REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Volumes 1 and 2 of the Auditor Gen. eral's report.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Copies of General Orders and appointments, promotions and retirements, Canadian Militia, promulgated between February 2nd, 1920, and February 1st, 1921, and copies of Routine Orders, Canadian Expeditionary Force, promulgated between February 23rd, 1920, and September 30th, 1920, when publications ceased.-Hon. Mr. Guthrie.
Orders in Council relating to Royal Canadian Navy.-Hon. Mr. Ballantyne.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received communications from several members notifying me that the following vacancies have occured in the representation, namely:
Of Joseph Ernest Oscar Gladu, Esquire, member for the Electoral District of Yam-aska, by decease.
Of Harry Fulton McLeod, Esquire, member for the Electoral Dictrict of York-Sunbury, by decease.
Of Thomas George Wallace, Esquire, member for the Electoral District of York, West Riding, by decease.
I accordingly issued my several warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts, respectively.



GERMAN REPARATION-CANADA'S CLAIM-THE EXISTING SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PAMPHILE REAL DuTREMBLAY (Laurier-Outremont) :	Before the Orders
of the Day are called, I should like to know, in view of the situation in Europe at the present time between the Allies and Germany, whether the Government intends to take proper steps to ensure the indemnity which Canada was supposed to be entitled to, or which, at hny rate, we hoped to receive from Germany.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: There is no statement I can
make just now having particular reference to reparations, other than such as applies to the general question of reparations, which of course is in the hands of the Supreme Allied Council. This matter was referred to yesterday in more general terms by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) when enquiry was made whether a statement could not be given to the House as to the condition of affairs consequent upon the demand for distinct reparation proposals from Germany by that Supreme Council, and the unsatisfactory response thereto. As I said yesterday, continual communication passes between the British Government and ourselves as to the principal occurrences of the Supreme Allied Council. Those communications are marked "Secret", but I see no objection to stating in the House such of them as in certain form have already reached the press. The only result will be of course to give something in the nature of official confirmation to these facts. It will be remembered that the
41 i
Supreme Allied Council met, in January last, in Paris, in order to formulate proposals for submission to Germany on the question of reparations. An adjournment was made to London, and the meeting there took place last week. The proposals which Germany was asked to make were not at all as to the amount of reparations but rather as to the methods by which she should undertake to make good the call for reparations. At such meeting in London Germany undertook to lay a statement of her methods before the Supreme Allied Council, but she added thereto, or made a part thereof, proposals as to the amount of reparations as well, which, in the judgment of the Council, were not only wholly inadequate but constituted a challenge to the foundation of the Treaty itself; in a word, an intimation that it was not the intention of Germany to abide by the terms of the Treaty. That being the case, Germany was informed through the British Prime Minister that there was nothing in her proposals that could form even a basis for discussion and that she would be advised as to what steps would be taken in order to enforce the provisions of the Treaty itself. Consequently, Germany was advised, in . brief, as follows: First, that a small area on the right bank of the Rhine would be occupied; second, that it was intended to deduct from moneys owing Germany from outside countries for German goods a certain proportion applicable to the Reparations Account; and third, that control would be taken of the customs in all occupied territory. These intentions were submitted to the German representatives and, failing any adequate proposals on their part up to noon of yesterday, the Allied proposals became operative at that hour. It will be observed that there is nothing in the programme which involves an increase of the forces now occupying German territory for its enforcement and, as well, that no Canadian troops are engaged. I do not feel that there is anything more than I can say at the present time, except that no specific proposal as to cooperation is before us.



PRECAUTIONS AGAINST TYPHUS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: In view of the very widespread prevalence of typhus fever in Eastern Europe, and in view also of the fact that within the last day or two cases of the disease have been

found among immigrants arriving at the ports of Boston and New York, I would ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization to state to the House what precautions are being taken to prevent the introduction of this disease into Canada.


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) :: I am not
aware of all the details of the situation, but I can assure the House that every precaution is being taken at the present time to prevent the introduction into Canada not only of typhus but of one or two other epidemic diseases that are very prevalent in certain parts of Europe at the present time. As a matter of fact the countries of Western Europe are all keenly alive to the situation-that is to say, Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain and other nations-and they are taking every precaution to prevent the spreading of these diseases from Eastern to Western Europe. As far as my information goes there are but few cases of typhus at present at the quarantine stations at Boston and New York-very few cases. Only one case-which is located at Massena, in New York State-has broken loose. That case is under strict observation, and every precaution is being adopted to prevent the disease from spreading further. I may also state that we have stationed three of our officers at New York to study the conditions there and make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the steps being taken by the American authorities to prevent the spread of these diseases in the United States. In addition to that our own officers are very keenly alive to the situation and very strict instructions have been issued to the officers in our own ports to exercise every vigilance. At the present time not a single case of this disease has landed at any port in Canada and, as I have already said, very few in the United States. I can assure the hon. gentleman and the House that the officers of the Health Department are thoroughly alive to the importance of taking every means to prevent these diseases from entering Canada, and are co-operating to that end with the American authorities and our Provincial Health Officers.



PRIVILEGE-MR. DESAULNIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARTHUR L. DESAULNIERS (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the Montreal Gazette of to-day I am reported as having placed on the Order Paper a resolution

seeking to suspend immigration into this country. I wish to state that I am not the author of the resolution to which the Montreal Gazette refers, and that if this resolution is brought up for discussion in this House I will oppose it.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the year ending March, 31st, 1922 was presented by Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg)
I would like to ask the Government whether the statement appearing in the newspapers that Mr. Alexander Johnston has returned to the public service is correct, and if so, what his status will be in the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
- Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries): In answer to the hon. member I desire to state that Mr. Alexander Johnston has been reinstated in his former position as Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved that Bill No. 19, to amend the Exchequer Court Act be read the third time.
Motion agreed to. Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Resuming debate on the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty for the second reading of Bill No. 17, to define Canadian Nationals, adjourned from March 4.
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: As I explained to the House
when this matter was up last it is my intention, when we get into committee, to propose amendments to the definition of a Canadian National as set forth in the Bill. As that definition constitutes practically the entire Bill, I quite recognize the importance of the changes which I have in contemplation. I have asked to have the Bill as proposed to be amended printed and

circulated, and I believe that has been carried out. I was informed this morning that it had been printed, and last evening I handed to the leader of the Opposition a number of copies of the Bill as proposed to be amended. I trust that under those circumstances there has been opportunity for hon. gentlemen to take communication of the amendments. Upon what may be called the principle of the Bill, it seems to me that very little is called for beyond the explanation which was given at the first reading. What needs to be clearly understood at the outset-I think it is perhaps scarcely necessary for me to mention this, but it is well to avoid any misapprehension-is that the Bill does not contemplate to in any way affect the status or position of any Canadian as a British subject. Notwithstanding its enactment we shall all remain, of course, British subjects; and under the definition as proposed nobody will be a Canadian national who is not a British subject. But the purpose of the Bill is to define a particular class of British subjects who, in addition to having all the rights and all the obligations of British subjects, have particular rights because of the fact that they are Canadians. I think we have always understood that without a specific statutory definition there has for a long time been such a person as a Canadian, and some outstanding indications which justify a man in claiming to be a Canadian. But we have reached a stage now where there are certain specific rights created in favour of Canadians, or, to use the expression in the Bill, of Canadian nationals, as such, and should the legislation which this House last year asked to have passed by the British Parliament clearing up any doubt as to the extra-territorial effect of our legislation be enacted, as I have every reason to believe it will be, it will then be important to have a clear-cut definition of who are the people who may be affected by that legislation.
I might give an outstanding instance of where we have rights created in favour of Canadian nationals the provisions of the Convention establishing the permanent Court of International Justice. Under those provisions-which I have no doubt will meet with the approval of this House when the Convention is brought down- the judges of that court are to be elected by the representatives of the different members of the League. To secure election, it is essential that a candidate or aspirant should have a majority of the votes both
of the Council and of the Assembly. Each country, member of the League, has a right, -a right not to be exercised directly by its government, but in the manner which I will point out in a moment-to nominate candidates. Each country proceeding in the manner to which I have referred is entitled to nominate four candidates; not more than two, however, of those candidates can be Nationals of the nominating country. So there we have a case where we need to distinguish between a National and a nonNational of the nominating country.


Mr. BUREAU:: Will the minister allow me a question? He states that a distinction has to be made between a Canadian national and a Canadian citizen. Is it on account of the League of Nations that the word "national" is used?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have already a definition of a Canadian citizen in the Immigration Act, but that definition is expressly limited to the Act itself, and we have no definition of a Canadian citizen which can be of general application.


Jacques Bureau: That is not exactly
what I had in my mind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I know, but I wanted to make that clear. There is a reason for using the word "national" rather than the word "citizen." It is to be found in this, that in the particular convention to which I referred and in the general proceedings of the League the word "national" is used as designating a person, whether subject or citizen, who forms part of the people of a particular member of the League. I am not certain that "national" is perhaps the most desirable word for England, but the word used in the French version of those proceedings by which the word "national" in our Bill should be translated is the word "ressortissant." I think the idea of using that word was to avoid the necessity of making distinctions between people who are subjects or citizens of a country and to get one word that, whatever the national designation, would cover the class of people who constitute the people of that country.
M. BUREAU: Le mot "ressortissant,,r est-il celui employe dans les procedures officielles de la Societe des nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Oui, le mot est celui employe. But perhaps I had better proceed in English. In the official documents this word "ressortissant" is used. You may have to talk of the "subject" of one country

and of the "citizen" of another country, but in "ressortissant" you get one word for them all. We passed considerable time with some very distinguished French gentlemen and some equally distinguished English gentlemen trying to find an English word that would be an exact translation of "ressortissant."


Jacques Bureau: Do they use the word "national" in the English translation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, the word "national" is taken as the translation of the word "ressortissant." It seems further desirable that in making the definition we should use the term which is employed in these documents, because, after all, what we want to do, so far as that is a particular reason for this measure, is to have a clear-cut definition of who is the person who, as being a national of Canada, is entitled to these rights.
There is to be found in the convention a further reason for having this clear-cut definition. There is a provision in the convention that if two or more candidates, nationals of the same member of the League, should be elected judges, the question of which of these should be the judge is to be determined-and it is perhaps consoling to those of us who are not as young as we at one time were-in favour of the gentleman who counts the largest number of years to his credit. But it is obviously important that we should be able to establish just who is a Canadian national, so that it may not be suggested that, if another British subject is elected and one of our men is elected, that would be a case of the election of two men who are nationals of the same member of the League. I may say that the convention as originally drafted might have been open to that suggestion, but at the instance of the representatives of Canada, among others, the wording was modified so as to make it quite clear that this question of one giving way to the other would not arise when there were elected not merely two nationals of the British Empire, but two nationals of the same member of the League. That is another instance in which we have the creation of a right in favour of the Canadian national. The recognition that each member of the League has nationals of its own being once made so clear, it seems to me only a natural thing, even if there were no other reason for it, that this country should take the responsibility of defining who its nationals are, and that is

what this Bill proposes to do. As I said at the outset, there is no question of modifying in any way the position and status of us all as British subjects. The purpose of the Bill is only to define a particular class of British subjects-a class who have the peculiar quality of being that kind of British subjects who are nationals of Canada. As to the details, I assume we would deal with them better in committee. But speaking in a general way, if hon. gentlemen will look at the Bill they will see that the provisions defining "Canadian national", in the first place make such a Canadian national every British subject who come swithin the definition of a Canadian citizen under the Immigration Act. In addition, a provision is made with regard to certain classes of persons which follows the principles upon which the question of the quality of British subject is determined by the British Nationality Act, which we also have enacted. ( The definition of "Canadian citizen" in the Immigration Act limits the quality, so far as that quality results from birth, to the person born in Canada. In addition to the person born in Canada this Bill proposes to enact that the son of a Canadian national born while his father is a Canadian national, even though he be born outside of Canada, shall be a Canadian national. All hon. gentlemen will agree that if any one of us found himself in the unfortunate position of being absent from Canada temporarily with his family at a time when a child was born to him, he would want that child to be as full-fledged a Canadian as he is himself.
There is also a provision that the wife of a Canadian national shall be a Canadian national. With regard to persons such as the child in question, whose quality of Canadian national results from the fact of his paternity, though he was born elsewhere, there is a provision analogous to that which is found in the British Nationality Act, conferring uppn such a child, if he should be entitled to nationality in any other British dominion, the privilege of renouncing his Canadian nationality. There is no need of providing for what will happen if he is entitled to become and desires to become the subject of some other country, because that is already covered in the British Nationality and* Naturalization Act. Of course, if a man ceases to be a British subject he necessarily ceases to be a Canadian national.


Mr. EULER:: In the case of men who were naturalized while they were minors, because of the fact that their fathers were naturalized, but who under the present Franchise Act have no vote unless they obtain a voting certificate-are they considered Canadian nationals under this Bill, even if they have not that certificate?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Anybody who is a
British subject and who was born in this country or who has domicile in this country as described in the Immigration Act, is a Canadian national. This proposed legislation, of course, has nothing to do with the franchise. I do not know what action may be taken in the future; the franchise may or may not be granted to all Canadian nationals, that depends upon the legislation of this Parliament on the question of the franchise. The Bill does not deal with any particular rights that are to belong to Canadian nationals; it is concerned simply with the making of a definition. The question as to what rights should belong to them or whether there should be differences between different classes, either as to the franchise or as to any other matter, is a thing that would have to be dealt with in separate legislation.
There is also provision for the case where a child is by reason of his birth a Canadian national, but by reason of his parentage or for some other reason, may at the time of his birth or later become entitled to recognition as a national of some other part of the Empire; the same privilege' is given to him to make the declaration whereby he would cease to be a Canadian national. Both these classes' follow absolutely the principle laid down with regard to the quality of British subject in the Act dealing with British nationality.


William Daum Euler: I would like to ask the minister another question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Might I suggest that questions will come more regularly and could be better dealt with when we go into committee on the Bill? Of course, I am precluded now from saying anything more on this reading save by way of reply to close the debate.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Mr. Speaker, I regret that,
from my point of view, with which all may not agree, this is another step in the wrong direction. When a false step is taken, it leads to another false step, and
the first one having been taken, the second, perhaps, becomes unavoidable, and that is possibly the situation to-day. The word "National", as a noun, would be properly and fairly interpreted in the language of international affairs as a citizen of a sovereign State. Hitherto, we have all been glad to be British nationals. Canada is not a sovereign State; I do not want it to become a sovereign State, and I claim the expression "Canadian national" is rather difficult to be understood. This is, however, a step in the wrong direction;
I do not expect to correct it, and I am satisfied simply to express my opinion.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker,
if I understand aright the explanation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), this legislation has become necessary in order to define membership in the League of Nations. The word "ressortissant", which has been translated by "national", must mean that a man, although not, as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has stated, a member of an independent nation or of a sovereign State, has a voice in the League of Nations and must be more particularly identified. That is the reason why the expression "Canadian national" is used to translate the word "ressortissant", to show that the man belongs to one of the Dominions, that is, Canada. This Act on the statute books comes, comme un cheveu sur la soupe, an Act to define Canadian nationals. Might I suggest that, in order to facilitate the understanding of this legislation in the future, we put a preamble to it, stating in as few words as possible the explanation which has just been given by the Minister of Justice? I might suggest these words:	That whereas it
has become necessary, for the purpose of the better working of the League of Nations where Canada has a voice as a separate entity to define the status of the members who appear in the League of Nations as representing Canada, this legislation should be enacted defining these representatives as Canadian nationals -comme ressortissant de la nation cana-dienne, comme bon semblera. In that way, it will be seen in years to come why this legislation was enacted. In a few years the world will, perhaps, become normal again, and the next generation or the generation succeeding that will possibly be at a loss to know how this legislation came on the statute book unless some explanation is given by the preamble.


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member
will allow me, I am afraid he is reading from the Bill as it was originally introduced.


Joseph Archambault: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I explained the matter and I am responsible for the confusion. I am surprised we have not the Bill before us as reprinted, because I gave most special instructions and it was reported to me early this forenoon-


Joseph Archambault: (Translation.) I am surprised myself but can we continue the discussion if we have not the Bill before us?


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) I said, at the outset of my remarks, that in case some hon. members would deem it advisable, I would not insist on proceeding with the Bill, but how could I possibly make such a suggestion?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am out of order, I am afraid, but I only want to make the suggestion that Questions of this kind seem to be questions that should properly be dealt with in committee. The difficulty is that I am being asked questions and I am not entitled to answer. If, when we go into committee on the Bill, any hon. gentleman feels that he is under a disadvantage by reason of this unfortunate accident, I certainly shall not insist on pressing the Bill through.


Joseph Archambault: I submit we should not discuss a Bill that we do not have before us.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All right.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising now is not to take exception to the principle of the Bill, but rather to draw the attention of the Min-
ister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) to the form in which the Government is introducing its legislation. This is the second important Bill to which, after its introduction, the Government has presented an amendment much more substantial in its nature than the provisions of the Bill itself, with the result that we on this side of the House are expected to discuss a measure, the provisions of which we have not seen and with which we are not familiar. It is quite true the Minister of Justice last night presented me with a copy of the amendment he purposes moving to the Bill, but the amendment is a more substantial measure than the Bill itself. While I have been favoured with a number of copies, there has been no opportunity for members on this side to consider the matter, and, what I think is equally important, there has been no opportunity for the country tc become familiar with the measure which my right hon. friend has introduced. We should have some idea of the measures that are to be discussed in this chamber, and some opportunity should be given for public opinion to express itself before measures are finally passed through this House. My right hon. friend would be taking a course that would be in the public interest if he would have his Bill presented in the form in which he hopes it to pass this House. The Government might consider that suggestion as applicable equally to all future legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I may be permitted,
I thought I had said, we shall say, at* least half a dozen times, that I did not expect hon. members to discuss the Bill unless they felt ready to do so. I made the most frank, candid and open confession that there had happened this error; that I acknowledged my responsibility and asked nobody to suffer in the slightest degree, and in the face of that complaint is made that hon. members are expected to do this, that and the other thing, whereas hon. members had been assured that they were not expected to do anything of the kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the practice to which we are objecting.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us get the whole mystery and see what the awful crime of this Government was. The imputation is that this matter was not given consideration. The trouble came, perhaps, because it got too careful consideration. Two drafts were made of this Bill,

and the unpardonable offence that occurred was that, when I was handed the draft for introduction, I was handed the first draft instead of the second. My offence goes to that extent and no further. I have acknowledged that members should have this Bill before them and that they should not be expected to discuss the matter without it. As to presentation, if the hon. gentleman thinks something is to be gained by that, I have no particular objection to take this Bill back and re-introduce it. But as a matter of fact, the Bill as proposed to he amended is printed in full, and if it is not actually in the hands of members, the responsibility is on whoever has charge of the distribution of those papers. Let me make this suggestion: Let the Bill go into committee, as I said a few moments ago, and if then it is not thought there has been opportunity for its consideration, I shall certainly not press that it be proceeded with.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask a queston?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We must come to
some semblance of order in this debate. We are debating the principle of the Bill on its second reading, where hon. members are restricted by the rules to only one speech. Now we have had two or three speeches, and all sorts of questions. I submit that the debate ought to be adjourned, or else brought to a conclusion, one or the other. If it goes on, we must adhere to the rules.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) :: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet intervened in this debate, and therefore I am in order in speaking now. I think we should not be called upon to discuss even the principle of this Bill, without having had it before us. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), with his usual courtesy, has said that he is prepared to do everything to meet our reasonable requirements, which is only what we would expect of him. We accept the evidence of this spirit of justice, and I would now move that the debate be adjourned and that we proceed to some other business. If I want to speak again, I shall have another opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend and consolidate the law relating to copyright.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
minister give us an explanation of the Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The measure has been re-introduced this session after having been,
I think, twice before this House. This measure went through the Senate, substantially in its present form, in the session of 1919, I think. It came to this House, but unfortunately, for one reason or another, did not get through. The Bill was re-introduced in this House last year and, equally unfortunately, it did not reach its culmination; it was not adopted.


Joseph Archambault: There is nothing on the Order Paper to indicate that the Bill has been printed in French. I have not on file a copy of the Bill in French.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is another case
where I was assured the Bill had been printed and distributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not on
the file.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If that is the fact, that the Bill is not in the hands of hon. members,
I am where I was in the other matter. The hon. gentleman asked for an explanation of the Bill, and I was proceeding to give it. I have no desire unduly to press the matter. I have sent to inquire what is the explanation for the Bills not being here, because I gave the most positive orders that the Bill, which had been delayed in the course of printing, should be completed and distributed, and I was assured that that had been done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Bill has certainly not been distributed.


Mr. BELAND:: Too many officials were dismissed from the Printing Bureau.


Mr. ARCH AMB  AULT@: Probably Griffenhagen has the Bills.


Mr. VIEN:: It is apparent from the Order Paper that the Bill has not been printed in French, because the letter "F" does not appear after it, in accordance with the note at the top.


