebec were out of all proportion, as between net and gross earnings, to any other port in Canada. And what is more, there is the report of the audit board, set down in black and white, to which no answer was made. That report bears out the argument.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: Regarding the resolution before the committee with reference to the proposed loan to the harbour commission of the port of St. John, I wish to place myself on record as strongly supporting the proposal. The harbour of St. John was taken over by the present board on August 1 last. The board as at present constituted is composed of men of ability and character, together with an engineer of the highest standing in the profession-I refer to Mr. Alexander Gray, late Dominion engineer at the port of St. John. The loan asked for is not as large as was recommended by the harbour board, having been reduced by half; and it is to cover a period of three years. The vote as at present proposed is the outcome of the creation of the Duncan commission, whose report bearing on the question of port development and equipment contains the following statement at page 29:
We are satisfied that neither at Halifax nor at St. John-although developments at St. John have been more extensive than at Halifax'-is

Halifax Harbour Commission
it possible, in present circumstances, to secure adequate port development. We recommend that, in respect of each of these two harbours, the federal government should establish a statutory harbour commission, whose business it would be to see that the port facilities are developed on such a scale as will gradually-but by no means slowly-create channels through which trade can expand both winter and summer. The development of a port is as much a matter of mechanical and technical equipment, business organization and practical administration. as is the development of any extensive manufacturing or industrial business.
The winter port traffic started in St. John in 1901. In that year the total revenue of the port was $40,630. In 1927 the total levenue was $257,704.97. During the last ten years the development of the winter port traffic has been hampered by lack of adequate berthing facilities. In 1926-27 one ship had to wait twelve days for a berth and another eight days. Due to lack of facilities in the winter port season of 1926-27 transatlantic steamers were held up for a total of 155 days. With the present inadequate equipment much business is lost. Berths, warehouse room and elevator storage are urgently needed if the business of the port is to increase at a normal rate. The proposed improvements call for pier accommodation, representing from five to six steamships. A grain elevator is urgently needed as are also transit sheds with office accommodation. The estimated cost is $5,000,000, the work to extend over a period of three years. I am convinced that a straight government loan would be much better than an obligation on the part of the harbour board. I should not like to have the board undertake any obligation on which they could not meet interest.
I might say in support of what the Postmaster General has stated that undoubtedly, with the new facilities that will be provided, and having in mind the additional expenditure which later on will probably be involved, through the erection of a bridge across the river, the Canadian National and the new terminals which will also be established will greatly facilitate the export and import business. I trust that the house will give the most favouralbe consideration to this resolution and provide the St. John with what is necessary to assist it in its worty effort to develop trade through that port.
Resolution reported, read the second time and! concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 216, to provide for a loan to the St. John Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
56103-143J



HALIFAX HARBOUR COMMISSION


[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 Halifax in an amount not exceeding $500,000, to enable the corporation to construct such terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the port of Halifax, 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.
He said:	The harbour commissioners of
Halifax request this money to provide for improvements and additional equipment to wharves, piers and sheds to an amount of $290,000; improvements to elevator system, including conveyor galleries, $60,000; additional port equipment, including a locomotive train and a fuel oil bunker plant, $150,000, making a total of $500,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that the
present facilities belong to the Dominion?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The present facilities belong to the Canadian National Railways, and the harbour commission is negotiating with the Canadian National Railways to have these facilities placed under the control of the commission.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is the minister in a position to give us the amount of grain which went through that port last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not that information before me, but I will have it when the bill is in committee.


