[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: I
notice in this morning's papers a letter and memorandum dealing with the National Railway question which were submitted to the Prime Minister on April 6, I think, by Lord Shaughnessy. I should like to ask my right hon. friend if this statement has been made public with the knowledge and approval of the Government.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: The memorandum in question
was sent by Lord Shaughnessy, I think on the date mentioned by my hon. friend. He asked me if I had any objection to his making it public, and I stated that I could see no objection.


Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac) :: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there was any arrangement whereby the
memorandum was not to be published until after the second reading of the Grand Trunk Bill?


Arthur Meighen: None; it
was never suggested.



GILMOUR AND HUGHSON, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 14, to amend an Act to incorporate Gilmour and Hughson, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Mr. BOTVIN:: The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) has asked that consideration of these amendments be again postponed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 106 (from the Senate), for the relief of Fergus McKee.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Duncan MacDonald Oxley.-Mr. Glass.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Rose Winifred Smith.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Evelyn Campbell.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Margaret Thorne Acton.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Lillian Florence Ansell.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Ellen Greenwood.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Edna Garnet Rabb.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Gertrude Gladys Vernon.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Stella Anna Jackson.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill	No.	94,	for	the	relief	of	Mabel
Marshall.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Margaret Marie Cook.-Mr. Clarke (Wellington).
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Jean Grey Holt.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill	No.	97,	for	the	relief	of	Harry
Tolhurst.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Rosetta Hood.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill	No.	99,	for	the	relief	of	Albert
Edwin Gordon.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Willie Hop-kinson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Mamie McKillop.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Frederick Robert Studholme.-Mr. Blair.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Beatrice Osborne.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of John Verner McAree.-Mr. Fripp.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: "Questions":
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I desired to make a statement with regard to the Prime Ministers' Conference on the Orders of the Day, but I was engaged at the moment. I would like to move to return to the Orders of the Day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Earlier in the session, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), I gave briefly some of the subjects that had been presented for discussion at the proposed Prime Ministers' Conference to be held in London in June of this year, and I intimated that should the agenda become at any time more complete or definite I would feel it my duty to so advise the House.
Last October I concurred in a proposal made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that there should be held not later than June next a meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Empire. Since the last meeting at the Peace Conference in Paris there has been no opportunity for personal and direct consultation between the Prime Ministers on the broad issues of policy in such external matters as may be of common concern. Views were exchanged more than a year ago concerning the holding of such a meeting during 1920; but it was concluded at the time that this would be impracticable; and the same conclusion was reached when, later in the year, one of the other Dominion Prime Ministers suggested a meeting immediately following the first Assembly of the League of Nations. It now appears that the middle of June next is a feasible date for all concerned.
The proposal was made and accepted last October on the basis that the June meeting would be of a special and preliminary character having in view the necessity of discussing-
(1)	Preparation for the special Constitutional Conference contemplated in Resolution 9 of the Imperial War Conference of 1917 to be held at a later date, this pre-

paratory discussion to include such questions as the meeting place, date, composition and agenda.
At the same time it was considered that the June meeting would afford an opportunity for discussing certain other matters of common concern which are of an urgent or important nature, such as-
(2)	A general review of the main features of foreign relations, particularly as they affect the Dominions.
(3)	The question of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which is indeed only a part of the general subject of foreign relations, but which is especially urgent since under the terms of the Alliance a decision should be reached this year.
(4)	Preliminary consideration, preparatory for the proposed Constitutional Conference, of some working method for arriving at a common understanding as to policy in such external affairs as concern all parts of the Empire.
Since that time various other subjects have been suggested for inclusion in the agenda of the June meeting. These subjects, however, in view of their technical character and of the fact that they are not of the same urgency, would seem to belong to the agenda of the Imperial Conference proper whenever its next regular session is held; and since it is very desirable that the special meeting of prime ministers in June-which is not a meeting of the Imperial Conference-should not be of a prolonged character, it seems unlikely that any considerable attention can be given to such questions, which represent an extension of the original programme. The Canadian Government have already expressed a doubt as to the inclusion of some of these questions.
These additional questions, the first two of which were proposed by the Governments of Australia and India respectively, and the remainder by the British Government, are as follows:
(5)	Inter-Imperial communications by land, sea and air.
(6)	The position of British Indians in other parts of the Empire.
(7)	Naval, military and air defence.
(8)	The recommendations of the Overseas Settlement Conference recently held in London.
(9)	The development of civil aviation.
(10)	The reports of the Imperial Shipping Committee appointed as a result of resolutions 11 and 24 of the Imperial War Conference of 1918.	'

(11)	The findings of the Technical Commission appointed to discuss the question of Imperial Wireless communications.
(12)	The question of German reparations, including the division as between the various parts of the British Empire of any amounts received.
(13)	Imperial Statistical Bureau.
(14)	Imperial patents.
In these circumstances it will be seen that the proposed agenda cannot be regarded as a hard and fast arrangement. It seems most likely that no subjects will be discussed that are not included in the above list; but on the other hand it seems most unlikely that all of these questions can be taken up, or indeed, in the view of the Canadian Government, that more than the first four will be closely discussed. Circumstances may develop which will render conclusions desirable on some of the other subjects. In respect of many of them, it would seem that the meeting could do no more than take cognizance of proposals to be considered later.
Later on as the result of the communications that passed between the leader of the Opposition and myself, I agreed that a day should be set for discussion-I think I agreed previously as well-or for an opportunity for discussion to be offered to any hon. members of this House who desired to make observations on the agenda or on the course that the representative or representatives of Canada should pursue at the conference, I now give notice that on Wednesday the House will be moved into Committee of Supply and such opportunity will then be afforded.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? He has given four subjects which he states have been definitely settled as subjects to be submitted for the consideration of the conference. No one of these four subjects relates to Imperial defence. On the other hand, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has stated in the British House of Commons that the whole scheme of Imperial defence will be considered at that conference. Can my right hon. friend give us any further information as to that subject?


Arthur Meighen: No, there is no other information that I can give. It has been placed on the agenda by the British Government. It has been submitted by them as one of their proposals with regard to the agenda, and that, doubtless, is the basis for the statement made by the Prime
Minister of Great Britain. The subjects which I have mentioned will not constitute the full agenda of the Imperial Conference.
On motion of Mr. Meighen, the House returned to the Order: " Questions."



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Mr. GEORGE ARNOULT LANGLOIS

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Has the Government received any petition or communication asking for the improvement of the few miles of highway in the Matapedia Valley leading to and from the Interprovincial bridge at Matapedia between Quebec and New Brunswick and along the Restigouche river from Matapedia to Cross Point, Quebec, leading to and from the Interprovincial ferry operating between the two provinces above-mentioned under a Dominion Government license? If so, what action does the Government intend to take in the matter?
2.. Is any action being taken regarding the Interprovinci-al highway bridge between Cross Point and Campbellton asked for' recently from the Minister of Public Works?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	No petition nor communication received lately.
2.	The matter is still under consideration.


QUEBEC SALMON NET LICENSES
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Has any understanding been arrived at between the Government of Canada and that of the Province of Quebec regarding the granting of licenses for salmon nets in the tidal waters of said province consequent upon the recent judgment of the Privy Council?
2.	Is the Government aware that the Province of Quebec has granted licenses for the present year?
3.	What action if any does the Government intend to take in th(s matter in the public interest and that of the fishermen concerned?
4.	Is it a fact that the Province of Quebec contends that it is the sole authority having power to grant licenses in such tidal waters because of its jurisdiction over the bed of rivers and bays and the shores generally of that Province?
5.	If so, will the Government of Canada recognize the licenses granted this year by the Government' of Quebec?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1,	2, 3, 4, 5. The decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of November 30 last in the Quebec Fisheries Reference decided that the administration of the fisheries in the navigable waters of the province that are accessible by way of navigation from the sea comes within the purview of the Federal Government. The Government of the Province of Quebec has been informed that the Department of Marine and Fisheries will undertake the administration of the fisheries in such waters from May 1 proximo. Any licenses issued by the provincial authorities will not be accepted as conferring authority to fish. No one will be permitted to fish in the said waters except under license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


BAIE DES CHALEURS STEAMSHIP SERVICE
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Seeing that there has not been any steamship service on the Baie des Chaleurs for some years owing to the fact that no subsidy has been voted, does the Government intend supplying this deficiency by placing one of the boats of the Canadian Mercantile Marine suitable for passengers and freight traffic on that route, between Campbellton, New Brunswick, and GaspS, Quebec, or between Montreal and Compbellton and Intermediate ports?
2.	Is the Government aware that for many years these routes were the most attractive and profitable lines in Eastern Canada?
3.	Is the Government aware that there has been immense development in Baie des Chaleurs district and that if it were provided with suitable transportation facilities the public interest would be served and the investments made profitable?
1,	2, 3. None of the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are suitable for this route.


HOMESTEAD PRE-EMPTIONS
Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	How many pre-emptions have been disposed of since they were available up to December 31, 1920?
2.	How many purchased homesteads have been disposed of since they were available up to December 31, 1920?
3.	How much cash has been received on account of such sales?
4.	How much is still due on account of such sales?
5.	Was the money received from such sales to be earmarked to recoup the Dominion Exchequer, for expenditure on the Hudson Bay
railroad?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	79,769 of which approximately 17,724 are still outstanding.
2.	8,268 of which approximately 1,633 are still outstanding.
3.	On account of pre-emptions $14,431,386.88; on account of purchased homestead, $3,223,304.02; a total of $17,654,690.00.
4.	On account of pre-emptions approximately $12,000,000; on account of purchased homesteads approximately $500,000.
5.	The amounts received as above have been deposited to the credit of Consolidated Fund on account of Dominion Lands Revenue.


SALES TAX COLLECTIONS
Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: What have the collections through the sales tax been by months since its introduction to March 31, 1921?
Hon.	Mr.	WIGMORE:	
		Domestic	Importation
June	1920	$ 730,013.72	$ 1,176,567.52July	1920	2,513,083.29	1,171,634.90Aug.,	1920	2,887,052.68	1,241,988.92Sept.,	1920	3,733,483.77	1,183,093.02Oct.,	1920	3,903,493.20	1,116,981.68Nov.,	1920	3,469,951.93	1,027,549.73Dec.,	1920	3,340,672.10	861,334.50Jan.,	1921	2,558,879.65	717,517.33Feb.,	1921	2,262,525.46	724,769.48Mar.,	1921	2,501,514.16	903,057.39
Total 

$27,900,669.96	$10,124,494.47
27,900,669.96


$38,025,164.43 DREDGE &quot;INTERNATIONALE&quot;
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the dredge "Internationale," belonging to the Government, been employed since spring of 1919?
2.	If so, at what places, what amount of work in cubic yards has been done by the said dredge, and for the benefit of what persons, society, companies or corporation has she been so employed?

3.	What is the estimated work done by the dredge "Internationale" since spring of 1919?
4.	Has any sum or sums been paid to the Government for works undertaken by said dredge?
5.	If so, for what amount or amounts?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Port Alfred, Que., 216.898 cubic yards; Murray Bay, Que., 3.505 cub. yards. At Port Alfred work was performed in the interest of navigation near the wharf of La Cie Generate du Port de Chicoutimi, and at Murray Bay near the public wharf.
3.	220.403 cubic vards.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: For a return showing the number of returned soldiers who have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlement Board in the county of Bonaventure, the average price paid for said farms, the number of said farms which have been abandoned and the disposition made by the Government of the said farms, the loss incurred, if any, and the names of the soldiers who have settled in the said county, showing the respective localities.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the right hon. the Minister of Justice and his colleagues concerning the Guelph Novitate raid.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other papers exchanged between the right hon. the Minister of Justice and Mr. E. A. D. Morgan, of Montreal, concerning the appointment of judges in the Province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents concerning the award of the contract of the Esquimau drydock.


GASPE PENINSULA RAILWAY FACILITIES
Rodolphe Lemieux: That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the unlimited natural resources requiring development in the GaspS peninsula, better transportation facilities should be established at the earliest moment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall not occupy more than twenty minutes in moving this resolution. I have on another occasion described the marvelous natural resources of the peninsula of Gaspe. It is admitted to-day that this large peninsula is one of the wealthiest portions of Canada, from the agricultural, the fishing and the lumbering point of view. There are also in that peninsula traces of oil, zinc, asbestos
and other minerals. The question which I wish to bring to the attention of the House this afternoon, however, is that of railway transportation. I regret that my good friend the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has not arrived from Montreal, otherwise he would have supported, with his usual eloquence, my resolution.
As the House is aware, many years ago a railway was built from Matapedia on the Intercolonial to New Carlisle in the county of Bonaventure, the line hugging the shore of Baie des Chaleurs. The distance is about one hundred miles. Later on the Laurier Government aided, by subsidies, another company which built an additional one hundred miles of line from New Carlisle to Gaspe Basin, the finest land-locked harbour there is in Canada. Therefore^ there are two hundred miles of railway in the peninsula of Gaspe following the shore of the Baie des Chaleurs. Fortunately for the English company which controls both lines, they have had a young Scotchman by the name of Gordon, who has been able, in spite of adverse circumstances, of difficulties and obstacles of every kind, to manage the road most economically, but, of course, the receipts of the two companies are not sufficient to provide a first-class service, and there are loud complaints. To make a long story short, last year, at the request of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and at my own, the Railway Commission, headed by the present chairman, Hon. Frank Carvell, went to New Carlisle to investigate the whole situation. The investigation took place at New Carlisle under the chairmanship of Hon. Frank Carvell on April 8. They were to investigate as to the character of the service, the condition of cars, the lack of cars, the cancellation of a passenger train three times a week, thus reducing the service to a tri-weekly service. The grievances of the public can be summarized as follows:
1. The railways have not given a daily mail and passenger service each way between Matapedia and Gaspe. 2. The railways should be ordered immediately to purchase first-class cars, steam-heated and lighted, at least with gas. 3. The Government, not being disposed to acquire those railways, should see that the companies be ordered to ballast their line. 4. The companies should be ordered to make the following improvements and reforms: Replace ties and also rails when necessary; construct new bridges where required; cut down the grades; acquire locomotives that would haul the ordinary tonnage as on other


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
roads; build proper workshops and acquire proper tools so that the men working at the engines might be able to do efficient work; erect proper fences along the whole of their line; build additional water tanks; provide sidings at the various stations; build sheds large enough to hold the merchandise which is very often exposed to the weather for lack of space; haul empty cars from Matapedia so as to take care of the outgoing freight; dig drains and cut weeds; acquire facilities for loading live stock; sweep the stations once a day and keep them clean; and make some arrangements to keep the mails under cover at Matapedia, the mail bags now being left on trucks and often left outside over night.
This is a brief summary of the complaints made against the railway company. The patrons of the road have suggested two alternatives in case the company would not reform itself-either to put the company into the hands of a receiver, or to have the Government add this 200 miles of line to the National railway system. The Railway Commission sat for a day or so and investigated all the grievances which I have summarized. Be it said to the credit of the company, it was found that in many instances the complaints were somewhat exaggerated. On the whole, it was found that the company was doing its best, with limited financial capacity, to meet the requirements of the public from a passenger and freight point of view. A good deal of evidence was given as to the financial situation of the company, and their statements show that the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company, which represents the last one hundred miles of the railway, had made in six years a total loss in operation over gross earnings of $245,375, and that the Quebec and Oriental Railway Company, the old Gaspe railway, during the same period had made a net gain of $182,788. But the company, through its able manager, Mr. Gordon, contended that all of this money had gone back into the road in the way of betterments, and I think that the chairman of the Railway Commission and his fellow workers found that this statement was true.
I need not go into all the figures. I will quote simply the concluding paragraph of Mr. Carvell's judgment on the whole situation after the investigation. He said:
Generally speaking. I found the road-bed from Matapedia to New Carlisle better than I had expected, although it was far from what might be considered an up-to-date road-bed. All the rivers and larger streams were spanned by steel bridges of light construction but still in fairly

good physical condition. The rails are 56 lbs. to the yard, but evidently of good quality, and the track well laid. The new ballast was quite evident in many places, and there seemed, to be a reasonable number of new ties added within recent years. Culverts were in many cases very deficient, station houses dilapidated, and the whole road showed unmistakable evidence of financial stringency. The passenger cars are antiquated and should not be used for first-class passenger traffic on any railroad. The engines were light, many of them old. and no doubt very expensive as to maintenance. In fact, I do not think any railway company could hope to carry a large amount of traffic, either* passenger or freight, with the equipment now in use on these roads.
A vast amount of evidence was given to the amount of business available along the Gasp6 shore. However, generally speaking, it may be summarized as follows: There is a population of 75,000 with no other means of communication with the outside world by rail. They, of course, to some extent, can carry on business bv water. The fishing industry alone amounts to over $2,000,000 per year. There is a large pulp and paper mill at Chandler on the Atlantic, Quebec and Western. There are enormous forest reserves extending north into the interior for many miles all along the line. The agricultural possibilities are considerable, but nothing like what could be produced were better transportation facilities provided.
As a result of our negotiations, the daily train to Gaspe was restored on May 1, and I have heard no complaints about it up to the present time. The passenger equipment is antiquated and only fit for second-class passenger traffic. They require at least Wvo modern, first-class coaches and one chair car to accommodate the business, and, in my judgment, they require at least four modern locomotives, which will take care of the passenger service. They also require an up-to-date machine shop for the purpose of effecting the necessary repairs to equipment, and I see no possibility under the present financial condition of the company of these necessary improvements being provided, unless they can rent the use of some from either the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National Railway, and, as the traffic is entirely with the Canadian National, it would seem to me to be a good business investment on the part of the latter road to furnish this road with the necessary equipment, both locomotives and cars, at a very reasonable rental.
That is the gist of my proposal to the Government. We do not ask-and I say "we," because I speak on behalf of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and myself-that the Government should take over that road; the Government has already enough lame ducks in the National Railway system. But it seems to me that we are quite reasonable in asking the Government to treat generously this important feeder of the Canadian National railways. I say it is an important feeder; that is admitted by the Chairman of the Railway Commission. Mr. Gordon, the manager of the road, who has won the compliments of the commission, states in a memorandum

which was addresed to the Railway Commission in the month of February last:
The fact should not be lost sight of that wo are responsible for supplying the national railways, without cost to them, traffic yielding in revenue something like a million and a half dollars per annum. Inquiry into this should reveal the fact that we are extremely valuable feeders, and, I think, it was to the interests of the national railways to see that we continue as such and that we get every reasonable assistance so we may be able to develop and encourage traffic by continuing such rates in effect as the traffic can stand.
All we ask from the Government is that it implements the suggestion made by the Railway Commission that some of the equipment of the Canadian National railways be rented, if not loaned, to this company, in order to give it a chance to pass over the peak of its difficulties, that is to say, over this period of hard times. We do not want the Government to put the company under the'hammer. We do not ask the Government to take over the road as a lame duck, but we do ask the Government to give this important feeder of the Canadian National system a chance to function, and a chance to develop, by lending to it a few locomotives, a few first-class cars, and a few freight cars. We are not asking anything beyond the recommendations of the Chairman of the Railway Commission. We will be satisfied with that and so will our electors.
Mr. CURRIE (North Simcoe) :: I notice that the hon. gentleman stated that the rails were 56-pound rails, and that he complained that the locomotives on this road were not modern. Would it be possible for the heavy locomotives that are used on the Intercolonial, for instance, to travel over this road with its 56-pound rails?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not think so,
but I think on the Intercolonial and the Canadian Northern they have smaller locomotives in their old equipment, which would be quite acceptable for this line of railway.


John Allister Currie: The road is not in a
receivership ?	,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, no. In closing I
express the hope that the Government will look into this matter and give it its best consideration.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Railways, to
whose department this definitely appertains, is not in his seat to-day nor in the city. However, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) is perfectly justified in going on, as this will be the last day for
159J
private members. Yet the difficulty of adequate reply to the very able presentation which he has made is enhanced by the absence of the minister.
I can only say this: Assuming, as I do, having no reason at all to controvert any of his assertions, that there is much in the case that the hon. member presents, it is only on a par with very many other parts of the country which are also suffering considerably for lack of local transportation advantages. The difficulty of catching up with transportation needs in Canada is very great; great by reason, first of all, of the overbuilding of transcontinental lines, resulting in part in financial obligations at the present time that make it unusually hard to meet local needs such as this one. The financial situation generally is such that the Government, in justice to the country and the country's future, has not been able to consider favourably proposals which ordinarily would strongly appeal as being good business investments from many standpoints. I can only say on behalf of the minister and of the Government that the case presented by the hon. member is well worthy of consideration at the earliest possible date, and that consideration will be given to it. I know of the importance of the peninsula and the importance of the county. Its importance is such that I know any hon. member would be proud to represent it, and I can assure ' my hon. friend from Gaspe that what he has said will be taken into consideration at the earliest possible date.
Mr. ,LEMIEUX: I have only to thank the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) for the favourable consideration he promises to take of the case. I shall send to the Minister of Railways the memorandum containing the investigation proceedings held by the chairman of the Railway Commission and the statement made by the manager of the company. The demands and suggestions are very modest and, I think should receive the most favourable consideration from the Government.
Motion withdrawn.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY - WINNIPEG-QUEBEC SERVICE
Rodolphe Lemieux: That, in the opinion of this House, a more efficient train service for both passengers and freight should he established on the Transcontinental Railway between Winnipeg and Quebec.

