1935-04-05

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: In answer to the question asked by the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I table a document showing the permanent appointments to revenue postmasterships made between August 7, 1930, and February 28, 1935, by provinces and electoral districts; also a document showing the temporary appointments to revenue postmasterships during the same period. Owing to certain comments made by a member, I must give to the house the reason for the delay in answering the question. The compilation of the list of these appointments required the perusal of more than 4,300 records and more than 1,000 supplementary hours of work, 360 of which were outside the regular hours, at night, on Saturday afternoon and Sunday. To answer as quickly as possible we had to suspend in part the regular work and to get it up to date, will require extra hours of work.


Mr. POULIOT:: I thank the minister and I am delighted to see that at last he has waked up.



EASTER ADJOURNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: Yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) inquired regarding the proposal of the government in respect of the adjournment of the house over Easter. The Prime Minister is making steady progress towards recovery. Yesterday he sat up for a time and I saw him afterwards and he looked exceedingly well. We all expect that he will be well enough to attend the ceremonies of the King's Jubilee in London on May 6. I am sure that everyone in this house and in the country would like to see Canada represented by the Prime Minister on that historic occasion. It is our intention to ask this house to consent to an adjournment until Monday, the 20th day of May, by which time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!

Easter Adjournment


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I quite realize that some hon. gentlemen would prefer to have the adjournment not so long, but under the circumstances I hope they will acquiesce, because by that time we expect the Prime Minister to be back in Canada and able to take up his duties again in this house. We certainly think it is very desirable that the Prime Minister should be here when parliament is prorogued. In the meantime it is our intention to get legislation prepared, based on the mass buying commission's report, which the chairman tells me is expected to be ready for presentation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce next Tuesday, and which we hope to be able to lay on the table of the house some day next week. There is also legislation which will be based on the report which it is hoped the housing committee will make next week too. Our purpose is to have that legislation prepared during the recess, so that when we come back we will be able to complete the session as quickly as possible, and I am sure every hon, member will like to see that done.


Mr. DUFF:: By the middle of July.


George Halsey Perley: No; I am sure the legislation that will be introduced will be so satisfactory to the hon. gentleman that he will find himself unable to oppose it, in exactly the same way as he has found himself unable to oppose the legislation which has been brought in this session already.


William Duff: There was nothing to oppose.


George Halsey Perley: We propose to submit to the house an estimate for the payment of the actual moving or transportation expenses and reasonable living expenses of the members in the same way as was done during the recess at the end of 1932. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) proposes to include that in his supplementary estimates.


William Duff: Will it include the payment of rents for apartments?


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry to say that we cannot cover every case, and we propose to deal with the matter as has been done in other similar years.
With regard to the time when parliament will be able to adjourn for the Easter recess, I am unable to give my hon. friends opposite any better information than they have themselves in what was said yesterday. If we are to have this adjournment until May 20, we can adjourn at the convenience of hon. members on any day when business warrants.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: It is unnecessary to say that we are greatly pleased to learn that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is making such a good recovery. I also think the house will be pleased to know the Prime Minister hopes to find it possible to be present at the silver jubilee ceremonies in London. The country will wish to be represented there at that time by him. But I am sorry to hear my right hon. friend say that he thinks it will be necessary to have such a long adjournment at the Easter season. May I say to the acting leader of the government that I think he has got along splendidly; we all seem to be managing very well with his colleagues and himself and we have got through a great deal of business. I see no reason why that happy condition of affairs should not continue with the acting leader in charge and without any loss to the Prime Minister or to the country. While it is of course most important that we should have the report of the price spreads commission and the legislation that is to be based thereon, and in addition the report of the housing committee, still I believe a recess of something like a week or ten days at Easter would be ample, and we might get under way with that legislation before the return of the Prime Minister from the conference in time to permit him to close the session as he will no doubt very much wish to do. But I feel a very strong protest ought to be made against adjourning for so long a time as until May 20, and tihat notwithstanding the compensation which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) is going to give us all for expenses in going to and from our residences at that time.
The really serious part of the whole matter is that this unnecessary prolongation of the work of the session means a still further postponement of the date of the general election. There is no doubt in the world that until after there has been a general election, business will not begin to become normal, or a general revival take place. For that reason I wish to protest again at so long a delay at the Easter season.


George Halsey Perley: I thought my right hon. friend might to some extent criticise the length of the adjournment; but might I say, when he suggests it would further postpone the date of the general election, he is entirely in error. The revision of the lists is now under way, and as soon as those lists are completed, we shall be able to have an election. Whether we sit in May or June will make no difference in the date.

Easter Adjournment


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the right hon. gentleman say when we may expect to have the lists completed?


George Halsey Perley: The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) will reply to that.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: That will depend upon the number of alterations which are made in the lists as now printed and published. I cannot express an opinion as to the time it will take to make those corrections in the presently existing lists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend any idea as to how many changes will have to be made, and would it be possible for him to make an estimate in the next few days?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no knowledge of constituencies other than my own, but I am informed, whether reliably or not, that in the lists of 25,000 or 26,000 voters in that district, there may be at least 2,500 or 3,000 changes. In some years I have known of more than that number to take place on or about May 1.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: While we might well feel it regrettable that there must be such a long adjournment, under the circumstances I presume it will be necessary for us to acquiesce in the government's request; but if during that long adjournment, the government is able to prepare some worthwhile legislation, probably the adjournment may also be worth while.
There is however one point that I would like to impress upon the present leader of the house (Sir George Perley), and that is that seeing the adjournment must be of some considerable length, it would be advisable to let hon. members know as early as possible on what date the adjournment will take place in order that we may make our plans.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the acting leader of the government whether any new legislation will be introduced between now and the time of the adjournment, and also whether when the house reassembles after adjournment, the legislation that will then be introduced will be limited to what is based on the report of the price spreads commission and the report of the housing committee in addition to what we already have on the order paper?


George Halsey Perley: As regards
legislation that may be introduced between now and the date of adjournment, there may be one or two other bills; we will let the right hon. gentleman know as early as possible.

As to legislation that may be brought in after the adjournment, all I can promise is that we shall try to have it all ready within a day or two after we meet.
GARNET WHEAT On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: When the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce were before the house some days ago, the minister intimated that some consideration was being given by himself and his officials to the matter of the segregation of garnet wheat, but that no definite decision had at that time been reached. May I inquire of the minister whether such a decision has now been arrived at?


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, it has been decided to let the law take its course.



BUTTER IMPORTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: I would like to direct a question, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). He is not in his seat at present, but he will be able to read the question in Hansard. I am interested in the question which was asked by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) of the Minister of Agriculture a few days ago and which he referred to again yesterday. I understood the minister to say that he would place on Hansard the information he gave the hon. member by letter. Personally I am very much interested in, this; I have received several inquiries as to why Canada imports butter from the United Kingdom. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would take this as notice of question and state why these importations have been made, and what amount of buitter has been imported from the United Kingdom and other countries during the past year, also for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1930; and what the exports were during the same periods.
QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if it will be possible for him to bring down soon the return in answer to some questions I addressed to him on February 13? At page 780 of Hansard, the hon. minister stated:

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
Mr. DuranLeau: I think this question should stand as an order for return and I shall table the information received from the harbour commission.
The questions asked referred to the Quebec Harbour Commission. To my knowledge, those papers have not been brought down.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
shall inquire from the officials of my department; I hope to be able to bring down the return in a few days.



RECIPROCITY NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: In
view of the proposed adjaummemt could the leader of the government give any information as to the progress of the negotiations for reciprocity either with the United States or Japan?


Right Hon.   S@: I am sorry I did not quite hear the hon. gentleman's question. I will give a reply on Monday.



DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received whilst in the performance of duty, $12,000.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: I would like to have
the indulgence of the house to make a few remarks on the administration of the mounted police. The other day when certain estimates were up hon. members complained of the manner in which some of the officials were carrying on their work. About a month ago there was brought to my knowledge by one of the most prominent barristers and solicitors of our city the fact that one evening he was in his office a little after 6.30-


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Would the hon.
member speak up, and some of the conversation stop?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: His wife called him and advised him that some officers of the mounted police were at their house saying that they were to carry out an investigation. Of course he said to his wife that there was no objection, to let them go on. They proceeded to go over the house from top to bottom to find out whether there was
liquor concealed anywhere on the premises. I do not wish to give in this house the name of the barrister who told me of this incident because I did not tell him I would bring the case to the attention of the house. This gentleman and his wife and his family were put to serious annoyance and disturbance, and I repeat that this man is one of the leading members of the bar in the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. Of course the mounted police did not find anything, and they went out saying they were sorry. A few days afterwards I had occasion to meet one of the solicitors of the government who were handling some of those cases in Montreal, and I reported the facts to him. He said, Well, we have no control over those things. It might happen that certain residences on given streets would be assigned to certain officers of the mounted police to investigate. I asked that friend of mine, Did they show any document or warrant or authority for going there? He said, No, they just presented themselves in the evening and said they were men of the mounted police and had the right to look through the house. As I could not get any satisfactory answer from the lawyers representing the government I thought it my duty to bring this case to the attention of the committee in order that the Minister of Justice and officials of the mounted police might find out whether it is the practice to give blanket instructions and certain street numbers to their officers to which they can go at random, and maybe one day go to some high official or persons higher in society than this prominent lawyer, who might be disturbed at any hour of the evening or night. I strongly protest against this practice and hope such an incident will not be repeated.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: If my hon. friend will write me a letter and give me some particulars I shall have inquiry made. If it is only a general charge without particulars I do not know that I can assist him. He need not disclose names, but if he will give me date and place probably I can get reports. I may tell him that no blanket instructions are given as to certain streets or blocks; such blanket instructions do not exist. When information comes that illicit traffic in liquor is being carried on, then under what is known as a writ of assistance issued under the Customs and Excise Acts, the mounted police under the provisions of that act are entitled to make search. But the instructions are very specific, no general instructions are
244S

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
issued. If my hon. friend will tell me in confidence the place and date I will have a report made and presented to him.


Mr. BRASSET:: Some time ago I had occasion to write to the minister asking him a question, and I am obliged to say that I have received no answer. Here is the case. Some time ago a man was accused of having liquor in his possession, contrary to the Excise Act. He was tried and acquitted. A couple of days afterwards the mounted police went to his place, his wife and children being there, and asked him for his finger prints. The man refused. The mounted police forced him to give his finger prints. He had been acquitted of the charge. I do not see how the mounted police could have authority to go there and force him to give his finger prints. This man wrote a letter to me enclosing a letter for the Minister of Justice, and I wrote the minister myself asking what authority the police officers had to take finger prints under such circumstances. I have received no answer and would ask the minister to give me an answer now.


Hugh Guthrie: I may tell my hon.
friend that a report was received by me at five minutes to three this afternoon on the case he mentions. He will be notified by letter to-morrow as to the contents of the report. I only glanced over it before coming into the house, not knowing this question was coming up. But I may tell him that when any indictable offence is charged it is permissible under the law to take finger prints.


Maurice Brasset: Is it permissible after he is acquitted?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot speak as to that. My information at the moment is that they can take finger prints at any time when a man is charged with an indictable offence. I shall have to look into it and make a more detailed report to my hon. friend. But after glancing at the report my recollection is that his acquittal was appealed.


Maurice Brasset: The case is in appeal now. I understand that he was acquitted and then the government appealed.


Hugh Guthrie: Then he may still be convicted; I thought I gathered that from the report, but I will write my hon. friend to-morrow. I do not think there has been any delay in this matter; I think I have
(Mr. Guthrie.]
the reputation of answering my correspondence pretty promptly. I know some criticism is levelled against some of the departments, but I do not think that applies to my department.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I quite endorse what has been said by the minister, that there is no delay on his part in dealing with cases that come before him, and also, perhaps inferentially, that any case with which he may have to deal is considered fairly and with every consideration shown the accused. But I say to this committee that regardless of what may happen in any case, large or small, that may come before any of the courts of this country, to take the finger prints of any man accused simply because he has been accused, before the final disposition of his case has been made, is an outrage and ought to be condemned by every member of this house. I have no hesitation in saying that so far as I am concerned it will receive all the opposition that is within my power.


Jean-François Pouliot: I offer my congratulations to my hon. friend from West Hamilton for the statement he has just made, which is worthy of his experience before the courts, especially in criminal matters. May I ask the minister what have been the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in fighting communism in this country? I should like to know something about the stand taken by officer Zaneth in the prosecution of communists in Toronto some time ago.


Hugh Guthrie: Officer Zaneth had nothing to do with the matter; he was never connected in any way with prosecutions in Toronto.


Jean-François Pouliot: But were there any prosecutions of communists after the report was secured by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hugh Guthrie: The attorney general of
Ontario took action and he asked for reports from the mounted police. The action was entirely in the hands of the attorney general's department in Toronto.


Jean-François Pouliot: I remember that at the
time I received a communication about it from Mr. Price, then attorney general, which I believe was sent to all hon. members. Then may I ask the minister this very direct question: Are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police doing anything to secure information about the communists or to check communist propaganda in this country?

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police


Hugh Guthrie: No, no special effort is
being made in regard to communism, but they do take general cognizance of what is going on throughout Canada, and if anything unusual happens they report it. I do not know of any action ever having been taken by the mounted police in regard to that matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon.
gentleman if some booklets containing communistic propaganda were seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the past year?


Hugh Guthrie: My instructions are in
the negative.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there not someone in
the mounted police who checks the papers published in foreign languages in order to bring to the attention of the commissioner anything by way of communistic propaganda?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes, I think probably the foreign newspapers as well as newspapers that are not in foreign languages, are checked up.


Jean-François Pouliot: And may I ask the minister if there is not a translator in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police branch whose business it is to read publications in foreign
languages with regard to the communistic propaganda in this country?


Hugh Guthrie: No, not particularly in
regard to communists, but in regard to all foreign newspapers and particularly those that are under suspicion of publishing matter detrimental to Canada or to the government of Canada or anything of the kind. We have had intimations from foreign powers in regard to some foreign language publications in Canada reflecting on Jugoslavia and other countries, threatening the destruction of the king and the like, and we have translators or we get translations done by some departs ment of the government; I think probably the mounted police are able to make the translations themselves. I have had protests from representatives of foreign states, consuls and the like, and we are in a position to translate and scrutinize the contents of foreign language newspapers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then would the minister
be kind enough to tell the committee in what sense they are scrutinized and for what purpose?


Hugh Guthrie: For general purposes.
This work is very confidential; it is part of the secret service work of the mounted police.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad indeed to hear the statement of the minister; it is in accord with a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Toronto as reported in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of Thursday, November 10, 1932. The title is:
Asks Canadians Put Iron Heel on Communism
Premier Bennett also vigorously denounces socialism in address to Ontario Conservative Association. Says Liberals seem to capitalize on unrest. Declares cooperative commonwealth movement means sovietism.
The article continues:
Toronto, November 9.-In a vigorous speech which carried applause from every corner of the convention hall, Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett, to-day roundly denounced socialism and communism. Premier Bennett was addressing the 11th annual convention of the Ontario Conservative Association.
What do these so-called groups of socialists and communists offer you? the Prime Minister asked. "Some are commending to you the history of Russia," Mr. Bennett declared. "If any of you have read the small volume by the Duchess of Athol], I do not think you will give it much support."
Then he continues as follows:
"They are sowing their seeds everywhere. Right in this city of Toronto such propaganda is being carried on, and in the little out of the way places the same injurious work is being done. We know that throughout Canada this propaganda is being put forward by organizations from foreign lands that seek to destroy our institutions. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we ask every true Canadian to put the iron heel of ruthlessness against a thing of that kind."
This was the address by the Prime Minister, and I understand that the only time a heel is used as a rudder is when the toboggan is going down the hill. He continued:
Well, if there are any Liberals within sound of my voice you will get away from that party because it is no longer a party but a jumble led by a cooperative commonwealth. Why? Because they seek to capitalize on all the unrest that exists.
The Prime Minister closed with a cheerful note of optimism. Canadians would go through the economic situation successfully, and was maintaining its stand' as the fifth trading nation of the world.
Then if we glance at the New York Times of February 17, 1935, we see this heading: Bolshevism Marches Toward Its Goal
An examination reveals that Russia has carried out the major Marxist principles.
Therefore as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is securing information about the dangers of communist propaganda it is safeguarding the old order of things. Old order or no order, this is a most important thing, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a bulwark of the old order. But unfortunately,

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
as the Prime Minister has said, the old order has gone. Therefore the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is fighting for an aim which is in contradiction of the aim held by the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman has said the old order has gone, but we find the Royal Canadian Mounted Police fighting for it. This is a most serious thing. It is so serious that I shall ask that police body to safeguard the country and the order of things against those who preach communistic propaganda in Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police must be very careful, and would render a very great service by protecting the old order against the dangerous innovations of some so-called statesmen.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Prime Minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore I suggest they
should have a guard around the Chateau Laurier so that in the event of the Prime Minister recuperating-and I sincerely hope he will

he will not make any more statements such as the one I shall now read. This statement would have been confiscated by the police had it been uttered by any other Canadian citizen. Mark you, sir, the Times, the greatest paper published on this continent, states:
Examination reveals that Russia has carried out the major Marxist principles.
That is a very serious thing. What was said in Montreal on January 28 last? A press dispatch appearing in the Montreal Gazette of that date reports a speech delivered by the Prime Minister, one which was broadcast over the radio, as follows:
The Prime Minister suggested that his talks with Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinoff at Geneva and his study of the views of Sir Stafford Cripps and John Strachey, British radicals, had influenced him to a great extent, while he also pointed out the lessons that could be learned from the French and Russian revolutions.
The first time the Prime Minister spoke about the iron heel of ruthlessness he was influenced by a book published by the Duchess of Athol. This time he is influenced by Strachey, by Criipps and by Litvinoff.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Royal Canadian
Mounted Police must be asleep at the switch.


Jean-François Pouliot: Most interesting. Who is Strachey? What are his books. According to the New York Times of March 24-
At All Bookstores by John Strachey The Nature of Capitalist Crisis
Just published and an immediate best seller 416 pages-$3.00
The Coming Struggle for Power Over 100,000 people in this country have read this major book 416 pages-$3.00 The Menace of Fascism A superb analysis of the growing Fascist threat 272 pages-$2.25
Literature and Dialectical Materialism
An essay which tells the what and why of "Proletarian Literature."
64 pages-$1.00
Covici-Friede-Publishers-New York
I am not advertising these books, but I have had to read the advertisement in order to show what impressed the Prime Minister when he said he was inspired by the scripts of Cripps, by the scripts of that crank Strachey, and by Litvinoff. I would not have made this reference if the Prime Minister had been unwell, but we are told by the acting Prime Minister that from day to day he is getting better. If he is better let him support the criticism and if he is unwell let him resign. I do not wish to carry on a discussion with a moribund. Here is what the Prime Minister said as reported at page 229 of Canada, a weekly publication, on September 15, 1934:
Soviet Admission To The League *' No reason for refusing," says Mr. Bennett Paris, September 6.
A hint of Canada's probable attitude on the question of the admission of Soviet Russia to the League of Nations was given by Mr. Bennett, the Canadian Prime Minister, who arrived in Paris this evening on his way to Geneva.
"There is no reason for refusing" said Mr. Bennett, when questioned on the subject at Cherbourg.
"So you will vote in favour of the Soviet?" asked the Temps correspondent.
"I did not say that" replied Mr. Bennett.
"It is possible that Mr. Bennett is maintaining an open mind in regard to the election of the Soviet union to the league," Reuter was told this evening.
"Things look different on the spot at Geneva, and Mr. Bennett may only make up his mind after a careful weighing of the international situation as seen from Geneva.
"It is certain that the election"-
And this is most important.
-"of the Soviet would not meet with unanimous Canadian approval."
That was the statement of the Prime Minister at Cherbourg on September 6 of last year. Why was it certain? Because at the time the iron heel of ruthlessness had still to be used as a weapon against communism. But times have changed. There was a telegram signed by some distinguished gentlemen, and containing the signature of the Prime Minister. This telegram is an invitation to Russia to join the League of Nations and was signed by Tecle-Hawariate,, Lee Kurti, S. M. Bruce, E. Berger, Anthony Eden, C. Batoloff,

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
R.	B. Bennett, Manuel Rivas-Vicuna, Quo tai-Chi, Eduard Benes, J. Seljamaa, Louis Barthou, D. Maximos, C. Mayard, G. Tanezos, Denys Bray, Noury Said, Aloisi, W. Munters,
S.	Lozoraitis, F. Castillo Najera, C. J. Parr, B. Kazemi, Beck, N. Titulesco, Eric H. Louw,
S.	de Madariaga, Tewtik Rustu, A. Guani, Bogoliub Yevtitch.
Those distinguished gentlemen decided to invite Russia to join. That is not all. I asked the right hon. gentleman the following question about Russia; reported at page 316 of Hansard:
Did the Canadian delegation officially meet in Geneva in September, 1934, Mr. Maxim Litvinoff, people's commissary for foreign affairs of the U.S.S.R.?
The Prime Minister answered, No. He answered an emphatic No, and I must say his answer was very strange because that question concerned an official meeting. There were Russian delegates who went to Geneva and there were also Canadian delegates who went there, they were at the same meeting, and yet they did not meet officially. Is it not absurd, Mr. Chairman? In the House of Commons is it necessary for a member to speak to every other member before it can be said we have met officially when we are all sitting together here in the house? Of course not. Yet the delegates of Russia and those of Canada were sitting together at the League of Nations and were not meeting officially. But certainly, Mr. Chairman, they were meeting socially and meeting personally because the Prime Minister suggested that his talks with the Soviet foreign minister, Litvinoff, had influenced him so much that Strachey was deported from the United States-


Mr. HEAPS:: Pardon me, he was not deported.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, Mr. Chairman, but surely he has received enough indulgence in regard tn the question under discussion here. This item has nothing to do with the entrance of Russia to the League of Nations. I generally find it is shorter not to interrupt than to interrupt, but I am going to raise the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of
order, Mr. Chairman, may I explain to you why I am proceeding in this manner, and I shall try to make it as short as possible. The hon. Minister of Justice, for whom I have a high regard, submits to you, sir, that my remarks are irrelevant to the matter under consideration, but they were based on the minister's own remarks on this very item. I asked
him before I proceeded if the communist propaganda had been checked to a certain extent by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for whom we are being asked to vote a certain amount of money. That is a matter under discussion.