Mr. MacNUTT:: I would ask the minister
if the harbour commissioners of Halifax are working under the same arrangement with the government as are the commissioners of St. John. The minister will remember that the city council and the board of trade of Halifax refused to accept the appointment of this harbour commission for a year or more, due to some disagreement as to the exact interpretation of the recommendation of the Duncan commission.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The position in Halifax is exactly the same as that in St. John; the commission is constituted in the same way and has the same powers. I well remember that a delegation came to Ottawa from Halifax asking that that port be considered as a purely national port, that the expenditures be made by the government without tolls or dues being charged and with no interest to

Halifax Harbour Commission
be paid back to the government That was the contention of the representatives of the board - of trade, but after discussing it with them we decided to proceed as we had pro-cedeed at St. John, and the Minister of National Defence stated a moment ago that after the appointment of the Halifax commissioners the board of trade declared themselves satisfied and ready to co-operate with the board which was named to look after the affairs of that port. So at present there is a complete understanding between the public bodies of Halifax and the harbour commission as it is now constituted.


John Evans: As this makes a total of
over $14,000,000 which is to be spent for the development of these eastern ports, I would ask the government if they have any policy with regard to the movement of grain from the west, since these developments are made particularly to handle that business? If the lower rates on the Transcontinental railway have any effect at all they will undoubtedly benefit the ports on the Atlantic coast, and in that case it seems very unwise to spend such a large sum of money on the port of Quebec since the facilities of that port never have been used to their full extent. Do the government intend that the port of Quebec or the ports on the Atlantic shall receive a greater amount of grain, or what do they intend?
I would also point out that we have seen fit to direct a great part of our wheat through United States ports as the most feasible route to the markets of the world. If there is to be winter handling, which the Minister of Railways said yesterday was so profitable, why should we store wheat at Quebec? If the grain is to move over the Transcontinental railway at all it is certain to go to Halifax or St. John, and it seems to me that the government should formulate some direct policy with regard to those ports rather than spend such sums as $5,000,000 and $8,500,000 indiscriminately on the same port without knowing whether or not it will be used to its capacity.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I might be permitted to answer my hon, friend in that regard without attempting to lay down any fixed. policy on behalf of the government, because these are largely matters of development. I would point out that there is a difference between making provision for winter storage and for winter handling. In the nature of things there will be comparatively little winter storage at a port which is open during the winter; there is comparatively little winter storage at Vancouver or at Halifax and St.
(Mr. Cardin.]
John. On the other hand, at interior ports, both in the United States and in Canada, there is an increasing tendency to provide for winter storage in order that grain may be in a strategic location for spring shipment. In that connection it has been found more advantageous than would be the case, in the national interest of Canada, to store grain for the winter in United States winter storage terminals. A number of years ago a company, with which I believe the leader of the opposition was connected, was a pioneer in the direction of providing winter storage for grain within Canada, instead of using to such a large extent United States facilities located at United States lake ports, and other interior ports, for that purpose. And so in Canada we have been gradually building up two types of facilities, one for the continuous handling of grain at ports which are open the year round, and the other winter storage facilities as close as possible to the channels of world trade at places which are not open the year round but are closed for a considerable portion of it. Montreal has gone in for winter storage to a far greater extent in recent years than formerly. Utilization of the winter storage at Quebec, filled to almost its full capacity for the first time, is further evidence of the use which the trade and the pools will make of winter storage as near as possible to the outlet of navigation. If the trade is there for them I think it is of considerable advantage to have in Canada enough winter storage to take care of Canadian grain, and as a matter of fact as much American grain as can come. That is the broad answer I make to my hon. friend.


John Evans: I could understand the
minister's explanation if we stored this grain at great milling centres such as the United States have, but I do not think the example of the United States should be followed in this case, because none of the hard wheat leaves the United States, and the best of the other wheat is used within the country.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think my hon.
friend quite understood me. The provision which has been made in the United States for winter storage in recent years has been made for the storage of Canadian rather than of American grain. That is true especially of the port of Buffalo.


Mr. QUINN:: May I ask the minister if
this vote of $500,000 for the Halifax harbour commission will make provision for the salaries of the commission and the staff?

Federal District Commission


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, this vote is to build
additional equipment, wharves and so on, in the port of Halifax. It does not provide for the salaries of the commissioners. They are paid out of the revenues of the port.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Have the salaries of the
commissioners been fixed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What are they?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The president's salary is
$4,000 and that of each of the two other commissioners $3,000.