He said: Again I shall be as brief as possible. This matter may appear somewhat sectional, and in a way it is; but the country is so large that it is quite difficult to visualize from one point the whole extent of its territory. My resolution asks that a more efficient train service for both passengers and freight shall be established on the Transcontinental railway between Winnipeg and Quebec. As my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) knows, the Government of the province of Quebec has, for about ten years now, been giving very considerable attention to the settlement of that area known as the Abitibi district. This district is immense; the timber reserves are enormous, and it is situated in the famous Clay Belt. The district is especially attractive to our French Canadian settlers in the province of Quebec, and already, through the beneficient influence of the Minister of Agriculture in Quebec, as well as of the Minister of Colonization, the province has been able to contribute from the old parishes an army of some 15,000 young settlers, who are all established between Cochrane and Quebec at various points on the Transcontinental line. Some years ago, that territory was but a "great lone land;" to-day there is quite a development in process. There is particular development in the pulp industry and in saw-mills. There are magnificent water-powers. And, what is even more important than all this, the settlers on the land are able to grow wheat and are anxious to duplicate in that territory the old province of Quebec itself. Now, I do not wish to launch a discussion on the question of freight and passenger rates; I shall confine myself only to the necessities of the district. Though the people are provided with a splendid railway line in the Transcontinental, they find that the rates at present are a very serious impediment to the development of the region.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Is this territory now included in the province of Quebec?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and it is represented in the House of Commons by my hon. friend the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). His county extends from Timis-kaming up the Transcontinental including Amos and other points. The province of Quebec has divided into townships or cantons the whole of the Abitibi region, and I shall be pleased to send to my hon. friend the last report of the Department of Colonization in Quebec on the progress 
made by the settlers there. Indeed, it is something remarkable. As I was saying, the question of rates is the most vital one for the district at present. I know it is equally vital elsewhere, and again I ask the indulgence of the House if I confine myself only to that district.
The reason why I bring the matter before the House is that I happen to know very intimately a man who, though he may be young, may properly be called the father of the region. Indeed, he is its factotum. I refer to Mr. Hector Authier who, one might almost say, selected the site of what is to-day the prosperous town of Amos. He is president of the Board of Trade, he is mayor, he is agent of Crown lands, and he may very well be described as the live wire of the district. He is above all a patriot; he has been going into the old parishes of the province of Quebec and inducing young men to establish homes for themselves in that beautiful country of the Abitibi. And he has succeeded. That district produced last year 100,000 cords of pulpwood and 50,000,000 feet of timber; but, as Mr. Authier writes me, this could be considerably exceeded if there were a proper train service with fair rates. The district is not as well known as it should be. The Quebec side comprises upper Timiskaming, the Abitibi proper, and the basins of the Harricana and the Nottaway rivers. Mr. Authier states- and he is sustained in this opinion by the surveyors and land agents of the Quebec Government-that there are ten million acres of good land fit for cultivation and colonization in the Abitibi. Sir, if at times some people feel blue about the future of this country, let us remember that we have the settlers who constitute our greatest asset. Let us help them by giving them proper facilities and in being fair to them in the matter of rates. The soil which they till enfolds tremendous possibilities. The future of this country lies in its farms. The land is the great asset of Canada. Let us get as many settlers as possible on the land, and the country will take care of itself. In the Abitibi, says Mr. Authier, there are ten million acres of land fit for culture where the Canadians of French descent will thrive and prosper if they are given proper facilities and some encouragement. Now the Transcontinental-and again I am speaking only of that section of country- the Transcontinental, which is a first class line, unequalled in any country in the world, would pay if you first settle the country. The land is there awaiting the

settler. But when the settler has reached the land you must give him fair rates on the railway and provide him with a service worthy of the name. The population, as I stated a moment ago, in the Quebec end of the Abitihi, is fifteen thousand people. It is increasing in spite of the adverse circumstances I am about to describe, and Mr. Authier, who is the factotum of the district predicts that in ten years there will be one hundred thousand Canadians from Quebec located there.
Now I will, in a few words, summarize the gist of the grievances of those hardy settlers. First, says Mr. Authier, we have no cars, or very few of them, and the locomotives are poor. Our timber is being piled up at the stations. That increases the insurance costs and practically discourages and diverts traders from our district. Second, our timber being piled up at the stations because of the lack of cars, in the summer forest fires will destroy that good timber thus piled, and that is another cause of discouragement to the traders of the district. And then there are the excessive freight rates. At present the settler, Mr. Authier says, makes a living out of pulp wood. That gives him a chance, . or rather a breathing spell, until he has cleared his land. Mr. Authier gives some of the rates in the following column:-
From Amos to La Tuque 17 cents per 100 pound, or $8.50 per cord.
From Amos to Grand'Mere 21 cents per 100 pounds, or $10 per cord.
From Amos to Three Rivers 23 cents per 100 pounds, or $11.50 per cord.
From Amos to Hawkesbury, Ontario, 22 cents per 100 pounds, or $11 per cord.
From Amos to Temiskaming, 25 cents per 100 pounds, or $12 per cord.
From Amos to Thorold, Ontario, 32 cents per 100 pounds, or $15.50 per cord.
From Amos to Corinth, New York, 27 cents per 100 pounds or $18 per cord.
From Amos to Watertown, New York, 39 cents per 100 pounds or $19 per cord.
As regards sawlogs the rates are:
From Amos to Quebec 25 cents.
From Amos to Montreal 31 cents.
That is from $7 to $10 per thousand feet in the first case and if $9 to $12 in the second case.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: Who
made those rates?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Railway Comission. However, I am not discussing that feature of the matter in detail. I suppose it will some day form the subject of a special debate. I am only citing these few cases to show the Government the
absolute necessity, if we are going to maintain those settlers in those far away districts, of considering the railway rates and giving the settlers special consideration in view of the peculiar circumstances in which they find themselves. I appeal to the Government to kindly look into this matter, and remedy the situation at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Authier is very optimistic as to the future of that district, and it is well that we should have optimists at the present time in our country. In order to remedy this situation, and to maintain the tide of colonization and settlement to that district, here is what he suggests :
We should be able to ship timber from Amos to La Tuque for $4 per cord ; to Grand'MS re for $5 per cord ; to Three Rivers, Hawkesbury, or Temiscaming for $6 per cord; to Merritton or to Thorold for $7 per cord ; and to Watertown or to Corinth, for $9 per cord.
He is quite frank in stating that he understands the rates throughout the whc'.e country must be such as will give the whole railway system a chance to live. He admits that frankly, but he claims that there .are particular problems for particular districts and that those special circumstances should be considered by the Government. It is true that in the present instance this district is along the lines of a transcontinental railway, but for that district the Transcontinental plays the part of a colonization road. Therefore the Government should act in a broad way in this matter, and give what I would call "the most favoured nation treatment" to these settlers. They are the most deserving portion of our population.
I will not say anything further. I think I have in these few words set up a fair claim for the favourable consideration of the Government. By all means, Mr. Speaker, let us stand by the settler. I remember the campaign, started some years ago by Mr. Rider Haggard, of "Back to the Land." That movement, if it is in the least aided and sustained by the Government, may, after all, solve many of our troubles in the future.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) in bringing before the Government the difficulties and some of the grievances of the people of the Abitibi district. Perhaps the greatest grievance they have with regard to the passenger service is that the trains are not being operated in a way to best serve that settlement. It is five hundred miles from Quebec to La Reine,

and from Nottaway to La Reine, taking in the whole district westward, there is a settlement of about one hundred miles. This settlement, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Maisonneuve, consists now of about 15,000 people. There main support in the early stages of settlement is .pulp and lumber. They take out pulpwood for dealers along the line, to be shipped out to the mills in the different districts. When the settlers went in there the rates were not much over half what they are to-day, and consequently they were able to ship out their pulpwood at a profit, but since the last rate increase it costs something like $3.50 to $4 a cord more to take out the pulpwood. This practically makes it impossible for the settlers to get any returns from what used to be a very profitable source of revenue to them.
This is the system of settlement in Quebec. The Government allows each settler one hundred acres of land at a nominal price, and he starts to take out his pulpwood. He is allowed to cut a certain area in the first year-about ten acres, the next year another ten acres, and each year he must clean up the land and put it under cultivation before he cuts down the next ten acres of pulpwood, so that his land is under cultivation long before he has exhausted his timber resources. In addition to getting his land under cultivation he must also build a house and do certain settlement duties. In that way, as the pulpwood is cut off, a good farming district is being developed. I spent some time there in 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920, and there has been a marvellous change in that time. The country is very much like Western Canada, with the exception that it is covered with commercial spruce timber. The land is very level, the soil is clay and very productive and will maintain a large number of prosperous settlers once it is cleared up. But unless those settlers can utilize the pulpwood as they go along it will be impossible for them to get the land under cultivation.
The system in Ontario is the opposite. There the timber is cut without any settlement regulations, and any hon. member who has travelled through that country knows that as soon as he passes La Reine station, which is the boundary between Ontario and Quebec, the country westward is practically a wilderness. The timber has been cut off and the land not left in fit condition for settlement. As a matter of fact, settlers will not undertake to clear up the land of timber that is not commercial.

As the hon. member for Maisonneuve has stated, there is a settlement in that district of 15,000 people, and they claim that that one hundred miles of settlement will take care of the fixed charges and operating-expenses of the railway for a distance of four hundred miles down to the next main division where there is another settlement. But under the present conditions it is just possible that if the freight rates are not decreased these people will have to move out of that settlement, for, unless they are able to sell their pulpwood and lumber it will be impossible for them to make a living. The high freight rates also discourage new settlement. As has been pointed out, there are millions of acres of land fit for cultivation in that country. And it is peculiarly adapted for settlement with the least possible railway facilities, because there are watercourses every few miles along that portion of the settlement between Nottaway and La Reine. I do not think there is more than ten miles at any place where there is not a considerable navigable stream crossing the tracks, and the country is so level that navigation is easy against as well as with the current. That allows of settlement along the rivers quite a distance from the railway as the settlers can transport their products by water to the railway.
The people in that district complain of the passenger service. The train going westward leaves Nottaway, which is the first village in the settlement, at 9.43, and a local train leaves at 10.10, only about forty minutes later. Those trains continue to Amos and O'Brien with only that short interval of time between them. Amos is the largest town in the district and is the banking centre. The land office is also located there.


John Allister Currie: Have they two trains a day?


Frank S. Cahill: One mixed train and a through passenger train, but both running at practically the same hour. The train coming back from Amos arrives there at 2.27 in the morning and as it is very often late it is a hardship to the people there to have to reach their destination in the night time. The arrangement may be all right for through traffic, but it could not be possibly worse for local traffic. It makes it almost impossible for the people to travel except by staying over from one day to the other.


Mr. LEGER:: What is the distance?


Frank S. Cahill: Between the two main
points it is 112 miles, and the train going east runs through that territory at night. There have been complaints about the freight service ever since I have known the district, and that is since I. became a member of this House. I have repeatedly seen the Minister of Railways and the officials of the Department of Railways and Canals to try and get an improvement in that service. The people in that territory two years ago had their pulpwood out and could have sold it provided they could get freight cars. It was then selling at about $7 a cord. But many of the settlers were obliged to sell at $3 and $4 a cord because they could not get cars to ship it out, and no person would pay any higher price for the wood under those circumstances. The dealers simply paid what they liked for it. They could not hold the wood until they coud get cars and get a better price; therefore they sold to the speculator at whatever price they could get. That has been the condition for the last four years in that country. Last year when they wanted cars they could not get them. When I went up there last June they were getting $16 a cord for what they call burnt peeled wood, that is, wood from areas over which fire had run so that the bark came off easily. To-day that wood is not worth more than $7 or $8 a cord, and they lose the difference because they could not ship the wood out. It simply means that settlers who have gone in there with the expectation of making a good living have become more or less discouraged and in turn their friends with whom they are corresponding are also deterred from going in, so that settlement is being retarded. Fifteen thousand people will practically take care of that line from La Reine to Quebec; if there were thirty thousand people in that settlement the line would be making a nice profit and would help to carry other portions of the road. If these people move out of the territory it will be almost impossible to get others to come in, at least for many years, whereas if good railway facilities are offered to the people and if the rates go down in the near future so that they can ship their wood out, you will have a very prosperous settlement in that country.
I have spent some years in Western Canada and in new territory throughout the country and it seems to me that the new settler always gets somewhat the worst of the deal. When the railroad is first
built into the district it is usually operated under the direction of the contractor, who has the privilege of charging whatever he likes. Then when it is put into operation by the railroad company they give the worst possible service-that is, they give as little service to the territory as possible. This is very discouraging to the people at a time when they need encouragement. Most people when they move into a new territory have not a great deal of money or they would not be there. They are generally young people who are going in to make a new home for themselves. If they are not allowed to get out their product and sell it and therefore do not prosper in the territory in which they settle, they are apt to be up against it all their lives. If these people had better facilities and could get cars when they wanted them, then they would be able to get a good price for their wood and they would be prosperous; but the condition to-day is that-the merchants in the territory are carrying many of the farmers who have taken out wood. The tracks are piled with wood for practically one hundred miles-all along the track there are thousands and thousands of cords of wood that could not be shipped out when the price was right and cannot be shipped out now on account of high freight rates. It is very discouraging to the settlers, and if there is a remedy it should be found at once in order to encourage settlement in that district and make the operations of the railroad there profitable, thus bringing about benefit to the Canadian people.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this matter should properly be brought to the attention of the Canadian National railways. When last year or the year before we incorporated the Canadian National Railway Company it was understood that we were going to take these railway matters completely out of politics. In fact, they are supposed to be out of politics now. It does seem to me that the Liberals in this House should be the very last to want to-


Frank S. Cahill: Improve the service?


Samuel William Jacobs: Not to improve the service, but project this whole' question again into the political arena. If the districts to which reference has been made require better service, the matter ought to be brought to the attention of Mr. Hanna and his highly paid officials. I understand that Mr. Hanna is in receipt of $25,000 or $30,000 a year-I have no doubt he is worth it-

and that other members of the staff receive proportionately large sums. What is the use of having such a high-salaried staff and such a complicated system of management if those who want to increase our railway facilities may not present themselves to these gentlemen and ask for those improved facilities? These men who are managing the Canadian National railway are railway men-at least, I hope they are; and they would be very quick to see that a district of this kind should be properly served and given adequate railway facilities.	'
I am not suggesting what Mr. Hanna should or should not do, but I live in Montreal and I know something about the Canadian National trains that leave that city every day for Ottawa. We have a Canadian National train-Grand Trunk-that leaves Montreal at four o'clock every afternoon, and we have also a Canadian Pacific train leaving at the same time. Then we have a five o'clock train on the Canadian National, going through the very same country. I understand that we have also another train leaving Montreal for Ottawa earlier in the day. It costs the Canadian National, we are told, one dollar and twenty-four cents for every dollar they make. It seems to me that if there is such an urgent need for railway service in the semi-explored country to which reference has been made, it would be a very simple matter to divert some of these trains to that district, where we plight possibly make money, instead of running them from Montreal to Ottawa. Now, with regard to the Canadian National train which leaves Montreal daily at five o'clock in the afternoon-I believe it is the Trans-Canada train-we know when it leaves, but the Lord Himself only knows when it arrives in Ottawa. It is a de luxe train, everything of the best; no train in the country can compare with it in appointments and makeup; yet quite often it arrives in Ottawa an hour and a half late. And its late arrival is not a matter of infrequent occurrence; it happens almost daily. I do not say that it is always an hour and a half late, but it is all the way from twenty, twentyjfive or thirty minutes up to an hour and a half late, in some cases even two hours. When we ask the officials why this train is late we are told that the train has a number of hot boxes on board. Well, I do not know what hot boxes are; I never saw any of them; but if we have hot boxes on board and they keep us late, why not take those hot boxes off and travel without boxes at *Mr, Jacobs.!
all? Now, the Canadian Pacific train is never late. We have these competing lines with trains leaving Montreal for Ottawa at four o'clock. The Grand Trunk will have possibly two or three passengers on board, all non-paying guests, while the Canadian Pacific train is filled, and sometimes you cannot get a seat. The reason is that it is known when the Canadian Pacific will reach Ottawa.


Michael Clark: People do not seem to like "de luxe."


Samuel William Jacobs: It looks like that. Now, I would be opposed to any "favoured-nation" scheme as proposed by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve and Gaspe, (Mr. Lemieux). He thinks that his particular district should be put in the favoured class because the people there are pioneers. Well, it seems to me that every one who is on the land and trying to earn a living is a pioneer. The people in the West are pioneers just as the people in the Abitibi country are. After all, the people who are in that country do not require hourly communication with metropolitan centres; if they go up there they must expect to endure some hardships, otherwise they are not good pioneers; and they must make the best of it until sueh time as we are able to put these roads into a little better shape than they are at present. When Lord Shaugh-nessy's scheme is adopted we may be able to give them all the facilities they require. But it seems to me that this matter should not for the present go beyond the extent of an academic discussion. We all feel that every person in the country should have proper railway facilities, but on the other hand we also feel that we are running practically on to the shoals of bankruptcy if we continue very much longer in the way we are doing. It seems to me that the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe, while he may be enthusiastic about this particular region in the Abitibi country, should first of all consider the general needs of Canada. If he does that, I am sure that he will realize that the time is inopportune to advocate for that district any better system than pioneers have in other parts of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, if I were to attempt to reply to the case presented by the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) and the other two hon. gentlemen who followed him, I would have to imagine myself first as the chairman or other member of the Railway Commission,

and present such considerations as from their standpoint could be advanced against the suggestion contained in the motion. The motion, while it reads quite innocently, is clearly intended, as shown by the speech of the mover, to he an appeal for lower freight rates on the Transcontinental in so far as that road serves the Abitibi district-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Better car facilities.


Arthur Meighen: -and better car facilities as well. That is a subject which, by the legislation of this House, in, I think, the year 1903 or about that time, was placed definitely and exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. Both phases of the purpose sought by the resolution, the car-provision phase and the rate phase, are definitely assigned to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission; not only is this so, but the Railway Commission, in its conclusions, in its conduct of cases presented and the disposition thereof, has been placed, by the legislation of Parliament-and wisely so-in the statuts of a judicial tribunal; and it seems to me, in the discharge of their duties, they are consequently not subject to the review, either by way of criticism or defence, of members of the House of Commons or of Parliament. Consequently, I really am not quite able to grasp how Parliament could well deal with the resolution as presented this afternoon. The subject of railway rates having been so assigned and the tribunal being supreme, subject, of course, to appeal to the Governor in Council in the regular way, and subject to the responsibility of the Governor in Council, in disposing of an appeal, to the Parliament of Canada, it does not seem to me appropriate or wise that we should occupy the time of Parliament in the discussion of the correctness of rates or maxima fixed applicable to various districts or divers commodities. If we do, we are simply going back to the position in which we were before 1903, and we are doing a great deal to reduce the authority and usefulness of the tribunal to which all those questions were assigned. If Parliament is to act and to adopt any policy as regards railway rates, Parliament would be justified in asserting in the Railway Act provision for discriminatory rates favourable to this or that class of commodity or this or that kind of community. If Parliament found it wise to place such a direction in the Railway Act-and I think Parliament would1 be very reluctant to adopt that course-then, of course, the Railway Commission would be compelled to take cognizance of the
direction of Parliament as contained in the law. But unless we choose to act in that way, it seems to me that we are absolutely bound to leave under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission the prerogatives that are there by virtue of legislation, and not directly or in any other way to seek to bring those back into the forum of Parliament for discussion. I say this, not with particular reference to this resolution, but as a general principle, in the desire to impress this principle not only on members of Parliament, but on the country generally. There has been for some time throughout the Dominion a disposition to regard the Railway Commission as merely the instrument of the Government of Canada to do the will of the Government in respect of this application or that, in respect of the disposition of this question or that, and to hold the Government responsible for each and every act of the commission, just as if it were a department of Government doing the will of its master.


Samuel William Jacobs: They have enough sins
without putting that at their door.


Arthur Meighen: If sins were to be
attributed to the commission, I do not think that would be done by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux).


Samuel William Jacobs: No, the Government.


Arthur Meighen: The Government having roamed so long without having any sins brought home, it would be really a pleasant variety if the hon. member could succeed.
The practice of which I have spoken has become more or less prevalent of recent times, and I take this opportunity of saying that the more it grows and the more it is encouraged, the worse it is for the usefulness of the Railway Commission and, in my humble opinion, for the Dominion of Canada; because I think it is of first importance to this Dominion, not only that the sphere of responsibility be conserved to the commission, but that its status be carefully observed and that throughout the Dominion, people understand that that commission is not an instrument of Government but in every respect a judicial tribunal with certain stated and highly important powers.
I have said so much in that regard. If I were to argue whether it would be wise on the part of Parliament to insert in the Railway Act the principle that special rates should be allowed in serving pioneer districts, if I were to answer the case presented from that standpoint, I would say

this, that I fear the line of division between what is a pioneer district and what is not would be very hard to find, and interminable difficulties would arise in deciding just when a district ceases to be a pioneer district and becomes an established territory. The claims of Abitibi would certainly not be alone. I can think now not of one district but of a very large number of districts in this country that would immediately claim to enjoy any advantages that might be granted to this particular district, and others that had been denied them in days gone by would ask to be recouped for what they had suffered, so that complexities that would be very hard to get over would immediately ensue. Parliament is wise, in the interest of all concerned, to leave this to the commission and to hold the commission responsible for the discharge of its duties, just as any other judicial committee or board is held responsible.
As to the general subject of railway rates, this in its general aspect is under the commission too; but all of us will agree, without criticism one way or the other, that the sooner we get such conditions that a general reduction can take effect, the better. There is no question that the present rates-and I do not deny that they are necessary, I do not deny that the exigencies that have been brought upon us and by which we are surrounded make them necessary-there is no question that the present rates are such that they are a serious deterrent to the commerce of this country, and while certain causes must be remedied or improved before there can be any substantial reduction, the sooner those causes are removed or remedied the better for this country. We see the' effects every day, and the object of this country and of this Parliament should be to direct its efforts to removing the causes rather than to complaining of the consequences.
I have every sympathy with the settlers of the Abitibi district. I happen to have been there, and I know some of [DOT] their handicaps. Insofar as it is a question of railways rates or car supply, it is a question for the disposition of the Railway Commission. If the Government is at fault in not providing sufficient car supply for our own railways, at the request of the directorate of those railways, that is a charge which we must take care of and for which we must be responsible. But I do not think that that will be alleged. 1 think the Government has gone, up to the present, as far as it could be justified in going in meeting the requirements of the
[Mr. Meighen.J
railway directorate for car supply. Consequently, a charge of neglect cannot successfully be laid at the door of the Administration.	.


John Allister Currie: I, do not wish to prolong the debate, but as the question of rates is under discussion on this resolution, I might be permitted to say a word or two. . I quite sympathize with the remarks of the hon. member who introduced the resolution (Mr. Lemieux)
I think that the settlers of the Abitibi region have certainly a grievance. There is no doubt that products are brought over that road from thousands of miles west at the same rate per hundred weight as these settlers have to pay for their pulp-wood to go to Quebec, and the only reason I can assign for that is that the Railway Commission when it undertook to hoist the rates, just went at it blind and made a general increase all over the country. As a result business has been stifled; business is really at a stand-still to-day in Canada, and unless something is done to ease the rates and remedy present conditions I do not know where we are going to come to. The railways have their sidings piled up full of empty freight cars, because it does not pay anybody to ship over the roads. Our railways and our shipping were going to do great things for us, but what is the result? The freight rate from Toronto to China is about $27.50. That is about $2 more than it is from Chicago to China. The rate from New York, Montreal, or any of those ports, to China, is fixed at $20

1That is the American rate. The American rate for ocean freights is entirely based on a law which passed through Congress compelling ships to take certain crews and pay certain wages. They cannot charge less from New York to China than $20. The pre-war rate was $8.50. The same tonnage is carried on the ocean for the came distance at prewar figures to-day from Great Britain, Germany and France, and the result is that they are getting all the foreign trade., I cannot understand why this country cannot get somebody on the commission who has a little brains, and will endeavour to adjust the freight rates so that the people of this country can do business. It is a most shocking thing to know that freights have been raised in the last six. months or the past year to the point where we are entirely out of the foreign market. It is no use having ships on the ocean if you cannot compete. We have to compete with other countries with our products,

and our ships are tied up by the American rates. If you ask for a rate in this country, the first thing they do is to look up the Pittsburg rate and hand that to you. That is all nonsense. We should not be tied up to the American rates at all, and as long as we do remain tied up to them, we shall be underground all the time and this country will not succeed.
The only thing to bring relief to this country is an early reduction of taxation and of freight rates. When we get that, we are going to get back to business. If the present rates are to continue I have no hesitation in saying that inside of a year not one-quarter of the equipment of our railways will be in use. We have all read what Lord Shaughnessy said in the paper this morning about amalgamating the roads. That is not going to affect the rates at all. It is no use sending a man into the woods up at Abitibi to cut pulp-wood if he is going to make a loss of 50 cents a cord when he gets it to the station. People must be allowed to make a living.
I suppose that for the western farmers the increased rates have meant an additional ten or fifteen cents a bushel out of their pockets direct, and nobody seems to be the better off for it.
I am very glad that the hon. member for Maisonneuve has brought this matter up so that hon. members are able to say a word or two upon this very important question. I want to tell the right hon. the Prime Minister that unless something is done to enable us to get through rates of freight over the government railways to foreign countries, instead of having to pay two local freights, and fifty per cent more than any other country has to pay, outside of the United States, we shall have to close up business. We have had a foreign trade in manufactured goods in Canada amounting to close to a billion dollars. I have no hesitation in saying that instead of that trade showing an increase, it will show a falling off next year of fully fifty per cent. The whole thing is due to the rates, to handing over to two or three irresponsible clerks the making of the rates for the whole country. I say that Parliament must be responsible to the people of this country for the management of the large affairs of the nation, and the sooner we realize that the better. I do not approve of bringing every little matter into this House, but there are certain general questions that we must discuss, and one of them is the condition of the railways
in Canada and how we are going to get out of our present trouble.
The British Columbia lumbermen are in exactly the same position as the Abitibi settlers. They were seeing daylight last fall. The price of operation had fallen and reductions had been made so that they were able to reach busines in the East, which would have enabled people to start building operations but the very minute lumber could be delivered in Ontario and the East at $50 and leave a profit to the lumberman, that very minute the commission hoisted the freight to $17, which shoves lumber out of sight, so that there is nothing in it for anybody. It is a pity the commission say they have to do it. What should actuate the Railway Commission is a study of conditions in Canada, instead of trailing after the American idea constantly. We are trailing after the American idea in everything, in the hoisting of wages and the hoisting of rates. Now everybody knows very well that in Canada, with our tremendous distances, we cannot exact the same ton-mile freight as they can in the United States. If the Canadian Pacific Railway had endeavoured to exact the same ton-mile rate as was exacted in the United States, its road would not be in as grand a position as it is in to-day. There is ample earning power in all our railways here. The only thing that is needed is to give the people a chance to do business at a profit. It is no use putting the freight rates up so high that everybody doing business is going to lose money. The lumberman in British Columbia or Abitibi starts in to cut his lumber and carry on his operations, and when he gets through he finds that all his profit has gone and that he is indebted to the railways. That is no way to do business. There must be more elasticity.
This idea of making a judicial body of the Railway Commission is only a method of giving the railways a chance to squeeze the public more than they should on freight rates. The idea of the average railway man or the man on the commission is to charge all that the traffic will bear. That will mean absorbing every dollar that everybody in this country makes, whether in the factory, on the farm or elsewhere, and if you are going to carry on like that you will have a poor country. No one will come here and establish factories and do business unless conditions are just as favourable as in any other country. I am glad to approve of the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. COMMONS
Lemieux); so far as he is concerned, I think those remarks are directed in the proper channel. As regards Ontario, I think the slashing down of pulpwood areas applies only to certain regions handed over to the pulp companies. The Government has assigned certain territories to these companies, who virtually own the land and are supposed to have the right to cut wood on these territories for hundreds of years if they desire; but where there is a settlement in Ontario, they carry on business much the same as in Quebec. There are enormous areas in northern Ontario beyond the Height of Land and beyond that again there is a territory along the basin of the Albany river that would accommodate a population of a million. There is plenty of arable land there and hardly a white man from Ontario has ever set foot in that district. We do not know the extent of our wealth and resources.
We have been building railways and now we must see that they are operated so that not only they themselves will profit but that the people of the country will be benefited. There is danger in giving them a free rein in the way of high freight rates and thus shutting them off from business, because if they charge too high rates they will not get business. The point of the whole matter is to reach some adjustment whereby goods can be carried at a profit to all concerned; the railways should not get all the profits any more than the producers. I trust that this matter of freight rates and the general situation will be further discussed in the House before long, when we shall have an opportunity of going more thoroughly into the matter. The member for Maisonneuve, I presume, does not intend to press his resolution.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall not detain the House at any length.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must direct the attention of the House to the circumstance that the mover of the resolution is about to close the debate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no apologies to offer for having brought this question to the attention of the House, notwithstanding what my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), has said. My hon. friend belongs to a race which for centuries past has been persecuted and denied the enjoyment of freedom. But we belong to a free race; we recognize that Parliament is our forum, and when a man is denied his rights it is the duty of any public man to bring the matter to the

