1929-02-26

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 61, respecting the Lacomibe and North Western Railway Company.-Mr. Blatchford.
Bill No. 62, respecting The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Dickie.
Bill No. 63, respecting The Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 64, respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company.-Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 4, to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.-Mr. Howden.
First report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Cahill.
460	COMMONS
Rides of the House-Mr. Morin


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I beg to lay on
the table a copy of the report on the Montreal railway terminal facilities, by Mr. Frederick Palmer.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. S. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) moved that the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders, reading as follows, be concurred in:
Your committee have considered an order of the house dated 15th February, viz:-
"That the select standing committee on standing orders be instructed to consider the advisability of amending the standing orders so that certain estimates may be referred to a committee and so that bills reported from a standing or select committee shall be placed on the order paper for third reading after having been sufficiently debated by the house."
Your committee recommend that, during the present session, the house may refer any of the estimates to a standing or special committee, concurrently with the committee of supply, but that none of the estimates shall be concurred in by the house until reported by the committee of supply.
Your committee further recommend that, during the present session, when any bill, other than a government bill, reported from any standing or special committee, shall have been considered at two sittings and not disposed of, it shall be placed on the order paper for third reading; and when called in pursuance thereof, the question "That the bill be now read a third time" shall be put by Mr. Speaker and decided without debate or amendment.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house would do well to hesitate to pass this report.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The mover has
something to say.


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: The order of reference to the select standing committee on standing orders was two-fold. The committee was instructed to consider the advisability of amending the rules of the house, first, to enable the house to refer the consideration of certain estimates to standing or special committees, and second, so that bills reported from a standing or select committee might be placed on the order paper for third reading after having been sufficiently debated by the house.
The purpose of the first part of the reference was to expedite the business of the house by referring the estimates of some of the departments which, under the present rules,

can only be dealt with by the house sitting in committee of the whole, to standing or special committees upon which concurrent jurisdiction would be conferred, in which committees fuller and more accprate information could be obtained from the officers of the departments familiar with the circumstances of each particular item than could reasonably be expected from a minister speaking offhand on the subject from his seat in the house. The results to be expected from this new procedure would be more accurate and secure fuller information for the benefit of hon. members; and secondly, the discussion in the house would be restricted to the really contentious items, the debates thereby being materially shortened.
The committee was of the opinion that rather than amend the rules of the house at once, it would be wiser to test the expediency of the new procedure by an experiment during one session, and its recommendation is that during the present session the house may refer any of the estimates to a standing or special committee, concurrently, with the committee of supply, such estimates, however, remaining subject to consideration and report by the committee of supply.
The object of the second1 part of the reference is again to expedite the business of the house and to enable it to give a decision on private and public legislation submitted to it after such legislation has been sufficiently debated.	: vl
The house expressed itself on this matter when, two years ago, with that definite purpose in view, it amended its rules by providing that private bills considered during the hour devoted to private bills on Tuesdays and Fridays, and not disposed of, would be placed at the foot of the list on the order paper.
But the rule resorted to has proved inadequate, and to remedy this situation the committee recommends that, as an experiment, a sessional order be passed providing that dhring the present session when any bill, other than a government bill, reported from any special or standing committee shall have been considered at two sittings, and not disposed of, it shall be placed o>n the order paper for third reading, and when called in pursuance thereof the question, "that the b;ll be now read the third time," shall be put by the Speaker and decided without debate or amendment.
The committee considered that after full and free debate on the second reading and before the special or standing committee to which the bill was referred and at two different sittings of the house sitting as a com-

Rules oj the House-Sir George Perley
mittee of the whole, any such 'bill had been sufficiently debated, and that if the members of the house so wished they should be entitled to an opportunity to give a vote thereon.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, when the motion to refer this matter to the committee was brought up by the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) raised the point that it was a double-barrelled resolution. The event shows that he was correct in that respect, for there are two entirely different matters considered by the committee in this report. Would it not be possible to divide the report into two sections in order that they may be dealt with separately? Because in my humble judgment the first recommendation will be considered by all hon. members as a reasonable one; whereas the second may provoke a lot of discussion.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the only course open is to refer the report back to the committee with instructions to amend it.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, the report contains two recommendations, as the mover has said, but in them both there is evidence of a tendency to divest this house of a certain portion of its responsibilities and to hand them over to other bodies, sometimes to the cabinet, sometimes to boards, and sometimes, as in this case, to committees. But all these bodies to which we are invited to hand over our authority are not so directly responsible to the people as we .are, and they function in a way which prevents that desirable publicity being shed on their proceedings which is associated with our deliberations and actions in this chamber.
Now, there are two recommendations, and I propose to deal with them separately. The first one is to the effect that estimates may be sent to a special or standing committee, but it provides that those estimates must also go through our committee of the whole before they have any legislative sanction. It appears to me, sir, that on the face of it, if it does not go any further than that, it is a comparatively innocuous and, to tell the truth, a somewhat feeble suggestion. It reminds me of the epitaph on a tombstone in an old English graveyard erected to the memory of a three-day-old child. After stating the particulars of the infant's name and death this doggerel follows:
If so soon I would be done for,
What on earth was I begun for?
And it seems to me that if this innocuous recommendation does not really go any further, and is not intended to, what on earth was it begun for.
It will probably be said in the course of this debate, and correctly so, that this method of dealing with estimates has been a success in the case of the estimates for the Canadian National Railways. But the conditions are entirely different there from what they are in the action now proposed. The Canadian National Railway estimates represent what is entirely a national proposition. Broad policies are discussed, you have Sir Henry Thornton and his staff in attendance, and the leaders of the various groups in the house can readily agree whether the policy is a good one or not. But the other estimates are local estimates and so to speak, specialized; think of the thousand and one items that comprise the agricultural estimates, or those of the marine and fisheries or the Post Office Department -almost any of the estimates in fact other than the larger ones in connection with the national railways. Those items require local knowledge to illuminate them, as it were. As you know, the procedure now is for the minister to explain the reason for the estimate from the book that is placed in front of him. If further information is required, perhaps the over-burdened memory of the deputy minister is drawn on; but in the last analysis when it comes down to the giving of information for or against that particular item, is it not the member for the local district whose particular knowledge is relied on, and in the special committee that local knowledge will be lacking except as it may be furnished by the few members composing the committee. Now, if this proposal to send estimates to a private committee is to replace discussion in committee of the whole, then it is vicious, absolutely so. We are toldl that that is not now proposed, but I am very much afraid, sir, that it is the direction in which we will be heading if we adopt this recommendation. It is unreasonable in itself unless it is intended logically to go further.
However, to deal with what is absolutely before us, it is said to be concurrent; that is to say, that the discussion in the special committee will be additional to the discussion which will take place in this house. In that case it will be useless; if it is useless it will be wasteful and entirely unnecessary. Once upon a time an eastern potentate who had captured a city proposed to burn a valuable old library. On being remonstrated with he said: Either these books support the Koran or they are opposed to it. If they support it they are unnecessary; if they oppose it they are wicked. In either case they are superfluous. Thereupon he ordered the library to

Rules oj the House-Mr. Neill
be burned. Now, all we obtain from this recommendation, provided it is not intended to go any further, is that the overworked minister-'because he is 'busy at this season of the year-and his equally overworked deputy-who is also very busy-shall be compelled to go over all their estimates, one by one, in the fullest sense, twice, once in the special private committee-shall I call it the "hole-and-corner" committee?-and again in the full light of this house. What use will that be to anybody if the work is done twice? The answer has already been given by the mover, and will be given again: It will shorten debate in committee of the whole. That is all right, sir, as regards the estimates of the Canadian National Railways. When the three leaders in this house and the outstanding members of their parties tell us in committee of the whole, "We have looked at these estimates of the Canadian National Railways and are satisfied with them,'' I for one am quite prepared to accept their view, as I have no doubt are other members. But, as I say, the conditions are totally different with respect to what I call the local estimates. When it comes down to local matters affecting the coal mining, farming, logging and fishing interests of the constituency which I represent, I say emphatically, no; I will not surrender my right to discuss these matters; I will not surrender it to any lawyer from Winnipeg, any millionaire from Toronto, or any business man from Halifax, however worthy they may be; however much abler they are than I am in their particular spheres, they do not know the local conditions of the district I represent. I know that the time honoured gag will be trotted out-it is hoary headed in its hypocrisy: "Oh, but you can go before the committee and you will be allowed to speak there." How often have I not heard that advanced: You can go to the committee although you are not a member of it and you will be accorded a courteous hearing. Yes, you will be given a courteous hearing once; but when it comes down to butting in-to use a common expression-on every item and arguing the merits and taking an active part generally in the debate you will soon find that you are not wanted. Any member butting in-I cannot use any other word to express the idea-will find that he has as much weight there as the Hansard reporter has in the debates that take place in this chamber.
We are told that this would shorten the debate and save the precious time of the house. Well, that was the very bait that was held out to us two years ago when we sold our birthright of free speech, or a portion 
of it at any rate, for a mess of pottage. And a sorry looking mess the pottage was when we got it; to me it seemed more like the funeral baked meats of the ancient Egyptians. Certainly it was very much inferior to the life giving pottage of the days of Isaac and Esau, and indeed even inferior to what is supposed to be its lineal descendant, the brose of the modem Scot.
I would submit to the house in all seriousness that there are greater advantages to be gained by our considering every item in committee of the whole than by getting through quickly and going home, which is the main bait held out in this case. There are a good many members of this house, myself amongst them-and I am not ashamed to admit it-who exhibited great anxiety to come here and occupy the honourable position we hold, and who by hard fought campaigns and many promises secured this much sought boon. We told the people that we would do our duty to the last ditch, and so forth. Now are we getting tired and lazy? Do we want to shirk the obligations which we undertook when we came here? A few days, a week or two longer would not make any great difference. I would point out also, to put it bluntly that we are being paid for being here. I admit that the salary is quite incommensurate with the work we do, but at the same time we knew what the remuneration was when we sought the position, and if we are not satisfied to do the work for which we were sent here we should resign. I know there are scores of men in the district I represent fully as able and1 quite as willing to represent my constituency.
Another time-honoured gag will be trotted out for our delectation. When the report comes from the select private committee we shall be told1: "Now, this matter has been seriously and carefully-almost prayerfully- considered in the select committee and the house would be well advised to accept their just and wise verdict." I can recall that gag also; many a time have I heard it in this house. Let me give an illustration of what actually happened on One occasion, I was endeavouring in this house to have the report of a select committee changed. The committee had reported something and I wished to have their report amended. The chairman of the committee got up and in sonorous tones he got off the gag I have mentioned; the matter had been so carefully considered by the select committee that the house would be wise to follow that committee's "mature judgment". But this is what actually happened on that occasion. It was a small

Rules of the House-Mr. Neill
committee and the recommendation I wished was defeated by a vote of four to three. One of my friends on whom I had relied to support me was absent, however, and on my reproaching him afterwards with his absence he said he was very sorry but he had gone to have his hair cut; and because that hon. gentleman had gone to have his hair cut something of material importance to certain interests in the country had to stand over for a year or, perhaps, be abandoned altogether. That is the effect of accepting always the report of a small select standing committee.
The other night the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and my desk mate the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) told us, and it was not denied, that we were railroading divorce bills through the house at a scandalous rate. I say, it cannot be denied. And why does that condition exist? It is just a logical and direct consequence of the very system now proposed. These divorce cases used to be considered in this house in committee of the whole, but we drifted into the dolce far niente method of leaving the whole question to a select committee, with the result that divorces are now rushed through without the slightest attention being paid them. That is the natural and inevitable consequence of the same sort of system proposed in this Connection,; only in this case we are beginning in a small way and comparatively gently.
I may point out that this very practice has been tried elsewhere before. It was tried in British Columbia when I was a member of the local house, and it was never tried again. I got my estimates through, it is true, but by a method which-I have not the time now to describe to the house. But it was not desirable; it led to log rolling, most of us know what that means. Now, if the system here proposed were to be adopted I might be tempted to approach some hon. members opposite-perhaps I might select my worthy and genial friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), because at times he has evinced a certain amount of the milk of human kindness, and we are brother British Columbians-and I would say to him: " If you vote for the wise and just estimates for my district, I will vote for the rotten, unjust estimates for yours." It is to be hoped, of course, that neither the hon. member for New Westminster nor myself would yield to that temptation. Still, Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, deem it advisable every day at three o'clock to pray that we be delivered from temptation, and sometimes I wonder whether it would not be wise if you renewed the supplication at eight o'clock for fear the strength prayed for earlier in the day might have waned.
I will be nothing but frank; I admit that this recommendation as it stands, word for word, and not going 'beyond that in the slightest, is comparatively innocuous. Nevertheless it is a wedge; it is that fatal thing known to us in this house as a precedent. Why did we spend three days last week debating the question of grants for roads? We did so largely because we had this great thing behind us, precedent. Once enter the fatal path of precedent and it will soon lead us to all the evils I have suggested. Moreover it is not merely a question of passing estimates for this post office or that wharf or something else of the kind; what is valuable is the discussion that arises out of the estimates. Statements which the leaders, the cabinet ministers, hear in their offices, statements made in caucus, are almost entirely ex parte; are they not? But it is in the light of the publicity obtained in this house that the members of the cabinet get the cross current of public sentiment. It is of the greatest benefit to them, to us all and to the country at large to hear the discussions that take place even on some comparatively trivial item-arguments which would be all lost sight of in this private committee.
Let me now state my final objection to this particular recommendation. I am utterly opposed to what I call star chamber methods. There would be no Hansard in this private committee; no votes would be recorded but merely totals; no names would appear. It would be possible for the government or a member to speak one way on the hustings and vote another in the committee. I referred a moment ago to a friend who was absent from a meeting because he had to have his hair cut. Now, I do not wish to be cynical for a moment, but it might be said by those who are cynical that the government whip had suggested to him that his hair was a little long! Also it would be open to unscrupulous opponents to accuse a member of having cast a wrong vote in committee and he would not be able to prove its untruth; for a lie can always get ahead of the truth. I am very much afraid, not so much of this particular recommendation as of what it would logically lead to. Before long we will be putting our power of voting estimates into the hands of a private committee, a hole in the corner committee, one upon whose actions they cannot, will not and perhaps dare not let the God-given light of publicity shine.
'So much for that part of the report; I want now to deal with the second recommendation which is of much greater immediate importance. I refer to the recommendation with regard to the manner of dealing with private

Rules of the House-Mr. Neill
and public bills. We will do well to remember that this deals with both private and public bills; it may be a bill of a thousand pages, dealing with the Companies Act or with the Criminal Code, imposing some drastic restriction on the right of assembly or free speech. This is the course such a bill will pursue:	After going to this private committee, where no vote is recorded and where there is no Hansard, it will be brought back to this house on two separate occasions. We know that public and private bills come before this house for only one hour on two evenings a week. It may be said that the bill may be brought up on Monday and discussed all day, but if there were any suspicion that a bill would be opposed very strenuously it would not be brought up on that day. It might be brought up at ten minutes to nine or it might be brought up at ten minutes after eight; strike an average and say it would be up for one hour altogether. Two advocates of the bill may speak on it; each is entitled to speak for forty minutes, so there will not be much left of the hour. Some hon. members may have some important amendments to offer, of which they nfay have given notice; the advocates of the bill, knowing that, could make it their business to talk out the bill, and at the end of the hour it would come to the house for third reading. That would be bad enough, but it becomes much worse. The next time the bill comes up it stands for third reading, and it is proposed that there can be no amendment and no debate on the third reading; you cannot put anyone on record from the second reading until the bill has gone through. Many members vote for the second reading of a bill with the idea of offering amendments in committee, but under this system we will never get the opinions of different members because bills will be talked out of committee on to third reading with no debate and no amendments allowed.
I am anticipating the arguments which may be brought forward in favour of this method. It will be said, "Oh, he is depicting an extreme case; these things are not done now, because the good sense of the house will not allow them." Will it not? Let me remind hon. members that two years ago I was opposing the establishment of the forty minute rule;
I pointed out that if two or three obstructive questions were asked the member's time would be cut into seriously, and the answer given was that this would not 'be done, that time would be allowed) for interruptions. Upon that understanding perhaps many members agreed to the forty minute rule, but has that been the case? It has not; the rules are strictly
[Mr. Neill.3
enforced, and quite properly so once we adopted them, so do not let us be beguiled by the suggestion that the rule reads one way but that we will be allowed to do something else.
There is one other feature of the matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the house. This rule will be introduced immediately, and there are two important private bills coming up this session, the Sun Life bill and the Bell Telephone bill. I think I voted for one of them last year, so I am not particularly antagonistic to them, but I can see what may happen to these bills and I am opposed to it. When they were brought in the other day on second reading there was practically no debate, in the expectation that the debate would take place in committee of the whole. Now, unannounced, we will be deprived of that right; we cannot go back and debate the bills on second reading, so all we have (before us is two short periods of perhaps ten minutes each, after which the bills stand for third reading without debate. If this iniquitous rule is to be adopted let us at least send it back to the committee with instructions that it shall not take effect until next session.
I frankly admit that the rules were abused last session; these and other bills were deliberately obstructed. There is hardly a privilege we enjoy which is not subject to abuse at times, but because 10 per cent of the members abuse a privilege are we to deprive the other 90 per cent of their rights? Social conventions do not allow us to steal up behind a man and knock him down because we do not like the colour of his hair or the tie he wears; it is held that that is too drastic a remedy, and I submit that this rule is also too drastic for the difficulty it assumes to correct.
It may be said that I am merely offering destructive criticism, but that is not the case; I can easily suggest an appropriate remedy for the obstruction which undoubtedly occurred last year. I suggest simply the use of the rule we have had for many years, that is, the closure; that is the correct thing to do in such a case, simply put on closure. Almost every government in the world has the closure rule in some form or other, but some hon. members will say that closure is objectionable. Why, this is simply Ossa piled upon Pelion, with respect to closure; this is a hundred times worse than closure heaped up, pressed down and running over. Under closure you must give notice, and the debate can continue until two o'clock the following morning; each member is limited to twenty

Privilege-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
minutes, so that thirty or forty men may speak, but here we will be limited to perhaps two speakers. And as an aside, may I draw attention to the incoherent condition of our rules at present owing to the way we tinkered with them two years ago. Now we have one rule which says we can take a vote under closure at two o'clock in the morning and another which says we must stop the debate at eleven o'clock. Our mess of pottage is all spattered up with red tape like the seals on a Christmas parcel.
I hope the house will reject this motion altogether. The first part is only weakly evil, but it has potentialities of harm which make it undesirable; the second part is wholly poisonous and destructive, subversive of the right of free speech, both propositions are unsound in principle and will be unworkable in practice. I fully believe that not one-half the members of this house knew this question was coming up to-day, and not half of them have been made acquainted with the effect these recommendations will have if adopted, so in order to give the government and hon. members on both sides of the house an opportunity to see what they are voting on, I am going to move that this debate be adjourned. I have not solicited anyone to second my motion, but if anyone cares to do so in order that the matter may be discussed better in their caucuses or in some other way, they may do so. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion (Mr. Neill) agreed to.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) moved that the first report of the special committee for the consideration of Bill No. 4, to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, be concurred in.
Hewitt Bostock: Notice should be given of this motion. Perhaps this may serve as notice.
Motion stands.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 65, respecting the Civil Service (Restoration of Excluded positions).
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. GARLAND:: I am simply reintroducing, in general terms, the measure of last year.
This is a bill to restore to the operation of the Civil Service Act, and to place under the administraton of the Civil Service Commission, excluded positions, and also to place under the commission particular departments or branches of departments which have not as yet been placed there but which have become permanent parts of the civil service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE -MR. EDWARDS (FRONTENAC)

Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. gentleman will wait until the orders of the day are called.


