1929-05-27

Hon J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the order for the second reading of Bill No. 297 (Letter A8 of the Senate), intituled: "An Act to amend the Penny Bank Act" be transferred on the order paper from private bills to government orders as said bill is a government measure and not a private bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: Pursuant to notice I desire to
move:
That the debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) to the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply be resumed whenever the said motion is made by a member of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
2S1S
Questions

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Fafard for Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville), the seventh report of the select standing committee on standing orders was -concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. C. G. Power (Quebec South) the fourth report of the special committee appointed to consider the Dominion Elections Act and the Corrupt Practices Inquiry Act was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I desire to table a report by the engineers and surveyors of the department with -respect to certain surveys made in the Peace River district. This report was asked for by the bon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy).

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member for Kingston City (M-r. Ross) on the 22nd of May referred to the production of an order in council for which he said he had asked. I cannot find any record of his having asked f-or it before, and I have consulted the Department of the Secretary of State. So far as I have been able to ascertain, no motion for a return has appeared in the votes and proceedings, but perhaps it will serve my bon. friend's purpose if I send a copy of the order in council across to him.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Thank you. It
was a verbal request that I had made of the Minister of Pensions (Mr. King).



NATURAL RESOURCES OF WESTERN PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 311, respecting waterpower in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: This bill is being introduced in response to the resolution of the house asking that the administration of the waterpowers o-f these three provinces be undertaken by the provincial governments. I shall make a more extended explanation on the second reading of the bill, but I might just 
say here that the resolution requested that the Waterpowers Act under which the British Columbia government administers the water-powers in the railway -belt and Peace River block be applied in the administration of the waterpowers of the three prairie provinces. We find this rather difficult. We are just asking authority to deal with the provinces, and we will embody at the same time all the provisions of the British Columbia Water-powers Act that will apply to^ the provincial governments, owing to the peculiar situation that exists between the federal government and the provinces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. A. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Might I ask the Minister of the Interior a question?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion is not debatable on the first reading.



SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 312 to amend the Supreme Court Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act a judge having heard a case, being absent when the judgment is delivered, may hand his notes to one of the judges who is present and who is delivering the judgment on his behalf, and these notes may form part of the record. The present bill is for the purpose of extending these provisions to a judge who has resigned or who has retired under the new age limit provision put in the statute two years ago.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Stella Pearl Duncan-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Hurley Alexander Fummerton-Mr. Thorson.

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

Mr. PRICE:: 1.	What tonnage of hay is available for market purposes in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	Has the department any information concerning the demand for hay in the markets of Great Britain?

Private Bills


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	No statistics available. From the 1928 crop of 796,000 tons probably 200,000 tons available for market of which it is estimated less than 10 per cent is still in producers hands. Seed branch inspectors report that bulk of hay unmarketed is of inferior quality.
2.	Imports of hay into the United Kingdom are reported as 29,371 tons for the calendar year 1923; 13,187 tons for 1924; 23,566 tons for 1925; 23,427 tons for 1926 ; 43,099 tons for 1927. Canadian exports to the United Kingdom were 23,775 tons for the fiscal year 192324; 21,837 tons for 1924-25; 36,317 tons for 1925-26; 20,110 tons for 1926-27; 58,400 tons for 1927-28.
There is a good demand for hay in the British market at the present time. Stocks in farmers hands are reported to be low with early spring weather unfavourable to the present season's crop. Prices offered for hay in the British market are usually low and, in the past, have not been such as to attract the best grades of Canadian hay to the British market in any great quantity. Most, shipments from Canada to the United Kingdom are made from Montreal while that port remains open.


HISTORIC SITES-ANNAPOLIS ROYAL
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Has the government been requested to acquire the site of the first fort and habitation, built in 1605 by Champlain and his associates, near Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia?
2.	Is the money required for the restoration [DOT] of this fort and habitation, in accordance with drawings left by Champlain, available from other than governmental sources?
3.	What persons and what historical and tourist associations have requested that the government assist in this project?
4.	What action has been taken or is contemplated by the government?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The president of the Annapolis Royal Historical Association advises he has an offer of $10,000 in aid of the proposal.
3.	The Historical Association of Annapolis Royal.
4.	None.


GUS CARRIER-PRINCE ALBERT PENITENTIARY
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to Gns Carrier, Prince Albert penitentiary, from January 1, 1925, to date.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: When this matter came up the first time I said that there were objections to tabling the documents, some of them in any event. The matter is under consideration by the department. As a matter of fact, I expect a report from an officer whom I have instructed to look into this case. The whole record consists of confidential documents, exchanged between the officers of the penitentiary branch and I do not think that, under the practice, these documents should be tabled. However, I think that in a couple of days I will be able to tell my hon. friend the result of the investigation.


John Arthur Clark: We will let it stand then.
Motion stands.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the order to go into committee on Bill No. 214, for the relief of Eva Alexander Grayson Smith:
Mr. HEAPS:: My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) asked me to say on his behalf .that members in whose names private bills stand should be in the house when motions are made.


Hewitt Bostock: I did not catch what the hon. member said. There is objection?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has asked me to say on his behalf that the members should be in the house when motions are moved.


Mr. GEARY:: The member for Winnipeg North Centre cannot be heard, he is not in the house.


Hewitt Bostock: Both sponsors and objectors ought to be here.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. MoPhee) is unavoidably absent, and does not expect to be present this session.


Hewitt Bostock: Under the circumstances I would say by unanimous consent, Mr. Young (Saskatoon), for Mr. McPhee,moves,seconded by Mr. McIntosh, that the house go into committee on Bill No. 214, for the relief of Eva Alexandra Grayson Smith.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 247, for the relief of Henry Feldman-Mr. Jacobs- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. SPENCER:: Is the sponsor of the bill in the house? If not, I object to this bill going through.


The CHAIRMAN:: Stands.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Marie Rose BelTre Baer.-Mr. Arthurs.
On division.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Ethel Evelyn Farrow.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No 210, for the relief of John Alfred Neary.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Charles Storey.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Ernest Gillespie Simpson.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Laura Grace Osborne Lea.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Gertrude Helena Martin.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Laura Warren, -Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Kelley.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo).
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Andrew Ralph Wilson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Marion Jane Stewart.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Mildred Muriel Lange.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Linda Lydia Snowdon Pascoe.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of John Carbery Hickman.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Lydia Alice Hinch.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Allan Plant. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Pansy Jean Van Luven.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of William Tres-love.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Annie Letticia Smith.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Frederick Herman Schelke.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Jennie White. -Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Alma Ber-Iinda Swayne.-Mr. Boys.

Bill No. 233, for the relief of Gladys Evelyn Lawrence.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Daniel Ray Bouvier.

Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Edyth Viola Beacock.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Bertha Nichols. -Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of George Nelson Brown.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Albert Victor Walter Holman Homan.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of James Duncan Gerard.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Frances Vera Carter Van Luven.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Violet Haney. -Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of James Thompson Clark.

Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of James Colling-wood Darroch.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Ross James Smalley.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Alexander James Purse.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Wilfred Keith Black.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Fanny Green Fuchs Webber.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Henry Lawrence Jones.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Dean William Monerieff.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
' Bill No. 257, for the relief of William John Brett.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 259. for the relief of Grace Viola Byers.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Mildred Soden. -Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Mabel Graham. -Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 262. for the relief of Velma Stella Seadon.

Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Emma O'Grady. -Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Edna Marguerite Stroud Robinson.-Mr. Cahan.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Gordon Hanna. -Mr. Rowe.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Joseph Richardson.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Angus John Archibald Blaine.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Thomas Horace Sillery.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of George Melville Fulton.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Gladys Elizabeth Boyd.-Mr. Stinson.

Private Bills
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Annie Fraser Rice.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Clarence Spurgeon White.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 276. for the relief of Gertrude Georgeanna Anderson.

Mr. Garland (Carle-ton).
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Lloyd Edward Angel.-Mr. Ladner.
Biil No. 284, respecting a certain patent of Cobb Connector Company.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of George Stanley Warner.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Vincenzina Gramigna.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Kenneth Evan Thompson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Thomas Matthews Moland.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Andrew Townsley Hirsch.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 79, respecting a certain patent of Jean Baptiste Hurteau.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. E. BOURGEOIS (Kent, N.B.) moved the second reading of Bill No. 282, respecting the New Brunswick Railway Company.
Hewitt Bostock: This bill will have to be
referred to the committee on standing orders as the petition concerning same is not in order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on standing orders.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin; for Mr. Lang) moved the second reading of Bill No. 283, respecting Central Finance Corporation.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the sponsor of this bill kindly explain?


Mr. HEPBURN:: Last year the Central Finance Corporation was given a charter by this parliament. This year it is asking for certain amendments. Unfortunately the sponsor of the bill is not present. The fact that the bill has passed the senate would indicate that there was certain merit bo it. All I ask is that it be sent to the banking and commerce committee.


James Alexander Robb: The officers of my department have gone over this bill and they find no objection to it. As my hon. friend has stated, a slight amendment has been made by the banking and commerce committee of the senate. It just adds certain clauses regarding chattel mortgages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, -bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Marion Ross Harrison.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Robert Wilson. Reoch.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of William Edward King.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton), for Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 268, for the relief of John Wilson Pickering.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Wallace Wellington Corkum.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 280, respecting Alliance Nationale. -Mr. Mercier (Laurier-Outremont).
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Marion Annie Terry.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Frank Milsom Ruggles.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 290, for the -relief of Joseph Edwin Wood.-Mr. Howden.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Dora Chearnley Chearnley.-Mr. Howden.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of William Edgar Baird.

Mr. McGibbon for Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Charles Edwin Walker.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Edith Laura Hewitt.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 301. for the relief of Bertha Jane Phelan.-Mr. Stevens for Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Roland Emory Anderson.-Mr. Grimmer for Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Olive Marion Gerrard.-Mr. Bell (St. John) for Mr. GaTland (Carleton).
Bill No. 305, for the relief of John Beck.- Mr. Bell (St. John) for Mr. Kaiser.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Ruth Leonard Wiser.-Mr. Rowe.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of George King. -Mr. Harris for Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 309, respecting The Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company, and to change its name to "The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.-Mr. Geary.
[Stage Direction]
Customs-Mr. Harry Bronfman

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: On May 5th an order of the house was passed for the production of papers regarding the prosecution of Harry Bronfman. The papers that were brought down refer only to the Department of National Revenue and the evidence on which the investigating commission, found a prima facie case against Harry Bronfman. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) informed the house that the other papers were confidential and could not be furnished. Will the Minister of Justice now furnish those papers, or will he say why the crown was not in a position to make out a good case at law, to use his own words in answer to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine)?


Ernest Lapointe: As the hon. gentleman says, the return was prepared by the Department of National Revenue, and apparently they tabled everything except the legal opinions sent to that department by the Deputy Minister of Justice. Those legal opinions, under the practice that has always prevailed, are as a matter of fact private documents and are never made public. My hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) tells me that another hon. member, I think the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), asked for the same papers, and the minister communicated them to him personally and he was satisfied. Perhaps my hon. friend from Rose-town will be satisfied if the Minister of National Revenue shows him the report of the Deputy Minister of Justice.


John Evans: I do not think that that would satisfy me because it is only the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice has already given his decision in the matter. What we want to know is why the crown was not in a position to make out a good case at law.


Ernest Lapointe: That will be indicated in the opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question which the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) has asked is not in form just what I proposed to ask the minister, having read in Hansard the reply he gave the other day, namely, that the crown in right of the Dominion had concluded that there was not sufficient evidence on which to predicate a prosecution being taken against a certain person.
[Mr. Robb.l
My understanding is that that is a matter that must rest with the provincial authorities. Time and time again the Dominion government has declined to exercise the power because it can exercise it only through the attorney general's department in the respective provinces. For instance, the crown in right of the Dominion, cannot prosecute a case in the provinces. The crown can assist by having somebody act with the attorney general of the province, but it is perfectly obvious that the crown in right of the Dominion cannot carry on the prosecution. I could not help overhearing a remark on the other side as to the Saskatchewan election, but this has nothing whatever to do with the Saskatchewan election. In connection with prosecutions under the Combines Act in regard to the fruit industry, counsel for the Dominion came into the provinces, and the only method by which the prosecution was carried on was by the indictment being preferred through the department of the attorney general of the province. Counsel for the Dominion assisted or acted on behalf of the provincial authorities in carrying forward the prosecution. It has never been competent, in my judgment, for this Dominion or for the Minister of Justice to determine whether or not proceedings should be taken against anybody. That rests with the provincial authorities, because the administration of justice rests with them only, and all the power in this parliament could not enter a nolle prosequi against an individual in connection with criminal proceedings. That must come from the attorney general of the province If my memory serves me-I intended to look it up, but as my hon. friend from Rosetown has brought the question up, I may now state my recollection-Sir John Thompson considered this point very carefully at one time in connection with certain prosecutions that arose out of the McGreevy-Connolly difficulties, and the conclusions that were arrived at then were approved by such eminent jurists as the Hon. David Mills and Mr. afterwards, Sir Louis Davies. I am speaking wholly from memory and subject to correction, but my memory is that the principle is there emphatically laid down that there is no power in the Dominion to declare that a prosecution shall or shall not be taken against any alleged offender against the law, but that power rests in the attorney general of the province, the provincial authorities alone being the power charged with the administration of criminal justice. Even although the Minister of Justice thought that the case in question was not a good case for criminal prosecution and so

Penny Bank Act
advised the Department of National Revenue, the duty of the department is to transmit the documents to the attorneys general in the respective provinces affected, and have the appropriate attorneys general take such proceedings as may be necessary, first determining either not to prosecute or to proceed with the case. I dare say that my friend the Minister of Justice and certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will remember that the former member for South York (Mr. Maclean), always urged that there should be power in this parliament under our constitution, as there is in the United States, for the federal prosecuting officers and federal marshals to prosecute and carry on proceedings in the several courts for the purpose of enforcing justice. We have not that power under our constitution. He used to point out with a great wealth of learning that the effect of that lack of power was to render the enforcement of many of our federal statutes ineffective and inefficient, and he suggested from time to time that our constitution should be so amended as to provide beyond perad-venture that this Dominion could itself institute and carry forward criminal proceedings. Certainly the federal government has no power to enter a nolle prosequi and no officer of our Dominion, the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice, can discontinue criminal proceedings or, in the sense in which the word is properly used, initiate or continue them in the criminal courts of the provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: I quite agree with my
lion, friend that there is no power on the part of this government to file a nolle prosequi, but there is power to refrain from laying a charge-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes.


Ernest Lapointe: That is exactly what
has been done in this case. The officers of the Department of Justice, after having received the evidence taken before the royal commission, came to the conclusion that in law we had not a good case against Bronfman, and the Department of National Revenue was so advised.
As far as the attorney general of the province is concerned I quite agree, too, that all indictments must be proffered toy the attorney general, but surely there must be somebody to initiate something. Especially when it comes from the federal authorities, the attorney general of the province never acts unless some federal officer lays a complaint against somebody, and then it becomes the duty of the attorney general to prosecute. But when the federal authorities come to
the conclusion that they cannot prosecute and do not lay any complaint or charge against the man before the provincial authorities, I do not think the provincial authorities can be blamed for not prosecuting.


John Evans: Then am I to understand
that the whole responsibility rests on the Justice department at Ottawa?


Ernest Lapointe: Responsibility only so
far as I have indicated. When a legal opinion is asked of the Department of Justice by any of the departments of the government, certainly we are responsible for the answer, but that is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The value of that opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice is only this, that it expresses the view of a responsible minister of the crown, a federal minister, that such a prosecution would not succeed, but it cannot in any sense stay or bind or limit or restrict the duty of the attorney general of the province to enforce the laws of the country if charges are brought before the court for that purpose.


Ernest Lapointe: If charges are brought.
May I add that any citizen of Canada can lay a complaint if anybody is not satisfied. If my hon. friend from Rosetown is not satisfied, he can lay a complaint himself.


John Evans: Did not the commission itself lay a charge?


Ernest Lapointe: They sent on the facts.


PENNY BANK ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 297, to amend the Penny Bank Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On Section 1, subsection 2-Withdrawals for investment on other approved securities.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the general purpose of this bill?


James Alexander Robb: Penny banks are purely philanthropic in purpose. The Penny Bank of Ontario serves a school population of 170,000 children in 360 schools in 85 municipalities throughout the country, all the chartered banks acting as local agents of the Penny Bank. Under the charter as they have it now, Mr. Chairman, they may invest their funds only in Dominion of Canada securities. This bill is to widen their powers so that they may invest in Dominion of Canada
Penny Bank Act

guaranteed securities, or securities of, or guaranteed by, any province of Canada, or of the government of the United Kingdom, or of any municipal corporation in Canada, including debentures issued for public school purposes or guaranteed by any such municipal corporation, as the minister may approve. The board may also invest, to an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the funds at the credit of the bank as aforesaid, in first mortgages on improved real estate in the Dominion of Canada not exceeding 50 per cent of the value thereof.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how this bank differs from any other bank; how is it able to use the word " bank " which is more or less of a monopoly?


James Alexander Robb: I have just given my hon.
friend and the house the information as to their loaning privileges. Heretofore, they have only been able to invest money in Dominion government securities. Many of those securities will mature shortly. They desire now to widen their powers so that they may invest in guaranteed securities of the Dominion of Canada, in guaranteed securities of the provinces, or of the United Kingdom, or any of the municipalities, and an amount not to exceed 50 per cent may be invested in first mortgages on improved real estate in the Dominion of Canada subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. It is purely a philanthropic organization. There are no shareholders and the directors receive no fees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the resources
at the moment?


James Alexander Robb: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think it sound to permit the investment of any part of that money in mortgages?


James Alexander Robb: Well, not exceeding 50 per
cent of the value, and it is subject to the approval of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the very point
I am making, because it must be clear to the Minister of Finance that that is making the Dominion government liable for the mortgage. That is the real truth about it.


James Alexander Robb: As my hon. friend knows, you could not proceed with that argument very far, because all the life insurance companies invest funds in mortgages, subject to the approval of the treasury board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but not to this
extent. The banks are precluded from making loans on real estate. I only put it to the minister, if he does not think it desirable to eliminate that for the reason that it suggests a moral obligation on the part of the minister to become responsible for the validity and sufficiency of those loans, and I do not think that is quite sound.


James Alexander Robb: I think there is very much in what my hon. friend says. I move to strike out from line 20 the words:
The board may also invest, to an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the funds at the credit of the bank as aforesaid, in first mortgages on improved real estate in the Dominion of Canada, not exceeding 50 per cent of the value thereof.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That eliminates the right to loan on mortgages.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 4-Securities deposited with minister; proceeds credited to bank.
Mr. GARDINER:: I suggest that subsection 4 be amended also because that has reference to mortgages.


James Alexander Robb: I move to strike out the
words in the second line "other than mortgages."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Section agreed to.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Under what particular
department does this bank come? Does it come under the supervision of the superintendent of insurance, or under that of the general inspector of banks?


James Alexander Robb: I should say the inspector of
banks. It was to the inspector of banks that I referred their application for consideration.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 254, respecting the construction by the Canadian National Railway Company of certain terminal facilities with grade separation and other works at and in the vicinity of the city of Montreal.