Felix Patrick Quinn: And the salaries will be paid out of the revenues?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Out of the revenues of the
port.


Felix Patrick Quinn: And also the salaries of the
staff?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 217, *o provide for a loan to the Halifax harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish the house to consider the resolution, appearing as No. 22 on the order paper, with respect to the Federal District Commission. I may say that if the house is prepared to pass the resolution there will be ample opportunity of debating the principle of the bill and all matters of detail in committee. I think we might pass the resolution and introduce the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Agreed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, be amended to provide,
1.	That the period for the payment of the annual grant to the Federal District Commission at present fixed at sixteen years from the first day of April, 1927, be extended to thirty years from the first day of April, 1928, the said annual payment to be reduced to the sum of $200,000.
2.	That the Minister of Finance may provide for the purposes of the commission by the sale or other disposition of securities of the commission, guaranteed as hereinafter provided, an amount or amounts not to exceed in the aggregate $3,000,000, or he may, with the approval of the governor in council, pay to the commission, out of the consolidated revenue fund, such sum or sums, not exceeding $3,000,000. as may be required for said purposes, or may make such provision partly in one way and partly in the other. The governor in council may authorize the guarantee of the payment of principal of and interest on any such securities, the proceeds to be deposited to the credit of the Minister of Finance in trust for the commission and released by the minister in his discretion for the purposes of the act;
3.	That the Minister of Finance may provide out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may be required to pay interest on the said securities and also such sums as are required for the purpose of establishing a sinking fund or for retiring the said securities by annual instalments:
4.	That the provisions of the Expropriation Act. instead of the Railway Act shall be made applicable to expropriation proceedings of the commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Prime Minister's suggestion is agreed to without prejudice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was rising to say. because there are some hon. members whom I would not care to bind in any sense who desire to make some observations on this matter, and the statement of the Prime Minister. I think, absolutely protects them in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Absolutely.
This is just to allow the bill to be introduced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pro forma.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Robert Gardiner: Would the Prime Minister make a short explanation of the proposal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill to be based on the resolution proposes to reduce from $250,000 to $200,000 the amount granted to the commission as an annual appropriation. It is estimated that at the present time something like $150,000 a year is required for the maintenance of the work already done by the commission on parks and driveways. For the period of time to which reference is made in the resolution it is probable that an amount equal at least to $200,000 a year will be required for maintenance alone. It is proposed that any small amount over and above what is required for maintenance should go to meet small incidental capital expenditures in connection with the work of the commission,

Federal District Commission
such for example as the construction of greenhouses. The rest of the resolution is a proposal that there should be voted by parliament for capital expenditures by the commission, a total sum of 13,000,000, to be provided either by payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, or by the' issue of securities to be redeemed over a period of thirty years. The intention of the government, if parliament approves, is to provide at once, by way of capital expenditure, chargeable to the public debt, the sums necessary to meet the cost of expropriating what is now known as the Russell house property, including the Russell theatre property. Other capital expenditures would be met by the issue of securities to be redeemed over the period of thirty years. It is hoped that parliament will approve a plan of providing for the construction of a confederation park in the centre of the city by the expropriation of a few buildings at present situated between Sparks street, Laurier avenue, Elgin street and the canal. It is not proposed that all of the buildings will be expropriated but only some that can be taken over to the advantage of all concerned. At the present time, as hon. members know, there is on Laurier avenue a large open space in the nature of a park, known as Cartier square. Below Cartier square there is the property, owned by the Ontario government, on which the Normal model school and Normal school buildings are situated. Adjoining parliament hill is Major Hill park. The members of the commission feel that if the property between Cartier square and Major Hill park could be acquired and transformed into a park there would be in the heart of the capital, one large central park, and this open space would lend a character to the whole city which would have its effect in the ultimate beautification and development of the capital.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the commission any revenues at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think not.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21S, to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, April 23, 1928