Sir THOMAS WHITE moved:: Thait the name of Mr. Heidi (Mackenzie) he added to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines and struck off that on Privileges and Elections; and that the name of Mr. Wright he added to the select and standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization and struck off that on Standing Orders.
He said: I understand this matter has been made the subject of arrangement.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is only by unanimous consent that this motion may be put.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion for the third reading of Bill No. 8 to amend the Irrigation Act.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: On the motion for the third reading 1 desire to ask that the word "lake." be inserted after the word "watercourses " in sub-clause 2 of section 1. I believe this can be done on the third reading if there is no objection on the part of the House. If there is any objection, I will move the House back into committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That amendment can
only be made by unanimous consent; otherwise, in the ordinary course, the practice would be to move the Bill back into committee.


Mr. McKENZIE:: There can be no objection to the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and Bill read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 5 to authorize a further extension of time for the completion of the St. John and Quebec railway between Gagetown and Westfield-Hon. Mr. Reid-read the second time, considered in committee-Mr. Boivin in the Chair-and reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved', That it is expedient to provide that the sum of two hundred thousand dollars per annum be appropriated and paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for ten consecutive years from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, to aid actual construction work for the protection, safety and' convenience of the public in respect of highway crossings of railways at nail level, in existence on the first day of Aipril, nineteen hundred and nine.-Hon. Mr. Reid-(Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: This simply extends for a
period of ten years the provision in the Railway Act which expires on April 1 next. There is no change whatever except as to the extension of time. The Act was passed ten years ago and expires in April. It is necessary to pass a Bill founded upon this resolution in order that the Board of Railway Commissioners may continue paying the Dominion Government's proportion on any crossing that they may decide it should pay.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: Can the minister give us any information as to the number of crossings towards the elimination of which aid has been granted?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I have not that information. We will have this question up again when we have the Railway Act before the House. In the Consolidated Railway Act, which we shall have before the House in a short time, it is proposed to amend the present Act by increasing the Government's contribution to twenty-five per cent of the cost of the actual construction work, but it shall not exceed in any such case the sum of $15,000, and no such money shall be applied in any one year to more than six crossings on any one railway in any one municipality, or more than once in any one year to any one crossing. If the Consolidated Railway Act were in existence it would not be necessary to pass the present Bill, but as it may take some time to enact, we deem it well to bring down the present Bill.


Mr. ROBB:: Is there a fixed policy which the Board of Railway Commissioners follows, as beween the railways, the municipalities, and the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: The Board of Railway
Commissioners determines what proportion of the cost should be paid by the municipalities, the railway companies, and the Dominion Government respectively.


James Alexander Robb: Is there a fixed policy that governs throughout the country, in the country districts as well as in the cities, with respect to this matter? What is the policy of the Government in connection with new roads that are constructed? Is the construction of such roads allowed to go on, regardless of the level crossing arrangement, subject to that being fixed up afterwards, or is there a definite policy that governs before construction is undertaken?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say what the policy of the Railway Commission is. It is left entirely to the Board to decide in each particular case. I do not think the Board has any general policy that a certain percentage shall be paid on every crossing, whether it is in a rural district or in a city; each case is considered on its merits. If the matter is brought to the attention of the Board prior to the road being built, it, of course, has power to take action.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does it rest with the Board of Railway Commissioners alone to determine where and when the crossings shall be constructed?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the charter granted
by Parliament entitles the company to run through any part of the country unless appeal is made to the Board of Railway Commissioners prior to construction having been commenced. If the road has been constructed the Board can take action.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend did not catch the nature of my question. I inquired whether it rested with the Board of Railway Commissioners alone to determine Where and when railway crossing such as are mentioned in the motion are to be constructed.	.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot answer my hon. friend explicitly, because I am not fully aware of the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Charles Murphy: The date mentioned in the resolution is first of April, 1909. Should that not be the first of April, 1919?


Mr. McMASTER:: Might I suggest that the hon. members who are on their feet should speak louder, and that those hon. gentlemen who are seated should either converse less audibly or not at all?


John Dowsley Reid: The resolution provides
' the present Act expires, and this Bill is to continue its provisions for another ten years. I think the date should be 1919.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: What amount has been paid by the Government under this Act?


John Dowsley Reid: I will answer that question when we are in Committee on the Bill. If hon. gentlemen .desire any information their questions will appear in Hansard and the information will be on hand when we go into Committee on the Bill. When the House is considering the '.Bill in Committee I will have an official from the Railway Commission here to afford all the information hon. gentlemen desire.


James Alexander Robb: The law at present as I understand only applies to railways already in existence, and the new legislation will enable assistance to be given to new railways.


John Dowsley Reid: It is not proposed to deal
with anything more than continue the law as it stands at present, until the Consolidated Railway Act comes into effect, which, of course, will nullify this legislation. If the present Bill is not passed, and the Consolidated Railway Act is delayed for some time, or even if it should not pass the House this session, we shall be powerless to continue this subsidizing of railway crossings.


Mr. FIELDING:: If these provisions are taken from the original Act I have no objection to offer, but I should think the language might be made clearer.


Mr. NESBITT:: The minister says that
the date should be 1919. Is it intended to cover the railways that were built previous to 1909? I think he will find that the Railway Board has power now to deal with crossings constructed since that date.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member from
Russell drew my attention to the last date in the resolution which appears as 1909. This refers to all level highway crossings in existence ten years ago. I see no reason why the date should not be changed to 1919, thus making the resolution applicable to all highway crossings in existence at the present time.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Minister had better look the matter up before he makes the change.


John Dowsley Reid: We can amend it, if
necessary, when the Bill is in Committee.


Mr. YIEN:: Is this to apply only to railways incorporated under federal charter?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Thomas Vien: If the Government determines upon the nationalization of Canadian railways, we shall have only two great railway systems, the Canadian Government Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not see why we should now determine for a period of ten years the policy of the 'Canadian Government in the matter of aid in the construction of highway crossings, particularly in view of the fact that our railway policy is not yet finally decided. The Canadian Pacific Railway can construct without assistance such crossings as are required by the regulations of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I suggest, in view of all the circumstances, that this proposed legislation be not extended over a longer period than one year, or two years at the outside.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend suggests that under a policy of the nationalization of railways there will be only two great railway systems in Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways; that the Government would in any case pay for crossings constructed on its own lines, and that we should not assist the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the construction of highway crossings required under the regulations of the Railway Commission. The Canadian National Railways are now practically all under the direction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and whatever should be done for the Canadian National Railways should also be done for every road that is under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. Otherwise, you do an injustice to the Canadian Pacific or to any other privately-owned road which is subject to the regulations of the Railway Commission. No partiality should be shown to the Government roads; all should be treated on the same basis.


Thomas Vien: I agree that all these lines
should be on the same footing, but I would do away entirely with the granting of aid in the constructing of highway crossings. So far as the Canadian Government Railway system is concerned, it does not matter much whether or not we aid the construction of highway crossings, because if we do so we simply transfer money from one department to Another. I repeat that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are financially strong enough to look after the building of highway crossings on their own lines without assistance. They come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners; let that board decide what

share the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should contribute and what share the various municipalities interested should contribute towards the construction of highway crossings. In view of the fact that our railway policy is not finally settled, it might be advisable to aid the construction of highway crossings for a year or two, but I fail to see how we can justify the laying down of a policy of this kind and providing that it shall be carried out for a period of ten years. The period of the proposed aid should be limited to two years at the very extreme.


Mr. SHEARD:: Is this proposed legislation to have an obligatory and mandatory effect regarding all the crossings that were in existence prior to 1909? I hope it will have that effect, because the matter particularly concerns large centres, which suffer probably quite as much as any other part of the country in this respect. It is in the interests of the Dominion at large that these level crossings be done away with. If an appropriation will assist in bringing this about, it is certainly very desirable that the appropriation should be made. I should like to know clearly from the minister how generally this is going to be applied to low level crossings.


John Dowsley Reid: When a complaint is
made to the Board of Railway Commissioners, they can, if they so desire, order the change to be made. They have power to order that any crossing which they consider dangerous shall come under this measure and be removed.
The point raised by the hon. member opposite! Mr. Vien) as to doing away with this payment altogether is one that may be considered by this House. But the Act which was passed in 1909 was passed for this reason: There are crossings which are considered dangerous; in fact, I have in mind crossings at which people have been killed, and the Act of 1909 was passed for the purpose of assisting in removing all those dangerous crossings. The aid was given in the public interest to save life, and so as not to put the whole cost, which is sometimes very heavy, on municipalities which could not afford to pay the full amount for which they might be assessed. In the same way, it was felt that it would be a great hardship on the railways to make them pay their full share. Therefore, it was decided at that time that the Government should give aid to the extent of 20 per cent of the cost. The hon. member wishes us to do away with the payment of
this 20 per cent and to put the Board of Railway Commissioners in this position, that if a complaint is made that a crossing is dangerous, the board shall have the power to order that a subway or whatever else is necessary to remove the dangerous crossing shall be constructed, and that the cost shall be assessed on the railway and the municipality concerned. There are cases where such a course would be a great hardship on other railways than the Canadian Pacific, and it would be a great hardship on some municipalities to construct a very large subway. As the railways are operated in the public interest, it was considered desirable that a small amount should be paid to assist in removing dangerous crossings. The amount, $200,000 a year, is not very large, and as the removal of dangerous crossings has saved many lives, I think the amount is worth the purpose for which it is appropriated.
As we now own one-half of the railways in Canada, this aid, in so far as the Canadian National railways are concerned, is only taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. I feel that the Canadian National railways, being owned by the Dominion Government, should not be treated in a different manner from any other railway that has received a charter from the Government of Canada. The Canadian National railways should continue in the same position, so far as the Board of Railway Commissioners is concerned, as they did prior to the Government becoming the owner of them, and they should compete, just as though they were privately owned, with the other railways. Therefore, I feel that if this proposed appropriation is passed, it should be extended to the Canadian Pacific and the other railways just the same as before. It would be a bad thing if we were to cease rendering this assistance at the present time. We should continue rendering it in order to remove all these dangerous crossings as quickly as possible. If the members of this House feel that this proposed appropriation should be struck out, then we shall have to bring it up again in connection with the Railway Act which will be before the House and a subcommittee as soon as we can reach it.


Mr. OOCKSHUTT :: As this is a very small amount to cover all the crossings in Canada, and as there will be many applications for assistance, what percentage is to be devoted for doing the work on a certain crossing? Is it to be ten, twenty-five, fifty or one hundred per cent, and is this

to apply to radial roads as well as to steam roads? In my constituency there are many dangerous level crossings which are run over at high speed by radial roads, and accidents have occurred there. I think the sum is entirely inadequate to cover the number of crossings demanding attention. What share of this proposed expenditure is- to be applied in each section of the country? I believe there are from fifty to a hundred or perhaps more accidents caused by level crossings in a year. I have known five or six people having been killed and many injured in one accident in my district. This is a serious matter and we want to encourage the minister in every possible way in dealing with it.
Mr. REiID:	The only railways that
come under this measure are those under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


William Foster Cockshutt: Would that cover radials?


John Dowsley Reid: Only those that have a
Dominion charter and are under the Board of Railway Commissioners. The manner in which the money is distributed is this: It does not matter from what part of Canada an application is made to the board to remove a dangerous crossing. If a complaint is made to the board by any individual or corporation or municipality, in regard to a dangerous crossing, the board investigates, makes a report, and, if it so decides, passes an order compelling the railway company to remove the dangerous crossing by constructing a subway or otherwise, and assessing the proportions that the railway, the municipality and the Dominion Government shall pay under this measure.
So far, the appropriation of $200,000 has been a sufficient amount each year for the past ten years to cover any sums the Dominion Government has been called upon to pay, and that is the reason why I have continued that amount in this resolution. If in any year this amount should not prove sufficient, we would have to ask Parliament that the Act be amended increasing the amount.


Mr. NICKLE:: I might suggest to the Minister of Railways and Canals-and I feel sure he will not consider it an impertinence, as he is not a lawyer-that he do not change the figures "09" in the last line of his resolution to " 19," because I think the resolution is correctly drawn. If the minister will refer to the statutes of 1909, section 7 of chapter 32, he will find that in that year the principle was intro-

duced in Canadian legislation of a certain amount, $200,000, I think, for five years being set aside to be administered for the purpose of assisting municipalities and railways in getting rid of dangerous level crossings. At the same time that section 7 was passed enunciating that principle, section G was also passed which amended the Railway Act and declared the principle to be that any railroads constructed after 1909 should, at their own expense, take such steps as might be necessary to protect the public.
That this House may be more fully conversant with the legislation, let me read the two sections of the Act, which was assented to on May 19, 1909. Section 6 reads:
The said Act is amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 238 thereof:-
23 8A. In any case where a railway is constructed after the passing of this Act, the company shall, ac its own cost and expense (unless and except as otherwise provided by agreement, approved of by the Board, between the company and a municipal or other corporation or person), provide, subject to the order of the Board, all protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of any crossing of highway by the railway.
Section 7 reads:
The said Act is further amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 239 thereof:-
239A. The sum of two hundred thousand dole lars each year for five consecutive years from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nine, shall be appropriated and set apart from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of aiding in the providing by actual construction work of protection, safety and convenience for the public in respect of highway crossings of the railway at rail level, in existence on the said first day of April.
If the minister should yield to the suggestion of the hon. member who sits on my right that the word "nine" should be changed to "nineteen," the effect of his resolution taken in conjunction with the legislation on the Statute Books might be that this country should assist in construction work, by way of subways or otherwise, in respect of all railway crossings in existence on the 1st day of April, 1919. Now that is not what this House wants to do at all, if I understand the purport of the minister's resolution. I take it that what the minister is endeavouring to do is to place at the disposal of the Railway Commissioners a specific sum of money that may be used for bettering conditions in respect of railway crossings that existed on the 1st day of April, 1919, but not to relieve the railway companies from responsibility in respect of crossings constructed since that date. But if he were to adopt the suggestion made by the speaker on my

xight the effect might be to relieve the railways of this country of all responsibility in respect of crossings constructed during the last ten years. I do not believe it is the intention of the resolution so to do.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is right.
However, I have already said that the point will be considered when we get into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. NI'CKLE:	Leave it at 1909 for the
present.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Thomas Vien: The minister has not answered the objection I made with reference to the ten-year period during which this appropriation is to be made. All he said was that an expenditure of $200,000 a year was a comparatively small amount, and we need not bother very much about it. I think the time has come when we should cease talking in millions. During the war an expenditure of $500,000,000 was a small amount, and hon. members on this side of the House never unduly obstructed votes of money required for carrying on war. The other day the Minister of Public Works told us that there would be a deficit in the coming year of something like a hundred million dollars, and he did not know how that deficit was to be made up. I think that the time has now come when we should consider a yearly expenditure of $200,000 as a matter of importance. If the House will only enter upon a policy of thrift, and cut down this item as a start, I am confident that the Estimates can be reduced very considerably. In 1911 when hon. gentlemen opposite were talking of the extravagance of the Laurier Administration, they characterized an expenditure of something like $125,000,000 a year as wholesale extravagance. This Government now presents Estimates for $437,000,000, and the Supplementaries are still to come, and the Minister of Railways tells us this afternoon that an expenditure of $200,000 is not worth discussing. That does not harmonize very well with the statement made by the Minister of Public Works the other day, to the effect that he did not know where the $100,000,000 was to be raised to make both ends meet. The minister has said that the Canadian Government Railway system should be on the same footing and run in the same way as a private-owned railway corporation. But that does not answer the objection that I made, that the Canadian Government Railway system and the Canadian
Pacific Railway system are both in such a strong financial position as to be able to carry out without any difficulty any orders the Railway Commissioners might make with regard to railway crossings. In so far as the municipalities are concerned, I think it would be much more equitable to have the full amount paid by the railways. The railways make their own financial arrangements, and in addition receive assistance from the Government, and I do not see why a railway which is seeking the privilege of crossing a certain portion of this country should not be compelled, by law, to build the road in such a way that it will not be a public danger. If the responsibility for making the crossings safe rests upon any one, surely it rests upon the railway companies, and I think they should be called upon by the Railway Commissioners to make such changes as are required to make the crossings safe. The minister has failed to explain why this blanket authorization should be given for a period of ten years.
Resolution reported, read a first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. Reid thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 29, to amend the Railway Act, (aid for railway crossings.)
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



COMPENSATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE KILLED OR INJURED.-

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals) the House went into Committee on the following resolution, Mt. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Act to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties, chapter fifteen of the statutes of 1918, and to provide that no employee of the Canadian Government Railways who is an employee within the meaning of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act and becomes permanently disabled from following his usual occupation in the service as a result of injuries received while on duty and actually at work in the service shall be entitled to receive compensation, under the provisions of the Act hereby proposed to be amended, for such injuries unless he elects to accept prior or subsequent to the injuries such compensation in lieu of the allowance payable under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, section twelve, Class D, and gives notice in writing of such election both to the management of the Railways and to the Provident Fund Board: Provided, however, that the dependents of any such employee who has been or is killed subsequently to the passing of the Act hereby pro-
[Stage Direction]
posed to be amended and who has not elected to accept compensation under the said Act as aforesaid, shall nevertheless be entitled to compensation under the said Act as though such employee had so elected; and further that any compensation or costs awarded under the said Act be paid by the Minister of Finance out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, or the Minister of Finance may from time to time take such amount of money as may be authorized by the Governor in Council from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and deposit such money with the Board, officers, authority or court authorized by the law of any province to determine compensation cases, from which deposit such Board, officers, authority or court may pay any compensation and costs awarded under, the provisions of the said Act; and in any province where the general administration expenses of maintaining such Board, officers or other authority or court are paid by the province or by contributions from employers, or by both, the Minister of Finance may pay out of any unappropriated money in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such portion of such expenses as is fair and reasonable and is authorized by the Governor in Council.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
John Dowsley Reid: I think it is necessary to mate a ,few explanations. Last session I presented to Parliament a Bill, which was passed, entitled, " an Act to provide Compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duty," in order to bring the Canadian Government Railway employees under the Compensation Acts of the several provinces throughout Canada. It applied to all Government employees, but it was passed at -the request of the employees of the Government Railways. I consulted with the representatives of the Provident Fund of the Intercolonial Railway employees, and before the Bill passed, a representative of the employees pronounced the opinion that it protected those who were receiving benefits under the Provident Fund Act. I stated in the House at the time that if the Act did not work out satisfactorily to those who were receiving benefits under the Provident Fund, we would amend it. Sub-section 4, of section 1, of the Bill passed last year does not work out in practice. The employees do not elect before injury, and therefore cannot claim under the Compensation Acts, nor can their dependents. The object of the present amendment is to enable a man to elect after injury, when, of course, he will take the more favourable of the two funds, either the Provident Fund or the Compensation Act. It places the employee, if he has been injured, in the position of choosing that one which is more beneficial to him. If an employee is killed and has not elected prior to the accident, then his
TMr. .T. T>. Reid.]
dependents cannot apply under the Compensation Act. The present amendment is intended to cover these points. In order to be able to assure the House that the employees of the Government Railways were perfectly satisfied with the amendment, I requested the solicitor of the railway to have them sign their approval to it. If the House desires to know the names of the heads of ten different organi-
4 p.m. zations who have signed the document, I can furnish them. I have their signatures to show that they are perfectly satisfied. I repeat what I said last year, that if we find that the amendment proves unsatisfactory, we shall have to come back to Parliament and seek another amendment.


John Howard Sinclair: The
resolution as it stands now, I think, is acceptable to the employees. It seems to have changed its form since it was first put on the Order Paper.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so.