Hugh Guthrie: I ask you to rule, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment, please, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the minister to be courteous enough to let me make my point to the chair before a decision on the point of order is given. I know the minister is too fair to prevent me submitting my argument on the point of order. I wish to stand by the rules of the house and to submit to you sir, my argument on the point of order in order that you may decide with all the facts before you.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Surely if we permit the hon. member to discuss the activities of the mounted police in Canada, that should be latitude enough without going outside this country. It is allowing a lot of leeway on this item to permit the hon. member to deal with the whole activities of the mounted police in Canada, and surely the hon. gentleman will not ask me to permit him to go outside of Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir, but may I humbly submit my point of view? We know now that one of the most important duties of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is to check communist propaganda in this country, as I am sure you will agree with me. Mr. Chairman, and the questions I have asked the minister were only with regard to the past activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in checking communist propaganda in this country. Was I not in order in asking those questions, sir?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: A great deal of leeway has been permitted the hon. gentleman, but so long as he remains in Canada and discusses the activities of the mounted police within the country he may go on, but surely he must not go outside of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If he got out and stayed out it would be a help.


Jean-François Pouliot: Pardon me, I thought I
heard a sound.	,


Leslie Gordon Bell: You heard it and you understood it.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I wished to bring
to the attention of the Minister of Justice and of the commissioner has been accomplished so far as the activities of the police within this

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
country are concerned. I have already cited quotations as to what has happened outside of Canada, and I shall not mention that again because I wish to abide by your ruling, sir. But what I wish now to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice and of his commissioner, who is a very efficient gentleman, is a speech that was delivered by the Prime Minister in Montreal.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That again surely has nothing to do with the activities of the mounted police.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, just a minute, Mr. Chairman.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Just a minute. That
has nothing to do with the activities of the mounted police. This item deals with the mounted police, and let us keep to it. The hon. member will have ample opportunity on other items or in other circumstances to discuss what the Prime Minister has said.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member for
Temiscouata is dealing with the inactivities of the mounted police.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to do their duty, to be a useful body in this country, and not simply to sit in their offices without performing the duties for which they were appointed, and for which we vote money. That is why I want to give them a very good tip as to a most useful work they can do by indicating to them most dangerous and most pernicious communist propaganda which came out of the lips of the Prime Minister, and I ask the commissioner to stop that communist propaganda in this country. Now I am through, Mr. Chairman.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Chairman,
may I just say a very brief word in regard to what has been advanced to the committee by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat? If I have followed, and I hope I have, the questions that he addressed to the hon. Minister of Justice, they were designed to crystallize, so to speak, the activities of the mounted police in various parts of this country, and particularly in those realms with which the hon. member for Temiscouata is best acquainted. I have followed with great interest tjie balance of his address based on what my hon. friend was able, I will not say to elicit from the minister, but to suggest to the minister, and that brings me to one thought of very grave necessity. In this house last night when the penitentiary estimates were under consideration I felt constrained to offer to the Department of Justice
TMr. Pouliot.)
the suggestion that there should be in every penitentiary in this country a competent psychiatric clinic. Having listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata this afternoon I am constrained to suggest that that might be extended to certain members of parliament, and particularly to the hon. gentleman from Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I do not
attach much importance to what the hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Bell) has said. I will leave with him this one thought, that people who live in glass houses should be very careful not to throw stones. I was generous enough to offer my congratulations to him at the beginning of this sitting, but now I gladly withdraw them because he is not worthy of them.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am flattered,
highly flattered.


Mr. REID:: When the bill regarding the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police was under discussion some time ago I mentioned at that time some matters affecting the force and its operations in the province of British Columbia. The minister, in reply at that time, said that perhaps these matters could be better discussed when the estimates were under consideration. On that occasion I did not go as fully into the matter as I should have liked, nor did I mention the names .of those connected who had been engaged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. However, I am taking the opportunity this afternoon to bring these matters to the minister's attention, and I take it that he has under his hand all the information regarding these cases.
The first case is that of a man named Handley who was engaged as an under cover man for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He operated from Vancouver throughout the lower Fraser valley, but particularly in the municipality of Richmond, and I may say that he was operating there without the knowledge of the municipal police. Whether any information had been given to the provincial police I do not know, but I do know that he was operating in the various municipalities without any knowledge on the part of the municipal police, either regarding his operations or regarding the workings of the other under cover men. From information I have, and I have been in very close touch with the reeves of the various municipalities, there has been no necessity to call in the help of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, especially in the cases which I am going to discuss. I have every word of praise both for

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
the provincial and far the municipal police, nor have I anything particularly derogatory to say of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; it is the operations of the under cover men which I wish to discuss particularly this afternoon, while the chief officer of the mounted police is before him.
The first case occurred on March 20, 1934. It was then that this man Handley went into a store operated by a Chinaman and asked him if he would like to make money by selling liquor. After some negotiations the Chinaman consented, and Handley offered to supply him with battles, colouring mater and labels.
I take strong objection, as I did the last time the matter was under discussion, to any man being allowed to go through the municipalities and tempt men to commit crime. I do not think it is the duty or (the business of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to butt in in these municipalities in this class of work. On April 6 the place was searched by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and this man came before the court. The municipal police were not aware that Handley was operating under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but they did have information that he was handling liquor and had liquor in his charge for sale. Not knowing that he was operating under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police they arrested him. It was when they arrested him that the information then came out that he was an under cover man in the employ of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Charges were laid-and I have copies of the court record under my hand. He came before the court and both he and a confederate named Kemp, who sometimes operated under the name of Tufts, were fined $500 or six months. During the time the case was pending the municipal police endeavoured to obtain information regarding this man Handley, and on being tipped off from the Vancouver police department that he had a criminal record and was wanted for a certain crime in Australia they went to the immigration authorities and there endeavoured to get his record. I call the minister's attention to this aspect of the matter, though it does not come directly under his department, because it is very serious. The immigration authorities refused to give any information; they said they had instructions from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to divulge information to the municipal or any other police force regarding this man. The municipal police then wired Australia and information -came from that country regarding the man's record. It appears he had come to Canada as a stowaway, landing in Montreal, and had travelled across the
country to Vancouver, entering the country through the port of Vancouver even though he had declared that he was a stowaway. The following day his wife and family arrived from Australia and they also were admitted into the country. That question does not come directly under the jurisdiction of the minister, but I shall probably have more to say regarding it when the immigration estimates are under discussion, because I believe it to be a very serious state of affairs. I corroborated the information regarding the stand taken by the immigration authorities, as when I was asked to come into this matter, an appeal being made to me by the reeve of the municipality and the chief of police, I discussed the case with the immigration authorities, who told me that they knew better than to do anything against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I made the statement at the time, and I make it now, that it seemed to me, so far as that department was concerned, that all you had to do was to be employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and you were immune from arrest or deportation no matter what your crime was and thalt any information regarding your record would also be withheld.
I do not know whether the minister has before him the full record of this man, but Handley was at one time in partnership with a man named Springer, running a gas station and a car repair establishment. The police found alcohol on the premises and a charge was laid against Springer, though not against Handley, who was, as I have stated, working for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There was another case where a man named Walker purchased liquor through Handley and this man Walker was convicted. In this connection, I should like to know who received the moieties in these cases, and what amounts were paid. Handley also sold smuggled cigarettes. I mention this in order to show the minister that a man without character, about whom the Royal Canadian Mounted Police presumably knew nothing at first, though they certainly did afterwards, a fugitive from justice from some other country where he was wanted for crime, was let loose throughout the lower Fraser valley where he deliberately went about offering either cigarettes or liquor to anyone he came in contact with, and if people were weak or foolish enough to fall for it, a report was then made to the police and they were picked up. This man offered cigarettes to one Kemp of the Pacific Bottle Company. The cigarettes were seized by the police and the man was convicted. Again, I would ask, who got

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
the moiety in that case? Handley purchased his liquor from a man in Seattle, and it would be interesting to know how he and others were able to cross the line back and forth with bottles, labels, colouring matter and liquor. I can give the names and addresses to show where the supplies were procured across the line. I want to know whether the immigration and customs authorities were aware of this man's identity when he was travelling back and forth. I am told, but I am not sure of it, that they were not. However, he purchased this liquor from a man named Anderson of Seattle, Washington, and he bought the colouring and flavouring from Lyons' drug store there. He even offered to sell narcotics. He was dealing in contraband cigarettes, liquor and dope. He left a tin of alcohol with a man named La Pierre, who lives on the border near Bellingham, and he was asked whether Eddie Tufts had asked him to smuggle cigarettes into British Columbia for him. During the adjournment of the first hearing of the charge under the liquor act, which was in May, 1934, Handley and Kemp went across the line and on their return endeavoured to sell moonshine to a man named J. Ross, who operates a hotel in the town of Mission, British Columbia, but were unsuccessful. At the time of his arrest on May 2, 1934, he had a bottle of moonshine in his possession which he had placed in an oil pit at a gas service station before his arrest. These two men, Handley and Kemp, worked together. I think I am correct in stating that Kemp was not exactly in the pay of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but Handley was: Handley was, I understand, receiving $160 but Tufts or Kemp was receiving moieties for the information laid before the police and they split on the moieties. Kemp's operations were along the same lines as those of Mr. Handley.
Another case not exactly of the same character is that of a man named Sawley. Sawley lived in the city of Vancouver. He was accosted one day and asked if he would like to make some money. Being idle and having been idle for a year and a half he naturally answered, yes. I am not going into all the details of how the contact was made, but to state the matter briefly, Sawley went out to a place a little beyond Abbotsford and there picked up several gallon tins of alcohol. He was successful the first time in reaching Vancouver with it, but on his second trip a week or so later he fell asleep at the wheel during the night for just a minute and his car went into the ditch and overturned. After he regained consciousness and got up, the first 
thing he did was to lift the tins of alcohol and put them up on the bank. His story to the chief of police, to me and to the neighbouring chief of police, repeated on three occasions, was that after he waited there a while, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police came along and seeing him on the roadside in the car, stopped. But the remarks which were made to him, according to his statement, are worthy of note. They said that they had been waiting for Sawley and as he was an hour and a half or more overdue, they thought they would set out and look for him. What [DOT] I want to draw to the attention of the minister is this. H they had information regarding this man Sawley and were lying in wait for him coming from near the boundary line to the city of Vancouver, why did they not make a circle around that ring of men who brought the liquor across the line and transferred it from one car to the other which Sawley was driving rather than simply wait until the one mam came along and pick him up? That aspect of the matter should be looked into, because they seemed to know all about this man Sawley and his operations.
I have many other cases, but I am not going to deal with all of them unless I have to; I have sworn affidavits and information in connection with a whole raft of cases. Somebody suggests that I use the word "declarations." I will call them declarations so that we may not split hairs between a man's affidavit and his declaration.
The next is a radio case which I think is fairly serious; it is to me rather an outstanding case. This -man was afterwards interviewed by one of the provincial police force who went to see him. It appears that some time in February or March, 1934, Herbert Handley came into the store and looked at a small pocket radio which this Mr. Nemetz wanted to get rid of as there was no sale for such a thing. He offered it for $10 to Mr. Handley. Handley mentioned some names as references, took the radio and was to bring his own back in exchange. He came back in a few days with a small radio which he said he would give in exchange for the one he took away and he told the storekeeper Nemetz to try it out. A short time after Mr. Handley, the under cover man, had left the store, two men walked in, looked at the same radio pretending they wanted to purchase it, and made some inquiries regarding its qualities. They had no sooner left than Constable McDuffie and another man walked in and seized the radio as a smuggled one, as the duty had not been paid. Nemetz saw Handley the same afternoon at the corner of Twelfth street and Victoria drive and told him what had

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
happened, but Handley said to Nemetz to pay the duty and just forget all about it. I am going to ask a question at this point in connection with this case, because I hold in my hand the receipt which was given by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to this man Nemetz. It reads:
Received from Leo Nemetz at New Westminister, B.C., this 23rd day of February, 1934, pending decision, the sum of $44.96, on account of charges against Leo Nemetz, for contravention of the Customs Act.
My question in regard to that would be: Is it the regular procedure of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to seize goods that come in illegally, take the party before them, hold a little court, impose a fine and let him go? That aspect of the matter should be looked into. The serious part of the whole affair however is that this man was permitted to go around freely offering these goods, either cigarettes or moonshine or alcohol or radios, all brought from across the line, and no sooner would he find a victim, shall I say, than information would be sent on to the mounted police who would come along and pick the man up, after which I understand moieties were paid to the informers. I stated the last time I was speaking in regard to this matter and I say again that it looks as if some kind of plot was in progress to build up cases in order to show what wonderful work the mounted police were doing. In speaking about these cases I do not want to be misunderstood or regarded as one who is ready to besmirch the good name of the mounted police. I think the cases I have mentioned besmirch their name without my doing it, and I might say in British Columbia the word of these men is not now being accepted by the judiciary. In fact this man Handley was called "a blatant liar" by the judge in the court, which is very strong language for a judge to use against any man.
I have before me another case with which I am not going to deal. Kemp and another man had guns taken away from them at the border where they had some alcohol in their car. Working for the mounted police they had two other men covered and were going to arrest them when a farmer opened the door of his house, pointed a shotgun at the two of them and took the gun off each. That matter was the subject of a little bit oi ridicule and it did not enhance the reputation of the mounted police in any way.


Robert Gardiner: Did they get their guns back?


Thomas Reid: I am not sure whether they
did. I think the cases I have mentioned are serious enough to warrant some investigation
or inquiry being made. I am one of those who believe the duty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not to go around looking for bottles of whisky or offering liquor to people in order to sell it to them and afterwards report them. We have municipal and provincial police handling liquor cases, and fairly efficiently, I believe. I say from experience that never yet have the mounted police cooperated in any way with the municipal police. As a matter of fact when I was reeve of a municipality and we endeavoured to get their cooperation, we were told that their work was secret and no tips or information could be given out to the municipal police, but they would be glad to get all the tips and information possible from the municipal police. I say that in all seriousness because as I mentioned a few moments ago I have had personal experience of their operations. I think the method of all this secret work and all these under cover men should be looked into, and the whole system readjusted and put on a better footing. We had a case not long ago of one member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who joined the ranks of the communists and obtained information. If they have regular men on the force who can do that they shoud have regular men who can look after contraband or excise in a proper way. But when they hire men with no reputation at all, whose word no one would believe on a stack of bibles, men who are wanted for crime in other countries and have come to this country under questionable conditions, and knowledge of these facts is given to the mounted police and little done about it, I think the committee will agree that the situation is serious indeed. My view is that if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police paid more attention to dope running, especially on ships coming from the orient to Vancouver or New Westminster, instead of all this activity in regard to liquor, it would be more to the general advantage.
I would like to know whether this man Handley is now in gaol or whether he has been deported. Also the total moieties paid to these men. I do not think that should be considered secret. Also, did the mounted police pay the court expenses of these men Handley and Kemp? Handley could not raise the fine anyway, and I understand he was put in gaol, but whether he is there at present I do not know. In view of the fact that these under cover men are in touch with United States interests, are able to obtain gallons of liquor or moonshine or gin, bring it back into British Columbia, offer it to others so that they may go into

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
the business, and then immediately report them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I cannot find words strong enough to condemn such a system. In my opinion these practices should be absolutely stopped, and until the municipal or provincial police call on the mounted police for assistance to carry on what is the ordinary police work I think they should stay outside the municipalities and not be carrying on this work and without the. knowledge of the authorities.


Hugh Guthrie: I have listened with a
great deal of interest to the statement by my hon. friend, and I regret to say that I cannot defend the actions of the two men that he has been discussing here this afternoon. Some weeks ago my hon. friend gave me an intimation that he was going to discuss the cases of Handley and Tufts alias Kemp, and I had inquiry made and a report prepared in regard to them. I have to admit that in these instances, out of our force of some 2,500 or 2.600 men, we did unfortunately get two black sheep. Handley was taken on as an agent, I think for about three months. The other man never was on the strength in any way, shape or form, but was evidently what they call a spotter, and he received some portion of the fines which were imposed in the cases with which he dealt, which we call a moiety of the fine. I am sorry I have no record of the amount that he received in that respect. We have to write to British Columbia to get that. I shall endeavour to get the figures for my hon. friend.
The mounted police in British Columbia have but a limited jurisdiction, similar to what they have in Ontario and Quebec. In the other provinces they are the police force of the province under agreement with the province, but not so in British Columbia. In that province the duty of the mounted police simply is to see to the enforcement of the Excise Act, the Customs Act, the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, and any other dominion act that they may specially be required to enforce. But they have nothing to do with the enforcement of the ordinary criminal law of the country or of the provincial liquor law. This man Handley was employed as a secret agent without knowledge of his past history. It is true that after three months' experience with this man he was arrested with his running mate, Tufts, on charges laid against them by the local police, and was condemned to a fine of . $500 with alternative of six months in gaol. Both of these men I understand are now serving their term of imprisonment. My information is that the department took no

part in their defence whatever, paid no money for it, and was not in any way connected with it. I think for the information of the committee I had better read the report. It is largely in corroboration of the statements I have already made, but it is not very long:
With regard to Handley, before he became a paid agent of the force, he apparently had sold to or purchased liquor from Wong Sam.
After becoming a paid agent in this force, he caused a seizure of illicit liquor to be made under the Excise Act from Wong Sam.
Whilst the excise ease above referred to was before the courts, the provincial police of British Columbia took action against Handley with respect to the first transaction referred to in this memorandum in the dealings between Handley and Wong Sam.
Immediately Handley's action with Wong Sam was brought to light through the charge by the provincial police, Handley was dismissed from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In so far as Handley is concerned, before he was engaged by the mounted police, enquiries were made respecting his record in Canada and United States, but no enquiries were made in England or Australia, although Handley was questioned respecting his record in those countries. He not only lied to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also to his own counsel, Mr. L. H. Jackson, and therefore his criminal record in those countries was unknown to the force, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police admit that in these particulars, his record was not fully investigated, and that he should not have been employed.
Emphasis is placed upon the fact that Handley had committed his wrong-doing before he actually became a paid agent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and he was immediately dismissed as a result of the charge by the British Columbia provincial police.
With regard to Tufts, alias Kemp, this man was not a paid agent of the force, but was simply an informer who had been giving independent information and for which he was paid separately in each instance.
For the past seven years, he had' supplied information to the preventive service on a moiety basis.
The charges against Handley and' Tufts under the British Columbia Liquor Control Act was disposed of and both accused were convicted by Police Magistrate Darling at Brighotise. B.C., on April 28, 1934, the maximum penalty of $500 fine or, in default, six months' imprisonment being imposed in each instance. The sentences were appealed but the convictions were upheld.
My information is that both men are still in custody. Now the greatest care is taken in the selection of men for the mounted police force. All possible precautions are taken in regard to the history and conduct of men who are taken on, but occasionally we have one put over on us, just as in other businesses. In this case I am satisfied that we had two highly undesirable men, one taken on the force and the other used on the moiety basis

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
as set out in that report. I think their conduct was infamous; as soon as it was discovered they were both cast adrift, and are now in prison after prosecution by the local police.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not interfere with the local police; their sole duty is to look after the revenues of the crown in regard to customs and excise, but as my hon. friend knows there are occasions when the city police call upon them for assistance. Many times in Vancouver, sometimes in Toronto and sometimes in Montreal they have been called upon by the civic authorities, and they are always very ready to give their assistance when so called upon, but they do not interfere with the operations of the municipal or provincial police in these provinces.
The question of the employment of under cover men in connection with liquor cases is one upon which there are evidently two opinions. For instance, in the province of Manitoba where the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have authority as provincial police, the provincial liquor board maintains from twelve to fifteen under cover men, plain-ciothesmen, simply for the purpose of seeing to the enforcement of the liquor act of that province; that is their business. The mounted police operate in the same way, but they not only seek to enforce the liquor act of the province of Manitoba; they look after the dominion customs and excise laws also. We look after the work altogether in Saskatchewan and in Alberta; in the maritime provinces also the enforcement of the provincial laws is in the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For the purpose of enforcing provincial acts it always has been the custom-, I believe, to employ plainclothesmen, inspectors, spotters or whatever you may call them. They do it in Ontario, where they have a host of them; I think they use them in [DOT]Quebec also, but in the maritimes and in two of the western provinces that work is left to the mounted police. That is looking after the retail end of the business, if it may be so called; it is not in connection with the revenues of the dominion but in connection with the revenues of the liquor board of the province. It is- a custom that has prevailed throughout Canada, I believe, and in the United States and England for many years. Special means have to be adopted to prevent the illicit sale of liquor and to prevent breaches of provincial or dominion liquor laws. Occasionally a case of hardship arises; occasionally a case of wrongdoing arises, as in the cases cited this afternoon, but on the
whole the system has not worked badly; on the whole smuggling has been pretty well checked up, though not stopped by any means. Excise has been pretty well collected, though breaches of the laws still continue. I think it is the desire of everyone that the laws of the land, whether provincial or dominion, should be enforced to the limit, and for the purpose of enforcement, particularly in regard to liquor laws, plainclothesmen, stool pigeons, spotters or whatever you wish to call them have been employed, I think, for generations. They are still employed. Whether or not the practice should be continued I am not going to say, but I regret that I have to state that in the cases of the men mentioned in British Columbia, their records were bad. They put it over the police badly when they were taken on, but their services were dispensed with as soon as their records were known, and I am glad to say they are both in gaol now paying the penalty.


Thomas Reid: The minister said it was unfortunate these two men had been engaged, but I wrould direct his attention to the fact that this kind of thing is not yet finished. There are other men under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police operating now through the valley, doing exactly the same thing, men with reputations just as bad as Handley's.


Hugh Guthrie: Can my hon. friend furnish me with their names?


Thomas Reid: Yes, I will.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend need not do it openly; he might be good enough to do it by letter.


Thomas Reid: I certainly will; I will give
the names and the cases, where men are doing exactly the same thing. From the statement of the minister one would almost infer that after these cases were drawn to the attention of the police this practice had ceased, but that has not been the case.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I did not say that.


Thomas Reid: The practice of engaging men of no character, to carry on the business that was carried on by Handley and Kemp-


Hugh Guthrie: It is these men of no character and no principles, who adopt unfair methods, that we want to know about, and if my hon. friend will give me the names I will look into the matter.