Jacques Bureau: Is it printed in English?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was assured this
morning that the Bill had been printed and distributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the minister a copy?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have one at the office, but, unfortunately, I did not bring it with me, as I expected there would be plenty here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Either we must proceed with the reading of this Bill, or the Order must stand.
Order stands.



MINISTERS AND DIRECTORSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McMaster for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vart-couver):: Mr. Speaker, when this order was called on a previous occasion I was making a few observations in connection with it. I have given the Bill considerable thought, and it appears to me there are certain objections to it.
In the first place, I contend that there is no demand for this type of legislation. I have carefully inquired, and I am not able to find any record showing that ministers of the Crown in the past have in any sense violated the ethics or the privileges of their office in the way sought to be remedied by this Bill. From that standpoint, I contend there is no need of the Bill. In the next place, it is unwise for this House to persist in introducing legislation where legislation is not required. Our statute books are perhaps filled now with numerous measures about which the public know nothing, which are neither observed nor enforced and which serve no really good purpose.
Another point I would suggest is this, that you are not going to make men honourable or good by statute. My hon. friend in this Bill purposes to surround the morals and the ethics of a minister of the Crown with certain regulations. Now I think it is a sound argument to advance, certainly it is a sound reason in law, that when you set forth in a law a certain restriction, it carries with it the suggestion that as long as you keep within the exact bounds of that particular stated law, you are at liberty perhaps to indulge in practices that otherwise would not be indulged in. You may prevent a man who holds a directorship in a company from being a minister of the Crown or compel him to resign his directorship, but you do not change his position as an-individual, as a citizen, as a member of the company, towards the Government in the slightest degree, because it stands to reason, that it certainly would obtain, that while a man might conform with the technical demands of the law, he would not 
necessarily conform with its spirit. He may resign his directorship but retain his shares and be in exactly the same position as he was before.
The ordinary ethics obtaining in this House in connection with the position of members of Parliament, and more particularly in connection with those who in years gone by have held the high office of minister of the Crown, are such that I think the public has been amply protected in the past, and I believe it would be wise for this House to recognize that fact and rather to rest its case upon a personal sense of honour than upon conformity with some rule laid down such as this. My hon. friend in this Bill is seeking to prevent any minister of the Crown from holding the position of director in corporations. It is desirable, I think, that we should have in this House representative citizens from every walk in life. We often hear the statement made that we ought to have more business men holding public office, civic, provincial and Dominion; that it would be a good thing for the country if the capable, efficient business men of the country took a greater interest in public affairs; and that we might in that event run the affairs of the country more on a business basis. I am not advancing this as my own view; I am merely stating what is currently expressed by a large number of persons. Now, my hon. friend is going to circumscribe the entry of business men into the affairs of the country, and I want him and other hon. members of this House to consider this question: Why should we prevent a man holding a directorship in a company from holding a position in the Government, and yet allow the chief counsel, the chief legal adviser, of corporations to fill such a position? Certainly if there is a danger-mark you, I am not endorsing this argument; I am merely stating it as inferred by my hon. friend the mover of the Bill-in a man holding a position as minister of the Crown who happens to be a director of a company, I submit that there is still greater danger in having in that position a legal adviser or what is known as a corporation lawyer, a man who is engaged particularly in that class of legal practice.
I would say that if the Bill were to be seriously considered by the House, it should be amended to include legal advisers of corporations. Now, that is only one argument. I go a step further and submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that argument is sound-and I notice my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) nods his head as

if he accepts it as sound-then the auditors of companies, that is, expert accountants who are closely identified with large corporations should also be precluded. Let us take, for example, the auditor of a large bank, or of a large commercial or industrial corporation doing business with the Government. That official would be just as likely to be influenced by the interest of the corporation as would an individual who was a director. Perhaps he might not be influenced to the same extent, but almost so. Then we might carry the argument still further; and as I explore this field of argument I find its ramifications stretch in all directions. Take a large corporation like the Toronto Street Railway, the Montreal Street Railway, or an important steel corporation-any of these large institutions that have a great amount of insurance, we will say. They frequently do business with one firm. They contract with an insurance firm to cover all their insurance, running into millions of dollars. Now, does any hon. gentleman mean to say that there is not just as much danger of undue influence in this case as there would be in the case of a director of a company? What I am driving at in this argument is simply this: first, that there is no demand for this Bill, so far as I can judge; and secondly, that it is trying to state in a meagre statute, what ethics shall control the actions of a man who happens to be a member of the ministry. That is bad, in my estimation. It is inherently bad, and there is no sound argument, nor is there any demand for such legislation so far as I can see.
These are some of the arguments that occurred to me in glancing over the Bill. I confess I have not had time nor opportunity to delve very deeply into the constitutional history of the British form of government having regard to this particular measure. But I do not recall any statute of this character, or any stated rule of this kind, set forth in any of the great authorities, Bourinot, May or any other, as a desirable thing even. Consequently I submit to the House that it would be very unwise for us to encumber the statutes of this country with an unnecessary Act which, so far as I can judge, can do no good and in all probability would simply serve to dull the sharp edge of honour and ethics as they now obtain in connection with public office. It may have been well for the hon. member to bring the Bill to the attention of the House so that this particular branch of parliamentary ethics might come prominently before
hon. members and thus serve to remind them of their high responsibility. In that respect it has done no harm; but I submit that it would be unwise for this House to adopt the Bill as presented by the hon. member.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is the House ready for the question?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I presume, before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of replying to the arguments that have been advanced.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is my duty to inform hon. members that the hon. member for Brome is about to exercise his right of closing the debate. Any other hon. members who desire to speak may do so now.


Mr. EDWARD WALTER NESBITT (North Oxford) :: My experience is that a great many men who are directors of corporations-I think the resolution refers to them particularly-hold very little interest in those corporations, being frequently appointed directors by reason of their general knowledge of business and their ability to serve the corporations of which they are appointed directors. The shareholders may consider them so qualified from their business experience and their integrity that they make them directors without their having any particular financial interest in the company. I have known many instances where directors held not more than two or three shares-enough to qualify them. So that the mere fact of a man's being a director of a corporation does not necessarily prove that he has any real interest in the business. The man who is really interested is the man that holds the shares or certificates, the stock of the corporation. I do not understand by the resolution of the hon. member for Brome that it is intended to shut out the man who owns stock in the corporation, but simply the man who is a director. I think that the great majority of men who have become ministers, so far as my knowledge goes, have resigned as directors of corporations. Then again, there is nothing in the proposed legislation to stop a member of a partnership from being a minister; and a member of a partnership, whether it be two or four, is just as much interested in the business as though he were one of five or seven directors of a corporation. Therefore, the proposal, in my judgment, attempts to single out the director unnecessarily, and will

accomplish absolutely no good, because, after all, a man is interested largely according to the extent that his pocket is affected. Further, as I understand it, the independence of Parliament Act prohibits a man, no matter whether he be a minister or an ordinary member of Parliament, from being directly or indirectly interested -I think that is the wording-in any undertaking that has a business connection with the Government. In that way I think the public are amply protected if we regard people as honourable. If they are not honourable, you cannot possibly do anything by the wording of an Act of Parliament or resolution, to make them honourable-at least that is my opinion. The mere fact of this House passing a resolution or declaring by statute, that a director shall not be a member of a government will not-let me repeat-by any manner of means cover the desired ground if such person continues to be a shareholder, because, there is where his vital interest lies. I do not know why my hon. friend wants to introduce this legislation, because I believe that the present law protects the country amply, protects it just as well as it would be protected were we to pass the present Bill.


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (minister of Marine and Fisheries):: No doubt the hon. member for Brome had the Minister of Marine and Fisheries clearly in mind when he was drafting this legislation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am very glad to know that such was not the case. I have no hesitation in stating that I am a director of many large industrial companies throughout Canada. I am also a director of banks and trust companies. I ask how could it be otherwise? A man who enters business early in life, achieves a success, and becomes associated not only with a large industrial concern-of which he may happen to be the president, vice-president or managing	director-but with other
commercial undertakings in the city or town in which he resides, and who amasses wealth, will find himself invited to become a director of other large corporations, banks or trust companies. If a man is not successful in business, and if he is not possessed of good judgment he will not find himself on any of these various directorates. Now, suppose a business man is called to serve his country? It is 
a well-known fact that business men who have no desire to become members of parliament, great as the honour is, or to become members of a government although they appreciate to the full what that honour means. Judging from the political history of Canada and other countries it is a rare thing to find a business man, who has succeeded in commerce or in finance, either a member of the popular Chamber or a member of any particular cabinet. But, Sir, if the State does call that man, there is only one thing for him to do. He must place the duties of his public office, the duty of serving his country, before his business interests, and henceforward devote all his time and all his attention to the administration of those public affairs to which he has been called. If I may be permitted to make a personal reference for a moment my position as a member of the Government and as a member of the House is no different from the position which would be taken by any other business man. I had, of course, to drop all my business connections as far as my giving them any personal attention was concerned; I have not beer, able to attend to the duties of the various boards to which I belong. But, Mr. Speaker, is it fair for the hon.member (Mr. McMaster) to expect a business man identified with large interests in this country to at once resign from those boards upon his entering the Government? And after all, as my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has said, that really does not reach the kernel of what the hon. member for Brome is striving to accomplish as long as a member of the Government, or a member of the House, is a large stockholder in various large industries, banks, and other business institutions. Therefore it comes down to this: If one were to do what the hon. member for Brome desires he would have to throw all his stock holdings in various companies, on to the market and take whatever he could get for them,, resign from all these boards, and then appear before this House and in the words of the well-known hymn it would be a case of "Take me as I am". Surely no person who considers the subject seriously would for one moment expect a man who had been in business all his life to sell his holdings in these companies and to retire from these different boards. Because, secure as this Government is at the present time, as well as the party that sits to your right, Mr. Speaker,.governments come and

governments go. Therefore a business man would be most unwise to dispose of all his holdings and resign from all the boards on which he sat as a director in order to accept a passing honour in any particular government that might last for only a few years.
But, Sir, the vital point is the one I referred to a moment ago. Any Canadian citizen who has been in business in a large way and is a director of various companies, must put those interests to one side, and the honesty and uprightness of that man must be depended upon to serve the State rightly and to ensure that he give his full time and attention to the country's affairs. What difference would the fact make that a man had resigned from the boards on which he sat? As the hon. member for North Oxford has so well pointed out, as long as a man's interest remains in these various companies he would have the same interest in them whether he was a director of a board or whether he was not. Therefore I do not see the need or the usefulness of such a proposition as the hon. member for Brome has made to the House.
Let me say one thing more before I resume my seat. I do not claim to have any particular qualifications over and above those possessed by the ordinary business man for the position I occupy at the present time, but after acting for over three years as a minister of the Crown, and after an experience of twenty years as general manager of one of the largest corporations in this country, and having some knowledge of business, I have no hesitation in saying to hon. members that to be the minister of, we will say, any of the five or six large departments of government requires more business skill and more executive ability than to be the general manager of any of the largest corporations. I find no fault with so many gentlemen of the legal profession being in this House or in the Government; we need all classes of men here; but, Sir, if you are to have business men of large affairs in this House or in the Cabinet, then such small legislation as this, if I may be permitted to so term it, is only going to have the effect of still further discouraging business men from entering Parliament or the Government.
Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that I entirely disagree with my hon friend from Brome, and I am quite satisfied that when any man has the responsibilities of a minister of the Crown placed upon his shoulders he will see to it that he serves
the interests of the state first and his private interests afterwards.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester) :: Mr. Speaker, after having listened to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne),
I have only these few brief remarks to offer. First, I think the minister, judging by what he has just said, is likely to be far more successful if he confines himself to building sailing boats than he will ever be by continuing to build a mercantile marine. The hon. gentleman has told us the number of companies in which he holds directorships, also the numerous companies of which he was or is general manager. This debate, Mr. Speaker, I do not think ought to be narrowed down to the personality of any member of the Cabinet, and I do not think it was the intention of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) to introduce a Bill which might be construed as being aimed at any individual member of the Government. The Bill brings before the House a matter of much higher importance, notwithstanding the importance that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine may have in the Cabinet. I do not claim that the Minister of Marine, because he is a director of many companies, is not a competent minister; and on the other hand I do not claim that he is a competent minister because he is a director of those numerous companies. Should a minister of the Crown have interests other than the interests of the state? That is the whole question. Several hon. members have addressed the House from the other side and they have told us that public life in Canada has shown numerous examples of ministers who had very large commercial interests and nevertheless served the state to the best of their ability. Such is the case, and I do not deny it. But, on the other hand, can you say, without danger of being contradicted, that our ministers have always acted in that way?
The hon. Minister of Marine has said that since he became a minister it has been impossible for him to give proper attention to his business interests. Therefore, I infer that as a director of the companies which he has mentioned he has not been of much usefulness to them. If he has not given any attention to those companies, why should he remain a director, why should he draw his fees? Why should he have any objection to resign his directorships if he has not time to attend to their business? On the other hand, if another member of the Cabinet is in the same posi-

tion as the hon. Minister of Marine, but, instead of giving no attention to the business of his companies, has done so since he became a member of the Cabinet, every hour and every day which he has given to the business of his companies is an hour and a day taken away from the state, and that attention and work devoted to his companies is attention and work that he should have given to the public business of this country.
The hon. minister asks:	Is it fair to
expect a public man when he enters the Government of Canada to resign his business interests when he may hold his portfolio for only a very' short period? That argument is commonly called the "Safety first" argument. I admit its strength, I admit that a minister when he enters a government, and especially a government like the present one, is not very sure of what may happen the day following his entry. But to keep in touch with his corporations and with his business associates as the hon. minister has to remain friendly with them, and should the interests of those associates diverge from the interests of the state, what is his position? The hon. minister has not explained that to the House. For instance, should the tariff policy be discussed around the Council table if the Minister of Marine is a director of several companies, and if those companies are interested in the drafting of the tariff schedules, will the minister think of the interests of Canada first, or will he think of the interests of his business associates? That is the question that the House is supposed to discuss. It is not a question of individuality or personality, although the hon. gentleman is very important in this Government; the question is away beyond his importance and reaches greater heights. The question is:	Are we to have in this Government
ministers who will be free from business interests so as always to make decisions in the best interests of the country at large?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question? Am I to infer from his remarks that he would want any member of the Government to sell all his interest in various companies in order that he might be completely disinterested?


Lucien Cannon: No, Mr. Speaker, because, as the hon. minister has said, when a man has wealth and ability, he is sought by everybody in Canada so that that ability and wealth may be used. But I say that a gentleman who enters the Cabinet should

make his investments in such a way, and should have business associates of such a nature, that neither his investments nor his business associations will interfere with his conduct of public business. That is my contention. I say further that a minister who is a director of a dozen companies and large corporations such as those mentioned by my hon. friend places himself in such a position that if he remains human, runs the risk of being incompetent, and if he wishes to be an angel he runs the risk of being misunderstood.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (Perth North) :: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat to be regretted that the debate has taken a line totally different from that in which it proceeded in its earlier stages. It does seem to me that this matter should be discussed entirely free from personalities; that we should deal with the principle of the Bill and that alone. To my mind no real reason has been put forward in support of the Bill by its sponsor or by those who have spoken in favour of it. To me as a Canadian the public life of Canada has been, within my recollection at least, upon a very high plane; Canadian public men have held high and honourable positions, much to the credit of Canadian public life. But this Bill leaves the inference that a totally different condition prevails among our public men and in the public life of Canada, and it seeks to prevent something that has not at all become an abuse. In other words, its object is to prevent Cabinet Ministers who are directors of companies from working selfishly in the interests of the companies they serve as against the public welfare. In that respect I think the Bill is a reactionary measure; it is putting something forward to induce and perpetuate an atmosphere derogatory to the best interests of our national life. The promoter of the Bill has shown no reason why business men of wide experience should be debarred from the councils of Canada. There never was a time in the history of Canada "when men of great force, men of wide business experience, men of fine parts, men of honour and integrity, were more needed in the councils of a nation than they are to-day in this period of readjustment. What is the obiection to such men acting in that capacity? Is it any crime to be a man of business ability, of wide business experience? Should such men be debarred from the highest positions in the public life of Canada? I say, no; a thousand times, no. Not all members of the Cabinet need be men of these large parts,

but certainly the fact that they are men of that quality and of that class is no argument against their holding such positions.	_
It is contended that a man honourable in every way, without a stain upon his business, personal or public character, should not be eligible to hold office in the ministry if he be a director of a company. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) says it would ,be that man's duty, where he a minister of the Crown, to get all the business he could for the firm of which he was a director. But is it so, Mr. Speaker? Has the public life of Canada degenerated to such a point that the statement of the member for Guysborough is applicable to it? No. I rather take the view that a minister who is a director^ of one company or of two or three companies, if ordinarily inclined to be venal or corrupt, is much less inclined to be so in connection with his public office, if he holds a directorate, because he is under a fierce light; the finger of suspicion may be pointed at him because he is a director. His directorate is a deterrent force; it keeps him free from corruption and graft; free from any unfair activities on behalf of his firm. Let him cease to be a director, and what is the result? He has put on a cloak that shelters him, because he can say: I am no longer a director of any company, but I hold my stock; my influence is just as great in the councils of a nation as it ever was; I can get things done, and they cannot say that I did it because I was a director of a company. In other words, this Bill opens the door to the very thing that the promoter of it desires to prevent; it enables those who may be venally inclined to do the very thing my hon. friend does not want them to do by virtue of their directorship.
The Bill is filled with subject matters that might be carried a good deal further. Is the hon. member going to say also that if the member of Parliament happens to be a shareholder in a company he must be debarred from being a member of the government? It is as natural to say that as it is to say the other; in fact, if you follow through all the avenues that lead to interest it would not be long before you would have no Parliament at all.
My chief objection, then, to the Bill is that it reflects upon what I conceive to be a pure Canadian public life, and that it is put forward without any evidence being offered of its necessity. Surely, at a time when we in Canada are on the threshold of the readjustment period, with a
debt of $2,400,000,000 staring us in the face, we should call to the councils of the nation the best men we have from the point of view of business, from the point of view of the rebuilding of Canada, from the point of view of reducing the almost insufferable burden under which the country groans by way of debt. Public men honourable in character should be free from even the suspicion of attack that this Bill conveys. Let us get down to business; let us call to the councils of our country the best men we can obtain, and then let us treat them fairly and honourably, and be thankful that we get their services-services rendered, in many cases, at the expense of large personal business interests.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I want to detain the House only for a moment or two in discussing this matter. Let me say, at the outset, that I am in grave doubt as to the wisdom of passing this somewhat drastic legislation. I am in that doubt because I would prefer to see a matter of this kind settled by what I venture to call the good sense, discretion and high-mindedness of men in public life, rather than by the strong arm of the law. There was a great deal in the argument of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) when he said that, as a pure matter of using properly the energies of a minister, it was necessary that this legislation should be enacted. We are all familiar with the old saying that "no man can serve two masters," and that is particularly true if each master wants all of a man's time. Clearly, a Cabinet minister's time is so much occupied that he probably has not time to devote to other businesses. One of my greatest friends in the press gallery when I first came to Ottawa said to me: "There is only one thing worse than being a member of Parliament, and that is being a minister," and I think, from the point of view of hard work, that statement was probably strictly true. Never having been a minister, nor having any particular expectation or ambitions in that way, I am personally unconcerned; but from all that I see of Cabinet ministers, their job is sufficient to use all their activities, so that the hon. member for Brome reasoned well when he said that if a minister's work is sufficient for him, if he accepts directorships of companies, he must either rob his country or rob his companies in the matter of time.
Then there is the further consideration that Caesar's wife should be above sus-


Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don) :: Mr. Speaker, it must be apparent to you and the hon. members of the House that the measure before us is not a party measure. It is in no way the policy of the Liberal party to attempt to do anything that will keep business men from taking their fair share in the work of carrying on the business of Canada. Every hon. member knows that John Smith, as John Smith, if he is a member of Parliament, cannot do business with the Government of Canada; but John Smith and Co., Ltd., incorporated, can go on and do all the business he likes. So I imagine what the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) had in mind was to create such conditions as would put incorporated companies on about the same basis as a man doing business under his own name or under the name of a partnership. But I submit in all sincerity to the hon. member for Brome that he cannot attain that object by the Bill now before the House, because there is nothing in the world to prevent a man, if he so desires, from withdrawing from a directorship if he becomes a minister and putting in as director his chief clerk or some other man in whom he has confidence, and doing business, and more business under that cloak which does not expose him to any legal attack. I submit that that man is

a greater menace to the state than the man doing business openly as a director, because in the latter case you know whom you are dealing with. Therefore, I am not at all in favour of the proposed measure. If my hon. friend were to introduce legislation that would prevent incorporated companies that had on their directorate a Minister of the Crown from doing business with the Government, I submit that he would be upon sound ground, but I fear the measure now before the House will be misunderstood, will do no good, and will not attain the object which my hon. friend desires. I am sure he had nothing personal in his mind when he introduced this measure. I am not going to offer him advice, because he is better posted upon these questions than I am, but it does seem to me that if he wishes to create such conditions as will prevent incorporated companies from abusing their privileges he might very well introduce such a measure as will put an incorporated company, with a director-in the ministry, upon the same basis as a private man doing business.
That is all I have to say in regard to this Bill. Looking at it purely from a business point of view, looking back over my experience in Parliament of now over twelve years, I am bound to say that the greatest menace to good legislation in this Parliament has not been the business men. There have been some other men who have been able to come to the members of this Parliament and go before committees, and it does seem to me that my hon. friend might exercise his energies in correcting some of these abuses before he attempts to interfere with busi-. ness men taking their proper place in the national councils in this Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: My mind on the matter is governed very much by considerations such as those put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), the only difference between myself and him being, I think, that I have advanced, or retrogressed, if that is a better word, to more definite conclusions than he.
The subject matter of the measure has no interest for me at all, personally. I am not now, and have not been for many years, a director of any company. I believe the Parliamentary handbook discloses my name as connected with two little companies in Western Canada, but I have to confess that they both went into liquidation about twelve years ago, and
I have not taken the precaution to have the Parliamentary handbook brought up to date. Possibly the House now has the explanation why these companies went into liquidation. Since that time I have not afflicted any company with the acceptance of a directorship. But my position with regard to this Bill would be just the same were I in a more favoured place as regards the business community.
I am not able to follow the arguments presented on behalf of the Bill at all. In the first place, this fact must impress itself upon the House: there is no other country that I know of, certainly none has been named to Parliament and the authority adduced, where legislation of this kind is in effect. I do not believe it is in effect in England. The practice may be in effect there of resigning directorships upon accession to Cabinet position more than it is in Canada, but I think I am safe in saying that that practice is by no means universal in England right up to the present time. In no other country is it in effect. It is not in effect in the provinces of Canada, nor has it been the practice in this Dominion to any great extent in all the years that have gone. Governments now existing and. governments that have existed, both in federal and in provincial affairs, have retained within their number men who still were directors of companies. Now that is a fact that, while it is not conclusive, must impress the House with much force. At all events, in the presence of that fact a considerable weight of argument would be necessary to convince us that we should mark out a new trail and impose new restrictions upon the accession to Cabinet position of men of business in Canada. We are called upon to do so by the mover (Mr. McMaster), and in very specific language by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), because of a principle which they claim to have discovered which compels us so to act. Now what is the principle? It is defined in different ways by hon. members who support the Bill, but in very broad language this definition is common to all: they say that a minister of the Crown requires all his energies and all his talents for his office; his master is the state; therefore, he should give all his time and all his energies to the fulfilment of his duties as a minister, and he should have no other interests of a fiduciary character or otherwise which conflict with the performance of his primary task. Well,



that is either a principle which we should follow or it is not. In the first place it is a principle that it is impossible to follow. It could not be lived up to as expressed; it could not be lived up to no matter how you express it. The hon. member for Dorchester says that a minister of the Crown should have no other interests at all to occupy his time. If that is correct, he should not even have a family.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: I know that is an extreme interpretation of what he said, but it comes within the principle that the hon. gentleman argued for. What he asks for is that a minister's whole time should be given to the state, that the state should be his only interest. Certainly it follows that he should have no other interests of any kind, whether as director or otherwise. If it is true that where your treasure is there will your heart be also, then if his principle must prevail, one cannot have a treasure, one cannot have anything.
I was most impressed by the illustration that was given by the hon. member for East Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp). A gentleman comes into Parliament and is called to be a member of the Government. He i3 the owner or very largely the owner of a business. We will say it is unincorporated. Let us illustrate by figures, and say that this man is eighty per cent owner of that business. Now undoubtedly he is a trustee in so far as the other twenty per cent is concerned, in the management of that business, and consequently, he not only has his treasure there, but in a sense he is a trustee for others who have a treasure in the same business. Now we will assmue that he is called to public office as a member of the Government. He is permitted, if the Bill passes, to occupy just the same position in that business that he did before, and if he puts it into the form of a joint stock company, which would be a wise thing to do under those circumstances, he is not allowed access to the "treasure " that he has gained in all his years of hard work, to enable him to see that it is being managed at least fairly in his interests. He is not allowed that access that comes from the occupation of the post of director. He is compelled, merely because he has put that business into the form of a stock company, to abandon the earnings of his lifetime and to take no further interest in it than to commit it to others. He is not to be allowed to gain at least that access to, and that knowledge of, its super-

vision which he might have if he were permitted to retain the post of director.
Now, it is quite true that he cannot occupy any substantial time in the supervision of such shares as he may hold in a company by reason of his occupying the post of director. That is quite true. The fact that he is a director, however, keeps him in touch at least with his own investment; it keeps him in touch with the management of it to a certain extent; and without occupying any substantial portion of his time it there stands in a safer position, more satisfactory to himself, than it would be in if he were compelled to abandon it altogether and leave it to the management of others. Now, I am thoroughly in agreement with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that there may come a time when the occupation of high government office becomes inconsistent with the retention of directorships or with fiduciary relations to others; that time may come, but I do not think that its advent can be settled by legislation or that the severance can be enforced by statute. Indeed, that time has come in Canada. I well recall that the right hon. gentleman who occupied the position of Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) prior to the present minister (Sir Henry Drayton)- and so far as I know this is true of the present minister-resigned his directorships in all the companies he was in. He did that, I have no doubt, because of the belief that in the actual administration of his public office he came into too direct contact with the interests in respect of [DOT] which he was responsible as a director. There was such direct and intimate contact and relationship between his position under the Crown and his directorships that he felt it to be inconsistent with the proper discharge of his ministerial duties. It is to his credit that he took that position. There was a degree of intimacy and closeness of relation that does not at all exist ordinarily between directorships and the duties of a minister of the Crown. There was a directness of intimacy and a closeness of relationship which he felt made it impossible for him to hold both positions, and, as I have said, it is to his credit that he took that position, although I must say that I have not observed up to this hour that he was accorded any great degree of credit in this House or out of it because he took that stand. I did not observe that the hand of attack was

stayed or that the voice of calumny was stilled at all, because it was always asserted, with a random abandon that did not seem to me to be creditable, that he still was merely the mouthpiece of the business interests from which he came. However, he took that stand. And there have been cases in British public life where the same has been done; and I believe that in our own country public men of both parties on attaining office can be depended upon to see to it that if the retention of directorships in companies or even of stock in companies-because there is no great difference, if there is any material or imaginable difference between the relationship of a directorship to a minister of the Crown, and the relationship of a stockholder to a minister of the Crown- they can be depended upon that, if the relationship is so close that the administration of their office might be open to influence, they will drop the private interest in deference to the imperative demands of public welfare.
Now, I do not know how that may be defined by legislation. I do not know how it can be definitely stated when the time comes that the relationship is so close that the one position must be dropped. There is always a relationship. I do not know where one is to put his money if it is in a Canadian company-yea, or even if it is in an American company-so that it will be in such a position as not to be affected by any act of the Government of Canada or of Parliament. There is no place in which to put it so that it may be absolutely and entirely outside of the scope of the actions of Parliament. It is said that he should invest it in such a way that there may be no danger of his being influenced by it in the slightest degree in the discharge of his public duties. Well, I should like to have a suggestion as to how he could so invest it; personally I do not know how he could. It is a matter of degree. If one invests in any company or in any business in this country, whether he be a minister of the Crown or a member of Parliament, the destiny, the safety, the success of that investment is undoubtedly influenceable by legislation of this House and the administration of the Government. That you cannot get away from.
There is no fine and clear principle that you can state and enforce by the passing of this legislation. It becomes wholly a matter of degree, a matter of the good judgment of the man who is called to
public office. On that account it seems to me that this legislation would be futile. If you carried the attempt made by this legislation to the extent of the whole principle involved, you would be compelled to enact not only that a minister should not hold any directorships in this country, or exercise the slightest supervision over the earnings of his life up to the time he became a minister, and over the property that alone will be the support of his family when he leaves his public office, but that he must sell the stock he holds in companies that come into contact with the Government and with the administration of his department. And you would have to go further and enact that members of Parliament should do the same, because in the end it is Parliament that determines the legislation and not the government at all; and if it is feared that members of the Government will be unduly influenced by their holdings in various concerns, there is just the same reason to assume that members of Parliament will be similarly influenced.
It seems to me therefore that the House would be wise to follow the practice that has obtained in Britain, and in Canada as well, federally and provincially, and in every other country, so far as I know, and leave it to the sense of honour of public men and to the sense of accountability to the great public of the country; because in all things they do they are accountable not only to Parliament but to the entire country. Leave it to their own sense of honour and responsibility and we shall get better results in the end than by trying to enforce impossible enactments such as that put forward in the Bill.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish to direct the
attention of the House to the fact that the hon. member is about to close the debate.
Mr. DANIEL D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):	I want to
say just a word or two. The speech made by the Prime Minister is, in its conclusion, in direct contradiction to the speeches made by many of his supporters on the other side of the House. For instance, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) made a speech which was highly condemnatory of this Bill and of the principle which it espouses, and characterized the sponsor of it as a man who was usurping the rights and powers of Parliament and doing something that was entirely wrong.



C60 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
That is not the way in which this Bill should be approached. Every member of the House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) included, must agree that the ideal condition is that a minister of the Crown should not be a director. That is the ideal. If one minister of this Government can be a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is there any reason why every other minister should not be a director of that concern? And is it a desirable condition, when the business of the country comes into conflict with the business of a private corporation of the magnitude and the far-reaching effects in operation such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, that every member of the Government should be a director of that company? When the question of rates came up, or legislation affecting the operations of that company in its relations with the people of Canada, would not the public be shocked to find that when the board sat as a board every member of the Government of this country was on it and that there was no one to represent the country at all? That is a condition that is quite possible according to the gospel preached by my good friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who launched into the hymn "Wash me and I shall Tie whiter than snow" and expressed other lofty ideas as if he wished to also have them set to music in this House.
Now I am not saying that this is a practicable Bill. I am not saying that it can be carried out; but I do say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Brome should not be brought before the bar of the House and chastised and indeed brought to task severely, because he dared to introduce the measure. Its introduction has worked a lot of good. It has been shown that it was desirable, whenever it could be brought about, that members of a government should not be directors; that although we have fifteen or sixteen, perhaps twenty, heads of departments here, it does not follow that even although every one of them retired from being director of companies, anything would happen the country. In the event of their retirement the companies will go along just as they did before. The interests of the individual who happens to be a minister would, if he were not on a directorate, be in the hands of other directors, just as the business of other men formerly were in his hands, and things would go along first rate. Perhaps it is not practicable to carry out this proposition; but let me say to the Prime Minister as well

as to the House, that the ideal condition is that men who are ministers should have nothing to do with such companies in particular as are concerned in a large way with the Government.
The hon. member for East Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp) spoke about a private man acting in a private capacity, and that such a man can do business with the Government and be a minister; but the moment his business becomes incorporated he is debarred from serving in the Government or being a director of his own business. Well, those are small matters in a way. About a man who is conducting a private business as a manufacturer, or some other line, I do not concern myself at all; it is his private affair, and even if he incorporates the business the fact is still true to a great extent; but the cases I have particularly in my mind are those of any members of the Government who are acting in the dual capacity of directors of concerns that have to do with the public and at the same time are occupying positions as heads of departments that deal with these concerns. I think such a position is an anomalous one, and the exercise by ministers of such dual capacities should be avoided as much as possible.
Mr. WILLIAM FOSTER COCKSHUTT (Brantford) :: Before the hon. member for
Brome closes the debate, I want to say a word or two on this question. It appears to me that the idea that the Bill may be passed in accordance with high moral ethics is not a businesslike proposition. The fact has already been referred: to that the business interests of Canada- and when I speak of "the business interests" I mean everybody who is engaged in any trade or commerce of any kind, which would embrace a very large proportion of our population-is now and always has been under-represented in almost every government that has been formed in Canada since I can recollect. That applies to the provinces as well as to the Dominion. Now this Bill which the hon. member has introduced would further circumscribe the bringing into office of any business man in Canada. It is well known that no man gets on very far in these days who does not become a director of some kind of a company. He might be a very poor director and it might be a very poor company, but he is a director of some kind of a company if he has got on at all in the business world. Yet this Bill would preclude him from taking his seat in the present or any other government. We now have in

Toronto a government that has not a single business man in it, and I am sorry for the province that it is so. If there were business men in that government I think some of the loans that have recently been floated at very high rates would not have been floated; they would have been placed on the market at rates that would have yielded a much better return for the money of the province than we are now getting. I say the same with regard to this Government. From time to time, I believe, the legal element has predominated and legislation,-often not very useful legislation-has emanated from legal men like my hon. friend (Mr. Mc-Master) who would like to pass his name down to posterity as the father of some [DOT] great Act in operation in the country. For my part I would like my name celebrated-and I have been here quite a number of years-as a man who has prevented unnecessary legislation from going on the statute books, rather than as a man who-had been a party to passing doubtful measures of any kind. There is far too much legislation passed in this country, and in my judgment it begets a contempt of law; in fact the people become so befogged that they do not know where they are half the time in regard to obeying the laws that this country has enacted. Many of such laws have gone through this House since I have been here. We let some through last session that members now are sorry for and they woke up to the fact afterwards. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that far too much legislation goes through and in its passage it is hurried to too great an extent. My hon. friend from Brome has submitted a Bill that may be deemed perhaps to be receiving undue consideration, but it is a far reaching measure and it is quite opposed to the practice that has been in vogue in this country for many years. I believe if this legislation were to pass my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) would not have to resign from any directorates. I may be wrong but I judge that he would not have to resign from any directorates in order to qualify if this legislation were to pass, and that also may properly be said with respect to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). Holding the particular views that my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) does I do not think he would be a valuable asset to any ordinary manufacturing or commercial company, and therefore perhaps he is not so very much sought after. My hon. friend in bringing in this legislation is, I think, entirely in the wrong.
Let me say that I have known the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballan-tyne) for a great many years, long before he entered this Government. I have known him for at least twenty-five years and have done business with him, and I recognize him as one of the first business men of Canada. Now, to say that he should divest himself of directorates in companies because he is here to-day and-as my hon. friend would have told him last week- he is going to be gone to-morrow; he then called upon the whole Cabinet to resign immediately and get out, he declared-they have no place here-is unreasonable. The hon. member would compel a minister to divest himself of all his business interests, and in the second clause he calls upon him to do so within fifteen days after he is sworn in. Now a minister upon accepting office might go to his constituency and not be elected. He might have resigned all his business interests and thrown them to the winds, and still his constituents might not endorse him. Perhaps they would rather refuse to endorse him because of the fact that he had thrown away his business interests, and would no longer have that position of influence in the community that he would enjoy did he continue to retain his business interests,

because in every community the man who employs a large number of his fellows or makes a success of business is rightly looked up to. Are you going to put into office the man who fails, the man that cannot qualify, or are you going to choose the man whose business career has justified him in being selected among his fellows for a position of this kind?
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend has gone too far afield in this measure and that there is no call for such legislation in the Dominion of Canada at the present time. I do not remember the existing situation ever having infringed upon the rights of the people to any extent. I trust that no one in particular has been especially aimed at in this legislation. I do not believe the hon. member for Brome would do such a thing. I have a higher opinion of him than that, and I do not think he has any particular person in mind in the matter. But I would like to point out to him that his Bill would limit a class of men who may be selected for Governments, and it would cut out those who, perhaps by their training and by the success they have made in business career, are the best fitted for that particular calling.
I am not sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) who leads the third party was not

included in this measure. I rather fear he would be. While he has no doubt got his eye upon this proffered legislation and is able to look after himself, it seems to me that possibly the United Grain Growers and the Elevator Companies may be directly concerned. No one would say, no matter what opinion they had of the Grain Growers party, that the leader of the party was the man to be dropped, when it is doubtless understood that he is by far the most capable man for the position for which he has been selected by the Council of Agriculture, and by those who follow him.
I think, Mr. Speaker, when the House looks at this in a sober, clear way it will see that the interests of the country have not suffered, nor are they likely to suffer, because the moment any minister of the Crown showed that he was allowing his private interests to dictate his public policy, he would be a marked man in the House and in the country and the Government could not get rid of him too quickly. I hope the hon. gentleman will withdraw his measure, because I think it is pretty sure to be defeated.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, the reference to myself made by my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) induces me to participate in this debate very briefly. If I might be permitted a personal allusion, when the Union Government was formed in October, 1917, I held a directorship in the company with which I had been associated for many years, and I was also a director in one of the smaller Canadian banks. I am divulging no confidence, I think, when I say that before accepting office I discussed the matter with the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) who was then Prime Minister, and as far as my own business relations were concerned, it was clearly understood that my time was to be entirely free from them. As far as my position with the bank was concerned, I considered it then my duty to resign my directorship, and I did so.
I am in cordial agreement with what my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has said, and also with what my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has said, that the best approach to a solution of this question comes through a high-minded sense of public duty. I am at a little difference of opinion with my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster). I cannot see that his position is entirely consistent or logical. He proposes that any

one who is a director of a corporation doing business in Canada shall sever his business connection on being elevated to the high honour of a minister of the Crown. If my hon. friend is consistent I think he must pursue that principle still further. Take the case, for instance, of a gentleman who may be elected to this House, and is the head, or a member, of an important legal firm. Should he accept a Cabinet position, would it not naturally follow, for the reasons stated by the hon. member for Brome, that he should sever his connection with his legal firm? We might carry the principle further. My hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) is, I believe, a general merchant in that town. If a new Government should be formed and my hon. friend should be asked to become a member of it, should he thereupon be compelled to dispose of all his business interests in Renfrew? I might pursue that line of reasoning still further, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) is a farmer. Were he to be elevated to Cabinet rank, would it follow that he should dispose of his farm holdings in order that there might be no division of interests in the prosecution and fulfilment of his duty as a minister of the Crown? I think that principle could be carried to very extreme lengths.
I do hold very strongly, however, that business of the Government should be entirely dissociated from the business of corporations of which members of the Government may be directors. I think that is in the public interest. After all, I believe the best solution of this question may be found in the development of the high sense of public duty that was manifested by Lord Grey in the instance given by my hon. friend from Red Deer. But the discussion has done good, and I am sorry that I was not in the House when my hon. friend from Brome, for whom I have a very high respect, introduced this measure, as I have no knowledge of what he stated on that occasion. But viewing the whole question on general principles, although I think it is very highly desirable that the conduct of our public men should be put beyond any possibility of reproach, yet it seems to me that the position taken by my hon. friend from Brome is perhaps a little too far in advance at the present time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, in the observations which I made when introducing this Bill last Friday, I was very careful to endeavour to dissociate

any expression of personality in my discussion of its subject matter. I am glad to say that, with one exception, that attitude of mind on my part has been followed by hon. members who have spoken in this debate, and I thank them for it.
I am quite aware that there are arguments against my Bill. There is the weighty argument which has been discussed by the hon. member for East Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp) and by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). Their point was that in the case of a man who has built up a personal business of his own under the law and the practice as at present there is nothing to prevent him accepting the office of a minister of the Crown and retaining his interest in his personal business-remaining its manager, so to speak. But the member for East Toronto said: If this Bill goes into effect, then such a man if he changed his business into an incorporated form would be precluded from being a minister of the Crown. Now, I had thought of that case before it was brought up and-I do not know whether I am exactly in order in making this statement, Mr. Speaker-in the hope that the principle of the Bill may be accepted, I thought of meeting such a case in this way: By defining what I would call a personally owned and controlled company. Let us define such a company as one in which 85 per cent of the capital stock is owned by the minister and his relations within the degree of first cousins, and the board of which is composed of a majority of the minister's relations within the same degree. Then I would make an exception of such a company and would allow the minister to retain his directorship; but if he did so I would preclude his company from doing any business with any department of the Government or with any national system of railways or of ships. I would be prepared to do that to meet the objection made by the hon. member for East Toronto and by the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon, in which I think there is a great deal of force.
My hon. friend from East Toronto also said: Trust the ministers. That has been the motive, so to speak, of a great many of the speeches made against my Bill-that 4t is unnecessary and that we should trust to the delicacy of honour of the minister. If that is a good argument in regard to ministers, why is it not an equally good argument in relation to members of Parliament? Section 14 of the Senate and House of Commons Act sets out very
clearly that a member of Parliament shall not be concerned
-directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown.
The cases are not exactly analogous, but they are very similar. In enacting this legislation, Parliament in its wisdom has not relied upon the honour of members of Parliament. What the member of Parliament is told he shall not do are exactly the things which delicacy of feeling will prevent him from doing; nevertheless it has been thought wise to incorporate these prohibitions in the statute.
The next point to which I wish to refer was that made by the member for Park-dale (Mr. Mowat), whose idea was that Parliament should resent a Bill invading the realm of private honour-I think I quote his exact words. Well, this Bill no more invades the realm of private honour than the legislation we already have upon the statute book.
There is no demand for this legislation, says the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I do not know whether the hon. member is apprised of the fact, but there is abroad among the people of Canada a very strong impression-to put it in the most moderate language-that the large business interests of the country now have and have had in the past, whether one party or the other was in power, a great deal too much to say as to how the country should be governed. The legislation which I am asking the House to adopt is for the purpose of preventing, as I said before, interlocking directorates from entering into the circle of the Cabinet.
The member for Vancouver Centre expressed the view that if such legislation as this were adopted the Bill should be extended so as to make ineligible for entry into the Cabinet a man who was acting as counsel for a large company. Now, that depends upon whether or not my hon. friend has reference to counsel acting under a yearly retainer. For instance, if a man acting as solicitor for a large company on the basis of a standing retainer of perhaps $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a year should enter the Cabinet without resigning that position as solicitor, the procedure would be just as improper as it would be for a director to enter the Cabinet and retain his directorship. If I correctly apprehend what my hon. friend said, I am

