VACANCY-KAMOURASKA

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received notification of a vacancy having occurred in the representation of the Electoral Dis-

Japanese Immigration
trict of Kamouraska consequent upon the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown by C. Adolphe Stein, Esquire, the sitting member therefor. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ for the election of a member to the said Electoral District.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I should like to be permitted to lay on the table of the House certain information by way of reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) with respect to Japanese immigration. I promised him that it would be brought down to-day.
(The questions and answers are as follows) :
Questions:
1.	Under what conditions and regulations are Japanese immigrants admitted into Canada?
2.	In what way are the rights of Canadians in Japan limited as to ownership of land, franchise, mercantile ' pursuits, fishing, shipping (coastwise and foreign), mining, agriculture, and other pursuits such as are engaged in by Japanese in Canada?
3.	What is the number of Japanese immigrants that have entered Canada yearly in each of the ten years ending March 31, 1922?
4.	How many Japanese have left Canada for Japan each year, during the same period?
5.	How many Japanese have returned to Canada from Japan each year during the same period?
Answers.
1.	Under a confidential Agreement known as the L/emieux Agreement entered into between Canada and Japan in the beginning of 1908. Under this Agreement Japan voluntarily restricts the movement of Japanese to Canada to a comparatively small number each year.
2.	In common with other foreigners, Canadians cannot as individuals own land in Japan. They can, however, if they form an association and become "juridical persons" under Japanese law. They further enjoy the rights of perpetual lease in respect of land in certain portions of the former foreign settlements in the open ports; and they may become holders of rights of "superficies" and "emphyteusis".
Foreigners have no franchise rights either in connection with elections to the Diet or to the prefectural, municipal, town, village or district assemblies.
Canadian vessels may not engage in the coasting trade between Japanese ports and Canadians may not become owners of ships flying the Japanese flag, though they may become members of "goshi-kwaisha" (partnership with limited and unlimited liability), "kabushiki-Kwaisha" (joint-stock companies), and "kabushiki-goshi-Kwaisha" (joint-stock partnerships with limited and unlimited liability) owning Japanese ships.
Canadians may not as individuals engage in mining, but a company formed under Japanese
law by foreigners and registered as a juridical person may do so.
They may not become shareholders of the Bank of Japan, the Yokohama Specie Bank, the Bank of Korea, the South Manchuria Railway Company, the Oriental Development Company and certain other companies, or of shipping Companies in receipt of a Government subsidy. They may not become members or brokers of the various exchanges in Japan. They may not as individuals become members of Japanese Chambers of Commerce. They may not engage in the emigration business or hold shares in any company so engaged.
Foreign unskilled labourers may not pursue their callings in Japan outside the limits of the former foreign settlements or the "mixed residence" areas without the express permission of the administrative authorities. Labourers for this purpose are defined as being persons engaged in labouring pursuits in connection with farming, fishing, mining, public works, building, manufacturing, transport, hauling (of vehicles), stevedoring and other forms of manual labour, but not persons in domestic service or persons following the calling of cooks and waiters.
3.	Males	Females	Children	Totals1912-13 . .	.. 252	424	48	7241913-14 . .	.. 354	447	55	8561914-15 . .	.. 191	358	43	5921915-16 . .	148	233	20	4011916-17 . .	.. 301	310	37	6481917-18 . .	.. 459	370	54	8831918-19 . .	. . 584	530	64	1,1781919-20 ..	. . 280	389	42	7111920-21 . .	. . 145	338	49	5321921-22 . .	.. 136	299	31	4662,650	3,698	443	6,991
In connection with the above table it may be pointed out that the first column gives the total immigration of males year by year for the period indicated. Of these males the following numbers are shown to belong to the skilled and unskilled labour Classes.
1912-	13	
1811913-	14	
2711914- 15.*	
1381915-	16	
961916-	17	
2121917-	18	
3551918-	19	
4441919-	20	
2011920-	21	
961921-	22	
95
The difference between the total number of males and the number of males of the skilled and unskilled labour classes is made up of traders, clerks, business and professional men. The difference between the total number of males and the 'total immigration is made up of wives and children under fourteen years of age joining Japanese regularly domiciled in Canada.
4. Statistics of persons leaving Canada are not collected by ithe Department of Immigration and Colonization. The only figures available are returns issued monthly by the Japanese Goverment showing Japanese passengers sailing to Canada and returning from Canada. From these returns the following table has been compiled.
Railway Act

Calendar year.	Males	Females	Totals1912	446	137	5831913	1,030	251	1,2811914	974	257	1,2311915	745	274	1,0191916	631	249	8801917	1,121	455	1,5761918	1,309	505	1,8141919	1,191	554	1,7451920	1,533	652	2,1851921	1,076	460	1,536Total. ..	10,056	3,794	13,850
5. This information is not available, as prior to the 1st April, 1922, returning Japanese domiciled in Canada were included with persons of alii other races and nationalities returning to Canada on the ground of domicile acquired in this country.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome) presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts as follows:
Tour Committee recommend that the evidence being taken in connection with Overseas accounts be printed from day to day and that Rule 74 relating thereto be suspended.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71 to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The object of the amendment is to restore the special rate that applied prior to the war in regard to tickets purchased on such special occasions as Thanksgiving Day and certain other holidays, and for the purpose of attendance at the fall fairs conventions and sporting events as are held throughout Canada. Before the war, single fares and h fare and a third was charged, instead of the full return fare, to persons attending various functions of this character on certain days and special occasions and conventions of different kinds held in the spring of the year by farmers' and other organizations. In connection with sporting events, such as soccer, lacrosse, football and hockey and other games, there was also a cut rate for week-ends. Now, I admit that during the war it was necessary, in the interest of economy, to curtail these concessions. But now that the war is over the people expect that after the country has spent some $900,000,000 directly and indirectly in aid of the railways of the country they shall be given some privileges in return besides the privilege of being always called upon to pay taxes. The United States have