Thomas Reid: I will take the first opportunity to give the minister the names, cases and full particulars. These men are inciting people to purchase moonshine, bottle and label and sell it, and later the Royal Canadian

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
Mounted Police come along and pick them up. I have a case under my hand which occurred this year, which I will pass on to the minister. The hon. gentleman spoke of the necessity of stool pigeons, and I should like to make this suggestion. There are municipal, provincial and mounted police in the province of British Columbia, though the mounted police have not the same responsibility they have in other provinces. Could not many of these men be used? Their work is police work they are men of some character, and only a few of them are known outside Vancouver. Of the two or three hundred men you have in Vancouver could you not occasionally send out different men through the valley? Why take men whose word is no good at all? One of the serious objections we make is that it is not the Excise Act they are endeavouring to enforce. According to my understanding the Excise Act would apply if a man brought kegs or barrels or tins of liquor across the line in contravention of the customs act.


Hugh Guthrie: No, the Excise Act has
to do with illegal manufacture.


Thomas Reid: There is some distinction between keeping unsealed liquor, which is under a provincial act, and keeping contraband.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a good deal of distilling going on that is illegal, and that is an excise matter. Bringing liquor illegally into the country is a customs matter, perhaps an excise matter also. Primarily, however, excise has to do with manufacturing in Canada, distributing in Canada or having in possession illicit liquor.


Thomas Reid: I know in regard to stool pigeons it has been the common practice

for one municipality-to ask a neighbouring municipality for the loan of a policeman who would not be known to the person suspected, and in most cases they have been able to obtain the necessary evidence and conviction. I suggest to the minister that the regular men in the police force should be used. If things were very bad you could bring a man from Calgary or you could use provincial or municipal police. But at present I maintain there is no cooperation between the mounted police and the municipal police. They work independently of each other; that was why these men were picked up. The municipal police were not aware that these men were in the pay of the mounted police. I would plead with the minister that instructions be sent out to see that there is more cooperation with the municipal police.


Hugh Guthrie: We extend all the cooperation we can, but we have to receive a request before we can do anything. The instances which I cited were all instances in which we had direct requests either from the heads of the municipal police or from the attorney general.


Thomas Reid: I will be glad to send the
information to the minister.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The hon. member for New Westminster has opened up a question which is so wide in its ramifications that it extends far beyond his province, and perhaps it is something that he does not altogether appreciate or understand. It applies to every province in the Dominion of Canada; it applies to every place in the United Kingdom or in the British dominions where the question of detection by police officers is considered in respect of any breach of the law.
The hon. member for New Westminster has addressed to the Minister of Justice a number of questions in connection with the behaviour of certain men who have been members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the minister in that frank and straightforward way which is one of his outstanding characteristics-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is there anyone who challenges that?


Ernest Lapointe: No; wo say "Hear, hear."


Leslie Gordon Bell: It was challenged yesterday, but to-day we are having a stag party. The minister has stated that no encouragement has been given to the men who in the name of the law are misconducting themselves in that province. That is an important point, but it is by no means the most important.
The most important question which may come before this parliament or before any other body charged with the duty of enforcing laws is as to whether or not we may get into that system, that very discredited system, of having men employed by government officials or by government organizations acting in the capacity of what the French call agents provocateurs, men who feel that there are weak persons in a community who, although having no intention of committing a criminal breach of a law, if approached and subjected to the suggestion that it might be to their advantage to become criminals, to that extent would lend themselves to such a suggestion in the hope that they might profit by it.

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
A number at least of those persons to whom the hon. member for New Westminster has referred are apparently persons who have been approached in that manner. Quite a number of years ago this particular question was discussed in a number of leading cases in England. The late Mr. Justice Armour, son of the great Chief Justice Armour, who unhappily died just about a year ago, made a collection of cases which in the last few moments I have tried to obtain from the library, but upon which so far I have not been able to place my hands. The sum total of what was investigated and considered in the highest courts of the British empire was this, that if you know a man is planning to commit a breach of a criminal law there is nothing wrong in, shall I say, leading him on to commit that offence which in any event he intends to commit. You may put him legitimately in such a position whereby whilst in the commission of the offence he may be taken in flagrante delicto and made to pay the full penalty for what he has done..
How different that is from going to a man who is known to have poor resistance, perhaps almost of weak mentality, but for whatever reason at all events is exposed to a maximum of temptation with a minimum of resistance, and inducing him to commit a crime he never contemplated, one which found its being in the mind of a police officer who has found this man an easy subject and who has said to himself, "If I can induce that man to commit the crime I will profit by promotion, or otherwise, and thereby increase my personal advantage."
It seems to me the great point to be considered whether it be in connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police, the municipal police or any other police body is that this parliament shall not only not tolerate but shall look with abhorrence upon the act of any person who conducts himself in that way, with an idea of inducing a man to commit a crime in order that a certain police officer may profit by so inducing the man, and then arresting him and making him pay the penalty. If I follow correctly the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster at least three or four of the incidents he related to the committee were as I have indicated. If they were, no condemnation could be too strong for them. If they were, no steps that this parliament could take would be too drastic to put an end to that sort of thing. If the hon. member has suggested to the committee that that has been the animating motive behind the mounted police who have operated in British Columbia,
then I suggest that all other possibilities of investigation into police activities which have been mentioned pale beside the necessity for an investigation of this evil.
It has been stated over an over again, and unhappily I am foroed to believe it, that the mounted police in Canada have at times been employed in approaching unfortunate drug addicts who, with their craving for morphia or heroin have been unable to resist the suggestion that they should obtain it by any means in their power. The police have egged them on to take the drug and then have made arrests, sending those people to prison. I would like to think this is not so, but the suggestions that such things have happened are very strong, very positive and have been repeated many times. I am glad to note that the government has seen fit to allow an investigation into the activities of that body, and I hope when that investigation takes place this particular branch will not be neglected. I hope that the canker worm that has apparently crept into the activities of that body in British Columbia will be found on investigation not to have extended to other provinces. But may I suggest to the hon. Minister of Justice, who is ever alert to stop abuses and to protect the rights of those who are affected by them that he can serve no more useful purpose than in determining in any investigation that may be undertaken in the near future whether or not those abuses of which my hon. friend from New Westminster has spoken have travelled, so to speak, under the surface of the ground into other provinces as well. I think the hon. member for New Westminster is to be commended for bringing a matter of this kind to the notice of the house, and I only hope that the department of which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is the honoured head will see that any investigation to be undertaken shall be thorough and comprehensive, that, these abuses shall exist nowhere else.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member for
West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) is ready to act as investigator with the same solemnity as he spoke just now, may I urge his appointment upon the minister?


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Mr. Chairman, fortunately I represent a constituency where the police force have very little to do. We settle our cases among ourselves, and I have no complaint against the mounted police. On the contrary, every time I have come in contact with them I have been very pleased with the courtesy they have shown me. I would be the last one in this house to raise any prejudice or any cry of race or language

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
or anything of that kind, but I should like to refer to the celebration that took place in Gaspe last year of the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of Canada. I heard quite a number of remarks about the inability of the mounted police who were there to answer in French questions that were put to them for information. I suppose that in this able body there are a number of French-speaking officers. I have no objection whatever to the high officials of the mounted police, who of course have not very much to do with the French-speaking population, being English-speaking, but on an occasion such as that at Gaspe last year it seems to me that it should have been foreseen that we would have a very distinguished gathering from France, and in fact, Mr. Chairman, it was perhaps one of the most distinguished delegations that has ever visited this continent from France. These people came to that celebration with the idea of meeting on the spot French-speaking people and Frenchspeaking officers, but the impression that was created upon them was the contrary of what one might have expected. I say that not in any spirit of complaint because I know that the festivities were organized in somewhat of a hurry, and I do appreciate very much the good order that was established within a few days in the nice little city of Gaspe, but I think that when a celebration like that takes place in the future a little consideration should be given to the aspect of the question that I have mentioned. As I said at the outset, it is with a little reluctance that I bring this matter up here at all, but it is from a sincere desire to avoid in the future remarks such as I heard on that occasion.


Hugh Guthrie: I am very glad that the
matter has been called to my attention because the occasion to which my hon. friend refers was a rather special one. At the request of the committee in charge of the celebration, and also at the request of the fepartment of the attorney general of the province of Quebec, a special detachment was sent to the province for that particular occasion. The only detachment that was available was in Ottawa, and of the number sent from here there were five French-speaking out of the twenty-five, and that was all they could afford to send. There are about seventy-five French members of the force in Quebec, some of whom were engaged on their regular duties, but as many of them as possible were stationed where the celebrations took place. The additional force

sent comprised about twenty-five officers and men, and they came from the reserve at Ottawa.


Mr. BRADETTE:: May I ask the minister
if the so-called communist schools are authorized in Canada. There have been several newspaper articles which I do not intend to read to the house, in both the English and the French press, stating definitely that there are communist schools in different sections of the country. I believe I am right in saying that there is one in Montreal and another in the Porcupine section, and one outside the city of Toronto, which has often been mentioned in newspapers. These schools so far as their literature is concerned are absolutely for the abolition of the established order of things in this country. They are trying their utmost to destroy labour unions, industry, and the present system of government. Has the minister received any information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to the activities of these schools, and are these schools authorized by the government?


Hugh Guthrie: I would have to refer my hon. friend to the minister of education in Toronto to find out whether they are authorized or not because education, of course, in the schools comes exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. Personally I do not think they are authorized but I would not like to make a definite statement on the question because the matter would be entirely under the authority of the province.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Just for information I would ask the minister if this item is by way of insurance or if it is a fund from which indemnities are paid to members of the force who are injured.


Hugh Guthrie: It is a fund in the nature of an insurance fund from which a man who becomes injured is entitled to compensation.


John Power Howden: Does a man have to contribute to this fund?


Hugh Guthrie: No, there is no contribution by the men.


Jean-François Pouliot: If on looking over the newspapers and other publications in this country I find some communist propaganda, does the minister think it would be the right thing for me to send it to the commissioner or to himself?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I know the commissioner receives a great deal of questionable literature published in magazines and newspapers. A great deal of it is sent direct to

Supply-Canals-Welland
me, and I at once refer it to the commissioner. There is a great deal of it published in Canada, I must admit.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I shall find it my duty to send to the hon. gentleman a complete edition of all the speeches made by the Prime Minister in January and February last.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Welland ship canal-To provide for settlement of claims, totalling $126,696.09, of Colling-wood Shipyards Limited, in connection with contract No. 27896, entered into December 23, 1920. for the construction of a pontoon gate lifter. $16,426.06.
Jean-François Pouliot: Do foreign ships going through that canal pay any toll?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: No; there are no charges on any ships going through the canal.


Jean-François Pouliot: There should be a tax on these ships, and I make that suggestion to the government; it has already been made. There is no reason why foreign ships passing through Canadian canals should not pay a tax. This is a humble suggestion I offer the government. The hon. gentleman complains that he gets no suggestions from this side. This is one. We have to bear the whole burden of taxation, and I think that ships of foreign registration, enjoying the same facilities as ships registered in Canada, should be taxed.


Robert James Manion: There is no doubt that the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman has been considered from time to time. Last year we had a lengthy debate in the house on this very question; in fact, the whole question of tolls on canals was debated on the motion, if I remember rightly, of the hon. member for M-uskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Unfortunately it was found-and I looked into the question thoroughly at that time-that the practice of levying tolls, up to about 1904, had not been a paying proposition. As regards charging a toll on foreign vessels alone, the question has been looked into from the standpoint of treaty rights, international obligations and so on, and it has been found that we cannot charge tolls on foreign vessels without also levying them on Canadian ships, owing to international agreements which Canada has with other countries. I cannot give the details at the moment, but that is the fact. Even when tolls were charged, about thirty years ago, the income was so small that' it was not of sufficient importance to warrant charging them, and it had the effect at that time, as it would have again, of
diverting a great deal of traffic down through the Erie canal and New York instead of through Montreal and Canadian ports. I am sure the hon. gentleman makes the suggestion in good faith, buit we have looked into the matter thoroughly, as have past governments, and it was considered by past governments as well as by this administration that the proposal is not feasible.


Ernest Lapointe: There are five or six items to provide for settlement of claims in connection with contracts dating back some years ago. How were these settlements reached? Were these contracts the subject of litigation, or were there arbitrations?


Robert James Manion: There are altogether seven or eight claims and we are now dealing with the last one. These companies received construction contracts during the past twenty years in connection with the Welland ship canal, and I believe that most of them were given by the late government or the one that preceded it.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Most of them by the last government.


Robert James Manion: Yes; I merely-mention
that as a matter of fact. These contracts were for huge amounts. The first item, No. 84, concerns a contract with the J. P. Porter Company. That contract was for $11,376,000, and I think it goes back to about 1924 or 1925. It was for a substantial amount of work on the Welland ship canal in accordance with unit prices, and when we came in we simply carried on the contracts. I do not think there were any changes of importance. When the Porter company had completed their work-and this applies to all these settlements-they put in claims for extras amounting to a little over $571,000. These claims were later revised, being reduced to $384,000; and after a discussion with the engineers, going into each case very completely, I came to the decisions which are indicated here. The original claim of $571,000 in the case of the Porter company was cut down to a final settlement of $110,000, though the amount shown here is not $110,000 but $89,000 odd, the difference consisting in settlements which could be made in connection with unit work or something of that sort. It was considered that in this, as in the other instances, the company had an equitable claim to the amount decided upon, representing the difference between the legal claim and the other. Without naming the other companies, it might be interesting to give the amounts of the original claim in

Supply-Canals-Welland,

each instance together with the final settlement. There is a claim for $250,000, settled for $9,800; a claim for $828,000 settled for $40,000; a claim for $63,000, settled for $18,000; a claim for $393,000, settled for $50,000; a claim for $126,000-not quite $127,000-settled for $20,000; a claim foT $1,288, settled for $939. The last one, with which I had nothing to do, was settled by the officers themselves. It was for $3,000 and was settled for $1,500. So that the settlements were exceedingly satisfactory; in fact, I do not mind saying that most of the companies made strong complaints.


Charles A. Stewart: Does this
complete the construction cost of the Welland canal or are there still some items outstanding?


Robert James Manion: We have a small amount
for the Robertson company-No. 87-and they have not settled. The Robertson company have put in a claim for $393,000 altogether and our item is S37,000 odd. When we were making the settlements, being anxious to dispose of all of them, we found that the manager or president, or whoever the responsible official of the company was, was not in the country. The official who the company felt should deal with the matter for them was in Europe and therefore did not discuss it with the engineers. Therefore that is not a settlement, but we have put in a figure that covers what we consider is their legal claim. Most of them are settled except in the case of a couple of companies, one being the Peter Lyall Company about which my hon. friends opposite know something and the ex-Minister of Railways would know a good deal. They make a rather heavy claim in regard to some alterations in labour prices. The contracts stated that they were awarded on the basis of certain labour prices and the Labour department of the former government raised the wages. The Peter Lyall people have put in a claim amounting to something like half a million dollars; I am speaking again from memory. This was submitted to Mr. Justice Maclean, not as a regular case but for his opinion. He gave a sort of umpire's decision rather favourable to the Lyall people, but the matter has not yet been settled, and it has not been included in any of the settlements here. Outside the Lyall claim and some others that might be contingent upon a settlement of the Lyall claim on the same grounds, I believe most of the claims have been settled. By the way the total cost of the Welland ship canal is in round figures $130,000,000; I thought somebody might ask for it.
[Mr. Mamon.J


Charles A. Stewart: That is up to date?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Thomas Reid: For how long are the international agreements? Those are the agreements signed whereby ships from the United States and other foreign countries can go through the canal free.


Robert James Manion: I should have said international trade treaties; they are full treaties. Perhaps I used the word "agreement " wrongly. They are treaties between Canada and such countries as for instance Holland. I remember that the ships of Holland were drawn to my attention as those upon which tolls should be paid. In looking into the matter I found that the number of vessels coming from foreign countries apart from the United States were so few that the tolls would not amount to anything substantial. Our canals to-day will permit vessels only 250 feet in length to traverse them, except the Welland ship canal which is built midway between the others so that it was rather an unwise piece of building without extending the depth and length of all the other canals in unison with it. But it was begun some twenty-two years ago and it has been carried on by every government since that time, with the exception of a short period during the war, so that it was practically a continuous affair.


Ernest Lapointe: It was a continuing sin.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to income- canals-improvements, $518,820.
Thomas Reid: Representations are now being made by many railway employees and the question they are asking is: Will all railway employees come under the eight hour day? Will that be in force so far as the railways are concerned? I have had quite a few communications within the past few days and I thought I would draw the matter to the attention of the minister.


Robert James Manion: That does not come under the estimates of my department, but I have no objection to answering my hon. friend's question so far as I can. Perhaps he will remember that when the eight hour day bill was before the House of Commons, it was piloted through the house by the Minister of Labour. At that time the railway managements and the railway unions waited upon the Minister of Labour and some of the other ministers concerned; I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce was present with the

Supply-Canals
Minister of Labour. They submitted to the ministers concerned, the Minister of Labour in particular, that they had come to some sort of understanding whereby the eight hour day would not apply to railway employees until a year had elapsed. If I remember aright-and I am speaking subject to correction-when the bill was before the house an amendment to that effect was adopted. The bill is now before the other chamber, and I have heard complaints from unemployed railroad men-and my hon. friend no doubt has also heard them-arguing that the eight hour day should come into force forthwith on all railroads. However that matter is subject to the decision of the other chamber and also to what is done with the bill when it returns to this house. That is the situation to-day so far as I remember and understand.
_ Mr- CAMPBELL: There is a large increase in this item. Would the minister explain it?


Robert James Manion: There are a number of large items. For example, I null give a couple of them. On the Rideau canal close to the city of Ottawa there is at Hog's Back a dam and a lock which are exceedingly old. I believe the old lock and dam were built a hundred years ago when the Rideau canal was constructed. These have now got into such a condition that they must be rebuilt, and $143,000 of the increase is for that.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Let it be "damned" again!


Robert James Manion: Yes; there are many who think the whole Rideau canal might be damned. But there are a great many people who use it for pleasure craft and since it has been in use for a hundred years, I hope we will^ be able to continue it as we have. My engineer reminds me that I have now the tourist travel bureau under my jurisdiction, and therefore being an advocate of the tourist business, I hope to see the canal continue.


Mr. COOTE:: As regards the canal at Hog's Back, is it the duty of the government to maintain those bridges? If so, would they not consider putting in a wider bridge?


Charles A. Stewart: They might
straighten them too.


George Gibson Coote: At the present time there
are one or two of those bridges over which only one car can pass at a time; it is oneway traffic; the traffic has to go one way for a while and then the cars going the other way have a chance to cross. This causes great congestion at certain times. Surely the government could afford to put a little wider bridge there.


Robert James Manion: The bridge is being widened to twenty feet. A hundred years ago when it was built, there was not quite so much automobile traffic as there is to-day. A foot bridge is also being constructed and the bridge is being straightened so that my hon. friend's suggestion is being carried out.


Mr. MUNN:: How are they getting along
with the Trent canal? Are there any capital expenditures on that?


Robert James Manion: There are no capital expenditures, but there is some expenditure. For example there are repairs such as dredging, drilling, blasting at Bobcaygeon. There is replacement of the swing bridge opposite lock 19 at Peterborough. That is being done in association with the provincial government. It is costing $40,000 and we are contributing $25,000. There are a number of other items. There is no capital expenditure in a sense, although there is expenditure amounting altogether to $142,800 on the Trent canal.


Albert Edward Munn: Could the minister without
too much trouble tell the committee what the yearly expenditures and receipts are?


Robert James Manion: The receipts outside electrical contract receipts are nil. I mean we have no toll charges on the Trent canal any more than we have on the other ones. But we get about $90,000 from electrical contracts in connection with w'ater powers on the Trent canal.


Albert Edward Munn: What are the annual expenditures?


Robert James Manion: They run at the present
time less than they used to because there was more money spent upon it in various buildings of one kind or another, but for the last few yearn the annual expenditure has averaged, including operation and maintenance, about $200,000.


Mr. MULOCK:: Is that contract for $90,000 still in effect and, if so, how long has it to run?


Robert James Manion: Which contract?


William Pate Mulock: The one under which the government gets $90,000 a year.


Robert James Manion: That is not an individual contract; there are a number of electrical leases that bring in a total of $90,000. There are very many of them and some are with the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission.