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like that to stand if
possible. There is certain information I desire and I propose to make some observations in connection with this bill when I get that information. We should think very carefully about certain matters connected with the bill, and I propose possibly to offer an amendment in the way of a section to be added. As this bill was before the committee for a few hours the other day, and involves an enormous sum of money, I think we should proceed carefully with it.


Mr. DUNNING:: I have no objection to
letting it stand, but perhaps it would facilitate matters if my hon. friend would mention the points touching which he wishes information. If he does so I shall be glad, if possible, to supply that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, we can go into committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 2-Power to construct and build works described in the schedule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will recall
that by statute we validated an agreement made between the Canadian Northern Terminal Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, whereby this country became obligated, as conditions now are, to pay a certain annual sum in interest and sinking fund with respect to securities involved in the construction of the old Canadian Northern terminal. I have not had an opportunity to investigate the matter, but I was in the house when it went through and I took occasion then to go into the question with a good deal of care. That is why I suggest that it would be well for us to look into the matter thoroughly; personally I should like to find out, first of all, what annual charge there is now against Canada in connection with the construction of the old terminal-that is, the tunnel terminal. It involves the payment of a fixed sum for a certain number of years by way of rental, being equivalent to interest and sinking fund on securities issued for the purpose of constructing the terminal. Of course, I am speaking now only from memory; I have not had a chance to verify the facts. The other day I attended a meeting of the railway committee and I may observe that I can find no record of the proceedings. I thought that minutes of that meeting were being taken, but so far as I can find out, there was no shorthand report of it. Is that correct?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know of any,
no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two or three observations were then made which in my judgment should be carefully considered. One was that at the end of ten years the property would pay 6 per cent on investments. Some of the members of the committee thought that meant the whole terminal investment; obviously all that was meant was as respects the passenger station. I spoke to one of the directors of the system afterwards and he told me that this interpretation which I placed upon the matter was correct. There are no buildings contemplated by this bill apart from terminal buildings as such, and any buildings which would yield revenue, such as comes from the New York Central properties like the Bilt-more hotel, for example, would have to be provided for by private capital or from the resources of the public. Whit respect to this matter I should like to have some more definite idea. I listened also to the estimates that were given as to cost of construction, but they were so vague and general that I decided to ask the minister-not being a member of the committee I could not discuss the matter there-whether he would be able to give us a more detailed idea of just what was involved.
Lastly, it apparently is contemplated that we should continue the Bonaventure station. A high level construction from that station would carry the rails into St. Henri to connect with the inner belt line, if I may use that term; because the system contemplates two belt lines, an outer and an inner, which of course is something in the nature of the scheme that now prevails in England with respect to the Metropolitan-an inner and an outer belt line. At one time the old Bonaventure street station was to be abandoned; that is how I understood the plans, as I could gather them.


Charles Avery Dunning: It still is, as a station.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is not being abandoned, in this sense, that it is now being utilized under the new scheme, and there will be an enormous expenditure in connection with carrying the rails at high level from that station through St. Henri. That was the impression I formed, listening the other day to the explanation. Is it correct?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is under
some misapprehension which I shall clear up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At any rate that was
what I gathered. I gathered further that this was because of the recommendations made by Mr. Palmer. My understanding was that the first plans prepared by the Canadian National engineers did not contemplate that, but that the recommendations of Mr. Palmer contem-

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
plated the connecting up of the tunnel lines with the Bonaventure street station, by means of high level rails from Bonaventure to St. Henri, thereby making that a circle of the inner belt line-the inner circle, as they call it in England. I could not hear very well all that was said, but that was what I gathered would be the effect of the proposal. I could hear the answers given to some questions asked by the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier), but I could not catch the questions themselves. Perhaps the minister would give us some information in this regard.
Some observations were made also with respect to other reports which, I understood, had been made by engineers employed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I suggest that these reports be made available to hon. members who may wish to consult them. I could not gather what the names of the engineers were, but I thought one was Smith. I made inquiries of one of the Canadian Pacific Railway representatives and he informed me that such a report had been made, but I have not seen it, and I fancy that possibly the minister will let us have access to it.
I wish to be frank with the minister. Apparently the state of public opinion in this country is pretty much what it was prior to 1914; we are willing to spend money regardless of w'here it comes from or where it may lead us to. Twenty-one years ago this fall I ventured to express rather a strong opinion with respect to railway expenditures in Canada, and I am bound to say that I received 1'ittie support at that time; but ten years later everyone said I had been right. Now I am not suggesting that I am right in this instance inasmuch as I have not arrived at any definite conclusion, but I do desire to point out to the committee-at least I shall do so on the third reading oh the bill-where I think this leads to, and how serious it is that we should involve ourselves in the expenditure of such enormous amounts without having before us more detailed information as to the causes that necessitate these expenditures. As I have said, I speak now only what occurs to me at the moment, but both the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Alberta were called upon, under guarantee in connection with the old roads, to pay money, and the guarantees in those cases amounted to only $13,000 a mile.


Charles Avery Dunning: Fifteen thousand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fifteen thousand in Saskatchewan and thirteen thousand on some lines in Alberta. And when it is recalled that the interest rate was low, that money 
was cheap, and that they did not earn that much money, it becomes of considerable importance that we regard this not as an isolated transaction but in relation to the whole problem; for I am firmly of the opinion that terminals must be provided in Montreal. It is discreditable to the Dominion that the great system of railways which it owns should not have better terminals than it has now in Montreal; they are hardly worthy of the name terminals at Montreal.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are not, in fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I have frequently urged on the powers that be the necessity of providing something better in this regard, but I must say that never in the wildest flights of imagination did I contemplate a sum of money so vast as that provided in this bill; nor did I think it possible that we should ever reach the stage where parliament would be willing to commit itself to so vast an expenditure without at least a few more safeguards. It was with these considerations in mind that I desired to look into the situation more fully than I have done. I am speaking, again, from memory-and my memory may not serve me correctly, because as one gets older ones memory does not^-but I recall distinctly the circumstances in connection with that first terminal (bill, and the expenditures made under it, and I think it might assist me in arriving at conclusions, if the minister has other reports of the engineers, to be able to read those reports during the evening. In the meantime, we could go on with other sections of the bill. If the facts are as I think, I have a suggestion to make with regard to an amendment which might be made to this bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with the tunnel?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, in connection with the expenditure. That is predicated entirely upon my being able to satisfy myself about certain facts, because anxious as I am that there should be a terminal at Montreal that will adequately meet every demand which may be made by traffic both for the present and for the future as far as we can reasonably foresee, I am still more anxious that we should not bring about a condition such as followed the vast expenditures of what were really public moneys in this country, the guaranteed securities under the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific railway schemes. If the minister has not these reports I may be able

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
to obtain them from other sources, although I have not sought to do so, in order to ascertain just what has been said about these terminals.


Charles Avery Dunning: Let me say at once that in a matter of such importance and such magnitude as that dealt with iby the present bill, I certainly do not want to rash matters and I will undertake to leave the bill in committee until such information as may be desired by any member can be secured. As my hon. friend has said, the proceedings before the railway committee, while they provided a wealth of material, could only deal with specific questions arising in the minds of individuals, if those questions were asked. I am only sorry that he did not avail himself of the privilege which was accorded several other members of this house, who were not members of the committee, but who did ask several questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The room was crowded; delegations were present from Montreal, and I did not desire to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can quite understand that attitude. Now, with regard to the magnitude of this proposal, we must bear in mind the present situation in Montreal as far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned. I think it can be said that we are starting to deal with the problem in Montreal from a much more difficult standpoint than existed in Toronto; we are under very considerably greater handicaps in trying to develop adequate terminal facilities in Montreal than was the case when the start was made in Toronto, and I think hon. members from Toronto will agree that to say the least the situation there was bad enough. In that connection I might point out that the total estimated aggregate expenditure at Toronto by all parties, is $33,000,000; thait is the complete- layout, 'inlcluding the expenditure by all companies, but that only deals with the waterfront and does not include the expenditure by the railway companies individually cut-side thait area. These terminal schemes do cost a lot of money.


George Reginald Geary: Of course, that expenditure was largely occasioned by the separation of grades.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is also the case in this connection.


George Reginald Geary: But not to the same extent.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my memory serves me, we are eliminating over 100 grade crossings by this terminal scheme in- Montreal. However, be that as it may, it must be remembered that in Montreal we now have three separate passenger terminals and three separate freight yards, and you cannot get from one to the other by rail except by going around about one hundred miles. The importance of improvement immediately strikes one when these facts are brought out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not that statement just a little strong, with regard to the three separate terminals?


Charles Avery Dunning: Out to JoLiette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You said you must travel over one hundred miles to get from one station to another.


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to deliver anything from the Moreau street station to the Turcotte station or the Bonaventure station requires a journey of over one hundred miles at present; that is, out to Joliette. That is the instance I had in mind. It would be a little shorter to get to the tunnel station, but of course at present there is no freight yard at the tunnel.
With respect to the matter of grade separation west of Bonaventure station, apparently my hon. friend was under the impression that if provision were not made for an inner and outer belt line, that grade separation might not be needed. In that regard I want to assure him that of all the alternative plans which have been developed, none has been brought forward which does not involve the continuous use of the Bonaventure terminal as a freight terminal, and for many years past the great burden of the complaint in Montreal has been the number of grade crossings west of Bonaventure. Grade separation being necessary in any event to accommodate the freight terminal, as I understand it, the suggestion was -made that we might use one or two of the tracks coming in over the separated grade in order to develop suburban inner and outer circles which would serve the large outlying suburban sections of Montreal. Comparatively little extra expense would be involved; the utilization of the existing tracks coming into the freight yards is all th-at is necessary to accomplish it and give a connection from Bonaventure to the tunnel station. As I understand Mr. Palmer's report, he did not recommend that connection; I am relying on memory at the moment in making that statement, but he did recommend an inner and outer belt line system nearer the river than via Bonaventure. That is to say, under Mr. Palmer's scheme as I recall it, the inner belt suburban line would follow up the
2S28

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
harbour tracks from the tunnel station to the harbour, then turn west through the yards and up on the south side of the Bonaventure tracks, joining them in the neighbourhood of St. R'enri.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A very large expenditure was intended to connect the tunnel station with the harbour and with Bonaventure.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and in that connection I might point out that the original tunnel scheme of the Canadian Northern contemplated such connection from the tunnel station to the harbour tracks; in fact the Canadian Northern did acquire quite a bit of property for right of way down there, which the Canadian National inherited.
Now, with respect to the obligations of the country in regard to the tunnel station, I will gladly get for my hon. friend such information as we have with regard to the present standing of that obligation, but I am sure that any existing obligation is now a part of the general Canadian National obligation in that connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is covered by a
special statute. I could send out and get it, but since the meeting of the committee I have not had an opportunity to do so. My hon. friend will remember that we passed a statute validating an agreement made between the tunnel company of the Canadian Northern and the railway by which, if my memory serves me right, the rental to be paid by the Canadian Northern represented the interest on the terminal securities plus provision for a sinking fund. I thought perhaps the minister would have the information before him, but I can send for it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry I have not
it here, but I will be glad to get it and see what bearing it has on the situation, if any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It means a fixed charge
on terminal facilities.


Charles Avery Dunning: In any case that still
exists and is part of t'he Canadian National obligation, and whatever we do in Montreal I am afraid it would not affect the monetary situation with respect to that obligation. However, I will be glad to look into that matter and leave the bill in committee in order that we may have an opportunity to examine all phases of the question.
With regard to the engineering inquiry which has been going on for years, I can only say that certainly the government has not pressed this matter unduly. The position of the minister throughout my experience, and I believe former ministers had the same 
view, has been that, with regard to a project of this magnitude, every possible investigation should be made before deciding on a course of action. It is only because the situation has now reached the stage of acuteness which, to my mind, forbids any further postponement, that the government determined to bring the matter forward this year. In connection with great engineering enterprises the minister is naturally a layman and must rely upon a commonsense examination by himself and his officers of the reports of the experts and engineers who have made years of study of the problem involved.


Mr. McGIBBON:: How about the policy?


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister and the
government must take the responsibility, and do take the responsibility with regard to policy. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was not making any complaint about the policy; he was questioning rather whether we could not at this time solve the problem with a smaller expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the matter of policy, I think he will agree with me that the Canadian National system must have adequate terminal facilities in the city of Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with that view.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian National
has not only inadequate terminals in Montreal at the present time, but they are well-night impossible from the point of view of the handling of traffic. During my personal study of this matter one thing struck me with much force in connection with the experience of great cities in their dealing with terminal problems; I found that that in no single case had the plan been sufficiently broad and sufficiently large. It developed time after time in American cities that the most generous plan, apparently extravagant plan, proved to be inadequate by the time it was carried out, due to the growth of traffic in great terminals. Within the last few months I was told by an officer of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company that the new Pennsylvania terminal in the city of New York, upon which over $100,000,000 was expended, was too small the day it was finished and that further expenditures had to be made because of factors which could not possibly be taken into account at the time the terminal was devised. It has been found necessary to make changes in connection with

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
the Toronto terminal, but in that connection there would be the factor of the lengthened number of years which have intervened since the work was commenced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was dead interest for nearly ten years.


Charles Avery Dunning: But in addition to that, a greater expenditure has been found necessary than was originally contemplated would have to be made. Montreal is not only a great city to-day, but it is apparently destined to be very much greater than it is at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ten per cent of all the
people of Canada live on the island.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a very large
population there. I will say quite frankly that I have been looking for criticisms based upon the inadequacy of this scheme and a criticism based upon the engineers' failure to envisage a Montreal sufficiently large. With regard to the reports made to the other railway company, I am not in position to speak. The Canadian Pacific management have supplied me with copies of the reports submitted to them. This was a matter of courtesy and I appreciate it very much and the study of those plans has been very useful to me. I will be very glad to let my hon. friend see what I have in that connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will be greatly obliged.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be understood that just as the Canadian National approached this matter from the point of view of the interests of the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific approaches it from the point of view of the best interests of the Canadian Pacific.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I approached the matter
from the standpoint of one who has to do with both, and whether or not there could be a joint terminal. Toronto has a joint terminal which provides for the old Grand Trunk, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member will
appreciate that there is nothing in the scheme now being propounded by the Canadian National which would prevent it being used for a union terminal should the parties agree upon that scheme at any time in the future. I do not think I will be giving away any secrets when I say that the Canadian Pacific very naturally think that the Windsor street station would provide more suitable union terminal facilities than the tunnel station of the Canadian National; the Canadian National believe that the tunnel station would
make a more suitable union station than the Windsor street station. I cannot pretend that there is any agreement between the two companies on that point, but the railway companies are agreeing with respect to other points having to do with the broader matter of terminal" facilities such as economies and joint facilities at various places in and around the city of Montreal; a degree of cooperation which I am satisfied will increase as time passes. There still remains that broad difference between them; both are agreeable to union station facilities but both believe that the best facilities are provided by the stations which they own at the present time. The Canadian Pacific would be quite willing to negotiate for union terminal facilties at the Windsor street station.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: How much money would that take?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian National
would 'be willing to negotiate for union terminal facilities at the tunnel station; each railway company is convinced that the scheme which they suggest would make for the best interests of their particular railway system.


Robert Charles Matthews: If the Canadian Pacific view were adopted what would be the saving in expenditure?


Charles Avery Dunning: That question did not
arise because the Canadian National were able to demonstrate to me that such a terminal would not be adequate or satisfactory for their purposes.


Robert Charles Matthews: The Canadian Pacific
would have such a scheme in contemplation before they would make a suggestion of that character?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not aware that
any concrete suggestion was made.


Robert Charles Matthews: You say that they hold that view.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was rather a matter
of conference between the parties at my request in order that it might be determined whether or not the best interests of the city of Montreal and the best interests of both railway systems would be better served by a union terminal. There has been a good deal of argument as to whether of not union terminal facilities would be better for the city of Montreal, and I have no doubt that both railway companies went thoroughly into the matter, but, as I say, neither one is agreed as to the economic practicability from their point of view of going into the other's union terminal.
2S30

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Mr. McGEBBON:: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Railways, should not the government obtain the assistance of competent authorities in order that that question may be decided before such a huge expenditure is made?


Charles Avery Dunning: Because of the great importance of the issues involved, the government made arrangements to secure the services of Mr. Palmer. The government wanted the problem to be considered in an unbiased way, taking into account the viewpoints of both railway companies and the viewpoint of the people to be served. Mr. Palmer's report has been published and every member of the house has been supplied with a copy. I would point out to the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) that if the government were of the opinion that the tunnel station should be used as a union terminal by both railways, there is no power by which the minister or the government could enforce that view with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am very doubtful whether it would be wise to place such power in the hands of any minister or any government. The Canadian Pacific is spending its shareholders' money and must be allowed a reasonable latitude to decide for itself what is best in connection with a matter of that kind.
As to the other point, why should we not compel the Canadian National to go into the Canadian Pacific terminal-


Peter McGibbon: I did not ask that.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, but I am looking at the question from both sides. My hon. friend asked why the minister did not insist upon a union terminal.


Peter McGibbon: No; I asked why the
government did not investigate the matter on behalf of the people of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: My reply to that is that the government did investigate. There is no doubt parliament could, if it so desired, force the Canadian National into the Canadian Pacific terminal or into a Canadian Pacific union terminal, but in that regard I doubt very much the wisdom of the government or of parliament overriding the unanimous opinion or judgment, based upon years of study, of the responsible officers of the Canadian National railway system. In other words,
I take, in a matter of this kind, the same view of the position of one railway as I do of that of the other. It is very difficult for those of us who are not technical railroad experts to do other than to ensure that the

fullest and most independent inquiry possible has been made and then to take the advice of the responsible officers of the railway system in regard to the solution of the problem.


James Dew Chaplin: Did I understand the
minister to say that he had outside opinion and advice in regard to the Canadian Pacific matter?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, Mr. Palmer's report which has been printed and distributed amongst the members.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Palmer's report is
the one to which the minister refers?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. As to the other
reports secured by the Canadian Pacific, I am quite sure if I do not have them, I can get them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Palmer's report is
the only one the government secured?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, from outside sources.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I mean.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may say that the business of securing reports from outside authorities is rather difficult when we have in Canada just two great railway corporations. It is hard to get within Canada eminent opinion which is not associated with one or other of the two great systems.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be done.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is also difficult to
secure that advice from the United States for reasons that will occur to my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It occurred to me, while I was listening to the minister, that it is possible to get expert opinion from the United States. I recall the following terminals: the St. Louis terminal, the Washington terminal. There are certainly three great railway terminals in Chicago, and there is the St. Paul terminal through which every train that goes in or out of St. Paul passes. I think there is a train in and out of that terminal every four minutes of every day in the year.


Robert Charles Matthews: There is a new terminal in Cleveland.