John Wesley Edwards: I understand a question
of privilege is in order any time.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
correct, a question of privilege is always in order.


John Wesley Edwards: My attention has been
called to a short article appearing in a paper called the Edmonton Journal which indicates one of two things; either that paper is engulfed in the most profound ignorance, or it has a disregard for the truth. The article is headed " Changes his stand " and reads as follows:
Hon. Doctor J. W. Edwards, M.P., who led previous opposition to the western provinces securing their natural resources, free from any restriction, surprised the commons on Monday by moving a resoltion which will facilitate Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta securing a speedy return of their domains.
It is very hard for me to believe that any paper in Canada could be so ignorant of the facts. The article states that I led the opposition to the western provinces securing their natural resources, but page 360 of Hansard of February 16, 1927, shows that I moved the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this house, it is in the general interest of this Dominion that their natural resources should be transferred to the prairie provinces at the earliest possible moment, and that such transfer should not interfere with, restrict or modify the right of said provinces to complete control of their educational or other local affairs.
In my judgment that resolution is a complete contradiction of the article, and that contradiction is supported by a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that,
"The agreement would be subject to the qualification that dt should not interfere with, restrict or modify the right of the province



Preservation oj Niagara Falls
to the complete control of its educational or other local affairs. That is where the disagreement comes in."
I was not attempting to restrict the transfer in any way, as is evidenced by the words of the resolution I then moved and by the remarks of the Minister of Justice.
I would also refer to Hansard of March 26, 1928, at page 1688 where I moved exactly the same resolution which this house saw fit to adopt unanimously last week. Word for word, comma for comma, the resolution compares with the one unanimously adopted by this house.
Whether this article is maliciously intended or not, it does me a grave injustice and is absolutely contrary to fact.



PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention and protocol for the preservation of Niagara falls by the construction of remedial works and for the experimental wthdrawal of additional water from the Niagara river, which was signed at Ottawa, on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same;
And that a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house unites wth the senate in the approval of the above-mentioned convention and protocol;
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the senate.
He said: The convention ensures adequate measures for the preservation of the greatest scenic asset of America, and in addition provides a considerable supply of power in Ontario and New York on an experimental basis during the winter season when the water is most needed for power and least needed for scenic purposes.
Preliminary negotiations with respect to this convention were conducted on behalf of the government of Canada by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and on behalf of the United States government by the Hon. Mr. Kellogg and the Hon. Mr. Hoover. The Canadian government acted throughout in the closest cooperation with the government of Ontario and the Hydro-Electric Commission, both with respect to the various steps taken and with respect to the convention itself. I shall leave to the hon. Minister of the Interior the major presentation and discussion

of this matter, but it may facilitate an understanding of the one or two outstanding features of the convention and the circumstances which led to its being formulated, if I make a more or less formal statement.
In 1925-26 correspondence took place between the governments of Canada and the United States regarding the danger to the scenic properties of Niagara falls through the erosion of the escarpment. It was decided to appoint a commission to examine into this question and also into the question of the amount of water which might without injury be diverted for power purposes. The Special International Niagara Board was set up accordingly in October, 1926, and was constituted as follows:
J. T. Johnston, director of Dominion Water Power and Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior, Ottawa.
Dr. Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines, Ottawa, Major D. C. Jones, United States District Engineer at Buffalo.
Dr. J. Horace Macfarland, past president, American Civic Association, chairman of the Fine Arts Commission of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Johnston and Major Jones were the members of the International Board of Control established in 1923 to supervise and control the diversion of water authorized under article V of the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909.
Dr. Camsell was specially qualified to deal with the geological factors involved in a study of the recession of the falls, and Dr. Macfarland has been for many years a leader in the movement for the preservation of all natural scenic beauties. The services of specialists in the analysis of colour and light effects were also secured.
The special board has presented an interim report, which has been published by the Department of the Interior, and is completing its final report, which will present the technical details on which the recommendations were based.
The board found that the scenic qualities of the falls were being injured by various factors:
(i)	The natural recession of the falls through the eating away of the crest, which has been going on since prehistoric times and which measurements since 1842 show to have been at the average rate of 3.7 feet a year in the Horseshoe falls;
(ii)	Variations in the level of the lakes;

Preservation oj Niagara Falls
(iii)	Withdrawal of water for power purposes.
The board, however, found that there was no basis for the fear that the Horseshoe falls was likely to disappear through the deepening of the notch in the centre. The chief injury lay in the baring of the flanks of the crest line and the thinning of the sheet in certain parts. They concluded that with adequate supervision and control the scenic beauty of the falls could be preserved in perpetuity and that by suitable remedial works, particularly excavations and submerged weirs, the water could be distributed over the bared flanks, erosion modified and the present scenic beauty enhanced.
The works proposed were estimated to cost $1,750,000. Following the publication of the boards report, the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the Niagara Falls Power Company of New York submitted an offer to construct the works recommended, under government control, conditional upon their being allowed to utilize, during the winter season only, 10,000 cubic feet of water per second on each side of the river in addition to the diversion permitted under the Boundary Waters treaty. The special Niagara board reviewed this offer and recommended its acceptance with some amendments, limiting this experimental diversion to seven years and providing for continuous regulation by the International Board of Control, with ' supervision by the special board of four members of the effect of the construction of the remedial works and the experimental withdrawals.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, under the proposed remedial agreement with the United States, the United States are going to secure 42,000 second cubic feet of water. Under the Boundary Water-' ways treaty the United States is entitled to
20,000	cubic feet of water a second and Canada to 32,000 second cubic feet, of which Canada exports 12,000 cubic feet of water a second. The result is that when this treaty is passed and the quantities are totalled, the United States will have 20,000 plus 12,000 plus a new
10,000,	or a total of 42,000 cubic feet of water a second while Canada will receive only 32,000 less 12,000 plus 10,000, or a total of 30,000 cubic feet of water a second. It is extremely problematical whether these remedial works will, from an engineering standpoint, have the effect which it is said they are going to have.
What I fear is this: the report says:
All the plans for remedial works hitherto suggested have contemplated replenishing the flow over the flanks of the Horseshoe fall and in the American channel and at the head of Goat island.
Now they are going to divert the water out of the Horseshoe falls. The main flow of water is on the Canadian side, and Canada is entitled to that waiter and the power developed from that flowing water. She is not, however, going to get it, according to the figures I have given. I am afraid they are going to get that water over to replenish the American falls and make it more beautiful at the expense of Canada, because Canada is not being properly protected and safeguarded. The report says:
Certain plans, including those for the construction of a curved weir across the main part of the rapids above the Horseshoe, and those for distributing the flow by numerous islands in the rapids, have had for their main object a radical reduction in the heavy flow over the central part of the Horseshoe. The premises upon which the assumed necessity for such a reduction has been based are:
First: That the American falls are more beautiful than the Horseshoe-
In my opinion that is not correct.
-and that consequently the general effect would be enhanced by thinning out the latter so as to make it similar to the former;
Second: That the Horseshoe is in danger of committing suicide and that the proposed thinning out would materially check the erosion; and
Third: That such works would have available additional water for power purposes.
The treaty is no doubt all1 right as regards the legal side of it and the question of policy, but I feel we are being goldr-bricked and I am objecting to some of the details. What I fear is that they will get this Water out of the Horseshoe falls; it will go down by Goat island and on to the American falls, which have dried up and they will beautify and replenish the American falls at the expense of the Horseshoe and of Canada. The height of that fall is 160 feet and there is practically no water passing over the American fall today. These are boundary waters and Canada's rights should be protected. If these remedial works are going to have the effect which, in my opinion, Canada should have, there should be additional safeguards in this agreement. From an engineering standpoint, the main flow of water will be diverted from the Horseshoe falls over to the American falls and the people of the United States will get the water. If we are going to preserve the beauty of the falls, why was a treaty not made


Mr. MANION:: I should like to ask as
to the cost of the special Niagara board which the Prime Minister mentioned, and the salaries, if any, of the new members.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: They are
all civil servants, so they are getting no additional salary.


Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, while the reference and the report as issued by the special Niagara board are supposed to deal, and do deal, primarily with the preservation of the scenic beauty of Niagara falls, the main urge, I declare, is the question of power. The state of New York and the body in the state of New York that was especially created to protect the scenic interests, the Niagara State Reservation, own the bed of the Niagara river from the international boundary to the American side. They also own, and claim to own, the water, and they get a rental for the water. On this side of the river, from the boundary to the Canadian side, the bed of the river in front of the park is owned and vested in the Niagara Parks Commission, and they also get a rental for the water. They also own the water; that is the claim, and it is not disputed.
This new special Niagara board, which was appointed, as the Prime Minister says, in October, 1926, worked for one year and two months on this proposition of preserving the scenic beauty of Niagara, and during all that time they never thought it worth their while to consult with the state authorities of New York, as represented by the government of that state, nor with the State Reservation authorities. I am not going to refer particularly to the fact that during that year and a half, although the Niagara Park Commission was especially appointed for the preservation and conservation of both the falls and the gorge, this special board took up only twenty minutes of our engineer's time in that year and a half, or year and a quarter.
I want the house to know how the state of New York feels about this situation. I know that the Prime Minister will say that
the province of Ontario is satisfied because he had a letter from the premier of Ontario saying that he was satisfied. But the point I want to make clear to the house is this, that the urge is power, because these gentlemen never applied for any assistance to the people who are especially endowed with knowledge as to the conservation of the falls. On the contrary, they immediately applied themselves to the power people, and they made their arrangement at once with the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario, and with a privately owned power corporation on the other side. Let me show how the governor of the state of New York feels about this question. A few days ago under date of February 11, 1929, that is this month, he addressed a letter to Senator Wagner, regarding the water diversion at Niagara falls. He says:
I have delayed answering your letter of February 2nd for several days because it brings up a matter very vital to the interests of the people of the state of New York.
You ask me three specific questions in regard to the attitude of this state concerning the convention signed -at Ottawa between representatives of the United States and the government of Canada in relation to the diversion of water in the Niagara river above Niagara falls.
This convention is intended primarily to preserve the scenic beauty of Niagara falls by preventing rapid erosion of the centre of the crest of the falls through erection of weirs or other structures in the bed of the river above the falls on both the New York side and the Ontario side, thus diverting sufficient water to the wings of the falls.
This convention is the result of careful study made by the International Niagara Board, and this board worked out a plan under which an offer of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the Niagara Falls Power Company, a private corporation of New York state, was recommended for acceptance. Under this offer the Ontario commission and the New York private corporation agreed to build the necessary weirs and structures in the bed of the river and asked in return the use, for a period of seven years, during the six winter months of each year, of 10,000 cubic feet per second of water on each side of the river. It is estimated that this 10,000 cubic feet per second on the American side would enable the Niagara Falls Power Company to develop between 80,000 and 100,000 horse-power.
First of all I want to call your attention to the important fact that quite aside from the merits of this proposal the state of New York was in no way invited to participate in the discussions attending this proposal; to the second important fact that the proposed weirs and structures would have to be erected on the bed of the Niagara river owned by the state of New York, and to the third important fact, that use of ten thousand cubic feet per second proposed to be withdrawn depends on the consent of the state of New York to that withdrawal and to the satisfying of the state

Preservation of Niagara Falls
of New York that if it is withdrawn the people of the state are to receive an adequate rental for this water.
In regard to the three categorical questions you asked me, I beg to advise you as follows:
(1)	In pursuance of its long standing policy the state of New York requires that its consent is prerequisite before any disposition can be made of the additional ten thousand cubic feet per second of water made available for power development by the convention.
(2)	In pursuance of the same policy of long standing the state of New York requires a charge for the use of such additional water, said charge or rental being determined in pursuance of the statutes of the state.
(3)	In your other question you ask whether the state accepts the proposal to have the work of preserving the falls, undertaken at private expense, and at the same time making available for private utilization by the Niagara Falls Power Company of the additional water to be diverted under the convention for a temporary period.
A careful reading of the proposed convention discloses the fact that the letter of the secretary of state transmitting the convention refers to a protocol to be agreed to between the United States and Canada. The protocol itself is appended to the convention and the protocol refers to the recommendations of the International Niagara Board. In other words, the three documents must be read together, and it becomes at once clear that the treaty itself is essentially an agreement to carry out a specific plan heretofore adopted. If the state of New York offers no objection to the ratification of the treaty by the Senate of the United States, the state may by inference be bound to the acceptance of the plan worked out between the International Niagara Board on the one side and the Ontario Power Commission and the Niagara Falls Power Company on the other. My easiest course as governor would have been to ask you and your colleagues in the United States Senate to oppose the ratification of the treaty as strongly as possible on the ground that the treaty ties the hands of the state of New York as to the methods by which the beautification and diversion can be arrived at, and forces the ^tate to accept the offer of the Niagara Falls Power Company.
I think that I can speak for the whole state in telling you that we want to co-operate with the federal government and the congress of the United States in every way possible to aid in the preservation of the scenic beauty of Niagara falls and the Niagara river. That is why instead of direct opposition to the ratification of the treaty, I have tried, in a spirit of co-operation, to enter into a plan by which the scenic beauty of the falls can be preserved and at the same time all of the rights of the people of the state of New York in and to their property and governmental power can be equally retained.
After a number of conferences, I am glad to say that I have been able to obtain-
It will be noted, Mr. Speaker, that he does not rely on the federal government; he goes to the power company and makes them come to time.
After a number of conferences, I am glad to say that I have been able to obtain from 
the Niagara Falls Power Company a written stipulation duly executed by it, which stipulation fully preserves the property rights and governmental authority of this state.
I might note the following facts in regard to the Niagara Falls Power Company:
(1)	It is the only private company now in a position immediately and economically to utilize the proposed experimental diversion of the additional ten thousand cubic clear in this matter.
(2)	The Niagara Falls Power Company has for a number of years been paying a rental to the state of New York for the water which it is now using.
(3)	The Niagara Falls Power Company has paid this rental to the state under protest.
The stipulation signed by the Niagara Falls Power Company agrees that if it is allowed to use for seven years the additional water obtained from this experimental diversion it will-
First: Withdraw all objections to the payment of the rental now being charged by the state for existing water, and
Secondly: Will agree to pay such equitable rental for the additional experimental supply as may be determined by the state under the water-power act, and
Thirdly:	Will recognize the necessity of
obtaining a license from the state for the use of this experimental water.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has the Niagara board done to protect the interests of the only people who have the right to collect rentals as far as Canada is concerned? They have done absolutely nothing. You in this parliament, under this treaty, would give the Niagara board authority to divert this water without saying one word about the rentals payable to us, although that water belongs to us under the power vested in us by the province. "Oh, yes," the minister will say, " but the province of Ontario should have looked after that." Well, I am looking after it now. I do not know whether it should be our duty to go to the other people the same as the state of New York has done with respect to the power company over there and insist upon their giving us a special agreement. But the Niagara Park Commission owns the bed of the river on which these improvements are to be made. Under the treaty, through the board you have appointed, you say: We will get a permit. But what will be done suppose the permit is refused? They say: We will wait for the improvements until the permit comes. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the government were making this treaty they should have taken the facts of the case into consideration and not allowed the situation to get into this mess. The state of New York has taken the bull by the horns, it has gone to the private corporation

*Preservation oj Niagara Falls
and said: Do this or we will not let you make any improvements. The private corporation has done so and come to an agreement with the state. We are not in the same position.
It is the duty of this parliament to protect the park commission.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask for information-do the Hydro commission pay your board any rental for the water diverted?