restored the old special rates that obtained for these events prior to the war with the result that there has been a large increase in the earnings of the railways from this class of traffic.
I might read two or three sentences from certain letters I have received in reference to this matter. Mr. J. Lockie Wilson, the Superintendent of the Ontario Department of Agriculture, who has the supervision of some 360 fairs in the province of Ontario, urges the restoration of the old rate in the interests of these fairs which have a distinct educational value and make for the general good of the country. Mr. John G. Kent, the Managing Director of the Canadian National Exhibition Association, writes:
The public are clamouring for a return to pre-war eomdlitions, amd we have been urged by letter and personal interview from all parts of the country to bring before the Government the necessity of reducing regular fares for these various occasions.
Mr. P. J. Mulqueen, president of the Royal Canadian Henley and chairman of the Ontario Athletic Commission, also writes urging a restoration of the old special rates to prevent unrest and encourage sport and recreation. And Mr. A. P. Westervelt, Secretary of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, urges that steps be taken to restore the old rates. There is

he says-a general and insistent demand in this matter, and I would move that the bill be given its first reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I would
also move that the bill be given its second reading to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting of
the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Unless the House give, its unanimous consent the bill cannot be read the second time to-day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on Wednesday the 10th of May and Monday, the 15th of May, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays to the end of the session. Government Notices of Motions and Government Orders shall have precedence over all business except Questions by Members and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.

Business of the House


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Before the motion is adopted I would suggest to my hon. friend that, as there are quite a number of important resolutions standing on the Order Paper, the Government might be inclined to consider extending for a few days the time at the disposal of private members. If the resolution carries in its present form the discussion of private members' resolutions will cease with Monday next. There is one resolution coming up on that day dealing with the question of oriental immigration. It will probably take up the whole sitting, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that we might be given the following Wednesday afternoon and the following Monday as well.


Mr. WOODS:: Does that mean that there will be a night sitting on Wednesday next?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Government were to meet the wish of my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) to the extent of allowing Wednesday, May 10, to be retained as private members' day, probably that would enable such resolutions to be taken up as hon. members desire to discuss. I might remind hon. gentlemen that most of the motions on the Order Paper have been called two or three times. I believe they were all called on Monday last as well as on the previous private members' day. If the House is agreeable, I should be glad to amend the motion to read that after Wednesday, the 10th May, and on Monday, the 15th May, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays to the end of the session, Government Notices of Motions and Government Orders shall have precedence.


Right Hon. ARTHUH MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: I would be inclined
to concur with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). There are not many of the motions on the Order Paper in which this side of the House is specially interested, but there are some that I think it would be unfortunate if they are not discussed through private members' days being shut off. For instance, there is motion No. 14, in the name of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), which although it has been down since the 10th of April has never yet been introduced. There is the motion introduced by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine)-I do not mention it specially except in this sense, that the discussion of it was adjourned at the instance of the Government awaiting the return of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Then, of course, there is the motion set down by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) which is to be discussed on Monday; and there are other motions that I cannot but think the hon. members interested seriously intended to discuss. Every private members' day has been fully taken up so far except for a short time at the end of some days. I am not attributing the fault to the Government specially that we are not through more of these motions, because they have been called and the members responsible for them have not been ready to proceed; but unless those motions were put down merely to forestall and prevent discussion from another source, it would seem to me there ought to be opportunities for a short discussion of them anyway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope that if the Government endeavours to meet the wishes of my right hon. friend he wili not later on say that we are somewhat late with government business. I might point out to him that in the last session of the last parliament, at the end of seven weeks the government took Wednesdays; we have allowed eight weeks to pass already before doing so, and I think we have been generous in that regard. However, the Government has no wish to prevent private members from having ample opportunity to discuss the motions in which they are interested.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I might offer another suggestion, Mr. Speaker, it would be that the Government take Wednesday of next week and leave Monday of the week following for private members, which will allow a full day for discussion. If we adopt my hon. friend's suggestion we will have only three hours in the afternoon to devote to these motions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Government give Wednesday and Monday of the following week, that would be going as far as it seems wise to go at this stage. If there are important motions which it would be very desirable to take up, we might make special arrangements for their discussion. I would therefore move that the resolution be amended to read: "That after Wednesday, the 10th May, and Monday, the 15th May," and so on.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That would give two Mondays and one Wednesday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The following Wednesday and the following Monday

two more days.
Members Paired


Thomas Langton Church: If this motion passes, will the Prime Minister afford an opportunity to wind up the debate on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Waterways motion standing in my name? As the Government has made no declaration of policy in regard to. the subject matter of this motion, I should like to have the discussion concluded and a vote taken on it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That motion has been up three times already. It will probably come up again in the natural order of business.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: The motion standing in my name, Mr. Speaker, is incorrect, the date given being March 31st, 1922, whereas it should be March 31st, 1921. If there be no objection, I will amend the motion accordingly and move:
That the report of the Auditor General and the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1921, he referred to the Standing Commiitt&e on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome) :: Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of explanation. Last night I placed myself, or was placed, in a position which requires me to give a word of explanation to my fellow-members. I voted when I was paired with the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). I did that because at that time I did not know I was so paired. Early in the session I asked our Whip to arrange a sessional pair for me. He did so. No doubt he remained under the impression that he had informed me of the fact; however, he had not done so, and that led me into registering a vote last night which I should not have done. It was a purely inadvertent action on my part, and I know that hon. members will forgive me for taking up the time of the House in making this explanation, which I think is due to them, to the Whip, and to myself.
Mr. GEORGE W. KYTE (Cape Breton South and Richmond) : I desire to add a word of explanation to what the hon. member for Brome has said. As soon as my attention was called to the fact that he