James Dew Chaplin: And a new one in Buffalo.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. STEVENS:: I wonder if the minister
would give some explanation of section 2 and its relation to section 7, for the two

sections are very closely related, having in mind at the moment simply the power of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Section 7, to which I must go to interpret what I am going to say in regard to section 2, provides for two powers that shall exercise the right of approval of plans. It reads:
The general plan or plans of the said works and amendments or additions to such general plan at any time made, shall, on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be subject to the approval of the governor in council.
Then- next:
Detail plans affecting any canal or other property controlled by the Department of Railways and Canals shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Railways and Canals.
Then come these words:
Detail plans of crossings of railways and crossings by the railway of streets or highways shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
And lastly:
Detail plans affecting the property of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
I am for the moment concerned only as to the power of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I have not under my band the section of the Railway Act, but the minister may be able to direct me to it. I understand that under the general act the board now has power not only with regard to approving plans of crossings of railway on streets and other railways, but has .power also over station locations. That is exempted 'by the phraseology of this bill. For instance, in section 2 we are giving power to construct terminal stations, local stations, station grounds, yards, and so forth, and all these plans are subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners, including highway crossings. I would ask, in the second place, if it is clear in this bill, and if so where, that the Board of Railway Commissioners have the power to pass upon a division of cost where the question of grade construction arises.


Charles Avery Dunning: First let me send to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition the report made to the Canadian Pacific Railway by C. E. Smith and Company, consulting engineers, St. Louis. It is a report on level crossings construction and railway passenger terminals in the city of Montreal, made in the month of March, 1928. My hon. friend also spoke of some other report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was only speaking of
what I saw in the paper.
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe there is another report, and we will look that up if my hon. friend desires it. ,	.


Mr. CAHAN:: I understand that the report of the Canadian Pacific Railway was submitted and filed with the Board of Railway Commissioners. Is this the particular report so submitted?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say whether
this particular report was submitted to the board. I cannot think of any reason why it should be, but it is available.
With reference to the questions raised by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, they really relate to section 7 rather than to section 2, as he indicated. We must bear in mind in considering bills of this character that we are acting in two capacities. We are acting as the shareholders of an enterprise, authorizing capital expenditure by that enterprise.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who are the shareholders?


Charles Avery Dunning: We represent them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think we represent a very large body of electors, but not necessarily are we the representatives of the shareholders.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I can only
answer my hon. friend's interjection in a negative way. If we do not represent the shareholders, they have no representation. We are the only body under the law which can occupy the position of the shareholders of an ordinary company in relation to this particular company. We are the only body which can authorize capital expenditures which in the case of an ordinary company would be authorized by the shareholders.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is better.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are acting in that
capacity, and of course we not only have responsibility for this enterprise but must consider also the general transportation interests of the Dominion in enacting legislation.
Section 7 in no particular departs from the practice with respect to the Canadian National enterprise generally in so far as control by the Board of Railway Commissioners is concerned. Under the general legislation creating the Canadian National Railways, the company at the present time does not go to the board for approval of their route maps, but it goes instead to the Minister of Railways. That has been the position since the company was created and is a part of its fundamental legislation.

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Henry Herbert Stevens: Except in so far as the
location of stations is concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: * There is no exception even in that regard. In that connection may I point out that the place where the Canadian National purposes putting a station in Montreal is already the site of a railway station? They are not proposing to build a station where none now exists, but a larger station on the site of an existing station. For that reason it was not deemed necessary to set out that the Board of Railway Commissioners should pass on the station location. The whole matter was given very considerable thought both by the legal staff of the Canadian National and by the departmental legal Staff, and the reason for section 7 being in its present form is, first, to safeguard this institution, parliament, as representing the shareholders in the matter of controlling the management in the expenditure of a large sum of money; second, to have the same provision with respect to the crossing of canals as would exist in connection with any similar legislation affecting any other railway; third, the same provision respecting the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners as exists with respect to any other Canadian National enterprise; and fourth, to deal with the harbour commissioners in the only way in which the harbour commissioners can be dealt with so far as ministerial approval is concerned. That is the only answer I think I can give.


George Reginald Geary: I am afraid I shall have to differ a little with the Minister of Railways. As far as I can see it, this section 7 introduces something entirely new in regard to one of the matters covered by it, and that is in regard to the separation of grades, the crossing under or over a highway or a railway. True it is that in 1919 when the act was passed it contained a provision, section 23, which exempted, in effect, the Canadian National Railways from the provisions in regard to the location of stations, for instance. That section says:
With the approval of the governor in council and upon any location sanctioned by the Minister of Railways and Canals, the company may from time to time construct and operate railway lines, branches and extensions, or railway facilities or properties of any description

So that probably the minister is justified in the statement that so far as location of structure or facilities, such as a station, is concerned, the Board of Railway Commissioners may be said to have been left out to some extent.

I do not know the reason for putting it in; possibly it was because the Canadian National Railways was a publicly owned enterprise, but the section was put in the act. Section 13 says:
All the provisions of the Railway Act (excepting those provisions which are inconsistent with this act, and excepting -also the provisions of the Railway Act relating to the location of lines of railway-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the only exception.


George Reginald Geary: That is the point to which the minister was referring, that you were not, as a privately owned railway, required to submit ycrnr location, or right of way, plan. The right was given to the governor in council to determine or approve the location but that does not apply to railway and highway crossing plans.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite right.


George Reginald Geary: The governor in council may not approve under the act. The practice of the railway board is to hear the application and distribute the costs in regard to separation of grades, amongst the parties interested or affected. It may be a municipality or a street railway. That provision, Mr. Chairman, still applies to the Canadian National Railways. Under this section 7 no question of location of subway, or of under crossing or over crossing, or of the distribution of costs of such works is referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners; it is only the detailed plans of the crossing that shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I think the bill goes too far in that respect. I think it may be very soundly argued that when you come to a highway crossing determined upon by the railway, or by the railway in conjunction with the municipality, the Board of Railway Commissioners are concerned not with who shall bear the cost of it -but simply and solely with the detailed plan. I think that is a change in the practice which should be considered very carefully. To begin with, as I understood and read the plans, and noted the models in the railway committee room they provide for certain level crossings and certain streets to be closed, and that without, nominally at all events, the approval or consent of the city of Montreal; it may -be that the parties have got together and have said those are the ones we shall apply for. It seems to me that questions respecting the closing of streets and the diversion of traffic come solely within the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners and that any plan touching the separation of grades that we approve here

2S33
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
at the moment should not be final. Each case should be taken up separately before the Board of Railway Commissioners, or all of them, so that the general plans may be left out, and the railway commisioners in approving satisfactory locations, must determine who is to bear the cost. If you go to the board, as is the usual practice, and have the costs distributed between the parties interested or affected, and if either party is dissatisfied there is an appeal to the governor in council; but the governor in council will not as a rule, unless there is some principle involved, upset the judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
You are reversing the procedure; you are saying the governor in council shall determine all these matters, but that the governor in council, may of course, refer them to the Board of Railway Commissioners. However, "may" does not mean that you are necessarily bound to refer to them. Under the language of the section I think you have taken from the Board of Railway Commissioners a function which from the beginning has been exercised in regard to the Canadian National Railways and which should be exercised in connection with this great work in the city of Montreal.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, it would probably facilitate matters if we dealt with the sections when we came to them, but I should like to answer my hon. friend now, and to say that generally I agree with him in his contention as to what should be the function of the Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to grade crossings in a scheme like this. The only difficulty I have is as to the legal interpretation of what has been put in this bill. The point was raised, I think by my hon. friend himself in the railway committee, and as a consequence of his having been kind enough to raise it there I have, of course, taken it up very thoroughly with the law officers in order to discover whether this bill does what my hon. friend fears in that regard. The answer that is given to me is this, that with respect to all the general powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners in relation to legal crossings and grade separations, as contained in the Railway Act, this bill does not interfere but that section 7 deals with the approval of plans. It must be remembered that this whole bill is an enabling bill. Section 2 ends with the words:
-and a short description whereof for the information of parliament but not intended to be exhaustive, being set out in the schedule hereto.
Section 7 is intended to provide the machinery whereby the actual details of the 78594-180J
general plan set out in the schedule shall be approved. The Board of Railway Commissioners, according to my legal advice, will have just the same powers with respect to the level crossings and grade separations contemplated under this scheme as they have with respect to the same matters in connection with any other railway project anywhere in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not provided in the Bill.


George Reginald Geary: With the greatest respect,
I differ with the law officers who have advised my hon. friend. By implication at least this excludes the very matters which the Board of Railway Commissioners would ordinarily deal with. I think there is an implication there, and a strong one. It is suggested to me that that is the intention of the Canadian National Railways-I am not speaking as though it were any wicked intention-but that it is the intention of the company under the bill to have an arrangement with the city of Montreal as to whether each one of these streets shall be separated as to grades and how the cost is to be borne between the railway company and the city.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the intention of
the railway company and the government to have the grade separation matter dealt with in exactly the same way as any other grade separation is dealt with by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Reginald Geary: Of course, my hon. friend's assurance carries with it, so far as I am concerned, the conviction that that is what will be done. But I think he should put it within the four corners of the act so clearly that there would be no mistake, and I do suggest, with all possible respect to those who have advised him, that perhaps they may not all have looked at the matter from the point of view from which I venture now to present it to the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: The matter is so important that I shall certainly not take the bill out of committee without affording an opportunity for further consideration of that point. Frankly, however, I wish it had been pressed a little further in the railway committee, for the reason that the vice president, in charge of legal affairs of the Canadian National, was there and answered that very point-and answered it substantially in the language which I have used to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not so emphatically.
2S34

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Charles Avery Dunning: I expect to get Straightforward advice from the legal officers and I believe I do get it; and my advice is that the bill carries out the intention of the railway as well as of the minister. However, I intend, in view of my hon. friend's representations, to make doubly sure of that.


George Reginald Geary: You have one hundred grade crossings separated.


Charles Avery Dunning: Eighty-one. When we
come to section 7 I shall be prepared to let it stand if that is deemed necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In support of the contention made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens)) and the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) may I direct attention to these words in section 2:
The governor in council may provide for the construction and completion by the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called "the company") of

Then the terminals are described.
-for any purpose. . . . and improvements, works, plant, apparatus and appliances for the movement, handling or convenient accommodation of every kind of traffic, also street and highway diversions and widenings. new streets and highways, subway and overhead streets, and also approaches, lanes, alleyways, and other means of passage.
Then follows the description. Now that section as it stands excludes the power of any authority in the world other than the governor in council-absolutely. I think my hon. friend will agree with that; because after all in the construing of a legal document the firs't principle is that it mudt be read in its ordinary, commonplace, everyday significance. And that is clear from section 2. At this point I would put this to the minister: I wonder if he thinks ft is sound to provide that- the governor in council should have control of this whole expenditure. The very opening words of that section are at variance with every principle under which we have heretofore conducted our business. When we vote money for branch lines we authorize the construction of a branch line by the railway company, we guarantee the securities, and they spend the money. Now this leaves it with the governor in council, and in the course of the little consideration I have been able to give to the matter one thought has been in my mind. I will mention it now to the minister. Should we not add to the statute a provision that this act shall come into force on proclamation after approval has been secured from the Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to general plans and matters of that sort? In other words, I think
fMr. Bennett.]
the minister actually desires to lift this matter out of the realm of politics. But the governor in council is a political body, as the minister will agree, being composed of the government and the government only. Before this vast expenditure is undertaken should there not be, therefore, some body not the government that will approve of the scheme for the government? For, notwithstanding the general observation that has been made, the only representation which the shareholders have here is the representation provided by this parliament; there can be no dealing with the affairs of the railway, from the standpoint of the shareholders, except it be by this parliament; and for the purpose of the Statute parliament becomes the governor in council. That is what I had in mind when speaking this morning. There are involved in this matter a large number of questions arising out of that principle, and the first question that presents itself is this: What is the relation of the Board of Railway Commissioners to this enterprise? I want to assure the minister that the vice president in charge of legal matters connected with the Canadian National Railways does not believe much in having the railway commission interfere in any way with what he or his officials wish to do. I think my hon. friend will recall an answer he gave, the sense of which was, "We do not use the railway commission."


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not
saying that I said that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but the officer to
whom I am referring. And he did not make that statement in any offensive sense; he was simply contending that under the provisions of the statute of 1919 it was not necessary for him to consult the commission as though the railway had been the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Northern. Which is perfectly true. The statute of 1919 gives exceptional rights and privileges to this railway as distinguished from privately owned enterprises. That is abundantly clear. The hon. member for South Toronto has made so clear the position with respect to crossings that I will not say more than this-and the minister will agree with me; I am merely amplifying what wras said by my learned and hon. friend from South Toronto: If this matter rests in the first instance with the governor in council, and that political authority alone is to determine what contribution shall be made by the railway and by the municipality, then of course we are creating a situation which will be fraught with grave difficulty.

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
think that the minister would want to be in that position? Surely not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am endeavouring to
suggest to the minister a method by which he will be certain he will not be in that position; that is the whole purpose of my rising. As it stands, this would be an exception to any other city similarly situated. For instance, Toronto was compelled in connection with its grade separations to pay one third, the Canadian Pacific one-third and the other party one-third. So I am informed by my hon. friend from South Toronto, who was interested on behalf of the corporation. Now we come to a very large number of grade separations here. The deputy minister estimates the number at eighty, but judging from what the president said the other day, that number may be greatly exceeded.


Charles Avery Dunning: Ultimately, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; and under these
circumstances I can only urge upon the minister the desirability of providing in this measure beyond peradventure that the matter of grade separations shall be dealt with by the Board of Raihvay Commissioners so far as respects the adjusting of contributions to be made by the railway and the municipality. To do otherwise is to make an invidious distinction; to do otherwise is to discriminate in favour of this railway as against others and in favour of this city as against other municipalities not so fortunately situated. In other words, it is my desire that this legislation should make it clear that the matter is not in any sense to be adjusted by a political authoritj- but by that authority which has been set up by law and which was at one time a much more important body in public esteem than it now is. Certainly, as section 2 reads, with the succeeding sections, the Board of Railway Commissioners will have no more authority to deal with this matter than some other body not named at all. The language is not adequate, and after listening to the addresses the other day I certainly came away with the clear impression that it was not the intention of the management of the railway system that the Board of Railway Commissioners should have anything to do with the matter except in so far as is mentioned in section 7. This is all I have to say in connection with this important matter, apart from what I desire to allude to in connection with the terminals. I had occasion during the recess to look up the statutes since
1914 and I find that there was involved the payment of about $600,000 as an initial instalment. What I was endeavouring to find out was what the payments now were.


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to the
earlier portion of my hon. friend's remarks I can only repeat what I have previously said: It never was my intention, and I am assured it never was the intention of the railway, that grade separations in the Montreal scheme should be dealt with any way different front that in which grade separations elsewhere are-dealt with. I have already said I will be glad to allow section 7 or any other relevant section to stand in order to again take up that matter with the legal officers. Really the dispute which has arisen is not a dispute between my hon. friends opposite and myself;
I agree entirely that the intention which has been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite should be embodied in the law. The quarrel is rather between lawyers, as to whether or not the bill, considered in conjunction with the railway act, does now create that condition. I can just give my hon. friends the assurance that the relevant sections will be held up until I have a further opportunity to take legal advice on the matter. I am quite clear as to the intention both of myself and of the officers of the company, but will consider the matter further. Now, with regard to the other question regarding the bonds issued with respect to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, I find that a statute was passed on June 12, 1914, but that only a small amount of the bonds in question ever were issued. The principal outstanding at present is shown at page 29 of this year's annual report of the Canadian National Railway system, and amounts to only $1,501,000. Apparently it proved difficult or impossible for the old Canadian Northern to finance in the manner contemplated by this bill, and the necessary money apparently was secured from other sources. I am now having inquiries made as to where the money did come from. My own impression is that the money used in the Canadian Northern tunnel terminal construction at Montreal came primarily from government advances subsequently made to the old Canadian Northern Railway Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This statute was passed in 1914, and during that session they got $45,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and the total amount of debentures issued and presently outstanding under this statute is $1,501,000. Obviously
2S36


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is covered by
securities in some form.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: There is just one matter on which I would like a little information. I agree with what the leader of the opposition has just stated in regard to putting more power into the hands of the railway commission. With regard to this new terminal I would like to ask whether the city of Montreal, through the city council, approved of the plans as we saw them in the railway committee last Thursday.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the city has given
its approval.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There has been no opposition from any section of Montreal?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I can say that
the only objection has come from individuals or institutions which are interested in the development of some alternative plan. For instance, there appeared before the committee a number of gentlemen promoting what was called the Montreal tunnel terminal scheme, which was an entirely different plan and: a privately owned project which was finally withdrawn. I know of no organized opposition of any kind from any source in the city of Montreal. It must be remembered that this scheme was not evolved over night; a great many interests in Montreal, including different city councils from time to time and representative public bodies of all kinds, have been engaged in discussions with the Canadian National for years past with regard to this matter. Gradually difficulties have been ironed out, and I may say that as minister I told the Canadian National authorities that they would be very wise to attempt to eliminate by discussion, by reasoning and by meeting opposition, all these problems before they came to parliament at all. I must congratulate the management of the Canadian National railways on the extent to which they apparently have met the needs and the wishes of the citizens of Montreal.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Perhaps this question is not altogether relevant, but I would like to ask the minister if any arrangements have been made by the department with regard to the laying out of the yards at Fort Churchill?


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend
would deal with Fort Churchill when I get to Fort Churchill in the estimates. This bill refers entirely to Montreal, and I assure my hon. friend that my ability to keep information in my head is restricted to the matter before the house, when the matter is as large and important as this question. At the moment I am prepared for Montreal, and to be quite frank I am not prepared for Fort Churchill, but I will be glad to give that information when the estimates are up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Coming back to the point we were discussing, together with other hon. members who have spoken I appreciate the frankness of the minister's statement of his understanding and intention, but I would also direct his attention to section 8 of the bill, and I would suggest that sections 7, 8 and 2 should stand. Section 8 is as follows:
Where streets or highways are affected by the works but are not crossed by the company's tracks or diverted incidental to any such crossing, the company may with the approval of the governor in council icnter into .agreements, where desirable, with the city of Montreal or any other municipalities with respect thereto, or with respect to the opening of new streets, the closing of existing streets and ways, to the making of diversions or widenings, and the making of sub-streets, subways or overhead facilities in connection with the said works and the apportionment of the cost thereof.
That makes it specifically a matter for agreement between the governor in council and the city of Montreal.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, for agreement between the company and the city of Montreal, with the approval of the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point is, and has been, that these are matters which should be subject to reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners, because the adjustment or apportionment of the cost thereof is peculiarly and specially a duty of that board.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend
is mistaken. If the' Canadian Pacific Railway were doing the exact thing contemplated in section 8 they would not have to go to the Board of Railway Commissioners, because no crossing of the railway by a highway or of a highway by a railway is involved. Section 8 is in this bill because the Railway Act does not contain authority for the Board of Railway Commissioners to deal with such matters.

