1928-06-08

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARC'IL (Bonaventure) presented the third report of the joint select standing committee on the printing of parliament as follows:
Your committee have considered the matter of salary of the superintendent of the distribution office of parliament, and are of the opinion that the salary paid to this official is not adequate in view of the responsibilities of the position and the increase in the work of this office.
Your committee have therefore passed the following resolution, and herewith submit the same for the approval of your honourable house:
Resolved:
That the joint select standing committee on the printing of parliament do recommend to both houses that the salary of Mr. R. B. Davidson, superintendent of the distribution office, be increased to $3,600 per annum, from March 31, 1928.

[Stage Direction]
On motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Yesterday I presented
to the house a return respecting honours conferred by foreign governments on persons domiciled in Canada which has been asked for by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I was surprised to read in an evening paper that the return had been interpreted as giving the names of prominent men who had been decorated by foreign governments. As a matter of fact, what the return actually states is the following:
No information as to any person having actually received any such title, distinction, decoration or order.
Intimation of a desire to confer orders upon the following persons was received from various foreign governments by the Canadian government, which, however, declined to recommend that permission should be granted to accept them.
The direct opposite of what has appeared in the journal referred to is therefore the case.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: In that regard I may say that I
was surprised to see that I had been decorated.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: I read it that the hon. gentleman had been offered it, but had declined it.
[The Chairman.]

Indian Affairs-Supplies



VALUATION OF IMPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: May I ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) has brought to the attention of the government the protest of the berry growers of the Creston valley in British Columbia against the importation of surplus United States berries during the present marketing season, and may the berry growers of the Creston valley and other portions of British Columbia look for any relief during the present season?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret that I am unable to inform my hon. friend as to anything that has taken place in council. The government's action in these matters will have to be made known as it is publicly disclosed.



DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS- SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a reply to the statement made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) with respect to tenders in the Department of Indian Affairs, particularly with reference to Royal Crown Soap, and also with reference to restricted lists. May I say, without reading the whole of this statement, and in order to shorten the matter, that the list is added to from time to time when we receive requests from firms to give them the opportunity to tender. There is no restricted list, and may I add that the Royal Crown Soap Company were awarded contracts in 1925-26, and this year at 6 cents per pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but they were not on
the list, although they did make application. I have the letter which I will send across to my hon. friend. That is the better way.


Charles A. Stewart: They did
tender in 1926. They must have been on the list then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that is exactly the
point. They saw it by accident and tendered.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh well, I
have nothing further to say.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establMiment) moved the second
reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 289, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: I am pleased to report that tihe Senate have reconsidered sections 25 and 30, and I would suggest tihat the house concur in these amendments and in the bill as sent from the Senate.
Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister explain the nature of the amendments?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Section 25 deals with the pension of widows who married after the appearance of disability or disease. The section as adopted by the Senate, I understand, is satisfactory to the committee of this house which dealt with the matter. Section 30 deals with the relationship of the appeal board to the department and is in line with the amendment adopted by the Senate.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is there any change in section 21?


John Warwick King: I think so, but we concur in the change.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the ohair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Vote 55, page 22 of the estimates.


Robert Gardiner: Before you proceed with this item, Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the item we were dealing with last might was not carried, notwithstanding that it appears in the votes and proceedings as carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with
my hon. friend. That is my understanding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


John Frederick Johnston: When I came to the table this morning I did not think that item had been earned, but it was taken from the list. If it is the desire of the committee we will reconsider the item.


Robert Gardiner: You will observe that on the last page of Hansard, I made this statement:
I notice it is twelve o'clock and probably we had better let it stand.
I have nothing further to say on this item, but probably some other members of the
Supply-Immigration

jommittee may wish to discuss it. In any event I think it makes for the proper conduct of business to bring this to the attention of the committee.
Immigration and Colonization-salaries, $305,570; contingencies, $45,000.
Mr. SPOTTON; Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask the minister (Mr. Forke) which is directly connected with this vote. In August last a young man in mry constituency was given an appointment under the department of immigration; I think it had to do with the inspection of soldiers' farms. He comes from true blue Liberal stock and, so far as I know, will oontinue in the political fait-h of his people. The appointment was made one month before the by-election in ;North Huron, and the young man was promptly fired within a month or so afterwards. He left- a good position to enter the department. He was appointed, I believe, on the recommendation of Hon. Duncan Marshall. I have spoken to Mr. Marshall and to the Minister of Immigration, but have been unable to get any satisfaction. I have also tried to get another minister, who is related to the family of the young man, to intercede, but without avail. I have been told that this young man was not competent. I do not believe it, for no member of that family would undertake to do any work which he was not competent to discharge. I was shown some expense accounts of his which were not supposed to be well made up, but the only fault I could find was that his expenses were too low. I am confident that if the young man had been taken in hand by an officer of the department and given a white man's chance he would have made good from the training he has had as a member of an old pioneer family. He thought he had been engaged permanently; if the department engaged him for a short period before and after the byelection he certainly did not think so. I plead with the minister in the future not to allow his department to be thus used during elections. On behalf of one of my constituents-it is nothing to me politically-I wish to enter a protest against any mentber of the administration coming into my county and using such sharp practices upon my people.


Mr. FORKE:: I do not know anything about the facts of the case, Mr. Chairman, I will make inquiries of the chairman of the land settlement board.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Mr. Minister, if you do not know, you should because you were one

of the first men I called upon when I came here and I have been in touch with you continuously as well as with one of your colleagues in an attempt to have this young man reinstated.
(Mr. BSLING: I wish to ask the minister if within the last few weeks he has had a report concettming the Doulthobors in the West Kootenay district.


Robert Forke: I have had no report beyond what the hon. member himself has told me.


William Kemble Esling: Then, Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a very serious situation. In West Kootenay we have a rather large community of Doulc-hobore. During the past three weeks a fanatical faction, composed of about two hundred, have been on a rampage, marching through the adjoining municipalities, holding public meetings, chanting and speaking. No one objects so much to singing but their leaders are practising the worst kind of communism. They persist in standing on the street corners and openly defying the laws of the country. For instance, they declare that they will not send their children to school, that they will not register births, deaths and marriages, and that they will not pay taxes. [DOT]It is only within the past three weeks that this has happened. There are 200 of them to-day marching through the country, and to emphasize their determination not to abide by the laws of the land some of them-not all of these 200, but anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen-make public exhibitions by marching down the street absolutely nude. It is only within three weeks that the farmers' institutes in convention in West Kootenay voiced a protest to the provincial government. They said, "If the provincial government cannot enforce the law, for Heaven's sake, who will? Will the Dominion government do so?" I realize that the enforcement of the law and the responsibility for that enforcement is up to the province, but I submit that this federal government must share to some extent the responsibility for the behaviour of these radical fanatics. It was this government that dumped them into Canada. They not only brought them but bonused them for coming. It was about 1903 that $32,000 was handed out to the Doukhobors as a bonus for their having come to this country.
I ask the Minister of Immigration, I ask the government itself, to amend our immigration laws so as to provide for the immediate deportation of such of these fanatics as

Supply-Imviigration
openly violate the law by going around the country absolutely naked. Is that impossible? You may say that it is up to the provincial government to prevent these exhibitions, but there cannot be a provincial policeman in front of every Doukhobor, and the community covers a wide area. At this convention of farmers, one man entered a protest against these exhibitions. He said, "I and my family occupy ten acres of land. I have my orchard, and everything I have is invested therein. Across the provincial highway from my orchard there is a family, man, wife and children, of Doukhobors going around absolutely stark naked, and I have to submit to that humiliation and mortification " Such a condition Should not exist in Canada. I do not know what our relations are with Soviet Russia so far as deportation is concerned. Nevertheless this fact remains:	We
seem compelled to harbour these people, who to some extent are nothing more than human animals; they have no more sense of decency than human animals. We have paid them to come to the country; we have exempted them absolutely and unconditionally from military service; and we seem to be more concerned for their welfare than for the welfare of our own people. We seem, I say, compelled to keep them in the country with their open defiance and violation of the law; yet we are unable to retain our own Canadian citizens. The responsibility, so far as these fanatics are concerned, rests with the Dominion government and I ask that they take some steps to provide for the deportation of those who openly violate the law and express a determination so to do.
From this same community centre, where these farmers' institutes were in session last week, comes a letter stating that the rumour is strongly current there that it is the proposal of this government to bring into Canada 20,000 more of these Doukhobors and to place them in the Peace River country with a view to using them ultimately for railroad construction. I want to ask the minister whether that is so or not, and whether that rumour is well founded. Perhaps he will tell me whether there is any proposal to bring into Canada 20,000 or any number more of these Doukhobors and have them settle in the Peace River country?


Robert Forke: None whatsoever.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is it not a fact that
many of these Doukhobors were bom in Canada and therefore are not subject to deportation?


William Kemble Esling: Some of them were born
in Canada. I do not question for a moment the right of these people to remain here after a residence of five years. But even so, anyone will admit that there must be some means of dealing with these radicals who offend every sense of decency. There must be some ground for the rumour regarding the entry of additional Doukhobors; because in 1912 an order in council was passed forbidding the further entry of Doukhobors into Canada, and we included along with them the Hut-terites and the Mennonites. In 1919 the ban was lifted against the Hutterites and the Mennonites but we continued to exclude the Doukhobors. But only last year, or in 1926, another order in council was passed admitting the Doukhobors, and that would seem to indicate at least that they have free entry to Canada under proper medical examination.
One question I want to ask the minister is this-and I think we are entitled to an answer:	Will he not take steps for the deportation, where possible, of such of these fanatics as "openly offend ev*ery sense of decency and not only mortify but embarrass and demoralize the local communities by their exhibitions?


Robert Forke: Where recently arrived immigrants, be they Doukhobors or others, are unsatisfactory and do not obey the laws of the country, I think the department is prepared to deport them at any time.


William Kemble Esling: But here we have a concrete case; it is not a case of "if" they violate the laws. I have told you, you have evidence of it in the newspapers out there; you have it from the provincial police there that this faction of fanatics is absolutely and openly violating the laws of the country. They are standing on the street corners preaching absolute defiance, saying "We do not propose to send our children to school; we will not register births or marriages; we will not pay taxes." And to this fanatical faction is attributable the fact that eight schools have been burned in British Columbia. They not only say what they will and will not do, but they emphasize it by open defiance.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The general
subject of immigration was dealt with sufficiently yesterday, and now we are justified in considering under this item the work of the department as a whole. I am sure the minister felt a little elated' yesterday when he was given a clean sheet, decoratedv
Supply-Immigration

and had medals pinned all over him and, as you might say, a garland of diamonds hung around his neck by the Prime Minister. Yet if we study the situation as we find it to-day there cannot be any gainsaying that we have some doubts as to the results obtained by the department under the minister's administration. It has been shown that we have lost millions of people, both by losing our own people and by losing those whom we have brought from other countries, and just here there is one point to which I would like to direct attention. During the years this government have been in power we have brought into Canada, according to the figures given by the government, some 573,000 people, but in that same period we have lost to the United States, including some few from Newfoundland the figures for which I could not get, About 591,000 people. In other words, we have lost to the United States more than the number of people we have legally brought to Canada from the old country at an expenditure of some $55,000,000. If that is a result from which the Prime Minister can derive any satisfaction I fail to see it.
The minister has admitted that the Ipolicies brought in by his department have failed, and it might be worth while .to take them up in order. In all these years the three-thousand-family scheme has only produced some 2,600 families, and if that is the best we can do with ministers such as the present Minister of Finance, the present Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Immigration and his predecessor, there is something wanting. Then there was a great scheme by which we were to bring to Canada retired officers from India, men with money; that has absolutely fallen through. Then we had schemes to bring out Scottish people, and hon. members will recall the way the minister spoke when this question was discussed in the house one evening. I put on the order paper some time ago, a question in this regard, and the minister informs me that most of those people are still on the land. That is not true, and the government know that very few of these Soottish people have remained here; the unfortunate part of it is that a number of them have returned to the old country. We heard yesterday and last evening that it was a great thing to bring an immigrant to Canada and satisfy him, then send him back to his own country as an advertising agent. Under that scheme we brought excellent people from Scotland, placed them in parts of this country for which they were unsuited and, as we

prophesied at the time, they have returned to the old country dissatisfied. That is the sort of advertising we will get from them.
Then the Prime Minister said that this present minister possessed certain qualifications, and that we on this side of the house were dissatisfied with him because he had moved across to the other side. I do not know that we have any dissatisfaction with the minister because of that; he was more useful to us on this side because he had some criticisms to offer of the government then, while to-day his voice is absolutely silent with regard to the matters which he formerly criticized. Then it was said that he is an immigrant. I would like to know what blood is in any person in the country except old country blood; we are all descended from old country people. Then it was said that the minister had sympathy, but I would like to know where that sympathy can be found. He has driven away the parties who in past years have been the best immigration agencies for this country. He has fallen out with the Salvation Army and has absolutely destroyed their interest and enthusiasm in the settlement of this country. According to their own statement they have transferred their interest from Canada to Australia. The minister has fallen out also with the Anglican church. There was a meeting in Kingston some time ago at which it was said that the slogan of some parties in the old country was "Our trouble is not to get British settlers but to keep them out of Canada.'' For a long time that was disputed, but after a while the minister had to crawl down and admit' that there was some truth in this charge. This church has been one of the best agencies for the settlement of this country, but the minister has done his best to alienate them. The minister has frozen out the Bamardo boy movement. Whether that was good or bad it brought some boys here, and if it brought some bad boys it also brought some good ones. So I can hardly see that the minister has that qualification of sympathy which was ascribed to him last night.


An hon. MEMBER:: The McConachie
case.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes; let us consider the McConachie case and try to find where his sympathy was then. The first question the minister will ask me is, "Well, are you in favour of bringing these mental defectives into the country?" I say I am not, but the minister is and has brought mental

Supply-Immigration
defectives into Canada, and I have details of a few cases taken from his own reports. One of them is the case of a mental defective whose condition is said to foe the result of eating tinned food in babyhood. When a medical department or some medical officer can put that over the minister certainly it shows a weakness. Then we have other cases here, to a few of which I would like to refer in order to show that the minister has transs-gressed the laws and regulations of his own department. Here is a case known as J. P., described as constitutional psychopathic inferiority, but given a permit by the minister. Here are two cases of infantilism; they are pretty close to this mongolian type, aged 17 and 14, and both given permits to enter this country. Here is another person described as feeble-minded and illiterate, but the minister issued a permit because there is a doubt as to whether this is a case of mental deficiency or whether the condition is due to lack of educational opportunity. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous? Here is another case, known as H. A., classed as neurasthenic and illiterate, subject to the delusion of being afflicted with various ills. Here is another one, 13 years old, incorrigible in school but allowed to stay in the country because the father is here. Here is another one, 18 years of age, psychopathic inferiority-emotional instability. These are all mental deficiency cases, admittedly so, yet the minister shows his sympathy by permitting them to come into this country.
Now let us consider the McConachie case. As I said before, I am not going to say that these people should be admitted indiscriminately, but when the minister admits grown up people and then refuses to admit a baby I want to say that it shows a want of common sense. By the admission of that McConachie baby he would have admitted also six excellent Canadian citizens. The medical officers say that in this type of infant not 9 per cent reach twenty to twenty-five years of age. It is not an institutional class. The baby has not one chance in a hundred to live, because the condition is a heart one, along with other things, and the first little illness that strikes the child will rob it of its life. It is interesting to know if the minister has shown sympathy, this great qualification of sympathy? No definite cause can be ascribed to the condition. It is not hereditary, but one of the conditions is due to a mother having her children too rapidly. Another condition, as shown by the medical authorities, is due to
some shock on the parents' side. This book by one of the latest authors says that certain of these cases have been found to be the children of soldiers who have gone through the experiences of the war. McConachie was a returned soldier. If there was any sympathy in the minister's make-up, would he issue permits to these grown-ups who could be restrained, and yet separate a baby from its mother? That is a type of cruelty this country cannot understand; it is an absolute want of sympathy. I have asked the minister if he would accept, as he has in many other cases, a bond from reliable people that this child would not be allowed to become a burden or a menace to this country, but I have had no answer from the minister. Under the laws of this country it is a crime for a mother to desert her child, and yet we can by regulations rob a mother of her child. If there was any possibility of a menace in this case, or the possibility of any liability being put upon us, I would say there was some reason in taking a little baby from its mother, but not in the case of a baby who has not got one chance in a hundred of reaching even twelve or fourteen years of age.
But the minister's appointment is not due to these qualificatios of sympathy and service. We all know that the minister was put in this office to fulfil and carry out what has been described as a morganatic alliance. You might say a marriage has been consummated although no pastor officiated. But there is a marriage, and we are told to-day that the union has not been a satisfactory one, and there are symptoms now of dissatisfaction in the household notwithstanding all the medals that have been pinned on him. In other words, Sarah has become old and is non-productive.


Charles A. Stewart: Very funny, isn't it?


Arthur Edward Ross: The result is there is a loss of immigrants; there has been an increase of about eight hundred but it is not an actual increase. This department is the most important one in this country at the present time. I have no fault to find with the subs department, as both the deputy minister and Mr. Fraser have been very reasonable with the two cases I took to them in connection with immigration. I would say that that is where the sympathy lies, in the officials, but on the part of the minister there is an absolute lack of sympathy in meeting these cases.
I really think the department must get back to the sympathy and coordination with
Supply-Immigration

all cases which it had in the past. It is too bad if they have lost the interest and enthusiasm of such a body as the Salvation Army.
I have a little sympathy with what the member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) said yesterday. We cannot make this country attractive to immigrants if we only stick to one or two classes. We bring domestics out here and I know for a fact that a big majority of them stay only to complete their period in Canada and then they are off to the United States. This matter of getting British settlers here is a very important one, but we are not going to draw a great mass of settlers from Great Britain on an agricultural policy alone. Great Britain is becoming more industrial every day and the minute we adopt a policy which will make it possible for industries to be established in this country, we will have a flow of British settlers. They are there and they are ready to come. At present we have the handicap of seasonal employment. In the old days this Ottawa river was alive with men during the winter, as the lumbering business was there in all its ramifications. What has happened? It has gone, but we have the pulpwood industry, and if we had a proper pulpwood policy in this country to-day we would have all these mills on the Canadian side. Whenever you speak of interference with the movement of pulpwood to the United States, that great association known as the Pulp Wood Association is immediately on your trail and threatening all kinds of dire things. We are sending to the United States from eastern Ontario thousands and thousands of cords of pulpwood. For what purpose? Cross the border at a port like Kingston and you immediately see the big pulpwood factories near the town of Watertown. I would point out to the farmers of this country that when we send our natural resources out of the country we also send the best natural resource we have-the boys and girls. When our pulpwood goes over there to build up these mills the boys go over to obtain winter work, and they do not come back.


Mr. WARD:: Does the hon. member know she percentage of pulpwood which is exported from Canada?


Arthur Edward Ross: I cannot say, as I can only speak for my own locality. But if you go to British Columbia to-day you will find a movement of pulpwood from the coast, and not one stick of it is being taken away on Canadian boats. It is bought by the Ameri-
cans and taken away on American bottoms; it goes into American mills and gives employment to Americans, and our Canadian boys must suffer.


John Warwick King: May I interrupt for a moment? My hon. friend is speaking of something he does not know.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know what I am speaking about.


John Warwick King: The law of British Columbia does not permit the exportation of pulpwood or logs except by order in council, and the only grades of pulpwood or logs taken out of British Columbia to the United States market are third! and fourth grade logs that cannot ibe sold) locally.


Arthur Edward Ross: I want to tell the minister I have gone up the coast and I know what the law is.


John Warwick King: I know more about it than the hon. member does.


Arthur Edward Ross: The law is there but they are being exported.


John Warwick King: Only the third and fourth grades.


Arthur Edward Ross: We have stopped this exportation in Ontario, and what is the result? We are getting our factories and work for our own people.


Mr. BRADETTE:: In northern Ontario if the settlers did not have the United States market and had to depend upon the local industry, they would starve to dteath. They have to export and they do export their pulpwood.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is not the only matter in which the hon. member is out of touch with his constituency. He has his mills up there to-day owing to the fact that the exportation of pulpwood has been stopped. That and nothing else has placed the mills in the Abitibi district and elsewhere in new Ontario in the position in which they are to-day. We could have ten mil's in this country, but they are at Watertown and other places in the United States. I am glad in any event that I have raised a little discussion on this subject. If the minister, much as I respect his good) nature and so on, will come with me sometime along the coast of British Columbia, I will show him what I saw going on there in what I consider one of the richest provinces of the Dominion.

Supply-Immigration


John Warwick King: Three great pulp plants.


Arthur Edward Ross: The point is that the United States mills are being built up on Canadian pulpwood and the supply is being drawn from British Columbia.


John Warwick King: Not from British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the percentage?


Arthur Edward Ross: Never mind the percentage or anything else. There is the fact and you must face it. If the government and the minister would face it, he would find that he could draw from the British Isles today thousands of people whom he will not get.


William John Ward: Does the hon. member think he is fair to the committee when he gets up and makes a speech on the question of the export of pulpwood and does not give the committee the percentage of exportation that is taking place? The percentage last year was a little over ten per cent.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: That is ten per cent too much.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is a surplus production of pulpwood in northern Ontario which the local industries cannot absorb. Are the settlers going to destroy or burn that pulpwood, or are they going to be allowed to export it?


Arthur Edward Ross: If the hon. member wants to know the percentage I am sorry I have not got it here; I have it upstairs in my room. He will be able to get it from the Bureau of Statistics. But in any event ten per cent of the pulpwood is a tremendous quantity of our natural resources going out of the country and there is no necessity for it to go out. There would not be a surplus or an excess if these mills were in Canada where they should be. These are our own natural resources.


William John Ward: Would the hon. member suggest that parliament should legislate where I shall sell the pulpwood off land I own myself?


John Frederick Johnston: I think I should point out that a discussion on the exportation of pulpwood is not relevant to the matter before the house.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is absolutely relevant. One of the reasons that have been given for the decrease in immigration is the
lack of seasonal employment. What is the use of making any criticism if you cannot give something constructive? I am pointing out how we might get over the disadvantage that we have in connection with seasonal employment. One thing I was mentioning wa the possibility of building up winter employment in this country if we had our own mills and produced our own paper. The mere fact of the percentage has nothing to do with the matter. I am pointing out what we should do in order to keep more of our people at home, and this is quite relevant to the question of immigration. The Minister of Immigration has said that he has sympathy; that he gives service to his people. The production of commodities in our own country will be an evidence of sympathy and service. I have not by any means gone into the whole question, but I should like to close up the discussion with this summary. The minister's administration is marked not by sympathy but rather by a want of it. He has dissociated himself from those agencies which would provide immigration. He has now established a severe medical examination. I do not know that I would have any great fault with the severe examination; but if you make your examination such that common sense will not be used, then the absence of common sense in dealing with one intending immigrant will absolutely stop and debar hundreds from coming to this country and we will lose the sympathy and enthusiasm which we should have in the old country. Those Scottish people who came over here and were settled should have been placed where they would have been advertisements instead of being permitted to return home and say that they were dissatisfied with conditions in Canada.


Mr. ROBB:: In the closing hours of the session it is apparent that at least those of us who remain within the chamber are going to be entertained with a sniping process directed against the Minister of Immigration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is unfair.


James Alexander Robb: I say those of us who remain within the chamber, because I am satisfied and I imagine most hon. members on both sides of the house are satisfied that the public have lost interest in the attack of the Tory party upon the immigration department and the immigration policy of the government. Early in the session, indeed before the session, the Tory press throughout the country-


Mr. ARTHURS:: The Liberal press-the Globe.
Sup-ply-Immigration


James Alexander Robb: -carried weekly statements that there were irregularities within the Department of Immigration. In fact it was alleged that there was traffic in permits and the government promptly met that statement by giving the house a committee representative of all parties within the house. Hon. gentlemen named their own members of the committee. That committee was given a free hand to subpoena witnesses from wherever they believed they could get the information. The committee sat continuously throughout the session. They brought before them witnesses from all parts of Canada and they had before them officials of the department. Every opportunity was given to make good the charges that had been daily made against the Department of Immigration and what was the result? Yesterday we had presented to us a unanimous report. I am told-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Wesley Edwards: We did not have anything of the kind.


James Alexander Robb: Let me finish my sentence. I am told that some hon. gentlemen made reservations, mental reservations, as to what was in the report.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister is not going to get away with any statement which is not in accordance with the facts. The minister, although he is Minister of Finance, has no special privilege to get up in the house and put over what is not in accordance with the facts.


James Alexander Robb: When I was interrupted by my hon. Mend I was just oomioig to the point that whatever differences of opinion there may have been, whatever mental reservations there may have been, they selected from among themselves a leader, an outstanding gentleman, a statesman from the opposite side who was very prominent in the Winnipeg convention, and demonstrated to the country that he had some following throughout Canada, and this gentleman presented an amendment which appears in Hansard, and in Older to remind the house just what the hon. member did say about all this campaign that was carried on against the department I will read his words. He said:
At the outset I desire to say that after examining some of the witnesses and listening attentively to the examination of others from the department and outside, I came to the clear conclusion that whatever the department may lack in efficiency as it is at present constituted, there can be no reflection upon the honour or honesty of the officials who are administering that department. I also came to the conclusion

that the suspicion created throughout the country with regard to members of parliament trafficking in permits or letters of admission to immigrants from the continental countries of Europe is^ entirely without foundation so far as any evidence was brought before the committee, and so far as I was able to ascertain by personal investigation of some rumours which were brought to my notice.
Who started all these rumours throfl^out the1 country? The very gentlemen opposite who yesterday-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name them.


James Alexander Robb: The press of the country
oarried their names.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Toronto Globe-


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend claim that the Toronto Globe is a supporter of this government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the greatest Liberal newspaper in Canada.


James Alexander Robb: Yesterday hon. gentlemen opposite put up a gentleman from their front benches to say that there was nothing in this campaign that has been carried on. They did not divide the house on their amendment. The motion for the adoption of the committee's report was passed unanimously.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Alexander Robb: Well, some hon. gentlemen
called "On division" but there was no o-ne who had the courage to stand up and demand a vote. Having fallen down yesterday, they start afresh this morning with a sniping process against the Minister of Immigration, although in the words of my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Rose) they have not much fault to find with my colleague except that he now sits on this side of the house instead of to your left, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend admitted that when the present Minister of Immigration sat to the left of the Speaker he was a pretty good fellow, and was useful.
Is it not about- time, now we are in the last days of the session, that we got down to business? If there is any one who has any real charge to make against the department, let him come out in the open and make his chargee. But why this sniping process?
My hon. friend from Kingston emphasized largely that unfortunate MhConachie case. No person knows better than my hon. friend, who is himself a medical practitioner, that the head of the department mudt be guided in such matters by the medical officers, and the medical officers who advise the minister

Supply-Immigration
declared that this infant was not such as might be admitted to Canada under the laws of this country. This federal department has also some responsibility towards the provinces, because the provinces say to us: There are certain people you must not admit into this oountry, because eventually they may become a charge upon the provinces. I venture to say that the province of Ontario, represented by my hon. friend from Kingston, would be one of the first provinces to protest if the government allowed undesirables to come in who eventually might become a charge upon the province.


Arthur Edward Ross: What about these other oases I quoted, cases of grown-ups who were admitted, yet the baby was refused. Explain that.


James Alexander Robb: They may have come in under a limited permit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend in his sniping process against my colleague'-


Arthur Edward Ross: My sniping is done in the open, and the minister knows it. I made my statement openly, and I asked for an explanation. The minister is not going to use any such words as that to me. We had a rolling yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and it was a strong ruling. I am not sniping. I stand out in the open, and make my statement openly, and any statement I make I back up with evidence.


James Alexander Robb: Just let us see that, right now. My hon. friend has charged that the Minister of Immigration of to-day has fallen out with tlhe Salvation Army. I am the minister that fell out with the Salvation Army. That trouble started when I was Minister of Immigration. And why? Because we had complaints from some of the boys brought in by the Salvation Army that the army was taking funds from them contrary to the understanding they had with them.. We sent for Commissioner Lamb. I was Minister of Immigration of that day, and I had an understanding with Commissioner Lamb. I pointed out to him the complaints that were coming in. from some of these boys. W!e did not have any quarrel with Commissioner Lamb. We recognized the great work that he was doing, but we wanted to demonstrate1 to these gentlemen that it was the government of Canada that was carrying on the affairs of this country, and was responsible to the citizens brought into this country, and that if he proposed to continue bringing these immigrante, all he had to do was to observe the regulations laid down by the Department of Immigration. I submit that it is not the government that quarrelled with the army, but it is the army that tried to work this up with the government, and they fell down on it, and I think they themselves recognize that they made a mistake. Why should my hon. friend blame the present Minister of Immigration for my sins? If any person acting on behalf of the Salvation Army has any quarrel, do not take it up with the present Minister of Immigration, because I am the man who is to blame.
I am sorry I have detained the house so long. I simply rose to say that having considered the- report of the immigration committee all day yesterday, a report which was unanimously adopted without anyone dividing the house, why should the business of the house be further delayed by attacks from here, there and the other part, of the house- attacks which I regard as a Tory attempt to work up public opinion against the Department of Immigration, simply continuing the attack that failed during the session and in the committee. Let us now get down to business and vote supply, and go on with the business of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to say to the
Minister of Finance that there will be no voting of supply if he continues to make speeches such as he has now made. I desire to say further to him that if he proposes to make inaccurate statements this house will not continue to vote supply. He said, as a minister of the crown, a few moments ago that there was an unanimous report adopted by the committee on immigration. Such was not the fact ,and it was stated here yesterday that such was not the fact. It is repeated here again to-day that such was not the fact. The minister knows it is not the fact, and he should not continue to make these observations. The Minister of Finance further stated a moment ago that this house unanimously adopted the report yesterday. He knows that it was carried on division, and was so stated. That indicated there were a number of members who did not agree with the report, but that the house did not vote upon it. He knows that is not a new custom. It was carried on by his own government, it was carried on when he was in opposition, and it will be carried on until the end of our parliamentary institutions. A vote was not taken in order to save time. But there will be votes taken before the conclusion of this session, if that is what the Minister of Finance wants. To-day or Saturday, whenever this

Supply-Immigration

session ends, he will have votes on concurrence, on his supply bill. I assure him of that here and now. If that is what he wants, if it is what the Minister of Railways wants, they will both get it.


Mr. DUNNING:: It is better than talk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three times the Minister of Finance used the word] "sniping." What is sniping? It is shooting from ambush or behind cover. The member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) was not sniping.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is always responsible for it, though.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one in this house,
whether minister or private member, can charge the hon. member for Kingston with sniping. Such a charge is absolutely devoid of truth. The member for Kingston charged the Minister of Immigration with dereliction of duty, and gave particulars. Then the Minister of Finance said the merhber was sniping. Does he think it is- going to advance the business of this house to talk about sniping in connection with a charge that is frankly and openly made and that requires an answer, and to which an answer must be given by the head of the department, not by somebody else on his behalf. This capable minister, whose funeral oration was delivered last evening by the Prime Minister, cannot look to the Minister of Finance to make his defence. Let him make his own defence, and let him make his own replies with respect to questions that he is asked. He was asked a reasonable question on supply by a member of this house. Every member is entitled to a reasonable answer with respect to supply. That is the sniping that is charged against the member for Kingston. I say it is unworthy of the Minister of Finance to make such a charge in view of what took place. That is not going to carry estimates in this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, we can stay here
as long as you can. There is no need to threaten.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not threatening.


Charles Avery Dunning: Every word is a threat.


Mr BENNETT:: We are standing on our
constitutional rights, and they are not going to be taken away from us by the Minister of Finance trying to block supply.


Ernest Lapointe: Temperamental.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has favoured me with a few very complimentary sentences since this debate began, and I am going to reply to him in exactly the same tone. I say that both from experience and temperamentally he is not suited to be the leader of a great party. I tell the hon. member that what he has said is very cheap stuff. If I have made mistakes, if I am unable to conduct the business of this department, I want him to tell me in specific terms what are my failures. He has made general statements about a broad vision; great schemes; millions of dollars might be lost; there might be failures-all these general statements he made and then recited them over again. That is the kind of stuff that has been handed out to this house and lauded as broadness of vision, as big ideas that will amount to something. What have I got from that side of the house this session? I came in at the beginning of the session as Minister of Immigration and Colonization, anxious and willing to listen to any suggestion that might be constructive, that might help me to carry on the department to the best advantage of Canada as a whole. At the close of this session, Mr. Chairman, I am without one constructive idea; I have not one thought that will help me in any way to carry on the department to better advantage. But I have got sneers-


Ernest Lapointe: Abuse.


Robert Forke: Yes, and abuse; and I have been told that I am lacking in capacity and ability. I think if my hon. friend will go back to the province of Manitoba he will find that I have made a reputation in that province during the past forty years, that I have done something for the province. I wa-nit to say without egotism that I doubt if there is a man in Manitoba who has played so large a part in the public affaire of that province as I have during the last forty years. I am willing to leave it to the people who know me best, who have known me during" the years of my maturity, to deal with the cheap-sneers about my mentality, and about Sarah! I do not feel that my mental powers are less than they were, and I hope for long years to come to foe able to carry on public business. It seems to me it does not lend dignity to-the house to indulge in that sort of debate. I am willing to take all the blame for the mistakes I have made, but I think hon. members might at least have the decency to observe the amenities in speaking of a man's, private life or his capacity.

Supply-Immigration


Mr. DONNELLY:: Mr. Chairman, a good deal has been said to-day and yesterday concerning the report brought in by the agriculture committee and the statement has been made that it was not unanimous. I sat on the committee and the sub committee and helped to draft the report. There was one portion of it which did not meet with general agreement, and it was carried on division. I want to lay that part before the house. We divided on the advisability of taking up the transportation question with respect to immigrants from the old country, and it was decided that we should recomend the granting of cheap fares to those immigrants up to the teen ages; but when we came to the question of extending the same right to our own people, the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) objected. This was the section upon which we divided, and I wish to place it before the house. It appears on page 8 of the report:
The committee also recommends that measures be taken to ascertain whether the railways will restore the homeseekers' rates in effect prior to the war, making such rates effective eastbound as well as westbound.
In other words, we were to get in touch with the railways and see if we could get cheap rates for Canadians, because otherwise it seemed to us that they were discriminated against. For instance, a man living in Detroit can get 'a cheap rate to western Canada, but if he lives in Windsor he has to pay the full rate. We did not feel it was fair and square to treat Americans better than our own people, and we though we should get the same rate for Canadians who want to go west. That was the only thing on which we asked for a division.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the clause referred to by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Donnelly), he has not correctly represented my abjections to that particular clause. He cannot be ignorant of the reasons I gave, for I not only gave them before the committee and the subcommittee, but in my remarks yesterday I stated very clearly my objection to including that clause in the agreement, or anything in the nature of that clause in the sulbamendment moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. C'ahan). I stated that a reduction of rates to move Canadians from one province to another was not a matter of immigration but of internal business of the country, and that while it was proper for a member to propose it in the house and get the judgment of the house thereon, it should not be taken up by us in the committee as a matter of immigra-56103-2504
tion. I believe I am absolutely logical in taking that ground. I do not think there is any use labouring that point further; I have stated my position on it. I am convinced that my own position is a logical one and if the hon. gentleman is inclined to differ from it, that is his privilege.


Mr. MILLAR:: Was the hon. member for
Willow Bunch correct in saying that that was the only clause to which dissent was taken in the report?


John Wesley Edwards: Not exactly.


John Millar: What other clause?


Mr. COOTE:: I rise to a point of order.
I think it is a well known rule in this house that proceedings in a committee, especially of a meeting which is held in camera, should not afterwards be discussed in this house; at least statements made in that committee should not be used in discussions in the house. I think that is a rule of this house; I ask whether that is correct. Hon. members in considering the matter should not refer, at least in detail, to discussions that took place in committee.


John Wesley Edwards: I have not
done so. I have referred directly to matters in the hands of every hon. member in the house, contained on page 8 of the report of the committee, and referred to in somewhat different language in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I have not gone into details. I can go into details and give my reasons more extensively than I have done, but I have refrained from doing so. I do not see anything to be gained by labouring the point. I have stated my position, which I still believe is a logical one, and I allow others who differ from me to do so.
But I want to make a remark or two in regard to what has been said by the Minister of Finance about sniping. I should think that the Minister of Finance has been long enough a member of the House of Commons, and has had sufficient experience, to try out some new method whereby to have his own- way in this house, rather than to use the old threadbare methods which he has used for so many years. It is a very common practice of the Minister of Finance when he wants to get his estimates through, or the estimates of some other minister, or when he wants to block or prevent as far as possible any criticism of the government, to refer, just as he has done to-day, to the sniping methods of the opposition. I believe he was sitting in the house this morning when the hon. member
Supply-I mmigration

for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) brought to the attention of the Minister of Immigration as well as to that of the government a most shameful condition of affairs in his province. I sat here expecting that the Minister of Immigration would rise and give to that hon. gentleman some satisfaction as to what the government intended to do. But he did not do so. He sat there like a graven image. Not only did he sit there, but the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior, the Prime Minister and these other ministers in the front row thought it was a matter of no concern at all. I presume that in the opinion of the Minister of Finance the information given by the hon. member for West Kootenay, to which he directed the attention of the department, is a species of sniping. We must not refer to anything of that kind because we are sniping, blocking the estimates. He must have included the references made by the hon. member for West Kootenay when he used the word "sniping". Could anything have happened in this house this morning which would justify to a greater extent any reference made to the inefficiency of the Immigration department, of the minister himself and of the government backing that minister, than the fact that what was brought to the attention of this house by the hon. member for West Kootenay was passed over by all the front row galaxy of notables and brilliant intellects of the cabinet?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: Thanks for the ironical cheers. Just think for one moment of what was brought to the attention of the government by the hon. member for West Kootenay-a most disgraceful state of affairs in this country; and not a word of explanation. It was passed over by all this front line of brilliancy and not a word said in explanation. The hon. member for West Kootenay brought to the attention of this government a matter of very great importance and asked what the government were prepared to do, or what they would do along that line. He hinted or intimated to the government that deportation proceedings should be undertaken and he also hinted that the law should be changed, if necessary, in order to give the government the necessary power to send out of the country, no mattter how long they had been here, people who conduct themselves in the manner he indicated. It was not hearsay; the hon. gentleman, as in the case of the hon. member for Kingston, brought the facts to the attention of the department. And when we bring the facts to the attention of the department, we are told by the Minister

of Finance that we are blocking the business of the house; we are engaged in sniping, in calling attention to any deficiencies of the department and of the government. We can stay for the next six months-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: So can we.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, for
the next six months. The government have some of the qualities of the sponge: they can absorb all the bouquets and complimentary references to themselves, but you must not make criticism; otherwise in the opinion of the Minister of Finance, you are sniping the government. You must not do anything of that kind. "Hand us bouquets and we will cover ourselves with the flowers you send us; but don't offer criticism because you are blocking the estimates. You are being unfair to the poor Minister of Immigration if you offer criticism of his estimates".


