PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 29, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.'-Mr. Kennedy (Essex).
Bill No. 30, respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company. -Mr. Devlin.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 25, respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 26, respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 27, respecting the Quebec Central Railway Company.-Mr. Beland.
Bill No. 28, to incorporate the Slave River Railway Company.-Mr. Tweedie.

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

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What has been the total cost of administering the Income Tax Act during each year of its operation?
2.	What was the total cost of administering the Business Profits War Tax Act during each year of its operation?
3.	How many persons are employed in connection with the administration of the Income Tax Act?


Hon.   S@: Exact information cannot be given in connection with the administration of the Income Tax Act and the administration of the .Business Frofits War Tax Act separately as the administration of the two Acts is combined. In the year 1917, however, there was no income tax, and the figures given for that year show the cost of administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act to have been: salaries, $51,385.98; other expenses, $6,788.83. Total, $58,174.81.
Business Profits War Tax Act and Income War Tax Act.
Cost of Administration.
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Salaries .. Printing and stationery Advertising... Postage .... Other expenses.. ..
1918.

Total.. ..$108,196.88 495',797.38 1,026,377.23
Accounts amounting to $25,160.63 were received after the books for 1920 were closed, therefore not included. Number employed; fiscal year, 1920: Inside Service, 239; Outside Service, 547; total, 786.


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY
Mr. CALDWELL:: 1.	When the Dominion Government entered into an agreement under date of November 9, 1916, with the province of New Brunswick to operate the St. John and Quebec Railway as
part of the Canadian Government Railways, what guarantee did the Dominion Government give the province of New Brunswick that there would be an adequate train service maintained on the said St. John and Quebec Railway?
2.	Does the Dominion Government know that the passenger service on the St. John and Quebec Railway between Fredericton and Centre-ville has recently been cut down to a triweekly service which is altogether inadequate to accommodate the public on that portion of the road?
3.	Does the Dominion Government know that the city of Fredericton and the different towns between Fredericton and Centreville are very much incensed because of the above curtailment of train service?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	None.
2.	Tri-weekly service is regarded by the management as sufficient to care for the traffic at present offering.
3.	No. When curtailments in train service are contemplated, the management submit all proposed reductions to the Dominion Railway Board, who investigate, and no curtailment is made except with the approval of that board.


RAILWAY CERTIFICATES AND BONDS
Mr. DUFF:: In connection with the issuing of railway certificates and bonds, namely, the Canadian Northern Railway Company, May 1, 1920, $15,000,000, and December 1, 1920, $25,000,000 ; and Grand Trunk Railway, $25,000,000 and $12,000,000.
1.	Were these certificates and bonds all issued through Messrs. Dillon, Read & Co., of New-York?
2.	If so, what commission was paid the said firm for handling the $77,000,000 worth of certificates and bonds?
3.	What trust company, bank or individual acted on behalf of the Canadian Government?
4.	Was Mr. Miller Lash, of Toronto, in any way connected with the sale of any of these bonds or certificates?
5.	If so, in what capacity did he act?
6.	What remuneration was paid to Mr. Lash?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No commission. The different issues were sold to Dillon, Read & Co., who in turn made public issues in New York.
3.	A. J. Mitchell, Vice-president for Canadian Northern; Frank Scott, Vice-President, Grand Trunk and Graham A. Bell, Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, representing the Grand Trunk and Minister of Finance, respectively.
4.	The firm of Blake, Lash, Anglin and Cassells, of which Mr. Miller Lash is a member, acted in a legal capacity in connection with the preparation of trust deeds and other legal documents.

5.	Acted as advisory counsel with the New York attorneys of the bankers, advising them in regard to the borrowing powers of the company, etc.
6.	Fees of Blake, Anglin and Cassels for the C.N.R. issues are as follows: May 1, re equipment issue, $2,000; December 1, re bond issue, $2,500; for Grand Trunk, re bond issue, $5,000; re equipment issue, accounts not received.


INCOME TAX BY PROVINCES
Mr. KNOX:: - 1. How many people paid income tax in each province?
2.	Out of this number how many in each province were farmers?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1. On income realized	during	calenderyear- Province	1917	1918Prince Edward Island & Nova Scotia. . . .	1,958	5,375New Brunswick. . . .	1,049	2,839Quebec	11,363	19,567Ontario	18,034	48,468Manitoba	6,174	15,599Saskatchewan	6.030	10,016Alberta	5,711	8,379British Columbia. . . .	3,187	11,813Y ukon	214	50253,730 2. On income realized during the	122,558 calenderyear- Province	1917	1918Prince Edward Island & Nova Scotia	17	37New Brunswick	5	29Quebec	
.	94	163Ontario	488	2,042Manitoba	1,853	4,352Saskatchewan	3,387	4,377Alberta	3,011	1,356British Columbia. . . .	104	417Yukon	3	18,962	12,774


INCOMES OF $200,000 OR OVER
Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: On how many incomes of $200,000 or over was income tax collected in last fiscal year?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Fiscal year
ended 31st March, 1920, 11 individuals.


GRASSHOPPER PLAGUE
Mr. GOULD:: 1.	Were the tests made by the use of "gas" ' to combat the grasshopper plague in Saskatchewan in the year 1920, considered successful?
2.	Will further tests be made this year by the same agency?

3.	What was the total expenditure incurred by the Dominion Government in 1920 for the purpose of Research along the line indicated in the foregoing questions?
4.	Did the experts of the Government report any probability of a repetition during 1921 of the damage caused by grasshoppers in former years ?
5.	What information does the Government possess as to parasites killing grasshoppers?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Experiments with poisoned gas to destroy grasshoppers conducted by the Entomological Branch in Saskatchewan, were successful as regards the killing value of the gas upon the insects, but the cost of the treatment, however, was found to be excessive, being at least $20 per acre. Chlorine gas only was used.
2.	It is hoped to conduct further experiments in 1921.
3.	It is difficult to state definitely the actual cost incurred in the experiments with gas owing to the fact that such work was conducted at the same time as experiments with poisoned bait, etc. Approximately, however, the cost of gas experiments was about $300.


SASKATCHEWAN EXPORT LIQUOR HOUSES
Mr. GOULD:: 1.	How many licenses were granted during the
years 1919 and 1920 respectively to export liquor houses in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	Is if the intention of the Government to close up those export liquor houses?
3.	If not, why not?
4.	If the Government intends to close up those houses, when will this be done?
5.	Will those houses all be closed at the same time?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	No licenses for export liquor warehouses were granted by the Dominion Government in the province of Saskatchewan in the years 1919 and 1920. The Department understands licenses for such warehouses were granted by provincial authority.
2,	3, 4, and 5. Answered by No. 1.


TAKING OVER OF GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM
Mr. TOBIN:: At what date has the Government decided to take over the Grand Trunk Railway System of Canada ?


Hon. Mr. REID:: The Grand Trunk
will be taken over as provided for by chapter 17 of 1919.


IMPORTS FROM GERMANY
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Is it true that in respect of certain goods shipped from Germany, the Custom? officers
. MARCH 14, 1921
refuse to accept the invoices as they are forwarded and establish themselves a valuation upon said goods?
2.	If so, has the Minister of Customs given instructions to that effect?
3.	Does that apply to all German goods?
4.	If not, what are those to which such rule applies?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	After careful scrutiny of invoices of goods imported into Canada from Germany, it has been found necessary for the proper protection of the revenue to instruct Collectors of Customs to appraise all such importations for duty purposes under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act.
2.	Yes.
3 and 4. Answered hy No. 1.


RIMOUSKI CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	What was the amount collected at the Customs office at Rimouski during the year 1920?
2.	How many employees are there and what is their salary?
3.	Is the said office directly responsible to Ottawa?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	Customs Revenue, $32,305.28; Sales and Excise Taxes, $1,742.54. Total $34,047.82.
2.	Two-Omer Beaulieu, Collector of Customs, $1,440; J. A. Tremblay, Customs Examining Officer, $1,020.
3.	Yes.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. CAHILL:: 1.	How many non-commissioned officers were there in the Dominion Police at the time of the amalgamation with the Mounted Police?
2.	How many of said officers are there in "A" Division at the present time?
3.	Is it true that all non-commissioned officers of the Dominion Police were placed junior on the seniority list to non-commissioned officers in the Mounted Police irrespective of years of service; and is it further true that a Dominion Police sergeant, with 6 years' service as such, was, upon amalgamation, placed junior to a non-commissioned officer of the Mounted Police with only a few months' service as such?
4.	At the time of the amalgamation of the two forces were three inspectors of the Dominion Police reduced to sergeants? If so, why?
5.	How many non-commissioned officers of the Mounted Police were promoted to inspectors at the time or subsequent to, the date of amalgamation ?


Mr. PECK:: 1.	What was the amount paid by the Government in 1920 for travelling expenses for Government ministers, officials and all employees on the following railways:
(a)	Intercolonial railway.
(b)	Government railways excepting Intercolonial, but including all others.
(c)	Canadian Pacific railway.
2.	What was the mileage the various ministers travelled during 1920 on the railways as divided in question (1) ?
3.	What was the amount paid by the Government including all the departments in 1920 to the following telegraph companies :
(a)	Canadian Pacific Railway Company's Telegraph?
(b)	Canadian National Telegraph Companies,
including Great North Western, Western Union and all those companies being taken over by the Government?
4.	What telegraph companies are the various departments instructed to patronize?
5.	What amount of troops were carried (in the demobilization) in years 1919, 1920, west of Winnipeg on the following railways:
(a)	Canadian Pacific railway?
(b)	Canadian National railway?
(c)	Grand Trunk Pacific railway?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlement Board in the county of Brome?
2.	What was the average price paid for the said farms?
3.	Have any of the said farms been abandoned?
4.	If so, what disposition has the Government made of the said farms?
5.	Has any loss been incurred? If so, what has been the net loss to the Government in connection therewith?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlement Board in the county of Missisquoi?
2.	What was the average price paid for the said farms?
3.	Have any of the said farms been abandoned?
4.	If so, what disposition has the Government made of the said farms?
5.	Has any loss been incurred? If so, what has been the net loss to the Government in connection therewith?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlement Board in the county of Stanstead?
2.	What was the average price paid for the said farms?
3.	Have any of the said farms been abandoned?
4.	If so, what disposition has the Government made of the said farms?
5.	Has any loss been incurred? If so, what has been the net loss to the Government in connection therewith?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlement Board in the county of Compton?
2.	What was the average price paid for the said farms?
3.	Have any of the said farms been abandoned?
4.	If so, what disposition has the Government made of the said farms?
5.	Has any loss been incurred? If so, what has been the net loss to the Government in connection therewith?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlement Board in the county of Richmond and Wolfe?
2.	What was the average price paid for the said farms?
3.	Have any of the said farms been abandoned?
4.	If so, what disposition has the Government made of the said farms?
5.	Has any loss been incurred? If so, what has been the net loss to the Government in connection therewith?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlement Board in the county of Shefford?
2.	What was the average price paid for the said farms?
3.	Have any of the said farms been abandoned?
4.	If so, what disposition has the Government made of the said farms?
5.	Has any loss been incurred? If so, what has been the net loss to the Government in connection therewith?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have purchased farms through the Soldiers' Settlemen Board in the county of Drummond-Arthabaska?
2.	What was the average price paid for the said farms?
3.	Have any of the said farms beer abandoned?
4.	If so, what disposition has the Government made of the said farms?
5.	Has any loss been incurred? If so, what has been the net loss to the Government in connection therewith?
Mr. SEGUIN.
1.	Has the Militia Department been able to collect, up to date, any amounts overpaid on account of assigned pay, war service gratuity and separation allowance? If so, how much?
2.	What amount, if any, is still outstanding?
3.	What steps are taken by the Department of Militia to recover the amounts thus unduly paid?


Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What is the total number of pounds of butter exported outside of Canada, year by year, since 1910?
2.	What is the value, year by year, of. the exportation since 1910?
3.	What is the total number of pounds of cheese exported outside of Canada, year by year, since 19110?
4.	What is the value, year by year, of such exportation since 1910?
5.	To what countries were our cheese and butter exported, year by year, during said years, specifying the amount and value of each?
6.	What Quantities of butter have been imported from various countries since 1910?
7.	From what countries and what amount from each of them?
6.	What quantities of butter have been imported from the various countries since 1910?
9.	From what countries and what amount from each of them?
10.	Under what brands or the names is our cheese and butter sold abroad?
11.	What brands or names of butter and cheese do we import from abroad?

112. What is the quantity in pounds of margarine and its value in cash, or any other substitute to butter, manufactured in the country since 1916, year by year?
13.	What is the quantity in pounds and value of such substitutes imported into Canada, year by year, since 1916?
14.	Has the inobservance of the law regarding the process of manufacture and the sale of such substitutes, produced in Canada or purchased abroad, been the object of several actions?
15.	If so, what is the number of same?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. FOURNIER:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, telegTams, reports, memoranda, tenders and contracts, having reference to or in connection with the repairs of the wharf situated at St. Michel, County of Bellechasse, Quebec, from October 1st, 1918, to date.


Mr. CAHILL:: For a copy of all official correspondence between the Government of Canada, or any member therof, and the Government of the Province of Manitoba, or any member thereof, respecting subsection 5, of clause 325 of the Consolidated Railway Act of Canada.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, petitions, recommendations, telegrams and documents referring to the appointment of a Postmaster at the Town of Inverness, Nova Scotia, in 1920 and 1921.


Mr. LEGER:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, relative to the resignation of Mr. John Sheridan, Indian Superintendent for the North Shore district, in the Province of New Brunswick, in 1920. Also copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents relative to his re-appointment to the said position.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- ST. FOY ROUND HOUSE

Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West):: moved:
For a copy of all letters, reports exchanged between engineers and officers of the Canadian National Railways concerning the demolition of the round house at St. Foy, opposite the Quebec bridge, the removal from that place of a mechanical staff to a place called Charny on the other side of the St. Lawrence River; the prorposed demolition of the station on the main line of the Transcontinental Railway at Quebec bridge.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the mover indicates that the correspondence asked for passed between the directorate of the Canadian National Railways and some other person. It would not be in the possession of the Government.
Motion stands.



AMALGAMATION OF MAIL SUPERINTENDENT'S AND POSTAL INSPECTOR'S BRANCHES

Mr. J. A. ROBB (for Mr. Casgrain) moved:: For a copy of Order in Council passed the middle of this month for the purpose of amalgamating the mail superintendent's department with that of the postal inspector.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Stand.
Motion stands.



DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA'S NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. ROBERT JAMES MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that the Government should bring forward a policy having for its object the development of the natural resources of Canada.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, only the importance of the subject of the development of the natural resources of this country would make me presume upon the patience of the House even for a short time to take up this question again; but I am so impressed with its importance, and so impressed with the fact that it is the duty of the Government and of this House to work out some policy whereby we may bring about greater development of our natural resources, that I am taking the liberty of once again dealing with this subject.
If one may judge by the many speeches made throughout this country by members of the different political parties in which this question is refered to and by the kindly reception with which the remarks on this question are always received, one must come to the conclusion that it is at least a popular subject. It is worth while, however, to remember that a pound of action is worth a ton of oration, and unless some of these orations are implemented by action, it would be as well that the speeches had never been made. I feel sure that the party which works out some scheme whereby these natural resources will be developed will meet with the applause and approval of the people of this country. I admit it is not an easy question to work out but I believe that if the best of brains of this House are applied to it, it can be done.
Just to illustrate the possibilities in some parts of Canada where the land is looked upon as more or less barren, I am going to quote a statement made to me by Mr. Stefansson, in which he shows the meat producing possibilities of Canada's northern lands to be among the greatest in the
world. His statement boiled down is as follows:
North Alaska and Northern Canada have the same climate, vegetation and general natural conditions. Therefore, they have they same possibilities.
Between 1892 and 1902, 1280 reindeer were imported into Alaska. Since 1892 they have butchered more than 100,000. They now have 200,000 living animals and by the middle of May they will have from 260,000 to 275,000.
The Department of Education at Washington was handling the experiment, as the reindeer were introduced to benefit the Eskimos. Last year the Government at Washington began to realize its importance as an industry, rather than philanthropy. They appropriated {25,000 to study the conditions. They came to Ottawa and took our greatest authority on parasitic diseases Dr. Hadwin, of the Department of Agriculture here; got an American Grazing Expert and with Dr. E. W. Nelson, Chief of the United States Biological Survey reported on the industry. They visited Alaska. Dr. Nelson has returned and has testified before the Agricultural Appropriation Committee of Congress that the increase of reindeer in the future will undoubtedly be more rapid than in the past, (due to bad handling) until all available land in Alaska is covered. He says there will be 5,000,000 reindeer in Alaska in 1935. This will allow for the butchering after 1935 of 1,250,000 per year, equivalent to about 3,000,000 carcases of sheep.
The export of reindeer meat began four years ago to Seatle; the sale the first year was a failure, but the last three years it has been very successful. In 1919 dressed carcasses sold at Nome, Alaska, for 22c per lb. In 1920 though beef was going down, reindeer has gone up to 24c per lb., f.o.b., steamer at Nome. In 1920 there were 1,600 carcases sold or 150 tons. Small sales are due to large local consumption and limited freezer capacity of steamers. They figure on shipping 500 tons in 1921.
Mr. Stefansson concludes that Northern Canada, having 2,000,000 square miles as against Alaska's 200,000 has tremendous possibilities for meat producing.
It might be well to point out that in 1919 there were forty-eight million sheep in the whole of the United States. The extract I have read has no particular reference to the question with which I am dealing, but I quote it because it shows the possibility for development of some of what are considered barren lands of this country.
Now to get back to the question of mineral development which I was discussing. Raw materials are the basic elements of commercial progress, and Canada, possessing raw materials in such vast abundance, has an immense advantage over those countries that are not so fortunately endowed. While some of our natural resources such as agriculture, are being developed to a great extent in this country, I consider that the iron, coal and oil resources are being neglected. If you will study the commercial history of any of the great commercial countries of the world,

States has a population of one hundred and ten million. One reason for the great population in the country to the South is that their natural resources have been developed and their commercial and industrial life built up, partly by our assistance. I believe it is time that we in this country endeavoured to develop our own natural resources, and not leave to posterity this development and the prosperity incident thereto.
An increase of population is one of our greatest needs, and yet our population is not growing as it should. Agnes Laut in Maclean's Magazine of January 15th, 1921 says:
In spite of newspaper reports our Immigation is not increasing. It is decreasing. If you count up the number of Americans who registered at Ports of entry in Canada from the Klondike boom to the War, you will find the total something between one million and a quarter and one million and one-half. If you then figure up how many Americans remained in Canada you will find the total about 440,000.
There is another point which makes this question of the utmost importance, and that is the railway question in Canada. Unfortunately our railway situation forms a very important problem to the people of this country. We have built our railways twenty or thirty years in advance of our time, resulting in duplication and over-development. We have forty thousand miles of railway of which over one-half is in the hands of the Canadian people. It might he worth while to compare the figures of the Canadian railway system with those of other countries. Canada has one mile of railway to every 200 persons; United States has one mile to every 400 persons; Great Britain has one mile to every 2,000 persons; and Russia has one mile to every 4,000 persons. Canada has four or five times the mileage of railway that Japan has, with a population of 56,000,000; three times the mileage of Italy with a population of
36,000,000, a greater mileage than Great Britain with 45,000,000; or than France with 40,000,000; and equal to that of Germany with 65,000,000. These figures illustrate the over-development of our railways. We have not the population to provide traffic, that is passenger and freight traffic, for our railways. Mineral development would help us to secure railway traffic. In the United States forty-seven per cent of the freight traffic on the railways comes from the mines. In Canada the percentage is very much less. I have discussed this question with some of the higher officials, of the Canadian National Railways and they are of opinion that it is of prime im- I c
portance to the railways of this country. One of them, an important Canadian National Railways official, writing to me a few days ago, used the following words:
I am keenly interested in this subject which I believe is a vital matter to the Canadian National Railways: in fact I do not know anything of greater importance to Canada as a whole than the development of our iron resources.
There is another side to this question and that concerns not only iron but coal and oil. The iron, coal and oil supplies of the world are not inexhaustible and the time may arrive when the United States may see fit to put an embargo on iron ore, as it has in the past proposed imposing an embargo on coal. If they did that the steel plants in this country would have to close down, in my opinion, with the exception of those in Nova Scotia which get their supply from Wabana, Newfoundland. That would place Canada in a very difficult position. The late James J. Hill, writing in 1910 upon the iron deposits in the United States, said they would be depleted within twenty-five to fifty years. Taking these facts into account surely it is worth while for the people of this country to endeavour to place themselves in an independent commercial position so far as the United States is concerned.
The objection is urged that we have a coal shortage in this country and that we have not the necessary fuel to smelt the iron. In answer to that I would say that Canada in the matter of coal deposits is the second richest country in the world, she is second only to the United States. It is true that it is a transportation problem to get that coal from the extreme East and the extreme West to the central parts of Canada; but I believe the day is coming when we will be able to take the coal from Nova Scotia up to the head of the Great Lakes, and bring it from the Prairie Provinces to the same point, and then we shall be able to develop our iron deposits with coal from our own coal mines. Then there is the fact to be considered that in this country there is some 18,000,000 horsepower of potential electricity of which only about 2,000,000 is now being developed. In some countries in the world electricity is being used for smelting purposes. To a certain extent it has been found expensive for that purpose; nevertheless one concern, the Canadian Steel Forgings of Toronto, and a few other firms, are using electricity for smelting purposes in this country.

In closing you may ask me what I propose after these preliminary remarks. Many schemes have been advanced for the solution of this question. I only mention some of them, as follows:	1. A tariff
against the importation of iron ore; 2. A bounty on Canadian ore; 3. Financing private corporations; 4. Co-operation with private corporations; or, 5, a thorough investigation. I repeat, Sir, that no scientific or thorough investigation has ever been made that I know of into the Canadian iron ore question, and that proposition would not meet with opposition. I believe that all the parties in this House would deem it only fair for the Government to look into the question even if they spent considerable money in so doing. We have expended considerable on the lignite question in Western Canada. I commend the Government for that action and I wish them to follow the same course in regard to Canadian iron ores. In my final words I would say:	Let some action
be taken, for this is one of the methods by which we will help to increase our population; make a .market for our agricultural products; give employment to our people; provide freight for our over developed railways; make ourselves commercially independent of the United States; and generally help to put Canada in its proper place among the advancing industrial nations of the world.