James Dew Chaplin: Oh yes; the Hydro, along with all the other power companies, pay a rental for the water to and through the park commission. We are the riparian owners.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer for a moment to the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909, the treaty under which the power was originally diverted in a large quantity, and to point out to the house how the wording in relation to the water to 'be taken out is identical with the wording of the present treaty. Let me quote:
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the state of New York of the waters of the said river above the falls of Niagara for power purposes not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of twenty thousand cubic feet of water per second.
I should like to ask either the Minister of the Interior or the Prime Minister what that means. I take it to mean that at no time during each day can you use more than twenty thousand cubic feet of water per second. That is how it reads. The new treaty provision is in identically the same words, only that an additional ten thousand cubic feet per second may be diverted. In the interpretation of the treaty usually the courts are resorted to to elucidate or explain what may be in doubt; but in this Case we have a board that does this for us. I do not think they ever had the authority but they are doing it, and I want to call the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the fact that at the present time in the Niagara river, under the clause that provides for 56,000 cubic feet per second, 20,000 for them and 36,000 for us, more water is being taken than they have a right to receive. This board is allowing what they call a leeway or swing of 20 per cent, and they figure that, because their average over a certain period does not go beyond that therefore they are all right. But the treaty calls for 56,000 cubic feet, 36,000 on the Canadian side, and at no time must this be exceeded. One of the troubles there is accounted for partly by the fact that at times more water is ta,ken than should be. That is why I said a little while ago that the urge was power.
I do not think that this is a matter which should be left to any board to determine. The treaty is quite explicit as it stands, that so much water shall be taken and no more. Let me confirm what I said regarding the new treaty, with reference to clauses 2 and 3 wherein it is provided that the additional diversion to be permitted within the State of New York shall not exceed in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second. The same applies to Canada.
Another question that arises is this. The Prime Minister says, "This water is being taken during the winter season at a time when tourists cannot see it." Let me say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) as well, who is responsible for the treaty, that they are taking that water at the time when it is lowest. And there are thousands of visitors there. Perhaps they do not know that. But it is a fact that between the very dates when they propose to take the extra water the water is then at its lowest in lake Erie. They say, of course, that this is during the period when there is no tourist traffic, when the tourists will not be able to notice the diminution in the water. But, I repeat, they are taking that extra water at a time when the falls can least afford to have it taken. In clause 1, on page 3, it is provided that additional diversions shall be permitted only within the period beginning each year on the 1st day of October and ending on the 31st day of March of the following year, both dates inclusive. Well, as I have pointed out, the period within these very dates mentioned here is the period of low water, and that is the time they expect to take the extra water. And they camouflage the whole situation by declaring that this is the time when tourists cannot see the water; if there is any shortage of water, they claim, people will not be there to notice it.
The Prime Minister has said, and the Minister of the Interior also will say, that this board has great power. They will tell us, "We can stop it at any time we see fit." I ask the house this question:	Is it a good
policy to allow private individuals, private corporations to go on and do extensive work and then tell this house that they will be stopped before they have a chance to get back their capital investment? That does not sound very good to me. The very fact that you allow private corporations to invest their money implies that there will be always the urge on their part to seek to get back their money. This enterprise should have been undertaken by the federal authorities on
472	COMMONS
Preservation of Niagara Falls [DOT]
both sides of the river so that they could be independent of any private or semi-private corporation.
Now just a word or two with regard to the remedial works. I would invite attention to page 25 of the document giving the map of the falls; there you will see an airplane picture of the falls. In two places in the river submerged weirs have been put in. Now the beauty of the falls is partly in the rapids above the falls. This picture shows the rapids all in white water, and if you glance at the Canadian side of the picture you will see in two places the effect of the submerged weirs, over a large area. Wherever the weirs are put in, you have perfectly smooth water, and I for one am very dubious about putting in submerged weirs as a means of producing a good scenic effect. The beauty of that river lies in the broken water, and where you have a submerged weir, with water smoothly flowing over it, you have not that effect.
The park commission have had this matter under consideration for the last twenty years. They made the suggestion that some islands should be put in in place of submerged weirs. We saw the effect of the weirs and did not like it, and so we asked that this suggestion be considered. It was passed over in a few words. Let me give you the exact words of the report. They are not attributed to the park commission, but the language is so framed that we felt it constituted a statement of the case which was not in accordance with our views. On page 12 of the report this statement is made with respect to remedial works:
All the plans for remedial works hitherto suggested have contemplated replenishing the flow over the flanks of the Horseshoe fall and in the American channel and at the head of Goat island. Certain plans, including those for the construction of a curved weir across the main part of the rapids above the Horseshoe, and those for distributing the flow by numerous islands in the rapids, have had for their main object a radical reduction in the heavy flow over the central part of the Horseshoe.
So far as I know, no one else but the park commission ever mentioned islands in any report. But these gentlemen add the word "numerous". We took exception to that before it was published; we told them that we had never mentioned the word "numerous" and we asked them to withdraw that word. They had that letter from us before the report was published. They had furnished us with a proof of the report two or three days before its publication. When they found we made objection to it they suddenly withdrew it, having left it in our hands for an hour, but they dated the report three days earlier than our letter. The report was pub-
lished under date of December 14 while our letter, written to them with the proof of the report, was dated December 17, and they left the word just as it stood although we never referred to "numerous" islands. Anyone can see the effect of islands; if you look at the maps you will see islands in the river to the right of Goat island. There are three or four islands there, and certainly they look a lot better than any submerged weir, and will continue to look better.
The fact remains that this Niagara board never consulted us and never took up more than fifteen or twenty minutes of the time of our engineers during the year and a quarter they were there. I do not know the gentlemen who comprise the board, but I do know their work. Some of them are engineers, no doubt quite competent, and they view the question from a practical engineering standpoint. The park commission have something more than that to look after; we have consulted the best scenic authorities in America and have had them on the ground giving us advice. I cannot find in any of the reports or from any of the men that there is a scenic man on this board. An engineer may say, "Oh, we have a scenic man" referring to Mr. Maefarland.	I dispute that; Mr. Macfarland is a publisher and for a long time has been identified with the publishing business.
I have kept a record of Mr. Maefarland for a number of years, and here is a very strange thing. I guess in the United States they proceed as we do in Canada; here if a man wishes to abolish the senate he is appointed to the senate, and as soon as he receives his appointment he changes his mind about abolishing it. This gentleman for many years hammered the board for certain things they were doing and for taking water out of the Niagara. I have some of his work here, and when it was proposed to take 56,000 cubic feet from the river he went almost crazy. He even published pictures of Niagara falls running dry about fifteen or twenty years ago, with 56,000 cubic feet taken from it, but after being appointed to the board this same gentleman changed his mind and is now willing to take 20.000 cubic feet more from the river when there is less water going over than before. That is pretty good, I would say. Let me refer to just one of his articles, published when he belonged to the American Civic Association. It is headed:
The Impending Destruction of Niagara Falls. This is dated 1905, when the agitation was going on, and when it was intended to take

Preservation ol Niagara Falls
56,000	cubic feet from the falls. The article proceeds:
Ten power-developing companies (four American and six Canadian) now have authority to utilize 35i per cent (1,339,500 horse-power) of the effective power of the falls. . . .
If even half the authorized amount of water is withdrawn above the cataract, the American rapids will be entirely bare of water	
You can see that this gentleman was not very much of a prophet; he did not see what was going to take place and certainly he could not have believed his statements of a few years ago when he can consent to the withdrawal of an additional 20,000 cubic feet from the falls. I have a whole book full of material having to do with this gentleman; he is a publisher, and is no more entitled to have the word " scenic " attached to him than I am, and perhaps not so much. So far as I am concerned I have lived with this proposition for some twenty years during which I have been on the board, and we have been grappling with it all the time. He has been fighting it in the United States, but now he turns around and comes out in favour of the diversion of more water.
I started out by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the whole thing was a power proposition, and I ask that the government of Canada go slow and be very careful in what they do at Niagara. Personally I believe something can be done; whether or not you are on the right track I do not know, but as I have already said you have no right to ask a private corporation to spend their money on a proposition of this kind, because they must get that money back. That is the point I want to convey; they must get that money back and the impulse which will come to any one in charge is to give them a chance to do so, which is not in the best interests of scenic Niagara.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly interested in the statement made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) with respect to the remedial works proposed to be placed in the Niagara river to preserve the scenic qualities of the falls, as well as to provide for a temporary diversion of 20,000 cubic feet divided equally between the two countries. I did intend to give a somewhat lengthy and detailed explanation of the whole matter, but in view of what has been said by the Prime Minister, supplemented by the remarks of the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken, I think I oan dispense with that.
In 1922, when I became Minister of the Interior, one of the first questions presented to me was this problem of the preservation
of the falls. My hon. friends have stated that it has been a matter of controversy for years, and I think wisely so, from my own observations and speaking from what I have been able to observe at Niagara falls. Neither the hon. member for Lincoln nor the other speaker will deny that gradually, year by year, the concentration of the flowage there is getting through the Horseshoe and that there is not the same recession on the other parts of the crest of the falls. So much is that the fact that the water has practically ceased to flow next to Goat island, and for a large part of the year the whole crest line is exposed for a considerable distance from Goat island towards the Horseshoe. Naturally this has caused some concern.
Here and now I want to say that no one regrets it more than I do if the board appointed by the provincial government of Ontario for the purpose of preserving the park and the scenic qualities of the falls was not fully consulted and presented with every detail ascertained by the engineers of both governments. First let me say that no one can negotiate a treaty but the federal government at Ottawa and the federal government at Washington. If there is to be any change, of necessity these two governments must take the responsibility of making the treaty, and I do say that the first duty of a minister, the advisor of the federal government, is to keep himself fully in touch with the provincial governments affected. It is needless for me to say that the provincial government of Ontario would be vitally affected by any change which might take place in connection with this matter. We took the precaution of keeping very closely in touch with them and also had the advice of the Hydro engineers during the whole of this investigation. They played as large a part in arriving at the conclusion as did our engineers. In addition, there was complete collaboration with the American engineers before any definite program was laid dawn as to the purpose for which the board was created. Early in 1923 we directed our attention to the very matter which my hon. friend complains about, namely, that we were rapidly approaching a period when the power interests on both sides of the river would have full utilization of the 56,000 cubic feet per second provided for in the former treaty. We had not taken the precaution of ascertaining how much water was being used on our side, so we immediately set about that task and informed ourselves as to the flowage passing through these plants, and obtained full data on that particular question. In 1923 or 1924 -I am not exactly sure of my date-I visited

Preservation of Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls and saw a panorama which had been made up-no doubt my hon. friend has seen the same thing-by the American engineers. The water was turned on this model and showed the proposed improvements in order that, we might see just what the effect would be.


James Dew Chaplin: You are referring to the
miniature falls on the other side of the river.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: That was prepared by the power company.


Charles A. Stewart: That is quite right, but it was very interesting to see what the effect would be.


James Dew Chaplin: They were using islands
in place of submerged1 weirs.


Charles A. Stewart: On the only occasion I saw it I was informed that they were going to experiment with submerged weirs rather than with the islands.
In 1925, after having discussed this matter with the American government, we appointed a board to make a complete study of the question. With the jurisdiction of the state of New York or that of the province of Ontario or of the board or boards entrusted with the responsibility of preserving the scenic beauty of these particular areas, I, as a representative of the federal government, was not concerned. I confined my own discussions to the province of Ontario, and more especially to the officers of the Hydro who are very large users of the power on the Canadian side. If the Ontario Hydro are paying rental for the water already used by them I see no reason why they should not pay rental for the additional water provided for under this treaty. However, that is a matter to be dealt with by my hon. friend's board and the Ontario government; that is something which does not concern us.


James Dew Chaplin: How about the state of New York?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know anything about what arrangements exist in the state of New York: I had no dealings with that state at all.


James Dew Chaplin: I never said you had, but you gave the board you appointed authority to act.


Charles A. Stewart: It was undoubtedly the duty of the American representatives on that board to inform themselves on every phase of the question.


James Dew Chaplin: It was the business of the
Canadian members to do the same thing.


Charles A. Stewart: It may have been an oversight on the part of the board, but I would say ito my hon. friend that the body i ho appointed himself and his board were consulted on every occasion.


James Dew Chaplin: I know that to be the case, and I stated so when I spoke.


Charles A. Stewart: In dealing with the United States government we were dealing with those with whom we were making the treaty we were not making a treaty with the state of New York. We could not make a treaty with the state of New York, and if there was a difference of opinion between the American engineers charged with the responsibility of making a report to their government and the state authorities, I have no knowledge of the fact nor do I think it is of any particular interest to this house.


Mr. GEARY:: Will the minister state on what ground the government of Canada thought they could deal with this matter? Was it a question of the peace, order and good government of the Dominion, or in what way did the Dominion profess to deal with it?


Charles A. Stewart: It is the only way it could be dealt with; it certainly could not be dealt with by the Ontario government.


George Reginald Geary: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. You are dealing with a province in a matter that does not involve any question of a navigable stream, and I want to know under what Dominion jurisdiction the minister acted.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not consider it necessary to cite any particular statute or clause giving us authority. Having the assurance of the premier of Ontario, and of the manager of the Hydro that this treaty was entirely satisfactory, before we attempted to negotiate the treaty, I thought I was on safe ground in advising the government.


George Reginald Geary: Has the government any binding form of consent or authority from the provincial government to deal with the lands in question, the river bed and that sort of thing? I would be very glad if the minister would say just how that consent came about.


Charles A. Stewart: Remedial
works in question are to be undertaken by the Hydro, who are parties to the treaty and who, I assume, are the creation of the

Preservation of Niagara Falls
provincial government and have that government behind them. I say to my hon. friend that the authority which oreated his board is in agreement about these remedial works proposed by the treaty.


George Reginald Geary: By letter, resolution, order in council or what?


Charles A. Stewart: By letter, which I will produce if my hon. friend desires.


George Reginald Geary: I would like to have it.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not have it in my possession at this minute, but I will obtain it later on.
I do not think my hon. friend, even with his thirty years' experience, is competent to say what engineering works are necessary to bring about this desirable result. These works are the result of the best judgment of a corps of engineers most of whom are of outstanding ability. Doctor Camsell is not an engineer but he was placed on .this board by this government because of the fact that erosion played a very important part in arriving at a decision as to what measures should be taken to remedy the apparent evil on the crest line of the falls. What the engineers hoped to do-I am discussing this purely as a layrnah-is to spread the water more evenly over the crest of the falls and stop the divergence into the Horseshoe falls which is receding at a much more rapid rate than the full crest line. Eventually, if it is not stopped, it will destroy the scenic beauty of the falls. I do not think that will be contradicted.
Part of the improvement is the proper distribution of flowage, so that the flow will cover the whole crest of the falls. They state in the report, that that is what they believe will happen when these remedial works are completed. My hon. friend has made a great deal of the fact that they have stated in the report that the increased flowage will occur only during the non-tourist season and, as he points out, at the low flowage period of the river itself, and that therefore it will do no harm. What I want to point out to my hon. friend in addition to that and what I think he has missed, is that they state most emphatically that, in regard to the scenic effect and the lighting effect, the full covering of the crest line of the falls will come as a result of these works at every period of the year.


James Dew Chaplin: I never disputed that. I do not dispute it now. I admit it.


Charles A. Stewart: I am satisfied if my hon. friend admits that; that is conclusive, and I wish to present the case
to the house as I get it from the report of the engineers. Competent engineers on both sides have made a careful study of this matter; they have investigated all the proposals that were made to them as being necessary for the protection of the scenic quality of the falls. They have taken the precaution to recommend that this diversion shall continue only for a period of seven years. During that period they have stated that the board will continue carefully to watch the improvement and ascertain whether further remedial works than those proposed will be necessary.


James Dew Chaplin: What has the minister
to say about this work being done by private enterprise on the one side?


Charles A. Stewart: I was coming to that. If my hon. friend's contention was correct that it was entirely private enterprise, there might be something in it, because I am willing to admit there is something in the argument of my hon. friend that, if it is found that these works are not sufficient for the purpose for which they are desired or that, by their installation and by the diversion of additional water, the falls will suffer, then because private capital has been put in, we would be compelled to continue the work for the period of seven years. My reply to that is that it will be at least three years or a fair proportion of three years out of the seven before these works are fully completed. As regards the Canadian side of the improvement I was attracted to it owing to the very fact that my hon. friend has mentioned, namely, that there is a scarcity of power, but I would require to be assured that the abstraction will not in any way affect the scenic qualities of the falls themselves. I have that assurance. My hon. friend doubts that, but I am giving him the word, as I have said, of a corps of competent engineers, and the Ontario government, who are the creators of and who own the Hydro system, are going to provide one-half of the cost of the installation.


George Reginald Geary: The Ontario government do not own the Hydro system. The municipalities own it.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will admit that it is always stated that it is a provincial institution. It may be the municipalities, but it is the people of the province of Ontario-


George Reginald Geary: That is right.


Charles A. Stewart: -who constitute one of the consenting parties to this

Preservation oj Niagara Falls
agreement. The members of the house may not agree that the people of Ontario represented by their government, knew what they were doing, but I say that they knew every detail, both of the work itself with respect to the suggested development and of the cost. Indeed the cost was arrived at by collaborating with their own engineers so that what I have to say as a representative of the federal government is that, knowing these facts, I, with full confidence, recommended that the Dominion government join with the United States government in the ratification of the treaty.


Hugh Guthrie: At the end of the seven-year period, do all the works revert to Canada or Ontario, as the case may be, and do the power companies on either side cease to have any interest in them?


Charles A. Stewart: As regards
the interest of the power companies in the
10,000	cubic feet per second, it would end at the expiration of seven years. The works themselves would become the property of the provincial government or the state; as they are placed on provincial or state property, naturally they belong to the bed of the stream.


Hugh Guthrie: At the, end of the seven-year period the 10,000 second feet on either side of the river will cease to be used for power purposes. Is that correct?


Charles A. Stewart: Unless a
new arrangement is entered into with respect to it. That is the period for which the trial under the provision is stated.


Hugh Guthrie: I have only this to say in regard to
the seven-year period, that my experience with respect to government undertakings of that kind has not been very good. I was engaged at one time on behalf of a former government of this country in connection with an application by a United States corporation known as the Aluminum Company of America, to divert temporarily a large flowage of water from the river St. Lawrence to the Long Sault rapids. The case occupied about ten days in the city of Montreal. It was held by the International Joint Commission that the application was launched as a war measure; the additional power was required by the aluminum company at their works in the state of New York to produce aluminum war goods. It had the sanction of the President of the United States. An arrangement was ordered by the International Joint commission to give the aluminum company a special diversion of water from the St. Lawrence river for the purpose of their works. They were tMr. C. A. Stewart.]
to construct weirs, dams and the like for a period of five years after which the dams were to be taken out and the water restored to its natural flow. But what happened? The arrangement was subsequently made a permanent one. They have this diversion of water and they are using it to-day. I am afraid that what happened in that case is very likely to happen in the present case.


Charles A. Stewart: The mere
fact that they got the five-year period did not in any way entitle them to receive a continuation of their contract.


Hugh Guthrie: But they got it and the argument used in that case will be the argument used in this: there is the dam; there is the expenditure; why allow this water to run to waste? At the end of the seven-year period it will be said:	This flow of 10,000
cubic feet on each side was to be utilized for power purposes; it has been so utilized for seven years; why not let it be used in the future? This looks like a permanent diversion of 10,000 cubic feet of water on each side of the river. Speaking for myself, and for myself alone, as the Dominion government seems to be satisfied with the arrangement, and as the government of the province of Ontario seems to be satisfied with it, notwithstanding that personally I am doubtful as to the propriety of the arrangement, I am willing to let it go.


James Dew Chaplin: Suppose the weirs which are to be erected in the bed of the stream, which is vested in the park commission, prove unsatisfactory for the work they are intended to do; how are you going to get them out, and who is going to pay for taking them out? There is no provision for that at all.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend has asked me a question which I would not care to answer without previously consulting the engineers. It is an engineering problem wholly.


James Dew Chaplin: I think it is a legal one.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will note that according to the agreement itself, so far as the engineers are able to judge, the works will provide a complete remedy; but if they do not, there is provision that further remedies may be provided. My hon. friend may rest assured that the engineers will not leave in the bed of the stream anything which they are satisfied will be injurious.


James Dew Chaplin: They are not sure about this plan themselves, and so they have made provision to go ahead and try it. It is so stated in the agreement.

Preservation of Niagara Falls


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend is determined not to accept the judgment of competent engineers, then I have nothing more to say.