John Howard Sinclair: I think so. It strikes me that the Provident Fund should be eliminated from all consideration in this connection. The Provident Fund was organized for the purpose of paying old age pensions. It had been found on the Intercolonial that when men had. got up in years they were almost useless to the road and it was difficult to turn them off without doing something for them. A Bill was introduced in 1907 for the purpose of retiring men who had become unable to carry out their duties on the road. That was the main purpose of the Provident Fund. The fund itself is made up from contributions by the employees amounting to one and one half per cent of their monthly wages and a similar amount paid by the Government. This money is funded and from it the old age pensions are paid. These are ridiculously small. I do not see how old employees can live on $20 a month. The question of dealing with this Provident Fund, I think, should engage the attention of the minister. This is a good opportunity because while the Provident Fund makes provision for paying a monthly allowance to the man who is totally disabled, that was not the original intention of it. As the minister is making provision now to deal with all cases of accident, through a Compensation Board, there is no reason why the old age pension system should be mixed up with accidents at all. It strikes me that the proper course

would be to devote the Provident Fund altogether to giving pensions to retired employees of the road. Provision, in this resolution, and in the Bill that will be introduced, is made for all kinds of accidents, so that there is no necessity for a man who is injured in an accident having anything to do with the Provident Fund.
There is another fund called the Relief Fund which is also made up by contributions from the wages of the men and by a small allowance from the department. In case a man is injured by a slight accident, he gets the small sum of about $3 a week while he is kept out of work as the result of that injury. The minister has not told us what he intends to do with that fund. It strikes me that it is unnecessary that that should be carried on at all if we are going to vote the railways under the compensation boards of the various provinces. I am not familiar with the compensation boards of the other provinces but we have in Nova Scotia a very well equipped, and active, compensation board. All the industries in the province, divided up into twenty classes or more, contribute to the fund. All the accidents that happen throughout the province are provided for out of that fund.
'The minister has power under this resolution to pay to the funds of the various provinces a certain amount, but he has not told the House whether he intends to do so or not. Are we to understand that the Government railway will submit itself to the jurisdiction of the local boards in the various provinces and that, according to the mileage of the road in any particular province, a certain number of dollars will be paid into the fund? Is it proposed, whether there is an accident or not, that money will be paid into the fund and kept there to provide for any accidents that may occur? Is that the plan that the minister has in his mind, or does he propose simply to pay such allowances as are made from time to time by the board?
This is a matter that created a great deal of interest in the province of Nova Scotia when the Bill was introduced last year and the legislature of that province passed a resolution in regard to it at the last session approving of the proposal to bring the Government railways under the board but insisting at the same time that they should submit to the jurisdiction of the board and pay in to the fund like any other industry. Is that what the minister intends to do?


John Dowsley Reid: The Dominion Government subscribes a certain amount per annum towards carrying out the purpose of the Provident f und. What I said to some of the employees in connection with the Provident Fund was this: When the Government were operating the Intercolonial alone, there were certain funds, such as the Provident and Relief Funds, and they could be dealt with by the Government and the employees because there was only the one road. Now, the Government has taken over other roads including the Canadian Northern. On each of these roads they have similar relief organizations or pension systems. My own feeling is that we should let matters rest until we get the whole railway situation straightened out. Then I believe we should have a Dominion compensation system that would apply to the whole of the Government railways, and to all railways if possible, but at all events, to all Government railway systems, so that if any employee was injured in Nova Scotia, he would get the same compensation as an employee would get if he were injured in British Columbia or any other province. It should be uniform from one end of the Dominion to the other. I do not see bow we can carry out that system by having different organizations on the Government railway system. I believe that those who are operating the railway system for the Government will have to take up and consider as soon as possible some policy which will be universal and which will apply throughout the whole system. The Provident Fund on the Intercolonial railway may be more advantageous than a similar organization on the Canadian Northern system, or vice versa. I do not think it will be in the interest of the railway to have one organization at one end different from another organization at the other end. My own feeling is that we should let matters go on in so far as these different organizations are concerned until we get the -railway organizations all working together harmoniously and then try and see if we cannot devise some -scheme whereby an employee in Vancouver will get the s-ame treatment, and the same relief, as an employee in Halifax or in any other p-art of the country.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it
proposed to eliminate the feature of accidents from the Provident Fund altogether and apply the fund to old age pensions?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not changing the policy *that has been in existence for some time, and I would not feel justified in changing this law at present. Possibly, before the session ends, there could be a change made

that would apply to the whole system. In the meantime I think matters should continue as they are.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a definition of what constitutes an employee of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways. Does that include all the employees on those railways?


John Dowsley Reid: It includes all those that are members of, or subscribers to, the Provident Fund-only those that would receive any benefits under that Fund, and they must subscribe and pay their contribution to the Fund.
iMr. J. H. SINCLAIR: Then this Act does not apply to any employee who is not a member of the Provident Fund?


John Dowsley Reid: It does not. The hon.
gentleman asked whether the Government intends depositing a certain amount with the Central Compensation Board to meet a portion of the working expenses. What the Government now does or rather the provision which has been made in the other Act, is, to pay whatever amount of compensation, or award, the Board may decide upon with respect to an employee. We felt that it was not necessary to deposit any money with the Compensation Board, and I think the Board is not pressing that demand. It was brought to my attention, however, by some of the different compensation boards that there was no provision in the Act whereby we could pay a portion of the cost of operation of the compensation board, and I felt that it was only fair and just that the Canadian National Railways should pay their proper share of whatever charge would be involved under the operation of the provincial Act in a particular province. Therefore I added this last clause in the amendment, which reads:
Arad im any province where the general administration expenses of maintaining such hoard, officers, or authority or court, are paid by the province, or by oontributionis, from em-ployersv or by both, the Minister of Finance may pay out of any unappropriated money in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada such portion of such expenses as is fair and reasonable and is authorized by the Governor in Council.
That covers the point that the different compensation boards are interested in. The boards. now receive their share as if they were a private corporation, and when an award is made the Department of Finance will pay it out of the consolidated revenue fund.
[Mr J. D. Reid.]


Ernest Lapointe: As regards the employees who are permanently disabled as a result of an accident, I think the proposed law is sound, and I do not agree with my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) that we should not take into consideration the Provident Fund at all. That fund applies to two cases-an employee who retires on account of old age, and an employee who retires on account of permanent disability. It would not be fair that the same employee should get a life pension under the Provident Fund, and also a life pension under the Compensation Act. With respect to employees who are killed as a result of an accident, I congratulate the minister upon the change he is now making. We told him last year that the position of the dependents of such employees would not be improved as a result of the Act then passed. Of course, the dependents of an employee who was killed in a railway accident could not have any right to the benefits of the Provident Fund at all. The Provident Fund provides a 'pension for a disabled employee, or an aged employee, but nothing for the dependants of an employee who is killed. It was absurd, therefore, to require that such employee should waive his right to something that he was not entitled to. His dependents could not-be granted anything from the Provident Fund, and surely we could not require that the employee should waive his rights. Yet that is what we did last year. As a result of that Act, I had in my practice the cases of two men named Senechal and Freve, who were both killed in a railway accident. The Railway Department refused to pay compensation on account of the clause in last session's Act, which was absurd. I am glad that the resolution as it reads' will have a retroactive effect in the case of the dependents of those men, and that they will now be entitled to pensions.


Mr. GAUVREAIJ:: Is the minister making the provision retroactive?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Retroactive as far as last year's Act is concerned?


John Dowsley Reid: It is retroactive as regards
last year's Act. The hon. member (Mir. Lapointe brought the point to my attention, and I saw the injustice of it. It is because of the hon. member's action in that regard that I am now making the provision retroactive so that its effect will be as though it had been enacted last year.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: We are all satisfied it that is the case-


Ernest Lapointe: There is another feature of the Act of last year to which I desire to call attention. Last year a clause was added stating that Orders in Council would be passed defining the service that should be made on the Crown, that is against which party the writ should be issued, whether against the commissioners of the Canadian National Railways, the Minister of Justice, or the Crown. I wrote to the Department of Justice a few months ago, and they told me that no such Order in Council had been passed. I would like the minister to take the point into consideration before the Bill is passed, so that we may know exactly the method of procedure.


John Dowsley Reid: I will do so.


Mr. WIGMORE:: Is it intended this year to bring in a resolution to increase the superannuation? That amount was fixed about ten years ago at $20 a month. It might have been possible at that time for a man to exist in some way on that amount, but it is really out of the question to-day. I think some provision should be made for an increase of the amount, and I would be glad if the minister would take the matter up in connection with any changes which he may be here contemplating.


John Dowsley Reid: I might say to the hon.
gentleman that the employees themselves contribute a certain amount towards this fund; it is not entirely furnished by the Government. We subscribe a certain amount, I think $100,000 per annum, and the employees themselves make up the balance of the fund. Therefore we could not increase the allowance of those who have already been superannuated, or who may be superannuated in the future, without the consent of those employees who are interested. That is one of my reasons for considering that we should have some new arrangement applicable to the whole Government Railway system. When that is taken up and gone into, some arrangement might be made with regard to the position of old employees. We do not control this fund; it is the employees who decide how much shall be paid to those who are retired. The Government have only one member on that Board, and it could not increase the pensions to employees without taking the matter up with the whole Board.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: If a petition were sent to the Government and the Government decided to adopt its suggestions, an Act would have to be passed along these lines, would it not?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the Provident Fund Board regulate the amount of the pensions. All we do is subscribe to that regulation.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I placed on the Order Paper the other day a question with regard to this very matter. Is it the intention of the minister to press this new board to deal with this question? The employees who come under this fund want an increase of pension; those who contribute to the fund are ready to increase their monthly contribution to the fund provided they are eligible for a higher pension. Is the minister going to do anything for these employees?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter is referred
to the management of the Canadian National Railways in order to obtain a uniform policy throughout. I suggested that an effort be made to have one organization for the whole Canadian Government railway system, which would include the Provident Fund relief organization on the Intercolonial and the Canadian Northern. I do not think it would be well to have one end of the system under a different organization. The only reason there can be for delay in the matter is that which is found in the whole railway situation, and that cannot be taken up and dealt with as the hon. member knows, for some little time.


Mr. COPP:: I think the minister is on the right track in this matter. I have had considerable correspondence from employees of the Canadian Government railways'on the subject. Some days ago I had an interview with the solicitor fop the Department of Railways and I drew his attention to a number of matters brought to my attention by railway employees. I think that the minister has adopted in the resolution some remedy for the grievances that have arisen and that have been placed before the departmental solicitor and himself. But I am not sure that this resolution goes quite far enough. I have before me a letter from a member of the Compensation Board of New Brunswick drawing my attention to a number of matters of interest in connection with this resolution. I assume that the different Compensation Acts passed by the provincial legislatures are not all alike. In our province a certain fund is placed in the hands of the Com-



pensation Board by the contributing employers and when an employee is injured and reports have been submitted in due course by the employer, the employee, and the attending physician, the Compensation Board begin at once . to pay weekly compensation to the injured person. These payments continue until evidence is adduced before the Compensation Board and a decision rendered. As soon as the man is reported as having been restored to health, the whole amount of compensation is paid over directly by the board. Now, under this proposed plan it is necessary that a certain' amount be placed in the hands of the Compensation Board by the railway company or by the Government to enable it to make payments by way of compensation to railway employees along the lines that I have stated. There is a provision in the resolution in regard to that, but it says that the Minister of Finance "may" do so and so. I think it should go further and say that the Finance Minister must see to it that in each province where the Compensation Act provides for the weekly payment of compensation as soon as the report is laid before the Board, funds should be provided to enable the Compensation Board to pay that weekly indemnity. Railway employees should be placed in as good a position as employees of any other kind.


John Dowsley Reid: Under this resolution we have power to do that. The object of the resolution is to make everything work satisfactorily and harmoniously in co-operation with the Compensation Boards in the several provinces. We are taking power to pay them their share of the cost of the operation of the board, and we can easily deposit from time to time small amounts to facilitate the carrying out of the work of the Compensation Board. We have been working very harmoniously with the board ; of course, we had to act in accordance with the legislation passed last year. If this resolution is passed and a Bill founded upon it adopted, I feel sure that there will be no trouble or difficulty either with the Board or in connection with any employee that may be injured or killed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: As I said at the outset, 1 feel that the minister is on the right track and is endeavouring to meet fairly all the points brought up by the Compensation Board. But while we are doing this, let us see. that everything is absolutely understandable by the Compensation Boards and by tire men to whom this legislation is intended to apply

Under the resolution before the committee, if the intention of the minister is to see to it that the funds are placed in the hands of the Compensation Board; that will be very satisfactory to the different associations representing the employees of the Intercolonial railway.
In answer to a question put by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) as to whether a man employed on the Canadian National Railways must be a member of the Provident Fund before he can come under this Act, I understood the minister to say that he must be a member of the Provident Fund and contribute to the fund before he can come under the provisions of the Compensation Act.


John Dowsley Reid: Any employee of the Canadian Government Railways, say of the Intercolonial railway, who is not a member of the Provident Fund, comes, in any case, under the Compensation Act. But if he is a member of the Provident Fund, he must, of course, elect under which he will come.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is not the way in which I understood the minister to answer my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps I did not understand the hon. member.


Arthur Bliss Copp: An employee comes under
this Act whether he is a member of the Provident Fund or not?


John Dowsley Reid: Every employee of the Intercolonial railway comes under the Compensation Act whether he is a member of the Provident Fund or not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then this resolution and the Bill to be founded thereon would cover the case about which I wrote the minister a few days ago. I refer to Mr. Edward Gould who was killed at Aulac station on the Canadian Government Railways.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Mr. McKENZIlE:	I wish to add my
approval of the suggestion made that something should be done for those old men who retired from the road some years ago. The compensation that they receive now of $20 a month is entirely inadequate. In fact, I know of several cases in which there is a great deal of hardship. The minister has stated that this is a general scheme by which all these matters may be dealt with, but there is great darner that those men may be dead before their case is considered. I would urge, with other hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this point, that this matter

should be dealt with as soon as possible, and that relief should be brought to those men who are getting such small salaries, who could not have foreseen that the cost of living was to be so high as it is now, and who, if they had thought there wmuld be no decrease in the cost of living, would have made some further provision for their eld age. I hope the minister will realize that there are a number of cases of hardship suffered by those poor men who have given their days of usefulness and activity to the road and who are not now7 able to work. They should be provided for in any case by the institution to which they have given the best part of their lives. It is too bad that a man who has given good service for twenty years or more to the Government, and who, under this scheme, has retired, should find himself in want and unable to supplement his means by any other kind of employment.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Does my
lion, friend support a general superannuation scheme for Government employees to which they should contribute; or is this somewhat along the lines of a provident scheme?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would be in favour
of anything suggested by the minister for those who are now able to contribute towards a fund of that kind. But what I am particularly directing my remarks to is the case of men who gave their days, during which they were able to work, to the service of the railway, and who were making, as they thought, sufficient provision for their old age, but who found that as the cost of living has risen in this country, that provision is not anything like sufficient for themselves and their families. Under such circumstances, this country whose, employees they were, should not see them in want, and some steps should be taken to better their conditions.


John Howard Sinclair: I hope the minister will take that matter into consideration. Wages have increased largely in recent years. An employee on the Intercolonial railway gets a much higher wage now than he did ten or fifteen years ago, and consequently, the percentage that he pays is considerably more, because he pays into the fund one and one-half per cent of the wages that he receives. But the amount paid to the employees out of the fund has not been increased. The ordinary employee gets about 820 a month as a retiring allow-
4bi
ance whereas with the increased cost of living the increase in the amount that he pays in month by month would seem to indicate that he should, when he retires from the railway, get a larger amount than he gets at the present time.
Another matter that I should like to draw to the attention of the minister is the administration of the Provident Fund. I have complaints from employees of the road that the administration is too stringent. I knew a man who had a right to participate in this Provident Fund, who had -removed in his old age to British Columbia and who was requested to come back to Halifax in order to be examined by a doctor in that city before he could make his application to go on the Provident Fund. He had to take the journey all the way across the continent to be examined by the doctor in Halifax, as the officials would not consider his case at -all unless^ he was examined by that particular physician. When he arrived in Halifax, he was unable to get in touch with the doctor in question, and so he got another prominent doctor to examine him and certify as to the condition of his health. He then went home to British Columbia, but the board would not consider the certificate of his doctor, because .the man did not happen to be examined by the special doctor that they had appointed. Regulations of that kind are impossible to be carried out, and I would like the minister to take some interest in the matter and see if the regulations imposed, upon employees by the people in charge of the fund are not too stringent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The regulations are administered by the employees themselves.


John Howard Sinclair: Partly.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Wholly.


John Dowsley Reid: There is a representative of the Government on the board administrating the fund. Of course, the board, as a whole, would control the situation.


Air. MICHAUD:: Can a railway employee elect to bring his case before the Compensation Board of the province in which he works? In that case, can he avoid paying his monthly dues to the Provident Fund?


John Dowsley Reid: I hardly understand the hon. member's question. All permanent employees of the railway are supposed to be members of the Provident Fund. Of course, if an accident should happen, the case of the employee should and would come before the Compensation Board in the

province in which 'the accident took place. He can elect under which Act his case shall come. If it is the Provident Fund Act, the board would take up his case and deal with it.


Pius Michaud: Supposing the employee, in case of an accident, elects to have his case come under the Compensation Act, would he still have to pay his dues to the .Provident Fund? Has he the power to choose between them?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, he has that choice.


Pius Michaud: But he would have to pay his Provident Fund dues just the same.


John Dowsley Reid: The purpose of this legislation is to provide for employees who have to retire through being permanently incapacitated. The Provident Fund makes provision for those who are only temporarily disabled.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there any appeal from the decision of the Provident Fund managers with regard to the compensation allowed? I am reminded of the case of an old official of the railway who has received some allowance from the Provident Fund, but who thinks he has been very unjustly treated. Is there an appeal to the Government from the Provident Fund's decision?


John Dowsley Reid: There is an appeal to the minister, and his decision is final.


William Stevens Fielding: The deputy minister has had this particular case under consideration and I take for granted that probably there may be good reasons for not giving this man larger compensation. At all events, I will mention his name and perhaps the minister will look into the matter. I am not saying for a moment that he has any grievance, but he thinks he has. His name is Mr. George Laird, resident in the neighbourhood of Truro. He was severely injured in the station yard at Truro. Perhaps the deputy minister to whom I gave the facts of the case a short time ago has already given the case all possible consideration. All I care to do now is to mention the matter to the minister, so that if there has been any omission to do justice to this man, his case may be looked into.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Reid thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 30, to provide compensation where employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing their duties.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 0, to authorize the reclamation of Dominion Lands by drainage-Hon. Arthur Meighen-Mr. Boivin in the iChair:
On section 2-power to reclaim land by drainage works:
James Alexander Robb: This work is apparently to be done under Reclamation Acts passed by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. I notice that section 6 provides for the appointment of a Director of Reclamation Service. It seems to me the minister is providing the most expensive way of doing this work. If the work is to be done under the Provincial Acts, would it not be more economical to use the provincial officials? Is not this appointment simply to provide a good fat job for some one to roam around the country and make reports to the minister which will probably be shelved?


Arthur Meighen: I am rather surprised
the hon. gentleman should suspect anything of that sort. A Director of Reclamation Service has already been appointed; he has held office in the department for a great number of years, being appointed,
I think, some fifteen years ago. The work is not to be done by the provinces at all. As I explained to the House on the second reading, this Bill is to take care of the work ' that the provinces do not do. Certain works in the way of drainage are done by the local authorities, following the arrangement that was arrived at between the representatives of the provinces and the Dominion. The second two classes of drainage projects are undertaken by drainage districts, or by the provinces themselves, and the actual responsibility for the drainage work is theirs. We are providing here for taking care of the fourth class. Where the Dominion owns a great tract of land, we do the work; we undertake the engineering, and actually construct and operate the drainage works. In doing so, however, we operate under the laws of the provinces passed for the purpose, in just the same way as would a company that undertook to construct these works. We come in as the Dominion Government. We actually do the work, but in.doing so we follow the regulations and laws passed by the provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: Do you do it under the Interior Department, or the Public Works?


Arthur Meighen: Under the Interior Department. The lands are themselves under the administration of the Interior Department. The Crown Lands of the Dominion, which are administered in the Interior Department, are the lands that are mainly to be affected by the work.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the hon.
minister expect the work to be confined to these two provinces?