Mr. WALTER DAVY COWAN (Regina) :: It is with a great deal of pleasure
indeed that I second the motion moved by my hon. friend from Fort William. He has descanted interestingly and well on the iron resources of Canada and he is much more competent to speak on the subject than I am. One thing however, that he said, particularly interested me. That was his comparison of the Canadian situation with the American situation, in connection with which he showed that the American corporations engaged in these industries are tremendously more capitalized than our smaller industries in Canada. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that capital plays a very important part in the development of these undertakings. A properly organized industry with a capitalization of $100,000,000 as many of these American companies are, is much more influential in the markets of the world than a less efficiently organized body with a smaller capital. As a matter of fact there is no comparison at all, and recognizing the tremendous problem that confronts us in the mining and manufacturing of our iron deposits, we must take some action as a government and try to equalize conditions as between our own country and foreign countries. Faced as we are with these enormous imports of iron and steel products from foreign countries, we cannot afford to stand idly by and allow our natural resources to be neglected while other countries prosper at our expense.
In supporting the motion presented by my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion), I wish to put the broadest possible interpretation upon the term " natural resources." I do not restrict it to the mining of iron, lead, zinc, copper or other minerals; I would so broaden our policy that we should develop to the furthest limit the manufacture at home of these and other natural resources. To me the mining of iron or any other metal means blast furnaces, refineries, rolling mills, stamping mills, and everything else necessary to carry that particular metal to its complete manufactured state. That means employment in Canada for vast numbers of expert workmen. As one who in my younger days worked with the workmen of Canada and spent my time as a workman amongst them, I came to know fairly well what they are, and my experience also covered some five years working among workmen in foreign countries, which enabled me to compare our own workmen with foreign workmen. As a result of my experience and observation I say unhesitatingly that in intelligence, application and honesty of service to those who employ them our Canadian workmen have no superiors. To-day our workmen are satisfied with the laws and the institutions of Canada, and it is their desire to remain in the Dominion. The only thing they object to is that they have not the opportunities here that they can get in a big country like the United States, which is so highly developed. Not having those opportunities at home, and desirous of succeeding in life, naturally they go to that country, as my hon. friend from Fort William has said.' Therefore we need a domestic policy which will give our workmen the opportunities here which they now must seek abroad and which will give them a share in the building up of this Dominion.
Our nataural resources are not confined to minerals; they include our agricultural lands, and this is what I am most particularly interested in because in the western country these lands are our chief natural

ceramic engineer, whose whole time would be devoted to the work, would result in an undreamed-of development of one of Saskatchewan's greatest natural resources.
I ask that we co-operate with the provincial governments in the work they are now undertaking. It is not sufficient that we should make investigations and reports, without drawing the attention of the investing public to the necessity for the development of these great natural resources. Pottery, earthenware, tile-these things we import in large quantities into Western Canada. What has been the cause? You all know that these things carry a very high freight classification, and the result is that we have to pay enormous prices for what we buy. That particularly is the case since the various bodies interested in increasing freight rates practised lynch law and strangled Canadian business, as they have done recently, by the increase in rates.
I now wish to come to another of our resources spoken of by my hon. friend- coal. We have enormous quantities of coal in Western Canada-so great that the amount is really beyond computation. Some of these coal mines-well, it is almost dangerous to speak of them, because people will hardly believe what you tell them. I have before me, however, a report issued by our own Government with respect to a mine which is on the bor-
4 p.m. der between Alberta and British Columbia. This mine, which has really not yet been opened up contains the finest of anthracite coal, according to a government analysis. The total amount of coal in this particular mine which has not yet been touched-and which, I believe, is the property of Pat Burns, of Calgary, and his company-the total amount of coal known to be there is 21,570,000,000 tons. Suppose there were only half that amount, or 10,000,000,000 tons. Working 313 days in the year on the basis of an output of 5,000 tons a day, there would be a total output of 1,565,000 tons per year-an amount which would supply practically all the anthracite coal consumed in Canada. At that rate we would have enough in that one mine to last 6,640 years-and this is according to the report of our Federal Government. Well, with such figures before us, what are we going to do?
During the week-end I read an interesting account of a meeting of the Mining Institute held in Montreal. I quote the following from an article written by the
FMr. Cowan.]
editor of the Mining Journal, who is also, I think, president of the Mining Institute:
That western coal is the guarantee of our national independence was the declaration made to-day at the Canadian Club luncheon by F. W. Gray, editor of Canadian Mining Journal who was speaking on "The Commercial and National Assets of the Canadian Coal Supply."
Mr. Gray said that in the west lies the future workshop of Canada and that Canada had 17 per cent of the world's supply and 71 per cent of the Empire's supply of coal. The maritime provinces contained 0.7 per cent of our coal reserves, he said, all good bitimunious coal, while the western fields contained the balance.
What ground has he for making such an assertion? If we go to Great Britain, we find that she has enormous deposits of coal. I suppose the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) would say that Great Britain's industrial supremacy depends upon free trade. In my opinion, it has depended, and to-day depends, entirely upon the fact that she has enormous coal deposits, and around that coal area have been built up the biggest industries of the world. If we look at the situation in America, we find a similar condition of affairs in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio; wherever you find coal deposits, you find large steel plants and enormous industries growing up around them. As my hon. friend has pointed out this afternoon, in Sydney, Cape Breton, you will find an enormous industrial development. And why? Simply and solely because great deposits of coal are to be found there. Is it then unreasonable for us to say that in Western Canada, with our coal deposits, exactly the same thing will happen as has happened everywhere else? Therefore, I firmly believe that we should have some department of Government which will take a statement such as this, coming from a man thoroughly qualified to speak on the subject and give it such prominence in the various journals of the world, wherever indeed there is a body of men who have money which they wish to invest in enterprises like this, that their attention may be drawn to the matter and that we may receive some benefit therefrom.
My hon. friend referred to briquettes. Let me express as strongly as I can my appreciation of the action taken by the Government in starting a briquetting plant. I understand it is now nearly completed, and I am satisfied that the $600,000 odd spent on it is going to result in great benefit to Western Canada. Three Governments acted in co-operation with regard to that plant and that seems to be a very

proper procedure to follow. Why should we have anything but co-operation amongst the Governments of this Dominion, especially in such matters as this? But it must be remembered that the manufacture of briquettes there is only a small part of the game, and I sincerely hope that the Lignite Utilization Board continue their work of experimentation until they are able to manufacture the by-products, many of which can be manufactured there into something of value to the Dominion of Canada.
Just recently a new discovery of coal has been made at Lampman, bordering on the Moose mountains. Geologists have told me very bluntly that it is absolutely impossible for a grade of coal such as is being taken out of that mine to exist there; that it cannot be done; that the coal is not there. But the fact is that the coal is there. It is now proved to be there to the extent of millions of tons, how many millions we do not yet know. This is a high grade of coking coal. And what does chat mean? My hon. friend spoke about bringing coal from the West to the head of the lakes. Through this discovery, the highest grade of coking coal has been brought, by one jump, 600 miles nearer the province of Ontario than was dreamed of a little while ago. That is a very susbstantial number of miles to knock off the haulage of coal. Two years ago the Government put a line of railway into the new coal field, and to-day the rails are being laid thereon. I hope it will be completed this summer because I am satisfied that it is going to be of great assistance in the development of the Moose mountain coal deposits.
Just in conclusion, I want to say this. While from Western Canada for many years back has come a very vigorous denunciation of everything in the shape of capitalism, big interests, manufacturers money derived in any way except by working the soil, there has been growing up amongst the young men of Western Canada an entirely different spirit and to-day they are calling for industrial development and new industries. In support of that, I am going to read an extract from an editorial from a western paper supporting what has been done by the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, both of which in the past year have established industrial departments:
The Alberta Legislative Assembly on Wednesday unanimously endorsed the proposal of the government to aid in the campaign for
the promotion and development of Alberta's industries, some members expressing the view that the sum should be $50,000 instead of $20,000 as provided in the estimates.
That is for industrial development.
It may be taken for certain that as a result of
the propaganda of Alberta, capital will be attracted to the development of her industries, and industrial population drawn to the province and more enterprise and scientific and business methods employed in the exploitation of the resources already at command. It believes the Federal government has a responsibility towards the natural resources of the country as a whole and a relationship to observe in the supply of essential raw materials within the empire. For that reason it favors the establishment of a new ministry with a national objective and carrying with it a national prestige in order that Canada may be in a position to control the home market and to enter effectively into competition in foreign markets.
They ask for a new minister, but I am not going to go as far as that; I believe that would be an unnecessary step at the present time. But our Government should take every possible means to further the development of the natural resources of Canada through some department especially instructed so to do.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) : Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to congratulate the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) for introducing this resolution condemning the Government for their inactivity and lack of policy in regard to the natural resources of the country. His resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that the Government should bring forward a policy having for its object the development of the natural resources of Canada.
I think that is deserving of consideration, not so much of the Government as of the people of Canada, who are waiting for an opportunity to take advantage of every means of promoting the development of the country. My hon. friend pointed out that the accomplishment of this Government with regard to the development of the natural resources of Canada consisted so far in giving a lease to a gentleman named Stefansson to raise reindeer in the - far North. You will not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if you learn very soon that Mr. Stefansson's ranch will not materialise into anything of great consequence to the people of Canada. It is more probable that the Hudson's Bay Company will find themselves in conflict with Mr. Stefansson in his lease and that they will find it necessary to buy him out, and that will be last of the reindeer enterprise in this country.



My hon. friend in his good Tory way suggests that there should be a bounty. These enterprises always get back to the same basis with the Tories; they must find a way getting to the treasury of Canada for their friends. With them there is no other way of developing the country than by leading their friends to the treasury; that is the simple and easy way, and while the people, of course, must suffer, that is not a matter of any consequence to our Tory friends.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member has
already made so many misstatements of what I have said that, before he goes any further, I had better correct his last one. I did not suggest a bounty; I suggested an investigation.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend suggested a bounty in a resolution which he moved last year. I suppose he has changed his mind. That is the privilege of the hon. gentleman. Before he sat down he suggested that a bounty might be a means, but that an investigation should be held. We, of course, are all agreed that an investigation of the Government should be held at any time. It all comes back to the same old plan of getting at the treasury of going to the trough.
My hon. friend was quite right in criticising the Government for the lack of an energetic immigration policy. How can we hope to develop the resources of this country with a policy of emigration, not immigration? We are spending a great deal of money on an immigration policy, and the sum total of our efforts has been that people are leaving this country faster than they are coming in. My hon. friend pointed that out in the statement of Agnes Laut in Maclean's Magazine. We are giving the people every possible assistance in leaving. We are doing everything we can in Western Canada to get rid of probably the best farmers in the country-the Men-nonites. We are doing everything we can to drive them out of the country. I saw in the local press a few days ago the statement at a banquet by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) that three or four ship loads of Poles had been turned back from the shores of Canada. They had landed here and then were told to go back home. That is our immigration policy apparently. Then I notice in this morning's newspaper that some 5,000 or 6,000 of the Six Nations Indians are looking for a home in the United States because they can place no dependence on the laws of Canada. The Canadian Government is driving

everybody out, and the few that are left they would tax out of the country.
My hon. friend speaks of railway difficulties in the way of the development of our natural resources. Why, the only solution of the question is immigration and production. If we have overbuilt our railways, we must get people producing on the land, and in the forests, the mines, and fisheries; but you cannot hope to get them if you build up a tariff wall against everything they would bring into this country, and make living conditions such that they cannot face the future here. You cannot tax yourself rich; you can only tax yourself poor. If you attempt to tax people to promote every kind of enterprise in the country, you get to the stage where the taxpayers are unable to bear the burden. My hon. friend is simply following his leader in promoting the idea of taxing every person for the benefit of the special interests. They have their special friends who must be taken care of, by taxation or otherwise. These special friends must be looked after because they are looking after the Government^ naturally the Government in turn attempts to support its friends -to lead them to the treasury. That has always been the Tory policy in this country, and it is the policy that has brought the country to the condition it is in today, with an enormous debt and an excessive taxation. The expenditure of the Tory party since they came into power in 1911, exclusive of the war, has been greater than the total expenditure of previous Governments for forty years. But still they continue on that basis, hoping to bring people in by telling them that they are going to tax industry and everything that a man wants to use, just to bolster up their friends in some enterprise. My hon. friend knows, or should know, that his own territory of New Ontario is not being developed. Why? Because you won't allow the people who would develop it to go in there. My hon. friend knows there are only certain classes of people who will settle in Northern Ontario and develop its resources.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Who are they?


Frank S. Cahill: Principally the French-Canadian, and the Scandinavians. They are the only two classes of people who will go into that class of country and develop it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why are they prevented?


Frank S. Cahill: Because Mr. Ferguson
passed legislation in Ontario, excluding the

French-Canadians from Ontario. They are told not to settle in that country. I see the leader of the Government would hold out an olive branch-


Arthur Meighen: I was only wondering why my hon. friend did not get his friends now in office in Ontario to repeal it.


Frank S. Cahill: My friends are not in office in Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: Your leader says so.


Frank S. Cahill: They are the friends of my right hon. friend more than mine. They are a combination of Tories and U.F.O.- a sort of reformed Tory party in Ontario. It would not be bad business for the Department of Immigration and Colonization of this Government to try and regulate to some extent the foolish legislation that has been passed in some of these provinces. We have spent great sums of money to develop Northern Ontario, and then the Ontario Government comes along and cuts off any possibility of that investment being a success.


Mr. KEEFER:: How?


Frank S. Cahill: By prohibiting the French Canadians from coming in.
Mr. KEiSFER:	What legislation prohibits them.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend's leader
in Ontario, Mr. Howard Ferguson, prohibits any Frenchman from occupying land there. He passed a law that allowed the government to take his land away if he could not speak English, if you please, whereas English is no more the language of this country than French is. The French people have the same right to insist on their language as the leading language, as English-speaking people have on theirs. But my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) would not see that as the situation. It would suit his election purposes better to have Mr. Ferguson's legislation on the statute books, just as it would suit my right hon. friend the leader of this Government better. He made use of just such legislation as that at the last election, and he will make use of it again in the coming election. He will make use of it anywhere he can in Canada, just as he and the Tory party have done in the past.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: May I ask
a question? Does my hon. friend take the responsibility of saying that Mr. Ferguson passed a law prohibiting French-speaking people settling in Ontario because they did not speak the English language?
54J


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend is asking me to sit down so that I can stand up again.


Francis Henry Keefer: When was that legislation passed?


Frank S. Cahill: If my hon. friend was
asleep at the time, I Was not. It was passed in 1915. If my hon. friend wants to find out about it and will come to my office, I will tell him. My hon. friend knows the legislation is there. They have made use of it. It was put there for a purpose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was that legislation
passed in Canada or Prussia?


Frank S. Cahill: Oh, not in Prussia. I
would not for a moment compare Prussia with Ontario. It would not be a fair comparison. The Ontario methods go far beyond the Prussian methods when it comes to special class legislation and special interests.


Francis Henry Keefer: Would my hon. friend
oblige me with the name of that Act?


Frank S. Cahill: 
Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has delivered a tirade of destructive criticism against the Government. Well, my

experience in this House teaches me that destructive criticism does not get a man or a party very far. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is wholesome either for an individual or for a party. I shall not follow the hon. gentleman in his peregrinations through the charges he has laid against the Government. The conditions which confront us to-day in Canada are a sufficient answer for my hon. friend; all he has to do is to look at the savings in the banks and the general conditions throughout the country, the trade we have, compared with other countries, as a result of the war, and so forth to be convinced that he is wrong. I should like to make a few observations on the motion before the House, not particularly with regard to the territory that has been so well covered by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) wherein he touched on the iron ore, the coal and oil situation, transportation, cost of shipment, manufacture, and the amount of ores consumed. There is no doubt that iron and iron products consumed in any country are a fairly good index to the development of civilization in that country. I would rather direct my remarks to what might be termed the hinterland of Canada and the resources which may be found within that vast domain. After all, these great resources are tributary to the great river St. Lawrence and the lake basins at its head, which provide the transportation for the southern portion of Canada. The coal underlying the plains of the West, if it is possible to get it, may be conveyed to the head of the lakes where the iron ores exist and the limestones are, and it is possible that within the next few years we may have great smelting works in the vicinity of the head of the lakes. I hope it will be possible, in the not too distant future, to bring coal from the eastern provinces by our waterways to the interior of our country. You have Provincial Governments stretching across the country in the southern portion of Canada, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia; but the fact is sometimes overlooked by Canadians that away to the north of these provincial boundaries we have a vast domain of country, rich in natural resources and favourable for development so far as climate is concerned, and well endowed with waterways. I refer to that vast section of our country which stretches from the western shore of Hudson bay to the Alaskan boundary, the 141st meridian west- We have there a territory which is some 1,600 miles in length from east to 
west, and which is approximately 1,000 miles deep from north to south, a vast domain adjoining the western portion of which is the territory of Alaska owned by the United States. Just in passing I should like to refer to that territory of the great republic in order to support the argument which I am about to make with regard to the possibilities of the territory under our own Dominion. The district of Alaska was purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867, the year our forefathers confederated Canada. The Americans paid for that territory $7,250,000, and secured from Russia an area covering some
600,000	square miles. Pessimists of that day accused Mr. Seward, Secretary of State for the United States, who made the purchase, of throwing away $7,000,000 of good American gold in the Arctic ocean. They called it the Seward Ice Box, and said it would not bring a dollar to the treasury of the United States. Well, many years have passed, years as many as this Dominion is old, and to-day the territory of Alaska is a very valuable adjunct to the United States. At the World's Fair in St. Louis, there were two pyramids, one representing the gold produced from one mine, the Treadwell mine on the coast of Alaska, and the other representing the amount in gold which the Americans paid for Alaska. One pyramid represented $7,250,000, and the other $21,000,000-from one mine alone. The amount of gold and other metals which the United States have taken from Alaska has paid for that territory, I suppose, fifty times over, to say" nothing of the seal fisheries, the salmon fisheries, and other natural resources. The trade of the United States with the district of Alaska, during the year 1920, amounted to $107,000,000. Now, it would be a splendid thing if we had a territory as well populated and as far developed as Alaska, from which we could draw great natural products that could be exchanged for ou: manufactured goods. That is quite possible in this great hinterland about which I want to address a few words to the' House this afternoon. In this vast domain, some 1,600 miles long, as I have said, and 1,000 miles deep, there is territory enough and there are resources sufficient to carve out not one province but three, each as large almost as the three prairie provinces, and perhaps as rich, because no one yet knows what the potentialities of this immense territory are. It is drained by two of the greatest rivers of this continent, and indeed of the world. The Yukon river, which

has its rise in Canada, flows through the territory of Alaska, and enters into the Behring Sea; and the Mackenzie River, having its rise in Canada, flows for its whole length through our own territory into the Arctic Ocean. Both of these rivers are similar to the St. Lawrence, and dissimilar to the Mississippi river. The Mississippi river and the country around it are of such a character that from time to time the river overflows its banks in very destructive floods. Nothing of the kind occurs in the St. Lawrence for the reason that at the head of the latter there are great lake basins, which the Mississippi lacks. There are lake basins at the source of the Yukon, and also of the Mackenzie which control the flow of these great streams^ producing an even flow throughout the summer months. And this is a great potential fact in the development of our north country.
Some people here think that the climate of the north country is not suitable for either man or beast. Some years ago the Senate instituted an inquiry into the climatic conditions of the North Land. I have here a report of that inquiry, and I propose to quote from the evidence of Dr. (now Sir) Edward Stupart, the head of our Meteorological Branch, as the climate, and particularly the sunshine of the North Land, and more especially that section of country that is in the valley of the Mackenzie river. He says:
For the three summer months-
That is the three growing months-
-a vast area which includes western and northern Alberta, Northern Saskatchewan and the basin of the Mackenzie, almost to the Arctic Circle, lies within the isothermal lines of 55 degrees and 60 degrees. Throughout this whole region the percentage of the possible amount of sunshine seems to approximate 55, and as the hours of possible sunshine at midsummer range from 17 hours the latitude of Edmonton to 19 hours 30 minutes at Fort Simpson, it may be surmised that growth of plants and cereals may be even more rapid in the northern than in the southern districts.
My own experience in the Yukon bears that out: The growth of vegetables in the Northland is surprising to people who have not been there. Throughout the valleys of the Yukon and Mackenzie Rivers it may safely be said, Mr. Speaker, that we have a salubrious climate, a climate where people live and where they have been living for a hundred and fifty years, a soil which would produce the vegetables and the cereals to support a very considerable population. The natural wealth of Canada is drawn from four sources-the
forest, the farm, the fishery and the mines. All these sources of our national and our natural wealth, Mr. Speaker, are to be found in this great domain of which I speak. Cereals grow well in the Yukon. The report also shows that cereals grow well in the valley of the Mackenzie. It may be interesting to the House to know that wheat will grow and mature and ripen in the valley of the Yukon, as it does in the far north section of the valley of the Mackenzie. On one occasion I brought to the House of Commons and' placed upon the table for members to see a sample of wheat that had matured in the Yukon. After they had inspected it I sent it to the seed analyst or expert at the Farm here in Ottawa. When the return came back to me this gentleman informed me that he had sown one hundred seeds taken at random from that sample of wheat. I was very much interested- and I am sure the House will be equally interested-to know that one hundred seeds germinated-they were one hundred per cent virile. I do not know that all the wheat that could be grown in that Northern country would be so virile, but I am sure that it would be true of a very large proportion of it. I would like to place upon Hansard a few more extracts from this interesting report of the Senate which bears the title "Canada's Fertile Northland," and particularly with regard to the Mackenzie basin. The report shows that this basin is capable of sustaining a very large and prosperous population, that it has great possibilities as an industrial country; and says:
According to one witness, who has had exceptional opportunities for familiarizing himself with the country and its resources, there is in the Peace River section of this country as much good agricultural land fit for settlement, anad yet unsettled, as there is settled in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Albert to-day.
That is a very striking statement. The report continues:
At Fort Providence, latitude 62.30, about 400 miles north of Edmonton, splendid crops of excellent wheat, barley, oats, peas, and other vegetables are raised, while as far north as Fort Good Hope, within fourteen miles of the Arctic circle, or latitude 66.16 and 970 miles further north than the city of Edmonton, cabbages, onions and other garden vegetables are raised.
So much as to cereals. Now I come to touch on the forest resources of the Northland. On this point the report says:
The various sections of the Mackenzie basin possess great forest wealth, the spruce areas in the North extending to the Arctic sea.

This constitutes a tremendous reserve which may yet be tapped and developed, particularly now that we know that pulp and pulp products are such important commodities in the industrial world. The report goes on to deal with animal life and mineral wealth and, Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that it is not the country at the head of the Great Lakes that we are dealing with; it is not in northern Ontario, or in Nova Scotia, or in British Columbia. The area which is capable of producing so much national wealth is hundreds of miles north of these great sections of our country. What does the report say about the Mackenzie river basin in that regard? It says:
The mineral wealth of this region is undoubtedly considerable, including deposits of coal, oil, copper, silver, gold, native salt, sulphur, ochre, sand suitable for glass making, tar sands, etc.
Some people wonder why it is that in those northern latitudes we have a climate such as we have. I am frequently asked how much snow fall we have in the Yukon, and frequently my questioners are surprised when I tell them that we have not much more than two feet. They wonder why it is. It may be interesting to the House to know that the climate of the west coast is governed by the Japanese current, the same as the climate of the British Isles is governed by the Gulf Stream. This current comes along laden with moisture. There is no part of the Pacific coast from Alaska to Mexico in which the mountains are more than six hundred miles from the sea. The moment that moisture laden current strikes those high mountains precipitation occurs and the result is we have very heavy snow falls and rain falls on the seaward side of that mountain range, and conversely on the landward side you had a dry belt and small precipitation in winter, and a small rain fall in summer. The same condition prevails in the Mackenzie valley with one other factor added, the Chinook wind, which tempers the winter climate there. Wheat grows there as well as in the Yukon and perhaps even better.
The first great wealth of that country to be developed will be its mineral wealth, and it was so in the Yukon. While the Yukon is capable of supporting a very considerable population, its great wealth so far has been mineral wealth. I have no doubt that in the valley of the Mackenzie, that section which lies between Hudson bay and Mackenzie river, the oil and the asphalt taken from the tar sands will be the first products to any extent. I say that

the mineral wealth will probably be the first to be produced. Mr. Speaker, within the last twenty-five years-which is only a short time in the history of a nation- many important things have happened in connection with minerals in Canada. It is quite possible history will repeat itself in the next twenty-five years. It will be twenty-five years ago, on the 17th of August next, since gold was discovered in the Klondike. Since that time the Klondike has produced $200,000,000 of the yellow metal which has come out in a continuous stream and has enriched the countries to the south and particularly the western provinces of Canada. The finding of that gold opened up to us a storehouse locked, padlocked, by nature. But the finding of the gold caused an influx of people into the Yukon, and notwithstanding that the gold development has been lessened there is still a considerable population there. Within the past twenty-five years the Cobalt field was discovered in Ontario, a field which has given to Canada and the world about $200,000,000 of silver wealth. I suppose within the last fifteen years the Porcupine field has been discovered, and it still continues to pour out annually enormous quantities of wealth in the shape of gold. Our geologists tell us that the same rock which underlies the Cobalt and Porcupine regions extends to the far north, and it is quite possible that there may be other Cobalts and other Porcupines within the Arctic Circle. Even another Sudbury may be discovered there, because I am informed that as far west as Manitoba nickel deposits are found. There is no doubt that there are many other Klondikes in the Yukon, but whether they will be discovered in our time or not is in the lap of the gods. But inside twenty-five years, only two and a half decades, there must have been pretty nearly six hundred million dollars of wealth produced from these three camps.
If the oil discovery which was made last summer at Fort Norman is half as good as we are led to believe, it is quite possible that that immense wealth which I have mentioned may be trebled or quadrupled in oil.
I shall not detain the House to refer to the authorities I have in my desk, but Mr. Camsell, of the Geological Survey, states in his report on the tar sands of Alberta that there are at least 150,000 square miles overlaid with these tar sands, (ridh in asphalt, rich in oil, and rich in tar. The potentialities of mineral wealth of this great north country are almost beyond belief.