Robert James Manion: I just wish to say a few words on this matter.
I do not feel myself capable of entering into the controversy, but I have listened with a great deal of interest, as all hon. members no doubt have done, to the speeches that have been made on this question by the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), because if there is a beauty spot in all Canada which should be preserved for our children and their children, it is Niagara falls. Away back in the days of the old French explorers, we have references to its great beauty, even ;by men most of whose time was taken up fighting the Indians. I remember reading just the other day a statement by one of the old explorers, Hennepin, who was the first to point out the beauties of Niagara falls, and from that time on to this day, Niagara falls has been one of the scenic wonders of the world. I do not know anybody who has visted the falls on a number of occasions who has not come away each time with a greater appreciation of its sublimity than he had on the previous visit. Therefore I say that anything that can be done to preserve the beauty of the falls should be done.
The hon. member for Lincoln is a member of that board, representing the province of Ontario, whose sole duty it is to preserve the scenic beauty of Niagara falls. The members of that board have no financial interest in the matter whatever. I believe I am correct in saying that they have been working on the board many years without cost to the province of Ontario, and their whole efforts have been to preserve its beauty for the province and the Dominion generally.
There has been a dispute apparently here this afternoon. The hon. member for Lincoln points out that while submerged weirs may bring about a spreading of the water, they do not result in as beautiful an effect as an island or a series of islands would. The point I wish to make is that as there is some dispute as to the results to be obtained from the standpoint of beauty by the construction of these proposed remedial works, as there is some doubt as to their effectiveness in the minds of this board which has been charged with the preservation of the beauty of the falls for many years, on behalf of the province of Ontario and Canada generally, I think
this whole treaty should be held up temporarily, at least, until further consideration can be given to it. It seems to me extraordinary-I am not saying this in a critical spirit, because I suppose it was an oversight- that the board appointed by this government should not have consulted the one body in Canada which has been giving its time and its energies to preserve this magnificent and sublime scene in all its beauty for the people of this country, and, indeed, the whole world, and if for no other reason, I think the whole matter should be held up for further consideration. We all know that there has been a gradual process of erosion going on at the apex of Horseshoe falls. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that it amounted to 3.7 feet per annum, and that some remedial works are necessary to preserve the scenic beauty of the falls. It has been suggested by my hon. friend from Lincoln, and after listening to this whole debate very carefully I would say, properly suggested, that this whole scheme is a power scheme, and therefore I do think that the one body in Canada that is particularly interested in Niagara falls from the standpoint of beauty should have been consulted. They should have been given an opportunity to discuss this whole question with the Canadian board, and with the American board, perhaps, and should have been given the opportunity to present their conclusions after all these years of study.
There is another reason why I think this matter should be held over. I have been told-I heard it stated yesterday-that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who has been called out of the city by reason of the illness of a relative, wished to take part in this discussion. For that reason also I should like to see this question held over. After all, I do not think there is any great hurry. I do not think the treaty has been ratified by the American senate, and in this materialistic age I do not think there is any need for us to hurry simply because there may be a desire to develop more power by some company or companies. We should not be hurried by such a consideration in a matter of this kind. I suggest with due respect to the Prime Minister that he hold over the 'consideration of this treaty for two or three weeks, so that this commission of which my hon. friend from Lincoln is a member, and of which all of us who have given any thought to the matter are so proud, because of the work they have done in beautifying the parks adjoining the falls, may be given an opportunity to consult with the new board that has been appointed.

Preservation oj Niagara Falls


George Reginald Geary: My friend who has just sat down (Mr. Manion) has touched upon a point which I think is very well worthy of consideration by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and it is a point upon which I venture to ask a question. I would like to know very definitely what form the consent of the province of Ontario took. Who instituted this inquiry, and how closely has the province of Ontario kept in touch with the work of the engineers? It. seems to me extraordinary that the province of Ontario, if it were keeping closely in touch with the engineers, would neglect to consult the body of all bodies which has had to do, not with electric power, but with the scenic beauty of the falls. That has been professedly the first consideration, and it is [DOT] therefore scarcely understandable that the province of Ontario should have neglected to consult the body which has scenic beauty in its care, rather than the development of power. If the minister will consider the circumstances of the appointment of this board, he first of all had the nucleus of the board in the presence of two gentlemen who had to do with overlooking the diversion of water provided for under the treaty of 1909. They are more or less power engineers; at least, I judge that they had to do with the diversion of water for power purposes. To this nucleus there were added two other engineers, but the board is primarily a power board. By whom was it instructed, and on whose letter is that board working? On the letter of two power companies, people primarily interested in power, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and some power company on the other side of the river. So that you have loaded against you, so to speak, on the power side as against the scenic side, the personnel of the board, as well as those who are advising the board. When the hon. member for Lincoln discussed the question of submerged weirs, as opposed to "weirs," rising above the surface in the form of an island, or however they may be built, he was speaking of something which he has had every opportunity to study thoroughly. Those weirs will be left. The power people may fall down with respect to the scenic aspect, but you may be quite sure that when they finish putting in the weirs, those weirs will be amply sufficient to divert the water necessary under their plans, that is, ten thousand cubic feet per second. So I would suggest to the minister that he keep a very close eye on the development as it affects the scenic feature of the falls. After all, I think that is what we here are most interested in. We get only tbn 
thousand cubic feet per second as against the ten thousand allowed the United States. The original proportion was as 36 to 20. Why are we not getting the same proportion of the additional diversion instead of only one-half?
I agree with the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that after the very careful presentation by the member for Lincoln, who knows- the situation so thoroughly, and having in view that the chief abject of this house is the preservation of the scenic beauty of the falls and not the development of power, more time might be given for the consideration of this question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. STEVENS:: Is the Prime Minister going to close the debate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that is exactly what I am not going to do, but I wish to make reference to the request that the debate be adjourned tall the hon. leader of the opposition returns. May I say that when I learned the hon. leader of the opposition unfortunately was .to be called away, I crossed the floor and asked him if there was anything on the order paper which he would wish to have held1 over until he returned, because if so I should be pleased to endeavour to see that his wishes were met. The hon. leader of the opposition assured me to the contrary, and advised that the government proceed with the orders exactly as we might wish. That is the reason why we are proceeding to-day with this resolution. Inasmuch, however, as it has been suggested that the resolution be held over until the leader of the opposition returns, I am only too happy to accept the suggestion. It is quite possible that .the leader of the opposition may not have thought of mentioning his wishes to me, but afterwards may have mentioned to others that he would like to speak on the resolution.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government acts of necessity as the government which has to do with the negotiation of treaties with a foreign country in matters of national concern. In taking up this matter, however, the federal government has had in mind primarily the province of Ontario and its special interest in addition to that of the entire Dominion in the scenic beauties of Niagara falls. If in Ontario the provincial authorities, who have been closely in touch with this matteT throughout, and to whom it is of more concern than it is to the authori-

C.N.R-Purchase oj Railways
ties of any other province, do not wish to have the treaty proceeded with, the government certainly will not press the matter further the next time the treaty is under discussion.


Robert James Manion: 'May I correct an impression that I gave the house? I had no authority to speak for the leader of the opposition, but I heard him express his intention when this matter came up to take part in the discussion. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that the leader of the opposition might easily have overlooked this. But I think an adjournment of the debate would serve two purposes; it would give him an opportunity to take whatever part in the debate he may think adv'sable, and, more important still, it would give time for reconsideration of the whole proposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish it to ibe understood, Mr. Speaker, that the government has any doubt in its mind in regard to the matter. But seeing that the province of Ontario is primarily involved, and that the government has relied upon the engineers of the Ontario government to keep advised the Ontario government as well as the agencies of that government, I am quite agreeable, in view of my hon. friend's request, to have the debate adjourned.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Stevens moves, seconded by Mr. Stewart (Leeds) that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient-
1.	To ratify and confirm the agreement dated the 6th day of February, 1929, between His Majesty the King in -the right of the province of Alberta and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company, for the purchase of the undertakings of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company, the Central Canada Railway Company, the Central Canada Express Company, the Alberta Great Waterways Company, and of the province in respect thereof and also in respect of the Pembina Railway Company.
2.	To incorporate the Northern Alberta Railways Company, in which are to be vested the said jointly acquired railways. _
3.	To authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of the
securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company, to an amount or amounts fixed from time to time by the governor in council, for the payment of one-half the purchase price and one-half of the obligations assumed under the said agreement.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister bring down the agreement when the matter is under discussion?


Mr. DUNNING:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the fallowing proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may purchase the undertaking and railway of the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company for $6,000,000; and that the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securites to be issued for this purpose by the Canadian National Railway Company, not exceeding in aggregate face value such amount as the governor in council may consider sufficient to raise the said sum.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the 'house.
Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask the minister if he will lay on the table the correspondence leading up to this agreement prior to its adoption by the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: In that regard, Mr. Speaker, as I explained on a former occasion, I have no correspondence other than with the management of the Canadian National railways who undertook the negotiations. But any information which is desired can be secured at some stage of the proceedings. I suggest to my hon. friend that inasmuch as I intend to recommend to the house that the bills to be based on these two resolutions be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, in order that we may summon the officers who undertook the negotiations and who will be prepared to give any information

Vancouver Harbour Commission
that may be desired, that would probably be the better time to go into these matters. If it is agreeable to my hon. friend it would facilitate matters to proceed in that way in both cases.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) whether he has received any representations from editors of Ukrainian newspapers or any other responsible Ukrainian bodies denying certain insidious insinuations made in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Tribune of February 6 and 7, and in the editorial columns of many of our Canadian dailies, wherein it has been stated that Central Europeans domiciled in western Canada are preparing to deluge Ottawa with petitions protesting against what. is termed " the discriminatory ruling against the entrance into Canada of more than a very limited number of Central Europeans," and that, failing action on the part of the Immigration department, these petitions would be effectively reinforced by united action in seventeen federal ridings in Canada at the next Dominion election. I might point out to the hon. Minister of Immigration that I have in my possession absolute denials from the editors of two Ukrainian newspapers of any such contemplated action on the part of Ukrainians in Canada.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration) :: In reply to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I have received no such petitions or communications. I have had communications of an exactly opposite character.



IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):: I have not yet seen the annual report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization. Will the minister intimate when we may expect that report.


Robert Forke: The report will
be down in a few days; it is in the hands of the printer.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Vancouver in an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal _ facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications _ and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. CARDIN:: This resolution provides for the introduction of a bill to authorize an advance of $10,000,000 to the harbour commissioners of Vancouver. The representations made to me by the commissioners are that they need this sum of money for the following purposes:	First, for the redemption of
commissioners' mortgage notes issued for the balance of the purchase price of the property known as the Hastings mill, the amount of these notes being $1,950,000; secondly, to provide for developmental work on the above property in the way of docks and terminal facilities; and, thirdly, for needed extensions to the elevator facilities. This probably will be for financing only; these, facilities will likely be leased in advance for an amount covering interest and sinking fund.
There is no doubt that the harbour of Vancouver is in need of further development. Business has been increasing there rapidly, last year having been an exceptionally good year in the administration of the harbour. The receipts of the harbour of Vancouver, amounting in 1924 to $1,870,000 totalled in 1928, $2,057,739. The expenditure has been a little less than it was in 1924. In 1924 the expenditure was $1,741,000 and in 1928, $1,682,000. So that after paying interest on the money advanced by the government to the commissioners and providing for the sinking fund the commission is left with a very substantial surplus. It is quite clear, therefore, that the business of the port has been very good. And it is contended that the facilities asked for will help materially in still further increasing that business.
There are certain details which I have asked the commissioners to furnish me with before we get through with the bill, and under the circumstances I would ask the committee, if

Three Rivera Harbour Commission
there is no serious objection, to allow the resolution to be reported and have the bill introduced, as was done in the case of the Montreal harbour commisison bill. The details can be supplied when the bill is before the committee. That is the procedure we followed with the Montreal resolution and I think it would help to expedite matters if it were adopted in this case. No hon. member will lose any opportunity of securing all the details he may require when the bill is under consideration. I shall then be in a position, as I am not now, to answer questions. I have not yet received from the commissioners the information I have asked for.


Mr. GARDINER:: I presume the minister
will have full information regarding the total expenditures under this loan, including the amounts spent for docks, elevators and so forth. He will have all those details.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister tell
us what surplus accrued last year after providing for sinking fund and so on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That can be calculated from the figures I have given. The total receipts, to be exact, were $2,057,739.02. The total expenditure, including interest and sinking fund, I have given.


Robert Gardiner: I presume the minister will be able to give information in the way of an official statement with regard to the terminal elevator.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: That is very important.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will, certainly.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has all the particulars?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. POWER:: Merely as a matter of information, may I inquire by what authority the Vancouver harbour commission, or for that matter other commissions, issue notes, for the redemption of which a certain sum is asked, in the present case by this resolution?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is done under the law
incorporating the harbour commissions.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon
78594-31 moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 66, to provide for a further loan to the Vancouver harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



THREE RIVERS HARBOUR COMMISSION LOAN OF $2,000,000 FOR TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Three Rivers in an amount not exceeding $2,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The harbour of Three
Rivers is not so important as the harbour with which we dealt last, but this port is very useful to the city of Three Rivers and also to the adjoining communities. As hon. gentlemen know, the city of Three Rivers is an important centre for the production of paper and is also one of the most important cities in the province of Quebec from an industrial point of view. During past years expenditures have been made on this harbour through the Department of Public Works; expensive wharves have been built and a certain amount of dredging carried on. In view of the request from the commissioners for an advance of $2,000,000 to place them on an equal footing with other harbour commissions, the government have decided to stop the expenditures formerly made through the Department of Public Works, and this money is to provide for necessary developments and increased facilities.
The port of Three Rivers is largely used for the importation of coal necessary in the production of pulp and paper, and it might be interesting to know the amout of business done by this port in the past. I have not the complete figures, 'but during the year 1924 the total receipts were about $39,000 and during 1928 they increased to roughly $74,000, so that in four years the receipts have practically doubled. In 1924 the expenditures amounted to about $24,000 and in 1928 to $34,000, in



RBVI3ED EDITION 4S2 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Three Rivers Harbour Commission
round! figures, so after providing for their expenditures and meeting their indebtedness the commissioners are left with a relatively large surplus.
Mr. HEAPS:: Might I ask the capital expenditure involved for the year 1928?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Robert Gardiner: Have they paid the
interest on all these debentures?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; the interest is included in the expenditures I have mentioned.


Mr. HANSON:: Just for the sake of information I would like to ask the minister with reference to the port of Three Rivers, which we all recognize as a very important industrial city, whether it is not a fact that the principal users of the port are the big paper companies. If that is so, why do they not supply their own facilities, as they do elsewhere? Then I would like to know from the minister just what are the principal imports and exports. He has said that coal is the principal import; naturally that is used by the pulp and 'paper mills of the Three Rivers district. Then I understand that there are also very substantial imports of puLpwood; for instance, in recent years, a substantial quantity of pulpwood has been shipped by the International Paper Company from the Miramichi district in New Brunswick to Three Rivers. Why is it that these paper companies, which are so prosperous, do not supply their own port facilities? Why do they ask the government to do this work when in other parts of Canada the big manufacturing establishments have to do it themselves? I would like to know from the minister also what are the principal exports; if they are paper products from the mills located in that district why should not these companies supply their own facilities? I am not saying the policy is wrong, but I am merely asking for the sake of information.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is true that the main
imports are coal and pulpwood and the exports are mainly paper products, but when these big companies use the facilities they pay the dues. If they had their own wharves they would use them and the public would not have the advantage of such facilities. For instance, there is a steel plant at Three Rivers, and if my hon. friend's suggestion were [Mr. Cardin.1
adopted they could not use these facilities. I see nothing wrong in the fact that most of the facilities are used by the paper companies provided they pay for them, as they do. They are not getting any special privileges; they pay for the use of the wharves and at the same time these facilities are available to other concerns in the locality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not suggesting there is anything wrong about it; the minister must not understand that from my remarks. This is a matter of public policy which I presume has been well studied, and if all the other ports of Canada were doing the business industrially, that they are doing at Three Rivers I should be only too glad. As a matter of fact, however, is it not true that about ninety per cent of the total imports and exports are occasioned by these'big paper companies who are supplied with these facilities at the public expense? It is true that they pay the charges, but why should Canada make these capital expenditures for large corporations who are able to take care of themselves?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At the moment I would
not be ready to admit that ninety per cent, eighty per cent or even seventy-five per cent of the business of the port is done by these mills. Hon. members will realize that Three Rivers, with a population of 35,000 itself and more than that in the surrounding district, i3 in need of harbour facilities, and the harbour is used not only by the industries of Three Rivers but also by those in the surrounding districts such as the towns of Grand-Mere and Shawinigan. These two towns are quite important, and the port serves not only the north shore of the St. Lawrence but the south shore as well. A ferry runs from the south shore to Three Rivers. The south shore of the St. Lawrence will benefit through the facilities provided for the export of agricultural products. I think the facilities in the harbour are necessary for the general good of the community, outside of the use which will be made of them by the large power companies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister give us the value of the agricultural exports through the port of Three Rivers?


Robert Gardiner: The minister stated, I
think, that the total income for 1928 was $74,000, while the expenditure was $34,000, leaving a surplus of $40,000. It is proposed to expend $2,000,000, and if the rate of interest on the bonds is put at 5 per cent it means an interest charge of over $100,000. I suggest that on the second reading of this 'bill the min-

Chicoutimi Harbour Commission
ister have the information available which will show how that extra $100,000 is to be obtained from the traffic going through that port. Can the minister give any information as to the total expenditures made prior to the time the commission took over this harbour, and whether the commission has been charged up with those expenditures, the same as was done with Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not that information, but I will get it and present it on the second
reading.


Robert Gardiner: I want to know if we
are treating this port the same as Quebec, or whether some new arrangement should be made for Quebec.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 67, to provide for a loan to the Three Rivers harbour
commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CHICOUTIMI HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Horn. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Chicoutimi in an amount not exceeding $2,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	In this case we are dealing with
a locality which is practically new in the field of industry. Chicoutimi is situated at the head of the Saguenay river, about seventy miles north of the St. Lawrence. That river is the discharge of lake St. John which is a very large reservoir of water and has been used lately for the development of important water-powers. As a result of this development of Jake St. John, ten or fifteen industries have been established in that locality. In the region of that lake about 1,500,000 horse-power will be developed. No one can doubt the importance of that locality from an industrial point of view when this power development is finally completed. At the present time a large amount of power is being developed and is ready for the market. Practically the whole of the operations of the American Aluminum Company are to be carried on at that place.
Eight or ten years ago the town of Chicoutimi had a population of about 7,000, but 78594-3li
to-day there is a population of about 15,000, and there are over 60,000 people in the surrounding district. At present the only harbour facilities at this point consists of a wharf about 500 feet long. A large amount of coal is imported for the use of the mills and other plants established in the vicinity of lake St. John and Chicoutimi. In 1925, even with the poor facilities, nearly 115,000 tons of goods went through the port of Chicoutimi, and also a large amount of dressed lumber. At the present time there are no facilities to- deal with the coal which is required for the different industries established at Chicoutimi, and I think the prospects of the future traffic through this port completely justify the advance of money proposed.
I am not in position to state definitely that this commission will be in position to pay the first year's interest on the advance, but we must remember that if we had not proceeded through the incorporation of a commission, large expenditures would have had to be made through the Department of Public Works. Every hon. gentleman in this committee knows of places where money has been advanced through the Department of Public Works and upon which the government will receive no interest. But, judging from the reports and representations made to me and taking cognizance of the situation there, I sincerely expect that this port is going to meet its responsibilities and that in the course of a few years it will meet its obligations. I repeat: we must do something; there is no escape from that. When we have all these industries located in the river, with that amount of power being developed there and important industries established there, there is no doubt that the government would be forced one way or another to make expenditures to provide facilities in that port.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this a company?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is not a company at all.


Robert Gardiner: There have been no expenditures prior to the present time by the harbour commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, last year parliament under a bill voted a sum of $500,000, and with that money the commissioners started enlarging the wharf which existed at that time ir the harbour of Chicoutimi.