Robert Forke: The Minister of Immigration can stand it.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
believe the Minister of Immigration takes that position himself. I should be surprised if any man of the Scotch race, to which he belongs, would take that position. The Minister of Immigration did not get up this morning and accuse hon. members of sniping at him because we offered criticism of his department; that remained for the Minister of Finance, following out his usual tactics in this house when he wants his own way. He has been long enough a member to try to work out some new method instead of using the old threadbare methods he has used for some time to a disgusting degree.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
say a word with respect to the complaint registered by my hon. friend from West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) and stated again by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington. Surely both hon. gentlemen have been long enough in the house to know what the law is with respect to lawbreaking. My hon. friend made one statement that is hardly correct. When the direct question was asked by the hon. member for West Kootenay as to whether more Doukhobors would come in, the answer was given, No. With respect to the complaint regarding the conduct of these people in British Columbia, they are citizens of Canada. The Department of the Interior, my hon. friend knows full well, deport people when they are found to have committed any crime calling for deportation, and so recommended by local justices of the peace, when such persons have not been in the country five years.

Supply-Immigration


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Department of Immigration.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; I mean Immigration. Surely that is well known; my hon. friend knows that full well.


John Wesley Edwards: I know it.


Charles A. Stewart: Then why
the complaint that you are not receiving an answer? The situation is purely provincial; but if the individual has been in the country less than five years, in the event of any complaint, inquiries are made by the Department of Immigration and responsibility taken for his deportation.
I do not want to complain of the attitude of any individual of this house, nor do I wish to ward off criticism. Let us have it to the fullest extent; it is helpful. But as a minister in this government I do resent the constant reflections that are made upon the personal ability and mentality of members of the administration. I do resent that, and I want to say most emphatically but without any display of egotism that I think the members of the front row on this side will bear comparison with any member on the opposite side of the house. I have never refused to give an answer to any correct criticism, but I do resent very strongly being credited with not having sufficient mentality to size up any given subject with which I have to deal, and I know every other minister is in the same position. I yant to say to hon. members opposite that that is a favorite pastime of theirs, but. if they will couch their requests in parliamentary language I am sure they will always receive the most courteous treatment and replies from members on this side. May I plead, Mr. Chairman, that the decent amenities of the house receive some attention in that respect? Beyond that I have nothing to say; let us have reasonable and fair questions and they will receive courteous and decent answers.


John Wesley Edwards: Personally
I think the minister should welcome some reflections from this side of the house as to the wonderful mentality of hon. gentlemen opposite, if for no other reason than that a little difference of opinion might make hon. gentlemen opposite a little more humble. I want to ask the minister a question:	He
listened to the case presented by the hon. member for West Kootenay; the Minister of Immigration did not reply, and no one had anything to offer for him. There was hardly a word said.


Charles Avery Dunning: The question relating to his department was answered by the minister.


John Wesley Edwards: The one
question of whether he was favourable to admitting more of these immigrants was answered, and he said he was not.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was the question
affecting his department.


John Wesley Edwards: That was an afterthought. No reply was made by any member of the government to the matter of deportation, which was brought up by the hon. member for West Kootenay. Now I want to ask the Minister of the Interior this question:	In view of the representation
made by the hon. member for West Kootenay and in view of the disclosures he made this morning, does not the minister think some change should be made in our laws with regard to deportation which would enable the government of Canada to deal with cases such as that mentioned by the hon. member for West Kootenay even after the five year term has expired?


Charles Avery Dunning: You must have a place
to send them.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
care where you send them.


Robert Forke: These people came here in
1903.


John Wesley Edwards: Hon. members will remember that in the debate yesterday we were told that we were not giving these foreigners a fair show because we were imposing our ideas upon them. For Gods sake let us impose some ideas upon people of that stamp, because the hon. member for West Kootenay is absolutely right. We should apologize to ordinary four-legged animals if we made any comparison as between them and those people to whom the hon. member especially referred. I say there is something wrong with our system of government if we have not the necessary machinery to put people of that class out of this country, even if they have been here for a longer period than five years.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will arrange for a domicile longer than five years he will find his question easily answered, but my hon. friend knows that if ahy individual residing in a province breaks the common law of the province, then the provincial authorities take control. That has happened with the Doukhobors previously: t.hev were arrested for travelling about naked
Supply-Immigration

in British Columbia, and tihey were restrained in the province of Saskatchewan. All these things are unfortunate, but these people are citizens of our country and must be amenable to our common law. If that common law is not sufficiently strong to deal with cases of this kind then let us amend it, but when the answer is made to the direct question and the statement made that no more of these people will be admitted, the Department of Immigration has gone the full length in that respect. These people are here and they are citizens of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are they naturalized?


Charles A. Stewart: They have
been here for a greater period than five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But are they naturalized?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
I know many of them are naturalized. I am not aware whether or not these particular people under discussion are naturalized, but as a matter of fact my hon. friend knows very well that they cannot be deported to their own country after they have been here that length of time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes they can, if they are not naturalized.


Robert Forke: The great majority of these people came here in 1903;* they now have children twenty years of age who were bom in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but I was trying to ask the minister if he knows whether or not these people are naturalized. I must confess that I do not know; at one time my information was that they declined to become naturalized.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Milton Neil Campbell: I think probably fourfifths would be non-community Doukhobors.


Charles Avery Dunning: And that means that
they have reached that stage in their assimilation of our Canadian citizenship. The independent Doukhobor does apply for naturalization, and with respect to those people naturalization has been going on for years. As bo the proportion naturalized I am not able to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it correct to say that
the so-called fanatics, not using that word offensively at all, do not become naturalized? That was my information.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think perhaps my hon. friend may be right with respect to that, but I remember that on a previous occasion I had reason to look into the matter of deportation, and of course immediately the question arose having regard to the changes which have taken place in the country from which they came. I do not believe that in the last few years we have succeeded in deportation proceedings with respect to people who came from that country a good many yearn ago, although they are not naturalized citizens of Canada. However, I really rose to speak in fairness to the great body of Doukhobors, because I know they are really assimilating Canadian citizenship; they are becoming good Canadian citizens and their children are attending the public schools. As far as the principles of their religion go,
I believe they would compare favourably with any others.


John Wesley Edwards: I should
think they would remain nationals of their own country until they became naturalized citizens of Canada.


William Kemble Esling: I was very particular to
confine my request as to deportation, or as to some other means of controlling these people, to the radical fanatics. I made no reference at all to the community as a whole except to say that there was a very extensive community of industrious Doukhobors. My references were to the religious fanatics who to-day are offending the public by exhibitions

Supply-Immigration
of absolute nakedness. In order to bring this right home, I would like to know what the Prime Minister would think if he went into his garden in the morning to pick some pansies or violets and was confronted by six naked Doukhobors.


John Warwick King: I would send
for my hon. friends the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Progressive party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There would be a riot
if you overlooked your own supporters.


William Kemble Esling: You may treat this matter
with all the humour you wish, but I want to say that the home and the sanctity of his surroundings are just as dear to the settler in West Kootenay as they are to the Prime Minister. You might just as well say that your wives and children are to be offended by the exhibition of Doukhobors on these Ottawa driveways. These factions to whom I have referred are just a fraction of the community, but they are in the habit of going on these rs.mpages.
I do not want to be too pors,stent in bringing this matter to the attention of the Minister of Immigration, and perhaps I should address my remarks to the Minister of Justice or to the Prime Minister. I would ask them if the government will not take some means of controlling these fanatics who are offending the general public. Some of these people are naluralized, but not many of 'hem. and I know just as well as the Minister of the Interior knows that the province is responsible for the enforcement of the law. B ;* this government should share that responsibility, because they brought these people into the country under c.'tain coalitions, such as exempting them from military service. They not only brought them here but they bonused them to come here. We talk about undesirables being sent out of the country. Suiely this fanatical faction would come in that category, when they stand on the street corners and openly defy the laws of Canada. You can look at any of our local papers issued during the last three weeks and you will see the situation which now- exists. I ask the government if they will not take steps to remedy this situation. I do not say it should be by immediate deportation if the legality of such proceeding is questioned, but I would ask if the immigration laws could not be amended to provide for deportation or some other means of controlling this radical faction of Doukhobors who are offensive to everybody.
This is a serious matter, and I am not going to be shouted down. The people of West Kootenay want to know if this government is going to take any action to control these radical fanatics.


Mr. SPENCE:: It has been said that a
great deal of time has been lost in discussing this problem, but I think the government brought it upon itself when the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) asked the Minister of Immigration certain questions. He proceeded to explain how these Doukhobors went around naked and so on, and it was the duty of the Minister of Justice or even the Prime Minister to get up and give the hon. member for West Kootenay some assurance that some drastic measures would be taken to stop the whole thing. There is no use of the government benches blaming our party for this discussion, because they are the ones to blame when they were not frank enough with the hon. member when he asked certain questions.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
from West Kootenay has brought up a matter which has been of interest to the people of British Columbia for many years. My hon. friend did not inform the house' that when Mr. McBride was Premier of British Columbia he had trouble with the Doukhobor settlement. He appointed Mr. Blackmore to examine into that colony, and if my hon. friend will read Mr. Blackmore's report he will find that it was not unfavourable to the Doukhobor settlement in West Kootenay. In addition to that there has been trouble over the burning of schoolhouses, but my hon. friend knows that the late Mr. Oliver, on a visit to Grand Forks, in the area where these so-called fanatics live, definitely stated to the Doukhobors that the laws of Canada would be enforced.


William Kemble Esling: Did I not make my statement clear enough to the minister to convey to him the fact that these are the conditions existing to-day and not three or four years ago?


John Warwick King: These conditions
existed many years ago, but Mr. Oliver stated in the presence of some hundreds of these people that the laws of the province and of the Dominion would be enforced.


William Kemble Esling: But they are not being
enforced to-day.


John Warwick King: The children from these colonies are going to school, and I think the government of British Columbia is effec-
Supply-Immigration

tively dealing with the question. I know that the present premier, who comes from that district, is fully familiar with the situation, and he is endeavouring to bring these people within the laws of the province and the Dominion. It is said that the administration of the law is a provincial matter, but I think these people are being effectively dealt with as far as the provincial government is concerned.
Mr. WOGD3WQRTH: I am very glad that the member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) has definitely limited his statements; it would be' too bad if the impression should go abroad that any large number of the Doukhobor people were of the extreme fanatic type which he has described. I think he must recognize that there are only a few score of these extreme fanatics, and they are separated from the main body of the community, and are living on the outskirts. It is probable that they were responsible for the burning of the schoolhouses. They have been practically excommunicated and are feared by the community Doukhobors themselves.
As the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. King) has just said, anyone who has read the report of Mr. Blackmore of a few years ago, will know that it is there conceded, notwithstanding some allegations that have been made by the merchants of Nelson against these people because they work on a cooperative plan that there is no crime and no poverty existing among them. The majority of them are not even members of the community organization, and are gradually fitting themselves into our life in every way.
I recall being present at a conference of young Doukhobor people held in central Saskatchewan just three years ago. They were meeting together to consider how they could best take their places in our Canadian life. The leader of that conference was a lawyer of Saskatoon, a Doukhobor and a graduate of Saskatchewan university. The thirty or forty young people who were present were all high school, normal school or university students. So far as I could see they were indistinguishable from any similar group of young Canadian people. One of the leaders at that conference was a gentleman from Philadelphia belonging to the Society of Friends, and the conversations and discussions were of the most earnest character. As I have said, I think it would be most unfortunate if the impression should go out that anything like a large proportion of these people were fanatics. In many ways they are among the
[Mr. J. H. King.J
very best people we have whether they live in Saskatchewan or Alberta, where a few of them are located, or out in British Columbia.


Milton Neil Campbell: I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. Perhaps a word or two as to the origin of the Doukhobor sect and as to what they believe in might not be out of place at this time. The Doukhobors as they came to Canada were followers of Count Tolstoi. As most hon. members are aware, Tolstoi took Christ's teaching literally; he accepted literally and actually what Christ said, and he believed that it should be followed in a practical way not only on Sunday but in daily life. The result was the building up of a system or community which is referred to as Christian communism. They believe in non-resistance; they accept absolutely and literally the command "Thou shalt not kill". Some twenty-five years ago I had my first contact with this sect when I was shooting ducks on a slough in northern Saskatchewan. After I had been successful in bagging two or three ducks I heard a great deal of noise behind me and I found twenty or thirty husky Doukhobors with pitchforks in their hands racing down the hillside. They had left their farm-work and they were after me with righteous indignation because I had killed those ducks. I thought discretion was the better part of valour at that particular time and I got out of there as quickly as possible.
I have seen prairie chicken and wild game of various kinds feeding with domestic chicken in their yards in the villages, because those wild creatures very soon came to know that they were perfectly safe there. That was the basis of their belief. Under no circumstances would they touch meat. Under no circumstances would they drink intoxicating liquor or smoke tobacco. I have never seen anywhere in my life a better example of a really Christian community than I have seen in those Doukhobor villages. They were people of meticulously clean habits; they were moral to the extreme. Certainly they had some ideas to which we could not subscribe, but on the whole they were the very finest and best types of citizens and we never could find any fault with the Doukhobor communities.
Later on there came a stage where the communities started to break up and some of their young men were becoming Canadians. That is, they learned some of the habits of the Canadian boys, such as playing poker, drinking whisky and smoking tobacco. Some of them are quite Canadianized now. The

Supply-I mmigration
larger number, I would say about eighty per cent of those in Saskatchewan, have now left the community and they are out on their own farms. Most of them have taken out naturalization papers. The other small number left in the communities are still carrying on in very much the same way as they did twenty-five years ago. There was in Saskatchewan about twenty or twenty-five years ago a number of this fanatical section to which the hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) refers, and I remember, and I presume a good many hon. members will recall the time, when we had to marshal almost all the mounted police who were then on duty in Saskatchewan to follow a number of these men and women who had gone on a trek looking for the Messiah and fore-warning the country. They were finally taken back. They were forced to wear their clothes and after serving a term in gaol they went back to their villages. After that there was no further trouble in Saskatchewan. As regards the older section, those who are still1 living in the communities	object in .many	ways	to	oureducational institutions, but those who have left the communities certainly have no such objection. They have no prejudice against our institutions or against our language. The children are to-day learning the English language in	our schools and	many	of	theyoung men	and women are	going	to	ouruniversities.	I say, with the	hon.	memberfor Winnipeg North Centre, it	would be	unfortunate if the impression went out that this condition was general.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Gibson Coote: I hesitate to take any time
of the committee at this stage, but certainly during the debate things have been said to which I should like to refer and particularly the statement which has been made so often that the committee on agriculture and colonization were entirely unanimous in regard to the report. It is impossible to secure unanimity of opinion among forty members of the house on a matter such as immigration. I do not suppose there is any subject which comes before the house on which such a variety of opinion is held by members. The committee had to make a report to the house and the report which is made, I think, comes nearest to being something that could be passed by the committee. It is arrived at as a compromise amongst the different members of the committee. Many of us agreed to the passing of the report with several mental reservations. Speaking for myself, if I had had my way the committee would have reported against further assisted immigration of any kind, including assisted passages or free passages for boys, domestic servants or agricultural workers. My opinion is that the majority of the committee are in favour of largely cutting out assisted immigration, but this is not contained in the report and so I will not say anything further about it.
The attitude of the organized farmers in Canada will be found in the evidence of the committee. I am not going to read it here, but I will read just a few sentences from a letter which I have received from the secretary of the United Farmers of Saskatchewan. He writes:
We are opposed to the idea of the bringing in of immigrants purely for the purpose of settling up our vacant lands in order to provide revenue for transportation companies and pay an exorbitant toll to eastern industries.
I am opposed to the committee embarking upon any more colonization schemes. Our experience in the soldier land settlement scheme should convince us of the wisdom of leaving those things very much alone. Personally I should not like to see another dollar put into them. If we could forget about immigration and endeavour to make conditions right in this country, make them such that our people would find it advantageous to stay here, it would not be very long until our chief concern regarding immigration would be to have a very efficient medical inspection system which would keep out the undesirables.
I should like to remind the committee of some remarks I made last week in regard to the insufficient salaries which we are paying to men engaged in research and scientific work in Canada. Since I made those remarks I have received from a friend in Ontario a letter telling me about meeting in Washington a man who was at one time in the government service of this country. That gentleman is now engaged in the United States civil service at double the salary he was earning here. He said to this friend of mine:
Tell the people at home not to be crediting this country's progress so much to the immense amount of money it controls, but to the intelligence with which it is dealing with many of its problems.
I should like to take the opportunity of telling this to the people of Canada. If we would spend as much money on scientific agriculture and scientific research in many other lines as we spend on immigration, we would get much better results. The United States, which has received more immigration than any country we have any record of, at least in modern times, never spent one dollar on im-
Supply-Immigration

migration propaganda. The only money it spends on immigration is for the examination of immigrants who come voluntarily. I should like to see in future this country lay the emphasis on quality rather than quantity. While I am on my feet I should like to suggest that the government, through the Department of Immigration, should be the sole agency for the issuing of propaganda and for the securing of immigrants who are brought to this country. I hope that cooperation with the provinces will be secured; that the provinces will place their requests for immigrants with the federal Department of Immigration, and that they shall be secured through the agency of that department alone. All grants to immigration aid societies should be absolutely discontinued.
I should like very briefly to bring to the attention of the committee the case of a family brought into Canada by the Scottish Immigrant Aid Society, a society which I believe is to receive a grant from the government this year. This man and his family were brought from some place in Ireland. They were, to use an expression which I have seen in the press, dumped off at Pincher Station, Alberta. The man was supposed to go to work for a farmer in that district but the farmer when communicated with said that he had agreed to take a hired man and not a man with seven children. This man and his family became a charge upon the community but following communication by the municipal authorities with the Scottish Immigrant Aid Society that organization have more or less cared for them. According to the statement of the society the family has already cost them $800. I am now advised by the rural municipality in that district that they have had to guarantee the doctor's bill, amounting to $62, and the funeral expenses amounting to $75 of this man's wife, who has unfortunately died since coming to this country. The man himself finally asked for deportation but the department would not agree to that. I think they have made a great mistake. Six out of seven of the children have been reported upon by the local doctors as being medically unfit and they are sooner or later going to become a charge upon somebody in that province. Somebody will have to be responsible for them. One child was in the hospital I think for two months. This may be an isolated case, but it is not the only one and cases like this should convince us of the wisdom of confining all immigration activities to our own department. If the department will take that attitude I will do anything I can to support them in that policy. I do not believe in granting money, to the Scottish Immigrant Aid Society, the Salvation

Army, or any other society engaged in immigration work. If these people want to continue their immigration activities I do not suppose we can stop them, but it is not a proper policy for the government to take money out of the public treasury and give it to these people to assist immigrants in whom they have some particular interest. I should like to see the government give the Salvation Army in Canada a grant, because they are doing splendid work amongst the destitute people of this country, but I do not think we should give them a grant to go out and bring to us more people many of whom, I am sure, will become to some extent a charge upon the country. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the committee.


Mr. STEVENS:: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: I am glad to hear that "hear, hear", from hon. gentlemen who consumed a day and a half-


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; most of the talk
was over there.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to quote to the committee the concluding portion of an address by Premier Stanley Baldwin which he delivered in London, England, shortly after he returned from his visit to Canada last year. He said:
Canada has an enormous future and, if it be not impertinent to say so to Canadians, I would say: The future is with you; do not be in too much of a hurry. Your country is a country for virile races. Quality before quantity any day. Build , up with the best. What does it matter if it is_ a hundred years or more before your country is full? Keep the stock you have, and the men and women you have, and see to it that the coming generations are in no whit inferior to them, i have often thought that it is a dangerous thing to the morale of a nation to get rich quickly, as it is to an individual. Time is on your side. Maintain the values; maintain the standards; and may the prayer of Canada always be the prayer of the Greek sailor, which has been preserved for us by Seneca: "God, you may save me if you will; you may sink me if yoli will; but whatever happens, I will always keep my rudder true."
I think our policy should be to make Canada a land which her own people will love and in which they may prosper. If we would lay that down as our policy and forget about, the securing of immigrants I think we would be far more successful even in attracting the right kind of immigrants than is possible under the present policy of pumping ;n immigrants, regardless of the nature of the propaganda or the expense that is necessary to secure them.

Supply-Immigration


Mr. JACOBS:: I would remind my hon.
friend that the only people in this country who are not immigrants or the descendants of immigrants are Indians.


George Gibson Coote: I agree with my hon. friend. I am not objecting to immigrants, but the people who came here and built up this country did not have their passage paid; they came here of their own free will.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the observations of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) this morning. Had he taken the trouble to recall my remarks he would realize that I spoke in the very highest terms of his character, of his integrity and of his worth. I could not, had I been his warmest friend, have spoken in any higher terms of praise. But I conceive it to be the right of those who are in parliament, as it had been the right for centuries in England, to discuss the qualifications of any minister for a particular post. I took the trouble during recess to peruse the observations made in the British House of Commons with respect to a certain judge of the high court in connection with the discharge of his duties. I find that the present Lord Buokmaster spoke of the learned judge as having been guilty of folly and referred to his qualifications to discharge his duties. I find also that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman dealt with the matter in much the same way. It would be a sorry day for this parliament if the great traditions and practice of the mother of parliaments to discuss the qualifications of ministers to discharge the duties of their office were no longer to be honoured by those who sit either to your right or your left, Mr. Chairman. Those who recall the language used by Lord Randolph Churchill in discussing so great a man as Mr. Gladstone are aware tha(; on more than one occasion he employed some very strong terms.


Charles Avery Dunning: But even by Churchill's
friends his language was not generally considered to be creditable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not referring tr
what he said on the hustings, but to the language he used in the House of Commons, language very much stronger than my criticism of the Minister of Immigration. I discussed-and as long as I have a seat in this house I propose to discuss-to the best of my ability what I conceived to be the fitness of the hon. minister to perform the duties of his office. If I am ever charged with ministerial responsibility I shall expect the same
measure of criticism from my opponents; I shall ask for no different treatment in that regard than that which I myself give. It is surely certain that a man eminent for his abilities in a certain walk of life may find himself in a public position for which he is entirely unfitted. For example, a man may be a great surgeon, but it does not follow that he is thereby fitted' to be a great home secretary; or he tnay be a very able lawyer and yet lacking the ability to become a great chancellor of the exchequer. His training, his environment, his attitude of mind)-all these things may wholly unfit him to hold a portfolio, and it is the duty of members of the House of Commons to be free and frank in their criticism of such a minister. My hon. friend was wholly opposed to the long traditions and history of parliament when he said that the members of this house have no right to discuss in any terms they please the aptitude of a minister to discharge the duties of his office. If an imbecile were placed in a position of trust as a minister of the crown every member would have the right to discuss and criticize the appointment. If some man, wholly unfitted in every possible way for the discharge of ministerial duties, is given a portfolio of which he knows nothing, we have a perfect right to discuss that, although he may be a most desirable citizen and a man of eminent attainments. While the minister we have discussed is a man of the highest character, a man of unquestioned integrity, a man who has made a very great contribution to the life of western Canada, it does not follow that he is fitted to discharge the high duties of the head of the Immigration department, or to give it that lead which is necessary for it to succeed. His complaint of a lack of suggestions from this house but accentuates our contention that leadership should come from the head of the department, and not be forced upon him by the members of the house, who, as they sit to your right, sir, support all the measures of the government, and who, as they are members of the opposition, support those measures which they deem desirable, and frankly criticize other measures which in their opinion are not in the public interest.
That is the position I desire to make clear, Mr. Chairman. I am very certain that if the hon. gentleman will be good enough to refer to Hansard he will observe that no better or higher tribute to his sterling worth, to his qualities of heart, to his high sense of duty, to his known integrity and character, could have been paid him than my tribute yester-
Supply-Immigration

day. But that will not deter me from fearlessly criticizing his fitness to discharge the duties which he undertook when he became the head of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.


Mr. LUCAS:: Who is responsible for the
newly arrived immigrant who becomes a public charge on the community?


Robert Forke: There is no other provision but deportation.


William Thomas Lucas: But before deportation who
would be responsible?


Robert Forke: The local authorities. As
reeve of a western municipality for twenty years I know all about that trouble.


William Thomas Lucas: Does the minister really
think that is a fair burden to impose on the municipality? In my view that is one of the things that in western Canada creates public opinion against further immigration. A few days ago I received a letter from a gentleman at Killam, in which he says:
I am writing to obtain a little information from you if it won't put you to too much trouble.
I am secretary of the local colonization board formed by the C.P.R. to look after the immigrants arriving and to find them work with the farmers.
Then he gives the name of a newly arrived Scotchman and continues:
He arrived here in April with very little money in his pocket, and engaged with a farmer. About ten days ago the man took sick with pneumonia and was brought to the local hospital for attention. He was in a delirious state and dangerously sick, and still is, his chief mental worry being that he had not the means to pay the expenses of the hospital and doctor. The doctor rang me up to ask who was responsible for this man's hospital bill. The farmer disclaimed responsibility, also the C.P.R. immigration department, and also the municipality.
A few days later another immigrant, from Czechoslovakia came into the hospital sick with pneumonia and with no money. Their expenses will probably amount to $200 and $100 respectively.
This amount, Mr. Chairman, is saddled on the hospital in that instance. While someone might have to bear the expense I do not think it should rest on the hospitals in these various communities. Under the present system the municipalities are not responsible for the care of immigrants until they are three months resident in the district, and some provision should be made whereby the party which brings immigrants into the country should be responsible up to that time anyhow.


Robert Forke: I admit the hardship that is imposed on municipalities in cases of that kind. There is however, one aspect of the matter that might be taken into consideration. A great many of these immigrants add to the wealth and prosperity of the community, and that must be borne in mind. I admit at the same time that there is a hardship. This very morning I was discussing the problem with my deputy and wondering whether some scheme could not be devised to overcome such difficulties. I cannot exactly see daylight at the present time. Going back probably twenty-five or thirty years ago, I had a good deal to do with hospitals in the province of Manitoba, in Winnipeg particularly, where an effort was made to devise some method of financing, and I can well remember that this was one of the problems considered then. We do not yet seem to have solved it. I realize the difficulty, and if we can possibly find some way out we shall do so. We have discussed the question along the lines of boy immigration, wondering whether we could not adopt some method of the boys themselves paying into a fund and creating resources to take care of sickness and hospital treatment. I can assure my hon. friend that we will look into the matter with a view to finding some solution.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Should not some item,
say $2,000, be placed in the estimates to take care of immigrants who become destitute after having been brought in by the federal government?


William Thomas Lucas: Surely the organization that
brings immigrants in should bear some responsibility in the matter. The Canadian Pacific brings in people and throws them on the public, and in many cases they are saddled on the municipal hospitals. It is not fair.


Robert Forke: That is along the line of
our discussion: we have been trying to see whether something cannot be done in that direction.


Robert Gardiner: Take the case of an
immigrant who goes to one of the provinces and becomes a charge on the hospital in the municipality. The doctor performs an operation and thereafter he is deported. In view of the fact that the provincial governments are not responsible and the 'municipality cannot be responsible for any immigrant until after three months' residence, who will take care of such a situation?

Supply-Immigration


Robert Forke: The hospitals are subsidized by the government and by the municipalities, and of course such losses will occur. I know that these problems are difficult to solve, but it must be borne in mind that all hospitals are subsidized to a certain extent both by the municipalities and by the government.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Not by the federal government.


Robert Gardiner: I have in mind a case
that came to my attention recently. A small hospital in a small town was run by a certain doctor. It received a grant from the provincial government for every patient therein treated. That grant amounts to 50 cents per day, whereas the hospital charges, bed and so forth, amount to $3.50 per day. That does not take into account the doctor's bill for attendance on that particular patient. The minister can appreciate the situation. I should think that after thirty years, as he says, some policy should be found by the department of the federal government to take care of a situation of that description. Can the minister give us an assurance that the matter will be dealt with? In my judgment it should be dealt with immediately; we should not wait for another thirty years to elapse.


Robert Forke: I am afraid I am unable
offhand to offer any real solution for the problem. I do not think however that the hospitals incur very extensive losses in this regard. I admit that hardships occur occasionally, and perhaps the difficulty is greater in the case of smaller hospitals where the income is small, and where a large bill is incurred. But it is not a serious thing. I admit it is unjust; it is not right; and I can only promise that we will do the best we can to solve the problem. I have no solution to offer at the present time.


Robert Gardiner: The matter is more
serious ini connection with the small hospitals than the minister supposes. There is no question, about that. What will be the position of immigrants brought into the country after undergoing a medical examination by the doctors of the department? After such an examination they contract say, appendicitis, something that could not be foreseen. Surely you would not. expect the small hospitals and the doctors to do that work for nothing?


John Warwick King: They are doing it every day among our own people.


Robert Gardiner: Because the federal
government will not accept responsibility; that is why they do it.


John Warwick King: They do it every day among our own people.


Robert Gardiner: I am thinking of the small hospitals; it takes them all their time to keep going. The condition in western Canada, in the rural districts, is different from what it is in eastern Canada. These hospitals oannot afford to handle cases for nothing, because they have not the means; therefore it is incumbent upon the department to devise ways and means to take care of that situation.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is unduly alarmed about that aspect of the situation. Can the Department of Immigration be responsible for every immigrant who becomes a public charge? I trust there are not such a great number after all, although there will always be a certain percentage who through some unforunate circumstance will be taken ill and be unable to pay doctors' and hospital bills. But they do not become citizens until they have been five years in the country. My hon. friend will admit at once that the hospitalization and the care of the sick is a matter that is pretty well taken care of by provincial legislation. There is in our own province, from which both he and I come, an arrangement whereby if an individual moves from one municipality to another and is indigent his hospital and professional bills are charged to the municipality in which he resides. It is quite true that in the case of an immigrant who has not been long domiciled it is somewhat difficult to collect. But in that event, unless the man leaves the province, there is always recourse against him for the debt, and it can be collected. The federal government have no machinery of that character. I would suggest that the department give some attention to the case where a. man moves out of the province and there can be no recourse against him; when he is cured and is able to earn a salary on which the province or the municipal authorities can collect, something should be done.. There is merit in such a case. But after having given the matter some consideration I must confess that, as regards the others, it is pretty difficult to devise a scheme to take care of the situation through federal agency.


Robert Gardiner: The only class of case to which I have reference is the case where a person has not been resident in the municipality three months. The Minister of the
Supply-Immigration

Interior knows that in the province of Alberta the municipality is not responsible for the condition of immigrants until such time as they have resided three months. It is only in reference to immigrants who have not resided three months that I am speaking I am satisfied that $4,000 or $5,000 placed in the estimates would take care of all cases that might occur. It is not a great deal and it is exasperating that the small hospitals and doctors in small towns should have to suffer without any recourse.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not denying the hardship, but I say it is a difficult problem for a federal department of immigration and I do see the merit of the suggestion in a case where the province or the municipality is unable to follow up and collect. But as the individual usually remains in the locality or in the province, these local authorities have the best means in the world to recover. In cases where the individual leaves the province I can see the difficulty, and I would be willing to admit it in the case of a man who had not been in the country for three months.


Robert Gardiner: That is all I am contending.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I may tell the minister that I have a bill of some $700 for hospital treatment of Czechoslovakians, incurred in the Calgary civic hospital.


Mr. SPENCER:: I would like to ask the minister one or two questions with regard to the medical inspection of intending immigrants in Great Britain. I think this inspection is a forward step, but there are a number of things being said with regard to these examinations. I would ask the minister to give the committee a short outline of the procedure followed.


Robert Forke: Perhaps the Minister of Health might better do that.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the Minister of Health give me that information?


John Warwick King: The medical men overseas are instructed under the Immigration Act to examine the physical and mental qualities of proposed immigrants to ascertain whether or not they are mentally and physically sound and to report. If it is found that the applicant is not of normal mentality, the examiner will so report, and then it is within the judgment of the immigration authorities whether such immigrant shall be admitted. If the applicant suffers from some physical defect the medical examiner will so report.
I think that is all there is to it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Have the doctors any authority to catechize the would-be immigrant as to what he is going to do, to what place he is going, or what religion he may profess?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister be prepared to say that is not done?


John Warwick King: I would be quite satisfied to say that; we are only interested in their physical and mental condition.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Then if these questions were asked, the medical examiners would be hauled over the coals for so doing?


John Warwick King: Certainly. I do not know the particular case to which my hon. friend refers, but such an examination would be very much the same as that given any patient by a physician in his office, to ascertain whether he is sound. Iif the applicant were sound he would be so reported, and if not the report would be made accordingly. I do not quite see what my hon. friend has in mind.


Robert Gardiner: Is there anything on any form which has to be signed by the applicant which asks him to state his religious belief?


John Warwick King: Not as far as the medical examination is concerned.


Robert Gardiner: I have had some complaints that that was done by some of the medical examiners in the old country.


John Warwick King: I would be very much surprised if that is so, because there is no form of that kind.


Mr. QUINN:: I want to say a word or two just following up the remarks made this morning by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). I am not very much impressed by the wonderful tributes paid the Minister of Immigration and Colonization by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of the Interior, by the Minister of Railways and by other hon. gentlemen on the front benches. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister or any other minister has said, the Minister of Immigration is held up to the judgment not only of the parliament of Canada but of the people of Canada because of his treatment of the McConachie child.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
'Mr. QUINN: Hon. members opposite do' not like that. I am not going into the details; I am not going to review the McConachie case because it is well known, not

Supply-Immigration
only in Canada but in other parts of the empire. However, I want to tell the Minister of Immigration that I will criticize him just so long as he ignores me as a member of parliament and so long as he ignores this parliament when we ask him for information with regard to the department under his control. Personally I have asked the minister on three different occasions to tell me what the department intended to do with the Mc-Conachie family, but parliament has been ignored by the minister, who has not yet made any statement. I hold in my hand a copy of the Halifax Chronicle, a Liberal paper, and I find the headline:
Government to Aid McConaehie Family Re-union.
That is misleading from the very beginning, because the family are not being re-united, although it is true that the mother is being brought back to Canada. The department never had cause to deport her; she was here, but the child was deported and naturally the mother went, back to Scotland with the child. I will just read a few lines from the article:
The federal Department of Immigration and Colonization, of which Hon. Robert Forke is the minister, has decided to give some assistance to Mrs. Patrick McConaehie, now in Scotland, who leaves in a short time to join her husband and family, now in Glace Bay.
Then it goes on to tell about the child being refused admission to Canada, and proceeds:
The following is an extract from a letter received, this morning, by Mr. Currie, from Mr. Forke's secretary, regarding the department's view of the matter.
"With regard to the matter of the cost of transportation, whilst of course this department cannot accept responsibility for the conditions which resulted in the rejection and return to the British Isles of Mrs. McConaehie and her child, yet we very fully appreciate the hardship and embarrassment which resulted from the rejection, and after consultation with the minister I am pleased to be able to inform you that this department, in view of all the circumstances, and without the action taken being considered as a precedent, is prepared to bear the cost of ocean transportation of Mrs. McConaehie."
Another item with regard to this family appeared in the same paper under date of May 7, which states:
The letter from Mrs. McConaehie stated that the child was much improved in health and pending arrangements for her admission she will remain in the care of an aunt while Mrs. McConaehie will come to Glace Bay as soon as arrangements can be completed.
That was what I found fault with when I first brought this matter to the attention of the house. During the discussion with regard to this department in the committee
on agriculture and colonization the deputy minister stated that some 3,060 special permits were granted to members of parliament and others for the admission of immigrants to this country. My name was not on the list.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hurrah.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am not boasting about it; I applied for a permit but my request was not granted, and I claim that this was an instance where the good judgment of the minister could have been displayed. Stating the reasons by telegram and letter, I protested against the deportation of that child, and I still protest; I say the child should have been admitted to the country notwithstanding the regulations of the Department of Immigration, the Department of Health or any other department. McConaehie is a British subject; he fought for his country and was here for eighteen months before this happened, and he is justly entitled to that consideration which should be given any British subject or any Canadian citizen. I asked for a special permit to admit the child at least temporarily, and if the department saw fit to deport it later on, well and good. The family would have been perfectly satisfied with that. But that did not happen.
My next complaint is that while we have asked for a statement from the minister, it has never been granted. But the minister, or his secretary, wrote a letter to the defeated candidate in South Cape Breton, a Mr. L. D. Currie, and gave him all the information with regard to the decision of the department. I protest against such treatment.
I do not wish to detain the committee any longer, but I want to take advantage of this vote again to register my protest in regard to the treatment accorded the McConaehie family. I also protest against the treatment which members of parliament receive when they ask the Minister of Immigration for information.