Arthur Meighen: We cannot operate anywhere else, but there is a clause in the Act providing for the extension of the work should any other province pass an Act under which we could come in.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like the minister to outline what he proposes to do under this Act, and what expenditure he thinks the Government will find it necessary to make. It is a new venture, and at a time like this, when it is difficult to find funds to run the ora in ary business of the country, it strikes me that it is hardly a proper time to embark on this project unless it can be shown that there is some good reason for it. There is a reference here to the fact that the land may be turned over to the Soliders' Settlement Board, but I do not think the soldiers will agree to settle in these low swampy places. We would therefore like to know what the hon. minister intends to do, and how much he expects to spend under this Act.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has no
very pretentious plans on foot. The United States Government has launched a programme of reclamation along this line involving an expenditure of $100,000,001). What we do contemplate in the Interior Department is what you might describe as an experimental undertaking, at all events, an initial undertaking. What we have in mind is the reclamation of Waterhen lake. If we go ahead with that first, it will require about $120,000. Something in the neighbourhood of 12,000 acres will be reclaimed-land that at present, I understand, is absolutely valueless; not only valueless in itself, but its remaining in its present condition impairs the whole district and renders less valuable much land in the neighbourhood. That project is recommended to us by 5 p.m. our engineers as perhaps the one we should undertake first. The lands adjacent to the lands that would be
reclaimed are worth to-day from $30 to $50 an acre, and there is no reason to believe that these would not be worth the same, not immediately after reclamation, possibly, but shortly after.
Mr. ,7. H. SINCLAIR: Would it not be better to submit to the Provincial Act and pay in proportion the amount required to drain these lands? I understand the Provincial Act applies to all lands where drainage is required and operations are started under the Provincial Act, it would be better for the Dominion Government holding lands in that area to submit to the jurisdiction of the province, and pay their share of the lands they own.


Arthur Meighen: That alternative was very carefully considered. In it is involved the question of the jurisdiction of the. province to tax Dominion lands; indeed, not only the question of jurisdiction but of the wisdom of submitting to taxation at the hands of the provinces; and it was deemed best to solve the difficulty in another way. In cases where the bulk of the land is privately owned, or in cases where the province wants work done for the sake of roads, then the province or the local authorities undertake it, and if we have land within the area affected we have arranged to sell that land to the province, at a certain fixed rate, and the province, after the land is reclaimed sells by public auction, and out of the proceeds of the sale the cost of reclamation is first taken. Over and above that, the surplus comes back to the Dominion. Where we have a great body of lands the province takes the ground that the work is ours, and, we think, properly so. We undertake the work, the provincial legislation provides provincial officers, assesses the proper share against private lands, and we just pay our share; and upon the sale of that land we are recouped for the expenditure we make. Of course, as respects our own land the surplus is ours.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it the intention of the Government to turn these lands over to the province before the next election ?


Arthur Meighen: I did not really think that the hon. member was thinking of the next election. I have not yet given it a thought at all, and I am afraid it would take me some time to come to a conclusion on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 3-Sale of reclaimed lands.
James Alexander Robb: Will the minister explain subsection 3 of this clause which reads:
The minister may, instead of selling such lands, lease the whole or any part of the same, and may also lease any land unsold.
Does that refer to lands other than those that are reclaimed?


Arthur Meighen: Oh no. that could only refer to lands included within the area of reclamation, lands affected by the reclamation scheme. It means this: An upset price will be fixed on the valuation before they are offered for sale at public auction. If the upset price is not bid we are empowered to rent the lands in the meantime until they are otherwise disposed of. It strikes me that possibly it would be wise ,to have power to rent the land before offering it to public auction, because lands reclaimed by drainage do not reach their full value for some time. It takes cultivation and exposure to the sun to free the land from that moisture that has been in it for so long. I think the best time to sell these lands -would not be immediately after reclamation.


James Alexander Robb: I should have read the whole clause to the minister. There seems >to be a confusion of words. Why this distinction? It would look as if it referred to two different classes of land.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that the words are unnecessary.


Charles Murphy: Would the insertion of the word "such ' before "land" meet the hon. gentleman's suggestion?


Arthur Meighen: It might make it clearer. I understand that the point of the hon. gentleman is that the words are surplusage?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
"Mr. MEIGHEN: But it is intended to have this legal effect, that the minister may, instead of selling the land, lease the whole or any part thereof. It might be held that the minister could elect whether he could lease or sell, but once having elected, could not change. We want to make it clear that while he may elect to sell he may lease.


Ernest Lapointe: According to subsection 1, the minister may sell the lands subject to the conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council According to ' sub-section 2 he may transfer them to the Soldiers' Settlement Board at a valuation to be fixed by the Governor in Council. But under subsection 3 he may lease the land

at any price he may see fit to ask. Why not make the rental under the lease subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, as well as the price in case of sale?


Arthur Meighen: I would not have any objection. Of course, the rental in leasing is not so vital as the price on a sale. Indeed, as we had the Bill at first, the Governor in Council was not required to assent even to the price on sale. So much goes before Council


Andrew Ross McMaster: You will be bringing some of it before Parliament pretty soon.


Arthur Meighen: I will be very sorry for Parliament if it all comes before it. The only effective and practical way is for the minister to handle it. I have no objection to it going before Council. It is something of a protection for the minister, but anybody who has been a member of Council knows that the deliberation is not increased a great deal.


Charles Murphy: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that special legislation affecting these lands after reclamation should be unnecessary in view of the fact that the general land Act would apply to such land in the absence of a special provision. Is there any necessity for this special provision, inasmuch as the land would become ordinary land after reclamation, and, if so, would not the ordinary law apply to it?


Arthur Meighen: Y'es, but the general
law does not permit of sale except in very rare cases. The power of the minister to sell land is so limited that it would not be sufficient to leave this to the operation of the general law. He can sell fractions of quarter-sections, and only a certain amount and under certain conditions. We want to sell this land by auction so that we can recoup the treasury the cost of improving it.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there any provision made in the Estimates for the coming fiscal year to administer this Act?


Arthur Meighen: Not yet.
On section 4-Payments for land, how to be made:


Arthur Meighen: These are the alternate terms of payment in case of sale by auction, but the House must observe that the previous section provides that the land can be turned over to the Soldiers' Settlement Board for disposition by that Board. In that event these terms do not apply. In the event of an ordinary sale the terms that are applicable to the operations of the Board would not come into play.


James Alexander Robb: Does that mean that you will accept those ten or twenty year terms and nothing short ol them?


Arthur Meighen: I would not recommend anything shorter than ten years. The price would be affected adversely if we did. School lands are selling on a ten year term. There is considerable agitation to make it more than ten years but there is no question but that the school land fund is to-day at a much higher figure than it would be if a shorter term were fixed.


Charles Murphy: Could sales not be made for cash under the clause?


Arthur Meighen: Cash could be paid and a man could get title but I would not be empowered to offer land for sale for cash by auction. I would not be prepared to make the term cash. On the other hand, if a man purchased land and afterwards desired to pay cash he could do so. But, according to the terms, a man will not be asked to come in and bid at auction against another man who is able to pay cash.


Charles Murphy: What is the practical
application under this last section?


Arthur Meighen: For example, John
Smith buys a section of land at auction on the 20-year amortization plan. Then the minister is empowered to allow John Smith to pay the whole thing right off or any part of it at any time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The last paragraph of
the section says:
The Minister may give such privileges of prepayment of instalments as he may deem fit.
Would that go so far as to allow the minister to give a heavy discount on prepayment?


Arthur Meighen: No. I would never give any discount >at all. I do not think I would be empowered to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On seotion 5-application to Dominion lands in Manitoba:
John Howard Sinclair: What
legislation is contemplated by the province of Manitoba?


Arthur Meighen: I would not like to say than any legislation is contemplated. That would be for the government of that province to say. But if they pass any legislation it should be legislation under which we could undertake works of this kind.


John Howard Sinclair: That is what is called " the necessary legislation " in this clause?


Arthur Meighen: It means legislation
similar to the reclamation Acts of Saskatchewan and Alberta-any legislation under which we could operate.


John Howard Sinclair: Do the
swamp lands in Manitoba belong to the Dominion?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: My recollection is that they once belonged to Manitoba, that we bought them back and paid a very large sum of money for them. Now, we propose to drain them at the expense of the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: They belong to the Dominion. We cannot under this Bill, unless they pass an Act, do anything in the way of drainage. There were representations made to myself that it would be well to investigate the possibility of draining one of the larger lakes of the province.


An hon. MEMBER:: Lake Manitoba?


Arthur Meighen: Lake Manitoba. We
have not seriously considered it as yet, because there is no Act in force in that province under which we could operate. The opinion is also held that there are other surface waters in that province that should be drained first, and that it would pay us to undertake inasmuch as the lands are ours.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The minister referred
yesterday to the added territory of Manitoba. I did not quite catch the connection in which the reference was made, and I was wondering if that part of Manitoba was affected differently from the rest of the province?


Arthur Meighen: I did draw a distinction between the jurisdiction of the Dominion in respect of the older part of Manitoba and the added territory, and the distinction is this:	Under the Irrigation Act,
passed in 1894, the Dominion asserted control over the surface waters of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the territories now embraced within the added district of Manitoba. That control the Dominion asserted and now has in respect of those territories. The Dominion also has control of the Crown lands in the old portion of Manitoba, but none over the surface waters. We could, however, do reclamation work in the rid portion of Manitoba if there were adequate provincial laws under which we could operate. The only difficulty is that the old Irrigation Act does not apply to the old portion of Manitoba.


Ernest Lapointe: Does subsection (b) of section 5 apply to lands in all the provinces of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is intended
to apply to the work that is gone on with in any province by arrangement with the Provincial Government. That is the intention. I would not like to indicate that it was likely any arrangement could be made, or that it would be wise to make it. This Act is for the purpose of reclaiming lands in the Dominion of Canada for the benefit of the Dominion.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say in what year the Dominion purchased the swamp lands of Manitoba?


Arthur Meighen: The Dominion took back the swamp lands in the year 1912. That was part of the terms of the settlement of 1912, by which the subsidy provisions applicable to Manitoba were raised to the standard of those of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


John Howard Sinclair: It seems to me that we incurred a liability at that time that we were not expecting. Prior to that date the swamp lands belonged to the province of Manitoba, and it would have been better for us, perhaps, if, as was insisted at the time by hon. members on this side of the House, the Government had left the title of those lands in the provincial government instead of vesting the title in this Government. It was done, as I understood at the time, as a pretext to enable the Dominion Government to give some money to Manitoba, to conciliate Manitoba by handing out to it Dominion cash. In that way we incurred the liability of looking after those swamp lands, which has now come back on us and is going to be a bill of expense for some years to come.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman should not get the impression that because the lands are capable of improvement they are a liability. If they were not capable of improvement they would be a liability, but the very passage of this legislation is an assumption that the lands are capable of improvement. The great part of the swamp lands of Manitoba are valuable; and I have not the slightest doubt that they are much more valuable than they were in 1912 when taken over by the Dominion. If this Bill passes it will make them still more valuable.


John Howard Sinclair: My object was to point out to the hon. gentleman that the, policy advocated on this side of
[Mr. Meighen.l
the House at the time was to leave those lands to Manitoba to drain and look after. By refusing to accept the course advocated by hon. gentlemen on this side, the Government has assumed the ownership of these swamp lands, and we are required to spend large sums of money in making them fit for occupancy, which liability should have been undertaken by the province of Manitoba.


Arthur Meighen: We will get the money all back, perhaps a hundred or two hundredfold more. What will the hon. member say then?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the minister say two hundredfold?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps a hundred or two hundredfold, I would expect so. If these lands are worth $25 an acre, the price at which some of the lands in the neighbourhood are sold, it would represent two and a half times the estimated cost of reclamation.


Mr. KAY:: Where reclaimed lands are sold by auction, is it intended there shall be an upset price?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, always.


Charles Murphy: Has anything been done towards the drainage of lake Manitoba, oils it intended to do anything of that nature in the near future?


Arthur Meighen: Nothing has been done, nor carL/I say that anything is intended immediately in that direction. It is possible that Manitoba may pass an Act which would enable us to operate in that province, in which event we would take into consideration the possibility and the wisdom of draining that lake, among perhaps other experiments that may be tried. For myself I would not like even to indicate an opinion that it would be the part of wisdom to attempt to drain the lake.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Director of Reclamation Service.
James Alexander Robb: Who is that officer?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Drake, who is sitting in front of me.
On section 7-Annual Report.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not see anything in this Bill which authorizes the expenditure of money. Is there any limit to the amount which the Government should spend? Will the minister point out the clause bearing on this point?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the first subsection of subsection 2 providing for defraying the cost "out of moneys set apart by Parliament for that purpose."


John Howard Sinclair: Will there be an estimate brought down?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Section agreed to and Bill reported.



UNITS OF ELECTRICAL MEASURE.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion "nf Hon. A. K. Maclean, Bill No. 17, respecting the Units of Electrical Measure, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
On section 2-ohm, ampere, volt:
Mr. DEVLIN:: There is a word in this
section which I do not understand. It is the word "ohm"-it sounds German. Would the minister tell us what that word means?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The definition is in the Act. Technically speaking, the ohm is the method of measuring the resistance of electricity as it proceeds through the conductor. I think the word is of German origin. In 1893 a conference was held at Chicago to fix electrical standards-the standard of quantity, which is known as the ampere, and the standard of pressure, which is known as the volt. The international arrangement reached at Chicago in 1893 was put into the form of legislation, in 1903, I think, and is to be found in Chapter 53 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. In 1908 another conference was held at London and the standards of electrical measurement adopted by the Chicago conference wTere amended in a few respects, chiefly technical. The standards adopted at the London conference in 1908 were adopted by all the leading nations of the world there represented. Since that time these nations have put into the form of legislation the standards adopted at that conference, and the purpose of this Bill is to put into statutory form in Canada the agreement reached respecting the adoption of electrical standards of measurement. This Bill should have been introduced in 1911. At that time the Department of Weights and Measures was under the Inland Revenue Department, and someone facetiously remarked to me to-day that the reason why the Bill was not introduced before was because ministers were leaving that Department so frequently that there was no time to gain even a passing acquaintance with the matter. The Bill is in the
same form as that adopted by England, United States, Germany and all the leading countries of the world.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the schedule:
Andrew Ross McMaster: Can the minister explain the algebraic formula given at the top of page three of the Bill? It is beyond me.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would rather
promise to afford any hon. friend an op

portunity of having that explained privately by the technical officers of the Department. I shall be glad at any time to make an arrangement with him to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, (Acting Minister of Naval Service), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Meat and Canned Foods Act, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1907, as amended by chapter thirty-three of the statutes of 1917, by providing for the more exact definition of dry lobster meat, for the sizes of cans for canning lobsters, and the amount of the contents thereof.
Charles Murphy: Will the minister explain?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I purpose merely advancing this resolution another stage, and later on, it will be taken charge of by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), when he returns to the Hofuse. I shall, however, give a brief explanation of it. The purpose of this resolution and of the Bill which will be founded on it, is to determine the weight of dry lobster meat in the various sized cans. In 1917, the weight of dry lobster meat contained in cans was fixed by Statute. I am reading from section 12 (d) of the Act of 1917:
Cans of lobster shall contain the following minimum amounts of dry lobster meat:-
1 lb. can, 14 ounces, avoirdupois; 3 lb. can, 10J ounces, avoirdupois; i lb. can, 7 ounces, avoirdupois; J lb. can, 34 ounces, avoirdupois.
It is further provided that:
No other size of can shall be packed unless the written permission of the minister has first been obtained.
At the last session of Parliament, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries introduced

a Bill for the purpose of amending the section which I have just read. That Bill, I think, passed the House of Commons, but was defeated in the Senate. It is unnecessary for me to state the provisions of that Bill inasmuch as it did not become law. There was apparently a great deal of opposition in the eastern provinces, which alone are interested in the lobster canning industry, to the provisions of the Bill which was introduced last year. Since the close of the last session of Parliament. <u conference was held during the summer of 1918 at Halifax. That conference was, I believe, quite representative of all those interested in the lobster canning business, and a conclusion was reached by those interested, and the fishermen, or producers of the lobsters. The conclusions arrived at are embodied in this resolution. The Bill, which I shall introduce on the passage of this resolution, provides:
There shall' he four sizes of cans for canning lobsters. The cans of each size shall always contain not less than 3 ounces avoirdupois, 6 ounces avoirdupois, 9 ounces avoirdupois, and 12 ounces avoirdupois respectively, of dry lobster meat.
No other size of can shall be used for packing lobsters without first obtaining the written permission of the minister. Such written permission shall state the minimum amount of dry lobster meat that is to be packed in each size of can so authorized.
That will give to the committee substantially the purpose of the legislation which will be founded upon this resolution. After the Bill is printed, hon. gentlemen will perhaps find the proposed measure much easier to understand, and it will remain upon the Order Paper for some time yet, at least until the return of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the House.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that in 1907 an Act was passed making regulations in regard to the weight of lobster meat to be. packed in each of the different sized cans used in packing lobsters. That Act was amended in 1917, and I think the weights were increased. The matter was discussed by a special committee of which I was a member. We recommended that the weights be 14 ounces, 10i ounces, 7 ounces and ,3 ounces respectively, as contained in the Act of 1917. Does this resolution purpose bringing the weights back to what were provided in the Act of 1907?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my hon. friend is substantially correct. At least, it reduces the weight of lobster meat in each can as compared with the weights provided for in the Statute of 1917 as originally introduced. [DOT]
[Mr. A. I<. Maclean.!


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does it bring the weights
hack to the same as provided for in the Act of 1907?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have not that Statute before me just at the moment, but I think rny hon. friend is right.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister says that there was held in the city of Halifax a meeting of those interested in the packing of lobsters as well as the fishermen. I do not see how the fishermen are interested because they sell their catch to the eanners at so much a pound, and then the eanners pack the lobsters into cans and the minimum amounts in the different cans are provided by Statute. I remember very well that, during the discussion before the committee in 1917, a great deal of evidence was adduced to show that, as regards the lobsters which were packed by the different lobster packers throughout the Maritime provinces and which were placed on the market, the consumer was paying for a pound of lobsters, but was getting only twelve or thirteen ounces. The committee, from the evidence adduced before them, came to the conclusion that the consumer was not being fairly treated in the matter, and they made the recommendations which are contained in the Act of 1917. We should have some very good reason before consenting to reduce the weight of the can which is supposed to contain one pound of lobster meat from fourteen ounces to twelve ounces.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


John Howard Sinclair: No. We want
some explanation on that point. It-is quite true that there was a meeting of eanners in Halifax, but the consumer was not represented; and if it is proposed to reduce the quantity from fourteen ounces to. twelve ounces and require the consumer to pay for a can of lobster the same price that he was paying before, I am opposed to this resolution and would like to have from the minister some explanation as to why this change is being made.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Apparently one of the reasons which induced the members present at that conference to arrive at this conclusion, was that they were endeavouring to ascertain and declare the exact, content of the cans now used by lobster packers. That seems to have been the principal reason for the change. As I said before, I am putting this resolution forward just one step, as I want to get the Bill printed so that hon. gentlemen may have an opportun-

ity o{ studying it. I purpose circulating it in the Maritime Provinces which are the only provinces interested in the matter, and I would like the committee to permit that to be done. It will be another three or four weeks before the next step will be taken.