Robert Gardiner: Are they making charges at the present time for service?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, last year they collected the sum of $18,000 in connection with their facilities.
484	COMMONS
Divorce Cowl-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)


Mr. HOCKEN:: Why does the minister not make this a gift instead of a loan? He does not expect to receive any interest from it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I certainly expect a return on it and there is justification for my expectation. The town is going to grow very rapidly.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Has the minister any better expectations in this case than in that of Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The town is not as important as Quebec is now, but a few years from now I am sure it will have grown to such importance that we shall get all the returns we need to meet the interest charges and sinking fund in connection with the amount we are lending them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is a speculation.


Charles Gavan Power: Far better than the Toronto terminals.	[DOT]


Abraham Albert Heaps: How long will it be before this $2,000,000 will be spent?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I want to make it a gift.


Charles Gavan Power: We fear the Greeks even bearing gifts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The bill which will be introduced provides that before starting work they have to submit a plain to the engineers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the plan has to be approved before the loan which has been authorized is spent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The question I asked was how long it would be before the $2,000,000 would be spent? Would it be one year or two years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: More than two years.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 68, to provide for a further loan to the Chicoutimi harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 22 consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth for the second reading of Bill No. 38, to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.
Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker. I desire to associate myself with the remarks that have already been made in favour of this bill by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I think it must have furnished to the house a striking commentary on the situation which has been created, and which has called for the introduction of this legislation, to find a bill of this nature introduced by a member from the province of Manitoba and endorsed by a member from the province of Quebec.
My hon. friend the member for Labelle the other night seemed to feel that the situation called for some remarks upon the question of provincial rights, and the assertion of provincial rights in this house. It is not in that spirit that I am approaching the discussion of the bill to-night. Rather I take it that both the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the subject so far have addressed themselves to it mainly because, although themselves not residents of the province of Ontario, they felt that it deals with a very important question of right and wrong, and it is upon that basis that I desire to address to the house such remarks as now occur to' me.
It has already been stated that there is practically no issue here as to the principle of divorce, that the method is the only question which is before the house for consideration. I can readily understand how many persons who are conscientiously opposed to the idea of divorce might state to the house that they felt constrained, upon principle, to oppose the bill in the hope that thereby they would put an end to something which they regard a.s an unmixed evil. But, sir, we know from the record that we have before us, and from the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, that there is no such thing as doing away with divorce, and that the only question before the house now is whether divorce shall be dealt with to the best advantage, or dealt with in a less satisfactory manner.
There are two or three points in connection with this bill that I desire to present for the consideration of the house. It has been already pointed out by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that every year finds a largely increasing number of these applications, and that it has been recently found impossible for the senate of the parliament of Canada to deal with all the applications that come before it in the course of a single session; so much so that, as we already know, this year there has been formed, or is in

Divorce Court-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
process of formation, a second divorce committee of the senate. Judging by the rate at which these applications have been increasing in the last few years, we shall very shortly find ourselves confronted with the necessity, df the senate is to continue to deal with these measures, of creating not simply one additional committee but two or three or four additional committees. It was the case,
I believe, last year-I stand subject to correction if I am wrong-that although a large number of applications had been received, and although the divorce committee of the senate addressed themselves with great earnestness to the problem of dealing with those applications and followed them up with the utmost industry, even then it was not possible during the period of the session to deal with all the applications that came before the senate. So we had the unfortunate anomaly at the conclusion of the session, that decrees were granted to a number of people who had cases which upon being tested were found to be good, while on the other hand a large number of people who had cases presumably just as good and just as worthy of the decree of the divorce committee were forced into the position of not having their petitions decided upon simply because there was no time to deal with them. Surely we cannot say that the decision of the senate and of this house is being given with equality to all, as long as the test of relief-assuming that the applicants are entitled to relief at all- shall be, not the justice of their cause but merely the possibility of the senate overtaking its work and dealing with their petitions. That, I think, sir, is a proposition which will commend itself to every member of this house.
But there is something far more serious than that. The method of granting divorce on the recommendation of the senate committee and the passing of a private bill has set up this condition in the Dominion-that the man who is fairly well-to-do, if he has a just cause, can present that cause and have it adjudicated; but the man who is poor is denied that right. Surely it should not *be possible anywhere in this country that material wealth should be the test of right or wrong. It is well known to all those whose work calls upon them to undertake the presenting of divorce applications to the senate divorce committee, that ever so often it is found that those who have a perfectly just cause, a cause founded upon honest, indisputable evidence, are nevertheless compelled to abandon that cause simply for the reason that they have not
the requisite funds to take the steps necessary to obtain a decree. The fact is that under present conditions any man or woman in this Dominion who seeks relief by way of divorce must be able to pay for the cost of the senate bill, for the cost of having that bill looked after through the senate and through this house, and muA be able also to meet the necessary expenses, which sometimes are extremely heavy, of bringing witnesses from the uttermost parts of the country to this city in order that their evidence may be heard by the committee and passed upon.
What a monstrous situation it would be that a man who, for example, had instituted suit for breach of contract should be told:	You
cannot obtain relief under the law unless you take your case to the city of Ottawa, no matter in what part of Canada you may reside. This is identically the situation in relation to divorce. The only possible way by which divorce could be made easy to people of small means would be to say that the sittings of the senate committee which is empowered to recommend the granting of a decree should be held throughout the length and breadth of the land. But we know how utterly impracticable that is. We know it is out of the question to consider it for one moment.
*So, sir, we have this situation-and it must continue unless this bill is proceeded with of people being able to say:	I may have a
just cause, I may have evidence right under my hand to entitle me to a decree of divorce, a decree which in fairness, honesty and justice I ought to be granted, but because of the fact that I am not possessed of sufficient funds to go to Ottawa and to pay the fees incidental to an application for divorce and to bear the expense of bringing witnesses to the capital, I am denied that relief which as a citizen of Canada is mine, and mine by right. Only by supporting this bill can that grievous inequality be removed. I think it is a standing reproach to this parliament and to tnis country that any citizen who has a just cause to seek divorce should be told:	You have
not the money, and therefore there is no possibility of your cause being heard. In other words, he is told: You are deprived of justice at the hands of the high court of parliament, the very highest court in the land.
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that preeminent, that paramount reason, that I ally myself with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre who, as I see it, has unearthed a very grievous wrong that ought to be remedied. And until that wrong is remedied

Divorce. Court-Mr. McMillan
this parliament cannot divest itself of the reproach that under present conditions it is granting one thing to the well-to-do, and denying that same thing to the poor.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a question which should be regarded from the most serious point of view. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bell) has approached the question in the belief, apparently, that we are all in favour of the principle of divorce.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas McMillan: Now, sir, so far as I
am concerned I must dissent from that view. Since I have had the privilege of a seat in this parliament I am at one with my hon. friend in saying that the manner in which these cases have received attention in this chamber is nothing less than a travesty. Many times I have thought of it seriously, and felt like rising to my feet in protest.
There may be hon. members present who are in favour of the principle of divorce. I have always held the opinion, and I am to-day more strongly than ever of the view, that marriage is a sacred union. Marriage is the key to the home: the home is the bulwark of society and of the nation. We talk of the greatness of our country, of our wealth, of our wonderful natural resources, but we should never forget that the greatest asset of a nation is the integrity of its people. The character and condition of the people is either the greatest asset or it is the most detestable scourge of a country. Therefore that thought brings me back at once to our homes and the home life of our people. In the mad rush and struggle for wealth and property and material possessions, which in this country is everywhere apparent, the higher and better things which go to build up the home and build up humanity should not be neglected. As I have said, the home is the bulwark of the nation. History records the fact that it has always been so, and it will continue to be so until the end of time. Go back into history and study it. Study, if you will, that old volume of the sacred law. What does it tell us? Among all its wonderful words of wisdom and of admonition to the human race, it tells us that in mere wealth, in mere sordid wealth and outward splendour, old Babylon had no rivals in ancient times. But her fatal weakness was that she put no real estimate upon true manhood. As a consequence, her gorgeous palaces and hanging gardens became the abode of selfishness and sensuality, with the result, as we now read, that 
over that spurious greatness rests the stillness of the desert, the gloom of an eternal night. It was in view of all this that Scotland's immortal bard tells us in The Cottar's Saturday Night:
How he, "who lone in Patinos banished,
Saw in the sun a mighty angel stand,
And heard great, Bab'lon's doom pronounc'd by Heaven's command.
What of Greece? Ancient Greece was not a large country-her chief city, Athens-less populous than New York. Her people were great in art, great in philosophy, great in wisdom and great even in a certain kind of patriotism. But the fatal weakness of the people of Greece was that they bad no real, true family life. Their public men were corrupt in their habits, loose in their morals, and their women, even the most accomplished, were unchaste. As a consequence, the fate of Greece was inevitable; and her fall was even more rapid than her rise.
What of ancient Rome? Read Gibbon's decline and fall of the Roman empire: we are told that that fall was due to the general corruption of the people and their engrossing love of pleasure and idleness. So long as the nobility of Rome considered it an honour to labour with their hands, so long as they continued to recognize the dignity of honest labour, Rome continued to flourish. We read of the time when the land was tilled in those days even by generals; as they left the field of battle they returned triumphant to the plough. But when the ruling classes of Rome began to live so luxuriously and so extravagantly that they considered honest labour as beneath their dignity, and as fit only for the engagement of serfs and slaves, from that day onwards dates the decay and downfall of the Roman empire.
Coming to the middle ages, we have no doubt all read of the time when Spain was the mightiest of European powers. The discoveries of Columbus had added to her possessions the new world of the west. The conquests of Cortez and Pizarro had poured into its treasury the riches of Mexico and of Peru. Its galleons brought the gold, the jewels and the ingots of silver to the harbour of Cadiz, while at the same time Philip was endeavouring to add to his possessions some of the fairest and wealthiest portions of western continental Europe. What were the means by which Spain was able to hold her people in subjection? It was through the terror of the Inquisition and the power of the stake and the sword. By such means a nation could never continue to flourish, and that country

Divorce Court-Mr. Arthurs
having been humbled and broken through the defeat of the Armada, her greatness soon dwindled away.
Let us come still nearer to our own time. We have often heard the expression of the first Napoleon that the great need of the French people was mothers; and indeed the outbreak of the first French revolution presented a striking illustration of the neglect of the purifying influence of motherhood. When that outbreak occurred French society was permeated with vice; morals, virtue and religion were swamped in immorality. The corrupt plays of the theatre commanded the attention of the people. Maternity came to be looked upon with reproach; true family life, true home life was gone; and as a consequence Napoleon's words were more than justified, that France was really motherless.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us apply the conditions which destroyed those nations in the past. What does the lesson teach us? Does it not teach us that if a nation is to be great and is to continue to be great its very heart, the home life of its people, must be good? It must be virtuous, clean, self-sacrificing and true. What are we going to do in this young country? We have been the leader in many avenues of national and international life. But what is the truth with regard to divorce? The year 1883 was the first in which divorces were recorded in two figures; the number that year was 13. In 1903 there were 21 divorces; in 1909, 51; in 1913, 60; in 1918, 114; in 1926, 608, and in 1927, 748. It seems that the bulk of the applications before the senate to-day are from the province of Ontario, my own province. But I am proud to say that so far as my own section of the country is concerned, so far as my own riding goes, I do not know of a single case of divorce. As regards my section of the country, I wish that condition to continue. I will not be a party to the passing of a resolution or a bill in this house to establish a divorce court in my province, let this house deal with the matter as it will.
From the arguments which I have put forth thus far you can clearly see that my purpose is to do away with the condition which saps the manhood and the womanhood of this country at its very foundation. As I said in my opening remarks, marriage is a sacred institution. Marriage is the key to the home and the home is the bulwark of the state and of society. If we continue to desecrate marriage through divorce we sap the real foundation of society, and I for one intend to vote as I have expressed myself, against establishing divorce courts in this province.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the bills which might be affected by the amendment to the rules proposed this afternoon, and this is one of the many reasons why I am opposed _ to that amendment. The matter is a most important matter from almost every point of view, and so far as I am concerned I am prepared to vote against this bill for three principal reasons.
In the first place I am opposed to the principle of divorce. In the second place I believe a bill of this kind should be made general in its application if passed by this house at all. There are six provinces of Canada which at present have divorce courts, while the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Prince Edward Island have none; if a measure of this kind is to be passed at all it should be generally applicable to these three provinces. The third objection I have to the bill is that neither the province of Ontario nor anyone on its behalf has ever asked for this legislation.
On Friday evening we had a rather long and somewhat diverting speech in this connection by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). In the beginning of his speech he pointed out clearly and positively that personally he was opposed to divorce and that the divorces granted by parliament had been passed against his will and over his protest. Further on, at page 384 of Hansard, I find that he used the following words:
.. .we shall be making a grave mistake if we vote for this bill as it stands, without making it clear that we are not imposing it upon the people of Ontario, in the absence of any opportunity on their part, and on the part of their own representatives in their own legislative governing body, of signifying their will. If we impose the bill upon them under such conditions we shall, first, encroach upon the moral rights of the people of Ontario, and, secondly, drive another nail into the coffin of our constitution, because we are again discharging one of those abnormal functions of intervention which have worked to the evil of the country and to the evil of the province affected every time this has been done.
I contend that parliament has no right to pass this act and that there is not the least occasion for it. The arguments put forward by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), whose legal opinion I value highly, do not appeal to me. The first reason he gave for supporting the bill was because of the delay which sometimes occurs through which certain would-be divorcees are debarred during the current session from obtaining the redress to which they think they are entitled. I might point out that this often occurs in courts of law; I have known cases to go over from one term to another and then, when all

48S
Divorce Court-Mr. Hocken
the legal gentlemen were ready, the court would adjourn for the long vacation. These delays occur in our courts as well as in parliament. The hon. member also claimed that there was a discrimination between the rich and the poor. I understand that the cost of a divorce is not very great, and in most cases where the senate committee finds the party is unable to bear the expense it is cut down to the bare cost of printing, with no further charge. Will the hon. member or any other legal gentleman tell me that the cost will be less in a court of law? From the little experience I have had with cases in court I firmly believe that the present procedure is not more costly than would be the case if the procedure were changed.


An hon. MEMBER:: One-third less.


James Arthurs: I believe it is now one-third of what it would be then. The argument with regard to the procuring of evidence would also apply exactly the same in a court of law.
I am firmly convinced that the great majority of the members of this house are opposed to this bill; they are opposed to the general principle of divorce, and why should we as the parliament of Canada force the province of Ontario into this situation? If we are going to do it at all why not include all those provinces which at present have no divorce courts? Why single out Ontario for this legislation with no request from them? For my part I am prepared to vote against this bill on every occasion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those
who deplore as much as anyone in this house the situation with which we are faced, but I propose to vote for this bill. If my hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) were consistent and logical he would move for the abolition of divorce courts all over the country, and that necessarily must be the position of any person opposed to the principle of divorce. As the last speaker pointed out we have divorce courts in six provinces of Canada, and if those who are opposed to the principle of divorce were logical they would move for the abolition of these courts and the prevention of divorce under any circumstances.


James Arthurs: I would point out that
this parliament could not pass such an act; those courts were established under the British North America Act.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then I would propose
that my hon. friend would be willing to accept the British North America Act for the province of Ontario as well as for the other prov-
inces, with all the privileges and rights given those other provinces.
I am supporting this bill not because it will make divorce cheaper or because I believe it will facilitate divorce, but because I believe that before a tribunal of this kind more substantial justice will be given the different parties. I have no criticism to make with respect to the committee of the senate, but consider their position: They are down here for a few months of each year and have to deal with hundreds of divorce cases. They must sit day in and day out and even break up their committee into two or three sections in order to deal with these cases, so under the circumstances divorces go through without the consideration they would get in a court of law. So I say I believe more substantial justice would be done in a court of law than is the case at present.
I am not opposed to the principle of divorce, although I am quite as firmly convinced of the sacrednes of the home and of marriage as my hon. friend from South Huron. There is nothing finer in this or any other country than a happy home, but where you find a home where a mother has deserted her husband and children and gone off with some other man to the United States is it fair to hold that husband to that position for the rest of his life? He may be a young man of only thirty or thirty-five years of age; should he be condemned to remain in that condition because of the weakness of his wife? On the other hand take a home where the man has gone off with some other woman, deserting his wife and family. If that woman can find some person with whom she thinks she can be happy why should she not be free to reestablish her home with a man who will be better to her and more honest with her than the one she first selected?


Mr. CANNON:: Will my hon. friend allow a question? What about the children of the first marriage; are they to be considered?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I believe that the children of any marriage who have been deserted by the father or mother will have a far better chance of a good bringing up with a stepfather than they would have with the father who begat them.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose it works out the other way?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think it applies both
ways. While I deplore the increase in divorces we must remember that conditions are very different to-day from what they were fifty years ago. If it were possible to make
FEBRUARY 26, 1929	4S9
Divorce Court-Mr. Brown
every man a decent husband and every woman a decent wife I would vote against the granting of divorces under any circumstances, but, in my judgment, while there may be a great deal of unhappiness caused by divorces this distress would not be remedied by refusing to grant divorces upon any ground.
We do not propose to facilitate the granting of divorces, but rather to establish in the province of Ontario what is already established in nearly every other province of Canada. I do not believe for one moment that the fact that a divorce court may sit in Toronto or Hamilton or London is going to attract business simply because the courts are there; the number of applications for divorce are just as numerous under the present rule as they would be if a court was established in the province of Ontario. I believe it is in the interests of those who are injured that a better tribunal be established-a tribunal with more time and with perhaps the experience it would gain. That would be a much better way of dealing with this social problem than the one we have at the present time.
Mr. ,T. L. BROWN (Lisgar):	I think it
is a pity that in a debate of this kind we cannot confine ourselves to the real point at issue. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) said that those who had spoken on this question up to the present time were all in favour of divorces. I think the hon. member who introduced this bill (Mr. Woodsworth), the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) have made it very clear that they were not discussing that phase of the question at all. My experience since coming to this house has made me favourable to a bill such as this. The duty has been imposed upon me, as I mentioned once before, of being the representative of the House of Commons on the divorce committee during the last three sessions of this house. Anyone who has attended even one or two sessions of that committee must be impressed with the terrible evil which is growing up in Canada. I have sat in that committee and witnessed scenes that were heart-rending, and I cannot but think of the possibilities that may arise if something is not done to stem this great evil.


Mr. McGIBBON:: How would the courts
stem it?