Mr. DONNELLY:: How many tons of
freight go through the Trent canal?
2464	COMMONS
Supply-Railway Commission


Robert James Manion: Very few. It is practically altogether used for tourist and pleasure boats. There is a slight quantity of freight, but it is very little.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of railway commissioners: maintenance and operation, $228,648.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Under this item perhaps I may bring to the attention of the committee a grievance of our section of the country that has existed for some years, namely the disuse of the national transcontinental from Quebec to Winnipeg. I listened very attentively some days ago to an hon. member from British Columbia urging preferential freight rates to the Pacific coast. But the same arguments apply more forcibly to that section of the Canadian National line from Quebec to Winnipeg. I brought this matter before the house when I was sitting on the government side and on several occasions since. So far not only have we not had these complaints remedied by the present government or the board of railway commissioners, but services have been further curtailed. Through passenger service is nil. In the spring of 1931, after this present government took office, there was curtailment of the passenger service so well given by trains Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and to-day the Canadian National has entirely lost all that traffic in that section. And since 1929 we have not had any through freight service. This line is really the missing link as far as the national railways are concerned. I make this appeal to the committee for the very good reason that it is useless to make it to the railway commission; we have tried that in the past, so the last court to which we can appeal is this committee and the Minister of Railways. I appreciate the statement made by the minister a few days ago that he is not in favour of amalgamation, but so far as the national transcontinental in our section is concerned there has been a thorough process of elimination. Within a few years the rails will be rusted and the line useless on account of absence of traffic which that road is absolutely entitled to have.
I do not think this is the time or place to review the past history of that part of our railway system, but every hon. member is familiar with the fact that there are no better grades on any railway in this country. More than that, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced the legislation to provide for the national transcontinental on July 30, 1903, speaking of the link covering the northern section of Ontario and Quebec he used these words:
This new railway will be another link in that chain of union. It will not only open territory hitherto idle and unprofitable, it will

not only force Canadian trade into Canadian channels, it will not only promote citizenship between old' Canada and new Canada, but it will secure us our commercial independence, and will forever make us free from the bondage of the bonding privilege.
I well remember only a few years ago commending the present minister when he severely criticized the condition under which our grain was finding its way to American seaports for export. Although this is not the case in such large volume now, because we do not export so much grain, nevertheless the fact remains that a large quantity of all grains is still finding its way to the ports of the United States, while at the same time we have one of the finest sections of the Canadian National system absolutely idle. More than that, I believe that the present government is responsible for a certain amount of prejudice against our section. Only a few weeks ago I was reading an editorial in an Ottawa paper in which the question was asked, Why use that section of railway, passing through a country that produces only Christmas trees? Let me remind the committee that the northern sections of Ontario and Quebec are among the very richest in our country. I should like to see some of those writers try to cut down some of these small "Christmas trees." We have in -my riding alone three great newsprint mills, at Iroquois Falls, Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskasing.
It takes more than Christmas trees to keep them going. When by the national transcontinental that section of the country was opened up we made a great capital investment. I am sure that no section of our population begrudged the building of that railway. But a certain amount of prejudice has been fastened on our section on account of the attitude of the present government. We fervently hope and expect that the passenger service on the national transcontinental will be reestablished. I am not a railway man but I am told by people well versed in the matter that as far as that line is concerned, through the discontinuance of the service since 1931 by the national trains from Quebec to Winnipeg, they have practically lost all the through passenger traffic that they had. Furthermore I am positive that they have lost all the through passenger traffic going west from our own section of the country, because the people resent the fact that that service has been cut off, and when people from Cochrane and Kapuskasing and neighbouring towns want to go west they have to go a roundabout way. I believe the statement cannot be contradicted that as far as our section of the country is concerned all the

Supply-Railway Commission
passenger traffic has been lost to the Canadian Pacific. If that is cooperation it is not the kind we believe in. We fully realize that there is a railway problem, and that problem is too great to be dealt with on party lines. We fully realize that every hon. member must give that question his most careful and intelligent consideration. But I maintain that as far as the national transcontinental is concerned it never came into its own, it never got a chance. From the time it was built to the present day the rates have been discriminatory. For instance when the road was completed in 1916 it was able to quote a rate of six cents per bushel on wheat from Armstrong, a station in the Thunder Bay district almost due north of Fort William and Port Arthur, to Quebec city, a distance of 959 miles. Then something very mysterious happened. After it w'as shown by actual test that grain or cattle could be hauled more economically on that section of the road than on any other section, discriminatory rates were instituted against us; as a matter of fact the rates proved to be not only discriminatory but practically prohibitive, and as a result the expected volume of traffic did not develop and has not developed since. In 1931 the Quebec harbour commission made representations to the board of railway commissioners complaining about the rate of 20-7 cents per bushel from Armstrong to Quebec. An investigation was held by the board in Quebec city, with the late Hon. Frank Car-vell presiding, and during that hearing there were certainly some very extraordinary arguments advanced. Here is the verbatim comment of Mr. Carvell:
If my conception of the national transcontinental was right, when it was started and when it was being built, I think freight can be transported over that line at a figure which would mean the absolute ruination of other railways in Canada. If not, we were all wrong and we were not justified in building it.
So it seems a very strange anomaly indeed, in these times of the new deal, that we do not take the line of least resistance and that the railway commission do not find it possible to have all our grain routed over that section of the road, at least during the winter months, since at the present time that line is being used only for local traffic.
It is not my intention to take up very much of the time of the house; I believe the people throughout the country are fully seized of the problem. This also hurts the maritimes. There are many members on both sides of the house coming from the maritime provinces who have deplored the fact that the harbours of Saint John and
Halifax have not received their proper quota of through traffic. That is due to the fact that millions of bushels of wheat have been shipped through United States ports each year. This year I asked a question of the Department of Trade and Commerce with regard to these exportations, and I should like to give the committee the figures I obtained. The amount of grain of all kinds exported through the United States ports of Portland, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore was as follows:
Bushels
1928-	29	
111.840,3651929-	30	
58,171,8521930-	31	
75.793.1501931-	32	
35,633,1811932-	33	
30,346,839
Those are the latest statistics I have been able to obtain. No doubt the decrease in the amount of grain exported through those ports is due to the fact that our exports of grain in general have not been as great for some years past. I maintain that every bushel of that grain should have been carried over our Canadian railways, because if my information is correct this grain was all shipped during the winter months, when our railways and our water transportation systems on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence have not been carrying on that business. In this way our section of the country, together with the maritime provinces, have been cheated out of a great deal of revenue. If the eleven cent rate to Quebec were effective, immediately it would create a maximum rate on the great lakes. I do not know why these discriminatory rates in our section have been maintained during the winter months; I could understand it more easily if they were even seasonal rates. We in the north are fair enough to realize that railway transportation from the west to the maritimes could not compete with water transportation, but we maintain that at least during the winter months all grain hauled should go over that section of the railway.
Grain is not the only commodity that can be moved more expeditiously over that line. A few years ago a trial shipment of 600 steers was sent over that railway, and the running time of the train between Winnipeg and Quebec was eighteen hours less than the running time from Winnipeg to Montreal. Two feedings were sufficient where three were required in the other case, and this, together with a smaller shrinkage in the shipment, represented a saving of not less than $5 per head or of roughly S3,000 on the consignment. But that experiment was conducted only
Supply-Railway Commission

once; we have never had any other through traffic in cattle, though I do not know why.
It has been stated in my section of the country, as well as in northern Quebec, the city of Quebec and the maritime provinces, that the Canadian National have not been given a fair chance. I do not believe there is proper cooperation between the two railways. I absolutely agree with the minister when he says we cannot have amalgamation, but it is a good thing to have this question before the public at the present time. I would remind the government that there has been almost a united effort on the part of some hon. members opposite to suggest that the Canadian National system is not an asset to the country, but that it is such a load that it would be a wonderful thing if it could be given away or sold for five dollars. This is not good for the country or for the railway system. A few moments ago we passed estimates amounting to several millions of dollars in connection with the Welland canal, and the minister mentioned a large sum that was to be spent on the Rideau canal. In the last few years we have also made other capital investments such as the railway to Churchill and the terminal there. These are not paying propositions, but I a.m sure no hon. member would suggest that they should not have been built. So I am sure no member of parliament, no matter on what side of the house he sits, would suggest that the transcontinental line should not have been built. If he knows the development that has taken place in that section of the country, which has proved so beneficial to the whole of Canada, he would realize that these expenditures were fully warranted. In my own section of the country through the gold tax alone the federal government have collected something over $4,000,000. That is only one item, and it shows the potential assets, some of which have been developed, in that section of the country. ,
The house should be fully seized of the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the road. I realize that it would be impossible for the minister to say that the Canadian Northern system should be destroyed. Everyone knows that with the scattered population strung along that section of the road such a declaration would arouse horror in every section of the country. But if there is a section of the system which should be abolished it is that section instead of the transcontinental, for the very good reason that the transcontinental travels through the famous clay belt of northern Quebec and northern Ontario, while the Canadian North-
[Mr. Bradette.l
ern is in between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. In our section we maintain that because of the policy that has been followed in connection with the transcontinental we have lost the traffic to which we were entitled.
I have mentioned these facts because I wish to make a very sincere appeal to the minister that he use his influence with the railway commission to have the situation remedied. The commission is not a political body; in our section of the country when we deal with these matters, particularly railway matters, we always keep out of the realm of politics. I hope I may receive the support of hon. members from northern Quebec and northern Ontario, because I think we all realize that instead of being an asset to that section of the country the transcontinental has become a liability because it has not received the consideration it deserves. I am not going to give any further statistics at the present time; I need only say that the rates on grain and cattle are nearly double the rates on other sections of the line. Is that fair to the Canadian National railways as a whole? Is that fair to northern Ontario and northern Quebec? Is it fair to the maritime provinces? I will say it is not. It is not giving a chance to that system in connection with the building of which the founders were looking to the future. This traffic has been taken from our section of the country and we are not receiving the just-treatment we might expect. We have no direct communication; we are nearly 300 miles northwest of North Bay and have no direct communication with Winnipeg or the western provinces. While we have the very best roadbed on the North American continent, no use is made of it. The province of Quebec, the city of Quebec and the maritime provinces have not ready access, so far as railway facilities are concerned, because they have to go in a roundabout way.
Before concluding my remarks may I make a last appeal to the Minister of Railways. He has resided in northern Ontario and I believe he knows as well as I do the conditions obtaining in that section of the country. He knows that the Canadian National railways have not been treated fairly so far as passenger service to that part of the country is concerned. He knows, too, that ninety-five per cent of the passenger service in northern Ontario is lost to the Canadian National Railways, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway has benefited. The people in my section of the country have no quarrel with the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Supply-Railway Commission
We know it is a national institution and has rendered service to the country, but surely the railway commission and the Minister of Railways should see to it that our railway service is linked up.


Robert James Manion: I know the hon. member has made what he considers to be a sincere appeal. Usually he is eminently fair, but on this occasion, particularly in regard to the last few sentences, of his observations, I do not think he has been quite fair. For instance, he indicated that the cutting off of passenger traffic on the northern lines of the Canadian National railways was quite unfair to those railways, and stated in so many words that such action favoured the Canadian Pacific Railway. If any unfairness exists so far as the Canadian National railways are concerned, the hon. member must know, as I do, that it has been brought about by their own management, because neither the Minister of Railways of this government nor that of the late government, no matter what the faults of that government may have been, have had anything to do with the actual operation of the railways. I have no control over the train schedules, because ministers of railways are not consulted on those matters. The railway managements, whether they be of the Canadian National or of the Canadian Pacific, handle their own train arrangements. Therefore I submit if any unfairness has been the result it is the fault of the management. I would not agree that the management would be so foolish as to permit themselves to be unfair to themselves

because that is what the hon. member has suggested in his declaration that the conditions obtaining are unfair to the national system. It is an old cry, and I do not think the hon. member is quite fair to himself when he repeats it because the management of the national railways have been handling the road exceedingly well. Were I to show the hon. member a statement of the earnings for the first six weeks of this year or for the whole of last year he would see that the Canadian National Railways is earning in the present year and in the past year did earn considerably greater revenue than the Canadian Pacific Railway did.
I think the Canadian National Railways management are eminently fair to themselves, and no doubt their only reason for taking trains off the northern route was that they do not feel such trains were justified by the earnings. Naturally the management must eliminate services which do not give a reasonable return of revenue. Only last week I visited my own constituency, and as the Canadian National
Railways have no direct train running from Ottawa to Fort William as a matter of convenience I travelled via the Canadian Pacific; I really had no choice in the matter. I went up on train No. 1 and came back on No. 2, trains which used to carry through Pullmans and dining cars but which because of scarcity of traffic through northwestern Ontario do not now provide those facilities on the trains in question. The Canadian Pacific Railway have eliminated many of their trains for the same reason as have the Canadian National Railways.
I do not wish to enter into any lengthy discussion of the railway situation, and for that reason will deal with only one or two further points raised by the hon. member. He has stated that the national railways have not been fair to the northern country, and in an effort to substantiate his arguments he quoted some journals or newspapers which had made certain statements. Surely the hon. member would not suggest that the Department of Railways and Canals must be responsible for everything appearing in a newspaper. Those journals are not our mouthpiece; so far as possible we endeavour to speak for ourselves. He must not forget that traffic on the Canadian National railways in 1933 was less than half of the amount in 1928, the peak year. My memory indicates that in 1928 the gross revenues of the Canadian National railways were about 8300,000.000, while in 1933 they were only about 8148,000,000, or a little less than half. Naturally the same service cannot be given when earnings have been cut in half.
The hon. member made reference to wheat and other traffic which he thought should come down via the northern route. A few moments ago he was kind enough to state that I am from northern Ontario. May I say I am very proud of it, and in my heart I have a strong affection for that particular section of Canada. In area it is huge; in fact without consulting a map one hardly realizes that the northern portion of Ontario is more than five times the area of the more thickly populated southern section -of the province. Unfortunately, however, the population in the greater area is small, and for that reason the passenger revenues from that part of Ontario cannot be heavy. Therefore the hon. member must understand that from the standpoint of passenger traffic there is no justification for heavy or regular passenger services. When the hon. member indicates that wheat and other commodities are not shipped via the northern route may I point out that practically no wheat comes east by rail from Winnipeg. An
24G8

Supply-Railway Commission
odd car may be sent by rail because of some emergency, but practically ail the grain which oomes east from Winnipeg goes first to the head of the lakes and then comes down by water to the Georgian bay ports and Port Co.lborne, or through to Montreal. When it is shipped from the port of New York it goes via Buffalo. I would say however that the vast majority, probably 99^r per cent of all the grain coming east, comes by water simply because the rail rates are about ten times as high as the water rates. I have given the round figure, but I believe I am approximately correct. Obviously there would be no justification for any person shipping by rail when he can ship at one-tenth the cost by water.
There is no hope in the world of my hon. friend's section of the transcontinental line carrying grain to any large extent when in fact that same grain could be shipped at a much lower rate by water. Probably I should modify my general statement to the effect that the rate is ten times as high by rail as by water, because I remember that at one time a special rate became effective from the head of the lakes or from Winnipeg to the city of Quebec. I believe the rate of eleven cents was given, a very low rate, from the city of Fort William to the city of Quebec. However, even that exceedingly low rate did not attract grain traffic to the railways, because the rate by lake and rail, if I remember correctly the figures I gave the other night, from the head of the lakes to Montreal averaged 3-79 during the 1933 season of navigation. Obviously no person would pay eleven cents from Fort William to Quebec if he could ship it from Fort William to Montreal for 3-79 cents. To attempt to carry on a grain traffic by the Canadian National railways or any other railways when that grain could be shipped more cheaply by water would be as hopeless as trying to push water up hill with a sieve.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: How would the minister handle the millions of bushels which in every year find their way to the American seaports for exportation?


Robert James Manion: Practically every bushel of the grain which goes via the American seaports comes from the head of the lakes to Buffalo by water. From Buffalo it goes on via the Erie canal. Sometimes it leaves Buffalo by rail, but never reaches that city by rail, because it could not be handled profitably by rail. The fact is that it goes from the head of the lakes to Buffalo by water, and possibly for the short haul from Buffalo to New York some of it may go by rail,

just as our grain coming east in the summer comes by water from Fort William to Georgian bay ports, and then by rail east, and occasionally it goes as far as Saint John and Halifax by rail, which is a fairly long haul. But practically no grain ever goes from the west to Montreal or Quebec or to New York by rail. It goes principally by water, except perhaps an occasional car for some emergent need. Members who understand the grain trade, my hon. friend, for instance, from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) I am sure will not find any fault with my general statement that practically every bushel goes by lake and rail.


Mr. MYERS:: I do not like to be complaining, and I know this is a very hard time to ask for railway improvements, but I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that our people in Prince Edward Island and those who come to our province complain very much about the service between Sackville and cape Tormentine. We are not complaining at all about the service to Sackville or in fact about the services on the island, because they are fairly good, but there is a short line from Sackville to Tormentine that is not up to the standard of the rest of the railway. That is the gateway of our province, yet the roadbed is not as good as on other sections of the road, and the passenger cars that are used on this section of the line are not in keeping with the traffic that is carried. Just a few days ago the maritime boards of trade met in Saint John, New Brunswick. A representative from our province attended the meeting and he had no trouble at all in getting a resolution passed drawing the attention of the railway authorities to the fact that the equipment and service was inadequate and needs improvement. I am taking this opportunity of bringing the matter to the minister's attention and I hope that he will take it up with the management.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend now draws my attention to this matter publicly, but I may say that he has taken it up a number of times privately with me before. But again I must make the same reply that I did to my hon. friend opposite, and that is the reply which the railway management give me. My hon. friend complained that the passenger service was not sufficient for the people in Prince Edward Island and I did take that matter up, at my hon. friend's request, with the management. From what I hear the passenger service could be very much improved, but the railway give the same reply that I had to give to my hon.

Post Office Act-Newspapers
friend from northern Ontario, that there is not sufficient traffic to justify a better service than is now being given. However, I shall very gladly draw to the attention of the management the statements which my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Myers) and my hon. friend opposite have made in regard to these services, and submit to the management that they give further consideration to the whole question. But I cannot guarantee anything for either one of them. I may say frankly that with an election coming on in the near future, if I had the power I would gladly give them both everything they ask, until after the election anyway-I am quite honest

but I have not the power. But I will submit the matter to the management.


Ernest Lapointe: Do you call that
honest?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-Miscellaneous services, $46,000.	.
Mr. HOW  DEN@: There is a matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. I doubt very much if I can finish before the dinner recess but I will begin. It concerns a number of engine men in the constituency of St. Boniface and in some of the Winni-pegs, and it is really a very important matter. The minister is quite familiar with it, I am sure, as he has received a good many communications from one person or another, but still there seems to be no means olf remedying this festering sore, and the present situation is certainly very unfair to a considerable number of engine men in that terminus.
The facts are these. When the roads that form the Canadian National Railways were amalgamated, so far as Winnipeg is concerned, there were three roads that entered into the amalgamation. There was the old Canadian Northern railway, the terminus of which was in Fort Rouge, a portion of the city of Winnipeg. There was the Canadian government railway running east from Transcona, and there was the Grand Trunk Pacific running west from Transcona. The old Canadian Northern railway engines that were being used at that time were the old fashioned smaller type, hauling only about one-third of the tonnage that the large engines could haul that were being used on the two roads running east and west out of the town of Transcona.
It was found after the roads were amalgamated that a great deal of the traffic was routed east over the former Canadian government lines and that the engineers of the Canadian Northern were getting very little
to do. This condition was aggravated by the fact that that road was in very, very bad condition, and in order to bring it into running shape after the amalgamation of the roads, some fifty crews were put to work on the Canadian Northern railway, which already had very many more engine men working than either the Canadian government road or the Grand Trunk Pacific. There was an agitation set on foot by the engine men of the Canadian Northern portion of the road for equalization or for priority rights with regard to running. I believe it was in 1926 that the matter was taken up through their grand lodge in Cleveland. I have grown a little rusty on the matter but my memory is that committees were appointed by both the engineers and the firemen and that the committees included the presidents and six vice presidents of the labour organizations.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto) moved the second reading of Bill No. 50, to amend the Post Office Act (newspaper ownership).
He said: I would not make any remarks on the motion for the second reading of this bill, the passage of which would mean so much to good government in this country, were it not that forty-two per cent of the members of parliament were not in the house when it was brought up. This is the same bill that was passed several years ago by this parliament, agreed to unanimously in the interests of the real freedom of the press. At that time the bill went over to the senate but was rejected. It has been the law of England and of the United States as well for many years.
The war wrought a great change in the democratic conception of education, and we find that the press has been the leader in every phase of life; in fact, I do not know how we should have got along -without the press during the last few years of depression. Now what I want to point out is that in every other department of our activities, whether it be personal estate or real estate, bills of sale, chattel mortgages, wills, municipal assessment for real estate, anyone can go to the assessment office or to the municipality
[Stage Direction]
Post Office Act-Newspapers
and ascertain the facts. Why therefore should we throw a cloak of secrecy around the identity of any newspaper? Everyone knows who the members of the House of Commons are, who the senators are and who the governor general is. Everyone can find out who the directors of all incorporated companies are, whether federal or provincial, because all this information has to be registered. There have to be elaborate statements with affidavits regarding the financial affairs of every corporation. But the income tax dodgers and the newspapers whose identity is not disclosed operate under cover.
There never was a time in the history of the country when it was so imperative as it is to-day that we should know the identity of every newspaper, when we consider the agitation that is going on throughout the country, among certain people, for the amalgamation of the railways and union government; when we consider the fact that the natural resources of the country have been given away to favourites; and when we consider the new deal which has been introduced into this parliament and which, since the opening of this session, the three parties have supported.
Take the investigation by the mass buying commission; that most important subject is related to the proposal put forward in this bill. At the basis of all corruption in this country, since confederation, we find a section of the press which has set itself above this parliament and above the law of the land, large mergers and combines in restraint of trade having operated to control that section of the press. Mr. Stanley Baldwin stated the other day that reform, legal, constitutional and parliamentary, transcended any other problem in importance. We admire the British press and we admire the Canadian press to-day; on the whole it is a splendid institution, and I have no criticism to make of it. I submit however that we shall have to do something to secure for the workers and the people of the country generally what Theodore Roosevelt tried to do years ago for the American people, namely, to give them a square deal, and the "new freedom" which Woodrow Wilson proposed to give them. So that in the interests of improved social, political and economic conditions it is desirable that we should know who they are that control the press. In some of the cities of this country we find two rival newspapers published in the same building and by the sarhe publisher, one Liberal and one Conservative, and no one knows the identity of either paper or whether

some of the editorials are paid for or not. In Canada to-day, as in Britain, all questions of public concern, whether political, economic, constitutional, social, religious or personal are discussed in the press quite freely, without fear or favour or any danger of criminal prosecution-a condition far different from that which existed in England in the eighteenth century when Wilkes was prosecuted. Except for abnormal circumstances, the press can publish anything, good, bad or indifferent, affecting any government or individual. The press is so much a part of the British constitution that we are apt to forget the part it played in securing the benefits we enjoy to-day in connection with our free schools, factory legislation and other important measures of social reform. It has been the standard bearer of freedom. Canada cannot get along without an unfettered press, and a free press is of inestimable advantage to the people of this country. It is a joy to the individual; it illumines the home and exalts the nation, and the saying that "worth makes the man," is applicable to all our great newspaper editors.
Section 1 of the bill provides that there shall be a sworn statement of names and addresses of editors, owners, stockholders, and so forth, to be made semi-annually. Now I submit that inasmuch as they use the post office they should register; the identity of every newspaper should be known. The post office of this country carries second class mail for the newspapers at a net loss of S8,-000,000. The department cannot afford to pay its employees a decent rate of wages because of the franchises handed to the press. Section 1 does not propose that the names of small stockholders shall be given. It is provided that a copy of the sworn statement made by the newspaper shall be published in the second issue printed next after the filing of the statement with the Postmaster General, and if that provision is not carried out then the newspaper may not use the mails. Further, it is provided that paid editorials shall be marked "advertisement." Why not? Why should any large corporation attack a man like Harry Stevens, after all he has done for the country?-a man who, more than any Lord Shaftesbury, deserves the gratitude of this country, first, for what he did in 1926 when he saved the people $55,000,000 in connection with the customs inquiry, and, secondly, in connection with the price spreads commission. Why should such a man be attacked in the manner in which he was in the past few weeks by some few sections of the press?