Charles Murphy: While the committee appreciates the position of the minister in charge of the resolution, the point raised by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough is so important that it is questionable whether the committee should advance this resolution any further. If by the Bill to be founded upon it we shall be enacting legislation whereby the consumer will get less for his money than he previously got, surely legislation of that kind ought not to commend itself to hon. members.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I was present at the meeting in Halifax. The object of this legislation is to have a uniform weight in the cans. It was found that some of the packers were not putting fourteen ounces in the cans. It was contended by some that a half-pound can would not hold seven ounces. Personally, I took the opposite view, and I do to-day. I think also that a quarter-pound can will hold comfortably three and-a-half ounces. However, the large packers, including Roberts, Simpson & Company, and O'Leary & Lea, who are the principal exporters of canned lobster in Canada, were practically unanimous in contending that what is known ias the one-pound can would not contain fourteen ounces of dry meat,-that is, the meat after the fluid has been drained off. Of course, it is essential that the net contents should be on the label for the Canadian and American markets. The law, however, provides that cans can be exported without a label, and it is up to the legislators of the countries to which these cans are exported to protect their consumers. I do not think the consumer is being deceived, because the Canadian and-American consumer can plainly see by the label what the can holds, and if the can is reasonably full, there would be no loss to the consumer. To have a can capable of holding more than is put into it is simply a waste of money. Nevertheless, the large packers were practically unanimous in asking for a standard weight of twelve ounces for what is called the pound tin. A one-pound tin does not mean that the tin contains one pound of meat. The two-pound corn can, for instance, contains only from one and-a-quarter to one and-a-half pounds net weight, so there is
no greater deception in the case of these lobster cans than in the case of any other can; so long as the net contents are plainly shown on the label. As to the consumer paying more, I do not think my hon. friend's argument is at all applicable. The price is regulated by the law of supply and demand. The .market regulates the price, and I do not think the change in weight will have any effect on it. Certainly, if the packers- put three and-a-half ounces into a can, they should receive a higher price than for a can containing only three ounces.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I understand there are fourteen ounces of lobster meat in a one-pound can. What do the other two ounces consist of? Preservative?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The other two ounces consist of a liquid which is absolutely necessary to preserve the lobster meat. The lobster packers contend that the cans can not contain the quantity of lobster meat prescribed by the legislation of 1917. Many of these canners have machinery for making cans of particular sizes, and they say that, to comply with the law, they would be compelled to instal new machinery for turning out cans of a different size. That would put them to very considerable expense, and would also place them at a disadvantage-the facts have not been clearly put before me-as compared with packers in Newfoundland. The packers contend that, although the cans they are now using will not hold the quantity prescribed by law, they will hold the amount prescribed by this Bill, plus the liquid required as preservative. I might give the statutory definition of dry lobster meat:
Dry lobster meat means the meat after a can has been opened, turned upside down so as to permit free escape of the liquid and allowed to drain one minute.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) says that there is no danger of fooling the American or Canadian consumer because the label will show the contents of the can, but apparently in the case of cans exported no questions are asked and no lies told. A can will go across the sea to the Irish consumer, for instance, without any indication of the weight of meat inside the can. It would seem to me to be in the interests of the commercial reputation and progress of this country to show plainly on the label the exact amount of edible meat contained in the can. II do not think that would put

the lobster exporter at a disadvantage, but rather the contrary, because the consumer would know exactly how much edible meat he was buying.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That really was the position of the lobster canners last season. Although the cans indicated a net weight of fourteen ounces of lobster meat, the packers contended they could not possibly get that amount of meat into the one-pound can.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It does not make very much difference how much meat there is in the can, so long as the amount is plainly stated on the label. That would protect the commercial reputation of Canada.


William Stewart Loggie: This matter was before the House five or six years ago when the law was being amended, and it was then pointed out that lobster for export was demanded in plain cans. The buyers in France use their own labels, and I think they have laws protecting the public in that country, as we have here; and the finding on that occasion was that for export it was allowable to let the cans go without any labels, as it would very materially interfere with the canned lobster industry if we were compelled to put labels on here, and these labels had to be taken off and the buyers' labels put on on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. J. H. .SINCLAIR: I do not think the minister should press the resolution without some further consideration. The reasons do not appeal to me at all. We are told that in Newfoundland the can is smaller, or the quantity is smaller. The Dominion of Canada is the largest lobster packing country in the world; and why should we change the size of the can to suit the little island of Newfoundland? There is no good reason for it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not say that,.


John Howard Sinclair: Where does the uniformity come in? No lobsters are packed in the United States. We have a monopoly of the packing business outside of Newfoundland. There is no lobster packing in Europe, as far as I know. If the idea is to aim at uniformity, let us make it uniform here, without raising any question about any outside place. If we say the quantity of lobster to be put into a can must be 14 ounces, it will be uniform as far as we are concerned. It is also said that the machinery that the packers have for making their cans is not adapted to the quantity that is now put into the cans.

That is not a good reason. It may be a reason for one season, or for some temporary arrangement, but it is not a sufficient reason for the passing of an Act. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) says that changing the weight would not affect the price. That is quite true, but it affects the quantity you get out of the can.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think this is in the interests of the consumer, because he will know the exact quantity of lobster meat he is buying. Heretofore he was deceived, because lobsters were sold by the pound can, three-quarter pound, and halfpound cans, and naturally the purchaser believed he was obtaining 16 ounces of lobster meat in the. pound can, whereas it was impossible for the can to hold 16 ounces, since it had to contain a certain amount of liquid preservative. The purpose of this Bill is to fix the number of ounces of lobster meat that will be contained in the can. It is in the interest of the consumer just as much as of anybody else, because every provision is being put into the Bill to safeguard the consumer. With regard to the lobster canner, I think the position he takes is perfectly sound. The law required him to put a certain amount of lobster meat into certain cans, which he could not do. Now, I do not see who will be injured by this Bill. I think it is emin ently wise legislation and that the committee should accept it.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 12, respecting W. C. Edwards and Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, to incorporate Canadian Merchant Service Guild.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 21, respecting the English Valley and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.	*
Bill No. 23, respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cruise.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of the whole on the resolution to

amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Arthur Bliss Copp: Air. Chairman, it is not my
desire to offer any factious opposition to the resolution, but I feel that the minister has not given a sufficiently satisfactory argument to this committee why it should be passed at the present time. He tells us that some time last summer the lobster packers of the Alaritime Provinces, in conclave at Halifax, had come to the conclusion that some change should be made in the Aleat and Canned Foods Act by decreasing the amount of dry lobster meat that they should toe required to place in a pound, three-quarter pound, half-pound, or quarter-pound cans. During the dinner recess I looked up the Act of 1907 which provides for making regulations in regard to canned meats and foods. In that Act I could not find any regulation by which the container, or can, should contain a certain number of ounces of dry lobster meat.


Air.  A. K. AIACLEAN@: There was no legislation prior to 1917.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Act was not to come into force until December 16, 1918, which gave the lobster packers every opportunity to prepare themselves for the required change. They have made no preparation, so far as I can see, and yet they come back and ask-I presume they have asked, although we have had no evidence that they are making any particular demand, except the minister says that the packers met at Halifax and thought some change should be made for some trifling reason, which to my mind is not satisfactory evidence-that we should make this change at the present time. If there is any evidence in favour of making the change my mind is open to conviction. But, Sir, although I come from a constituency in which a large number of lobster packers operate, not one of them has spoken to me in reference to this proposed change. All the evidence in support of it that we have is, simply the Acting Minister of Naval Service coming forward and asking for the passage of this resolution. I say candidly that in my opinion better evidence and more conclusive arguments should be advanced before we are asked to undo what we did in 1917.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If my hon.
friend thinks that the conclusion reached by the Fisheries Committee in 1917 was a wise one, lie should criticise quite severely the legislation which was then passed, because the Act doe.'i not embody the conclusions of the committee. In 1917, for the first time, a Bill was introduced defining what should be the quantity of dry lobster meat in the several cans. Cans of certain 'sizes had been in use in the lobster industry for a great many years. They were known as the pound can, the three-quarter-pound can, and the half-pound can, and it was known to the public-at least to everybody in the trade-that these cans did not contain sixteen ounces avoirdupois of lobster meat. A Bill was introduced into the Commons by the then Minister of Naval Affairs providing that a pound can should contain thirteen ounces of lobster meat; a three-quarter-pound can, nine and three quarter ounces; a half-pound can six and a half ounces; and a quarter-pound can three and a quarter ounces.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When was that Bill passed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill containing those provisions was introduced by the minister in 1917. It was referred to the Fisheries Committee and was there amended to the effect-so I am instructed by the officers of the department-that the pound

cans should contain sixteen ounces of dry lobster meat.


James Alexander Robb: Had not that been the custom for many years, that there should be sixteen ounces to the pound can?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There never was any legislation whatever upon the subject prior to 1917.


James Alexander Robb: But sixteen ounces was in
accordance with the custom of the trade?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A standard can
was in use in the lobster canning industry, but there was no statute requiring that there should be any stated number of ounces of lobster meat in the can. That was required for the first time in the legislation of 1917. I am informed that the Bill, as amended by the Commons, went to the Senate, where it was again amended to the effect that a pound can should contain fourteen ounces, which apparently was one ounce more than was demanded by the Bill as originally introduced. Apparently, the fourteen-ounce provision was a compromise. Now these cans, while selling as pound cans of lobster, never did contain sixteen ounces of meat. The Department last year purchased a great number of cans in order to determine the average quantity of lobster meat which each can contained. I will give the Committee the weight of dry meat in six cans that were purchased, these being the products of Canadian canneries.
No.	Weight of contents.
1	12	-38	ounces2	
11	v89	ounces3	
13	41	ounces4	11	-57	ounces5	12	-38	ounces6	
11	38	ounces
It will therefore be seen that the average content of the pound lobster can was about twelve ounces -sometimes a little over, sometimes a little less. In Newfoundland the average weight in a can of lobster is just about the same as in Canada. That was an undesirable condition of affairs, and I cannot understand how any hon. gentleman can argue that it is at all proper, from the public standpoint, or from the standpoint of the consumer, who has a right to know the exact content of any container in which food is placed. The purpose of this Bill, and it is quite in harmony with recent legislation, is to provide that there shall be four sizes of cans for canning lobsters. The cans of each size shall each contain no less than three ounces avoirdupois, six ounces avoirdupois, nine ounces avoirdupois, and twelve ounces avoirdupois re-

spectrvely of dry lobster meat. Further, each can must have a label giving the name of the packer, and the exact quantity of lobster meat that the can contains. Now, we have never had legislation before to that effect. I think that such legislation is eminently desirable and proper.


Mr. DUFF:: If these cans are marked, will they be marked "1 pound" or "12 ounces?"


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They will be marked 12 ounces, 9 ounces, 6 ounces, 3 ounces. Heretofore the cans have been known as pound cans, three-quarter-pound cans, half-pound cans and one-quarter-pound cans. These designations have been misleading to the consuming public, for the cans do not contain that exact amount of lobster meat, for the reason that in the export trade the cans must contain a certain amount of liquid as a preservative. The principle of the legislation is, therefore, to compel canners to use not more than four different sizes of cans without the written permission of the minister. These cans must contain a definite minimum amount of lobster meat, the amount to be stated on the label. Therefore, from the standpoint of the public and of the consumer, the legislation is fair and should have been enacted long ago. My hon. friend says that the Bill of 1917 did not become effective until December 15 of last year. That is quite true, but the legislation was suspended, not for the reason that he gives, but because the canners had on hand a large quantity of labels and wanted to dispose of them before the Act came into effect. The same is true of British Columbia. Certain canning industries there are compelled by virtue of the Canned Foods Act to print upon the labels additional matter; they still have on their hands a considerable quantity of old labels and they desire that the application of the Act be postponed until the labels which they now have on hand are used.


John Howard Sinclair: If the weight of the dry meat is to be stated on the label, the present labels would not be suitable; they would have to be re-printed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, if the legislation is changed, new labels will probably have to be printed. However, that is not important. Under the statute of 1917, every canner of fish must apply to the can a label setting forth a true and correct description of the contents of the can, including the vernacular name and the minimum net weight of the fish in the can
plainly printed in a conspicuous manner, and stating the name of the place where the same was packed. Now, the canners have been using a standard can for a long number of years. That standard can is known to the Canadian trade and to the export trade, and naturally the canners do not wish to change its size. They say-and I believe it is true,-that they cannot get into this can fourteen ounces of lobster meat without doing danger to the meat. It may be done in some cases, but in the majority of the cases it is not done, and the purchaser thinks that he is buying sixteen ounces of lobster meat. The canner asks that he be permitted to place in these cans the amount of lobster meat which the can will reasonably hold. The public are protected in the fact that the canner must state upon the label the exact amount of lobster meat in the can.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Did the request for this legislation come from the exporters, or from the consuming public?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, I suppose it originated with the lobster canners. I have informed the committee of the action of the fisheries convention at Halifax, at which it was decided that legislation should be introduced as set forth in the resolution. It cannot be said that this legislation is in the interest of the canners only; 'it is equally in the interest of the consuming public.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Apparently my hon. friend has misunderstood my argument in regard to this matter. I understand that this proposed legislation, except in so far as it reduces the amount of dry lobster meat to be placed in the cans, does not change the legislation of 1917. My hon. friend's suggestion that we should have this legislation in order to secure uniformity, is not an answer to my argument. The point I make is that we now have this legislation on the statute book; why make the change?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For this reason: The statute of 1917 provided that a pound can should contain fourteen ounces of lobster meat; the trade says that is impossible. If the trade is right in its representation, the amendment is. a proper one.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What evidence can the minister give the committee that the trade is right in stating that fourteen ounces of lobster meat cannot be put into a pound can?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have already given my hon. friend the reasons. At a conference attended by the lobster canners of the Maritime provinces and technical offi-

cers of the Fisheries Department, it was agreed that twelve ounces would be the proper statutory requirement for the pound can, because the greater quantity could not well be placed there. It may be partly a compromise; I do not say that you could not put twelve and-a-half ounces in the can, or that some packers could not put thirteen in it. But it is better to say that every can of lobster must contain a specified quantity of lobster meat, than to say that a pound can shall contain fourteen ounces, when in all human probability it cannot contain that amount.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend is like myself, not an expert, and he says that the officials in the Fisheries Department are. The officials in the department here who have charge of the fisheries, were before the Committee, and that was not the information they gave, nor was it the information upon which the Committee made their recommendations to this House. Let me quote the "words of one whom I consider an expert in the matter-and I am sure the minister will agree with me in calling him an expert-a man who has quite as good a reputation in the fishery business as some of the officials in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. In this House, on September 6th, 1917, the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr.- Loggie), who has a very great interest in this matter, made these remarks "which will be found on page 5426 of the revised Hansard:
Mr. Loggie:	I happen to he a member of
the committee to which this Bill was referred but unfortunately I was absent when it was under discussion. I certainly would not have given my assent to the report of the committee as it came before the House, nor to the Bill as it passed the House and went to the Senate. As to the contents of tins, whether they should he 16 ounces of dry meat, or 13, or 14, or 15 ounces, that is a matter of opinion. It has not been the practice to put 16 ounces of dry meat in a pound can of lobster for a good many years.
He does not say that it could not be done, but that it has not been the practice for a good many years. Evidently it must be inferred that, for a good many years, packers of lobsters in the Maritime provinces honestly wanted to give the consumer 16 ounces to the pound, and that for a good many years they did that. But, he says, that for a good many years they have not been putting in 16 ounces. He continues:
Dry lobsters are not considered as acceptable to the trade as those that have a little juice in the can when ilt is opened. It has been the practice for many years by most packers to put 15 ounces of meat in a pound can and one ounce of pickle.

If it was the practice for many years to put into the can fifteen ounces avoirdupois of dry lobster meat with one ounce of pickle to preserve it, surely the same can might now be held to contain at least fourteen ounces of dry meat and one ounce of pickle. My hon. friend said that I was altogether wrong with regard to the reason why the coming into force of the Act was delayed until the I5th December, 1918. If I remember correctly, he was not a member of that committee and did not hear the arguments adduced before it. I had the privilege of being present, and I took some interest in the discussion; and while I will not say that the question of labels was not considered at all, I have a very distinct recollection that one of the strongest arguments made for delaying the coming into force of the Act 15th December, 1918, was that many of the lobster packers had their cans ready for that year's operation; further that they had the machinery for making the cans, and it would mean quite a loss to them if they had to change that machinery before another year's operations.


William Stewart Loggie: Who gave the evidence regarding the machinery?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Quite a large number of those who professed to know the lobster business gave the information to the Committee. My hon. friend himself gave some information with regard to it.


William Stewart Loggie: Not to that effect.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And he gave information, as he gave the House information in 1917. that the cans for many years contained fifteen ounces of lobster meat. He advises us now that there should be at least fourteen ounces of dry lobster meat in the one-pound cans. He is prepared to stand behind the recommendation that was made by that committee. He told the acting minister, before the dinner recess, that at the conference at Halifax he advised the delegates not to make application for a change. I am not taking the ground that the cans should not he labelled; that the packer's name should not be on the can; nor that the amount of dry lobster meat should not be stated on the can. Aly hon. friend apparently misunderstands my position. I say that those regulations are placed in the statute book now and they have never been in operation since Parliament passed the legislation; and now, to suit the whim of a few individuals-and he does not give the Committee the advantage of knowing who is making application for this change-he	asks Parliament
to .change the enactments made in 1917

and not coming into force until December, 1918. He says that we were all wrong then and that we should go back to the time when the lobster packers were imposing upon the consumer a one-pound can which, as my hon. friend stated 'to-night, contained only twelve or sometimes thirteen ounces. Until we have further information, this committee should not be asked to pass this resolution, nor the House to pass the Bill to be founded on it.


William Stewart Loggie: I presume the hon. member (Mr. Copp) was a member of the Marine and Fisheries Committee when they asked this House to pass the legislation making the net weight thirteen ounces. That recommendation for a thirteen-ounce can came from the Marine and Fisheries Committee. When it came before this House, I was absent. This House changed the weight, making it sixteen ounces, and sent the Bill up to the Senate. The Senate rejected it, and it came back to this House, and the weight was compromised at fourteen ounces. Thus it became effective on the day the hon. gentleman has mentioned. Let me tell the Cbmmittee why this legislation is asked for.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is what we are endeavouring to find out.


William Stewart Loggie: A number of years ago, Parliament passed an Act to provide that all canned goods should bear a statement of net weight.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When was that passed?


William Stewart Loggie: I cannot recall exactly, but it was quite a number of years ago. I am not sure whether the net weight was to be on the can or not, but the name of the firm was to be set out on the label. On account of that and because of legislation in the United States that compelled all packers to put on the label the net contents of the can, it became desirable that a similar law should become effective in Canada.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Was that after reciprocity was defeated or before?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In what year was reciprocity defeated?


William Stewart Loggie: I can recall in what year reciprocity was defeated, but that has nothing to do with this matter. The reason for this legislation is that the Department of Marine and Fisheries have asked that a standard weight be made law as to the net contents of a can of lobster.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We have that now.


William Stewart Loggie: My hon. friend is asking why this legislation was asked for. I am pointing out that the demand came from the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And we answered the demand.


William Stewart Loggie: The Marine and Fisheries Committee in 1917, recommended thirteen ounces. The House, however, made the net weight sixteen ounces, and in the Senate this was changed to fourteen ounces. The acting minister spoke of six cans the net contents of not one of which weighed fourteen ounces. There is a difference of two ounces in some cases. The object of this legislation is to have a uniform weight. Personally, I have no objection to the law as it now stands, but the majority of the large packers when they met in Halifax decided that twelve ounces should be the standard weight.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is more profitable for them than sixteen ounces.


William Stewart Loggie: The selling price is based on the net contents. This legislation has been in contemplation for some time, and some of the packers have their labels marked at fourteen ounces-


Arthur Bliss Copp: What right had they to assume that Parliament would pass this legislation?


William Stewart Loggie: Fourteen ounces is the
weight under the present law. I have already told my friend that the law in the United States requires the net weight to be shown on the label on every can of lobster entering the United States for consumption there. That has been the law for some' years, and when we were getting labels we naturally had the net weight shown on them. So far as the company in which I am interested is concerned, the net weight on the label is fourteen ounces for the pound can, and seven ounces for the half-pound. Personally, I favour fourteen ounces, but I am willing to bow to the wishes of the majority.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend is prepared to lose the money he has spent on labels, because of the extra profit he will make by reason of the reduction of the net contents of the can by two ounces.