attention of the Government and of the country. Now, it has occurred to my hon. friend to have certain grievances aired in this House that might well have been referred to special departments. I have in mind, for instance, the case of some poor Jewish immigrants who were denied the right of entry at Quebec and Halifax, and my hon. friend was very glad to take the opportunity, when he could not get justice from the department, to air his grievances before Parliament. This is the forum of every free man, whether he be Jew or Frenchman, or a representative of any other race.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask the hon. member when I brought a matter of that kind to the attention of the House?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not long ago; since the beginning of this session. My hon. friend complained of the administration of the immigration laws, which he found were too drastic. He aired the grievances of his compatriots, and he was right. He was taking the part of the poor, unfortunate immigrants detained at the port of entry, and he brought the matter before the House of Commons. I do the same. I do not personally represent the poor settlers of the Abitibi, because they have a worthy representative in this House in the member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill); but I am speaking from the standpoint of the whole province. As I said a while ago, there are ten million acres of land fit for cultivation in that region, which is immense, being practically a province in itself-it is really a new province added to Quebec. But it has a sparse population. The people of the district have a grievance. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) has himself admitted that the rates were certainly very high, and the native industry of these settlers is being hampered thereby. I grant at once that the proper tribunal is the Railway Commission; but it is not by any exchange of letters between Amos and the Railway Commission, that these poor settlers will receive speedy justice. If there are enough patriots in this House to take up their grievances and bring them to the attention of the Government, then they will get justice. For my part, I stand by the settler; he is the man who should receive the first consideration of Parliament. And as a result of my motion to-day and the airing of the grievances of these settlers, my right hon. friend, I am sure, will instruct the Railway Commission of Canada to look more carefully into the schedules of rates and see that justice be

done. The Prime Minister having done that, the settlers of the Abitibi district will be grateful to the Government, grateful to my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie), grateful to my hon. friend from Pontiac, and grateful to myself personally for having directed the attention of the Government to this matter. They will, however, be surprised to find that the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) was opposed to their grievance being ventilated here.
Resolution withdrawn.


WESTERN PROVINCES-TRANSFER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN A- CAMPBELL (Nelson) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the transfer by the Dominion to the western provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, of their natural resources should not be longer delayed.
He said: For fifty years the question of the ultimate control of the land and other resources of that immense district known prior to 1870 as Rupert's Land and the North West Territory has been before the people of Canada. This question arose when these vast regions were handed over by Imperial Order in Council to the Dominion, and Manitoba became a province, and it is a very live question at the present time. That the problem should still be before us after half a century of controversy is due to the fact that it was approached in the first place from the standpoint of expediency instead of from the standpoint which must ultimately settle the question, that of right. Even now the question of expediency seems to prevail in the counsels of those who have to do with the matter; the constitutional rights of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are continuously being ignored.
The present situation is somewhat anomalous; I have had occasion to mention this at different times in this House. Unquestionably it is the view of Canada generally that these resources will eventually be handed over to these provinces. Just when that will be is pretty hard to say, but in the meantime what is the situation? There are some matters that demand immediate attention. Laws should be passed in connection with certain of our natural resources. I might refer specifically to mines and minerals; The minerals in the provinces alluded to are under the control of the Dominion but there is no mining law in existence. Yet the conditions are such that it is absolutely essential, in the interest of the proper development of Western Canada, that a comprehensive law should be enacted. The Dominion declares that as these resources are going to be handed over to the provinces action in this respect should be deferred. The provinces on the other hand say: We are not in the enjoyment of these resources at present and therefore we cannot take action. The result is that the development of the natural resources are being retarded and handicapped. I brought this matter up in the form of a series of questions at an earlier session and on October 20, 1919, answers were given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I will not read all the questions, but No. 6 is thus worded:
Is the proper development of the natural resurces of these provinces not being seriously handicapped and retarded by delay and uncertainty in this connection?
The answer to the question was:
The Government is not aware of such retardation.
I can hardly conceive an answer of that kind being given by the Government because, on the face of it, it naturally follows that retardation will result from the uncertainty that exists at the present time. Let me now quote a statement made by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) during a debate that took place on April 7, 1920. I had referred to the minerals, my hon. friend deals with the timber resources. He expressed himself on that occasion as follows:
In view of the uncertain conditions which that promise has created-
That is the promise to hand over the resources to the provinces concerned.
-a promise which has not yet been fulfilled and which would involve an entire change in the regulations covering the control of the timber areas, can we expect that the men who own these timber berths and wealthy men generally, are going to invest their money in the development of these resources? Most undoubtedly not, because if there is one thing more than another that money is scared of it is indefiniteness and uncertainty.
Eventually these resources will be handed over, and if eventually, why not now?
There is the question of right to be considered and in the last analysis that is the paramount issue. Looking at the matter from that standpoint, these resources must be handed over and action in that direction should have been taken long before this. The other provinces have the control and administration of their natural resources, and it was contemplated at Confederation that each province should stand
[Stage Direction]
on an equal footing. All the provinces of Canada, except the three prairie provinces, now being in possession of their natural resources, it follows that these three provinces are being discriminated against-they are not on an equal footing with the rest of the provinces. Furthermore we have the straight promise which was made by the right hon. member for King's, N.S. (Sir iRobert Borden) and subsequently his Government, that these resources should be handed over. Moreover, it is necessary on constitutional grounds, in the interest of the whole country, that this transfer should take place. As I say the three prairie provinces are not in the position of equality with the other provinces. They are in the position of vassals to a mighty suzerain. They are in the position of colonies to the Dominion, as a whole. Such a condition of affairs was not contemplated by the British North America Act, and it is not in the interest of the provinces themselves nor of the Dominion as a whole. The situation is tersely set out by the Manitoba Free Press-which, I think, may fairly speak for the West-in its issue of April 24, 1920:
If the Western provinces are provinces in the sense that the Eastern provinces are, they have a right to their Crown Lands. They have not got these lands because the Dominion Government retained possession of them when these provinces were created. Whatever practical justification for this course there may have been in the past it has now lapsed and upon every consideration on the* Crown Lands should be vested in the Western provinces. It is for the Dominion Government to deal with this matter in a straightforward and courageous manner in place of hiding behind the eastern provinces who are only too willing to seize the opportunity to make an entirely unwarranted raid upon the Dominion Treasury.
This matter of the transfer of natural resources came up in debate in this House in 1905 at the time of the creation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. On that occasion the member for King's, N.S., then the leader of the Opposition had this to say:
He-
Referring to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
[DOT]-said it might interfere with the operation of the policy of the government with respect to immigration.
That is the transfer of resources.
So far as the rest of his argument is concerned it would have justified the retention by the Imperial government up to the present time of every acre of Crown Lands in Canada.
A little further on he says:
So far as the control of the lands is concerned,
I adhere to the opinion I have before expressed

in this House: that the people of the north-west when they are granted provincial rights. . . . are entitled to the control of these lands just as much as the people of the eastern provinces of Canada are entitled to the control of their provincial domain. I see no distinction.
Not only was that statement made by the right hon. gentleman at that time but subsequently it was embodied in the platform of his party known as "The Halifax Platform." I have that platforffi before me now and it starts off in this way:
The policy of the Conservative Party is as follows:
Item No. 2 therein reads:
The granting of their natural resources to the Prairie Provinces.
In 1911, at the time of the Dominion election, the right hon. member for Kings amplified the statement made in the Halifax platform as follows:
The day is not far distant when Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will receive from the Conservative Government at Ottawa the just recognition of their undoubted right to their public lands and natural resources. . . .
During his tour of the west in 1911, the right hon. gentleman spoke at several places, and I take this opportunity to place before the House, not in extenso but briefly, some of the statements which he made. At Winnipeg at the commencement of his tour he said:
To-day in Canada six provinces enjoy the right to control and administer the public lands, mines, minerals and other natural resources within their boundaries. That right is not enjoyed by the three Prairie Provinces. . . The Public Lands and Natural Resources are vested in the Crown, to be administered for the benefit of the people. In six provinces, the Crown, in dealing with the Public Domain, acts upon the advice of the Provincial Ministers, and under the laws enacted by the Provincial Legislatures. In the three Prairie Provinces the Crown in dealing with such lands acts upon the advice of the Federal Ministers and under laws enacted by the Federal Parliament.
Why should there be any such discrimination against the people of these provinces?
This statement was made on June 29th, 1911. Later, speaking in Brandon, he is reported as follows:
In 1902, in 1905, in 1907 and again in 1910, we have stood for the right of the western provinces to own and control their Public Domain. It is the right of the people in those provinces to have their public lands and natural resources administered by their own Governments under the control of their own Legislatures. They say that they are free men and being free men in a free country have as good a right to control their own local legislatures, and, by their own provincial executives, the administration of their Public Lands and Natural Resources as have the people of any of the Eastern Provinces who

enjoy and have enjoyed that right. The Liberal-Conservative pax*ty supports that claim and will enforce it at the first opportunity.
A little later on, speaking in Battleford, he said:
The policy I have outlined will be carried out by the Government as I have stated-
That is, by the Government which he expected to form after the election.
-or one man of the Government will go out of public life.
He did not say which man, but it is readily understood to whom he referred.
The hon. member for Regina, referring to the address of the right hon. member for King's at Regina, had this to say in the debate to which I previously referred:
I saw a question on the Order Paper which was answered by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) about what statement was made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) prior to the election. There is no question about it, he promised that these natural resources would be handed over to the people of the province. L myself heard him make that statement.
The promise, Mr. Speaker, was definite, positive and unequivocal, and there is no getting around it. The question now is: where does the Government stand? It may be peculiar, but that promise and that pledge were placed alongside of the promise and the pledge which I had occasion to refer to a few days ago in connection with the Hudson Bay Railway. These were two of the matters which were prominent in the speeches made by the hon. gentleman referred to and by other hon. gehtlemen of the same side in campaign mentioned, and both these matters were emphatically promised if the party to which they belonged should be returned to power and the hon. gentleman should have the privilege of forming a government. There should be ho change in the stand of hon. gentlemen opposite to-day. The same party is now in power that was elected in 1911, but ten .years have elapsed since that time and up to the present apparently no results have been accomplished.
This matter, Mr. Speaker, has been brought up in this House on several occasions. I might refer brieflly to a debate which took place on the question raised by my hon. friend from Lethbridge in 1914. On motion to go into Supply, the question at issue was set out by the hon. member as follows:
I desire to ascertain from the Prime Minister to-day whether it is the intention of the Government to transfer to the Western provinces their natural resources, as promised1 hv himself in many public declarations.
I would like to refer the House to some of the replies made by hon. members to that question at that time. The right hon. member for King's, then Prime Minister, and who I am sorry is not in his seat, took up the question in this way:
I have no exception to take to the way in which he has presented it, excepting some suggestions he made as to insincerity, with regard to which it might he well for him to take a look' at himself and his friends in the West.
What has the sincerity of the member who proposed this question and of his friends to do with the matter at all? The point at issue was whether the Prime Minister intended to carry out his promise and he should have decided the matter entirely on that basis, without raising the issue as to where other people .stood. The hon. Minister of the Interior at that time, Hon. Dr. Roche, took about the same attitude. He said:
I have quoted, and the Prime Minister has quoted, the statements that have been made on the platform and off the platform, in this House and outside this House, by certain prominent Liberals as to the position they occupy on this question ; and in the face of that we have this impossible, unreasonable request made by these same gentlemen that we hand over all these resources that every Liberal stated it would be foolish to ask for. Are these gentlemen in earnest, are they sincere, are they consistent? They have made three or four requests, and we do not know which one they place [DOT] most emphasis upon. If they get together, come to some finality upon the question, and show that they are in earnest, it will then toe time enough for this Government to give serious consideration to the matter.
Again, what under the sun had the attitude of the Liberal party at that time to do with the definite promise which was made by the leader of the Government? When do we find that the Government of that day, or of the present day, has deferred to such an extent to the opinion of those opposite. It is only a few days hence when the granting of $8,000,000 or thereabouts for a mercantile marine was opposed strenuously by every one on this side of the House, but our wishes did not receive any consideration, and the item was put through by means of the closure. The question at that time was whether the promise of the Prime Minister was to be implemented or not. And whether the Opposition at that time took the view that the natural resources should or should not be handed over to the western provinces was not in issue. In speaking to the same motion Dr. Schaffner-now Senator-made reference to the consistency of the Liberal leader. He said-
However, I was dplighted to hear the right hon. gentleman-	.
[Stage Direction]
Referring to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
-say to-day that his policy on this great question of giving the natural resources into control of the three Prairie Provinces was not like his policy of free food, a policy "for the moment," but that it had lasted from 1905 up to the present day.
Apparently according to this statement, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was consistent. He had taken a certain stand at one time, and in speaking a few minutes before he had taken the same position. £5ir Wilfrid Laurier was in error in my opinion. But while I do not agree with the attitude which was taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time, and while we in the West differ from him in that respect we are quite in accord with the concluding remarks which he made at that time, and which are as follows:
It is now incumbent on my right hon. friend (the leader of the Government) to take the initiative in this matter, and to act as brave as he spoke When he was in opposition. v
That is exatcly the attitude we take at the present time.
One of the reasons why this matter has not been disposed of before is that an entirely erroneous idea appears to prevail as to the transaction which took place when the territories were taken into the Dominion. The statement has been published broadcast that Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories were purchased by Canada, and thereupon became the property of Canada as then constituted. This statement is entirely unfounded, and any argument based thereon is completely fallacious.
John Flaws Reid: Hear, hear.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: 
REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
statement of the situation from a constitutional standpoint. They said:
The surrender of the powers of government and of territorial jurisdiction by the company to the Crown, and the transfer of these powers to the Canadian Government, are Acts of State, authorized by Imperial statute, and will have all the force and permanence of fundamental lawr.
In this connection I would again quote from the pamphlet of Professor Chester Martin, as follows:
The payment of the £300,000 was thus occasioned not by the transfer of Rupert's land to Canada, for that was effected, it will be seen, by full cession from the Crown; it was exacted by the Hudson's Bay Company as a sine qua non for the surrender of their charter rights in Rupert's land.
It may be stated at once that scrupulous regard for sound British constitutional procedure was observed throughout the difficult process of transfer, and that the implications of that procedure leave the British principles with regard to self-governing communities- and above all, with regard to Manitoba which was entrusted with provincial status from the first-in full force and operation.
The transactions to which I refer were two. The first was the surrender by the Hudson Bay Company to the Crown of all their interests in the two territories mentioned, and the second was the cession by the Imperial Government, by Order in Council, of these territories to Canada.
I might also mention here that there seems to be a popular delusion that all of this territory which was transferred by the Hudson Bay Company to the Crown, is in the West. As a matter of fact, perhaps most of the territory is not covered by the provinces to which I referred, but now forms parts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There was never any question raised as regards those two provinces as to the control of their natural resources. Naturally, in a constitutional way, the beneficial interest in the lands and natural resources of the territories now included in Quebec and Ontario became vested in those provinces, and these provinces continue to exercise jurisdiction and control over them.
The treatment meted out to Manitoba and the other western provinces is in direct contrast to that shown to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island at the time that they came into Confederation. In 1849, the Hudson Bay Company was granted certain rights over Vancouver island, rights similar to what they had over Rupert's land. In 1867, however, the Imperial Government decided that it was in the interest of the colony that 
those rights should be relinquished, and an arrangement was made whereby the Imperial Government should pay to the Hudson Bay Company a certain sum for the relinquishment of all their rights in connection with Vancouver island. This sum, amounting to £57,500 was paid by the Imperial Government to the Hudson Bay Company for the cancellation of the rights of that company in Vancouver island. In this instance, however, Great Britain did not retain in any way the lands or natural resources of Vancouver island, but the administration thereof was handed over to the authorities who subsequently took control, not only of Vancouver island, but of the mainland which subsequently became the province of British Columbia.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: Was that money which was
paid by the Imperial Government subsequently charged to the Dominion of Canada?


John Archibald Campbell: 
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Were portions of the Hudson Bay Company's land ceded to Ontario and Quebec prior to the extension of (their respective territories about ten or fifteen years ago?


John Archibald Campbell: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I thought
the hon. member said so.


John Archibald Campbell: No. My statement
in connection with Quebec and Ontario was that when their boundaries were extended, they were extended to cover territory which had been known as Rupert's land and the North West Territories, and no question was raised as to who should control the lands in those territories that control naturally and constitutionally devolved on those provinces.
In connection with British Columbia, at the time that province came into Confederation, 100,000 acres were set aside for the building of the Canadian Pacific. The

agreement with British Columbia was that 100,000 acres should be transferred by that province in trust to the Dominion to be used in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. The important point, however, in connection with this territory is that the lands were to be transferred to the Dominion in trust. The consideration was that the Dominion should pay $100,000 anually for those lands, and this sum was paid from the time the province came into Confederation, notwithstanding the fact that the lands themselves were not transferred to the Dominion for ten years after and the railway was not built for five or six years after that.
The case of Prince Edward Island is apropos here. By the terms of the Union of Prince Edward Island to the Dominion in 1873, it was provided by clause 5:

property of its cestui que trust, even under the Pharisaical pretext that the plunderous act was in the highest interest of the beneficiary.
The ultimate aim of the Confederation appeared to be to extend the territory from the West to the Pacific ocean, the idea being that other provinces should be formed out of this territory and be admitted to Confederation from time to time. The idea of the Imperial Government was not that these provinces should be admitted at any time at all, but that their admission should be held off until they had shown themselves capable of self-government, and that they should then be admitted as selfgoverning entities. However, the Dominion of Canada in 1870 arranged that Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories should be admitted, and that part thereof should be formed into a province to be known as the Province of Manitoba. So in this case the Government of the day was acting illegally in two respects; (1) in that it had no powers to form provinces out of the territories taken ovejr, and (2) in that the British North America Act did not contemplate that the lands of the provinces would be otherwise administered than by the provinces themselves. So the land clauses in the Manitoba Act, as pointed out by Mr. Thompson, disjointed the whole constitution. The crowning iniquity in this connection was the enactment in 1872 of the first Dominion Lands Act, whereby it was declared that the lands and natural resources of the West-it was Manitoba that was referred to at that time-belonged to the Dominion. No title in the Dominion was revealed by that Act. The fact of the matter is, and this is contended by constitutional authorities, the Dominion Government never had any title to these lands, but was simply acting in the capacity of trustee for these lands and natural resources. In effect, it was in the position of loco parentis to the territories over which it exercised jurisdiction, and the taking over of the lands of these territories meant that the povinces which were formed out of them became simply geographical areas, and were not provinces in the same sense as the other provinces of Canada were.
The history of the contention of the West for the control of natural resources is rather interesting. As I have already pointed out, the lands were taken by the Dominion Government, in the first place, without a suggestion being made of any subsidy being granted to Manitoba; that was the only province formed at that time. Thus Manitoba was restricted as in its

possible sources of revenue. One reason that was given for the appropriation of these lands by the Dominion was that they would be required for the purposes of immigration in connection with the great immigration policy which the Dominion Government had in mind at that time. This did, however, for some time work to the disadvantage of Manitoba. The influx of immigrants made it necessary that roads, bridges and other public works should be constructed by Manitoba, and as site had no lands which she could could sell, and so raise money to defray the expenses of these public works, she found herself in a precarious position financially, as a result of the policy followed by the Dominion Government. In 1882 the situation became so serious that the Hon. John Norquay and a delegation came to Ottawa and placed the facts before the authorities here with a view to securing some satisfactory adjustment. They requested a subsidy in lieu of lands that had already been alienated by the Dominion, and asked that the residue of lands should be turned over to the provinces. The only result of this trip to Ottawa was the agreement on the part of the Dominion to grant $45,000 annually to Manitoba, as in the case of Prince Edward Island, in lieu of lands. However, as I have already pointed out, the situation in connection with Manitoba was entirely different from that of Prince Edward Island. The point to be emphasized is that the $45,000 was granted under what were supposed to be circumstances analogous to those that existed in connection with the grant to Prince Edward Island; that is to say, it was given in lieu of lands which had already been alienated. Subsequently, in. 1885-I	shall not
go into details-the grant was increased from $45,000 to $100,000, being the same amount as in the case of British Columbia, previously referred to.
In 1913, a conference assembled in response to an invitation from the Prime Minister to the premiers of the western provinces, and as a result thereof the following communication was sent by the premiers of these provinces to the Right Hon. R. L. Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, dated December 22, 1913:
Dear Sir,-After having an interview with you in regard to the questions in respect of which the Prairie Provinces have received different treatment from the other provinces of Canada, and at yiour suggestion a meeting of the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, it has been agreed between us to

make to you, on behalf of said provinces, the proposal that the financial terms already arranged between the provinces and the Dominion as compensation for lands should stand as compensation for lands already alienated for the general benefit of Canada, and that all the lands remaining within the boundaries of the respective provinces, with all natural resources included, be transferred to the said provinces, the provinces accepting respectively the responsibility of administering the same. Yours very truly,
Walter Scott,
R. P. Roblin,
Arthur L. Sifton.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
,	After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