It is time the people woke up to the fact that we are living in a fool's paradise. When I was chief magistrate of Toronto, an effort was made to sell the city an antiquated street railway plant and light plant largely antiquated junk, for $32,000,000. What would have been the result if that had gone through? The city would have been bankrupt and there would have been no hydroelectric project such as we have it to-day and we would have had higher carfares and rates for power. The toilers and workers in the cities and the farmers on the farms of Ontario would have been affected. There are a few people in this country who tried to put over that deal on the municipalities of this province; they fought Adam Beck to an early grave, and it is due to the Canadian people, who have had various legislatures since confederation down that have given away our natural resources, that we should have some statement of newspaper ownership. I have before me a letter from the Postmaster General of the United States where a similar bill was introduced on August 24, 1912. After all is said and done, the United States has been the great laboratory since the depression came on; it has tried all kinds of schemes to solve the economic troubles of that country and to pull its people out of the mire. Those schemes have been good, bad and indifferent, but in the result, as any economist can tell, most of the legislation passed there has been for the public benefit and has done something for the workers in that country. This is what the Postmaster General of the United States says:
The present law, embodied in section 537, Postal Laws and Regulations, is printed on the back of the accompanying copy of Form 3526 used by publishers in furnishing the required information. It specifies that publishers must submit not later than the first day of October of each year a statement setting forth the names and addresses of the officers of the publication, the owners and stockholders, etc., and also in the ease of daily newspapers the average number of copies sold or distributed to paid subscribers during the preceding twelve months.
The purpose and intent of the law is to discover the real owners of publications entered as second-class matter and to let the public know who controls the editorial policies of the publication. It has been helpful in many instances where it was necessary to ascertain the actual ownership of publications and has also been beneficial in the case of daily publications which are required to show the average daily paid circulation in correcting the practices of some publishers in representing to advertisers a greater circulation for their publication than actually obtained. The law [DOT]on the whole has been beneficial in its effect.
Post Office Act-Newspapers
The law embodied in paragraph 2 of the above mentioned section, requiring editorial or other reading matter for the publication of which money or other valuable consideration is paid, accepted, or promised to be marked with the word "advertisement," enables readers to determine what is advertising and what is reading matter, and since the advertising portion of publications entered as second-class matter, with certain exceptions, is subject to postage at graduated zone rates, according to distance-
And these rates in the United States which I am going to quote are twice what they are in this country where we had a deficit of $8,000,000.
-the rates ranging from one and one-half cents a pound for the first and second zones to seven cents a pound for the eighth zone, while the reading portion is subject to postage at the flat rate of one and one-half cents a pounds regardless of zone, it also facilitates the collection of the proper postage.
That is from the Postmaster General of the United States in regard to newspaper regulations. He encloses a schedule which, with the consent of the house, in view of the many demands I have had for schedules, I would like to place on Hansard so that the members may see the regulations and affidavits in effect across the line. It is only a short schedule on the back of the act.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall consent be granted to put the schedule on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Mr. CHURCH:: The schedule is as
follows:
Statement of the Ownership, Management, Circulation, Etc., Required by the Act of Congress of March 3, 1933

published at	
(Insert title of publication.) (State frequency of issue.
)
(Name of post office and State where publication is entered.)
for	193	.
State of	'
County of	
Before me, a	
in and for the State and county aforesaid,
personally appeared	who
having been duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the	
(State whether editor, publisher, business manager or owner.)
of the	
(Insert title of publication.) and that the following is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a true statement of the ownership, management (and if a daily paper,

Post Office Act-Newspapers
the circulation), etc., of the aforesaid publication for the date shown in the above caption, required by the Act of August 24,	1912,
embodied in section 411, Postal Laws and Regulations, printed on the reverse of this form, to wit:
1.	That the names and addresses of the publisher, editor, managing editor, and business managers are:
Name of-	Post office address-
Publisher	
Editor	
Managing Editor	
Business Managers	
2.	That the owner is: (If owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder the names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding one per cent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names and addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a firm, company, or other unincorporated concern, its names and address, as well as those of each individual member, must be given.)
3.	That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 per cent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities are: (If there are none, so state.)
4.	That the two paragraphs next above, giving the names of the owners, stockholders, and security holders, if any, contain not only the list of stockholders and security holders as they appear upon the books of the company but also, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting, is given; also that the said two paragraphs contain statements embracing affiant's full knowledge_ and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner; and this affiant has no reason to believe that any other person, association, or corporation has any interest direct or indirect in the said stock, bonds, or other securities than as so stated by him.
5.	That the average number of copies of each issue of this publication sold or distributed, through the mails or otherwise, to paid subscribers during the twelve months preceding
the date shown above is	
(This information is required from daily publications only.)
(Signature of editor, publisher, business manager, or owner.) Sworn to and subscribed before me this	
day of	193 .
' [Seal.]
(My commission expires	193 .)
Note.-This statement must be made in duplicate and both copies delivered by the publisher to the postmaster, who shall send one copy to the Third Assistant Postmaster General (Division of Classification), Washington, D.C., and retain the other in the files of the post office. The publisher must publish a copy of this statement in the second issue printed after its filing.
I will not quote the number of papers whose editors have advocated this legislation. They are mostly Conservative, but there have also been many Liberal newspapers. Let me pay tribute to the Liberal party because in 1919 they introduced this very bill in the house. Hon. Mr. Lemieux, then member for Gaspe, introduced this bill in the house on several occasions, in fact this particular bill formed part of the Liberal platform of 1919. I have to pay tribute to Mr. Lemieux because he copied it from the law of England.
But I will say in conclusion that in the United States we have seen the control of Wall Street which the senate inquiry revealed. In that country Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan is a striking example. He and his partners did not pay a penny of income tax for years, and no one outside the precincts of the house of Morgan was any the wiser. It required a United States senate inquiry to expose this evil practice and a senate inquiry to show how tied and non-identity newspapers had been bought to kill public men who opposed in that country the giving away of their last natural resources. This exposure shocked all America and in fact the whole civilized world.
There was a committee formed of thirteen in my city to put over a union government a few weeks ago, the last thing this government wants, and the people would like to know who is behind that particular move.
I have many papers that I could quote from. This is what I said in the by-election in East Toronto, and I do not take a word back of what I said in that riding:
The Conservative party, the real founders and authors of protection in Canada, should not allow itself to become just an adjunct to great mergers and monopolies and restraints of trade and security company racketeering, and who, as well as great departmental stores, are a law to themselves, and snap their fingers at the government and parliament and any regulations from the law of the land as they crush out the small dealer and starve their employees, and by rural mail delivery and the misuse of mail orders ruin the small towns and villages of the province. We had a milk and gasoline inquiry end in no prosecutions as not within the legislative competence of Canada.
The time has come to stop "pussyfooting" with these cankers in the body politic and reassert the supremacy of parliament, as the first duty of a government is to look after the health and happiness, welfare and prosperity of its people. The Conservative party has done itself credit in the spread' prices, and

Post Office Act-Newspapers
mass buying committee.... But the big interests who have so much weight in all parties are out to kill it as they did the milk and gasoline inquiry and the Beauharnois inquiry, and to put the lid on-and also to kill and destroy any private member who opposes them and drive him out of parliament.
I still stand by those words. I believe the Conservative party and this government have done themselves proud in what they have done in the way of protecting the workers, the consumers and especially the farming industry, because the farmers and the industrial workers of this country are traditionally Conservative; they have been the two branches of this party from 1878 down. They have never faltered in the principle of protection. So when I see some of our leaders attacked as they are by some of the tied press for having brought about these reforms for the benefit of the workers, I believe the time has come to know who owns some of the newspapers. The object of this bill is well known to the press. For many years the newspapers have been coming to parliament and securing privileges. Prior to 1882 newspapers were carried free by the post office. This bill provides for what is already required by law in England, Australia and the United States, that is: a sworn statement of the names and addresses of editors, owners and principal stockholders of every newspaper, magazine, periodical or other publication, to be filed with the postmaster general semiannually. There have been quite a number of newspaper references to this bill. Various farmers' magazines have openly approved the proposed legislation as being in the best interests of a free press and a free parliament. The Farmer's Advocate, the St. Catharines Standard, the Globe and the Port Hope Guide, The Winchester Press, are a few cases in point. I want it understood that I am not for a moment attacking the press of this country; I do not believe you could find anywhere a press to excel it. The contribution which Canadian newspapers made to the community, the country, education, social benefit, the satisfactory outcome of the war and during the depression; what it did to promote the cause of the poor and needy and of charity and philanthropy and to further every worthy movement on behalf of the soldiers and of the nation at large was invaluable and finds its place on the proudest pages of Canada's history. It was the press that helped very largely to restore Canada to her normal position. Nor can one say too much for the honour and integrity of the press of Canada. The tendency of our Canadian newspapers is decidedly forward, and not backward, and notwithstanding the high cost of material and
labour and the depression and the social situation their prospects are bright. I have no doubt that the genius of our newspapers will help to make this country great industrially and socially and in every way, so that Canada will march triumphantly on from strength to strength.
The object of the bill is to require disclosure of ownership so that we know who the owners are. No fair minded man in the country, can oppose this proposal; if he has at heart the interests not only of the country, but of the press itself he will support this bill. For these reasons I move the second reading. Having done that, the onus is on the house. This bill is not a party measure; on a former occasion it was supported unanimously by all parties as being in the public interest and in the interest of the peace, order and good government of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Sworn statement of names and addresses of editors, owners, stockholders, etcetera, to be made semi-annually.
Alan Webster Neill: I wonder if the introducer
of this bill has considered the question of jurisdiction. The first subsection might possibly be in order because it deals with the right to use the mails; that may be under dominion jurisdiction. But subsection 2, provides that all paid editorial or other reading matter must be so described, and there is a penalty, a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500; that has nothing to do with the Post Office Act or the use of the mails. I am no lawyer, and the Solicitor General and the ex-Solicitor General are not in their places, but I have a recollection that some seven or eight years ago I got through this house a somewhat similar bill which prescribed that no one should print or publish any document without his name and address on it, and there was a provision that printers had to keep a record for a certain number of months of the names of those who had employed them to do that particular work. The idea was to check the practice, common then and even more common now, of publishing seditious matter anonymously so that there was no way of finding out its source of origin. It met with unanimous support in this house, but in the other chamber it was thrown out on the ground that it was interfering with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. I wonder whether

Post Office Act-Newspapers
subsection 2 is not open to the same objection. Personally I heartily support the bill in every phase.


Charles A. Stewart: I think the hon. member has forgotten that we pay no attention to provincial rights now.


Alan Webster Neill: But we did not make a
treaty about this in Versailles.


Robert James Manion: They do not pay much
attention to our rights either, I notice.


Jean-François Pouliot: In principle I favour this bill, but I have some objection to subclause 4-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Wait until we get to
it.


Jean-François Pouliot: But subclause 4 is part of clause 1.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I ask my hon. friend to keep quiet. I understand he is sore at not having been in the seat of the Minister of Justice for the last four or five years. But if he has some complaint let him make it to the Prime Minister; we are not at all interested in his sour grapes.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that what I have
just said is carried, and I know my hon. friend may suffer from neurasthenia because he has not got what he wanted.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: We know he has had a
sore mouth for a long time and we are sorry for him; nevertheless we hope he will recuperate somewhere and keep quiet now, because if he wishes to get into the shoes of the Minister of Justice he must behave differently in the House of Commons. If he continues to behave in this way-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -his electors will not vote for him, because if any elector of the city of Hamilton should see his performance in the house he would surely tell the others, and the hon. member would not get a single vote.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad my hon. friend admits that what I am saying is right; it is carried unanimously-everyone is of the same opinion. We are all sorry he gives such a sad performance.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Carried.
CMr. Neill.]


Jean-François Pouliot: This again shows how sad it is to see a gentleman of the intelligence of the hon. member-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order. Let us discuss the bill, clause 1.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am discussing the bill, but in the meantime I have just described the hon. member's bilious attacks.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Is clause 1 carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder, sir, why we should carry it so early. Very serious objections have been made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I wonder if the hon. member from Hamilton cannot give us some illumination concerning the tetter and spirit of this section.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall I report the bill?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there only one section?


Alan Webster Neill: There are subsections, not sections.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thought we were taking it up clause by clause. I find in the clause we are discussing that there is no penalty for evasion.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not find it. It does state that if there is any evasion the paper shall be denied the right to use the mails. Then we come to subdause 2; there is a form of penalty there, but applicable only to newspapers with paid circulation. I am thinking of newspapers such as are often circulated for which no payment is made. If those papers have no identification as to ownership they evade the provisions entirely. I have in mind newspapers that are circulated by the thousands, particularly at election time. No one knows where they come from or who publishes them; they may contain all kinds of scurrilous matter, and there is nothing in this bill to provide for them. I think if we are going to attempt to find out who publishes newspapers and is responsible for the disseminating of certain kinds of information, the bill should cover all classes of newspapers. As it is now the bill is not wide enough to take care of a situation which is the cause of a great deal of annoyance and worse. I have seen in the publications I refer to untruthful and lying statements, with no indication of the source or the name of the printer of the paper or of who was responsible for its publication. If it is at all possible, with the consent of the

Supply-Railways and Canals
mover of the bill I should like this clause to stand so that the point I have raised might be looked into. Perhaps the clause could be made wider so that it would include all classes of newspapers having circulation in the Dominion of Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: This bill is in exactly
the same form as the bill I have introduced four or five times previously; there has not been a word changed. Previously this bill passed the house unanimously and it had the support of farmers' newspapers as well as most other newspapers throughout this country.
Mr. HEAPS; What the hon. member says may be perfectly true, but it does not answer the question I have just raised or the definite statement I made as to incidents which have occurred in this country during the past five or six years. If the hon. member who has introduced this bill would be good enough to let the matter stand I should be glad to take up with him the clause about which I am complaining now and to give him information which perhaps will convince him of the desirability of making the scope of the bill a little wider, because from what I can see of it I believe it could be evaded very easily, so that it might not bring the benefit the hon. member hopes. In all seriousness I would suggest that the hon. member allow the matter to stand over; I will see him at the first opportunity and discuss the wider application of the bill.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Surely the whole
thing depends on whether or not the post office department decides to recognize any alleged publication as a newspaper within the meaning of the act. If that is so the objection of the hon. member for North Winnipeg is gone. On the other hand if it does not, then no person can say that the importance of a recognized newspaper attaches to it. That is all that it amounts to.


Jean-François Pouliot: As I have already said,
I agree with the principle of the bill, but I strongly object to paragraph 4, which reads:
The Postmaster General may make such regulations as are required to carry out the provisions of this act.
I do not believe that power should be vested in one minister. If the hon. member for East Toronto is willing tc dispense with that paragraph I will support the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: May I say to the hon.
gentleman and to the hon. member for North Winnipeg that this bill was before this house in 1919, and the point raised to-night was
raised at that time. The question was asked then whether a bill of this kind did not interfere with the property and civil rights of the provinces, and we obtained the opinion of the Department of Justice, which was that it does not in any way infringe on the jurisdiction of the provinces in regard to property and civil rights. Under section 91 of the British North America Act the regulation of post offices is exclusively a matter for the federal government. This bill deals only with regulation of postal matters in regard to certain publications that have obtained franchises from this parliament in the way of second class rates; it provides that they must conform to this bill. I have no objection to a penalty, but a penalty is included in the bill, if hon. gentlemen will note it. These publications which do not comply with the terms of the bill are to be denied the use of the mails, and I think that penalty is sufficient.


Alan Webster Neill: What connection has subclause 2 with the Post Office Act? It has no connection at all; this is a separate matter.


Thomas Langton Church: I read the letter from
the Postmaster General of the United States with regard to penalties. This is simply a regulation of the Post Office Department.


Alan Webster Neill: But subclause 2 has no reference whatever to the post office; it simply says that if you do not indicate the material for the publication of which money has been paid you are liable to a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500. That does not come under the jurisdiction of the Post Office Department; it comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces in connection with property and civil rights.


Thomas Langton Church: I think this bill contains
all the regulations and penalties necessary to meet the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Miscellaneous services, $46,000.
John Power Howden: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to discuss the so-called Montreal agreement. I have little doubt that the Minister of Railways and Canals knows a great deal more about the

Supply-Railways and Canals
Montreal agreement than I do, but that agreement has been the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction and heartache to a great many men engaged in the running trades by the Canadian National Railways. In many districts of the road these differences have been adjusted, but that is not by any means the case over the whole road. Now, sir, in order that members of the committee may have some little knowledge of this affair perhaps I might take a moment or two to explain it. This may necessitate a little reiteration but I shall endeavour to be as speedy as possible.
When the lines that now form the Canadian National system were consolidated and combined the management set about rehabilitating the road. It was found that the Canadian Northern, being considerably older than either the Grand Trunk Pacific or the National Transcontinental, was in much worse repair, and in order to put the roadbed in shape it was found necessary to start a great number of extra hauling crews. Some fifty engine crews were started on the Canadian Northern portion of the system at that time. Subsequently, when the various portions were consolidated and combined, and the road was put on a running basis, it was discovered that there was a ratio of four crews on the Canadian Northern portion of the road to one crew on any other portion of the road. Since a good deal of the freight and other business was routed over the newer portions, namely the Canadian government parts of the road, this led to considerable dissatisfaction on the part Of the engineers and firemen of the old Canadian Northern railway system. An agitation was set on foot which resulted in the matter being taken up by the grand lodges of engineers and firemen assembled at Cleveland, Ohio, and in committees being appointed, such committees to consist of the presidents and the eight vice-presidents of the respective brotherhoods. These men conferred and decided upon an equitable arrangement whereby they gave the Canadian Northern engine men a ratio of seven, as compared with two for the Grand Trunk Pacific and one for the Canadian government railways running east out of Trans-cona. The agreement was made, but apparently it was not very satisfactory, because, while it was to become effective in 1926, an injunction placed upon it prevented its becoming effective until 1928.


Robert James Manion: On the western lines. It
came into force on the eastern lines in 1926, and on the western in 1928.


John Power Howden: I am interested in the
western lines, and I am speaking with regard to them. Even after it came into effect the

agreement was not satisfactory; in fact so far as the western lines are concerned it had never been satisfactory. May I explain at this point that the part of the system with which I am concerned and about which I complain consists of the old Canadian Northern terminus at Fort Rouge in the city of Winnipeg, and the Canadian government terminus at the town of Transcona, six miles east of Winnipeg. The arrangement was that the crews which had run out of Transcona should go to Fort Rouge and take out trains, and on the other hand that the crews of the Canadian Northern lines running out of Fort Rouge should likewise be in a position to go to Transcona and take out trains. As I stated previously the ratio was to stand at seven crews for the Canadian Northern portion, two crews for the Grand Trunk Pacific and one for the National Transcontinental. Singular as it may seem, the first men to complain, so far as this portion of the road is concerned, were the old Canadian Northern men, because after the arrangement was put into effect crews went from Transcona to Fort Rouge to take out passenger trains, and a very active protest was set on foot by the engineers of the Canadian Northern portion of the lines which was the cause of bringing into force an agreement known as the Montreal agreement, and which was engineered by a former Minister of Labour, the Hon. Peter Heenan. By this subsequent arrangement it was decided that engineers and firemen might not leave their own terminals to take out first and second class trains, namely passenger and mixed trains, so that the small ratio of men on the Canadian government railways were robbed of about the on'y consolation they had. The result of it all is that at the present time in Transcona there are about thirty engineers and about twice as many firemen who practically never get a run, and who see men who began working many years later running regularly from day to day. Obviously this is an unfair and prejudicial state of affairs.
In complaining about the matter to me these men set forth several points. They claim that the agreement was entirely unfair in every sense for the reasons-
First, that the test was made in the month of September, 1920, when the road was abnormally busy carrying grain.
Second, owing to the comparatively small size of engines on the Canadian Northern portion and the fact that one engine of standard size such as was then operating on the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian government line was hauling three times the tonnage of the former, there were therefore

Supply-Railways and Canals
three times the number of engine crews engaged on the Canadian Northern as would be required to haul the same tonnage on the other lines.
Third, at the time the test was made some fifty extra crews had been taken on the Canadian Northern portion for the purpose of improving and balancing the road bed.
Fourth, owing to a trestle bridge at Brere-ton, eighty miles east of Winnipeg on the Canadian government line, being washed out, all freight east had to be routed by the Canadian Northern railway out of Winnipeg, thus greatly augmenting business on that portion of the system and leaving traffic practically at a standstill on the Canadian government lines.
Fifth, the most important point is that owing to the fact that the small number of Canadian government men in the order formed a minority they were overwhelmingly outvoted when the matter was brought up in the grand lodge at Cleveland.
Sixth, all efforts to obtain redress either through labour organizations, through the management or by any means whatsoever have failed, and left them helpless.
Seventh, -and this is rather important-


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. member permit a question? I ask only for information. Does he know what percentage of the men claim they have been unjustly treated? I must confess I have no information on the point.


John Power Howden: I do not know the percentage, but I know the number in the town of Transcona, which is in my constituency. It involves thirty engineers and about twice as many firemen.


Robert James Manion: Out of a total of how many?


John Power Howden: Well, they represent practically all of the old Canadian government lines engineers, on the lines running east from Transcona. These men are out of work They have been thrown off their lines, and outsiders have come in and taken their work with the result that they have nothing to do.
The seventh point, and one worthy of consideration, is that the Canadian Northern men were given seniority or priority from the time they started wiping in the shops, and the men on the Grand Trunk Pacific and on the Canadian government lines were given seniority only from the date of their first run on an engine on the road. Sometimes this made a very considerable difference. Then, there is a minor consideration which,
however, means a good deal to the men on the road. Former Canadian Northern men living in Winnipeg and either leaving or arriving at Transcona during the night have a big, comfortable bunkhouse at their disposal, in which they may spend that portion of the night remaining to them either before departure or after arrival. On the other hand the Transcona men, former employees of the Canadian government railways, must travel six miles through to Fort Rouge in order to take their trains, or go in to Winnipeg the evening before and engage a room in the hotel or a boarding house in order to avoid the trip into the city during the night. Likewise the men who arrive over the Canadian Northern system at night are exposed to the necessity of taking a taxicab and driving home through the night or spending the night at a hotel, either of which means considerable expense. Someone may ask: Why don't they move? Well the difficulty is that they originally belonged to Transcona, and they still belong to Transcona. Many of them have their homes there, and that is where their living should be. They are exposed to the necessity of making a trip during the night into the city of Winnipeg in order to get a run on the road at all. It seems to me like a very unfair piece of business, and the men have without doubt I imagine indicated that in their complaint to the Minister of Railways, who probably has told them that it is no affair of his, that it is a matter for the management and the men. But when the men appeal to the management of the road the management tell them:	We have
nothing to do with it because we made an arrangement with your organization and we are quite helpless in the matter. Finally, when the men complain to their organization they are in a minority there, and are outvoted. Obviously it is unfair to these men at Transcona, and I presume that others on other parts of the road, have seen men who started ten or fifteen years later than themselves supplanting on their runs and taking their living out of their mouths.
What possibly can be done for them? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the minister might with reason indicate to the management of the road that he considers this a decided unfairness, and he might ask the management to confer with the representatives of the labour organizations. The minister could point out to the management this obvious unfairness that was obtaining on the road and ask them to try to correct this situation and give these men a proper show. The fair thing would be to give all the men on the road
BEVISEP ErlTION

Supply-Railways and Canals
piority rights from the time they took their first trip on the road, and if these men had priority rights from the date of their first trip on the road I think that they would be satisfied.
The Fort Rouge men going to Transcona have a comfortable bunkhouse in which to spend the night. This may seem a small matter to bring up in the House of Commons, but let me say that it means a good deal to the men who have to make a trip through the night to get from Transcona to Winnipeg, If the management could provide a similar bunkhouse in Fort Rouge for the men who have to go into the city I think their grievances would be fairly well met and that they would be fairly satisfied. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, this matter ought to receive the consideration of the minister.