William Stewart Loggie: I am extremely obliged
for the hon. gentleman's interpretation. After all, it is not a very serious matter to have the labels stamped. I have been in



COMMONS '22

[Stage Direction]
the unfortunate situation of sending cans into the United States without the net weight being shown on the labels and have had to remove the cans from the boxes and have them stamped-the existing law was not in effect in the United States when we had the labels made. If Parliament prescribes the weight in this case to be twelve ounces, I shall be very glad to conform to the law, although I prefer the fourteen-ounce can. Many years ago there seemed to be a demand for what we call dry lobster, but conditions have changed and the trade now seems to want a lobster with some liquid in the can. The mode of packing is changed from time to time to conform with the public's taste. The hon. gentleman knows that in the lobster itself there is some liquid, and now the packers put in half an ounce or an ounce of pickle, because the can would not be acceptable to buyers without some liquid.
Mr. CuPP: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question with regard to the reduction in the contents by two ounces.
Mr. LEGER:: The-reasons advanced for
this legislation do not satisfy me of its necessity. Why cannot a can be made to hold sixteen ounces of lobster? If the present cans are not large enough, why not make larger cans? In the district from which I come lobsters are bought by the pound, and if the *weight in the can is to be reduced to twelve ounces, the consumer will lose two or three ounces on every pound he buys. Furthermore, what consideration is being given to the fisherman? The packers when buying from the fishermen demand sixteen ounces to the pound. It would seem to me that the consumer lias been defrauded of a few ounces on every can he has bought for a great many years. I used to think I was getting a pound of lobster when I bought one of these cans, but now I find I was being cheated out of two or three ounces every time. One would think a lobster was one of the precious metals, which weigh twelve ounces to the pound. I think we should fix a standard weight, and if the cans the packers are now using will not hold a pound let them make larger cans, rather than pass eleven or twelve ounces off for a pound.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think
the minister ought to press the resolution after the discussion we have just heard. The main reason he gives us is that you could not get more than fourteen ounces, or at least more than twelve ounces, properly into a can. My hon. friend from Northumberland, who is a well known pack-
[ .Mr. Logigie.]
er and who knows the trade as well as any man in the Maritime Provinces, is able to put fourteen ounces into the can. He does not say you cannot put fourteen ounces in, and his view is evidently directly opposed to that of the minister. We are told that the packers from the Maritime Provinces met in Halifax and decided that a twelve ounce can would be better than a fourteen ounce can. Why? Because they would save that much of the meat. They will not sell that can for one cent less than the can containing fourteen ounces. I have just been making a calculation, and on the pack in the Maritime Provinces, they will save no less than about $400,000 if this Bill passes, while the consumer will lose to that extent. Now, that is why the packers were unanimous in the matter. Of course, they would be unanimous! And next year they might be unanimous in the opinion that ten ounces would be sufficient to put into a pound can. These arguments do not convince me at all, and I do not believe they convince the minister. I think this matter ought to be delayed until further investigation has been made. Questions of this kind are generally referred to the Marine and Fisheries Committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend
might have patience enough until there is something to refer to the committee. It was my intention, and still is, that, the Bill should go to the committee.


John Howard Sinclair: But the resolution?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The resolution
cannot go to the committee; my hon. friend knows that. When the Bill is introduced it will go to the committee.


John Howard Sinclair: If we pass this resolution it means that we have consented to the principle of the Bill, and that is the reason I ask that the resolution be withdrawn.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think that inasmuch as a Bill similar to this, when introduced in 1917, was sent to the Committee on Fisheries, it will be only proper that this proposed Bill should go to the same committee. But you cannot manufacture a Bill in a minute. Unfortunately the rules of Parliament demand-and without any good purpose, in my opinion-that a Bill of this character should be preceded by a resolution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What i-s the reason?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh, I do not want to go into that question just now; but gen-

erally speaking, the reason is because the measure involves expenditure of public money. It is very difficult to 9 p.m. see why this particular Bill should require a resolution. Personally I do^ not believe that any Bill should require a resolution, and I hope that some day the rule in this respect will be amended.
Mr. AIcKENZIE: I understand that any money Bill requires a resolution. That is the practice. But why does this Bill require a resolution? Does it require any expenditure of public money?
Mr. A. K. MACLEAtN: This Bill is only * emendatory of the Meats and Canned Foods Act, which involves an expenditure of money for inspection ,and other purposes. If the Bill were to be considered just by itself, possibly no resolution would be required ; but it is the opinion of the law officer of the House that the Bill must be preceded by a resolution. Now as soon as the Bill is introduced it will go to the committee. I fail to see why hon. gentlemen opposite are disposed to think that the public interests will suffer by reason of this Bill. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Leger) thinks that it is a very dangerous principle to reduce the content of any can, or rather he expressed surprise tnat a container contains a given number of ounces. My hon. friend might as well suggest that a barrel of flour which hais contained 196 pounds for a number of years should be made to contain 200 or 201, or something like that. There is no particular virtue about fourteen ounces as the quantity that a lobster can should contain. In fact, 12 ounces is a much better weight because it is three-quarters of a pound, and the content is more easily calculated by the purchasing public; and I would say that upon that ground, if I were asked for my personal judgment, it would be better to have a twelve-ounce than a fourteen-ounce can. But I have told the committee


James Alexander Robb: Would a sixteen-ounce can
not be much better and more satisfactory to the public?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Possibly it might; but gentlemen who know something about the business, and who are in a position to speak authoritatively on the matter, say that you cannot get sixteen ounces into the present can, which is a well-established container.


James Alexander Robb: Alake the can larger.
Mr. A. K. AlAOLEAN:	True, you can
make the can larger; and you can make
the flour barrel larger so as to contain 200 pounds. These are simply standardized measures, and so long as the public know the standard measurement no interest can suffer.


Auguste Théophile Léger: The hon. minister says
that the barrel containing 196 pounds of flour might be made to contain 200 or 201 pounds. We never calculate a barrel of flour on more than 196 pounds; it is marked on it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Therefore if a pound can of lobster contains twelve ounces, there would be no purpose in calculating on thirteen, or fourteen ounces or anything else, because it is a standard weight. This Bill proposes to establish the standards of weights in four certain sizes of cans for packing lobster.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What would you say if the millers came and asked you to change the law so that they could put 165 pounds into their barrels?


Auguste Théophile Léger: If the committee desire to put fourteen ounces into the can, I would like it to be understood that the fishermen shall get fourteen ounces too.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think we can all agree that the fishermen will get it. Now, as I said in response to the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), it was my intention that the Bill to be founded on this resolution shall be referred to a committee, who, if they see fit, may again have a hearing of witnesses, just as in 1917.


Mr. TURGEON:: It has been stated by the Acting Minister of Fisheries that it had been the custom for years to have no special weight of lobster in the can, and that packers placed anywhere between twelve and sixteen ounces of the dry fish in the can, and that the reason why legislation had been introduced was that public opinion compelled it. The public had found out that on many an occasion they had been deceived, and that instead of getting fourteen or fifteen ounces of dry lobster, they were getting twelve ounces and paying for a pound. That, as I understand it, was the reason for the introduction of legislation. The hon. member for Northumberland is one of the largest packers, and controls perhaps over forty canneries in New Brunswick, half of them in the county of Gloucester which I have the honour to represent. We had him as an authority before the committee. He had not been satisfied when

the committee originally recommended that sixteen ounces be placed in the can in order to satisfy the public that they were getting value for what they were paying. After an experience of forty years in the business, the largest canner in the Maritime provinces and the keenest of them all, he declared that he was satisfied with the decision to put fourteen ounces in the can, and that decision was accepted by everybody. I have been interested in the lobster industry all my life. I represent the largest lobster fishing county in New Brunswick. I know something about the industry, and I know that if you have fourteen ounces of dry meat in a can you have a better quality of lobster than if you have only twelve ounces. That does not matter so much to the lobster packers, if they can get a regulation adopted which will permit them to put twelve ounces in a one-pound can. The people will pay the same price for the can containing twelve ounces of dry meat as they paid 'for the can containing fourteen ounces. The statute passed in 1917 was not to go into effect until December, 1918, and now we have the minister asking that we cancel that legislation. The canners have no excuse now for asking that the legislation be not put into force, because they have their cans made to contain fourteen ounces of dry meat. A can containing twelve ounces of dry meat will not appeal to the public. I do not see why this resolution is brought in. The hon. member for Northumberland is willing to stand by the minister now, but in the testimony which he gave before the committee in 1917 he expressed himself as ready to accept the provision which was then made. Public opinion will be against this change, and will be more strongly against it when it is put in operation. I advise my hon. friend, as strongly and as urgently as I can, to withdraw this legislation. It will have a bad effect upon the people.


William Stewart Loggie: In the list of cans packed that we have here, there are two that are under twelve ounces.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When were they packed ?


William Stewart Loggie: I do not know.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They were packed before there was any regulation regarding the weight at all.


William Stewart Loggie: No, I do not think so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There was no Act at all before the 15th December, 1918.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would not make any difference.
[iTr. Turgeon.]


William Stewart Loggie: I do not know that it would make any difference.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not see why it would not make a difference if they were not packed according to this law. They were packed according to the old law, and there was not any regulation whatever.


William Stewart Loggie: There was not any regulation until this law came into force. But the large packers, meeting at Halifax, discussed the matter fairly and openly, and contended that more than six ounces of dry lobster meat could not be put in the present half-pound can without crushing the meat too much. As for the public inter- . est, personally I do not see how it is not protected. When I pack a can of No. 2 blueberries the net contents are not more than twenty ounces, and yet this is known as a No. 2 can to the public. In the United States they compel us to put the net weight on. The Canadian Government is doing The same thing now. The object is to make the law uniform, that tinned goods must have the net contents on the label. The Robert Simpson Company of Halifax and O'Leary & Lee, of Halifax, are by all odds the largest handlers of canned lobsters in Canada. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) has referred to the output of our firm. It is only a fraction of that of the Robert Simpson Company of Halifax. The representatives of these two leading firms, at the convention in Halifax, came to the conclusion that twelve ounces was the proper weight of dry meat.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend said this afternoon that he opposed that idea.


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. gentleman had better understand what I did. I did not oppose that idea at Halifax; I did not take any part in the discussion. I opposed it on the floor of the House, as the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) pointed out. I said when they proposed thirteen ounces that if I had been present at the committee on Marine and Fisheries and they had suggested thirteen ounces I would have opposed it. I also said that if I had been present on the Soot of Parliament when they changed it to sixteen ounces I would have opposed that. I agreed with the compromise of fourteen ounces when it came back from the Senate. That is all I said upon the matter.


Onésiphore Turgeon: If the hon. gentleman was satisfied with fourteen ounces at the time why is he not satisfied now?


William Stewart Loggie: As far as I am personally concerned I am satisfied, but the majority of the packers are not satisfied.


Onésiphore Turgeon: If the hon. gentleman, with all his experience, was satisfied with fourteen ounces, why does he now tell the House that fourteen ounces is impracticable. The moment you put in four ounces of pickle you reduce the efficiency of the pickle to the extent of the water that you add. You may put in as much as you like but you reduce the quality of the fish. We have had water-soaked bacon upon the market. It makes it heavier but it does not improve the quality. The same thing applies to lobster.


William Stewart Loggie: I presume from the remarks of the hon. gentleman that he is an expert, and it is fair to infer that Robert Simpson and Company, O'Leary and Lee, and the other large packers, do not know what the effect will be when there are only twelve ounces in a can instead of fourteen ounces.


William Duff: I suggest to the hon. member the effect will be that Robert Simpson and Company and the other packers will make a lot of money.


William Stewart Loggie: I differ from the hon. gentleman. I think these goods will be sold on their merits according to the standard weight of the can; the public interest will be conserved, and no interest will suffer, in my judgment. As far as I am concerned, however, I am quite willing to abide by the decision of the committee, and I would suggest that the resolution be passed, as the minister has suggested, and that experts representing such firms as Robert Simpson and Company, and O'Leary and Lee, be sent for. Let them give their evidence before the Fisheries Committee, and then let the committee pass judgment, having heard the evidence. I have already given mine as far as I could do so.


Mr. DENIS:: I strongly support the advice that has just been given by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) who has urged the Government to withdraw this resolution. My information is to the effect that when the old Parliament Buildings were burned, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) was making a speech on the lobster industry, and I think I should have the unanimous support of the committee in saying that we should now do everything in our power to avoid a repetition of that disaster.
Mr. MIC'HAUD: I think we ought to follow the advice of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) who has also given us the opinion of other lobster packers throughout the Maritime Provinces. My hon. friend expresses the opinion that fourteen ounces ought to be put in a one-pound can, whereas others say the contents of a can should weigh twelve ounces. To settle the matter I would suggest that the committee adopt fourteen ounces as the weight, and leave the matter as it stands now.


William Stevens Fielding: I once got into trouble -I may have mentioned this before-by saying I represented more lobsters than any other man in the House, because it so happens that the constituency from which I come is very largely interested in the lobster industry. Besides, I was present during a portion of the proceedings of the Halifax convention, although, unfortunately, I was not there at the moment when this particular subject was discussed. I understood, however, that there were some differences of opinion, and that finally the convention came to a unanimous decision in line With what the minister is now proposing. Of course, it would be fair to say that it was largely a packers convention, but it was not called as a packers convention, but as a convention of all the fishing interests. But the average fisherman in my constituency can hardly afford to separate himself from his work and travel up to Halifax to spend two or three days at a convention. Consequently such a convention, although not invariably, becomes a convention of the large operators, and it was so there. Still, a man may be a large operator and a fairly respectable individual notwithstanding, and many of the gentlemen who were present at that meeting are known to me as business men of high rank. My hon. friend from Northumberland mentioned one or two of them here, and I am quite sure the motives they had were excellent. Now there is more room for controversy in the matter than I had thought there was. I was of opinion that a settlement had been reached after the action of the Halifax convention, but it seems to me now that the proposal of the Minister that the Bill should pass in its present stage, and then be referred to a Committee where evidence can be heard, is necessary in order to meet the wishes of the House.


Mr. DBCHENE:: We have heard a great deal about dried fish and dried lobster. I would ask that the Committee be told

whether the process used for drying lobster is the same process that is employed by Sir Joseph Flavelle, for drying bacon.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there a standard
measure for lobster cans?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The cans are not standardized by law, but by practice. Cans of certain sizes have been in use in the lobster industry in Nova Scotia for a great number of years-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would strike me, Mr. Chairman, that *when we legislate that a can shall contain fourteen ounces and then discover that a can which has been in use for a great many years is not big enough to hold that quantity, the logical thing would be to insist upon a larger can and not cut down the statutory weight. What is the good of saying in our legislation that there must be fourteen ounces of lobster meat in a can, and then drop the legislation and say, "Oh, we forgot, the can is too small?" I think it is altogether illogical.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The statutory requirement was to the effect that a one-pound can should contain fourteen ounces avoirdupois. That is rather paradoxical in itself, and anomalous, because the public would be very apt to expect sixteen ounces avoirdupois in a pound can. When the statute referred to a pound can, what was contemplated was the standardized can in use in that particular trade in the Maritime Provinces and Newfoundland. The House of Commons and the Fisheries Committee knew that it was not possible to get sixteen ounces into a can. My hon. friend is quite right as to the desirability of making the can larger so that it would hold very much more meat. The question therefore is, will you prescribe the exact weight of lobster meat which can go into the standardized can, or will you change the standard can and put in more lobster? I am qaite content to have the committee settle the matter.
Mr. MicKENZIE:	What my hon. friend
says reminds me of a case in which I was trying to help a man to get a little money to build a better house, and I was giving as an argument that the man's wife had to get down on her knees to go through the door, and the reply was made:	"That
would not bother me; let him get a shorter wife." I think we should be logical about this matter and protect the consuming public. There are comparatively few packers and' exporters, and there are millions of people who buy cans of lobster. As protect-

ing this very large number of people we said, "When you go to the store to buy a pound can of lobster you will get fourteen ounces of meat." Well, the public have a right to believe it because we have put it on our statutes, and there it is. Our only excuse is that we have found we made a mistake, that the can is not big enough, and we cannot make a bigger one. But the public will not accept that as a logical protection to the man who is consuming this very excellent and useful food. I think myself we will have to acknowledge we have made a mistake and should never have passed that statute, or else we should live up to it.


John Howard Sinclair: That is done away with by the evidence of the member for Northumberland, who states that he has been able to put fourteen ounces of lobster meat in his cans. The can now used by the lobster packers in the Maritime Provinces has been in use for many years. The member for Northumberland has the reputation of being a good packer, and one of the reasons why his goods are in demand all over the country is that his cans contain honest quantities. It has been contended by the packers that a can should not contain sixteen ounces of lobster meat because there must be some liquid in the can in order to preserve the meat, and the quantity of liquid necessary was arrived at as two ounces. The experience of the member for Northumberland corroborates that; two ounces of liquid is sufficient in his business, leaving fourteen ounces of dry meat. The size of the can, therefore, has nothing to do with this legislation; we are making this change simply because the lobster packers have asked us to do so. The only question now before us is this: Is the House of Commons going to surrender to a lobster combine?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If this matter is considered by a committee, it will be competent for the committee to have packers and consumers appear before it, and judge of the merits of the case. Surely it is not asking too much to suggest that we pass the resolution so that the Bill may soon come before the Marine and Fisheries Committee.


William Duff: Why is it necessary to call the packers and the consumers here at great expense to themselves and to the country when we have the evidence on Hansard now? It would be better for the minister, when he brings down his Bill, to make the amount fourteen ounces instead of twelve.


William Stewart Loggie: The quantity decided upon by the Marine and Fisheries Committee was thirteen ounces. The change was made by Parliament, not by the Committee.


William Duff: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the Marine and Fisheries Committee decided on fourteen ounces, and that Parliament afterwards made it thirteen.


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. gentleman is mistaken; I said nothing of the kind. The finding of the Marine and Fisheries Committee was thirteen ounces, and this was changed by this House to sixteen ounces. The Bill went to the Senate; the Senate changed it, and this House made the quantity fourteen ounces.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the House proceeded to the consideration of Public Bills and Orders.
The House again in committee on Bill No. 2-Mr. Stacey-to amend the Representation Act, 1914, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. STACEY:: I have but little to add to the information given to the House when this Bill was introduced. It is simply to provide that the name of my constituency be changed. It is now known as the "Electoral District of Westminster District," a somewhat cumbersome term, which is much confused with that of the adjoining district known as New Westminster. The Bill asks that the name "Electoral District of Westminster District" be changed to "Electoral District of Fraser Valley."


Mr. CAHILL:: Are my hon. friend's constituents in favour of the change?


Frank Bainard Stacey: I am pleased, to say tnat the change is desired by all concerned, irrespective of party affilliations or relations. "Fraser Valley" is the proper and suitable name for the constituency. I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the House who know the situation are unanimous as to the suitability of the term.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the House proceeded to the consideration of the order; "Questions." _



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-bo rough):: 1.	What was the gross postal revenue derived from newspapers for the year 1918?
2.	What is the -estimated expenditure for the same year in so far as newspapers are concerned?
3.	What is the average daily weight of newspapers carried in the mails?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	$291,539.21.
2.	The department has no data on which a close estimate of the expenditure involved in handling newspapers can be made, except that newspapers make up about 65 per cent of the bulk of the mails. The total expenditure for the carriage of mails and the cost of mail bags during the fiscal year 1918 was $8,293,515.24.
3.	239,731 pounds.


NEW CARLISLE POSTMASTER.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Has a postmaster been appointed at New Carlisle, Quebec? If so, what Is the name of the appointee.
2.	Who were the applicants for the office, how were applications asked for, and how was the selection made ?
3.	What is the salary attached to this office?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes. Private Bertram Wilfrid Blois.
2.	Pte. Bertram Wilfrid Blois, Sgt. Lionel Caldwell, Albert Mathew Caldwell, Lee R. Caldwell, Pte. Richard Flowers, George Milne Kempffer, James Octavius Shearer, Pte. M. Wheelhouse. When the office became vacant, the Civil Service Commission was asked to make a new appointment, and the selection of the new postmaster was made by the commission.
3.	$1,410.