Herbert John Mackie: Alberta
coal, for instance.


Alfred Thompson: Alberta has a great coal area. It is said that that province has more coal within its four corners than any other area in this sphere on which we move and live. I think that is true, but I am speaking of the country beyond the northern boundaries of Alberta and the other Western Provinces, and in asking the Government to consider the evidence that I am submitting to the House and to them, I hope they will not confine their investigation altogether to the southern portion of our country. We are often told that Canada is broken in the centre, it has a weak back. You have your coal resources on the Atlantic, you have your coal resources in the West, you have your settlements in Quebec and in Ontario, and on the plains, but in the centre where you should be strong you are weak. And if you look at the map, Mr. Speaker, that is only too obvious. But I say to you, Sir, that within the lifetime of men who are in this House there will be a new territory opened up away beyond the borders of the Western Provinces to-day which will produce great national wealth and will strengthen the backbone of Canada where it is now weak.
I suppose it is likely that the mineral wealth of this country is the first that will be tapped. The discovery of minerals has had a very potent infl.uence upon the movements of the human race. I will not go off our own continent to prove that, Sir. When gold was discovered in California in 1849, I think I am safe in saying, there were not
10.000	white people on that coast between the Arctic ocean and the Mexican line. That was only seventy years ago, and to-day California is one of the great states of the commonwealth with a population of
3.500.000	or 4,000,000. Washington and Oregon were forests and British Columbia was a desert so far as the occupation by whites was concerned-it was certainly given over to the Indians at any rate, and there was not a soul north of that province. In 1856 gold was discovered in the upper regions of the Fraser river, which led to an influx of people into the north, and the great province of British Columbia was carved out of the wilderness. We all know what a strong support it has been to Confederation since that time. Forty years later gold was discovered in the Klondike, and the influx of people established that territory and gave to that wilderness in the north a great people with a stable government.
Since 1849 until to-day instead of only
10,000	people between the crests of the Rocky mountains and the Pacific coast there are I presume about 10,000,000 people, in three states one province and one territory very largely because of the discoveries of these precious metals in the rivers and valleys of that territory. All of this is quite possible to be duplicated in the far north in these river valleys which, I have not the slightest doubt, contain vast mineral wealth, because those regions have been examined by our geologists in a very slight way and they come back with reports that indicate the great potential wealth awaiting development.
I do not desire to dilate upon this subject. I just want to touch the mountain peaks, as it were, and in closing my remarks I wish to be consistent with what I said in opening, that a purely destructive criticism is, I think, rather negative, but that a constructive criticism is a whole-' some thing either for an individual or for a government. Therefore I propose to make a few suggestions in the hope that the Government may take cognizance of them, examine them and if they think them worthy adopt them.
I have a great deal of experience, Mr. Speaker, in living in frontier countries and in framing legislation for them. In my time I have had a good deal to do with giving to the Yukon territory, which I have the honour to represent, a set of mining laws. A former minister of the crown, Hon. Mr. Oliver, for whom I have a profound respect, was a frontiersman and realized the necessity of having stable laws if the mining industry of the Yukon was to be developed, and during his regime I submitted to him certain suggestions, which were subsequently incorporated in the Yukon Placer Mining Act. Before that Act was passed there was no stability of title for the great basic industry there. Title was based on regulations passed by the Cabinet and capable of being changed by that Cabinet or by succeeding cabinets. Consequently we found it difficult to get capital to invest in our great mining industry, gold. The same condition exists to-day in connection with the oil regions in the Mackenzie river basin and all the other territory which is north of and in fact held by the provinces as part of the public domain. It is not good business for a government to grant oil leases based solely upon regulations. I hope as soon as the Government have the information necessary

they will frame an Act of Parliament which will give stability of title in oil leases. You will find, Sir, and our Government will find, that you cannot get capital to invest in an industry unless you have a good stable title, and that stability can be given only by Act of Parliament. So I hope the oil regulations which were recently suspended, but which I believe are now in force, will very shortly be incorporated in an Act of Parliament.


Mr. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: No
Act of parliament fixing regulations-not in their present form.


Alfred Thompson: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the oil business to criticise the oil leases. If they were gold leases perhaps I could. But I notice my hon. friend from Edmonton has a resolution on the Order Paper, and I hope that when he discusses it he will suggest where the weak points are in the present oil leases. What I want is security and continuity of title, because oil mining is a little different from placer mining; it requires a very considerable expenditure of money, a good deal of time, and a high degree of skill to locate and develop these oil prospects.
We have here a Geological Survey which, I think, should be recruited up to full strength. I quite agree with what my hon. friend from Fort William said with regard to the depletion of the personnel of that scientific body during the last few years. I hope it will be recruited to full strength as soon as possible and that every man whom the Director of the Geological Survey can spare will go into that north country this summer and commence a survey of the territory which extends, as I say, from Hudson bay to the Mackenzie river. I know it is not possible to do this all in one summer, but I hope the work will be started at once, because it is of the first importance that prospectors going into that country should have geological maps so that they may know where to go to prospect for oil, and where not to go.
Here is another aspect of the question. We developed during the war some of the most famous airmen in the world, some of the most capable topographers and photographers in the world. We all know of the work, which they did in France and of the extent to which that work was valued by the military chiefs. These men are here, and if they are not in the Geological Survey we should get them, equip them with

topographical and photographic instruments, send them and their planes and their equipment to Edmonton or wherever the base is, and have them make aerial topographical maps of that vast country. It is of great importance that this should be done, because the eyes of the mineral operators are upon us to-day. Oil is king. We have struck oil in the north, and we want all the reliable information we can get for the people who are turning their attention to these nothern oil fields. It is necessary, therefore, that our geologists should go to that country this summer-and when I say this summer I do not mean that they should leave Edmonton in June when the river opens, go in there and stay from three to six weeks, and then have to start the return journey in time to come out before the river closes. That is what we have done in the past, because we could not do anything else; but we can do otherwise to-day. We are going to vote a considerable amount of money for our air services.


Herbert John Mackie: The river
opens in May, not in June. They are ploughing in Alberta to-day. Do not give our country a bad reputation.


Alfred Thompson: I thank my hon. friend for the correction. Whatever may be the case in regard to the upper reaches of that river, I think there is a lake between the upper reaches and its mouth which does not open until June, and the oil fields are north of that. However that may be, what I am desirous of impressing upon the Government is this: I want these scientists whom we have, or whom, we can get, to go there and make a geological survey of that country, make a topographical survey and a photographic survey. And in doing so I hope they will not altogether neglect the Yukon.
Before I take my seat I should like to tell you about the new discovery of silver ore in the Yukon at a place called Kino Hill, 175 miles northeast of Dawson-a place which you will hear of during the next few years. Enormous deposits of silver ores have been discovered there as the result of the operations of geologists in that country a few years ago, whose reports indicat-ted the possibility of the discovery of silver ores. The facts have borne out the truth of that prediction.
We know nothing about the fisheries of ' this nothern country of ours; yet we have in the employ of the Fisheries Department one of the greatest living scientists, a man

85T
who knows more, perhaps, about fish than any other man in the whole world-Professor Prince. I would like my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) to sent Prof. Prince into that north country this summer to make a survey of the fisheries and to tell the people what the fisheries of that vast country are worth. We have had very assuring reports concerning them, but whether or not the conditions are as stated in the reports,
I do not know.
Let me point out also that when you place a community in one of these northern countries, a community whose members live upon the natural resources, you have a community which consumes the best goods that the Canadian people can produce, and who pay well for them; because in the early stages of every frontier settlement the people of these newly opened districts are great consumers. This is particularly the case in a mineral country and in an oil . country such as we expect to be developed up there. So I suggest that our Government do these things with the idea of opening up that vast country, because if they do they will considerably enlarge the map of Canada; they will bring about the establishment of communities which will be continuous in their life, which will produce their share of the commodities which we use, and consume their share of the things which we produce, and, generally, be a prop and a support to Canada in peace or in war.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Lethbridge) :: Mr. Speaker, in my judgment this is one of the most important questions that could be discussed by Parliament at the present time, because it is linked up with some of the other problems which confront us-the problem of unemployment; the problem of our national debt. If it is possible for Parliament and for the Government to bring about a great development of our natural resources, the enormous latent wealth of the country, we would not need to be so much concerned about the future.
I might criticize the resolution as worded, for this reason: the natural resources of Canada are largely under the Jirection of the provincial authorities. In the Prairie Provinces, however, the Dominion Government still controls the resources, and I feel there cannot be a settled policy in connection with the development of our natural resources until it is finally decided whether the
5 p.m. control of these resources shall in the future be with the
Dominion or with the provinces. As matters stand at present, there is an uncertainty that holds back both the Dominion Government and the provincial governments from action that would help to bring about the necessary development.
Now, I am going to deal with two or three of what I consider to be the most important problems in connection with the development of our natural resources in the province of Alberta. A question was put to the previous speaker (Mr. A. Thompson) about the coal resources of Alberta. I asked the Director of the Geological Survey to supply me with the latest information as to the actual resources in coal of that province. He has furnished me with some figures that are startling, and I think the House would benefit by having them placed on Hansard. I quote from the statement:
The following table shows the coal reserves of the province of Alberta as calculated by the Geological Survey:
These reserves include coal seams of one foot or more in thickness to a depth of 4,000* feet.
Coal Reserves of Alberta.
Actual Reserve in million tons.
Anthracite	 669
Bituminous	 3,224
Sub. bituminous and lignite.. ..	382,500
Total	 386,393
Probable Reserve in million tons.
Anthracite	 100
Bituminous	 182,183
Sub. bituminous and lignite.. ..	491,271
Total	 673,554
Grand total of actual and probable reserves li,0'59,94'7 million tons.
The total area underlain by coal in Alberta is reckoned to be 81,675 square miles.
These figures will give you some idea of the immense possibilities of coal production in Alberta. It may not be known to this House and to the country that Alberta contains about 86 per cent of all the coal resources of Canada, 61 per cent of the coal resources of the British Empire, and over 14 per cent of the coal resources of the world. I make that statement on the authority of the Director of the Geological Survey.
Some members of the House might like to have an idea of the actual production in Alberta. During 1920 Alberta produced over one-third of the coal produced . in this Dominion. It produced 6,859,346 tons, while Nova Scotia came second with a production of 6,395,545 tons. I have quoted these figures in order to give the House some information about one of the great natural resources of Alberta, but

probably during the session there will be an opportunity to enlighten the House further upon this question.
We have heard something about oil during this session, and from all that can be gathered, I think it is quite possible that one of the greatest oil fields in the world may have been discovered in the country to the north of the capital of Alberta. It may not, however, be known to this House and to the country that efforts to obtain oil are not confined to one section of Alberta, but that efforts are being directed in all parts of that province to discover oil. There is no wild-catting, no careless movement at all; men are putting up real money and making a real effort to discover oil in that province. In the neighbouring state of Montana a great oil field has already been discovered within a very few miles of the southern boundary of Alberta, and that discovery is lending encouragement, to prospectors and actual companies for exploration purposes operating in the southern part of the province, that oil will be discovered there.
We have every reason to be hopeful in connection with those two great resources in Alberta particularly. What I want, however, to direct the attention of the House to is a question that I have frequently brought to the attention of Parliament but which to-day, I consider, is much more important than it has been at any previous time. It relates to the development of our natural resources. It is known to this House, and largely to the country now, that great portions of the southern part of Alberta and the southwestern part of Saskatchewan have been settled, and the problem faces the people to-day whether they will be able to remain and make an existence upon the land, that is, in what is known as the semi-arid or arid belts of those two provinces,. In the light of history, I think it can be established that a mistake was made, in the first place, in opening up certain of the southern parts of those provinces. But they have been opened up; practically the whole of the country is settled; but through crop failures every few years, caused largely by drought, those people are not able to eke out an existence, and the governments of the Dominion and of the provinces have to come to their relief every few years. On account of the assistance that has to be granted occasionally by the Federal Government and on account of the fact that the settlement of that country was due to the activity and policy of the fed-IMr. Buchanan.]
eral power, this matter has become a question of federal importance. At this time, it is most important that the Federal Government should co-operate with the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta in appointing a commission to survey the agricultural resources of the southern parts of those two provinces and to decide what sections of them can be held for settlement and what sections should be opened up for other purposes. There is a solution of this problem, and it lies in the provision of irrigation, wherever that is possible, for the dry areas. We have had experience for many years with irrigation in Alberta, and wherever it has been utilized in those dry sections of the province, it has been a success. I hope to establish to the House this afternoon the real importance of irrigation in connection with the salvation of those areas in the southern parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta that are to-day facing practical destruction as agricultural areas. We have at the present time in Alberta alone one million acres actually irrigated or in a position to be irrigated from works actualy constructed; 130,000 acres will be irrigated from works already designed and authorized, and 550,000 acres are believed to be susceptible to irrigation by works which have been planned and the construction of which may be authorized as soon as the necessary financial arrangements can be made. I do not want the House to gather the idea that it is possible, by means of irrigation, to reclaim all the dry land area in these sections of the two western provinces, because that is not the case. In the first place, there is only a certain quantity of water available for irrigation, and in the second place there is only a certain area of land that can be irrigated. It is estimated that, in the two provinces, it is possible to irrigate or reclaim and make sure of success for agriculture, 5,000,000 acres. I believe, with this area of 5,000,000 acres put under irrigation, a safeguard would be offered to dry farming on bordering lands. As the matter stands at present, when a drought strikes those sections of the West, there is no possibility of carrying along the stock during the fall, winter and spring months, because there is no feed; but with irrigation districts adjoining those areas, it would be possible to provide the feed and save the livestock, and that in itself is important in retaining the people on dry land areas in certain sections of southern Alberta, although I maintain there are other

sections where it is impossible to retain them even with irrigation or with irrigation adjoining.
The problems that face Alberta, particularly in relation to irrigation, I can outline in two or three paragraphs. First, there should be the most complete storage of high water and flood flow of all streams in southern Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan. Second, there should be an interpretation as soon as possible of the Waterways Treaty in order to ascertain the water that is available from international streams for use for irrigation purposes in the Province of Alberta. The other problem is that of finance. I might be asked-What business is it of the federal power for me to bring up this question of irrigation? Even if the federal power has no responsibility whatever in connection with the actual development of irrigation districts, the federal power is, at the present time, responsible for the surveying of those lands in order to ascertain whether they can be irrigated or not, and it is also responsible for the streams which would be used to water those lands. So, in that respect, the matter is one of federal importance, and it is of the utmost importance to that part of the country that the federal power should continue these surveys until it finds out how much of that country can be irrigated and how much water is available for irrigation purposes. The question of financing has reached a stage where the Dominion has placed the responsibility on the local authorities, and the question of finances is the most serious matter at the present time. Districts have been formed in southern Alberta, and they are in a position now that they can proceed to construct irrigation works if they can find the money to pay the contractors. I am not presenting a case for help from the Dominion, because the people who want these systems are prepared to pay for the construction of them with their own resources, but the trouble is that on account of lack of information about irrigation systems on the part of investment markets in Canada it is impossible to sell those irrigation bonds without some help from either the Dominion or the provincial authorities, and the Provincial Government of Alberta is being urged at the present time to guarantee the bonds in order that the money may be raised for this particular purpose. These districts are formed in a similar way to municipalities, and they can be bonded in the same way. I shall attempt to establish that it would be in the
interest of the country that these areas should be irrigated as quickly as possible in order that they might be made productive, and in order that the people there might be able to meet their obligations as citizens of this country.
In 1919 in the southern part of Alberta and the southern part of Saskatchewan, and in many other sections of Western Canada, practically no crop was raised on what we call the dry lands. Adjoining the city of Lethbridge there is the oldest irrigated section in Alberta, a territory that was irrigated by the old Galt Land and Irrigation Company, and afterwards taken over by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. In 1919 all the lands adjoining that irrigation district were burnt absolutely dry; there was no crop whatever. In the irrigation district the value of the crop raised on irrigated lands, good, bad and indifferent, was estimated by the Canadian Pacific Railway officials to be $54.71 per acre. I would like the House to keep that figure in mind, and remember at the same moment that on the adjoining dry lands there was nothing raised at all. If we could extend irrigation to the districts where it is possible to bring water and irrigate the land, these areas would produce agricultural wealth year in and year out. I might say that one section of country that had been formed into an irrigation district adjoining this Coaldala district of the Canadian Pacific, if it had had water in the dry year of 1919 it would on the same basis have produced $7,000,000 of wealth, but without irrigation it produced absolutely nothing.
This matter is of importance to this Government and to this House as it would remove the necessity for assistance to the settlers in these dry areas in the dry years by providing seed grain and relief to the settlers when they have no crop at all. It would also settle the question of mixed farming in that part of the country, because on irrigated land practically all classes of farming can be carried on successfully. There are members in this House from the province of British Columbia who know what it has been possible to do with irrigation in the arid sections of that province, and those of you who have followed the development of the arid regions of the United States know that there great areas of desert lands have been reclaimed by irrigation and are to-day producing great wealth. I have in my possession figures to show that in the case of certain of the irrigated projects of the Middle Western


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminister) :: I desire, in the first place, to congratulate the mover of the resolution on having brought it to the attention of the House, and also on the able manner in which he handled the subject. In considering what branch of this manifold subject I should speak on myself, I found a good deal of difficulty. The resources of Canada are so numerous, so wonderful, and so great in extent that it is hard to decide, on a motion of this kind, to which particular resource one should confine discussion. However, as I am particularly interested in fisheries I thought it would not be out of place for me to offer a few remarks on that subject.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that any policy brought forward by the Government for the development of the natural resources of Canada should cover the question of greater efficiency in the development of our fisheries, for they are worth the most earnest consideration. In 1919, the fishery products of Canada amounted to $61,363,502, and in 1920, $56,508,429. You will observe there was a decrease of some millions in 1920 as compared with 1919. The fishery exports of the Dominion in 1919 were $37,137,102,
and in 1920 $42,285,055, an increase of five millions. It seems to me that where we have a resource which gives rise to such a large percentage of exports we should do something to develop it. In British Columbia, the fisheries constitute a very important part of our natural resources.
In 1919, the value of the fisheries production was $25,301,607, or 44 per cent of the production of the entire Dominion. You will agree with me, then, Mr. Speaker, that, representing as I do a British Columbia constituency, I have a peculiar right to speak on this important subject. I do not agree with the hon. member for Pontiac, (Mr. Cahill), in the view that in speaking on this resolution I am in anyway criticizing the Government, nor do I think that it was the object of the resolution to provoke criticism. I think that as members, on private members' day, we have a perfect right to bring to the attention of the Government such matters as we think worthy of consideration. I do not agree with another thing which was mentioned by the hon. member for Pontiac. I took it from his remarks that he is in favour of an open door for immigration. I certainly agree, as I suppose all other hon. gentlemen will agree, that immigration should be encouraged, provided we get the right kind of immigrants. I think it is important at this time, when there is so much unrest throughout the world, when the eyes of the world are turned towards Canada, and when we may expect large numbers of people to come into our country, that we should see that the right kind of people come to Canada. That is very important, and I entirely agree with the policy which the Government has adopted in that respect of strictly examining all those who wish to enter this country. Now, it may be that my hon. friend desires that certain classes of people should come into Canada who would not be wanted here; and I have in mind that possibly he may desire that certain immigrants from a part of the Empire where there is a good deal of trouble at the present time and who are going in such large numbers to New York and other American ports, should be given free entry into Canada. If that is his idea I certainly do not agree with him.
Now taking up the question of the fisheries I wish to say that I do not desire in any way to criticize the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne). As a matter of fact I would congratulate him upon the manner in which he is carrying

out his duties, and upon the attention that he is giving to this important industry. I think I can tell him that those who are interested in the fisheries in the province of British Columbia appreciate very much indeed what he has done and is doing to encourage the fishing industry. Shortly before I left New Westminster I had the privilege of attending a meeting of white fishermen of the province, and at that meeting the president of the association stated that the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries had done more for the fishing interests than had any previous minister. I have no complaint to make either about the fishery officers. I believe that they have been efficient, that they have been doing good work, and that they are good and capable men, but I think that something may be said as to the system under which they have been operating. It is generally conceded, for instance, that on the Fraser river, which at one time was the greatest salmon fishery river in the world bar none, the salmon fisheries have depreciated to such an extent that the people of that country gravely fear that unless something is done the Fraser river will cease to be a salmon stream of any consequence. In fact as one of the fishermen at the meeting I have referred to put it: "If things go on as they have been going, in a short number of years there will be nothing but bullheads in the streams and boneheads on the banks." On a previous occasion I gave some details as to the decrease in the pack of salmon on the Fraser river and I do not intend now to repeat them. I shall, however, offer a few suggestions for the consideration of the minister.
My first suggestion has reference to the propagation methods which have been in use, in the province of British Columbia at all events. Results are what count. The important point is not the output of fry, but the number of mature fish that return. The hatcheries have been operating in British Columbia at the expense of many thousands of dollars a year for many years past. Millions of fry have been turned out at these places with the expectation that they should go out to sea and in due course return as fully grown fish, but unfortunately no results have been obtained. Therefore there must be something wrong with the system. What I submit-and I think I have a good deal of authority for my contention-is that the whole system of hatchery operation has been carried out on the wrong basis. The 
operation of hatcheries and the propagation of fish has not been according to natural methods-it has been entirely artificial. Now I submit that what is required is a combination of artificial and natural methods, and there should be a return as much as possible to nature. I have before me an article which appeared in the Canadian Fisherman, of September, 1919, which I think sets out the situation better than any words of mine could. I-therefore, with the indulgence of the House, propose to read this article:



A NEW ANGLE TO THE SOCKEYE SALMON HATCHERY QUESTION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Henry Doyle believes Hatchery Methods can be improved on.
The following statement and interview by Mr. Henry Doyle of the Northern B.C. Fisheries throws new light on sockeye salmon hatchery methods, and opens up an altogether new angle to this important question. Mr. Doyle's Ideas will be read with great interest, as he is a pioneer in the salmon canning business of British Columbia and has made a careful and exhaustive study of salmon and their habits.
Mr. Doyle believes that hatchery operations on the Fraser River have been mainly responsible for the depletion of the sockeye salmon.
That fry liberated in rivers and streams that are lake outlets, have been a total loss. Reforms in hatchery operations, modelled more closely on nature's own lines, would, he believes, aid the increase of the sources of supply in the fisheries of the province.
With due respect to the men who believe otherwise and have made statements on the subject recently, Mr. Doyle said he believed sockeye salmon hatcheries operating upon the right lines would prove successful.
"Just because there has been an apparent failure in sockeye salmon hatchery operations under present methods, does not necessarily mean that the entire system is worthless," he said. Mr. Doyle does not think that hatchery work should be discontinued until the improved methods have been tried out. He suggests that officials .in charge of hatchery operations sometimes lack efficiency. He said. "The failure of hatcheries to procure any augmentation in the number of sockeye salmon in areas where the hatcheries are situated, is probably very largely due to those in charge lacking appreciation of the necessity of employing distinctive methods for each individual species of fish. One who makes a success of whttefish hatching and applies similar methods to salmon propagation would make a mistake, and even in salmon culture the method of treatment for spring salmon must differ materially from that employed with the sockeye species."
Mr. Doyle's statement on sockeye salmon hatchery methods follows:
"Spring salmon deposit their spawn in streams which flow directly into the sea. A sudden transmission from fresh to salt water would be fatal to the young fish. Nature, therefore, endows them with size and strength to maintain themselves in the blackish water at tidal levels until sufficiently acclimatized to exist in the sea. Sockeye salmon on the other hand, spawn , only in rivers having a lake source, and generally then in the small streams by which the lake is fed. This distinctive feature in the natural laws governing the spawning habits of the two

species indicates that different methods should be employed in artificial propagation work, but in the past this very important factor has been almost completely ignored.
"Sockeye salmon propagation on the Fraser river commenced in 1884 and year after year eggs were secured from Silver and Morris creeks and other tributaries of Harrison lake. When the fry were being planted they were mostly deposited in the Harrison river, which Is the lake's outlet, where the current of this and subsequently of the Fraser river would carry them to the gulf of Georgia before they found suitable currentless water in which to remain while attaining greater growth. In the fry stage sockeyes lack sufficient strength to hold their own against the sweep of the tides, and doubtless practically all perished from too sudden change from fresh to salt water.
"Dr. Charles H. Gilbert, of Leland Stanford University, is unquestionably our greatest authority on salmon life, and his investigations have shown that practically no sockeye, reaching the ocean as fry, return to the rivers as mature fish. It therefore follows that sockeye fry liberated in rivers and streams that are lake outlets have been a total loss.
"Hatchery troughs", continued Mr.	Doyle
"have smooth sides and bottom and offer no opportunity for the young fish to hide, and Mr. A. Robertson, officer in charge of the Harrison lake hatchery, has pointed out that fish raised therein at least partially lose the natural instinct to bury themselves under gravel when danger threatens. Indeed, he says, they come to know the attendant that feeds them and swim toward him when he .appears with their food. It stands to reason that such fish, even when deposited In the waters of a lake, will fail to protect themselves against their natural enemies, and, lacking the instinct to seek shelter, would doubtless swim around until entering the current of the lake outlet, they would be swept seaward and likewise perish in their fry stage upon reaching salt water.
"Practically all the fish reared in the Harrison lake watershed have been liberated as fry in either the lake or the lake outlet. Few, if any, were planted in the streams flowing into the lake from which in the past the parent fish were secured. If my theory is correct, it follows that practically all those produced by hatchery operations have been lost, but in addition, and more important still, stripping the spawning streams year after year of the parent fish, with no attempt made to replace them with hatchery fry, has eliminated natural propagation as a factor in those streams.
"Years ago the Harrison lake watershed was the main spawning area of Fraser river sockeye; to-day its spawning beds are deserted while mature fish pass them by to ascend the Lillooet and Berkenhead; and I believe the depletion of these streams and the consequent diminution in the quantity of salmon in Harrison lake is largely, if not entirely, due to hatchery operations.
"But while the past has ueen disastrous, the future seems bright. The spring salmon hatcheries of the Columbia and Sacramento rivers have been successful in restoring the runs on those rivers, and all conversant with conditions in those waters know this to be the case. It only remains for us to ascertain the proper procedure for sockeye propagation when success with that species will likewise surely follow."
Mr. Doyle refers to the success which has been had in the Oregon fisheries. As a matter of fact, on the Columbia river they had almost the same experience that we had on the Fraser river, and in 1895 they were practically in the same position there as we are on the Fraser river to-day, that is, their run of salmon had decreased to suich an extent that everybody was alarmed and it was feared that the whole stream would be depleted. The Oregon authorities have been studying the subject for some years, and they have worked out a system which, it seems to me, could be very well applied to the Fraser river; and not only to the Fraser river, but also to all the other rivers and streams in British Columbia where the sockeye runs. Their scheme was the building of retaining ponds. According to our methods of hatching salmon, the fry was turned out after a very few months when it was very small and not able to protect itself from its natural enemies, or to withstand the action of the salt water. In Oregon they built a very large retaining pond- of course, a great many of these retaining ponds were built-and then the small fish were kept in those ponds until they were a year and a half old.
William Duff: Were they fresh water or salt water ponds?


William Garland McQuarrie: Fresh water. Then the fry were turned out to sea. They were turned out not into an outlet of a lake, as was the case with us almost universally, but into a stream-a gravel stream preferably-which led into a, lake. The fish were at an age when they knew something and were able not only to protect themselves, but their instinct was sufficiently developed to prompt them to go out to sea and to come back. The fisheries on the Columbia went from bad to worse until very lately-I think it was about a year or so ago-and a great deal of discontent followed as to the method which they were trying to work out there. But when sufficient time was allowed for these small fish to come back, they found that they did come back ift the shape of larger and better fish than they ever had there before, and in such increased numbers that the run approached the greatest run ever known on the Columbia river. At the present time that river has come back to its own, and other rivers and streams in Oregon have also come back to their own, so that the fisheries of that state have been restored almost to normal. What has been

done by the Americans surely can be done by us, and I submit to the minister that the system in use in Oregon should be studied very carefully by his staff, with a view to its application to the province of British Columbia.
Another point in connection with the hatcheries is that it seems to me where we are hatching out fish, as we do on the Fraser river, while the Americans in the state of Washington are doing nothing in the way of propagation and are getting our fish, they should be required to assist us to some extent in maintaining our hatcheries. I think that is only reasonable, and I believe if suggested to them in the right way they might be prepared to assist us.
Another suggestion which I should like respectfully to make to the minister is that the administration of the fisheries should be reorganized. At the present time everything is run from Ottawa. Now, although they have competent men here, they are a long way from the Pacific and they are a long way from the Atlantic. I submit that we should have both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific local |boards which should act in an advisory capacity, and, if possible, have executive powers. This is not a new suggestion; the matter has been put before the department more than once. It was discussed very thoroughly before the Royal Commission appointed by the Government in 1917 to investigate fisheries conditions on the Pacific Coast. In the report of that commission the matter was dealt with as follows:
Your Commissioners are of opinion that the plan of organization of the administrative system should be reconsidered with a view to making it more effective in dealing with the important problems of the Pacific fisheries. The outline sketch of the present system, given in the introduction, does not reveal practical coordination among the various related services under the control of the Dominion, and there is, moreover, the problem of the overlapping activities of the Dominion and the province. The system is characterized by extreme centralization at Ottawa, and yet only in the Minister of the Naval Service does it there find unity, there being no one official in Ottawa, exclusively assigned to fishery problems, in whom centre all the administrative activities directly affecting the fisheries. On the Pacific Coast there is no connection at all between the different services and the powers of local officials are strictly limited. In the inspection service, for example, although the local inspectors may issue renewal licenses to licensees in good standing, apparently almost everything else must be referred to Ottawa for decision.
The fishing interests have made many representations in favour of more immediate access to executive authority. What is now known as the Pacific Committee of the Advisory Board does not meet the particular need felt. This

Pacific Committee consists of the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service, chairman, the Commissioner of Fisheries, the General Superintendent of Fisheries, the Assistant Superintendent of Fisheries, the General Inspector of Pickled Fish, who are all officials of the Department at Ottawa, and the Chief Inspector for British Columbia and a representative of the provincial administration, the Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries; and there has recently been added one non-official member, a resident of the northern part of the province. In so far as this committee makes an occasion, once or twice a year, for certain higher officials to sit in conference, it is valuable, and the presence of the representative of the Provincial Department of Fisheries is of importance, but it is, in the main, only a method by which these officials work out their problems; it does not bring together all the higher officials of the services bearing on the fisheries: and it does not alter the general nature of the system nor create a local organ.
At six o'clock the House took recess. .
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose, I was reading from a report of the Royal Commission on Fisheries, 1917, and I would like to read just this further short extract from that report:
The Pacific fisheries have been producing about 40 per cent dn value of the total fishery output of the Dominion, and are capable of great further development. The administrative system clearly should be so adjusted as to operate directly, comprehensively and effectively on the spot; for, as has already been emphasized, the fisheries are a great business and the constitutional position is such that the adiministrative system must determine, almost from day to day, the conditions under which the business can be operated. Mere changes in organization will not, in themselves, ensure constructive and efficient action and those responsible for results can best shape the instrument they will use. If a local organization is created it might centre in an individual who under the authority of the minister could coordinate and direct the local operations of all the different services related to the fisheries, or in a commission, which might include in its membership one or more capable business men with local knowledge.
Larger expenditures will be required even under the most efficient organization, but any wise expenditures will be comparatively small outlays to bring about the increasing national returns, wliich this highly productive industry can be made to yield. Increased provision should be made for scientific investigation, and it would seem most desirable that the scientific experts should be brought into more direct relationship to the practical daily problems. The present inspection staff is undermanned even for the work now undertaken.
In this report other matters are dealt with, but as I have now taken up a little more time than I expected, I shall not refer to them particularly. They all tend to

point out that the fisheries of the Pacific coast can be greatly developed, and, I presume, the same thing would apply to the Atlantic fisheries, and also, no doubt, to the inland fisheries.
The request for a local board on the Pacific coast is very general; it is advocated by the fishermen, boards of trade, business interests, cannery men and, I might say, practically the whole community. We feel we are so far away, that it is very difficult under present conditions to make the necessary progress. The feeling which exists at the present time amongst all those interested in fisheries is a very good one, and I think they are all working and striving towards the same end, which is to increase the fishery output of the Pacific and also to improve the methods of propagation.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) last session made some remarks derogatory to the cannery interests. He stated, I understand, that they constituted a big monopoly, and from his remarks one would infer generally that they were rather unfair in their operations- This is the first time that I have had an opportunity of saying anything on the subject, and I simply want to put myself on record as being opposed to the views which the hon. member for Skeena apparently holds. The cannery men have invested in that business a large sum of money running into something like fifteen million dollars or so; they are good businessmen, good citizens; they are carrying on legitimate businesses, and I do not think they should have been subjected to the criticisms which the hon. member made last session.
I have said that the request for this board is backed by practically the whole community. In April of last year, a delegation representing the Vancouver Board of Trade and the British Columbia fishery interests came to Ottawa and presented to the minister a memorial in favour of this board, which memorial I would crave the indulgence of the House to read, because it states the situation very well and gives the views of the people of British Columbia. This memorial, which is dated April 30, 1920, and addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) reads:
For years those interested in the fisheries of British Columbia have urged your department to appoint a local board to control and administer the industry. It is felt that many of the problems which have given your officials great concern, and have been very disturbing factors to all engaged in this branch
55	!
of our natural resources, might easily have been adjusted if dealt with by a competent local board that was familiar with all the various phases which entered into the questions requiring adjustment.
The lack of such a local board compelled the submission of these matters to Ottawa, where only the leading aspects of the case would be known to your officials and their decisions, based on those leading issues, only partially dealt with the trouble. Adjustments which ignored the minor features of these problems often opened the door to a host of small complaints which grew in volume the longer they were neglected, until eventually they constituted grievances which affected the whole province.
In asking for this board, we do not wish to cast any reflection upon the officials of your department. We believe their decisions were only arrived at after giving the question deliberate and painstaking investigation, and that they honestiy believed their findings were in the best interests of the fishing industry of British Columbia. We submit, however, that their lack of familiarity with all phases of the issues was bound to have an adverse influence on their judgment, and that this is always to be expected when questions of this nature are settled by parties living three thousand miles away from the seat of operations.
Tou as a successful business man of large affairs know, from your own experience, how much better results are obtained from personal Interviews than from letter-writing. You can appreciate how points of major importance will be brought out in conversation which it would never occur to a correspondent to mention. Mail order houses unquestionably do a large business, but there is more satisfaction and less complaint when buyers and sellers come into personal contact.
In dealing with Ottawa we must necessarily rely on letter-writing for the presentation of most of the matters affecting the fisheries of British Columbia which require adjustment. Personal interviews involve the loss of too much time and the expenditure of money which often cannot be afforded. As an illustration of this we would mention the British Columbia Fisheries Protective Association and the soldiers' associations wished to send a delegate on this present occasion but were prevented by a lack of funds for the journey and because the loss of earnings for their delegate would also have to be compensated for.
As corrobation of our contention that your officials are not fully cognizant of all the points involved in our fishery question, we would point out that your predecessors have, on at least five different occasions, sent commissioners out to investigate, report, and make suggestions for the guidance of your department in devising regulations for the British Columbia fisheries. We submit that this in itself is a confession of weakness in the present system.
I might mention, of course, that these commissioners were not all appointed by the present Administration, or by the Conservative Administration which preceded it.
The States of California, Oregon, Washington, and the territory of Alaska, all have fisheries problems similar to those of British Columbia. In the cases of California and Oregon control is vested in fishery commissioners



possessing full administrative powers, and the industry in these two states is flourishing. Not only are there no contentious questions requiring settlement, but through intelligent, artificial propagation work the fisheries in their waters show actual increases. Shad have been introduced into the waters of both states and to-day California annually ships many carloads of shad to supply the demands of the eastern markets, while Oregon has worked up a successful business in canning this species.
As to salmon, California, after sixty years of strenuous commercial fishing produces more than it did in the beginning, and the Oregon Fish Commission advise us that "Columbia river and several of our coast streams have been holding their own, due to no other reasons, except that there has been a large number of good, healthy, advanced fingerlings turned into the same annually."
The State of Washington has the control of its fisheries placed in the hands of one fish commissioner. This man voluntarily asked that his office be made subservient to a fisheries commission "empowered to regulate fishery operations to the extent of saying how, when and where they may be carried on, and with ample authority to enforce such regulations." He adds: "This commission should take the place of a fish commissioner, for the power to be delegated by the legislature should be to three or four men rather than to a single individual. It can be elective or appointive, and should be apart from politics or partisanship; free to act solely for the interests of the state in rehabilitating and perpetuating a great natural resource-now approaching destruction."
I might say here that the State of Washington has now placed its fisheries under a local board.
The laws and regulations governing Alaska's fisheries are in the hands of the Federal Government. The law provides that before any change of regulations are made, public meetings must be held at Seattle, San Francisco, or in Alaska as best suits the convenience of those directly interested, and the subsequent requlations are based on the evidence submitted at such meetings. In addition, the newly prepared Alaska Fisheries Bill was determined and drafted by a local board appointed by the Federal Government for that specific purpose.
In New Zealand, in Scotland, in Norway, and we believe also in France and Portugal, the control and administration of the fisheries is vested in local boards. Not only have these boards become strong factors in fostering and building up the industry, but in all these countries the operations of the industry are carried on much smoother and more effectively than is the case in British Columbia under the methods in vogue there at present.
As previously mentioned, California and Oregon, operating under local boards devoting all their time and energies to the purpose, are showing increased production through artificial propagation accomplishments. Washington is asking for a local administrative board so as to secure the same effect. Washington's case is similar to ours, except that their propagation work is farther advanced and their methods more efficient. Artificial propagation in British Columbia has been a notorious failure; the methods employed are obsolete; and instead of making efforts to modernize the system, more money is now being spent to perpetuate the old policies.

British Columbia has a coast line of over 7,000 miles. Along this coast are over 1,000 streams, each possessing its individual runs of salmon. Excessive fishing in each and all of these streams means extermination of the runs unless the commercial depletion is offset by re-stocking each stream with fish secured through artificial propagation. It is not in the public interest to confine the industry of the future to Fraser and Skeena rivers. Rivers Inlet, and a few isolated points on Vancouver Island, where all your hatcheries are at present located. We must be just as particular to build up the thousand small rivers and streams, from which, in the aggregate, the most of our production is obtained. This means more extensive securing of salmon eggs ; the building and upkeep of retaining ponds for the resultant fry; some methods for properly distributing the young fish and some authoritative body that will oversee their subsequent development and welfare. It is out of the question for such work to be administered from headquarters three thousand miles distant; the present Vancouver staff have too many duties of their own to undertake work outside of their present sphere; the local administrative board has been found successful by our American competitors and we believe is the only feasible solution of the British Columbia fisheries problems.
It has been suggested you might be adverse to voluntarily handing over to such a local board as we ask for, the administration and control of the fisheries of British Columbia. We do not believe, however, you will view this question so narrowly. You have already demonstrated a broader-minded policy by diverting some of the Ottawa work and responsibilities to chief inspectors in Vancouver, Halifax and other points. This is the first step in the direction of the goal we are seeking. You have also divested yourself of the administration of operations of Vancouver harbour. It is only reasonable to suppose that if the direction of Vancouver harbour matters warrants the establishment of a local administrative board to operate and control them, an industry so vast and with such diverse and intricate problems as our fisheries contain, would be still more in need of local administration.
The board we are asking for is one that would be as fully administrative in every respect as is the Vancouver Harbour Commission. It would be non-political, and should consist of commissioners whose term of office would be sufficiently long as to give the industry the full benefit of the knowledge and experience they acquire. These commissioners should be three in number, one a bona fide experienced fisherman, one a practical cannery man, and a third, who would also be chairman, a returned soldier of qualified legal attainments. Neither the fisherman or canner commissioners should be permitted to remain interested in the commercial industry, and all should be provided with sufficient salary to make them independent.
In asking for the appointment of this board we are voicing the desires of the vast interests represented by the Vancouver Board of Trade; the interests of those engaged in the fishing industry in any and every capacity; and we are acting in the interests of the public at large. We do not wish you to look upon it as a plea from the salmon industry alone, for development upon proper lines, and under proper control, is just as much needed for our herring, pilchard, halibut and other deep sea fisheries, as well as our shell fishes. A local board dealing with this

newer development can avoid much of the mistakes which have led to friction in the salmon industry, and by carefully studying the situation from the heginning, can so regulate matters that the industries will be protected and production of new fish will keep pace with commercial demands.
The other fisheries referred to, cod, halibut, herring, whales, and all the other fish we have there, are of course very important. In British Columbia we have practically every kind of fish except lobster. We have no lobsters in British Columbia.
' Another suggestion I would make is that something should be done to eliminate the natural enemies of the salmon, and in this connection I wish to refer to the report of the Fisheries Commission before mentioned. I shall quote just a short extract:
The destruction of salmon, in various stages from the egg to the mature fish, by seals, ducks, eagles and trout is very great in the aggregate. Trout are very plentiful in the streams where the salmon spawn and consume large quantities of the eggs and the fry. The checking of this wastage is obviously in the interests of conservation. Witnesses before the commission did not, however, suggest very definite methods of dealing with the problem. Restrictions on the taking of trout for the market might be removed from salmon streams and the fishing of sportsmen encouraged; and at some expenditure by way of bounties, or otherwise, it is believed methods could be found for reducing the number of seals.
The most dangerous enemy of the salmon is the seal, particularly on the Fraser river. There are at the present time on the sandbars at the mouth of the Fraser thousands of these seals, and I am told that they are taking more fish than the fishermen themselves, and that they even' take the fish out of the fishermen's nets. This condition is not a new one, but I am sorry to say that nothing has been done of any practical value to meet the situation. Various half-baked schemes have been tried, but without any practical results. The seals are still there and, if anything, in greater numbers than ever. Something like two years ago the Department of Fisheries did try to do something in the way of destroying seals. They mined one of the sandbars, but it was very difficult to do much in that way, because as you all know, a seal is a very wise creature and it is difficult to put up any job on him. But after taking weeks, the officials finally succeeded in mining this sand bar. They were able to set off the mines when there *were a good number of seals there, and according to their report they killed about 500. I might mention that there was for a time a bounty on seals, but it was not large enough to encourage anyone to get after
55i
them for the reason that when you shoot seals the majority of them sink, and it is only once in a while that you can get one. In order to secure the bounty, you must produce a part of the seal-I think, one of the ears-in order to substantiate the claim that you have actually destroyed it. So that that arrangement was not very satisfactory. Now the fishermen have suggested that the proper method of meeting the situation would be the use of cross lines. These lines are, of course, dangerous to other species of fish, particularly to sturgeon. We have still some sturgeon in the river and in the lakes adjoining it, and some of these fish sometimes attain a weight of 1,500 pounds. This may possibly be regarded as a "fish" story, but it is true, nevertheless. The department has gone so far as to accept the suggestion of the fishermen, but in such a restricted way that it was considered by the men rather in the light of a joke. The department' offered to put on two crews of two men each, and allow them to use cross lines for one week. The fishermen do not consider that good enough; they are of the opinion that nothing can be accomplished thereby. They suggest, however, that during the months of December, January, and February they be allowed to use cross lines, and in addition, that they be given a bonus of $5 per seal. If that is not satisfactory to the department, then they urge that the department put on a number of crews and allow them to work there for three months. They claim that they would undoubtedly catch quite a number of seals and this would have the effect of intimidating other seals and inducing them to leave that district, because, as I explained before, the seal is very wily, and when he finds that the Government is really after him I have no doubt he will quit. I think that this is something that should be seriously considered. There is no question that the menace exists; and there is also the trout menace to cope with. This is serious, and nothing is being done in the matter at all. As a matter of fact, I think that trout eggs have even been placed in some of the lakes and streams in that district.
I would also suggest that something be done to build up a Canadian fishing community. This is something we have not got at present. On the Atlantic coast there are, of course, a great many fishermen who are good citizens and who help to build up the resources of the country, besides contributing to its population. In our country, unfortunately, the Japanese pre-

dominate; and although the Japanese fisherman is an industrious worker, he does nothing towards the building up of the country. Unquestionably he makes money out of the fishing industry, but most of it he sends away to Japan. Most of the Japanese keep themselves and their families on their boats. Of course, they can never be assimilated in this country.
According to the list which has been given me, a great many nationalities are represented in our fishing communities, but very few of them are Canadian; indeed, very few are British. This, I think is wrong. I think we should have a fishing community there composed of our own people, for Canadians should be given the advantage of our own natural resources. Of course, I understand that there is great difficulty in eliminating the Japanese, who apparently are there to stay; but it does strike me that it is not right that conditions should be such as prevail at the present time. If a number of Canadians went to Japan and predominated in any industry, as the Japanese predominate in the fishing industry in British Columbia, there would be some trouble over there, and it is safe to say that some means would be adopted to alter that condition. I am convinced that the fisheries of the Pacific Coast, of the Atlantic Coast, and of the interior, can be greatly developed under a proper system of control; and if you can double or treble the fishing products of the Pacific Coast, for instance, you will help your railways as well as your steamships, besides assisting a great number of our people. The bulk of our fish is exported. I have in my hand a card sent me from Prince Rupert, showing the number of fishing craft there at the docks, and on the back of it is written the following:
Halibut is marketed in Prince Rupert three times weekly. This photograph represents one day's arrivals. This shipment represents $17,000 to transportation companies and requires ex-aotly one-third of the available express refrigerator cars to handle.
If you take the whole shipment of halibut from Prince Rupert alone, you will find that many hundreds of cars are required during the course of a year from our national railways to take care of the transportation of this product. A large number of our ships could be used to take our canned salmon to other countries. I say, therefore, that to encourage the fisheries of Canada is to help in no small way to meet the situation with which the Government is now faced,-a large deficit in
[Mr. McQuarrte.J
the operation of its railways and steamships.