had voted in violation of the understood pair which he held, I had the pair with the hon. member for West Hastings transferred to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Forrester), and he did not vote.
I also desire to offer an explanation in behalf of the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Blackadder) and the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. Laflamme). These two gentlemen were paired also. The junior member for Halifax voted on the amendment, and as soon as my attention was called to it I communicated with him, so he did not vote on the main motion. The same thing happened with the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska. The junior member for Halifax has not been in the House for some weeks owing to the unfortunate condition of his health. He entered the Chamber at the last moment yesterday evening and I had no opportunity to remind him of his pair. I was unable to substitute another pair in his place because at that time the vote was proceeding along the furthest end of the rear row.
I did not observe these hon. members were voting in violation of their pairs because my attention was absorbed in the business of checking off the vote as it was called; otherwise I would have prevented the unfortunate incident. But by way of extenuation I need only cite the fact that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) also inadvertently voted. It is evident therefore that these errors may be committed even with the best intentions.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe) :: I do not know whether it is in order for me to add a word or two, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Alves Boys: Last night no less than five votes were recorded by hon. gentlemen opposite who were paired. As has been mentioned, one of those votes was put right by the hon. member for South Perth not voting. It is true that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) voted in error. It was noticed at once, and without hesitation I sent word across to my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) and immediately arranged with an hon. member on this side not to vote, to put the matter right.
Now, I do not know that criticism of anybody will do much good, but it does seem to me that we must have some understanding if the system of pairing is to continue. We must avoid such occurrences in the future, and when these mistakes are

Genoa Conference
14G3
made they should be rectified in some way, not merely explained. I am glad, of course, to get the explanation, and I must say at once that, so far as I am concerned it has been an ample one. But, unless the vote comes from some hon. member in the last row it is always possible, when a member who is paired records his vote, for a whip to act promptly and to secure some member on his side who will refrain from voting. When it comes to five votes in one night, on the most important division we have had in the House this session, it becomes a somewhat serious matter. I only trust that these mistakes will not occur again. I have taken care to have every single pair initialed by the Chief Government Whip and myself so that there might be no mistakes. As soon as pairs are notified to me I see that they are observed, and if by any chance they are not, steps are taken to have the error rectified before the vote is concluded.


Hewitt Bostock: I have allowed this
discussion to proceed because I feel that hon. members would like to have an explanation of what occurred last evening. But I may inform the House that according to British practice, the Speaker, as the spokesman of the House of Commons, ignores the pairs, looking upon it as a matter for arrangement by the parties themselves.


Mr. KYTE:: If I may be permitted to
say one further word by way of explanation, my hon. friend the Conservative whip (Mr. Boys) stated there were five votes which should not have been polled. I wish to explain that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) voted on the motion, but he was checked by the member for South Perth who did not vote.


William Alves Boys: But there are still five;
for the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. Laflamme) voted twice.


George William Kyte: The hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska voted twice. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Blackadder) voted once only, on the amendment; I checked him and prevented him from voting on the main motion. So really the majority of the Government on the amendment last night should have been fifteen instead of seventeen.



GENOA CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report to which my hon.
friend refers is not an accurate statement. The Government has not subscribed to anything. I understand there is being sent by mail from Genoa to the Government for consideration the proposal to which my hon. friend refers, but no decision will be reached by the Government until it has had an opportunity of examining it and ascertaining what it involves.



DATE OF THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I think it
was last Monday, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Prime Minister said, in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), that the date of the Budget would be announced at an early day. I wonder if the minister can give us any information today?


William Stevens Fielding: I am almost as anxious as my
hon. friend himself to be able to fix the date, but I will have to confirm what the Prime Minister said-that an announcement will be made at an early day. I do not want to emphasize the word "early" too strongly, but I can assure my hon. friend that I am very anxious to bring the Budget down as soon as possible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Next week?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not like to
be too definite. If not next week, the date will be announced during the week, and then my hon. friend will know exactly when to expect it.



ALLEGED STATEMENT OF HIGH COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: 
Arthur Meighen: As I read the report, a public statement was not attributed to him. It was stated that he had said that to a certain member of the Government and this was given publicity. He might say he had not made a public statement, but that would not be a denial of the report.



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT

William Stevens Fielding: There are three bills on the Order Paper in my name, one relating to insurance, one to loan companies, and one to trust companies. When introducing these bills I suggested that the House would probably find it most convenient to consider them after they had been submitted for examination to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. If that be agreeable, I will make the motion that Bill No. 58 be now read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, and I will make a similar motion with regard to the two bills to follow.
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding, (Minister' of Finance) Bill No. 58, to amend The Insurance Act, 1917, was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 59, to amend The Loan Companies Act, 1914, was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.	4

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 60, to amend

The Trust Companies Act, 1914, was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
1.	Resolved, That It is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Corporation of Quebec Harbour Commissioners, hereinafter called the Corporation, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars, as are required to enable the Corporation to carry on the construction of such terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the Port of Quebec.
2.	Resolved, That during the period of construction of the terminal facilities mentioned in these Resolutions, the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Finance in exchange for such advances, shall be deemed to be money required to construct and to be part of the cost of construction of the said terminal facilites, and such interest may be paid out of the said sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars.
3.	Resolved, That the Corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances, with statements showing total expenditure on different items in detail, and upon approval, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
4.	Resolved, That the Corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the Corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-four years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable halfyearly at the rate of five per centum per annum.
5.	Resolved, That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these resolutions, shall be payable by the Corporation out of all its property, assets, tools, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall be a charge thereon next after, and have precedence in regard to payment next after, ail debentures or bonds issued by the Corporation amounting to the sum of one million one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, under Chapter forty-eight of the Statutes of 1898, Chapter thirty-four of the Statutes of 1899, and Chapter thirty-six of the Statutes of 1907.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I would like to ask the minister if in his judgment the present volume of business done at the port of Quebec would indicate that the corporation would be able to meet the interest charges on a capitalization of this amount?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I do not expect that the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec will