CARLETON MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1: Who is the contractor for the mail service at Carleton, Quebec, for the service between the railway station and Carleton, Carleton Centre and Point Bourque offices?
2.	What is the amount paid, and what is the duration of the contract?
3.	Has any change been made in the last two years in this service?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	N. LeBlanc.
2.	$359 per annum under contract expiring 31st December, 1921.
3.	Ex-Contractor Landry refused to continue the service unless granted an increase in his rate of payment. Tenders were invited in October, 1917, and a contract, dating from 24th January, 1918, awarded to N. LeBlanc, the lowest tenderer.


CANADA REGISTRATION ACT.
Mr. TOBIN:: _
1.	How many persons were registered under
the Canada Registration Act?	,
2.	What is the total cost to date of said registration?
3.	Are any claims yet unpaid?
4.	What is the total amount of same?
5.	When may the claimants expect payment?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	5,245,606.
2.	$631,230.89 including cost of compilation.
3.	Yes.
4.	About $15,000.
5.	When the claimants have complied with the regulations, and submit necessary vouchers in support of their claims.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	What has been the total cost to the country of the Department of Public Information from its inception to the end of 1918?
2.	How many employees are at present in the Department?
3.	What is the present total cost of the department per month?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the operations of this department?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Total $81,414.84.
2.	25.
3.	$4,400 per month exclusive of cost of printing and cables, which varies from month to month. At the present time these expenses paid by the department are running about $7,400 per month.
4.	The matter is under the consideration of the Government, and an announcement will be made in due course.


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What is the total cost from March 31, 1917, to March 31, 1918, of the Department of Public Information?
2.	How many persons were employed in this Department on March 1, 1919?
3.	How many branches of work are being undertaken by this department?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	The total cost of the Department of Public Information from its inception to March 31, 1918, was approximately $18,000.

2.	25.
3.	Two branches, one comprising press publicity and related subjects; the other platform publicity and subjects related thereto.


CANADA REGISTRATION BOARD.
[Stage Direction]
Mr, KAY:
1.	Is the Canada Registration Board still in existence? If so, how many employees has it and what is the monthly cost to the country?
2.	What was the total cost of registering the men and women of Canada in the summer of 1918?
3.	What practical use has been made of the information secured by this registration?
Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	No, the services of the last employee were dispensed with February 12, 1919.
2.	$491,900.44.
3.	(a) Approximately 107,000 volunteers for agricultural work were secured, and names and addresses given to provincial authorities, who drew largely from this supply;
(b)	A complete list of the names and addresses of French, Belgian and Italian citizens in Canada of military age was prepared, at the request of the Consuls-Gen-eral, for recruiting purposes on completion of the conventions between these countries and Canada, which were in process of negotiation.
(c)	The names and addresses of approximately 66,000 Russians in Canada were on application furnished to the Department of Justice.
(d)	A complete tabulation, by ages, was made, showing all men physically fit, of every nationality; thereby providing accurate information as to available man-power for military purposes for use had the war continued and further drafts been necessary.
(e)	Various other tables of important information gathered from the registration statistics showing the number of male persons, British born, British naturalized and of alien birth or naturalization, by constituencies, have been tabulated and will appear in the board's printed report.
(f)	Tabulated information respecting the number of workmen available and skilled in various trades, to enable the best possible distribution of labour, would have been prepared had the Armistice not intervened, thereby rendering the expense of compiling this information unnecessary.


CANADIAN DAILY RECORD.
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Is the Canadian Daily Record still published and distributed?

2.	Up to the 1st of March inst., how many numbers have been published?
3.	Where can the complete file of this Government publication be had?
4.	Why is that Canadian Government publication not distributed to the members?
5.	Why is not a complete file of this publication available in the members' reading room?
6.	How much has the publication of this paper cost the public up to the 1st March, 1919?


Hon. Mr. ROWELOL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	668.
3.	At the office of the Director of Public Information, Hope Chambers, Ottawa.
4.	The Canadian Daily Record has been printed solely for the use of Canadian soldiers overseas and copies have not been distributed in Canada. Any member of Parliament may have copies regularly addressed to him on request.
5.	Answered by number 4.
6.	From June 1, 1917, to March 1, 1919, the cost of the Canadian Daily Record was approximately $94,000. The first number of the paper was published on January 16, 1917, but figures from that date to .Tune, 1917, are not available at present.


MESSRS. BRODERICK AND SOWDEN.
[Stage Direction]
Sir SAM HUGHE'S:
1.	Did Michael E. Broderick and Felix M. Sowden, of the Post Office Department, enlist for the war and go overseas?
2.	Biave they since returned to the Post Office Department at Ottawa?
3.	Have they participated in the regular promotions which have been made in their Department?
Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Promotions in the Inside Service can only be made when vacancies occur in the higher grades and are not made at regular intervals. The officers mentioned have, however, received the regular statutory increases of salary each year since they enlisted.


DORCHESTER POST OFFICE.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Has the Government opened any post offices in the County of Dorchester during the year 1917?
2.	If so, where and on what dates?
3.	What salary does each postmaster receive?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2. Anvers-Township	of Cranbourne, opened January 24, 1917; Drouin-Township of Standon, opened January 25, 1917;
Dijon-Township of Standon, opened September 11, 1917.
3.	$60 a year.


DORCHESTER MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Did the Government make any new contracts for the conveyance of mails in the County of Dorchester during the year 1917?
2.	If so, to whom were they given, and for what routed?
3.	What amounts have been paid to such mail contractors?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. The fallowing statement gives names of routes, names of the several contractors, the amount paid per annum, and the date in 1917 on which new contract went into effect and from which contractor was paid: Anvers and Culdaff, R. Bolduc, $156.50, 25th January; Cadrin and St. An-selme, A. Royer, $100, 1st January; Chemin Nelf and Standon, J. Bouffard, $160, 20th September; Dijon and St. Abdon, J. Vachon, $125, 11th September; Drouin and Standon, C. Corriveau, $190, 26th January; Fir Grove and Frampton, D. Lacasse, $930, 1st April; Frampton and Springbrook, D. Lacasse, $100, 1st April; Genest and St. Bernard de Dorehestet, N. Nadeau, $49.75, 1st July; Guindon and St. Prosper de Dorchester, A. Grenier, $175, 1st October; Lacasse and Standon, P. Brousseau, $96, 1st January; O'Farrell and St. Malachie, F. Pare, $200, 1st January; Poliquin and Ste. Rose de Watford, J. Lacasse, $100, 1st October; Ste. Aurelie and St. Prosper de Dorchester, A. Vachon, $550, 22nd October; St. Bernard de Dorchester Rural Route No. 2, A. Laflamme, $425, 16th July; Ste. Henedine Rural Route No. 1, A. Royer, $400, 4th June; Ste. Henedine and Railway Station, J. Labbe, $200, 1st October; St. Prosper de Dorchester Rural Route No. 1, P. Nolet, $939, 2nd May; Ste. Rose de Watford Rural Route No. 1, L. Morin, $362, 1st April.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the House reverted to Government Orders.


GOOD ROADS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Nickle in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that for the purpose of constructing and improving highways in Canada, the Governor in Council may authorize the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada of the sum of
[Stage Direction]
twenty million dollars during the period of five years from the first day of April, 1919 ; which sum shall he allotted and paid as follows: (a) eighty thousand dollars each year to the Government of each province, and (to) the remainder of such sum to the Governments of the respective provinces, in Proportion to the populations of the said provinces respectively, as determined by the latest Federal census of each province; and the said payments shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) any highway for which aid'is granted Shall be constructed or improved, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be made by the minister with the Government of the province, which agreement shall contain such provisions as to cost, description, specifications or otherwise as the Governor in Council may approve; (to) the aid to toe given, in any case shall toe forty per cent of the amount which in the opinion of the minister is the actual, necessary and reasonable cost of the construction or improvement of such highway, as the case may he; and further that regulations may be made for giving effect to the objects and purposes of this proposed legislation, and an annual report thereon shall toe laid before Parliament.
John Dowsley Reid: This is a very important resolution. If it becomes law, it means the expenditure of a very large amount of money on a very important work. I would like to have the resolution passed and the Bill introduced, and when the Bill comes before the committee we shall, of course, have a discussion as to its merits. The resolution is important for this reason: We all know that for many years the Government have been expending large amounts of money on railways and waterways, and we feel it is now necessary to expend money on our highways in order to provide proper transportation facilities for the public. A good deal has already been done towards improving our highways, but much more must be done. A very large amount of money will have to be expended almost immediately in order to bring our highways up to the proper standard. In this connection the Government have taken into consideration the necessity of providing employment for our returned soldiers as well as for other labour throughout the Dominion that is at present calling for employment. If Parliament passes the Bill to be founded on this resolution, the Dominion Government will pay a portion of the cost of the highways, the construction of which we agree to assist. The several provinces have divided their roads into three classes, which they call respectively first class, second class and third class.
The first-class roads are the main highways which carry the greatest amount of traffic. The second-class roads are the ones leading to the market centres, which do not bear so much traffic. The third-class roads are those leading up to the other two.

The intention of the Government is to assist only in the building of the first-class roads. The second-class roads are built by the provincial government and the municipalities, and the third-class roads by the municipalities.
Practically all civilized countries have received assistance in the building of roads from their central governments. In the country to the south of us, the different states of the Union started to build roads of their own accord, but afterwards the Government at Washington came to their assistance, and now a large amount is being spent by the federal government in the building and upkeep of the main highways. There are many reasons why we should have good roads. First, I believe that good roads will be of great assistance to our rural population. They will decrease the cost of transportation from the farm to the market. To-day, at certain seasons of the year it is almost impossible for farmers living twenty, or thirty, or forty miles from any large centre, such as Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton or Montreal, to reach the central markets by road. Good roads will enable them to take advantage of these central markets. Furthermore, the building of these roads will provide employment for a great many of our citizens, and particularly the returned soldiers, for whom employment must be found. Good roads will also facilitate passenger traffic between different parts of the country. In the United States quite a lot of passenger traffic is done on their main highways by means of the automobile. The value of land in the sections through which these roads will run will also be very greatly increased -to a degree, I believe, almost equal to the amount of money expended on the construction of the roads. Then we shall have a great many tourists coming to Canada, and they will naturally leave a great deal of money in this country, and many of them will no doubt like Canada so well that they will make their home here. Good roads will also save our rural population a great deal of money by the slower depreciation of their vehicles, and will add greatly to the convenience of country life. Practically the whole rural population of Canada at the present time have the telephone. Now, in case of sudden illness, with good roads and -the telephone a physician could be summoned to any part of the country and could get there in quick time. I have travelled over a great many miles of the good roads of the United States, and the people there are unanimous in saying that the roads which

the Federal Government has constructed are one of the greatest assets of the country.
Hon. members will remember that the House of Commons passed similar legislation to this in 1912, but that it was rejected by the Senate as that Chamber did not think public opinion would approve of money being spent on highways at that time. The Bill was passed a second time by this Chamber, but was again rejected by the Senate. At the last election the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's policy of assisting in the construction of national highways.
We would like to have this Bill passed for the puropse of giving employment to those who are in need of it at this time. The principal reason for it is not so much to give employment as that the work is of the utmost importance and should, we think, be proceeded with in order to facilitate transportation. If lion, members can see their way clear this evening, I would like to have the resolution passed so that the Bill may be read a first time and printed. I do not wish to urge the Bill, after it has got its first reading, until hon. members have had time to consider it and thoroughly understand what it intends.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister kindly tell the Committee if the policy of the Government in regard to this matter is the same as it was when they first introduced the Bill in 1912?


John Dowsley Reid: No, this is not exactly the same.
Mr. MeKENZIE: What is the difference?


John Dowsley Reid: The distribution of our contribution is different from what it was at that time. However, so far as that is concerned, I am willing, when it comes to the Cbmmitt.ee, if necessary, to amend it in any way.
Mr. MeKENZIE: What I really wished to ask the minister is, does the Government still adhere to the policy it adopted in 1912 as to the class of roads upon which this money is to be expended?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes; the intention at that time was to expend money only on first>class roads, and that is the intention now.
Mr. PR01JLX:	Are the roads classified
by the officers of the Dominion Government or by officers of the province?


John Dowsley Reid: The roads will be classified on specifications to be agreed on between the Dominion and the province. After the road has been located and specifications
have been agreed upon the Dominion Government will have an inspector who will see that the road is constructed in accordance with the specification, and the Dominion Government will not agree to make expenditures except on first-class roads.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER (East York):: I understand that about three years ago a measure somewhat similar to this was before the House. I believe it was for the purpose of building a transcon-10 p.m. tinental highway of a high standard, and the responsibility was to be entirely with the Dominion Government. Now you have changed your attitude somewhat by placing the responsibility of this Government upon the provincial government; that is, I understand this 520,000,000, .to be spread over five years, is to be divided amongst the various provinces. Three standards of road construction are mentioned. I do not know what the specifications or standards are, but I venture to say that the standard of even No. 1 would not be sufficient for a transcontinental highway of the standard that should be built. We have a standard in the Toronto-Hamilton highway which is the best and highest of any construction in Canada, but I do not think that even that construction, if we are going to build a transcontinental highway with the increased traffic between the various centres, would be sufficient. This Government should adopt the best standard, looking to the future. They should take the responsibility, if they adopt the policy of the transcontinental highway, of the expenditure of - that money. Why should we divide up this money and hand it to the provinces, whose system is one of patronage, as we know? This Government knows no patronage, and the experience with the Toronto-Hamilton highway, which was built under the provincial government, was that we got -only about 60 or 65 cents on the dollar of that construction. Where did the other 35 cents go? I would say, perhaps in the way of patronage, or bad management, or lack of experience; but at any rate we did not get 100 cents oil the dollar in value on that construction. Then, if that is the experience in connection with provincial work in the past, why should we hand more money over to the provinces and get only 60 cents on the dollar for the money we are going to expend? If we are going to adopt a policy of 'highways that means a large expenditure spread over some years, then let us have our own equipment, our own engineers, and act on our own respon-

sibility, and see that we get full value for the money spent. There will be no patronage if the Dominion Government spends this money, but under the provincial system there is unlimited patronage, and you know what that means, so far as getting value is concerned.
I think the idea of spending money to give work to the unemployed is commendable if you can really give work to the unemployed, but as I said the other day, I am afraid that this undertaking of spending $20,000,000 by this Government will not accomplish what we would like to see accomplished. It has been stated that this is to give employment to the returned soldier. I said the other night, and I say again now, that the returned soldier is not looking for pick and shovel work, he is not going to respond to the call for that kind of employment. Then if the returned soldier does not respond, whom will you call on? The next class of unemployed are the men in the large cities. There are thousands in the various cities, but will you get any response from them? The unemployed in the cities, where they have their families and homes, will not, I think, go twenty, or thirty, or fifty miles for employment. And what class of people are they? /They are not labourers; they are mechanics, and perhaps clerks, men who are not used to the pick and shovel. I venture to say they will not respond to the call to that kind of work. Well, if that class does not respond, where will you draw from? It is said that we have prepared specifications and so on and are prepared to go on with the construction. If we are, we must get men; and who will respond to the call for that work. It will be the men in the villages and towns. It is surely not our intention to spend $20,000,000 to draw men from the farm when we want them to produce and to help to reduce the high cost of living. You are going to increase the high cost of living by drawing labour from the farm. The farm labourer will say: Work on the highways will mean shorter hours and a larger amount of money for me than I can eam elsewhere. He will then get $3.50 or $4.50 a day, while on the farm he will gefr $2 or $2.50, and he will work on the highways eight hours a day, whereas on the farm he will work ten or twelve. You are going to draw from that class of the community. We should be very careful in handling this matter and making this expenditure.
I think there is another method that might be adopted and by which we would 
get very much better results. Instead of saying that we ure going to spend this money on highways to give work to soldiers and to the unemployed in the cities, from whom you would not get a response, spend $10,000,000 or $15,000,000, buy tractors and farm implements and say to the returned soldiers who are offering to go on the land: We will supply you with tractors, ploughs and the necessary implements to enable you to carry on your work. The Government will purchase these. They will send practical operators to run the tractors. They will break up the land and they will thus be producing and encouraging young men to take up farming. After a young man has broken up 100 acres of land and has got through his first year, the Government might say: We will sell you a tractor and the necessary implements to continue your work. I venture to say that if he is successful in the first year in producing a crop he will be in a position, with reasonable conditions, to buy these implements. Such a policy would help to increase production. On the other hand, you are not increasing production and you are drawing^ the producer away from a productive occupation to one that is going to be unproductive from the standpoint of increasing the food supply of the country and reducing the high cost of living. I think the subject is of such importance that the House should give it thorough consideration, should debate it from A to Z, and see whether this is the right thing to do or whether we cannot do /something better than what is here proposed. Therefore, if we hand this large amount of money over to the municipalities who are not responsible to this Government, and if highways are built that are not up to the standard, the public will hold this Government accountable. That is the way the Government do things; they hand their money over to somebody else to spend for them, and they only get value representing fifty or sixty per cent. I do not believe that is good business, or that it will produce the results that hon. gentlemen have in mind.


Mr. GUSTAVE BOYER (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: I have listened with much attention to the statements made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in explanation of the resolution relating to the improvement of highways, and I congratulate the Government upon this new policy. The improvement of highways throughout the different provinces is now a predominant question and I venture to say that this is a very joyful piece of news to every one