Robert James Manion: ' I have listened attentively and with a good deal of interest to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Howden) has said, and I have no doubt he has made a perfectly fair and sincere statement of the whole situation. He is quite right in saying that the matter has been brought to my attention by other groups. I doubt, however, if the group to which he refers has brought it to my attention, although they may have done so in the five years I have been minister, but if they did I do not remember it. Undoubtedly it has been brought to my attention by certain of the groups. I remember particularly that some groups on the eastern lines in the extreme Atlantic region brought to my attention injustices which they claimed had' been imposed on them through the Montreal agreement.
Perhaps a very brief review of the Montreal agreement might be useful to the members of the committee, particularly those who were not here when the hon. gentleman started speaking before the dinner recess. According to my information, the Montreal agreement was not put into effect until December 1, 1926, on the eastern lines-the Atlantic region Central region and the Grand Trunk Western, and it was put into effect on the western lines just two years later.


John Power Howden: It was held up by an
injunction on behalf of the men in the west.


Robert James Manion: After the injunction, or
rather after a board of conciliation had sat, the agreement came into effect on the western lines on May 1, 1928. The need for an agreement arose out of the consolidation of the various lines, as the hon. gentleman has stated, into the Canadian National group. The old Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk

Pacific, the National Transcontinental, the Intercolonial and so forth were taken over between 1918 and 1920 and consolidated into the national system, and, just as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, various groups representing men on the old roads, which were independently operated in the first place, demanded their seniority rights. As traffic was shifted from one portion of the railway to another, where it could be more economically handled, certain groups of men were thrown out of their positions. For example, it might have been found that traffic coming from Winnipeg to Fort William over one route before the amalgamation could be handled more economically after the amalgamation by bringing it over another route, and consequently the group from which the traffic was taken found themselves without their accustomed runs. There was so much trouble raised by the men themselves with the management, and rightly so, that the management in a sense said to them: For heaven's sake get together and settle your seniority rights. After a period of years the men got together, and finally on the dates I mentioned, in 1926 for the Atlantic. Central, and Grand Trunk Western lines, and in 1928 for the western region they came to these agreements so far as the firemen and engineers are concerned. After a conciliation board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act had sat, the western region finally came under the agreement on May 1, 1928. It was the men themselves and their organizations which arranged the Montreal agreement. Undoubtedly some injustices have been done, and I have no doubt that the case as cited by my hon. friend has been stated correctly. I know from complaints that I have received from other sections that other injustices have also been done. But as the hon. gentleman pointed out in his closing remarks, I have no power in the matter. It was arranged first of all by the men themselves through their various organizations, and then they submitted it to the management, and the management accepted it as the best arrangement which could be come to.
The management now .takes the attitude when I bring these cases before them-I have done so before, and I shall gladly draw their attention to the statements and suggestions of my hon. friend-that while undoubtedly some injustices have been done this is an arrangement which is for the greatest good of the greatest number, and that if they attempt to interfere with it, it would bring about such a chaotic condition that there would be no satisfaction whatever; in other

words, while there are a few dissatisfied now, if they changed the arrangement ail w-ould be dissatisfied and chaos would result.
LTnder these circumstances I really do not know what can be done. My hon. friend's final suggestion might be a very simple solution or a part solution of the situation locally, and I think it is well worthy of consideration. I refer to the proposal he made as to a bunk-house. But that would solve the difficulty only as far as his section is concerned, and then perhaps only partly, because I assume the men who feel dissatisfied over losing their positions will still be dissatisfied to a certain extent. The only thing I can do, and I shall do it gladly, is to bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the management and ask them to give them whatever consideration they can. It is entirely a matter in the control of the men themselves and their organizations, and the management. I shall gladly bring the remarks of my hon. friend to the attention of the management for whatever consideration they can give them.


John Power Howden: I want to thank the minister for his kind reception of my statement of the situation and for his consideration. I understand that their differences have been adjusted somehow or other and that Transcona is about the only sore spot left, and obviously the simple thing to do would be to give every man. his seniority from the time be made his first run on the road. As it is now, only some men are given seniority from the time they made their first run, other men being given seniority from the time they went into the shops ^ to wipe. They get the advantage of the time they spent wiping, and they are benefited to this extent in comparison with the other men.


Robert James Manion: The statement of the hon. gentleman is a repetition of what he said before and it does sound unjust, but the question of seniority among the men is not for the management; it rests entirely with the men themselves.


John Power Howden: I quite agree with the minister in that regard.


Robert James Manion: It is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the men's organizations and the only people who can interfere with it are the men themselves. However, I shall he glad to bring the matter to the attention of the management-the only body with whom I have communication.-and ask them to give it every consideration, to see whether they can put it to .the men's organizations in such a wiay as to be of assistance.
92582-158J
Supply-Railways and Canals


Mr. MITOHELL:: I think the minister is absolutely sound. I hold no brief for the railway organizations; they are capable of speaking for themselves. But I think it is fair to say that whatever conditions are enjoyed by them, and they compare favourably with the conditions enjoyed by railway men in any other country, have been brought about by the organizations themselves through the instrumentality of the men to whom the hon. member has referred. What is the position of the government in this matter? There already exists in the country the proper machinery whereby the majority vote of these organizations prevails. If my hon. friend's contention is sound, then we on this side of the house should be the government and those on the government side should be sitting to the left of the Speaker. I think it would be a dangerous precedent for the government of the country to interfere unnecessarily while the proper machinery exists-the conciliation boards and so on-to rectify the grievances from which the men suffer or think they suffer. It places the government in the position of the boss, telling the men's organizations what they should do after they have decided on a certain policy according to sound democratic principles. I think the best thing these men can do is to get back into their organization and try to influence its policy; otherwise it would be a case of the tail wagging the dog. There may be some injustices-and I have had some experience with conciliation boards; I know something about seniority, and I know that men fight harder for seniority than for working conditions and wages. That exists in every line where the strict policy of seniority prevails. But to ask even the employers to dictate to the organizations what they shall do, when one considers the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, is to propose something which in my opinion is beyond the ken of the government, of the management and of the members of this House of Commons.


Leslie Gordon Bell: In other words, the hon. member for East Hamilton declares that the policy of the government has been right from start to finish.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Absence of policy.


John Power Howden: I was not suggesting that the government should interfere; I was suggesting to the minister that the government might indicate to the management of the road the desirability of having this matter
2480	COMMONS
Supply-Railways and Canals_____
reviewed and adjusted if possible. The hon. member for Hamilton spoke of some men I kinking that they were unfairly used.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The hon. gentleman means East Hamilton; I am the member for Hamilton.


John Power Howden: Hamilton anyway. Well,
I have here a slip indicating that one It. H. Bailey hired with the Canadian Government Railways in 1915, and he is now behind a man hired after 1920. Obviously he is unfairly treated. Another man, Huston by name, hired originally in 1911. He w7ent overseas and came back and is now firing for a man who must have been fifteen years of age when he commenced railroading in order to be this other man's senior. There can be little doubt that in these two instances these men are discriminated against. As regards having the order adjust these matters, every time the question has been brought to a vote in the order the men in the majority outvote the men in the minority, and the men in the minority take what they can get, which is nothing. That is the way it works out in the order.


Mr. McKINNON:: The organizations have the sole right to handle the seniority problems of their particular railways; the management have never interfered and do not pretend to interfere. The Minister of Railways, I think, gave about as clear an explanation as it is possible for anyone to give, with this exception. They have had what are known as general seniority promotions, over quite a large territory, and when the amalgamation took place a large number of men voluntarily moved from one part of the district to another. The hon. member for St. Boniface is no doubt absolutely correct in stating that a number of men in Transcona have been done an injustice; but while these particular men on that particular railway may have been done an injustice, nevertheless, taking it as a whole, it was the very best program that the representatives of the men could work out to suit the country as a whole. And as the minister has pointed out, it would upset conditions terribly if an attempt were made to adjust the matter at this late date. The man representing the Canadian Northern at that time has received promotion from his organization; so evidently, as a whole, they must have been satisfied with the work he did for the men.


Jean-François Pouliot: In 1926 and 1928 I sent a strong protest to Sir Henry Thornton with regard to the universal promotion scheme. It comes from the Montreal agreement. Now,
[ Mr. Howden.]
it works in a very strange way. At a division point some employees who have been working for twenty years are set back and other men who have been working only ten years have still an opportunity to work. There is discrimination there, and I bring it to the attention of the minister. No one intends to interfere with the high policy of the management, but on the other hand it is only fair to bring these instances to the attention of the government in order that they may be transmitted to the management, and the management can see whether there is some way of reaching a compromise with the men. I agree with my hon. friend from East Hamilton; the matter should be settled by mutual agreement between the management and the men. The Montreal agreement should be amended by mutual consent, just in the same way as it was made, but in order to bring that about, it must be discussed and the matter should be brought to the attention of the management.
I shall be glad if the minister will see that that is done.


Robert James Manion: I will bring the whole discussion to the attention of the management.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister.


Mr. SPENCER:: This may not be the proper item, but may I once again draw the attention of the minister to what is known as the Bulwark Easterly line in Alberta on which some twenty-five miles of grading has been done for some years. The people in that vicinity had great hopes that the line would be completed. Needless to say, being quite a long way from the railway, they have been greatly handicapped in getting their grain and other produce to market, and they have been waiting very patiently in the hope that something will be done. Is there any prospect that the rails may be put on this grade as part of the relief work that it is anticipated the government will bring before the house this session?


Robert James Manion: The line to which the hon. member refers is in exactly the same position as most of the other branch lines which have been spoken of and drawn to my attention at various times in the last three or four years. The question is one of the management recommending the continuation of some of these lines, and because of the financial condition of the railways, the management has not seen fit to recommend the continuation of any of them so far as I know. I may suggest to the hon. member as I did to the hon. member for North Battleford, that we did have yesterday and we shall probably have again on Tuesday.

Supply-Railways and Canals
Wednesday and Thursday of next week the managing officers of the Canadian National Railways before the select standing committee on railways and shipping, and since the hon. gentleman is very much interested in the matter, he might have a chat with Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Hungerford in regard to this line and just see if he can influence them, because the suggestion and recommendation have in the final result to come from them. If they take the attitude that this line rather than some others requires attention, he may rest assured that the government will do everything it can to carry out the recommendation of the railways. Their recommendations are generally speaking carried out. When those officials are here again for two or three days next week, the hon. member might interview them in regard to the matter. I will repeat to him what I said to the hon. member for North Battleford: I would have no objection and I am sure the other members of the committee would have none to his coming into the committee and asking the question directly, because the officials are in a better position than I am to decide the matter.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I had intended to go to the railway committee and ask permission, but I happen to be a member of the banking and' commerce committee and it has been sitting at the same time. If I have an opportunity next week, I shall take advantage of the offer made by the minister. I am quite sure the people for whom I am speaking do not wish any favours, but they do want not to be overlooked. If these lines which are half finished are going to be completed, they think they should be given the same treatment as the others.


Robert James Manion: May I say a word further without seeking in any way to delay my own estimates? I have every sympathy for all those different groups that have branch lines partly constructed or that have been promised branch lines, but as the hon. member knows,; the question has been one of the finances of the railways. I hope in the very near future the railways will feel able to recommend and the government will feel able to support the recommendation for the further construction1 of these branch lines. I hope my hon. friend will come before the committee and submit his case to the management of the railways.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway Employees' Provident Fund-
To supplement pension allowances payable under provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment
during the period January 1, 1935, to March 31, 1936, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $27,500.
Henry Elvins Spencer: There is an increase here. Might we have the reason for it?


Robert James Manion: This is to provide money to supplement the pension allowances on the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways under the provisions of the provident fund. I shall read the item, because it is a little clearer than anything I can give off-hand. It is to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1935, to March 31, 1936, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act. The increase is merely because a few more men are drawing pensions at the present time, but the peak will be reached after which the amount will decrease. We simply supplement the money as supplied by the Canadian National Railways for this pension fund.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many pensioners are there on the roll?


Robert James Manion: They are as follows:
Number of pensioners in receipt of maximum allowance of $10, bring the minimum pension of $30 instead1 of $20 per month-128.
Number in receipt of allowance to bring pension which ranged between $20 and $30 up to $30 per month-186.
Total number receiving extra allowances-314.
Number of retired employees in receipt of pension during the month of February, 1935- 1,722.
Number of employees contributing to the provident fund during the month of December, 1934-8,853.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does that refer to the whole
system?


Robert James Manion: This is just the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-
Chargeable to collection of revenue-canals, elevators and harbours operation and maintenance, $2,500,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister give us the reason for the increase?


Robert James Manion: This item is to provide for the local administration, operation and maintenance of the whole canal system of the country consisting of about 500 miles of canals The increase of $100,000 is explained as follows :
Staff
1.	Quebec canals dredging fleet.-The work of this plant in 1934-35 was charged to Ontario-St. Lawrence canals repairs to the amount of $15,500.

Supply-Railways and Canals
2.	Welland canals.-Provision for the operation of certain Canadian National Railway bridges by the department under agreement, $16,000.
3.	Minor increases or decreases on various canals for contingent accounts and miscellaneous services representing a net increase of $19,700- $51,200.
Repairs
1.	Provision for various delayed repair works which, under normal conditions, would have been carried out during the past two years and which can no longer be held up if the canal system is to be maintained in proper condition.
2.	As the canals become older,, maintenance costs increase from year to year until the structures are beyond further repair and replacements have to be made-$48,800.
That makes up the increase of $100,000. It is a round figure, not an absolute one.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This $2,500,000 refers almost entirely to maintenance charges?


Robert James Manion: Operation, maintenance and repairs.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give us the other side of the picture as to what are the interest charges on the canal system of the country?


Robert James Manion: That is just as difficult as the question the hon. member asked in the railways committee the other day. Over a period of years, well over one hundred, we built the various canals in this country. We have spent on them something like $250,000,000, including $130,000,000 on the Welland. How much of that was from consolidated revenue the Lord may know, but I am sure I do not nor anyone else. So the trouble is I cannot tell how much of it is in the debt. I suppose some is, but I doubt very much if anyone could figure out how much, and only by knowing that could we figure the interest.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has said $250,000,000 has been spent on the canal system. At five per cent it would mean $12,500,000.


Robert James Manion: That would be correct if it were all in the debt, but over the years no doubt some of it was paid out of the consolidated revenue, just as I explained yesterday about the railway debt.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And I did not understand it then.


Robert James Manion: Well I can give the explanation but I cannot give my hon. friend understanding. I say that without meaning any offence. I thought I understood it yesterday when I explained it but I may not have made my hon. friend understand it.

However, while I do not know how much of this has been paid from consolidated revenue, without doubt some of it has.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It would be fair to say that a capital charge of $250,000,000 at four per cent would represent an interest charge of $10,000,000.


Robert James Manion: Yes, if it is in our debt.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, no matter where it is, I suppose if it is owing, interest is payable on it.


Robert James Manion: But it would not be owing if it had been paid out of revenue.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In view of the fact that $130,000,000 for the Welland canal is just one item in the $250,000,000, no doubt the major part-


Robert James Manion: I think that is in the debt all right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: So it would seem that we
have probably $10,000,000 a year interest to meet on these canals, and another $2,500,000 for maintenance, or roughly speaking $12,500,000 a year. How much revenue is derived from the canals?


Robert James Manion: In Tound figures about
$1,000,000 or a little less, nearly altogether from water powers that we lease. I explained before dinner that there are no tolls charged on the canals. Even when tolls were charged the revenue did nut amount to much. The only income that we get that amounts to anything is from the water powers that we lease. We get some other little returns on operation, such as the handling of boats in the locks of the Welland and from the Prescott elevator, but the latter costs more than we get. The Port Colborne elevator more than pays its way.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Worse than the railways.


Robert James Manion: That is probably right.


Thomas Reid: I think the department should look to the time when the agreements and treaties of which the minister speaks come up again. Hundreds of millions have been spent on our canals which are used without charge by other shipping than our own, while ships leaving our shores have to pay some $9,000 toll to go through the Panama canal. We in British Columbia feel that when these treaties come up again some consideration should be given to Canadian ships carrying Canadian produce through the Panama canal in view of United States ships using our canal system without charge.

Supply-Railways and Canals


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the Welland canal
entirely finished now, or will there be any further expense?


Robert James Manion: It is practically finished.
There are a few little levelling jobs, a piece of bank, may settle here and there, and altogether another 81,000,000 may have to be spent. But the whole canal is finished and operating-and my engineer adds, the claims will be paid. But most of them are provided for in these present estimates. There may be a few little fag ends, including claims, that may amount to $1,000,000 or perhaps more.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was all the work done
by contract, or was it government work?


Robert James Manion: Practically everything was done by contract. There was an odd small job done by the government but all the larger jobs were let by contract.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Then nothing will be
realized on equipment when the job is finished?


Robert James Manion: Most of the equipment
was provided by the contractor and figured in his contract, or it is equipment which he can move to other jobs. The contractors have to look after that; we had not much equipment to worry about.


Henry Elvins Spencer: There are no tolls at all on the Welland canal?


Robert James Manion: No tolls whatever. But
there are some charges, not for the tonnage of the ships but for the handling of them in the locks. There are also certain wharfage charges.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these canals open to the vessels of all countries?


Robert James Manion: Yes. .


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do we receive reciprocal
privileges from other countries?


Robert James Manion: There are charges on the
Panama canal, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) pointed out. As to the Manchester canal my engineer is not sure; as to the Kiel canal, I imagine they have tolls. But we are in this rather difficult position, that there are treaty arrangements with many different countries, and aside from them the big difficulty is the United States. For example at Sault Ste. Marie the United States has the better canal and our ships largely use the American canal in preference to our own. It is true that down here the Welland is the big canal; in fact the United States have none at that point. But it was
found prior to 1903 or 1904, when tolls were abandoned that tolls diverted the traffic from the Canadian canals to Buffalo and down through the Erie canal to New York. In other words if we put tolls on in the east the Americans who have the best canal in the upper lakes can retaliate, as they did once, by putting on tolls in respect of shipping using their Sault Ste. Marie canal. Those might balance and not matter much, but when we come to the St. Lawrence canals, grain, which in the absence of tolls goes down the St. Lawrence and out by Canadian ports would be diverted at Buffalo and exported through American ports. For these reasons it was decided a third of a century ago that it was better not to charge canal tolls, in order to hold the grain and other traffic. I remember looking into the matter before the war and finding that at least one-third of our Canadian grain went to New York. I have not the figures now; I think a less proportion goes that way now. Of course in the meantime the port of Vancouver has taken a great deal of traffic that used to go east, much to the surprise of some people-


Thomas Reid: They used to laugh at the
idea.


Robert James Manion: They did not so much laugh, but they were afraid that the wheat could not go south through Panama without heating. I remember reading many articles to that effect. But as a matter of fact about half goes that way now. My engineer shows me that for 1933 the amount of Canadian wheat going down the St. Lawrence and out by Canadian ports was 88,000,000 bushels and via Buffalo and New York 35,000,000. That is about the same proportion as before the war; a little more than one-third went via Buffalo in 1933. I have no later figures. In 1932 the figures were almost exactly the same. In 1931 it was about fifty fifty; half went each way. That is Canadian wheat, of course, and it must be remembered that a certain amount of United States wheat goes out by Montreal, which offsets some of our wheat that goes the other way.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am trying to get at the
economics of the whole thing at the moment. The Welland canal costs the country from $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 a year, and I am just wondering whether from an economic standpoint and from the standpoint of the amount of benefit we receive from it the Welland canal is worth it.


Robert James Manion: I can answer quite frankly that in my opinion it never should have been
2484	COMMONS
_____Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
built, except as part of a through system. It is like many of the other things we did in our more or less insane optimism. As it is we have merely permitted the boats to go down one more lake at a cost of $130,000,000. Without any hesitation whatever I frankly say that I cannot imagine what those who originated the idea were thinking of to build the Welland ship canal. It is just like the building of the Prescott elevator, for example-and I hope the hon. member for Prescott is not in the house. There is no doubt that the Welland ship canal was not a project that should have been gone on with at that time, unless as part of the St. Lawrence canal scheme. If at that time we had intended to build the St. Lawrence canals in association with the Welland ship canal there would have been some real reason for it, but other than that I do not know what could have been the reason except that when it was begun twenty-two years ago apparently we thought we had too much money. My hon. friend suggests that we had too much water; at any rate they mistook it for money and spent it on the canal.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If the St. Lawrence canals are ever completed the Welland canal will fit in with that scheme, will it not?


Robert James Manion: Without doubt, if the St. Lawrence canals are ever completed, but I should not say we should feel very optimistic at the moment in regard to their completion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay railway-
Amount to provide for difference between expenditures for operation and maintenance and the revenues accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1936, not exceeding, $226,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give us any particulars with regard to the business at Churchill and the ships that came to and went out from that port?