Quebec Harbour
be able to meet the interest charges in the near future, but judging by the increase in the revenue during the last few year^, I think we may expect that they will be able to do so in a few years from now. In 1913, when advances were made by the former government to the present Harbour Commission the receipts were $226,000. The receipts have increased gradually up till last year, when they amounted to $387,323.91, almost one hundred per cent increase over 1913. The port of Quebec is the head of navigation for the big transatlantic liners, and as my hon. friend knows, the tendency of the shipping companies nowadays is to increase rather than reduce the size of their vessels. There is another consideration which we must not lose sight of, and it is that perhaps the finest portion of the harbour of Quebec is consecrated to the immigration purposes of the Canadian Government, for which the port receives not one cent from the Canadian Government. This comprises 800 feet of the finest part of the harbour, and the commissioners have to expend money to make the necessary repairs and to provide all the facilities required for immigration purposes. Of course, there is a bill standing in the books of the commission against the federal government on that account. This bill has never been paid, and I do not expect that it ever will be. It is quite clear that the expenditure to keep the harbour of Quebec in good condition must be met by the Government. The port of Quebec is in a position by itself, with the exception of Montreal and Vancouver, where improvements are made under the same conditions. In Toronto, the Government does not make advances to the Harbour Commission, but all the work is done by the Public Works Department. The money is not loaned and we do not expect any interest or anything of that kind. In Halifax, the harbour improvements are made by the Railways and Canals Department, and in St. John by the Public Works Department. On account of conditions at the port of Quebec, the port was administered by a corporation prior to Confederation, which was called the Trinity House. In 1875 the powers and the property of the Trinity House were transferred to a commission called the Quebec Harbour Commission, composed of nine members. Different public bodies were represented on that commission, which worked up until 1912, when the government of the day, wisely, I think, reduced 93
the commission to three, the number in Montreal, and since that time Quebec harbour has been under the control and administration of a harbour commission composed of three members. If the same plan were followed with Quebec harbour as with other ports, there would simply be an appropriation in the estimates of the Public Works Department, and we would hear no more about it, but so far as Quebec is concerned we have to make advances to the commission, bearing interest, which will be paid back if the port pays its way in the future.
In Montreal, I am pleased to say, the harbour is paying its own way. There is a resolution on the Order Paper for an advance of $5,000,000 to the port of Montreal. In the case of both these ports the resolution does not mean that the amount specified will be expended in one or two or three or four years. It simply enables the Government to make advances as required, and every item of improvement has to be approved by the Governor in Council before the advance is made. As I said, Montreal harbour is paying its own way and earning sufficient revenue to meet all the interest charges. They have already entered into contracts with the shipping companies providing for the payment of interest on the advances which are going to be made under the resolution standing on the Order Paper. I hope that in a few years Quebec harbour will be in just as prosperous a condition as Montreal.


Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming) :: Is it the intention of the Government to protect the workers who will be employed by the Quebec Harbour Commission, by insisting on a fair wage clause in all contracts entered into by the Commission?


Ernest Lapointe: I am myself agreeable to having a fair wage clause in all government contracts, but I do not know that it would be wise to provide for that in this resolution. That will be a matter between the Government and the Harbour Commissioners.


Angus McDonald: I put the question because heretofore in connection with money expended on the Ballan-tyne pier in Vancouver, and I believe in Montreal also, there has been trouble owing to the lack of such a clause in the contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have a great deal of sympathy with the very natural aspirations of the port of Quebec. They

Quebec Harbour

have a magnificent harbour, and splendid facilities. The trouble is they cannot get people to use them, not that they lack the harbour, the water, or the facilities. There is a great grain elevator in Quebec with a capacity of two million bushels-with an outward loading capacity of sixty thousand bushels per hour, and with an unloading capacity for vessels-and the loading capacity from the cars is probably greater~of thirty thousand bushels an hour. As I say, they have a good equipment there. The matter has come before me in more than one way; it has come before me in the past as chairman of the Railway Board when questions as to rates, facilities, and similar matters have been up for consideration, and I have also had to do with it as Minister of Finance. The great difficulty with Quebec has been this: Take for example the grain trade in particular. The shippers of grain like to hold their grain at points where they can get just as many markets as possible, and efforts have been made from time to time to induce the grain trade to make some right use of this first great facility that is open to them; but I confess that the efforts made-and I was a party to them-have been unsuccessful. Now if I thought that another million and a half would do any good to that grain business; if I thought another million and a half would be of any real use to the Quebec harbour, and to the commerce of this country, and would be effective in inducing people to ship there who do not now do so, why the matter would be open for further consideration. But, as I see it, that port is pretty well equipped to-day. Furthermore the port has been well looked after so far as capital expenditure is concerned. The country has advanced it over $11,000,000. There is to-day more than $11,000,000 owing, moneys advanced to the Quebec Harbour Commission, As the account has been running for some time there are arrears of interest due which now amount to $6,251,000, so that we have been going behind very steadily and very regularly in connection with this particular investment. It is perfectly true that part of these facilities are of use in other directions rather than directly in relation to government activities. My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) is perfectly right when he says that first rate facilities are given there for immigrants. There is no doubt about that and there is no doubt also that part of the harbour he mentions, eight hundred feet is being used. Neither is there any doubt about the contra accounts. There are