Mr.   J@: The importance of the subject covered by the resolution cannot, I think, be over-estimated. This fact has been demonstrated in the annual meetings of corporations such as banks and other financial concerns during the past few years. At almost every one of these meetings presidents and managers have given considerable attention to the question of the development of our natural resources. By way of illustration I would quote from a statement made by the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway at an annual meeting, I think, in 1919, as follows:-
With the vigorous development of the country's natural resources and the necessary extension of the markets of Canada, we have every reason for confidence in the future prosperity of the country.
This subject is one which, possibly, has been as widely discussed as any other before the people at the present time. It has furnished a prolific crop of speeches at general meetings of boards of trade, Canadian clubs, and public associations generally which have met during a number of years past in Canada. The question arises first as to the extent of our natural resources. We are accustomed to hearing the statement that our resources are unlimited. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether we know very much about what our natural resources really are; and it is doubtful also whether in some cases statements on the subject have not been very much exaggerated. At any rate, we know that our natural resources, whatever they may be, are of no use to us unless they are developed. They are no more useful to us than is a withered arm to a man. They do not provide work for the people; they do not provide wealth with which to discharge our national debt; nor do they in any other way assist us. Instead of having a policy for the development of these resources, we have at present a policy-if there really is one-which tends rather the other way. There are now handicaps that prevent the proper development of our natural resources. For instance, the present tariff, in my opinion, has the effect of retarding such development, rather than of assisting it. The importance of this development is set out in an article appearing in the Toronto Saturday Night:
Our resources are now our reserves. Not only are they owned by the citizens of Canada, but they must be employed to lighten the bur-

den of the war.* * * How all this is going to work out may only be imagined, but one would think that even If the state does not set up businesses for itself, it will have to reach down into business and see that our "great natural resources'' are developed into profitable enterprises, to the end that all the people will not go broke paying war taxes.
Now this is the sentiment which has been expressed far and wide. It is the sentiment which has been expressed already in this House and we shall hear more of it; but the point is that the expression of the sentiment has not got us anywhere up to the present time. What we now want is some active, definite policy which if pursued to the end will result in the development hoped for.
Before I enter further upon the consideration of this subject in a general way, I would like to bring to the atention of the Government a matter in regard to which I asked a question last year. The answer to that question was rather general, and in the light of information subsequently obtained, inaccurate. The question I asked had reference to the Economic Development Commission. I inquired when the commission was appointed, what work had been done and what its cost was. The answer given to me was:
No report has been made but the duties of the commission being largely suggestive and advisory, their views on certain subjects have been discussed informally with the Government for the purpose of advising or assisting the Government touching many subjects upon which it has been advisory to take action by legislation or otherwise.
The cost of the commission to that date was given as $23,200.48. The answer being so delightfully general, inconclusive and unsatisfactory I set myself to find out if I could not get information in regard to this commission from some other source, arid I obtained a copy oj( the Order in Council appointing it. The Order in Council is dated 28th June, 1915. I will not read it but merely mention in a general way what appeared to be the intention in the appointment of the commission. In the preamble it is stated:
The Prime Minister observes that the need is everywhere recognized of stimulating greater production in Canada.
A little further on there is this clause:
That before export the product should be converted through manufacture in Canada into the form in which it is proposed to be consumed or used.
Further on the question of the marketing of our food products is recommended to the commission; and later the question of
opportunities for a vigorous and effective policy of immigration is commended to the commission's consideration. Still further on it is set out that "transportation whether by land or water carriage, for reasons above indicated, is closely connected with the problems under consideration." It would appear from this Order in Council that the commission when it was appointed was given a sort of roving commission to investigate matters generally in connection with production and distribution.
To obtain further information I searched Hansard and found that the matter was brought up on May 9th, 1916. In reply to a question on that date the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, said:
There have been reports made to me some times written and sometime oral.* * * I do however believe that a good deal of really important and interesting work has been done.
In conclusion Sir Robert Borden said:
I believe they will have a full report before next session.
The question again came up in 1917 in connection with an item in the estimates to provide for the expenses of this commission, and particularly in regard to the sum of $750 voted to Mr. E. H. Godfrey. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) the Minister of Railways made this statement:
They have reports ready and these reports have been edited by Mr. Godfrey who was paid $750 for that work.
Now, Mr. Speaker, although I ' was informed last year that no reports had been furnished, yet at an earlier period two members of the Government stated that reports had been supplied and the gentleman referred to had been paid $750 to edit those reports. It would now be in order for the Government to explain these contradictory statements, give us the information asked for regarding this Economic Development Commission, and produce reports which are stated to have been made.
It may be that the commission in question was appointed to arrive at some policy along the lines of the resolution we are discussing. If that is the case nothing of the kind seems to have resulted from its activities. Surely the House is entitled to be furnished with some information as to how the $23,000 mentioned has been spent. It would appear to me that if we want an example of how not to do a thing we have a very fitting illustration in the case which I have cited.

The objects to be achieved by the development of our natural resources are briefly as follows: To create wealth; to provide raw materials for our industries and to adjust trade balances, I am not one of those who believe that the matter of exchange depends very much, if to any extent, upon the situation relatively regarding trade balances; but still it is always advisable to increase our exports as much as possible, and the development of our natural resources will help, to a large extent, to bring that result about. Another reason is that such development would have a tendency to put the West and the East in a similar position. I do not think that even in this event the West would depart from what it thinks is the proper policy to pursue in the interests of the whole country; but if manufactories spring up in the West and develop our natural resources, then the situation there would be similar to that in the East. And the West could not be accused of advocating a policy solely in its own interest.
The resolution calls for a definite policy in connection with our natural resources. I have not the temerity to formulate such a policy and hand it to the Government; but there are a few matters that I might briefly mention which I think should be taken into consideration in connection with any policy upon which the Government themselves may determine. In the first place I would advocate a systematic survey of the territory wherein lie these natural resources which await development. As I intimated previously we really do not know what we have in the way of natural wealth, and such a survey should necessarily precede the actual development. Already in this debate mention has been made of the work which the Geological Survey has done in this connection, and I desire to emphasize the remarks of the hon. member who made that reference-I think it was my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Thompson).
Unfortunately the Geological Survey Department at the present time is very much undermanned and underpaid. It has been doing a great work, particularly in connection with our mineral resources, in the way of pathfinding or pointing out where such resources may be found. But the staff of this department is very much below its normal strength, and in my opinion, not only should the staff be brought up to normal, but it should be greatly increased and the salaries increased also, because there is no question that more men

are required to carry on the survey, and by reason of the inadequate salaries many of the best qualified members of the staff have left the department to take more remunerative positions elsewhere.
Another illustration I might give is in connection with forestry. A little while ago in one of the forestry journals I read a statement to the effect that: There is no use at the present time trying to take up the subject of reforestation. The first thing we must do is to endeavour to protect the forests we have. We have immense stretches of timber and pulpwood, especially in the northern parts of Western Canada, and the amount of destruction by fire each year is really criminal. In my opinion the only way by which we can prevent this destruction is by the use of an aeroplane fire protection service. I will not go into details, but this work has been done very efficiently and very satisfactorily in the United States. I am corresponding at the present time with a young Canadian who had been in the Canadian Air Service overseas, but who when he came back to Canada found no opportunity of continuing his flying activities in Canada, and so took a position in the United States Air Service. He is now doing excellent work in California. He has told me what the Air Service is doing there in the way of fire protection-work that it is utterly impossible to accomplish except from the air. In northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan where there are hundreds of thousands of acres of pulpwood and timber only a few men are employed in the summertime in fireranging work, and it is utterly impossible for them to cover the ground thoroughly or to do anything in the way of controlling or extinguishing fires when they do break out. As many as a dozen fires are sometimes raging in a district extending over a distance of a few score miles in area, and the fireranging staff is utterly inadequate to cope with even one of those, fires. During the past twenty-five years one-half of the timber resources of that north country has been destroyed.
But a necessary prerequisite to any plan of developing these natural resources is the transfer of those resources in the western provinces to the provincial authorities. I do not propose to discuss this question at this time as there is a resolution on the Order Paper covering the point, btit until it is finally settled we cannot expect to have any definite policy agreed upon. The Federal Government has intimated that it pro-pqses to transfer those resources to the

western provinces, and, of course, if that is done there would appear to be no particular reason why a definite policy should be formulated by the federal authorities in respect to such resources and naturally the provincial authorities must wait until the natural resources are under their control before they can decide what policy they will pursue.
Another point that has already been touched upon is co-ordinating the development of our natural resources with the upbuilding of our National railway system. As an illustration I might mention that last year the Canadian National Railway built a branch line twenty-five miles northeast of Melfort, Saskatchewan, through a well settled country. Beyond this district is another area of good land which is not so well settled, being subject to flooding at certain periods of the year. This is known as the Moose Range area comprising about one hundred and nineteen thousand acres. When the railway is extended the best route will be through this area. The natural thing to do in connection with the extension of the railway and the development of the country would be to drain that area, and it could be done at a cost of about $2.50 an acre. When drained the land will be just as good as that through which the railway is already built and which is well settled. I understand, however, that although this project had been practically decided upon, the Estimates have been cut down so that it is not possible to undertake the work this year. Here is something which on the face of it the Government should take in hand in the interests of the whole country. This is a case where the expenditure of a few dollars will be returned a thousandfold, not only directly in the upbuilding and development of the country, but indirectly, which is just as important, in the furnishing of traffic for that railway; and with the extension of the line through this district it will be eventually well settled, and justify still further railway development. I will not pursue this illustration further, but it seems to me that at this particular time it is important to point out that we must co-ordinate the development of our country and the development of traffic for our railways. It is far more important that such development work as this should be taken in hand than that some other public works such as drydocks or canals be constructed.
I had intended to take up at some length the question of the development of our mineral areas, but I shall content myself
with merely referring to the anomaly that arises from the fact that although the Department of Mines is divided into two branches-the Geological Survey and the Mines branch-neither of them has anything to do with the actual mines or mineral areas, these being looked after by the Department of the Interior. Besides there is no mining law so far as the Dominion is concerned. Those who engage in mining have to depend on regulations which are subject to change from time to time. The situation is entirely unsatisfactory, and until the Federal Government enact proper mining legislation there can be no satisfactory mining development in the territory which is owned by the Dominion Government. The provinces of Ontario and British Columbia and the Maritime Provinces, and the states to the south of us, all have mining laws; but the federally owned areas which are known as mining lands are governed entirely by mining regulations which, as I have said, may be changed from time to time. Some one has said: it is better to have a poor mining law than good regulations, because then there is the element of permanency and the miner can govern himself accordingly. I might continue indefinitely on this subject, but I shall content myself by emphasizing the fact that one of the first things this Government must do if they wish mining to be developed in the territory over which they have control is to enact mining legislation along the lines pursued in Ontario or in British Columbia.
Last year I mentioned another matter which is of great importance not only in the interest of mineral development but to the returned soldiers, namely, the question of prospecting by means of parties of returned soldiers. It was stated by the Minister of Mines a year or so ago that such a scheme would not be feasible, but since that time it has been worked out in other countries. I understand that in Australia a scheme of that kind is now in operation; British Columbia also has a similar plan. I am not sure whether it is in force as yet, but in any case it looks feasible and I have no doubt that if it is not already in operation it will be put into effect very shortly. There would seem to be no reason why an interesting and profitable occupation should not be afforded our returned soldiers in that way, with the result not only of discovering but also of developing our mining areas.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has mentioned the scheme in connection with reindeer outlined by Mr. COMMONS
Stefansson. Great credit should be given to Mr. Stefansson for the information which he has given to us in connection with the north country. We now know that the map of Canada has been rolled back many miles; that the north country, which has hitherto been looked upon as a vast, barren waste, is capable of supporting a considerable population and of producing as much meat in the way of reindeer and caribou as the southern country is producing by its cattle and sheep. I understand that Mr. Stefansson has already secured from the Government a lease or concession of some kind in respect to the southern half of Baffin island and that he is now purchasing reindeer to put on this territory in order to demonstrate the feasibility of the project.
I might continue indefinitely on this subject, Mr. Speaker, but I intimated that I would not take up very much time, and as there are other speakers on the programme and it is the desire, presumably, to conclude the debate this evening, I shall give way to the others.


Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this motion I desire to compliment the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) for bringing the matter before the House and affording to hon. members an opportunity to discuss the development of our national resources, a subject which, to my mind, is one of the most important that can be considered at this time by Parliament or the Canadian people.
I listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Thompson) describing in a splendid manner the natural resources of that country situated so far to the north.
I could not help being impressed by the great possibilities that lie before this country in the proper development of its natural resources. But vast as they may be, these resources are of no real value in their undeveloped state; only as we develop them and bring them into use can they contribute anything toward the comfort or sustenance of man or toward the liquidation of our national debt. Take for example, the great basic industry of agriculture. We have approximately 450,000,000 acres of land in this country suitable for agricultural purposes, but only about one-tenth of it is at present under cultivation.
From this vast area that is not
9 p.m. being cultivated no wealth is being derived. Only by pursuing a proper policy of immigration, a policy of encouragement to emigrants who are
	.
familiar with agricultural pursuits, can we hope to increase very materially the acreage under cultivation. I want to commend the policy of the Government in that regard. They have been trying to encourage the coming to Canada from Great Britain and the United States of persons who have had agricultural experience and who are willing to come to this country and settle on the land.
The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) this afternoon made some reference to the immigration policy of the Government. He said that he had read in the press an item in which it was stated that two or three shiploads of emigrants-I think they were Poles-had been refused admission to this country by the Immigration Department, and he expressed his regret on that account. But, Mr. Speaker, unless those immigrants had agricultural experience and were prepared upon entering this country to go on the land, the immigration authorities were perfectly right in refusing admission to them. We do not want shiploads of immigrants coming to Canada at this time to compete in the labour market with our own Canadian citizens, many of whom are out of employment.
We have also heard it stated, not only in this House but elsewhere, that the policy of this Government was not in the best interests of the farmer; that it made his agricultural implements dear and did not provide a proper market for his products, and that as a result it was militating against agricultural development in this country. I would like to quote some figures which I think should set hon. gentlemen right on this question. In 1914 the number of acres in farm crops in Canada was 33,436,675; in 1917, 42,602,288; in 1919, 53,049,640, an increase in area under crop of over 10,500,000 acres in two years and of almost 20,000,000 acres in five years. Then, let us compare the values of the farm crops produced in these different years. In 1914 the value of the farm crops produced was $638,580,300; in 1917, $1,144,636,450 and in 1919, $1,452,437,500. This, I submit, does not indicate any serious set-back to this great natural industry under the policy of this Government.
It has been stated also that farms have been abandoned in Ontario. Let us look into the figures for Ontario as applying to the period to which I have just referred. The acreage under cultivation in Ontario in 1914 was 8,973,700; in 1917, 8,233,500; in 1919, 9,915,884. The acreage under cultiva-

tion in 1917 was a little less than it was in 1914, but in 1919 there were 1,682,384 more acres under cultivation than there were in 1917. This, I think, Sir, should be a sufficient answer to the statement that farms in Ontario are being abandoned.
With some of our important natural resources, such as coal, fisheries, and oil, I shall not deal to-night; they have been referred to at length by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. I should like to refer briefly to our timber and mineral resources. The forest area of Canada is estimated at nearly 600,000,000 acres, about two-thirds of which is covered with marketable timber, so that the House will realize the great wealth producing possibilities of this national asset. What I should like to impress upon the Government is the necessity, not only of preventing wastage by fire of this great national asset, but of seeing that the timber is manufactured into the finished product in Canada, in Canadian mills, and with the employment of Canadian labour. In order to see the benefits which would accrue from a policy of this kind, let us look for a moment at the pulp and paper industry. A few years ago there were practically no pulp and paper mills in Canada, and practically all the pulp wood that was cut in our forests was exported to the United States. The provincial legislatures, however, yielding to strong repre- , sentations that were made to them, placed an embargo on the export of pulpwood from crown lands. What was the result? Today, we have many pulp and paper mills in operation in this country. In several instances, flourishing towns have grown up in Canada as a result of industries having been placed in those particular localities, and I will cite just two or three instances in northern Ontario. The town of Espan-ola, with a population of 3,500 people grew up solely as a result of a pulp and paper mill having been placed there. The same thing is true of Iroquois Falls, with a population of about the same number, and Smooth Rock Falls, where the mill has not been in operation so long, with a population of about 1,500. There are other places where mills are just being erected and not yet put into operation, such as Kapuskasing. I believe a mill is operating at Timiskaming in the county of Pontiac.
But there is another important result. Instead of exporting all our pulpwood, for which we receive a very small amount, we are exporting finished product, and for ths first ten months of the present fiscal year,
exports of pulp and paper amounted to the splendid sum of $142,579,053, as compared with $83,576,178 in the first ten months of 1919-20 and $67,403,247 in the corresponding period of 1918-19. This is, I submit, a sufficient argument to prove the wisdom of home manufacture, even without our taking into consideration the effect of this export business on the balance of trade and on the stabilizing of our Canadian dollar. But while there is an embargo on the export of pulpwood from crown lands, there is no embargo on the export of pulpwood cut on lands that have been alienated from the crown, lands that are owned by private parties. What do we find? We find that in the first ten months of the present fiscal year, 1,243,112 cords of pulpwood were exported, in its natural state, to the United States, with the result that we receive only the sum of $16,396,940 for that vast quantity of pulpwood, whereas, had it been manufactured into the finished product, into newsprint, in Canadian mills, we would have received approximately $85,000000 for that same amount of pulpwood. In addition to that, we had employment only for the lumberjacks, or what might be termed the lower class of labour, in cutting that wood, whereas United States mills provided the artisans or the highly-skilled workmen, and the wages to those highly-skilled men were paid in the United States. This is not the way to build up our country, and I would strongly urge that an export duty be placed on pulpwood cut on lands that have alienated from the crown. If that is done, this vast quantity of pulpwood will be manufactured in our Canadian mills and will provide employment to Canadian workmen instead of to workmen in the United States.
I had intended to deal at some length with the iron ore industry; but it has been gone into and dealt with very thoroughly by the hon. member for Fort William, and I will make only a few brief observations. We have in Canada some twenty blast furnaces, some of which are not at present in operation; but those that are operating, are using only a very small percentage of Canadian ore, only about four or five per cent, the reason for this being that, while we have vast quantities of iron ore in this Dominion, that ore is of a low grade, low in iron content and high in sulphur and other deleterious matter, and in order to bring this Canadian ore up to a marketable condition, it is necessary that it be given certain treatment which is

termed "beneficiation." It requires roasting or briquetting, and different methods of treatment. The capital expenditure for the plant necessary for this process and to develop the power necessary to operate such a plant is such that marketable ore cannot be produced cheaply enough to compete with United States ore. It is, therefore, necessary, if we intend to develop our iron and steel industry, to have it grow and expand in this country to a sufficient extent to take care of our requirements, that some assistance be given to its development.
This afternoon-the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) took a pretty strong crack at the system of bounties, stating that this was a good old Tory policy; that it was the same old Tory plan of letting your friends get into the trough or the public treasury. I should like to remind my hon. friend that it was not the good old Tory party that gave the iron and steel bounties, as he said, but the Liberal party. It was the hon. gentleman who represents the constituency of Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), who was then Finance Minister, who was largely responsible for those bounties being given, and I want to commend him for that because I think I can convince my hon.- friend that it certainly was a wise policy to pursue at that time and has proven a success. I think all will admit that as a result of those bounties on iron and steel, which were given between the years 1896 and 1912, it was possible for the steel industry to become established in this country-an industry which now plays such an important part in the industrial life of Canada. I want to point out that the Dominion treasury did not lose one cent through giving those bounties, but on the other hand has received directly from the steel industry a greater sum than was ever paid out in bounty.
I have been able to obtain the figures covering only four large steel industries operating in Canada, and covering only the four years from 1915 to 1918 inclusive. In this four year period these four corporations paid directly into the Dominion treasury in customs duties $9,327,377, considerably more than one-half the amount paid out by way of bounty in the whole period, and when you take into account the customs duties that the other steel companies operating in this country have paid during the whole term of their operation I think all will admit that in that way alone much more has been returned to the Dominion

treasury than was ever paid out by way of bounty. In addition to that, many employees of these steel corporations are drawing good, substantial salaries, and during the last three or four years I have no doubt that a nice snug sum has been paid into the treasury by way of income tax from these employees. But in addition to the amount that was paid directly into the Dominion treasury, we must take into account the general benefit to the country of these steel corporations. Let me give, for example, the amount that these four companies paid in freight during the four-year period to which I have referred. No less a sum than $30,625,323 was paid by these four corporations in freight in the four-year period from 19151918. These concerns employed during that period an average of 20,000 men and paid out in wages in that time $85,269,075. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this country lost nothing, but on the other hand, has been the gainer by a very large amount, through the bounties which were paid during the 15-year period from 1896 to 1912.
I submit, further, that if it was a good policy to render assistance to the steel industry at that time, is it not worth while considering whether a similar policy would not be in the interests of the country in connection with our iron ore development at the present time?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX Maison-neuve) :	Mr. Speaker, I was very much
interested in listening to the very able speeches that have been delivered in support of the resolution proposd by my hon. frind from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), and I wish to congratulate the mover for the non-partisan spirit which he displayed in presenting his views to the House. His motion reads:
That in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that the Government should bring: forward a policy having for its object the development of the natural resources of Canada.
That is a large order for the Government, and you will note in the language of the resolution an implied condemnation of the Government which my hon. friend supports so steadfastly. It is not so much a policy that this country wants at the present moment for the development of the natural resources of Canada; it is an up-to-date Government that is required. The present Administration has been in office ten years, yet the resolution as drafted by my hon. friend implies that in all those long years they have done absolutely nothing to develop the natural resources of

this country. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak this evening in any carping spirit.	_
I agree with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Simpson) that the policy of the Mowat Government for the development of the pulp industry in the province of Ontario has been an excellent one. It has been followed in my native province, thanks to the wisdom of the late Premier, the father of my friend, the present member for West Quebec, Hon. S. N. Parent, confirmed since by Sir Lomer Gouin. As a result of that policy, we have seen a great development in the province of Quebec. Cities and towns have sprung up on the St. Maurice river, on the Saguenay river, and on the St. Francis river. The present prosperity of the province of Quebec, from an industrial point of view, is largely due to the wise policy of the two heads of the local government -the late Hon. S. N. Parent and Sir Lomer Gouin. By that policy we have forced the Americans who heretofore had come to Quebec, depleted the Crown lands of pulp wood, and manufactured the finished product in the United States, to transplant their capital and their factories in the province of Quebec, and we now have a population of skilled working men, who in the* next few years will make our province prosperous in a still greater degree.
As I stated a moment ago, it is a very large order which my hon. friend has placed in his resolution, viz., the development of the natural resources of Canada. It seems to me that it should be the A. B. C. of the policy of any Government to develop the natural resources of this country. After this terrible war Canada, above all things needs development to meet the problem of unemployment which remains unsettled. We must also attract capital into this Dominion, and favour sound immigration. I regret, by the way, that the Government has deemed it proper to abolish that excellent body which has done yeoman service during the last fifteen years; I mean the Conservation Commission. I am not aware that the United States have abolished their Conservation Commission, which has been of such great service in that country. The Conservation Commission was started under the Roosevelt administration, and it was because of the urgency of the question that the Laurier government instituted a similar commission in Canada. From the returns published from time to time, the Conservation Commission of Canada has been of great assistance to our industries generally.
Through its activities and research work we have learned what immense natural resources we have in Canada.
One of my friends this afternoon spoke of the rich coal deposits in Alberta and in British Columbia. Through the Conservation Commission an estimate has been made of the amount of coal in Canada; and we have also seen by statistics published what inexhaustible resources we have in the water powers of this Dominion. It was my good fortune to visit the province of Alberta during the month of September last, and I must confess that I* was amazed to find that that province contained such untold wealth in coal deposits. Indeed, I believe that if we can solve the transportation problem and the intricacies of the labour question in western Canada, this country, with its immense coal deposits in the East and in the West, can, and should, be independent of the United States.
But, Mr. Speaker, as Kipling says: "East is East, and West is West." I am not on my feet to speak of the West. Other speakers have extolled to the seventh sky the potential wealth there is in the Yukon Territory, in British Columbia, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, and in Central Canada. I intend to say a good word this evening for the dear old province of Quebec, and incidentally, for the Maritime Provinces. In the old province of Quebec, and especially in the district which I have the honour to represent jointly with my hon. friend the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and my hon. friend from Matane (Mr. Pelletier), we also have great natural resources which are only awaiting the action of an up-to-date government to take hold of and fully develop them. The Gaspe peninsula is the oldest section of Canada. When Jacques Cartier sighted the shores of this country, he planted the cross at Fon-tenelle, near Gaspe basin; therefore, that is the gateway of Canada. It is a very picturesque country. The mountains remind one of the Alps, and the Baie des Chaleurs is reminiscent of the blue waters of the Mediterranean sea. But there is something else besides the picturesque in that country. We have natural resources. In the interior of the peninsula, we have nearly three million acres of virgin timber lands which are awaiting the opening up of that country through the construction of a railway. Now, I am not pleading for a government railway in the interior of the peninsula; far be that from my mind. I am only recalling to the House of Commons the fact that last year my good friend from

Matane introduced a private Bill with a view to obtaining a charter for the construction of a railway from Amqui on the Intercolonial railway, to the harbour in the Gaspe basin, through the interior of the peninsula. The best evidence was adduced before the Railway Committee in favour of the construction of that artery, and yet, in spite of our efforts to convince the majority of the committee that the charter should be granted, we were defeated by a few votes.