Mr. BROWN:: At the same time I have
come to realize that we are not dealing with it in the best possible way. Some of the remarks made during the last session have possibly given the impression to the public
that this parliament was not seriously considering this question, and references have already been made at this session to the way in which these divorce bills pass through parliament. We in this house understand the procedure, but unfortunately the public will get the impression that these bills are passed through the parliament of Canada without due and proper consideration. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that while I have been in attendance at the divorce committee I have been impressed with the way in which that very serious business was handled by the gentlemen constituting that committee. It is true that because of the peculiar nature of that committee it has not been able to deal with certain phases of this question in a manner in which a court could deal with them, and it is also true that the pressure is becoming so great that this committee is unable to discharge efficiently the work committed to it. I do not believe that the passage of such a bill as this will either lessen or increase the number of divorces, but I do believe that the establishment of such a court in the province of Ontario, as is already established in most of the other provinces, will enable questions to be settled in regard to the care of children, alimony and many other things to which justice requires that consideration be given.
I can only say again, much as I deplore the tremendous increase in the number of divorces, that I am compelled to vote for the passage of such a bill as this; not that I like divorces, not that I want to see them increased, but in order that we may have a better way of handling a very difficult and complex question.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is
one that should not pass this house. I have had occasion to visit the senate divorce committee and have always been struck with the thoroughness, the dignity, the sobriety and the lack of publicity that is associated with all their work. I quite realize it is a hardship on the senators wrho have to sit there day after day, week after week and month after month to try these cases, but I think I am quite within the mark when I say I can supply them with 245 members of this house who will take the job for them.
I have listened with great interest to the member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) who spoke with all that eloquence for which he is famous, the eloquence which has stood him in great stead in the courts of this country. But when boiled down what does it all mean? His one argument simply was this: that there
490	COMMONS
Divorce Court-Mr. McGibbon
should not be one law for the rich and another for the poor. To which we all subscribe, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the members of this house, what lawyer will go into a court and ask that court to rebate fees because his client is poor, as we so often see happen in this house? Consequently I think the very foundation of his argument falls. It does seem strange to me that we in Ontario should have this thing foisted upon us by the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who does not believe in it, and by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who never has a good word to say for anything in the province of Ontario. But he comes forward, and the member for Labelle comes forward, and they say to the people of Ontario, "It is true that we do not believe in this, but you people in Ontario have got to drink the cup to its dregs."


Mr. BOURASSA:: The hon. member is
making me say the very opposite to what I said. The whole weight of my argument was to demonstrate that we had no right to impose this upon Ontario unless we knew that Ontario wanted such legislation.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the hon.
member how he is going to vote on this bill?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I	am not going to
vote for the second reading unless the amendments which I submitted are adopted, that is, giving to the province of Ontario the right to say whether this legislation shall be put into force.


Peter McGibbon: The member for Labelle has again demonstrated the fact that he can talk upon all sides of a question and vote any way he desires.
When parliament is so susceptible to provincial rights as the house has been, we might at least wait until some responsible organization in Ontario asks for this bill. When it does, parliament will then have a better ground for discussing it upon its merits than it has at the present time. This legislation has not been asked for by the province of Ontario; it is not wanted by many organizations in Ontario. The Catholic church does not want it and I know my hon. friends on the other side will bear me out in that. A large element in the Orange order does not want it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: How does the hon. member know that?


Peter McGibbon: I shall have to admit that I cannot speak with the authority of a grand master, but I have been so informed by many of the followers of that order and I

have been supported in my objections to legislation of this character in the past. The churches are against it. A large number of the women of Ontario are against it. Who is in favour of it? A few people who want a divorce and who probably are not all entitled to it at that, and perhaps a few lawyers who want some employment. If this motion goes to a vote, I intend to vote against it.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, there is no demand in Ontario for this legislation. This bill purports to provide that the Supreme Court of Ontario shall have jurisdiction with respect to divorce. It proposes to copy part of the law of England of the fifteenth July, 1870, and to provide that it, altered, varied, modified or affected as to the province of Ontario shall be the law of the province as to dissolution of marriage and as to annulment of marriage.
The Anglican church is strongly opposed to this legislation and always has been. The bishops of the church at every meeting of the synod have opposed it. Six or seven synods of the church have opposed this legislation as applying to an English speaking province, the province of Ontario. We have the opinion of the Anglican church at the Lambeth conference where the Church of England passed these resolutions. They are summed up in three or four paragraphs:
It appears to a majority of the committee that the abjection to saying the solemn words over a person whose wedlock has been sundered, "Those whom God hath joined together let not man put asunder," is very great. It is a grievous misfortune that in so many cases the really innocent party does not exist. (The report of the committee on marriage of 1908, p. 141).
The conference affirms as our Lord's principle and standard of marriage a life-long and indissoluble union, for better, for worse, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard. (Resolution 67 of 1920, p. 44).
I have a table given in a text book by the head of the Department of Sociology of the University of Pennsylvania showing that 10 per cent of the marriages in the United States have resulted in divorce. That means 100 divorces out of every 1,000 marriages. If you apply that to Ontario, it would mean 25,000 divorces in the province for two and a half million people or more. The Canada Year Book shows the huge increases under the court system as compared with that under the parliamentary system. The Canada Year Book says:
For many years subsequent to confederation the number of divorces granted in Canada was very small, 1883, with thirteen divorces, being

Divorce Court-Mr. Church
the first year in which the number attained two figures, while 1903, with twenty-one divorces, was the record year up to that time. . . .
The effect of the war was to increase very greatly the number of divorces granted in Canada. The causes may be found in the generally unsettling psychological effect of the war period, and the long separations between men on active service and their wives.
There are no resolutions or petitions from Ontario or the Ontario legislature asking for a change in the law. The principle of divorce was adopted at confederation. The change in this bill is as to method, and we should leave the method as it is until such a time as the legislature, church bodies and social organizations of Ontario ask for a change.



HALIFAX HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient >to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Halifax in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works, and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This resolution, upon which a bill will be based, is to cover a loan of $5,000,000 to be made to the Halifax harbour commission. Members of the committee will remember that the port of Halifax is now under a harbour commission, just as the harbours of Montreal, Vancouver, and others have been operating under that form of administration for several years. Last year a

Halifax Harbour Commission
bill passed this house providing for an advance of $500,000 to the newly organized Halifax harbour commission. That money has not been advanced to the commission, because, as I understand it, they were working towards a general program and they did not want to start making expenditures before being sure as to what their requirements would be. This year they have worked out a program for providing new facilities in Halifax harbour, and I think it is a reasonable request which they are now making to parliament. They are asking for the money necessary to enable them to proceed with the work which they have decided to do. Unfortunately, I have not under my hands the details of the work proposed. I have asked the commissioners to supply me with the details, but up to the present time I have not received them. I would ask the committee to treat this resolution in the same way as they did the other resolutions this afternoon, so that the bill may 'be introduced, and then on the second reading or in committee on the bill, hon. members will be able to obtain all the necessary information in regard to the work that is contemplated by the harbour commission.


Mr. QUINN:: Will this vote of $5,000,000 cover any of th9 work that has been already undertaken or finished up to the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not say exactly, because I have received no report of any work having been already undertaken.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Recently a contract was let for $300,000 to build an office building for the commission. Will that be included in this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No report has been made to the department on that as yet, but I will undertake to get the information, and when we are in committee, I shall be able to give a full explanation.


Hugh Guthrie: May I ask upon what the minister bases his request for $5,000,000? Has he any estimate? Does he know what the money is going to be expended for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The harbour commission sent me a statement of the work they proposed to do. It is a very short summary, but I can give it to the committee, if my hon. friend so desires. First, they propose to build a revetment wall.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the harbour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In what part? Do I understand the minister to say that he is asking the house to consent to the passage of a resolution for a loan of $5,000,000 to the Halifax harbour commission, and that he has no knowledge of what their program is?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has never been the practice to give these details on the resolution itself, but rather when we are in committee on the bill. That has been the custom in regard to the votes for Montreal, Vancouver, and other harbours. A very short resume of the work proposed is given on the resolution, and then a full discussion takes place later when the bill is in committee. I have here a long letter from the harbour commissioners, which I can read or place on Hansard, but it will not get us anywhere, because we shall have to start all over again in committee on the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that the minister place the letter on Hansard, so that hon. members will have the, opportunity to study it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Is the committee of opinion that I should read the particulars or piace them upon Hansard?


Hugh Guthrie: The minister said he had a brief summary.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us have the brief summary.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They provide as follows:
Proposed revetment wall	$ 400,000
Pier No. 4-repairs	 8,200
Pier No. 3-repairs	 17,300
New Pier No. 2-repairs	 62,000
Sheds 23, 24, 25 and 28-permanent
foundations and floors	 216,000
Marginal road pavement	 80,000
Pier "A"-two transit sheds..	. .	440,000
Pier "B"-together with two transit
sheds	  4,093,500
General, miscellaneous items, plant
equipment	 110,000
Extension to existing grain elevator, galleries, etc	 1,159,000

. Mr. HANSON: Do I understand that practically all this work represents repairs to the present piers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand that "pier B, together with two transit sheds," provides for the building of the pier itself, because the amount is four million dollars.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What is the amount for pier No. 3?
Mr. CARDIN': The amount is $17,300.

Halifax Harbour Commission


Felix Patrick Quinn: Is it proposed to put that
pier into shape for the loading and unloading of cargoes? The old pier was burned down some years ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I should think the idea of the commissioners is to put the pier in such condition that it can be used.


Hugh Guthrie: There is just one observation I desire to make to the minister at this stage. For the four harbours which appear on the order paper to-day we are asked to appropriate the enormous amount of twenty-nine million dollars; that is, ten million dollars for the harbour of Montreal, ten million dollars for the harbour of Vancouver, five million dollars for the harbour of Halifax, two million dollars for the harbour of Chicoutimi and a like amount for the harbour of Three Rivers. This money, if I understand aright, is advanced to the various harbour commissioners by way of loan, the harbour commissioners issuing bonds against it, which bonds are locked up in the Dominion treasury and looked upon as assets. I understand further that in respect of one or two of the harbours we actually receive interest payments, but that in regard to all the others where this system is in vogue we are not receiving the interest due or past due.
Now, it is to be noted that this vast expenditure is chiefly of benefit-I do not say exclusively-to particular parts of Canada, and that various other large and important parts of the Dominion receive absolutely no benefit from it. I doubt if the little province of Prince Edward Island will receive any direct benefit from this enormous expenditure; not a dollar of it is spent in the great province of Ontario, not a dollar in the four prairie provinces. Does the minister not think that with these enormous sums before parliament at this moment his grants are becoming a little over-balanced in respect to certain parts of Canada at the expense of other parts? What compensation for this tremendous expenditure can he give to the western provinces? How does he propose to even it up? What compensation can he give to Prince Edward Island, what to the great province of Ontario?
I do not say that there is no benefit to the Dominion as a whole in the improvement of our harbours, but the thought passing through my mind is that in respect of several of these items we will be a long time getting any revenue, and that we are plunging a tremendous, amount of money into what is a highly speculative venture. I doubt very much if there is any revenue to be derived from
Chicoutimi or from Three Rivers, and I understand that Quebec harbour is greatly in default in its interest payments to this government. I think the house should stop and consider whether at this particular time in the history of the country we are justified in lending twenty-nine million dollars of our money on what at most will be a rather doubtful security for the treasury of the Dominion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think my hon. friend's
criticism is not fair. It is true we are providing for advances totalling twenty-nine million dollars, but we should not forget that we are advancing ten million dollars to Montreal harbour, ten million dollars to Vancouver harbour and five million dollars to Halifax harbour, or twenty-five million dollars to ports capable of taking care of interest and sinking fund.


Hugh Guthrie: It is problematical.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no doubt in regard to that, because that is what these ports have done in the past.


Hugh Guthrie: Halifax never had a
harbour commission until recently: how do you say it has taken care of interest and sinking fund in the past? I have not offered any criticism in regard to those ports that have paid their interest and have probably justified a new loan; but the rest of it I say is highly speculative.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think it will be a good
speculation in regard to the port of Halifax.


Hugh Guthrie: I hope you are right.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of its importance
and of the amount of business passing through that port, I am inclined to believe that the observations made by my hon. friend are probably the same observations that were made when the first advances were proposed to the port of Vancouver; but the'development of that port has proved advantageous not only to Vancouver but to the country as a whole. The port of Vancouver, to a certain extent, is used by the prairie provinces, because through that port they export their wheat and import what they need for their development. To say that not a cent is being given to the prairie provinces is not fair. My hon. friend has only to look at the order paper to find that we are providing branch lines in the west to a very substantial amount. We are all in favour of that expenditure. But a similar expenditure cannot be made in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The money is spent in the prairie provinces because we think the building of branch lines there is

Halifax Harbour Commission
amply justified; and we think also that the development of our harbours is helping the country at large.
Objection may very well be taken that Chicoutimi is not in a position at the present time to pay interest on any advances; but we ought to remember that the development at this port is just starting, and at the outset we cannot expect the revenues that we will get later on. Already a number of industries have been established at Chicoutimi, and there is no doubt that eventually they will be able to take care of the interest on the money advanced.
So far as Vancouver and Montreal are concerned, I am glad to see my hon. friend admits that they are capable of taking care of their obligations. With these proposed advances I have no doubt that those harbours will be in a position to meet the demands already made upon them for further facilities and show a return on the expenditure. Greater facilities are urgently needed in the port of Vancouver and the port of Montreal.
As to Halifax, I repeat, with the assistance we are trying to give to the maritime provinces, and the importance of the port in view of its situation, there is no doubt that this port, as well as the port of St. John, will be able to pay interest and sinking fund on all the money to be advanced.


Hugh Guthrie: What I thought I could impress on the minister was the fact that we are entering into enormous commitments. The minister has referred to expenditures in the west, and it was partly on that account that I was prompted to say a word in regard to harbour expenditures. On the same order paper one day last week there appeared $29,000,000 for harbours and $28,000,000 for branch lines, money which will have to be raised on the credit of the government of Canada and not on the credit of the railways. In addition to that we were presented with estimates of a proposed expenditure next year of $400,000,000. This, I submit, is enough to stagger the country; it is too much money; it is a riot of expenditure. I believe it is the duty of someone to call the attention of the government and of the people to the rate at which this government is piling up expenditures and piling up obligations which some day will have to be met by the people.


Charles Avery Dunning: In fairness to the house
I must call attention to the remarkable change of front as between last week and this week on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. Only last week hon. gentlemen opposite were voting against this government because it did not

propose to embark upon some very large expenditures. The Prime Minister gave information as to what commitments were involved. They were enormous,-


Robert James Manion: We did not agree with
any such commitments.	[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: -far more than any of
these.


Hugh Guthrie: He talked a lot of
nonsense about those commitments.


Charles Avery Dunning: Either my hon. friend
was talking nonsense then or he is to-night.


Hugh Guthrie: I am talking according
to the order paper.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as the order paper is concerned, one can say this with respect to the general principle of expenditures of this character: that so long as the business of the country is sufficiently large and is expanding with sufficient rapidity to earn interest upon the investment made by the country, then that investment should be made by the country in the same manner as a business institution would make it. That, broadly, is the ground w'e take. As to my hon. friend's criticism of the item now under discussion, he speaks of $29,000,000 of speculation, but he demonstrates immediately that $20,000,000 of that sum cannot, in the light of past experience, be considered even slightly speculative, because the two great ports of Montreal and Vancouver have in the past earned sinking fund and interest payments on the moneys advanced by legislation of this parliament. That, therefore, leaves $9,000,000, of which $5,000,000 goes to, the port of Halifax.
I am one of those who believe that Halifax will fully justify the confidence we are placing in it in that regard and that, as a result very largely too of the policies being adopted by this government with respect to trade expansion

trade expansion which will have a very great deal to do with the development of the port-it will be capable of earning interest on the expenditure now contemplated. If we regard Halifax as a good speculation that merely leaves Chicoutimi and Three Rivers. Now we had from the minister this afternoon information which indicated that the port of Three Rivers had been earning a substantial surplus in the recent number of years from 1924 onward. So that the speculation which my hon. friend so much fears comes down to very narrow limits indeed.
So far as the government is concerned, the same thing is true of branch lines. I would not have '*isen now had it not been for my

Halifax Harbour Commission
lion, friend's reference to branch lines. The branch line program proposed by the government at the instance of the Canadian National Railways is expected to earn for the railways interest upon the investment. The best proof of the probability of this is the fact that the railway is now earning more than is necessary to pay interest on its obligations due the public; and the obligations which will be created by the program now before parliament are obligations which will be due the public and which the railway management expects to earn interest upon and, indeed, a little more than interest.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Judging by the remarks of
the Minister of Railways, I am afraid I have been misunderstood by the committee. I am not opposed either to this resolution or to the vote when it comes before the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I had no intention of
conveying that impression.