contra accounts, but they fall very far short of giving us any satisfactory reason why further investments in this direction should be made at the present moment. The Department of Public Works rent this immigration building, and there are arrears of rent in connection with it, from the year 1913 to the year 1921, amounting altogether to $455,209.04.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is that a cross account?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, a cross account. In the same way the Department of the Interior occupies ground belonging to the commissioners. Their arrears run back to the year 1892 and amount to $351,000. Besides that there are other small charges bringing up the total contra account to $813,365.23 as against the $6,251,000 of interest as to which the commissioners are in arrear to the Government.
My point, in the first instance, is that we ought to be very clear that we do some good by spending this money; and in the second instance that we should not spend it unless there is a real emergency requiring such expenditure at the present time, because this is not the happiest moment for incurring that large expenditure. In order to give the committee some idea of the small extent to which these large facilities are used, I would like to point out that the five grain berths of Quebec, which hon. gentlemen familiar with the port will know of, were used during the whole of last season-and last season as the minister tells us was improving; they were doing a little more business-for only four weeks out of the entire season. The trouble is not due to lack of facilities but lack of business; and if we are really to help the port of Quebec our efforts should be to see to it that business in some way or other is handled in such channels of trade and so made available as to give the port some use for the existing facilities. The mere installation of more facilities and adding to the amount of idle space is not going to help the harbour commissioners of Quebec but will only add to the tremendous load of overdue interest to which they are now subject.
I may say that the matter has stood for so long that two years ago (when I went over the capital assets of the country, with a view to trying to get out something like a fair and honest balance sheet, I was forced to remove from the books of the country these Quebec debentures. They were non-interest producing

Quebec Harbour
debentures; the investment was an absolute uncollectable, non-revenue producing debt. They were taken off the active assets of the country and at the present time are in suspense. Further I do not know exactly why the resolution is worded in the way in which it is. I think that is probably due to an oversight.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman has mentioned a statement as to capital assets that he had prepared. Did he present that to the House, or has it been published?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, yes, that statement is to be found in the Public Accounts for the year 1920, and also in the same blue book for the year 1921. As I recollect it the statement was also mentioned in the budget speech in the session of 1919-20.


Charles Murphy: A complete statement?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, a complete statement; the whole thing was given. I do not exactly see why the resolution is drawn in the way it is. I mean that part of it where it says that the new bonds and debentures are to be a first charge upon the property and assets of the commission except, I think it is, $1,150,000. The fact is that so far as this country is concerned we now have advances running up to $11,000,000, and I do not know exactly why they should be made secondary to a subsequent advance. In all sincerity I submit to my hon. friend that this is not helping Quebec. It is merely providing for the expenditure of money for additional facilities where those already existing are not being used to-day; and I submit also that the country cannot afford a further experiment of this nature.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to discuss this matter from a provincial but rather from a national standpoint. In my opinion the minister should give the committee further details as to this item. It is proposed to grant a million and a half dollars for terminal facilities for the harbour of Quebec. In addition, there is another resolution on the order1 paper calling for an advance of $5,000,000 for facilities for the harbour of Montreal. Regarding the first-named port I think the constitution of the harbour commission is all wrong; it has not been the success which it should have been. There should be a new charter, a non-political commission and co-ordination of control. They are not getting the results from the expenditure at Quebec that they should.
93i
The development of one harbour by the improvement of terminals should benefit all harbours, because they are all a link in a chain of communication of waterborne traffic. I had a return of the amount of money spent in various harbours in Canada, and I find nine and a half millions have been expended on the Quebec harbour since 1896. Adding that to the million and a half expenditure under consideration now, we have about eleven million, as the hon gentlemen from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) pointed out, and about six million are overdue for interest. I contend that, if the constitution of the board were a little different, if the port of Quebec were kept out of politics, and a permanent commission and permanent officers appointed to administer these affairs, it would be a great benefit to the country from the commercial aspect, and from the point of view of developing the port and the ocean traffic, inbound and outbound. It would be much better for the port of Quebec if Quebec city contributed something also and the port was developed by asking the commissioners to link the harbour up with the Quebec park system, with the Plains of Abraham Commission, another federal commission which is spending money, and the Immigration Department, and co-ordinate it all under one commission.
Part of the money is for facilities which the hon. minister points out. These terminal facilities may be badly needed, but they are not all what they should be, if the desire is to keep pace with the growth of the country.
There are some features of this proposition which I do not agree with. In the first place, the details are not given. What does "terminal facilities" mean; what does " equipment " mean in the resolution? In the second place, how is it that votes for Montreal and Quebec are being brought on now by special resolution, instead of being dealt with when the main estimates are before the House? There are other ocean ports. For instance, we have Vancouver and Victoria, where four and six million have been expended since 1896. Then we have Halifax and St. John. How is it they are not brought on by separate resolutions also? Then we have the ports of the cities of Toronto and Hamilton. The citizens of Toronto, with the government, are spending $26,000,000 or $28,000,000 to rebuild the port, and are only getting five or six millions from the government and are themselves spending about

Quebec Harbour
$21,000,000. Terminal facilities have been badly needed there. The city has an agreement signed by the harbour commission on one side and by the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk on the other, to re-bulid the port, moving all the docks out into the bay a certain distance, and erect a station and viaduct, and provide terminals. The Government has been approached by the harbour commission and other bodies recently to ask the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry out that agreement. Why is that port not dealt with by a separate resolution also? Is it because the province of Quebec is so hungry that they cannot wait for the main estimates? I would not like to say, and I do not say that that is the fact. I believe that all the harbours should be dealt with together, when the main estimates are brought down because I contend that what is good for the ports of Halifax, St. John and Montreal, is good for all the ports, and that those ports should be properly taken care of, with a view to expansion of business in the future, not only for ocean traffic, but for proper terminal facilities, to fit in with the National Railways and act as feeders for them.
It is in the public interest that the harbour of Quebec and other harbours should be kept out of politics, and that we should not remove the commissioners with every change of government. I have been on the harbour commission of Toronto since 1905-it was reorganized in 1911. It is a permanent commission. If we are to have proper development of a harbour, we must have continuity of management and control and a proper sale of bonds by tender. I say that the Minister of Finance should sell these bonds not by private sale, but by public tender. Toronto harbour sold two million by private sale and about fifteen million by tender. Instead of giving the bonds to one company, by private sale, tenders were openly granted. We opened up the door and we got about fifteen bids from Toronto, Philadelphia and New York. The public sale proved a good financial piece of business. We borrowed at from one-half of one to one and a half points better by public tender than by private sale. I submit the minister should call for tenders in reference to the bonds for Quebec harbour, and that the Government should annul all these commissions and co-ordinate the various expenditures of money on terminals in Quebec harbour and for the National railways, the Immigration Branch, the Public Works Department