Robert Forke: I do not wish to go over
this McConaehie case again and the circumstances connected with the deportation of the child. Suffice it to say that I could do nothing else on account of the ruling of the Department of Justice. This was not the same kind of permit that might have been granted under different circumstances had the mother applied only as a visitor to Canada. But she came as an immigrant, and the child also came as an immigrant, and, according to the Department of Justice, I had no power to do otherwise. The child automatically had to go back. I have been in communication with Mr. McConaehie and he has no heat in regard to this matter, and does
39G8
Suppl y-I mmigration

not seem to feel hurt at myself or the Department of Immigration. He wrote me a very manly letter, and I replied expressing my sympathy for the hardship and trouble he has undergone. I am sorry that this case has been given such a tremendous amount of publicity. It has been no advantage to the family to have themselves held up before the empire as an example of the hardheartedness of the Immigration department. I would gladly have done anything that could be done to lighten the burden of sorrow that came to this family.
I can assure the hon. member that I have never intended to be discourteous to him, and I am sorry that he thinks I have been. In regard to the offer made to Mrs. McConachie, it was made only in a friendly way. In fact, if the department could not do it, I would be glad to pay her passage out of my own pocket.


Felix Patrick Quinn: There are others who would be willing to do the same thing.


Robert Forke: Mr. Currie called upon the
department as a friend of the family and discussed the whole matter. I hope it is true that the child is improving, but all the medical examinations we have had-I am no medical man and I can only take the findings of the medical officers-go to show that the child will not improve; I hope that will not be the case. I understand the child is to be left on the other side. This was stated to me by Mr. McConachie, and it was thought that the child could possibly be left over there and the mother come back and the family would be reunited. I am led to believe that the child will not suffer from the loss of its mother; it would not understand the difference and no hardship will be caused the child by the loss of its mother.
I am free to confess that this case has caused me a good deal of personal Borrow, because I do not think I am without sympathy, although some of the members on the other side of the house seem to think that is the case. I hope this will be the last of the McConachie case. The publicity it has received in Great Britain has done a good deal of harm, and at times the case has not been properly stated. Only the other day I read a statement by a gentleman from England who said that the child was returned simply because it was suffering from a cold. Some people say they are not afraid of a lie, but I am. It takes a long time to kill an untruth, and I have no doubt that this story has done considerable damage. I am sorry that this trouble should have occurred.

The family has my sympathy. I hope Mr. McConachie and his little boys will become loyal Canadians and forget the trouble they have gome through during the last year.


Mir. GUTHRIE:: While the minister is in a sympathetic humour I want to ask him about a case that has occurred in the city of Guelph. This is not the case of a Scotchman, but of a Welshman. This man lives in Wales, but his mother and children are in Canada, he being a widower. He has always made his own living and supported his own family, but when he wanted to come out here where his mother and children are the authorities say that he is a cripple and cannot come.


Charles A. Stewart: Physical
disability.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. This man has always supported his family. Why not let him come out? I have forgotten'his name for the moment, but I have had a lot of correspondence with the department, and I think in a case of this kind the rules might be relaxed.


Robert Forke: I am taking chances every day along the lines that you suggest.


Hugh Guthrie: Take another.


Robert Forke: I am taking the chance ol some member on the other side of the house saying that I am acting contrary to regulations.


Hugh Guthrie: I will see there will be no criticism if you do it.


Robert Forke: If the case is as you say, we will see t'he man is admitted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration contingencies and general expenses, including grants to immigration societies, women's hostels, provinces, and loans for stock and equipment for Canadian boys, as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $1,300,000.
Robert Gardiner: What grants were made last year to the immigration societies in connection with this vote?


Robert Forke: The only grants made last year were those to the women's hostels. The figures are' as follows:
Halifax	 $ 550
Montreal	 5,500
Toronto	 2,000
Winnipeg	  750
Regina	 1,000
Calgary	 2,500
Vancouver	 350


Robert Gardiner: Does this vote contain any grants to immigration societies? I notice

Supply-Immigration
that the next item also provides for grants to immigration societies. Is this government giving loans for stock and equipment under the British Empire settlement scheme?


Robert Forke: It is not likely any boys
will qualify this year. This scheme is a joint one entered into by the Imperial government, the Dominion government, and the provincial governments, and we are making provision here for loans for stock and equipment in case they may be required this year. The Imperial government, under the scheme, is to loan $1,250, the Dominion government $1,000, and the provincial government, $250, and the boy is supposed to have saved $500 of his own, making a total of $3,000. The loan of $1,000 by the Dominion government will go towards the purchase of stock and equipment and in helping the boy to establish himself on the farm.


Robert Gardiner: Is this a recent arrangement?


Robert Forke: It was entered into last year.


William Thomas Lucas: On page 7 of the details,
there are grants to immigration and colonization societies amounting to $150,000. Would the minister give a statement showing how that money is distributed? It is included in item 56.


Robert Forke: This amount is to cover
the cost of cooperating with the provincial governments in training schools for immigrants, and grants in connection with repatriation and colonization work. The provincial governments who have training centres get a grant of $10 for each boy training at their centres. The province of Ontario, the British Immigration Society in Montreal, and the Manitoba government, are all going into the scheme, for boys between the ages of fourteen and seventeen coming from Great Britain to go on the farm. This amount of $150,000 includes a grant of $50,000 to the Quebec government for repatriation purposes. I might say a few words in explanation of that.
For many years the Department of Immigration made grants to what was known as the repatriation fathers, priests in the province of Quebec who were engaged in the work of going over to the New England states and trying to bring back to this country Canadians who had gone there. Without entering into details, I may say that the department felt that we were not getting adequate returns for the money spent. During the Dominion-provincial conference, I discussed the whole
matter with Premier Taschereau, and he was agreeable to undertaking the work of repatriation if the Dominion government would make a grant on a fifty-fifty basis for the purpose. The provincial government in Quebec has been carrying on this work for some time with very satisfactory results, as anyone who listened to that paragraph about returning Canadians coming to Sherbrooke will readily realize. I think the money is being well spent, and that we are getting adequate returns. Under the arrangement the province of Quebec is to make regular returns to the Department of Immigration, showing the results of their activities.


William Thomas Lucas: This is an increased amount over what you were giving to the repatriation fathers, is it not?


Robert Forke: It is a slight increase, but
I expect that we shall get a great deal more for our money in the way of results. It does not necessarily follow that all this money will be spent. If the province of Quebec spends $50,000 we will spend a like amount; if they spend $40,000, we will spend $40,000. and the continuance of the arrangement will depend upon the results that are obtained.


William Thomas Lucas: Is the government spending
any money on repatriation work generally, apart from this vote?


Robert Forke: We have made the same
proposition to all the provinces. We will do the same for the province of Ontario, for instance. I think the province of New Brunswick has some idea of entering into this scheme and bringing back New Brunswickers. Nova Scotia is also considering it.


William Thomas Lucas: According to the figures in
the last report of the department, that for the year 1927, in the year 1924-25, 43,775 Canadian citizens returned from the United States to Canada; in 1925-26, 47,221; 1926-27, 56,957. This was the result apparently without the spending of any money by this government to bring these people back, whereas in connection with the repatriation work of the repatriation fathers, we have paid on on average in the last four years $36,000 a year, and their report shows that in 1924 they brought back only 333 people; 1925, 383; 1926, 829; 1927, 926, or a total of 2,511 in four years. Yet we are paying them on an average $36,000 a year. It seems to me that we are paying an excessive amount for the work these people are doing.

Supply-Immigration


Robert Forke: In regard to returning Canadians, we have a great many agencies at work other than the repatriation agency in Quebec. We have in the United States eighteen agencies that are engaged, not in repatriation work especially, but in the getting of immigrants, and of course as opportunity arises they will advise Canadians to return home. For the month of April, 3,000 Canadians returned to Canada, the largest in any month for a number of years.


William Thomas Lucas: My idea is that if this
amount of money was spent on immigration efforts in the United States, in getting settlers of any kind, instead of confining our efforts to repatriation work, we would get better results. If I remember rightly, we have only seventeen agencies in the United States, and according to the report, between 40,000 and 50,000 Canadians returned to this country. Whether that is due to the efforts of those agencies or not, I cannot say, but if it is, we are getting much better results for the money spent than from this other agency. Is the province of Quebec the only province that is taking advantage of this new arrangement the minister speaks of?


Robert Forke: I would point out that the
province of Quebec is in somewhat different circumstances from the other provinces. We are spending about $3,000,000 on immigration, and very little of the new immigration goes into the province of Quebec. They are not getting perhaps their fair share of the money expended. They are anxious to get back some of their own people who have left the province, and have gone to the New England states in considerable numbers. With very little encouragement many of these people would come back. We shall not spend the $150,000 unless a like amount is spent by the provinces, and we shall not continue the arrangement unless we get adequate returns from the expenditure. It is an experiment, replacing something that has been in existence for twenty-five years, but of which there was a great deal of criticism. We are simply changing the system in order to do away with the criticism, and we believe that we are giving a fair and square deal to Quebec.


William Thomas Lucas: The minister says that
Quebec is not getting its fair share of the immigration coming to Canada, but I notice that on page 18 of the annual report of the department there is a table of immigration, via ocean ports, for the fiscal year 1926-27, showing occupation, month of arrival, and

destination, and it shows that the maritime provinces are getting the least immigration. Nova Scotia in that year got 1,702; New Brunswick, 911; Prince Edward Island, 125; Quebec, 13,735; Alberta, 11,780; Ontario, 34,000; Manitoba, 35,000; Saskatchewan, 16,000; British Columbia, 8,000. Quebec got more than the province of Alberta. According to these figures Quebec is certainly getting her fair share of the new immigration.


Robert Forke: I do not think that is a
fair inference. If you will look at the figures for Manitoba, for instance, you will find that Manitoba gets more immigrants than Quebec and Saskatchewan combined, but that is simply because large numbers of the immigrants going out to the west go to Winnipeg as the distributing centre, and Manitoba is therefore credited with a great number of immigrants who have no intention of staying in that province. It is the same with Quebec. Quebec is the landing port for a great many immigrants who do not stay in that province, but Quebec gets credited with that number according to the table just quoted by my hon. friend.


Robert Gardiner: Where would be the
landing place of the 34,000 who went to Ontario?


Robert Forke: Different points in Ontario.


Robert Gardiner: Where would they land in the first place, at what Canadian port?


Robert Forke: My hon. friend from Camrose has been quoting from a statement of immigration by ocean ports. You cannot tell from that statement whether the immigrants stayed in any of these provinces. The chances are that those who were booked for Ontario points were going to Ontario, but it does not follow that those who landed in Quebec stayed in that province. It was their landing port.


William Thomas Lucas: It would seem from page
19 of the annual report, which gives a statement of immigration from the United States for the fiscal year 1926-27, that Quebec is getting her fair share. Quebec received 2,907; Ontario, 5,835; Manitoba, 1,290; Saskatchewan, 3,662; Alberta, 4,587. I want to make it plain that I am not objecting to the west getting immigration, but my point is that there has been a great deal of money spent for a certain purpose without getting much in the way of results.


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to congratulate the minister on the work he is carrying on in connection with the repatriation of

Supply-Immigration
Canadians from the United States. This work was originally taken up under the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, carried on all through Sir Wilfrid Laurier's regime, and is being continued to-day by the minister. As the minister very properly said, Quebec is one of the provinces of the Dominion which benefits very little from the new immigration. I have had the honour of representing a constituency in eastern Quebec for thirty years, and I do not know of a single immigrant who has come into that county since I have been its representative. The whole of our immigration is tending towards Ontario and the west. We do not object to that, but there is an intensive feeling in Quebec, and it has existed for thirty years, that we should keep up the work of asking Canadians in the United States to come back to Quebec. The Canadian returning to his native land is already prepared to carry on his work, and to become a good, and perhaps a better citizen.
There is another point in connection with this work upon which I am sorry the oom-mittee on immigration did not dwell very extensively. There has been an extensive campaign carried on in the province of Quebec in the last six months, petitions have been signed all through the parishes, and the French-Canadian press have carried on an enthusiastic campaign, in favour of inducing Frentih-Canadians to go to the west. When Sir George Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald drafted the Manitoba constitution, their cry was then, Go west, young man. That was to stem the exodus to the United States away back in 1872. The only settlement of importance in western Canada at that time was the French-Canadia-n settlement on the banks of the Red river. The Manitoba constitution was made bilingual in the hope that a large surplus from the province of Quebec would follow the trails of t'he oourreurs des bois, La Verendrye, the adventurer, the explorer and discoverer of the old days. Long before the Canadian Pacific railway was ever dreamed of the men of Quebec went into the western country, following the lakes, rivers and portages, and settled that land. They shared in the honours with the Scotdh. The names of La Verendrye and Mackenzie wiil live forever in the history of the west.
Now, there is a feeling in the province of Quebec that if a man is leaving the province we should do everything possible to send him west, and the request that is now being made is that ample facilities should be given to the people of Quebec to go west rather than to the United States, and that to this end we should place them, if possible, on
56103-251J
the same footing as a Britisher or other immigrant from Europe. I know there is a difficulty in transferring the population of Canada from one province to another. That question was discussed many years ago, when Clifford Sifton, the greatest of our Immigration ministers, took up immigration in earnest and opened the great campaign which brought a thousand immigrants a day into western Canada for years and yearns, a movement which reached its climax in 1913. In Quebec we are anxious to keep our people, but if we cannot retain them within the province we should like to keep them in Canada. We try to inculcate in them the idea that Canada is not confined within the boundaries of Quebec, but extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Lately a new district has been opened up in Quebec along the line of the Transcontinental in the Abitibi region. That is but the beginning of a trek which will continue, and if t'he Minister of Immigration wishes to endear himself to the hearts of the people of Quebec, I hope he will! find means not only for bringing people to Canada but to retain those who are already here. Quebec is at the head of the Dominion in increase of population; it is the only province which has a birth rate to boast of. Its government is Betting an example in social and other legislation which is being followed in every other province. Our families are very numerous, in the rural parts there are from ten to twelve children in many families. The farms being small, and devolving to the eldest boy, the other boys have to go elsewhere, and if they cannot go to western Canada they pass over into the United States. Quebec is fast changing from an agricultural to an industrial province The development of our waterpowers north of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa river has transformed the position of affairs, and today Quebec is at the very pinnacle of its prosperity. It is the most prosperous province in the Dominion. If we cannot keep all our people at home, there should be a determined effort on our part to send them west. Those members from western Canada who know the French-Canadian settlers theTe will, I am sure, endorse every word I say. In the French-Canadian you will find no more law-abiding person, no more thoroughly British subject. Freneh-Camadians have stood by British institutions which they regard as their salvation, and for which they will, given the occasion, shed the last drop of their blood, as was said so truly fifty years ago by Sir Etienne Taohe, premier of Canada at the time of confederation.
Supply-Immigration

I am endeavouring to impress upon the committee and upon the Minister ^ of Immigration the great importance of trying to discontinue the trek of our people to the United States by giving them inducements to go west.
I am told it costs about three or four times more now for a man to go from Montreal to western Canada than it does for an immigrant to come from Liverpool or other ports in Europe. This is a tremendous disadvantage. The French-Canadian press of Montreal, the pulpits and the agricultural societies throughout the province sincerely desire to keep our people within the borders of Quebec. If that is not possible we wish at least to keep them within Canada, and we believe by doing so we would render an invaluable service to this country, because the French-Canadian is the most typical of all Canadian types. He is a Canadian pure and simple; there is no other home country for him; his people's relations with France disappeared centuries ago and he would be as much a stranger in France today as a Frenchman from France would be a stranger in Canada. We go to France now and again, but we talk of things that happened three or four hundred years ago. The French-Canadian is rooted in this country, he grows up with it. He has always been loyal to this country, from the modest farmer to the statesman, and he has at all times rendered signal service in critical periods, and we all know to-day that the meteor flag of England flies from the summit of this building because of the action of French-Canadians in 1776- when there were few Britishers in this country
__and in 1812. We desire to remain British,
and we want to take our share in the work of developing western Canada. I know all parties in this house will agree with the distinguished leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in his appreciation of French-Canadians and the value of their influence throughout the Dominion. In his western home he has seen the oldest settlements established by French Canadians, settlements which are progressing to-day and from their colleges are turning out professional men who are taking their part in the public life of the country. I heard him say that the first time he pleaded a case in a western court was before the late Mr. Justice Rouleau, a relative of His Eminence, Cardinal Rouleau. We think we should offer every inducement to our people to go west and thus stop the exodus to the United States. French-Canadians have played a distinguished part across the line. A French-Canadian was governor of the state of Rhode Island, and there are so many of our people over there that they control the vote in many towns and cities, while several have dis-[Mr. Marcil.l
tinguished themselves by entrance to the local legislatures and the senate. But they belong to Canada. They wish to return to Canada, and if the present minister can do anything to assist them to return and go west he will render an invaluable service not only to Quebec but to the whole of Canada.


William Thomas Lucas: I quite agree with what the
hon. member has said with regard to the French-Canadian people being good settlers, but I cannot agree that it would be a sound policy for the government to pay any money to move people from one province to another.
I do not believe that is in any sense an immigration question.


Charles Marcil: We do not expect the
government to do that. All we ask is that relatively the same rates be given to the people of the province of Quebec going to western Canada as are given to immigrants coming from beyond the seas.


William Thomas Lucas: I objected to that clause in
the immigration report because I did not believe it to be sound. At the present day you will find in western Canada a number of men who went out there in the early days believing they were going to make a fortune in a very short time, but they have to work there just the same as anywhere else. There is no more free land, and many of those men have told me that if they could get back to Ontario or eastern Canada they would be very glad to do so. If you establish a low rate to the west there is just as good reason why you should establish a low rate to the east, for those who wish to return from the western provinces. This would result in our people transferring from one part of Canada to the other at the expense of the treasury, and I do not believe such a policy is sound. I wish to make it plain that I am not saying this in any way against the province of Quebec; I wish it to apply to all provinces.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I believe it is under
this item that assistance is given to immigration societies, and it is in regard to certain assistance given to an organization known as the Scottish Immigration Aid Society, operating in Alberta, that I wish to speak for a few moments. The question I wish to ask has reference to some property which this organization holds under lease. The minister will remember that some time ago I asked some questions on the point. In 1923 apparently they received a five-year lease at a nominal rate of $1 per annum for 1,100 acres of land with buildings, the conditions being that they should use these buildings and the farm as a distribution point and a training centre for



S, 1928

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Immigration
settlers, particularly Hebrideans. I understand from the reply given that the lease was renewed in 1926 for another five years, from 1928 to 1933, on the same terms. I have had a good many complaints in the last two years from people in that vicinity as to the use made of that farm and the buildings-or rather the use not made of them; the farm has not been used at all as a training centre and distribution point but has been operated for profit by the association. I was informed that, during the last two years at least, at no time have there been more than perhaps five or six men on the place, just sufficient to farm it; and as it is good land within a few miles of a railway a good profit is made. I was sorry I could not verify this personally, as I usually do in such cases, for the reason that during the past two years my ability to get around has been somewhat curtailed. I have however, received many complaints from the ratepayers of the district to the effect that no taxes have been paid by the society; and when you remove 1,100 acres of taxable land from the municipality and school district, you increase the burden on the rest of the people. I understand the minister made some investigation after the question I asked and the information I gave him. I should like him to tell me the result of his investigation and what action if any he contemplates taking.
Robert Forke: I was informed by the chairman of the land settlement board that the taxes had been paid on that farm.


Alfred Speakman: A few weeks ago I
received from the secretary treasurer of the municipality and of the school districts duplicate receipts showing the taxes paid, and in six years taxes have been paid for one year, 1926. That was as far as they knew at that time, and that is only a few weeks ago. They sent the duplicates of the receipts. So far as they knew then certainly only one year's taxes had been paid.
Mr. FORKE; I do not think the farm has been a success. Only lately have the facts come under my consideration and I deemed it wise to advise that after a year's notice the agreement would be cancelled. Of course they will have to have the farm this year anyway. They may buy it and pay the price, otherwise the agreement will terminate.
Mr. SPEAKMAN; It is to the minister's credit that he took action as soon as the situation was evident. I am sorry I did not bring it to his attention earlier, but I was not in a position to go around my constituency during the last two years.
Mr. EVANS; I have always regarded immigration as the work of the government and the government alone. I do not believe in granting large sums of money to any society or organization, whether it be a business concern, a church or any other institution of that kind. We have been giving large sums of money in the past for this purpose, and so far as results go it has been a failure. We can look back now and say that the west has been colonized in a most successful manner, but that has been due practically to the richness of the soil and to free lands. These are no longer to be had, and immigration should be directed to a very careful manner, whatever way we go about it. I do not believe at present in allowing any business or religious concern to direct waves of humanity which too often are only exploited.
Not many years ago I was in Alberta when the Canadian Pacific Railway conceived the idea of partly equipping farms for settlers.
I was in Sedgewick about the beginning of that period when they landed some very fine live stock at that point. These were being branded while I was there. The official brand was made in large letters on the side of the animal and underneath three other large letters, "C.P.R.," were branded]. I asked the director the reason for this. I wanted to know why they should torture the animal to such an extent by putting these large letters on its side. I asked, "Why put C.P.R. at all? Would not the official brand do?" The answer was, "How should we know our stock when we came to make seizures in the fall?" I want to direct the attention of the committee to the seriousness of immigration work and its failure since 1911 particularly. I have the official figures under my hand. But let me for a moment return to the granting of sums of money to certain bodies. A great bitterness was engendered throughout the country last year through the circulation of an order for return showing that under the Roman Catholic Church some twenty-nine priests were in the work of immigration and repatriation, not all of them drawing salaries but most of them getting expenses. The salaries were not large, but why should this be done at all? This is the work of government. If any church wants to do it, let it. But the point I make is this-and I wish my Roman Catholic friends to understand that I have no prejudice at all against them: the method we are adopting is dividing our people, making clearcut lines throughout western Canada. I do not care very much from what country you bring immigrants if you will let them settle among others and not make any
Supply-Immigration

clearcut line. Do not make western Canada a replica of the Balkan states. I have no doubt that if this plan is carried on extensively something of the same results will be experienced in this country as in southern Europe. So much for that.
I stated that immigration had been practically a failure. The last official figures I have are from the Bureau of Statistics over the signature of Mr. Coats. I find that in the census period between 1911 and 1921-the period practically of which I have been speaking-we lost 19,958 farmers from the land. That is a loss from Canada of almost 20,000 farmers during that census period. Prom the province of Ontario, where we are told there is a home market and for which we have sacrificed agriculture in order to build up the cities, I find that we lost 33,722 farmers, and I think this is an appalling figure especially when we are considering spending such large sums of money to gather up people from other parts of the world to occupy our vacant land. I find that Quebec lost 13,165 farmers, New Brunswick lost 3,181, Nova Scotia lost 4,623 and the little province of Prince Edward Island, the garden of Canada, lost 3,159 farmers.
There is a cause for all this, and I should like to impress upon this house that agriculture cannot stand any more burdens for the sake of any other industry. Yesterday the Minister of Railways made the statement that an immigrant coming to this country and expecting the government to do a great deal for him invited failure from the beginning, and I want to tell the house that we have had a real object lesson in that regard. Our urban industries have failed, after all we have sacrificed to build them up, for the simple reason that before an industry will open its doors in this country it must link up with the politicians.
I have dealt with five of the eastern provinces; let me give the figures for the western provinces, and we must remember that during 1911, 1912 and 1913 particularly we engaged in the work of immigration very vigorously. During that ten year period the number of farmers in Manitoba increased by 16,931; those in Saskatchewan increased by 14,260, in Alberta 'by 17,376 and in British Columbia by 8,527. I think these figures must be startling to the people of this country; in spite of the great effort we have made to people our vacant lands to-day we have 20,000 farmers less than we had in 1911. Surely there is a reason for this, and I want to say that if we only keep our people on the farms our country will go ahead much more quickly than is the case at present.- We have not only 
brought agriculture to a precarious position but -we have even destroyed the purchasing power which is needed by our industries in the urban centres. So I say, Mr. Chairman, that before we spend such large sums of money we should consider this business very seriously and we should consider the purpose for which we should bring in immigrants.
During a great part of every year we have to face a tremendous unemployment problem. I have read some of the immigration literature which is sent throughout the British Isles, which states that if a man is willing to work and to put his shoulder to the wheel he is sure to make a success in Canada. I want to inform this country that the time has come when there are no wheels to which he can put his shoulder; we have sacrificed agriculture in order to build up these industries and they have failed to do that which they were expected to do, as the hon. member for East Calgary said yesterday; they have failed to provide employment for the working men. So we are continually losing these men to the republic to the south.
I have very little more to say, Mr. Chairman, but I think this is one of the most serious problems facing Canada to-day. We must entirely alter our fiscal policy, because it is wrong, and let me impress upon hon. gentlemen that the industry of agriculture surely needs to be as well treated as any other industry. However, I want to say that the farmers of this country do not need protection now; in the main they are not asking for protection but they are asking to be relieved of the burden of all the other industries, which they have been carrying in the past.


Mr. BOULANGER:: After listening to the last speaker and to the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I have been asking myself seriously if there is not a lot of insincerity in the remarks we hear from hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the exodus of Canadian farmers to the United States. Last night the leader of the opposition said it was a pity to see so many thousands of young Canadian farmers leaving their farms to go to the United States; that it was alarming, and that something should be done to keep those young farmers in Canada. Yet when we come to this house or to the agricultural committee and propose some scheme for the purpose of keeping Canadians on the farms of Canada we are met by the opposition of our friends across the way, who tell us that this is not a question of immigration. Of course it is not; we agree

Supply-Immigration
on that, but it certainly is a question of prevention-we should prevent the emigration of Canadians to the United States. It is also a matter of colonization, and I think if we could devise some means of keeping young Canadians in this country on the farms we would be doing well. So it seems to me that before we bring in a lot of immigrants at the expense of the country we should do something to keep the people we already have. It is true that many farmers leave the land in eastern Canada; the hon. member who just took his seat gave the figures for the different provinces, and our first duty is to devise ways and means of keeping these men on the farm.
We have advocated in this house that we should give these farmers the same advantages we give the immigrants we bring from other countries. If we are going to assist immigrants to come to Canada we should give the same measure of assistance by way of assisted transportation to our own young people. It was demonstrated in the committee on agriculture and colonization that the difficulty in increasing the population of Canada is one of transportation, and that is why the committee recommended that aid be given by way of assisted passages. We advocate that the same measure of assisted transportation should be given to our Canadians, and we claim that if it were, the farmers in the east would remain in Canada instead of going to the United States. Transportation has a lot to do with that exodus or migration from Canada. Distances are great in Canada; transportation is very costly, and instead of our people going to western Canada on to the millions of acres of vacant land within twenty miles of the railroad, of which the leader of the opposition spoke last night, they are going to the nearer cities of the United States to earn their living. If it is considered proper to subsidize the steamship companies; if it is considered right to pay the passages of young boys between the ages of fourteen and nineteen years to come from England to Canada, it seems to me that it should be right and proper to pay part of the transportation expenses of young Canadian farmers in order to prevent their going to the United States and enable them to establish themselves on these millions of acres of vacant land within twenty miles of the railroad. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we will got into trouble through the action of this government in connection with assisting immigrants to come here to take the place of Canadian farmers who leave us. It seems to me that we will be called upon to give an explanation to our constituents of the recommendations made in the report of the
committee with regard to further extending the facilities to enable people to come here at the expense of this country. Our farmers will ask us why they are called upon to pay taxes when they cannot themselves get any assistance to modernize their ways of farming, and to raise the level of agriculture in their section of the country. They will want to know why we are paying out such large sum" of money to give free rides to strangers wb come to Canada to take the place of ou" farmers who have left through lack of assistance. When the fanners of eastern Canada are tired of paying taxes to give free rides to everybody, probably the government will give us a Duncan commission to find out what we are mad about.


John Wesley Edwards: There are
one or two matters I should like to call to the attention of 'the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Boulanger.) I submit that very generous consideration has been given in regard to the repatriation of French-Canadians from the United States, dating back to 18S9, under several governments and under the management of different departments. From 1889 down to the end of last year we expended a total of $558,530.61; in the last five years, 1922-27, we have expended $155,102 for that purpose. I submit that these figures do not indicate any lack of generosity on the part of the several governments which have held the reins of office since 1889. I should like to give some figures which were supplied by the deputy minister, Mr. Egan, at the request of the committee. From 1924 down to 1927, 2,511 French-Canadians were repatriated through the activities of this government. It strikes me as a little peculiar that those who have been repatriated in the last four years, and I think it will also apply back of that, have not been brought back to live in the province of Quebec. In 1924 none of those repatriated were placed in Quebec; in 1925, none were placed in Quebec; in 1926, onlly 20, and in 1927, only 22 were settled in their former native province of Quebec out of a total of 2,511. Apparently the object of the repatriation is not to resettle them in the old province of Quebec.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Does not my hon.
friend think that a citizen of Quebec is at home anywhere in Canada?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
see where any words of mine would raise that question in the mind of the hon. gentleman. I fail to see why he should introduce or insinuate anything of the kind, as I said nothing to warrant it.
Supply-Immigration


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Does not the hon.
gentleman think that a citizen from Quebec is just as useful anywhere else in Canada?


John Wesley Edwards: Certainly he is, and I have said nothing to the contrary, nar have my words indicated that I think anything to the contrary. I hope that is sufficiently clear to the hon. gentleman. I will say that the French-Canadian, whether repatriated or a native of the province of Quebec, will make a first-dlass citizen in any province.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Why should they be
repatriated only to Quebec?


John Wesley Edwards: That is a
question for my hon. friend to answer. Going back into the history of this thing, the various governments were approached by those interested in bringing back French-Canadians from the New England states, who said that they wanted to bring their children back to the home province. But that has not been followed, and it does strike me as somewhat peculiar that in this repatriation movement-I will refer in a moment to the other matter the hon. gentleman mentioned-these French-Canadians have been repatriated to every other province except the province of Quebec, and the figures would seem to bear that out. In addition to the money which has been generously spent I think by all the governments in repatriating French-Canadians, they come along now and ask that special facilities be given by way of Teduced rates to permit the movement of French-Canadiaans to other provinces.
The provinces of Quebec and Ontario made a special arrangement with the railways in these two provinces for a two-oent home-seekers' rate. They did not ask for the assistance of the federal government in obtaining this rate, but went to the railway companies and negotiated for themselves. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta could just as easily negotiate for a special rate. So far as cheap rates are concerned, anyone in Ontario, Quebec, or the maritime provinces, who wants to size up the situation in the west can do so at a cost of $10 or $12 through the medium of the harvesters' excursions. They have the opportunity of sizing up that country at a very small outlay of money. They can go out there for a few months and get employment, and will probably be able to return with money in their pockets.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Will the hon. gentleman admit that the reduction in railroad rates would help to prevent the exodus of Canadian farmers?


John Wesley Edwards: It might,
but why ask for that reduction especially to take them to the west in order to keep them from going to the United' States? May I draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that last night the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) in his few remarks said that in the part of Quebec from, which he comes i't was possible by the building of a short line to open for settlement thousands and tens of thousands of acres of first class land? I cannot look at the map on the wall and see represented there the big province of Quebec, the largest of the name provinces, almost twice the size of any other province, and for one moment believe that all tlhe tillable land, all the land fit for settlement in that province is contained within a narrow fringe on each side of the St. Ltawrence river. That is not believable. There are just as good opportunities in other parts of Quebec as there are in northern Ontario. But apparently no effort has been made by the Quebec government to open up those lands for settlement and to place their own children in that portion of the province. They do not seem to care about that; otherwise why do they not go ahead and open up those lands to keep the young men of Quebec fiom going across to the United States? The hon. gentleman says, no; if you want to stop emigration from Quebec; if you want to keep our young men in Canada-


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Not only from Quebec, from all the provinces.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon.
gentleman naturally and very properly has in mind the people of his province and I do not blame him for that at all. It is mere camouflage for him, so far as his purpose is concerned, to throw in Ontario with Quebec. He spoke of lack of sincerity on this side of the house. Let him be frank himself.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Let the hon. gentleman state the objection to citizens of Quebec crossing their own borders.


John Wesley Edwards: I have not said anything of the kind, but it would not make any difference if I talked from now until this time next year, I could not convince the hon. gentleman that I bad not some ulterior motive. I have stated very frankly my position and I declare that my position is the logical one. This is not an immigration matter.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Is iit not a colonization matter?

Supply-Immigration


John Wesley Edwards: It is, but
not in< t'he' sense for which the Department, of Immigration and Colonization was formed. That department was formed for the purpose of bringing immignlants into this country, thereby adding to our population, and colonizing our immigrants when they were brought here.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Is it not a question of national importance to keep our people here in preference to bringing in strangers?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, and
I outlined some methods which the government might adopt, if my hon. friend would support them, of keeping our people in this country instead of forcing them out of every province in Canada to seek employment across the line. Let the government change their policy in that regard. But if the hon. gentleman wants what is in the back of his mind expressed in plain words it is this. Back of the whole idea in regard to reduced rates for the movement of people from one province to another is the desire bo get the Dominion government in some way to subsidize the planting of Canadians from the older provinces in the provinces of the west. That is not the business of the Department of Immigration and Colonization in any sense of the word. It is not their business to go to the young men of Quebec and to say: Do not go to the United States; we will get, a reduced rate on the railways for you. You have that in Ontario and Quebec now, but we will get a further reduction in rates so that you can go to the west and settle out there. Supposing the young man said: Well, why not give me some encouragement to settle in my own province? Oh, no. you say, we are not bothering our heads about that at all. We want a reduction of rates in order to enable you to settle in any province of Canada except the province in which you were born. The hon. gentleman asks the Dominion government to endorse that sort of thing which I consider is absolutely illogical and unreasonable in every sense of the word, because if you appeal to a young man in Ontario or Quebec not to cross the line but to take advantage of a reduced rate and settle in Alberta and Saskatchewan where' there are good opportunities to settle on the land, you might just as reasonably appeal to a young man out in Saskatchewan or Alberta who is talking of leaving Canada and say to him: Do not do that; we have a clay belt down in Ontario; we have some fertile lands in Quebec; we have special opportunities which we are offering for the settlement of overseas people in
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; do not go across the line; we will get a reduced rate for you to go back into Ontario or Quebec. After he stays there a little while, he says: 1 think there are good opportunities in the Peace river district. Well, we will get you a- reduced rate; we will take you out there for practically nothing and you can try that out. If you are not satisfied with that after a while, we will get you a reduced rate and you can come back and try to settle either in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or some other part of Canada. The whole thing is illogical and unjustifiable, and if my hon. friend were just as sincere as hon. members on this side of [DOT] the house are who, he has intimated, were sincere in this matter, he would say that back of the whole idea that he has in his mind is asking the Dominion of Canada to subsidize the planting of oolonlies from the older provinces in the provinces of the west. That is something which we should not do. We want more population in the Dominion of Canada and above all we want to retain our own Canadian population. There is no reason, nor has my hon. friend attempted to advance any, why those who leave Quebec and go to the west could not be settled on land in Quebec. He has advanced no reason why a young man should be assisted to go out from Ontario to engage in farming in the west when he might engage in farming in Ontario. He has not met that point at all.


James J. Donnelly: The hon. member said that the province of Quebec had done nothing to induce its people to stay at home. Is it not a fact that it made an arrangement with the railways for .a special two cent rate for any settlers who wanted to move from southern Quebec to the northern part?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I said that a special two cent rate had been obtained in Ontario and Quebec and they did not come to this government to ask for federal intervention to get it. They managed that themselves. If they want a special rate to take people into any other part of the province, I have not the slightest doubt that if they go to either of the railway companies and say that they have a party of fifty, seventy-five or a hundred people who want to go west, they will get a special rate from either of those transportation companies to convey them to the west. But the point I am making with regard to Quebec is this. They have done something in obtaining the two cent rate, but what they have not done and what they expect the other provinces to do is to open up lands for settlement for
Supply-I m mi gration

their surplus population, if you can properly use the word in that regard, while they themselves have not done anything to open up their own vast extent of territory and provide settlement for their young men within the bounds of their province.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: With the exception of voting for protection, what other means has the hon. gentleman to suggest to prevent the exodus of farmers to the United States?


John Wesley Edwards: Does the
hon. gentleman mean from the province of Quebec?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: From anywhere in
Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: Ontario, for instance, has done something in the way of opening up what is called new Ontario and areas are being opened up for settlement in that part of the province.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The same thing has
been done in Quebec.


John Wesley Edwards: Very good.
That seems to me to answer my hon. friend's question. My hon. friend cannot say that either Quebec or Ontario is crowded or congested at the present time. We have only to glance at the map. We know the size of Quebec and the size of Ontario, and there is any amount of land in either of those provinces to accommodate all the native sons of Canada in any province of Canada who want to settle on the land. That being the case, there being no congestion of population in the older provinces, I say that it is not the function of the Dominion government to go to the railway companies and importune them to give a special rate to move citizens from one province of this Dominion to another.
In regard to the Scottish immigration society, to which reference was made a few moments ago by one hon. member, that organization has been operating since April, 1922. According to a return supplied by the deputy minister, Mr. Egan, that organization has brought out and placed 1,315 people. That would cover the ones who were assisted; there would be some who did not come under the assisted passages scheme. Now what have we paid out in that connection? We have paid out $143,027.83. Part of that we will get back, namely, half of the unpaid passage loans loss, to be paid by the British government, or $26,539.93. But that still leaves a net cost of $116,487.90 paid out in assisting

this particular immigration society in its operations, in the placing of some 1,315 individuals-640 adults and 675 children.
I want to say a word in regard to the leasing of this farm of 1,116 acres at $1 a year as a training centre for immigrants. That lease was to run for five years from March, 1923, to 1928. In 1926 the lease was extended. At that time the lease had still two years to run, but when representations were made to the then Minister of Immigration-or to the Minister of the Interior, but I presume the former-to have the lease extended for a further term of five years, and that application was granted, it would make the lease run until 1933, and really until 1934, because one year's notice had to be given of its termination. I want to ask the minister whether I caught him correctly a while ago when he intimated that he intended to give one year's notice of the termination of that lease. Can that lease be terminated before 1933? My understanding of the term of the lease was that it was for five years, and that it could not be revoked until the end of five years, that when it was renewed for a further term of five years, making it run to 1933, it could not be cancelled until 1934; that is, you had to give one year's notice in 1933. It does not occur to me just why this lease was extended for a further period of five years when it had still two years to run. The deputy minister, in the committee, in answer to a question of mine, said that this was the only society in the Dominion of Canada which was given that consideration, namely, the use of a block of land at merely a nominal rent. It was the only society in the Dominion that was getting that favour. I do not know whether the minister is prepared to explain why the lease was extended for a further term of five years in 1926, when it had still two years to run. It does not occur to me why the application was made at that time for an extension or why the application should have been granted at that time. I would ask, can the lease be cancelled at a year's notice from now, or must you wait until 1933 to give your notice of cancellation?