' MARCH 21, 1919 7.33
[Stage Direction]
interested in the progress and welfare of this country.
I understand however by the explanations given by the hon. minister that the law only provides for the construction of roads, and that no provision is made for the construction of bridges. Being greatly interested in a project which is already quite old, namely:	the construction of
bridges between Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Isle Perrot and Vaudreuil, I beg to ask this honourable House to allow me to draw its attention to this most urgent improvement. It is assuredly a good practice to construct roads, but this practice will always be incomplete if no bridges are built over the rivers which have to be crossed to travel on the highways. And in order to give a better explanation to my statement, I will quote the following extract from the report of the Montreal resident engineer of the Department of Public Works, dated 1st April, 1913, on these projected bridges:
"Communication by a great highway between the Island and the city ot Montreal to Ottawa and Toronto and intermediate points cannot be accomplished without the construction of these proposed bridges.
"The work in question, although not strictly a national enterprise, has surely a character of general interest and can be considered as a federal work, taking into account of the great interest engaged in the province of Quebec and Ontario."
This question of the construction of the Isle Perrot bridges is not a recent one. During the session of 1910, a delegation composed of eminent citizens of the counties of Vaudreuil and Jacques-Cartier came to Ottawa, met the then Prime Minister, the late Rt, Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and urged the construction of those bridges; the citizens of Isle Perrot specially had shown the essential importance of this means of communication with the mainland. I am in a position to say what happened on that occasion as I was at the head of the delegation. We obtained a most satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister, and the delegates returned home hopeful. Afterwards, an interview was granted to me, by the Prime Minister, who gave me reason to believe that, at the coming session (1911) -the matter would take on a more cheerful appearance. From then on, I decided to press the matter before the Government at the following session; I spoke to the then member for Jacques-Cartier, the late Hon. Mr. Monk, who was equally anxious to see that the construction of these two bridges was carried out, owing to the fact that our constituencies were adjoining and separated by the Ottawa river. The hon. member for Jacques-Cartier who became,
afterwards, Minister of Public Works, promised me, with enthusiasm, his co-operation which was to be of a great help to me in Parliament, when, suddenly, Parliament prorogued.
Then the elections of September 1911 brought a change of Government. Before the following session, 1911-12, I had reason to believe, for some time at least, that hope was not lost. Seeing that Mr. Monk had been appointed Minister of Public Works,
I felt sure that he would not forget the hearty co-operation that he had promised and that he would give new life to the matter, and I am bound to think that if this gentleman had lived longer, the project would be much further advanced than it is to-day.
I can safely assert these things, as. on several occasions he had given me the honour of a hearing with respect to it. Under date of the 28th August, 1912, Hon. Mr. Monk wrote as follows to the Prime Minister of Quebec asking to what extent his Government was willing to contribute towards the constructions of the two bridges:
The need has been felt long ago for a bridge connecting the Island of Montreal to Ste. Anne de Bellevue, and another between He Perrot and Vaudreuil, allowing continuous travelling by foot and conveyance from the great centre of Montreal to the main road leading from the Province of Ontario to Vaudreuil. The most convenient place for the construction of these two bridges appears to be near the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway bridges which cross the Ottawa River at Ste. Anne de Bellevue and Vaudreuil.
The construction of these bridges or connections would be less expensive were they laid between the two existing railway bridges at the above named localities and supported by their pillars. Estimates of railway engineers which I have obtained providing proper passage and a swing bridge above the Ottawa River at Ste. Anne would cost approximately between $200,000 and $250,000.
My aim in writing is to ascertain if your Government would contribute half the cost of this improvement so necessary to the need of the population of Montreal and outskirts. Not being a provincial one in its nature and character, I would recommend to the Federal Government the granting of a subsidy covering half the costs, provided the Provincial Government undertake an equal proportion. While the Federal Government only subsidizes interprovincial construction or other works of a national interest, it would, I think, in this instance in view of the importance of the undertaking and the general convenience resulting from it, feel favorably disposed towards this suggestion. The preparation of the estimates for the ensuing year being under way, I would respectfully request an answer at an early date.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will readily realize, as stated by Mr. Monk, that the Government was then inclined to give the pro-
[Stage Direction]
7.>4
ject serious consideration. Under date of September 5, 1912, the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec replied to Mr. Monk in the following terms:
I must inform you that the Government of the Province of Quebec will be disposed to contribute to the cost of the construction of the bridge joining the Island of Montreal and Ste. Anne de Bellevue with He Perrot and the other bridge joining He Perrot to the mainland at Vaudreuil.
But we would like that the municipalities interested contribute to these works. As was done in the case of the bridge of St. Jean d'Iberville. If you will insert In your estimates the amount you mention, I am inclined to believe that we could bring the interested parties to do their share. The Government of Quebec, on the other hand, will surely do its part.
Under date September 9, 1912, Hon. Mr. Monk again laid the matter before Sir Lomer Gouin and wrote:
You state that the Government of the Province would be disposed to contribute to the cost of these works, but that the interested municipalities contribute their share, must I infer that the Government of the Province will contribute only if the interested municipalities contribute themselves. What are the municipalities interested and are they themselves disposed to contribute?
As we are at present preparing the estimates for the next fiscal year, I would like to have a definite answer regarding contribution, as if they give us the support I have mentioned in my_ previous letter, I personally intend to ask the Government to contribute half of the cost of those works so much needed in the public interest.
On the 14th September, 1912, the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec further assured Mr. Monk in the following words:
As regards the Government of Quebec, I must assure you that we are ready to do our fair share. Kindly insert in your estimates an amount of fifty per cent of the probable cost of those works, and I have reasons to believe that tve shall persuade the interested municipalities to do their share. The construction of those bridges is too important that we should not do our utmost to carry it through.
And on the 16th September, Mr. Monk wrote the following letter to the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec which appeared to close the matter:
I have received this morning your letter of the 14th instant with regard to the proposed bridges of Ste. Anne and Vaudreuil. I thank you for having givert this most important question the prompt attention given by your reply'.
I would have appreciated from you a definite assurance which would have permitted me to show that the Government of the Province was disposed to do something in the matter. Mean-^. Avhile, I am satisfied of your intimation that if we contribute 50 per cent, your Government will do its share.
Under date of September 11, 1912, the members of the county council of Sou-

langes, assembled under the presidency of the prefect, Mr. Ovila Besner, adopted a resolution requesting the Hon. Mr. Monk to come to a conclusion with the provincial government regarding the construction of the bridges between Vaudreuil and iSte. Anne de Bellevue and crossing lie Perrot. This resolution was signed by the following mayors: Messrs. Ovila Besner, St. Poly-carpe; Jos. Menard, St. Olet; Oscar H. Besner, Coteau-du-Lac; Frenore Lalonde, St-Zotique; Elzear Deguire, M.D., Coteau-du-Lac village; Edouard Goyer, Les Cedres; Leon Daoust, St-Polycarpe; L. P. Delage, Coteau Station; J. F. Bissonnette, Coteau Landing; Napoleon Sauve, Riviere Beau-dette.
Under date of October 1, 1912, the then Minister of Public Works, answering to the above request, said that he had had correspondence with the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, and had been assured by him that the provincial government would do its share, but that the interested municipalities should also contribute. He further promised his most careful consideration to the request as it called for the construction of bridges, which would be of such a general utility. On the same day when refei ring the petition to his deputy minister the Hon. Mr. Monk said: "In preparing your estimates for the province of Quebec, this matter should be taken into consideration." On the 7th of October of the same year, an order was given to the resident engineer of the Public Works Department, at Montreal, in connection with the said bridges, in the following terms: "Kindly make the necessary examinations and let me have a report on the work required Avith estimate of its cost, as soon as possible. Therefore, it is clear from this correspondence that the matter was practically decided at that time. However, the retirement of Mr. Monk came suddenly.
These steps were the preliminaries. Now, let us see what took place afterwards and what are the considerations which militate in favour of the construction of these bridges. The proceedings that I have already pointed out were purely local. They originated in the counties of Vaudreuil and Soulanges. Up to that time we might have been lead to believe that the advantages derived from these proposed bridges would be solely confined to the residents of that region. I will endeavour to show that such is not the case. If the arguments in favour of the construction of these bridges are not, owing to the geographical position, such

as to justify their being called interprovincial bridges, they are certainly strong enough, having regard to the general convenience to be derived from them for the benefit of the whole of Canada, to justify the Federal Government in making the necessary provisions for their construction. The fact that the request for these bridges comes from everywhere in Ontario as well as in Quebec further supports the move advocated. On the 20th of January, 1913, a group of prominent citizens of Montreal and elsewhere held a meeting at the Windsor Hotel, Montreal, under the auspices of Interprovincial Highways and Bridges Committee, to create considerable and fruitful agitation in favour of the construction of these bridges. Among the gentlemen present i may mention, as far as I can remember, the following: C. E. Ranger, Mayor, Dorion, P.Q.; F. L. Wanklyn, Mayor of Senneville, P.Q.; Andrew J. Dawes; Eugene Tarte; Lt.jCol. A. E. La-belle, president of Chamber of Commerce; Dr. L. de L. Harwood; W. C. Murray, Vice President Dominion Commercial Travellers' Association; L. A. Sauve, Coteau; E. D. Maguire; A. Arthur Ross; H. Pilon, M.L.A., Vaudreuil; C. A. Harwood, K.C.; F. H. Anson, Chairman of Good Roads Committee and Bruno Lalonde, Mayor Ste Anne de Bellevue, and many others, as well as myself. After discussion, it was unanimously resolved:
That it is of the greatest interprovinoiai importance and necessity that bridges be constructed at the earliest possible date, one from Ste. Anne de Bellevue to He Perrot and another from lie Perrot to Vaudreuil, so as to connect the Island of Montreal with the mainland, and establish a highway connection between Montreal and Toronto, and with that end in view that this meeting undertake at once to solicit the support of the Federal and Provincial Governments, as well as the co-operation of the municipalities and county councils situated between Toronto and Montreal.
Certified a true copy.
(Signed) A. Cholette, Chairman.
Geo. A. McNamee, Secy.
This resolution was forwarded to the Hon. Mr. Monk who acknowledged it on the following day in the same encouraging terms of his previous correspondence. On the 22nd of January, 1913, the Montreal Board of Trade passed the following resolution which was also forwarded to the Government :
Resolved that the need of bridge communication between the Island of Montreal and the roadways to west points thereof has been felt long ago:
That, because the connection of the provinces by good highways is a matter of public convenience and promotes business, the Council
hereby prays the Dominion and Provincial Government to join in providing the much needed road communication between the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario by the construction of bridges across the Ottawa River at St. Anne's and Vaudreuil.
Certified a true copy.
(Signed) Geo. Hadrill, Secretary.
This period marks the beginning of a^ movement which has increased almost"' daily ever since. A large number of the members of the City Council of Montreal also brought up this question, and especially Alderman Joseph Elie and one of our colleagues in this House who is an exalderman of the said city, Mr. L. A. Lapointe. These two gentlemen had a resolution passed recommending the construction of the said bridges. This shows the importance that the city of Montreal attaches to this question. Several delegations to the Quebec Government composed of citizens of Montreal and of other parts of the province had the result of causing Sir Lomer Gouin and his colleagues tb decide to co-operate largely in furthering this project. Other committees of citizens are actually taking steps to bring about a favourable conclusion to this enterprise which can be rightly considered as being a national undertaking. In order, Mr. Speaker, to show that the need of bridges over the Ottawa river at the points indicated is not only a local one, I shall read a resolution adopted by a number of municipal councils and boards of trade who have no particular interest in Vaudreuil or Soulanges:
Whereas a general movement in the province and in the country at large is being manifested for the improvement of road's and bridges and more facilities of communication between important localities in the province;
And whereas a strong movement has been inaugurated for the improvement of the highways and bridges between Montreal and Toronto and Montreal and Ottawa;
And whereas such highway and bridge improvements would facilitate the means of communication between the said cities and the intermediate districts;
And whereas also such highways and bridges would be of great advantage to trade and commerce in said cities, and in the rural districts lying between said cities ;
And whereas it is advisable that all public bodies should concur in this movement;
And whereas especially to carry out the said project, a bridge is required to connect the Island of Montreal with the mainland at a point in the County of Vaudreuil;
Be it therefore resolved that this Council is favourable to the improvements of this great interprovincial and national road between Montreal and Ottawa and Montreal and Toronto, and that it asks the Local Government of this province and the Dominion Government to take immediate and necessary steps for the establishment of such a road between Montreal and
[Stage Direction]
Toronto and 'Montreal and Ottawa, and further that the said Governments adopt such means as they may judge fit to give effect to the same, and also give such aid and vote such sums of money as are necessary for the establishment of said highways and bridges, including the necessary expenses for the establishment of bridges and crossings, and mere especially for the establishment of a bridge to connect the island of Montreal and the mainland at a point in the [DOT] county of Vaudreuil and this Council assures said Government that any efforts made in the above direction will be fully appreciated.
This resolution was unanimously passed by the following corporations:	Montreal
Board of Trade, city of Toronto, Cornwall Board of Trade, Prescott Board of Trade, Brockville Board of Trade, Belleville Board of Trade, Kingston Board of Trade, Dominion Commercial Travellers' Association, Chamber of Commerce, Montreal, the Motor Import Co. of Canada, Automobile Club of Canada, Ontario Motor League, township of Cornwall, town of Cornwall, municipality of Brockville, municipality of the city of Belleville, municipality of Charlottenburgh, municipality of town of Prescott, municipality of township of Osna-bruck. In addition to these, this same resolution has been passed by 23 other adjoining municipalities.
These resolutions were brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works at Ottawa on the 8th of April, 1913, by a distinguished and numerous delegation, which was organized by Mr. Geo. A. Mc-Namee, the active and devoted secretary of the Canadian Automobile Association. It was composed of two hundred persons at least, representing the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Brockville and others, many counties, towns and parishes of the interested regions, as the counties of Vaudreuil, Sou-langes, Jacques-Cartier, Glengarry, Prescott, Cornwall, etc., who came to meet the then Minister of Public Works (Hon. Robert Rogers).
Amongst the delegates composing this delegation were Lt.jColonel W. N. Ponton, Honorary President of the Ontario Board of Trade; Thomas Church, Mayor of Toronto; Huntley R. Drummond, A. D. Dawes, of Montreal; The General A. B. La-belle, G. A. MacNamee; Controllers Macdonald and Godfrey, of the city of Montreal, representing the city council; F. L. Wanklyn, from the Executive of the Canadian Pacific Railway; W. C. Murray, VicePresident of the Commercial Travellers' Association; Eugene Tarte, of Montreal; the mayors of all the municipalities of the counties of Vaudreuil and Soulanges; the following members of Parliament, Messrs. North-rup, Fripp, Proulx, Broder, McMillan

(Glengarry), MacDonell (Toronto), Ethier, Sexsmith, Lafortune, Lapointe (St. Jaques), Papineau, and others. I was one of this delegation, and I remember the answer of the minister to the delegates. This answer has always been impressed in my mind. It was so typical, especially when uttered before such a distinguished and representative delegation. As far as I can remember, the answer was as follows:
We have at the present time a Bill befoi-e the Senate, providing for an expenditure of $10,000,000 for the improvement of highways. The Senate has been requested to pass this measure but are now taking objections to it. Then, it is up to you, delegates, to join together and see the honourable members of the Senate, and try to convince them of the necessity of ratifying this Bill. And, if a result is obtained, the Government will see afterwards, as to what is to be done.
We are all familiar with the tribulation which this law was subjected to. After having been passed by the Commons, it was amended by the Senate and sent back to this Chamber. The Government not desiring to accept the amendment passed by the Senate, this Bill as a result of such action, has remained a dead letter ever since. The amendment brought by the Senate to the Highway Bill was simply as to the manner of distributing the ten million dollars. It stipulated that the money voted by virtue of the Bill would be spent by each province on the pro rata of their population, such as is done each year in the distribution of subsidies1 to the different provinces. The opposition to the Highways Bill in the Senate at that time was fully justified, as it only asked the Government to give each province the right to improve and to construct its own roads.
As I have already stated, instructions had been given, on the 7th October, 1912, to the District Engineer of the Public Works Department to prepare plans and make an estimate of the probable cost of this bridge. The Engineer made his report to the Chief Engineer as follows:
I beg to inform you that after a careful examination and study of the matter, I came to the conclusion that the best site for the proposed bridge, at Ste. Anne de Bellevue would be between the railway bridges by connecting the piers of said bridges with sufficiently strong cross girders and proper tunnels at both ends.
This scheme would meet all the requirements of the traffic and cost some $80,000 less than an independent bridge built on piers.
In view of this, I have communicated with the officials of the C.P.R. and G.T.R. companies for permission to use the piers of their respective bridges for the proposed rural bridge.
I expect their answer in a few days and will then report to you fully on the matter.

Under the same date the District Engineer of the Public Works Department wrote to the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to the Vice-President of the Grand Trunk Railway Company the following letter:
Being called upon by the Honourable the Minister of Public Works to prepare plans and estimates for the erection of rural bridges between Ste. Anne de Bellevue and lie Perrot, and lie Perrot and Vaudreuil, I beg to say that after a careful study of the matter, I came to the conclusion that a bridge at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, between the C'.P.R. and G.T.R. bridges with a roadway between the two embankments leading to a subway near the C.P.R. station, as shown on the accompanying plan (blue print), is the best site. This will permit the suppression of the present level crossing near the C.P.R. station which is of great annoyance to the railway companies and dangerous for the public.
To this effect will you kindly inform me if your company will have any objection into permitting the use of the piers of its bridge to place upon cross girders as shown on the plan.
Through its President, Lord Shaughnessy, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company answered in the affirmative. As for the Grand Trunk Railway Company not giving an immediate consent, it would be an easy matter for the Government to decide upon it for these objections are only based on matters of fact which can be easily settled if I can judge from the answer of Mr. Howard C. Kelly, the President of the Company. The Grand Trunk Company expects in the future to widen its road and this proposition, they say, would be prejudicial to them. On the authority of a competent engineer, this question is debatable, as the Grand Trunk Railway can always widen its road on the opposite side, and moreover they could not widen their road without widening the bridge at the same time. This will not happen for a long time and also if this decision should be arrived at it could only be widened on the opposite side of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This points out clearly that the construction of a metal span between the two bridges would in no way interfere with their plan.
In studying the report of the late resident engineer 'Michaud of Montreal, under date of April 1, 1912, I find that this engineer suggested two plans.
Plan No. 1-Between Ste. Anne de Bellevue and lie Perrot-which consists of placing a metal span between the bridges of the Canadian Pacific railway and Grand Trunk railway, making use of the pillars of those bridges. Those bridges would
have a length of 1,134 feet and width of 20 feet for the traffic and 4.8 feet for pedestrians. The estimated cost was $118,986.
Plan No. 2-On the same side to construct a bridge 60 feet below the Grand Trunk bridge, down stream, but parallel to this one. The length would be 1,234 feet with a width of 20 feet for traffic and 4.8 for pedestrians. The cost would be $192,000.
As regards a bridge on the north shore to join lie Perrot with Vaudreuil, the same engineer made only one plan for bridge which would be located on the south of the Grand Trunk Railway bridge. This bridge would measure 1,094 feet in length by 25 feet in width-that is, 20 feet for traffic and 4.8 feet for pedestrians. The estimated cost was $113,000.
Therefore, from the estimates of the engineers these two bridges in making use of the pillars of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway bridges would cost $118,986 plus $113,000 or a total of $231,986. The other plan would cost $305,000 or a difference of $74,014. However, I note that on the Vaudreuil side no estimates are furnished for a bridge between the two railway lines but simply one for an independent bridge on the south side of the Grand Trunk Railway tracks. The main objection to this scheme is in the fact that the entrance and abutments of this bridge would be nearly on the same . level as the railway tracks, I may state that this would not be an insuperable objection, especially if it results, as I am convinced, in reducing the cost of the bridge by half. The entrance to the Victoria bridge on the Montreal side is on a level with the railway. This would necessitate more care, that is all.
Besides the plans prepared by the engineer of the Federal Public Works Department, il believe that there are two other sets of plans prepared for private corporations. One plan, drawn by Mr. L. A. Beauchemin, engineer, of Montreal, appears to be very complete. The hydrographical survey made on that shows that the construction of this bridge would not be even a difficult undertaking. It would be built without using the railway bridges. The piers at deep water would only be eight feet above the bed of the river. The cost of these two bridges, made of concrete with a metal part on the Ste. Anne side, including the adjacent land would come to $300,000. Another sketch was made by one of the engineers of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and I was informed by a competent authority of that company, who is always at the head of progress, that this
[Stage Direction]
7 'id
[Stage Direction]
passage between the two railway bridges could be done at a reasonable price.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-vell) has before him all the estimates and plans,-but according to the new law the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) is also concerned in this question, as he has under his control the Public Highways' regulations. The main sketches are drawn and the minor ones are easily made. There is only one thing to be done by the Government now, viz.: To provide the necessary appropriations for the enterprise. Accord. ing to the Good Roads resolution the Government has the right to question the mode of expending subsidies granted to the provinces. It seems to me that this is the proper time for the Government to take up this proposed construction of bridges with the Quebec Government and to arrive at an immediate solution of this long-standing problem. The Provincial Government of Quebec must contribute with the Federal Government in the construction of these bridges, but in what proportion? There is already a law authorizing the Quebec Government to make a payment of 33J per cent of the cost of bridges of relative importance. Nevertheless, I understand that the lie Perrot bridges do not come under this category, because the budget of the province of Quebec for the construction of bridges in the whole province is much smaller than the amount requested for the construction of the lie Perrot bridges. I am positive, however, that the Quebec Government is ready to do largely its share. A very short time ago, the Hon. L. A. Taschereau, Minister of Public Works at Quebec, from his seat in the Legislature, reiterated the good intentions of the Quebec Government towards the project to Mr. A. Pharand, M.L.A. for Soulanges, Mr. H. Pilon, M.L.A. for Vaudreuil, and Mr. Henry Miles, M.L.A., Montreal-St. Lawrence, who had raised an interesting debate upon this matter. In many instances it was said that the municipalities of the counties of Vaudreuil and Soulanges should contribute to the construction of those bridges. I do not think it would be fair to make such a demand upon the municipalities affected, especially when these municipalities would not be alone to benefit by those two bridges. The municipalities of the counties of Vaudreuil and Soulanges, for example, should hot be accused of parsimony if they ask the two Governments to pay the entire cost of those bridges, especially when each of these two counties, with a total population of only 20,000, spent nearly $1,000,000 for the construction of their roads, and their expenditure to