perfectly willing to enlarge my Bill to that extent. I do not agree with him that auditors should be in the same position. The auditor, after all, is a man who sees that the books are kept properly. My hon. friend, who is not, I think, a member of the legal profession, should realize, as an intelligent layman, what a vast difference there is between the part played by the auditor in his connection with the company, and the part played by the lawyer as respects the advice which he gives. The hon. member also made a reference to including the insurance agent, but I think that was a species of humour on his part.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that it is unnecessary and inadvisable to provide that members of the Cabinet shall not be directors in incorporated companies. But if I mistake not, it is specially provided in the Act creating the Railway Commission that no Railway Commissioner shall be a director in an incorporated company. Well, the cabinet sits as a court of appeal form the decisions of the Railway Commission; therefore we have this peculiar position: the court of original jurisdiction is forbidden to hold directorships, but the court of appeal from that court is allowed to do so. That does not seem to me to be logical.
Now, I come to the argument made by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne). I may say-and I would call all members of this House to witness who heard me the other day-that in introducing this measure I studiously refrained from imputing any wrong-doing to any minister, and I refrained absolutely from making a personal attack upon anyone. But the Minister of Marine has endeavoured to attract the lightning upon himself; his doing so has been no fault of mine. The minister has been frank, if he has been anything. He said: I am a director in many large industrial companies, in banks and in trust companies. He seems to think that his holding of these positions is perfectly compatible with his being a minister of the Crown-and he now nods his head in token of assent. But, Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say this: The energy and the skill required in the administration of a large department of the Government is such that I have not been able to give any attention to my company matters-and he nods his head again. Well, in all kindness I ask him, is it fair to the shareholders of the Royal Trust Company that he should remain a director of that company, that he should give his name to the institution

and the prestige that his name carries with it, while he gives no attention at all to the aifairs of the company? Is it fair, is it right, for a man to hold himself out as a guardian of the interests of the shareholders and of the depositors, if there are any, of the Royal Trust Company, and yet give no attention to the affairs of the company? My hon. friend is a director, if I mistake not-and he will correct me if I make any mistake-of the Merchants' Bank of Canada. Is it fair or right that the workingmen of this country should be invited to place their hard-earned savings in the care of the Merchants' Bank of Canada, relying upon my hon. friend being a director of that institution, when as a matter of fact he tells us that he can give no attention to the matter? I do not think it is right, and I think that on further consideration, my hon. friend will come to the same conclusion.
Now, I do not want to make this a personal quarrel between the Minister of Marine and myself, because I have no quarrel with the hon. gentleman. But he has endeavoured to justify his retaining of directorships while acting as minister of the Crown. Let us return for a moment to the Royal Trust Company, which, he will admit, is a kind of side-door of the Bank of Montreal, or represents the same or almost the same business interests. Is it right that the minister should be a director of a company so closely associated with the Bank of Montreal as the Royal Trust Company when the Bank of Montreal is one of the bankers of the Government of this country? I do not think it is. My hon. friend may think it amusing, but there are members on this side who fail to see the humour of the situation.
In connection with this matter I wish to direct the attention of the House to an item published in the Ottawa Citizen of to-day, which states that Andrew Mellon, the new Secretary of the United States Treasury, resigned all directorships which he held on taking office under President Harding. I think that is the better method to adopt.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) endeavoured to push the matter to an absurdity. He wanted to infer that we wished to impose celibacy upon the Cabinet. We do not wish to go that far-that, I understand, would be a difficult job. I wish no longer to detain the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -and I am sorry if my remarks have caused such pain to

hon. gentlemen as to force them to give audible expression to what seems to me an almost discourteous desire to see me finish my remarks. There is no need for me to recapitulate what I said. It seems to me that the whole matter resolves itself down to this very simple proposition. The position of a minister of the Crown demands all a man's energy and skill, and I think that is one thing on which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) and I agree. That being so, if a minister retains directorships, he must, perforce, either neglect state matters or neglect company matters. I believe in most cases he will neglect company matters and give his time and attention to the state. That is unfair. [DOT] I have made no imputation of wrongdoing to anyone; but there is a possibility that there may be conflict of interest, and the public interest suffers. Even if that never happened, there is always the liability_ of the public thinking there is something wrong, and we should avoid that at all costs.


Mr. POWER:: I	was paired with the
junior member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. R. H. Butts). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Bill.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
THE JAMES MacLAREN COMPANY LIMITED
Mr. G. H. BOIVIN, for Mr. Fontaine, moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting the James MacLaren Company Limited. He said: When this order was called yesterday, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) made some objections to the reference of this Bill to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. I see that in
[Stage Direction]
his remarks he stated that the Bill concerned the construction of railway terminals and telegraph lines, and that possibly it ought to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Since the order has been allowed to stand, the hon. member for Three Rivers has looked into the matter, and he has authorized me to say that he is perfectly willing that the Bill should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, to incorporate The Mayo Valley Railway, Limited.-Mr. Thompson (Yukon).
Bill No. 21, respecting The Oshawa Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 22, respecting The Thousand Islands Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Resuming the adjourned Debate on the proposed Resolution of Mr. Griesbach. That in the opinion of this House, should oil be found and produced in or under any lands in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, in which ownership to the sub-surface is In the Crown, the Owner of the surface right shall be entitled to one-si.xteenth of such oil, provided that such owner shall have made a homestead entry, or other entry, for the said land prior to the date of the application for the oil lease in the subsurface. And whereas, all existing leases contain a provision that they are subject to the provisions of the regulations in force at the time of the granting of the same and also any regulations subsequently adopted. Therefore alteration should be made in the regulations to give the owner of the surface rights a similar interest in the oil produced under leases heretofore granted in which no development work has been done upon the said lands under the said leases.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker in the absence of
the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach) it might be deemed unfair to go on with this debate just now. Perhaps the order might stand in the meantime. The hon. member, I am just informed, is now in the House and is prepared to withdraw his resolution.
Resolution withdrawn.



STANDARDIZATION OF PARTS OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. McCoig moves that I do now leave the Chair for the House to
[(Mr. Boivln.]
resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the standardization of parts of agricultural machinery, and to enact,-
1.	That from and after the first day of
November, 1922, all agricultural implements and farm wagons manufactured in Canada for use * within Canada, shall with respect to the following parts, namely:-Grain Binder Knife Sections, Knife Heads and Pitmans, Mowing Machine Knife Sections, Mowing Machine Knife Heads, Mowing Machine Pitman's Clamps, Mowing Machine Guards and Guard Ledger Plates, Hay Rake Teeth, Land Cultivator Teeth and Cultivator Points, Sprocket	Chainsdifferent sizes, Plows Points, Plow Sole Plates, Plow Clevises, Ensilage Blower Pipes, Nuts for Wagon Arms, Machine Bolts and Nuts; be made to conform to the standards prescribed by regulations to be made by the Minister of Agriculture prior to the first day of November, 1921, and approved by the Governor General in Council ; and that further and other regulations may be made by the minister from time to time. "
2.	That from and after the first day of November, 1922, no agricultural implement or farm wagon shall be manufactured in Canada for use within Canada which with respect to the said parts fails to comply with the regulations then in force, and any manufacturer of agricultural implements or farm wagons for use within Canada violating these provisions or regulations shall incur a penalty of not less than S200 and not more than $1,000.


Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent, O.):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I put the motion that
the House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution. Does the hon. member desire to debate that motion?


Archibald Blake McCoig: I desire to say a few
words in connection with the resolution standing in my name. In the first place, it is very gratifying to be able to present to Parliament a resolution of a non-contentious nature such as this which I think will meet with the general approval of the people of Canada, including the manufacturers as well as the users of agricultural implements. I think the manufacturers of agricultural implements should be glad that such a resolution has been presented to Parliament, and particularly if it should be adopted. There never was a time in the history of Canada when the manufacturers were enjoying greater prosperity or higher prices for the goods they are disposing of to the agriculturists of Canada. This resolution, if carried into effect, would put them in the position of having many of the parts of their different implements interchangeable. The parts would be standardized so that if an agricultural implement shipped to a foreign market required a spare part, the purchaser would be in the

fortunate position of being able to get the required part from any Canadian manufacturers' agent which would not be the case with purchasers of agricultural implements from manufacturers in other parts of the world. This matter is not an entirely new proposal. It was up last session before the Committee on Agriculture, and in all fairness to the chairman and members of that committee let me say that they all recognized the importance of this proposal, and gave it their hearty en-dorsation whenever the matter was up for discussion.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I was not able to advance the Bill I introduced in the House last session dealing with this matter, because it had not been preceded by a resolution, but I repeat, the members of the Committee on Agriculture discussed the matter, and one and all approved the proposal of having the different parts of farm machinery made in this country interchangeable.
For the benefit of hon. members who are not members of the Committee on Agriculture I might say that the first item dealt with in the resolution is grain binder knife sections. As you no doubt are aware, Mr. Speaker, all the sections are of exactly the same size, three inches, the only difference between different makes being that the holes are drilled differently, so that the sections are .not interchangeable; that is, one manufacturer's knife sections could not be used on the machine of another manufacturer. At present a man using a Massey-Harris binder who required a knife section would have to get it from the Massey-Harris repair man, whereas if these sections were made interchangeable he could go to the International Harvester Company agent, or the agent of any other Canadian manufacturer living up to these proposed regulations, and get the part he required. The same thing applies to pitmans. They are all wood, but they are made in different sizes, so that if a man breaks a pitman he has to get another part from the agent of the particular company that sold him the machine. The same thing applies to mowing machine knife sections. All the sections of the mowing machines are of the same size, but they are drilled differently. Then the pitman clamps are all of the same length, but they also are made just a little bit differently, so that they are not interchangeable. If this resolution were carried into effect these parts would be standardized, and then if a man wanted a repair part
he would not have to drive to the agent of the particular company from whom he bought the machine, but could get the part from any Canadian manufacturer of these implements.
If for instance a farmer broke a pitman clamp on his machine while in the hay field at a busy time of the year he would not have to drive to some dealer at a distance to procure the necessary repair. It is an article worth only thirty-five cents, but it is of very great importance, and if these clamps were the same for all makes of machine it would obviate considerable trouble and annoyance when time is of the utmost value. As it is, they are made just a little different in the various makes of machine and are therefore not interchangeable. The same thing applies to the knife heads on mowers. All mowing machine knives are made in five, six and seven foot lengths, and but for a little twist they are almost indentical; but this slight difference renders them uninterchangeable. Now, if this article were standardized a company would not need to reconstruct a mowing machine because the knife heads would be standardized and be made interchangeable, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the resultant saving would be considerable, not only in money but in time also, which is of equal if not greater importance.
Another article which should be standardized-and this is of vital importance-is the ledger plate. The ledger plate has to be repaired from time to time during the lifetime of the machine, and I think it is highly important that a farmer should be able to procure this repair with the slightest possible inconvenience. This also applies to the hay rake teeth and land cultivator teeth. Let me say, for the benefit of hon. members who are not conversant with agricultural implements, that these teeth are of the same size, but they are slightly different in some minor respects and if a man wishes to buy teeth for a rake he may find that the ends of the teeth in one make are bent in the opposite direction to that of the rake he is using, and consequently no end of trouble and annoyance is involved. The standardization of this part of farm machinery could be accomplished without any expense or reconstruction of rakes; the expense to the manufacturer would be very slight indeed. This applies not only to hay rake teeth but also to land cultivator teeth. If a man owned a rake purchased five or ten years ago he could, if my proposal were adopted and these parts were standardized,

be able to go to some concern near at hand and get the proper repair.
The next article to which I desire to refer is the sprocket chain. I may say for the benefit of the uninformed on these matters that we could have three or four different sizes of chains but have them all standardized so that whatever number of chain a man wanted he could go to a repair house and get it without any trouble. The next thing is the question of plough points. We have in Ontario to-day five or six different plough firms making what is known as the No. 21 plough, which is the most desirable general purpose plough that can be procured. But the points in the different makes are not identical; there is just enough difference in the way the holes are drilled to prevent their being interchanged. All that would be necessary would be to have the points standardized and the holes drilled in the proper place so that the farmer might be able to go to any plough firm and get the necessary repairs for his machine. The same thing applies to plough sole plates. Let us take blower pipes, which are very much in use. Farmers throughout the country are erecting silos and it is necessary to procure a lot of .piping. These pipes could with very little expense be standardized and it would be a great blessing to any farmer using a silo filler. Next we have the question of wagon arms. Now, I would not say that the arm should be standardized, but I contend that the nuts should have the same thread on all wagons. It would cost practically nothing to change the present nuts so as have the threads on all arms of wagons the same. If that were done a farmer who lost a nut off his wagon would not have to go to five or six different repair houses to get his wagon fixed up. Thei'e are some other articles on the list such as machine bolts, etc., and while I do not refer to them, I think I have said enough to show the inconvenience to which users of agricultural implements have been put in securing parts for their machines. This is why I am anxious to have this matter brought to the attention of the House. Now, some manufacturers might tell hon. members that they are keeping a large supply of repairs for their particular line of goods in every agency and municipality throughout the country. Well, why did the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan pass the legislation that it did during last session? I quote the following from "Canadian Farm Implements:"
The Saskatchewan Farm Implement Act has been altered by the addition of two new pro-
visions. The first provides a penalty of $100 for each offence where a vendor fails to maintain a sufficient supply of repairs required for machines sold by him and in operation in the province; and the second authorize the Minister of Agriculture to appoint inspectors whose duties shall be to inspect the stocks of repairs kept by vendors and who shall have free access during business hours to the vendors' premises.
This goes to show the importance of having a repair stock kept on hand by different vendors in the agricultural implement business. It is evident that a lot of agencies have not been keeping repairs to supply the farmers; otherwise, it would not have been necessary for the provincial legislature to pass this legislation. If the repair parts were standardized as I suggest it would be unnecessary for a lot of different agents to keep a full stock because one stock would supply the demand in small towns and villages throughout the country. As hon. members know, there are many articles in common household use now that are standardized. It was not such a long time ago when we could not get an electric bulb that would fit any socket. To-day all bulbs are standardized and the convenience in consequence is incalculable. The same thing applies to plumbing; we have plumbing repairs standardized so as to be interchangeable. And so far as automobiles are concerned, tires and rims are standardized; so that a man, regardless of the kind of car he owns, can easily get these parts of his, car from any dealer. Now, we have a precedent for standardization of farming implements in action that has been taken abroad, and I might read from "Canadian Farm Implements," printed in Winnipeg, the following:
The Standard Committee of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers reports that excellent progress has been made in stadard-ization during 1920. The following standards are now ready for final adoption. Standard belt speeds, in which it is proposed to include five speeds, viz., 1,500, 2,600, 3,000, 3,250 and 3,500 feet per minute. Standard tractor and plough hitches, which include height of vertical hitch on tractor and lateral adjustments for ploughs of two, three and four bottoms.
Farm wagon standards, including the standard automobile track of 56 inches and tire widths for wuigons of various capacity ratings.
The following standards are in the process of development:
A standard code for testing and rating the belt and drawbar power of tractors.
A standard manger form for dairy barns.
Standard ratings for letter carrier capacities and dimensions.
Standard ratings for capacities and power requirements of ensilage cutters.
This is not an entirely new matter. It started in the United States in many

different lines and I feel satisfied that if we do not carry out legislation in the same direction we shall be very much behind the times. I think that the benefits to be derived from the standardization of parts of agricultural machinery are so obvious that this matter needs no great argument. This question has been directed to the attention of many prominent men in this country who are interested in agriculture, as, for instance, the Minister of Agriculture in the government of Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Doherty. I desire in this connection to quote the following:
I represent the United Farmers of Ontario. This matter has been up for discussion at meetings of the United Farmers during the past year It is a very live question with the farmers of the province. They are very quick to see the immense advantages that would accrue to them from the standardization of the wearable and breakable parts of their machines. Last fall there was a meeting of the Fairs and Exhibitions Association in Toronto, and they discussed this matter at some considerable length, and passed a resolution. I only refer to these matters to show the members of this Committee that the farmers of the province of Ontario will appreciate anything you can accomplish along the line which you are now following, and would he very grateful for any results that can be secured, along that line. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee upon taking up a question that is of such vital importance to the farmers. At the Fairs and Exhibitions Association, in which 350 agricultural societies of Ontario are represented, the following resolution was passed:
"That this Association in Convention assembled hereby express their hearty approval of the standardization of the breakable and wearable parts of farm machinery and would respectfully recommend that the Federal Government arrange for a committee of mechanical experts, three to be appointed by the Federal Government and three by the manufacturers of farming implements to arrange for such standardization and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Sir Robert Borden and Hon. T. A. Crerar."
This statement, Mr. Speaker, only goes to show that the farmers of this country know how important this question is. They know the hardships everybody engaged in farming has to contend with during the busy harvesting time and they know how easy it would be for the manufacturers of our country to standardize some of the parts I have referred to. I hope the members of the House will give this matter their most serious consideration and will follow it up by according their support to the resolution. I feel satisfied that if they do so, the users of agricultural implements will be extremely grateful to this Parliament. The Canadian manufacturers of agricultural implements will not be hurt to any extent but will be fortunate in the years to come
to be in the happy position that they will be able to secure in European markets, as well as at home, the patronage of the users of agricultural implements for their machinery, in preference to the implements of foreign manufacturers.


Mr. R. C. HENDERS (Macdonald) :: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact, as the mover of the resolution has remarked, that this question is not a new one but has received some consideration from the House in previous sessions, I, as chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, before whom a full discussion of the matter took place and upon whose advice arrangements have been made for the carrying on of an investigation with regard to securing all the necessary information as to what would be a proper solution of this very important question, deem it to be my privilege and my duty, to make a few observations at this time. I wish it distinctly understood that any remarks I have to make will be perfectly in accord with those of the last speaker as to the desirability of a standardization of the important parts of agricultural implements. But my special object in speaking on the present occasion, is to draw attention to the fact that the Standing Committee on Agriculture has been giving consideration to this question for a considerable time, and that it has appointed a sub-committee to conduct an investigation and to hold conferences with manufacturers who are directly interested in the other side of the question. I may state that such conferences have been held and such discussions carried on, as tend to throw some light on this important question. Further, the matter is still under review by the Committee on Agriculture. The first meeting of that committee for the present session, which is now arranged for, has on its agenda the taking up of business left over from the sittings Of the committee last session. Under that heading the present question will come under review. No doubt the sub-committee, of which the mover of the resolution is a member, will make certain recommendations to the general committee. Then the Standing Committee on Agriculture, with all the facts before it, will bring in certain recommendations to the House. Therefore in view of what has been done by that committee, and the sub-committee as well, I think it would be better for the House to defer any lengthened discussion of the matter until such time as the findings of the committee are brought down. I therefore beg to

move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harold):
That all the words after the word "that" in the first paragraph of the said resolution be struck out and that the whole question incorporated in the Motion before the House be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture for their further consideration, requesting said Committee to bring in such recommendations as their investigation of the facts will warrant.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think, perhaps, the amendment would be in better form if the two paragraphs by way of preamble were omitted.


Richard Coe Henders: The last clause is the important one, and in fact all that I included in the amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: If you strike out everything except the word "that," there is no question to be referred to the Committee. I do not know whether my hon. friend is prepared to accept it or not, but the better way would be, that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Agriculture, which, it seems to me, would affect the purpose he has in view.


Arthur Meighen: It struck me that way at first, but on further consideration, I am inclined to think the amendment is in order.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say it is not in order, I say it is not very intelligible.


Arthur Meighen: It was not very intelligible to me before. The motion is, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair in order that this resolution be referred to the Committee of the Whole. The hon. member moves that everything after "that" be omitted.


William Stevens Fielding: In the motion.


Arthur Meighen: That the Speaker do now leave the Chair, and that instead of this motion this resolution be referred to the Committee on Agriculture.	.