Mr. PELLETIER:: One.


Rodolphe Lemieux: feature of the fishing industry will be considered at the proper time. But at the moment I wish to call the attention of the Government to the necessity of providing the fishermen with freezers in various local centres; and I would suggest that those freezers should be organized on the cooperative system. That system has been adopted in the Old Country and is working very satisfactorily there. I again ask the Government to look into this matter and to establish for our fishermen these local freezers to assure them a continuous supply of the necessary bait.
Coming back to the question of natural resources in general, Mr. Speaker, and to the remarks I made at the beginning of my address this evening, namely, the opening up of the interior of the Gaspe peninsula, I claim that in my humble judgment the best asset in the natural resources of Canada it not to be found in the fisheries or the mines, but in the population itself. The best asset of Canada is its population, particularly if it is a population of settlers. Now, Sir, the opening up of the interior of the peninsula of Gaspe would add to that district at least fifty large centres. Many years ago that country was surveyed by engineers and traversed by missionaries and voyageurs, who were unanimous in their view that we had between the two ranges of mountains a splendid valley, with good soil, where there could be planted at least fifty parishes, that could attract settlers and maintain them on the land. Mr. Speaker, is it too much to ask that the pioneer population of Canada, which has shown so much attachment to the land of its ancestors, should be favourably considered in connection with the railway policy of the Government? After all, Canada is the greatest farm on the continent of America, and we must look to the farmer as the mainstay of our country. I claim, Sir, with some pride, that the race to which I belong is above all a race of farmers. Think, then, what the result would be if by the construction of a railway in the interior of the Gaspe peninsula fifty parishes were established; think of the industry of that population, of the increase in its numbers, and of the national wealth it would represent. Leroy-Beaulieu, the great economist-and many who came after him have said the same thing -once stated that the capital value of a man, a woman or a child could be placed at one thousand dollars. Mr. Speaker, I want to help my good friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) in the dilemma in which he finds himself 
to-day. He has to find a means of raising revenue to meet the financial condition of Canada, the serious railway problem of Canada, the interest charges on the national debt. The greater the population of the country the greater will be his revenue, because the country is developed in proportion to the extent and activity of its population.
Now, Sir, the fifty parishes which I would like my hon. friend to establish in the interior of Gaspe will soon increase their numbers, because the race from which I spring has demonstrated that, once given a start, it never stops. At the time of the cession of the country to Great Britain the census of Canada showed, according to our historians, a population of 60,000 or 70,000; to-day the French Canadian population of the province of Quebec only is, if my information is correct, about 2,500,000. The same economist, Leroy-Beaulieu, stated a few years ago that the rate of increase in the French population in Canada was unique in the history of the world; that the population was doubling itself every thirty years. Well, that means that in thirty years the French Canadian population of the province of Quebec will be 5,000,000, and in sixty years, 10,000,000. And what is sixty years? Even a century is but a moment in the history of a nation. Now,
I come back to what I said a moment ago: the best asset of Canada, its greatest wealth, is its population-and, I may say, its farming population. Let the Government develop a policy of expansion; let the Government encourage colonization, the taking up of farms, and we need not worry about the future of Canada. These are my last words, Mr. Speaker; I did not intend to speak at such length, but as I was speaking of the population of the province of Quebec, I could not but give a few facts which are in themselves quite illuminative.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have a first duty to perform in coming to the defence of the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) after the onslaught that has been made against him during his absence by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). If I may judge by the gentleman's prophecy, I doubt very much that he would be a better minister of immigration than the present minister; for in Saskatoon, when the hon. member for Pontiac was there during the boom days, this is what we found on his barn door sign:

Frank S. Cahill says Saskatoon will have
100.000	population in 1920.
The population of Saskatoon at that time was about 40,000; it is now about 20,000.
I wonder whether the other 20,000 pulled out with my hon. friend from Pontiac and followed him to his constituency, or whether in the manipulation of their affairs he drove them out of the country. That is a matter for him to answer, but in view of that record and that prophecy, I say that the Minister of Immigration has nothing to fear.
Next, Sir, I would like to say a word in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), who says that what is wanted is a government. I always thought that you could judge people by their works; and if I read aright the political history of this country, during the period of fifteen years that hon. gentlemen sitting opposite were in power, they were quite as impotent as any administration that is known in the political history of Canada in taking any initiative in developing our natural resources. This Government has gone through a period of great difficulty, it is now about to adopt policies of development and settlement, and it is not amiss that the members of this House should, from time to time, bring to the attention of the Government the various matters which agitate us personally in our provinces. Kipling has been quoted this afternoon on iron ore. We have in Alberta
360.000	Kiplings who say that that province, properly treated in the development of its natural resources, will rival any other province in the Dominion in fifteen years. Those are the Kiplings we have.
I intended to take you this evening from Athabaska Landing on the river Athabaska down to the Mackenzie basin and back and tell you what is disclosed to the eye in that province; but all the various matters which I could speak of on that trip have been spoken about by members of their respective provinces, and it will suffice for me to say that all that has been said by the respective members for their respective provinces-we have all those things included in the province of Alberta. I will, therefore, dispense with going through the itinerary. I intended to take you down to Pelican Rapids, a water-power which rivals many of the water-powers to be found in other provinces. I intended to take you down to Pelican gas wells where they pick the ground with a stick and light the gas which flows to cook their meals. I intended
to take you down to Grand Rapids which, if harnessed, would rival the Niagara Falls, and I intended to take you down to McMurray where you have 500 times the world's normal consumption of oil to be taken from the tar sands. I expected to show you what wonderful wealth we had in the development of the timber of that country. I intended to pass you on the Mackenzie basin where 4,000 square miles of oil have been discovered by the Imperial Oil Company and others. But I will refrain from going into those matters tonight, because the subject has been covered so well by other members for their provinces, that it suffices for me to say that we have everything you have spoken of and it only remains for you to come and make the trip which I have made in a canoe and you will see all this exposed to the eye, it only requiring somebody to tell you what you do not know yourself or for you to see what you do know yourself.
My complaint is a real one and I join with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). I want action. But there is a difficulty which has been brought to the attention of this House, one that is real, and it was brought to our attention by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) who, by the way, finds himself in a very awkward position to-day by having the farmers from his constituency coming to Ottawa to ask him to protect them on their hay. He did bring to the attention of this House that, so far as this resolution deals with the western provinces, a great difficulty stands in the way of the adoption of a policy by this Government, in that the western provinces are clamouring for their natural resources. It seems to me that if we have reached such an impasse between the provinces and the Dominion in dealing with that question, we had better slit the Gordian knot in two and have done with it and then let the provinces adopt whatever policy they like with regard to their mineral resources, or else the Dominion of Canada should take a stand and immediately make it possible for us to have both population and the wealth taken out of the country which is teeming with it and which can be seen by anybody as he who runs and wishes can see.
The transportation difficulty is one that is always thrown up to us in the western country and it is a real one, but it is one that ought to be solved in the course of a few years if any of those natural resources are given a great impetus by this Government. The labour question is one that has

been solving itself very rapidly within the last couple of years.
I should like to assist the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) in his railway project in Gaspe and in the development of the natural resources of Gaspe; but it strikes me that there is only one question in which the Dominion Government has any jurisdiction in the province of Quebec and that would be the fisheries, except for tidal waters. If I am mistaken, I may be corrected by the hon. gentleman, but I assume the natural resources of Quebec belong to that province, and that question is one for Quebec to deal with except as regards such assistance as the Dominion Government is actually giving to-day to the various provinces in a general way, being a plan more to co-operate or co-ordinate with the provinces than a plan to develop as an initiative from the Dominion itself. My hon. friend's speech, therefore, this evening would have been better delivered in the Provincial Legislature than in the House of Commons.
I have one subject about which I am extremely touchy, and it is the oil question which I hope to be able to speak upon this evening, under the heading of another resolution. I should like to see the question of our natural resources settled as soon as possible or this Government take a stand in the development of our natural resources The resolution, therefore, is one that I am prepared to support if it comes to a vote, because I think it is time that some action should be taken. For instance a great deal has been said as to the coal resources of Alberta. Let me tell the House that the" coal resources are not entirely confined to Alberta; you will find coal deposits at Birch mountains in the Mackenzie district, Cariboo mountains, Norman, Great Bear lake, Peel river; and the same belt extending from Fernie to Brazeau and Yellow Head pass continues on the east of the Rockies up to the Laird river. None of those deposits have been discovered by the Dominion Government or by any effort of the Dominion Government whether under this regime or any other regime; they have been discovered by prospectors who have gone through this country and who have made their reports which have been generalized by some department at Ottawa. The central plain of the Mackenzie has oil, gas tar sands, gypsum and anhydride, marble, limestone, salt, coal and brick slate. To the east are all the minerals usually found in metamorphic rock such as gold, cobalt, nickel, iron, maganese mica, 
copper, etc. All these again have been discovered by individual prospectors and there has been no policy by this Government or any other government to assist in their development. What we are asking under this resolution is that this Government should announce its policy in regard to these natural resources. That cannot be done very easily unless you determine first of all whether the western provinces are entitled to their natural resources pr not. Personally, I should like to see those natural resources passed over to the western provinces as fast as possible. We have a great deal of difficulty, being 3,000 miles away, in getting the attention we should have. If we write a letter, it takes two or three months before we get a reply and before the red tape has been done away with in this city, we are handicapped by finding that we have to start all over again in some other department. We should, therefore, like to see the natural resources handed over to the provinces so that we could give those natural resources the attention they deserve. It is not for me to say to this Government what it should do. One of two actions should be taken- the natural resources should be transferred to the provinces or the Dominion Government should take action in developing them.
Before taking my seat I wish to make one observation upon the criticism which has been offered by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) in regard to the railway charter which the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Pelletier) sought to get before the railway committee. If I remember rightly, the attitude of the railway committee was this: that the hon. member for Matane should produce evidence that the incorporators or directors of the company were men of means, financial men, that they did not want a charter merely for exploitation purposes, and that the railway which they proposed to build would not at some time or another be foisted upon this Govcernment as other railways have been from time to time, making public ownership in this country merely the taking over of defunct railways instead of railways constructed by the people for the people. That evidence was not produced before the committee by the hon. member and as a consequence the charter was refused.


Georges Parent: Does my hon. friend
know of a single case in which evidence was produced before the railway committee as

to the financial standing of the incorporators?


Henry Arthur Mackie: I do
not know of any such case but I do know this, that after private individuals have embarked on a railway enterprise in this country to which the Dominion Government was not a party in any shape, whatsoever, and after people have settled along that line of railway, these individuals and the people who have so settled have come to this Government and said: It is your moral duty to take over this road. We say today in the face of the fiasco which has been permitted in this country by all Governments in their railway policy that this Government should put its foot down on granting charters to private individuals who may open up the country and after people have settled along the line tell this Government " it is your moral duty to take over the road."


Georges Parent: Does my hon. friend not
know that there is a general law applicable to every citizen of this country?


Henry Arthur Mackie: A general law to what
effect?


Georges Parent: The Railway Act under which the holders of charters are required to fulfil certain obligations and under which the public interests are protected, a general law stating the conditions by which a company shall be incorporated and shall fulfil its obligations to the country.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I quite agree that that might be a solution. The Railway Act might be amended in such a way as to say who shall and who shall not get a charter arid if that is a solution I shall be very glad to assist my hon. friend in bringing it about. We have in Alberta the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway. The Provincial Government came down here and begged the Dominion Government to take over that road because it was in a state of liquidation, but there was only a small population at the end of the steel at McMurray, nevertheless the people said: Since you got us to come here and promised us a railway we are entitled to have the Dominion Government take over the road, so as to keep faith with the people. It is true it was not your promise but itis your duty to take over this road as part and parcel of the National Railway System. The same thing happened with the Edmonton and Dunvegart railway and it was only after refusal upon refusal that
the Canadian Pacific took over the road under a working agreement for operation only. And so it has been all along. We are told by the Minister of Railways demand after demand is made upon his department that certain private lines should be taken over by the Dominion Government as a moral obligation so as to give service to the people along these lines that were built by private enterprise. Hon. gentlemen opposite should remember these things when they have an opportunity to speak on the railway Estimates, when they will no doubt be castigating this Government for its policy of public ownership. As a matter of fact the only policy of public ownership that we have is the taking over of defunct private enterprise, not because we want to but because of mistakes of past administration to which the railways are a living testimony. The Government has no alternative but to take them over. The Government therefore should put its foot down on that sort of thing. If the hon. member for Matane or any other hon. gentleman can produce the evidence required I would support him as a -member of the Railway Committee, or if any hon. gentleman is willing to come forward and suggest a remedy that is feasible the difficulty can be solved.
In conclusion I wish to say that the resolution has my hearty support. I hope the Government will take heed of it and adopt a policy of either giving over to the provinces their natural resources or taking some step themselves to develop them so that the provinces will benefit directly and the Dominion indirectly.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the House, but I could not sit in my seat without expressing an opinion or two on the important question now before the House. I think every hon. member will agree with me that the question of the natural resources of this country is one of the most important that this House could discuss now or at any other time. I could spend the whole time which I intend to take in discussing the natural resources of only my own province, the province of Nova Scotia. We have in that province our great coal mines in the island of Cape Breton, in the county of Pictou, and in your own county of Cumberland, Mr. Speaker. We have also our great lumber industry, our great fishing industry, and



our great agricultural industry. But it is not my intention at the present time to discuss the natural resources of my own province, because they are well known not only to the people of Canada but to the whole civilized world and also because there are other hon. gentlemen who can discuss them a great deal better than I can. I intend to spend a few moments in going further afield. I think it was the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Le-mieux) who said that East is East and West is West, and I intend to go west for a little time and speak on the natural resources of the far western province on the Pacific coast. I had the pleasure during last September, October, and November of spending about eight weeks in the western provinces, and it was certainly a most interesting trip. One reason, no doubt, why I found it so interesting was because it was my first trip west of Toronto, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, as I passed through the great province of Ontario and the Prairie Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and came at last to British Columbia, I was seized with the idea that Canada certainly was the greatest country in the world, a country of which every man, woman and child in this Dominion may be justly proud. My only regret was that I had to spend such a short time in the different great cities and towns in those western provinces.
During my visit to the great province of British Columbia I was struck with the immensity of her natural resources. Owing to my early training I was perhaps impressed more by her great fishing industry than anything else. During the time at my disposal I had the opportunity of discussing first hand this great industry with people who were interested in it. I heard what they thought of it and of its great future if proper steps are taken for its development. But most of all I was struck by the fact that the present Government was not doing its full duty, or its partial duty, by the people of British Columbia, in the matter of the fisheries of that province.
We had the pleasure this afternoon and evening of listening to the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). I followed it with attention, and I must congratulate him on his grasp of the situation with respect to the salmon industry of that province. I agree with him that that industry is capable of

much greater development, and I hope that his prayer to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) will be answered but I have no faith that it will. I noticed that when he first rose to speak he endeavoured to eulogize the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He said there never was such a minister in charge of that department before. I regret that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not present to hear what I have to say. However, I will not speak for myself, but will use the words of the hon. member for New Westminster himself. As I said, he began by eulogising the minister, declaring that he was the greatest man that was ever in charge of that department in Canada. If this is the fact, why is it that two years ago the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. McQuarrie), found it necessary to bring to the attention of the minister a state of affairs in his province which was anything but creditable to the department? On looking through Hansard I find that the hon. member made a very excellent speech in this House about two years ago on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, and in the course of his remarks he referred to the great salmon industry of British Columbia, calling to the notice of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the same gentleman who is at present in charge of that department, certain grievances in British Columbia, and in no uncertain tone informing the minister what he expected to be done. Now, it seems to me that if, after two years, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not heard the cry from Macedonia, it is not competent for the hon. member for New Westminster to get up in this House and congratulate the country upon having the best Minister of Marine and Fisheries with which this great land has ever been blessed. What did the hon. member for New Westminster say on the occasion to which I refer? I read from Hansard of 1919, at page 426, the following:
"I am very sorry indeed that he did not And it convenient to come to our province. All the signs point to trouble in connection with the British Columbia fisheries. In connection with those fisheries we have had Royal Commissions, we have had International Commissions, we have had investigations of all kinds; hut the situation does not appear to have yet been cleared bp. Great dissatisfaction exists not only in connection with the Fraser river fisheries, but also as regards the whole of the fisheries of British Columbia, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the fisheries of that province amount to something."
The rest of the hon. member's speech this evening, after his preliminary re-

marks eulogistic of the minister, was only a criticism of the Government and the Marine and Fisheries Department. After bestowing some praise on the minister, he began, as he did in the speech from which I have just quoted, to criticise the administration. His whole speech, of something like an hour and a quarter, was critical of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his department at Ottawa. The only good thing he could say in reference to the officials of the department was the fact, in connection with the great salmon industry of British Columbia, that they were getting rid of the seals in the waters of the Fraser river because, he said, the seals were destroying as many salmon as the fishermen were catching. I presume the hon. gentleman was speaking from the book, and from information given him by one of the officials of the department. But I should like to know, and I am sure you would be interested to know too, Mr. Speaker, how in the name of all that is good and great any official of that department can tell how many salmon the seals destroy, or how they can establish the fact that the salmon industry has been injured by these aquatic enemies of theirs. I admit that the seals must feed on some kind of fish, but the hon. gentleman will find that in addition to salmon they have other varieties of food. He said that one of the good things to the credit of this department in connection with the salmon industry was its endeavour to blow up the seals on a certain reef in the Fraser river. It seems to me that if that is all that we can credit the department with, so far as this great industry is concerned, they are condemned out of the mouth of the hon. member for New Westminster.
My chief reason for rising to-night was to say a word or two on behalf of the great halibut industry of British Columbia. During my tour in the West, in company with my distinguished leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the two other hon. gentlemen, who were of the party, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), and the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy), I had the pleasure of staying for three days in the city of Prince Rupert, and whilst there, not only members of the Board of Trade and citizens generally, but fishermen of th,e district, interviewed me and stated their grievances, requesting that not only I but the other members of our party would take up their case on the floor of the House. The halibut fishery of British Columbia is a very important one and is capable of great development, and I say
56i
without hesitation that it is a public scandal that the present Government, especially that of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, should treat the fisherman of Prince Rupert in the way they have been doing. I repeat, Sir, and emphasize this statement, that it is a public scandal and a disgrace for these two hon. ministers to treat the fishermen of that city in the manner complained of, and if they cannot better conditions there, I think it is their bounden duty to resign their portfolios and let others take charge of the affairs of their departments. What has happened? As I say, the halibut industry of Prince Rupert is a highly important one. For instance, on the first of this month no less than 415,000 pounds of halibut were landed at that port. But what did the fishermen find when they came to the city of Prince Rupert to land and sell their catches? They were told by the business men of that city, the men who handle fish and ship it to points in Canada as well as to Chicago, Boston, and other ports in the United States, that there was no means of transportation to cope with their catch. This quantity of fish, as you will readily realize, Mr. Speaker, would require something like about 150 refrigerator cars, but the Department of Railways had no cars, or practically none, to handle this great catch. And that has been the case for the last three or four years. Now, is that the way for a government to treat people engaged in a great industry like the halibut industry of the British Columbia coast? It certainly is not, and the Minister of Railways merits condemnation for the manner in which he has dealt with this industry.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) referred to an article in the Canadian Fisherman. In order that the House may appreciate the exact condition of affairs, I should like to refer to this article. It appears under the caption "Strangling an industry," and the sub-head reads: "How the fishing industry of the North Pacific is being bluffed and humbugged by the Canadian Government Railways." Now, Sir, this House was startled a few days ago, when the Estimates were laid on the Table, to find what the deficit on the Canadian National railways would be this year. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that there should be deficits in the affairs of the country, and particularly in the Department of Railways, when the present Minister of Railways is handling the great transcontinental system of Canada as


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) :: I would not venture to intrude in the debate at such a late hour did I not wish to point out to the House that pertinent suggestions, and I think constructive suggestions, have already been made which might aid in solving some of the questions which have arisen in the course of this debate- not indeed that they could hope to solve anything like all of them, because, as you well know, the debate has ranged over a wide field. I do not think, for instance, that any of the suggestions made could

solve the question of the shortage of refrigerator cars; but in other respects I believe the establishment of a National Research institute would be a start towards solving the problem of the utilization of our natural resources. I do not pretend to traverse the ground which has been covered in former sessions in this respect, but I would just like to recall very shortly what has been done up to date and what remains to be done.
Four or five years ago the Research Council, an honourary advisory body, was appointed to look over the field to see what could be done and to advise the Government on action. Their report-and I will not delay the House longer thqn to simply mention the final conclusion-was in favour of the establishment of a research institute. Subsequently parliamentary committees sat during two sessions to consider this question, and then brought in a unanimous report in favour of the establishment of such an institute. That report was debated by hon. members on both sides of this House, and I think representatives from seven provinces spoke in favour of the report, which was unanimously adopted by the House. I am bound to say, Sir, that my disappointment last session was exceedingly keen when Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates appeared without one copper being provided for the establishment of such an institute. I am perhaps the more delighted after such a disappointment to see in the Speech from the Throne this session, the, to me, two magical words, "Scientific research;" and my reason for rising tonight is to urge upon the Government, and particularly upon the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) speedy action along this line.
It may be asked how such an institute would help in the development of our natural resources. The Research Council prepared, and the Parliamentary Committee considered, a Bill to be brought before the House looking to the accomplishment of the purpose I have mentioned, and the very first function of the institute as stated in that Bill is as follows:
The Institute shall have charge of:
(a) researches undertaken to promote the utilization of the natural resources of Canada.
Such an institute would undoubtedly be the rallying point where all such matters could be referred, to be discussed and upon which appropriate action might be recommended. Because in such an institute not only would laboratory tests be carried

on, but when those tests showed that a certain process was technically successful, the Institute would apply a commercial test as well to determine whether such a process would be profitable.
Not only has this House, but I think it is fair to say that the country at large, has approved and applauded the establishment of a research institute. I have had occasion to go through several provinces since last session, and in more than one of them I was asked to give addresses on this subject. I found an exceedingly lively interest displayed in the question, and even in those provinces where perhaps the predominating industry is agriculture the members of various clubs and other institutions appeared to be fully awake to the importance of this movement. And our manufacturing industries as well are alive to its importance and are anxiously looking forward to a step being taken in this direction. Only the other day I noted, as perhaps some other hon. members may have done, the discovery that pitch pine could be made into excellent pulpwood for the manufacture of paper. Heretofore pitch pine if mixed with spruce spoiled the pulp, but by scientific research, carried on in the laboratories of the pulp and paper companies, a method was discovered of treating it alone, when it was found that not only was its fibre somewhat longer than that of spruce, but that properly treated it made an excellent grade of pulp. What does that mean? It means, as I understand it, that in the limits already handed over to operating companies the supply of pulpwood has, through this discovery, been increased from twenty-five to forty per cent. So there is a natural resource of our country put upon the market simply by scientific research. "Well," it may be said, "that was done by a private concern. What need is there of a research institute?" It is only a week ago that I received from the Pulp and Paper Association a strongly worded resolution in favour of the establishment of a research institute so that their members might take advantage of its work and go further afield into discoveries such as I have just mentioned.
I want to close my remarks with a personal appeal to the veteran Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose immediate control this matter comes-and I regret that at this late hour he is not present -so that he may give his personal attention to the proposed Bill and perhaps see his way clear to introduce it into the House. Not long ago my hon. friend from Red

Deer (Mr. Clark) termed the right hon. minister the Nestor of the House-and rightly so-for of whom could it be more truthfully said in the flowing words of Homer?
The smooth tongued chief from whose persuasive lips sweeter than honey flowed the stream of speech. ,
I trust that he will add to his many honours by this piece of progressive legislation, and then would we, in classic, phrase, wish that his years should be as his eloquence, Nestorian.