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Henry Herbert Stevens: It goes on to say:
-the making of sub-streets, subways and overhead facilities


Charles Avery Dunning: But it is all qualified by the first sentence:
Where streets or highways are affected by the works but are not crossed by the company's trades or diverted incidental to any such crossing

That is the whole point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it is limited in that way perhaps that section would not be affected, but sections 2 and 7 are those to which I have referred already, and I think they should stand until this point is made quite clear, and I think it should be drafted so that there can be no question about it, particularly having reference to the power of the Board of Railway Commissioners to apportion the cost, whatever that may be.	*


Charles Avery Dunning: I am willing to let
sections 2 and 7 stand, as I indicated some
time ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George directed my attention just now to section 259 of the Railway Act as possibly the section upon which the minister and his legal advisers rely:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, or in any other act, the board may, subject to the provisions of the next following section of this act, order what portion, if any, of cost is to be borne respectively by the company, municipal or other corporation, or person in respect of any order made by the board, under any of the last three preceding sections, and such order shall be binding on and enforceable against any railway company, municipal or other corporation or person named in such order.
The difficulty is that the three preceding sections do not in their entirety refer to this enterprise by reason of the special exceptions made in connection with the Canadian National undertakings, and it is in order to prevent any possible difficulty arising hereafter in the interpretation by the courts or otherwise that we suggest the desirability of carrying into effect the very clear statement made by the minister


Charles Avery Dunning: The question is purely
a matter of language and I shall be glad to have it considered. I always endeavour not to get between lawyers when they are arguing about matters of language; I am quite clear as to the intention and wanted to have that intention expressed.
Section stands.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Nature and form of securities.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the standard
section which appears in similar acts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Tenders.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been the practice of the company in connection with matters of this kind?


Charles Avery Dunning: The practice has been
just exactly as is outlined in section 5. This section is similar to the section which we endeavour to incorporate in every act providing for the sale of Canadian National securities for specific works and for the carrying out of the works themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to know how
it works out in practice; how do the tenders work out?


Charles Avery Dunning: My understanding is
that there is no difficulty about it. In the case of bonds, it is necessary sometimes when competitive bids are secured to do a little negotiating; my hon. friend knows what can happen in connection with tenders for bonds. With regard to competitive bids or tenders for work generally, there is no question but that the management desires to adopt in every case, except in very rare instances where it is not practicable, the principle of competitive tenders, and I have no hesitation in saying that this works out very satisfactorily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only point there is
that the company would call for tenders for the securities; why not the governor in council or the Minister of Finance to whom the money will come? The company really has nothing to do with that at all, because it is the country which is raising the money. In this particular bill you will observe that you have the governor in council in one instance, the company in another and the Minister of Finance in another. Why should not the Minister of Finance be the person who calls for the sale of these securities, in view of the provisions contained in the other two sections?
Mr, GEARY:	I asked a question of Sir
Henry Thornton in the committee, as to why the governor in council should not, where a tender is rejected, decide on whether a contract by day labour or otherwise should be entered into. To my very great surprise I was given the answer that in three cases only had it been found necessary to depart from
2S3S
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal

the lowest tender. If there have been three cases only during Sir Henry's time, it would not be very much trouble to the governor in council to take care of that matter. In some cases the work must be done by day labour and in other cases it is necessary to go to the contractors and offer the work at day labour or at a lower price than that contained in the tender; but in view of Sir Henry's answer I think the governor in council might very well take over this responsibility.


Charles Avery Dunning: Frankly, I do not like
imposing upon a management which has by law free control over very large matters, conditions which appear to indicate that we have not confidence in them with respect to very small matters.


George Reginald Geary: I think there is a good deal of strength in what the minister says.


Charles Avery Dunning: As to the answer which
Sir Henry Thornton gave to my hon. friend with respect to the small number of tenders accepted by the management which were other than the lowest tenders, I cannot speak on that matter as no report is necessary. I could call for a report, but I venture to say that Sir Henry Thornton himself would find it difficult, in view of the multitudinous matters for which tenders are called, to give an answer offhand. I feel sure that there must have been a misunderstanding between my hon. friend and Sir Henry as to the -purport of the question which he was answering, because it would be unreasonable to expect that in such large undertakings, involving tens of thousands of transactions, there would be only three cases of that nature.


George Reginald Geary: At all events, we threshed
it out in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Proceeds of securities deposited to credit of Minister of Finance in trust for company.
Mr. RYCKMAN:: It is a well known fact
that bonds guaranteed by the Dominion government will not sell at as favourable a price as a direct obligation of the Dominion government. In provincial undertakings guaranteed by the province the spread is often as much as a quarter a half a point. Why could not advantage be taken of this well known situation in a matter involving such a large sum of money, where every cent will count? It is a way of saving public money.
[Mr. Geary.l


Charles Avery Dunning: The public interested in
the ownership of bonds of this character is steadily learning the intrinsic value of Canadian National bonds guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada, and any disparity such as my hon. friend referred to would be difficult to demonstrate in recent cases. I am familiar with the general rule to which he referred, but there are exceptions to it which occur even in the provincial field. I am not disagreeing with what the hon. member has said as to the difference in value of provincial securities and securities guaranteed by the province, but there does not appear to be the difference between Dominion guaranteed securities and direct Dominion securities. I would point out that it is well to have the Canadian National, in connection with its future financial structure, in the position of a company obligated to pay the moneys involved in making capital expenditures which relate directly to the company. In the reorganization of the capital structure which we hope to deal with at the next session of parliament, the Canadian National capital structure will have to be represented by obligations of the company in some for or other, very largely obligations to the public, and I think that as a matter of policy we should deal with these obligations as being obligations of the railway to the public rather than to the government. Our railway debt should be considered as being allocated to and expended for the railways, and should be treated as a railway obligation and not as an obligation of the country. That does not mean that I am under any delusions that any of these securities will not, in fact, be finally payable by the Dominion of Canada if the railway company itself should not pay. Of course, everyone recognizes that. Indeed, I will go further and say that so long as the Dominion of Canada owns these railways, any security issued by the railway company while it is owned by the Dominion would be the responsibility of the Dominion. We cannot escape the moral obligation involved. Putting the guarantee on the bonds places it beyond peradventure of doubt to the purchaser that the Dominion is behind the securities. There might be an element of doubt if no guarantee were given in specific terms, but in my opinion the obligation would exist so long as the railways were controlled by the Dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I direct the attention of the minister to section 6? This section

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
contemplates the expenditure of money on property belonging to several companies, but these are the closing words:
Upon the property owned or taken by His Majesty, the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada.
Surely it is intended that not the Dominion of Canada but rather the railway company should own the property.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that a well drawn
section?


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
look at the subsequent sections, for instance section 9 and so forth, I think they will be found to cover that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appreciate that, but it
does not clarify this section. These are lands on which you may spend your money and still they are described as lands that may be owned by half a dozen companies. The section reads:
With the approval of the governor in council evidenced by the approval of plans under the provisions of section 7 of this act, upon the property owned or taken by His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada.
If the minister will refer to the very first words of section 2, this whole matter is one in rvhich the governor in council is doing the providing. In other words, instead of this being in any sense an enterprise in which somebody else assists in giving direction, it is purely a political matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend cannot
get away from the first few words of section 2. The whole matter of the expenditure of $50,000,000 is purely a political enterprise and so stated. Section 2 commences:
The governor in council may provide-


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not like my hon.
friend's use of the term "political enterprise." This has nothing to do with politics.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I mean is that
the governor in council is the political party in power. The governor in council means the ministers of the crown and nobody else, and to that extent it is purely political. That is what I am endeavouring to say and exactly similar words are used elsewhere. The governor in council may provide for these terminals. In other words, as an act of executive government, provision is made for this matter. Then His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion expropriates land and part of
the money may be spent on these lands provided that the governor in council so approves, approval being evidenced by approval of the plans under the provisions of section 7, which reads:
The general plan or plans of the said works and amendments or additions to such general plan at any time made, shall, on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be subject to the approval of the governor in council.
All I am trying to suggest is that in the interest of the country and of everybody connected with this great national railway system, there should be some approval between the government and this scheme, and in the absence of any better suggestion, I think that approval should be by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. Is that an unfair suggestion to make in view of the fact that under section 2 the whole launching of the enterprise is placed in the hands of the governor in council? In other words, we are giving a blank cheque for $50,000,000 to the governor in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what it
means. That may not be my hon. friend's intention, but all he has to do is to look at the language of the statute. The courts will determine what it means if there is any doubt about the matter. The point is that under section 2 we have conferrred this enormous power upon the governor in council. I am sure .my hon. friend will agree with that. Then we provide for the expropriation of lands by the crown, and third, we provide that the money must be spent in doing work on lands or property of all those railways and terminal companies plus lands acquired by the crown. But according to section 7 the whole must be subject to the approval of the governor in council. My suggestion-and it was the only one that it strutk me could be reasonably made since we have no other authority to whom we can refer the matter-is that it should be approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners. Certainly, if this were a private company, any expenditures of this kind would have to be approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not if they were building on the site of an existing station; not an addition to or an enlargement of an existing station.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not that; this is a brand new scheme, and if the Canadian Pacific or the Algoma Central-there are only a few

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
private railways left-were to undertake this, they would have to have the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners. My hon. friend will remember the section.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend
would read the section and then with his legal acumen tell me whether, if the Canadian Pacific desired to-day to build a terminal at the tunnel terminals in Montreal they would have to go to the railway board for approval of the site. I am not a lawyer, and I am at a great disadvantage in this discussion. I should like to get the best legal opinion possible. Would he give me a legal opinion on the question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any disadvantage the
hon. gentleman may be under is more imaginary than real. Section 188 of the Railway Act reads:
Before the company proceeds to erect any station upon its railway, the location of such station shall be approved of by the board.
2.	Every station of the company shall be erected, operated and maintained with good and
. sufficient accommodation and facilities for traffic.
3.	The company shall erect, maintain and operate stations at any points on the railway designated by the board, and shall provide such accommodation and facilities in connection therewith as the board directs.
Then there is provision for railways that are subsidized by parliament. The theory upon which the railways are required to secure approval is that the question of adequate facilities must be considered.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the Canadian Pacific
were proposing to build the tunnel station, my hon. friend would not say that under that section they would have to go to the railway board for approval of that site.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think they would because they are not building on the site of their present station.	.


Charles Avery Dunning: Assuming the Canadian
Pacific were the company involved instead of the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific coming under all the terms of the Railway Act, would they, in my hon. friend's opinion, require to go to the railway board for approval of the tunnel site in connection with a scheme of this kind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has
asked me his question in too narrow a sense. Would they have to go to the board to carry out this plan of extension? I have no doubt that the answer would be yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.
[Mr. Bennett.1


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
South .Toronto points out that the board may tell them where the station is to be put, and has frequently done so. When there is a question as to the adequacy of their facilities they go to the board for approval of their plans for extension.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not
sticking to the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes. This statute
-the railway act-is intended to be so simple that one who runs may read and wayfaring men though fools need not err therein. That is the reason the act was administered so informally by previous chairmen. Any person could appear before the board. I can recall very distinctly an application being made for a station by a number of residents in a place in southern Alberta and the railway company, would not build them a station because it was pointed out that the revenues were less than $15,000, and an informal discussion took place. I put this to the minister, the very question that he put to me: Gould the Canadian Pacific construct these works without the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will answer that in
the light of such knowledge as I have, although I am afraid my hon. friend has not clearly answered the question which I put to him. If the Canadian Pacific railway were making a proposal of this kind they could determine themselves to go ahead with their passenger terminal assuming that they owned the existing properties. The only difference between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National under the existing law would be that the Canadian Pacific would have to go to the Board of Railway Commissioners with their route maps for any lines around the city or in connection with the general plan for new lines. The Canadian National is by its own act, passed in 1919, exempted from the necessity of so doing, and can and does secure ministerial approval instead. That is the only difference. My contention, and again I am in a legal argument, is that this is the only difference between the two companies in a project of this kind, that the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National are absolutely on all fours so far as the station locations are concerned and the jurisdiction of the Railway Act with respect thereto, and that they are on all fours with respect to other matters except the approval of route maps and detailed plans of that kind.

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
My hon. friend spoke in addition of the [DOT] concluding words of section 6:
-and. with the approval of the governor in council evidenced by the approval of plans under the provisions of section seven of this act, upon the property owned or taken by His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada.
I am sure my hon. friend did not read that closely because the only .lands owned by His Majesty the King and mentioned in section 7 are lands which are being used by His Majesty the King for canal purposes, and the concluding words of section 6 apply only to the use of any lands presently owned by His-Majesty for canal purposes. In other words, they are in the same position in regard to the crossing of such property as the Canadian Pacific or any other railway and they have to get the approval of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend cannot
have read that carefully. It does not say upon the property owned or taken by His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada. It is just the opposite of what my hon. friend says. You see, it is property owned or taken by His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion, and clearly it must be for this project.


Charles Avery Dunning: For this project, but
perhaps my hon. friend will read the previous words:
evidenced by the approval of plans under the provisions of section 7 of this act.
Section 7 relates to detailed plans affecting any canal or other property controlled by the Department of Railways and Canals, which plans have to be subject to the approval of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The minister has
left out three words of the section. It says " the general plan or plans of the said works and amendments or additions to such general plant at any time made, shall, on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be subject to the approval of the governor in council."
The rest of it refers particularly to canals or Indian lands and other properties. It is the first three words of section 7 that the provisions of section 6 refer to.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think we are talking
at cross-purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, my point is this,
that this act provides that part of this money may be spent in putting buildings on lands owned by His Majesty the King. I say that
there is no adequate provision that the land shall be land' acquired or owned by His Majesty for the purpose of this railway and vested in this railway. I think that is reasonably clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is, of
course, aware that in addition to the lands owned in Montreal by the several companies mentioned, the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Terminal Company and the Canadian National Realties, the crown owns land in Montreal in the right of the old Intercolonial railway, which is land held by His Majesty the King, but for railway purposes. The intention of the lawyers-again I do not know whether they have carried it out or not- was to provide that land which has been held in Montreal for Intercolonial railway purposes may be used by the Canadian National Railways for the purposes of this act, and that structures may be erected upon it. Again my hon. friend's criticism is one of draughtsmanship, and I shall be glad to hold the section up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has
answered the very question I put, and exactly as I think it should be answered. There may be lands there belonging to the old Intercolonial railway and they are held in the right of the crown. They certainly should be vested in this railway company before we put our money into this scheme, having regard to the fact that we are issuing securities and guaranteeing them. That is the only reason why I question the section at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 9 should be read together with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But leaving these words as tlhey stand conveys an erroneous impression.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend would like the section to stand-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like it cleared up. That is all I am interested in.
Section stands.
Section 7 stands.
On section 8-Agreements with municipalities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have looked this over very carefully and I think the draughtsmanship is bad. The first part of the section down to the word "thereto" in the 47th line


Charles Avery Dunning: The "said works"-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a moment. The said works are defined in section 2 in this way:
The whole being hereinafter referred to as the "said works".
Furthermore, the Railway Act does provide for reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners for even diversions and deviations and changes, and not necessarily crossings only.


Charles Avery Dunning: Wherever there is a crossing of a railway by a highway or of a highway by a railway; and the intention of section 8 is to provide for situations where no such crossing exists.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But this places it entirely in the hands of the governor in council, which is obviously not the intention of the minister.


George Reginald Geary: In the last line of section 8 you use the words " the said works," which the minister says refers to the first line of the section, but "said works" is defined in section 2, and unfortunately the same words are used in section 8 with a different meaning.


Charles Avery Dunning: I null let that section stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The suggestions have
been made only for the purposes of clarification. Where you have a section that defines the meaning that is to be given to two words, wherever those two words are used together in the act, it must be taken that they import the meaning given to them by the statute, and the words "said works" mean all the works mentioned in section 2.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have got the point, and it is on the record.
Section stands.
On section 9-Expropriation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will turn back to section 6 he will observe that, it says "upon the property owned or taken by His Majesty in the right of the Dominion of Canada," and I would add "transferred by His Majesty to the company." Having taken the land this section enables you to alienate, and the alienation is to take place in the manner indicated and compensation is to be 
fixed in the manner stated. Unless and until that transfer takes place, the moneys to be raised under this statute should not be used except on that land. You cannot put your own money on land .belonging to the crown and then create a security of the company that is to be binding against that particular property. And the closing words of section 6-


Charles Avery Dunning: The securities will not
be mortgage securities-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know what kind .they will be. The principle is just the same. You should not spend your money on property you do not own. I think my hon. friend will realize how great the difficulty is, and that is the reason that section 9 is there and provides in the last words:
-shall upon request be transferred by His Majesty to the company.
These words in section 6 contemplate the moneys or a portion of them being spent upon land so acquired; and if you say:

upon the property owned or taken by His Majesty and transferred by His Majesty to the company.
-then you have the matter complete.


Charles Avery Dunning: We can pass section 9,
and the relationship of my friend's remarks to section 6 can be taken into account in examining the matter.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Lands for purpose of undertaking of company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a section which
I think the minister will hesitate to ask this parliament to pass.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hesitated, indeed I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister indicate to us the reasons that were sufficient to overcome his scruples? Perhaps they may have some effect on us.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is to avoid the pos<-
sibility of litigation in any matter which is covered by the schedule. The schedule of the act clearly sets out what is required and what is for the purposes of the company. It is for the purpose of avoiding litigation with regard to the work which parliament by this act is authorizing in a general way that the section is put in. I do not like sections which rather appear to me to have as their object the debarring of a subject from his ordinary light of going to court to prove something which he deems to be in his interest. On the other hand there are considerations of

great magnitude involved, and what might be called petty litigation should be as far as possible discouraged, especially when parliament is passing upon the project as a whole, especially when the lands have been placed under expropriation already in order that there may be sufficient room to deal with the projects outlined in the plans and models considered by the railway committee the other day.
It is on the advice of the legal officers that section 10 is included, and certainly no government would attempt to say that certain lands or undertakings were required for the purposes of the company if they were not.
I do not think there is any question of arbitrary use of the power, but it is advantageous in the prevention of vexatious litigation on petty, small grounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that that answer would hardly be sufficient to convince the minister as to the desirability of it. This enables a railway company to take a strip of land a thousand feet wide, if it so desires, instead of sixty or one hundred feet. It enables the railway company to take land to any extent it may desire for the purposes of the railway without limitation or restriction. The minister has indicated that he is governed very largely by the reports made by the technical advisers of the railway. They find themselves dealing with a situation in connection with which they say:	"Why waste
time negotiating any longer over one hundred feet? Let us take the whole area of 500 feet, and we can deal with the matter afterwards." I recall railway companies attempting to acquire larger areas than might be required for their particular undertaking, in which case the compulsory powers were at once cut down, owing to the fact that they are not allowed to acquire more than they could use for their undertaking. The minister will remember the circumstances under which railways at times have endeavoured compulsorily to take somewhat larger areas than might be required for right of way and station grounds, and the Board of Railway Commissioners has refused it and held them down exactly to what the statute says. This section confers enormous powers. I say let the minister protect himself, to get away from the political side of it, by utilizing the Board of Railway Commissioners and adding a provision to that effect. I get his point exactly. It might be a desirable thing to take the whole area rather than split it up. That is really what is behind it all. In its present form this section affords an intolerable opportunity for the exercising of pressure upon the government,
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
and I say that in the same way I expect the minister would say it to me if I were similarly situated. It. is not fair to the government; it is not fair to the minister. It seems to me it should be subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners instead of the governor in council. I put this to the minister:	Is it fair to the members from
Montreal if someone whose land has partly been taken, says-advised by his solicitor- "There is not trouble about this; all you have to do is go to your member and get him to bring the matter to the attention of the government." As long as governments are human, as long as members and their supporters are human, whether it be the government of to-day or of some other day, it is not right or fitting that that section should stand as it is. It is not fair to the public; it is not fair to members of parliament; it i3 not fair to the minister himself.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows
that no railway company in Canada is subject to such a provision as he now proposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend quote the section?