William Stevens Fielding: No. That the question incorporated in the resolution be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The resolution reads properly and carries out the intent of the mover. I suggest in the first place that the two paragraphs by way of preamble be stricken out because they are not essential to the motion at all. The motion as submitted by the hon. member is as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out, and that the whole question incorporated in the resolution before the House be

submitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for their further consideration, requesting said committee to bring in such recom-mandation as their investigation of the facts shall warrant.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Jacques Bureau: The amendment reads?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That all the words after "that" be struck out, and that the whole question incorporated in the resolution before the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for their further consideration-


Jacques Bureau: You leave the word
"that" in No. 1?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not essential that the word "that" should be left there at all. The essential thing is to have the resolution referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not what the amendment says.


Arthur Meighen: Should not the amendment be, that the Speaker do not now leave the Chair?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That would give the amendment a better form, but I did not want to emasculate the motion entirely. I may say that I had not seen it before, and I am trying to assist the hon. mover of the motion.


Archibald Blake McCoig: In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) as chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I shall be glad to adopt his suggestion that the resolution be sent to his committee. '


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to ask a question of my hon. friend for Macdonald, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Can he give the House any assurance that this matter will be considered by that Standing Committee and a report presented in time for action by this House if deemed necessary?


Richard Coe Henders: I have pleasure in stating that notice is already in the hands of the secretary of the committee to deal with this matter as unfinished business from last session.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That answer is not quite satisfactory. I should like to have an assurance that the matter will be placed before this House for action this session, if necessary.


Richard Coe Henders: I cannot speak for the committee, but, speaking for myself, I can

say that this matter will come regularly before the committee for their consideration, and it will come in the form in which this amendment presents it, which simply means that the question will come up for consideration by the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the amendment as I have put it to the House reads properly and is quite in order.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

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

*Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What steps, if any, has the Government taken to appoint a Canadian representative at Washington, in pursuance of the authority obtained for that purpose from Parliament at the last session?
2.	Was any representation made to the Government with reference to such appointment by Sir Auckland Geddes, the English Ambassador at Washington, or by any other representative, or member of the British Government?
3.	If so, was it because of such representation that an appointment has not been made?
4.	Is there any correspondence on the subject? If so, will it be produced in Parliament?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: 1.	The question of the appointee is under consideration.
2,	3 and 4. No.


NIOBE AND RAINBOW
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the Government disposed of or sold the naval cruisers Niobe and Rainbow? If so, when?
2.	Was said disposition or sale made after tenders were called for, or otherwise?
3.	What are the names of the parties who submitted offers and the respective amounts of each tender?
4.	To whom were said ships transferred?
5.	Have the moneys been paid in to the Receiver General? If so, when?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes. Niobe in October, 1920. Rainbow in September, 1920.
2.	Sale of the Niobe and Rainbow was effected as the result of tenders invited by advertisement published in the Press of Canada, United States and England, and of succeeding negotiations.
3.	Niobe-Mr. John Simon, Halifax, $20,000; Messrs. J. Lipsitz Co., Chelsea, Mass., $56,000; Messrs. Baker & Betcher-man, Ottawa, $75,000; Messrs. J. Lipsitz Co., Chelsea, Mass., $80,000; Messrs.
Baker & Betcherman, Ottawa, $88,000; Messrs. Baker & Betcherman, Ottawa, $100,500; Messrs. A. Garson & Co., St. John, $112,000; Messrs. New Brunswick Rolling Mills Ltd., St. John, $130,000; Messrs. New Brunswick Rolling *Mills Ltd., St. John, $135,000. The offers of the New Brunswick Rolling Mills Ltd., included the submarines C.C. 1 and C.C. 2. The highest offer previously received for these vessels was $17,000 for the two.
Rainbow-Messrs. C. S. Sutherland, Edmonton, Alta., $5,000; Messrs. Zarrows Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $8,000; Mr. Alex. Zeeve, Seattle, Wash., $34,565; Messrs. Evans, Coleman & Evans, Vancouver, B.C., $36,855; Messrs. Nieder & Marcus, Seattle, Wash., $67,777; Mr. Alex. Zeeve, Seattle, Wash., $35,565; Mr. Alex. Zeeve, Seattle, Wash., $40,000.
4.	Niobe-Sold to the New Brunswick Rolling Mills Ltd., St. John, but not yet transferred pending receipt of final payment.
Rainbow-To Nieder & Marcus, Seattle, Wash.
5.	The first instalment of $20,000 on the sale of the Niobe and the two submarines was paid in to the Receiver General on November 16th, 1920.
The sum of $67,777 realized from the sale of the Rainbow was paid in to the Receiver General on September 25th, 1920.


TAR SAND RIGHTS REGULATIONS
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: Why were the regulations established by Order in Council dated the 14th day of February, 1910, for the disposal of Tar Sand Rights in the province of Alberta, suspended by Order in Council dated the 31st day of May, 1912 (P. C. I486)?


Arthur Meighen: As it appeared that no process for the commercial recovery of oil and other byproducts from these tar-sands had at that time been perfected, and as a further examination of the deposit and research work in connection therewith appeared to be necessary to determine the value of these tar-sands, it was considered advisable in the public interest to suspend the regulations for the disposal of such'rights.


GENL. WM. BETHUNE LINDSAY, M.I.E.C.
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: 1.	Has General William Bethune Lindsay, M.I.E.C., secured or selected the 1920 acres of Tar Sand Rights in the province of Alberta, as granted to him by Order in Council, P.C. 1547, and dated the 8th day of July, 1920?

2.	If so, what is the description of the lands so selected or secured? .
3.	Are any of the lands enumerated in Order in Council, P. C. 1495, dated the 3rd day of July, 1920, as published in the Canada Gazette of July 24th, 1920, and found on page 248 thereof, included in the selection made by the said General William Bethune Lindsay?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes. Selection has been made of the area referred to, but no portion of the area so selected has yet been granted to General Lindsay.
2.	The following are the lands selected:
N i of Is. 12	Sec. 7	Tp. Rge. Mer. 88 6 W.4	N i of Is. 10	3	89	it '	ttE \ of E 1 of Is. 14...	3	a	tt	ttIs. 15...	3	a	it	ttIs. 2...	10	a	ii	ttSE J of Is. 15	8	it	ft	ttNE \ of Is. 10	tt	a	it	aW i of NE l of Is. 2..	it	n	ft	aE \ of NW i of Is. 2..	it	tt	it	ttN \ of NW i of Is. 10.	5	it	tt	aN \ of NE J of Is. 11.	it	a	tt	itE 4 of Is. 14	it	a	it	ttW i of Is. 15	it	u	tt	ttS i of SE J of	29	92	if	aLs 16	20	it	it	ttLs. 13 	21	it	ft	ttLss. 6, 7, 8, 9, and (E. of R.) 	10	32	97	10	ttLss. 1, 7 and 8 of ...	32	94	11	W.4Ls. 15 	29	ii	it	ttS i of NW i	20	it	tt	ttLss. 1, 2 and 7 of....	19	a	it	ttLss. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16 (E. of R.)	15	24	95	it	itLss. 15 and 16	21	it	it	itLs. 13 of	22	it	tt	ftLss. 4 and 5 of	27	it	ft	ItLss. 11, 13 and 14 of. .	. ,	27	it	a	ItLss. 1, 2 and 8 of	28	ft	it	ttLss. 14, 15, 16 (E. of R.)	36	96	tt	ttLss. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and (E. of R.) 	8	1	97	tt	tt
Part of lots 1, 6 and 7 in McMurray Settlement.
3.	Yes.


ALBERTA OIL LEASE RENTALS
Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):: 1.	What amount of money has been collected by the Government from oil leases in the province of Alberta during the years 1905 to 1920 inclusive?
2.	What amount of money has been collected by the Government from gas leases in the province of Alberta during the years 3 905 to 1920 inclusive?


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: 1.	$2,384,008.29.
[Mr. H. A. Mackle.1
2.	The petroleum and natural gas rights are included in all leases issued, so that the above amount was collected on account of petroleum and natural gas.


HUDSON BAT COMPANY LANDS
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry-Stormont) :: 1.	When does or did the time expire for the selection of lands provided for in the transfer of the Hudson Bay Company's right to the Government in 1870?
2.	When are or were lands reserved by the Crown for selection by the Hudson's Bay Company, and not selected, released for settlement?


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY:: 1.	23rd June, 1920.
2.	Such lands have not been released for settlement.


BRIQUETTING PLANT AT BIENFAIT, SASK.
Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1.	What is the total amount of moneys spent up to date on briquetting plant in Saskatchewan at the lignite coal fields?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the plant when completed?
3.	What will be its briquetting capacity?
4.	When may we expect to have briquettes on the market?
5.	Are there any by-products to be developed in connection with this plant? If so, what are
they?
6.	Is the erection of the plant being done by contract or day labour, or on a percentage basis?
7.	If by contract, were tenders called and who are the contractors?


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE:: 1.	The total expenditure by The Lignite Utilization Board- on the briquetting plant at Bienfait, Saskatchewan, and in preliminary investigations up to February 24, 1921, was $399,578.45. Of this sum one-half was provided by the Federal Government, and the other half, in equal amounts, by the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
2.	The estimated total cost of the necessary preliminary investigations, the plant (and houses) when completed is $675,000.
3.	The minimum capacity of the plant will be 100 tons of briquettes per day.
4.	It is expected that briquettes will be produced at the plant about the month of June, 1921, and as soon as the necessary period of trial and adjustment is concluded these will be placed on the open market through the ordinary channels of trade.
5.	The only by-products that the board contemplates removing from the gas are the lignite tars and pitches. The board is attempting to find a market for this material at the present moment. The gas

itself is to be used to heat the carbonizers and also probably the rotary dryers.
6.	The buildings, plant and bouses are being erected by contract. The contract is of a special cost plus nature with bonus and penalty clauses of various kinds. The raw lignite handling equipment, the conveyors, the piping, the valves, power wiring, the motors, the dryers, the boilers, the mixers, and the briquetting press, are being supplied on contract after competitive bidding. The carbonizers are being built by day labour (owing to exceptionally high prices quoted on competitive bidding), and the erection of a great deal of the equipment is being done also by day labour.
7.	The plant buildings and the houses have been erected by contract for which public tenders were advertised. Seven tenders were received, and the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, Messrs. Smith Bros. & Wilson, Limited, Regina, Sask.
OIL LEASE FEES-ALBERTA Mr. GRIESBACH:
What sums of money have been paid the Government of Canada with respect to applications for oil leases in the Province of Alberta from the first day of January, A.D. 1920, showing such payments in totals month by month to the latest date?
Hon. S. F.	TOLMIE:	
January,	1920		.. .$10,012.55
February,		... 64,684.57
March,	It	... 28,579.58
April		... 10,337.80
May,	H	... 13,747.28June,	U	... 18,058.62July,	U	... 13,554.79August,	u	... 45,926.22September,	it	... 35,948.11October,	a	... 40,760.36November,	u	... 46,641.17December,	a	... 78,560.92January,	1921	... 42,352.03February,	a	... 80,719.01


*Mr. COWAN:: 1.	When will the briquetting plant now being erected at Bienfait be completed?
2.	After completion, how is the product to be handled?
' 3. If sold by local agents, who will appoint
the said agents?
4.	At what price will the briquettes be sold?
5.	What is the amount now expended by the Federal Government in this plant?


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE:: 1.	It is expected that the briquetting plant being erected by the Lignite Utilization Board at Bienfait, Saskatchewan, will be producing briquettes about the month of June, 1921.
2.	The product of the plant is to be marketed through the ordinary channels of trade.
3.	The question of agency has not yet been settled. The appointment of any agent or agents rests with the Lignite Utilization Board.
4.	The Lignite Utilization Board cannot at present commit itself to any statement as to price at which briquettes will be sold, but the price will be well below the price at which anthracite coal is selling to-day in the Manitoba market.
5.	The total expenditure by the Lignite Utilization Board on the briquetting plant at Bienfait, Saskatchewan, and in preliminary investigations up to February 24, 1921, was $399,578.45. Of this sum one-half was provided by the Federal Government, and the other half, in equal amounts, by the Provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Total	$529,883.01


PRINCE ALBERT-SOLDIERS SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: 1.	Were Messrs. J. S. Fowlie, A. E. Fox, R. H. Hall, Alex. Thompson and George Reid, members of the advisory and qualification Board of the Soldiers' Settlement Board, at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, when were they appointed and when did their services cease?
3.	What compensation was paid to each of them to date, and what amount, i.f any, is still owing them?
4.	Have any of these gentlemen seen service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force? If so, in what capacity?


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	They were appointed on March 16th, 1919. The services of Mr. Reid terminated on his death, September 13th, 1919, and Mr. Fox resigned on December 20th, 1919. The others are still serving.
3.	These gentlemen are paid at the rate of $10 per diem while employed, and have
received to date:
J. S. Fowlie	$1330
A. E.	Fox	
950R. H.	Hall	
1730A. McD. Thompson.... 1740 George	Reid	
440
There are no amounts at present owing them.
4.	No. They are all over military age. Mr. R. H. Hall, aged 70 years, had two sons overseas, both cf whom were badly wound-



ed and are still receiving treatment. Mr. G. H. Reid, aged 58 years, had two sons overseas.-one was killed and the other lost his left leg. Mr. J. S. Fowlie, aged 48 years, has a son who was rejected as underage, being 17 years old. Mr. A. E. Fox, aged 47 years, has no sons. Mr. A. McD. Thompson, aged 50 years, is unmarried.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. RINFRET:: For a copy of all correspondence in connection with the employment and resignation of M. Abel Guibeau, engineer on board the Canadian Traveller, In 1919, and on' the Canadian Sower in 1919-1920.


Herbert John Mackie: For a copy of all letters, papers, documents and agreements leading up to the passing of the Order in Council, dated the 8th day of July, 1920 (F.C. 1547), whereby General William Bethune Lindsay, M.I.E.C., secured the right to a nineteen hundred and twenty acre lease of Tar Sands in the Province of Alberta.


Herbert John Mackie: For a copy (a) of the report made by Mr. S.	C. Ells, an officer of the Department of Mines, to the Department of the Interior, touching the Tar Sands in the Province of Alberta, as related in an Order in Council, P.C. 1495, and dated the 3rd day of July, 1920; (b) of all letters, papers and documents of whatsoever nature they may be, leading up to the passing of the said Order in Council.


GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE DEEP WATERWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. F. H. KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a Special Committee consisting of	members should
be appointed to consider and investigate the benefits to be derived from a deep waterway for transportation from the Great Lakes to the sea by way of the St. Lawrence river, having regard in particular to the benefits arising from the then increased navigation facilities and the utilization of the Hydro-Electric energy of the St. Lawrence river, and that the Special Committee have power to hold sessions in Ottawa or elsewhere during the recess of Parliament and have power to call for persons, papers, or records and to examine witnesses, under oath, and to report from time to time to this House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the deepening of the St. Lawrence river has been pronounced by some of the best minds of the United States and Canada as probably one of the greatest economic questions of the day. It is greatest in its magnitude, greatest in the benefits which its accomplishment would bring about. It is desirable, therefore, that the matter should be investigated by members of the House so that when we return to our constituencies we can, in turn, explain it to them, and it is with that purpose in view that I have
 moved this resolution. I hope that the press will do all that they can to give publicity to the matter.
I think it advisable to give at this stage a short account of the history of the deep waterway transportation question from the Great Lakes to the sea, by way of the St. Lawrence river. About two years ago five of the states of the Northwest United States organized themselves into a body known as the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Tidewater Association, with the sole object of endeavouring to get their products to the sea. To show you how serious they were in the matter, I may point out that each of these states subscribed $10,000 from their legislative moneys, making a fund of $50,000 to carry on a propaganda at Washington. They went to Washington with their senators and congressmen, and, of course, the Administration granted their request, and the matter was referred to the International Joint Commission. The International Joint Commission then received from the two Governments certain questions to be answered-questions of a twofold nature, one economic, and the other engineering. Each Government appointed an engineer to assist the Commission and prepare estimates as to what the cost of the project would be. The Commission has been holding sessions all over Canada and the United States; with, I believe, one more sitting at Detroit they will conclude their public hearings, and it is expected that their report will be published in Ottawa about the second week in April, when their regular statutory sittings are held.
Now, this motion for a committee is in no way to interfere with or to derogate from the International Joint Commission. It is important that we come to understand this question just as our cousins to the South have understood it. They have realized the importance of it; it is equally important to us-not, of course, in point of population, the United States outnumbering us ten to one, but the benefit is common in all other respects.
I should like to say a few words with regard to the benefits that will be derived from this project when completed. They are two-fold in their nature, one affecting the question of transportation, and the other the question of fuel and the development of power as a substitute for fuel. As regards transportation, it goes without saying that it is the tie which binds the different parts of the country together. If isolated parts of a dominion or an empire are without means of transportation, with-

out means of getting to or from the centres or the markets, the sentiment of attachment slowly dies out, and, feeling their isolation, the separated parts are liable to drop off and fall away. It is apparent therefore, that the development of means of transportation is bound to 9 p.m,. promote the public good. I would like our friends in the prairie country to realize that the problem in no way conflicts with that which is very dear to their hearts-the Hudson Bay Railway project. When the International Joint Commission held sittings at various points on the prairies the suggestion was made that there might be an interference in this connection. But we do not wish in any way to interfere with the Hudson Bay Railway project; this proposal in no way touches it or affects it.
Now, what are the benefits of these transportation facilities? I have lived for some thirty years at the head of the Lakes. Originally the movement of freight was from the East to the West. I have seen the wheat going into the West steadily and none going out, and I have seen, as is the condition to-day, hundreds of millions of bushels going from the West to the East. Heretofore Canada has endeavoured to meet this situation by the use of her canal systems but owing to the changes which have taken place we are now behind the times. We ship the grain from Port Arthur in vessels carrying 500,000 bushels, but vessels of that kind can only go as far as Port Colborne, and it takes four ships of present Welland and St. Lawrence canal size to carry that same cargo from Port Colborne to Montreal. Necessarily, because of the large carrying capacity, the freight charge to Port Colborne or to Buffalo is lower than it is for the comparatively short distance from Port Colborne to Montreal. The rate last year was four cents from the head of the Lakes to Port Colborne or Buffalo, a voyage occupying about five days. If the rate for that five days trip is four cents a bushel, it is not unreasonable to assume that for two days additional journey the rate would be an additional two cents a bushel. If therefore, the vessel did not have to discharge at Port Colborne, the rate through to Montreal from Port Arthur, Duluth or Chicago would be six cents a bushel. But under the present procedure the grain does not go to Montreal; it is unloaded at Buffalo and shipped to New York. It costs twelve cents a bushel to get it from Buffalo to New York by rail and the barge canal rate is now prac-43i
tically the same as the rail rate. People do not realize that Buffalo or Port Colborne are as near to the market at, say, Liverpool by the St. Lawrence as New York is in distance.
That being the case, why unnecessarily transport this grain four or five hundred miles more to New York and have that cost of transporting the grain and then be just as far away as when you were at Buffalo? I make the statement that there will be to every producer of grain in the West a direct saving the moment a ship can go straight through with a large cargo to Montreal, instead of breaking bulk en route. When the vessel is at Montreal, she is three or four hundred miles nearer Liverpool than if she were at New York, and the rate from Montreal to Liverpool is the same as the rate from New York to Liverpool. It is quite clear that you can save five cents a bushel on all the grains of the West if they can be moved without breaking bulk at the foot of lake Erie. Let me explain the reason why. The price of every article is, of course, governed by the market, and the market for our grain is in Europe. The producer, the farmer in the West, gets that market price, less the cost, including brokerage, insurance and everything else, of getting his product to the market. If, therefore, you can reduce the transportation charges by five cents, you are going to put that saving into every producer's pocket, and it needs no mathematical computation by me to show how the producers of the West are going to benefit. Grain for export and grain which is used for home consumption command the same price. So much for grain.
As regards flour, the moment you handle any package freight, the cost runs up very largely, and the saving on package freight will be very large. One of the problems with which this country has to grapple is to get the flour out instead of simply moving out the grain, because it is very much more profitable to Canada to ship out flour and to keep the by-products of grain in our country as far as we can than it is to ship out wheat. One can readily see that on articles like dairy produce, canned goods and package freight of that kind, that has to be handled two or three times, the saving will be considerable. I should like to call the attention of hon. members to what I found in my mail box this morning. This is a newspaper called the Weekly Market News and Financial Farmer. I do not