John Archibald Campbell: Mr. Speaker, just before the House rose at six o'clock I had read a letter written by the premiers of the three western provinces to the right hon. Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister of the Dominion, dated December 1913, wherein were set out the intentions of those provinces regarding the transfer from the Dominion to them of their natural resources. This letter was written, as I said, at the request of the Prime Minister in order to establish a basis for negotiation betwen the Dominion and the provinces. It did not necessarily follow that the premiers who signed that letter would insist on those terms being carried out absolutely. When people enter into negotiations they generally prepare their case with the idea that there will probably be some modifications, and that a conclusion will be reached somewhere between the contentions of the parties to those negotiations. It was largely with that idea in view that the provincial premiers wrote this particular letter, although I am satisfied they thought they were not asking any too much even if the terms of that letter were carried out implicitly. Nothing in the way of conferences or negotiations appears to have taken place in connection with the matter from that time until the year 1918 when a conference was called in the latter part of that year by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden.
Strange as it may appear, not only were the western provinces called into conference at that time, but the conference was thrown wide open to all the provinces of the Dominion. In a word, the Prime Minister said to the other provinces: "We are going to do something for the western provinces in the way of handing back their
resources which I promised to give them when I should form a Government, and this may be a good time for you to get into the game and possibly some benefit will accrue to you through these negotiations." Naturally the other provinces were only too glad to take advantage of the situation, and when the conference met they preferred claims as to the additional subsidies which they contended they ought to receive in the event of the lands and resources of the western provinces being restored to them. In other words, the fiduciary responsibilities of the Dominion regarding the western provinces should be settled according to the fiscal expediency of the other provinces. It is unnecessary to'point out that no satisfactory solution of the difficulty could be arrived at in that way, and so nothing resulted from the conference. It passes my comprehension, Mr. Speaker, why the other provinces were called into this meeting at all in view of contentions which I have already advanced and which I will elaborate a little later. A further conference was called last year, and representatives of the provinces met here toward the end of the year. The case for the western provinces was submitted by Manitoba. I have a copy of it in my hands, but as that case has already been presented to the Government I shall not do more now than read an extract or two therefrom. But first I want to point out that in the case as presented for the prairie provinces opportunity was taken at the outset to withdraw thfe letter of the provincial premiers to which I have just referred. This was done for specific reasons stated as follows :
This proposal-
That is the proposal of the premiers to which I have referred-
*-'was dictated by the desire on the part of the provinces to accede to the request of the Canadian Government for joint action in submitting "a proposal which would serve as a basis for negotiations." The widely varying conditions and development of the three provinces, seemed to make absolute similarity of treatment upon any other basis impossible. The misconceptions, however, of the proposal of December 22, 19,13, though in the opinion1 of the Prairie Provinces unwarranted, have been such as to make the withdrawal of that proposal advisable at the present time.
And the contention of the Prairie Provinces as set out in the case submitted last December is summed up in the concluding paragraphs as follows.
We beg: to submit that any permanent settlement of the "natural resources question" must be based upon the ample recognition on

the part of the Dominion of the inherent British rights of the Prairie Provinces to their natural resources as from the date of provincial organization or responsible governments; the restoration to full provincial -beneficial control of those which remain unalienated, and compensation upon a fiduciary basis for those which have been alienated by .'Canada "for the purposes of the Dominion."
It seems to me that case is clearly and specifically set out there, and that until this principle is conceded-a principle which should never have been in doubt at any stage of the game and one which is clearly and distinctly embodied in constitutional practice and history-the negotiations cannot have any successful result. If that principle is conceded, subsequent negotiations will have reference only to matters of detail and should be settled, with satisfactory results, without delay.
I desire to make a further remark or two regarding the alleged interest of the other provinces in connection with this question of the natural resources of the West. I do not know upon what ground the other provinces claim to be interested in any way in this matter-presumably it can only be as members of the Dominion. If it is as members of the Dominion then they can have no such claim because, constitutionally, the Dominion has no right to these resources. This is explicitly shown in clause 109 of the British North America Act which I have already quoted. If any commentary on this is needed I have it in the statement made by the hon. Mr. Monk when this matter was under discussion in the House a number of years ago. The interpretation given by him would appear to be constitutionally correct and should certainly meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. On the occasion referred to Mr. Monk said:
The interpretation given hy the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upon section 109	.	.	. has always been favourable to the provinces, and has gone very far in the direction of maintaining that all public lands .... once the province is created, fall under provincial control .	.	.
By common understanding of section 109 and the interpretation put upon that section since our constitutional questions have arisen, it would seem to be evident that public lands, by the very terms of the constitution, belonged to the provinces the moment they entered Confederation, and I see no reason for departing from that rule in regard to the province created out of a portion of the Northwest Territories.
In a word, the other provinces had no more interest in the lands and resources of these western provinces, and had no more right to compensation for their alienation or for their transfer back to those to whom
	.
they rightly belonged, than Great Britain had not only in Vancouver-to which I have already made reference-but in the whole of Canada, as was pointed out emphatically by the present right hon. member for Kings (Sir Robert Borden).
The question is solely one between the Dominion and the western provinces. This is acknowledged even by the premiers of the Maritime Provinces. Letters read to this House in 1914 by the right hon. member for King's when Prime Minister include one from the Hon. Mr. Murray, Premier of Nova Scotia, and another from the Hon. Mr. Flemming, Premier of New Brunswick. I shall not read these letters in toto, but the Hon. Mr. Murray in reference to the point in question wrote under date of January 19, 1914:
I recognize the fact that the question of the wisdom of giving the provinces the lands is one between the Dominion Government and the western provinces, and one on which I do not understand I am called to express an opinion.
And the Hon. Mr. Flemming, under date of February 17, 1914, wrote:
As to the wisdom of these three Prairie Provinces having handed over to them the public lands is a question between the Federal Government and the provinces interested and affected, I do not wish to express any opinion in relation to that question.
It would seem then that the matter is absolutely one between the Dominion and the western provinces, and that their respective governments should get together and settle it. If any of the other provinces have any grievances they should be taken up in the same way.
It has been said that the western provinces not only want their lands but their indemnities also-that they want to have their cake and eat it. A certain amount of money has been given to the western provinces since 1882. I wish again to emphasize the fact that during the first twelve years of the history of Manitoba not only did she not have her lands, but nothing was given to her by way of indemnity in lieu of those lands. But the statement is not correct that the provinces want not only the money but their lands also. In confirmation of this I need only quote from the Manitoba Free Press, which undoubtedly speaks for the whole of the West.
We have received a large amount of money in lieu of these lands, which is an offset against this asset. On the other hand, there has Ibeen an enormous alienation of part of this national domain for purposes of the Dominion, and this constitutes an offset on the other side of the ledger. A (balance should he struck (between these two accounts and the natural resources

should be transferred to the western provinces, subject to the acceptance of the balance on these accounts by which every party to the dispute is liable for it.
From this quotation it will be seen that the statement as to the western provinces . asking for their lands and their present indemnities as well has no basis in fact.
In the case as presented to the Dominion by the western provinces last December the contention in this respect is as follows:
It is conceded that in applying this principle due consideration must he given to the sums already paid by the Dominion in "lieu of lands" and the cost of administering the lands in the interests of the province, but we are strongly of the opinion that nothing whatever is to be gained at this stage by discussing details until the principle outlined above is unreservedly conceded.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit the resolution which was drawn up by western members last year. They met in conference to discuss matters in connection with the natural resources and other affairs of interest to the West. A special committee was appointed to bring in a report on the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces. As a result a resolution was brought in by this committee which was composed of the hon. members for Kootenay, Lethbridge, Battle-ford and Nelson, and was passed unanimously by the conference. The important clauses in the resolution are as follows:
The question-
Which we are now discussing.
-is solely one between the western provinces and the Dominion. The Dominion Government is possessed of all the data in connection therewith and is in the position, and is the proper party to work out and present to the western provinces for aceptance, an equitable scheme or proposal for the transfer to these provinces of natural resources of said provinces according to the promise made to them by the Prime Minister.
Therefore, your committee recommend that representations he made to the Government that it is imperative in the interests of the country as a whole, and particularly with reference to the development of its natural resources, that the question of the ultimate control of the natural resources of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba be settled immediately, and that the Government take the necessary steps forthwith to have this done.
The resolution emphasizes the fact that the question is one between the Dominion and the western provinces solely, and that immediate action is necessary. It does not state what action, but there can be only one satisfactory and conclusive action

the transfer of these resources to the western provinces on an equitable basis. It is ten years or more since most unequivocal
promises were made in this connection not only by the leader of a great party, but by the party itself. These promises have not yet been redeemed. We ask this Government what they propose to do about them. Surely at this late date it is not asking too much that the transfer of their natural resources he made to the Prairie Provinces without further delay.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, the question which my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Campbell) has brought before the House in this resolution is one of long standing, and one that has been considered at different times by successive federal governments. It is not too much to say that it is a question of large national importance. More than one-fifth of the area of Canada is affected, and the importance of Western Canada as a portion of the Dominion has long been recognized. Indeed, that importance is growing every year as its population increases and as its wealth production and its progress in other respects develops.
There is no doubt that the three prairie provinces consider they have a real grievance in the withholding from them of their natural resources, by the Federal Government. They consider that their autonomy as provinces is restricted, that they are not in a position of equality with other provinces, and they think as members of this great confederation they are entitled to be placed in that position of equality. Nothing else but a recognition of that fact will satisfy the people who dwell in that portion of the Dominion. It is rather a striking circumstance that this difference in status should exist when we consider that, for instance, the little province of Prince Edward Island, with a population of one hundred thousand or less, occupies a status in respect to its public domain that the great province of Saskatchewan with a papulation of over eight hundred thousand does not enjoy. The significance of that fact alone must bring itself home to the consideration of hon. members in this House.
But let me give other illustrations. For instance, Nova Scotia has 247 square miles of coal area, all of which it owns and administers in every way for the benefit of the province. Any beneficiary interest there is in the coal mines of Nova Scotia belongs not to the people of the whole Dominion hut to the people of Nova Scotia. On the other hand the great province of Alberta, which is further removed from the seat of government of the Dominion

than Nova Scotia, has, it is estimated, 25,000 square miles of coal area, all of which is administered solely and wholly by-the Dominion, for the purposes of the Dominion, the province exercising no control and getting no direct benefit from its sale whatever. The same is true of our mineral rights. The northern portion of Ontario is rich in mineral wealth. The people of Ontario have control of their whole mineral rights, their nickel, their gold, their silver; whatever minerals may be found there are absolutely within the control of the province, administered for the benefit of the people of that province, and the other portions of the Dominion have no right whatever in them. But Manitoba, adjoining Ontario for hundreds of miles, almost equally rich in minerals-for there are vast mineral deposits in the northern portion of that province-has no control whatever over those resources, since they are held and administered by the Federal Government, as I have said, for the people of the whole Dominion. The same is true with our forest resources and our water-powers. Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick have entire control and ownership of their forests and their timber resources generally. The western provinces have not that right. Every acre of pulp land in Manitoba or Saskatchewan or Alberta is administered by the Federal Government for the purposes of the Dominion; it is not held and administered by the people of those provinces, as is the case in the other provinces of Canada.
It may be said that good reasons existed in 1870, the time of the creation of the province of Manitoba, for not handing over to that province the control of its natural resources. It must be borne in mind that at that time Manitoba had a very small white population, probably not more than ten or twelve thousand souls all told, and some argument can be advanced in favour of the action that was then taken. It is worth while noting in passing, however, that it was taken against the protest of the people of Manitoba, who held when their territory was being erected into a province that their natural resources lying within the province should be under provincial control, as was the ease in other provinces. But, I say, something may be said for withholding them at that time, owing to the sparseness of the white population and the fact that a comparatively small area was under consideration. But the withholding of those resources ought now to be regarded as in the nature of a trusteeship to be 
exercised during the formative period of the province.
Again, in 1905, when Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out of the vast Northwest Territories, this mistake was repeated. I have always held, and there are thousands in Western Canada who hold, that a mistake was made at that time. As a matter of fact these provinces were starting out; they had.no revenues of their own and they agreed to the proposal made by the Federal Government that they should accept subsidies in lieu of their land. I wish to point out, however, that that arrangement has never been acceptable to a great portion of the people of these provinces and should be corrected without further delay.
The fathers of confederation did not contemplate that we would have two distinct kinds of provinces in Canada. They did not contemplate that we would have one set of provinces with absolute control of the natural resources within their bounds and another set of provinces with no such control. There can be no dispute as to the difference in this respect or to the fact that it exists. The older provinces of the Dominion are sovereign provinces so far as the administration of their natural resources is concerned. In 1912 when the matter of the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba was under consideration in the House of Commons, Mr. Thomas White, afterwards Sir Thomas White, in discussing this matter gave frank recognition to this fact. He said on that occasion, when the matter of subsidies was under consideration:
All the provinces of Canada with the exception of iSaskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba were made sovereign provinces and the lands belonging- to the Crown were vested in these provinces. The result is that they have had the advantage of their lands, their minerals nad the royalties consequent thereon. But this is not the case with the three Prairie Provinces^ They have no -land

 They are not sovereign states in that sense, as the other provinces were, and the result is that prima facie they should be entitled to the same treatment.
That is, in respect to the matter of subsidies. It is, of course, the right and has always been the right of the Federal Government to control the navigability of rivers within the various provinces. There is perhaps a sound reason for that, arising from the fact that streams are very often interprovincial in their character and it is desirable to have the central authority control the powers of navigation on these streams. But that has never applied in the older provinces so far as water-powers and

other water rights are concerned; yet the distinction does exist as between the older provinces and the Prairie Provinces of the West, since the latter have no control a't all of the power rights, or for that matter any other rights in their streams.
Now, it is an interesting fact that British practice, as was clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell) in the excellent review of this question which he has just given to the House -British practice invariably has been that the colonies wherever situated have been entitled to and have been given the right to administer their natural resources. It has always been conceded that the beneficiary interest in the resources of a district or a colony belong to the people of that district or colony, and the public domain has always been surrendered by the Crown for the benefit of the people living in such colonies.
That is true in respect of British colonies throughout the world. Take the case of New Zealand, Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and West Australia, to quote examples. In every one of those cases the right to control their natural resources within their boundaries was given to them at the time they were given self-government. If we come to a consideration of the older provinces in Canada, we find the same principle applied by the British Government. In 1840, when the Act of Union took place, the new provinces of Canada, that is, Upper and Lower Canada, were given absolute and entire control of the natural resources within their boundaries. The same was true of New Brunswick and the other Crown colonies in British North America. The Act of Confederation followed this principle identically, and when the Confederation was formed of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 1867, the right of those provinces to the entire control of the natural resources within their boundaries was not in any way interfered with and was recognized fully and completely. The same thing was true of the province of British Columbia. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell) has pointed out, what was the fact, that the province of Prince Edward Island received exceptional treatment from the Dominion in that regard. Its natural resources had already been alienated at the time it came into Confederation, by private sale when it was a Crown colony. With the assistance of the Dominion, that province was able to buy back its natural resources, and it has administered them ever since.
We have had the claim advanced by the other provinces that they have a proprietary interest in the natural resources of Western Canada, and my hon. friend has quoted Premier Murray's view in 1914. That view however, has somewhat altered. I wish to read an extract from the St. John correspondent of the Financial Times, dated November 20, 1920, in relation to /this question. The extract reads:
However the people of Ontario and Quebec feel about it, the governments as well as the people of the Maritime Provinces are determined to press their claims for the financial compensation for the immense natural resources already handed over or proposed to be handed over to the western provinces. At the last session of the Nova Scotia Legislature-
That was the session prior to November 20, 1920.
-the following resolution was passed unanimously: That the province of Nova Scotia urge upon the Federal Government the immediate and just settlement of four matters: Compensation for the lands reserved for school purposes in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan; compensation for the cash subsidies paid to the three western provinces in lieu of lands; compensation for the lands granted Ontario and Quebec, and compensation for the unfair treatment of public expenditure since Confederation.
That is a pretty healthy list of grievances. Premier Murray, in his election address to the people of Nova Scotia prior to the last provincial election, also gave voice to the same view. He stated then:
At the last session of the legislature a resolution was passed calling- for an early conference with the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in reference to the claim of the Maritime Provinces against the Federal Government with respect to Western Lands and the cash subsidies paid to the western provinces in lieu of lands. I deem this matter of the very highest importance and shall press our claims with the utmost vigour for a' readjustment of the federal subsidies on such a basis as will give to Nova Scotia a fair compensation-
Now, note this:
-'for the alienation of vast territories in which our province has a proprietary interest.
That is a very frank statement of the view that the eastern provinces have a proprietary interest in the natural resources of Western Canada. That view was also advanced by the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec in the conference called by the Federal Government in 1918 in respect to this matter. We had this spectacle upon that occasion, of the rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec, with their great natural resources which they absolutely control and administer for the people of those provinces,

to be hereafter established, or by any m"nicipal corporation therein.
Next was the feature that imposed the heaviest burden on the West in this respect.	.
And the lands of the Company in the Northwest Territories, until they are either sold or occupied, should also be free from such taxation for 20 years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
As a matter of fact, 20 years from the grant from the Crown was considered as 20 years from the time the patent was taken out; so much of these Canadian Pacific lands are not yet being taxed in Western Canada, and this has imposed a very real burden on the people in many communities in the West where one can often find several sections of land in a single municipality that pay no taxes at all, thereby placing a heavy burden on the people of the municipality in carrying on their school and municipal operations, and the general conduct of their public business. There is another consideration. It is not too much to say that the opening up of the West brought great prosperity to Eastern Canada. There is no doubt about that. Prior to 1896, or shall I say 1900, the factories of eastern Canada were not running overtime, but after the nineties, and in the early years of the present century, when population began to flood in from the outside world, attracted by the cheap lands of the Prairie Provinces, business was created for eastern industries. The factories in Ontario and Quebec were working overtime to supply the goods required in the Prairie Provinces, and I am quite safe in saying that the Prairie Provinces in the early years of the present century afforded the best possible market for the industries of Eastern Canada. Now, the West takes the position, in this matter, that the other provinces of Canada have in right no equity in the natural resources of the Prairie Provinces, and they feel that this principle should be frankly recognized by the Federal Government and this Parliament. The question has arisen as to subsidies. Subsidies have been granted to the western provinces in lieu of lands that have been withheld from them; but the West is not asking to-day that these subsidies must necessarily be continued upon the present basis if the resources are transferred. They would, I believe, be satisfied that an account should be taken upon a fair basis of the value of the resources already alienated, and that the subsidies to be paid hereafter shall be based upon the value of the lands and [Mr. Crerar.}
resources alienated for the purposes of the Dominion, keeping in mind, also upon a fair basis, the services rendered by the Dominion in their administration. I know that that position was not taken by these provinces a few years ago. This question has been the subject of a good deal of political manoeuvering, perhaps both provinciality and federally; but, at any rate, I think that this suggestion offers a fair basis of settlement of the difference between the Federal Government and the western provinces in this respect. Concede the principle that they are entitled to their natural resources and adjust the matter of compensation that shall be given them in lieu of the lands that have already been alienated. It may be argued that that is a very difficult and impossible thing to arrive at, that the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments cannot agree upon that question. Well, surely some method can be found, either through the friendly processes of arbitration, or possibly by reference of the matter to the Exchequer Court; and have the actual amount payable to the provinces in lieu of lands alienated determined in that way. It should not be a difficult matter to adjust as between the Dominion and the provinces; but the Prairie Provinces will never be satisfied until there is a frank recognition of the fact that they are entitled to their natural resources, and they are placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of the Dominion in every other respect. It has also been urged by the Maritime Provinces that they are entitled to additional subsidies from the Dominion. I have no quarrel with that position if they desire to take it. If they# have a claim in equity against Canada they have a right to have it recognized; but our point is that that has no right to be involved with the question of the transference of the natural resources to the Prairie Provinces. If Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick think they are entitled to additional compensation by way of subsidy from the Federal Government, let them go to the Federal Government and settle that question; but let it be settled irrespective of the natural and inherent right of the western provinces to their resources. That is the position that Western Canada takes. It does not want to do the eastern provinces an injustice; all it asks is fair play in the settlement and adjustment of this question.
I will not further take up the time of the House. Let me say in closing that

the matter of government in the Dominion of Canada is made more difficult because of the vast extent of our country, and the tendency for sectional feelings to develop, as well as difficulties that may arise from other differences. In the interests of harmony in the Dominion, and in order to have a satisfied and contented West, it is necessary that the discrimination in this matter-because the West feels it has been discriminated against-should be removed. Let us take away the sense of injury and wrong that exists there and we will promote happiness, welfare and good fellowship between the provinces of the Dominion.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Lethbridge) :: The ground has been quite well covered by the mover of the resolution (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) but I desire briefly to emphasize a couple of points in connection with this question. The resolution asks that the western provinces be given their natural resources; there is no reference to subsidies, financial terms, or matters of that character. I feel that the attitude of the two great political parties in this country at the present time is an admission that the western provinces are entitled to their natural resources. The former government, led by the present member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) was committed to the return of their natural resources to the western provinces, and at the convention of the Liberal party held a couple of years ago, a plank was included in their platform admitting that the western provinces were entitled to those resources. In both cases, however, there were qualifications, and I think that it is those qualifications that will prevent the western provinces from obtaining their natural resources. My judgment is that the Federal Government should assume responsibility for granting the natural resources to the western provinces, and then if there are any adjustments to be made as regards financial terms or subsidies, it could be done later. I would say that the present Government and the existing official Opposition both admit that the western provinces are entitled to their resources. Then, why not give them those resources and settle other differences afterwards? In my opinion, if the matter is left, as at present, to settlement by the provinces, through their representatives, ' sitting down at a table and trying to come to an arrangement, there will be no settlement whatever. There will always be one
or two provinces that will stand out for better terms and will not consent to those that may be agreed upon by the other provinces. In that way we shall not be able to arrive at a settlement of this very important problem. I think it has been established that the western provinces, from the consideration that has been given to the historical facts of the matter, are entitled to their natural resources. All of the provinces in the Dominion, except the Prairie Provinces, possess their natural resources. Now, one of the provincial premiers, Premier Murray, of Nova Scotia, has been quoted this evening. I saw a statement in the Winnipeg Free Press the other day that Premier Murray, in 1913, in a communication to the then Prime Minister, declared that the question of the wisdom of giving the western provinces their resources was one between the Dominion Government and the western provinces. I believe that in that respect he is right.
I believe that he is right in that respect, that this is a question purely for the Federal Government to decide, and that if there are other questions, relating to subsidies or better financial terms they are susceptible of treatment at a conference between the provincial representatives. I believe that the Dominion should take full responsibility and decide whether the western provinces are entitled to their natural resources or not. Until they do that,' there can be no satisfactory settlement of this question.
Now what does this mean to the western provinces? Take my own province. Probably the only homestead area of any large extent that we now have is in the country to the north of the city of Edmonton. That country was opened up for settlement by the Dominion Government. People have gone in there in recent years and taken up homesteads. Traces of oil have been found in the northern section of the province of Alberta and there are also great timber resources there. The people who have gone in there to open up the resources, and the settlers who have gone in to take up homesteads, had to have facilities provided for them. They had to have roads, bridges, schools and also railroad facilities. The responsibility for opening up the country and bringing settlers in rested with the Dominion; but the responsibility for these other purposes lay with the province; and the province of Alberta, as a result, has undertaken great liabilities to provide transportation and other facilities for the people who have

gone in there. In spite of that, however, they are getting nothing whatever from the lands. They do not own the lands; the Dominion owns them and gets whatever revenue is derived therefrom.
Take the question of the coal resources of the province of Alberta. As has been pointed out, the coal resources there are as great as in any other province of the Dominion, if not greater. But those coal resources are in the possession of the Dominion and the royalties derived therefrom go to the federal power while the cost of the administration of the coal mines of Alberta rests with the Provincial Government. They provide inspectors and they have to provide other facilities for the districts where these mines are established. Yet the Provincial Government derives no benefit from that source. Again, if oil is discovered in Alberta new responsibilities will be imposed upon the Provincial Government, but no revenue will come to them from these resources. Naturally, the people of the western provinces, who are affected, feel they are not being- treated justly, they feel that there should he an immediate settlement of this matter and that it should be. settled satisfactorily to them.
Mention has been made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) of the fact that criticism is offered on the ground that the West has been an expense to the East. The people who criticise the West in its demand for its natural resources, and claim that they should share in those natural resources, forget that they have been sharing in them and are doing so at the present time. All the revenue that comes to the federal power from lands, timber, and minerals in the West is shared by the other provinces, it is not confined to the western provinces. It is true that the Dominion itself inaugurated an immigration policy to populate these western. provinces, and that hundreds and thousands of people have in consequence gone into that country, but those people are an asset to the Dominion as a whole and not merely to Western Canada. What they pay in taxes, either direct or indirect, is apportioned throughout the whole Dominion, it is not confined to the western provinces, and so these people are an asset to the whole of Canada.
I recollect a speech that was delivered in this House, in a previous Parliament, by the then member for Brandon (Mr. Aikens) now the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Manitoba. He dealt with the

argument that the West had been an expense to the East and he met the argument by quoting figures for the financial year ending March 31, 1913. He gave the figures for all classes of revenue from the western provinces, and he also gave the figures for all classes of expenditure. He also gave the expenditure that was solely for the West and the expenditure that the West shared in as a province of the Dominion and he showed that in one year the West provided, by nearly $8,000,000, more revenue than the expenditure upon that part of the Dominion. He went further to show that if the customs figures at the head of the lakes, at the Pacific ports, and a certain share of the customs revenue in other ports of the Dominion which the western people were bound to share in some proportion, had been recognized and credited, the western provinces would have had a surplus to their credit of nearly $18,000,000. But the point I wish to emphasize is this statement by the then member for Brandon on April 17, 1914:
The Government of Canada have received from the sale and leasing of Dominion lands over $42,583,162. They have expended something in respect of surveys and necessary expenses of sale and the like of that, which would be paid out of the ordinary receipts from Dominion lands. But I venture to say that the $42,583,162 received from the public domain in these three prairies provinces will not only pay back what was paid to the Hudson Bay Company, $1,460,000, but will also pay for the whole administration of that domain with interest.
That was the statement of the then member for Brandon, and I think it combats the argument so frequently advanced that the West is an expense to the balance of the Dominion and that the other provinces should share in these natural resources. Let me make another point, and I am merely referring to these figures for the sake of refuting the argument that the West is not bearing its proper share of the expense of the Federal Government and is more or less an expense to the other provinces. I do not happen to have the figures in my possession at this moment, but I recollect the statement being made during the present session. The request was made for information as to the amount of income tax that had been paid by the respective provinces, also the amount that had been paid in income tax by the farmers of the respective provinces. I think altogether about a million dollars had been paid by the farmers of Canada, and of that sum no less than $900,000 had been contributed by the farmers of the three western provinces. I think that proves that the

men who have settled on the western plains, the men who have taken up homesteads and purchased lands there, are bearing their share of the taxation of this country.
This may be, and no doubt is, a difficult problem to settle so long as that settlement is left to a round table conference of provincial Premiers. I feel that this Government can only satisfy the demand for the return of the natural resources by assuming the full responsibility of giving those resources to the western provinces. It is admitted that they are entitled to them. The leader of the previous Government admitted that fact. The platform of the previous Government-I would not like to say that it applies to the present Government because I have not looked over it during the last few months to see whether the present Government gave recognition to the plank or not-but the platform of the previous Government and the platform of the present Opposition admit that the western provinces are entitled to their resources. If that is true why are not those resources given to the western provinces? Why not abandon the proposition that there should be a conference of the representatives of all the provinces and an agreement reached by them? Because that is an impossible proposition; the other provinces will not agree to what / is proposed and consequently the western provinces will not get their natural resources. Give the western provinces their natural resources, and then if there is any difference of opinion as to financial terms or subsidies, take up that .problem afterwards and settle it. Consider afterwards the amount of land that has been alienated and the amount of money that has been advanced to the western provinces as subsidies since they were created, and make some adjustment to settle the matter. Then there will be greater peace and harmony in Western Canada touching this particular question.
Probably the Prime Minister will speak on this question and will state his position and the position of the Government, but I believe that if I interpret correctly the correspondence that took place between him and the Acting Premier of Alberta within the last two months, the Prime Minister still adheres to the view that a settlement must be reached at a round table ' conference rather than by the Government assuming responsibility for giving the western provinces their natural resources. I say now, as I said before, that I do not think it will be possible to satisfactorily
settle this question on any such conditions.
It has been established to-night, I am sure, to the satisfaction of every fair minded man in this House that the western provinces are entitled to their natural resources, and if any adjustment has to be made it can very easily be taken up after that policy has been put into effect. But as the hon. member for Marquette has stated, there will be no satisfaction amongst the people of the West until this question is settled, and settled right. They look to the Government to settle it now once and for all, and then adjust these other matters between the provinces.


Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa) :: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan), I rise not to debate the whole question, but merely to emphasize two or three points in respect to it. All parties now agree that these natural resources should be returned to the prairie provinces, but some of them make conditions as to that return. That is not a satisfactory situation so far as the prairie provinces are concerned. They base their claim to these resources primarily upon the fact that, treated as they now are, they are regarded as the illegitimate children of Confederation. In a sense that is true. The Manitoba Act of this House which created the province of Manitoba was beyond the Dominion's powers. It was by that Act in the first place that these lands were reserved for the purposes of the Dominion. That legislation was recognized to be ineffectual, and the Imperial Act of 1871 was passed for its legalization and confirmation. It was in the second section of the Imperial Act that the Dominion was first given the power out of its great Rupert's Land domain to create new provinces.
Now, that Act of 1871 was in terms a confirmation of the Manitoba Act for all purposes whatsoever. I have said already that the Federal Act had reserved these lands. But, Sir, the point in the matter is this. Primarily the British North America Act recognized but one species of province -a province severeign within its own limits. The Dominion had certain powers allotted to it, but it was a landless Dom- . inion. Consequently, if a province of the status contemplated by the British North America Act was created-and there was no right to create any other kind-then that province must have its lands. But in the same Act that created the province those lands were withheld from it illegally..

When the confirming Act was passed the situation was peculiar. The province of Manitoba was born in the shame of insurrection, land the fear at that time was that the engagements of the Imperial and Dominion Governments with the Hudson's Bay Company would not be implemented by a legislative assembly elected in Manitoba, where at that time there was bitter feeling againt the Company, which was thought to have betrayed the settlers of Manitoba. So for that temporary purpose the Dominion retained those lands; but what was intended as a temporary retention has developed into the fifty years usurpation which we are now discussing.
If this Act of 1871 is analysed a dilemma is presented. Either it created a province of the description which the British North America Act contemplated, in which case the province has all the powers incident to its status together with the possession of its lands; or else it must hang upon the other horn of the dilemma, that the lands were properly withdrawn from the province. Then what kind of >a province was created? There is legal opinion of respectable authority which claims that if this question were brought before the Privy Council necessarily it would hold to the first of those two positions, that is, that the only province which could be created was a province endowed with all the powers which the British North America Act first proposed; and that the other position-which, it is true, was recognized by the Imperial Parliament, but for a merely temporary purpose because to do otherwise at that time would have been to discredit the Dominion Government in the case of an insurrection-was unconstitutionally enacted, and therefore null and void. That would perhaps place this matter in the position which the Prairie Provinces ask as a basis for any negotiation.
There is another question which I think should be dealt with at some length. It is this. There has been settlement after settlement apparently of the claims which the western provinces had. The first one came about, I believe, in 1883 or thereabouts. Up to that time we had received . in Manitoba nothing in lieu of these lands. Look how the question was then presented to us. We were getting per capita grant up to that time. Then we were offered a little less than $27,000 more provided we would do away with one branch of our legislature. See how one evil step was leading on to another. The Dominion was determining the form of the constitution of the province, something which it had no

right to do, and which to-day if attempted in any of our provinces would bring about a very strained feeling.
After that we made settlement after settlement. But what was our position in all these matters? Practically that of an heir or a beneficiary whose trustee was unfaithful. There have not been bestowed upon us the powers, the rights, the authority, the dominion which belong to our conditions as a province. Indeed, the grants made have been referred to as probably suitable for the keeping up of a seaside hotel, but not such as are requisite to the keeping up of a state, an authority, the administration of a province. Again and again we had to come back here and ask for a portion of our domain or something in lieu of our domain in order that we might carry on.
Now, it may be argued that we are in the position of an heir who has come of age, has condoned the past and made settlement in regard to it. But we have never arrived at our majority, and we cannot do so until we have control of these resources. Not until that time comes shall we be free from pressure. Not until then shall we be free agents to deal with this matter. Oujr necessities have been such, not having the control of the resources to use as required in the development of our provinces, that we have been obliged to accept what was offered. I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier said when the Saskatchewan and Alberta Bills went through that $2,000,000 would be the maximum amount which would be derived yearly from the grants that were then made and the provisions for increasing the grants as population increased. Would the great province of Ontario, the natural resources of which, I venture to say, cannot compare with those of Alberta, be content to take $2,000,000 a year in lieu of her natural resources? She would not think of doing it; she could not be persuaded to consider it for a moment. But such are the terms imposed upon Alberta, because that province is not yet in a position to deal with the matter as equal with equal.
It makes one think of the old Bible story of Joseph and his brethren; when they had sold him into slavery they wanted to divide his coat of many colours among them. That is our position in respect to the claims made by Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for a portion of the natural resources which belong to us. If these other provinces want to be on an equal footing with us, let them surrender their natural resources to the Dominion; that would be an interesting proposal to submit to them. That,

however, is what they ask us to submit to now. Put the shoe on the other foot, and it will very quickly be found that no such arrangement would appeal to them; yet they ask us to accept that position.
Now, finally-for 1 think I have made the two points I wanted to make-let me say that no question is settled until it is settled right. Already in the West such words as " gross " and " villainous " are applied to the deprivation of these provinces of their natural resources. We cannot have within a great state or confederation provinces of different status. It is impracticable; it is fraught with danger. Now is the time to get to a settlement of this vital question within our body politic. I have been a resident of Manitoba for forty years, and during that time there has never been a year when Manitoba has not had a grievance against the Dominion Government. Is that a healthy state of affairs? Is that a healthy condition between a province and a Dominion which is interested in all our affairs? Now, it will never be settled as I say, until it is settled upon right principles.
I cannot think that the other provinces have any right at this stage to intervene. The question is strictly between the Prairie Provinces individually and the Dominion Government. I grant that out of the settlement there may arise certain injustices, but look at what we are getting to-day. We are getting less than $800,000 a year in lieu of these lands in Manitoba. Over 18,000,000 acres of our lands have been disposed of by the Dominion for the purposes of the Dominion. That is less than five per cent upon a valuation of one dollar per acre. Does any man believe that they were worth but one dollar per acre, or that we should ever have disposed of them for any such sum as that? That is the character of the settlement; on the other hand we are told that the Dominion has spent somewhere around $86,000,000 upon the administration of these natural resources and has received only some $44,000,000, leaving $42,000,000 as an adverse balance. That is not taking account, I am free to say, of lands which have been given away for railway purposes- 100,000,000 acres of land in the western provinces have been set aside for the promotion of railways. The lands for purposes of that character were parted with in vast areas. These accountings may have to be settled, as has been suggested, by the Exchequer Court or some other impartial tribunal. There is but one way to
settle this question, and that is to recognize that the western provinces must have the same status as the others; that their resources must be restored to them. Once we accept that principle; once we realize that nothing must prevent that, then we can go into the accounting.


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House very long in the few remarks which I shall make on this very important matter; but I wish to emphasize a few points.
The western provinces believe that the settlement of this question is a matter between the provinces and the Dominion and that the other provinces should not interfere in that settlement. It has been suggested that the western provinces wish to receive the resources so as to swell their provincial treasury. Now I am going to take the liberty of quoting from the budget speech of Hon. Charles A. Dunning, Provincial Treasurer of Saskatchewan, under date November 23rd, 1920, to show that that province at least is not looking for a very much greater revenue through the handling of its natural resources.
This legislature and the people of the province have not been working to have the control of the natural resources of the province transferred to them each year for the past ten years without having in their minds very definite reasons why, in their judgment, the province should secure this control. There is an idea, commonly held in some parts of Canada, that our motive is a financial one. That is to say, that we want to get control of the resources for the purpose of making money out of them.
It cannot he too clearly stated that this is not our motive. Indeed, from the information in our possession relating to the resources and their administration we would he very foolish if we laboured under the misapprehension that it is possible for us to receive any considerable amount of revenue -in excess of what we would be compelled to expend in their development. The best proof that we are not actuated by money consideration is to be found in the records of the Dominion administration of the resources of Western Canada. At the last interprovincial conference at -which I was present as one of those representing the province, the Honourable Arthur Meighen, at that time Minister of the Interior, brought down a lot of figures in order to give the conference information as to the financial position relating to the administration of natural resources by the federal government, and I need only quote from one of the statements to indicate to the House that the Dominion Government, up -to that date, so far from making money out of their handling of our resources had actually lost money.
One of the statements referred to is a statement of expenditure and revenue in connection with Dominion lands in Manitoba, iSaskatche-wan, Alberta and British Columbia from July 1, 1872, to September 30, 1918, for the whole period of Dominion administration of these lands. During that time the expenditure by the Dominion properly chargeable to the adminis-



[Stage Direction]
tration of them, amounted to $86,441,807.60 and the net revenue received, from all these lands was $46,914,171. Up to that time the Dominion's revenue from these resources was less by over thirty-nine and a half millions than their expenditure. Necessarily this is a cash statement. Necessarily, too, there are outstanding amounts in connection with these resources due the Dominion. For instance: payments on pre-emptions. I have no statement as to what those outstanding amounts are but I have no doubt they could not nearly make up this deficiency.
The point is important, Mr. Speaker, that the Dominion has not made money by the administration of our resources and I therefore say that we could not hope to very considerably augment the revenues of the province by getting control of our natural resources. We may, by adopting a different policy, secure greater revenues than the Dominion authorities have, so that the money consideration is not, and never has been, the reason for our demands for control of our natural resources.
The most important reason, to myself at any rate, is that after years of Dominion handling of our resources in Saskatchewan there is practically no industrial development of them. Succeeding federal governments have administered our resources and practically the only industry that has been developed as a result of Dominion administration is agriculture-the top six inches of the soil as some one has called it Useful work, of course, has been done in connection with our land resources, but I submit that the people of our province are vitally interested in the development of their resources other than lands.
The first point that I wish to make is that there is a well-estaiblished British rule in connection with this vital and important question. I quote now from the Manitoba Free Press, which says:
The question put plainly is-Are the western provinces full partners in confederation or are they merely colonies over whom the other provinces exercise a feudal suzerainty which gives them a right to enter upon their possessions and take toll of them.
The case for the provinces rests broadly upon the well-established British principle that the people of a self-governing community have the sole right to the beneficial interest in the public domain. If the principles upon which the Dominion Government has insisted in the case of Manitoba had been applied by Great Britain, the public domain of Canada, Australia and all the British dependencies would be the property of the British Crown and would be administered for the benefit of the treasury of the United Kingdom.	It was
the judgment of Sir Robert Borden, a sound constitutional lawyer, that the arguments by which the Dominion seeks to retain control of the public domain in the West "would have justified the' retention by the Imperial Government up to the present time of every acre of Crown lands in Canada." Hansard, 1905.
I contend that, quoting from the Manitoba Free Press, I have shown that there is a well-established principle under British rule that the lands of a province belong to

the people living in that province. The Manitoba Free Press continues:
In 1864 the Hudson Bay Company expressed a willingness to have the Red river district formed into a Crown colony, provided the company could retain a considerable proprietary control of the lands. The Colonial Office declined the proposal. "The whole progress of the colony," said the Colonial Office, "depends on the liberal and prudent disposal of the land. It is clear that colonists of the Anglo-Saxon race look upon the land revenue as legtiknately belonging to the community." If the Red river settlement had become a Crown colony under Downing street, which was the practical alternative to union with Canada, there would have been no question about the ownership of these lands ; they would have become the property of the community. By joining the Canadian Confederation, Manitoba earned the reward of being robbed of her public lands.
But we shall be told with damnable iteration that these rules do not apply because the Dominion Government bought this country from the Hudson Bay Company and, therefore, owns the lands and the minerals and the forests and the water powers and the fisheries. Most of the people who make these assertions are densely ignorant of the circumstances attending the transfer of Western Canada to the Dominion. They appear to think that Canada entered into direct negotiations with the Hudson Bay Company, bought out its interests for cash and took over the country. Western Canada did not thus pass direct from the company to Canada. The Imperial Government dealt with the company; and after taking over the territory it was transferred to Canada by Imperial Order in Council. In December, 1869, the Dominion Government in a communication to the Colonial Office insisted that this procedure be followed "On surrender by company to Queen," said the cablegram, "the government of the company ceases. The responsibility of administration of affairs will then rest upon the Imperial Government. Canada cannot accept transfer unless quiet possession is given." When the Canadian Government sent this notification to the Imperial Government it had already agreed to pay £300,000 compensation to the Hudson Bay Company for relinquishing of its claim to an interest in the lands. Despite this engagement it desired the country to pass for a period under Imperial control; and this was the procedure followed. The surrender to the Crown by the company was signed on Nevember 19, 1869 ; the money was paid on May 11, 1870 ; on June 22, 1870, the Imperial Government accepted the surrender; and on July 15, 1870, the country was transferred by the Imperial Government. Thus subsequent to the payment of the money Western Canada was for nearly a month a part of the Imperial system under the direct authority of Downing street and subject to the principle that the public lands of a community are under the control of the people of that district. When the territory passed to Canada >
on July 15, did the people lose the rights which they were certainly in possession of during the period of Imperial occupation?
It may be urged that this is a legal and technical argument. Very well; let us consider it on the basis of moral rights. The Hudson Bay Company insisted upon dealing with the British Government in reaching an agreement upon which it would give possession on payment of certain sums in compensa-

tion ; and the Bill authorizing the negotiations if passed in its original form, would have mad£>
the payment of the compensation a charge on the Imperial treasury. The Bill passed the House of 'Lords in this form, but in its passage through the House of Commons a further provision was made that no charge against the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom should lie as the result of these negotiations. Accordingly, Canada had to agree to put up the money or see the negotiations fail. Now, if the United Kingdom had paid the £300,000, would the British Government have claimed the right to own and administer the public domain in Western Canada to this day? In 18*67 the British Government bought out the rights of the Hudson Bay Company in Vancouver Island, but neither the control of the land nor the beneficial interest therein was retained by the Imperial Government. They were vested in the province of British Columbia, and when, subsequent to the entrance of Manitoba into Confederation, British Columbia was admitted, no question of its right to its natural resources was raised. If the British Government had settled with the Hudson Bay Company there would have equally been no question of the disposition of the lands of Western Canada. But the Canadian Government, in contempt of the sound British principle of which they had themselves been the beneficiary, usurped in 1870 the right of Manitoba to control her domain and has ever since retained possession of the lands then seized.
I have quoted from these western papers, and I could quote from others, the Saskatoon Star, for instance, but it is not necessary, in order that the House may understand that it is the wish of practically all the people of the western provinces that their natural resources be handed over forthwith. I also wish to state that they support the stand taken by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in his addresses last winter through the western provinces, to the effect that the natural resources should be handed over forthwith to the provinces, and that if the other provinces of the Dominion have any claims, those claims should be settled in the court of law.
Arthur Meighen: The subject of the restoration
of the natural resources of the western provinces to those provinces has been a subject of political debate in Canada for many years. It is a topic upon which it is one of the easiest tasks in the world to make a speech, and as to the solution of which it is one of the most difficult tasks to make any substantial progress. The difficulty is that the resources were withheld at the time of the constitution of the provinces. In the case of Manitoba that took place in the early 70's. The reason given for the withholding of the resources and the substitution in their place of a cash subsidy,
161J	'
was that it was essential at that time that the lands and other resources should be under the jurisdiction of the Dominion, as otherwise it would be in the power of the provinces to place, practical obstacles in the way of immigration. Had the lands been transferred the key, as it were, to immigration and the settlement of the West would have been transferred largely to the province itself. Whatever may have been the foundation of that claim in 1871, it does not, and never did, seem to me that it had very much force in the year 1905.
I am not saying that other claims were not advanced. Other reasons were given particularly in 1905, and constituted the main reasons for the withholding of the resources then. I did not agree with those reasons. I have never given much weight to the contention that has been refuted by, I think, every speaker who has preceded me in this debate, that there was some special charge against the western country because the Hudson Bay lands or charter were acquired by the Dominion. Nor have I given any weight at all to the argument many times presented, and also refuted by all my predecessors in this debate, that there has been, because the West was later opened up than the East, some special debt owing by Western Canada to Eastern Canada, a debt that must be recouped out of the resources of the West. I am not able to understand how such contentions can be seriously advanced. I do not think there is any special obligation of the West to the East, or of the East to the West. But the resources were withheld. An arrangement was come to between the representatives here of those provinces at that time, and the government of the day in Ottawa, that they should be withheld.


John Archibald Campbell: What does the right
hon. gentleman refer to by "those provinces"? Who were these men representatives of?


Arthur Meighen: The representatives of the districts that became the provinces. My recollection is that the Hon. Walter Scott was one; I think the Hon. Frank Oliver was another; I could name several more. I mean the representatives of the territory afterwards embraced in the provinces.


John Archibald Campbell: They had no official standing.


Arthur Meighen: They had as members for the district, and they acquiesced in the settlement. They did not represent the provinces as provinces, because the pro-

vinces were not then created, hut no doubt in the arrangement that was arrived at they exercised their voice. It is inconceivable that they did not, and it is a matter of history that .they acquiesced therein, and went out into those newly created provinces and recommended the settlement arrived at as fair to the districts and fair to the provinces as such, and the appeals they made on that ground were accepted as sound by the people of the provinces, and the people of the provinces, basing their action largely on those appeals, returned governments to power in sympathy with the settlement. That does not say that it was in consonance with British practice to withhold lands or other resources from provinces when created, but it does say that the lands and other resources were withheld, and it does say that the governments taking office in provinces so created, from which the lands and resources were withheld, and the people of those provinces, as far as they could speak on the subject in an election succeeding, acquiesced in the arrangements so made, and to that extent became parties thereto. It argues also that it does not lie very strongly in the mouth of those who at that time approved the step that was taken, a step far more easily avoided than retraced, to come now and make a very strong plea that a grave injustice at the time was perpetrated, an injustice which a succeeding government must take the responsibility of undoing. Anyway, the fact is that the arrangement was made. The resources were witheld, and subsidy in lieu of lands was given, given to those provinces1 and to those alone. Manitoba contended for many years that her subsidy in lieu of lands was much less than the others, and was able to effect in 1912 a settlement whereby she was placed on the same basis as the later sister in confederation, receiving the arrears and an extension	of	boundaries	commensurate with theirs. So they all came on the same footing in 1912. It is contended by speakers who have preceded me-and I cannot help but note a unanimous silence on the part of hon. gentlemen directly opposite-that the other provinces, as provinces, have no concern in this matter; that as the western provinces for some years back, as now, have demanded the return of their resources, it is a subject to be settled wholly between the Federal Government and the governments of those provinces. There is this to be said on the other side: that inasmuch as the subsidy in lieu of lands was given 
and has been paid throughout these years and is still current, and as subsidies are matters that affect all the provinces, and as a special subsidy given to one immediately becomes the right of the others, unless that one can be differentiated, there in that fact lies the interest of the other province ;. If Manitoba were coming and saying: "Give us our lands and our resources and keep your subsidy," then there would be some force in the statement of hon. gentlemen that this is a question beween the Federal Government and the governments of the western provinces; there would be considerable force in that suggestion, in the minds of those who are in sympathy with the contention that there is no special charge leviable against the western prairies in favour of the east, and that means, that it would have very considerable force, with me.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is not Manitoba entitled to some compensation for the resources that have already been alienated?


Arthur Meighen: I will come to that; I would never leave lout so important a factor of the problem. But on that ground the other provinces come, not just upon invitation; they do not particularly need invitation, }VIr. Speaker. I have had sufficient to do with the governments of the other provinces of Canada, and particularly the governments of the Maritime Provinces, to know that they do not need special inducements held out to come and make claims when there is anything in the way of subsidies being adjusted.


John Archibald Campbell: Were they not given a specific invitation to come in?


Arthur Meighen: They have been given an invitation to all provincial conferences. Other subjects have been taken up at provincial conferences, and the provinces are all entitled to be present at every provincial conference. We have had a conference on this special subject alone within the last few months, during the time the present Government has been in office, and to that they were not given any special invitation because it was not in any way an interprovincial conference. I have said that they have come in, and because the question of subsidies was involved they have claimed that they have an interest and a right to be consulted when there is any question of the readjustment of subsidies; and to that claim, it seems to me, it was pretty hard to give a negative answer.