Mr. GUSTAVE BOYER (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker,
I have listened with much pleasure to the speeches that have been delivered on this question of the country's natural resources. We have heard about coal mines and gold mines, about colonization and fisheries; in a word, about all those things which, if systematically developed, would give birth in Canada to an era of still greater prosperity. But of all those natural resources, one seems to have been forgotten-I mean the most natural of all natural resources, the maple industry from the standpoint of maple sugar and syrup making.
In 1904 I had the pleasure to speak for the first time about this industry which had been neglected and seemed likely to disappear. That first speech had aroused some hilarity in this House. Honourable members did not at that time attach any importance to the serious side of this question; however, the following years awakened public attention and both the Dominion and Provincial Governments-especially that of the province of Quebec-after taking hold of the question, made quite a success of it.
In 1904, the revenue derived from our maple industry hardly amounted to $1,200,000. Last year, it is marvellous, we must acknowledge it with pleasure, the maple products have increased remarkably in quantity and yielded more than nine million dollars. I think that of all the natural resources of this country there are none that pay more than this one, taking into account the short space of time required to produce and its amazingly easy sale.
As I have said, when this question was raised for the first time in this House in 1904, it was not taken in earnest. In the following years I brought up the same question and finally succeeded in getting an amendment to the Food Inspection Act which to a certain extent prevented the adulteration of sugar and syrup.
This amendment was not sufficient yet to give all the required protection to the farmers, to the sugar and syrup producers, but at last in 1913 or 1914 the government of the day thought proper to listen in earnest to the request of the sugar producers of Quebec and Ontario, and they altered to a large measure the amendment to the Food Inspection Act. Since then we have seen all the provinces, encouraged by this protection, give more serious attention to this industry. In the past the farmers produced a pure maple syrup which they would send to the cities, and this the manufacturers would compound with other syrup or sugar, or other ingredients, and out of a gallon of pure syrup they would manufacture ten or fifteen gallons of this spurious article, which they would then sell for the pure product. The name was all that remained of the genuine article. Large quantities were thus made which were sold at the same figure as the pure maple product. With the help of societies established in the province of Quebec, we succeeded in a large measure in stopping this adulteration, I do not say that the present Government have done all in their power to have the law observed, but I must render justice to the late government, especially to the present Postmaster General, who then did his utmost to have the amendment that I had suggested to him, accepted. Now, these city establishments, where pure maple sugar and syrup were turned into compounds, and which were sold for the genuine article have disappeared.
Last year the Montreal Bank of Commerce made a report whereby the value of the total output of this article was stated to be worth nearly a million dollars.
At the present time, I must add, that if that industry was developed on a larger scale, if the farmers would apply themselves to this industry as they do to all the others, they could not even yet with all their united efforts turn out enough maple sugar and syrup to meet the demand. We have an enormous demand from the United States, we also have much demand from European countries where our product has only been known for four or five years. Unfortunately we can not meet all the needs. Yet we have in the province of Quebec and in a part of the province of Ontario, a large number of maple groves which might be worked to advantage. We have in the province of Quebec admirable sugar bushes which might be worked with larger profit; but they are left idle. There are in the country about 55,000 owners of

maple bushes who could carry on this industry, but barely 15,000 do so. Now, when I see that this industry brought last year nine million dollars to the producers, I feel convinced that no industry could pay better than this one, not even excepting dairying, which is nevertheless reputed to be our national industry. And why? Because the maple sugar and syrup crop is gathered in a short time, barely three weeks, during a season when the farmer has almost nothing to do, and from bushes generally growing on rocky land which would otherwise give no return. Even now, many farmers-notwithstanding the possibility of a good yearly return, and attracted by the high prices for wood owing to the dearness of coal, cut down their maple trees for fuel. They thus destroy a capital which could give them a yearly income of much greater value than could the return from the capital represented by their sales of fuel wood if invested at six per cent. They realize at one time more than the sugar and syrup would bring them, but it is once for all, never to be repeated, for what is destroyed is destroyed for ever, and is a dead capital.
This motion gives me the opportunity to call the attention of the House to this eminently national resource, essentially ours. Apart from the Eastern States of the American republic, and some parts of the province of Ontario, nowhere in the world can such a succulent product be found as our maple sugar. Our syrup and our sugar are not known. When they become a thing of ordinary consumption, no one will want to use any other sugar than ours, I mean as a sugar de luxe. That is why the Government should undertake an educational campaign.
Both the Federal and the Provincial Governments have done something for that industry. In the subsidy given to the provinces, the Federal Government has allowed a small amount which the latter are to distribute according to their judgment. The province of Quebec has made the most of this small grant.
I claim that the Dominion Government, while they have done something in the right direction should do more. They should increase the subsidies of the provinces for the encouragement of agriculture.
I believe that the Government should give larger grants and impose more rigorous conditions. The Quebec government have made a good use of what has been given to the province; and I believe the

Dominion Government should be encouraged by the results obtained and might increase the subsidies.
Now, with a view to securing results from the help granted this industry, it would be well to apply the Adulteration Act very vigorously. I know that during the last six years, the enforcing of this Act has been much neglected. During the war, the general food commissioner had called to Ottawa the president and directors of the Pure Maple Sugar Cooperative society and had asked them not to be too exacting, not to require the strict enforcement of the law, for, as he said, sugar war scarce and people had to be rationed; representing to them that it would be better not to make complaints and allow the work of time to better the situation. We were agreeable to this request, but unfortunately as usual tolerance bred license. To-day it has become necessary that the law should be enforced rigorously and that all those who adulterate maple sugar or syrup should be very severely punished. Should the Government be willing to return to the very good practice of treating the offenders with severity, we would have increased production. If the farmers accomplished anything in that in- ' dustry these last year, it was because the prices were very high, and they felt themselves protected. The price for sugar has even been excessive, I admit: sugar has been as high as 35 cents a pound and syrup $3,00 a gallon. This was due to the circumstances, and we understand that this can not continue. The farmers realize thoroughly that they will have to return to more normal prices, and that the industry will not suffer thereby, for the consumer has also to be thought of. The reverse would be detrimental to the producer, for should the prices remain at the high level, consumption would likely decrease considerably, because everybody would not be able to pay such prices. The farmers are very reasonable; they are ready to admit that the prices might come down and yet afford a sufficiently remunerative profit. However, prices must not fall disastrously low, as happened in 1914; for in that case the farmers would give up sugar-making. I believe that if we encourage the farmers, if we show them that we mean to encourage them, they will persevere in this industry, and it will be all benefit for us ali, as a large output will tend to regulate the prices. I deem that the Dominion Government, along with the educational propaganda in favour of agriculture which they

carry on with such good results, should also do their share in this campaign and not leave it all to the provincial authorities. All the provinces have not the same degree of interest in this question. The Federal Government, who know the needs of each province, since they make a constant and thorough study of them, should give the Department of Agriculture all necessary authority for the spreading of knowledge useful to this industry, and to impress the farmers with the idea that instead of being cut down, as they are too extensively now, the maple bushes should be preserved with care. The Conservation Commission aims at reforesting certain parts of the country. It is much easier to preserve our forests than to do any replanting. In certain parts of the country bur beautiful forests are being destroyed without mercy, without judgment, without purpose, I make bold to say. Our maple forests are precious not only from the, viewpoint of what they are worth as timber or fuel, but also from that of the benefit they can annually yield to the gatherer of the sap. They should be husbanded with judgment.
I am very much pleased that this motion should afford me an opportunity of speaking on this question. I have often addressed the House on this matter, and as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the first time I did so, it was not without causing some hilarity.
Hon. members were not accustomed to hear about maple syrup and maple sugar, but later on they ascertained that this industry was flourishing in the country. Who would have thought it, Mr. Speaker; a commodity that was yielding only $1,200,000 two decades ago, yielded as much as $9,000,000 last year. The dairy industry, the returns from which amount to millions and millions of dollars does not yield one-tenth of the profits accruing from this industry, if the amount of labour and the season at which the work is done are taken into account.
I think the Government should see to it that this natural resource be taken care of. Our coal measures, our gold mines, our fisheries, all those natural resources must be developed, the future of this country is dependent upon it; however when since creation we have at hand an industry whose development is so easy and which is a gift of God, let us try to get from it all possible returns, not only for ourselves, but for the country as a whole. Having developed that industry upon a large scale,
we shall be able to make the most of the good name of our maple sugar and maple syrup abroad, where it will be said: Here is a product peculiar to Canada. We received lately from France orders for the shipment of tons of maple sugar. From Chicago we were asked for twenty-five thousand pounds of sugar in one pound loaves, for sugar yellow in colour so that they might call it "Golden Sugar." We could not fill those orders. Production is too meagre yet.
At this time, the United States are coming into Beauce to get hundreds of thousands of pounds of sugar and yet I must state that sugar is carelessly manufactured in the county of Beauce. I see that the hon. member from Beauce (Mr. Beland) is here; I am pleased to make these remarks in his presence. There are some parts of the province of Quebec where some splendid sugar is manufactured- sugar of the first quality. In the county of Beauce, there are localities which turn out good sugar, but many places where bad sugar is made in the province of Quebec are to be found in Beauce. We have done our utmost in that direction, however that district is so large and the producers are so numerous that they could not be taught in a few years. With the help of the hon. member from Beauce, of the local newspapers and of the schools which were opened in that district, we are in hopes that the farmers there will eventually occupy a foremost place in that industry. The county of Beauce alone turns out as much maple sugar and maple syrup as all the rest of Quebec and that part of Ontario where there is sugar-making, and the producers of that district will presently be in the forefront of that industry as they are in other farming activities. When we read history, when we learn in what manner our fathers endeavoured to develop that industry, tapping the maple trees with axes and letting the sap flow into wooden buckets we acknowledge their process was a very primitive one. However they have not yet reached that point in Beauce; they collect the maple sap in very small vessels while it would be much advantageous to collect it in larger ones. Yet, I do not wish to speak ill of Beauce whose progressive inhabitants will discard ere long the ways of the past, and I shall proceed with my disquisition. Americans are coming into that county to get a dark sugar we would not place upon our table and we do not like to see manufactured

any longer in the province of Quebec. The association I just mentioned to you is above all an educational association. We advocate betterments which ought to be introduced in the sugar industry. What we succeeded in doing elsewhere for butter and cheese with the result that we now have good butter and good cheese, we would like to do for maple sugar; our desire is that good maple sugar be turned out in every part of the country. Americans are coming into Beauce to get dark sugar for which they pay as high a price as they would pay for good sugar. The sales of these products in that district amounts to seven or eight hundred thousand dollars. That sugar is shipped to the United States where it enters into the manufacture of chocolates and especially into the making of chewing tobacco. Why do they use that dark sugar which has not undergone all the changes which good sugar has to undergo? It is because that sugar, although not in such a condition as to be placed upon our table, still preserves the original taste of the maple, all the relish of the sap. Such is the reason why. But that is only fortuitous and should not be our ultimate aim.
The county of Beauce is one of the most beautiful districts of the province, and it is the duty of its inhabitants, who are in many respects, a very progressive people, not to be content with present satisfactory prices, but to endeavour to improve their products; not only would they get the same fair returns, but they would also add to the good reputation of their province. It is a very large district, containing im-mence forests, and therefore, we would not be justified in charging its people with apathy. There are great handicaps which prevent the proper development of this vast territory and its progress is retarded by the high prices which are being paid by the adjoining country for inferior products.
Our observations, however, do not apply to all producers in the district of Beauce; on the contrary, there are some who could teach a good many things to the other manufacturers of the province.
I trust that my hon. friend from Beauce will take my remarks in good part and that he will communicate them to his constituents in the same spirit as I have given them.
In the county of Vaudreuil, which is very small as compared with the county of Beauce, we have but a few sugar factories. But our products are of the highest order and they always command the maximum prices. Why? It is because our

farmers are using modern and national methods. They are well rewarded and very much encouraged thereby. I have seen in my constituency, maple bushes of only a few acres, to give their owners a profit of six or seven hundred dollars.
I am calling the attention of the House upon this matter and I am sure that the hon. Minister of Agriculture, who is present, will understand what I mean, because he has in the person of his strict and official representative, the Deputy minister a man who knows particularly well the maple sugar industry.
I * was pleased to notice that the Hon. Minister of Justice has listened to my remarks. He belongs to the province of Quebec; he knows what our maple sugar is and I am sure that his thought will not concentrate exclusively on coal or gold resources, which are sometimes very disappointing, and that he will devote a little of his influence to the development of the maple sugar industry.


Mr. H. S. CLEMENTS (Comox-Alberni) :: Mr. Speaker, I promise that at this late hour I shall occupy the attention of the House for only a few moments. I do not intend to go fully into the subject matter of the resolution; I rise only to reply to the hon. member for Lunenburg, who, I regret, is not in his seat. I regret also that I have not been able to follow the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Boyer).
The hon. gentleman for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) made the bald statement that he spent eight days in British Columbia. I assume that he spent probably one day in Victoria and two in Vancouver. He said that he spent three days in Prince Rupert; the remainder of the time would be occupied in travelling between these three points. Having spent this much time in our province, the hon. member assumes that he knows the fisheries of British Columbia. Well, in my opinion the hon. member knows very little of the fisheries of British Columbia. It might be as well for him to give his attention to the province from which he comes; I hope he knows more about the fisheries of his own province than he does of those of British Columbia.
The hon. gentleman indulged in a tirade against the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballan-tyne) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid). He laid great stress on the shortage of cars at Prince Rupert, and he discussed the halibut situation and the salmon situation in British Columbia. Why, one would think that the hon. gentieman had been

raised in that province. I should like to discuss the natural resources of British Columbia and those of the Dominion generally but time will not permit. I want to say, however, to the hon. member for Lunenburg and to all hon. members of this House that the late Liberal government from 1895 to 1911 had created the greatest combine in connection with the fisheries of British Columbia that ever existed. I represent probably three-quarters or more of the total fishery districts of British Columbia, the remainder being represented by the membr for Skeena (Mr. Peck). Let me say to the member for Lunenburg that in 1911 when Prince Rupert budded out as a growing town, having been practically planted by the late government-I lived in Prince Rupert and I know the conditions -a merchant or a hotel keeper could not buy a single fish in Prince Rupert for home or hotel use. That condition was the result of the combine brought about by the late Liberal government so far as the fishing interests of the province were concerned. When the Government of 1911 took office, through the efforts of hon. Mr. Hazen, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and of myself as a private member, regulations were put into force with a view to breaking up the combine in British Columbia, and Prince Rupert was put on the map as a fishing town, being allowed the privilege of having American and foreign fishing boats unload their catches, take on bait and buy supplies and equipment. That was accomplished by the present Government.
Now, so far as the canning industries were concerned, under the old conditions it was useless for any individual fisherman to apply for a cannery license or a seining license-and I am speaking of purse seining or drag seining; even gill-net seining-the whole thing was controlled by this combine. But things were changed when the Liberal government went out of office in 1911. The present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne)-all credit to him-threw the fisheries of British Columbia absolutely open so that any one might, by paying the necessary fee, obtain a license to can or to fish. The present Government and the Union Government absolutely broke up that monopoly which had been created by the Liberal government prior to 1911, and today we have absolutely open fishing in that province.
I regret that I did not have the opportunity of listening to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). Since 1911 I have had the
honour of a seat in this House as a representative from British Columbia. I have always, from that time up to the present, advocated that the rivers and streams leading up to the natural spawning grounds of the fish in that province should be cleared and the natural spawning grounds preserved so that the fisheries could be kept up and maintained. But, Sir, from 1895 up to 1911 practically every stream entering into the natural spawning areas of the fish in that province had been jammed, and not a dollar had been spent in clearing them or providing for the care of the natural spawning grounds. But I want to give the present Government credit for spending a good deal of money in this connection. Since 1911 steps have been taken to remedy this condition, and so far as I know the great maj ority of these streams to-day are cleared so that the fish can ascend to their natural spawning lakes and areas.
I suppose my hon. friend from New Westminster has discussed the hatchery situation in British Columbia and in the Dominion. We have always maintained-of course there have been arguments pro and con-that the hatcheries of British Columbia-and I suppose the same would apply to the Atlantic coast-have not been rendering the service which many of the cannery men would like to see rendered. But I agree with some of the professors and some of the cannery men that large rearing ponds in connection with our hatcheries in British Columbia would be a great asset.
My hon. friend from Lunenburg censured the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the neglect of the halibut fisheries of British Columbia, stating that they had been depleted and were practically lost to the fishermen. Well, I venture to say that if the hon. member were in his seat he would not be able to tell me where the halibut grounds in British Columbia are. I say that in all sincerity, and without any desire tc reflect upon the hon. member in any way; I want to be as kind to him as I possibly can. Now, many who know the situation better than I do have always contended that Hecate straits belong to the Dominion.
But that area, as many hon. members will know, lies between the mainland and Queen Charlotte islands, and by all natural events and observations, that water, in my opinion at least and in the opinion of many experts, belongs and always did belong to the province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada. The late Government-and I am sure the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding)

knows the situation as well as I do-knew that all that water of Hecate strait was fished out by the Americans, and the immense halibut banks which existed in those waters have been absolutely destroyed. The halibut which is brought into Prince Rupert to-day is all caught beyond the three-mile limit and many hundreds of miles from Prince Rupert and, indeed, there is a little halibut caught on the west coast which finds its market in Prince Rupert.
I regret the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) is not in his seat. There is no doubt there was a few months ago a certain shortage of cars in Prince Rupert to handle the fishing trade, and I say, in all sincerity, that if I believed the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) was deserving of censure in that regard, I would certainly give it to him; but so far as I can judge the situation, the minister is not to be censured at all. Last session, orders were given for refrigerator cars; I think money was voted for the purpose, and if the car companies fell down in the delivery of those cars, it seems to me that the matter was entirely up to the management of the railways and not to the Minister of Railways. The number of cars which were ordered had not been delivered, but the management of the railways divided up what cars they had throughout the Dominion; Prince Rupert received its fair share of refrigerator cars, and so far as I know to-day no great complaint is coming from Prince Rupert as regards any shortage of cars in that city.
I rose simply to answer the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) in regard to the fishery question. I would certainly like to have had the opportunity and pleasure of discussing many of the natural resources of Canada and especially the pulp industry, because I have many large pulp concerns in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and there is room for many more. I hope I have not censured the hon. member for Lunenburg too much, but I trust that before he rises again in this House to discuss the fisheries of British Columbia he will get a little better posted upon the subject. If he does so, it will be more in his interest and the interest of the province from which he comes.


Hon. Mr. BELAND (Beauce) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I did not intend taking part in the discussion this evening, had it not been for the rather unpleasant remarks made to the House by the hon.
['Mr. Clements. ]
member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Boyer). It is always a great pleasure for me to hear the hon. member. The House at least the hon. members who are acquainted with the French language, are aware that he is a splendid speaker to whom one could listen for hours'. My hon. friend, in his speech, has, to a certain degree, established a few indisputable facts, but on the other hand, he tarnishes unnecessarily the reputation of a district, a reputation earned by years of intense production of our truly renowned maple sugar and maple syrup which are known not only in Canada, but also throughout Europe.
The last part of my hon. friend's speech might be described an advertisement for the electoral district which he represents so well in this House; but when the hon. member attacks the county of Beauce and its maple products, and seems to complain of the superior qualities of these products, which according to him, are superior in appearance only-instead of taking our farmers to task, he should remember that Providence herself has willed it so. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the maple sugar and the maple syrup which is produced in Beauce is mainly due to the special qualities of the maple trees of the county, qualities such as cannot be claimed for the maple trees in Vaudreuil. This is due to natural conditions, Mr. Speaker, to those fine hillocks and rolling lands which gather and above the sun's rays in greater abundance that could be expected in a flat country, like Vaudreuil.
My hon. friend referred especially to the methods of sugar making in the county of Beauce. He has given us to understand by his transparent, though veiled remarks, that the methods in use in Beauce were old fashioned ones. This proves but one thing, and that is, that the hon. member for Vaudreuil is not acquainted with the Beauce district. If he had taken the trouble, or rather if he had given himself the pleasure of visiting our splendid rural district, when the sun is fast melting the snow, and its warm rays are causing the sap to ascend and the buds to burst forth he would have found that sugar and syrup in Beauce are manufactured by methods as perfect as science can teach in these days. I fear he has not however visited us for a quarter of a century.
But let us say no more of this rivalry between the member for Vaudreuil and myself. I will only add that, if American manufacturers of maple candies, toffee, or the so-ealPd maple syrup, give the pre-

ference to the Beauce products, it is not because it is darker, but because it is sweeter, if I may say so, than the syrup . that comes from the Eastern townships and the counties of Vaudreuil and Sou-langes. With a pound of the Beauce maple sugar, the Chicago manufacturers can make a greater quantity of maple candies than he could make with one pound of sugar bought from my hon. friend the member for Vaudreuil.
There is in Canada an enactment known as the "Maple Products Act." This Act forbids all manufacturers, whoever they are, to mark their products as maple, when they contain any substance other than the condensed sap of the maple itself. Several members who spoke in the House last year and this year have approved of this special provision of the law, Mr. Speaker,
I have come to doubt its usefulness.
That is not the point. The law is useless because, on account of the high prices of pure sugar and syrup, it is impossible to find a sufficient number of consumers to dispose of all the maple syrup and maple sugar produced in this country. Now, let me point out that, some years ago, there was in certain states of the Union, a legislation similar to that which is in our statutes, concerning maple products, and the American producers almost unanimously requested their respective Governments in each one of the states, to repeal the Act. In the province of Quebec, and particularly in the county of Beauce, there is a movement on foot-and one that is taking considerable proportions, as evidenced by the petitions signed by thousands of syrup and sugar manufacturers, which I have already laid before the House-in favour of amending or repealing this Act. Of course, the manufacturer has no kindly feeling towards the city producer \yho may place on the market a so-called maple product which is distinctly a fraud. But the producers of Beauce, at least if I understand rightly the petitions I have had the honour of laying before the House, are willing to have their pure products altered, that is, mixed with cane sugar or syrup which are selling at a much lower price, provided that it would be specified and specifically marked on the container that it is a mixed maple product.
You can obtain-and it has been scientifically demonstrated-just as wholesome and nourishing a syrup as the pure maple syrup by mixing the latter with cane sugar; that mixture will keep a long time and that is very difficult in the case of
pure maple sugar. One of the reasons why we cannot sell an unlimited supply of our excellent and delicious maple syrup of Beauce, is that it cannot keep indefinitely. Unless you have a small refrigerator at home, the heat in the summer will cause a fermentation of the syrup. The consumers in the cities who are aware of this fact, buy only a small quantity of maple syrup in order to avoid the trouble of having it spoil by fermentation. That is why it is difficult to sell any large quantity of pure maple syrup, unless it should be for industrial or manufacturing purposes. To-day, petitions are being circulated throughout the county of Beauce and are being signed by thousands of people, asking the Government and Parliament to either amend or repeal the existing Act. I do not know whether the Government will give their consent. Of course there may be room for argument against the proposed amendment, because it would always seem very nice to say: Maple syrup is such a dainty thing, so fine and delicious and precious, that we must not allow any alteration of it. But we must also consider the mercantile and industrial point of view. For instance, you will realize that if you allow maple syrup manufacturers in Montreal, Toronto or Quebec, to make a syrup containing, let us say only 25 per cent of pure maple, provided that it would be specified on the container, whatever it may be, there will not be the same objection to the placing of that product on the market and it will have the advantage of keeping indefinitely and could be sold at a much lower price.
Mr. Speaker, I need not say any more. Whatever may be said against the maple sugar of Beauce, either by people settled in the west end of the province of Quebec, Vaudreuil, for instance, or in the eastern townships where my good friend who is sitting beside me (Mr. Robb) resides, they may say that it is black, red or brown, or anything else, but the fine connoisseur who wishes to taste the real thing, the real maple sugar or syrup, will pass through the counties of Vaudreuil and Huntingdon and through the Eastern Townships to land in our own district where he can find a product to which nothing in the world can ever be compared.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charle-voix-Montmorency) :	(Translation.) I
would like to say a few words on the subject, but it is rather late and as we have done a good deal of work to-day-I am not speaking of myself but of other hon.

gentlemen who took part in the debate-I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Arthur Meighen: I would submit that we have exhausted about as much time on this motion as surely to satisfy every hon. member. I know the subject is of importance, but really we cannot afford to talk day after day in a more or less aimless discussion so far as any specific object is concerned.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I would submit that the discussion to-day has not been aimless, as my right hon. friend has suggested. I think this is one of the most important questions we have had before Parliament, and I do not think it is unreasonable at 15 minutes to 12 o'clock- within a few minutes of midnight-to ask that we should have an adjournment.