know where or by whom it is published. It was sent to me as a marked copy containing a report of the Wheat Board; but in it is a copy of an address given by Julius H. Barnes, who was formerly Wheat Director and President of the United States Grain Corporation, and with the permission of the House I should like to read what Mr. Barnes said in his address to the Farmers Marketing Committee of Seventeen at Chicago on November 5, 1920. Mr. Barnes Is the recognized authority in the United States on these questions. In the middle of his address he speaks of the improvement possible in the relative position of the producer, and under the head of water transportation he says:
It follows then that a project such as that before the country to-day of so improving the "St. Lawrence that ocean carriers reach the western ports of the Great Lakes or that the' Lake *carriers may deliver their cargoes alongside the ocean carriers in the St. Lawrence instead of breaking the hulk at Buffalo, deserves the earnest consideration and support of those who have at heart the improvement of the relative position of the western producer.
Then he goes on to say:
Its relation to the farm delivery cost simply stated is this:	The present rail rate from
Buffalo to New York is twelve cents per bushel. Also, to reach Montreal, the rail rate from Georgian bay is also approximately 12 cents per bushel. Ocean carriers may be secured at the same rate from Montreal as from New York. The opening of the St. Lawrence waterway and the improvement of the Welland canal, already undertaken by Canada, would enable the lake carrier to Buffalo to extend its trip to Montreal-only forty-eight hours longer-at a cost probably not exceeding two cents per bushel. This promises a saving of ten cents a bushel during part of the year. Its influence may reasonably be calculated to affect and improve the farm price by five cents per bushel on the entire grain crops of. that section of the country whose arc of competitive rail rates would thus be centred on the Great lakes ports -Duluth, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland.
He is speaking from the point of view of the United States side of the line and, of course, what he says is equally applicable to the Canadian side.
This applies to home consumption as well as *exportable surplus, so it may reasonably be calculated on some 4,000,000,000 bushels of grain *or $200,000,000 annually.
If the United States and Canada could realize that they are losing to the producers of grain $200,000,000 annually by not setting this canal built, I think we would get a little more rapid movement than we have had so far. There are in the United States some gentlemen who, since this organization started, made this statement -and I believe it can be justified when you compute the package freight as well

as everything else-that it would pay the two countries, Canada and the United States, to build this canal each year anu tear it down and rebuild it rather than, continue without it as at present. If that be true, or anywhere nearly true, the question arises, even if we are hard up, even if we need to conserve in every respect, which is better-to spend some money on this project and pay sinking fund and interest upon it and have something from year to year, or to throw away twice, or three times, or five times the amount annually? , That is what the situation is going to boil down to. I feel perfectly certain that when the Government and this House realize the financial side of this question, they will not allow this project to be delayed any longer. So much for the question of package freight.
I see the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) opposite me. I hope to see the day when a ship will be able to come with coal from his town of Sydney up to the head of the lakes and deliver it there, which is a thing that cannot be done to-day. Ontario is and has been suffering from a coal famine, and I cannot see why that coal should not be marketed in Ontario and brought up even to the head of the lakes and used on the railways further west. Every year large. quantities of Pennsylvania coal are brought up to the head of the lakes and stored for railway systems. There is, to my mind, no reason why, if those vessels did not have to break bulk, they could not load with coal in Nova Scotia, carry it right to the head of the lakes and bring back grain which could be shipped overseas from Nova Scotia.
Somebody may say, as has frequently been said, that this will never be used by salt water ships, but it is rather difficult to say these days that anything will not happen. Let us think for a moment what is happening. The Kiel canal did not simply open up a new navigation system; it shortened a journey by about three or four hundred miles. Formerly, ships could go round by Jutland; now they go through the Kiel canal, thus saving three or four hundred miles, and before the war many ships were using that route. We know the situation in regard to the Suez canal. What is the effect of the Panama canal, which is a locking system and which is quite a long one?
Let me show you what effect the Panama Canal has had upon the Middle States and

the same thing will apply to our Middle , Northwest. In Montana the Anaconda mine produces zinc and copper ores. The market for that zinc and copper is New York city. To transport it by rail would cost so much. Since the Panama Canal has been built, the owners of that mine have found that by shipping their product to Seattle, and then by vessels through the Panama Canal to New York, they are saving six cents a hundred pounds in freights, or $1,000,000 a year. They transport by rail to Seattle, on the Pacific coast, I said, which is exactly the same distance from their mine as Duluth, upon Lake Superior. They could transport their product to Duluth by rail, and the rate ought to be less because they do not have to climb the divide. Then from Duluth to New York by water, the rate is forty per cent, of what it is from Seattle, and therefore it is computed they will save at least three cents a pound, which will amount to a saving of $500,000 per annum on that one mine, if they could ship without breaking bulk from Duluth by water. So h: will "be with many another industry in Canada and the United States.
Ah, but some say, you will never have coastwise trade from the Great Lakes to the sea board. Why not? If the Strait of Gibraltar were not open boats would nci; go past there, but as it is open, the boats do go in. It is much longer to go around by Gibraltar from the Baltic ports than to ship across land by rail, and yet the produce of all those countries goes round by water. The route to Constantinople is 800 or 900 miles longer by water than by rail, yet the freight from, say, Antwerp or London, all goes by water. Why should not the same thing happen here? Why should not ships from Boston, New York and inland ports on the great lake system use this waterway once it is open?
Take another example of a canal. Manchester was feeling the loss of her manufacturing business. In order to get rid of the high cost of handling, manufacturing firms were moving away from Manchester to the sea board. A man, I think, by the name of Stevenson hammered away until he got the Manchester Ship Canal built. It is some 35 miles long, with 5 locks. What has been the result of the building of that canal? To-day Manchester is the third largest shipping port in Great Britain. Now, if salt water ships will go up that 35 miles of canal and through 5 locks, for the traffic coming out of the one port of Manchester, why should not salt water ships come up this inland waterway to Buffalo, Detroit, Erie, Chicago and Ontario
ports, and serve both them and the whole country tributary thereto? Why, Mr. Speaker, there is no country in the world that is so rich in products natural and manufactured as the Great Lakes country. You take any area 300 or 400 miles away from the Great Lakes and draw a line round on the map and see what you cover. Look at the natural timber wealth, look at the natural mineral wealth, look at the agricultural wealth and the manufacturing wealth of all those cities and prairie towns. This waterway would double and treble the transportation facilities, and the nlinute you reduced the cost of freights you would get articles moving that are not moving now.
Some may say that salt water ships would not be able to come up on account of their draught. They may not want to come, but they do elsewhere. Salt water ships go a thousand miles up the Amazon river. Now, ships can float in fresh water as in salt, and on the question of draught, let me give you some figures of the large ports of the world. The depth at Odessa, the great wheat port of Russia, is only 24 feet, Petrograd, 19 1-2 feet, Riga 23 feet, Libau 271-2 feet, Constantinople 22 feet. Our canals are going down to 30 feet on the sill, and 25 feet in the channel of over 800 feet in length and when the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence canals are built, it is estimated that 86 per cent, of the salt water tonnage can, if it wishes, reach Lake Erie. The popular idea is that ships are too large to come up these canals, but the number of very large ships on the ocean is very small compared with the number of tramp vessels, just as the number of Pullman cars is relatively small compared with the number of box cars on the railways. The number of vessels that draw more than 24 feet of water is relatively small. You have a few Mauretanias, Lusitanias, Leviathans, and so forth, but not many, while you have thousands of tramp vessels carrying only freight cargoes. I expect to see the day when these ships can find their way into any port on this inland Mediterranean. In the early days I have as a lawyer protested a ship from Antwerp, coming up the lakes with a cargo of rails. Now if that ship can come over from Antwerp, I cannot see why, if the canal is made large enough, any other salt water ship cannot come. These vessels will not take the place of our fresh water marine. These vessels are built for quick transportation with 30 or 40 hatches than can be quickly opened and shut, ensuring rapid

receiving and rapid delivery. They will always continue to handle iron ore and wheat. A tramp steamer may occasionally come in for a cargo of wheat, but these tramp vessels in the main would take a large amount of stuff that is not now moving, but that would move if the freight rate was reduced. They would take dairy products, for instance, and any kind of package freight, and it is in that kind of freight that the cost of handling runs up very fast on account of there being so much handling in and out of cars, vessels, and freight sheds. That class of business would materially be benefited. Meats, bacon, and all that sort of thing would move more freely and cheaply. One of the chief objections to this route has come from the city of Buffalo. It was very pleasant indeed to be in Montreal, and to observe the contrast. Each of these two places was largely affected in the same manner. They feared the stoppage of breaking in bulk. Montreal took the broad view and said that what was good for Canada was good for Montreal. Buffalo said: Why, this will ruin Buffalo. You take a 10,000 ton ship that comes to Buffalo and it means employment for so many hands to get the freight out of the ship, transport it across to the railway car, and get it to New York; the same thing in New York, and vice versa on the return. " Exactly," said those opponents of Buffalo in the West. " That is what we want to stop. We do not want to continue paying that tribute to you unnecessarily, and that will be the effect. Buffalo will however gain greatly by this development; she will become a seaport as near to Liverpool as New York is. She will have the Erie Canal to bring in by barge freight a large amount of manufactured products from the centres of industrial life, and instead of losing business she will gain." On the contrary, it is pleasing to see that Montreal took the view that even though she should lose she would not stand in the way of the development of the great West of Canada.
The other phase of the question is that of Hydro-Electric energy. It has been estimated that on the St. Lawrence river the horsepower available is some 4,000,000 and only a small fraction thereof has been used. It could not all be used at once, nor could it be consumed for some time to come. But we are rapidly running short of electrical energy. We of Ontario know what the significance has been during the last two years of orders coming from the HydroElectric : " shut off your current for such
IMr. Keefer.]
and such a time." It is a serious thing for the industrial life of the country. What would be the effect of this in a town thar depended on this electric energy? Ordinarily it is estimated, I think, that it takes ten tons of coal for one horsepower. That means $100 per horsepower, 'and yet we can do it Hydro-Electrically for $25. Why do we not do it? Simply because we are asleep. We are wasting that much money all the time. Ontario has awakened to this fact until she has used up all the power produced at Niagara Falls and is building a canal down to Queenstown, the intention being practically to scrap the plants built at Niagara Falls eventually in order to get the full benefit or head of the water there. We have 4,000,000 horsepower Tuning to waste on the St. Lawrence. Practically three-fourths of that is Canadian. That 4,000,000 horsepower would represent 40,000,000 tons of coal. We are importing every year fifteen or twenty million tons of coal, going on our knees to the United States to obtain it, and paying high exr change for it. The day is not very far distant when that coal will not be allowed to come into this country, for eventually it will have to be conserved for use in the United States. It behooves us, therefore, seriously to consider this matter. I see that the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) has a motion on the Order Paper asking for a committee to investigate the coal question, and I think it would be well for him to associate himself with this motion and, if we get that committee, to bring out before it the facts which he desires to deal with. Once the barrier at the St. Lawrence is open we can have coal come up from Nova Scotia or anywhere else, even Swansea, England, or any other place. Coal carriers do come over from the Old Country to United States ports and I see no reason why they could not enter Canadian ports as well. If we once get this energy developed there will be between Montreal and Toronto on both sides of the river the greatest hive of industrial life that the world has ever seen. We do not realize what it means. If we can once get the people to realize that there is any quantity of electrical energy there that can be developed steadily, with industry after industry located there, it will mean an enormous benefit for Canada, because they can get their power cheap as well as transportation to and from there on the highway of the sea. The salt water ships can come to them, and the point is an ideal manufacturing one.

I do not know that there is anything in regard to which the whole of Canada would he so greatly benefited. I have roughly outlined the benefit that would accrue to the farming community of the West, and the consumer would be benefited by the increased production that would ensue. Why should Boston and the large cities of the East be short of food when it is rotting in the interior? The cry all the time is "No cars." In addition to that, the cost of manufactured articles should be reduced because of the cheapness of electricity. I hope, therefore, that this House will begin to study this question and try to realize that although we are hard up and need to be careful and not spend money unnecessarily, we should not continue to lose money as we are doing at the present time.
That is the whole gist of the motion. I do not know a better time at which this matter could be brought up. This project would be mutually beneficial to the two countries. The United States and Canada would be co-operating in its construction and that could have only one result, namely, a great benefit. It would also be worldwide in its effects in the cheapening of products. And above all things, I do not think there is a. better time for us to begin to tackle this question. It will take a year yet before we can get the proper engineering data to tackle the question. But, Mr. Speaker, let us look at this matter in the light of a peace memorial. Just before the war broke out in 1914 there was under way a project to construct an international bridge at Niagara as a memorial to the hundred years of peace between Great Britain and the United States, and it does seem to me that a work like this, international in character, would make one of the finest peace memorials and of our cooperation as allies which we could possibly conceive.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright) :: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) and I find that his resolution calls for a special committee consisting of an unspecified number of members for the consideration and investigation of the benefits to be derived from a deep waterway for transportation from the Great Lakes to the sea by way of the St. Lawrence river. The House is very well aware of the fact that a similar commission was appointed some years ago to study the water-powers, the water levels, and the whole question which my hon.
friend would like to have investigated at the present time, and that that commission decided at the time, after a study of the St. Lawrence waterway, that the only possible settlement of the transportation question by way of water would be from the Great Lakes down through the Ottawa river to Montreal.
There were very many reasons adduced in favour of the project, some of which my hon. friend (Mr. Keefer) has mentioned this evening. I recall the discussion of this matter in this House upon different occasions. I remember it was pointed out that our Nova Scotia coal could not get farther west than Montreal owing to the expense of its carriage by rail; but that by the construction of the Georgian Bay Canal, Nova Scotia, coal could be transported up the Ottawa river. The great advantage of the Ottawa River route over the St. Lawrence route, which my hon. friend endorses to-night, is that it would give the whole of the upper Ottawa country, and all the lands within reach of the Ottawa river, a chance of being developed. There are untold natural resources in that country, but they cannot be developed and the products carried out at present because of the expensive rail rates. This is a story that many members of the House are familiar with. Still there are a considerable number who were not in Parliament when the discussion of the Georgian Bay Canal project invariably formed part' of the proceedings of the House on one, if not two days of each session. My hon. friend surely would not like to see set aside the recommendation of the commission which the Government appointed to inquire into this project, and whose report is a wonderful work which must be in the Library of Parliament; I know I would not be without a copy of it in my own home. Surely he would not ignore the surveys which were then made of the whole of the waterway system from the Great Lakes down, and in which due account was taken of the possible electrical development. The power development possible on the St. Lawrence system does not begin to compare with that capable of being developed through the medium of the water powers along the Ottawa river., Many people have mistaken the idea of the Georgian Bay canal by imagining that it is proposed to con-truct a canal from one end of the system to the other. The canal system is a very small part of the project. There are a

great many natural water courses along the route and out of approximately four hundred miles, if I remember correctly, there would be but very few miles of canal system to be constructed. My hon. friend from Port Arthur would ^njoy, through the Georgian Bay system, all the facilities that he would have if the system which he has so eloquently advocated tonight were built. I really would not like to embarrass the Government hut I am sure that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy) is now telling the Prime Minister that his department is already in possession of the reports, plans and surveys made in the past of the water ways along the proposed Georgian Bay Canal route; and that department is perfectly familiar with the matter.


Mr. McCURDY:: A pretty good guess.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does the minister say that those reports are not in his possession?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not saying.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not think I am
making a wrong guess.


Francis Henry Keefer: Is the hon. member
aware of the .fact that the St. Lawrence route involves the construction of only about five locks from Prescott to Montreal; that out of these five, two are necessary to get into Lake St. Louis; and that when you get into Lake St. Louis there is only six feet-something like that, a small amount at any rate-of a rise by means of a lock to get into the Ottawa river? Therefore two-fifths of the St. Lawrence locks would form part of the Georgian Bay Canal system?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: How many locks are
there at present?


Francis Henry Keefer: There are twenty-five now. There are twenty-six on the Welland canal, and there would be seven on the new Welland canal, and five on the new St. Lawrence system.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am convinced that what would tend to the success of the Georgian Bay system would not only be the carrying power which it would give, but the development of electrical power which would result from it. My hon. friend from Port Arthur must admit that there is a greater electrical power to be developed on the Ottawa river than on the St. Lawrence. The fact must also he held in mind that at the present moment there is con-
[Mi*. Devlin.]
siderable data in existence dealing with the cost of construction of the Georgian Bay project, and other details. However, that is all I wish to say at this stage of the proceedings, because I have spoken so , often on the subject of the Georgian Bay canal, that I prefer not to speak now at any greater length.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: I have listened with a great deal of pleasure and interest to the very able presentation of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer). I have also listened with considerable interest to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Devlin) and I must frankly say that it afforded me very great and unusual pleasure to hear him say in the course of his remarks that he would not wish to embarrass the Government. Such political mellowness on the part of my hon. friend is so extremely unusual that it could not pass unnoticed. I congratulate the hon. gentleman on this new development of a kindly nature hitherto unsuspected on my part at least. I hope he will continue to develop along the same line and that he will exhibit in the days and years to come the same desire which he has expressed to-night, a desire not to embarrass the Government. Hitherto I have never seen the hon. gentleman manifest any such spirit. However,
While the lamp holds out to bum
The vilest sinner may return.
I do not wish to insinuate that the hon. gentleman is the vilest of sinners or even a sinner, but I do hope that he will continue along that line and not try to embarrass the Government.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will the hon. gentleman allow me?


John Wesley Edwards: Certainly.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I merely wish to ask my hon. friend if I did not use the words "unduly embarrass the Government"?


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I apologize most abjectly to the hon. gentleman for leaving out the word "unduly". It was certainly an oversight on my part, for I might have known that the hon. gentleman would have some qualifying word in regard to his attitude towards the Government. We are to assume by that qualification that he is prepared to carry on this work of embarrassment of the Government to the extent of his ability.
However, Mr. Speaker, it was not in reference to that feature that I wished to

speak. This matter of the canalization of the St. Lawrence river for vessels of the deepest draft is something which has long since passed the dream stage and has reached the point where men of the greatest ability, both in the United States and Canada, are giving the question most serious consideration. I have nothing to say in regard to the project for the Georgian Bay-Ottawa route. I can understand the position of my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin), representing the constituency that he does, in availing himself of this opportunity to make a little political capital for himself. Very well, there is no objection to that, I presume. And if he has that right, and honestly he will raise no question along that line, then I will claim the same right for myself, and, situated as I am down near the foot of deepwater navigation in the county of Prontenac, in which county the city of Kingston has the honour to occupy a little corner, I may say that we in that part of the country are very greatly interested in this project of making the St. Lawrence navigable for vessels of the deepest draft.
There may be very serious objections to this project. Unquestionably it will cost a large amount of money; so will the proposed Georgian Bay-Ottawa scheme. Is that any reason why we should not give it the most serious consideration? The resolution of the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) says:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee consisting of hon. members should be appointed to consider and investigate the benefits to be derived from a deep waterway for transportation from the Great Lakes to the sea by way of the St. Lawrence river,-
The matter has been considered by able gentleman on both sides of the line-very seriously considered. Why, then, should it not be considered by hon. members of this House? I think the resolution is most proper and most opportune. You cannot throw this scheme to one side. Let a special committee he appointed, as the hon. gentleman asks, and let that committee investigate, seek evidence and so on. All the points which my hon. friend from Wright would seek to advance in favour of the route which appeals to him will of course come before that committee.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Not for political reasons.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, perhaps not. But, still sticking to the notion which I expressed awhile ago, that my hon. friend would make use of such an opportunity for political purposes-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But the county has been all divided.