and other facilities. I think the Harbour Commission should negotiate with the city of Quebec if they cannot make such an arrangement. There is the work on the Battlefields' Commission, the Quebec Parks Commission, and the work of making Quebec a city with proper boulevards and driveways. This work would create an industrial area where industries could be located with proper arrangements for terminal facilities in the way of docks, etc., such as they have in New York. You would have a large revenue from the industrial and recreation areas which would go a long way to help pay the fixed charges on the bonds of Quebec harbour instead of their being a drag on the country, with the result that the interest and the sinking fund charges would be met. Some development of this kind should be made, and, if it were made, I believe that in time Quebec port would meet its fixed charges. We are going to meet these fixed charges in Toronto from our revenues and pay the fixed charges out of revenue on the $17,000,000 which has thus far been expended, by developing the industrial area in Ashbridge's bay and the amusement areas at Sunnyside.
* I believe that if, instead of having politics in the Quebec Harbour Commission, they would change the principle and have a permanent non-political commission, they would meet with success. I represent , a Conservative city, but on the harbour commission of that city, when it was formed, we had two Liberals out of five, and they were good. We have no politics there, and the harbour improvements, from revenues, are going to pay for themselves. These improvements will not, in time, cost the taxpayer a cent. What has been done in Toronto should be done in Quebec as well.
I think the minister should give us some explanation as to why the late commissioners and officials were removed. Were they not good men? Did they not do good work? What was the reason for the change of the commission? This is not the only vote before the committee. The next vote will be for Montreal. A motion is also on the Order Paper for a vote of a million dollars for terminals for Montreal, and the Government are asked for two hundred thousand for a world's fair, and five millions for a bridge-Quebec is getting hungry. No doubt they are hungry. I think the minister should give us some explanation as to the future policy of the port of Quebec-the terminals and inbound and outbound, the rates to be col-

Quebec Harbour
lected, as to the change of the commission, and the broadening out of the commission as aforesaid.
In addition to that vote $23,000,000 was spent by the Government of Canada in deepening the channels between Quebec and Montreal, to give a deepwater channel to Montreal. I say every vote along those lines should be linked up-Quebec, Montreal and the depeening of the channel, from there to the Great Lakes. These deepwater channels should be extended to the head of the Great Lakes. We should have a declaration of policy along these lines. We have very little explanation about the port of Quebec. The Deep Waterways' Commission in their report deal with the future of the port of Quebec and the way it should be co-ordinated with the St. Lawrence scheme and I should like to hear from the minister his views on that subject. We would like to have the Government's views about the deepening of the channels from Quebec to Montreal and to the head of the lakes as recommended by the Deep Waterways' Commission.


Mr. NEILL:: I would submit to the Labour Department that if this clause goes through some provision should be inserted that any contract entered into under it should contain what is known as the "fair wage" clause. It has been found in other cities, where a provision of this kind has not been made, that contractors with the harbour commissioners disregard the ordinary fair wage clause, contending that they are not under contract with the Government but with the Commissioners. This happened in connection with the Vancouver harbour commission, and I therefore draw the attention of the Minister (Mr. Lapointe) , while we are on this subject, to the necessity for incorporating a fair wage clause in any contract made under the expenditure of this money.


Ernest Lapointe: My attention has already been called to this matter, and I shall certainly see that the fair wage clause shall be respected by the harbour commissioners of Quebec. I believe that contracts in connection with all subsidized works should contain a fair wage clause.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I should like some information from the minister with regard to a supplementary estimate brought down last year on the 4th day of June. The item then discussed read:
Amount required to pay the Park St. Charles Company, Limited, for land occupied by the
Quebec Harbour Commission, as per verdict of arbitrator, which verdict was later sustained by the Superior Court, in favour of the plaintiff company, $60,000.
I would also quote a part of the discussion that took place on that occasion on this matter. The first speaker, after the item had been introduced, was the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), who said:
I object to the passing of this item. This is another land grab absolutely unjustifiable. It is a scandalous affair, and in the interest of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance I would ask him not to insist on the passing of this item. I remember the saying of an old cynic who was prominent in public life many years ago, that if at times he did purchase votes, at least he had the satisfaction of purchasing those votes with the people's money. This item is to make good the promises that were made during an election which has just taken place. The men who are interested in this land grab were most prominent in the election held in the county of Yamaska.
I shall not quote the whole of the hon. member's remarks, but I do wish to give his summing up of the matter. He proceeded :
I assert, Mr. Chairman, that this amount is not due. I know the value of land around that park, and it is an imposition on the good faith of the supporters of the Government to come before them with this demand in the dying hours of the session. The truth of the matter is that the country is being asked to pay the debts incurred in the Yamaska bye-election, because the men who are at the bottom of this land graft are the men who were sent into the constituency to interrupt my hon. friend from Quebec East and who canvassed the county in automobiles. Even if I have to stay here, I will not stand for this land graft, for it is a land graft. Ordinarily I support the city of Quebec, but as a taxpayer and as a representative of the people, I protest against any highway robbery from whatever quarter it comes.
The discussion was somewhat protracted, and further on the same hon. gentleman said:
When the next session comes-perhaps before -I will be in a position to establish to the right hon. gentleman and to Parliament that there has been fraud in this matter from beginning to end.
The then Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) speaking on the question, is reported as follows:
We will expect the hon. gentleman to do it sooner than that. We would like to know, because if these people are entitled to their money they ought to have it. It is for him to establish by indisputable evidence before the department his charges of fraud and collusion in regard to this matter and we will provide the opportunity for him to do it.
Now, this was a pretty serious charge to make and if the Government haid consid-
Quebec Harbour

ered that there was no foundation for it they would not have withdrawn the item at that time. The Prime Minister of that day declared that a tribunal would he established to take evidence on the matter and ascertain whether or not the charge was true. We have had no indication since as to whether any action has been taken in the matter, and before we go further I should like the minister to say what has been done.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that no
steps have been taken with regard to the Park St. Charles matter. As my hon. friend knows, this was an appropriation in the supplementary estimates. It was not voted last year, and I do not know whether it will be voted this year. However, that is not strictly relevant to the matter immediately under consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend's recollection is at fault. Action was taken. The then Prime Minister said that he would withdraw the item in view of the gravity of the charge, and a tribunal was set up to investigate the question. That tribunal was appointed and an investigator was named under the Inquiries Act. The hon. member who made the charge was invited to go before that investigation and submit his proof, but he took the stand that he did not approve of that kind of 'investigation. He thought that the matter should be investigated by a parliamentary committee.