George Reginald Geary: I think my leader refers to
section 199 of the act, which has to do with the extent of lands that may be taken, first 100 feet for right of way, then up to 500 feet for station grounds, including the width of the right of way, 100 feet. Then section 200 reads:
-should the company require, at any point on the railway more ample space than it possesses or may take under the last preceding section-
It must go to the railway board for authority to take the same for such purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And section 201.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course my hon. friend from Toronto is familiar with some of the difficulties that arose in that city, in connection with the union terminal scheme, on account of that section he has just read. There have been very extensive difficulties, not the kind of difficulties mentioned by the leader of the opposition, but the kind of difficulty which does involve considerable hardship to the railway undertaking itself. I cannot conceive of the kind of difficulty arising to which the leader of the opposition refers. As a matter of fact, in connection with this matter all the lands necessary to oarry out the scheme as propounded by the railway officers to the railway committee are now under expropriation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then that gives the complete reason why this section should go out.

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Charles Avery Dunning: I may tell my hon.
friends opposite quite frankly the reason why I approved of putting them under expropriation-and, in fact, it is crown and not railway expropriation. The reason I approved of it was to get away from just that kind of accusation of political interference in connection with the valuation of lands and so forth. I thought that if they were placed under expropriation no question would arise in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite or anywhere else regarding this railway, in its purchases of land, being used politically by anyone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The values must still
be settled by the exchequer court.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend
is not implying that the exchequer court could be politically influenced in the way he fears.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sometimes the parties
have been induced to withdraw and to make private settlement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I suppose that in many cases private settlements are made and may be made in connection with this matter. But this matter, by virtue of a section which we shall come to later on, is continuously and consistently under the review of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true anyway;
we find the money and have a right to review the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is true anyway, but
it is true in a specific sense in relation to this enterprise with which we are dealing. I did try to put all the safeguards I possibly could around the matter

safeguards not only from the point of view of protecting the pulblic treasury in a proper manner as well as of protecting the railway, but also, I may frankly say. from the point of view of protecting myself against insinuations from the other side of the house that this or that or the next thing could or might or would happen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why say "from the other side of the house?"


Charles Avery Dunning: That is where insinuations usually come from.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to myself,
no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What insinuations have
been made now or at any other time in this session of parliament?


Charles Avery Dunning: The occasion for that
comment, I will tell my hon. friend frankly, was his own last remark with reference to 
what might b'e done under this section. He assumed a case where more land had been taken by the railway company than they actually required for the undertaking, and he pictured a member coming around and exercising some pressure in this way or that way. To my mind such a thing is wholly imaginary-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: -and is inclined to convey the impression that a member could come to the Minister of Railways, in the interests of a client, and get something done which was irregular and improper. I want to say that this minister of railways does not propose to do that sort of thing. I am not resentful of my hon. friend, but I am resentful rather of the idea. 1 do not think I ought to be treated as though I should be likely to do that sort of thing, because it would be so plainly wrong and bad, to me, for an expropriation to be filed with respect to a piece of property and then for back door influence to come along and in some way or other get it shifted out of the way for political purposes.


Peter McGibbon: There might be another minister of railways later.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear the
minister say all these things-


Charles Avery Dunning: There again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says that on this
side of the house we made insinuations.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I listened very attentively to the hon. leader of the opposition and I feel positive that he was insinuating political interference on the part of the Minister of Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would give the hon.
gentleman credit for having more intelligence. There was no insinuation made with respect-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There was an insinuation and I have no lesson of intelligence to take from the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad my hon. friend thinks so, because I know of no one who would be more likely to exercise it than he. No man would be more ready to press upon the minister the desirability of looking after his constituents than my hon. friend if he thought it would advance their interests- if he thought it would keep them out of courts of law. The case I took had no reference to the minister or to any particular matter. I do say, however, that I know something about the democratic system of govern-

2S45
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
ment. I have held office under the crown for a very short time, but I have held office long enough to know that Conservatives are not vastly different from Liberals nor Liberals from Conservatives in that regard, and where-


Charles Avery Dunning: Don't forget the gentlemen in the corner; they claim to be of superior clay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have seen striking evidence in my time that they too are exactly the same. I live in a province where there is a very progressive government which looks after the affairs of the country very carefully; yet members have been known to press matters on the attention of the executive with considerable force for the purpose of advancing the interests of their constituents. And I take it that this will always be so. Speaking for those about me, and in good part, I suggested to the minister that this might create an intolerable condition, and when I said that I had in mind the history of this country. There have been expropriations, and settlements have been made before the cases ever went to court; and there have been in court cases in which all the evidence that might be led by the crown has not been led. That has happened. I can show my hon. friend records of proceedings in the courts of the country which bear out this assertion. There have been cases in which the classifications have not been all that they might have been. For example, the building of the Transcontinental railway: the subsequent investigation that took place would indicate that with respect to these classifications millions were spent that should not have been spent simply because the classifications were made as they were. We know that under day's work grave scandals have arisen. A committee has been investigating a matter in which certain work under contract was farmed out by the contractor. All these are matters about which every thoughtful man interested in the welfare of the country is thinking.


Charles Avery Dunning: If that was the extent of my hon. friend's remarks-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did I say anything more? But the minister gets up and charges this side with making insinuations against his integrity or his probity or his ability-


Charles Avery Dunning: Now my hon. friend is misunderstanding me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There can be no misunderstanding of what the minister said. His language is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous with respect to that. And one of
his supporters, rushing to his defence, says, "Of course, it is an insinuation against the minister." If the time has come when we cannot by illustration direct attention to the conditions that exist in the country, then all I can say is that parliament has come to a pretty pass. I wonder if the house realizes that the conditions that prevail here could not prevail for a minute in the United States with the powers of investigation which they put into operation. We know what happens in relation to contracts, and no one must think that we are all fools or children. When, therefore, we say to the minister that we desire to safeguard the public interest, it is not to be supposed that there is any ulterior object in such a statement so far as the minister himself is concerned. The minister is only a servant of the crown at the moment, and for that reason we say that it is not fair, it is not right, it is not just that the governor in council should be charged with the responsibility here contemplated; for the governor in council means the cabinet of the day, and the cabinet of the day very often means the exigencies of the politics of the day. 1 heard one hon. member, desiring to improve the Election Act, make the statement that he wished to do so for a certain well defined purpose and for a well defined reason. And I gave him credit for his frankness.
Now we are merely suggesting to the minister that this power should not vest in the governor in council, and I gave an illustration to support this contention. There is not a member of this house, whether he be Liberal or Conservative, who will not say that if a constituent presses him hard enough he in turn will press the matter on the government. And there have been the gravest complaints as to the extent to which such pressure has been brought to bear in the last twenty-five years, resulting in favourites getting things they would not otherwise receive; they have been favoured merely because they had the power, the strength, the influence, the determination and often the willingness to assist the government of the day or its candidates. We are not blind to these things, and it will not do for the minister to make cheap remarks with, reference to insinuations against himself, when we suggest the substitution for the governor in council of the Board of Railway Commissioners, a body which was created by the Liberal party in parliament in years gone by, for the purpose of preserving some semblance of decency in the conduct of public business in relation to these matters. It is for that reason that we make the sug-
2S46

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
gestion, and not with a view to making any insinuations against the minister. There is no reason why the minister should dismiss the matter with a wave of the hand and the statement. "You cannot make these suggestions about me." No one is talking about the minister; we are discussing a principle. The hon. gentleman's estimate of his own virtue may be correct; he may be the Simon Pure, the one virtuous minister the country has ever known. That well may be. But there is no reason why he should parade the fact before the public this afternoon when we are endeavouring to suggest some method whereby we may more properly safeguard the public interest.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite content that the public of Canada shall see my remarks side by side with those of my hon. friend in Hansard to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So am I.


Charles Avery Dunning: With that I leave the matter. Let me say this, however. There is one reason why too much reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners should not be made in a statute of this kind, and that reason is that the law's delays may be used to prevent the Canadian National getting along with something which this bill has authorized them to proceed with. My hon. friend is familiar with the extent to which the law's delays may be used to prevent an enterprise from getting along with something which has been authorized.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not in this instance.


Charles Avery Dunning: In this instance the law's delays have not yet had a chance to intervene to the extent to which my hon. friend referred. All the law's delays will be called into requisition should this matter be before the Board of Railway Commissioners, which is really a court to that extent, by those who are desirous of delaying or preventing this project going through. Having said that I am prepared to meet my hon. friend to the extent of allowing section 10 to stand for consideration. As I said at the outset, it was a rather arbitrary power for the Canadian National to take unto itself, and my hon. friend had no need to take offence there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not.


Charles Avery Dunning: Possibly I misunderstood his line of argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had not a thought in the world of the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry if I have
misunderstood him. I do not pretend to be any more virtuous than my hon. friend pretends to be; I am just an ordinary man, as he
is,	but at the same time I have tried to render some public service in this country and I do not propose to take what I assume to be an attack. In view of my hon. friend's explanation probably he did not intend that attack, but I do not propose to take that kind of thing lying down from any man; it is merely a matter of self defence with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not make faces over
it.


Charles Avery Dunning: In view of my hon.
friend's later remarks, I admit that he did not intend his remarks as I understood them, and I will let it go at that.


George Reginald Geary: The only trouble with the
minister's attitude of self-defence is that he adopts also the principle of the Monroe doctrine, and fights everybody in self defence.


Charles Avery Dunning: I frankly admit that
my preference is for defence by attack.


George Reginald Geary: That is what I said.


Mr. MANION:: Even when you are not
attacked yourself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have very strong objection to this section because it is removed from the realm of the court. The minister referred to the railway commission as "even the railway commission," and while I admit that in recent years that body has not had the confidence of the people which it enjoyed some years ago, nevertheless it has always been my effort to sustain its authority, which during the major portion of its history has been a very excellent one. It does strike me as being exceedingly dangerous to place in the hands of the governor in council, without an appeal to the exchequer court or any other court or to the Board of Railway Commissioners, the power of deciding whether or not Lands are properly being taken for railway purposes. The minister knows that the moment expropriation proceedings are filed you can proceed with the utilization of the lands for railway purposes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
suggest that the railway could go ahead if it had notice that a hearing was pending before the Board of Railway Commissioners for a decision that the land being taken was not required for railway purposes?

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the Canadian Pacific
was putting this scheme through they would have to go to the railway board for their expropriation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would ask my hon.
friend to read the sections as the hon. leader of the opposition did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not want to reread
the sections, but section 200 reads:
Should the company require, at any point on the railway, more ample space than it possesses or may take under the last preceding section, for the convenient accommodation of the public, or for the traffic on its railway, or for protection against snowdrifts, or for the diversion of a highway, or for the substitution of one highway for another-
And then the section goes on to describe that the company shall give ten days' notice of such application, and shall furnish the board with the plans, and so forth, of what it intends to do. There is no reason in the world why the Canadian National Railways Should not follow that procedure. There would be a great deal more confidence in the whole scheme and considerably more satisfaction and lack of apprehension if the railway board's jurisdiction was preserved in this matter.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: As the minister has intimated that he will permit this section to stand, when the matter is next brought before us I should like to be informed as to whether or not the advice of the law officers of the crown has been received on the question whether the provision here made is intra vires of parliament. Having regard to recent cases before the privy council it seems to me that where land is required by a railway for the purposes of its operation, and the railway itself requires it, it can then be expropriated for the benefit of the railway. This point was decided in a recent case in connection with the railway running into Rouyn. If a determination of the question whether or not the land was necessary for railway purposes was left to a board, if I may so call it, such as the governor in council, and that board was given the power finally to decide, righty or wrongly,
I think it would be ultra vires of this legislature as determined by privy council decisions.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will be very glad to
see that consideration is given to the point raised by my hon. friend. Of course before this bill came to the house it was submitted to the Department of Justice, but I will call special attention to that point.
Section stands.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
78594-181	revised
On the schedule.


George Reginald Geary: Subsections (d) and (e) of
the schedule refer to grade separations, and I should like to mention the statement of Sir Henry Thornton that the whole proposal originated in the question of the separating of the existing level crossings, and that that was what urged him to press forward to some sort of completion the plans which we have before us. Grade separation itself is a very important part of this whole proposition. I might refer to one grade separation with which I am very familiar, that in the city of Toronto. This proposition will cost some $33,000,000, and I understand that the city of Toronto will pay about $10,000,000, or almost a third. Even though it is only a quarter, I think it should be so arranged that there can be no doubt that the city of Montreal will contribute its fair share of the cost of the separation of grades. A very large saving will be made if you take good care that the act provides that the allocation of the costs will be attended to.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my hon.
friend that there was no thought in anyone's mind that any other body than the railway commission would settle the matter of the allocation of the costs of the grade separations. I should like to move the following amendments:
That subsection (d) be amended by adding after the word "separation" the following words:
by means of elevated, or depressed, or underground tracks, or streets,
That subsection (e) be amended by adding after the word "separation" the following words:
by means of elevated, or depressed, or underground tracks, or streets,
That subsection (k) be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
(k) Connections and transfer facilities to the tracks of the Montreal harbour commission near Longue Pointe, and/or at a point further east, and connections and transfer facilities to the C.P.R. east and south of the Lachine canal, and at other points, except at Forsythe (now Rouen) street. The company to pay part cost, to be determined, of facilities jointly owned or jointly used.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration Policy-Mr. Rowe
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 22, consideration of the proposed amendment of Mr. McRae:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
this house regrets the failure of the government to profit by Canadian experience in the colonization and settlement of the country and deplores the fact that men and women have, during recent months, been settled on western crown lands at great distances from transportation, educational, hospital and other necesary facilities, thereby making it almost impossible for them to achieve success and happiness in their new surroundings, and is of the opinion that such conditions can only be remedied by an immediate reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: When I was speaking at eleven o'clock on Wednesday night in reference to the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), I believe at that time I referred to the French-Canadians, Canadians from your part of Canada, Mr. Speaker, who had gone to the United States on account of lack of a national policy on the part of the government. To-day I had handed to me this telegram addressed to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney):
Boston, Mass.,
May 26, 1929.
Doctor Maloney,
Member for South Renfrew,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Read your speech carefully. Congratulations. Hope that you endeavour to obtain some government help and thousands will be ready to go west from here.
Jean Gissely.
This is a sample of how Canadians who have left this country are anxiously waiting for some policy that will enable them to return. Anything that I may say with reference to the incapacity of the Minister of Immigration is not in any way a reflection on him personally. I believe he is a man of very lovable character and of strict integrity, but throughout this country we realize that his department, so far as progress is concerned, is in a most pitiable position. We realize also that from now on we need not so much a department of immigration as a department of repatriation. Canadians are leaving this country faster than foreigners are coming in. They are leaving at a loss to themselves through head tax, and a benefit to the treasury of the United States, while the government spends almost $5,000,000 annually to bring fewer numbers into Canada from abroad to be assimilated to our conditions and1 customs.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is much more generous in his suggestions to the Minister of Immigration to relieve him of his responsibilities than he is in offering him direction in the matter of an immigration
[Mr. Robb.}
policy. Some time ago in the city of Ottawa the Prime Minister said1 that the Minister of Immigration was one of the best ministers he had, and that he was entirely satisfied with the progress of his department. In one of the press reports a few days later I noticed that the Prime Minister had invited the Minister of Immigration to accept a high and dignified post left vacant through the death of the Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba. This was certainly a high and glowing tribute to the honourable career of the Minister of Immigration, had be accepted it it would have been a dignified retreat from an unfinished task. I realize, however, as many others do, that the canny judgment of the Minister of Immigration, despite the lure and thrill of such a dignified honour, could still discern the difference between a resource and a liability, and therefore he is still in charge of the Department of Immigration.


Mr. FORKE:: That is small potatoespeanuts, in fact.


William Earl Rowe: I realize that the minister's
administration has been pretty small potatoes.


Robert Forke: Go on talking about the administration. Damn it all you like.


William Earl Rowe: 
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I
understand that the amendment to which we are now speaking is the following, which was moved by the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) and seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
this house regrets the failure of the government to profit by Canadian experience in the colonization and settlement of the country and deplores the fact that men and women have, during recent months, been settled on western crown lands at great distances from transportation, educational, hospital and other necessary facilities, thereby making it almost impossible for them to achieve success and happiness in their new surroundings, and is of the opinion that such conditions can only be remedied by an immediate reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
Certainly one of the districts affected' in the manner to which my hon.. friend refers in his speech is that area in the Peace River where settlers went in last year, and I may as well say at once that I cannot support the amendment because it asks me to endorse the statement that it is impossible for these settlers to make a success. I have had some experience in pioneering. In the year 1911 I went three hundred miles from a railway to take up a homestead. Nearly everyone told us in those days that we were crazy and that we could not make it go. Well, we settled up something like one million acres in the Peace River district, ranging from two to three hundred miles from a railway, and I do not know of any country or new district anywhere which has retained a greater percentage of its original settlers.
The hon. member in his speech, at page 2737, quoted the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) as having made the following statement in a speech which that hon. gentleman delivered last March:
In the Grand Prairie and Peace River country, 5,216 homesteads were taken up, a gain of 450 per cent over the previous year.
2854	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Mr. Kennedy
Commenting on this, the hon. member for North Vancouver made this statement:
The minister did not say to the house where he was placing these 5,000 new settlers; that part of the story was left for me to tell. Perhaps he does not know.
Then he goes on for a column or two of his speech to explain that a large number had settled twenty, forty, sixty, eighty and a hundred miles from a railway; which is perfectly true. I have here some information regarding these 5,000 homesteaders and it certainly has some bearing on the question. Just a little over 1,000 of these are second homesteads. Most hon. members will recall that last session there was introduced into this house by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), and passed, a bill providing that certain persons might take up second homesteads. I believe that 1,200, or at any rate something over 1,000 of the 5,000 filed in Peace River last year were second homesteads. In that case it was mostly settlers who had already been established in the Peace River country and who knew what they were doing, whether they went twenty, forty or sixty miles from a railway. And as regards the other 4.000, they are for the most part people who have already had homesteading experience, or the sons of people who have already farmed in the three western provinces and in British Columbia. I do not believe that 10 per cent of the people wiho went in to take up homesteads in Peace River last year could be regarded1 as immigrants in the strict sense of the word-people asking the [DOT] Department of Immigration for information as to where to go in order to find homesteads.
I am subject to correction, but the people whom I met on their way in and out were people who had had experience in farming in western Canada and who knew, therefore, what they were doing.
Having offered that criticism by way of explanation as to why I cannot accept the amendment, I wish to observe that there are some constructive ideas in the speech delivered by the hon. member for North Vancouver.
I do not know that I can follow him in all the details of his settlement scheme, for reasons which I will give in due course. I read1 the speech twice over and there are in it some things that are not clear to me yet. But the hon. member did bring out this fact, that unless we take into consideration in connection with settlement the questions of transportation, the clearing of lands and the selection of lands on which we shall encourage settlement, we are apt to cause settlers a tremendous amount of hardship and difficulty which could be avoided.