Robert Forke: I do not know much about
the extension of the lease, but the ground I take is that that farm was given for a training centre, that they have not lived up to their contract, that they have not been using it for that purpose in the last two years, and therefore I have given notice that the lease will be cancelled at the end of this year.

Supply-Immigration


John Wesley Edwards: It can be
cancelled on the ground that they have not complied with the terms of the lease?


Robert Forke: Yes, that is the ground I
take.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Empire settlement scheme, including grants to immigration societies, women's hostels, etc., as may be authorized by the governor general m council, $1,000,000.
Mr. BARBER:: I have just one matter
to bring before the minister in connection with this item. Under this item we have the three thousand family scheme, which I consider best of all the immigration schemes of this government. It is the one that I had the greatest confidence in, and I had hopes that it would work out successfully, but apparently from the experience in my district, that is not proving to be the ease. Some time ago fifteen Scotch families were brought out to the Fraser valley and located on what is known as the Amiens farm, a large district owned, I think, by the provincial government. This settlement did not work out satisfactorily, because I notice from the report of a meeting held about two weeks ago that thirteen out of the fifteen families had signed a demand for an inquiry, or as an alternative, their passage back to Scotland. Misrepresentation is alleged. There is a little story in connection with this, and to make it brief, I will quote from the press report of this particular meeting. It says:
Gifford, May 29.-The Scottish families domiciled on the Amiens farm under the imperial land settlement branch of the Dominion government held a public meeting in the Hygienic building on Friday evening to air their grievances.
These are several and some are very deep. The attitude of thirteen at least, of the fifteen settlers is that of strong resentment against misrepresentation, and similar settlers from Clayburn, Peardonville and Bradner joined them in complaint.
The farmers, before leaving Scotland, were given a "memo." describing the settlement. This stated that the farm had been "successfully operated." This they find is not true. The land was drained by ditches "maintained by the provincial government." They state that two-thirds of the land needs drainage and is flooded at certain times of the year, and that the ditches dug by the government are assessed against their lands. "Running water for domestic purposes" was mentioned. This applies, they discover, to one farm only in the fifteen.
They were promised two crops before repayment of loans was demanded; that is one full year from the October following their arrival. Some state that although their agreement stipulates these terms, their cheques have been assigned right from the commencement. The chief grievance, however, is in the amount and
rate of repayment. They consider that the charges are higher than they should be. This complaint is shared by the settlers from the other districts who state their condition is one of "abject slavery." On this Amiens farm, the annual charges per acre, including municipal tax, dyking tax and repayment amount to $20 an acre. This, it is claimed, is a burden too great for farm land and cannot be met.
Their milk cheques are assigned to the land settlement branch and so great is the proportion deducted that they have not enough income to live upon. One man stated that for one month they took all his cheque and that the next month all but $3 was taken. Another settler said that for four months his total receipts amounted to $46. On this he had to keep a wife and three children. They have complained to the Imperial board in London and were referred to the Dominion board. This board, they affirm, ignores them and officials deny any personal responsibility. The settlers ask tor an inquiry into these conditions or as an alternate, return passage to Scotland, "where they can get everything fair and above board and without any deceitful practices."
This request is signed by thirteen out of fifteen settlers. Now, Mr. Chairman, no doubt the department-


Robert Forke: If the hon. gentleman will exouse me? The chairman of the land settlement board will 'be here when his estimates are being passed. He has all the details in connection with these cases, and it would be more convenient if my hon. friend would deal with the matter, then.	~


Harry James Barber: I have placed the case before the minister, and I do not think there is any need to repeat it. But these settlers are holding indignation meetings and communicating with their friends in the old country, telling them of their woes, something which certainly will not be a powerful 'factor in encouraging British immigration. I take this opportunity of placing the information before the minister, and I trust an explanation will be given when the Soldier Settlement Board vote is before the committee.


Robert Forke: I make that promise, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Gardiner: What progress is being made with the three-thousand-family scheme; is it completed?


Robert Forke: I do not know the exact figures, but I believe the scheme will be completed this summer.


Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation of the increase in this vote?


Robert Forke: We expect a larger increase because we are giving assistance to double the number of boys. We are cooperating with the Imperial government on a fifty-fifty basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Immigration
[Stage Direction]
Chinese immigration-salaries and contingencies, $65,000.
John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps an appropriate moment to make reference to another phase of immigration from the orient, not Chinese immigration to which this particular item refers, but immigration from Japan. I am pleased to be able to inform the house that following conferences with the Japanese government, in which the Canadian government made clear the difficulties created in western Canada by the economic competition of Japanese immigrants, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs has informed us through the Consul-General of Japan at Ottawa, that the government of Japan does not contemplate that the total number of emigrants to Canada, including agricultural labourers and domestic servants, and wives and children of Japanese emigrants resident in Canada, will exceed a total of 150 anually. We have further been informed that steps will be taken to terminate 'the practice of sending for so-called "picture brides". The administrative measures directed to this end will go into force on September 1.
The Canadian government has indicated to [DOT]the government of Japan that hereafter in the case of immigration from Japan, as from other countries, the Immigration Act and [DOT]procedure, including the provisions for vise-ing of passports and pre-investigation of applications will be administered by Canadian officials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the replacement of trust funds held by the department, misappropriated by immigration officers at Halifax, N.S., and Coutts, Alberta, $1,632.08.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


Robert Forke: At the different seaports and ports of entry along the international boundary there are departmental trust accounts in which funds deposited by immigrants and other parties being given temporary admission to Canada and deposits required under the Immigration Act re deserters, et cetera, are held.
Last year when these trust accounts at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Coutts, Alberta, were audited it was found that the accountant at Halifax had misapropriated $2,32335, and the inspector in charge at Coutts the sum of $350.83. As the officer at Halifax was bonded for $1,000 this amount was paid the department by the bond company, which means a net shortage at that port of $1,323.35. In the case of the officer at Coutts, the department held $42.10 due him, leaving a net shortage of $308.73.

As this shortage in these accounts will have to be repaid-in some cases bond will be forfeited to the government-to the parties making these deposits when the conditions under which they were made have been fulfilled, it is necessary to recoup the trust accounts. In the case at Coutts the money taken was that of a $350 bond deposited by Otto Lindquist and of 83 cents exchange on American currency. At Halifax most of the money taken was cash deposited by settlers under the family settlement scheme, the officer there using current receipts to make repayments for previous deposits. This, as soon as the current receipts dropped off left him in a position that he could not cover up what had previously been taken.


Robert Gardiner: What happened to the officers?


Robert Forke: They were dismissed from the service. We are collecting the balance from them.


Robert Gardiner: Were they appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Robert Forke: The appointments are made by the Civil Service Commission now. I do not know how long those men had been in the service.


Robert Gardiner: You are not in a position 'to say whether these delinquents were appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Robert Forke: No, we have not that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier land settlement-amount required for soldier land settlement advances and cost ot administration of soldier settlement, $1,558,000.
Amount required for general land settlement advances and cost of administration of general land settlement, $1,557,000.
Mr. KENNEDY:: I wish to bring to the
attention of the minister a case of what appears to me to be great hardship and injustice under the Soldier Settlement Board. The name of the settler is Frank T. Chinn, who came from England in June, 1921, an eximperial soldier who had seen service in France. He is a settler under section 2, paragraph (s) iii, chapter 188 of the revised statutes. 1927. He told me he was directed to Canada by the policy of the Soldier Settlement Board as outlined in a pamphlet distributed by the board in England. I have discussed the matter with the minister and with the chairman of the board, but evidently they do not take the pamphlet as seriously as Mr. Chinn did or as I do.

Supply-Immigration
This is the pamphlet issued by the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada:
Land settlement in Canada, agricultural training and farm loans for imperial ex-service men:	published by authority Hon. Arthur
Meighen (Minister of the Interior), minister in charge soldier land settlement, London, October 1, 1919.
There is a list of officials who may be seen or written to:
Officials whom you may see or write to.
These officials are in London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Exeter, York, Peterborough, Carlisle, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dublin, Belfast. And Lieut.-Colonel K. C. Bedson, overseas representative, 7 Parliament Mansions, Orchard street, Victoria street, London, S.W. 1.
The policy of the Board in this case is stated to be:
(1)	To settle on the land citizens whose best interests will be served by engaging in farming.
(2)	To assist in settlement only on land of good value, well located, and of such fertility as to ensure profitable returns.
(3)	To develop in close settlement in areas contiguous to existing or promoted railway lines.
(4)	To secure for soldier settlers by means of special purchasing arrangements the best value obtainable in kve stock, implements, building material and other necessary equipment.
(5)	To guide and assist soldier settlers in the management of their farming activities, so that the best results may be secured.
(6)	To provide such guidance and advice as may be most helpful to the settler's wife and family in the development of the home and its economic and social relations.
I would direct attention especially to sections 2 and 5. There are a number of very fine promises in this pamphlet and I wish to refer to just one or two. I quote from page 7:
Method of purchasing land:
The Soldier Settlement Board may purchase improved or unimproved lands in any province if required for soldier settlement.
To assist applicants in locating lands, offers of property for sale are classified by the board according to districts, and in compiling lists of suitable lands the assistance of public officials, local authorities and officers of the Great War Veterans' Association is invited.
The settler however is not restricted to such lists. He has full right to select land, subject in all cases to approval after inspection by the board.	.
When a parcel of land is selected by a soldier settler, an experienced land inspector is sent out to make an appraisal of the land, and to make sure that it is suitable and possesses the value that is placed upon it. If all conditions are right, it will be purchased by the board and sold to the applicant.
The Soldier Settlement Board deals with the owner direct: pays no commissions on transactions of this kind, and thus protects the settler.
Now this man came to Canada in 1921. In 1923, after a. certain probationary period of training on one or two farms, part of the time in British Columbia and part in the districts surrounding Edmonton, he was taken out by a representative of the Soldier Settlement Board and a farm in the Westlock district was shown him. The section of the Soldier Settlement Act, chapter 188, the revised statutes, 1927, "An Act to assist Returned Soldiers in settling upon the land," which deals with this matter is section 25, subsection 4. I quote it:
No advance such as by subsection 1 of this section authorized shall be made unless the board is satisfied,
(a)	that the value of the security, ascertained as in section 12 of this act directed with respect to lands to be acquired by the board, is sufficient to justify the making of the advance; and
(b)	that the applicant has the ability to make from the land a fair living for himself and his dependents, if any, after paying interest and amortization charges and other necessary payments with respect to such advances and to the land and the cultivation thereof.


Robert Forke: What is my hon. friend
reading from?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am reading from the
Soldier Settlement Act, and I am making a speech I prepared about two months ago. I have been waiting all this time for this estimate to come up. I have quoted the section that bears upon the matter. It seems to me that although it is not directly stated, the primary intention of these two subsections is to protect the country, to see that money is not advanced on poor land or to a settler who has not the ability to make a living in addition to meeting his payments to the Board. In connection with this policy laid down in the pamphlet distributed in England by representatives of the Soldier Settlement Board, it must be taken that the soldier settler is guaranteed that the board will not locate him on land where he cannot make a good living if his farming methods are reasonably sound.
This gentleman had farming experience in England. It has been said that his experience was as an auctioneer and valuator. It is a well known fact that most auctioneers from the old land who go around valuing stock run farms on the side, and I understand that Mr. Chinn had seven years' experience managing a farm owned by his father. He bought this farm in 1923, which was Canada's banner year in wheat production. It was the year in which we had a very plentiful supply of
Supply-Immigra t ion

moisture and when crops on practically every kind of soil did fairly well. In that year Mr. Chinn was driven out by a representative of the Soldier Settlement Board and, in accordance with their policy of fair play, he was settled on the south west part of 34.59.26, west of the 4th meridian. Since that time his experience has not been very happy. In letters which he has written to the Soldier Settlement Board he has stated that in only one year was he able to produce a crop which would give him a living over and above his expenses, to say nothing of paying the amortization on the amount owing the board.
I am going to deal with this matter as briefly as I can, and it is my contention, that the chief reason and the only substantial reason which can be given for the failure of this man-because I do not think it will be necessary to argue that he has failed unless we take a letter written by ithe supervisor of the Soldier Settlement Board at Edmonton- was because he was settled on land unfit for cultivation. In every district, regardless of how good it is, there are lands which apparently are too poor for farming. They can be utilized in a way by linking them up with other land suitable for cultivation, but in themselves they cannot be regarded as farming propositions. In his efforts to make a success of agriculture this man endeavoured to secure a transfer to another farm, and he was offered such a transfer. That is the first reason I give as proof that he was settled on land unsuitable for agriculture, but lest there be any doubt about the matter he took up the question of the soil, its value and its suitability for farming with the soil culture department of the university of Alberta. I have here a letter written by Professor Wyatt, professor of soils of the university of Alberta at Edmonton under dated of December 14, 1927, as follows:
With regard to your letter of December 1, 1927, we have not yet made any laboratory analysis of the soil from your farm since our visit there early in October; however, we did make certain tests in the field together with the examining of physical properties of the soil of your farm. We found, as I had suggested in a previous letter, that the greater part of your farm consists of podsol or wooded soils. Your great difficulty is that the extremely heavy subsoil is so close to the surface, that it is with great difficulty that these soils absorb water. Your farm is situated on the transition belt between the black soils to the south and the typical wooded soils to the north and west and some parts of this transition belt has very good soil whereas in other parts the soil is very poor. While _ we have not examined in any detail the soil of this transition belt, above referred to, we feel certain that your soil belongs to the poorest phase of the wooded soils.

In that letter there is a statement to which I wish to particularly direct the attention of the minister and the committee:
.... the extremely heavy subsoil is so close to the surface that it is with great difficulty that these soils absorb water.
Last July I took the trouble to go over this farm with a shovel; ithe black soil seemed to be about an inch thick, and under it was soil which looked like chalk when it was worked up. Although all the black soil in that district was so wet that you could hardly walk over it without sinking to your ankles, as the professor says, this subsoil was quite impervious to moisture and the top layer of black soil was quite dry. Unless you flooded the field you could not hope to penetrate that subsoil, and ithe only possibility of securing a crop would be if the rains came so close together that the soil would be irrigated regularly. If a dry period of eight or ten days were encountered the crop would wither. I do not think it can be disputed that the Soldier Settlement Board undertook on one or two occasions to move this settler to another farm; there can be no doubt that Professor Wyatt stated that this was the poorest of wooded soil, and the crop records, which are not disputed, show that there never has been a crop sufficient to provide a living for this man in addition to the fixed charges which are against the farm. This settler has been dealt with in violation of the pledges and policies of the Soldier Settlement Board, as laid down in this pamphlet which has been distributed throughout the British isles.
It has been said that an effort was made to right the wrong done this man. In the statement of pollicy which I read there is a section which says that the Soldier Settlement Board will guide and assist soldier settlers in the management of their farming activities so that the best results may be obtained. On one or two occasions Mr. Chinn made an effort to ge't the soldier settler inspector to supervise his farming operations; he did not succeed in doing so in time for his spring work, so he put himself under the direction of one of his neighbours, Mr. John Edgson, a man whom I know very well, who has been farming there successfully for about twenty-five years.


Charles A. Stewart: How far is
this farm from Mr. Edgson's farm?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: About two miles to the
south.


Charles A. Stewart: I am just
trying to get this farm located in my mind.

Supply-Immigration


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is tiwo or three miles
out of Westlock, and I would not like to say whether it was directly north or south. Here is a statement signed by a number of farmers in that district:
Westlock, Alberta,
January 30, 1927.
To whom it may concern:
We, a few of the farmers of the Westlock district desire to record our knowledge of the farm identified as the S.W. }. 34-59-26-W. 4th, which is now occupied by our neighbour F. T. Chinn in order to assist him to get transferred on to a better farm by the Soldier Settlement Board of Canada. Some of us have known this farm ever since it was first homesteaded, and many of us have w'orked on the place at some time in the usual custom of exchanging work, assisting during illness &c. &c., during spring, summer and harvest seasons. The shallowness of its soil is indisputable, and to the best of our knowledge, it has only grown one crop that would give a man a living (season 1923) ever since it was homesteaded. We have always considered it to be one of the poorest of the few really poor farms in this well known district of Alberta, and whose fertility is borne out by the U.S. Tariff Commission (1924) investigating the cost of production of wheat in the U.S.A. and Canada, in which it states "Westlock ranks lowest in cost and highest in yield of wheat, per bushel, per acre, of any place on the North American continent, viz. 33.2 bushels, cost 60 cents per bushel, cleaned and delivered at the elevators." The uniform richness of our soil serves to make a poor farm an outstanding landmark, and we have always resented the fact that this particular farm was chosen and purchased by the S.S.B. as a representative farm for this district for settlement, on the face of its well known characteristics by the farmers of this community. We contend that as such it is a libel on our reputation, and in our opinion ought never to have been purchased by them for this purpose, which contention has been borne out by its continual crop failures.
Name-Known farm in years-Worked on farm at-
Lome Campbell. 10 years.
H. G. Curlett, 15 years.
G. F/. Stanton. 12 years.
P. S. Beatt, 22 years.
Jas. T. Watt, 5 years.
M. U. Watt, 5 years, threshing.
G. Dieffenbaugh. 6 years, threshing.
W. M. Garrison, 23 years, rented once.
Lloyd Garrison, 23 years, threshing.
Jno. A. Edgson, 24 years, threshing.
L. H. Pettit, 20 years, threshing.
Wm. Watt, 5 years, threshing.
There is a large file of correspondence regarding the efforts of the soldier settlement board at Edmonton to move Mr. Chinn to another farm. He was offered one farm which, according to the statement made by the superintendent at Edmonton Was the best of nineteen or twenty farms he had a chance to choose from.


Charles A. Stewart: Could my hon. friend summarize it?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This farm was located about forty miles west of Pibroch, near Mosside. It consisted of 240 acres, partly covered by the Paddle river. There was some high land which could be farmed, and there was a shack and stable. About half the farm was subject to periodical flooding by the river. If they put the drain low enough to drain the water off when the river was low, it would flood back at high water and make it impossible to cultivate. There was another low spot near the corner of the farm where there was a large slough. There appeared to be the possibility, if he was moved to this new farm with the liability from the old farm of $5,000 over his head, of his getting 40 acres of good agricultural land on which to make a living.
He was offered another farm consisting of a half-section, but there was no cultivated land on it, it being all bush land. He had a chance to move to that farm with his wife and two children, take his debt with him, and do the best he could to get established on that half-section inside of two years and make a living for himself; an impossible proposition.
When he took the question of this farm at Mosside to the superintendent of the soldier settlement board at Edmonton he was told that it was one of the best farms available on the list of the soldier settlement board. This man is carrying a debt of between $5,000 and $6,000.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend know anything about an offer to take him up to the Peace River district?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They made an offer to give him cheap transportation to the Peace River country to examine lands which had come back on the hands of the soldier settlement board. He got some information regarding the lands north of the Spirit river to the effect that they were very much of the same type as the land at Westlock.
Just recently the superintendent of the soldier settlement board at Edmonton, Mr. Johnson, wrote to Mr. Chinn stating that so far as he was concerned the revaluation will mean nothing to him, because he cannot see any way in which he can make good. It is clear to me that what the soldier settlement board intends to do with this man is to force him off the farm, which would be a good thing because he is just wasting his time there. If we are going to bring these people out from the old land and settle them on land where they can make a good living over and above

Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: Surely my hon. friend does not say there is a guarantee that a good living will be made? The individual plays a large -part in it, whether there will be a success or failure.
Mr, KENNEDY:	There is a guarantee
that they will be settled on land where a farmer who conducts his farming operations properly will have reasonable hope of success. There is not a farmer in Canada who could make a living off that farm. It is absolutely worthless and should never be farmed; that is the whole point. The soldier settlement board is apparently willing to take this man's stock and farm and turn him loose.


Charles A. Stewart: I know Mr. Johnson very well, and I feel sure that if the farm is as poor as my hon. friend indicates, there is a prospect for revaluation, and he would get his indebtedness cut down very materially.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Even the Minister of the Interior could not make a living on that farm if he got both the farm and the equipment for nothing. That is the opinion of Mr. Edgson and the others who signed this document; it is soil that cannot be worked successfully. Is it fair to this man to say we are going to take everything and turn him out and let him shift the best he can? If there was any basis of compromise at all, I would advise Chinn to take it.


Robert Forke: How much has he put into the farm?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
Robert Forke: Your statement does not
agree with the statement we have here.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It also does not agree with the statements made by the inspectors of the soldier settlement board regarding that land.


Robert Forke: You must admit that all a minister can do is to trust his inspectors.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If the minister must
trust his inspectors regarding the reports on the land in this ease, then I submit the soldier settlement board is unsound from the ground up.


Robert Forke: Do you know of any other method?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If we cannot meet the settler half way in this matter, I submit the soldier settlement board is wrong from the ground up.


Charles A. Stewart: The statement I have here would indicate that this man had put in $125.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, pounds.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
what is in the record. It may be wrong. I just want to draw my hon. friend's attention to it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Who chose the farm?
Mr.	KENNEDY:	The	soldier	settlement
board bought the farm from some one some years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they choose it?
Mr.	KENNEDY:	The	soldier	settlementboard	took over the	farm some	years ago.
They put another settler on it and he failed.


Robert Forke: Tell the whole story; the hon. member has not finished the statement.
Mr.	KENNEDY:	The	soldier	settlement
board took over this land in 1918 or 1919. They put another settler on it and he failed. They had had the farm under observation for two or three years with the same kind of record in regard to crops as we have had since 1923. They sold the farm to this man in 1923 and we have the record as I have given it to the committee. If there is anything else to be told in regard to the matter, I have no objection to the minister stating it.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman this question, because I am perfectly willing to assist in any case of hardship. Is it not a fact that Mr. Chinn, the soldier mentioned, tendered on this reverted land for $5,000; that his tender was accepted, and that he had been farming a year previously in the Edmonton district?

Supply-7 mmigration


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think that is correct; but does the Minister of the Interior mean to tell parliament that, if we bring a man out here from the old country with fine promises made by the soldier settlement board, claiming that they know land, and that they are expert appraisers; if after two years, we place him on a farm; if after five years' effort hopeless failure results, and it is demonstrated that the land is no good, we are going to say that the responsibility is on the settler and that the soldier settlement board, in spite of its protestations through its advertising in the old land as to the protection it is going to give to the settler, has no responsibility in the matter at all?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not say that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: 
Robert Forke: There are many contradictions between the statement I get from our supervisor and the superintendent at Edmonton and the statement made by the hon. member. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I am willing to make a full investigation into this case and if any hardship has been suffered by the returned soldier, and if anything can be done to help him, I am willing to do what I can. The record I have is not very good.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the record.


Robert Forke: There is a statement that the cows had not been milked for five days. No man can succeed under conditions of that kind.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is the flimsy kind of excuse that the board must resort to. Any man who has farmed on the prairies or in bush country knows that he will lose cattle and horses for five days or even three weeks in spite of his best care. That shows just the futility and poverty of the excuses they advance as to why this man has failed. Another statement was that there was scattered around his field some grain that he had not raked up by hand apparently and there were a few manure piles around the yard. There is not a farmer in the west who
does not have that and they all know what it is to have one's neighbour's stock break through one's fences in the fall and scatter one's stooks around. Everyone has that experience every year. Those are the three excuses given by the soldier settlement board as reasons which I should believe why this man's failure is due to himself and not to the poverty of the farm on which he has been placed.


Robert Forke: I do not see what more we can do. I will endeavour to secure some other information; but Mr. Johnson, the superintendent at Edmonton, I have found to be a very reliable man and not liable to do anything rash.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Johnson has been superintendent for only a short time.


Robert Forke: I am willing to make further investigations and if I find any injustice has been done, in fact if he has lost money, I am quite willing to assist him a little. There are limits beyond which it is not advisable to go, because sometimes it is really the kindest thing to tell a man who has got into an impossible position that the best thing for him is to give up the whole undertaking. I do not know what the situation is in this case and I am going to have an investigation made. My whole attitude towards the returned soldiers has been that of desiring to help them in every way, and especially in their farming operations. I have listened to the remarks made by the hon. member; I will take them into consideration, and I will try to get some outside information to help me to come to a conclusion in the matter.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the minister be in Edmonton this coming summer?


Robert Forke: I hope so.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I will show him around. I think it would be a kindness to Chinn to have this thing cleared up sooner or later. I think he ought to be willing to take out what money he has in the farm because he is just wasting his time where he is.


Robert Forke: We will take the matter into consideration if there is any chance of his succeeding at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alfred Speakman: No, the minister has already undertaken to give a statement, while this item is under consideration, as to the process of revaluation.



Great Lakes and Power Company
Mr. FOlRKE: Yes. I should like to make a reply to t'he hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). I know something about the troubles of which he speaks. There has been a good deal of correspondence and I am satisfied that it must be looked into. I advised the chairman of the land settlement board that the matter had to be investigated. We are sending out Major Ashton, one of the commissioners, immediately to investigate the whole matter, to meet those people, to find out what their troubles are and to make a report to me on the situation.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



GREAT LAKES AND ATLANTIC CANAL AND POWER COMPANY, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The house resumed, from May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Denis (Joliette) for the second reading of Bill No. 152, respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals). Mr. Speaker, the last time this bill was before the house it was quite apparent that it was contentious. In fact, some members were opposing the second reading. I usually adopt the attitude in connection with bills destined for the railway committee that they are entitled to go there in order that the promoters may be there in person and be heard, but in view of the fact that this bill, even if it got to the committee, could not possibly receive adequate consideration during this session, I would suggest to the sponsor of the bill that it might as well be allowed to stand. No advantage can be gained by proceeding further with it, and it would only take up the time of the house to continue the debate on the second reading.
Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: In view of
the request now made by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), I would ask that this bill be allowed to stand.
Bill stands.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 18, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Edwards (Ottawa) for the third reading of Bill No. 43, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: 
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that the amendment is out of order; you cannot anticipate by a motion-a question that is already before parliament and already on the order paper by four previous motions. That view is supported by all the authorities. Those authorities are quoted in a debate that we had in this house on June 14, 1922, when I raised and was sustained on a similar point of order and will be found at page 2973 of Hansard of that year 1922. The authorities discussed this point at page 248 of May and at page 320 of Bourinot: May at page 248 says:
A motion must not anticipate a matter al-appointed for consideration by the house *whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion. A motion is equally out of order, it it anticipates a notice of motion for-

Bell Telephone Company
leave to bring in a bill that includes the subject proposed to be dealt with by the motion. A matter already appointed for consideration by the house cannot be anticipated by an amendment, while a notice of motion as long as it remains upon the paper, whether for a specified day or not, prevents its subject-matter being discussed by means of an amendment to a motion.
Bourinot at page 320 says:
An amendment cannot anticipate a notice of motion on the order paper.
I would point out that there are four motions on the order paper dealing with this question. The first is that of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), dealing with subsidiary company legislation:
March 9-Second reading of Bill No. 63, an act to amend the Railway Act (investigation of subsidiary of telephone or telegraph companies).-Mr. Geary.
Secondly there is my own resolution of May 16:
Mr. Church, on the third reading of Bill No. 43, "an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada," will move that the following clause be added to the bill:-
"3. That notwithstanding any law, statute, usage or custom to the contrary the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada shall have power to investigate and regulate all tolls and charges of the Northern Electric Co., Limited, or any other subsidiary company in which the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has any interest whatsoever."
Then there is the resolution of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) of May 27:
Mr. Lucas, on the third reading of Bill No. 43, "an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada," will move that the following be added to the bill: -
That notwithstanding any law, statute, usage or custom to the contrary the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada shall have power to investigate and regulate all tolls and charges of the Northern Electric Co., Limited, or any other subsidiary company in which the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has any interest whatsoever.
And the resolution of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) of May 28.
Mr. Sanderson, on the third reading of Bill No. 43. "an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada," will move to add the following as clause 3:-
3. The Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may make such inquiry into the costs, prices and profits of the Northern Electric Company, Limited, in connection with goods sold and services rendered to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada as the board may deem necessary for the purpose of approval or revision of telephone tolls to be charged by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
These four motions are substantially the same and are already on the order paper, some of them appearing weeks ago on tihe 56103-2524
order paper, and some months ago. The rule is clear that you cannot anticipate the action of parliament on a notice of motion, undisposed of, and parliament having failed to take any action on these previous notices of motion, I submit that the motion of the hon. member for South Perth is distinctly out of order. Bourinot so states. He goes further than May, and the British Speaker has recently ruled on the same point on similar lines.
In connection with bill No. 93, to amend the criminal code, which was before the house on June 14, 1922, Mr. Good desired to move an amendment, but it was ruled out of order because there was already a notice of motion on the order paper dealing substantially with the same matter treated in the proposed amendment of Mr. Good. I would ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as the amendment is the same as my own amendment of three weeks previously and three others undisposed of.


Mr. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe- Rou-ville):: If I understand aright the point of
order raised by my hon. friend, it is that notices of amendments having been given previous to that of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), and approximately in the same words, his motion is out of order, but, Mr. Speaker, if you will study these notices of amendment you will find that they differ in some very material respects. The notices of motion previously presented by hon. members seek to give power to the Board of Railway Commissioners to investigate and regulate the tolls of the Northern Electric Company in a geperal way, while the amendment of the hon. member for South Perth refers to the Northern Electric Company only so far as its business is connected with the business of the Bell Telephone Company. I doubt whether the previous notices of motion are in order, because I do not believe it would be proper for this house, without any notice to the Northern Electric Company, to empower the Board of Railway Commissioners to inquire into its prices and costs of carpet sweepers, broadcasting equipment, radios, and millions of other articles which are made by that company, and which have no connection at all with the business of the Bell Telephone Company. But the motion of the hon. member for South Perth, on the contrary, appears to me to be in order, because it refers to the Northern Electric Company only so far
39SS
Bell Telephone Company

as its business is connected with that of the Bell Telephone Company. I submit that the motion of the hon. member for South Perth should be accepted.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does any other member desire to speak on the point of order?


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet found out what the point of order is; we could not hear anything that the hon. member said.


Hewitt Bostock: The point of order may be briefly stated thus: that the .amendment moved by tlhe hon. member for South Perth anticipates a question which is already on the order paper. If no other hon. gentleman desires to speak,-	1 'if


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I judge that what the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Churdh) has referred to is the well-known rule that you cannot by a motion anticipate a matter that is already on the order paper and should be dealt with in its turn. There is also a rule that there is no objection to two bills being on the order paper referring to the same matter; or rather, it is not a rule but a dictum of one of the authorities on procedure. But even if two bills be on the order paper dealing with the same subject, one .may not be heard in anticipation of the other which has a prior right to be discussed, having been on the order paper for a longer time. The well-known rule against anticipation I urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, as being fatal to the amendment of my hon. friend from South Perth being discussed at the moment.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, there appeared in the votes and proceedings of May 22 a notice of motion by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas). It is in the form of an amendment to the bill which we are now considering, and is almost identical in its terms with the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for South Perth. In view of the fact that this notice of motion should take precedence of the amendment, and in view of the further fact that Bourinot at page 301 of the fourth edition lays down this rule:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the house-
I submit that the amendment of the hon. member for Camrose should take precedence over that which has been moved by the hon. member for South Perth.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It has not been moved yet.


Hewitt Bostock: As regards the priority of amendments, we have no rule in this house as to what amendment the Speaker should take cognizance of when there are several. Naturally the practice is that the first in order should be taken. In the British House of Commons it is different; the powers of the Speaker are almost autocratic in matters of private legislation. May-it is not under my hand at the moment-states that when a private bill is called and there are several amendments, the Speaker may choose according to his own judgment the amendments and put them to the house. That is one point.
The second point has to do with anticipation. I have read the amendment moved by the member for South Perth, I have also read the other amendment moved by the member for South York (Mr. McGregor), and finally I have read the bill which has been on the order paper since the beginning of the session, called the Geary bill. Now, if we were, say, at the beginning of the month of May, or even at the 15th, I would be inclined to bar the amendments which deal with nearly the same question as the one raised by the Geary bill. But mark well that the rule governing anticipation is not as stated a moment ago by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. He quoted May. This is what May says about anticipation:
A motion, (other than a motion for leave to bring in a bill), is equally out of order, if it anticipates a notice of motion for leave to bring in a bill that includes the subject proposed to be dealt with by the motion. A matter already appointed for consideration by the house cannot be anticipated by an amendment, while a notice of motion, as long as it remains upon the paper, whether for a specified day or not, prevents its subject-matter being discussed by means of an amendment to a motion or of a motion for the adjournment of the house, including a motion under standing order No. 10.
I wish hon. members to listen to this:
In determining however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to _ the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
I pray members again to listen particularly to that sentence:
In determining, however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation-
Exactly the point raised at this moment.
-the Speaker must have regard to^ the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
Well, to state the question is almost to resolve it. If we were in the month of May, if there was not almost a certainty of pro-

Bell Telephone Company
rogation within a few hours, or a day, I should be inclined to say that the Speaker must sustain the view expressed a moment ago by the member for Toronto Northwest. But we have almost reached prorogation, and there is certainly no chance whatsoever for the Geary bill to come before the house. This bill will be found at page 7 of the orders of the day as No. 43, in these words:
Second reading of bill No. 63, an act to amend the Railway Act (investigation of subsidiary of telephone or telegraph companies).
There is no probability, in fact there is a certainty, that the bill cannot be reached; in view of this shall I debar the moving of the amendment which covers almost the same principle as that invoked by the bill?


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, will you be good enough to read-


Hewitt Bostock: I am giving my ruling.
Basing myself on May I am therefore perfectly justified in stating that there is no anticipation, because the Geary bill which deals with the same subject, cannot be reached, the house being within a few hours of prorogation.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, you have
given a ruling on one point of order. I desire to raise a second point.


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.


Robert Gardiner: In the votes and proceedings of May 22 the hon. member for Camrose gives notice of an amendment. The amendment therein proposed is almost in identical terms the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Perth. I submit to Your Honour that the hon. member for Camrose should first have an opportunity of moving his amendment before you accept the second.


James Houston Spence: I wish to say a word or two in connection with private bills.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Houston Spence: A number of members are
determined to talk out every private bill introduced this year and it is absolutely unfair to members of the house. Every member of the house understands exactly what the Bell Telephone bill is, and it is absurd to think that one or two gentlemen in this house can talk out everything all the time. We should have the point of view of all the members of the house and it should be decided by the vote of the house, instead of continually talking out these private bills.


George Reginald Geary: I rise to a question of
privilege in reference to the remarks of the
last speaker. I presume he is referring to hon. gentlemen opposite who talked out the Edmonton and Dunvegan bill on tiwo or three occasions.


James Houston Spence: I am referring to the hon.
gentleman who is speaking, and to others as well who talked out the Edmonton and Dun-vegan bill. There has been nothing but obstruction in the house this whole year.


George Reginald Geary: I want to call the attention of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) to the fact that if he is referring to me I have spoken exactly fifteen minutes on this bill in the house. Bills have to be discussed, however much we may be anxious to get home.


James Houston Spence: This bill has been discussed on several occasions and talked out. There is not an hon. gentleman who does not understand all about it. We should take the point of view of the members of this house and get an expression of opinion as to whether or not it should be adopted. So far as I am concerned I do not give a twopenny whistle whether it carries or not, but I object to this procedure.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before you rule on the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would merely request that you read the two amendments under discussion in order to determine whether they are to the same effect. That, I believe, is the point of order raised by my hon. friend. My understanding is that the effect of one is entirely different from the effect of the other; a very important difference in principle exists between the two.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: On the
point of order, I am not certain that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has got the point correctly. It is not a question whether there is any similarity between the two amendments; it is a question of priority in respect of the motion itself. There is no question whatever that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Camrose on May 22 last will have priority over the amendment of the hon. member for Perth. I agree with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) that it should be put to the house first.