Robert James Manion: Yes, gladly. This item, of course, deals with the port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay railway. There are two items that perhaps should be considered together, the one now before the committee which has to do with the operation and item number 82, which has to do with construction. Probably the same information will do for both items. Last year fifteen ships went out of Churchill as compared with ten the year before. I will just give these figures from memory because at the moment I do not have them before me. I think about 4.500,000 bushels of grain, several cargoes of cattle, considerable lumber and I think a small quantity [Mr. Manion.l
of flour, though nothing of any importance, were shipped from Churchill. Coming in there were a couple of cargoes of general merchandise. That was really the whole traffic. Operations were carried on very successfully as far as they went, and the other day the acting Prime Minister stated in the house that through the high commissioner in London we have succeeded in getting the insurance rates lowered, so that for the coming season the rates will be a little lower than they were for the past season. Of course the insurance rates depend to a great extent on the amount of traffic safely carried on. Of the boats that have gone to Churchill, as every hon. member knows, there has been only one accident, and my hon. friend from Nelson thinks that was one of those accidents that might easily have been avoided. I will let him explain that if he cares to do so, but he has explained it very fully on other occasions. I admit that it certainly had a peculiar appearance. I do not think there is any other information I can give at the moment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the minister tell the committee the capital cost of the Churchill improvements to date?


Robert James Manion: The total cost of the Hudson Bay railway and Churchill is in the neighbourhood of $52,000,000 or $53,000,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister the separate figures?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The railway alone cost $32,880,000. The estimated expenditure at the Churchill terminals is $13,202,000, and then at Port Nelson some $6,250,000 was expended before they decided to go to Churchill. These three figures give the total I mentioned a few moments ago, of $53,000,000 in round figures.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is for the railway and the terminal site at Churchill?


Robert James Manion: That is for all the construction work, the whole terminal as it has been built, including a big elevator, a freight shed, a great deal of dredging, the laying of tracks and so on. It also includes the expenditure of over $6,000,000 at Nelson.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Apart from the railway could we have the figure in regard to the maintenance charges at Churchill, together with the interest charges?


Mr. GEARY:: If the minister is going to
give that information I think there is a great deal more information we should have as to the operation of the road. I was going to

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
suggest to the minister that it would be well if the special committee on railways, perhaps not this year but in future years, made a definite and exhaustive report on the operations of the road for the year, dealing with all the items that are shown in the ordinary railway account. At the present time we do not have this amount broken down in any way; we are simply given the difference between two sides of the ledger, just as we have a sort of capital account under another item. We know nothing at all of how the road is kept up, where the money goes or where it comes from.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quite agree with what the hon. member has said, but I do not think we had these figure before the railway committee in previous years. I should be quite content to have them go there, but I think while the minister is here we should have the information.


Robert James Manion: With regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from South Toronto it is true the house has never been given a complete statement, but answers have been given to any questions hon. members have cared to ask. Up to this year the construction and operation of the Hudson Bay railway has been looked upon as one item. This year we *have separated it, because the road is practically completed. Up to this year the road was in the process of construction, but now it is looked upon as a complete road and therefore we separate the two items. One has to do with capital expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway and terminals and the other has to do with operation. In regard to the operation of the road may I tell the hon. member for South Toronto that the cost of operation and maintenance in the year 1934-35 for the railway only was 8593,000, the port only, $100,000, and the elevator only, $85,000, making a total of $778,000 in round figures. The revenues from the railroad were $456,000, from the port $12,000 and from the elevator $102,000, making a total of $570,000. In other words there was a deficit on railway, port and elevator of about $208,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On operation only?


Robert James Manion: Operation and maintenance. Of course that does not include construction cost, because that is capital outlay. On construction alone the railways spent a further sum of $180,000 and the port $131,000, making a total expenditure of $311,000. Of course that is capital expenditure which will not have to be repeated. The above deficit is, roughly, what might be expected in the coming year, although on account of increased
traffic the amount may be cut down to some extent-if we have such increased traffic.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has said he
does not expect there will be any repetition of capital expenditure, and I am wondering if there will be any interest to pay as a capital expenditure?


Robert James Manion: I am quite sure there is. We are not paying anything out of revenues these days.


Mr. HANBURY:: Has the minister before him the reference to the special committee on railways and shipping, and if so will he say whether this item is included in the reference?


Robert James Manion: This is in a different
position, because the Hudson Bay railway is being operated, it is true, by the Canadian National Railways, but as our agents. However I have no objection to having the Hudson Bay Railway item submitted.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think it is covered.


Robert James Manion: No, it is not, because as
I have already stated the Hudson Bay railway is being operated by the Canadian National as our agents, and we ourselves that is the Department of Railways and Canals, are operating the port.


Wilfred Hanbury: Has the minister before him the reference to the special committee?


Robert James Manion: No.


George Reginald Geary: The committee is to deal
with government owned railways, no matter in what category they may be. This is a government owned railway.


Wilfred Hanbury: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give the
committee some idea of the prospects both for the Hudson Bay railway and the terminal at Churchill? What are the prospects of increased traffic and increased earnings?


Robert James Manion: At the moment the elevator is full, but we know that it was practically full at this time last year. As to the prospects, may I say this, that the hon. member who has asked the question is from Winnipeg, the city where there are great journals such as the Winnipeg Free Press, which tell not only all about what has happened in the past but which attempt to blast the reputation of those who live in the present, and without reference to truth or anything of the kind. I am sure the Winnipeg Free Press could tell my hon. friend much more about the matter than I can. He is in just as good a position to estimate the future of that port as I am. I hope for the sake of our judgment-and when

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
I say our judgment I mean the judgment of past governments, because we know this government has had nothing to do but carry on what other governments have begun-I hope for the sake of the judgment shown by past governments which built this road and opened this port that the project will at least reach the stage where it will pay its way. I believe that as business increases throughout the world and as the west comes back into its own, as all hon. members sincerely hope it will, the Hudson Bay railway will do a reasonable business. I would not like to be too specific in regard to the justification for building the railway at the time it was built. However, we know there was a demand for it on the part of the western provinces, and even if for no other reason than that I would say there was some justification for the construction. Certainly it has not yet justified its existence from the standpoint of traffic, but in making that statement we are saying of the Hudson Bay railway only that which we could say of the rest of the railways and canals in Canada.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I have been waiting for the item to be called which deals with the Hudson Bay railway and terminals, construction and betterments, and was under the impression that would probably be the best time to make m3' observations. However if the minister has no objection I shall proceed under the present item. Of course I wish to discuss the railway and the port.


Robert James Manion: Go as far as you like.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: 
Robert James Manion: Did the hon, member prepare these figures himself, or where did he get them?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I got them out of the shipping report for the 1934 shipping season. These figures are with respect to the port of Churchill, Manitoba, and are prepared' by the Department of Railways and Canals.


Robert James Manion: I just wondered, because my figures agree with those given by the hon. member.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: This is important, in view of the statement made by the imperial shipping committee, in their shipping report for 1934, in which in no uncertain terms they state in connection with the Hudson bay marine insurance rate that so far as well found vessels are concerned the dangers are no greater out of Churchill than they are out of Montreal. In spite of that statement however we have to pay five or six times more insurance. When I asked this government what they intended to do about the rates I was informed that the matter had been taken up with the imperial shipping committee and that a reply was expected shortly. That reply has been received, and it states that there will be a reduction of twenty-five per cent on the general rate, with an additional twenty-five per cent off the new rate for boats equipped with gyro compasses. I say that is a short step in the right direction, and I have given the figures to qualify my statement.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
I have a few observations to make in regard to stevedoring. A question was asked in this house about stevedoring charges, and the minister I think quite properly replied that the government had very little to do with it, that the shipping companies contracted with certain stevedoring contractors who carried on the work. That is quite true, but I am not going to go quite as far as the minister and say that the government have no responsibility in the matter because I think it is a responsibility upon this government to see that the people using that route get a square deal and get the lowest possible rates for stevedoring, dock and harbour charges that it is possible to give them. I am going to give a comparative statement of the stevedoring charges in Churchill and Montreal in support of my statement that we are not getting a square deal at Churchill from the stevedores.
At Churchill, for 270,000 bushels shipped,
the stevedoring charge is 84 a thousand bushels, or 81,080; bagging grain. 5,000 at 9 cents, 8450, or a total of 81,530, less ten per cent. I believe the discount of ten per cent is universal. The charges at Montreal are
270,000	bushels at one dollar per thousand bushels, 8270; bagging, 5,000 bags at 7 cents, 8350, a total of 8620-that is, a charge of $620 at Montreal as compared with $1,530 out of Churchill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why the difference?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I cannot tell you
that. All I know is that the difference exists. The stevedoring contractor makes his deal with the shipping company, and the government have nothing to do with it. I am simply bringing these figures to the attention of the committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there any competition
for the business among the stevedores?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I have not heard
of any; there may be. There is only one stevedoring contractor up there, but whether he has to bid in competition with other stevedoring contractors I don't know. At all events I contend it is not worth four times as much to trim grain in Churchill as it is in Montreal. I will agree that the stevedoring contractor-I had some argument with him last fall-cannot possibly get the same type of men at Churchill that he can in Montreal because he has to go up to Churchill in the fall and pick up just what men he can get and he does not get the best type of man, whereas there are hundreds of experienced men in Montreal. It might
be reasonable to charge twice as much at Churchill as at Montreal, but certainly not four times as much.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was not the difference just about twice as much, $600 as compared with $1,500?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Four dollars per thousand bushels at Churchill, and one dollar per thousand at Montreal for trimming the grain.


Mr. QUINN:: Do the stevedores get the
difference?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: No. They pay
higher wages at Montreal than at Churchill. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the government and the committee because I think there is an obligation on the government to see that shippers out of Churchill get the best rates they can. We are already paying higher shipping rates out of Churchill than out of Montreal and we expect to for some years to come. We also expect to pay higher insurance rates. Nobody realizes better than I do that the only way we can get the insurance rates down to where they should be is by greater volume of shipping and a low rate of loss. It may take some years to establish that. But in the meantime we have no right to be subjected to four or five times the stevedoring rates charged in Montreal, and as long as I am able to stand up in this house and fight, you are going to hear from me till we get the rates down to where they should be.


Robert James Manion: Before my hon. friend
passes from stevedoring, would he allow me to say a few words for the information of the committee? The government has nothing to do with the stevedoring. Mr. Louis Wolfe, who is head of a stevedoring company in Montreal and does a great deal of stevedoring in that port, has been very active and energetic in the matter, and has gone across to Europe on a number of occasions and made his arrangements with the shipping companies that ship out of Churchill. Any other stevedoring company can do the same, but no other company has had the energy and ambition and desire apparently for the work that- Mr. Louis Wolfe has had. Mr. Louis Wolfe charges more at Churchill than he does at Montreal, but we must not forget that he took care of fifteen ships out of Churchill while there are hundreds going out of Montreal. In addition the port of Montreal is open seven or eight months, perhaps a little longer, whereas Churchill is open at the most three months. In addition,

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Mr. Wolfe has to come to Churchill and get his own crew, and if it had not been for the Department of Railways and Canals it would have cost twice as much as the present charges, because we supply him with men and we supply the men with quarters. With only fifteen ships going out he could not afford to take up a whole crew, and so we supplied the men out of those we had with us. Whenever he is short of men we have, up to the present time at any rate, been able to supply him with help. So I know my hon. friend was not meaning to criticize as if we were not taking any care of this matter, because we were, and I know he knows we were doing exceptionally well. We made arrangements to facilitate Mr. Louis Wolfe with his work in every possible way, and I think Mr. Wolfe and his organization have been doing the work at a reasonable charge considering the small number of boats going out of the port, and the great difficulties and the short season at Churchill as compared with Montreal. I merely say that before my hon. friend passes to another subject, because it should be known by the committee. I am quite sure of the facts I state, and I know that my hon. friend knows that they are quite correct.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: It is just a matter of opinion. I still maintain that the rate is abnormally high. I think it should be cut in two.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. member think any other concern would go into Churchill and do it for that money?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I would not go that far, but I say that the organization that is now at Churchill could do the stevedoring. They have an organization there at Churchill and foremen who need take second place to none in knowing how to handle men. If it is necessary for the department to take over the stevedoring I am quite sure that they could do it.


Robert James Manion: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman. WTe have no one at Churchill who could take it on. True, if the department cared to take over the work we could do it perhaps for nothing, just as we might handle the insurance for nothing. I am pointing out that Louis Wolfe has been the only one who has shown any desire to do the work, but if anybody else wishes to undertake it we shall be glad to help him and facilitate his work the same as we have done in the case of Mr. Wolfe. In fact another

company some weeks ago did apply to me for some of this work, I told them how Mr. Wolfe handled it, and we are ready to give them or anyone else the same opportunities and assistance that we have given to Mr. Wolfe. The department has no more right to take over the stevedoring than the government has a right to take over the insurance.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I do not say that the department has a right to take it over, but I say that if the worst comes to the worst they could take it over, because they have men there who know just as much about it as Mr. Wolfe or any other man. I do not think it does any harm, Mr. Chairman, to air these things and to give these figures to the committee. The longer I live the more I love the truth.
Now in regard to port charges, there is a little discrepancy, but not a very serious one. At present at Churchill wharfage costs $100 per day for a vessel that remains at the wharf more than three days. Of course that hits the general cargo boat that may come in there, boats that may come in for lumber or mixed cargo and have to stay longer than three days, because they have to pay $100 a day for each day over three days, whereas a boat that comes in for grain and gets out in twenty-four hours, which they can do if they are ready, does not have to pay any wharfage. Would it not be possible to arrange for a charge of five cents per N.R.T. or something of that kind? That would be satisfactory to all the shipping companies and fairer to the boat that lays over more than three days.
Hon. members have heard that we have received a reduction from the shipping committee and the season now opens on August 10. I was very much disappointed that they did not see fit to extend the season a little; I had hoped that they would extend it to the first of the month. As a matter of fact, it could be moved up to the 15th of July with safety. I have been doing a good deal of reading of reports with respect to ice conditions in Hudson bay and I have read the reports from the special committee appointed by the senate some time ago to investigate this project. They went into the matter at great length and with great care. In 1920 the senate appointed a committee to investigate the whole subject, navigation, length of season and ice conditions, and the committee heard some very prominent witnesses. I want to place these names on the record because I

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
think they should be there in connection with the discussion of the season. These were the witnesses who were called:
Anderson, Captain Frederick, Hydrographic Branch, Naval Service.
Anderson, Colonel W. P., Marine Department.
Bell, Major G. A., Deputy Minister, Railways and Canals.
Bernier, Captain J. E., Arctic Explorer. Bowden, Mr. W. A., Chief Engineer, Railways and Canals.
Clawson, Mr. E. E., Department of Marine. Cochrane, Hon. Frank, P.C., M.P.
Desbarats, Mr. J. G., Deputy Minister, Naval Service.
Freakley, Captain Norman E., Hudson's Bay Company Navigator.
McLachlan, Mr. D. W., Engineer-in-charge of Hudson Bay Terminals.
O'Hara, Mr. F. C. T., Deputy Minister, Trade and Commerce.
Payne, Mr. John Lambert, Statistician, Railways and Canals.
Prince, Prof. Edward' E., Dominion Commissioner of Fisheries.
Stefansson, Mr. V., Arctic Explorer.
Thompson, Sergeant E. H. L., R.N.W.M.P. Tyrell, Mr. J. B., Mining Engineer.
Tyrell, Mr. J. W., Civil Engineer.
Walton, Rev. W. G., Missionary.
White, Lance-Cpl. Richard, Nain, Labrador.
Surely these men. must have known what they were talking about. The witnesses included a man like Captain Bernier, who had sailed the Arctic for twenty-five or thirty years and knew these waters as well as he knew his own back yard. What were the findings of the committee? Let me quote from section 2 of their -report:
(2) That the season of navigation under present conditions is at least four months in length and may by reason of improvements in aids to navigation be considerably increased.
That is the view they expressed after hearing all the evidence of these experts-not the experts who sit behind mahogany desks in the old country, but men who had sailed in these northern waters and who knew what they were talking about. But we have also the department's own reports in regard to navigation conditions in Hudson bay and straits, in 1934 as well as in 1932. Go back, in the month of July, as far as you like and you will find that throughout that month in those two years, according to the reports, while there was the odd growler there all the time, there was no ice of any consequence, and many days there was no ice at all. So that we are not unreasonable in asking that the season be moved up. I do not say that the season should be advanced a month or six weeks at a time, but this year it might have been moved up to the first of August and, in my opinion, it could with safety be moved to the 15th of July. A boat cannot get into trouble either in the
straits or in the bay even if it sights an iceberg, because at that time of the year there is daylight twenty-four hours of the day, and there are no shoals or reefs. It cannot hit bottom, nor will it pile up on an uncharted reef; and even if it did meet ice it could lie on the edge of the ice until the wind blew it away the next day. Take the Ocean Eagle, the government's boat, which goes into the straits every year in the month of July, reporting on ice conditions. What do they find? It is not unreasonable, from the reports that come from that boat, to ask that the season be extended a little. I know that we cannot expect to have the whole thing done in one year; we must move gradually, building up the port accordingly. I must say that I was disappointed that the season had not been moved ahead this year.


Robert James Manion: Will the hon. member explain what he means by the season being moved ahead? We do not control the season.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: The season of navigation.


Robert James Manion: We do not fix any dates for the season.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I am not asking that that be done by you; I was referring to the imperial shipping committee and I said that I was disappointed that they had not moved the season ahead-the first part of the season. I was not referring to the department at all but to the concessions granted with respect to insurance rates, and I said that I was very much disappointed that they had not moved the season ahead, opening up earlier.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I think that the facts as they are should go out. I want Churchill to be a success-not as much as my hon. friend wishes it, because it is in his constituency, but as much as the ordinary Canadian does. I am informed by my engineer that the first four boats going in last year were stuck in the ice. These boats are the Dalworth, the Rio Claro, the Brandon and the Grelhead. One went in on the 13th of August and the other three on the 14th of August and they were stuck in the ice. They could not have got in any sooner, so that the imperial shipping committee could not have advanced the season. I make this statement in justice to the government, because there is enough criticism from enemies of the government without any misunderstanding on the part of friends like the hon. gentleman. Last year the government spent, on investigating navigation conditions, the
2490	COMMONS
_____Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
sum of 897,469.22, practically $100,000, and my department spent probably another $15,000 for our vessel, which continues the investigation after the marine boat goes out. I evidently misunderstood my hon. friend, who was referring to the shipping committee; but listening to him one might conclude that in his opinion an injustice was being done. No injustice is being done by the government, and neither the shipping committee nor the government can change ice conditions and allow ships to come in. As I have said, the first boat came in last year on August 13 and three others on August 14 and the last boat left on October 4, a period of less than two months. Certainly, so far as we are concerned, we have no control over boats. They come in when they wish and we are glad to receive them, and the port is ready to handle them when they come in. As a matter of fact, the elevator is full now. The harbour itself is free of ice in plenty of time, but the ice coming from Fox channel blocks the strait and bay. I submit that, in association with the statements which my hon. friend has made, the facts as given by the officers of the department should be put on the record.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I did not suggest
that the department had control over ice conditions or the opening of the season. I repeat, I was referring to the imperial shipping committee. But it does not matter if a boat does get into the ice; nothing can happen to her, because she has only to lie there until the wind blows the ice away. I do not doubt that they do see ice there in July; I have seen ice around the fifteenth. But the Ocean Eagle goes out in July and, according to the reports from that boat, there is nothing to fear. I know that every captain that goes into the port is delighted with the route, and with all due respect to Montreal we do not hesitate to say that the captains would much prefer to go to Churchill any time rather than to Montreal. There are considerably fewer dangers on that route. But either the witnesses that appeared before the committee, who are well known to everybody, who are experts and men who have navigated the northern waters for years, do not know what they are talking about, or some of the officials of the department may know more than those men do about the matter, and even the imperial shipping committee may know more-but I have my doubts about the latter. I appreciate what the department have done and are doing, and I thank them for it. I feel at Churchill they have one of the finest staffs of men that 
I have come into contact with in my life so far as administration work is concerned. They cheerfully do everything they can for everybody who goes in there and are very highly spoken of by all the captains and others who enter that port. I appreciate the fact that the department have spent a great deal of money there, but if we wish to magnify that, we might also check up how much money they spent getting the last two or three boats out of Montreal at the end of the shipping season and the first two or three boats into that port in the spring. That might cost three or perhaps four times as much and there is not very much said about it. We might put that statement on Hansard while we are discussing the question.
I want to thank the officials for what they are doing at Churchill and for the interest they are showing in the route; I refer especially to the officials at the port. I think the time has arrived, now that construction work has been completed, that the government should interest themselves in trying to get some more business for that route. The Department of Railways and Canals, whether it operates directly or through the Canadian National Railways who are acting as its agents, is selling transportation; it is also selling port facilities and elevator storage and facilities. If you want to sell goods these days, you must advertise. I stated before in the house that there was one handicap in securing business for that route, although the Saskatchewan wheat pool I believe made good use of it last year and saved themselves something like two and one-half cents a bushel by doing so, even at the high insurance rates and excessive cost of shipping. I believe they intend to make greater use of that route this year. There were also shipped out of Churchill five hundred head of cattle, and the man who shipped them informed me that they netted the producer $35 a head, whereas he could not have got more than $12 a head had he shipped them to Winnipeg or Prince Albert stockyard. This would mean something to the sections of western Canada that this road can economically serve.
An hon. member asked the minister whether he could give him any idea of the prospects for next year. All I can say is that I am satisfied the Saskatchewan wheat pool will ship a good deal more grain out of Churchill next season than they did last. As I said, they made a saving of about two and one-half cents a bushel, which will be increased by almost a cent by the reduction in insurance rates in the coming season. But there is another angle and a very important one to

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
this situation. The government have announced on the order paper that they are going into the grain business. I am not going to discuss the grain act now because I know this is not the proper time to do so, but there is an aspect of it I intend to discuss. If the government are going into the grain business, it is only natural they will seek those routes which have been proven by experience to be the most economical by which to ship their grain. This is where Churchill will come in to its own. The government have built the Hudson Bay railway and the port of Churchill; they own these; all the facilities and equipment are there. There will be no excuse for their not using that route when that legislation goes through, as I hope it will. This new grain board we are going to create will I believe prove a fairy godfather to that route, and I am not afraid of competition from any source if the route is given a square deal and if some effort is made to increase business.
One handicap we are up against-and I think I mentioned this before in the house- is this: while the Canadian National Railways have been acting as contractors in the construction of the Hudson Bay road and have- been operating it, they are not interested in securing business for it. If I were to go to any Canadian National station agent in Saskatchewan or Manitoba and discuss the question of shipping from one to ten carloads of grain through Churchill, naturally that gentleman, working for the Canadian National Railways, would present all the arguments he could possibly think of to prevent me from so doing; he would naturally want me to ship my grain via Port Arthur or Fort William. That is only natural because he receives honour marks for any new business he secures for the Canadian National. He would get no credit for any business he secured for the Hudson Bay Railway. The time has now arrived for some cooperation between the Hudson Bay Railway and the port of Churchill, and the Canadian National Railway officials and employees.