Most hon. members of this house know that I have been urging for a survey of a *coast outlet, not because I expected to get that outlet immediately, but 'because the people want to know just where the branch lines will be built in the Peace River in order to fit in with the outlet when it is ultimately constructed. We have got somewhere in connection with the survey of a possible location of railway branch lines. This I believe to be primarily the responsibility of the federal government. Undoubtedly the control of the location and the construction of railways will be in the hands of the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific and the federal government. Some years ago we were building railways in Canada ahead of the settlers. In some cases we made mistakes in connection with the location of the railways ; in other cases we had duplications, and in other cases we permitted the settlers to go on lands which should never have been settled at all. To-day we are asking the settlers to go out and prove the country before we go ahead with railway construction; we are erring in the other direction. If we adopt the policy of bringing immigrants to this country and expecting them to go out and settle in the newer districts, we have a bounden duty as the federal parliament to see that the settlers obtain railway transportation just as quickly as possible. The same would apply to our own people who are asked to settle on these lands.
I have some criticism to make of the heads of our two railway systems who have been shouting for immigration. I think there will be time enough to shout for immigration when they have provided the last permanent settlement in western Canada with a reasonable amount of railway service, and they have not done that as yet. Settlement in this country is three or four hundred miles ahead of railway development, specially in the Peace River district. I am not blaming the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific for that, because they have just recently taken over the Peace River railway from the Alberta government. The immediate problem to be solved is to provide railway transportation for the five thousand settlers who took up land there last year, and another possible five thousand who will go in this year. In a new country it is absolutely impossible to do anything with regard to the permanent location of schools, hospitals, and so on, until you have the railway into the country or until you know exactly where it is going to be. We cannot avoid hardships and difficulties, but by a wise policy of rail-

Immigration Policy-Mr. Kennedy 


way development we can bring that suffering down to a minimum. In the Peace River block we have an intensely settled district, but it cannot be fully settled until it is supplied with railway facilities. That district is intensely settled sixty miles from a railway, and it justifies the extension of the railway.
As I said a little while ago, I had some difficulty in understanding the proposal offered by the hon. member for North Vancouver. At page 2730 of Hansard, he says:
As to the percentage of the 100,000,000 acres available for agriculture, probably 10 per cent should be allowed for land covered by water. In many districts there is no waste at all. A conservative estimate is 75,000,000 acres of good agricultural land!
Then at page 2731 he makes this statement:
Besides, the best of our districts awaiting settlement to-day are more or less covered with timber of varying density, from open park-life country, light brush or scrub, to the so-called timber land, little of it giving promise of ever becoming of commercial value so far as the timber is concerned. Peace River district is very fortunate. About 50 per cent of that country is what is termed park-like land, and of this at least half is open prairie. Our problem is to make this land available for settlers with the least cost at the earliest possible date.
I do not know whether there are 75,000,000 acres of good land in the Peace River district, but putting these two statements together, it would appear that the hon. member claims that there are 75,000,000 acres of good agricultural land, fifty per cent of which is prairie and park-like land. Prairie land is open land practically ready for the plough and requires no drainage. Then the hon. member states that the other fifty per cent is park-like land. According to these two paragraphs it would appear as though we had 36,000,000 acres of that sort of land in the Peace River district. There have been only about 4,000,000 acres alienated altogether, according to the report which I received from the Department of the Interior. In the Grande Prairie district we have 517,600 acres homesteaded, and we have 1,203,360 acres in the Peace River district.
I would like to read what the hon. member had to say with regard to the question of financing new settlers. At page 2733 of Hansard he says:
It would not require any great administrative ability to assemble and equip clearing units, which might be located at several points, in number sufficient to clear and make available along the lines I have indicated homes for at least 2,000 new settlers a year.
At page 2735 he says:
I proposed last year that the government issue land bonds against their expenditure on such a development. I gave as the maximum required $300,000,000 for a ten year programme, an average of $30,000,000 per year.
Again on the same page he says:
When the settlement of a district is complete, a land value of $30 an acre would be in keeping with the present Peace River values. This means that the homesteader who gets a partially improved homestead for the amount spent on it by the government (which I estimated last year not to exceed $1,500) would not be long in seeing that at $30 per acre for his 160 acre homestead he would have a prospective value of $4,800,
Two thousand homesteads per year at $1,500 each amounts to $3,000,000, but the program suggested amounts to $30,000,000, which would mean 20,000 homesteads per year. I am a little confused when I consider those figures. The hon. member seems to have dropped or added a cipher in one of these statements.
I am in accord with his suggestion that transportation is absolutely essential and must be brought close to the settlers, and that we should develop some scheme of financing the settler. In 1926 two bills were presented to the house which, although not along the line of the proposition recommended by the hon. member for North Vancouver, had that very matter in view.
I am also in sympathy with the proposition of clearing the land by fire. I agree with the bon. member's statement that a large percentage of the park-like land could be handled for about $12 per acre. I speak from experience in connection with that because I had some cleared and turned over last year which cost me just about that much; yet I do not see whjr we should go ahead with a scheme involving an expenditure of $6 per acre for clearing when we can handle it by fire for less than $1 per acre.
The amendment directs the whole criticism at the Minister of Immigration, and to me that seems to be striking the wrong head. We should criticize three or four departments if we come to the conclusion that it is necessary to accept a scheme of that kind in order to have a government which is right up to the standard of what Canada needs. It would require the cooperation of the Railway department, and the railways as well, both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National; it would require the cooperation of the Department of the Interior, the department which demonstrated conclusively in 1919 that land could be cleared cheaply by fire but which has not gone ahead with a development in that way. It would require the cooperation of the Department of Immigration as well.
I am heartily in accord with the Minister of Immigration when he takes the stand that immigration brought into this country must be controlled in relation to the needs of labour and the conditions prevailing in the country and that we should not bring in any imnr
2856	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Mr. Kennedy
grants whom we cannot place or for whom we cannot find work. I do not believe that it is feasible to bring in a large number of new immigrants and place them away out on the frontier in a block by themselves. The immigrant should come here and obtain his experience by working for some other farmer for two, three or five years. Then he would be in a position to go and select his land or buy his farm. By that time he would have formed1 a pretty good idea of the kind of farm he wanted and the price he could pay for it. If you put a block of green Scotchmen, Englishmen or any other class away out on the prairies by themselves, especially in a year when there is a crop failure, you have not in your settlement the element that can take the long view and steady the settlement through to the good years which are sure to come. In the new settlements what you want are people of experience in doing the kinds of farming necessary in a new district, or a very liberal mixture of them in order to guide and steady the newcomers. For that reason, while I have not been altogether satisfied with everything the government has done and while I am also not prepared to condemn the scheme advanced by the hon. member for North Vancouver, because there are a number of good ideas in his speech, I feel that his amendment does not fit in with the constructive ideas in his speech, and therefore I cannot support the amendment.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: I should
like to make a few remarks in regard to the immigration policy of this government. We have been spending in the neighbourhood' of five to six million dollars a year in order to secure immigrants whom we consider are necessary. It does not appear from the general criticism which has been directed toward the government and its immigration policy that that money has been as well spent as it should have been, or that we are getting the service that we should be getting for our expenditure on immigration in general. I take it that we are all agreed that if the Immigration department were functioning with full efficiency we would' be getting better results. I am going to quote from the report of the Department of Immigration for the year ending March 31, 1928, in order to show that some of the remarks of the minister and his department hardly fit in. For instance, at page 59 I find the following remark from the commissioner in regard to the publicity work in his department. It is headed "Films":
Films-There is an increasing demand for the use of films, and during the year the supply at the London office was frequently insufficient

to meet the demand. The film "Twenty Minutes in Canada" has been in use for sucfi a prolonged period that the request is usually for something new, which as yet we are unable to supply.
That is, notwithstanding the amount of money we are giving the minister to spend on these services, the services he is giving to the public are antiquated. We find the same thing again on page 75, and I want to read from the department's own publication what they say in regard to literature which has been distributed:
A booklet to which very wide distribution is given is called "Canada West". As its name suggests, it deals with the western provinces of Canada-Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. It contains maps of each province and text and illustrations giving information particularly along the line of agricultural opportunities. This booklet is printed in three editions: one designed for distribution in Great Britain, one for the United States, and one printed in French, used mainly for repatriation purposes in French-speaking communities in the New England states. New British and United States editions were compiled, but the printing was not completed during the year. A sufficient number of the French edition were on hand so that no reprinting was required. The "Eastern Canada" booklet deals with the eastern provinces in much the same way as "Canada West" does with those lying west of the great lakes. It, too, is issued in three editions-British, United States, and French. Orders for British and United States editions were placed during the year but were not completed. The French edition on hand was sufficient to supply the year's requirements.
Again I say that instances the fact that the Immigration department, for some reason or another, is not sufficiently coordinated or working in proper cooperation to keep even a supply of tlhe films and literature which are necessary for distribution in the countries in which we are soliciting immigrants. That shows beyond any question of doubt-and it is reflected throughout the whole of the criticism of the Immigration department-that within the department itself there is a certain amount of disorganization which could easily be remedied by efficient cooperation. These weaknesses within the organization amply demonstrate why we are not getting satisfactory service from the department throughout the whole Dominion.
As regards the question that is immediately before us, the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae),
I was rather surprised and startled to hear the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) say that he could not agree with the scheme outlined by the hon. member for North Vancouver. But after listening to what he had to say on the matter, I came to the

Immigration Policy-Mr. Fraser
conclusion that he was not very far from agreeing with the hon. member for North Vancouver. His argument to prove that it is not exactly the scheme we must have seemed to me to prove that it was a pretty efficient scheme and its adoption provided that the details were worked out by men with the proper spirit for the task, would result in much greater efficiency in the Department of Immigration than we have at the present time.
After listening to the information which has been given to the house during the last three or four sessions in regard to the Peace River country, one cannot doubt that we have in that section of Canada a very large area- whether it is 75,000,000 or 50,000,000 acres does not alter the question very much-which is capable of vast development. The Canadian people by their characteristics are well qualified for the task of bringing that large area under settlement, and, given proper direction, of making it productive. What we require is an administration which as a whole has caught the vision of that northern country and its possibilities, and which will lay down policies and courageously follow them out in order that the development of that country may proceed with some degree of rapidity.
It has been stated time and again in the house that the proper way to develop that northen country is to give it an outlet to the Pacific coast, and until that outlet is given the Peace River country cannot develop as it properly should. The reason is plain to any person who will take into consideration the location of the district. The whole land is situated not more than 800 or 900 miles from the Pacific coast, whereas there is a haul of 3,000 miles at the very least in order to bring the produce to the eastern seaboard. Therefore we do not need any argument to prove that it is necessary to connect that district by the shortest line possible with the Pacific coast. It is in that respect, and in that alone, that I find most fault with the present Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) and the present government. The hon. member for Peace River did not like to unload the whole responsibility on the Minister of Immigration, and perhaps I should not attempt to unload on him the lack of railway facilities in that section, but at the same time, had we in the position of Minister of Immigration a man who had caught the vision of that section, who was seized of its possibilities and who had made up his mind to develop it, I feel certain that the railway development there would have progressed further than it has so far. To that extent I must hold the Minister
of Immigration responsible for lack of railway development in the Peace River country. As a matter of fact, the western prairies have been settled and brought to their present stage of production because behind the organization of effort in that territory there were men who had caught the vision, who were seized of the possibilities and who were determined to give the country the opportunity to develop. At the present time I believe that the responsible officials of the government are not properly seized of the possibilities in that country, that they have not caught the vision, and are not evolving and following out progressive policies which would reflect credit on the Canadian people in the development of an empire such as we have in that part of the country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Anderson Fraser: At six o'clock I think I
had shown to the satisfaction of every reasonable person that the Department of Immigration and Colonization was not achieving the results that it should. It may be well to review for a few minutes some of the statements that have been made by the present government through its ministers and by officials connected therewith, having to do with the matter now under consideration. ^
In the first place, I would like to remind the house of the promises made by the present Prime Minister during the election campaign of 1925. I think it will be recalled by most hon. members that during his campaign in western Canada, referring to the immigration policy of the government which he hoped then to lead, he made or is reported to have made the statement that the spearhead of his immigration policy would be directed towards the Peace River country. Well, since then we have had four or five years of government under his leadership, and what has been the result? What has happened to that spearhead? It seems to me that it is very badly blunted and bent. It looks to me as if the platform then laid down was pretty much the same as that on whioh he was supposed to attain office in 1919. If that was not so, certain it is that the policy which has been directed towards the colonization of the northern country has not been a very energetic one, and the results achieved have been feeble and futile.
Strong men and women have gone to that country to help in its development, they have pointed out the possibilities of that country

Immigration Policy-Mr. Fraser
if proper opportunities are afforded for its development. Yet the present government has not supplemented as it should the efforts of those early pioneers, nor does it look as though they may expect to get much assistance from the present administration.
Then we have the president of the Canadian National Railways, who, when he visited the Peace River country in 1925 to inspect it at first hand and examine into its possibilities made the statement that if the people in that district would produce 10,000,000 budhels of grain he would be prepared to give consideration to their railway problems. The people of the Peace River country took him at his word. They went diligently to work, and in the year 1927 they not only raised 10,000,000 bushels of grain but actually shipped out over the railways 11,000,000 bushels, thus carrying out their part of the bargain in full measure. And what has the president of the Canadian National Railways since that time done to carry out his part of the bargain? When he was asked the other day in the railway committee what the'situation was in regard to the implementing of that promise he said "Well, just the same answer as you get from this government when you ask them on any vital question-it is still under consideration." In 1925 the promise was made. The people accepted it in good faith. They did their part, and now in 1929, four years later, the answer of the president of the Canadian National Railways is that the matter is "still under consideration."
The Minister of Immigration says we are doing very well so far as immigration is concerned. Perhaps we are. The members of the cabinet draw very comfortable salaries. They spend about half a million dollars on motor cars and gasoline in travelling around the country looking after official business-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is terrible.


John Anderson Fraser: Awful.


James Dew Chaplin: Some was spent in Europe.


John Anderson Fraser: -while the farmers in the Peace River country producing their crops are despoiled of $6,500,000 for lack of railway facilities which should be provided by this government. I arrive at that conclusion in this way: the Peace River country in 1927 produced 11,000,000 bushels of grain. I presume they produced as much in 1928. It cost the .people in the Peace River block 30 cents per bushel to haul that grain to railhead; if you multiply the 30 cents by the 22,000,000 bushels, you will find it amounts to about $6,500,000. In view of that condition, it is not astonishing that we should ask what is the horizon of the Minister

of Immigration. Is he giving consideration to those areas which are a considerable distance from his own little corner of Manitoba called Pipestone? If he is thinking only, of his own little district of Pipestone then he is merely indulging in a kind of pipe dream.
The Prime Minister's spearhead is bent and blunt. The Minister of Immigration sobs, with drooping head, "It is well enough", and the president of the Canadian National Railways says he is "giving consideration" to the cry of the people. Surely it is time the development of such areas should be placed in stronger hands, under the direction of people who have a clear vision of the possibilities of that great country and an appreciation of what we expect of them in relation to the development of this country.
But there is another angle to this immigration policy to which I wish for a few minutes to direct the minister's attention. What has the Department of Immigration and Colonization done towards the colonizing of their own lands in the .province of British Columbia? They have in that province, in the Peace River block and along the railway belt, large areas of very good land. Will the Minister of Immigration tell me what well organized, well directed effort they have ever made to colonize those areas, outside of the colonization effort under the Soldier Settlement Board; whether they have ever made any effort, whether they have had a colonization agent in any .part of those areas? Not only that, but they have very important interests also in British Columbia so far as the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned. Along that line of railway they have never made any effort to help colonization. All along that line there is good land, there are industrious people, an excellent climate, and as good soil as you can find anywhere in the world; yet this country is not as prosperous as it should be, and a line built to the highest standard of any railway in the Dominion of Canada, with the best possible grades, is being operated as a second class branch line. During the summer they operate a railway service six days in the week, but they provide the business people along that line with a mail service only three days weekly. That does not assist in the colonization of an area of that kind. The minister says that he is willing to cooperate with any of the provincial governments in assisting immigration, but I say he has made no effort to colonize that part of the country with which I am acquainted.


Mr. WARD:: Will the hon. member tell
the house what advantages he hopes to gain for Canada by the immediate settlement of this last virgin' district we have left?

Immigration Policy-Mr. Fraser


John Anderson Fraser: I suppose it will have to
remain unsettled so long as this government is in power and so long as the hon. member keeps it in power. But I understood that what this country required was a greater population, and I do not know where you will find a country in which the people have a better chance to make a living than in the area I have described. I say that all the necessary materials for the proper colonization of that country, and for making it prosperous, will be found along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway; and will not the prosperity of each and every individual along that line add to the prosperity of the property which the government itself owns? Every contented settler helps in the unkeep and building up of the railways, and I submit it would be money and effort well spent if the government did a little more in the way of colonizing that district. In addition to the colonization department of this government, which is neglecting that country, we have also a very expensive colonization department in connection with the Canadian National Railways, and it is making absolutely no effort to colonize that country along the Grand Trunk Pacific line.
I said a moment ago that we had in Canada, if we went about it in the proper way, all the materials for a satisfactory colonization of that great country. Now, someone might ask where the people would come from. Well, the first thing to which I would direct the attention of the minister would be the number of people annually leaving Canada. I find from the records that something over 50,000 Canadians left this country during the last fiscal year of the Immigration department. I submit with all sincerity that if proper efforts were directed to these new districts these 50,000 people would be very glad to remain in Canada and find employment here instead of going across the line to look for work. If the colonization of the western country, and particularly that northern district to which we are directing attention at the present moment, were undertaken under a comprehensive scheme, the people who find it necessary to leave Canada annually would, I am sure, be very willing and ready to turn their energies in the direction of developing that northern country, instead of' going over into the United States. The Minister of Immigration says that Canadians do not leave this country to go to the United States for the purpose of farming. It is admitted that they do mot. But I am pointing out that if you filled up that section of Canada you would create a demand for all kinds of necessities which farmers require for the development of the land, and those people intending to leave, even supposing they did not want to go on the land, would remain in the towns, engaged in the production of commodities required for the development of that country.
I think it would be well if a good deal of the money spent in sending officials to the United States and to countries overseas were spent in Canada, along proper colonization lines. If I had anything to do with it, I would suggest that these men be brought home from Europe and the United States and be asked to turn their attention to the northern country and to develop some proper scheme of colonization w'hich would assist the efforts of settlers after their arrival in Canada. Let these men earn their money at home rather than abroad.


Robert Forke: I may inform the hon. member that we have no immigration agents in Europe.


John Anderson Fraser: Colonization agents then.


Robert Forke: There is no one seeking immigrants on the continent of Europe; we do not pay anyone.


John Anderson Fraser: You are paying out large sums of money in Europe.


Robert Forke: We are paying no officials for immigration work in Europe except the inspectors at ports of sailing; that is all.


John Anderson Fraser: Does the minister mean to tell this house that he is not paying a substantial sum of money in Great Britain and on the continent in the work of looking after colonization and immigration?


Robert Forke: We do in Great Britain.


John Anderson Fraser: Well, Great Britain is a part of Europe.


Robert Forke: A little information would go a long way sometimes and save a whole lot of talking.


John Anderson Fraser: If the minister would talk a little more the house would have a little more information.


Robert Forke: Wind up and I shall have a chance.