Hewitt Bostock: The point raised by the
hon. member for Acadia is that the Speaker should put the amendments in order of precedence.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Order; that is the point
raised by the hon. member for Acadia. Incidentally I would request silence; there is only an hour for private bills, and I should
Bell Telephone Company

like all hon. members to hear the ruling, which I intend to give to the best of my ability. May, thirteenth edition, says at page 283:
A member who has given notice of an amendment is not entitled to precedence on that account or to be heard before a member who rises to speak to the question.
That is precisely the situation under review.
According to the rules of debate, the member who first rises and is called by the Speaker, being in possession of the house, is entitled to conclude with any motion which may properly be made at that time. Nor, though a contrary practice prevails in proceedings on a bill, if a series of amendments are proposed to a motion, can members claim, unless they rise to speak, to be called in the order in which their notices stand upon the notice paper.
I rule accordingly that: the question now before the house is on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Perth.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: This bill has aroused widespread interest in the province of Ontario. The Bell telephone is the only telephone of any consequence in the province. Whether this is so in Quebec I do not know; I am not familiar with conditions there. But it is true in Ontario. The Bell Telephone Company serves the public; it is operated by a private concern but is really a puMic utility. The telephone has become a necessity in this age. We could hardly think of living without it. It has done very much to save time for all of iis, to save life indeed, to make business run smoothly; and it has been a great factor in binding people together in scattered communities. It is therefore of great social significance. The Bell Telephone is a subject which interests possibly more people than almost any other one thing in the province of Ontario. It is not then to be wondered at that the people of that province are watching eagerly the fate of the two bills that have been presented to this house, the Bell Telephone bill and the bill to safeguard the people s interests, moved by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary).
The Bell Telephone Company has been operating in Canada since 1880 and it is only since 1909 or 1910 that the company has become subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Since that has been true the Bell Telephone Company has been most generously treated by the Board of Railway Commissioners and by the people of Ontario and Quebec. In 1919 it was permitted to make a flat increase of 10 per cent and in 1921 of 12 per cent; and a few months ago another increase was allowed, the disposal of the profits of which is now causing the company concern and in all prob-
ability is the reason for the bill which is now before the house. The raise in rates was allowed on the principle:
That non-diseriminatory rates should be established by the company sufficient to produce revenue to cover its operating expenses; a proper amount for depreciation and amortization; its taxes, including income tax, interest, dividends upon its stock and a reasonable surplus.
The Globe in an editorial on May 23, 1928, has this to say:
A dividend rate of 8 per cent is maintained, and the board has accepted the estimated requirements of the company for depreciation, with one small exception. There are few corporations in the country but would welcome a guarantee of solvency and earnings such as the Bell company obtains.
All this is paid for by the telephone users. In justice to these, should should not the board be authorized to make certain that the revenues of the company are devoted to the company's business exclusively ?
In the mind of anyone who has looked closely at this matter there is the suspicion that a close relationship exists between the Northern Electric Company and the Bell Telephone Company, amd that in all probability the Bell Telephone Company has used the Northern Electric Company bo conceal its profits. At least it is true that the Northern Electric Company is controlled by the Bell Telephone Company, and in the year 1926 the Bell Telephone Company was a customer of the Northern Electric Company to the extent of 5/.8 per cent of its total business. In 1926, according to Mr. R. A. Reid, barrister, who was counsel for the Ontario government at the last 'hearing before the Board of Railway Commissioners and also at the appeal from that hearing before the cabinet, $12,000,000 of apparatus, supplies and equipment were sold by the Northern Electric Company to the Bell Telephone Company, and at the end of that year the Northern Electric: Company had total reserves and surplus amounting to $8,400,070, with property and plant valued at $9,882,053. For the years from 1920 to 1925 the depreciation reserve ranged from 100 per cent to 129 per cent; that is what was set aside yearly for depreciation of plant and equipment. Surely this is a satisfactory financial condition, yet the Bell Telephone Company, which owns 52 par cent of the stock of the Northern Electric Company, does not show any share in its profits. They would rather receive their profits through an increased rate granted by the Board of Railway Commissioners, which is levelled on the people of Ontario and Quebec. Under the statute as it is at present, the Board of Railway Commissioners cannot investigate the Northern

Bell Telephone Company
Electric Company, and it seems quite clear that the right to investigate the subsidiaries of the Bell Telephone Company, among them the Northern Electric Company, should be granted by parliament to the Board of Railway Commissioners. If we, as a parliament, do not grant the Board of Railway Commissioners the right and power to investigate the subsidiary companies of the Bell Telephone Company, surely we cannot be said to be safeguarding the interests of the people. The Geary bill, which has not come up for consideration, was designed to do that very thing.


Mr. MORIN (Bagot):: W'hat abouit the Sanderson amendment?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That amendment was moved only to-nigh!, and although it seems similar to the Geary bill I cannot say whether or not it serves the same purpose. As a matter of fact I think it would be a very good thing in this case if this public hill could be given some sort of right in this chamber, because it has been moved by this member in order to safeguard the interests of the public. We have 245 members in this chamber who have openly, eloquently and solemnly promised at election times to work very hard in the interests of the public and to do w'hat they could to safeguard the common people against attack from any source whatever. This is a fine opportunity to make good that promise. Undoubtedly the members of this house, by defeating the Bell Telephone bill as it stands at present, have an opportunity to serve the people in Ontario and Quebec, and indeed- the people of all Canada.
One would hesitate to say that a Liberal government is more interested in a bill which proposes to increase the capital of the Bell Telephone Company from 175,000,000 to $150,000,000 than in safeguarding the people by passing with that bill an amendment which will make it possible to have the affairs of the subsidiary companies investigated when the Bell Telephone Company comes before the Board of Railway Commissioners to ask for an increase in rates, or by adopting the Geary bill, which will do the same thing. I think there is no doubt that at some future date the Bell Telephone Company will again appear before the Board of Railway Commissioners asking for a guarantee of dividends on their increased capital, should this bill pass. If it weire true, as we hope it is not, that the predominant element within a Liberal government stands for that principle of looking after special privilege
before looking after the interests of the masses of the people, one might well ask if that is a good Liberal principle or doctrine.
The thing which makes the Bell Telephone Company bill look suspicious is this: If there is to be no milking of profits from the Bell Telephone Company by the Northern Electric Company why should not the Bell Telephone Company welcome a full and free investigation into the affairs of the Northern Electric Company and its other subsidiaries? Some friends of the bill claim that the company wants more capital with which to extend its business. If that is true, why did not the friends of the bill support the Garland amendment in this house, which to me seemed the easiest and most sensible course to adopt if an increase in capital were desired, since it provided for the sale of stock in the open market. The house defeated that amendment; and from that we can only conclude that the amendment was defeated by the friends of the Bell Telephone Company, which leads us to be exceedingly suspicious of the reason for this doubling of capital. I think the Globe of Monday, May 28, 1928, makes it very clear when it says, in a short editorial on the first page of the second section:
Why-if everything is straightforward, clean-cut and aboveboard-does not the Bell Telephone corporation welcome the Geary bill, which would effectively establish its bona tides.
Why-if everything is straightforward, clean-cut and aboveboard-does not the Bell Telephone corporation welcome the proposal to offer this new stock to the public at the market price, which would effectively dispose of any suspicion that the public service monopoly plans to "cut a melon" among its privileged shareholders, as was done the other day by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company?
One of the chief reasons given by the Bell Telephone Company for the increase requested when they last appeared before the Board of Railway Commissioners was that they needed the increase to enable them to pay dividends on their stock. Now they want to double the amount of that stock, and I suppose the next step would be to go back to the Board of Railway Commissioners and ask for increased rates in order to guarantee an 8 per cent dividend on the increased capitalization. Again, that will result in swollen profits with which they will have to do something, and if they take the same step again they will increase their capital and then go back to the Board of Railway Commissioners and have their rates raised sufficiently high to enable them to pay dividends on the increased capital; that will go on endlessly.
Bell Telephone Company

I was much interested this morning in reading the long and detailed brief submitted by Mr. Reid when, as counsel for the provincial government he made an appeal to the cabinet against the ruling of the board. The very close connection between three or four companies is made very clear by him. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company owns 98 per cent of the stock of the Western Electric Company; the Western Electric Company owns 48 per cent of the stock of the Northern Electric Company, and the Bell Telephone Company owns 52 per cent of the stock of the Northern Electric Company. It will be seen that there is a direct connection between the higher rates the people of Ontario and Quebec pay and the swollen profits of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. I am surprised that such a good Canadian as the member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) who so violently protested against the talking out of this bill, is anxious to have the money of his very patriotic city go to swell the profits of the millionaires of New York. If one goes through all the material submitted by Mr. Reid, who would seem to be the greatest authority on this subject-


James Houston Spence: He thinks he is, that is all.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: -the connection between the high rates paid by our people and the profits of all these other companies cannot fail to be noticed. This milking process has now been going on for some time. The Bell Telephone Company has been successful in hiding from the people who pay the rates the amount of their profits. Some they have hidden in depreciation much greater than they use, as I will show in a moment, and some they have hidden in the Northern Electric Company.
The depreciation set aside by the Bell Telephone Company has been hiding enormous profits in the past. I am now quoting from page 15 of the petition in appeal:
From the year 1912 down to the year 1920, it has taken out of the telephone users and subscribers of Ontario and Quebec, under the guise or mark of a depreciation charge, the sum of over $39,000,000, and has only used or spent out of that money for the purpose of depreciation for which it "was extracted from the telephone users, the sum of about $13,000,000, leaving a sum of over $26,000,000, taken out of the pockets of the said telephone users of Ontario and Quebec in extortionate, high and excess telephone rates during that period of time, and which will never be spent for the express specific purpose for which it was squeezed out of the said telephone users, and is still being added to and piled up at the rate of over $1,500,000.

That would seem to show that the Bell Telephone Company is hiding what is really profit under the name of depreciation.
When we consider the way they have of dealing with the income tax, we find that they keep the public from knowing just how much they are making out of the rates charged. On page 11 of this same petition in appeal we find the following:
The question of income tax was not properly dealt with by the railway commission, and no definite finding, judgment, or decision was arrived at, thus leaving in the air an item of over $400,000, which your petitioners contend should not be allowed at all as an operating expense of the company, as has been done, but should be deducted from the company's net earnings and paid by the company and its shareholders, and not by the subscribers and telephone users, nor shifted by the company in such a way as to have to be paid by the telephone users; nor is the company entitled to, by rate increases or otherwise, sufficiently high rates to meet the payment of such income tax payment. It must be paid by the company direct as an entity or person out of and from surplus and net profits. It is not an operating expense.
Mr. Reid goes on to show that the method used by the Bell Telephone Company in the paying of their income tax is contrary to the statute under which the income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue operates, and he quotes as follows:
It is under and by virtue of section 3, subsection 8, of 13 and 14 George V. chapter 52. statutes for 1923. that the department acts, and that is the authority under which an item of this kind, put in as an operating expense, is disallowed as such.
And further on:
The application of the Bell Telephone Company for an increase of rates was based upon the operations for the year 1925, and the company showed a nominal paper bookkeeping deficit of $8,712 for that year. But it improperly charged its income tax payment, amounting to $320,000, as an operating expense. If this had not been done, and had the income tax payment been dealt with in a proper manner as hereinbefore explained, there would have been a surplus of over $300,000 in 1925, instead of a deficit, and the application of the company should have been dismissed.
And then, to my mind, he clinches the matter in the last three lines on page 12 by saying:
The Bell Telephone Company should stand in no more favourable position than the wage earner, or the salaried individual, who must pay his income tax out of his net earnings.
The Bell Telephone Company have been doing very nicely for themselves by passing their income tax on down and charging it to the telephone users in higher rates. Added to that, they have been sinking very large sums of money in depreciation reserves that

Bell Telephone Company
have never been used for that purpose. It would seem to me that the members of this house, who represent after all, if they are guided by their professions, the telephone users rather than the Bell Telephone Company, should take such steps as will prevent the Bell Telephone Company on the one hand, from hiding its profits, and on the other, from passing its income tax on down to the people on the ground floor. When we think of anyone, no matter where he lives or what his job is, who has a telephone, he pays not only his own income tax but a share of the income tax of this wealthy Bell Telephone Company of Canada and its subsidiary companies. Surely that is not fair. If people pay their own income tax that should be enough without asking them to pay the other fellow's as well.
As I am a representative of a constituency which is almost wholly agricultural, I think it would be well to consider the position of the farmer in regard to the increased rates, and in regard to the income tax which is passed on down. There are many people besides the Bell Telephone Company who are in the position of passing their increased cost of living and their income tax on down the line until it reaches the place where it can be passed no farther, and that fellow must pay up. In this case that fellow is the farmer. The farmer in Ontario or Quebec who uses a telephone and indeed, whether he uses it or not, pays for the increased telephone rates of many people. He pays it not only for himself but also for the increased rates of the telephone that his doctor uses, the increased rates of the telephones used by his dentist, by the merchant from whom he buys his supplies, by the minister whom he hears preach on Sundays. He pays for the increased rates of the telephones used by the implement agent, the man who runs the gasoline station, the blacksmith who shoes his horses, the editors of the newspapers, both daily and weekly, that he reads. Indeed he pays the increased telephone rate of the dealer to whom he sells his farm products, if he has not yet developed intelligence enough to know that he should sell his own products in cooperation with his fellows. Last, but certainly not least, he pays the increased telephone charges of the undertaker, or at least his estate does. The farmer is on the ground floor. He cannot pass his increased costs of living due to the rates on to somebody else. I have heard a great deal in the house about the farmer not paying an income tax. Hon. members now know the reason. He is so busy paying other people's he has not anything left to pay his own. It is not any wonder at all that the agriculturists are getting out from under the load.
In conclusion, if the government care for the people, indeed, if they care only for themselves and wish to maintain themselves in the position which they now happily occupy-
I mean happily for them-it would be very well for them to do everything in their power to ditch the Bell Telephone bill as it is at present constituted. If by the Sanderson amendment it is as well safeguarded as it would be by the Geary bill-and I am not in a position to say whether it is or not- it would put the matter in a different light; but the Bell Telephone bill should be safeguarded in such a way that the people of Ontario and Quebec will not again be forced to pay higher rates which will enable the Bell Telephone Company to pay dividends on its increased capitalization.


John Wesley Edwards: I had intended to present certain statistics to the house and my estimate of those statistics for the consideration of my fellow members, but the figures which I intended to give have been presented by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and I will Dot burden the record or take up any time by repeating the figures which she has placed on Hansard. Hitherto I have registered no opinion in regard to the Bell Telephone bill, but I want to place myself on record just to this extent. This is a bill which involves an extra capitalization of $75,000,000. That is a large amount of money. The company .is already capitalized at $75,000,000 and it wants to double that capitalization. The company is a very large one, one of the biggest concerns in the Dominion of Canada, and it has obtained from the people of the Dominion the money to become a big concern. Therefore it seems to me that in a matter of such proportions as this is, with practically all the people of Canada interested on the one side and the company on the other, a bill involving so much money and of such far-reaching effect is one which could very well wait for further consideration at the next session of parliament. That, is the view that I take in regard to the matter, and if those who are sponsoring in parliament the bill of the Bell Telephone Company have confidence in the merits of their case and in the request of that company for an increased capitalization, they can well afford to wait until all classes of the people-because practically all the people of Canada are interested in this matter-have had an opportunity thoroughly to study and digest the question from every angle.
Bell Telephone Company


George Reginald Geary: If there were one ground upon which Your Honour's ruling was right, if I may say so with all1 deference, it is that the amendment before the house does not cover the same matter as does the bill to which Your Honour refers. The amendment before the house has not harm in it. The difficulty with it is that it is perfectly innocuous; it will get us nowhere and any lawyer in the house who is acquainted with the practice of the courts and of the Board of Railway Commissioners will tell the house readily that it is not of the slightest use at all. It does not bring, for the purpose of investigation, the Northern Electric Company under the jurisdiction of the board, and it is a very serious question whether, under the terms of the amendment of my hon. friend, the Board of Railway Commissioners would have any power whatever to act under those sections of the Railway Act which give them their powers and set out their procedure. The danger I see in my hon. friend's amendment is this and it is one I am sure he did not quite see himself because I believe, as was evidenced by his vote the other night, my hon. friend is opposed to the increase of capitalization at this time. If anyone suggested this change to my hon. friend, what was in the mind of the one who suggested it to him-
Mr. SANDERSON; I resent the insinuation therein implied.


George Reginald Geary: I am asking if there was any suggestion made of that.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then the hon. member has gone too far.


George Reginald Geary: I will withdraw anything my hon. friend objects to.


Frederick George Sanderson: The inference.


George Reginald Geary: What is the inference?


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend knows.


George Reginald Geary: I am quite at a loss. I am saying that my hon. friend by his vote the other day evinced his desire to prevent the capitalization from being carried out in the way it is suggested.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend went further than that. He endeavoured, I take it, to leave the impression on the house and on the country that there was some influence behind my action in regard to the amendment.


George Reginald Geary: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. friend.


George Reginald Geary: Then the matter is settled. I had no idea there was any influence on my hon. friend.


Hewitt Bostock: I rather gathered that
from the remarks of the hon. member.


George Reginald Geary: No. I said quite distinctly that my hon. friend had no such idea in his mind, but that if anyone cooperated with him in drawing up the amendment or if anyone else was concerned in that drawing-up unknown to my hon. friend, that person had it well in mind that this might serve as a sort of grease, as was said by an hon. member to my left, to carry through the capitalization of the Bell Telephone Company. Shall I adjourn the debate?


Hewitt Bostock: I think it is too late.


John Warwick King: If I might be permitted to say just a word, there are still on the order paper two private bills which have been discussed.


George Reginald Geary: Will the right hon. gentleman permit me? Was the debate adjourned on my motion?


Hewitt Bostock: It is past nine o'clock.


John Warwick King: I was not
speaking in reference to the measure referred to by my hon. friend. There are still two private bills on the order paper. They have been discussed at considerable length and I am advised, whether rightly or wrongly I cannot say, that the house would be prepared without further discussion, to vote upon them. If that should be the case, it might accommodate all parties if those bills could by agreement be called at the present time, with the understanding, of course, that if there is an objection to either of them being voted upon, that would prevent its being taken up at this time, and if there is no objection to the measures being voted upon the house would pass upon them finally.


Milton Neil Campbell: I may inform the Prime Minister that there is objection to them.


John Warwick King: That settles
the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills being exhausted the house will revert to committee of supply.

S upply-I m migra tion

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Soldier land settlement-amount required for soldier land settlement advances and cost of administration of soldier settlement, $1,558,000.
Amount required for general land settlement advances and cost of administration of general land settlement, $1,557,000.
Robert Gardiner: I would like to inquire if the minister has come to any decision with regard to the disposal of soldier settlement lands that have no agricultural value.


Robert Forke: I cannot definitely state
that we have reached any conclusion. I did not suppose that there were any soldier settlement lands that could be classed as having no agricultural value. They may have very little agricultural value in some cases, but I do not really think that any of them could be regarded as of no agricultural value. We have some very poor lands up in the inter-lake district in Manitoba, some of which have been selected as soldier settler lands, and I am inclined to believe that a good many of these lands are not suitable, and that no family could make a living upon them. If they cannot be sold at a reasonable figure, and taxes are accruing upon them, my idea would be-I am not making this as a definite statement-to let the municipalities handle them themselves, if they can collect the taxes on some of these very, very poor lands. That is the only solution I can see so far as the taxes on these lands are concerned. I would be prepared to sell them to the neighbouring farmers for what they would bring; I am referring to the very poor lands that we have up in the inter-lake district in Manitoba. I repeat, however, that I do not think there is any land that you could class as useless for agricultural purposes, because it should be fit for grazing purposes at all events.


Robert Gardiner: In using the term "of
no agricultural value," I was using the term which the minister himself applied to these poor lands last year. That is the very expression he used. He told this committee a year ago that there were something like 5,000 abandoned farms, 3,000 of them fairly good agricultural land, and 2,000 of no agricultural value, so if I made a mistake in describing the lands, the minister is responsible. The point I want to get at is this. Taxes are accruing on these lands, and the municipalities and school districts are tied
up because of these taxes being unpaid. I merely suggest to the minister at this time that he should try to do something with regard to these lands; get rid of them so that they will be taxable at as early a date as possible.


William Thomas Lucas: Can the minister tell the
committee what is the situation with regard to the revaluation of soldier settlement lands?


Robert Forke: I have a short memorandum on this subject here which I will read first:
The question of revaluation is one that is creating considerable interest, and it is worth while explaining what is being done.
The act was passed a year ago, becoming effective on the 1st June. The condition of the act was that a settler had up to the 1st October, 1927, to apply for revaluation. As there were a number who had not applied at that time, an order in council was passed lengthening the time to the 30th November, 1927, with a proviso that if special conditions arose in which a settler was unable to make application, and these conditions were submitted to the board under oath, the board might accept his application for revaluation.
It was quite evident that before revaluation could be systematically and economically carried out, it would be necessary to wait until the greater number of applications had been received, so that a district could be plotted out and revaluation undertaken without the loss of too much time and too great expense.
It was first decided that no revaluation would be started until all the applications were in, but as the applications came in more rapidly than was expected, it was decided that revaluation should start during July, 1927, and be proceeded with until winter conditions made it impossible to make a proper revaluation.
The method of revaluation is that the land inspector making the revaluation proceeded to the settler's place, and, in conference with the settler, agreed to the identity of the land, the state of cultivation in which the land was when it was bought for him, and the condition of the buildings when bought. This having been agreed to, the inspector proceeded to measure up the acreages that were under cultivation and those which were cultivable, and also to make other appraisements on the land and put a valuation on the buildings, as they were at that time. Having done this, the inspector then placed a valuation on the farm as it was when purchased, according to present day values in that particular district.
The act also provided that if a settler had, by good farming methods, brought his land into a better state of cultivation than it was when he got it, then he received an allowance in appreciation, but if it was discovered that the land was in a fair to good state of cultivation when he got it but by neglect and poor farming it had gone back, then he was charged up with a certain amount of depreciation.
If buildings had been removed, the settler was charged up with the price of the buildings, or if buildings had been burned he was charged up with the amount of insurance that he had received, or, in other words, if a piece of land
Sup-ply-Immigration

was worth $3,000 with the buildings on it, the land without the buildings was appraised at $2,220, and if these buildings had been moved off or burned, the price of the buildings, or the amount of insurance received, was added on to the $2,200.
The number of settlers eligible to apply for revaluation is 10,682. Of these 7,886 applied, and during the mid-summer and fall of 1927
1.515	of these revaluations were made. Of this number 1,003 have been received at head office.
I should also like to quote a few figures from a statistical summary as of May 23:
The number of settlers eligible to apply was 10,682. Out of this number, 7,886 applications were received. During last summer and fall, before it got too late to make revaluations,
1.515	appraisals were completed by the supervisors. Of this number 1,314 were forwarded by the district offices to head office, but as head office found certain oversights as to documentation which necessitated their return for correction, the final number that were approved by head office as at May 23rd was 831.
The 831 that have been approved were sold to the settlers at $3,008,602, and the final total reduction on revaluation was $609,275, or an average total reduction of 20.3 per cent.
That is the situation as far as the revaluation has gone. I am informed that the bill dealing with soldier land settlement passed the Senate yesterday, but it will not become law until it has received the royal assent. Until then no steps can be taken for revaluation, but arrangements will be made for this purpose. Any further information I shall be pleased to supply.


Mr. NEILL:: Of the 831 cases which the
minister says have been finally approved, have the men got their title, or have the cases simply been approved in the office?


Robert Forke: They are completed, but I am informed that some of the men are not satisfied and there may be an appeal.


Alan Webster Neill: They are not completed?


Robert Forke: They are completed as far as the Soldier Settlement Board appraisers are concerned.


Alan Webster Neill: It does not seem to me to be very swift progress when only 10 per cent have been valued, but not finally approved except by the department. I would not consider that a claim was finally approved until the man was satisfied or the courts told him he would have to be satisfied. Has the minister any record of how many of these applications have come from British Columbia and how many of them have been dealt with finally?


Robert Forke: From Vancouver there were 621 applications; 560 appraisals made; cases received at head office, 162; finally approved,

162. From Vernon, 465 applications; 37 appraisals made; cases received at head office, 37; finally approved, 4. About 200 cases altogether have been received at head office.


Alan Webster Neill: And finally settled?


Robert Forke: Finally settled as far as the Soldier Settlement Board appraisals are concerned.


Alan Webster Neill: But I repeat what I said before; that is not a final settlement. I would only call those finally settled where the soldiers and the department have mutually agreed on the price. I want to know how many have been finally settled. Apparently very few indeed.


Robert Forke: I am informed that about 85 per cent of the revaluations have been approved and accepted by the soldier settlers.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: What is the percentage by provinces of applications for revaluation?


Robert Forke: I shall have to figure that up.


Alan Webster Neill: Has any arrangement been
made by the Exchequer Court of Canada to facilitate the hearing of these cases at points comparatively accessible to the settlers? I presume the settlers will not be expected to come here.


Robert Forke: The exchequer court have given out no statement as to what procedure shall be adopted.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought they had made
some regulations.


Robert Forke: But these are the regulations in regard to appeals to the exchequer court:
1.	The appellant shall, within thirty days from the day of filing his notice of appeal addressed to the registrar of the court, in compliance with Rule 6 of the board, file with the registrar a statement in writing setting forth his grounds of appeal, and serve a copy of the same upon the board.
2.	The crown may, within thirty days from the service of the appellant's statement of the grounds of his appeal upon the board, file with the registrar of the court any statement of objections it may desire to urge against the allowance of the said appeal and serve the same upon the appellant. Thereupon either party will be at liberty to make an application to a judge of the Exchequer court to fix the time and place of the hearing of such appeal. .
3.	In the event of the appellant failing to file and serve his statement of grounds of appeal or the crown failing to file and serve any objections to the allowance of the appeal within the time prescribed, or such further time as a judge may allow upon application

Supply-Immigration
made therefor, the appeal may be set down for hearing by order of a judge upon the application of either party.
4.	All proceedings in the appeal shall be governed by the right and justice of the case as may appeal to the judge and shall not be required to conform to the technical rules of procedure of the court.
5.	Upon the hearing the judge may allow or dismiss the appeal or make such order as he may deem proper in the circumstances of the case.
I think the judges of the exchequer court have been communicated with, but no statement has yet been handed out as to where the cases will be heard.
M.r. FANSHER (Lambton): Did I understand the minister to say that he had the number of applications by provinces?


Robert Forke: By districts.


William Russell Fansher: Has revaluation proceeded at relatively the same rate in the different provinces, or is it further advanced in some provinces than in others?


Robert Forke: Yes, looking at the list I think they are pretty much the same.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister distinguish between the two items which make up the whole? I notice the second item is:
Amount required for general land settlement advances and cost of administration of general land settlement.
Is that in connection with the returned men or has it to do with settlers apart from returned men?


Robert Forke: The first item relates to the Soldier Settlement Board and the second to general land settlement. The Soldier Settlement Board is acting as the land settlement board for the Department of Immigration.


Robert Gardiner: Under the second item is it proposed to make advances for the purchase of land?


Robert Forke: The board's general land
settlement activities may be summarized as follows:
1.	3,000 British family settlement scheme.
2.	500 New Brunswick British family settlement scheme.
3.	British farm labour placements and aftercare services under the aftercare agreement with the British government-
(a)	British families under the above two
schemes.
(b)	British farm labourers recruited by the department overseas.
(c)	British farm labourers nominated in Canada.
(d)	British migrants under the "Hoadley Scheme" province of Alberta.
(e)	British farm labourers brought to Canada by the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway.
This amount is required to take care of general settlement. Was the hon. member asking about administrative work?


Robert Gardiner: I want to know whether it is proposed under this particular item to make advances for the general land settlement scheme?


Robert Forke: The advances in connection
with the British family scheme and other land schemes are made by the department on a fifty-fifty basis with the British Empire settlement committee. The Department of Immigration makes the payment in the first place and is afterwards recouped by the British government on a fifty-fifty basis. That is what the million is for.


Robert Gardiner: It is not the intention
of the government to buy more farms?


Robert Forke: No.


Alan Webster Neill: I want to bespeak the clemency of the minister in behalf of a man in the district I represent. I need not go into the details as his deputy has the full particulars, but I want to mention this aspect of it. The government four years ago assessed his land and the then appraiser said this: About the centre of the property where the land is lower, and on about eight acres the soil is a shallow loam, about two inches on clay. This particular part of the farm will require further drainage.
Further on he says that the farm has been cropped thirty years and the soil is run out. This part of the farm has been assessed recently for revaluation purposes at $100 an acre. I do not blame the minister, but as a practical farmer does he think that $100 an acre is a reasonable price for land described as shallow loam, two inches deep on clay which requires drainage? I put that to the minister as a practical man. I know what his answer will be and I believe he will promise to look into the matter.


Robert Forke: I can only say I want
justice done in every case, and if the balance tips I want it to tip in favour of the soldier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Loans to Canadian National Railway Company Amount not exceeding $39,000,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient) by
399S
Supply-Railways-C.NR.
[Stage Direction]
or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, herein called "The Company," or any company specified or referred to in chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, and chapter 13 of the statutes of 1920 or now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the company in respect of any railways, properties and works entrusted to it from time to time under the provisions of section 19 of chapter 172 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, or any one or more of such companies, on any or all of the following accounts, such expenditures or indebtedness being herein called authorized expenditures:-
(a)	Interest on securities, notes and other obligations: rentals for lease of lines;
(b)	Equipment principal payments; sinking
funds; miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other obligations secured or unsecured;	[DOT]
(c)	Operating income deficit, whenever incurred or ascertained;
(d)	Construction and betterments, including coordinations; acquisition of real or personal property.
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time to meet authorized expenditures, in the discretion of the governor in council:-
(a)	In respect of railways, properties and works entrusted to the company as aforesaid;
(b)	In respect of railways, properties and vmrks not so entrusted by way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:-
If by way of loans from His Majesty, the amount or amounts advanced to any one or more of the said companies shall be repayable on demand, with interest payable half-yearly at the rate fixed from time to time by the governor in council, secured if and when directed by the governor in council by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the governor in council may approve.
If by way of loans from persons other than His Majesty (without the guarantee of His Majesty) the amounts, terms and conditions of such loans shall be such as the governor in council may from time to time approve.
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be either a general guarantee covering the total amount of the issue, or by a separate guarantee endorsed on each obligation, and may be of the principal, interest and sinking funds (if any) of the notes, obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the governor in council, which notes, obligations or securities the companies so specified are hereby authorized to make and issue, and such guarantee may be signed by the Minister of Finance, or such other person as the governor in council may authorize, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto. Any guarantee so signed shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes that the provisions of this enactment have been complied with.
_ Should temporary loans be made or negotiated before the lapse of this appropriation either from His Majesty or other persons, guaranteed notes, obligations or securities may subsequently be issued under the provisions of the [Mr. Forked
preceding paragraph of this enactment to renew, refund or adjust such loans, or any part thereof.
Each company herein mentioned or referred to is hereby authorized to aid and assist, in any manner any other or others of the said companies, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may for its own requirements and also for the requirements of any or all such other companies from time to time:-
(a)	Issue notes, obligations or other securities, joint or several, at discretion, for the purpose of any guarantee made or to be made under the provisions of this enactment;
(b)	Apply the proceeds of any such guaranteed issue, or the amount of loans received by virtue of this enactment, in meeting authorized expenditures on its own account or on account of any or all of such other companies;
.	(c) Make advances for the purpose of meeting authorized expenditures to any or all of such other companies, upon or without any security, at discretion.
No purchaser of such guaranteed notes, securities or obligations shall be under any obligation to inquire into the application of the proceeds of any guaranteed issue, $39,000,000.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): The discussion of this vote commenced the other evening.
Mr. GARDINER; There is a large increase required this year and perhaps the minister will give us an outline of the reasons for it.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This is the estimate in connection with which we decided to discuss the Peace River situation?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend decided it; I did not,


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister said he
would as soon discuss the question here as under any other item. I wish to direct the attention of the committee to the need for a railway in the Peace River country, and I bring the matter up in order to give the minister an opportunity to make a statement on behalf of the government in view of his own statement last year. The committee will remember that last session both the house and the committee on railways and canals gave considerable attention to the subject. When the question came before the house, on the report of the railway committee and the amendment thereto, the Minister of Railways made the following statement, as reported at page 2409 of Hansard, April, 13, 1927:
I intimated while the hon. member was speaking that the government was prepared to accede to that request if the amendment now before the house were withdrawn; and indeed, whether it is withdrawn or not-my hon. friend can press it to a vote if he desires-the government does intend in any event to secure further detailed engineering information lin order to be able to say to the people of the

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
Peace river country and to the people of British Columbia, who are vitally affected, "When a western outlet is built, this in our opinion is the pass through which that line of railway should be constructed	" We are prepared to do that in any case	We
are prepared to ask the Canadian National Railways to_ determine definitely as early as possible which pass should be used when a railway is to be constructed. . . . That is as far as we are ready to go at present.
In view of that statement I want the minister to tell us what has been done in the way of carrying it into effect. I know that a start was made in connection with the matter during last season and that Mr. Hill, one of the engineers of the Canadian National Railways, was up looking over a part of the railway which would be required, running west from Whitelaw towards the Peace river canyon at Hudson Hope. I believe his report was laid on the table of the house early in the session and it illustrates very well the urgent need for carrying out the program which was laid down last year in the amendment, in so far as surveys of the Peace and Mountain pass are concerned. The amendment mentioned the Pine pass as well, but I believe there is fairly complete information available with regard to that pass.
It has been said for years that the Peace river pass is the best route. That may or may not be so, but the late Premier Oliver of British Columbia advocated a line through the Peace pass to Prince George as the best method solving the Peace River Railway problem. His words can be found at page 46 of the evidence of the committee on railways of 1927, The Minister of the Interior was also of that opinion and his words touching the matter are reported at page 270 of Hansard of last year, when he said:
I agree with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) that the only feasible route, irrespective of what it costs, is by the Peace river pass. No one can deny that who knows the topography of the country and the direction in which the rivers run.
The report of the joint board of engineers of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway on various proposed railway routes for a western outlet to the Pacific from the Peace river district contains the following on page 7:
In considering a western outlet from Peace River district (to avoid back-haul) two branches will be required; one starting at Spirit river and running westward 165 miles to Rocky Mountain canyon when it and the branch from Berwyn 200 miles long form a junction on south side of Peace river, this being the only practical crossing of Peace river.
The gradient of new line along the Peace river need not exceed 0.4 per cent excepting the
branch on south side from Spirit river to junction at Rocky Mountain canyon, which will require 1.00 per cent gradient.
The line for about 150 miles west of Berwyn on north side of Peace river is through country that in time would become agricultural, and the same can be said for the first 125 miles west of Spirit river excepting the part through forest reserve.
No extraordinary difficulties would be encountered in construction of line along Peace river; the work would be classed as heavy if compare with average prairie line, and light if compared with average mountain lines.
From Rocky Mountain canyon to Prince George (257 miles) the line will closely parallel the Peace river to Mount Selwyn, thence up the Parsnip, the Pack and Crooked rivers to Summit lake, thence down the slope of Fraser river to Prince George, 35 miles.
From Prince George the traffic can be carried over several routes.
Mr. Hill, who was one of the engineers who signed that report, found that matters were not quite as stated in the report, although I must say his findings are not very conclusive. In paragraph 4 of his report he has this to say:
Range 15 to Rocky Mountain canyon (southerly route). The best and largest area of agricultural land in the Peace river block, north of the river, is known as the St. John country and is in elevation 1,000 feet, or more above the Peace river. To the east of it the Beatton river runs south into the Peace river and its valley is 600 to 1,000 feet deep. To cross it with a direct line gradients up to 2.0 per cent would be required.
The last report stated one per cent. I do not know that I need take up any more of the time of the committee at present with this report, but while the statements with regard to Peace pass and the other passes were made in good faith, we find that the more they are investigated the more new facts come out, which neither the engineers nor anyone else thoroughly grasped previously. It should be pointed out that Mr. Hill's report of last year is mainly concerned1 with the railway running between Whitelaw, the present end of the Central Canada Railway, to Hudson Hope cm the north side of the Peace river. It does not cover the Peace pass, which begins at Hudson Hope. Mr. Hill states that to construct a line coming close to the Peace river on the north side would require gradients of 2 per cent, but that a longer route swinging north would require gradients of only one per cent. However, his report does not state the extra cost which would be involved or the extra mileage which the longer route would necessitate, and in view of that fact the last statement of his report is very much in point. It says:
The Obed route, from information available, is unquestionably the best Pacific outlet for the
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

Peace River country as a whole. It is, however, unpopular with certain sections of the country. Actual surveys have been made over this route and also the Pine pass route. In order that a correct comparison may be made-
That is the point.
-between all routes, surveys must be made over the other two, the Monkman pass and Peace pass routes.
Notwithstanding the fact that the engineer gives certain conclusions and says that this route is not as good as the other, he admits that he has not complete and correct information, and that the information cannot be correct until it is complete. I would like to see complete surveys made of the Peace pass and Monkman pass routes. With all due respect to the engineers and without questioning their good faith I submit that we cannot make a comparison between these various routes until we have a similar or practically similar survey of the Peace pass and Monkman pass routes. I think the experience this country has had as a result of duplication of railways and wrong locations of railways in the past, leading to permanently increased costs of operation and fixed charges, should indicate that it is a wise policy to make sure of the proper location of an outlet such as this.
There is one result which I think is obvious from the survey work already done. I think it was shown in the report of the committee last year that the Peace river country could be railroaded in such a way as to provide about 6,000 economic acres of land to every mile of railway as against about 5,000 acres or a little more in the three prairie provinces. That will mean a great deal in connection with the operation and the revenues of the railway in the future. A survey of these passes may cost several thousand dollars, but the wrong location of railways-because when a railway is once put down it cannot be moved -or the construction of excessive gradients where lower gradients might be obtained at a reasonable cost, soon add millions of dollars which must be paid by the people of the country in freight rates. So I submit that while it may cost a little more to survey these passes, and while we might save a few thousand dollars by not making these surveys, it would be much better to spend that money and get a correct location which will give us the cheapest possible cost of operation in the future. If that policy had been followed in laying out the railways throughout the three prairie provinces as well as throughout the rest of Canada; if a comprehensive study such as will be made if these surveys in the 
Peace river country are completed had been made in the three prairie provinces, it would have meant a great saving in connection with our Canadian National railways. So I submit that it is good policy for Canada and good policy for the Canadian National Railways or any other railway company to have that information, and since in the last analysis the cost of mistakes in railway construction and operation will come directly or indirectly, out of the pockets of the people of Canada, I think it would be a wise and ultimately economic thing for the minister to carry out at the earliest possible moment the promise he made last year.
In his report Mr. Hill has stated that outside business is still agitating for an outlet, while the settler is well satisfied with the grain rates. The settlers are fairly well pleased with the present freight rate; they are reasonable enough to know that the present rates in the Peace River country are very good considering the mileage over which the traffic must be hauled. However, they are also aware of the fact that a coast outlet would place them in a position as advantageous with respect to shipping their grain to the Pacific coast as that occupied by Edmonton to-day, and the saving in the cost of moving grain to the Pacific coast as against the cost from Edmonton would be approximately 6 cents per bushel. This year, in view of the bill which has just passed this house and the Senate, the Alberta government will construct about 40 miles of railway. I think it is unfortunate that surveys were not completed before these lines were laid down, but the need for this work was so great that the money was voted at the last session of the legislature. They are now constructing one branch of the railway and they will start on the other one, I understand, just as soon as they possibly can. In view of the statement of the Minister of Railways last year, I should like him to assure the house this service will be completed as soon as possible, and this season if it can be done. I know the Minister of Railways is anxious to do this, and I trust he can assure the house that he sees his way clear to get the thing done as soon as possible.