Mr. BUREAU:: He challenged the
jurisdiction of the tribunal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, he challenged the jurisdiction of the investigator.


Jacques Bureau: And the Court upheld
him.


The CHAIRMAN:: It seems to me that the debate is going far beyond the scope of the resolution before the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Possibly; but I have no doubt that the Chairman would like me to point out that all I am doing is answering statements made from the governmental benches on the invitation of my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Caldwell). If the whole discussion be ruled out, I do not mind.


Ernest Lapointe: I merely said that the Government had taken no steps in the direction of paying the amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon.
gentleman was referring to what had been done to implement the promise that an investigation would be held.


Ernest Lapointe: No; I was pointing
out that we have not taken any steps.


Jacques Bureau: He was speaking of this Government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I admit that
this Government is doing nothing one way or the other. I do not know whether they will bring on the investigation.


Mr. GOOD:: I think we should have
some reply to the rather serious objections registered against the grant by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). Personally, I want to preserve an open mind in regard to the matter, but this is a time when we cannot afford to give away any money which we need for other purposes, and there are some facts in connection with this matter which, I think, need clearing up. At all events, I do not feel like supporting the resolution at the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend
knows, this resolution is only the first stage in this legislation. It was my intention to give full explanations later on, but if my hon. friend so desires, I am quite willing to answer any questions which he would like to ask me now. My hon. friend from West York is quite correct when he says that this has not so far been a paying investment. The hon. member should not call it an investment at all. It is, of course, an investment in that it is intended for the general advancement of the country in developing a national port which is essential to the business of the Dominion. But as regards its being a paying proposition in the way of returning interest, it has never been considered in the light of an investment, and should not be so considered. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Church) is a nice fellow and I should not like to have any difficulty with him. He has invited me to go to his place and has promised me the time of my life.


Jacques Bureau: Will he introduce you
to Judge Cohen?


Ernest Lapointe: But I may tell him
that Quebec would like to be in the same position as Toronto; it would also like to get money from the Government and give nothing in return. Such money is not considered in anyway whatever as being due

Quebec Harbour
either in the way of capital or of interest by the city of Toronto or the Harbour Commission of that city. Even this year there is an appropriation in the public works estimates for the Toronto harbour improvements, and it is not provided that the harbour commissioners shall pay one cent of interest on the money contributed by the country. The conditions are not the same in any way whatever, and I think my hon. friend was wrong in using such rather strong language and saying that we in Quebec are hungry. At least, as oiie of my hon. friends on the other side told me, if we are hungry we are not thirsty.
Last year for the first time five million bushels of wheat were shipped from Quebec I may inform my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton). We are in communication with the railway companies with a view to developing this export traffic, and the prospects are encouraging. But these advances are not for the purpose of developing or improving the grain facilities at the elevator there, except for a small amount of $20,000, necessary to complete the elevator. All the other items are either for the purpose of completing work already started or to make repairs which are absolutely necessary to preserve what has been already constructed.
The harbour commission of Quebec intended to build a cold storage warehouse, and they asked for $500,000 more than the Government has agreed to advance. We thought this was a new work that could very well wait, and we told them that their request would be reconsidered when the necessity for such a warehouse was more urgent than it appears to be at the present time. I have here a report of the movement of vessels in and out of the port of Quebec for 1919 and 1920; the report of the operations for 1920 and 1921 has not yet been received by the department. These are the figures for 1919 and 1920:
The movement of vessels inwards and outwards for 1920 as compared with 1919 shows an increase of 69 vessels, as follows:
Inwards: 1920, 460; 1919, 331.
Outwards: 1920, 214; 1919, 274.
I think these advances are necessary, Mr. Chairman; indeed, we would not ask parliament to sanction them if they were not absolutely necessary at the present time to preserve from destruction works already constructed, and to furnish the shipping accommodation required at this port.
My hon. friend from West York seems to think that no vessels are using the port of Quebec. What would the bigger liners do if they had not this port to use on the St. Lawrence route? Those liners do not go to Montreal, despite the money that has been spent, as my hon. friend complained, in deepening the channel between the two ports, because the underwriters do not think it would be safe for them to incur the risks involved. If any further explanations are required, I shall be happy to furnish them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. minister gave us his receipts for 1913 and 1921. Can he give the House a statement showing his receipts and disbursements sc that we may have an idea of the volume of business transacted?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
Receipts	$226,020	80Expenditure	
239,728	33Receipts	5387,323	91Expenditure	
335,303	17Mr. JOHNSON	(Moosejaw) : Mr.	Chairman, anything I have	to	say on this	resolution is more by way of securing information than argument for or against it. Part of the information I sought has already been supplied by the minister (Mr. Lapointe), supplemented by the remarks of the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). It was not clear in my mind whether the moneys mentioned in this resolution were capital expenditure on behalf of the Dominion Government, or a loan to the Quebec harbour commissioners, repayable with interest. I rather gather-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that it is a loan to the Quebec harbour commissioners with very little prospect of repayment either of principal or interest. Consequently we may just as well take it for what it really is-capital expenditure by the people of Canada generally to develop this particular port.
Were its development at the present juncture sufficiently urgent and important to warrant that expenditure in my opinion, it would have my support; but I wonder if such is the case. We have been told repeatedly during the present session that the one thing we must keep constantly before our minds is economy in the expenditure of public moneys. A week ago, in company with other members, I visited the port of Quebec for the first time, and I am free to confess I was very much impressed with the ample shipping facilities the harbour
Quebec Harbour