John Wesley Edwards: Well apart from political considerations, let us look at this matter from the standpoint of a great national enterprise.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: Why should my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman object to this special committee? May I repeat, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me, that such a committee in considering evidence connected with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence route would unquestionably have brought before it alternative reasons for the other route which my hon. friend favours. Surely he will agree with me there. The whole thing, it seems to me, is very advisable, because the object is to bring out the facts in connection with this route. If it has advantages over any other route, well and good, we want to know that. If in the opinion of the committee it turns out that some other route has advantages over this route, then I presume that my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) as well as myself would be the first to say "Very well, let us adopt that route."
Nature has so placed these Great Lakes that I believe it was intended that they should be utilized for the benefit of the people of this country. We have undertaken to utilize them to some extent, for we have a canal system, constructed perhaps in accordance with the needs of the country at the time it was undertaken. We have time and again acknowledged that that system was not sufficient for this growing country, and this House accepted that principle when it decided to enlarge the Welland canal. If you enlarge the Welland canal so as to permit the largest vessels to pass down lake Ontario, what follows as a matter of course? The largest vessels would load at Fort William, come down through the Welland canal and into Lake Ontario. Already Oswego is taking steps to look after all the grain which will come down from the head of the lakes by those big vessels, and they will try to get more than their share of that business. I want to avail myself of the opportunity to say that the time has arrived and long since passed when every dollar voted by this Parliament for the deepening of the Welland canal should be voted with the distinct understanding and the declared policy on the part of the Government that the Welland canal is only part of a larger


Mr. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: Mr. Speaker, as one of the
members of the House who live upon the Great Lakes, I should like to say a few words upon this question. In speaking to the subject dealt with by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) I do not wish it to be thought by anybody that this is a proposal put forward by the head of the Lakes, including Port Arthur and Fort William. As a matter of fact the proposal, as my hon. friend pointed out, was originally put forward within the last year or two by committees on the American side, in conjunction with committees on the Canadian side, particularly committees from the neigbourhood of the constituency of my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Kennedy). It was at a meeting of that committee that this idea developed for the working out of some scheme whereby ocean freighters could enter the Great Lakes and make of the Great Lakes an American Mediterranean. Any one, Sir, who has read the fascinating stories of Parkman with regard to the original explorations about the shores of the Great Lakes must naturally be interested in such a question as this. When we remember that it was the men, those old French voyageurs particularly, who explored every mile of the Great Lakes, and down to the mouth of the Mississippi,-men like La Salle, Marquette, Joliet, Duluth, De la Verendrye, and those other great explorers who went from the mouth of the St. Lawrence and up through the Lakes, through what is proposed as the Georgian Bay route by my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) and also through what is proposed as the southern route by the committee that has been discussing this question-when we

remember that, the matter is one of romantic interest to all of us.
With regard to the Georgian Bay Canal,
I may point out to my hon. friend from Wright, who, naturally, by virtue of the fact that his constituency would be more interested in the building of that canal than in the carrying out of the southern route project, is a supporter of that scheme .-that the parts of the Great Lakes west of the Sault are as much interested in the Georgian Bay canal as they would be in the carrying out of the southern or St. Lawrence route project. So far as Port Arthur and Fort William are concerned we would be just as much pleased up there to see the Georgian Bay route built as the southern route. But since the Government of Canada has undertaken to spend some seventy or eighty million of dollars upon the Welland canal, and since the great industrial part of Canada so far as Ontario is concerned is situated along the southern route, it appears that the most
10 p.m. likely proposal to be gone on with is the southern route, and it appears also that that southern route would obtain a great deal more traffic than the northern route. The question of the building of the Georgian Bay canal has been discussed at the head of the lakes as far back as I can remember, and the construction of that route would be received with as great pleasure as the other. But the point is that opportunities come, perhaps, in one particular direction and we are ready for them as they come. So that with regard to this question I am supporting in a general way the project for the building of one of these canals.
A point for my hon. friends in Quebec to remember is that Montreal is closer by about five hundred miles to London and Liverpool than New York is. That can hardly be believed until one looks at the map and observes the exact directions of traffic. Another point which is worth remembering is that the area of the Great Lakes and the industrial part of Ontario are not, the only parts of the country interested in this project. It is stated by the American supporters of this scheme-and there are many more of them than there are Canadian supporters of it-that one-third of the population and one-third of the area of the United States are concerned in matters affecting the states bordering on the Great Lakes; and they go on to say that seventy per cent of the raw materials and foods produced in the United States are
produced in the neighbourhood of the Great Lakes. That naturally makes the southern route of much more importance from the commercial standpoint than the Georgian Bay route. In the Georgian Bay route the ships would have to go up around Lake Nip-issing, up around the Georgian bay, down lake Huron, and then make a circuitous trip in order to tap such parts of the Great Lakes as those around lake Ontario and lake Erie. It is worth while pointing out the amount of traffic which is going through the Soo canal much of which would be influenced or affected by the building of a southern route. In 1855, 106,000 tons passed through the Soo canal; in 1881,
2.000.	000 tons; in 1891, 8,000,000; in 1901,
24.000.	000 tons; in 1916, 70,000,000 tons. It is said that the amount of tonnage passing through the Soo canal is four times the amount which passes through the Suez canal.
Some hon. gentleman-either the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) or the member for Wright-remarks that ships have in the past taken advantage of this route to go up the Great Lakes. I well remember when I was a boy-and that was quite a few years ago now-seeing a Norwegian vessel which had travelled across the Atlantic ocean and which came through the Welland canal and unloaded a cargo at Fort William. True, it was a small vessel, but this goes to show that vessels have already made this trip. It is a fact also that during the war a number of small war vessels were built for the French Government at the head of the lakes.. Therefore, this fioute has already been navigated to a certain extent.
It is true that before the war $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 was looked upon as a vast amount of money to think of spending on transportation routes, such as railways or canals, or any other investment of that kind, but since Canada alone has spent in the war something like $2,000,000,000, perhaps a question of this kind will receive more kindly consideration and will not be looked upon with so much dread because of the fact that it might cost Canada $100,000,000 or $200,000,000. The fact that there are, as my hon. friend (Mr. Keefer) has pointed out, some
4,000,000 horsepower of potential electrical energy in the waterfalls of the St. Lawrence river must be considered. We can get some idea of what that means when we realize that in Canada there is said to be some 18,000,000 or 20,000,000 horsepower of potential electrical energy

of which only 2,000,000 horsepower has so far been developed.
My hon. friend also pointed out that there would be a saving in the cost of transportation of wheat. That means that on every bushel of wheat grown in the West which is exported-and that includes about 80 per cent of the wheat of the West-there would be a possible saving of from five to ten cents. My hon. friend read part of a speech delivered by Mr. Julius ^Barnes who is known to every hon. member who has had any dealings with the wheat question, and in that address Mr. Barnes pointed out that there might be a saving of ten cents a bushel. In other words, it would probably cost ten cents a bushel less to take wheat from Buffalo to Montreal than from Buffalo to New York. It might be worth while recalling that in the past 65 per cent of the wheat of the Canadian West has gone by Buffalo to New York, so that this canal would be the means of bringing that Canadian traffic back to Canadian channels again.
Whatever opposition has come to this proposition has come from New York and Buffalo, and without blaming them in any way for the stand they are taking, one must admit that their stand is taken from an entirely selfish point of view, just as I presume our standpoint may be regarded as a selfish one from the outlook of those Canadians who live on the shores of the Great lakes. But at the same time this is a matter which is of the utmost moment to those living not only on the shores of the Great lakes, but on the vast prairies of the West, not only of Canada, but of the United States. It has been stated by authorities that 80 per cent of the present ocean freighters could utilize these canals once they were built without these canals being made to a depth greater thafn 24 feet. In other words that means that only 20 per cent of the ocean freighters are so large that they could not use this route.
In closing these rather desultory remarks, I should like to point out the importance of the international aspect of this question. We cannot help remembering that for over 100 years the United States and Canada have been living side by side without a fort on either side of the international boundary line, without a gun pointing across the boundary, and this would be of the utmost importance as an example to the rest of the world how two great countries, the United 
States and Canada, can join together to build up such an important international project as this.


Mr. W. C. KENNEDY (Essex North) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) this evening, and I think the members of this House are indebted to that hon. gentleman for the very clear and lucid exposition of facts that he gave us in connection with this project. To-day, there are agitating the minds of most of the thinking people of this country two great questions that are very closely allied, one being the question of transportation of all kinds and the other the question of freight rates. The recent increase that was granted in freight rates was granted, *so I understood and so it was stated in the press, in order that the railway companies might operate without from month to month, having a deficit which they were threatened with on account of increased cost of oneration. So far as I have been able to judge from the financial statements that have been published, I am not quite sure that the rail- way companies have benefited by the increases; but I know the increased freight rates have succeeded in stifling manufacture, in limiting production and in increasing the cost of the necesaries of life in every home in this land. Therefore, it seems to me that any project that has for its purpose the lowering of freight rates is one that should meet with the approval of the people generally, and the motion of the hon. gentleman this evening asking for consideration of this project by a special committee, is one that should be readily granted by this House.
The war has changed to a certain extent the alignment of trade. We in Canada hope to make this a great exporting nation, not only' of natural, but of manufactured products, and if we are to take our products abroad, if we are to meet competition in the open markets of the world, surely one thing that we need more than almost anything else is all the assistance we can have in the way of low carrying charges. There are two elements that enter into the matter-the carrying of the raw material and the carrying of the finished products. Low freight rates will not only enable us to meet competition abroad, but mean that we shall be gainers as regards our domestic business. As has been said in this House this evening by one hon. gentleman in speaking of the probable cost of this project, it will

mean a large expenditure of public money.
I am not insensible of the financial condition of this country to-day. I appreciate that this is a country with a population of approximately 9,000,000 people; that we have a net debt of over $2,300,000,000 and that it is asking everything that the people of this country can bear to meet the fixed charges upon that debt. I appreciate too that there is throughout this country to-day a demand on the part of the people that there shall be retrenchment in regard to the actual expense of carrying on government, and also that there shall be a cessation of borrowings in connection with capital charges. But there are capital charges and capital charges. It is one thing to incur an expenditure in connection with a massive pile of buildings that do not earn one dollar of income during the year, and that probably cause an increased expenditure in the way of maintenance and other charges in connection therewith, while it is quite another thing to spend money in developing a project such as that pointed out by the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer), one that will mean lower freight rates, cheaper carrying charges and, in addition to that, the development of electrical energy that, if the figures quoted to-night are correct, will mean that interest charges on the capital expended will be met from that source.
Those of us who live in municipalities that border on the Great Lakes or on their tributaries are keenly interested in this project. In the city of Windsor two years ago we had a meeting of the International Waterways Commission, and when the people of that city had the facts presented to them and an opportunity of considering the question as it was discussed at that convention, they were unanimous in their approval of thi^ project. I believe that would apply equally well to the people throughout the Dominion; and if this Government will grant the committee that is asked for, so that the facts will be adduced, and considering, I believe, it will have the approval of the people in connection with such an outlay.
I rise also to-night for the reason that, with your permission, Sir, I desire to place on Hansard a telegram that I have received from the chairman of the Board of Commerce of our city. This telegram reads:
The Border Chamber of Commerce unanimously and emphatically endorsed deepening of the St. Lawrence waterways and the development of the power consequent thereon, as advocated by Canadian Deep Waterways and Power Association organized at Windsor in November, 1919. We believe this to be greatest economic project of the age.


Mr. W. D. COWAN (Regina) :: Mr. Speaker, lest any one should come to the conclusion that only those living at the head of the lakes or in the country immediately bordering on the lakes are interested in this particular question,
I rise simply as one from the far West to give endorsement to the proposal introduced by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer). I may say that I certainly was not a supporter of this project until recently, not that I knew anything particular about it, but as my hon. friend from Port Arthur has said, a very large number of our people have been opposed to this project simply because they believed it would kill the Hudson Bay railway. Let me say as emphatically as I can that if I thought for one minute that this canal system was going to kill the Hudson Bay Railway project, or injure it in any way,
I for one would not support this proposal, because for years, like thousands of others in Western Canada, I have been thoroughly convinced of the feasibility and practicability of the Hudson Bay route, and I am thoroughly satisfied that as soon as this Government can find the money to complete that project, and does so, it will be a success. But I have been led by the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) to look into this deep waterway scheme in the past year or two, because I have always found them men who took a keen interest in practical questions as opposed to academic or theoretical questions. A project that was practical always found their support, and they are the kind of men I like to associate myself with. So I looked into this scheme, and I have come to the conclusion that it has very substantial merit, and that the Canadian people ought to give it their very best attention.
What has surprised me most is the ease with which the scheme can be carried out? Had I been asked some time ago whether or not it was a difficult engineering problem, I think I would have answered, as thousands of other Canadians would, that it was too difficult altogether for the Canadian people to undertake, but when I find that there are only some 40 miles of canalization necessary, and that those who have investigated the project estimate that it would require only about $100,000,000, and that there is a drop only of some 220 feet, I say at once that it is not such a

tremendous project that the Canadian people need be afraid of it. Why, even the Welland canal comes almost up to it in magnitude. The Welland canal, I understand, is 25 miles long and has a drop of over 300 feet, so the project at present under discussion is not much greater than what we have already done. Such being the case, why need we be afraid of it? My own opinion is that if the St. Lawrence waterway had been wholly within the Dominion of Canada or wholly within the United States this project would long since have been carried to completion, but the difficulty is that it is an international waterway, and as a consequence a great deal of unnecessary delay has occurred.
Now, why should we support this scheme? My candid opinion is that it will be of such enormous benefit to the whole of Canada, and particularly Western Canada, in increasing production that we cannot afford to do without it. My hon. friend from Port Arthur has suggested to-night that if we had this deep waterway scheme we would save 5 cents a bushel on every bushel of wheat we produced. We would make that much, if his figures are correct, for that is what it amounts to. In a case such as this, it is not the consumer who pays, because we must deliver our grain from Canada to Liverpool in competition with the grain with the rest of the world. Therefore, every cent that is added in the way of unnecessary cost of transportation must be borne by the farmers of Western Canada, and if you can reduce that cost you put just that much into the pants pockets, or into the treasury, which is the same thing, of our farmers. At present we are exporting anywhere from 160,000,000 to 200,000,000 bushels a year. That would mean a saving of from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 a year.
But does that state the whole case? Far from it. Even if a start were made on this project now, it would be from 3 to 5 years *before it would be completed and if the progress of Western Canada continues at the same rate as in the past few years, we shall be producing in Western Canada before these canals are completed anywhere from 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 bushels for export. There is no question about that. Do not think for one minute that Western Canada has ceased to progress; do not think for one minute that we have stopped our development. We have no intention of doing anything of the kind. My candid opinion is that within twenty years Saskatchewan will be the most populous

province in the Dominion. At any rate by the time the project -is completed we will have at least 400,000,000 bushels a year for export, and what an enormous profit this project will mean,-not only in cash,- for at the present time a great deal of our very superior wheat goes to Buffalo, is transported from there to New York, and, I am sorry to say, my information is that very inferior wheat is mixed with it and the mixture is then sold on the British market. Somebody makes an enormous profit out of that transaction on the American side. If we could get our grain straight on to the British market, we would prevent anything of that kind. Our good Canadian wheat would get on to the British market as good Canadian grown wheat, and our people would get the full benefit of raising grain superior to any grown anywhere else on the continent of America. It is these reasons that have induced me to support this scheme and the Hudson Bay Railway, so that we can get away from this foreign interference with our wheat.
As has been stated, this project has been supported very strongly in the United States, and lately it has been receiving very great support in our part of the country. I have before me a list of sixteen states, each of which is contributing $10,000 a year, making a total of $160,000 for propaganda work in favour of this project. They are as follows:	Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and one other which I cannot recall at the moment. All these sixteen states are supporting the project, backed up by a large part of the population of Western Canada. We do not intdnd to allow selfish interests anywhere to interfere with our determination to develop our country in such a way as to give to our people the full value of everything they produce and for that reason I am satisfied that this project will be started some time, and the Government might just as well make up their minds to get into the procession and take the credit for having started it.
I merely rose to give my support to this proposal, feeling that somebody from west of the Great Lakes should speak in support of it.
Mr. HENRI E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec County) :	The project which has been
brought before the House by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) is one of great importance. I listened with great

interest to the speech of the hon. gentleman and I think that the proposal is certainly one that merits the attention of the House and of the country at large. If, however,
I may be permitted to offer the hon. gentleman a suggestion, I think that he might add to his resolution that the Committee to be selected from among the members of this House be empowered to investigate the question of grain traffic by waterways and also by way of rail. There is no doubt that this project is one of great importance, and it was really a revelation, at least to some of the members of this House, to hear the hon. gentleman state, and confirm his assertion with official figures, that over two-thirds of the grain from the west of the Great Lakes was shipped by way of Amer-ipan seaports at a cost of from five to ten cents per bushel more than it would cost by water-way from the Lakes down to the St. Lawrence. I am sure that if an investigation were held in regard to the shipment of grain by rail from Toronto to the American seaports it would be found that a further additional cost, to say nothing of loss of time, could be obviated by shipping the grain by way of the Transcontinental direct from Winnipeg to Quebec. This would represent a great economy, if we take into consideration the great advantages that could be derived from this means of transportation.
It is not too much to say that the great national port of this country, Quebec, would, if some money were spent on it to provide proper equipment, be beneficial to the whole country. I do not think that I am pessimistic in saying that at present Quebec stands in need of improvement in this respect. I believe that if the port of Quebec were adequately equipped the bulk of navigation could be concentrated there and the accruing advantage would be great. If this committee that is to be appointed to investigate the proposal before the House undertook to study the needs of Quebec I am sure that it would decide to recommend to the Government that proper equipment be provided and that adequate steps be taken to take care of grain transportation from the West direct to Quebec. I principally desired to urge upon the hon. member for Port Arthur, that he add to his resolution a clause empowering the investigation by the committee of the question of grain transportation by rail.


Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale) :: In a great movement such as this it is necessary first of all to have, in any country but especially in Canada, men of vision
and optimism who constantly advocate their views and bring them before the people until their proposals become accomplished facts. In the old days of the '20's people regarded the Welland canal as something only to be hoped for, and it would not have materialized had it not been for the special efforts of William Hamilton Merritt and George Keefer. It is a significant' and interesting fact that we have in this House now a descendant of George Keefer who is advocating as mover of this resolution, for the benefit of the country, an improvement of very much greater magnitude. Coming from the head of the Lakes he, along with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), supports this proposal; and it is only proper that I, representing people at the foot of the Lakes, should also say that he will have on lake Ontario an almost unanimous assent to the project. Indeed, it has been so well thought over by the people of Toronto that they have anticipated the movement, and are not dismayed by engineering or financial obstacles. They have spent millions of dollars, and propose to send twenty million dollars and more, for the improvement of their own harbour by making it a thirty-foot harbour with dockage facilities for the ships which they hope and believe will eventually come from the ocean to increase the commerce between them and the old countries. It is true we do not expect so much benefit from what comes from the West; but if it is accomplished we shall have a harbour that will accommodate all the shipping that will come either way. Having spent this vast sum of money, with certain assistance from the Dominion, it is natural that we should desire in Toronto to see this work carried along. I know that in a matter of this sort there is always jealousy of waterborne traffic on the part of the railways. But I am convinced from what I have read on the subject that this jealousy is altogether unwarrantable. When waterborne traffic increases, the business of the railways increase at the same time. The one helps the other, and if it should turn out that there is any opposition or any coldness from the friends of the railways in regard to this scheme, I am sure that a consideration of the examples both in America and in England will dispel such opposition and show that it is unfounded in view of the facts of history.

When the Manchester Ship canal was constructed it took a great many years for the British parliament to put the project through, largely owing to the opposition of the railways. But Manchester was put upon the seas, so to speak; and yet it increased in railway traffic from Liverpool, and this vastly beyond the expectations of all concerned. The railway earnings were largely increased. The same thing will probably apply in this case. This is but a motion for a committee, and until we have that committee we cannot know where we stand. At any rate, the project is big enough and can be limited only by money and engineering consideration. We have been told on most excellent authority in the United States that this is by no means an insurmountable project financially, especially if by friendly arrangement we can be assisted by American capital. And from the engineering standpoint there is no great obstacle. It is true we are dismayed at present at the thought of spending money. But if, as my hon. friend from Fort Arthur (Mr. Keefer) pointed out, the profit will eventually be very great, and if prominent engineers, whom we cannot ignore, are of the opinion that the scheme is practicable, we can proceed, call these engineers before the committee, get something definite as to what the cost will be and a sound opinion regarding its feasibility and for the first time place before the country the engineering and financial data.
I am also impressed with the importance of the scheme from the fact that it gives an immense increase in Hydro-electrical power. On the St. Lawrence rapids, where there is a fall of 92 feet, it is estimated that we can get as much power as we now get from Niagara, and as the country on the St. Lawrence is by no means at its hayday yet it will naturally become a thriving manufacturing centre by reason of the adjacency of this power. It has been estimated by a man of eminence in the engineering field that there can be collected from tolls for electric power in the St. Lawrence valley and adjacently at least $12,000,000 a year. That sum at five per cent would represent a capitalization of $240,000,000. I do not think the scheme could be put through for $100,000,000 as has been estimated-$300,-000,000 would be a more likely figure. But if we could make it pay by developing hydraulic power through its medium and could raise an income as has been esti-

mated, namely $12,000,000 we have almost the whole cost of the work financed already, and the rest would be easy enough. The whole thing is something that appeals to every patriotic man. Water borne traffic is absolutely necessary, as we all know, to a successful country. The canals of the older countries, both in Europe and in Great Britain, have proved of immense importance; and the improvement in the building of small ocean going vessels, constructed of steel leads us to believe that it is not a chimerical idea that we should have the Great Lakes tributary to the ocean, and would have indeed a waterway that could be used with facility by all ocean going vessels except those of the very largest type. If this is so we need not be dismayed about the expenditure initially of a large sum which we can readily see will return to us at no very, distant date.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) : Naturally I would be in favour of anything that would make for the development of Canada. For that reason I believe I would be inclined to support the resolution of my hon. friend from Port Arthur if there were not a better project, entirely through Canadian territory, capable of more easy development. The Georgian Bay Canal, rather than the St. Lawrence deep waterways would develop Canadian territory entirely for the advantage of the Canadian people. On the other hand my hon. friend in speaking of the advantages that would accure to the country from the development that he proposes said, if I caught him aright, that it would be of great benefit to the cities of Buffalo, Clev-land, Toledo, Detroit and Chicago. Now none of these cities are within the borders of Canada. A few years ago when hon. gentlemen on this side wanted a little closer trade relationship with the American people my hon. friends opposite would not have any truck or trade with them. Now they are willing to develop Canadian water courses and Canadian water powers for the benefit of Buffalo, Clevland, Toledo, Detroit and Chicago. I would very much rather, Mr. Speaker, see the Georgian Bay Canal developed, and build up such towns as North Bay, Mattawa, Pembroke, Campbell's Bay, Arnprior, Ottawa, and Hawkes-bury. These are all Canadian towns that would be developed by the Georgian Bay project. That project would also develop a country that is rich in low grade minerals, rich in agricultural possibilities, just as rich in waterway possibilities as the St.