Charles Avery Dunning: I trust my hon. friend
will not regard me as discourteous if I reply somewhat briefly. At this stage of the session I do not think the house would desire to have a very lengthy discussion on the various possible routes from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast.
As the hon. member has indicated, I made a statement last session. My hon. friend says

Supply-Railways-C .N.R.
I made a promise. I wish he had not said that, because I try to avoid making promises. I made the statement a year ago of my intention to do something which was then within my power to arrange to have done. It did not constitute a promise to do something in the future.
My hon. friend has discussed the report of the engineer who went through the Peace pass in order to determine its comparative value as a western outlet for the Peace River railways. My hon. friend now desires assurance that similar work will be done immediately on other passes. I cannot at the moment intimate with the same clearness I did a year ago that the work will be proceeded with this year along the lines indicated. I have no positive assurance as to the men and facilities being available to go on with the work. But I would say this to my hon. friend I apprehend that when parliament is asked to vote money for the construction of any line westward from the Peace River country through northern British Columbia, the first thing this house will want to know is what the Canadian National Railways management recommend with respect to the location, the construction and everything connected with it. I deprecate our dragging this matter into the realm of what might be called a discussion by laymen, such as my hon. friend and myself, because it is, after all, a question of railroad construction and operating economics when the decision to spend public moneys finally comes before parliament for approval. I feel sure when that time comes that parliament will desire rather to pay heed to men who make a life work of determining these questions on an engineering and economic basis than to take my view, or even the view of my hon. friend, interested though he may be as a resident of the district.
The information which I have tabled respecting the work done last year indicates that the Canadian National management at the present time believe that they have sufficient information to justify them in saying which would be the most economical route from the Peace River country to the British Columbia ports. I cannot say that I am personally satisfied that sufficient investigation has been made, and I intend to endeavour to get the Canadian National management to see the matter in that light and make a further and more detailed investigation before any definite and decisive recommendation is made as to the route. I can give my hon. friend that undertaking, but at the present time I am not in position to say that such and such work will be done this year on the height ol land between Alberta and British Columbia.


Mr. FRASER:: As another member of this house who is more or less interested in the development of the Peace River country, I would like to say a very few words in regard to this question. I might say at the outset that I am rather disappointed in the statement of the Minister of Railways. Last year the Minister of Railways made a statement in the house, which I might as well read, as he has somewhat limited the application of it to-night. I am reading from Hansard, 1927, page 2409, when the Minister of Railways was speaking on this question and replying, I think, to the member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy).


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend (Mr. Kennedy) has just quoted it; there is no question about it.


John Anderson Fraser: This is what appears in
Hansard:
I intimated while the hon. member was speaking that the government was prepared to accede to that request .if the amendment now before the house were withdrawn; and, indeed, whether it is withdrawn or not-my hon. friend can press it to a vote if he desires-the government does intendin any event to secure further detailed engineering information in order to be able to say to the people of the Peace river country and to the people of British Columbia, who are vitally affected, "When a western outlet is built, this in our opinion is the pass through which that line of railway should be constructed." We are prepared to do that in any case.
Just by way of introduction I would like to say this; let the house remember in the first place that we are dealing with a very large question. The Peace River drainage basin comprises 117,000 square miles of land, which is equal to about 75,000,000 acres. In my opinion, with this land it is possible to double the present output of wheat in the Dominion of Canada. Anything that will do that is surely an important question and one that requires the very earnest attention of every person in the Dominion of Canada. It would indicate that by the development of the Peace River country it is possible almost to double the population of the Dominion of Canada.
Let me point out this further fact. The Peace River country is roughly a thousand miles from the Pacific Ocean and three thousand miles from the Atlantic seaboard. That would surely indicate that the best route to haul the products of that country is to the west. At once another question comes in, and that is the Panama canal. The Panama canal is having a wonderful effect all over the Pacific coast. At the present time we

Supply-Railways-C .N.R.

are actually transporting goods from Toronto and Hamilton to the city of Vancouver without breaking bulk. I know of an agricultural implement agency who are distributing a good part of their products all over British Columbia, and I contend that that will be the route over which these products will pass to the Peace River country, as soon as the proper line of railway is constructed. The Panama canal will act as an equalizer and regulating agency so far as rates into the Peace River country are concerned.
So far as I am concerned the proper route to be taken is via the Peace River valley. This route would provide the lowest grades through the Rocky mountains. The elevation through this pass would be 2,350 feet, and the elevation of the Canadian National railways through the Rocky mountains at the present time is 3,750, while the Canadian Pacific railway has an elevation of 5,350. This is one of the factors which must be taken into consideration. The grade will not exceed the grade of the Canadian National railways, and they have the best grade for a transcontinental railway on the American continent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know my hon. friend
does not wish to labour under a misapprehension. Has he read the engineers' report made this year on the Peace River pass?


John Anderson Fraser: That is not on the Peace
River pass at all. I beg to differ with the Minister of Railways on that point. Anyone who will attempt to make parliament or the people of the Dominion of Canada believe that that report has any relation at all to the Peace River country's western outlet is not putting the matter in a proper light. I might as well take up that question now. The Peace River country, to be properly served, must have a main line from the coast to Hudson Hope. From Hudson Hope there must be two lines, one on the north side of the river and one on the south side. The work that was done by your engineer this year did not touch the Peace River pass at all. It went as far as Hudson Hope and it went from there east to Peace River crossing or somewhere near there. It linked up those two points. That is only branch line construction and it will be so for all time in the Peace River country. Exactly the same thing pertains to the south side of the river. There will be one mainline running from the Pacific coast to Hudson Hope and from that point we must have a branch line on each side of the river. That will be branch line construction and operation for all time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then how are the Peace River people going to get mainline service?


John Anderson Fraser: The mainline from the
Peace River is from the coast to Hudson Hope. From that point you must have two lines. Let me say this also in connection with the Peace River. That is the only route into the Peace River country that will not entail a back haul. On any other route you take, for instance, the Obed route, the Monkman route, or any of the southern routes, you will have to haul the freight on the north side of the river either to Berwyn on the east or to Hudson Hope on the west. If the country is going to develop-and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) quoted from the report that the best part of the Peace River country was on the north side-it is a shorter distance to the coast to haul freight from Fort St. John to Hudson Hope. In any other case you have to haul it east and then west again. The Peace river country can never be developed without a main line from the Pacific coast to Hudson Hope. From Hudson Hope, which is the only crossing on the Peace River for two hundred and fifty miles, it is impossible to get a crossing at all, and you have 'on both sides of the river immense areas of first class agricultural land. The minister's engineer of course states that the areas on the north side are splendid agricultural land and the report we had last year stated that the areas on the south side were equally valuable. It is impossible to suppose that either of those areas will remain undeveloped. Consequently the development of the Peace River country in my opinion must be through the Peace River pass, because that is the only route which will not entail a back haul and of course add distance to the haul and add to the expense of the haul. The Peace River route will provide that haul from any part of that country connecting at Hudson Hope and from there proceeding along the main line to whatever outlet you may take on the Pacific coast.
That is the fault, the Chairman, I find with the statement made by the Minister of Railways last year and the actual work that has been accomplished. I took it from the statement he made that he was going to make a serious effort to get information in regard to the development of the Peace River country. I say here, and I say it advisedly that the work that was done this year had no relation at all to the ultimate outlet of the Peace River country. We have not only, as I have stated, the lowest summits, the best grades, but, it must be remembered, immense

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
water powers in that country. It is possible on the Peace river to develop all kinds of water powers; in fact the late Premier Oliver in his statement here said there was sufficient water power along the route to operate by electricity the whole of the route. We have tributary to those water powers all kinds of minerals and timber awaiting development in that country. Put all these things together and I think it will be found that this is a question that deserves the very serious consideration of the government:
In addition to the statement made by the Minister of Railways last year we have ample evidence in the records which were gathered before the railway committee last year to justify a serious attempt at least to get all the information available about the Peace River route. My contention is that as regards the actual route there is at present no available information, because Premier Oliver when he was before the railway committee stated that the Obed route would be a positive danger to British Columbia. He favoured the Peace River route. In making a statement before the parliamentary committee he laid this down:
Great care should be taken to see that railway construction is so located that it will form part of a permanent transportation system having in view the maximum development of the country.
I might refer to what is called the maximum development of the country. The information laid before the railway committee 'last year in regard to the maximum development of that country estimated that only 1,860,000 tons of freight were available in that territory. But remember this, that the area they were speaking of was only a very limited area of the Peace River country, and, as I have pointed out, the possible freight to be developed in that country is not 1,860,000 tons but ten or twelve million tons. Railroading a country for 1,860,000 tons is an altogether different proposition from railroading it for ten or twelve million tons. I think the evidence which has been produced before the committee and which is before the government at the present time does not take into consideration the large-sized development of that whole area. Before the matter is definitely decided, this information must be gathered from some reliable source.
We have Premier Brownlee agreeing absolutely with the late Premier Oliver that the Obed route is not a proper settlement of the Peace River question. In fact he says that he is opposed to the Obed route and that the best that, can be said about it is that it is a temporary expedient, a proposition that will 56103-2531
only provide railway service for a very limited area in the Peace River country. We also have the Minister of the Interior, who claimed to have considerable knowledge of the Peace River country, coming out frankly last year in the debate and stating that he was then and had always been of the opinion that the proper way to develop the route was via the Peace River itself. Let me point out some of the conditions that existed in the Peace River country during last winter. They produced somewhere in the neighbourhood of eight or ten millions bushels of grain and they were engaged in hauling that grain all winter-and I am talking now more particularly of the British Columbia end of the district-to the end of steel, a distance of some sixty or seventy miles, some four or five hundred four-horse teams. They were hauling this grain all winter and they were not able even then to move all the grain. In fact I had a letter from a man telling me that if he had teams working from the time that sleighing was in shape to haul the grain and would keep at it until the sleighing was finished, he would have two or three thousand bushels of grain that it would be impossible for him to haul during that year. It takes a whole week to make the trip and they have great difficulties to contend with. They have no proper accommodation on the way and they have to carry their feed with them. All this makes it a slow proposition to haul the grain of that country to the railway terminal which is at Spirit river. These men are paying thirty cents a bushel for hauling this grain to the railway. I was told of one instance where they came to a river. There had been a chinook wind a day or two before, and the water was running over the ice. The man had to haul his load of grain over the ice, and the water on top of the ice was so deep that it flooded his sleigh and wet his grain, and when he got to Spirit river, the elevator would net accept his grain because it was wet. These are some of the difficulties these people are experiencing, and that is on the south side of the river. On the north side, they cannot deliver their wheat until the spring. Then fhev load it on the boat, and it is hauled to Peace River Crossing, where they connect with the railway.
I do not wish to take up any more time at this stage of the session, but I would like to impress upon the minister that in my judgment the work that was done this year in regard to obtaining information about the Peace river was only in regard to branch lines. In fact, when the Minister of Railways was up in that country last year I understand he made the statement that what
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

that country needed was not main lines at all, but more branch lines. Now who ever heard of opening up a country by providing branch lines first, and then the main line afterwards. That was the statement of the minister as reported in the Edmonton paper, and I think that is putting the cart before the horse with a vengeance indeed. It seems to me that the first thing we should provide in connection with a -big development of that kind is the main line, and then afterwards provide your branch lines. How in the world are you going to provide your branch lines in their proper location and in proper juxtaposition to the main line until you have your main line laid down definitely, and you know what you are building to and where you are building to?
I submit that the request made by the hon. member for Peace River is a most moderate one. Not only that, but I submit that this matter should be handled in pretty much the same manner as the minister handled the Hudson Bay railway question. I think an eminent engineer should be required to make a survey of the whole country and of all the conditions that have to be taken into consideration, an eminent engineer who is not connected with either of the two railways, but who will be absolutely impartial and will present a report that will be accepted by all the railway engineers in the country as definite and final. With all due respect to what the Minister of Railways has said, I submit that the Peace River railway question will never be settled until something of that kind is done. It is absolutely necessary for the full development of the Peace River country that a comprehensive survey of the whole situation from every angle be made by an eminent engineer who is not in any way interested in either of the two great railways.
I take the strongest possible exception to what is taking place in that country at the present time. You are asking the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National railways to combine their forces and present a report, or to provide a solution to the problem of developing the Peace River country. I submit that that is absolutely improper. I say -that it is not fair to this country, -it is not fair to the'Canadian National railways and it is not fair to the Canadian Pacific railway. The Minister of Railways must remember that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not interested at the present time in that northern country. They have not a mile of railway north of Edmonton.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend state that I am asking the two railways to join forces?


John Anderson Fraser: That is what is going on with the minister's consent.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is quite wrong; I am not asking them to do any such thing.


John Anderson Fraser: Surely the Minister of
Railways knows that combined offers have been made by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway-


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I know it.


John Anderson Fraser: -for the development of the Peace River country, and for the purchase of the Edmonton and Dunvegan Railway, which must enter into the question.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is very different from stating that the minister is asking them to do it. The minister has not asked them to do anything of the kind.


John Anderson Fraser: It is being done with the minister's consent; he is allowing it to go on. I say that that is not a proper thing to be done. That territory will provide profitable traffic for any railway which develops it. The Canadian National railway is operating at a deficit which the taxpayers of this country have to pay, and if that is a profitable country for a railway to operate in, is it not a good place to help wipe off the deficit on the Canadian National? Then why not turn whatever profit there is in that country to the benefit of the Canadian National Railway? The Canadian Pacific Railway at the present time has ample opportunities of developing its own territory in the southern part of the province. We know perfectly well that when it selected the lands, it selected them contiguous to its own road. Let them develop those lands. We heard in the railway committee last year that there were numbers of places in the southern part of Alberta and Saskatchewan that were crying for railways. That is Canadian Pacific territory. Let them provide the required facilities there before they extend themselves into the northern territory. Let them provide proper transportation facilities for the people who are settled in these southern parts where their own lands are. That seems to me a reasonable proposition. They have sufficient work there to look after, or the people would not be crying out for railways. If that is so, let the Canadian National have the benefit of open-

Supply-R aihoays-C .N .R.
ing up this new country and getting the whole profit, instead of splitting the profit with the Canadian Pacific.
The minister disclaimed any responsibility for the combined offer. If he is not in favour of it, surely it is easy for him to stop it and to get to work in a comprehensive way and give the Canadian National a chance to develop that country, and give it an opportunity to wipe out the deficits which it is incurring, and which the taxpayers have to pay at the present time. I submit that if that proposition is gone about in a proper and comprehensive way, the development of that Peace river country will absolutely wipe out all deficits on the Canadian National Railways. I submit that I am not asking too much when I ask the minister to have a comprehensive survey made of all the conditions by an eminent engineer who will bring in a definite and final report that will enable the people of Canada to know exactly what should be done in order to open up that country.


Mr. BRADY:: I shall not follow in any way the lines that have been taken by the two hon. gentlemen wtho have just spoken. But I wish to place before the house, in the five minutes I intend to take, a question involving the responsibility that is absolutely on the shoulders of this government, and that is to implement what they themselves commenced. The Prime Minister himself, in words that certainly conveyed only one meaning, placed himself definitely behind this outlet to the Pacific coast for the Peace river country. The Minister of Railways last year, also in words as emphatic as a man could use, pledged himself to do what his words were intended to convey. They are in Hansard; shall I read them?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


James Charles Brady: I am glad the house knows exactly what the Minister of Railways said In the short time at my disposal I will us? the logic which the Champions of the Hudson bay railway used to get that road completed to the stage in which it is in to-day. I went to the trouble of reading their speeches, and here are the arguments they advanced for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, and if these arguments are not tenfold stronger for an outlet to the Pacific coast fo-the Peace river country, then our logic is at fault and our arguments are vain. Here are the arguments which the champions of the Hudson Bay railway used:
1 That a huge sum had already been expended. and that to abandon the railway would be a great -waste of public money.
Now here is the first parallel. It was this Dominion government that placed thousands of settlers in the Peace river valley. They are still coming in and will settle there permanently. It is the duty of the government to implement what they promised. Now, number two:
That large area3 in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were set aside and the proceeds from their sale were earmarked for this special enterprise.
In regard to this we already have large sums expended on the reconnaissance and survey of the Obed, Pine and Monkman passes. The Peace River pass has yet to be surveyed in accordance with the people's views. We have spent money there already. Are we going to stop now, when for *he last three months we have been dealing with the biggest problem that confronts the Canadian people -immigration? It is part and parcel of that very scheme. The duty of the government is to decide for all time to come where that outlet is to be and so set the minds of the people at rest. I am not advocating one outlet or the other, but I demand that the minister define the outlet. When that is done you can put in your subsidiary lines wherever necessary. The third argument advanced for the Hudson Bay railway was this:
That the route was feasible on the ground of safety of navigation and shortening of transportation.
Now I appeal to the committee, is not that argument conclusive to-day regarding the Peace River outlet? There is a big drawback by the Edmonton and Dunvegan line to Edmonton. To get that route to the Pacific coast is just as important for the farmers of Alberta and British Columbia as is the Hudson Bay line for the farmers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We were told that if the Hudson Bay railway were connected up at Port Nelson-since Fort Churchill-the terminal would be the same distance from Liverpool as Montreal is, namely, three thousand miles. If that be true, and if that was the main argument for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, I say unhesitatingly that that argument is tenfold stronger when we advance it to get the shortest and most economical route from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast.
Another argument brought forward was found in the wonderful history of the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario railway, and it was said that the Hudson Bay line would equal it because of the great mineral territory through which it would run. Will any hon. gentleman dare deny that the mineral wealth
Sup ply-Rail ways-C .NR.

of the Peace river country, particularly towards the west, is beyond imagination? We have the wealth. You dare bring nothing against any of the arguments laid down for the Hudson Bay railway as those same arguments are applicable to this project.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that the people demand from the government the fulfilment of its pledge. I do not want the government now to go into millions of dollars of expenditure, but I submit it is the duty of the government to take that survey and decide once for all where the outlet to the coast is to be. If it is Stewart, well and good; if Rupert, well and good; but let us know. I think this house would be lacking in the exercise of its authority if it permitted the government now to sit back, as the Minister of Railways is practically doing, and abandon the pledge that he gave in this house on April 13 of last year. On that occasion he said:
When a western outlet is built this, in our opinion, is the pass through which that line of railway should be constructed. This we are prepared to do in any case.
Now, sir, it is simply a question of principle. The hon. minister is bound by all the arguments of logic and honour to make a proper survey this year and let the people of Peace river and the Pacific coast province know where that outlet is to be. I think if the hon. minister did that he would be doing all we are asking.


Mr. MALONEY:: I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that the Peace river country is not the only section of Canada that lacks railway facilities.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wonder if my hon. friend would be kind enough to let me deal with the Peace River matter before he proceeds? I desire to thank the member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) for the very temperate character of his remarks, except in so far as they implied a lack of good faith on my part. I regret I cannot extend the same thanks to the member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). As to the latter's remarks, a question of principle arises immediately which this house must always keep before it in connection with our great experiment of public ownership of railways. My hon. friend insists that the minister shall say to the management: Do this; do not do that, in connection with what is a practical matter of railway economics as to which this house has vested responsibility in the management, and properly so, free from political interference by the minister. If we are to maintain the experiment in public ownership which we
IMr. Brady.]
are carrying on, and make it a success, we must always be very careful to draw a line between what the management as a matter of practical railway economics may wish to do and what the political head of the railway department for the time being may insist upon their doing.
Now, with respect to this matter, I intimated a few minutes ago that when this house eventually votes the money for the construction of this railway enterprise-and that day probably is closer than some of us now think -I am satisfied that the house will not desire to be guided by the engineering and economic advice of my hon. friends from Cariboo, Skeena and Peace River, nor by my advice. This house will demand of me, and properly so, that the management of the Canadian National Railway system, having under the law to do with these matters, shall state what is the sound thing to do from the point of view of railway economics, and will be guided by that expression of opinion rather than by the opinions of any hon. members who have spoken.
May I say to my hon. friend from Cariboo, the same thing applies with reference to the negotiations which have been proceeding for the acquisition of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, now owned by the province of Alberta. The same procedure was followed by this government in that case as was followed by the government in connection with all other provincial lines which were under discussion at the Dominion-provincial conference a few months ago. The management of the Canadian National Railways, the practical railway men of our publicly owned system, were authorized to negotiate with the parties at present owning the lines, with a view to reaching an agreement as to what on the one hand, would be satisfactory to the provincial government, and as to what, on the other hand, tihe railway management could conscientiously recommend to this government. That was done, and that only, in connection with the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company.
I do not desire to embarrass the negotiations, about the present status of which I am not sure. But I do know that the Canadian National management did make, to the present owners of the line, a tentative offer, subject to the condition I have just related. [DOT] They made an offer which was not satisfactory to those owners. Subsequently, due 40 circumstances which I will not take the time to go into, but the responsibility for which cannot be laid at my door or the door

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
of this government, joint negotiations were entered upon between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National, on the one hand, and the owne-' of the road on the other. My hon. friend condemns that. Very well; but I say to him again that when we come finally to deal with that question this house will want to know, not what his opinion is, not even what my opinion is as Minister of Railways, but what are the reasons of the management of our publicly owned enterprise for the recommendations they may make to the minister. So much for that.
Now with reference to the engineering aspect of the question, what was done last year? I thought, when I gave the information to the house by way of a return in detail, that this would be sufficient at any rate to demonstrate that the Canadian National, as requested by me in accordance with the undertaking given to the house last year, had made a substantial start upon the work then contemplated. And in that connection I would ask the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) to be fair enough-I know he wants to be fair-to bear in mind that the Canadian National management, from the very commencement, have had their own views as to what constituted the soundest economic solution of this problem. We are asking them to undertake work which, in the judgment of the management, is not necessary on economic grounds but is necessary only because of the many divergent views held by the people who are affected in the circumstances. What was done? My hon. friend from Cariboo this evening cast aside all the work done by engineer Hill, as well as engineer Hill's report, and propounded what appeared to me to be an entirely new aspect of the problem. Apparently, for him, the main line ends, coming from the west, at Hudson Hope. There is not to be a main line from there through to where the grain is produced in the Peace river valley in Alberta. He is thinking, and properly, in terms of his own constituency in British Columbia, while all the time the real problem -so we are told-is a short outlet to the Pacific coast. That means a main line outlet, if it means anything, from the present producing country in Peace river, Alberta.
It is true my hon. friend is correct when he says that the engineer did not go through the Peace pass last year. Why? Because the exact information regarding the Peace pass was already in the possession of the Canadian National Railways. What the engineer strove to do was to collect accurate information regarding the country which lies between the
producing area in the Peace river in Alberta and Hudson Hope. And the report is before the house. I do not propose to discuss it except to say this: I must of necessity attach more importance to the engineering opinion of that engineer than I do to the opinion of my hon. friend. I must of necessity do that.


James Charles Brady: The minister says that he places more reliance-naturally-upon the engineer's report. But last year I read to him one report regarding the Obed route, wherein the engineers absolutely stated that that was the best outlet for the Peace River. Since then different opinions have been advanced, and I may be wrong. If so, I want to be corrected.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have before me that expression of opinion and my hon. friend forgeits one qualification in it. It is signed by Mr. Hill, the reconnaissance engineer. He states:
The Obed route, from information available, is unquestionably the best route.


James Charles Brady: That is the one.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; but I point out the qualification, "from information available?'. Now there was one constructive suggestion from my hon. friend from Cariboo.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister should
notice the rest of that paragraph-that he does not claim to have complete information.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right, and thait is why I stress the words "from information available". There was, I say, one constructive suggestion from my hon. friend; because, after all, while the principle of what I have been outlining with respect to the National Railways is undoubtedly sound, we must nevertheless reckon with the fact that this House of Commons finally votes the money for any project such as this. The constructive suggestion made by miy hon. friend was that I should follow, in connection with this problem, the same procedure as with respect to the terminal port for the Hudson Bay railway, and secure the services of some eminent engineer from outside .the range of the present Canadian National Railway Company, obtaining in that way an entirely independent report on the whole problem. If I gathered the tenor of my hon. friend's remarks, I doubt very much whether 'he would accept the opinion of the most eminent engineer in the world unless it coincided exactly with what he considers the situation to be.


John Anderson Fraser: That is not a fair remark. I made the suggestion to the Minister of Railways that he get an eminent enginer to survey
Supply-Railways- C .N.R.

the whole situation. But certainly I am not an engineer and do not pretend to be. I am speaking from information I have gathered on personal visits to the Peace River, and from people who have been in and out of the Peace River, as well as from information available to every member of the house. And I say most positively that you would get an eminent engineer to make that survey. But certainly I have no engineering opinion to offer.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to give offence to my hon. friend, and I thought he would admit at once that he had strong opinions on the subject. I thought he would be rather like the Scotchman who said that he was always open to conviction but that he would like to see the man who could convince him. That, I gathered, was my hon. friend's attitude when he was speaking.


Mr. CANTLEY:: It was an Irishman who said that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, it may be a libel on both races. At any rate, the constructive suggestion was that an outside engineer be secured to report on the whole problem. That is worth considering, not because I have a lack of faith in the engineers who have been working on the problem up to now, but because the government must recognize public opinion in relation to the problem. And certainly there are many diverse opinions about it in the Peace river country, as my hon. friend from Peace River is in the best position to know. I shall be glad to give consideration to that suggestion. In connection with it I might point out that it might be necessary to go outside Canada, as it was in the case of Churchill, to secure a man who would be completely free from any association with either of our great railway systems.
In conclusion may I say this. The government does appreciate the importance of developing our new regions and especially the Peace River area. The transportation problem there is a difficult one. Upon its right solution may depend the future sound development of a very large area, not an area of 175,000 square miles, as my hon. friend said-


John Anderson Fraser: 117,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or even 117,000 square miles, because he took in the whole watershed right up to the summit of the mountains to get that area. It does not matter, however; it is a large and rich area which certainly merits development, and which is developing

now in spite of the handicaps under which it labours. The Canadian government is not unaware of the importance of it, nor is the management of the Canadian National Railways. That is best demonstrated by the efforts the Canadian National has made to secure control of the railway at present running from Edmonton into that country. I do not desire to be more definite than that, but I think my hon. friend has contributed something by way of a suggestion whidh may prove of value, not because we lack faith in our own engineers but because of the great diversity of opinion among those most closely affected it may be desirable to consider such a course, and I shall be glad to do so.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have just one question to ask. The minister has enunciated to the house an excellent principle with regard to the safe way by which we can ensure reasonable success to our nationally owned enterprise, that principle being no political interference. I am quite in accord with that, but I carry in mind the promise since the minister does not like the word "pledge," of last year that a survey of the various routes would be undertaken. Now the minister tells the house that last year he was in a position to carry out that promise.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as the year's work was concerned. I am only discussing the year's work.


Edward Joseph Garland: But he says this year he is not in a position to do so. The question in which I am interested is as to the difference; what has happened in the meantime to make it impossible for him to implement the promise made last year? What situation has arisen? I do not believe the minister has explained that at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may say to my hon.
friend quite frankly that on a couple of occasions I have discussed with Sir Henry Thornton what we should do this year and how it could be done having regard to the other work of the Canadian National Railways from one end of the country to the other, and Sir Henry Thornton has not yet advised me what he can do this year with respect to this problem. That does not mean that nothing will be done; I did not intend to convey that impression. I was merely endeavouring to be careful not to put something on Hansard which would be quoted to me next year from three or four different sources as has happened to-night. I hold that during the past year the government did implement, as fully as was possible under the

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
circumstances, the undertakings made by me on behalf of the government last year. The undertaking made on that occasion still re. mains good, but when my hon. friends press me to say what will be done this year I am not in a position to answer because Sir Henry Thornton has not yet indicated to me what it will be possible to do. The policy is exactly the same; there is no difference.


Mr. POULIOT:: I have just one question
to ask the minister, a question which is often asked by the man on the street who is not well versed in economics and high finance. How is it that the management of the Canadian National Railways claim to have surpluses and yet to-night we are asked to vote an amount of S39,000,000? If these surpluses exist why must we vote money for the use of the Canadian National Railways this year?


Charles Avery Dunning: The answer to that question is very simple. When the term "surplus" is used in connection with railway operation it means a surplus of revenue over the expenses of operation. There still remains to be paid the interest on the capital obligations of the railway, and the deficit in connection with the Canadian National Railway arises because of the fact that, until the present, it has not earned enough over and above its operating expenses to pay the interest upon all its bonded indebtedness. In recent times it has generally succeeded in earning sufficient to pay the interest upon that portion of its obligations held by the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only in one year.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am making a general
statement; if we combine the last two years it has practically carried itself as far as interest due the public is concerned, but I am ready to let my hon. friend have his own view in that regard. In general, having regard to the size of the figures involved, it may be said that the Canadian National Railway is now earning sufficient to pay interest on the obligations held by the public.


Jean-François Pouliot: And if a member wants
some information about the affairs of the Canadian National Railways would it be poc-sible for him to get that information, even in a confidential way?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a very difficult
question to answer without knowing what kind of information is desired.


Jean-François Pouliot: Any kind of information,
because we are voting money and we should know where it goes.


Martin James Maloney: When I made way for
the minister about an hour ago I was about to direct his attention to the fact that the Canadian National Railway system is not giving an adequate service to the people of the district which I represent. We are called upon to-night to vote the sum of 839,000,000 to this company, and surely it is the duty of every member of parliament to see that this money is spent in the interest of service to the whole people of Canada. I speak as one who is most anxious to see the Canadian National Railways succeed in every way, and I believe the minister is most anxious to see that the railway gives service to every section of the country. Therefore I call his attention to the fact that in the county of Renfrew the Canadian National Railways are not giving a satisfactory and sufficient service.
In the first place, through a peculiar and penurious policy which has been practised for the last few years, by cutting down the maintenance of way men they have left the roadbed in such a condition that at times it is very dangerous to travel over that section by train. Not only is that the case, but the railway station at Caldwell in the county of Renfrew, a most important centre, was burned down two years ago. Since then they have been transacting business in a box car, and at that it is not one of the large box cars but one of the smallest of those built within the last twenty-five years. During these two years a great deal of business has been transacted at this point; month after month more than 810,000, 812,000 and 815,000 in revenue has gone into the coffers of the railway company from outgoing and incoming traffic, but the box car still remains. Conditions are such that the health authorities of that municipality are considering closing that box car because they believe it unfit for human habitation ; under the provincial law they have power to do so. In addition to that, in the westerly part of the county of Renfrew it takes three days to make a round trip between two points only thirty miles apart. Any man who is not crippled could walk the distance in much less time. I draw these facts to the attention of the minister and ask him to impress them upon the management of the Canadian National Railway system. They have been brought to the attention of the management many times ,but I ask the minister now, feeling that he is anxious to see that all sections of the country are properly served by this railway, to bring these facts to the attention of the management.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to do so.
Supply-R ailways-C.N.R.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I realize that it is not a very popular thing for a member to make a speech at this stage of the session, and particularly when it originates from what the press of the country calls a "back bencher." However, I am going to take a few moments of the time of the house to bring up a matter which not only interests the section of the country which I have the honour to repre-t sent but affects the whole of Canada. I refer to the principle of taxation which is applied to the Canadian National Railway system. When last Wednesday I brought up this subject before the committee, the Minister of Railways asked me if I would bring it up again when we were dealing with the Canadian National Railways supplementary estimates. I hope that hon. members will be indulgent towards me because so far this session I have listened a lot and said very little.
Another factor is that we in northern Ontario very seldom come before this house asking for favours, but the moment I received the mandate to represent that section of northern Ontario I knew I was bound to present this matter before the house, as it is one we have been agitating for for the last twelve years. We have sent several delegations to the different ministers of railways, and the different governments, and our public bodies have met the premiers both of the Dominion and of the province. I want to make it clear at the very outset that it is not my intention to make this a political matter, because I expect to get support from every section of this house.
Eighty per cent of the Canadian National railway system is actually paying taxes, or compensation, if you prefer the word, and the other twenty per cent is not. Of the same substance eighty per cent is called flesh and twenty per cent is called fish. This twenty per cent is through the northern part of the country, and I feel I am bound to bring this matter before the house as forcibly as possible. It has been previously said that public and private ownership are going to remain with us. We are not against the principle of public ownership in northern Ontario, but we should receive the help that other parts of the province are obtaining from that public ownership. The first thing that comes to one's mind when dealing with public or private ownership is the matter of taxation. I know the house will look reluctantly on the principle of voting public money to pay taxes to a section of the country in respect to a part of the road actually owned by the government. When I mention Cochrane or northern

Ontario, I do not want to be regarded as taking any local or regional attitude; as I said at the outset, I want to consider this matter in a non-political and national sense.
On the 12th of January last, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Railways telling him of my intention to place before this house a motion to generalize the system of taxation on the whole railroad. I will read his answer:
I appreciate very much your advising me in advance of your intention to move a resolution in the House of Commons having to do with the Canadian National Railways.	_
As you know, the whole subject is a very complex one and includes widely differing conditions in different parts of the country. You will pardon my pointing out one error in your letter and that is the statement that the National Transcontinental line is practically the only part of the Canadian National system not actually paying municipal and school taxes. As a matter of fact, no municipal or school taxes are paid by the system in Saskatchewan or Alberta and I believe also in a considerable portion of Manitoba; also, no taxes are paid in the maritime provinces on the former Intercolonial lines. This will serve to indicate to you the magnitude and complexity of the problem.
Through my activities during the last twelve years as a member of the municipal council of the town of Cochrane and also a member of the associated boards of trade of northern Ontario, I have taken a very important part in the discussion on that all-important question. I realize that this is a really complicated problem, nevertheless an injustice is always an injustice; and an injustice has been perpetrated and perpetuated against northern Ontario.
At the present time practically 80 per cent of the system pays taxes, mostly in the towns and cities and in the most thickly populated centres of the country, and that principle should be generalized, more particularly over that section of the road from Quebec to Winnipeg. When I was speaking last Wednesday a member of the opposite side of the house asked me about the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was stated at the last annual meeting of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that they actually paid to the municipal and provincial governments of the country nearly $8,000,000 in taxation. I would assume from that that the Canadian Pacific Railway is paying taxation on the whole system.
On receiving an answer from the Minister of Railways I sent a copy of the resolution to the Speaker of the House. This resolution reads as follows:
Taxation of Canadian National Railway property, on that portion of the railway system primarily known as the National Transcontinental, and extending from Quebec city to Win-

Supply-R ailum ys-C.N .R.
nipeg, for municipal and school purposes, in all localities., along these sections of the railway municipally organized-
Whereas, government ownership of the Canadian National railway system has created a burdensome situation in a number of Municipalities through having a large portion of otherwise assessable property placed on the exempt list: and
Whereas, in many cases the loss of municipal taxes from such exempt property is out of proportion and creates a very serious loss of revenue absolutely needed for the proper administration of municipal affairs; and
W hereas, the prerogative of the crown, of having crown property exempt from taxation, was established prior to the crown ever expecting to or undertaking to take up competitive business in full competition with private corporations which are subject to municipal taxation; and
Whereas, it would appear that justice and equity would preclude the crown from taking advantage over private corporations in the discharge of corporate business; and
Whereas, the National Transcontinental was built by the Dominion government for the Grand Trunk Pacific raihvay on the understanding that it vrould be handed over to this latter railway on completion and under a lease, as an integral part of the Grand Trunk Pacific system; and
Whereas, the principle of taxation of railway property on the Canadian National railway has been maintained and in some cases established, in most sections of the present corporation, namely; over the portions of the system originally called the Grand Trunk railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial;
Therefore, be it resolved: That this house urges the waiving of the prerogative of the crown of exempting any such railway property from municipal and school taxation, on that section of the Canadian National railway system originally known as the National Transcontinental railway, from Quebec city to Winnipeg. for all organized municipalities along that part of the Canadian National railway system, which is occupied and used solely for the administration and maintenance of that portion of the aforesaid railway system.
A few days later I received the following letter from the Clerk of the House of Commons, dated January 19, 1928:
The notice of motion which you sent dn for the order paper does not seem to be in order, as resolutions to increase the charge upon the people must be introduced by the government with the recommendation of the Governor General.
You are asking by this motion that the house urge the waiving of the prerogative of the crown of exempting the Canadian National Railways from the municipal taxation in a certain part Of the country. If you secure an affirmative vote, the government will be bound to renounce these taxes. In other words you are asking for a decision of the house on a charge upon the people without following the ordinary practice. I took the matter up with Mr. Speaker this morning and he entirely agreed with me. I regret therefore my inability to give notice of this motion -when the session opens.
It is not my intention to discuss that letter as I realized that I was out of order, due to the fact that it covers the question of the expenditure of public moneys, but it surprises me that the principle of taxation is not generalized throughout the whole system.
We have had promises from ministers, from members of this house, from premiers of the province of Ontario and from the mayors of several municipalities that this matter would eventually be brought before this house, and that- is the reason why I am taking this opportunity to bring it before the house. I realize it is too late to do anything this session, but I hope that before next session something fair and definite will be done on this question.
^ hen the section of the railway from Quebec to Winnipeg was built it was understood that on the completion of the line it would be turned over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway for administration. For reasons well known to the country, on account of the war and the decline of immigration and over construction of railways, the Grand Tiunk Pacific could not live up to its contract with the government, and eventually the government had to include that portion of the line in the national railway system The attorneys of that corporation-I will call it a corporation-maintain that this section should not pay taxes because it is now administered by the government. It is hard for a layman to understand why 80 per cent of the system should be taxable while the other portion is not taxed. We maintain that that principle should be generalized, and there is an absolute necessity at the present time that this question should be solved for all time.
I understand that the house has in the past dealt with very serious problems and has always dealt with them successfully. We in northern Ontario very seldom ask anything from any government; but if you look at a map of Canada you will see that we are really central Canada. We are not the east and we are not the west, but we are bridging the gap between the two sections of the country. It has often been said in the house and in the press that Canada is strong at its extremities and weak at its centre. We are strengthening the centre; we are bridging the gap between east and west; we always take a keen interest in national matters, and we do not see why we should not receive the same consideration as the rest of the people are getting in connection with public utilities. When I mention public utilities I do not want to discriminate
Supply-Railways-C .N Ji.

in any way whatsoever, and I hope representatives on the other side of the house from southern Ontario and in fact representatives in every corner of the house will understand me when I say I am in full sympathy with the development of the hydro electric in connection with industrial, commercial and farming operations and developments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If hon. gentlemen who say "carried" know the way to get this carried, I will sit right down while we have a chance to get the money in our section of the country. I have had very little encouragement so far and I trust the house will bear with me for a few minutes because it is a matter of great importance to us. We in northern Ontario, outside of a development around lake Nipigon, are not getting any benefit out of the hydro electric development, but without any recrimination whatever I may say that in our section of the province we have helped to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in connection with hydro development although we have never got any of its fruits. Moreover, in this year of 1928 the provincial government is paying out of the provincial treasury $6,000 for every working day, to subsidize rural lines. We in northern Ontario, who do not expect to get any hydro development owing to the fact that the government has seen fit, and I believe rightly under the circumstances, to give eighty per cent of the hydro electric power to private competitors, are satisfied with the situation, but we want to have your sympathy in a problem which interests really not only northern Ontario but Canada as a whole. It also interests new Ontario and new Quebec. We have been playing the game with every section of the country and I hope on this occasion, now that the matter has been brought before the house, that the house will see fit to 'deal sympathetically with ua.
Two or three yeans ago, if I am not mistaken, the sum of $75,000 was offered to the Premier of Ontario in the way of a grant or bonus in lieu of taxes payable by the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Ferguson is a true friend of the north and although we do not belong to the same political faith, we are great friends because we are both working for the development of that section of the country. For some reasons, best known to himself, he turned that offer down. We believe he did so for three reasons, the first one, which might be a logical one, being that the offer was too low. The second one, which might be at the
	. 3 -
root Oi mi difficulty that we have to encounter, vi as the fact that if he accepted that sum to be distributed in respect of the Canadian National railway system, by that fact he would establish a .principle of taxation in respect of provincial railway, the Temiskam-ing and Northern Ontario. I believe he was right in that regard, because the principles or policies of taxation of public utilities should emanate from Ottawa so that we may know exactly how taxation will be applied and generalized so that we would not be characterized by the hit-and-miss system under which we are working at the present time. After further investigation in this matter, I heard that the premier of the province turned down that $75,000 because he did not see his way clear to distribute it. But our municipalities along the line of the National Transcontinental in that section are perfectly well equipped; we have the necessary machinery to accept that money and to distribute it. I heard on other occasions that perhays there would be friction on account of the distribution of the money for school purposes. Again I repeat, we have the municipal organization to distribute the money fairly and justly in the different municipalities, to the public and separate school boards, and in this matter of tax distribution we never encountered any difficulties.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is necessary for the
committee to report progress in order that the Speaker may take the chair while the house decides what shall be done after eleven o'clock. If my hon. friend will permit, I desire to move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have spent a good deal of time to-day in discussion, but we have not made as much progress as we had hoped to be able to make. I gather that hon. members are anxious that the session shall not be unduly prolonged and I imagine that we could make more progress if we sat somewhat later this evening. I would therefore move:
That the house shall not be adjourned at eleven o'clock p.m. this day.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That does not mean an unlimited sitting?