John Anderson Fraser: Not in this debate, I am afraid. Now I find, with some consternation, that this government has a colonization policy for the province of British Columbia, to a certain very limited extent-and limited, I am glad to say, it is. But I find that, notwith-

Immigration Policy-Mr. Fraser
standing the antipathy of the people of British Columbia to oriental immigration, we have, according to the Auditor General's report, a colonization or an immigration agent stationed at Hong Kong. I find that this man costs the Dominion of Canada the sum of $8,075 per annum. Now I suggest that this is not a very popular thing from the standpoint of the people of British Columbia. British Columbians are not seeking immigration from oriental countries; indeed, we prohibit immigration from the orient, especially from China. But, as I say, there is this immigration agent stationed at Hong Kong. The Minister of National Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) has just taken his seat, I see. I suggest to him that he have a little quiet talk with the Minister of Immigration and point out to him how unpopular it is to invite immigration from these oriental countries.


Robert Forke: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but it is absurd to suggest that we have an immigration agent in Japan or China, seeking immigrants, when as a matter of fact we actually prohibit Chinese from coming to the country, and allow only a very limited number of Japanese to enter. To say that we are seeking immigrants in those countries is therefore so absurd that the statement should not be made.


John Anderson Fraser: You do not deny that you pay $8,075 for an immigration agent in Hong Kong.


Robert Forke: He is certainly not seeking immigrants.
Mr. FRASFyi: But you pay him $8,075.


Robert Forke: I will look into the matter; I did not know there was such an official. He is not an immigration agent; I do not think there is such a man. I think the hon. member is entirely wrong.


John Anderson Fraser: No, I am not wrong; I am not quoting anything wrong; I am absolutely within the facts. I will give the minister some names, good Chinese names, to support my statement. You can find these names in the Auditor General's reports. In those reports I find these two: Li Kam Hi and Fung Choy. Now what are these men being paid for? Why are we disbursing this money in this way?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Both friends of the
minister.


John Anderson Fraser: I submit that so long as our people are crossing the line on the present scale it is obvious that conditions are not what they ought to be, the Minister of Immigration to the contrary notwithstanding.


Robert Forke: With reference to that man in China, I would point out that we have to have a man there to vise the passports of people coming to this country. But that man is not seeking immigrants; he is there to prevent emigration of his own kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there must be people coming if there are passports to vise.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not for immigrants.


Robert Forke: That applies only to
students or to visitors.


John Anderson Fraser: Is there such immigration agent in India or Japan?


Robert Forke: No.


John Anderson Fraser: Why in China then?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was to find a job for a lame duck.


John Anderson Fraser: To find a job for a lame duck? Well, I will take that explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was in 1922.


John Anderson Fraser: As a matter of fact the line of our population in Canada requires broadening, and there is no section of the Dominion where the opportunities to broaden this line are as favourable as they are in northern Alberta and northern British Columbia. I submit, therefore, it is time that serious attention were given to the matter; action has been too long delayed. It is all very well to point to the number of homestead entries there are in the northern country. It is encouraging to see so many homestead entries. But it must be remembered also that the responsibility of this government does not cease when they grant a homestead entry to an intending settler. I submit, therefore, with all due respect that the homesteader should be followed up with modern facilities which will enable him to carry on in that country with a reasonable degree of efficiency so that he may be able to make a success of his labours and become prosperous.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: 
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camnose):: Mr. Speaker, while I cannot agree with the amendment that has been placed before the house by the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae), I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him on giving to the house a well thought out scheme of dealing with our very important immigration problem. I think the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Porke) stated during his debate that while he has been the subject of a great deal of criticism from time to time, the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for North

Immigration Policy-Mr. Lucas
Vancouver is the first constructive suggestion that he has received. I am sure the house will agree with me when I say that the hon. member for North Vancouver must have given a great deal of time and thought to this question, and must have gone to a great deal of expense to develop the scheme which he has placed before us.
So far as I am concerned, I must say that I cannot agree with that scheme, first because we are still quite young out in Alberta, and we have hopes that if we live to a reasonable age we will some time in the not too distant future get control of our natural resources.
I am not in favour of delegating to the Dominion government the control of a vast area in the province of Alberta for the purposes of colonization. That is something about which the province should have a great deal to say, especially with regard to the number and class of settlers that they admit. In the second place, I think the member for North Vancouver was wrong in directing his amendment only against the Department of Immigration. If we had to deal only with the amendment it might be very hard to vote against it, but it is the scheme that is outlined in connection with the amendment to which I take objection. The amendment says in part:
This house regrets the failure of the government to profit by Canadian experience in the colonization and settlement of the country and deplores the fact that men and women have, during recent months, been settled on western Crown lands at great distances from transportation, educational, hospital and other facilities, thereby making it almost impossible for them to achieve success and happiness in their new surroundings.
With that part of the amendment I think every hon. member will heartily agree, and if that policy had been adopted in the early settlement of the country I am sure we would have met with a great deal more success. It is too late now to go back to the older settled portions of the country in order to apply some of the ideas which the hon. member for North Vancouver has laid before the house. However, some of them might be adopted yet, by applying block settlement in the undeveloped sections of our country. I do not believe it is fair to the new settler to allow him to go at random hundreds of miles from the railway and then leave him stranded there, because if that is done he will not be able to make a success.
Coming now to the latter part of the amendment:
-and is of the opinion that such conditions can only be remedied by immediate reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization will not remedy the situation. This amendment should have been directed either against the whole government, or against the Department of the Interior, which has the mapping and blocking out of the homesteads. Once those lands are blocked out and put on the market, as it were, for settlers, I take it that the Immigration and Colonization Department is not responsible.
The hon. member for North Vancouver in outlining this scheme, as I understood him, said that in this block settlement a settler would receive a homestead at possibly a valuation of $1,500 for improvements; that with concentration this territory would develop very rapidly, the land would soon reach the value of improved land in older settled districts, and I think he mentioned a sum of approximately $30 an acre. In my opinion Mr. Speaker, if that plan were adopted it would mean an exodus from our older settled districts, because the man who was heavily involved, who had a heavy debt hanging over him, would be certainly well advised to throw up his farm, go into this new district and take up land where he would have an overhead of only $1,500 to start with, in the knowledge that within a very short time, because of this concentrated development, the value of the land would increase to approximately $30 an acre.
If there is any criticism to make in regard; to the government, I would say that they have not attributed to this immigration problem the importance it deserves, because until the present minister was appointed the Department of Immigration and Colonization did not have a minister of its own. It was treated more or less as a subsidiary.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the immigration question in Canada is one of the most important problems that we are faced with to-day. When we consider Canada as a young, practically undeveloped country, covering a vast area, in fact greater in area than that of the United States, with immense natural resources, capable of sustaining a population of almost unlimited numbers and at the present time with only nine or ten million people. We are now laying a foundation for the future of this country. On the foundation we are laying to-day will depend the future, and therefore to my mind the matter assumes a very great importance. With reference to criticisms of the government, I want to give credit where it is due, and I believe the present Minister of Immigration has perhaps a greater conception of what the farmer is up against than any other minister who has held that


Robert Forke: When the estimates come
up I will be able to show that the amount expended in securing immigrants is only $1,404,483.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is the rest for salaries of officials?


William Thomas Lucas: In that case the minister
must have a tremendous overhead in his department.


Robert Forke: There are many other services besides immigration.


William Thomas Lucas: Immigration Policy-Mr. Barber
facilities are hardly comparable with those on the property for the accommodation of these settlers. The commissioner's report states:
Regarding the Scots settlement on the old hygienic dairy farm (Amiens), near Gifford, B.C., I would report that though these holdings are sound farm units; the situation there is unsatisfactory; particularly with regard to the attitude of the Scots settlers towards the financial responsibilities they have undertaken in connection with their holdings. This situation is clearly indicated by the action of a number of these settlers who had live stock purchased for them on the under standing that specified amounts from their monthly cream cheques were paid to our Vancouver office in reduction of their indebtedness and had made specific assignments to that end.
In reply to that I should like to point out that no settler was made aware by the Soldier Settlement Board, before signing a land agreement or purchasing a family cow, that such assignment was required, nor did he understand fully what was really meant; otherwise not one of those land agreements would have been signed. In most cases settlers had three or four cows and were then confronted with a demand for an assignment before further stock and equipment would be purchased. They point out that clause 2 of the agreement of sale states quite explicitly that no demand for payment would be made until the 2nd October following the settler signing the agreement. One man points out that he came out in 1926 and a demand was made in September 1926, when it should not have been made until October, 1927. The commissioner says that the general attitude of these families is based on the old adage, that "the wheel that squeaks the most gets the most grease." I have known this community, I have visited them and been in touch with them ever since I first heard of their troubles, and I find that their general attitude is this: "Right is might" and "British justice shall prevail."
The commissioner in his report shows that these people were induced to come to Canada through misrepresentation. That was one of the charges that this community made to the minister. I should like to quote what the commissioner says in regard to that. Referring to these memoranda which were supplied to them overseas, he says:
There are statements in the letter and pamphlet that are capable of an interpretation which is not in keeping with the facts. Unfortunately, too, other statements are incorrect.
The commissioner, therefore, who was sent out to investigate this settlement, corroborates the charges made in these letters which I have read. The charge of misrepresentation is backed up by the minister's own commissioner whom he sent out to investigate.

In regard to the properties on which these people are placed, they are valued too high, and as a result the settlers cannot hope to pay for them. The whole question comes down to this, that the minister cannot expect to place these settlers on property that is valued simply from a real estate standpoint. The property should be valued on the basis of production.
I have pointed out that these men have been brought in under this scheme through misrepresentation. They are expected to meet total charges against their land amounting to from $20 to $21 an acre per year and keep their families. Many of them have suffered great hardships in order to meet their obligations. One man told me that he had a wife and seven children-


Robert Forke: Surely the hon. member knows that these men are not paying anything at the present time.


Mr. BARBER:: And they are not going to pay until they get a settlement.


Robert Forke: They cannot be undergoing very great hardship when they are not paying anything at all.


Harry James Barber: These payments ceased only last spring.


Robert Forke: They should be doing fairly well.


Harry James Barber: One man, a real good Scot right from the minister's own country, with a wife and seven children, came out under the minister's scheme and the assignment of his milk cheque left him only three or four dollars a month. He told me with tears in his eyes that he and his family had lived on bread and tea for weeks at a time. Another man told me that in 1927 he paid $483 to the board and received ia credit of $34 on principal, the balance going for interest and other charges, and he had records to show this.
In view of all these conditions, the commissioner still says that their attitude is based on the old adage, that "the wheel that squeaks the most gets the most grease". If the minister -who has boasted that he is a Scotch settler, and I am sure we are proud of that fact were himself obliged to experience the conditions under which these men are trying to make good, and were loaded down with the burdens that they bear, he would certainly do some spuealing too.
In conclusion I would say that the cases which I have dealt with prove that people are being brought to this country under conditions that are not desirable and not in the best interests of immigration. It is, in other words, mighty poor advertising. These people

Immigration Policy-Miss Macphail
write to their friends in the old country describing the conditions under which they are suffering, and this is bound largely to counteract any benefit that might come from the expenditure set aside by the minister each year for publicity.
While the minister was in my district last year I suggested that he call in and see these settlers at the Amiens farm settlement on his way to Vancouver, but he refused. There was only one conclusion I could come to, and that was that while he was perhaps proud of his race, at the same time he feared them.
In order to establish settlers satisfactorily in this country it is necessary that we should do so on a sound economic basis. That brings me to a resolution which was passed just the other day at the convention of the provincial branch of the Canadian Legion held at Chilliwack. It deals with the settlers under the Soldier Settlement Board, and reads:
That as the Soldier Settlement Board has failed to establish settlers on an economic basis, we do ask that the appointment of a royal commission to enquire into the reasons for failure and find out a remedy for this condition. We would point out that the total abolition of interest is an integral part of such a remedy, interest already paid to be applied to wiping out the principal and such further relief as equity and fair dealing would show to be necessary as to the unpaid principal. And this convention goes on record as pledging its support to the soldier settler problem both morally, financially and aggressively until such time as a committee to be appointed by the Canadian Legion is satisfied that a sufficient measure of relief has been granted.
I hope the minister will take into consideration the importance of dealing with these people in a fair and honest way so that they may become good and satisfied citizens of our country.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I think the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Baiber) is the best possible argument against the adoption of the scheme proposed by the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae).


Harry James Barber: It is already adopted.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Then why get into another? If we can get out of the thing we are in, let us not try it again. I thought on Sunday that I would read something that was heavy and yet- something with humour, and so I read the speech of the hon. member for North Vancouver containing his proposal and the minister's reply, and in them I got both food for thought and a good deal of amusement. The hon. member for North Vancouver has certainly Studied the subject, but
he has studied it as some people have studied farming

from an arm chair. He talks like a promoter to me. His speech read like a prospectus. It would almost convince one who knew that the thing would not work.
I have no doubt at all that the hon. member for North Vancouver is very honest, very clever, and a very estimable gentleman, but he talks of these farmers as though they were inanimate objects, and sometimes I think that farmers must be almost inanimate objects or they would do something to this House of Commons. I wish they could sit in the galleries and hear the words of wisdom that drqp frm the lips of hon. members. It seems a pity that such wisdom should be entirely lost. At least the farmers would learn from them a lot about farming that they never learn in actual experience. By listening to the speech of the hon. member for North Vancouver-a lengthy and careful speech, which I did not hear as I was not in the house, and I do not know whether or not he read it; there seems to have been some question about that-they would certainly have heard much about farming that they had never heard before. I say again that the arguments made by the member for Fraser Valley are the best possible arguments that could be made against his scheme. After having read his argument carefully and having read the amendment I could not see that the one bore any relation to the other. That may be because I am stupid, or because there was no relation between them. When I vote against the amendment it is not that I am voting against the amendment but against the scheme.
I am veTy glad that we still have some unsettled fertile land in Canada that has not yet been broken up and is overgrown with weeds. Let us have it there until we can make good use of it. I am not in too great a hurry to do it. I say that the farm is not a paying proposition and anybody who believes it is should try it and see whether it is the paying proposition that these clever gentlemen think it is before we bring in more farmers to compete with those already here. To do so is not sound sense. To-day farming is a hobby which is pursued by about three classes of people-by the class of people who have made a lot of money out of other people which they do not know what to do with; by people who farm because they like it so much that they would rather do that and make less money than do something else and make more; by people who are caught by force o>f circumstances from which they cannot free themselves. I think that corars
2874	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Miss Macphail
the lot. As a farm representative I could not sit silent while a lot of what I think was poor twaddle was being talked. I had prepared a speech, on immigration, and I .filed it away so carefully that I cannot now locate it, so I shall only speak briefly and say what I feel should be said
As a farmer representative I cannot help to put over a scheme which will still further lower the standard of living on farms. If we want to make Canada more prosperous, then let us bring in lawyers. I do not know of anything we need more in order that their services will not cost so much. Let us bring in more doctors; let us bring in bricklayers and carpenters; let us bring in judges; let us bring in people who are well paid, and let us share our prosperity with them. But let us not bring in people and try to put them on farms where people like my peoplet, who are pioneers, cannot make a decent living on the land, and every one in the house Who knows anything about farming knows that that is true. What is the use of bringing in more people to put them in a' condition like that? What we are actually doing through our general policy in Canada is to over-industrialize Canada instead of trying to help agriculture. The manufacturers, transportation people and bankers are the people who get the best break in Canada. Our immigration policy reminds me of a person who is constantly having a hemorrhage of his purest blood and trying to keep his health up by having a blood infusion. It is poor preventive medicine, but that is the kind of thing we are doing in the Dominion of Canada.
Who are the people who want immigrants? The railways want immigrants. The banks want immigrants. The manufacturers want immigrants, and theTe are a few farmers who want cheap labour and think they can get it that way. These people who want immigrants want to bring in more and more of them, and- the greener the immigrant the richer the harvest. I think if your take those groups of people out you would not have anybody who wanted to pour immigrants into this country.
I had the privilege of addressing some sixty gatherings in western Canada last year, and twenty odd in Ontario, and I found that the people were more interested in this subject than any .other. If you could have heard some of the real farmers laugh at the members of parliament over this subject, and at the government-well it was refreshing to my soul.
I want to propose an immigration policy for the Minister of Immigration. I do not want to' be destructive, so I will attempt to be 
constructive. I would not spend one dollar of state money on immigration-not a dollar. I would do nothing to induce people to come to this country. The Minister of Immigration has stated that the most of what he heard was destructive, not constructive. I should like to recall to the mind of the minister this very proposal that was made time without number in our own caucuses and at our own conferences before he saw fit to cross the floor of the house, and had he taken with him the wisdom he found there he would be even a better minister of immigration than he is-and at that he is better than the one we had before. That as the opinion that is held by farmers throughout Canada. They do not want to see money spent on immigration. I remember a speech that was made one time, quite near morning, by the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). I am not sure whether it was in 1922 or 1923, but if the Minister of Immigration wants to read about farm conditions let him get that speech and read it. I have not heard as good a speech on the subject since.
If I were going to spend any money on immigration I would spend every bit of it on inspection, inpecting those who come into Canada, in order to see that we got the very best. And I would not go fishing for those, either, telling them a whole lot of things that have not even a resemblance to the truth. I remember last year the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. WoodSworth) stating that domestics were induced to come to Canada by telling them there were three hundred thousand surplus men in Canada. What a terrible disappointment must have awaited some of the new women! But if we are to have immigrants coming into this country I would have a very rigid examination of them to see that they were physically healthy and that they were mentally sound, We have not had a careful enough or rigid enough inspection of the people that we have let into Canada in the last few years, although I think it has been a little more rigid than it was before. But even yet, if some of the specimens I have seen coming in this year are general, then all the worse for Canada. And so I would be very, very careful about the kind of people that we let in. But as a farmer representative in this house I must again protest about having only farmers and domestics come in. Let all classes come in who want to come if they are physically and mentally fit, and I would not restrict it to any one nation. What we need in this country is a virile people, people who are not