Robert James Manion: Before my hon. friend
gets away from that subject, I should be glad if he would draw to my attention the name of any agent who does any such thing as that, because I shall certainly report the matter to the management at Montreal. The hon. member's statement is the first I have ever heard of such a case.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I mentioned it in
the house about two yeans ago.


Robert James Manion: I do not remember, but if my hon. friend will give me any instance where that has happened, I shall be glad to draw it to the attention of the management.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: That has been
brought to my attention in different parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and it is only natural that would be the attitude the agent would take. He is not interested in the Hudson Bay Railway; he is interested in the Canadian National Railway.
Some steps should be taken to create a colonization department in connection with that route. There are thousands of acres of first class agricultural land along that road. Many people have had to leave the dry belts in the south and to go north looking for some new spots in which to start over again. I do not know of any better place that men with that pioneering spirit could go to than up along the Hudson Bay railway. You can grow there almost anything you can grow anywhere else in Canada except fruits, and there are wild fruits there. You can grow grain and roots equal in quality and yield to that raised in any other part of the country; that is amply demonstrated at anv point where the train stops. The settlers going in there would have an opportunity which they would not have in some of the other northern sections and into which they are going now, due to the fact that the lakes along that road are teeming with fish. There are also plenty of game and fur bearing animals and they could pick up a little bit of fur in the winter which would help them at the time they needed money most. There are many other opportunities that do not present themselves in other parts of the country to which they are trekking now. Such new settlements along the line would create increased business which the railways need and it naturally should be looked for. I hope at the earliest possible moment the department will give consideration to this matter and that steps will be taken to try to get some idea of what can be done along that line. Some years ago the dominion government surveyed the land from I think The Pas to about mile 214 on both sides of the railway. The surveyors were then dominion.government surveyors; since then the land has been turned over to the provincial government and naturally the field notes made by the dominion government surveyors were turned over with the land. I am quite sure the information could be secured as to where those blocks of land are, the type of soil and what it is best suited to
2492	COMMONS
_____Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
grow. This is very important, and I again say that I hope the government will give some consideration to the matter.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to delay
my own estimates, bub I think the hon. member for .North Winnipeg asked about the exports from Churchill. I gave them from memory and I was not very far out. The actual figures are: 4,000,000 bushels of wheat -I said four and a half-4,000 bushels of oats, 4,000 tons of flour and mill stuff, 8 tons of honey, 580 head of cattle and not quite
2,500,000	feet of lumber. These are the total shipments from Churchill last year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And the imports?


Robert James Manion: General cargo, 382 net tons; window glass, 459 net tons; bagged coal, 733 net tons, and 890 tons of bunker coal: total imports of 2,500 net tons in round figures-not quite a cargo.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: When this item
was up for discussion last year, and the question of marine insurance came up, the minister admitted that, notwithstanding the reductions given, the rates on the Hudson Bay route were still four or five times as high as on the St. Lawrence route. The acting Prime Minister a week or so ago, when announcing a twenty-five per cent reduction, did not say exactly how it was to be figured, but I understand it still leaves the rate three or four times as high by the Hudson Bay route as by the St. Lawrence. It seeems to me that the greatest handicap to this port is not icebergs or shoals or anything of that kind, but the abnormally high marine insurance rate. I have never blamed the minister for it very much; I suppose it is one of the handicaps that all new routes have to contend with. It has been the story of navigation all the world over from time immemorial, any new ocean, rail or caravan route has that great handicap to fight. But it seems to me that if we really mean to get the fullest use from this investment something else will have to be done to get over the uncertainty regarding the alleged dangers of the route. The insurance men in London are not going to worry about it. It is a small matter, to them; they are not going to take any chances but will let time demonstrate what the risks are. Meantime some of us are getting past middle life and would like to see more benefit being obtained and more use made of this port, after having spent part of a lifetime getting it. Did it ever occur to the minister that something more might be done? This is a day of talk about state ownership and reforms of one

kind and1 another; would it not constitute a great reform for the government to step in and shorten this period of uncertainty by assuming some share of the obligation of experimentation? Other ports might object, you may say. Well, I recall quite well that the Vancouver outlet for grain was assisted by the building of a second railway with very low grades, also by very low rates, the Crowsnest rates by the Yellowhead pass route, with the result that trade began to flow via the Pacific route, but not until those advantages were given it. Now we have this other route by Hudson bay, and the Crowsnest rates have been applied there. But it occurs to me that the- government might do worse than establish a marine insurance branch in the Department of Marine and Fisheries to provide marine insurance for all Canadian ports, at cost plus whatever reserve is necessary to take care of contingencies. That would be a great advantage to the St. Lawrence route also, as it would not then have the disadvantage of a higher rate than shipments via American Atlantic ports. That seems to me worth considering, and it would be fair to all ports. We speak about restrictions and handicaps on our ports, and there are grave restrictions on the use of our ports, without going into it in detail. Anything that would facilitate the greater use of our ports would be of advantage to our railways and to everyone concerned, particularly as there is little or no marine insurance written in this country. I commend Ihe idea to the minister. In spite of the fact that he represents a rival port I think he has not done too badly-I will give him that commendation; but he is not galloping in the direction of helping Hudson bay. For not being as bad as he might have been I give him the credit that is coming to him. I would not be making this suggestion now if I did not think he would give it at least fair consideration. It would be in the interests of Canada to establish marine insurance for all our ports, put them all on an equal footing and see what can be done in regard to attracting a greater volume of trade to our shores, to all our ports and especially Hudson bay. The Atlantic ports, Saint John and Halifax, have the advantage of proximity, the short haul across the Atlantic, and being open all the year-I understand in some years Saint John is not open the whole year, but Halifax is.


Felix Patrick Quinn: If I may be permitted to correct my hon. friend, Saint John is open all the year round.

____________Supply

Railways-Hudson Bay


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I am glad to be corrected. I was merely pointing out that they are not in need of as much sympathy as either Hudson bay or the St. Lawrence route, and neither is Vancouver nor other Pacific ports. Anything that tends to drive away traffic is a handicap to a port. A government that professes to be introducing reforms would accomplish a real reform by taking such an advanced step. I am of the opinion that we are in the grip of a huge insurance combine. Perhaps that is not the way to put it, but we are in the hands of one company, and it is situated overseas. It is under those circumstances, when there is a real cinch obtained on any business, that governments are justified in intervening. I am not usually an advocate of governments rushing into business, except when there is some abuse to correct, but it looks to me as if we are in the hands of practically one marine insurance company on the other side of the Atlantic. Here is the finest chance in the world for a real reform with the least disturbance of established business that you could conceive of; and anyway, why not give our ports the advantage of the cheapest insurance rates consistent with meeting the cost? I would like the minister to express his views on this.


Robert James Manion: No doubt the hon. gentleman is quite sincere in his suggestion, even though he did rather damn me with faint praise-


William Richard Motherwell: I think I was pretty fair.


Mr. MAN ION:: Oh, yes, the hon. gentleman and I have been very fair to each other for a long time now. But I doubt if the government of Canada would be justified, whether this government or any other, in going into the insurance business in any port. As I pointed out a few moments ago, according to last year's returns we were down $208,000 in round figures in operation alone, and that of course allows nothing for interest on the rather huge investment. As my hon. friend says, the matter of insurance is under the control of the imperial shipping committee, but I doubt if they would be particularly interested in interfering in any way -with the port of Churchill. Undoubtedly the rates at Churchill will gradually improve as the route proves itself, so to speak. The unfortunate accident that happened two or three years ago, the sinking of the Bright Fan, no doubt threw back some considerable distance the lowering of the insurance rates at that port. It was one of those unfortunate
accidents that I do not think should be blamed on the port, but as I understand it the insurance companies figure out their rates on an actuarial basis, and the loss that had to be paid in connection with the Bright Fan no doubt wiped out whatever profits might accrue in connection with Churchill for quite a time. Consequently as time goes on the insurance rates will go down, and I believe they will go down fairly rapidly because I agree with much that was said by my hon. friend from Nelson in regard to Churchill. I have heard the captains of some steamships make very complimentary remarks about the route and the ease with which they can navigate it; I heard those remarks on two occasions when I was there, and I think in the near future, as traffic increases, there will* be no difficulty about the rates coming down. The government are acting very energetically on that question, just as I am sure my hon. friends would continue to act if by any misfortune they should be returned to power after the next election. I doubt very much, however, if any government would be justified in going into the insurance business; I rather feel that the government of Canada is in a sufficient number of businesses already. My hon. friend mentioned the chief objection himself when he pointed out that you could hardly pick out one port and more or less root for it, if I may use a street expression. My hon. friend from .Nelson, who deserves a great deal of credit for the energetic way in which he has boosted that route and that section of the country, brought up another question. He thought the government should go out and, in a sense, solicit traffic for the Hudson Bay route. I did not wish to interrupt him because I had done so two or three times, but the fact struck me just as it does in regard to insurance, that the government of a country, being a national government, cannot-


Wilfred Hanbury: Play favourites.


Robert James Manion: Exactly; it cannot play favourites; it cannot pick one port and endeavour to ship traffic that way. The moment we tried to do that, whether we did it for Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec, Saint John, Halifax or Churchill, we would be criticized by the other ports for favouring one. It is a very complicated question; I do not think it is as easy as my hon. friend seemed to think, and I know he thinks it is a great deal easier when he is in opposition than he would if he were supporting a government again. The matter has been considered, but I



Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
believe the port is doing very well, considering the depressed condition of world shipping and world trade at the present time.


William Richard Motherwell: I was not recommending any discriminatory treatment of Churchill; rather I was recommending a government policy that would apply equally to all ports. Surely there is nothing inconsistent in that. I do not know what my hon. friend from Nelson recommended; I heard only part of his remarks. Speaking of the Bright Fan, however, I think the government were rather indifferent on that occasion. They should have sent in the strongest possible recommendation that that captain should never sail those waters again.


Robert James Manion: I do not think he ever has.


William Richard Motherwell: Then it is not
because the government vetoed it, so far as I can make out.


Robert James Manion: We could not veto it.


William Richard Motherwell: You could have reported to the overseas authorities that the captain was avowedly unfit to take care of a ship. That ship was off its course; it did not have a gyro compass, and ordinary precautions were not 'taken on the bridge. In the gray dawn, just before morning, an eighteen year old youth was at the wheel; one officer was snoring and dreaming, another man was having a cup of tea and the boy was there alone. It was almost a criminal state of affairs. I never heard of any recommendation from this government to the British government with regard to that conduct on the part of one of their certified mariners or masters or whatever he was called. It seems to me a good deal more could have been done in order to protect that port from such a degenerate captain again. Why. if I had wanted to get some old hulk sunk all I had to do was get hold of that vessel master and send him into those isolated waters. From what I can make out Lloyd's never inquired whether or not they were justified in paying the full insurance; they just paid it.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will permit me, the marine department did investigate so far as its powers went, but the matter was not within our jurisdiction; we had no way of interfering with this ship. The facts, as my hon. friend states them, are roughly correct, but the government had no power to intervene. The captain ran the ship in and he ran it out. My hon. friend from Nelson rather thinks they hunted around for an iceberg, as he expressed it once, and he may be right; I do not know, but the government had no power to interfere. So far as the captain is
rMr. Manion.]
concerned, so far as I know that captain has not been back with another vessel. I understand that he could not get a vessel, so I really do not think the government, to do justice to it, was in any position to do more than it did.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the minister think it would be inconsistent on his part to try to get traffic for the road that was built by his department at a cost of $50,000,000?


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will permit me to answer, I will say yes, I do think it would be inconsistent. We also built the Canadian National down to Halifax and Saint John and west to Vancouver and Prince Rupert. If we picked out Churchill and endeavoured to get traffic for it, we would have to pick out all the othdrs also; then we would be on an even keel again and we would not get anywhere. The Canadian National is going after traffic and having very good success. I do not think we can be expected to devote special efforts to the Hudson Bay railway in preference to the other lines, because they all belong to the government and they are all doing a fair share of business.


William Richard Motherwell: I was not referring to the Canadian National; I think the records go to show that it is doing pretty well and is getting its share of the traffic.
I had reference to the Hudson Bay railway only. It is a link there between the Canadian National and Churchill, if they care to use it; we have a new port and if someone does not boost it the traffic will just about stay where it is indefinitely, with these strangulating insurance rates. This generation will pass on without knowing much of the benefits of that short route. Some day, by some fortune, if we have a great amount of traffic such as we have had in other years, when the peak load will require every conceivable outlet in the fall of the year, probably Churchill will be used more, but I do not think we should wait for that accident to happen. I think it should be used as a new route, as an enterprise taken in hand by the government of Canada, by both parties, for the last fifty years. Now that we have it there is a hindrance to its use in the form of marine insurance that practically damns the whole undertaking. Are we just going to let it drift along and survive or not just as it likes or are we going to do something to give it a chance to get on its feet and earn the right to a lower . insurance rate through a greater volume of traffic? That would be my suggestion. If the government do not see it that way we will just have to let it go. I suppose most of us will live to see

Supply-M iscellaneous
what the new government will do with regard to it. Maybe they will do just the same as my hon. friend did, but maybe they won't. My recollection of the former government is that they found Nelson the most impossible place on this green earth to build a port. At least we should be credited with diverting the railway to a national harbour like Churchill, where there is some possibility of making a useful port and one which will eventually become a great exit and inlet for traffic to and from Canada.


Thomas Reid: I should like for one moment to endeavour to contradict the statement made by the hon. member for Melviile. He pointed out to the minister that if the rates which operated to New Westminster and Vancouver were in operation on the Hudson Bay Railway, the railway would be developed. We on the Pacific coast say this: Give us the same rates as the Hudson Bay railway and east, and let the flow of traffic go where it will. I am confident that if the same rates applied to the ports of New Westminster and Vancouver, and if traffic were allowed to take its choice, the rates being equal by far the greater quantity of grain would pass out through the Pacific coast ports. If that practice were followed I believe the railways would get greater revenues than they are now getting. Going to eastern ports the grain passes through Fort William and after that time the railways lose it. If it passed through the ports of New Westminster or Vancouver the railway would receive a greater revenue. We have not the Crowsnest Pass rate going east; that is one kick we have. However I could not allow the hon. member for Melville to get away with the statement that we had an advantage over the Hudson Bay railway. I say to him and to the minister that they have the Crowsnest pass rate, while we have not. However, I argued these points not very long ago.


William Richard Motherwell: My understanding
is that on the Canadian National the Crowsnest rates operate to the Pacific, while on the Canadian Pacific they do not. Whether or not that is correct I cannot say. I do know, however, that because of the very heavy grades which in the beginning the Canadian Pacific railway had to operate-and I believe they still have to though now lessened-some consideration had to be given, especially when that railway had to compete with the lower grades of the Canadian National railways. My understanding is that the Canadian National railway to the Pacific has the Crowsnest rate on grain.


Wilfred Hanbury: The same structure.


Robert James Manion: Well, let us argue it out next year.


Thomas Reid: I am afraid the hon. member
for Melville was not in his seat when I spoke about freight rates.


William Richard Motherwell: I know the national railway get much lower rates than it had before the Liberal government came into power anyway.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Where does the minister establish the revenue of $456,000? Is that the actual freight collections on goods and merchandise?


Robert James Manion: That is the traffic which
passed over the line. Roughly speaking there were about 4,500,000 bushels of wheat, together with other traffic which went up and cargoes which came down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-
Canada's contribution to the expenses of the International Commission for Air Navigation for 1935, $1,720.
Jean-François Pouliot: What has the government to say with regard to the eastern Locarno pact?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: This item is for air
navigation.


Jean-François Pouliot: The acting Prime Minister laughs when I ask a question like that.


George Halsey Perley: I am not laughing at all. The hon. member has raised a serious question, but may I call his attention to the fact that we are discussing air navigation?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall the item carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. What does the government say? What are the government's views with regard to the air pact between European nations, a condition which comes very close to the eastern Locarno pact and a matter which is of momentous importance? I would gladly listen to the observations which could be made by the acting Prime Minister.


George Halsey Perley: I should be
pleased to answer the hon. member if he raised the question at some other time. It could be answered if it were placed on the order paper. However, the present item really has nothing to do with the matter he is discussing.


Jean-François Pouliot: : I submit my observations are pertinent. Every time a vote is called the government should be ready to
*2496
Supply-M iscellaneous

give an explanation. This is a matter of tremendous importance and one which concerns not only Canada but the whole world. My question relates to a pact to which European powers agreed, and as we are members of the League of Nations I say such a question is of the utmost importance. I am sure the acting Prime Minister is ready to answer; otherwise he would not have called the item.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Carried?
Mr. POULIOT; No. I am entitled to an answer from the right hon. gentleman, who lived in London for a long time.


George Halsey Perley: This item has to do with civil air navigation and has no connection with military matters.


Jean-François Pouliot: Very often I have read in the press that in any future warfare Germany would use commercial planes. A commercial plane could be used in warfare for purposes of carrying bombs, and could bring destruction upon an opposing territory. Therefore I say this is a matter of great concern. Does the acting Prime Minister contend that commercial planes would not be used in warfare? He knows better than that. He iknows very well that these planes would ibe used for purposes of carrying bombs and creating destruction and disturbances.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall the item carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I ask for the views held by the government. Canada is a member of the League of Nations, and both before and since 1930 we have sent delegates to the meetings held at Geneva. As the right hon. gentleman acted as high commissioner for some time he is in a better position than any other member of the government to answer my question. I respectfully ask him to answer me on the point; I insist upon an answer because I say I have spoken about a matter of great concern.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Will the acting Prime Minister leave the impression that he refuses to express the views held by the government on a question so important as theone I have raised? Everywhere this is a matter of great concern, and yet it would seem we are indifferent to it. If we are indifferent let us drop all these votes for the League of Nations and such other lines of endeavour. 1 have asked a straight question and I do not understand why I should not receive a straight answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. If it is passed it will be passed on division.
Item agreed to on division.
Amount required to meet loss on exchange, subject to approval of the treasury hoard, $200,000.


James J. Donnelly: What is the explanation of this item?


George Halsey Perley: It was found that
in many countries where we have representatives the exchange was such that they suffered a great deal of loss in turning their Canadian cheques into the money of the country-in Switzerland, France, and I think one other country. We thought it only fair that an allowance should be made to these servants of the state to .make up this loss occasioned by the rate of exchange which existed between the currency of the country in which they live and our dollar.


James J. Donnelly: Do we get any money back from them when the exchange is in their favour?


Ernest Lapointe: Does this apply to trade commissioners as well as members of legations?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, to all our servants of the state in such countries.


Ernest Lapointe: That is only fair.


George Halsey Perley: The amount is less this year than last.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why do we have to vote this huge sum of 1200,000? It is because the world economic conference of 1933 was a fiasco. One of the most important questions under discussion at the conference was the stabilization of currencies in order that there should be no such losses as the minister mentions. We heard the Prime Minister before that conference say that that question was of the utmost importance, yet nothing was agreed to at the conference. Although the Prime Minister saved the conference it died two or three days afterwards, and here we are voting $200,000 because that world conference of 1933 was a fiasco. Enough of that.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: How long has this system been in vogue?


George Halsey Perley: For two or three years I think, since the exchange was so difficult.

Privilege*-Mr. Lapointe


Jean-François Pouliot: It shows another thing. It shows that when people pretend our dollar is above par that is a falsehood; for otherwise we would not have to vote this amount. The Canadian dollar is under par in. several countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's portion of expenditure of the imperial economic committee and imperial shipping committee and the executive council of the imperial agricultural bureau for 1935, $18,690.
George Halsey Perley: This is for the purpose of paying our share of the expenditures of the two committees and the bureau named, in which all the dominions are interested with the mother country. For instance, I read in the house the other day the arrangement that had been made by the imperial shipping committee for lowering the rates in connection with the Hudson Bay route.


William Richard Motherwell: Has this vote any relationship to vote No. 50 under agriculture for contributions to empire bureaux? The Minister of Agriculture explained that item when it "was before the committee, and this seems to be almost the same service in connection with the imperial agricultural bureau.


George Halsey Perley: I can assure the hon. gentleman we will not pay the accounts twice.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the basis on
which this amount is fixed?


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry I
have not the percentages here, but I shall be glad to get them for my hon. friend. Would he like me to send them to him?


John Campbell Elliott: I was wondering if it
was on population, or what was the basis.


George Halsey Perley: I shall be very
glad to obtain the information.


William Richard Motherwell: My own guess
would be that this vote, or part of it, is to pay our share of the administration expenditure of the executive council of the imperial agricultural bureaux in the same way as we pay our share in connection with the council of the agricultural institute at Rome.


Jean-François Pouliot: With regard to the work of the agricultural bureaux, I remember distinctly last year when the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) was speaking he mentioned something about Canadian dairy exports to Great Britain. He said that the Minister of Agriculture had said, to use his own words, that the United Kingdom market was the best market for Canadian dairy
products. Then the Minister of Agriculture rose and said, "I did not say that." I wonder what the Minister of Agriculture meant when he said that in reply to the hon. member for Terrebonne.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I do not think I
should be asked to give an answer to that question. I endeavoured to follow the first "this" and "that" and then the next "that" and "this," but I would rather have the direct statement in front of me before giving: an answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister should not
be fresh with me. I will tell him exactly what happened. The hon. member for Terrebonne said to the minister-I have this distinctly in mind and I have it upstairs in print and could get it in a moment or two- that the minister had declared that the United Kingdom was our best market for Canadian dairy products, and the Minister of Agriculture replied to the hon. member for Terrebonne, " I did not say that." Now, without using anew the word " that," may I ask what the minister meant by such a reply. I have stated the case to him very clearly.


Robert Weir: Before I give any
answer, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should read the statement for myself, because what I said might have depended on certain conditions. The value of the market might have been under consideration, or the volume of goods it was possible to absorb, or the' price in one particular market for certain dairy products as compared with another market.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 8, 1935