Lawrence route, and rich in timber resources. If the Georgian Bay Canal were constructed it would be entirely through Canadian territory, and would develop Canada to a very much larger extent than would be possible by aiding the St. Lawrence route. It is true that the latter enterprise would be of greater advantage to a portion of Ontario adjacent to the St. Lawrence; but it would not be of any particular advantage to the rest of the Dominion that would not be equally benefited by the Georgian Bay Canal. The latter project would be in the interest of the greater portion of the country, it would develop the interior of Canada, and would altogether be a very much better project than the deepening of the St. Lawrence. I have not much confidence in the possibility of the deepening of the St. Lawrence at the present time when we are called upon to vote $165,000,000 to bolster up our transportation system. Mr. Sanford Evans was engaged on a report of the Georgian Bay Canal route for some two or three years; but that gentleman's report never having been presented, it does not seem that the Government are very much interested in the development of the waterways of this country. Otherwise they would have at least made public Mr. Sanford Evans' report on the Georgian Bay Canal project. Furthermore I understand that private enterprise is willing to undertake the construction of the Georgian Bay Canal. I understand there is a company that is quite willing to undertake the construction of this work and make it possible to move grain from the great West, and move to inland points coal brought from the Eastern Provinces, at no cost whatever to the taxpayers of the Dominion. If that be the case I do not see the force of my hon. friend's argument in asking for a commission to spend more money investigating the St. Lawrence route, when the Government have already in their possession reports giving full details as to the construction of the Georgian Bay Canal.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have just one or two observations to make on the resolution before the House. I listened with interest to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Port ' Arthur (Mr. Keefer) arid to the rest of the discussion that has taken place. I listened particularly to my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) and if I gathered aright the sense of his observations he proposed to make the National Railway System pay by another
vast expenditure of money to deepen our waterways. Well, that proposition may have some merit, but I have grave doubts about it. It does strike me, Sir, in connection with this whole matter that we should have a little regard to the financial position of the country at the present time My hon. friend (Mr. Keefer) proposes t< have a commission of inquiry that I pre sume will travel round the country ant gather evidence wherever it can be gathered, sit during the recess of Parliament, and undoubtedly spend some money. I do not wish to be considered as opposing the principle of the scheme. I am among those who believe that this country would have been very much further ahead if we had spent a few of the hundreds of millions of dollars which have been expended on railways in providing this deep waterway. But we did not do so, and I do submit now that until we get our financial house in good order this is not the time to consider additional expenditures of public money on a large scale.
I am not so certain that the bringing of ocean-going vessels to the Head of the Lakes will achieve all that is expected or hoped for in the reduction of rates on grain to Europe. One very important factor which must be taken into consideration in any survey of the matter is the ocean rates from the Atlantic seaboard to Europe. It is a well established principle that ocean rates from America to Europe depend in a very considerably degree on the amount of goods that are carried from Europe to America. In other words, a vessel operating on the high seas must have a cargo both ways if it is to establish a fair rate one way. We also know that to-day a large amount of our western wheat is going out by United States Atlantic ports. The reason is simply this, that ocean-going vessels can get return cargoes from Europe to the Atlantic seaports of the United States while they cannot get them to our Canadian Atlantic ports, and that is due to the fact that the United States Atlantic ports are supplying a population of
106.000.	000, while our Atlantic ports are supplying a population of only
8.000. 000. For that reason exporters of grain, and I speak from knowledge, can always secure from Philadelphia, Newport News, New York or Boston much better ocean rates to Europe than can be secured from Canadian ports, which is a most important consideration to be kept in mind in a consideration of this whole question.



I would suggest that this resolution might well stand for a year and then possibly the scheme could be looked into in the manner suggested by my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer). I see very little to be gained in prosecuting an inquiry at considerable public expense while we have no possibility, as far as I can see, of finding the money necessary to carry on the proposed development. In a few years when our financial difficulties have cleared away and when we have put our financial house in order, we might be open to consider such a proposition; but in the meantime I would suggest that no very great harm will come if the proposal is allowed to stand over for another year.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer), not as a partisan either of the route proposed by him or of the route proposed by the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill),-the	Georgian Bay	canal

because I at once confess that I am not in a position to say which of the two is the more advantageous. But as one who is interested in the whole question of transportation, I believe that the subject brought before the House by the hon. member for Port Arthur is deserving of very careful consideration.
I do not quite agree with my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that it is too early to begin an investigation of which is the proper route and what is the best method of relieving the country of some of the burdens it is carrying on account of the tremendous transportation charges that now obtain. As I view the situation, if Canada is to develop in competition with other countries-and she has tremendous latent resources awaiting development-it will only be by means of making transportation easier and cheaper, so that our resources may be transported from the interior of the country to the markets of the world at less cost than is possible at the present time. Transportation cost is to a very considerable extent strangling the whole progress of this country, and will continue to strangle it until we find means of cheapening the cost.
The question of the deficit on the Canadian National railways has been referred to. My judgment is that the development of our waterways will not injure our railways in the least, but rather that the in-

creased prosperity resulting from that development will make it possible to so increase the freight traffic of those railways that their revenues will be more than sufficient to cover their operating costs.
A point that in my opinion cannot be emphasized too strongly is that by making it possible for ocean-going vessels to run from Nova Scotia ports, or from England if you will, to the very centre of Canada two results will be at once achieved. First it will put us in a much more independant position than we are in at present; and. secondly, it will cheapen industry and make it possible as a consequence for Canada tc get what she must always have, a supply of reasonably cheap coal. Then there is the question of electrical development that will accrue in connection with the deepening of our waterways. It is said that there is enough electrical energy going to waste on the St. Lawrence to operate every single line of railway in Ontario and save the tremendous quantity of coal that now has to be used for that purpose. The steady increase in the cost of fuel is one of the difficulties' that our railways have to contend with. These two things would go hand in hand with either of the projects. As I said, I am not a partisan of either, and we should endeavour to find out accurately and beyond question which is the better scheme and go ahead with it. As has been pointed out, it will take time to get this under way, and if we start an investigation this year it will be one or two years before we are in a position to spend a dollar on which ever route may be chosen. I believe that the resolution is along the right lines and that the House should give it concurrence.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this resolution before it is finally disposed of. The transportation question is one of the most important for the future of Canada. This project has been before the country for some little time, having originated, I think, in connection with the development of the Northwest. The western provinces are, in my opinion, probably the most important factors in connection with our national development, and it is absolutely necessary that their development should be encouraged in the interests of the Dominion generally, and to ensure that development we must give them the cheapest transportation possible. It was considered in the interests of the West that we should enlarge the Welland canal, which resulted in

reducing the cost of transportation of the products of the great West to the seaboard by several cents per bushel. Later it was considered that if the St. Lawrence route also was developed the cost of transportation of the products of the West would be further decreased. The matter was brought to the attention of, and was considered by the Government, as it had been by previous governments. Later the question of the development of water-powers and of electrical energy was considered in that connection. I think it is in the interest of Canada that every possible chance of decreasing the cost of transportation, whether by the St. Lawrence route, the Georgian Bay route or the Hudson Bay route, should be considered and taken advantage of, if it is going to assist in the development of the great natural resources of Canada. When the matter was brought to the attention of this Government they took it up with the government of the United States. I would like to read a letter which was addressed to Mr. C. A. Magrath, Chairman of the International Joint Commission, as showing that the Government are alive to the situation and that they have already taken steps to ascertain exactly what the conditions are and what they would be if these routes were developed. The letter is dated at Ottawa, January 21, 1920, and is as follows:
C A. Magrath, Esq.,
Chairman, Canadian Section,
International Joint Commission,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Governments of the United States of America and of the Dominion of Canada, under the provisions of Article IX of the Treaty of the 11th of January, 1909, between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, herewith refer certain questions, as set forth below involving- the beneficial use < of the waters of th'e St. Lawrence river, between Montreal and Lake Ontario, in the interests of both countries, and, in general, the rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other, or to the inhabitants of the other along their common frontier.
It is desired that the said questions be made the basis of an investigation to be carried out by the International Joint Commission, to the end that the said Commission may submit a report to the two countries covering the subject matter of this reference, together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be considered pertinent in the premises.
Question 1.

What further improvement in the St. Lawrence River, between Montreal and Lake Ontario, is necessary to make the same navigable for deep draught vessels of either the lake or ocean-going type; what draught of water is recommended, and what is the estimated cost?
In answering this question the Commission is requested to consider:
(a)	Navigation interests alone, whether by the construction of locks and dams in the river; by side canals with the necessary locks; or by a combination of the two.
(b)	The combination of navigation and power interests to obtain the greatest beneficial use of the waters of the river.
Question 2.-Which of the schemes submitted by the Government or other engineers is preferred, and why?
Question 3.-Under what general method of procedure and in what general order shall the various physical and administrative features of the improvement be carried out?
Question 4.-Upon what basis shall the capital cost of the completed improvement be apportioned to each country?
Question 5.-Upon what basiis shall the costs of operation and maintenance be apportioned to each country?	-
Question 6.-What method of control is recommended for the operation of the improved waterway to secure its most beneficial use?
Question 7.-Will regulating Lake Ontario increase the low water flow in the St. Lawrence ship channel below Montreal? And if so, to what extent and at what additional cost?
Question 8.-To what extent will the improvement develop the resources, commerce and industry of each country?
Question 9.-What traffic, both incoming and outgoing, in kind and quantity, is likely to be carried upon the proposed route both at its inception and in the future? Consideration to be given not only to present conditions, but to probable changes therein resulting from the development of industrial activities due to availability of large quantities of hydraulic power?
Pending the receipt of plans, estimates, and other engineering data necessary for the final consideration of this reference, the Commission is requested to hold such public hearings as may be considered necessary or advisable in order to obtain all information bearing, directly or indirectly, on the physical, commercial and economic feasibility of the project as a whole.
To facilitate the preparation of the desired report each Government will, from its official engineering personnel appoint an engineer with full authority to confer with a similar officer of the other Government for the purpose: first, of acquiring, each in his own country, such data as may be found necessary to supplement the existing engineering data and surveys, and second, of preparing complete outline plans for and estimates of the cost of the proposed improvement, including the value of all property easements, damages and rights connected therewith. These plans and estimates are to be submitted to the Commission as soon as practicable but not later than one year from the date of appointment and the Commission is requested to forward to the two Governments its final report with recommendation not later than three months thereafter. A copy of the instructions furnished these engineers is attached hereto.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Tour obedient servant.
N. W. Rowell,
Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
So that over a year ago the Government took action in this matter. The United States government agreed, in accordance with the subject matter of this letter, to a reference of the whole question to the

International Joint Commission. That commission has held hearings in the United States and in Canada, and its report will be presented to each government in due course. The matter had to he brought before both governments because the St. Lawrence river is, in part, an international waterway and the consent of both governments would have to be obtained before we could proceed with any such development as is advocated in this resolution.
I know the St. Lawrence waterways route. There are at present twenty-six locks between the upper entrance of the river St. Lawrence and the city of Montreal. There is a fourteen foot draught for vessels passing through that waterway. If five dams were constructed we would have a waterway through which any vessel could pass that crosses the Atlantic and such vessels would be able to proceed to Port Arthur when the Welland canal is completed. In the construction of these five dams,* at least two million horse-power would be developed. In my opinion, once the Welland canal is completed, it will be almost absolutely necessary that the St. Lawrence waterway should be proceeded with and, if financial conditions will allow, that it should be completed. I believe the development of the St. Lawrence waterway would decrease the cost of transportation by several cents per bushel on all grain produced in the western provinces, but I feel that the development of this waterway is also of very great importance to Ontario and part of Quebec as well, in another way.
Every year the people of Ontario, yes, and I may say part of Manitoba, are in fear and trembling on account of coal strikes taking place on the other side of the line, because, when strikes occur, it is almost impossible to secure coal. If we had the St. Lawrence waterway completed, we would be able to bring coal from Nova Scotia to that part of Quebec that is on the St. Lawrence river west of Montreal, also to Ontario up to Port Arthur and even as far as Winnipeg, thus saving a recurrence of the fear and trembling that we have had in the past on account of the possibility of a shortage of fuel during the winter months.
Some hon. gentlemen have referred to the Georgian Bay route, and while I do not wish to take issue with them in regard to that route, I wish to draw their attention to the fact, that vessels that would cross the Atlantic could not possibly make use of the Georgian Bay route. Vessels
TMr. J. D. Reid.]
that would pass through the St. Lawrence canal and through the Welland canal and on to Port Arthur would be vessels of
12,000,	15,000 or 18,000 tons. The route along the Georgian Bay canal is narrow, and vessels of that type could not possibly go through that canal. There is no doubt that there would be a large development of waterpower if the Georgian Bay canal were proceeded with, but it would not take the place of our great St. Lawrence Canal route. Private parties, I believe, would build the five dams along the St. Lawrence river if we would give them the water-powers, but I am one of those who do not believe it is in the public interest to hand over our natural resources, such as two or three million horse-power to private parties to develop. They should be held in the public interest, but I mention that to show the House that the development of the great water-powers on the St. Lawrence would almost pay for the investment that would have to be made for carrying out this great project.
It has also been mentioned that a large proportion of our products goes via Buffalo, and there is no doubt about that. Up to the present time, each year a large percentage of the products of the great West goes via Buffalo. It should go via Montreal and our great St. Lawrence route, but it cannot go that way until we are able to compete with our transportation rates, and as long as the development of the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence route is delayed, just so long will the transshipment of grain via the St. Lawrence route be delayed.
An hon. member mentioned that this project was in the interest of Cleveland and other American ports, but that is not a fact, except in this way. Americans, at least in many of the Western States, are looking at this project in much the same way as people in Western Canada. If they can ship their products via Duluth and by the St. Lawrence route, and in that way get their products more cheaply to the European market, it is in their interest to urge their country to take part in developing this route which Americans are interested in on account of its being international.
Some hon. member has referred to the large amount that the development of our railways is costing the country, and there is no doubt that that is a very serious matter. I had not intended referring to it were it not that some hon. members mentioned it casually in the discussion this

evening. The cost of operation of railways, not only in Canada, but. in the United States, has increased so tremendously in the last two or three years that, in my judgment, it is hindering or preventing the future development of our country, and unless some means are taken to decrease the cost of operation of our railways, the development of our country will continue to be hindered. The development of this country and the United States has been hindered by what is called the McAdoo award in fixing the wages of railway employees. Some action must be taken, and I think the railway employees themselves should look into this matter and endeavour to adjust matters in such a way that the future of this country will not be hindered on account of the enormous cost of operation of railways as is the case at the present time.
The Estimates that have been presented to the House to-day, perhaps, may not and cannot be understood until we are able to explain them to the House in detail, but the fact that the sum of $160,000,000 appears in the Estimates does not mean that there has been that loss in connection with the railways, or that it is estimated there will be that loss next year. What it really means is that it has been estimated by those who are in charge of the Canadian National railways, which include the Canadian Northern, the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, that there will be a loss of some $50,000,000 during the year 1921. But in addition to that loss, large amounts are required for construction- betterments that are really charged to capital account-and in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific a large amount will have to be charged in connection with capital account. As regards the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which the Government must take over, the Government has to assume responsibility in connection with liabilities that are falling due. It must not, however, be considered that the amount mentioned in the Estimates means a deficit of that amount next year. There is no doubt that the Canadian National railways and the other Canadian railways are meeting with great losses; but the railways in the United States are meeting with proportionately much larger losses than our Canadian railways. I mention this in passing simply for the reason that one or two speakers who have touched upon it do not, I believe, understand the situation. Otherwise, they would not
have given out the impression that the railways were losing the amounts mentioned in the Estimates.
I am myself very anxious that these great waterways should be developed, first, for navigation purposes. I believe in the development of this great waterway. I believe it would be worth the amount it would cost simply because of the development it would bring to the West from Port Arthur to British Columbia. In addition to that, I believe it would be of the greatest importance in developing the natural resources in Ontario and Quebec from Port Arthur east. I believe also it is one of the most important projects that could be undertaken for the protection of that part of the country from Manitoba east, so far as its coal and fuel supply for the future is concerned. There is the additional fact that it would develop some 2,000,000 to
3,000,000 horse power. This development would cheapen the cost of transportation on the railways between Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. It would furnish power for a very large number of industries in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, and would assist in the development of the natural resources of this province and Canada generally. It would mean the bringing of more people to Ontario and Canada. Population is what we want, and everything should be done towards that end. As Minister of Railways I have hesitated to urge proceeding with this work during the last two or three years, on account of the very great expenditures due to the war, and also on account of the large amounts that are required to complete at the very earliest possible date projects that have already been undertaken.
So far as this resolution is concerned I do not think it would be advisable to appoint a Special Committee while the present Waterways Commission is investigating this question.


Mr. MURPHY:: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: But I believe it would be in the interests of Canada as a whole that hon. members of this House should have the opportunity of learning just what this waterway means towards the development of the West, of Central Canada, and of the country as a whole. Having already referred this matter to the International Joint Waterways Commission, I would suggest to the hon. member that if he can see his way clear to withdraw his resolution, I would undertake to have it brought before the committee of this House which has

already been constituted, consisting of some 30 or 35 members, and known as the Forest Waterways and Water Powers Committee, with a view to having the committee take whatever steps they think necessary to secure all available information on this project. In that way we would not be interfering with the Joint Waterways Commission, and probably before Parliament prorogues the committee would have before it the final report of the Waterways Commission, and would then be in a position to bring before the House all the facts in connection with the matter, and the question could be discussed here. I am sure that when the committee has received the report of the International Joint Waterways Commission, and has collected information on its own account, its decision and that of the House will be to proceed with the development of this great waterways system, not only for navigation but for power purposes, just as soon as the financial conditions of the country will permit.


William Daum Euler: At the risk of being considered unprogressive in the promotion of this enterprise, I feel very much inclined to agree with the leader of the Progressive party. That is perhaps all the more remarkable in view of the fact that the original movement for the development of the great waterways was launched in the city of Kitchener, or Berlin as it was then, something like eight years ago. A meeting was held there of representatives from various municipalities throughout western Ontario to develop an organization that should promote the deepening of the waterways to permit of the bringing of ocean vessels up to the head of the lakes. The result of that meeting was that a deputation of something like 1,800 or 2,000 men waited upon the Government in the House of Commons Chamber in the old building about eight years ago; but nothing particular came of it. At that time I was in favour of the development that is suggested now, because I believed it would do a great deal of good. But that was before the war, before we had laid on this country a debt of nearly two-and-a-half billion dollars. I for one do not look lightly as one hon. member did to-night, on the expenditure of a mere bagatelle of $100,000,000 at this time and which would probably expand to twice this amount before completion. I think the country ought to set its financial house in order before it takes upon itself any such heavy financial obligations as are suggested at this particular time.

Just in passing I might refer to an argument made by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan), who stated that if he felt this development would interfere with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway he would be against it. Now, Sir, that is one of the reasons, if there were any,* why I would be for it, for I believe, in regard to that particular enterprise, that this country has entered upon an expenditure which is almost entirely wasted and should not be continued. It has also been stated that the deepening of the waterway will decrease the cost of carrying wheat from the West. Probably it would do so; but I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that just to the extent to which the wheat is carried by waterway, the railways will find their business diminished. The result, I presume, would be that in order to get larger receipts and decrease the deficits on the railways we would continue again and again to increase the railway rates, and finally the latter would do a constantly lessening business and the deficit would accumulate from year to year owing to lack of traffic. I for one believe, Mr. Speaker, that the present deficit is, to some extent at least, the result of an increase in rates which makes it impossible to do business at a profit.
The Minister of Railways and Canals, (Mr. Reid) advanced another argument which is of considerable interest to those of us who come from Central Ontario where we have no coal. He believes that with the deepening of the waterways it would be possible to bring coal from the Maritime Provinces at a cheap rate and sell it in Ontario and also farther west. I think the argument is a good one; but accompanying it I believe there would, have to be a stipulation that the coal of the Maritime Provinces be taken from the control of the two great corporations which have it in their possession at this time. And I for one, speaking in the light of the history of the development of resources in this country, do not believe for one moment that, even if the cost of carrying coal were greatly reduced, the general public would benefit a great deal from such reduction so long as these great and necessary natural resources remained entirely under the control of private interests.
Now, that is all I have to say. I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to the project ultimately, but I do not think that the present is the time for entering upon the expenditure of another hundred

million dollars for this work. We should first find out where we stand, and it will be time enough to proceed with an undertaking of this nature when the Dominion of Canada has adjusted itself to the burden under which it is labouring to-day.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: Coming from
the far East, Mr. Speaker, and being as you know directly and indirectly interested in this discussion, I should like to say something on the motion before the Chair. But it is now getting late, and as I understand that there are other hon. gentlemen who desire to speak on the subject, with your permission I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Wednesday, March 9, 1921.