complete this improvement will amount to $1,500,000 three years from now. I consider that this effort made towards the progress of good roads by these two counties should be considered as a very large contribution in the construction of those bridges. By the construction of those bridges, the traffic on the whole of this country will be far more considerable, and consequently, the maintenance of the roads will be more onerous. The population of my region is well disposed to make all reasonable sac-rifles, but on the other hand it would be hardly fair to expect them to make too many sacrifices, especially when so many of the population of Quebec and Ontario, and others, will share the benefit. In my humble judgment it would be unjust to expect the local municipalities to bear a part of such an expenditure. The people understand that the construction of the lie Perrot bridges can not be considered as being a question of local improvement useful only to those residing in the vicinity, and they claim it to be an enterprise of national advantage in which the two' main provinces of the Dominion are interested. I submit that the Government should give due consideration to the claims of the people of my region when this matter is before them. I would not say that the municipalities of the counties of Vaudreuil and Soulanges, in order to hasten the construction of those bridges, would refuse to guarantee a certain amount of debentures, which would be payable by a sinking fund taken out of the yearly revenue of the bridges; but, in this case, these bridges would become toll bridges until full settlement of obligations. I might add. that the Victoria Bridge is a toll bridge.
The cost of those bridges will amount to $300,000 or $400,000. Suppose the Federal Government pays half of it, the Quebec Government two-thirds of the balance, and the municipalities one-third. In such a case those bridges could be constructed and administered by a commission composed of one representative from each Government, one representative of each interested municipality, one representative from each of the important public bodies of the city of Montreal, and one representative from the counties affected. This commission should exist in virtue of a Statute and would be in every way responsible to both Governments. iln other words, this commission would serve as a connecting link between the two Governments and as an intermediate agent between those Governments and the municipalities. But this organization would be necessary only if the 'Govern-

ment want's to make it an essential condition, that the municipalities are to contribute to the cost of those bridges. However, I hope that the Government will act more liberally, seeing that the construction of these bridges is so important. The Quebec Government and the Ontario Government agreed to undertake a large interprovincial road joining the four principal cities of the Dominion; Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. The Federal Government to-day, with its good roads policy, greatly encourage this laudable scheme. The only obstruction to the proposed interprovincial road is the bridges over the Ottawa river at Vaudreuil-Ste. Anne de Bellevue. All the public bodies, from Toronto to Montreal, Ottawa to Montreal and vice-versa, are asking for these bridges. These bridges will join the two great provinces of Canada. And who knows it, if this enterprise would not be a salutary accentuation to the noble movement of the Bonne Entente. In order to effect a speedy consummation of the Bonne Entente, one of these bridges could be christened John Haig and the other Ferdinand Foch.
Mr. J. R. WILSON (Saskatoon):: I was somewhat disappointed that the minister, in introducing the resolution, apparently did not give the committee any idea as to the policy to be pursued. I should judge, although the statement has not been made, that this is a scheme of promiscuous road construction in the provinces, the money to be turned over to the provincial governments without any outline being given as to what points the roads are going to run between and as to how the work is to be done. When this country, from ocean to ocean, is making a grant of money for the purpose of building roads, such roads should be of a national character; that is, they should lead from some place to some other place. In other words, they should be interprovincial, or possibly a road should be built from coast to coast. It was at one time advocated that we should build what may be termed a national highway, possibly as a memorial to commemorate the heroism and services of our gallant soldiers in the great conflict which has just been concluded. There does not seem to be any particular need for making improvements to our roads. In any case, as a matter of principle, if this scheme is only for the purpose of constructing better roads throughout the province, that is a matter that should be attended to by the several provincial governments.
47*	1	I ! iJ
It would be another thing if we had the ambition to build a national highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific over which we could travel in an automobile. In view of these considerations and in view of the heavy expenditures which the Government has intimated will be made this year, I think it is hardly advisable to undertake an expenditure of twenty million dollars unless we can be assured of very good returns from our investment. The minister in introducing'the resolution said that it would provide employment for the returned soldiers. Personally, I do not think that is the kind of employment we should offer to our returned men, but if we do wish to offer them that kind of work, the railway building to be done in the West will provide such work for the men who wish to undertake it-the building of roads is not very much different from the building of railways, so far as the nature of the work is concerned. I have made a mental calculation since the minister introduced the resolution, of how the scheme would work out in western Canada, Of this twenty million dollars to be voted, $80,000 is to be allotted to 'each of the provinces at the outset. That would mean an expenditure of $720,000 for the nine provinces, leaving $19,280,000 unexpended.


Mr. CARVELL:: The expenditure is $80,000 per province per year.


James Robert Wilson: Perhaps I did not read the resolution closely enough. I figured that this year for the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, with a population, as near as I remember, of about 1,600,000, about a million dollars would be appropriated. What we need in western Canada to-day more than anything else is the extension of the Canadian National system of railways. This would afford needed relief to farmers who are living many miles from the railways, and would save them quite a lot of money by transporting the grain from their doors.
With regard to furnishing employment, the Minister of Public Works knows how much I have been badgering him ever since I arrived in Ottawa for a federal building in my city, and the .excuse he has been giving me is that the Government canrtoS spend any more money in western Canada beyond what is to be spent on the railways,. Now, if some of this $20,000,000 was devoted to erecting federal buildings in different cities in western Canada that are really in need of them it would furnish the

kind of employment we need for our returned soldiers. Those of our returned soldiers for whom we need employment in western Canada are the mechanics, and Tunless there is considerable building going on in our cities we cannot furnish them with employment. These men would not work at road building.
Summing up, it seems to me that in view of our present financial condition it would not be wise for us to undertake this expenditure on. such an indefinite promiscuous scheme of road- building, not knowing what parts of the country are to be served by these roads.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think there is a misapprehension as to the real meaning of the resolution or it has not been read closely enough by some hon. members. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. T. Foster), who is not in his scat just now, assumed two principles which do not_exist at all. I will admit that from his standpoint his argument was very logical. He assumed that the Government was contributing $20,000,000 towards the building of a national highway throughout Canada. If that were true, and the Government was going to build the road, it ought not to hand the money over to the provinces, but handle it itself, just as in the case of the building of a railroad or any other public work. But that is not the intention. It may be we are wrong in not building a national highway, however, we do not propose to do that, we propose to contribute a certain amount of money during tlje next five years to assist in the construction of better roads in Canada than we have at the present time. Now, we cannot build every road in Canada, because that would probably take a hundred million dollars, and then we , should not have covered the whole ground. But we propose to grant $20,000,000 during the next five years for the purpose of assisting in the betterment of the road systems in every province of Canada. The hon. member also contended that if the money were handed over to the provinces there would be patronage and inefficiency, and that not more than sixty or sixty-five per cent of the money would be spent on the roads, the balance being squandered amongst politicians or in graft.


Frank S. Cahill: He was thinking of Ontario.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think his remarks applied to all the provinces, although I confess he made a pointed reference to the province of Ontario. There, again, my hon.

friend did not properly read the resolution which we are discussing. There is no doubt things like that have happened in the past, and there might be an attempt to do the same thing under these provisions. Again, if we were proposing to pay all the oosts of building any portion of a road in any part of Canada, not being a portion of the national highway, then certainly we should build it ourselves. But we are not doing that. We are proposing to contribute forty per cent of the cost of constructing a certain piece of road; and the location of that road, the specifications, its character and all the conditions must be agreed upon before a dollar is expended. There must be a contract between the federal and the provincial governments as to all these matters before anything is done.


Mr. MORPHY:: I would point out that
the very important word " location " does not appear in the resolution.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admit it does not, but there is another word in the^ resolution which means the same thing. The resolution says:
Which agreement shall contain such provisions as to cost, description, specifications or otherwise as the Governor in Council may approve.
Now you could not make a contract very well unless you knew the location.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is the weakness of the resolution.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps it should be
amended to. that extent, but I assure my hon. friend the word was not left out with any deliberate intent.
We consider the words "description, specifications or otherwise" sufficient to cover it; because it would be impossible to make a contract for the construction of a road if you did not describe it.


Ernest Lapointe: If no agreement is made by this Government with the government of any province, will the citizens of that province be taxed for works in the other provinces which are strictly provincial?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the provinces cannot raise the money they cannot take advantage of this proposal.


Ernest Lapointe: But if no agreement is made by this Government with the government of Ontario, for instance, will the citizens of Ontario be obliged to pay their share of taxation for work done in other provinces?

' Mr. CARVELL: No, there is no such proposal as that. Unless the province of Ontario make a contract with this Government by which they agree to furnish 60 per cent of the cost of the roads mentioned in the agreement, they cannot get our 40 per cent, and the whole thing goes for naught as far as Ontario is concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: But the other provinces will get the money if they come to an agreement with this Government?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They will get their share.


Ernest Lapointe: And the citizens of Ontario will be taxed to pay that money?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, in so far as we take it out of the consolidated revenue funds. It goes the way of taxation.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it proposed that the terms shall be uniform in all provinces?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly. But there again I am answering what perhaps I cannot answer definitely. It will be such a road as the federal Government can agree upon with each of the provinces. I do not say it will be exactly the same kind of road in all the provinces. Take my own province, for instance, I have no doubt the road will be different in the western part of New Brunswick from what it will be in eastern New Brunswick, for the simple reason that in the western part we have splendid gravel which makes a good road. In the State of Maine, in the past five years, they have built a beautiful road, of gravel. But on the eastern side of New Brunswick, where they have no gravel, they would no doubt have to use crushed stone. The construction will be the best and most economical for the part of Canada in which the road is constructed. In the western provinces, where they have no stone or gravel, I do not know 11 p.m. what the construction will be.
They will no doubt have to import their material; probably it will be broken stone or asphalt.
I was saying that if we were paying all the expenses of building any one of these roads we would of course take into our own hands the construction of the road, but we do not propose to do that. We think the provinces should contribute something towards the construction of the roads because they will be the people to benefit in the end. Such being the case, either we must build the road or the province must build it. Well, I do not think we would
ever get any province to hand 60 per cent of the cost to the federal Government and say, "You build our roads." Therefore, we hand the money to the provinces and allow them to do the building, but with this condition, that before a dollar can be expended a contract must be entered into between the two governments, as I have explained, for each road. There may be a half dozen roads in one contract. '


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was this question discussed at the provincial conference?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Take my own province. Is there a request from the province of Nova Scotia for this money?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot remember what each representative stated, but I know there was no dissent, and it was strongly urged upon this Government that we should embark upon this policy. It was urged by all the representatives of the local governments present, and this is a direct result.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure the provinces will be glad to get the money.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly, and this is
the result of their request.


William Stevens Fielding: Were the terms of the resolution discussed in the conference?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, but the general principle was discussed of assisting in the construction of roads. Now, to get back to the general thread of my discourse, I pointed out that either the Federal or the Provincial Government must build the roads. There must be no divided responsibility. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Foster) suggested that if the money were handed over to the province, 35 per cent would be squandered. That, however, cannot happen, for it is provided as follows in the resolution-and will be similarly provided in the Bill-
-the aid to be given in any case shall be 40 per cent of the amount which in the opinion of the minister is the actual, necessary and reasonable cost of the construction or improvement of such highway.
The Government has appointed a gentleman who has been well known in Canada for a number of years in construction of highways-Mr. Campbell, former Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals-to have charge of this work, and he will have power to appoint engineers. There will be inspecting engineers over every road constructed in Canada, and the very moment

our engineer suspects any collusion, politics, graft, or the wasting of public money, all he has to do is to report that to the Minister of Railways and Canals, who will have the right to say whether he will allow the 40 per cent or not; and until they construct that road according to the minister's satisfaction that the money has been actually, necessarily and reasonably put into the construction, the grant will not* be allowed. It is therefore impossible for anything in the way of incompetence or waste of public money to occur.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the expenses of the engineer come out of that 40 per cent?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is nothing in the resolution, but I presume not, although all might be charged up to the cost of the road. However, if I have anything to say about it-and possibly I may have-no roads will be built unless there is a competent engineer overseeing them, and no money will be paid out until the engineer reports that the work has been properly and reasonably carried on.


John Howard Sinclair: Why don't you make it " fifty-fifty " like the Union Government?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Union Government is " fifty-fifty " when it comes to doing business.


John Howard Sinclair: Could it not be raised to fifty instead of forty?
Mr, CARVELL: Well, that is a logical question, and one for discussion. I hardly think so myself. I know it has been urged upon the Government strongly that we should contribute onedialf of the cost of construction of the road. Personally, my view is that the Federal Government should not adopt the policy of road building in Canada, but that we should assist the provinces in the construction of roads. Without some assistance I do not believe we will get the roads we require.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where are you going to get the money?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, I think we can get it as well as the provinces can. It has to be raised by taxation, and we can devise a method by which we can gat the money. I have a great belief in the necessity of good roads. I believe they are of the greatest importance to the prosperity of the country, brut I do not believe the Federal Government should start out building highways! We have therefore laid down this principle, that we will pay forty per cent
(Mr. Carvell.]
to assist the provinces in the construction of roads bult to assist them in such a manner that there will be nothing that is not perfectly straight and that there will be no money wasted in the construction of these roads.


Frank S. Cahill: I want to know if the
regulations will make any provision for roads in sections that are not between centres. What will govern the selection of the road that this money is to be expended upon? If the provincial government will apply for the money to build any kind or portion of a road and say that they are willing to pay sixty per cent of the cost of that road, does that mean that the Dominion Government will be willing to pay forty per cent of the cost?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; I can answer that right off. The intention of this legislation is to build highway roads-roads leading from centres to centres. I cannot tell you any two points in Canada between which a road will be built or where we propose to build a road under this legislation. But we certainly do not intend to agree to the construction of roads out of this money in what we may call byways. We want this money to go to the construction of what we might call main arteries. I think I can say right off that there should be a road from Montreal to Ottawa, that there should be a road from Montreal to Toronto, and a road from here down to Prescott. Anybody can pick out places of that kind and say that it is roads of that class that must be subsidized. I have no doubt that there will be some friction between the federal and provincial authorities as to the roads which shall be built but I do not think it is impossible to overcome these difficulties. I think that ordinary business principles will prevail and that the result will be that the money will be expended upon what would be really the main arteries of commerce or highways in Canada.


Mr. I. E. ARGUE (Swift Current):: Mr. Chairman, I do not very often take up the time of this House, but I think I should say something on this question of highways. We are proposing to-night to spend $20,000,000 to build highways in Canada. I notice that the hon. the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) mentioned Ottawa and said that it would be a good thing to have good highways around here so that farmers within 25 or 30 miles could bring their produce in to market. That will be very nice, but

I come from a district where we need more than highways. We need railways.
I could take you out to places where farmers have to haul their grain from 25 to 60 miles, sleep out two nights under their wagons and spend four days on the trip in order to get their grain to market. I had a telegram to-day stating that a petition is on its way down asking for a branch line. That petition is signed by 1,632 farmers who have under cultivation 293,000 acres of land, who, in the years 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 averaged 22 bushels to the acre and who have to haul their grain from 24J to 42 miles to market. If we have money to spend to build highways, for the purpose of giving employment to the people in Canada, and, as the minister said, to bring people into Canada, I can tell the minister and this Government -that if they do not supply some of these branch lines they will not be able to keep men in Canada who are here now, because they have stayed just about as long as they can afford to stay and haul grain that distance. We would like to have highways but we must give those settlers who have been eight or ten years in those districts some facilities for marketing their grain. The money spent on railways will give the same amount of employment to men as if spent on highways. We are. expecting our returned soldiers to go out into the western country and take up homesteads; and yet in many of those districts there is not a railway within twenty-five or thirty miles of settlement.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Use motor trucks.


Ira Eugene Argue: They cannot use motor
trucks, because we have not the money to build the roads, and this money is not supposed to be used to build anything but main highways. I want to make these few remarks at this stage of the game, but when the Bill comes before the House I propose to have something more to say on the matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate what my
hon. friend (Mr. Argue) says. I think we all realize the importance of railways. I do not know if the Estimates state the locations where we expect to build railways during the coming year, but my recollection is that $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 is going to be provided to build new lines of railways and every mile of that railway construction is west of the Great Lakes. We appreciate the need as well as my hon. friend does. If the Government had $100,000,000 to spend it could not satisfy all the demands for
public works, and I do not say that offensively. The demands are so great-and they are necessarily great-that the Government must pick out what in their judgment would be the best places in which the money could be expended. I do not know whether the district represented by my hon. friend is included in the provision for branch lines or not. He may or may not have investigated it.


Ira Eugene Argue: Yes I have investigated it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is something to
be said further. When all the money for the construction of branch line railways is being expended in Western Canada, you cannot run away from the fact that the people in Eastern Canada have some rights as well as the people in the West. During the last three or four weeks I have listened to so many demands for public works that, while many of them may be necessary, I am still driven to the conclusion that there is a good deal of provincialism about the ordinary member of Parliament. Not a few of these requests have rather surprised me.
I have had members of this House in the last three or four weeks tell me frankly that they wanted a work constructed because they wanted the money spent in their constituencies. I do not accept that doctrine at all. I believe that the Government should spend money where it is necessary, and not for the purpose of expending money in any particular constituency. I have no doubt that a railway in necessary in my hon. friend's constituency, but if we attempt to build a railway in every section of Western Canada where it is necessary I suppose we would require to have $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 in the Estimates instead of $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. The whole country must be considered to some extent in the expenditure of public money. I hope my hon. friend will appreciate the point and' I think he will see the reasonableness of the position that the Government takes.


Mr. BOYCE:: I think the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) is to be congratulated on this move for the improvement of roads. We have heard some speakers say that the money should not be expended if it is going to be spent for a purpose other than the building of high; ways. It is for the Government to take care that the money shall be properly spent. We have heard hon. gentlemen from the cities tell us that we do not want the roads but that we would have been better off if we had some public buildings in our cities. I was very broad-minded when I came into

the House a year or so ago, but I am beginning to get a little bit narrow. I have heard gentlemen from the West say that if - we do not give ' them free trade they are going to get out and go somewhere else; that if we do not give them good roads they are going to get out and go somewhere else, and that if they do not get the earth and all that is on it they are going to get out. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Argue) is perfectly right in keeping up the end of his oountry as well as he possibly can but he tells you about the thousands of acres of land that they have under cultivation, the thousands of settlers they have and the 22 bushels of wheat that they are raising to the lacre.
If we could raise 22. bushels of wheat to the acre in Ontario we would build the highways ourselves, and the railroads also. There is no doubt we want the railroads, but we want the highways as well. In Ontario we have for the last sixty years puddled through the mud and made roads as best we could. During the last ten years, however, our counties have spent a large amount of money in improving a great number of roads, and within the last year or two the Provincial (Government has taken in hand the task of putting the roads in a still greater state of efficiency. I am pleased to see that the Dominion Government is going to bring in a Bill to assist in the improvement of highways. It does not make any difference which Government does it, as long as we get the improved roads. If you want to ascertain the value of a district just drive through it, and if the schools and the roads are good, undoubtedly you have a good country and a progressive i eople. I trust no hon. gentleman in this House will raise any obstacle to the voting of this $20,000,000 for the improvement of our roads. As far as Ontario is concerned, we do not wish for anything more than our fair share of that expenditure. I do trust, however, that the money will be expended in the improvement of roads, and that great care will be exercised * in connection with it. I think perhaps that before entering upon it, it might be well to have a conference with representatives from our province and ascertain exactly what it is proposed to do. I know that in Ontario a survey has been made with very great care, and it is a very reliable one. Tf that survey is carried out it will be a great benefit to the province and to the country generally. We in Ontario have never made any demands upon the Government. As the late Sir John A. Macdonald said, on one

occasion, the farmers never got anything. I suppose that was because they did not ask for it. We are very glad that we did not have to speak for this expenditure, and that the Bill to be brought in is going to assist so much in the improvement of our roads. Motor cars are now in very common use, and with the improvement of the roads this is going to greatly reduce the cost of production. With good roads and modern methods of transportation, products from the rural district will be brought more expeditiously to our cities and distributed in a far better manner than ever before. I repeat that I trust no objection will be made to the voting of this money and its expenditure in a judicious manner for the general benefit of the country.


John Dowsley Reid: I am very glad that this discussion has taken place, and that we have had the views of a number of hon. gentlemen. As the hour is getting late I will move that the committee rise and report progress, so that we can take the matter up again at some other date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Hon. J. D. R-eid, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Monday, March 24, 1919.