Who indeed says a negative answer should be given to the claim that they have a right to be heard? Hon. gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon have said so; but the party whom they were charging with great neglect of duty and abandonment of promises have never taken that ground. The late Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), when in opposition, and ever since, in relation to the question of returning the resources, has always stated that fair terms had first to be arranged. Now, I know that no leader of a party can escape from a promise merely because it declared that there had to be fair terms. If fair terms are afterwards presented, terms which he cannot argue are manifestly unfair, and he refuses them, he is guilty of conduct not consistent with the promise on which he obtained office. But is that the case? I will come to that in a moment. Hon. gentlemen directly opposite-and I am not making an attack on them now, because so far, in this debate, they have preserved a silence which I could not help appreciating-have taken the ground, officially, that the other provinces have a concern and an interest in this matter. Not only have they taken that ground, but members of the governments of the three provinces affected have taken it and, indeed, have led in the movement that culminated in the official and formal recognition by hon. gentlemen opposite of the interest of the other provinces in the matter. At the Liberal convention held in August, 1919, a particular resolution, appearing among an almost interminable number of resolutions, and dealing with this question, was moved by the Prime Minister of Alberta, seconded by the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan, and acquiesced in, as the report says, unanimously, which, 1 presume, means acquiesced in by the Prime Minister of Manitoba. I did not know myself that Hon. Mr. Norris was at the convention as I had no record of the proceedings; but I heard in the debate on the Address the claim made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), I think it was, that the Prime Minister of Manitoba was in the fold at that convention. Consequently this resolution can be said to have been acquiesced in by the heads of all the governments of the three western provinces. The resolution reads:
Resolved, that the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be granted the ownership and control of the natural resources within their respective boundaries on terms that are fair and equitable with reference to all the other provinces of the Dominion.
So that the heads of the governments of these provinces, who hon. gentlemen who have spoken say must alone be satisfied- they say it is a question that must be settled between us and them-have themselves gone officially on record-I do not care whether you describe it as officially or otherwise-as recognizing the interests of the other provinces in the matter; and no doubt they would base the recognition on the claim that subsidies must be affected in some way or other when the resources are returned. That is the position of the matter.	[DOT]
Now, the question arises: Has this Government been in a position, is it in a position to-day, to return those resources upon fair terms? Let us assume for the moment that this resolution is wrong; that those of us are wrong who say that it is better in this matter that the other provinces should be consulted and that we should endeavour, if we can, to come to an arrangement satisfactory to all; let us assume that we are wrong in that respect and that only the Dominion and the governments of the three provinces are concerned. Now, have the governments of the three provinces manifested a desire to settle this matter upon terms that any of us in this House could consider as fair? Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite and on this side whether any proposal which those governments have so far put forward has been such that any Government of Canada could grant the resources on the terms suggested? What are the proposals they have put forward? Originally, they made this proposal, which is the only definite one I have heard so far: "We will accept the return of the natural resources provided you permit us to retain entirely the subsidy in lieu of lands that was given us for those resources. That was the position they took before at least one of the Provincial Conferences, a position which I understand they maintained until very lately. Let us consider that. Hon. gentlemen will have the right to say in this debate whether it is the duty of the Government of the day to return those resources and at the same time to continue the payment of the extra subsidy, and whether they will undertake to support a Government that will take that step.
What next? In a recent communication, which I understand was laid on the table of the Manitoba House the Prime Minister of that province has taken another position and has withdrawn even from that offer. Now what, reduced to

plain English, is the position he takes? He says: " We cannot any longer stand hy the proposal we made that you give us the natural resources the same as the other provinces and keep on ppying us the extra subsidy-the whole of it-as well. We withdraw that because you did not accept it, and we ask you to do this: We ask you to declare that the Dominion has been the trustee of those [DOT] resources, notwithstanding the Acts of 1905 establishing the province. We ask you to declare that the Dominion has been the trustee of those . resources and is accountable as trustee to the provinces for the disposition of all those resources from that day to this." Not only does he say that but he also says: You must account in a fiduciary capacity and if you have alienated-as he described it-any of the lands or other resources for less than the value of those lands, or resources, you must, in the accounting, make good to us what the lands were worth-[DOT] what might have been obtained for them in the open market. That is to say: If the Dominion did-as it did in 1905, yes and long before-have a homesteading policy and gave free homesteads to those who wanted to go into that prairie country, to enter there and become pioneers and settlers-if the Dominion adopted that policy and gave free homesteads and thereby contributed to the building up ,of those provinces-you must now give an account to the Government of those provinces for what you could have sold that land for if you had not adopted any homesteading policy at all.
That is the proposal that is now advanced officially by the Government of Manitoba, and that is the only other proposal that we have had except the one that I mentioned first-that the entire subsidy be retained and that the lands be given back as well. Not only shbuld we accoun: for the value of the homesteads granted- and remember the homesteading policy was adopted in order to build up the provinces, in order to build up the country primarily; first the West where the homesteads were and ultimately the whole Dominion-but it is seriously suggested that the Dominion now should account for what it might have received if it had retarded western development by a system of sale instead of a system of homesteading. The same requirement he seeks to apply not only as regards homesteading but to the administration of the other resources of the West as well.
But there is this other objection to what is advanced in the latest proposal: Is it

even a possible method of solution? It cannot be assumed that you can place the Dominion Government down at a desk as it were and have it mark on one side the figures representing the moneys it has received in respect of western lands, and have it tabulate on the other side the moneys that it has disbursed because of the retention of western lands. Such a tabulation in either case is impossible. The fact is that the lands were retained, the resources were retained, and the public policy has adjusted itself to those facts ever since; and in practically every phase of public policy that relates to Western Canada account has been taken of the fact that the lands and resources were so retained. Is it to be said that the actual moneys disbursed because of the retention of the land and resources can be with any certainty ascertained? Is it to be said that the moneys we have spent in the administration of homesteads, the administration of grazing lands, the administration of western fisheries in the administration of irrigation, the administration of forest and water-powers can be divided and the portion attributable to the federal ownership of those resources arrived at? Why that could not be said at all. What about the money spent in respect of immigration? Can anybody say there would have been anything like the money spent for immigration in this country if it had not been for the fact that the western lands and resources were retained under Federal control? Can anyone venture to say how much of the moneys disbursed for immigration was not attributable to the fact that the lands were federally retained and how much was not attributable to that fact? He who would attempt the task of apportioning the money spent on immigration alone, or between one class and the other, would be attempting, I venture to submit, an utterly impossible task. And you can pass from immigration to other subjects- subjects in respect of drainage, in respect of water-power, in respect of irrigation, in respect of railways.
In all these matters the Dominion, in adopting the policy it pursued had regard to the fact that these resources were under federal responsibility, and that we have had control:	The expenditure of the Dominion would have been different had the lands originally been made the property of the provinces and not the property of the Dominion. It is not a hard matter to scramble an egg but it is a very hard matter to unscramble it. It was not a hard matter to retain the resources, but

once you have retained them for fifteen to twenty years and adjusted every phase of public policy to the fact that there was that retention, then it becomes a matter of very great complexity. Indeed it becomes a matter in the solution of which you meet with obstacles at every step and to such an extent that no half-dozen men can agree on any stage. It becomes a matter with respect to which it is impossible to arrive at anything like an accounting on a trustee basis at all. Consequently I have argued-and I have argued very recently with the prime ministers of these provinces -that we do not get any further by trying to establish and admit the principle that the lands originally should have been transferred. You do not get any further by setting up that trustee principle-as "a great white flame" if we only keep our eye on it will settle this matter on the eternal basis of right-you do not get any further by that method. You may get further by one way, and one way only, by presenting some concrete proposal in figures that will appeal to a fair-minded man as a square, bald, rough but honourable solution.


John Flaws Reid: In 1911 Sir
Robert Borden the prospective premier, promised us that if he was returned to power he would give to the western provinces their natural resources. Have the difficulties of doing that multiplied very much since then?


Arthur Meighen: Was the Government,
which the hon. gentleman supported, the Government in power at that time, ready to take those resources unless it got the subsidies as well? Sir Robert Borden did not say he would give the provinces the subsidies as well as the resources; and the provinces have never agreed to take the resources unless they keep the subsidies as well. They have indicated a desire to take the resources and the subsidies too, and now one has abandoned even that: that is the situation we are in to-day. The difficulties have multiplied jsince 1905-* undoubtedly as difficulties always do-and they will not be any less as the years go by. I for one would very much like to see a spirit of greater reasonableness enter into the discussion of this question. It is an easy matter to make speeches, but as long as the heads of government take their stand definitely and finally where they have taken it, then-whether the other provinces have a right to he heard or not- we are not making very much progress
towards getting to an end of the question. Now something may be done to help by a study of all the different phases of legislation, by a study of the moneys directly received and the moneys directly and indirectly expended, Remember they are far greater than the figures indicated by the hon. member for Nelson-that is the moneys disbursed, There may be something done in the way of throwing light on what would be a fair apportionment of subsidy received in lieu of lands. I would like indeed if we could be met in a spirit of conciliation in an effort to get at some half way place where we could meet and settle this matter once for all, but I must say that I have not been very much encouraged by the attitude of those who on the one hand say, "We must have our resources back, and we must have the money as well;" and who later retract that and say, "No, we will take the resources on one basis only, that you account to us for everything you have done with these lands, and if you have not got all the money in hand that you should have derived from them we will make you account to us for what you might have obtained." There is not very much encouragement when you are met in that spirit. Therefore it seems to me that the House will not agree with any resolution which implies that this Government has been in any way negligent in endeavouring to seek a solution of this question.
I come from Western Canada myself, and I know that there is a feeling more or less general that the Prairie Provinces have a just grievance in this regard, that they are not on a parity with the other provinces as regards their autonomy. On that account I would especially like to see this question settled. I am not in hopes that we will ever arrive at a time when the provinces of the West feel that they have no grievance at all in respect to federal affairs. My experience is such that I am afraid it will be a long time before we reach the stage when every province will concede that it has no grievance in respedt to federal affairs. This is such an extensive country, and some of our provinces are so far from the others, that each particular province feels that all its sisters have been treated well and it has been treated very ill. That is the case in the West as well as in other parts of the Dominion.
I have always felt that the western provinces have a right to the same autonomous jurisdiction as the other provinces. It would be well for the whole Confedera-

tion if the premiers of these provinces would meet the Federal Government and strive towards some fair compromise which would appeal to the other provinces and to their representatives here as a sensible basis fair to all, and one that all or most of us could join to support.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does not my right hon.
friend think it possible to settle the question of what subsidies shall be paid to the western provinces in lieu of the lands or resources by reference to the courts or by arbitration?


Arthur Meighen: You might settle it
by arbitration, but I do not think that outsiders coming in to arbitrate could do as well as the heads of the governments themselves. You could not settle it in the courts, because there is no principle to go on. I would be only too glad if this was a question of law, then it could easily be relegated to the courts and there decided -a solution devoutly to be wished.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Why not send it to the
Exchequer Court?


Arthur Meighen: The Exchequer Court
is a court of law, and it would have to decide the question on principles- of law. If it were such a question it would not be very long troubling the Government; that is where it would be; but it is not such a question. Nor does it seem to me that we could get very far by arbitration. You would have to arrive at mutual concessions, and you would have to have some principles which the Board of Arbitration could follow to decide what portion of any special class of expenditure was attributable to the fact that the Dominion retained the resources; and to get an accounting on anything like a fiduciary basis seems to me a task beyond the capacity of the human mind. At best it can only be got at in a rough way, and can never be reached until both sides approach the matter in a fair and conciliatory spirit.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) was very quick to remark that there had been what appeared to him unanimous silence from the official Opposition. I would direct his attention to the fact that some eight or nine speeches were made from this side of the House without a single hon. member on the Government side rising to make a reply or response of any kind. If the official Opposition delayed to take part in this debate, it was not with any intention of evading a statement of its position. We

were naturally expecting that with the large following which the Government has on its side some one would rise to state the position of hon. gentlemen opposite. The truth, of course, is that this is a question that primarily affects the West, and the western representatives who are sitting on this side of the House took advantage of the earliest opportunity to rise and state their position. What, I think, will strike the country as something more than a coincidence is the circumstance that while hon. gentlemen opposite have in their ranks a number of representatives of western constituencies, not one of those representatives has risen to say a single word in support of this resolution.
Let me say at once that so far as the Liberal Opposition is concerned, we are heartily in accord with the resolution, which has been moved and which is in the following terms:
That, in the opinion of this House, the transfer by the Dominion to the Western Provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta of their natural resources should not be longer
delayed.
There are two important statements in that resolution. First of all there is the statement of principle, that these resources should be transferred to the western provinces; with that principle we are in entire accord. Then there is the statement that the resources should be transferred without delay. This, I think, must appear obviously desirable when we realize that the longer this question is left in the open the longer will it be before the western provinces will feel that they have had that mead of justice from the Dominion to which they are entitled.
Therefore our position, as stated by my right hon. friend, is as set out in the resolution passed by the Liberal convention held in this city in August of 1919. It is as follows:
That the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be granted the ownership and control of the natural resources within their respective boundaries on terms that are fair and equitable with reference to all the other provinces of the Dominion.
Some exception has been taken to the words, "fair and equitable with reference to all the other provinces of the Dominion." So far as those words are capable of any interpretation other than what appears on their face, they can mean only "on terms that are just." The contention of some of the western provinces that just terms are to be arrived at in one way rather than another is a perfectly proper

contention. I do not wish at the moment to debate the question as to what are fair and equitable terms; but this I do say, that if you reverse the statement and assume that any other than fair and equitable terms are to be conceded, you get a resolution that I am sure even my western friends would not support. It would then read:
That the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be granted the ownership and control of the natural resources within their respective boundaries, on terms that are unfair and inequitable with reference to all the other provinces of the Dominion.
Do my western friends want that? I am sure that no hon. gentleman who has spoken to-night would say that he would like to see the western provinces get a transfer of their natural resources on terms that were inequitable or unfair to the other provinces of the Dominion. Unless they are prepared to support that position, it seems to me they ought to be prepared, in justice to the Dominion as a whole to take the very reasonable view which has been set forth and agree to the transfer of these resources on terms that are equitable and fair.
At this hour of the night, especially after the matter has been gone into so fully, I do not think it is necessary to argue at any length the different points that arise for consideration. But this I would say:	there is a responsibility upon the
Government, if it asserts a particular policy, to see that that policy is carried out. I am sure that the country will view with a sense of amazement and disappointment the remarks of my right hon. friend to-night, which imply that instead of being anxious to effect an immediate settlement of this question the Government is looking rather to a way of avoiding a settlement altogether. My right hon. friend has repeatedly said "if we could get this or that proposal put up to us and we regarded it as fair, we might be prepared to accept it." I think, Mr. Speaker, that is looking at the matter entirely from the wrong point of view. It is not for the provinces to come along and make a policy for the Government; it is for the Government to have a policy and to see that it is carried out. That is the position which we on this side at least are prepared to take. We have a policy and we are prepared to stand by it; we are prepared to see, if entrusted with the duty of administering the affairs of this country, that our policy is carried out.	I


Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDIE (West Calgary) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) took occasion to suggest that he was greatly surprised that no member for Western Canada on the Government side had spoken in support of this resolution, but I did not see the necessity of supporting the resolution when every hon. gentleman who had spoken had done so. While the good work was going on I thought it might be wise that I should retain my seat and give the hon. leader of the Opposition an opportunity to express his views.
It is true that the question of the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources is a question of very great importance, one that has engaged the attention of the western people ever since 1905. But as the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has pointed out, the responsibility for the dilemma in which we now find ourselves is in no sense attributable to any policy which was advocated by Sir Robert Borden or carried out by the Government of which he was leader nor to the policy of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) or his Government. In 1905, if any public question was ever put fairly and squarely before the people, it was certainly the question of the Autonomy Bills affecting Alberta and Saskatchewan, and if any party ever stood loyally behind a government in the deprivation of the people of that to which they were justly entitled, it was the Liberal party-especially its western supporter^-led by 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier when his government deliberately robbed the people of the western country of those resources to which they were entitled in the creation of the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
When the matter was taken up by the Laurier Government representatives came from the Northwest Territories to advocate our cause. Those who came from the Northwest Territories and who were associated with the legislative assembly and government of the Territories were fully imbued with the idea that when the new western provinces were created their natural resources would be given to them and that they would have complete autonomy so far as their civil, religious, educational and property rights were concerned. But when the Government of the day of which the hon. leader of the Opposition was at one time a member, had disposed of the matter, those gentlemen who had been sent here to procure complete autonomy at any cost, returned to Western

Canada, not with the natural resources, not with a general public school system for the provinces, but they returned, one gentleman as lieutenant governor of Alberta, another as the Premier of Saskatchewan, and another with a seat in the Senate, while the retainers at home secured suitable rewards. Only one, Sir Frederick Haultain, at that time leader of the Government in the Legislature of the Northwest Territories, remained loyal to the interests of Western Canada. The present condition, therefore, is due wholly and solely to the fact that the people of Western Canada were betrayed by the men who came down here to settle the terms of the Autonomy Bills creating those two provinces.
As to the position taken by Sir Robert Borden in Western Canada, it has been suggested by those opposed to him-and the statement has been made on every platform and in every election-that when Sir Robert Borden toured Western Canada during the election campaign of 1911 he said that if he were returned to power the natural resources of Western Canada would be transferred to the respective provinces concerned. There seems to be some dispute as to the exact words that he used. But assuming for the purpose of argument that he made a definite promise in that regard, what was the attitude of the people of Western Canada? What was the attitude of the Liberal party? What was the attitude of the Liberal legislatures of Alberta and Saskatchewan? My own province was toured from one end to the other by all Liberal senators, by all Liberal members of the House of Commons, by all Liberal members of the Legislature of Alberta, and all members of the Provincial Cabinet, who impressed the people of that province with the argument that they had made the best possible arrangement, whereby they received cash subsidies in lieu of lands and that they would make a mistake if they returned Robert Borden to power for the purpose of securing to the western provinces their natural resources. Their argument prevailed; their doctrine was accepted, and every representative from Alberta, with the exception of one was returned to this House because of his opposition to the transfer of the natural resources to the province of Alberta.


Mr. WHITE:: Was that the issue in
1911?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: That certainly was
the issue. I never attended one session of 
the Legislature of Alberta subsequent to that time when Liberal members of the legislature did not stand up in their places in the House and say that Sir Robert Borden had promised the transfer of the natural resources. If Sir Robert Borden did not make that the issue certainly every Liberal candidate in Alberta and Saskatchewan did so. They urged that we should retain the money subsidies which we were receiving and let the natural resources remain under the control qf the Dominion Government. As a result of that policy; as a result of the conduct of the Laurier Government and Liberal members of the local legislatures, we find ourselves in this hopeless state of chaos to-day.
I will not be as indefinite as the leader of the Opposition is in the matter of a stand on the question of natural resources. [DOT] I am not a convert to the doctrine; I have always taken the view that when these provinces were created they should have had their natural resources. I have supported resolutions in the Alberta Legislature along with my Liberal friends, requesting the Dominion Government to transfer the natural resources to the government of the province of Alberta. I have nothing to apologize for; I have nothing to explain away. The leader of the Opposition stands up to-night and announces a right-about-face policy. He has had a change of heart; he preaches a new gospel; he lays down a new doctrine. He cannot tell us why he departs from the principles advocated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by Hon. Frank Oliver, Hon. Walter Scott, Hon. Mr. Bulyea, Dr. Rutherford (Premier), Alberta, and others from the West. My stand in this matter has been consistent. As a westerner I am not afraid to say that I believe it is the duty of this Government, if they can possibly do so, to work out some scheme whereby this question of natural resources will be settled. I do, however, not believe it should be the policy of the Government to plunder the public treasury by giving exorbitant cash grants and subsidies to the eastern provinces in order that the western provinces may be given the control of their resources. We have had our public treasury plundered in connection with railway construction in this country, but I do not propose to advocate that that plundering go on in connection with this question. When we can get down to a reasonable basis, when we can get unity in this country, then I say that these natural resources should be handed over to the three western pro-

vinces. The very gentlemen who landed us in the dilemma in which we are at the present time are the people who control the legislatures of the whole of the Dominion of Canada. Every province in Canada, with the exception of Ontario, which has a Farmer government, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, has a Liberal premier, I believe. Those people united on the policy of depriving us of our natural resources. If they have the same heartburnings as the members of the Progressive party have, and as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggests to this House that he has, cannot they say to the representatives of the great Liberal party:	"Come together in the city of
Ottawa in provincial conference, determine the respective rights of the various provinces, and settle this question? The Liberal party, as a Liberal party, has never had a greater opportunity in this country to settle any great public question than it has to settle the question of our natural resources. It is a matter of deliberation and agreement on the part of those provincial premiers and of the leaders and adherents of the Liberal party. If they had the interest of the whole of Canada, and, in particular, Western Canada, at heart, they could meet together and in a short deliberation, arrive at an agreement which would be acceptable to this House, which would be accepted by this Government, which would settle for all time the question of subsidies for the eastern provinces and the handing over to the western provinces of their natural resources, of which they were deprived by a Liberal administration.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Mr. Speaker, we were listening to a very interesting and fair discussion of the natural resources of the western provinces until the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) came into the debate, and he has imparted an amount of heat and partisanship to it which I deeply regret. I am going to ask him to remember that only a few minutes ago he stated that the people of the western provinces had been betrayed by the Laurier Government, and' that the Laurier Government had robbed the people of the West of their resources.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I beg the hon. member's pardon. That is not my expression. I say that we were betrayed by the people who were sent here from the West to present our interests to the Laurier Government, not by the Laurier Government, and
those people who came here, instead of bringing back the natural resources, took back leaderships, governorships and other offices in connection with public life.


William Stevens Fielding: I renew my statement that the hon. member declared that the West had been robbed of its resources by the Laurier Government. I do not argue whether that is true or not; but I will put to my hon. friend a question which will arise in the mind of every western or, indeed, eastern man. All that happened many years ago. We have had ten years now of Conservative Government in one form or another in Canada. If the western provinces were robbed so many years ago, why have the Conservative Government, during the last ten years, not made good the robbery and restored the resources?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I will endeavour to
answer that-because we got in such a hopeless dilemma that we could not.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend, and nobody else, is getting into the hopeless dilemma. Even if there had been no pledge to give the western provinces their resources, that should not have needed pledges. If robbery of this character was committed at that time, my hon. friend and his friends have had ten years in which to make good the robbery, to do justice. They have not done justice, and they are here to-day, not attempting to do anything at all. That is the position they occupy. Pledges were given by the former Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). It is not necessary to dwell upon what they were; everybody knows them. What do we find to-day? After all these years, my right hon. friend and his friends are actually saying: "We are not going to do anything to-day." I am amazed at the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) that he is going to oppose the resolution. I did not think it was possible for any one to oppose it. I do not agree with all that my western friends say, but I do agree with the terms of the resolution which simply says:
That, i-n the opinion of this House, the transfer by the Dominion to the western provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, of their natural resources should not be longer delayed.
That is a reasonable proposition, and surely no hon. member can argue that the matter should be longer delayed. Accor' ding to the statement of the Prime Minister, nothing is to be done at all; he gives us no help. With what my right hon. friend said as to the history of the matter,

I largely agree. He correctly described the circumstances under which the resources were withheld from the western provinces. You have to go back to the story of Manitoba from the beginning. It was under the guidance and direction of Sir John A. Macdonald that that province was created. For the reasons stated by the Prime Minister it was held to be wise that the Dominion Government should withhold the control of those resources, because they were believed to be necessary to the Government of the Dominion in the development of a policy of immigration and settlement. It is not necessary to declare that Sir John A. Macdonald was a robber. The policy began in his day and every word that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie) says to-day as to the Laurier Government would apply to Sir Jt>hn A. Macdonald, because it was in his day that the policy of withholding the natural resources was adopted. When the Autonomy Bills were passed, for the organization of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, naturally the Government of the day followed the policy laid down by Sir John A. Macdonald and for the same reasons. In that day it was believed that the reason was a good one. The view of Sir John A. Macdonald in the case of Manitoba was considered a sound view and we adopted it in 1905. I say that while it was a good policy in that day, it might not be a good policy to-day. I have perfectly clear views as to what would be a fair solution of the question. My only complaint in regard to the Government is that they are making excuses for doing nothing; they are not pretending to do anything. The true policy of the Government is to settle the matter themselves; to determine upon a policy themselves; to express it in a resolution or in a Bill in this House. If the West will not accept that, the Government will have done their share. The trouble is that the Prime Minister does not indicate a desire to do anything. He is making excuses, talking about a conference of the provinces. I do not see any need of a conference of the provinces. I cannot agree with my western friends who say that the eastern provinces have no interest in this matter. The Eastern provinces have an interest, but I do not think it is an interest in regard to which it is necessary to consult them in any particular way.


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend mistakes what I said. I did not suggest another conference of the provinces. I

stated that the three provinces that were concerned would not accept any solution now that appeared to me as being fair. I would like the hon. member to say whether he thinks the position they take is fair.


William Stevens Fielding: I am rather inclined to think that that position, described by my right hon. friend, is an extreme one. The obligation however rests upon the Government to do something, to make absolutely clear what they are willing to do, and not to make excuses that one or another of the provinces make some claim that the right hon. getleman thinks is extreme. The responsibility rests upon the Government to settle the matter. They should come forward and take the initiative; they should not talk about the necessity of consulting the other provinces.