John Warwick King: No, but it gives latitude for progress if we are making progress.

Jjibrary of Parliament-Report


Henry Elvins Spencer: At twelve o'clock shall we take a vote again with regard to sitting later?


John Warwick King: It will always be in order for anyone to bring up the question of adjournment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hewitt Bostock: I beg to lay on the table the report of the joint committee on the library of parliament, which met on May 31, 1928, as follows:
The committee authorized the transfer of the volumes of the Irish Law Reports series to the Department of Justice, and also of certain technical books to the library of the mines department, with the understanding that such books should be accessible to members of parliament at any time.
As a result of a discussion on the question of the laxity in respect to the return of library books, the following resolution was unanimously passed:
"That, when members of parliament have in their possession more than six library books, and when such books are retained in their possession for such a period of time as to inconvenience other members who may desire to borrow such books, then it shall be the duty of the liibrarians to notify the members that, by order of the joint committee on the library, the books must be promptly returned, and, if not so returned, the librarians are hereby instructed to report the case to the committee, or to the speakers."
A question was asked respecting the case of an ex-member of parliament who for a long time had had in his possession a number of books from the parliamentary library and, though notified on several occasions, had neither answered the librarian's letter nor returned the books. The committee unanimously passed the following resolution:
"That, the librarians are hereby instructed to communicate with the ex-member in question, and to inform him that these library books now in his possession are the property of the crown, and that, as he had been notified to return them and had ignored such notice, unless such books are returned immediately after this final notice, the matter will be placed iii the hands of the Justice department with the request to take action to recover the property." _



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I hope that next year,
I will be given an opportunity to thresh this question out very thoroughly before the railway committee. The matter is complicated and there is a great deal of information which would be very useful to the house to enable it to study the problem fully. That is why I am going to cut my speech very short.
As I said before, I have received a considerable number of answers to the circulars and pamphlets sent to members of parliament and also to members of the provincial legislature.
I am going to read only one of them a letter from Senator G. D. Robertson, which is very typical of those which I have received. That is what he has to say about the matter under date of February 14, 1923:
Dear Sir:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., together with printed circular enclosed referring to the desirability of the Canadian National railways being assessed for municipal and school purposes.
At Cochrane and other points along the Transcontinental where the railway property represents a large portion of the improved property in the municipality I readily appreciate the propriety of the railway bearing some of the cost of municipal taxation, especially for schools, as most of the children attending such schools are children of employees of the railway company and such employees ought not to be taxed for school purposes more heavily than are similar employees in other municipalities where the proportion of taxation is more widely distributed. This question was discussed some two years ago by the late government, being brought to its attention by the undersigned after my return from Winnipeg in August 1920 via the Transcontinental railway, when this question was brought to my attention, but it was not deemed advisable to take action at that time, or until the whole of the government-owned lines were merged into one system. Now that this is being done and the Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern portions of the Canadian National system do not pay taxes, there would seem to be no good reason why some reasonable rate of taxation should not also be imposed upon the portions of the national system formerly known as the Canadian Government railways.
I shall be glad to lend such aid as I may be able to bring some relief to your municipality, and others similarly situated, but feel that the movement should be initiated in the House of Commons, as the jurisdiction of the Senate, of which I am a member, respecting the introduction of money bills might be questioned.
I have at least a hundred letters, all very sympathetic. Here is one from Mr. Manion, another from Mr. William Irvine, another from Mayor Lavigueur to Mir. Warrell, clerk of the municipality of Cochrane. They show that the matter was discussed, if not on the floor of this house at least among the members, and most of them were very sympathetic. I hope that an opportunity will be given me to explain the situation before the railway .committee. I realize that it is getting late in the session to get a grant of money, but again I ask the Minister of Railways if that amount of $75,000 is still in the possession of the government. If so, that distribution should be made at once during the year 1928. We have the machin-
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

ery and all the organization necessary to take care of the distribution of that money.
We in that section of northern Ontario are willing and ready to help all other sections of the country. We have shown it in the past. We are not numerous, but the time is coming when that section will contain millions of people. More and more we are becoming the treasure house of the North American continent; but just now we' are in the pioneering stage and we must insist in our demands for what is legitimately coming to us. For these reasons I am asking for support on this all-important question to us, and that we get this compensation as soon as possible. We are willing to go without sidewalks, or to put up with very bad ones. We will do without good streets, but we want our children to have proper school accommodation. We want them to have good qualified teachers. We want them to have at least a good elementary and high school education. We do not want their location to be against their education. I believe that in helping out section you will be helping particularly the cause of education in this country. In conclusion, I hope that something will be done, and in the very near future, to alleviate the injustice that has been done to that section of the country during the last twelve years.


Charles Avery Dunning: I might just briefly say in reply to my hon. friend that the question of taxation of all the various units comprising the Canadian National railway system is, as I indicated in the letter which he read, a very complex problem. Certain lines are crown lines, and always have been, and because of that fact they have been exempt from taxation. Certain others were owned by private companies, now forming part of the Canadian National railway system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And were exempt from
taxation by statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and certain others were privately owned, and were not exempt from taxation at all. Then there is still another class in the west which are exempt from municipal and school taxes because of the fact that the Canadian Pacific railway exemption from similar taxation applies all over the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and over a part of the province of Manitoba. This brief statement will illustrate the great difficulty of the problem.
A little over a year ago, on an occasion when the various provinces were represented, an effort was made by the Canadian National Railway to reach some common ground of

agreement between the provinces, and it was thought that such agreement had been reached. Subsequently, however, two or three of the provinces indicated that the understanding which iit was really thought had been arrived at did not coincide with their view of what was done at the conference, and consequently the situation still remains very complex indeed. I do not wanlt to go into a lengthy discussion of it to-night.
My hon. friend indicated something which I will suggest to the members of the house generally, and that is that when the special committee on railways and shipping is in session, the committee before which these estimates were presented and considered in detail, an excellent opportunity is afforded to members of the house generally to present before that committee any case such as that now presented by my hon. friend from North Timiskaming, on an occasion when the general officers of the company, with the necessary records and information, are there for the very purpose of giving information to the parliamentary committee. I suggest that the time of the house can be saved if members generally will take advantage of the presence in Ottawa of the general officers of the company attending the meetings of the special committee. That applies also to my hon. friend from South Renfrew, who spoke of some matter of train service, information regarding which cannot possibly be in the possession of the minister, or of any of the departmental officers available to the minister when the estimates are before the house; but these matters can be considered in detail before the committee.
In conclusion, may I say this? The situation with respect to the National Transcontinental is a peculiarly acute one, and while we are trying to solve it in common with all the other problems of a similar nature from coast to coast, I can only say that I will undertake to see to it that that phase of the problem receives during the recess consideration separately from the rest, in view of the fact that we have been unable to reach an agreement, with the provinces comprehensive enough to cover the whole of the problems which require to be dealt with in regard to taxation. I trust that my hon. friend will be satisfied with the assurance that this particular phase will be examined during the recess.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is satisfactory, but I would ask the minister if it is not possible to have a distribution of that sum of $75,000 this year. We have all the necessary

Supply-Railways-C .N.R.
equipment and organization, municipally speaking, to take care of that amount, which should be given to the municipalities direct and not to the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will see to it that consideration is given to that phase of the question.


Mr. HARRIS:: Again this year we are
asked to vote a very large sum of money to the Canadian National railway, involving an increase over last year of some $17,239,500. I think perhaps the people of this country are not worrying very much about voting this amount of money so long as they feel that they are getting a good return from the investment.
I would ask the Minister of Railways, who has just undertaken on behalf of one of the members of his party, to do something, if he will undertake to see to it that we have presented to us next year, if we are spared to come back to this House of Commons, a balance sheet, setting out the assets and the liabilities of the Canadian National railway system, which will be a true reflection as nearly as possible of what is taking place and of what has taken place during the last five years. To make it as brief as I possibly can, due to the lateness of the session, we one and all know that there have been vast amounts of money spent on capital account for the Canadian National Railways, more particularly during the last five years, expenditures on road and equipment which in turn apply to the asset side of this balance sheet. The investments on capital account this year total $43,724,677.16, bringing the grand total up to $1,914,000,000. Just let that sink into the minds of hon. members a little bit. There has been invested in road and equipment, and charged holus bolus to capital account, $1,914,000,000 and not one dollar of that, apart from the retirements from year 'to year, has been written off that vast capital for exhaustion of the different units which go to make up the system. Not one dollar has been written off for exhaustion and depreciation. The only amount that has been written off is the amount representing the original cost of some item which was retired. That is written off, but nothing else. The minister well knows that the class A roads in the United States, in accordance with the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, write off a certain amount each year for exhaustion or depreciation, if you will. The minister well knows that that portion of our road which operates in the United States under
the Interstate Commerce Commission must write off a certain amount for exhaustion or depreciation, and yet we in Canada are being more or less led astray by this balance sheet which does not show any reflection of the exhaustion or depreciation on the many hun- _ dreds of millions of dollars which have been poured into the road in the form of new equipment. I would be the last man to attempt to demoralize that great institution, the Canadian National Railways. I am anxious to forward its interests to the very best of my ability, but I owe a duty to the people I represent to point out that this balance sheet is not a true reflection of what is happening in regard to the system. True, in fifty years' time as we retire the different elements which go to make up this system to-day we shall come back to the stage where the total capital account may show the original cost of everything that makes up the road. But would it not be fairer to ourselves and to the country at large if year by year we reflected in this statement some idea of the amount of exhaustion which is taking place? To my mind the Minister of Railways will be doing a service to the country if he demands that the railway commission exercise jurisdiction-if they have any-over the accounts of the Canadian National Railways so that the balance sheet may show a fair reflection of the depreciation. I would ask the minister at least to give us a ray of hope that this will be done.


Mr. DUSSAULT:: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to address a few remarks to the Minister of Railways. Our division of the Canadian National Railways from Ste. Rosalie to Riviere du Loup, comprising 250 miles, in 1925 and 1926 gave a total revenue of eleven million dollars, and the expenses were only seven million dollars. There are no important places along the line. Its cost being valued at $40,000 a mile would bring the total for that mileage to ten million dollars. Now, the net revenue being four million dollars, if you allow interest or dividend at 5 per cent it would mean $500,000. In other words, our division has paid over and above that 5 per cent $3,500,000 to the country. And we are not saying a word. We are only asking the minister, not to open new roads, not to give us new stations, but just to keep the present road and stations and equipment in good condition. We are paying 20 peT cent on the capital investment in our division. I repeat, we only ask the minister to keep the property in good condition, and we hope members
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

from other parts of the country will be satisfied, as we are, to wait until their divisions pay 20 per cent on the investment before they ask for further expenditure.


James Arthurs: I desire to add a few
words in support of the remarks of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney), as to the condition of the railway service along what was formerly known as the Canada Atlantic division of the Grand Trunk, now under the control of the Canadian National Railways. Originally there was a daily service from Ottawa to Depot Harbour or Parry Sound. This service has been reduced to two trips a week from Ottawa to Scotia Junction. I have no objection to that at all. I do not want the railway to put on a service that does not pay. But on the remainder of the line, some fifty or sixty miles, from Scotia Junction to Depot Harbour, the service is by a mixed train daily each way. The car set aside for the service of the public must I think have been the first car built by the Grand Trunk Railway. It is lighted by old coal oil lamps, which I am sure are forty or fifty years old, and they only make the darkness visible. You cannot read, you cannot write, you cannot do anything to pass the time on this train which jogs along at night. The heating system is on a par with the lighting. I am quite sure that if the minister saw this car he would immediately see that it was replaced by one of the many modern cars lying idle at other places. As a matter of fact, this daily service covers a well-populated section of fifty miles. The service itself is not unsatisfactory in regard to time, but we ask that proper equipment be supplied, or that an electric car replece the present equipment.


Mr. KAISER:: I wish to support the remarks by the hon. gentleman from Levis (Mr. Dussault). It is only fair that those sections of the line which provide revenue should receive consideration. It would save the house a half hour speech if the minister would be kind enough to ask the deputy minister to tell Sir Henry Thornton that the town of Oshawa-which contributes a larger percentage to the revenues of the Canadian National Railway system than any other place of its size-has the most inadequate, most unhealthy, most unsanitary and most antiquated station along the line.


Mr. MacNUTT:: I regret that the Canadian 'National Railway estimates have been left until now for consideration, and that this item has been held over until such a late day

in the session. The Minister of Railways, speaking a few moments ago, informed hon. members that the proper place to take up problems in relation to railways would be in the select committee on railways and shipping. I understood that committee was appointed for an ,entirely different purpose, and any member, not a member of that committee, has not the privilege of addressing it except by permission due to some sittings being held in camera.


Charles Avery Dunning: On mo occasion in the past two years has the request of any member of the house, not a member of the committee, been refused by the committee for permission to be heard with respect to any matter. That is the custom in the committee.


George Taylor MacNutt: I am glad to get that information. I understand now that by courtesy we have the privilege of appearing before the committee. I shall very briefly bring to the attention of this committee a matter of considerable importance, and I offer mo apologies for so doing even at this late hour. We have listened with a great deal of pleasure to railway propositions with regard to the Peace River district and also in the northern Ontario district, and for a few moments I shall direct the attention of the minister and the bouse to the want of railways in the east.
A year ago, when the Minister of Railways brought down his three year branch line railway program, which if I remember correctly called for some $10,000,000 for railways in the west, he made the statement that the door was not closed and that possibly at some future time, before the three year program had been completed, he would do something for the people in eastern Canada. We need four branch lines in the province of Nova Scotia, but I shall confine my remarks very briefly to one in my constituency, the Steiwiacke valley railway. The hiistory of this road dates back so far that there is not a member in this house, I believe who has any recollection of such a railway. In the year 1888 a company was formed to build a branch line railway through that valley, beginning at a point on the main line, going in a direct line through a very fertile valley and connecting with the main line at another point. I am giving this information for the benefit of the Minister of Railways who has just recently told us that he arrived in this country twenty-five years ago. He will see that fifteen years before he came here this proposed railway was under construction. As I stated, the company was formed in the year 1888 and the usual

Supply-Railvrays-C.N.R.
incorporating bill passed the provincial legislature at that time. It required a paid up capital of 850,000 in the treasury before the company could apply to the provincial or federal governments for subsidies. That amount was in the treasury, and with a certificate or receipt from the bankers, they proceeded to England and sold their bonds. The farmers along the Stewiacke valley, who were well-to-do farmers, subscribed heavily to that company. The promoters began construction work, and ten miles of road was graded. As I stated, the history of this undertaking goes so far back that I am unable to give to the house the precise reason why the moneys to be realized by sale of bonds in England were not available for the prosecution and completion of the work. But suddenly, without warning, operations on the construction work were discontinued. The result was that the bondholders in England sent a man over to make investigations and it was discovered that aM they had to represent an advance of some $300,000 was a right of way thirty-five miles long, with ten miles graded. I regret that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is not in his seat as he was at that time solicitor for the English bondholders. They discovered that the shareholders of the company, who were largely farmers throughout the Stewiacke valley, were liable to the bondholders for the amount of their shares. The shareholders appealed to the government of Nova Scotia, who after considerable delay came forward and liquidated the debts due to the English bondholders, thus relieving the shareholders of a liability amounting to $300,000. Consequently the provincial government owns the right of way, of which ten miles are graded.
The Minister of Railways has had a resolution placed in his hands indicating the possibilities of that road as a revenue producer. I have a copy of that resolution. I will not detain ithe committee by reading it. Let me say, however, that in addition to what is therein set forth I have a letter from a wealthy American lumber concern who have purchased something like 90,000 acres of land on the Stewiacke river, on which they state they have approximately 125,000,000 board feet of hardwood that cannot be driven downstream and must be moved by rail. If the Minister of Railways will be good enough to come to our province this summer and give me the pleasure of taking him through this magnificent valley, and meet its people who are the salt of the earth, I will also show him the greatest deposit of gravel in the whole of Nova Scotia. As the Canadian National
Railways are building branch lines into gravel deposits, I can show the minister a deposit which is unsurpassed in any part of this country. This has not been set forth in the resolution presented to the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it will help my hon. friend and relieve him of the necesrity of making a further plea, I can assure him that before any further branch line program is submitted by the management to the minister, the minister will request the management to go carefully into the Stewiacke valley situation. If it will shorten the discussion with respect to branch lines and with respect to certain railway acquisitions which have been brought to my attention by members on all sides of the house, I wish to give the same general assurance regarding them all. There will be a careful examination, and the very fact that my hon. friend has mentioned it again will ensure this being done. With respect to my hon, friends from Levis, Parry Sound and Ontario, who have in their midst at least according to their own ideas, such splendidly paying sections of the Canadian National, I can only say that if the figures they present prove to be correct there is no question but that sections of the railways earning so handsomely should receive any necessary attention. I am sure my remarks in this connection will catch the eye of the president and will result in the figures presented by hon. members being very closely examined.
With respect to my hon. friend from Toronto-Scarborough, at this late hour I shall not attempt to enter a discussion of the accounting methods employed by the Canadian National Railways. I will content myself by saying that a reference by any member of this committee to the evidence taken before the select standing committee on railways and shipping, a copy of which has been placed in the hands of every hon. member of the house, will reveal that my hon. friend from Toronto-Scarborough went into the matter of accounting very fully and very fairly, if I may say so, with the accounting officers, the general officers and the president of the company before that committee. Opinions very easily differ on the question of accounting; I think that, fact is well realized by all members of this committee who have had any experience in business matters. I can only say to my hon. friend that for myself I intend to study very carefully the representations he made before that committee together with his remarks here to-night, and I know the officers of the company responsible in that connec-



Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
tion will do the same thing because already it has been a matter of discussion among them since the conclusion of the sessions of that committee. I think that is all I can say at the moment.


James Houston Spence: While the minister is
giving consideration to the Parry Sound district and to Oshawa I want to draw his attention to the station of Sunnyside, four miles west of the union station in Toronto. I would say that 75 per cent of the people travelling west from Toronto get on at Sunny-side station. There the station building is away up on a hill; you have to go across a poorly constructed bridge and then down thirty or forty steps to a great open space. There people must stand fifteen or twenty minutes waiting for trains, with no protection against rain or other weather conditions. Some consideration should be given to the people who use that station. I have waited there for fifteen or twenty minutes in the rain and snow; there is no place to sit down or even stand under shelter. I drew this matter to the attention of the deputy minister two years ago and I was promised some relief, but so far the station people tell me nothing has been done. I would ask the minister not to try to remember this without making a note of it, 'because these things are easily forgotten and I am afraid a lot of the ministers opposite forget purposely.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are not allowed to
forget anything that goes into Hansard, and the remarks of my hon. friend are going into Hansard now. I will direct the attention of the management to this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was discussing this vote the other night when the house rose at eleven o'clock, and I then pointed out that we as shareholders were dealing with the most important business in a financial way which parliament has to consider. I intended to point out the similarity between the corporate structure of the Canadian National Railway system and that of any other railway company, the only distinction being that in this instance we represent the great body of shareholders, the people of Canada, instead of those who have share certificates representing their interest in an enterprise. I had also pointed out that this was not a supply bill in the proper use of the word "supply", that it should not be included in the estimates of the government of Canada but should be a separate measure Just as the amount voted to the federal commission in Ottawa was a
(Mr. Dunning.]
separate measure, and just as the amounts voted to the harbour commissions of Halifax, St. John and Quebec were separate bills. I still think that is so.
We are asked to-night to vote some $39,000,000 to this railway system, and a very considerable part of that amount will be required to take care of obligations which already have been partly incurred. That is abundantly clear. We are now meeting the obligations of this railway system in two ways: For some years we made direct advances out of the treasury, advances of $7,000,000, $10,000,000, and $15,000,000 out of our revenues. We taxed the people of the country for this money, which was put in the general consolidated revenue fund and then paid out to this railway company. Then we adopted another course, that of guaranteeing security and enabling the railway company to borrow the money themselves. There was still another method adopted at one time, by which we issued our own securities, received the money and handed it over to the railway company This is the second time this year we have been called upon to vote money for this enterprise, the first item was in the supplementary estimates with respect to 1928, when we appropriated certain sums of money to make good the requirements of the undertaking. Now we are called upon to vote the very large sum of $39,00,000.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which is the great competitor of this system, asks its shareholders for additional money by placing before them in the annual report which is presented to them, and which they receive before the meeting, a complete statement showing just for what the money will be required. I submit that parliament should have before it in the statute in detail the very same information given the shareholders of a privately owned enterprise in connection with its requirements. For instance, on page 8 of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company report for this year will be found the ten requirements in connection with branch lines. If you then turn over further you will find that the shareholders are asked to ratify and confirm certain leases and agreements which have been made. In another section you will find a request for the issue of additional common stock for the completion of hotels and generally for issuing new securities for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking. That is the way the matter is dealt with there. In this vote of $39,000,000 which will be placed upon the statutes of Canada there is not a single word to indicate where thi3 money is to be spent. When the shareholders

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
of this company read the statutes of Canada and see this appropriation of $39,000,000 they will find it impossible to ascertain where that money is to be spent, the purposes for which it is to be used being stated only generally. The shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway receive this report; they know they are asked to vote money to the company, or are asked to enable the company to issue securities for the purpose of building branch lines, for the purpose of building new steamships and for the purpose of building new hotels. They are told where this money is to be spent; they are told the length of the proposed branch lines and are given an estimate of what they will cost. In some instances the 'directors indicate that they have made commitments, which they ask the shareholders to approve.
That is the position, Mr. Chairman, and why should we conduct this great enterprise of ours in this way, by putting before parliament in the very late days of the session without an adequate opportunity for discussion-that is perfectly clear-the statement that we require $39,000,000, indicating that the money may be obtained in any one of several ways and handed over to the management for the purpose of enabling them to meet the commitments of the undertaking? I submit that we have a right to know these things, just as in a statute providing money for a harbour commission we know that $500,000 is to be spent in Halifax harbour this year, with 'the purpose indicated for which it is to be used. When we pass statutes providing money for the harbours of Quebec or St. John we indicate very clearly for what that money is to be used, but look at this estimate which is placed before us. Will any member of this house, looking at that, estimate, be able to say with any degree of certainty where this money is to be used? All the fine print contained in the estimate is an indication of how the money may be raised, but where is this money to be used other than in connection with the Canadian Government Merchant Marine? Where is it to be used? I submit that we should know that with great particularity, as trustee shareholders representing the real shareholders, the people of Canada, so that when they pick up the statutes they may know that their trustees in this parliament voted certain sums of money on the recommendation of the management of this road, to be used in certain specific places.
We have been told that one of the uses to which part of this money is to be put is the construction of a hotel at Halifax. Where 56103-2541
do I find it in this vote? It is quite true that it was before a special committee and certain observations were made with respect to it, but that is not what the shareholders of the road have before them. What the shareholders of the road have before them are these estimates, and there is nothing there to indicate that a sum of money is to be used for the construction of a hotel at Halifax or elsewhere. I have the Canadian Pacific Railway report and I find reference made to what they have been doing with regard to the Banff Springs hotel, and I find reference made to expenditures they are making in other places with respect to hotel construction. The shareholders are asked to approve those expenditures.
I hope to make this point clear without taking more time in which to' develop it, but it seems to me that the management of the road should be so specific in the statement of their requirements for money, that they should ask us as trustee shareholders to appropriate this money, not in the estimates, but in a public bill, or an appropriation bill, call it what you like, rather than by supply estimates. We would then be able to look up the statutes and find the points at which the money was to be expended and discover to what extent this money had been used for the purpose for which it w.as earmarked.
I will not dwell to-night on the question of the finances of the road, although in my judgment these matters should be dealt with. There is growing up in this country the habit and custom on the part of some of the members to believe that because one offers a suggestion with respect to the condition of the Canadian National Railways he is reflecting upon the government of the day. That is not so. The government has some responsibility with respect to it, but any criticism is criticism against the government of the day only to the extent to which they permit conditions to continue which place a heavier and heavier obligation upon the people of this country. I wonder if the members of this house realize that we have permitted this undertaking, during the last year or two, so to increase its obligations that the burden of interest that must be met by this road has increased according to the last report, over a million dollars. A million dollars of additional interest to be earned is a very heavy charge upon the undertaking, having regard to the margin that exists between the gross and net earnings.
As I say, I will not dwell to-night upon the financial return. All you have to do is to see that during the year 1926 the road earned a little more than $2,000,000 over and above the amount necessary to pay the interest upon

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
in the enterprise. It was asked at that time that the Canadian National system should put $250,000 into the enterprise. That was the request and that matter was taken under advisement. So the Canadian National was asked to put $250,000 and the Canadian Pacific was asked to put 1100,000, it being felt that the tourist traffic, if you will, that was tributary to the one was about two and one-half times greater than that which was tributary to the other. In other words the Canadian National system had $250,000 interest as compared with the Canadian Pacific interest of $100,000 in tourist and other traffic that might be developed for the hotel at Halifax. That is the position at that point.
Of course it is well known that matters of this kind must be referred to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). It is also true that a statute of this country places the final authority for these capital expenditures with the governor in council, subject of course to parliament voting the money. Certain friends of the Minister of National Defence were of the opinion that this hotel should not be constructed and they made their representations to him. Some of them journeyed to Yarmouth to discuss the matter with him and those representations had great effect. When the Canadian National system communicated with the Minister of Railways, as it. was bound to do, indicating iits decision, we will say, to engage in the enterprise, the government, advised not only by the Minister of National Defence but by the Minister of Railways in that regard, refused to have anything to do with it. The set-up financially was not satisfactory. I have the clippings under my hand. That in my judgment was a proper view to take, having regard to the fact that the commission to be paid was much larger than should be paid for securing capital under these circumstances. The set-up was then changed.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is omitting the most important consideration with respect to the government. In fairness he should state that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to have it stated by my hon. friend. It will not interfere with my statement. What does the minister refer to?	.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am referring to the matter of the consent of parliament to the expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought I made that clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought I said "subject to the approval of parliament". I think my hon. friend did not catch that.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misunderstood. The proposal was to spend money immediately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to show
before I conclude that money has already been spent on two other hotels without parliament knowing about the matter yet. The statute in my judgment contemplates parliament giving an antecedent consent to expenditures. That is my view of the law. I may be wrong and the Minister of Justice may correct me as to that. My view of the Canadian National statute and the statute under which the governor in council authorizes expenditure is that there must be an antecedent authority given by parliament to the shareholders to spend given sums of money, and my contention is that those sums should be for specific purposes. The Minister of National Defence- and I have his statement as given out at that time and but for the hour I should like to deal with at length-took the view as the Minister of Railways has now indicated he also took and the government took, namely, that there should be no expenditure on the Lord Nelson hotel without the consent of parliament. The Lord Nelson hotel was an incorporation incorporated under the laws, I think, of the province of Nova Scotia. It had acquired the site and obtained estimates of the cost of building the hotel. They were issuing certain bonds and preferred shares. This road was asked to buy certain securities, namely, preferred shares. The public had been asked to buy bonds. I remember myself being solicited to acquire certain bonds of this enterprise, and it was pointed out that this was an enterprise which was being promoted by two railway systems, one the Canadian Pacific and the other the Canadian National-"promoted" is not the word, but they were interested in the enterprise. The preferred shares were offered to the public, and the public bought them very generausly. I have under my hand the story of the campaign through the newspapers telling how various business enterprises in Halifax put money into this undertaking. Insurance companies and banks bought the bonds. Other large organizations bought the bonds because they believed they were a safe investment having regard to the conditions that were indicated,

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
for instance, in this letter, and by the statement that had been made-made without authority, they may say, but nevertheless had been made with respect to the enterprise. Out of this welter of unsatisfactory dealing there at least comes this conclusion, that the Canadian National management did agree to submit to the government the proposal to become interested as investors in the preferred shares of the company, and the government took the view indicated by the minister at this moment that without the consent of parliament they should not make any such investment. The Minister of National Defence made a statement to that effect. He made it in writing, or gave it out to the press as an official statement. I have it under my hand. That came about under the circumstances to which I have alluded. It was on the 14th of July that the final statement was made. The organ of his own party in Halifax carried this:
Ralston promises to do his utmost for railway hotel here.	_
Federal government decides not to subscribe to minority interest in proposed Lord Nelson hotel, but if C.N.R. directors will recommend terminal hotel at Halifax, legislation will be submitted to parliament.
Then follows the statement given out by the Minister of National Defence. There we have a refusal on the part of the government to accede to the reasonable request of the management of the road' to become investors in this enterprise, because it was felt, on the one hand, that it should not be done without the consent of parliament, and because of the belief on the part of the Minister of National Defence that the government should not be interested as minority shareholders in the hotel but should build their own terminals. In other words, it was more important that there should be patronage than business, because from a business standpoint no one for a single moment, in the light of the knowledge brought out that a loss of $100,000 per annum was inevitable in the operation of one hotel would say that you are going to lessen that loss by building two hotels.
Then what happens is that the management of the road proceeded to Halifax. A very great gathering was held there. They went down by special trains carrying many of the directors, and on the very day, Trafalgar day, that the first sod of the Lord Nelson hotel was being turned, they were starting operations to build a new hotel at the terminal docks in Halifax. That was their announcement. The president himself made the announcement, and here is the story taken from the local press regarding his visit there, and the circumstances under which the hotel was to be built. Halifax was assured of the station and two new hotels. The newspaper heading says:
Hou. J. L. Ralston says C.N.R. plan primarily a railway project, ancl as such railway can use its own funds and begin at once.
Therefore, what the government would not accede to was to become interested as minority shareholder in the undertaking to build a hotel, but what could not be done in the way of investing money in the Lord Nelson hotel could be done to build a new hotel, because the enterprise was to be joined up with the station terminals. But this committee should realize that two other hotel investments have been made by our railway. In the Admiral Beatty hotel at St. John, the Canadian National have an investment of some $25,000. In the hotel at Sydney, they have invested a sum in the shares of that hotel, and if they could invest in these two hotels, why could they not make an investment of $250,000 in the hotel at Halifax? It well might be that the whole $250,000 could not be immediately paid, that it would have to be paid later, but the principle is the same in each case. The amount does not change the principle. If you have an investment in an hotel company at St. John, and in an hotel company in Halifax, it is exactly the same principle as is involved in buying the securities of an hotel company. The amount involved is not the question at issue. But what is more, it is clear to any man that whether you put $25,000 or any other amount into an enterprise of this kind the money comes out of the pockets of the people of Canada, because the sums we vote are the sums from which these capital expenditures are taken.	.
Now what happened? We have the public buying the securities-banks, insurance companies, investors. We have companies interested in the growth of Halifax investing their capital in the preference shares, and now we have the people of Canada, collectively, competing with a privately owned enterprise which the expert officer advising the system says will mean a loss of $100,000 per annum. Should we do it? That is the question.
This vote of $39,000,000 does not state upon the face of it that this money is being used for this purpose, but the minister has said that in that $39,000,000 is included a sum sufficient for commencing and carrying on operations for the construction of the terminals, and as I

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
understand it, the hotel system, if it was so desired. The hon. member for Cape Breton the other evening and another hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Colchester, I think, urged on the government that in the public interest the money available for hotel purposes should be utilized where it would secure an adequate return, in building bungalow camps, for instance, in various parts of Nova Scotia where tourists go in large numbers, or at other points where return will be sure. But this I do say, that this country should not embark upon an undertaking the primary object of which is to destroy, or at least to render unprofitable, an enterprise that originally was founded upon the assumption that it would be dealt with exactly in the same manner as other hotels at two other points of the Canadian National railways system are. That is No. 1.
No. 2 is this: If it is sound constitutionally, as the minister says, advised by the legal experts of his department, and by the Minister of National Defence, who is a very able lawyer, that these moneys should not be expended except with the consent of parliament, how -was it that they commenced the operation of constructing a new hotel without any reference to parliament at all? How could it be done? Either they were right in the one case and wrong in the other, or it was a mere subterfuge, for no appropiration had been made by parliament to build the terminal, and no money was voted by parliament for that purpose, and it is now necessary to come to parliament to build the terminal. It follows that the money previously spent on the terminal was money that parliament had not sanctioned. Here is what took place. Contractors were put upon the job, holes were sunk, the foundation started-


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend say that there was a contract let?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. These conditions
are described in this Liberal paper. It speaks of a firm of well-known contractors. I shall not take the time to read it, unless it becomes necessary in view of the debate that follows But there are the facts.
Now it is so easy to say: Ah, well, every man is anxious to have money spent in his province, and you people dare not oppose this. That is what is destroying Canada. This is the smallest piece of politics on the largest scale that you have had in this country for a long time. The Minister of National Defence is in charge of everything connected with the administration of affairs in the province of Nova Scotia. He it was who said he would not permit this hotel 
to be built if he could help it. He wanted another hotel for patronage and other purposes down at the dock terminal. Now he has got it. He said: Those members from Nova Scotia cannot oppose this; they know if they go back to their constituents it will be the old story, their constituents will want the money spent there, and if those members vote against it they will be defeated.
Let us look at it squarely in the eye. I was speaking recently to a member of this house. He was told in the last election. You had a great chance to get something you required; your vote would have determined whether the government should be put out of the door; why then did you not hold them up and say what you required? Let me tell you what that member did. He is still in this house. He does not belong to one of the old line parties, and he did not join the so-called Liberal-Progressives behind the present administration. He sits to my left, and if you desire to read the report of his speech I will give it to you. In reply to that remark he merely said if you think that is the kind of member you want, then don't vote for me. What was the effect upon the public mind? He was elected by a large majority. That action on his part required great courage. What is happening now in Halifax? It is expected that I, the leader of the opposition, will not discharge my duty to the country with respect to this enterprise, because if I do so, peradventure there may not be a million and a half dollars spent on a hotel in Halifax, and the Conservative party will lose a great number of votes in respect to it.


John Warwick King: Before my
hon. friend leaves the point to which he has just referred, may I ask him this question: Does he mean to say that any hon. member assumes that in order to get its support he could hold up this government for some public work?


An hon. MEMBER:: It was in 1926.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said in 1926, when the fate of the government turned upon a single vote, his constituents said to him:	Why
didn't you do it? You could have got it.