Immigration Policy-Mr. Irvine
afraid to face the climate we have or afraid to face any condition, and who can adapt themselves to new environment.
The wheat crop of the world for 1928 exceeded the crop of 1923, which was a bumper crop by 300,000,000 bushels. We need not go on thinking that we can continue increasing our output of wheat without affecting the price of wheat, as I think wheat prices are beginning to show. I want to quote very briefly from a speech made by George Mclvor, who is the general sales manager of the Canadian wheat pool. He says:
I do not wish to overemphasize the large production of grains in 1928, as the other side of the picture, namely, the very heavy consumption of wheat this year, is very important, but I do wish to make it perfectly clear that the supply of bread grains relative to the demand for same is considerably larger than last year and, of course, it naturally follows that the supply will be disposed of at lower prices than those prevailing a year ago.
Any sensible person who knows that if you increase and increase your production you will finally decrease or lower your prices. People after all can eat only so much, and while it is true that when the standard of living begins to rise in the oriental countries there will be more bread grains consumed there, it is also true that as the standard of living goes even higher, as it is in this country and some other countries, less bread grains are consumed. The people use other things, and do not consume as much wheat as they did before.
A farmer who lives in my constituency was telling of an amusing experience he had with immigrants, and as a matter of fact this experience was rather coming to him. Last winter we had a long discussion on this subject of immigration. He still thought that it was a very good thing for the man who owned the land to bring in immigrants in order that he might get someone cheap to work for him, and so he proceeded to test out his own theory. He got quite a good looking and really cleveT fellow, an immigrant. He was to stay a year. He came in the fall, stayed until the beginning of seeding and then left. He tried for another, and one came to his town and he went out to get him. It was a cold and blue sort of day. The farmer met the boy, for he was nothing more than that, and brought him to where his team and wagon were and told him he would be back in a moment. When he came back the boy was missing. They instituted a search and located him. When they got near him he took to his heels and fled, and that was the last of him. So he tried a third one, and he told me without any hesitation at all that he
wished heartily this last one would follow the example of his predecessor. That is his experience, and he is now coming round to my position on the immigration problem.
I am not going to quote resolutions passed by farm organizations; the Minister of Immigration is familiar with them. He knows the position of agriculture in the matter, and as this is an immigration policy that affects agriculture, then agriculture should be consulted; they should have the say as to what is to be done. As soon as other classes are willing that their numbers should 'be * added to from other countries then they have the right to say what is to be done, but not until then.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put there are a few things that I desire to say, more particularly as this question of immigration has been one of great interest to the farmers of the west, and especially to the farmers of Alberta. They have taken such a keen interest in this question that they have never failed to notify the department from time to time, through their conventions, as to what their ideas in respect to the matter were, and I am going to take a few minutes before the question is put to emphasize to the minister and to the house one or twto of the points which perhaps have not been brought out by previous speakers as definitely as they might have been.
I note, of course, that the minister is saying that he has had no constructive suggestions. I think he made an exception of the suggestion which came from the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae). But I venture to observe that certain constructive suggestions have come from the United Farmers of the west. They may have been suggestions with which he did not agree, or he may be in a position to-night or some other time to reveal the weaknesses of those suggestions. But that they were constructive there can be no doubt, and I hope if he has overlooked them so far he will take them into his serious consideration in the immediate future. One of these constructive suggestions I can put in a very brief form.
I am not certain just exactly how much is being expended on immigration. I know we are about to vote in this house approximately $7,000,000. Some of this goes to one thing and some to another; I do not know how much goes to immigration and how much to something else. Now the minister assures us to-night, in an aside, that we shall not spend much more than slightly over $1,000,000 directly on immigration. But cer-

Immigration Policy-Mr. Irvine
tain it is that we are going to vote over $3,000,000 having to do with immigration. If only $1,000,000 of this sum is expended in the actual work of immigration and $2,000,000 close by or near to immigration, then the minister, I am sure, will have considerable explaining to do. But I do not think we can go beyond the vote of $3,500,000 in the estimates directly accounted for by immigration expenditures. Now here is a constructive suggestion which I would offer the minister- and it comes direct from the lips of the farmers of the west. Instead of continuing to spend that $3,500,000 in an immigration policy which, for a number of reasons, is absolutely futile, it would be far better political economy and far better for Canada as a nation if that amount were expended in assisting young Canadians who desire to take up agriculture. That, I submit, is a constructive suggestion. The minister may find some reasons why it should not be adopted; he may be able to show us its faults. So far he has not done so; so far as we can see, that $3,500,000 will continue to be spent in bringing to this country people who go out as fast as they come in. The minister has not said to us that he 'has given the suggestion consideration and finds it cannot be seriously entertained. However, I leave it with him as one constructive suggestion and I hope he will give us a reply, either now or during the discussion of his estimates. Before I am through I shall place on Hansard a number of resolutions passed by organizations in my own riding, as well as resolutions passed by larger organized agricultural bodies, to indicate that the question of immigration is one of great importance to them and that they do think they have at least some constructive suggestions to put forward.
May I for a moment digress to say that I am not levelling any criticism at the Department of Immigration; I fancy that department is just as efficiently run as any other. I am criticising the policy of immigration as such and I shall try to show to the minister and the house that that immigration policy does not belong to the immediate present; it is an immigration policy which had its origin in narrow class desire. There was perhaps a time in the history of Canada when that immigration policy was a great deal more serviceable than it is at the present moment, but I shall try to show that, in the light of certain developments which are now taking place in the country, to continue the present policy is utter folly.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphai!) emphasized the fact that this immi-

gration policy is a class policy. It is a class policy in its origin. It is actually believed, I understand, fairly sincerely by land speculators, that Canada will become more prosperous if more people come into the country; it is believed by railroad companies that Canada will become more prosperous if more people come in; it is believed by banks and ordinary business concerns that Canada will increase in prosperity with an increase in population. Well, we can understand these people, and perhaps from their narrow point of view it would appear to them that greater prosperity must result from an increase in population. Of course, there will be more railway tickets sold; there will be perhaps a little increase in banking; there will be more potatoes and beef and biscuits and so forth sold if our population increases in number. But looking at the question from the national point of view, it will be seen at once that this is after all a narrow class view to take of it, and those who have advocated that policy and who advocate it to-day have obviously not taken all the factors into consideration. The present immigration policy is furthermore a class policy in its effects. The Canadian policy to-day, as it is applied, is strictly speaking a class policy.
Again, the hon. member for Southeast Grey has gone so far as to point out specifically that we would not object if the Immigration department, should undertake to bring in a large number of lawyers or doctors. We can apply exactly the same argument to doctors which the hon. member for North Vancouver used in reference to the prairies. The hon. member points out, and quite properly, that there are vast areas of land that can be put under cultivation, that there is a great deal of brush that might be cut, that machines could do the cutting, with immigrants to operate those machines. No one will question that; the hon. member's analysis is perfect in this respect. But might I not point out that annually we have great waves of measles, great waves of whooping cough, great waves of flu, providing any amount of work for doctors-far more doctors than we now have in Canada. It would be as wise to advocate that we should increase the number of our doctors by means of immigration because of periodic attacks of flu as it is to say that because we have large stretches of uncultivated land we should have more immigrants. That is not sound reasoning from the economic point of view; it is perfectly logical from any other standpoint, but absolutely meaningless from the economic. I suggest, then, that some consideration must be given Canada's immi-

gration policy strictly from the economic point of view, and before I am through I shall indicate something of my meaning in that regard. It is assumed-for what reason I am at a loss to know-that agriculture can absorb almost any number of people; I believe the hon. member for North Vancouver went so far as to suggest 2,000,000 people more for the Peace River district alone. Why not make it 4,000,000? I do not see why anyone should stop at 2,000,000. If we are siure of placing 2,000,000 may we not stretch a point and make it 4,000,000?
I say it is assumed, apparently without any reason whatever, that agriculture can absorb an indefinite number of immigrants, and it is assumed, I take it, on this basis: that inasmuch as there are a great many millions of acres of land yet untilled, and many hundreds of millions of pigs yet unborn, which farmers could look after, therefore there is work for any number of farmers to do. That is the reasoning. But there cannot be an unlimited number of anything in connection with any industrial enterprise; we cannot have an unlimited number of miners, and unlimited number of carpenters, an unlimited of doctors, notwithstanding what I said a moment ago about the periodic breaking out of diseases which might provide employment, temporarily at any rate, for many more doctors than we have. These professions and classes and industrial groups cannot be increased indefinitely. How, then, is it assumed that agricultural pursuits have no limit? Who is the oracle who insists upon that philosophy? Since when has agriculture been outside the laws of supply and demand any more than carpentry or medicine? Surely no one will seriously entertain that idea. Yet there can be no other basis for such an argument. Well, if it is not true that agriculture is beyond the law of supply and demand, by what reasoning do those who advocate a continued increase in immigration, and particularly in agricultural help and agriculturists generally, come to such a conclusion as I have indicated? Just because there is land not yet cultivated? Just because there are millions of pigs yet unborn? Just because there are some places where scrub still grows? Is that an economic reason why more people should be brought in at public expense? The time has come when there should be a little more clear thinking on this question, and particularly on the part of men who come from western Canada.
Let me come now to what I regard as the important phase of the present situation. No one will deny that agriculture is passing, and
Immigration Policy-Mr. Irvine
indeed passing swiftly, through a period of development. When that development has been completed we will have an agricultural industry which will not be recognized when compared with what it is to-day. Agriculture is gradually becoming industrialized, and that process is always followed by organization, copitalization and specialization. I do not believe that any advice of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) or any advice out of the profound farming experience of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) will stay the natural evolutionary process of this great industry. Let me give the Minister of Immigration an illustration. I can take him to one of the most beautiful valleys in Canada.


Robert Forke: Is that Pipestone?


William Irvine: It is one much more beautiful than Pipestone.


An hon. MEMBER:: Pipe dream.


William Irvine: And I can show him one hundred farmers who have settled along the river there. On a cold winter's morning those one hundred farmers will get up, early of course, and they start one hundred gasoline engines to pump a few buckets of water to one hundred little groups of pigs-one gasoline engine would drown every pig in the whole valley. The industry is overcapitalized and every individual farmer is impoverished. He is endeavouring to industrialize himself and at the same time to hold on to the conditions of peasantry from which the industry has evolved. I suggest that agriculture is standing at 'the parting of the ways. It must follow the views of the Minister of Agriculture and go back to peasantry by the route of mixed farming, or else it must go forward to organization, centralization and specialization. Which of the two is it going to follow? If we are to go forward to centralization and specialization, as I believe will be the inevitable tendency, then to bring in more farmers will either put a stress upon those whom you bring in as well as uipon those Who are already here, or will drag the whole thing back to . the days of peasantry. It may be all very well to put another one hundred farmers into that valley and have every one of them start with a few cattle and pigs and a gasoline engine; that may be all right for the manufacturers of gasoline engines but it is not good business and it is not following the natural order of events in respect to the industrial development which is taking place before our very eyes. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that with proper organization, capital-

Immigration Policy-Mr. Irvine
ization and specialization there is a sufficient number of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta properly to farm every foot of land in those three provinces. Instead of trying to fill up these so-called vacant lands with individuals without money and without experience or knowledge either of the country or of agriculture, if the ministers of immigration and agriculture would lend their best intelligence and direct the country's best efforts toward encouraging better organization, sounder finance, closer specialization, greater centralization and increased output with the resultant reduction in overhead, they would be filling a long-felt want of the western agriculturist. The western farmer is in the position to-day which the small business interests were in during the time of keen competition before the great mergers took place and before industrialism was so well established. I think the Minister of Immigration said something; would he kindly say it loudly enough so that I can understand him? If it is not meant for me, of course I do not want to hear it.


Robert Forke: The hon. member has been *reading Harper's Magazine.


William Irvine: No, I have not; but if it was anything like what I am saying it was very good. I commend Mr. Harper, or whoever it was wrote the article, on having been able to appreciate the situation. That is ithe situation as I see it with reepectt to agriculture in the west, and I believe that specialization and proper organization has scarcely begun.
Then there is the question of production itself. There is no doubt that if a boot and shoe factory in Canada increased its output there would be great danger of blocking the market unless the purchasing power could be increased to an amount which would equal the increase of production. The same is trud of live stock, of dairy products, of horticultural products and of agricultural products, because none of them are immune from the law of supply and demand. It may be all very well for the railway companies, the banks, or organized business to make a great hip-hurrah about getting more people to come to Canada and go on the farms, but in doing that they are, first, reducing the standard of living of every farmer by increasing the suipply of goods without increasing the demand; and second, the country will be flooded with immigrants, progress will be blocked and we will be back to the old Russian peasantry days. If we follow our present immigration poiicy we will be going towards the days of peasantry, whereas if we follow the other we will be striving for proper organization.

I should like to read to the house a few of the resolutions which have been passed within the last month or so in the riding of Wetaskiwin. The first one, passed by Pleasant Hill Local No. 008 of the United Farmers of Alberta, reads as follows:
Resolved, that whereas, through the years we have all known cases of capable, promising, Canadian young men who wish to follow farming, but for lack of means were compelled to leave the country;
Therefore, in our opinion, while our government is evolving plans to aid British immigrants, we believe it would be wise and fair to include in such plans as much help for Canadian boys and men who desire and possess the qualifications to settle on farms.
The organization authorized the gentleman who signed this resolution, Mr. J. P. Beach, the secretary, to forward the resolution to the Minister of Immigration, and a copy was sent to myself. A similar resolution was passed by the Lacombe Women's Institute, and is signed by Mrs. E. L. Misener, secretary. Practically the same resolution was passed by the Progressive local of the United Farmers of Alberta and was forwarded here. Another resolution was sent through the Lacombe Local. This was passed by the Lakeside Woman's Institute and is signed by Mrs. Arthur Bauer.
I have another resolution which was passed at the annual convention of the United Farmers of Canada. No doubt the minister has received a copy of this, but I do not know whether or not he regards it as a constructive suggestion. I am not going to read it as a constructive suggestion, but rather as indicating that the farmers of Saskatchewan as well as of Alberta, are not satisfied with what might be called the blind immigration policy now being followed in Canada. The resolution reads:
Whereas this convention is opposed to the present method of securing immigrants;
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the federal government to appoint a national commission of inquiry with just representation thereon from organized labour and organized agriculture, that shall study the problem of immigration and assimilation from every possible angle, such commission to conduct public hearings to make provision for the attendance of representative witnesses whose testimony shall be taken under oath, and to report to parliament the conclusion reached by it and make such recommendations as in its judgment it may deem proper, and that pending the findings of such a commission, no further agreement shall be entered into by the federal government with the railroads after the present agreement has expired.
In conjunction with that resolution I would make one final constructive suggestion and offer it for the minister's consideration, namely, that he drop the present immigration

policy entirely. He may regard that as a destructive suggestion, but it would save a considerable amount of money even if nothing were done. As I suggested in my opening remarks, Canada would be better off from an economic point of view. Moreover, we would escape the difficulties which result from assisting immigration out of the taxes paid by the people, whose burden is now as heavy as they can bear without our bringing others here to compete with them in what they are actually producing, thus lowering their standard of living. I hope the minister will give due consideration to the suggestions that have come from this section of the house, and that the immigration policy which is now calling for at least $3,500,000, will be discontinued until such time as the government knows what is the best kind of policy to pursue.


Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):: 2880	COMMONS
Immigration Policy-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)
and until we do that it is idle to talk of any immigration scheme involving the expenditure of millions in bringing from foreign countries people who are not acquainted with our ways, climate or soil conditions.
The government of the day announced in its platform of 1919 the best immigration policy that I have ever heard announced, either in this house or out of it, but I am sorry to say that they have never carried it out. This country was hardly settled when there was placed' a load on agriculture to assist every other industry under the sun. That load is there to-day, and agriculture is falling down under it. The Liberal party in 1919 had a platform which, as regards tariff planks, constituted the best immigration policy ever put forward in this country, but they failed to carry it out. If they would to-day scrap the Immigration department and, so to speak, step on the gas in implementing the tariff policy enunciated in that platform, they would do more to stimulate immigration of the agricultural classes than anything else they could undertake. The farmer is up against it tc-day at every turn owing to the assisting of industry in other lines, industries that will permit no competition whatever, that will not have immigration that may affect their industry, but that are willing that the farmer shall have all the competition they can give him. At the same time the farmer must provide assistance for industry to the tune of 20, 25 or 30 per cent. Let us relieve agriculture of some of this burden. Agricultural machinery, it is true, is not taxed to any great extent, perhaps an average of 10 per cent, but many articles that are used on the farm are taxed 25 or 30 per cent and even more. Even the rough clothing that the farmer and his family wear about the farm is taxed from 30 to 35 per cent; yet the government revised the schedules only last session and left them at these ridiculously high levels. If we want to assist agriculture let us relieve it of some of the burdens it now carries for the assistance of all the other industries of this country, and we shall have done something which agriculture can appreciate and from which it will benefit. I hope the government will realize that if they would put into effect their tariff platform of 1919 they could give some relief to the farmer, and it would prove to be one of the best immigration policies that has been presented to this country in years.
Amendment negatived, on division.
Main motion (Mr. Robb) agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
[Mr. B. W. Fansher.)


IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Civil government-immigration and colonization salaries, $314,505; contingencies, $45,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister give
us some explanation of this item?


Robert Forke: The details will be found
on page 82. The number of employees provided for 1929-30 is 184; for 1928-29 it was 179, representing an increase of 5.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What are these five new
employees doing?


Robert Forke: The increase both in the
number of employees and in the amount provided for is accounted for as follows:
1 - Assistant commissioner of immigration	 $ 3,129
1 

 Stenographer Grade (3)	 1,38(1
3 - Stenographers Grade (2)	 3,249
Difference between salary voted in 1928-1929 estimates for a head clerk and salary of a chief	clerk		600
Provision for annual increases	 3,450
Additional salary for Deputy Minister	 1,000
Total gross increase	$12,790
Less:-
Amount of adjustments due to deaths, resignations, etc., in the minor classes	 3,855-
Total net increase for 1929-1930.. ..	$8,935


Robert Gardiner: May I inquire the reason for the appointment of an assistant commissioner, and what will his duties be?


Robert Forke: His duties will be to assist
the Commissioner of Immigration. We have always had assistant commissioners.


Robert Gardiner: Not last year.


Robert Forke: Oh yes. We have three,
and it has been found necessary on account of the increase in the work to appoint this assistant oommisisoner.


Robert Gardiner: I do not see any provision in the estimates for an assistant commissioner last year. This is a new appointment, and I should like to know the reason for it, and w*hat the duties of the assistant commissioner will be.


Robert Forke: The commissioner sometimes works twelve and fourteen hours a day, and sometimes on Sundays. He requires an assistant to help him. He has been very much overworked during the past year.

Supply-Immigration


Robert Gardiner: Will the assistant commissioner be located at Ottawa?


Robert Forke: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Who is the present
commissioner?


Robert Forke: Mr. Little.


Robert Gardiner: What does the commissioner do when the assistant is to assist?


Robert Forke: Of course I am not in a
position to give details as to all his duties.


Robert Gardiner: Give us some idea.


Robert Forke: He has charge of all the
technical work in regard to immigration. We have a commissioner in the west, one in the east, and one located at Ottawa, and this new assistant will be located in Ottawa. The commissioner overlooks [DOT] the whole work in regard to immigration.


Robert Gardiner: I thought that work
would have been done by the deputy minister and by the assistant deputy. Do not these gentlemen do any work?


Robert Forke: Most certainly.


Robert Gardiner: The minister must have recommended this appointment to council when his estimates were before them, and surely some explanation must have been given to council as to why a new assistant commissioner was required and what his duties will be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would be in writing.


Robert Gardiner: But the minister would surely have to give the reason for the appointment.


Robert Forke: The appointment was made
on the recommendation of the deputy minister because of the increased work. At present the staff is overworked. I know that some of them go back after dinner many nights to do their work. The appointment is absolutely necessary.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What has occurred during the last year to increase the work of the department so that an assistant commissioner is needed?


Robert Forke: There has been increased
immigration, and if my hon. friend will look through the estimates he will find other services that have brought about an increase of work. New bridges have been opened up, for instance, where immigration work has to be done. It is often overlooked that there is in the Immigration department a preventive service requiring a large number of employees.
That is a work that has to be carried on even if no immigrants come in; we still have to have officers along the border for the purpose of examining those who enter the country for any purpose. There are one or two bridges on the St. Lawrence river where we require officials for that purpose. All this has increased the work of the staff.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was tjiis appointment
made through the Civil Service Commission?


Robert Forke: Every appointment is made through the Civil Service Commission.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 28, 1929