Arthur Meighen: We cannot force a
settlement on them.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member can state exactly what it is he is prepared to do. He can lay down the principles upon which he is prepared to settle this matter and make an offer to the western provinces of what he is willing to do. As far as I know, he has never done so. He has availed himself of every excuse for doing nothing and in that respect our western friends have much reason to complain. Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in saying what my idea is regarding a settlement of this matter. Some of the western men have advanced the view that they were entitled to the subsidies and the lands both. I do not think that is a reasonable position at all. When the constitutions were given to Alberta and Saskatchewan, the resources were withheld and a subsidy was given, in addition to the ordinary subsidy, in lieu of the resources. The policy was acceptable to the authorities of the day. One hon. gentleman to-day says: There was nobody to accept it. The only persons responsible who could deal with the matter at 'the time were those in Parliament, and the general feeling at the time was that the arrangements made were not ungenerous to the new provinces.
I think the general feeling was that the allowance made in lieu of lands and resources was a fair one. I do not remember any opposition to it; I do not remember anybody contending that the arrangement was unreasonable. But if in the progress of time, with the building up of the West, it has become a matter of pride with them to have their natural resources, I would like them to have them, but on fair and

reasonable terms. I do not see that there need be any great difficulty as to what the terms should be. If they want the lands and the subsidies both, I say that is not fair. I entirely endorse the attitude of the Government in saying they will not give them that. But a fair arrangement could be arrived at in one of two ways. You might attempt an accounting, a trusteeship. The right hon. gentleman has said that there are very grave difficulties in the way of that; he may be correct, hut if it were possible I would willingly have a trusteeship,-not in the fiduciary sense he speaks of, whereby this Government would be penalized for giving homesteads for building up the provinces-I would not support that-but I think it would be reasonable to say: Let the Government be treated as trustees from the very beginning. Credit every penny we have received from these resources, and charge as far as may be possible, on the other side, every penny of outlay, including an allowance for general charges which it is difficult to determine. That may be as difficult as my right hon. friend has suggested; it may be impossible, but I would willingly see an effort made to deal with the matter in that way. There is an easier and a simpler way. I do not think it would be an unjust way to say: We will start afresh; you take the resources, and we will keep the money; by-gones will be by-gones. The only sense in which the eastern provinces have anything to do with the matter, is in relation to the subsidy. Some claims have been advanced in some of the provinces in connection with these matters which I do not wish to discuss here. I do not think it is necessary. I think it would be perfectly fair for us to say to the West: We will give you from this moment the resources, and we will stop the subsidy.


Arthur Meighen: We would be quite ready to do that, if it could be acceptable.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the Government have not hitherto said that. It is not up to the eastern provinces to settle the matter in conference or otherwise. The responsibility is on the Government. They can say to the western provinces: Here is a fair offer; we are willing to enter into an accounting for a trusteeship from the beginning. If that is not possible, we will give you the resources from July 1, and from that day we will pay no more subsidy It would not be reasonable to ask for subsidy and lands both. I am persuaded that on full discussion our friends from
the West will feel that that is not a fair and reasonable proposition.


John Allister Currie: Would you charge up the western railways against that expenditure?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not charge any railway aid against the provinces.


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I rise not to intervene at
any length, in this debate, but just to call attention to the position which we have reached in view of the speech of the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the speech to which we have just listened by the hon. the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).
As I understand it, there is no divergence of opinion as to whether the natural resources should be returned to the provinces. There is no disposition, certainly there is nothing to be found in the address of the right hon. the leader of the House, to indicate a disposition to withdraw from any promise that ever was made. There has been, since the promise referred to was made, a consistent readiness to live up to it, a consistent readiness to return these resources upon terms that are fair and equitable with reference to all the other provinces of the Dominion. I did not understand the hon. leader of the Opposition to take any explicit position upon the question of whether or not the other provinces had any interest in the settlement of the terms upon which these resources should be returned, but as he was at pains to point out that his acceptance of the resolution proceeded upon the assumption that the return of the resources would necessarily be made upon terms that would be fair and equitable to the other provinces, I venture to assume that he does recognize that there is an interest in the other provinces. The hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat complains that this Government does not take upon itself, of its own authority, without consultation either of the provinces to whom the resources are to be returned, or of the other provinces who may be affected by the terms upon which the resources are so returned, absolutely to settle of its own authority just what are fair and equitable terms to all parties concerned, and impose them upon both classes of provinces. In that connection I think it is well to recollect that the original foundation of our present Dominion was a foundation that rested upon an agreement between the original provinces. I think it

is also fair to take it that when the con-titution of the new provinces was created, the terms then settled upon were the result of consultation, not of course with nonexistent provinces, but, as has been pointed out, on the part of the Dominion Government of the day with those provinces who at the time had the capacity to represent and to speak for the territories that were to become the provinces. The terms of those days were not imposed upon those territories until after they had been consulted, and there had been acceptance on their part.
Now a new departure means a modification of those things that were agreed to, and in the face of that, the suggestion that Parliament should take upon its(elf without any regard to the desires of or to what would be acceptable to the provinces who were to receive the resources, and without any regard to what in the judgment of the other provinces affected may be fair-to settle this matter offhand, as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's suggests, seems to me a most undesirable method, a method, at all events, not to be resorted to until we are face to face with the situation where there is absolutely no other resort. We want contentment and satisfaction between the different parts of this Dominion. It is a matter of the very first importance that we should have it. We want contentment in the West with the terms and conditions upon which the resources may be returned to them, and I think therefore that it is only the part of wisdom to endeavour to ascertain what will be acceptable to those provinces even before taking up the question with the other provinces as to in what way they may consider themselves to be affected by any proposed terms, and what adjustment, if any, should be made in order to see that we maintain fairness and equality between all the provinces of this Dominion.
Taking what the hon. leader of the Opposition has said, if I understood him rightly, he thought this resolution ought to pass, for he took it for granted that our western friends in pressing for the return of the resources assumed that that return was, of course, to be made upon terms fair and equitable to all the other provinces of the Dominion. If I understood him rightly in that regard, he argued that therefore in voting for this resolution he was following out the line of policy declared by the Liberay party at its convention.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the declaration made by the Liberal party upon this subject at

the convention to which reference was made was merely the reproduction of what had been the settled and declared policy of succeeding government; ever since the Government of 1911 came into power; and we, of course, can take no exception to a reiteration of that policy. I think, therefore I shall be meeting the expressed view of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and what he assures us is the implied view of the mover of this motion, and that I may anticipate unanimity in this House, in the following motion:
That the resolution he amended by striking out all the words after the word "House" in the second line, and substituting the following therefor:
The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be granted the ownership and control of the. natural resources within their respective boundaries on terms that are fair and equitable with reference to all other provinces of the Dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend has omitted what perhaps will, after all, be regarded by the West as the most essential feature of the resolution, namely, the qualification that the transfer of these natural resources should be made without delay. The exception we have taken to the position of the Government as expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), is that it means a prolongation of the condition of uncertainty that exists at the present time. We agree with our western friends that this transfer should be made, but we also think that it should be made without delay. Now, if the Government is prepared to accept an amendment to the amendment by inserting, in a proper place in the resolution, the words "without further delay", I shall be prepared to accept the amendment as proposed by my right hon. friend. I certainly think that the qualifying words I suggest are a material part of the resolution.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am prepared to accept those words.
Mr. SPEAKER; The resolution as now amended will read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be granted without further delay the ownership and control of the naturail resources within their respective boundaries on terms that are fair and equitable with reference to afll other provinces of the Dominion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution as amended?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Archibald Campbell: The amendmerit as moved by the right hon. minister will have an effect similar to that of the amendment moved the other day in reference to a resolution in connection with the Hudson Bay railway; it practically makes the resolution of no effect. I am quite aware-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I trust the hon. member will bear in mind that the amendment has been adopted by the House. He will now address himself to the resolution as amended.


John Archibald Campbell: That is what I am doing; I presume I have the right to reply to the original motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


John Archibald Campbell: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the intention I had when I rose.
I desire to refer to some of the statements made by' the Prime Minister and others who followed him. The right hon. gentleman, in the beginning of his remarks, said that it did not lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to express the views they had uttered; it was not consistent in them to take the stand they had taken. Now, I am not concerned with any stand that has previously been taken, rightly or wrongly, by certain hon. gentlemen on either side of the House. With me, this question has come up in the House now for the first time, and I consider that it should be decided strictly on its merits, without reference to what hon. gentlemen may or may not have done in the past. In answer to a question I asked the Prime Minister, he stated that the territories agreed to this arrangement by virtue of the fact that certain representatives from those territories wrere in the House at the time, and two names were mentioned, those of Messrs. Scott and Oliver. It may be that Messrs. Scott and Oliver considered that the arrangement made at that time was a good one from the point of view of their districts, and possibly they may be of the same opinion still; at least I am not prepared to say that they have changed their minds in any way. And as I have already pointed out, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in referring to the matter in his speech in 1914, did not, so far as I could gather, say anything in contradiction of his utterances of 1905. It is quite probable that those -who
had to do with the deal in 1905, so far as Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned, are still of the same mind; but that is not the question now before the House. Notwithstanding the attitude taken by those gentlemen at that time, and the fact that there have been elections in Saskatchewan and Alberta since then; notwithstanding these and various other facts, the outstanding fact is that prior and subsequently to 1911, and particularly in that year, the right hon. gentleman who now represents King's (Sir Robert Borden) and who was leader of the Conservative party at that time, afterwards becoming Prime Minister, stated emphatically that these natural resources would be returned to the provinces if he were called upon to form a government. Now it is up to him, without any question whatever, it is up to the Government of which he was head, which is really the present Government, definitely to carry out the promise he then made. It looks rather strange to me, as I pointed out before, that hon. gentlemen supporting the Government should wish to defer so much to the opinions and desires of some Liberals who are not in the House now. It is something I have not observed them do to any extent during this session, or at any previous time. Or because certain gentlemen may have been inconsistent, having advocated one thing at one time and another thing now, that is no excuse for inconsistency on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Another matter that was raised is that of negotiations. The Prime Minister stated that the proposals made in this connection by the provinces were not such as could be accepted-that the letter written in 1913 which contained the proposals of the three Premiers could not receive the approval of himself or of his Government. Be that as it may, I mentioned specifically in the remarks I made earlier in the debate that the terms of that letter were simply set out as a basis for negotiation, and if not approved by the Federal Government it was then in order for the Government to submit some other proposition. I am told on good authority that after the conference of 1918, which did not result in anything, the delegates left with the distinct understanding that a definite and fair proposition would be submitted by the Minister of the Interior of that day, the present Prime Minister. I have not learned that any proposition of the kind has ever been made by the Prime Minister to the Prairie Provinces, nor have I discovered that this Gov-

ernment has ever submitted a proposal to them. The provinces on their part, as I have already pointed out, have more than once set out their case but the Prime Minister holds that the contentions were not in accordance with what the Federal Government deemed to be right, fair and equitable to the other provinces. That being so, in my opinion the Federal Government should have submitted in return a proposal which is fair and reasonable in its opinion. I submit that the Federal Government has not gone nearly as far as it should have gone, and has not done its part in this connection. It should have put forward something which it considered fair and reasonable and then if the western provinces would not accept, it would be up to them to make the next move. But as matters stand I think I am right in expressing the opinion that the next move should come from the Federal Government and it has not made any. My contention was, and is, that this matter should be settled entirely between the Dominion and the western provinces. I frankly admit that the situation is by no means a simple one, that there is perhaps no definite basis of accounting upon which to arrive at a conclusion, and there will have to be a compromise in some way. That is the reason why the provincial Premiers in the first place made their demands as they did. The Prime Minister stated to-night that the situation was so complicated and so mixed up that it would be pretty hard to arrive at anything definite, and that undoubtedly either side would likely state its case in an extreme form. But granted just for sake of argument that the provinces have set up extreme contentions, the Dominion Government has not set up any case at all, as far as I can make out, extreme or otherwise. It is therefore in order for the Dominion Government to frame a proposition and make it the basis of terms which it considers, with all the facts at its disposal, might reasonably be accepted by the provinces.
At this late hour I do not propose to make any further reply to the various Statements that have been made, other than that contained in my initial remarks. As was the case in a resolution which was moved by me earlier in the session, an amendment has been moved to the present resolution which makes it practically innocuous. The resolution as amended is not acceptable to me and is not at all satisfactory. Under the circumstances I have no other course than to ask leave to withdraw my motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his motion as amended? Of course, it can only be done by unanimous consent.
Motion withdrawn.


TOBACCO LICENSES
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House in order to enable tobacco fanners and planters to observe the laws bearing on licenses and other taxes pertaining to the culture of tobacco, it is expedient that authority be given to rural postmasters to isue such licenses, sell revenue stamps and collect taxes, etc., for, and on behalf of the inland revenue; that this measure would tend to correct numerous grievances as between the Government and the farmers, in allowing the latter to more easily follow the law and thereby avoid lawsuits and other predicaments. -Mr. Boyer.
Mr. BOYER:: I beg leave to withdraw the motion that appears in my name.
Motion withdrawn.


INSURANCE AGAINST SICKNESS
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Insurance Act should be amended so that permanent insurance policies against sickness will be issued as in the case of life insurance.-Mr. Rinfret.
Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Speaker, I beg
leave to withdraw the motion. The Minister of Finance has a resolution on the Order Paper concerning insurance and when it is moved that would seem to be the proper time to bring this matter up.
Motion withdrawn.


CONFERENCE OF PREMIERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the following proposed resolution:
Whereas the Government has no intention of calling a general election in the near future: and whereas an Imperial Conference at which the Prime Minister ought to be present, will take place sometime during the summer; and whereas the Prime Minister of Great Britain has stated on the floor of the House that he would ask the Overseas Dominions to- take part in discussions on the internal policy of Great Britain as far as military and financial matters are concerned. Therefore be it resolved: That, in the opinion of this House, the Prime Minister of Canada in the deliberations of the said Conference . should keep strictly to the letter of our Constitution as drawn up by the Fathers of Confederation in 1865.-Mr. Deslauriers.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: (Translation.)
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister has expressly given his word this afternoon that we shall

be afforded an opportunity to discuss this question next Wednesday, I beg leave to withdraw my motion. However, my intention is to revert to the subject on Wednesday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Dropped.


EXPENDITURE ON HIGHWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Proposed Resolution-That, in the opinion of this House, in view of evidence recently adduced before a royal commission in the province of Nova Scotia, disclosing in the expenditure of moneys upon federally-aided highways, by that province, waste, incompetency and fraud, upon a scale perhaps never equalled in the history of the outlay of public moneys in Canada, and in view of the widespread belief that similar irregularities in connection with such expenditures have occurred in other provinces, the Canada Highway Act be so amended at this Session of Parliament as to provide that any money voted by this Parliament in aid of highways be expended directly by the Government of Canada.-Mr. Davidson.
Mr. DAVIDSON:: Dropped.


ARMISTICE DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
The following proposed Resolution-That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to perpetuate the triumphant conclusion of the Great War by the signing of an armistice on the 11th day of November, 1918', and to such end that Monday in the week in which is November 11th be called Armistice Day, and that the day for a General Thanksgiving to Almighty God be proclaimed for such day annually.-Mr. Mowat.
Mr. MOWAT:: The object of this motion was to signify the great deliverance from our enemy by establishing Armistice Day as a legal holiday, and to celebrate Thanksgiving Day, which usually comes about the same time, on the same day. Thinking that the business of the House would probably be protracted to a late hour and that the resolution would not be reached, 1 to-day gave notice of a Bill comprehending the subject contained in the resolution. In view of the fact that the hour is late I would now beg leave to withdraw the resolution in order that the whole matter may be discussed in the Bill which I propose to introduce.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Dropped.


MINERAL OIL OR GAS RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the following proposed
resolution:
That, in the opinion of the House, the Government should take the necessary steps to amend the Dominion Lands Act by adding thereto certain provisions to the effect:
1.	Striking out in the first line of Section 37 thereof, the words "Petroleum, natural gas" and adding the following subsections to the said section:
2.	Lands containing or supposed to contain oil, petroleum, natural gas or any substance containing petroleum or any product of petroleum shall not be sold but shall be leased for an indefinite period extending over the time during which any of the said substances can be obtained therefrom.
3.	Where the Crown has reserved the mineral, oil or gas rights such lands, whether sold in fee or homesteaded, may be leased.
4.	Any person who is q British subject, or any corporation incorporated in any British country of which a majority of the directors are British subjects, may on application and the payment of such sum as may be authorized by Order in Council be granted a lease for a tract of land not exceeding one square mile in extent within five miles of the territory where a discovery of any of the said substances has been made, and beyond the said five miles the applicant shall be entitled to a lease of four square miles, provided that no such discovery has been made within the same. The lease shall provide that if the applicant does not begin drilling operations within three years, that in either of such events the lease shall ipso facto terminate and become void.
5.	In case oil, gas, or any substance containing petroleum or any product of petroleum are found, ten per cent of the output, measured at the well, shall accrue to the Crown, and shall be payable out of the proceeds when the products are sold.
6.	The Governor in Council shall have power to make such regulations as shall be deemed necessary to protect the productivity of any field that may be discovered.
found, ten per cent of the output, measured at
7.	Leases shall be transferred subject to such regulations as the Governor in Council may make relating to registration thereof, but no lease shall be transferred to any person or corporation not eligible to be granted a lease under subsection four of this resolution.-Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Dropped:



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the House to again go into committee on Bill 52 to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Lafortune.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I ask that the Order stand, as the subject of the Bill is being dealt with by a general amendment to the Criminal Code.


John Allister Currie: I understand from the
minister that there is to be a general Bill amending the Criminal Code under which all these amendments can be discussed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.
Order stands.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HARBOURS)

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 40 to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Public

[Stage Direction]
Harbours).-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When we were last in committee on this Bill, clause 1 had been read and considered. Shall clause 1 carry?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I may say that consideration of this question was postponed, when the Bill was before the committee for consideration a few days ago, in order that the Minister of Marine might have an opportunity of examining it. He has done so and has informed me that the Bill is satisfactory.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. S. W. Jacobs (George Etienne Cartier) Bill No. 36 to amend the Bankruptcy Act was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1

notice to creditors of suspension and ceasing to meet liabilities.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the hon. member read the clause as amended.


Samuel William Jacobs: Clause (f) of section 3 under this proposed amendment will read as follows:
If he exhibits to any of his creditors any statement of his assets and liabilities which shows that he is insolvent, or presents or causes to he presented to any such creditors a written admission of his inability to pay his debts.
Under the law as it now stands he has to exhibit to a meeting of his creditors a statement of his assets and liabilities showing he is insolvent before a receiving order can be made. The purpose of the amendment is to so change the section that if he exhibits to any of his creditors, not specially at any meeting, a statement of his assets and liabilities showing insolvency, then that is sufficient for the creditors to apply for a petition in bankruptcy.
I may state that this amendment is made at the suggestion of the judge of the Bankruptcy Court of the province of.Quebec. Under the present law it is difficult to obtain a petition in bankruptcy. A man may be insolvent to the extent that he is not able to pay one cent on the dollar, but until he exhibits a statement to his creditors at a meeting it is of no avail to secure a petition in bankruptcy. The judge of the Bankruptcy Court in Quebec, who has been sitting on these cases for the past year, was quick to see that the law is rendered nugatory if it is
	j
allowed to remain in its present form, and at his suggestion the amendment has been introduced to give the law some force.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, my
suggestion in regard to this clause, and also in regard to the Bill itself, would be that as there is another amending Bill to the Bankruptcy Act now on the Order Paper, this Bill had better be allowed to stand so that all the amendments may be considered together. In the Bill of which I gave notice on Friday there are a great many amendments which will require careful consideration. The particular clause now under discussion was considered by a Special Committee of this House when the Bankruptcy Act was originally under discussion, and my recollection is that the view of the Special Committee was that it would be safer to have the clause framed as it appears to-day in the Act. A statement exhibited by a debtor at a meeting of his creditors showing insolvent circumstances is one which the whole body of creditors is made aware of at the same time. Occasionally debtors are persuaded to exhibit statements to creditors of a semi-confidential character, more often perhaps to their bankers. It was not deemed proper that these semi-confidential communications should subsequently prove to be the foundation of a petition in bankruptcy. That at all events was the view of the Special Committee. A reasonable safeguard has been provided in the section as framed in the Act, namely, that such a statement in order to be the foundation for a petition in bankruptcy should be made to a meeting of creditors and not to an individual creditor. I may be wrong and that may not be the view of the House, but I would ask my hon. friend simply to ask the committee to rise and report progress, then, when the Government measure is under consideration we will be able to have this clause fully discussed, and if it meets with the approval of the House it can be incorporated in the Government Bill. It would be more convenient in that form than any other.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am willing to accept
the hint of the Acting Solicitor General, but before doing so I would like to point this out with regard to the section which I am now striving to amend. Suppose the debtor refuses to come before a meeting of his creditors and does not submit a statement indicating insolvency, what is to be done with him, how is he to be reached?


Hugh Guthrie: A meeting of creditors
is not necessary in the first instance. All any creditor has to do is to issue a writ and secure judgment. That is an act of bankruptcy. A meeting of creditors is called as a rule to make some arrangement, to gain an extension of time, or something of that nature, and if at such a meeting the debtor admits insolvency, or makes a statement which shows insolvency, it is brought to the knowledge of all the creditors, and they or any individual creditor can act. That was considered by the Special Committee better than the method proposed in the amendment. However, there are two sides to the question, and it opens pretty broad ground for discussion. The Government has no particular view on the proposed amendment, but I think it might be very fully considered when the other Bill is brought before the House.


Samuel William Jacobs: In the province of Quebec when suit is taken judgment sometimes is not rendered for a period ranging from six months to two years. The debtor might be hopelessly insolvent all that time and nothing could be done to throw him into insolvency. However, no good purpose is to be, served by continuing this discussion if the Acting Solicitor General is not prepared to go on with the Bill just now. Therefore I am willing to hold it in abeyance until such time as his own Bill comes up, and then this can be reintroduced.
Progress reported.



BANKRUPTCY ACT (FRENCH VERSION) AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second Reading of Bill No. 37, An Act to amend The Bankruptcy Act (French Version). -Mr. Jacobs.
Hugh Guthrie: I would ask that this stand under the same arrangement.


Samuel William Jacobs: This proposed amendment is a very simple one. It could not in any way be affected by the Bill which the Acting Solicitor General has before the House; it is simply to change the French version in order to give it some sense. At present one of the reasons for throwing a party into insolvency is, as the English Act says, that. he " keeps house," which means, in ordinary language, that he keeps to the house and refuses to go out of his house. The expression has been translated literally into French and it has been called " tenir maison," which means that he is a housekeeper. My amendment is to
162i
change the expression " tenir maison " to " se renfermer dans sa maison." I do not think that could meet with any objection. It is an eyesore to find the expression in the statute as it is at present, and there should be no delay in disposing of it.


Hugh Guthrie: I see the force of the proposed amendment, but a multiplicity of amending acts is to be avoided if possible; it would be much better to have all the amendments in one Act. For that reason I ask that the order stand.


Samuel William Jacobs: I accept the hint of the Acting Solicitor General, and will do as I did with the preceding Bill.
Order stands.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second Reading of Bill No. 54, An Act to amend The Railway Act, 1919.-Mr. Armstrong (Lambten).
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: I am
ready to proceed with the Bill but the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) asks me not to go on with it in his absence, and as he is out of the city to-day I cannot very well proceed. I should expect, though, that a later opportunity will be afforded to take the matter up.
Order stands.



MAPLE PRODUCTS ACT, 1920, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. H. S. Beland (Beauce) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Maple Products Act, 1920, by repealing section two of the Act and providing in lieu thereof:
[Stage Direction]
1.	That no person shall manufacture for sale, keep for sale, or expose for sale or sell any article of food represented as maple sugar or maple syrup which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.
2.	That any maple sugar or maple syrup
which is not up to the standard prescribed by the Governor in Council under the Food and Drugs Act, 1920, shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1920.	,
3.	That the word "maple" may be used in combination with any other word or words or any letter or letters on the label or other mark, illustration or device, on a package containing any article of food resembling or being an imitation of or being a compound of maple sugar or maple syrup and other substances; and in such cases the exact proportion of maple sugar or maple syrup in such articles shall be clearly indicated on the package.
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Chairman, I have little to add to what I said on the introduction of a Bill with regard to this matter, when I was ruled out of order by the Speaker. The change in the law is embodied id the provision contained in paragraph 3 of the resolution, the concluding words of which are particularly important:
In such cases the exact proportion of maple sugar or maple syrup in such articles shall he clearly indicated on the package.
The object is not to prevent dealers from dealing in maple sugar or to render it more difficult for the public to get the pure article. Under the proposed amendment, when an article is offered as maple sugar or maple syrup it must be the pure article, but if for the needs of the trade it is deemed necessary to compound or to mix together maple sugar and other substances in certain proportions, that wil be permitted. In such cases, however, the exact proportion of maple sugar contained in the product shall be indicated on the package or container. It is my view that such a provision would facilitate in large measure the marketing of the pure article. If certain legislation proposed in the United States is adopted, it will be more difficult to market our maple sugar in that country. At present the manufacturers of syrup for table use are prevented by law from making a compound syrup of part maple sugar and part cane or other sugar. It is forbidden to use the word "maple" except in reference to the pure article.
John Allister Currie: Hear, hear.