Arthur Meighen: If I knew just what ' the aim was I would withdraw the word "aimless." I know some good can come from the discussion; I am not disputing that, but what more good can come from this discussion I am at a loss to understand. I only want to get through with the discussion so that we can get down to the business of the House.
Motion (Mr. Casgrain) for the adjournment of the debate negatived.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that having moved the adjournment of the debate, and that motion having been lost he is now precluded from taking part in the debate. Any other hon. gentleman, however, who has not done so has the right to speak.
Motion (Mr. Manion) negatived.



REGULATIONS GOVERNING OIL AND GAS PERMITS AND LEASES

Henry Arthur Mackie: That, in the opinion of this House, the Regulations for the issue of oil and gas permits and leases in the Northwest Territories of Canada approved by Order in Council dated February 11th, 1921 (P.C. 331), are detrimental to the development of the oil industry both in law and equity and the purport thereof is to unduly discourage private initiative and unduly protect large financial interests by allowing the same to take full possession of the oil fields of the Territories.
He said: I regret having to speak on this matter at this hour, more particularly as hon. gentlemen who are absent from the House intended to participate in this de-
'
bate, but I cannot allow this opportunity to slip by in view of the urgency and importance of this matter to those who intend to avail themselves of the opening of navigation in the northern portion of the province of Alberta to go to the northern fields of Mackenzie. Prior to December last, oil regulations for the unsurveyed territory of Mackenzie permitted an individual to locate 1,920 acres of oil lands. In the month of December an Order in Council was passed changing those regulations. This Order in Council became effective on the 27th day of December, and the regulations were so amended that any locator might take 640 acres of land, and, upon discovery of oil, he had the privilege of choosing 320 acres, the other 320 acres remaining the property of the Crown. That was called in the province of Alberta the "checker board" system, but was not looked upon as very unfavourable to the locator. Then, without any warning whatsoever, an Order in Council was passed in January, 1921, suspending all oil regulations in the North West Territories. A new set of regulations was promulgated by another Order in Council, No. 331, assented to on the 11th day of February, 1921. At the time I put this resolution on the order paper there were four distinct objections which I intended to take, two of which, however, have been removed by a subsequent Order in Council. One objection which I intended to discuss was the retroactive effect of the Order in Council as contained in clause 51 of the present regulations, but inasmuch as an amendment has been made and the retroactive effect has disappeared, it is useless for me to enter into a discussion of that feature of the regulations.
Another objection which I intended to discuss at the time the resolution was placed on the Order Paper was contained in section 44, which made it impossible for provincial companies already incorporated to maintain their holdings and develop as they had intended to, but since the resolution has been on the Order Paper that has also disappeared so far as all applications which have been received in the Department of the Interior are concerned. There is an objection, however, still remaining. I must read the section at the pain of occupying a considerable length of time, because I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, there are very few members of the House who are acquainted with the regulations, not being particularly interested in them, and I wish

hon. members to understand them so that the House may receive the benefit of their opinions for the special benefit of the people in the province of Alberta, and also for the general benefit of the whole Dominion. Section 44 of P.C. 331 reads:
Any company acquiring by application, assignment or otherwise a permit or lease under the provisions of these regulations shall be a company incorporated under part one of the Companies Act, chapter 79, R.fS.C., 1906, and amendments thereto, and the charter of such company shall provide for the issue of the shares of the capital stock of such company without any nominal or par value, in accordance with section 7 (B) of the said Act.
Now any application or assignment of location in the Northwest Territories can only be made under this section to a company holding Federal letters patent. I say that this is an indirect way of amending the law of the various provinces, because the object of the Government in passing this regulation is stated to be the prevention of speculation. If that is the only object of the Government they have not succeeded because the law can be circumvented. For example, a person possessing one location or holding by assignment, say, eight or ten locations in that country, can easily assign to a company incorporated by federal letters patent for one million dollars more than he otherwise would, and that one million dollars can be used for bonusing or for purposes of speculation, as the case may be. In some of the provinces the speculative aspect has been absolutely wiped away by the appointment of boards. The regulation obliging a company to incorporate federally merely retards the development of that country. Another reason given for imposing this regulation is that a provincial company has no powep to hold lands in the North west Territories. I have been unable to find any decision bearing on the pqint. I submit that the regulations should be altered, and that it should be permissible for any provincial company to hold those oil locations situated in the Mackenzie district.
If the Minister of the Interior framed these regulations with a view to preventing speculation, he had in mind what he called "wild-catting;" but I understand that that has already been provided for in the Criminal Law. If he had in mind swindling, that is also provided for in the Criminal Code. If he meant unlicensed or uncurbed selling and watering of stock, that too has been dealt with in different laws; and if he meant the prevention of vending of prospective oil properties, or of promoting
companies and securing capital for their development, then I say that he has been ill-advised in passing this regulation. If by this section, the prospector is not permitted to have the expert or specialized aid of a broker to find a market for his holding when he wants to cash in, or if he is deprived of the services of a professional promoter when he wants to raise cash, then section 44 is ill-advised and I submit that the Government should change it and permit provincial companies to hold and develop oil locations in the North West Territories.
There is another paragraph in the regulations about which I wish to say a few words, and I shall endeavour to conclude as soon as possible. I have reference to the division of the property which the locator is at liberty to stake. Under the present regulations, a locator may go into the Mackenzie basin and locate 2,560 acres of land and drill, and when he has found oil the Government will issue a lease to him of one quarter of this area, three-quarters reverting back to the Crown. Now, I take the position that nothing is indicated in the regulations as to what disposition is to be made of these three-quarter sections, and if the Government wishes at any time it may allot them to any financial company or individuals on whatever terms it may see fit. Whoever acquires these three-quarter sections, which have been practically proven up by the locator in his drilling, has three times as much power as the one who has actually located the ground and developed it up to the point where he is entitled to get the lease. The holder of the three-quarter sections has three times the quantity of land, three times the wealth, and three times the financial backing of others, and it would be easy for the person acquiring these three-quarter sections, under whatever terms the Government may choose to sacrifice one of them to put out of business the man who has actually drilled and found oil, obliging him to surrender to powerful interests.
At the present time the regulations actually prevent men from going in and prospecting that country, and only large financial companies can get into that territory with any reasonable certainty that they will be able to acquire any of the Crown lands which are to be disposed of after the oil has been found. The regulation, I submit, has been based on the assumption that we have railways running

in that country and that you can dump off all sorts of tonnage in the Northwest Territories, that there are facilities for taking oil out, that everything is lovely, and that you can just take the oil to the refinery. These are not the conditions. An estimate made by the Imperial Oil Company, to ascertain whether enough oil could be got to warrant the building of a pipeline, shows that they will have to be guaranteed the production of 20,000 barrels per day. Ling, one of the officials of the company, says that the present well yields 800 barrels per day; and they take it that they will get twenty-five producing wells. They will not get a gusher with every hole drilled unless they break all records. An American geological report says that the Texas record is 271 dug holes to one producer. Taking the average at Norman to be ten, they will have to drill 250 holes to get enough oil to warrant development.
The cost of these 25 wells will he:
Cost of freight on one well outfit, including lumber, 200 tons at $20
per ton	$ 40,000
The Albertas outfit weighed 113 tons without lumber or season's grub.
The Hudson's bay rate of freight in 1921 is 13n>o c. per pound, or $27 per ton. Cost of drill and 1,000
feet of 6-inch	casing	 15,000
Cost of lumber,	timber, tools, etc. 8,000
Fares of 7 men in and out at current rates	 2,700
Wages of 7 men, averaging $400 a
month, by 12	months	 33,600
Total per drilling outfit	$ 99,300
Cost of 250 wells at 2 wells per
rig per season: $99,300 by 125..$12,421,500
With four rigs they would drill 25 wells in about 3 years. As soon as oil is found on one location, it would be good business to locate a new claim. How many claims they would be holding to get 25 producing wells it is difficult to say, but not less than 25. They would be paying to the Government on these twenty-five locations the gross total of $32,000 annually. It would take five years to build the pipe line, but in the meantime the Government would take from the locators to the tune of $160,000 while the pipe line was being built. Here then is the outlay before any returns can be looked for. First the pipe line costing $55,000,000. (I will grant you, for instance, that it is not going to be every company that will build a pipe line; and I assume that no Government would permit a company to build a pipe line unless there were some guarantees that they would permit other operating companies to use the same pipe
[Mr. H. A. Mackie.l
line; but for one company that they build that pipe line there is the initial cost of $55,000,000.) Secondly, the wells will cost $12,421,500; and in the third place the rentals will amount to approximately $160,000. Finally for a refinery we will allow the sum of $3,000,000, and you have the sum total of $70,572,500 before any returns can be secured.
Now we will assume that under these regulations a company has expended the necessary moneys to get the requisite number of wells dug to warrant them in constructing a pipe line. The first thing the company is confronted with is that somebody else comes along who has not spent one cent in proving that property and he can go to Ottawa and say to the Minister of the Interior who does not sit in this House, by the way, I want to buy your three-quarters, true, I want to secure them under whatever terms you will allow me. Then he goes in on those three-quarters which have been proven and paid for by some locator and developed by somebody else's own money, and enters the field in competition, I say, Mr. Speaker, that these regulations are nothing short of a monstrosity and should be altered without any delay. If the Government wants to go into the matter of public ownership then let them define that policy; it is not my own by any means. But between allowing the man to go in and get 2,560 acres of land and turn three-quarters of that back to the Government, after it has been proven by private enterprise, by the money of individuals and the money of companies-I say between that and public ownership there is only one thing to do. It is to let the field lie dormant and prevent the development which ought normally to take place. It is quite clear to my mind that the Government in taking rentals as they do are penalizing capital and preventing it from working. The system of withholding three-quarters of the ground after the oil has been found is a means of scattering holdings and is discouraged by authorities, that can be looked up in Hager's Practical Oil Geology, pp. 159-164. What the Government ought to do, I submit, is to encourage development and make it possible for private enterprise to develop that territory, then reap their benefits from imposition of royalties. The Government need revenue and can get it if there is production; but until there is production the Government should not impede development of that country by their regulations and they

should not penalize capital for trying to work.
If the Government were anxious about the Empire let them read Allan's First Annual Report, Alberta Resources, in which it is stated there is enough oil in McMur-ray's sands for the Crown's security or 500 times the world's normal consumption. In 1912 somebody came from London, saw the Minister of Interior and told him to cancel the tar-sand regulations, and they stand cancelled up to the present time except that an Order in Council has been passed in favour of one General Lindsay of Ontario who has located the best parts that are known to him in the town site of Mc-murray. If the interests of the Empire are at stake in the matter of oil read the report of Mr. Allan for the Province of Alberta and he will indicate that there is enough oil hidden there to satisfy the Empire's requirements. I do not know why the regulations should have been suspended so far as tar-sand is concerned. If there is that much oil to be extracted from tar-sands we need not bother ourselves about the Mackenzie field and prevent everybody from getting into it. I am sure the Minister of the Interior has never been off the train from Edmonton towards those fields and does not know the first thing about them. There is a method of getting down to that country and it is an expensive one. Why should we endeavour to hold up the development of a field which can only be reached by navigation of rivers on a course of over 1,400 miles following the sinuosities of those rivers. When the closest well in the North West Territories would be something like 600 miles from Edmonton. Why should you prevent development by these regulations I cannot understand unless there is some ulterior motive which I dare not suggest?
Now the answer may be made to me: So far as rentals are concerned you need not bother about that; all you have to do is to get down there with your drill and you do not pay rentals any more. That is true if I get a drill down the first year. But first of all I must locate and the session is short. I cannot locate and get out and arrange my financial affairs and get in again in the one season; and it is incumbent upon me to pay 50 cents an acre. I pay rental the first year on everything that goes back to the Crown, and I must necessarily pay to the Crown one dollar for the second year's rental. The third year I must prove to the Government that I am performing certain work in order to be released from
paying the rental; and the fourth year I must have a well, or I must take a report to the Government that I am about to make a well. Then when I have done all this, the Crown steps in and takes three-quarters of the ground I have actually proven to be useful to the Dominion of Canada. I say that the regulations are quite unreasonable, and every man in the province of Alberta who is interested in the development of that field has taken the same position. There is also this point:	If a
man has proven enough in that territory to make it worth while to construct a pipe line, he must pay the Government rentals whilst he constructs a pipe line.
My object therefore this evening is to bring this matter to the attention of the Government and to show that the regulations were extremely unfair in the beginning-so unfair and so inequitable that before this resolution was spoken to in this House two amendments had been made by the Government to their own regulations, which were absolutely unworkable. I would have preferred that the other amendment had been made so that whoever gets into that country and drills and finds oil shall be at liberty to purchase or acquire the other three-fourths of his claim on some terms giving him preference. That is the amendment I seek this evening in speaking to this resolution; or else that this House places itself on record in favour of fair oil regulations such as I describe.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) had in mind starting a second attack on the Government from his own side of the House, but if he desires to continue the discussion further, I would draw his attention to the fact that it is now Tuesday morning, and as we have been in session a long time, he should now allow the House to adjourn.


Arthur Meighen: I must say frankly that I was not inviting any attack from any side of the House or thinking that a government so undeserving of such would ever receive it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Now that it has come I would prefer to have it over, if that is at all possible, although I do feel that we have sat a long time. While I am on my feet I will set an example in brevity, without discourtesy, I hope, and endeavour to see if it will be possible for The Government to survive the last attack.



The oil regulations are under fire tonight from the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) on the ground that they are too exacting as against the oil prospector or developer, and that as a consequence there will be reluctance on the part of those who otherwise might perhaps journey into the far northern Territories and stake claims there. If I caught the substance of his charge, it is this: that too high rentals are taken, that insufficient inducements are given, and that consequently there can only be development by men of large means. Now, I am quite free to admit that under the regulations that we passed only a few weeks ago there can be actual development in that district only by the investment of large sums of money. And no regulations that would protect the public interest at all could be operative that would permit development except by the expenditure of large sums of money, for the simple reason that otherwise development cannot be undertaken. The regulations were designed to apply to an oil field, not wholly in prospect but actually, to some extent at least, proven. The regulations that were in force before were in considerable measure attractive to the prospector because they were applicable to a field only in prospect and in no degree at all proven. They were changed because by the discovery of oil at Fort Norman, some fourteen hundred miles north of Edmonton, the Territories oil field became an established field-of what extent we do not know-and thereafter it was felt the regulations should be such as would do ample justice to the general interest of the whole country in that field.
Now, what are those regulations? They provide that any person of eighteen years of age or upwards can stake a claim not exceeding in all 2,560 acres or four sections of land, and he may stake it in four different areas, each being rectangular and of any size he chooses. Upon staking the claim and complying with the regulations-which [DOT] must be done within a certain time after the staking, I think thirty or sixty days-he pays 50 cents an acre the first year, and thereafter $1 an acre for the land that he retains. The regulations also provide that he must within two years have a drilling outfit on the ground capable of drilling for oil within the area staked, and if he has that drilling outfit on the ground, showing that he is a real oil borer, and not merely a company promoter, then the rental for the second year is not charged; and if in the 
third year he proceeds to drill, then for that year as well the rental of $1 per acre is not charged, but he must pay in any event on the oil that he produces a royalty for the first five years of not less than 2i or more than 5 per cent; and for the next five years a minimum of 5 per cent and a maximum of
10	per cent. Those royalties virtually amount to the entire rental that he pays to the crown. He is permitted to retain a quarter of the land he stakes, and the other three-quarters revert to the Crown; but he can choose the land he retains anywhere within the area that he stakes so long as he makes it a square piece of land.
Now, it is argued by the hon. member that land may afterwards be taken up by somebody in the city of Ottawa, and that the man who went up there and took the risk and discovered the oil will derive no advantage from the other three-quarters, although he paid rent on that land at 50 cents an acre. It is true he paid that rent, but it is not true that anybody in Ottawa could get that land; it reverts to the Crown solely. It is quite possible that later on it might be found equitable in the regulations providing for the disposition of the other three sections, or three-quarters of the .land staked, that the man 'who staked the first 640 acres should have a prior claim upon it.
These regulations have been framed mainly after the regulations applicable to the Alaska oil field, although there is not a proven field as in the Territories. But it may be afterwards held equitable to do as is done in Alaska: to give a prior claim to the entrant for the 640 acres, and to provide, say, that tenders shall be called on a royalty basis for the oil in the other three sections of land, and that after the highest bona fide tender is received the entrant for the 640 acres shall have the right to that
011	at the price tendered by the highest bona fide bidder. That is not the law today, it is true; but it is the law to-day that nobody else can get that oil. That portion of the land originally staked is simply held until it is found what is going to be equitable having regard to actual development. And it is quite within the power of the department to issue further regulations providing that a fair and just preference shall be given to the man who has taken the risk and made the discovery.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Thatis all I am asking.


Arthur Meighen: As to what shall be the general policy with regard to this oil, speak-

ing on the subject a few weeks ago I referred to the regulations that had been in force for many years excepting oil from royalty. It will be observed that as regards this field that exemption does not apply. Not only is that so, but regulations are now in force specifically requiring royalties-a minimum of 21 per cent and a maximum of 5 per cent for the first five years, and thereafter a minimum of 5 per cent and a maximum of 10 per cent. In the United States, I believe, provision is made whereby a preference is given as to the rest of the land to the entrant for whatever share he is entitled to there on a royalty basis of 121 per cent. Something like that might possibly be later on found suitable in Canada. But it does seem to me that the regulations as they stand now, having in view the fact that no provision is yet made for the disposition of the other three sections, are not prohibitive by any means and should not deter anyone who really wants to develop oil in that territory, because anyone who really wants to do so must certainly have money at his back; otherwise he has no real intention of developing oil. The cost of getting in is great; the cost of boring is high; the cost of maintenance is very high; and after the oil is bored it must be got out, and that cost is very great indeed. It is estimated that a pipe line from that district would cost twenty or thirty millions of dollars. Now, there is one object to be served above all others, and it is this: to take care that the regulations are such, so far as we can frame them, as to discourage the practice of promoting companies and' selling stock where there is no real exploitation under way; the regulations are designed to forbid, as far as they can, that being done. It does seem to me that the first requisite is that the innocent public shall be protected against those who look upon that district as merely a chance to fly kites and to do an oil business upon paper. The field should be reserved for those whose intention is to get oil and to serve the needs of the public by getting oil. There is no preference given to anybody in this regard; any who have the money and who intend to get oil will go up under these regulations; there is no reason in the world why they should not. It may be found by experience that preference should be shown in advance to those who take the one section. That is the only thing that seems to me to be 'worth consideration now, and that is under consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my right hon friend pardon me if I interrupt him? At the beginning of the war, in the session of 1914 or 1915, we enacted a law giving the preference to the Home Government in respect to oil produced in Canada. Has that statute been made use of?


Arthur Meighen: No. That is not quite the fact, though I know what the hon. member refers to. A regulation was passed at the suggestion of the Home Government reserving from entry oil in the forest reserves and parks owned by the Crown, and that regulation was fully complied with until a. few months ago-if my memory is correct, about nine months ago-when certain lands in the Rocky Mountain Reserve-I am not sure whether it applied to others or not- were opened under the oil regulations. The idea was in that reservation that oil was going to be a war necessity of the future and that unless the necessary steps were taken the oil of Canada might get into the hands of citizens of other countries and the purposes of our own country be forestalled. I think that was the idea underlying the reservation. Against that, though, it can be said-and said very emphatically after the experience of the war-that even though leases for oil lands be held by outsiders, even though others come in with their capital and get these leases and own them to the exclusion, say, of Canadian or British capitalists, the Government of Canada in time of war has absolute control of the whole situation; can prevent the export of oil or the export of anything else-indeed, in time of peace can do the same.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there not a clause in the leases to that effect?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. But aside from
that, the power of expropriation exists, and the course of the war showed that there really was not the peril in that regard that was anticipated. Consequently I as Minister of the Interior did not see that we were serving the interests of Canada by continually tying up these territories. I thought it was better that we should find out just what they contained and reserve to the whole country a just and fair interest therein. Special regulations, therefore, were made applicable to the oil in the Rocky Mountain Reserve, holding a very considerable proportion for the state in case oil should be discovered, much along the line of the regulations that are not under discussion. These regulations, let me explain to the House, are different for the Northwest "Territories from those that
57i

apply to the provinces. The reason is this: in the provinces there is no proven field as yet on any considerable scale; it is largely a matter of prospect and hope. In Alberta three refineries, I think, or three oil wells, are now being developed, but the amount of production is not relatively very high. In this Fort Norman well the flow is large. The best reports would indicate that the flow is very considerable indeed- that there is a very large field of oil; how much it will prove to be, only time will tell. The flow is on such a scale that undoubtedly it is a field of very considerable dimensions. The regulations, therefore, applicable to the Territories, fix definitely the royalty that can be charged, and they are such as not so much to encourage people to come in to look for oil, but to encourage people to go in who are going to bring oil out. That, ir, one word, distinguishes the regulations that should apply and do apply in the case of a proven field from those that are more applicable to a field that is still in prospect.
Now, I have no word at all to say in derogation of the rights of the hon. member (Mr. Mackie) to put this resolution on the Order Paper and to address the House upon it. I know that he as a member for his district is vitally interested in the prospect of oil development in the Territories as well as in his own province. But I submit to him that inasmuch as the regulations stand to-day in such shape that the department is quite in a position to give, if experience shows it to be necessary, a fair preference, as respects the other three sections, to the entrant for the one section; and inasmuch as up to now others cannot enter for these other three sections-the state only is interested in them; they are reserved to the state and to the state alone- it is scarcely right to ask the House to find that there is not sufficient inducement offered to the prospector, or that the oil regulations are such as to throw undue restraint around the development of the industry in the Northwest Territories.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I submit to my right hon. friend that it is unreasonable to ask the House to proceed any further with the discussion this evening.


Arthur Meighen: I think we should close, too. I am sure the debate is over; I think that with all I have said, perhaps the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Mr. Speaker-
	-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that if the hon. member addresses the House at this stage, the debate will be closed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not possible that other members may wish to speak to this resolution? This is an important subject; it amounts to a charge against the Government, and I do not know whether my hon. friend is prepared to withdraw that charge at the present stage. It is unreasonable to expect hon. members, after midnight, to take up an entirely new subject, and I do not think my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) was fair to the House when he caused us to proceed with this new subject at a late hour.


Arthur Meighen: It is an old subject.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Other gentlemen informed me they wished to speak on this matter; but I had one purpose to serve, and that was to bring to the attention of the Government what I think I have presented clearly, and if I had an opportunity to reply, I think I could make it yet more clear that the regulations are not as they ought to stand. I do not, however, wish to press this resolution to a vote, and unless hon. gentlemen really want to speak on it, I will withdraw the resolution after making one or two comments on the remarks made by the Prime Minister.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw his resolution?


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to the resolutidn being withdrawn, but the hon. gentleman said that he would like to make one or two comments by way of reply-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is rather an unusual situation. The hon. gentleman rises to close the debate. He must either close the debate or withdraw the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice. He said he wished to withdraw the resolution after making some comments by way of reply.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not catch that remark of the hon. gentleman. It would be a most unusual procedure for an hon. member who is about to exercise his right to close the debate, to move the adjournment thereof.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I will let the matter
stand as it is, as I shall not crave the in-

dulgence of the House. There will be days when Supply comes on, and some one will speak on this matter again.
Resolution withdrawn.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen the House adjourned at 12.40 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, March 15, 1921