John Warwick King: If he had any idea that the government depended upon his support he was very much mistaken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A single vote determined its existence.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels


John Warwick King: He would not have got anything that way.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not his.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the hon. gentleman knows whom I am talking about.


Charles Avery Dunning: Other men are just as honest.


Mr. McPHEE:: He might let us know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can assure the hon.
member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) that it was not he. That should set his mind at rest. I simply say that is what this transaction resolved itself into. I am informed there are other members in this house who were told that. If we permit this great system to get into that condition, where are we drifting? This road belongs to us. Now, I put forward this proposition. There is my friend from Prince Edward Island, whom I happen to see: would he do this as a business transaction? His brothers are very successful business men in my community: would they do it? Is there a business man in Canada who would do it? That is the question. Then if it is not matter of business what is it? It either is or is not a matter of business. Is there any man in Canada would do it as a matter of business in face of that letter written by the head of the hotel department showing an estimated loss of $100,000 a year on one hotel, the Lord Nelson; is there any man of business in Canada who would become a party to the transaction to which I have alluded? That is the question which I propound to this committee to-night, and I leave it with them. I at least have done my duty. A very great English statesman once said: We the opposition, it is true, may not be able to change the attitude of the government with respect to these matters, and we may not have all the information that we should have but there is one thing at least we can do-we can present the facts to the committee so they can understand them, and we can leave the judgment with them and their majority. That is all we can hope to do.
There are other matters in connection with this $39,000,000 vote that I should like to refer to, but this is so outstanding and clear an instance of what we are drifting into that I have endeavoured to develop it at length. Now, shall we do this thing? If the government would only realize that this should not be a supply bill! It is not fair to the
government. It is true that that is what has been done, but this is not supplying HiS Majesty with money. Not at all. This is a corporation created by statute, with a corporate structure, and we are lending it a sum of money; but even though my friend the Minister of Railways does represent the shareholders it is not supply for His Majesty. That is the position. I do submit that my friends should accept what I suggest to them in all sincerity, namely, introduce an ordinary bill that we may consider the details and change and amend, if we think desirable, in the most friendly way, as, for instance, was done with the Federal District Commission bill. The right hon. Prime Minister thought it desirable to make certain changes there. They did not exactly commend themselves to me, on the theory that we should not go beyond the life of a single parliament in anv commitments, but he frankly faced the situation and desired to adjust the conditions to meet the general approval of the house, not treating it as a party matter. Supply becomes a party matter; that is the trouble. Under our system, as the right hon. Prime Minister pointed out the other evening, if you carry an adverse motion on going into supply that of itself defeats the government. Whereas if this were a money bill, using the term in the proper sense, the same as the Federal District Commission bill or the harbour commission bills, we might make changes in the light of our knowledge and experience, the suggestions of gentlemen here and there might find countenance with the administration. In short, we would meet together as shareholders at a meeting to deal with it as a matter of business. For I do say to my hon. friends the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Railways, you never yet saw a meeting of shareholders of a great enterprise where they divided themselves into hostile camps politically. The division is on the ground of business, and the attitude they take with respect to it is as a business proposition.
With all confidence I say to you to-night, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee, that there is not a group of business men as numerous as we are here to-night who would sit down and consider this matter and arrive at the conclusion, even with the limited knowledge that I have mentioned, that it is desirable to go forward with it at this time. The day may come in a few years when it is desirable that you should have two hotels in Halifax instead of one, in fact I hope that

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
time will come very speedily; but do not let us wreck a private enterprise, entered into at some sacrifice, to provide Halifax with a hotel. On the other hand, do not let us jeopardize this great enterprise. I wonder if hon. gentlemen realize that it is the greatest enterprise to-day in Canada in point of capital involved, in point of effect upon the body politic, in point of obligations outstanding and the influence of its success or failure on Canada itself. In these respects it is the greatest enterprise we have next to the government. That is the postion. Shall we as business men forget our politics for a moment and remember that we represent shareholders, nine or ten millions in number, scattered from one end of the country to the other, and deal with this matter in a business way? That is what I have submitted to the committee to-night. I am sorry I have had to take so much time for the purpose, and I have done scanty justice to what I conceive to be one of the most important questions that can engage the attention of this parliament. There are many details which I have passed over but I have them beside me and if it becomes necessary to submit them during the progress of the debate I shall be prepared to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am surprised at the
length of time my hon. friend has occupied, inasmuch as I understood that there was no intention that there should be long speeches and that brief replies were expected from me in order to facilitate the passage of work in the house. For that reason, possibly, I have been a little too brief up to now. It was not however with the intention of being curt but rather to escape the accusation, so frequently made, that a minister is blocking his own estimates by talking too much. However, no one will make that charge against me if I take a little time now to deal with the remarks of the leader of the opposition, with many of which I agree and some of which I purpose proving to be inaccurate.
First my hon. friend complained, and would lead the house and the country to believe, that the Canadian Pacific report to its shareholders is infinitely more detailed, contains much more information, than the management of the people's railway gives to the shareholders of that concern. And he cites as an instance that there was no mention in the report of the Canadian National Railways of an important matter like the Halifax hotel. I would refer him to page 11 of the report of the president of the Canadian National Railways. There he will find close to half a page dealing with the Halifax hotel situation from 
the point of view, not of a politician, but of the chief administrator of a railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had that beside me.
I was comparing the two, the statement made by the Canadian Pacific as to how its money was to be used, and the statement made here, which is a long, evasive statement with respect to a transaction for which, it says, a million and a quarter will be asked.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend characterizes the statement as a long, evasive statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do.


Charles Avery Dunning: He has also, I presume, read the evidence of the president of the company to the committee on railways and shipping with respect to the same matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I say he must be mistaken.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman is entitled to his opinion in that regard. But I would respectfully point out to him and to this house' that he cannot in any sense pretend that the decision on the part of Sir Henry Thornton and the management of the Canadian National Railways to recommend this expenditure was in any way politically influenced by anybody, inside this house or outside' of it.
For a number of years the management of the Canadian National system have been looking with great interest toward the possibility of providing adequate terminal facilities at the two great ocean terminals of that system in this country, Halifax and Vancouver. Mjy hon. friend himself indicated that a number of years ago a minister of railways, before the time when, the Canadian National system assumed its present form of management, pointed to the necessity and the intention of providing, in connection with the .terminals at Halifax, an hotel as pant of the Canadian National system. The Canadian National management never at any time -so the president informs me, and I believe him-considered any other proposition than a Canadian National hotel owned and operated by the company itself at Halifax, except as an alternative in case they could not secure the consent of the minister, of the government and of this parliament to the erection of a Canadian National Railway hotel. The president has made that clear on more than one occasion. Moreover, the president of the railway assures me, has assured me on more than one occasion, that

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
the morale of the men engaged in working on the Canadian National system from coast to coast- would be seriously affected if the Canadian National were compelled to back down with respect to the construction of a Canadian National hotel at Halifax. My h-on. friend may talk politics: I present the information which the president of the road submits to me with regard to this matter.
I dislike to get into a discussion which may be regarded as partisan politics in connection with a matter of this kind, but my hon. friend has led the way. I know that as a result of dealing with him in kind I shall be accused of blocking my own estimates; but some things require to be said with respect to matters of this sort. My hon. friend criticized very strongly the amount of work which has up to now been done on the Canadian National Railway station and hotel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that some work had actually been done.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; my hon. friend
criticized that work being done without the authority of this parliament. And I understand him to hold very strongly to the view that with respect to major expenditures by the railway they should receive, to use his own word, antecedent approval by this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is whalt he said.


Charles Avery Dunning: 1 understood him to lay down that principle. Yet he was a member of a government which authorized the expenditure of $5,000,000 oin an hotel at the city of Vancouver which had not even been discussed by this parliament, let alone authorized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The' hon. gentleman
knows that the contract was not signed when the government went out of power and, because of the very point I make, was not signed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was or was not signed; ask the minister. It was not executed and, I took the view, should not be-if that is to any purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend probably took that view personally. But the action-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But was the contract
signed?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly not; my hon.
friend knows that as well as I do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps it will interest
those who applaud so much to learn that the Canadian National is not yet out of the woods with respect to commitments made, without a contract being signed, and which were duly authorized by the government of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with that later.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that although the contract was not signed it was intended by the government of which he was a member to sign that contract without the approval of parliament. Will he deny that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly will; and
what is more, Sir Henry Drayton said the money was to come out of. the next year's estimates. The contract was not signed, his attention having been directed to the very matter to which the hon. gentleman refers. And he is on record in regard to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is surely confessing a piece of business which is remarkable, to say the least.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In what way?


Charles Avery Dunning: be drawn up-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That a contract should Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and signed by the contractor-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and sent here for signature-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.
Mr. DUNNING -involving an obligation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so-a large one.


Charles Avery Dunning: -a form of contract
which is open to criticism, open to very serious criticism, because it was a cost-plus contract for the building of an hotel. Does my hon. friend mean to have the committee believe that his government led that contractor along to the point to where the contractor himself signed the contract, but that the government had no intention of allowing the other party to sign it? Is that what we are to believe?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with that;
the contract was not signed, and I will give the reasons.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels


Charles Avery Dunning: The facts speak for themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do; the contract was not signed.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no quarrel with my hon. friend's personal attitude with regard to the matter; I understand from him to-night that he then held the same view's which he holds to-day. But surely he does not claim that those views were held by the government of which he was a member, and that in spite of those views they went to the length of having a contract drawn and signed by the other party so that it merely required ratification. Further, the contract in question was sent over to me, as the incoming Minister of Railways, before I was sworn in, to know whether or not it should be executed. That is the fact with respect to this matter, and I only mention it because my hon. friend described the transaction as the smallest piece of politics in the largest matter for several years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I simply call his attention to what happened in connection with a very much larger matter financially.


An hon. MEMBER:: And smaller politics.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contract was not signed in this instance. As for small politics, I think my hon. friend is an authority on that.


Charles Avery Dunning: At least we come to this parliament to-day with respect to the Halifax hotel and ask parliament for the money with which to build a combined station and hotel at that point. We come here before a contract is let and before any contractor has been asked to bid on the work; we are asking parliament for authority to spend the money, and if authority is granted we will proceed with the work. We are not working along the lines of the Vancouver hotel transaction at all; we are coming frankly to parliament and asking for supply to enable the work to proceed.
In that regard may I say further that, leaving politics out of the matter altogether, this is recommended to parliament by the president, by all the vice-presidents and by the management of the system, who think it essential that the system should have at this time an hotel at this eastern gateway. It is well known that the officers of the system

deem it necessary that there should be an hotel also at the western gateway, and with respect to that I believe there is included in the amount now being asked provision for a start to be made on the construction of an hotel at Vancouver. There is no difference between the two cases as they now come before the house in each case authority is being asked from this parliament for the expenditure of the amount of money which the management desire to expend.
Now with respect to the report generally, my hon. friend held up the Canadian Pacific report as an example of what he believes should be given this parliament with respect to the Canadian National Railway system. I have no criticism whatever to offer of the Canadian Pacific report to their shareholders; that is the business of that company and I have no doubt the shareholders are satisfied with it. But for my hon. friend to pretend for one moment that the shareholders of this enterprise, the Canadian National Railways, through their representatives in parliament, do not receive a very great deal more information about their property than is received by any shareholder of the Canadian Pacific Railwa3' is an insult to the intelligence of this house. A special committee considered this report for days; the meetings of that committee were open to members of this house, and except for a portion of one session the meetings were open to the public as well. Here are the pages of the evidence taken; no statement asked for with respect to any part of the business of the company was refused by the management, and those statements form part of the public record. These were not meetings of private shareholders; they were public meetings; the press were there, and in addition to that the records of the proceedings are printed and available to any citizen of Canada. So I say that even during this session more information with respect to this railway enterprise has been given than is afforded by any private railway corporation on the North American continent. Why was not more information given? Much information. was volunteered by the officers, as members of the committee on both sides of the house will agree, and more was asked for by various members of the committee. Statement after statement was handed in at the succeeding sessions by the officers of the company, containing the information asked for by members of the committee. The only time that practice was not followed was when the information was of such a character that

S up pi y-Rail ways-C .N.R. Hole Is
it would supply the competitors of the Canadian National Railways with information regarding its business which could be used to the advantage of the competitors and to the detriment of the Canadian National. As a matter of fact the competitors of the Canadian National both in the United States and in Canada in the very nature of things have a very great deal more public information respecting the activities of the Canadian National than it is possible for the Canadian National to secure with respect to these competitors.
That is all I desire to say with respect to that phase of the matter, except to develop one point. My hon. friend asked, "How do we know where this money is to be spent?" This estimate was placed before the committee, and in tihe hands of the officials were books giving details of all the proposed expenditures on betterments and other capital requirements.
As far as branch line bills are concerned my hon. friend knows very well that the system in connection with Canadian National branch lines has 'been to come to this house with a bill for each branch line together with the estimated cost thereof, and the authority to spend the required money within three years is voted by this parliament for each specific branch line. All that is necessary in that connection, then, is to find out, as can be readily found out in committee and the facts of which are available even outside of the committee to any member of the house or to any individual, how much of that expenditure requires to be taken out of the budget this particular year. I do not think my bon. friend would suggest that we hand to every member of the house and ask him to study this volume, which deals with expenditures on capital account on the railway, or this other volume which has to do with other capital expenditures, refunding and all that sort of thing. We have deliberately set up a small special committee of this house in order to do what? We have done that in order to ensure the intensive study of the accounts of this system, which it would be impossible for 245 men to make. That is the system we have followed, rightly or wrongly; I believe it to be a good system, and the only system by which it will be possible to convey to the people of this country who own this railway anything like an adequate conception of what their property is doing and of the manner in which it is being conducted. Again I say the branch lines are dealt with
specifically and individually; my hon. friend's complaint there falls to the ground, 'because the shareholders themselves, through their representatives here, authorize the expenditure of the necessary amount of money in connection with each specific branch line.
Now, with respect to the retirement of equipment, again my hon. friend is inaccurate. The system with respect to the retirement of equipment is very simple; equipment is retired out of revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend made some statement, which I did not cleanly understand, but I think the statement that the cost of equipment is retired out of revenue is the answer to what my hon. friend meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman did not hear me perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw hiis statement that I made an inaccurate statement. It would be well to understand what is said before inaccuracy is charged. My point was that the report from the finance committee indicated that part of the money borrowed was used to retire equipment obligations which should have been retired out of capital, and which my hon. friend said should be out of income. It is in the statement, as a matter of fact; I will give you the page.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend was
speaking of retiring equipment; he now speaks of retiring equipment obligations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paying for the equipment bonds.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is quite
right, but the conclusion he draws from the facts he states is not, in my judgment,, accurate. I cannot think of any other point which requires to be covered, except that I should like to say a final, and, as I hope, a constructive word. This house has not yet realized the extent to which the special committee may be used to place on record for the shareholders, the people of this country, information with respect to the system. Naturally, we are groping yet as a people in connection with this great experiment in public ownership, possibly the greatest experiment in public ownership in the world, the greatest of its peculiar character. Gradually the men who have served on the special committee for a number of years are getting a wider knowledge of the ramifications of this vast system and of the principles which underlie its ac-

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
counting and its operation. Gradually, because of that, a volume of useful information with respect to the system is being placed upon record in the proceedings of the committee from year to year. Simply as a minister, I would say to the house that if the committee method of dealing with estimates, which is advocated by many with respect to all the departments of government, is to be successful, let us do our best to make a success of the one example we have, the committee on national railways and shipping. By success I mean going there as members of this house with our criticisms and with our questions, particularly as relates to the major matters of the conduct of the country's business. We should do this in the manner in which the hon. member for Toronto-Sear-borough (Mr. Harris) went into the accounting. Perhaps he had an advantage, being a member of the committee, but, as I said before, this committee' has never yet denied to any member of this house the privilege of asking questions of the officers of the company. I would plead, therefore, in order that there might be a little more intelligent discussion of Canadian National affairs in the future in this house, that we make wider use as members of this house of that committee for the purpose of eliciting information, which once printed becomes easily available to all the people of Canada through the medium of the reports of the committee.


Mr. RALSTON:: I do not intend to take
very much time, but my hon. friend has seen fit to make some references to myself; references which have arisen out of wrong information given to my hon. friend, or else he is endeavouring to place a construction on my actions in connection with this project which is entirely unwarranted.
As far back as 1913 a report was made to the government of which my hon. friend was a supporter at that time, regarding the port development at Halifax, as follows "that for the transatlantic trade as well as for the local and tourist trades hotel accommodation of the highest class adjoining the terminals will be a necessity." I want to remind my hon. friend that in 1926 two different gentlemen appeared before the commission presided over by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan. Mr. Cornell for the Halifax Board of Trade made his representations, and closed his remarks with this:
We hope that is the beginning of a move to appreciate the position at this end of the line and that the program of hotel accommodation 
will be extended to the city of Halifax, the city of Halifax being the chief port, and the chief Atlantic Canadian terminal of the railway.
He was speaking of the Canadian National Railways providing hotels in various places and soliciting tourist traffic. This was followed by the testimony of Hon. J. A. Walker, Minister of Natural Resources for Nova Scotia, who said:
It is highly desirable that the federal government should take immediate steps to establish a national park in the province, and the Canadian National Railways erect a first class hotel in Halifax, the capital, or main centre of the province.
The reference made in the Duncan report to this project is shown on page 43. This report states that a suggestion was made that there should be a hotel built by the Canadian National Railways at Halifax, and then goes on to say:
We feel it is not a subject matter upon whieh^ we can make any recommendation, as in our view it is a question for the judgment of the railway administration itself in the light of ordinary business considerations.
We have to-night -the recommendation made to the hon. Minister of Railways, the president of the road, every vice president of the road and the board of directors for a Canadian National hotel at Halifax. The matter has been referred to the special committee of this bouse and investigated by them, or if it was not- investigated it should have been, because the gentlemen who are sitting around my hon. friend were on that committee at the time. After investigation, it was recommended to the house.


Thomas Langton Church: How does the hon. minister justify another hotel in Halifax when the return issued to parliament last year showed that every one :of the ten Canadian National hotels were going behind in- the fixed charges?


James Layton Ralston: I am not in the hotel business, but I am simply quoting authority which 'it seems to me ought to have some weight with this parliament and with this country. Hon. J. A. Walker, who was a member of the Conservative government in Halifax, justified it, as my hon. friend puts it.


Thomas Langton Church: A sort of political hotel.


James Layton Ralston: Everyone who has inquired into this has recommended and has justified St. The special committee of this house has justified it. I do not propose to go into the matter in detail regarding the merits of an hotel at Halifax, but I might point out some

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
very strong reasons why the Canadian National Railways should have a hotel there. The Canadian National Railways, enjoying as it does three-quarters of the traffic of the province of Nova Scoitia; having steamship connections at Halifax, Halifax being the beginning of ithe long haul across the continent, needs hotel accommodation there. If they did not have it people would go to other hotels and they would lose the opportunity of getting that long haul traffic. The Canadian National Steamships are developing a service to the West Indies which will have its terminal at Halifax. Business is constantly increasing through the port of Yarmouth, through a new line of steamers being put on from both New York and from Boston to Yarmouth, with the expectation of something like 40,000 tourists through Yarmouth this year, and the Canadian National Railways will expect to get a proportion of that traffic if they have a good hotel at Halifax. Not only the Canadian National Railways but other roads have seen the advantages of having hotel accommodation in order that they may have a better opportunity to route passengers over their lines-The Canadian Pacific has had the experience at Quebec, and I have no doubt the Canadian National have had the same experience at other points, that having a hotel at these points is a great advantage in getting a large number of travellers routed along their lines.
But I am not discussing the merits so much as I am the remarks which were made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. What he said with regard to somebody going to Yarmouth indicates how little he really knows of the situation. He mentioned a proposition that had been put up whereby the Canadian National Railways were to invest a quarter of a million dollars in a hotel proposition in Halifax, and he said some friends came to Yarmouth and intimated that it was these friends who influenced me against the hotel. I want to tell him that the friends who came to Yarmouth were Mr. W. H. Dennis, the manager of the Halifax Herald, the opposition paper in Halifax; Mr. H. R. Silver, who is well known as a leading Conservative in Halifax and who has been I think the president of the Conservative organization; Mr. J. G. Farqu'har, and Mr. Bain. These are the gentlemen who came to place before me a proposition in which they thought I might be interested as a member of the government, to the effect that the Canadian National Railways should invest a quarter of a million dollars in the hotel project. I want to say
to my hon. friend that it was due to no persuasion of theirs that I took the position I did; that I went over the proposition with them from end to end, and that I found out what my hon. friend practically admitted when he spoke first to-night, namely, that to say the least the proposition was extremely expensive. When we have in raising $1,084,000 to pay $150,000 in shrinkage of securities on a proposition which is going to be supported by two railways which are taking a large block of the preferred stock, you have a proposition that, it seems to me', requires close examination. My hon. friend was quite right when he suggested that he did not wonder from that point of view that I did not agree to the proposition that was made.
The proposition which was made at that time was this, namely, that the cumulative preferred stock was to be sold to the underwriters at 85 and that the Canadian National railways was to pay par for that stock. In other words the Canadian National railway was to pay $37,500 into the pockets of the promoters of the company. I thought that was not good enough from the point of view of government financing if there was some other way out. I realized exactly what the Canadian National situation was; I realized that it was thought it might be impossible to get an appropriation for a Canadian National hotel and that this was the best alternative offered. But I told those gentlemen there at the time-and I did not mince matters with them-I criticized the proposition. I told Mr. Bain in effect: "I am against your making this money out of it. You can hardly expect the government of Canada to approve a proposition of this kind and pay this amount of money into your pocket. I am for a Canadian National hotel if that is possible". My hon. friend talks about selling bonds. Does the committee think there would be any great trouble in selling $600,000 worth of bonds in a concern into which about $1,084,000 cash was to be put altogether and in which the preferred stock behind the bonds was to be largely taken by the two great railway systems of Canada, who would be in effect the guarantors of the concern? Would the bondholders stand much chance of losing their money? They would be pretty sure that the railways, in order to save their investment, would have to take the proposition over and their bonds would be perfectly safe. But even those' bonds were to be sold to the underwriters, Messrs. Bain and Company, at a ten per cent discount. That is, they were going to get the bonds at ninety which they were to sell to the public
4032	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
at one hundred. I do not think I am very far wrong and I am in the judgment of the house and the country when I say that I felt if a better proposition could be made for the people of Canada, it should be made. I told Mr. Bain at that time that I was against his making that money and I told the gentlemen that I believed in a Canadian National hotel and that I was going to work for it. That was the answer I gave them at that time and they went home.


Charles Avery Dunning: And they were not your friends?


James Layton Ralston: There are people within the sound of my voice who know whether in a political sense they were friends of mine or not. They were Mr. W. H. Dennis and Mr. H. R. Silver. They were political opponents of the strongest kind. I gave those gentlemen that information at that time. I came to Ottawa and the government held a meeting on July 14th. This is the statement which was given out at that time:
That the federal government is not prepared to authorize the expenditure of public funds in the purchase of a minority interest in a hotel project at Halifax, was one of the decisions made at to-day's meeting of the cabinet. The statement was made after the meeting that, quite apart from the features of the scheme itself, the government considered that large capital expenditures of this kind should, in the first instance, be submitted to parliament.
Hon. J. L. Ralston. Minister of National Defence, when seen this evening, stated that he had made his position clear to the promoters of the project two or three weeks ago, namely, that he was for a Canadian National hotel, in preference to spending public money on underwriting charges, and having the direction and management of the institution subject to the control of outside parties.
When asked regarding the prospects, Hon. Mr. Ralston said that the matter had gone so far that he had no doubt in his mind that if the board of directors of the Canadian National railways recommended a project for a railway terminal hotel at Halifax the government Mould see that it was submitted to parliament next session. He also stated that he would do all possible to assist such an undertaking.
May I pause here to say that in connection with the matter of control the Canadian National was to be away in the minority? Both railways, as a matter of fact, in that scheme were to be in the minority and the majority of voting power was to be held by Mr. Bain and his clients to whom the stock was sold. As I have read to the committee, the statement I made after the meeting of government was that if the Canadian National railway directorate would recommend a Can-

adian National hotel, I felt the matter had gone so far I was certain in my own mind that the government would submit it to par-lilament. What happened then? The next was a statement-and this is what my hon. friend did not refer to-made by Sir Henry Thornton on July 20th, just five days after, as follows:
In connection with the possible participation by the Canadian National railivay in the construction of the proposed Lord Nelson hotel at Halifax, the following statement was given out to-day in Montreal by Sir Henry Thornton, president of the national system:
In view of the fact that any partial investment in the proposed hotel at Halifax would ' require the approval of parliament, which could not be obtained until the next session, and the preference indicated that the Canadian National should construct and entirely own a hotel at _ Halifax, which is in accordance with the original desire of the railway, an appropriate amount will be included in the annual railway budget to be submitted at the next session of parliament.
It should be observed that no time will be lost in the execution of this policy, as in any case even a partial investment in the hotel would require parliamentary sanction, and, therefore, could not be made until the next session of parliament.
Newspapers in Halifax came out at that time accusing me of having blocked a project for a hotel at Halifax but I did not see any hats thrown in the air or any headlines in at least one newspaper, although there was a statement by a member of the government that, if there was a project for a Canadian National hotel, he believed the government would submit it to parliament if the railway directors would recommend it, and when there was a statement by the president of the company to the effect that the board would so recommend it. But the people of Halifax began to get a clearer view of the situation and they realized why the Canadian National felt that they should have an hotel and that the financial proposals were pretty extravagant for a government project. In August I was in Halifax and this is the report of an interview which the president of the board of trade and two members of their committee had with me. I take this from the Halifax Herald of August 20, 1927:
Colonel Ralston referred the committee to a statement he made in Ottawa cn July 14. expressing himself in favour of the project and also to a statement made by Sir Henry Thornton to the effect that an amount sufficient for the construction of a Canadian National railway hotel in Halifax would be placed in the railway estimates for submission to parliament at the next, session.
The Nova Scotia minister said there was no change in the situation, that it could be taken

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels
as authoritative that the matter would be placed before parliament.
The board of trade committee reported that they were cordially received.
That looked, it seemed to me, as if Halifax ought to feel there was a fair chance for having an hotel there. My hon. friend has taken occasion to-night to say-and this is what he must refer to-that this was a piece of partisan politics. I want to say to my hon. friend that I am flattered by the suggestion that I, a humble and junior member of the government, having just finished my first session in this house, had such power in the country that I was able to induce not only the government but Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors to recommend a thing which for the purpose of his argument he must assume they were against, a thing which was unwise, which was not in the interest of the road, simply because I wanted it dons for political purposes. My hon. friend gives me great credit. I do not claim to have that power and further than, that he must go the full length and he must say that in addition to that I have been able to get all the vicepresidents and the board of directors of the road to recommend it, and Sir Henry Thornton to come here and testify before this committee and to make the report which the minister has read to-night, all because of the fact that he was carrying out my political ideas. Simply to make that statement is a sufficient answer, I think. It is about as preposterous a thing as could be said; it is about as untrue a thing as could be said, and I want to tell my hon. friend that there is absolutely no foundation for it whatever. I have supported the Canadian National hotel project because I believed it was sound from the point of view of the people of Canada, and from the point of view of the people of Nova Scotia.
I want to mention one other thing. This hesitancy which I showed about accepting this project had another effect. I had pointed out to the gentlemen at Yarmouth that this proposition was a pretty expensive bit of financing. One of the gentlemen came to Ottawa just about the time the Government was meeting, and I pointed out to him agaih that this was an extremely expensive bit of financing, with the result that I have under my hand at the present time, if hon. members will believe me, a letter from him in which he advises me that in order to meet my views about the expensiveness of the proposition, Bain and Company will agree, if the government will put this through, to hand back $25,000 of the $37,500 which they were going to make out
of the Canadian National subscription. I think that was some accomplishment, and indicated some justification for the position I took. Later they presented another financial proposition, which reduced the $156,000 that was going to be made to $94,000, so that the company on the second scheme was going to get altogether $1,146,000, and were going to pay $94,000 for it. Even that I thought was a pretty expensive piece of financing for the government to authorize, and I do not think I can be blamed for having hesitated about that, or that the government can be blamed for taking the position which they did. They did not accept that proposition. As I have said, the statements by Sir Henry Thornton and myself were in July,'then came the interview with the board of trade representative. That interview was in August.
Then later in September and I do not blame them for it-it was legitimate competition- along came Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific railway and said-I do not think I am misreading his mind-" Here is an opportunity perhaps to cultivate the goodwill of the province of Nova Scotia. We will put up the whole $350,000 towards building the hotel." Mr. Beatty in a statement that appeared in newspapers not long ago made no reference to the facts which I have just related to the committee, namely, that it had been intimated in the statements by Sir Henry Thornton and myself in July that an estimate for a Canadian National hotel in Halifax would be submitted to Parliament. Mr. Beatty proposed, and his proposal was met with acclaim in Halifax at the time, to put up the $350,000 and to take the place of the Canadian National saying that he would give the Canadian National their stock if they desired it afterwards. Immediately, possibly the next day or the same day, Sir Henry Thornton came out with a reiteration of the statement he had previously made that he was for a Canadian National hotel, and said that the Canadian National would go on with their hotel. I have the statement here; it is very short.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understood that we were to sit here to get through some estimates. It is perfectly obvious that we are not going to get very far with the estimates to-night. Why not conclude this debate and adjourn?


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend will realize that what has been said has been rather important from my point of view, and I think I should be allowed to say a word or two to see it through.

4034	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, but at the same time the minister has had a considerable time already.


Charles Avery Dunning: He has been speaking
for only ten minutes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Nobody will suggest that members of parliament can work day and night and be in a fit condition to do the business of the country. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, under what rule are we now sitting?


John Frederick Johnston: The house adopted a
motion to continue after eleven o'clock.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This day.


John Frederick Johnston: If I remember the
motion rightly, it stated that the house should continue after eleven o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: I shall not trouble the
house with reading the quotation. As I said, Sir Henry Thornton came out immediately with a further statement to the effect that the Canadian National would erect its own hotel in Halifax, and that has been his attitude. I do not want to take the time of the committee to read extracts, but I could read at least three different statements made in the public press of the country, by Sir Henry Thornton to the effect, as my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has said, that the partial subscription in a hotel was altogether an alternative if they could not get the money for a Canadian National hotel.
I want the house and the committee to understand the situation. I want the people of Nova Scotia to understand the situation. My stand has been, first-, last and all the time, for a Canadian National hotel, and it has been so because I believe it was. in the interest of the country that if public funds are put into a hotel it should be a Canadian National hotel. After the Beatty hotel was announced, I made no further statement about it until Sir Henry Thornton represented that he believed that it was absolutely essential in the interests of the road, and as the Minister of Railways says that he considered that it was absolutely necessary in view of his competitive position in the province of Nova Scotia. I am for giving a fair chance to the people's road; and I do realize this fact, that the Canadian National has an interest in the province of Nova Scotia which it should be allowed to protect, I am only too glad to welcome the Canadian Pacific railway with their hotel and the statement I made to the

newspapers I stand by, namely, that I think it is a good thing for the province of Nova Scotia to see two big railway systems like the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific investing money in that province, because it will ensure their very active interest and give an impetus to trade and an increase to traffic all over the province. I do expect to see a great incentive to the tourist traffic and a great addition to activities in the various towns and villages throughout the province when we have these two hotels in Halifax.
I have taken more of the time of the committee than I intended. I believe that my stand will be justified in the future, and I am willing at any time to submit the records to this committee or to this country in order to vindicate the soundness of the position which I have taken.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am not going to delay
the house very long, but I want to make this criticism.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I rise to a point of order. The Prime Minister asked us to sit until 12.30. It is now after one, and we have not passed a single estimate.


Milton Neil Campbell: I move that the house do now adjourn.


John Frederick Johnston: That motion is not
in order in committee.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have the floor, and I am
going to move the adjournment of the debate.


Milton Neil Campbell: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Might I make a suggestion
to my hon. friend? I think we are all desirous of accommodating each other as far as possible. I would suggest that this discussion apparently is terminating, and that we conclude the discussion on this one item with the understanding that when it is concluded, we adj ourn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is not the least
chance of terminating this discussion within a reasonable time this morning in view of the speeches that have been made.


Mr. RINFRET:: You mean your own
speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said this discussion.


Charles Avery Dunning: Let us go on for a
while.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not fair to keep
members here under these circumstances. I protest against it.

Supply-Railways-C.N.R. Hotels


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is a motion before the Chair.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion made by
the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) is quite in order. The hon. member moved that the committee rise and report progress.
Motion negatived:	Yeas, 37; Nays, 49.


Felix Patrick Quinn: As I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to go on record as opposing any expenditure of public money in the province of Nova Scotia, but I must criticize the government's attitude with regard to this hotel expenditure because their announcement came too late. For years, as will be observed from the statement of the Minister of National Defence, the people of Halifax have been looking forward to increased modern hotel accommodation. In 1913 we had a program laid down to develop the terminal at Halifax. If the minister had disclosed his policy a year ago this discussion would not be taking place to-night, for it would have been accepted by everybody not only in Nova Scotia, but throughout the Dominion, it being realized that we were in need of a good, modern hotel. The Lord Nelson hotel promoters would have ceased their activities. But after the negotiations reported here to-night the promoters of that hotel announced that they would proceed. A few days afterwards the Canadian National Railways announced that they had decided to build an up-to-date hotel and station at Halifax at a cost of a million and a quarter dollars. To my mind for a combined station and hotel that sum is not sufficient. To-day the new hotel is almost completed, against the protests of the management of the existing hotels. In full page advertisements they declared that no further hotel accommodation was needed. Those people are all friendly to this government. The Minister of National Defence will not deny that the management of the two leading hotels in Halifax are friendly to his government, and that they protested most vigorously against the building of the Lord Nelson hotel, because they urged that there was already sufficient accommodation. Now, we had the announcement of the Lord Nelson hotel promoters that they would proceed with their building, and immediately following that came the announcement of the Canadian National Railways.


James Layton Ralston: An announcement was
made by Sir Henry Thornton on July 20 of
56103-255J
last year, before any announcement was made by the Lord Nelson Company.


Felix Patrick Quinn: After a considerable amount of the stock in the new hotel had been sub. scribed.


James Layton Ralston: After large advertisements had been put in the newspapers advertising the stock, notwithstanding the fact that the promoters knew of the matter of the Canadian National hotel had not been approved by the government.


Felix Patrick Quinn: After the announcement by the promoters of the Lord Nelson hotel that they were going to proceed with their project, I ask was it good busines for this government or the railway management to announce to the people the building of a second additional hotel, especially after the vigorous protest on the part of the management of the existing hotels that there was no need for further accommodation?


James Layton Ralston: And notwithstanding that protest, I advocated the Canadian National Railway hotel.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What does the minister
think of that hotel to-day?


James Layton Ralston: I have made my statement.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I think it would be far better for the railway management to proceed with the building of a railway station to replace the temporary shed which was erected after the explosion in 1916. The people have been clamouring for this for several years. The government should also provide further docking facilities and port improvements; if they want to spend a little more money, let them build the bridge across Halifax harbour that the people have been asking for. It may be said that increased port accommodation is not needed, but let me point out that the shipping tonnage of the port of Halifax is greater than that of the port of Montreal. My authority is the secretary of the Halifax Board of Trade. He states that in 1927 the gross tonnage, not including coasting ships, of the port of Halifax was 13,167,839 tons.
From the report of the Montreal harbour commission I notice that our gross tonnage was practically 500,000 more than it was the year before. Montreal is not open the year round but it is hailed as the great shipping port of Canada. The Minister of National Defence has mentioned the fact that there is increased steamship accommodation; larger steamers are being built to bring tourists into
4036	COMMONS
Supply- Railways-Merchant Marine
Nova Scotia, not necessarily to Halifax. I suggest that before they go further with the hotel project they wait a little while to see how the present accommodation will suit the travelling public going into Halifax; and ^ instead of going ahead at the present time with the Halifax hotel they might build summer hotels throughout the province and bungalows as suggested in the newspapers and elsewhere. I believe they could use the money to better advantage for the time being than proceeding with the present hotel at Halifax. The Minister of Railways stated a little while ago that he had had to come to parliament to vote the money before they could proceed with the hotel. I ask him, why did he not come to parliament to vote the money to excavate and build a foundation?


Charles Avery Dunning: They had done it.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I do not think there is anything more I have to say.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is quite evident that there will still be an extended discussion on this vote and in view of the fact, even if it is the desire' to get through, that we must under the rules make some progress under another item, I would ask whether it is agreeable to the committee to have items 410, 411 and 412 on page 4 of the estimates, relating to the maritimes, disposed of?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In any event the items cannot be changed.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are accountable
estimates.
Item stands.
Canadian Government Merchant Marine
Loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, repayable on demand with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of: deficits in operation of the company and of the vessels under the company's control during the year ending December 31, 1928, and capital requirements, $758,000.


Thomas Cantley: I want to direct the attention of the minister to a portion of the fleet which is obsolete. Five of these boats were laid up last winter in Halifax at a considerable cost-something like $100 a day. Interest is going on as well as depreciation. They have to be reconditioned to a considerable extent before again going into service. All told the cost of these boats, lying up, runs into the vicinity of $100,000 a year. The fleet contains some twenty vessels of
[Mr. Quinn. 1
less than 8,000 tons each and under present conditions it is impossible for the boats to which I have referred to pay their way. The country will lose a great deal less if they dispose1 of these boats at whatever price they can get or at figures approximating what they got for the boats they have sold. The minister will agree that this is the part of wisdom and I would ask him to take the matter up with the proper officers to see what can be done in that direction. Will he give the house some assurance that this policy will be adopted and the boats disposed of as rapidly as possible?


Charles Avery Dunning: As a result of discussion in the special committee the management have been requested to make a survey of the situation with a view to discovering what it is best to do during the current year in the light of what my hon. friend has stated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 1.30 a.m. (Saturday).
Saturday, June 9, 1928