Felix Patrick Quinn: But that impression might
be conveyed to the public, and I have been misinterpreted on previous occasions. Up to the present I have asked the minister questions only with regard to expenditures that have been made, as to whether they would be charged up to this loan of $5,000,000 or not. With regard to the loan of $5,000,000 to the Halifax harbour commission, I am heartily in accord with the minister who has introduced the resolution, and I can assure the committee and this house that it would be one of the best investments which the government could make. I may point out, as I did last year, that the shipping tonnage of Halifax is greater than that of Montreal. Halifax is an all the year round port while Montreal is regarded as only an eight months' port; we have therefore a greater shipping tonnage in Halifax than they have in Montreal. So that in my view this loan of $5,000,000 would be justified. What I fear, however, is that the carrying charges of this loan may have some effect on the shipping charges of the port. We in Halifax enjoy the distinction of having one of the lowest priced ports in Canada, if not the lowest, and I am afraid that the carrying charges and the expenses in connection with the management of the harbour commission may increase our port charges, perhaps with serious results. I offer no objection to the resolution and will offer no objection whatever to the vote. I wish, however, to ask the minister to safeguard, as far as it is possible for him to do so, the interests of the port in the matter of low shipping rates.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is the minister able to give to the committee the amount of grain handled through the port of Halifax in the last year for which there is any record?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I am not in a position to give that information, but I shall undertake to have it when we are in committee on the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Having regard to what
the government of Canada has done for other so-called national ports in this country, I think the program which will be laid down before the minister and parliament by the harbour commission of Halifax, as well as that to be laid down by the harbour commission of St. John, will commend itself to the people of the country. If we are to have truly national ports on the Atlantic coast we can have them only by the expenditure of money. The city of St. John in the past has spent its own money, until it reached the point where it could go no further. The people of that city, with hardly an exception, have voted in favour of the harbour commission, and I for one, no matter on which side I sit, wish to see that port developed. I am not altogether in accord with the method by which this end is to be attained, but since it has been the settled policy of the country that it shall be done through harbour commissions, which commissions if possible should carry themselves, then I intend to support that principle until it is proved to be wrong. My idea of the development of national ports in this country is that as nearly as possible they should be free ports; I think that is what we should aim at with regard to the ports of St. John and Halifax especially, having regard to the competition we must meet from United States Atlantic ports. If we grant money to a port and make it pay interest on that money, with the heavy overhead which it must bear-and we cannot disguise the fact that there is a heavy overhead now-I am afraid that unless the tonnage is greatly increased the port charges may be raised. That is something which will militate against the port, and I want to say here and now that I believe it is the national duty of this parliament to sustain transatlantic traffic as far as possible through our Canadian ports, even if it is done at the expense of the public treasury. I believe that position will be upheld by the great body politic of the people of Canada, and I have pleasure in supporting this vote to the Halifax harbour commission. However, I do say that it seems more than passing strange that when the minister comes

Halifax Harbour Commission
to parliament for support of a resolution of this character he is unable to give us any details. It does seem to me that he is a little premature in presenting this resolution.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I understand that the
minister proposes to present to the house the policy of the government with respect to the equipment of the ports of Canada. I believe during last session he stated that at a suitable opportunity he would do that, and we will look forward with a great deal of interest to his statement in that respect.
In these matters the point is not always whether or not the investment will pay directly; the loans to certain of these ports must be kept quite distinct and apart from the question whether there is actually a direct revenue to repay the loans. The reason is that this Dominion cannot for one moment take the position that it is not going to have properly equipped ports; Canada would not be a Dominion if it were not properly equipped with ports to carry on our trade with the rest of the world. This is a direct national question; I cannot regard it as a purely local matter, and I think many of the members of this house will agree with me. While the ports so equipped are of particular benefit to their own localities, they are of perhaps even greater value to the whole country. How could we possibly carry on our trade if we did not have ports properly and sufficiently equipped? I will support votes to all the ports that should be equipped; I cannot speak from personal knowledge with reference to the smaller ports on the St. Lawrence, but certainly I will support votes to Vancouver on the west and the ports on the Atlantic coast. I hope this year the minister will announce a national policy with regard to our ports, or certain of them which must be regarded as essential and necessary for the welfare of the Dominion.
I do not want to approach the subject by saying that when the ports are equipped the rest of the Dominion does not participate in the advantages they bring to the country, because that is not correct; they are equally valuable to the whole country, if not more so. Nor do I say that as an offset there is a huge expenditure on branch lines in the west, nor that in the central provinces, I would still have in reserve a vastly greater expenditure on the canals. However, I do not approach the question in that way; I do not think it desirable to do so. We should not have the idea in mind that a certain development in one portion of the country is of advantage only locally. All these ports will

be of advantage to the whole Dominion, and they are necessary if we are to have a country which will grow and prosper and take care of its own business.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I would like to call the
attention of the house to an altogether different phase of this question. In the Duncan report the question of national ports and the harbours of St. John and Halifax are dealt with, and we must remember that in referring to the report of that commission the Prime Minister said the government were prepared to accept the recommendations practically in their entirety.
What were the recommendations of the Duncan commission as far as these two ports were concerned? They recommended that they should be nationalized and put under commissions, and what did that recommendation as to nationalization mean? We believe it meant that these ports were to be adequately equipped and that the expenditure necessary from time to time for their development and maintenance should be provided by the Dominion of Canada as a whole because these are national ports, open all the year and necessary for the development of Canada. But what do we find to-day? From confederation down until two years ago all the wharves, docks and equipment of the port of Halifax were provided either by the Department of Public Works or the Intercolonial railway,	and	the	port	wasmaintained and operated practically free from dues. Now the minister comes to parliament and asks us to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Halifax upon which they must pay interest, and how are they to provide that interest? They can only provide it by imposing fees on all tonnage coming into the harbour, so that instead of maintaining this as a great national free to shipping port we	will	be	doing	theopposite. Was that the intention of the Duncan report? I	am	quite	sure	noman in this house	who	has	read	the
report and who knows anything about the history of the port, its organization, and the part it played in the history of Canada, can form that opinion. I protest emphatically against these so-called nationalized maritime ports being placed by this government in such a position as that.


Mr. RALSTON:: I thought the house and
this committee listened last year almost ad nauseam to a discussion of the point just raised by my hon. friend, and I want to ask him now to read the recommendation in the report dealing with the ports of Halifax and

Halifax Harbour Commission
St. John and show us where it recommends what he has just suggested. I want to say to him that the report is to the effect that these ports should be dealt with as are the other great ports of Canada.


Thomas Cantley: Where do they say that?


James Layton Ralston: In the report; apparently
my hon. friend has forgotten. It he had been here last year he would have heard the whole thing discussed.


Thomas Cantley: It is not as convenient
for me to forget as it is for some of my hon. friends opposite.


James Layton Ralston: I do think that my hon.
friends from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, if they associate themselves with this discussion, should not put the province of Nova Scotia or the port of Halifax in the position of refusing what is being done in all good faith in an endeavour to carry out the recommendations of that report. The Duncan report recommended the appointment of a harbour commission; it was appointed and last year we made a loan of $500,000 to that commission. This resolution proposes a further loan of $5,000,000, and my hon. friends are not putting the province of Nova Scotia in a fair light before the whole country when they continually harp on the question whether or not this is the exact form in which the Duncan report described the assistance which should be given these ports. The point is that the money is to be granted and these ports are to be carried on in a businesslike and efficient way. The commission was appointed in order that there would be some body which would have an opportunity and be in position to get business for the port, and to provide facilities to both the shipper and those who provide bottoms for the purpose of carrying freight. This body was to work out a coordinated program for the development of that port, and it has endeavoured to do so.
I do not think it adds anything worth while to the discussion to harp continually on the question of whether the Duncan report has been carried out in its exact form. As a matter of fact, if you read the report with relation to these ports-and I have taken pains to ascertain this from other sources as wrell as the report itself-you will find that it was intended that these ports should be dealt with in a similar manner to that in which the other great ports of the Dominion were treated. It has been suggested that these ports are going to be damaged. A government would be foolish to adopt methods whereby ports which had been conducted in the way my hon. friend describes would sud-78594-32
denly find themselves injured by the establishment of such a commission. It would be nonsensical and idiotic for a commission to carry on their work in a way which would drive shipping away from the port. I want to say to my hon. friend, and say to this committee, that I do not subscribe for one moment to the doleful wails which come from time to time from our friends opposite, who are bound to look a gift horse in the mouth, as it were, and see if there is not some way in which they can accuse this government of not dotting every I and crossing every T in connection with the Duncan report.
My hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) raised what seemed to me to be a new question with regard to this matter; he selected the vote to the harbour of Halifax as the object of an attack on this government for extravagance.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I did not; I said the aggregate of these votes.


James Layton Ralston: He selected this resolution which is now before the committee. I did not hear him make any complaint before, but when it comes to the harbour of Halifax that is the time when hands must be raised and shrieks uttered to indicate that this government has started a riot of extravagance. I want to say that if every resolution and every item in these estimates is as fully justified as the vote for the harbour of Halifax, then I think there will be no complaint on that score. The words of my hon. friend's leader are still ringing in the ears of the members of this committee when he pleaded the other day for the expenditure of further large sums of money on certain works which were being discussed at that time. You cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
My hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition raised another issue, and one which I am sorry to hear him raise. He does not generally do this, but in some way or other he seemed to have got off on a wrong tack. He asked where there was anything in this vote for the western provinces and for the great province of Ontario. He cannot vote money in one resolution for every province in the Dominion; we have to take one at a time. As has been properly pointed out by my hon .friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin), there are specific resolutions on the order paper for railways in the west. A considerable portion of the western grain will pass through these eastern ports. I ask the province of Ontario through what ports of the Dominion of Canada they ship their goods of this time of year except through



Halifax Harbour Commission
the ports of Halifax and St. John. My hon. friend shed tears over the province of Prince Edward Island, but there happens to be a vote in the estimates for something like $3,-
500,000	for a car ferry for that province. The provinces are not being neglected, and I do think it ill becomes my hon. friend to seize this vote as an opportunity to talk about extravagance and complain about the expenditures which are being made. My hon. friend's expression was that the house should hesitate in connection with this vote.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that; I said the house should hesitate and be staggered by the aggregate of these votes.


James Layton Ralston: I accept my hon. friend's statement, but Hansard will show just what he did say. Let us put it in the plural, and say that he said "these votes" while we were discussing this particular resolution, but I think he was effectively answered by his own fellow member from Halifax (Mr. Quinn), by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) and by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). These hon. gentlemen have intimated that they are strongly in favour of this vote. Of course they are in favour, because it is a vote for a national port in the Dominion of Canada, a port which is absolutely necessary in order that the business of the Dominion should be carried on.
I am very much pleased that my colleagues in the government have agreed to putting this amount in the estimates and to making this advance to the harbour of Halifax. If my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition had been in Halifax during the last few months and had seen the development there, had realized that the Canadian National ships are sailing from that port to all parts of the world, had realized the West India service is proving such a success, had known that the great steamship lines are making Halifax their turning point, then he would have realized that this house is fully justified in the vote which is proposed to be made by this resolution. I am glad to support it, and I am glad, as I said a moment ago, to be a member of a government which recognizes the importance of this port and which does not do any cheese paring when dealing with a port which has the merits of the port of Halifax.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, in no way did I limit my remarks to the port of Halifax, and no one in this committee understood that I did. It happened to be on this particular vote that I spoke, but my remarks were directed entirely to the aggregate expenditure 
proposed by the government, and not in regard to these four or five harbours. I referred to the aggregate expenditure proposed in regard to railway extensions, and the point I intended to make and did make was that it was time to call a halt. I mentioned the fact that the expenditures for harbours on the one side, and railways on the other, called for guarantees of about $57,000,000, and in addition to this amount there had been estimates placed before the house amounting to $400,000,000. I realize that the expenditure in respect to the port of Halifax is an attempt to carry out the recommendations of the Duncan report, but it is time that someone called attention to the manner in which this government is piling up expenditures. That is what I intended to do and what I hope I succeeded in doing, and I repudiate the suggestion that my remarks were in any way directed against the port of Halifax.


Thomas Cantley: I do not propose to be lectured by the hon. the Minister of National Defence. I think I have read the Duncan report as often and as carefully as has the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that my hon. friend read it again.


Thomas Cantley: I will do that when it suits me to do so and without any advice from the minister. I may read and later refer to it so often that he will regret having referred to it. I think I understand the language of that report, and I submit, as I have already stated, that the action proposed to be taken now is not in accordance with the recommendations of that report. So far as "harping" on this commission's report is concerned, or "whining," which is the language -of another of the hon. minister's colleagues -I want to say that I am perfectly willing that my attitude and his should be loft to the judgment of the people of Nova Scotia.


Mr. PRICE:: I regret very much that the Minister of National Defence has become so stirred up over the rather mild criticism which has been offered from this side of the house with regard to the development of the ports of Halifax and St. John. The house is to be congratulated on the fact that we have been getting along so nicely; that legislation has been moving so rapidly, and that the policies of the government are being worked out by both sides of the house in such an harmonious manner. We are all pleased with the development that has taken place at the ports of Halifax and St, John, and also with the fact that the White Star

Railway Act
line has given up the terminal of Portland, Maine, on the Grand Trunk system and has adopted Halifax instead. That suggestion, I think, came largely from this side of the house, and it was pointed out that the government had acquired the Grand Trunk-


James Layton Ralston: I understand it was my hon. friends on that side of the house who voted to purchase the road to Portland.


Otto Baird Price: I was coming to that. After the amalgamation of the roads in days gone by and our being put in possession of the Grand Trunk railway which runs down to Portland, we were in a position to talk to the White Star people and to see whether it was possible to divert to a Canadian Atlantic port the traffic which was going to Portland. I am glad toi note that has been done and the White Star line, after a successful test made with the steamer Regina, decided that Halifax would be in future their port. I am sure we on this side of the house are very much pleased with the efforts that have been made and the success that has been attained in this regard, in that the ports of Halifax and St. John are being recognized and that the government of the day, by improving them, is still further recognizing them. I hope in the near future the Minister of Railways will see his way clear to take the matter up with the management of the railways and see whether the grades cannot be lessened over that portion of the Canadian National Railways known as the Intercolonial where the grades are at the present time a little high. If that can be accomplished, we would have heavier trains passing through, and our Atlantic ports would be recognized more than they have been in the past.
I wish to point out to the Minister of Railways and the Minister of National Defence that the time is coming very rapidly when it will be almost unsafe on this side of the house to offer any criticism at all. We have been so far particularly mild on this side, but I can assure the government that there are points in connection with the recommendations of the Duncan commission that have not yet been carried out. As far, however, as these ports are concerned, we, as maritimers, are very much in accord with the stand which has been taken by the government in regard to their development.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 69, to provide a further loan to the Halifax harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
7S594-32J



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 60, to amend the Railway Act.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Explain.


Charles Avery Dunning: This bill contains several amendments. The matters dealt with in it are unrelated to each other, and it is therefore rather difficult, on the second reading, to discuss any one principle. The procedure I thought of suggesting to the house was that the whole bill might be referred, after discussion on the second reading, to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, there to be examined without prejudice to discussion on the part of any hon. member at a later stage in committee of the whole. I will just run over the objects of the amendments proposed in the bill.
The first amendment deals with a matter discussed at the last session of parliament, namely, that of tolls on international bridges. It will be remembered that last session there was some discussion as to difficulties arising through various authorities having power to regulate tolls on international bridges, and I gave an undertaking on behalf of the government that we would look into the matter, and, if possible, propose a solution. The solution which is proposed in the first amendment in this bill is that all tolls on such bridges, however incorporated in the past, whatever the terms of the legislation presently existing may be, will ' in future be under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners in the same manner as all other tolls.
The second amendment deals with a matter also discussed at the last session, and places under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners the issue, sale or other disposition of increased capital stock of any company, the tolls of which are subject to the approval of the board. In that connection I would just say that the proposed amendment is of great importance and far-reaching in its effects. I am advised that a number of institutions coming under the legislation desire to make representations with regard to it, and I presume those representations will, if that is agreeable to the house, be made to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
The third amendment deals with the subject matter of the resolution passed a day or two ago, extending the provisions relating to contributions to the grade crossing fund for a further period of ten years at the rate of $200,000 a year. I gave some information when the resolution was before the house and if the bill goes to the railway committee it will be possible there to summon the officer?
Railway Act

of the railway commission and to go into any phase of the administration of the grade crossing fund.
The fourth and fifth amendments are made at the request of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and are technical in character, designed to facilitate the filing of tariffs and reduce the number of tariffs to be filed in certain cases. I am advised by the board that, in order to comply with the law as it at present exists, it is necessary for companies to file as many as 170 documents in connection with one particular item of freight traffic. The recommendations of the board have to do with simplifying the procedure in that regard.
The sixth amendment deals with a question much discussed last session, having to do with companies which are subsidiary to companies at present within the range of the act. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has a bill now before the railway committee dealing with this matter. During the recess the law officers of the department and of the railway commission and of the Department of Justice have been giving attention to the best manner in which to effectuate the purpose which was the subject of so much discussion last session, and which is now made a part of this bill. The method of obtaining the objective is unlike the one adopted by my hon. friend from South Toronto. The proposal in this bill is more far-reaching. It embraces all the companies falling within the purview of the act, but I think it will be found to be completely satisfactory so far as effectuating that purpose is concerned, if parliament desires to have that purpose effectuated. I submitted the proposal to the railway commission with the question as to whether they would have under these amendments with respect to subsidiary companies all the powers necessary to enable them to make any investigation into their affairs which the carrying out of the act would necessitate, and the answer was that the amendments proposed, and as contained in this bill, would enable them to do what was desired in that regard.
I think that covers all the proposals contained in the bill. While I am, of course, prepared to listen to a discussion of any of them, I am debarred on the second reading from speaking again and from answering questions, and I suggest that it would be more convenient to discuss the amendments at another stage. I just wish to advise the house that it is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the railway committee, in order that an examination of all the details of the bill can be there made.


Hugh Guthrie: I have listened with a good deal of

interest to the explanation of the minister, and I have read the bill with some care. The bill is involved and to some extent technical, and I think the suggestion of the minister that it be now read a second time and be referred to the railway committee for further consideration is a very wise one.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret that the house go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That the Minister of Finance be authorized to place to the credit of the custodian, out of the reparation money paid into the treasury for losses sustained during the late war, a sum not exceeding $2,500,000 and that provision be made as to the method and scale of payments.
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Qucens-Lunenburg):: Before any debate takes place, I would ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) if he would explain the proposals of the government under this resolution.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: That is my intention. This question
was before the house during the last session, having been brought up on a motion moved by the hon. gentleman who has just risen (Mr. Ernst).


Hugh Guthrie: Is the hon. gentleman
closing the debate, Mr. Speaker?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, I am opening it.


Hugh Guthrie: He has already spoken.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
hon. gentleman has spoken once.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The question was raised
the other day when this motion was before the house, and I understood there was to be a debate to give the minister a chance to explain the resolution. I am in the hands of the house, but it seems only natural that an explanation should be made.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister close
the debate by speaking now? He has already spoken.


Hewitt Bostock: No. He is simply appealing to the house for a chance to explain the resolution in committee.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps my hon. friends
would consent to the resolution going into committee, and I will make my explanation there.

War Reparations-Mr. Ernst


William Gordon Ernst: I would ask the minister
to make his explanation now.


Hewitt Bostock: He has already spoken.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I cannot do it on both
occasions.