Mr. BELAND:: My hon. friend says
"hear, hear," but if he was a large manufacturer of syrup for table use, he might wish to make a syrup which would contain twenty-five per cent maple sugar and seventy-five per cent cane sugar, and to sell it at a lower price than that which the pure maple sugar would command. He would market this product easily, and it would contain a proportion of maple sugar made entirely of cane sugar is acceptable, and this product would be better than the syrup containing only cane sugar, because it would contain a proportion of maple sugar. I understand that some people object to that. They do not want maple sugar to be mixed with anything at all. They may have their reasons for that; but this amendment to the present law does not preclude the marketing of pure maple syrup, and if in a window my hon. friend or any other hon. member of this House or any consumer in the counrMr A.rmstrong;.]	.
ft*...
try sees an article designated as maple sugar, that must by law be the pure article. If he sees in a window an article {designated as maple ,syrup and nothing else, it must be the pure article after this resolution is adopted as before. The amendment is that it would be permissible for some dealers or manufacturers to mix the pure article with some other substances so long as they indicate on the container or the package the exact proportion of maple sugar or maple syrup in it.


William Stevens Fielding: What would the article be called?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It may be called whatever the dealer or manufacturer likes, but he will use the word "maple" in combination with other words. To-day no manufacturer 6f candies can offer for sale an article designated as maple cream.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I say; no. The law, as
it is to-day, prohibits the use of the word "maple" except for the pure article. Maple cream is not pure maple sugar; it contains something else, and any dealer is absolutely prohibited, by the present law, -from offering for sale maple creams or maple candies.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has
introduced a resolution which exactly reverses the position that this House took when this whole question was discussed some years ago. The reason for placing the present legislation on the statute book is this. The country was swamped with imitations of maple syrup and maple sugar; there were "mapleine" and all kinds of articles with the word "maple" in combination and in some of the articles there was not anything in the way of maple syrup or maple sugar at all. The House came to the conclusion, on the representation of members chiefly from Quebec, (that the Act should be made so that it would be an offence for anybody to use the word "maple" in connection with any compound, and that the word "maple" could be used only in connection with pure imaple sugar and syrup. This Act was a move in the right direction. The amendment proposed simply throws the door wide open, and it will wipe out the business of maple syrup and sugar in this country, because a great deal of the maple syrup and sugar that was put on the market in the past when the door was wide open, was purely a flavouring extract that was inserted in cane sugar made out of ethers and other things, and was worse

than "squirrel" whisky, which is sold in certain parts of the country at the present time. It was not a pure article at all, and this amendment will, in my opinion, involve a great hardship to farmers who produce maple syrup and who are able to produce it now at a profit. If you open the door by this amendment, you are going back on the record. I trust the hon. gentleman who represents a constituency in which there are large manufacturers of maple syrup, will see the disadvantages to his people by the passage of this proposed legislation. I was a member of the House at the time the Act was passed, and the complaint was made to this House that the farmers could not carry on the business of making maple syrup qnd maple sugar because of the quantity of spurious imitations of various kinds put on the market. Some disreputable people would cut down maple buds, boil them in a kettle and put cane sugar in and sell the article as maple syrup because it had the faintest trace of the maple tree in it. I am strongly against the amendment; I do not think the hon. gentleman will reach it again at any rate, and the easiest way to short-cut the whole thing would be that he have the resolution dropped.


Mr. ROBB:: During the temporary absence of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), in order to advance his measure, I moved the first reading. I wish to say to the committee that, representing a constituency in which the people are very jealous of their reputation as manufacturers of pure maple syrup and sugar, I am opposed to this measure. The legislation introduced, I think, three years ago, was not introduced without considerable investigation and without getting the experience of experts. It was put through at the unanimous request of the representative maple sugar makers throughout Canada. It seems to me that it would be a retrograde movement at this time to adopt the principle laid down in the resolution presented by my hon. friend, and I may say to him frankly that when his Bill comes before the House, I must oppose it.


Mr. McMASTER:: I wish to delay the House very briefly by the remarks which I have to offer in connection with this resolution. Since the resolution was placed on the Order Paper, I have had the benefit of discussing the matter with some of my constituents. I may say that the constituency Which you, Mr. Chairman, have the honour to represent, and my constituency, are possibly the foremost constituencies in the manufacture of maple syrup and maple sugar in the Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is to say, there is no finer maple syrup than the syrup produced in the constituencies of Shefford and Brome. There is good maple syrup produced elsewhere, but none better made anywhere than in the constituencies of Shefford and Brome, and the syrup and sugar made in those constituencies is beautiful, not only in its flavour, but in its appearance, and in that it has the advantage of the syrup and sugar which come from other constituencies. The feeling of those with whom I have talked the matter .over is that the Act as it at present stands is a safeguard against adulteration; thatfor years past maple sugar manufacturers and maple syrup producers have been working to create a market for a pure article. They feel that, even with the protection which my hon. friend has thrown around his Bill, this marking of the exact proportion of maple sugar syrup that is in any compound, the door may be opened to there being placed on the market and sold as maple syrup or maple sugar, as the case may be, stuff which, as a matter of fact, is not the pure product of the maple tree. Under those circumstances, I feel that I must also oppose the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). ,


Henri Sévérin Béland: What guarantee has my hon. friend to-day that the syrup is not adulterated?


Andrew Ross McMaster: We have the Inland Revenue Department whose officers go around, I understand, testing maple syrup and determining whether or not it is the pure article.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is to prevent the Inland Revenue Department from doing the same thing in the future?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I believe their work would be harder. The question that is placed before them now is the following: Is the maple sugar or the maple syrup a pure article? I understand that that is sometimes not always an easy question to decide, but the question which they will have to decide after this Bill passes is not only whether it is a pure article, but does it contain more or less maple sugar or maple syrup than the label shows? I understand that what my hon. friend de-

sires is that a man should have the right to make and sell a cake of let us say, 50 per cent maple sugar, 50 per cent cane sugar, so long as he marks plainly on the wrapper that it is 50 per cent, and that quantity only, of maple sugar. Now if every one was honest, if all the sugar was sold over the counter, plainly marked with the 50 per cent, there might not be so much objection, but my point is this: a wrapper may be torn off, and a cake which is only half maple sugar may be sold to an unsuspecting public as pure maple sugar. It is the same sort of thing that we do with our butter. Butter may be half butter and half oleomargarine, but we would greatly object to having butter of that sort sold as butter, even if the proportion of oleomargarine was stated upon it. I understand that we have followed the inverse method of protecting the public against the adulteration of butter by saying that oleomargarine has to be plainly marked as olemargarine before it can be sold, to differentiate it from butter. Well, here in regard to maple products we say: You cannot use the name maple unless it is the pure product. That will not prevent a man who wants to get a nice syrup which is not pure maple from getting it and selling it. He can sell it so long as he does not call it maple syrup or give the idea that it is maple syrup. I presume that he could call it Log Cabin Syrup or something of that kind, and put what flavoring of maple sugar he desired in it. I have spoken with some people of my country, ,and one especially with whom I had the privilege of discussing the matter the other day said that he was very strongly opposed to the Bill.
I also had a talk the other day with one man who has probably done as much for ' the maple sugar industry as any other man in this country. He is vitally interested in the success of that industry and he announced himself as being very much opposed to this legislation. I think on the whole the law had beter remain as it is. We have a saying in the law, that hard cases make bad laws. I understand that there has been a great slump in maple sugar, and that men who bought maple sugar all the way from 25 to 30 cents a pound last spring have a lot of the old stock still on their hands, and have to take off about 15 cents a pound in order to get rid of it. They believe that this will give them a larger market. I understand that the law as it now stands is the result of practically a unanimous request of the 
maple sugar interests, and I believe they would be opposed to any change.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have proposed the
amendment to the present law in consequence of a very large number of petitions I have received from people in my county, thousands of them, who are interested in the maple sugar industry. Moreover, I may say that to-day there is on the market a large quantity of adulterated maple sugar and adulterated maple syiup that is called maple syrup and maple sugar and is bought for the pure article because people do not take the trouble to investigate or have it examined. The object of the amendment is to compel the man who wants to put up a mixture of maple sugar or maple syrup to state exactly what proportion of the pure product it contains. May I suggest that the resolution be reported, and that after the Bill has received its first and second readings, it be referred to the Committee on Agriculture, who may call whatever experts they desire. I will be quite willing to abide by the decision of that committee.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the second reading of Bill No. 83, to amend the Criminal Code.
John Allister Currie: I
understand from the Minister of Justice that this matter can be discussed under a general Bill. For that reason I suppose this had better stand. .


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to withdraw this Bill? Carried.
Bill withdrawn.



GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 80, respecting the Grand Trunk arbitration.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend if he seriously proposes to go on with the third reading of this important measure at this hour of the night?


Arthur Meighen: I not only seriously propose it, but I understood the hon. member to agree the other day that we would go on with it to-day. We could have gone on with it then, but at his special request I deferred it until to-day. I might say while I am on my feet that there will be

some Senate amendments proposed. There is no important amendment affecting the substance of the Bill, unless possibly a change in the date; that would be important if it is made. There will be other amendments, however, so the Bill will come before this House again in the way that a Bill comes back from the Senate, and there will be opportunity then for discussion. Indeed, as far as that is concerned, I am not asking to curtail discussion at all now, but the hon. gentleman knows the urgency of the measure, and that I have acceded on every occasion to requests for postponement from hon. gentlemen opposite. I certainly did not expect that I would be asked again to-night to defer the third reading until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I quite agree with my right hon. friend that it was understood we would take up this measure on Monday; but it is now almost Tuesday. The point I wish to make is that it is unreasonable to try to discuss intelligently a measure of the importance and magnitude of this after midnight.


Arthur Meighen: It is only the third
reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the Grand Trunk Railway System, which the Government propose to acquire, comprises over eight thousand miles of railway line, owned, controlled or leased and operated by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its subsidiaries;
That the parent Grand Trunk Railway Company has numerous subsidiary companies, and the system includes, besides the railway mileage herein mentioned, the ownership and management of hotels, steamship lines and other property;
That these railways and other property are partly in Canada, partly in the United States and partly in Great Britain;
That the obligations of these Companies in various forms run into vast sums, and the financial affairs of the several companies are interwoven by guarantees of securities;
That the parent Grand Trunk Company and its chief subsidiary the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are admittedly unable to fulfil their obligations to the Dominion ;
That the information in possession of the House is insufficient to enable the House and the people to fully understand the complicated affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway System;
That there has been no inquiry into the affairs of the Grand Trunk System since that which was conducted by the Drayton-Acworth Commission in the spring of 1917, which related to the Canadian railway situation generally, and incidentally discussed the affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway System ;
That this said Drayton-Acworth Commission in their report say concerning the Grand Trunk Railway Company:
"Even if the Government were to relieve them entirely, as suggested by their President, of their unfortunate Grand Trunk Pacific venture-and, as we have already said, we cannot think that the request can be reasonably justified-it is evident that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not and will not be for some time to come in a position enabling it to pay out any money at all in dividends. We regard the entire share capital as being intrinsically of but small value at the present time. On the basis of present value of maintainable income the fair compensation would be very small."
That of the stock thus described by the Drayton-Acworth report as of small value the Bill proposes to place a perpetual Government guarantee of interest at 4 per cent on about $60,000,000, and to submit the valuation of about $180,000,000 to arbitration.
That the House is of opinion that before taking further action towards the acquisition of the railways referred to the Government should appoint a Commision composed of persons of recognized ability and experience in railway management, railway finance and railway accounting to make a full inquiry into all the affairs of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and its subsidiary companies, their assets and liabilities, the condition of the railway lines and their equipment, the physical value of the properties, the sums required to put them into efficient condition, their estimated earning powers, and generally into all matters in any way relating to the affairs of the companies herein referred to, and to make a full report thereon for the information of Parliament.
Now, I am sure that hon. gentlemen, listening to that resolution, will feel that Parliament would have been infinitely 
better advised had the wise counsel there proposed been heeded at the time. But what was the position of hon. members opposite? They did everything it was possible to do, within the short space of time permitted, to ridicule this resolution. Everything had to be done in haste, it was contended, the Grand Trunk System must be taken over immediately, and on no consideration could they permit anyone to investigate the affairs of the railways. We find ourselves again in exactly the same position at this session of Parliament. We have been denied any information in regard to the Grand Trunk Railway. When we ask questions we are told that the matter must be referred to a committee, and we are now informed that a committee is at work at present to ascertain what information if any shall be given to this House of Commons.
After two years of bitter experience, and in view of the frightful railway situation that now stares us in the face, to-night, finding ourselves confronted with the question whether we should not still consider possible alternatives to the immediate taking over of the Grand Trunk, the Government says that notwithstanding that it is midnight and that we have had only four or five days in which to consider this problem, we must, before this very night is over, see that this measure is advanced to a stage where, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall immediately become the property of the Government and be placed under its control.
Not only did the Government allow us no information in regard to all that was involved in this tremendous transaction, but when we suggested that the agreement which has given rise to this particular Bill should be submitted to Parliament for its consideration, the Government took again its former attitude in regard to our proposals. On behalf of the Opposition, I moved that the agreement should be subject to ratification by Parliament. That was on November 4, 1919, but that position, which was very reasonable, and which, had it been conceded at the time, might have obviated the necessity for this legislation, was also voted down by the Administration.
I shall not take up the time of the House in reading other amendments.
With regard to the situation which arose in the year following-that is at the session of 1920-we of the Opposition and the House generally, found itself in exactly the same position in regard to the legisla-

tion introduced pertaining to the Grand Trunk. The government found it necessary to bring in another Grand Trunk Bill at that time-a Bill nominally to correct certain errors but in reality to ratify the whole agreement. At that time we of the Opposition asked, respecting the agreement presented to Parliament that we should have an opportunity to consider and to make certain amendments to it, we were told that no amendments would be permitted except the ones that the government itself proposed-that other amendments would not even be considered. So we were denied the right at that time of making any suggestion of an effective kind in regard to this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken the trouble to get the exact figures as to the time which this Parliament has devoted to this allimportant question of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway. I find that so far as this House is concerned that the first reading of the Bill for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system took place on October 16, 1919. This resolution on which the Bill was founded was introduced on October 15, 1919, and the measure was given a first reading the following day. The second reading took place on October 23, and the third on November 5-in all simply twenty days, including the Saturdays and Sundays which would be involved in that time. Twenty days for a decision by this House on all that is involved in the taking over and acquiring of the Grand Trunk Railway system! Then when the Bill to confirm the agreement, dated March 8, was presented to Parliament in 1920, the first reading was on April 12, the second reading on April 16, and he third reading on April 23-eleven days for the consideration of legislation that involved the further step in the acquisition of this system. That is the way the measure was hurried through Parliament. We come now to what is called the Grand Trunk Arbitration Bill before the House, and which is, as I have said, a measure nominally to ratify certain powers of arbitration but is in reality one to obtain immediate control of the system by forcible means, to use the words of the Prime Minister himself with respect to this acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway properties. The first reading of the Bill occurred on April 19, the second reading on April 22, and we are now having the third reading on April 25. In other words we are told that beyond six days-notwithstanding that we have heard
from every side that the railway situation is the greatest problem in Canada, that it is the gravest problem that Canada has ever had to consider with the exception of the problem of the war itself-that beyond six days we are not to be allowed any time on which to deliberate on the subject. Mr. Speaker, in view of these facts, it is unnecessary, I think, to go into any argument on the merits of the Bill one way or the other. Where we have inadequate time and insufficient information, I think, in view of the situation as it exists in the country at the present time, the only logical, the only wise, the only prudent step to take is to oppose any legislation which seeks to drive us with further speed, in the dark and without the information we should have, into the particular step which the Government is advocating, and for that reason I intend to oppose the third reading of this Bill.


James Alexander Robb: Before this resolution-which extends proceedings already expensive to the taxpayers and not unremunerative to some gentlemen associated with the arbitration -is advanced further, I wish, speaking for my constituency only, to again go on record as opposed to the government operation of railways. The experience of the last few years surely has taught us that government operation of railways is neither efficient nor economical. Yet the Government at this late hour, proposes once more to stampede Canada into arbitration proceedings that will involve taking over not only railways throughout the length and breadth of Canada but railways extending into the United States. The parent system of the Grand Trunk system, as I figure, comprises 3,691 miles in Canada and there are 1,764 miles in the United States. I ask the Prime Minister what mandate he has from the people of the Dominion of Canada to go into the operation of railways in several states of the American Union? What mandate has he to take over a system of railways, of which almost one-half extends into several states of the Union? It seems to me that the Prime Minister should hesitate before forcing this measure through in the way he is doing. I am satisfied that he himself is not over confident in the success of the Government operation of railways and I repeat that representing the people of the Dominion and forgetting the interests of the Grand Trunk shareholders in England-who are quite capable of taking care of themselves-we should make haste slowly before we stampede the Dom-

inion into government operation of railways in the United States. For these reasons-


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentlemen permit me a question? What authority has he for saying the Grand Trunk are quite able to take care of themselves? Is he not aware that the president has stated they are not.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I take the statement of the president with a little grain of salt. I think the evidence goes to show that the Grand Trunk president is quite capable of looking after his people-he has assured them dividends on the major stocks.


Arthur Meighen: Not on his road though.


James Alexander Robb: My experience with the
Grand Trunk Railway is that he was very anxious to load this road on the people of Canada. I am not here upholding the rights of the shareholders, I am looking after the rights of the taxpayers of this country. I therefore submit to the Prime Minister that people who are called upon to pay out at this time large amounts that should go into business for the expansion of the industries of this country will not take kindly to the idea of putting their money into a venture which not only extends throughout Canada but into several states of the American Union as well. I am opposed most emphatically to this resolution.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have
just one word to say before the vote is taken. As I said the other day I believe the Government has not been over generous in the matter of delays with the English shareholders. I believe that the Government might well have permitted a reasonable delay for the settlement of the arbitration. That is my first objection to this Bill. My other objection is that we are deciding in a very rapid way a very big issue. We are changing the management of a railway system which, during the last sixty or seventy years has accomplished a great deal for the development of Central Canada. I do not know that the shareholders and bondholders and friends of the Grand Trunk in England would not have been willing, after some delay, to reconsider the whole situation, and keep their property.
But, Mr. Speaker, my chief objection against any such venture is that which I have already expressed, much to the scandal of some good friends on both sides of the House. I am opposed to public ownership, and by this transaction we are 
adding to the already overloaded treasury of the Dominion another railway, which means for the finances of Canada and the taxpayers a very serious additional burden. I am opposed to public ownership for the following reasons: I think it is only a passing whim, and that the day is not far distant when the whole country will realize how with a light heart the Government and the people generally accepted this Populist theory of government ownership. I am opposed to government ownership because it makes for extreme delay and inertia, vacillation, hesitancy and inconsistency in matters of policy; for wasteful outlay in response to sectional demands; for insufficient provision of funds when needed for necessary purposes; for absence of close and harmonious co-operation between the legislative directorate and the executive officers. Finally, I am opposted to public ownership because it makes for insecurity of tenure in the higher places and lack of self interest as an incentive so efficiency.
I am not alone, Mr. Speaker, in that opinion. Already since this passing whim took hold of the popular imagination within the last eight or nine years I find that a good portion of our population has receded from its adhesion to that policy. But besides the man in the street who is pinched by the heavier taxation bills, and who realizes that the country will be severely mulcted by such ventures, there are men in the Government presided over by the right hon. Prime Minister who do not believe in public ownership. I dare say there is sitting in this Chamber around the right hon. gentleman colleagues whose hearts are not in this public ownership policy. I will give no names, but I will read what one of the members of the Government declared two years ago when the question came up. Sir James Lougheed, to-day Minister of the Interior, speaking on this very question used the following language:
I am not an advocate of public ownership. I simply say that this is one of the signs of the times. It is inevitable, and a duty is thrown upon the shoulders of those who represent capital and those who oppose public ownership, as well as the man in the street, in the determination of these very important questions. At the present moment, my views are these: I am in favour of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk and of any other roads that are necessary to complete a system of national transportation that will be in the interest of Canada.
And note the following words, Mr. Speaker:
But I thin]; that, while every reasonable trial should be given to public ownership, then if it

be found that public ownership cannot be advantageously carried on, the Government of Canada will be in a position to say to the capitalists of the United States and of Europe:
Observe the Ethiopian in the woodpile.
"We have a oomplete system of railways, comprising over 20,000 miles, covering the whole of this Dominion, the most complete system in the Dominion, representing engineering advantages superior possibly to those of any other system in the Dominion, and for that system we are prepared to accept offers-for its purchase or its operation or its administration."


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who said that? '


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir James Lougheed, leader of the Government in the Senate, a member of the present Administration. Like your humble servant, he has no faith in public ownership. He is a prophet as to what the Government will eventually do with the whole system-invite capitalists from the United States or from Europe when the passing whim will have disappeared and pass the railway system over to some powerful syndicate. That is the prediction made by Sir James Lougheed, and I believe that he was simply expressing the truth, and nothing hut the truth.
I am not an expert, I am a tyro in this business, but my eyes are wide open. The taxation bill of this country is too high, the financial situation is too desperate to allow the Government to go along in any such blind fashion and throw the country into a deeper abyss. Therefore I am opposed, as is Sir James Lougheed, to public ownership. I do not want the Government to add to the already heavy burden of our taxpayers, and I do not want the Government to invite, as Sir James Lougheed predicted, capitalists from the United States or Europe to take hold of the Canadian National system. If I had my own way, Mr. Speaker, I would invite Lord Shaugh-nessy to sit with me at the council table, and I would discuss the subject with him and would accept the advice of one who is unquestionably the highest railway authority in the world to-day. But in this I pm only expressing my personal opinion. As I said a moment ago, I am but a tyro in this business, but I can see very clearly where the country is going to land if we go blindly into this railway ownership business. Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the Bill.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma) :: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and of my hon. friend who preceded him (Mr. Robb) have induced me to say one word. Both these gentlemen have put themselves
definitely on record as being opposed to the public ownership of railways.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With Sir James Lougheed, a member of the Government supported by the hon. gentleman.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend
expressed himself as being in complete accord with Sir James Lougheed when he said that he was opposed to the public ownership of railways, and he expressed himself as in accord with Sir James Lougheed when he suggested that the proper course to follow was to round out these systems in order that it would be possible for the Government to relieve itself of its obligations and turn them over to private ownership. Now, there is no question of public ownership or of private ownership involved in the taking over of the Grand Trunk Railway system. There is a question whether it is going to be possible for Canada to operate the railways which it now has. That is just where the matter begins and ends. Whatever the future of these railways may be, whether it be private ownership or government ownership, they cannot be operated successfully is separate entities. My hon. friend had some responsibility for bringing about the condition with which we are now faced. Does he think it would be possible for the Canadian people to retain the railways they now have and operate them successfully without eastern connections and eastern terminals? If he does not think that is possible-and I question whether he will get any railway man to suggest that it is possible-would he contend that the country should go ahead and furnish these eastern connections and eastern terminals, relieve the Grand Trunk of all its responsibility in that regard, let them keep the property they now have, go ahead as they have done, and shoulder all the responsibility on the Canadian people of taking care of the white elephant that was foisted on them by my hon. friend and his colleagues? The Grand Trunk and the Transcontinental were the genesis of our troubles and the only way we can get out of those troubles is to follow the course now being taken and link the whole combination together. As to what my hon. friend said with regard to the suggestions of Lord Shaughnessy, no one will deny that Lord Shaughnessy must be recognized as at least one of the greatest authorities on railway problems.


Mr. PARENT:: There are others.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) :: Well,
there may be many others. My hon. friend's

antecedents were such as to lead us to conclude that perhaps he is an authority on railway matters. But there is nothing out of harmony with the suggestion made by Lord Shaughnessy-my hon. friend wishes to agree with him-in the taking over of the Grand Trunk railway as a prelude to any solution that may be arrived at in connection with this whole railway problem. The Grand Trunk Railway must be taken over, and the sooner it is taken over and linked up iwith the Canadian National Railways, and the sooner we shall be in a position to sit down and discuss what is to be the ultimate destiny of these railways the better. We have never yet been in a position to give them anything in the nature of an opportunity and we shall not be able to do so until all these lines are organized under one system.
Motion agreed to on division, and Bill read the third time and passed.	,
On the motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, April 26, 1921.