William Gordon Ernst: Before the resolution goes to the committee, there are some remarks that I wish to make. We are in the somewhat unusual position of having a resolution introduced by the minister, setting aside $2,500,000 for certain purposes connected with reparation claims, and we are completely in the dark as to what is meant by the resolution. As I understood the minister's attitude when the resolution was first moved, he refused to give information.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, that is not fair


William Gordon Ernst: I asked him when he was on his feet to give the house some explanation as to his proposals. The only assumption we can make is that -in setting aside $2,500,000 the government is setting aside a sum that is insufficient to pay the claims in full. Whether the minister may say later that the 12,500,000 is being set aside as a payment by way of instalment, I do not know, but I am going to assume for the moment that this amount is being set aside not as an instalment, but as the final dealing of the government with the question of reparations; that the government is setting aside $2,500,00, as was intimated by the minister, as an act of grace towards those who suffered loss by reason of enemy actions during the late war.
I had occasion last year to refer at some length to this matter. It is not my intention to go into it fully now, but there are a few remarks relative to the subject which I feel ought to be repeated in order that the house may have a clear understanding of the situation.
We have in the consolidated revenue fund of this country to-day, or had last year, the sum of $10,800,000, which has been received as payment on reparations from Germany under the treaty of Versailles. We should have to-day in the consolidated revenue fund, if Germany has made her payments during the year, approximately $15,000,000, because the payments of reparations by Germany to Canada are fixed at approximately $5,000,000 for an indefinite period of years. Those payments are made, if at all, by reason of one fact only, namely a contract made between this country, as one of the allied nations, and Germany, and that contract is known as the treaty of Versailles. Those payments are being made under article 232 of the treaty of
Versailles, and at the risk of repetition I want the house to listen again to that article.
I shall read only a portion of it:
The allied and associated governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the allied and associated powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an allied or associated power against Germany by such aggression by land by sea and from the air, and in general all damage as defined in Annex I hereto.
The first thing to which I wish to draw the attention of the house is that obviously the whole spirit of that section is the payment of civilian damage, whether it be damage to property or to life or to health. Added to it is " in general all damage as defined in Annex I" of the article. Now Annex I contains some ten subsections, eight of them relating entirely to the individual and only two of them relating to the state. One of those two is of no consequence, and the second relates to the payment of pensions on the French scale.
We have received money from Germany under that contract, and in no other way; and the whole spirit of the contract is that this money is paid as compensation for civilian losses during the war inflicted by Germany or her allies. We have received to-day, as I pointed out in the beginning of my remarks, approximately $15,000,000. lhat is one side of the picture. We have received that money from Germany under a contract, and it is ear-marked for a certain purpose.
The other side of the picture is this: Have we ascertained the claims for which that money has been paid by Germany? I need not take you any further back than the report of Mr. Friel, which was filed with the government on December 27, 1927. I may say in passing that last year the excuse which the Secretary of State offered for not dealing with the matter was that the government had not had time, that they only received the report late in the session. But they had the report of Mr. Friel in their possession on December 27, 1927, the date which it bears, or one month before the session began.
By this report Mr. Friel found that some sixteen hundred people in this country are entitled to payment of claims in full under article 232 of the treaty of Peace. Those sixteen hundred people have coming to them a total amount in round figures of $4,246,000. He has recommended the payment of interest at five per cent in the case of property loss from the date of the loss, in the case of all other claims from the date of the ratification

IVar Reparations-Mr. Ernst
of the treaty of Versailles by this parliament, January 10, 1920. With interest those claims amount to-day to approximately $6,500,000. According to the figures which the Secretary of State tabled last session they amounted then to just a little over six and one-quarter millions of dollars.
Now, sir, we have the complete picture. We have fifteen million dollars in the consolidated revenue fund of this country received from Germany, and we have the claims ascertained at six and a half million dollars, with interest. Why, then, is the government setting aside two and a half million dollars to pay these claims? Why not the six and a half million dollars which are requisite to pay them in full?
The attitude which the minister took last session was this. He said: we are going to follow the practice of Great Britain. Because they made ex gratia payments, we are going to make ex gratia payments, or charitable donations, if you choose to call them such, to those who suffered loss by enemy action. He also said that the provisions of article 232 of the peace treaty had been abrogated at the conference of the Spa in 1921, so that that article, in popular parlance, went by the board. I ask hon. members if they ever heard of a contract between two individuals abrogated by a bargain made between two other individuals. Suppose I make a contract with the hon. Secretary of State, can I abrogate that contract by entering into an agreement with the member for Inverness? Yet that is what he is saying in relation to article 232 of the treaty of Versailles. He cannot produce anything to show the house that Germany is paying one cent to this country or to any other of !the allies, with the exception of the United States, under any other arrangement than that set out in article 232 of the treaty of Versailles; and in the case of the United States Germany pays under a separate treaty which contains exactly the same provisions.
Great Britain's course was what? Great Britain in 1920 set aside five million pounds, which was applied towards payment of necessitous claims in the first place, and on a sliding scale towards payment of all other claims. But for two reasons the case of Great Britain is not parallel with ours. Firstly, when Great Britain set aside five million pounds she was setting aside her own money; she had not received any from Germany. In the second place, Great Britain requisitioned all her shipping during the war. It was under the control of the state; the state insured it, and
I Mr. Ernst.]
if a ship was lost the insurance company paid the policy money. In other words, if the owner lost his ship he did not lose the value of it; he received compensation. But in this country the shipping was carried on by private individuals, and if a ship went down the owner had to bear the loss. Consequently, as a majority of our claims are claims for shipping losses, there is no parallel between the situation in Great Britain and the precedent which the minister finds in the action of the British government, and our own situation.
Let us take the record of the government itself. The action of Great Britain dates back to 1920. In 1925 this government surely was aware of the precedent which had been set up by Great Britain, yet in 1925 they appointed Mr. Friel to investigate these claims. They were also aware of that precedent in 1923, when they appointed the late Doctor Pugsley to investigate claims falling within article 232 of the treaty. I ask the house to bear with me for one minute while I turn to the commission of Doctor Pugsley. This is the first paragraph:
Whereas, in and by an order of our governor general in council, bearing date the thirteenth day of March, in the year of Our Lord, 1923, (copy of which is hereto annexed), provision has been made for an investigation by our commissioner therein and hereinafter named and report upon all of the claims set forth and referred to in the said order in council hereto annexed, for the purpose of determining whether they are within the categories in the first annex to section one of part eight (reparation) of the treaty of peace with Germany, and the fair amount of such claims, and to make such findings as may be of assistance to the government of Canada in determining w'hieh, if any, of such claims should be paid and the extent of payment thereof, and for the purpose of considering and recommending to the custodian of enemy property releases where the parties are necessitous, suffering and in hardship.
I draw the attention of the house to these words:
-to make such findings as may be of assistance to the government of Canada in determining which, if any, of such claims should be paid, and the extent of payment thereof,
In the first place, Doctor Pugsley was appointed to investigate claims falling within article 232 of the treaty of peace. In the second place, he was appointed to determine the fair amount of the claims in order to assist the government in deciding what they should do. Doctor Pugsley's appointment,
I may say in passing, was three years after the action of Great Britain, which is now set up as a precedent. In 1925, when Mr. Friel, was appointed, the recital in the commission

War Reparations-Mr. Ernst
reads in part the same as that given to Doctor Pugsley, but the last words are different:
"Whereas in and by our certain letters patent under the great seal of Canada, bearing dates respectively the thirteenth day of March and the twenty-first day of May in the year of Our Lord, 1923, a copy of which is hereto annexed, we did nominate, constitute and appoint the late the Honourable William Pugsley, in his lifetime of the city of St. John in the province of New Brunswick, to be our commissioner to investigate and report upon all the claims^ set forth and referred to in the orders in council of the thirteenth day of March and the twenty-first day of May, 1923, copy of which was annexed to our letters patent respectively, and all claims which might be submitted to our said commissioner for the purpose of determining whether they are within the first annex to section one of part eight of the treaty of Versailles and the fair amount of such claims.
Now I ask the house to note the change in the wording. In this case Mr. Friel was appointed to investigate claims falling within article 232 of the treaty of peace, and he is appointed to recommend the fair amount of such claims. The words:
.-as may be of assistance to the government of Canada in determining which, if any, of such claims should be paid, and the .extent of payment thereof-
-have been deleted from the recital, and obviously they have been deleted for a purpose. That purpose was that the government at that date thought it would be bound to pay what Mr. Friel recommended. That is obvious from the fact that on the very day of issue of Mr. Friel's commission Mr. Copp, then Secretary of State, introduced into this house a resolution providing for payment of Mr. Friel's awards. How in face of that declaration of policy can the government come here and say to-day:	"We are going to
provide two and a half million dollars in payment of claims which with interest aggregate six and a half million dollars"? It is changing the whole policy of the government, and changing it, I submit, without reason.
Mr. Friel in the course of his report recommended that all these claims be paid in full with interest on property loss from the date of loss, and on all other claims from the date of ratification of the peace treaty by this country. Now, sir, in addition, to that, when Mr. Friel was appointed, as also when Doctor Pugsley was appointed, there were other significant words in the orders in council. In both orders the German government was given the right to have counsel appear before both Mr. Friel and Doctor Pugsley on the investigation of these claims. I ask the Secretary of State, what interest has the German goveminent in a charitable donation by this government to the citizens of this country? Why was the German government allowed to have counsel, indeed, asked to have counsel before the reparations commissioner if it was not because the government felt bound by article 232 of the treaty of peace?
It is not my intention to labour this question at great length, but I submit that we have in the United States an exact parallel to our own case. The treaty of peace between Germany and the United States contains a provision which is identical with our article 232. The United States last year provided for the payment of its reparations claims in full, and to do so they required $191,000,000. They did not have enough German reparations money and so they took $50,000,000 of their own. They took a large sum from the enemy property fund and paid in full all claims up to $100,000, and provided, in respect to the larger claims, that payment would be made in full as the money was received from Germany. Their situation being precisely the same as ours, they present an exact parallel; and if the government are looking for a precedent in this instance I would ask them to look, as they so often do, to the south of the line and not across the water.
But apart altogether from the equity of the matter, I submit that there are moral reasons why these claims should be paid. I know that the minister will probably reproach me with confusing issues if I refer to the enemy property fund and the payments made out of that fund. But we had in this country, and we have to-day, a very considerable fund made up of sequestrated German property and debts due from the people of this country [DOT]to German nationals, and the distribution of that fund falls within articles 296 and 297 of the treaty. Broadly speaking, claims under the treaty can be made against that fund only in the case of detention or destruction of property within the boundaries of Germany during the war. Let me give an example. At the outbreak of the war the Thompson Shipping Company had two vessels tied up in Hamburg, where they remained during the war. That company were able to claim under article 296 of the treaty, and they received an award of $1,300,000 from the mixed tribunal which sits in London, so that the government of this country paid out of the enemy property fund that sum in settlement of the Thompson Shipping Company's claim. What is the difference morally or in equity between the case of the Thompson Shipping Company and that of Besco-or the Scotia company,

War Reparations-Mr. Cantley
a subsidiary of Besco-which had five vessels sunk on the high seas during the war? Are we to give the Thompson Shipping Company 100 cents on the dollar and, relying upon a technicality, give to the Scotia only 10 cents? Is that equitable or just?
Take another case within article 296. The Massey-Harris Company had a large amount of property sequestrated in Germany, in respect to which they received $300,000; while The T. Eaton Company had a large amount sequestrated in Amsterdam, outside the bounds of Germany, and so it did not fall within either article 296 or 297. The T. Eaton Company had to rely on article 232. The Massey-Harris Company received 100 cents on the dollar; an<l are we going to give the T. Eaton Company 10 cents? I ask the members of this house whether that is reasonable or just. Can we make fish of one and flesh of the other? Having considered ourselves bound by the provisions of articles 296 and 297, are we going to say that in this case article 232 is not applicable? Let me tell the house further that in the case of disputed claims, where there is no claim under 296 or 297, and where the claim has only been asserted, the German government pays 15 per cent in settlement. Now are we going to be worse than the German government, which pays our nationals 15 per cent on an unfounded claim, and pay to our own people, on claims which are just, only 10 cents? But there are other moral reasons besides.
Take the situation in my own constituency * and I know that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) will corroborate every word I say. A large number of fishing vessels were sunk there during the war; the submarines got amongst the fleet and destroyed the vessels.	These vessels are
operated on the share basis: the men go to sea in the ships, relying for their pay on the proportion of the value of the catch to which they are entitled. Many of these ships were sunk, in many instances when they contained their catch, so that the men lost their season's earnings. The vessels are more or less community owned; many of the men who sail in them are shareholders.	The commissioner
recommended the payment of property loss as well as payment on account of lost earnings; he also recommended compensation as solatium in the case of men who were set adrift sometimes hundreds of miles from land in open dories. In many instances these men came home penniless. Some had to mortgage their homes to get along or had to be carried by the local merchants. They had to pay interest on the money they borrowed to tide
TMr. Ernst.]
them over the period to which their earnings would have applied. They paid interest on that money, and are they not to be compensated for the loss they have sustained? I appeal to the government therefore, even at this late date, to amend this resolution so as to make payment not only of 100 cents on the dollar but also of interest, as recommended by the commission. In so doing, the government would be only doing justice, and tardy justice at that.


Thomas Cantley: I
wish to support the claim made by the hon. member who has spoken (Mr. Ernst). I am surprised at the action taken by the government in this matter. In New Glasgow one of our ships, of about 5,500 tons, was taken over by the British government and was later sunk in the Mediterranean. The owners were paid the full value of that vessel years ago as was done in cases referred to by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). Take the case of half a dozen ships or more owned by the Scotia company of New Glasgow: we owned or -controlled some 75,000 tons or more of shipping at the beginning of the war and at its conclusion had but one vessel left. We had a steamer carrying railway cars to Vladivostok, built at New Glasgow for the then allied Russian government; owing to the collapse of the Panama canal she had to be sent through the Mediterranean and the Suez canal. That ship was torpedoed south of the island of Crete, the crew being turned adrift. They were adrift some five days in wintry weather, finally landing on the south of Crete, after one of the boats was upset in the swell and its occupants thrown into the water. Now that is only one case out of several. Had these vessels been taken over by the British government, as was another New Glasgow-owned steam vessel, full compensation would have been made and that years ago. There was only one reason why they were not so taken over by that government; they were employed almost solely in the transport of railway cars or other material for use of the British government or the allies. Their charter value at that time, according to the rates paid other steamers, would have been quite $200,000 per month. As yet we have not received a penny, and now the Secretary of State proposes to pay us 15 per cent of our loss. Is there anything fair, is there anything just, is there anything reasonable in that proposition? I leave it to the house.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I rise at this stage to protest against the principle involved in this resolution. The

War Reparations-Mr. Ladner
very able addresses of the last two speakers leave little to be said, if it is possible to convince the government of the wisdom, even at this moment, of changing their course. There is another aspect of the question. I had intended covering some of the points made by the last two speakers, but will not need to do so. However, I would like to point out the injustice, the unfairness and the lack of consideration on the part of the government with respect to Canadian citizens as compared with the treatment received by citizens of the United States, Great Britain and Germany. There is the case of a company -which insured vessels carrying produce across the ocean; the vessels were sunk, the goods lost and the insurance paid. The insurance company is subrogated to the ranks of the claimants. In the United States, under the act known as the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, the rights and merits of these claims were fully investigated and an act was put through providing that claimants of this kind, wffio actually sustained the loss, should be reimbursed to the extent of one hundred cents on the dollar plus interest.
Part of the work in Canada had been done before Commissioner Friel was appointed. I know of one case where Commissioner Pugsley brought down a judgment which was not officially reported, favouring the claimant. Mr. Friel inquired into the whole Question again and came to the conclusion that the claim should not be allowed because of a technicality which is . not recognized in any other country; in other words, equitably and legally he was entirely wrong. I understood that it was the intention of the government some time ago to provide for the right of appeal to the exchequer court; large sums of money and consequent far-reaching effects upon business make it right and just that something more than the authority of a commissioner of the government Should be final in matters of this kind. Why the government have changed their course I do not know; they seek to appropriate $2,500,000 now, with the inference that this is the final distribution, notwithstanding ithe fact that the government have in hand approximately $15,000,000 of German money under the Dawes plan whidh, by all rules of common sense and ordinary understanding, was intended to reimburse the nationals of this country. I think the forceful argument of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. ' Ernst) not only demonstrates that point but is overwhelmingly convincing in the conclusion he drew.
Now I put it to the government: On what ground of reason, fairness or justice to our own people whom we normally seek to protect can the government refuse to use this money for this purpose? In addition to that they have some $12,000,000 iij the hands of the custodian of alien property, which under certain conditions would be available to our nationals. It seems to me that instead of aiming to protect and reimburse our own people for whom they are trustees, the government are seeking to deprive Canadians of the money and rights to Which they are justly entitled through the depredations and the inhuman conduct of the enemy during the war; they are depriving our people of these things and extending to Canadians a treatment which the citizens of no other country are obliged to receive. I do not put it stronger than that, because I do not think it is the intention of the Secretary of State to throw deliberately upon the people of this country who were injured as a result of the wrongful acts- of the enemy an injustice which cannot be defended in a court of law, in parliament or before the bar of public opinion.
There is just one other aspect of the case. I appeal to the government to carry out the understanding, whether official or unofficial, that the right of appeal to the exchequer court would be established. These claims, involving large sums of money, should not be left to the judgment of one official of the government; there should be a right of appeal to some court and I submit that the exchequer court is the proper place. I want to draw the attention of the government to the case of the Lusitania, which covers some of the points with which I am concerned, and which was considered in the United States before the umpire of the Mixed Claims Commission, whose judgment was as follows:
The Lusitania -was freighted with persons and with personal property. Germany's act in destroying her caused the loss of the ship, some of the lives, and practically all of the property that formed her cargo. The lives that were lost and the property that was destroyed entailed economic losses to the world, to the nations to which they belonged, and to the individuals owning or having an interest in the property or dependent for contributions upon the physical or mental efforts of those whose producing power was destroyed by death. The aggregate amount of the property lost became fixed when the ship sank and is neither increased or diminished nor in any wise influenced by the amount of the insurance or reinsurance thereon. The insurance becomes material only in determining -who really suffered the loss. This is because a contract of marine or war risk insurance is a contract of indemnity ingrafted on and inhering in the property insured.

War Reparations-Mr. Ladner
The extent of the liability thereunder is limited by the economic loss suffered. The insured suffers no loss to the extent of payments made him by the insurer, who is the real loser to the extent of such payments not reimbursed by reinsurance.
That is an,extract from the decisions given by the Mixed Claims Commisison in the United States. I have had brought to my attention, among others, one claim of some substance which comes exactly within the principle of that decision, a principle which has been followed in Great Britain, and I submit that in the face of the finding of the commissioner, wherein he bases his decision against the law and against the equities as they are determined in other countries, nothing could be fairer than that the applicant should have the right of appeal to some other tribunal for final decision, where perhaps he would be given greater consideration both as to the law and 'as to the merits of the case.
Without involving the rule to which you referred, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister now if it is the intention of the government, before the completion of this matter, to afford an opportunity for appeals of this kind to be presented, or is the present motion the final action on this question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When we are in committee we can answer the questions.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If we allow the resolution to pass we are approving of the principle, and we think the principle unjust.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is asking a number of questions which can be answered only when the resolution is being debated in committee. I am not asking him to do more than to go into committee, and then the questions can be answered.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How can we do that without approving of the principle?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member need not approve of it unless he wishes; that is for him to decide, but this is not the time to ask questions.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is no difficulty in answering that question if the minister so desires. I have stated, Mr. Speaker, and I desire to repeat it in another form in an effort to impress it upon the government-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I rise to a point of order.
In view of the fact that I am precluded by the rules from speaking again on the main question, I should not be asked further questions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the point of order, I submit that the government have a dozen ministers who could answer this question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not the proper time to answer them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister is endeavouring to apply the rules in a manner which will force us to accept a principle which we do not think we should accept.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has already spoken and that he should not discuss the resolution further.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was speaking to a point of order, and therefore I was in order.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the names of Sir Eugene Fiset, Messrs. Bowman and Rennie be substituted for those of Messrs. Fafard, Bowen, and Mandon on the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph limes.
That the names of Messrs. Spence and Smith (Stormont) be substituted for those of Messrs. Spencer and Rutherford on the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
That the names of Messrs. Boys and Guerin be substituted for those of Messrs. Casselman and Smith (Stormont) on the select standing committee on banking and commerce;
That the name of Mr. Bell (Hamilton West) be substituted for that of Mr. Clark on the select standing committee on public accounts.
That the name of Mr. Macdougall be substituted for that of Mr. Rennie on the select standing committee on industrial and international relations.
That the name of Mr. Ross (Kingston City) be struck off the list of members of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations; and
That the name of Mr. MacLaren be added to the joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 27, 1929