commissioners have in their wonderful port, and the great opportunities for expansion. I know the hospitality of our friends from Quebec was too genuine an article to be sullied with any commercial or mercenary motives; any information furnished to us was received in the spirit in which it was tendered, and on my part at least I found it very valuable.
The harbour commissioners, as was pointed out, have remarkable facilities- and a grievance. But if I interpreted the representations aright, the grievance took more the character of it being impossible to secure the volume of business which the existing facilities were able to handle. I gathered that what would help the harbour more than anything else would be that traffic from the national roads should be so increased that the facilities would be used to capacity, which they are not now. When that stage comes it will be time enough in my opinion to consider the further expansion of those facilities. If that contention is right, it is so closely related to railway rates that we can scarcely consider the one without the other. I am not going to discuss railway rates as a concrete subject to-day; we had enough of that yesterday; but we who live in the interior and ship bulk products across the continent to the Atlantic ports, have been taught, and have come to belive, that all-rail routes, to the Atlantic seaboard points can never hope to compete with rail and water routes. Now, that principle may be subject to variation; but I wondered when this was brought to my attention whether, in that portion of the year when heavy commodities such as grain go by rail to the Atlantic seaboard, the port of Quebec could not be given the benefit of such freight rates on the National Transcontinental as would enable it to compete with other ports which are only a little closer to the interior than Quebec is, and not nearly so close to the European countries. I thought something might be done on behalf of the port of Quebec. Then, I had hoped to get some information as to the volume of traffic which is now offering. I did not wish to compare the various ports, but it was evident that the port of Quebec must always be our chief Canadian port in the summer season for passenger traffic, package freight, and shipments which must move hurriedly into the interior. Quebec has, it seems to me, adequate facilities for that kind of business.

Now, Montreal is, after all, the nearest point reached by rail from the interior to tidewater or to open ocean ports. Are the facilities at the port of Montreal-and I am asking simply for information, because I do not know-adequate to handle the business at present offering? The minister will perhaps answer that question later. I hope I would not be considered as taking a parochial view if I spoke of the relation of this subject to western problems, but after all, we cannot have the one without the other. What is the use of terminal facilities if you do not have adequate facilities at the initial points of shipment, and vice versa? I notice also, on page 35 of the estimates, that items which have been referred to by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), aggregating almost $2,000,000, for the improvement of various ports and harbour facilities, are chargeable to capital. And here is an item of $1,500,000 which, taking the information supplied by the minister a few minutes ago, I cannot look upon as other than a capital expenditure, in effect at least. So that we run up an item of $3,500,000 to furnish terminal facilities for the shipment of our products to European countries. In other words, we take care of the outlet for traffic originating in the interior, though we neglect- and I think I am speaking correctly, Mr. Chairman-we neglect the development of those facilities which are necessary to the gathering of that business. Many of us from western Canada have been most persistent in our representations to the Minister of Railways for branch line extensions, and we have been impressed by his argument that these works could not be undertaken owing to lack of money and to the necessity for economy. Well, we have taken him at his word; but it seems rather hopeless that we should be asked to vote large sums for the equipment and development of terminal facilities when we neglect the feeders which are so essential if the fullest use is to be made of the facilities which are already at our disposal. Much as I appreciate the situation as respects the harbour of Quebec, as well as other harbours mentioned in the estimates, and much as I would like to see them develop and made the best harbours in the world, I cannot see my way clear to support a vote for these improvements so long as, on the ground of economy, extensions and feeders back in the interior are left to wait for better times.

Quebec Harbour


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I am most anxious to see Quebec become one of our great national ports. Perhaps there is some sentiment mixed up with my desire in that respect; I always look upon Quebec as the ancient capital of the land, and I believe that nature intended that it would become one of the great, if not the greatest, of our summer ports. But the statement which has been given to the committee this afternoon by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) almost staggers one when one attempts to consider the proposal now before the committee for the appropriation of another million and a half dollars. I can well remember the 4th of May in the year 1901, when a committee of the House was invited to go to the city of Quebec to examine the harbour, and I see hon. members in the House now who, with myself, went to Quebec on that occasion and had a most enjoyable day. History has been repeating itself, because I believe that a week or ten days ago another more limited committee went to Quebec with a view to looking over the harbour. Well, twenty years ago we started on fairly liberal expenditure in regard to the port of Quebec. We were very optimistic in those days as to the prospect for the future and felt very sure of the results which would be obtained. But, as I say, I was staggered this afternoon to hear the statement made by the member for West York as to the results which have been achieved after an experience of twenty odd years in connection with expenditures at that port. The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) has, I think, properly put the matter before the committee; we must look upon this outlay as capital expenditure, not as a loan. An ex-Finanee Minister of this country informs the House that our expenditures under this head in past years, amounting to about $11,000,000, have practically been written off as an asset. It is, then, a capital expenditure from which we have little hope of obtaining anything, either by way of principal or by way of interest. There is little doubt in my mind that if we spend another million and a half as proposed by this resolution we need not look for either the return of capital or the payment of interest. Now, the result in Montreal, I am informed, has been quite different. Montreal has developed into a very busy port. The bonds of the harbour commissioners there are saleable; the interest upon them is paid to the government; they are considered a fairly high-class investment. I am told also that the same
thing applies to Vancouver, but for some reason or other it does not apply to Quebec. During the past two years I have visited the city of Quebec, particularly the military district there, on two or three occasions, and incidentally I have had interviews with some of the citizens in regard to the question of the harbour. I must say the impression I gained was just the impression given to the committee this afternoon by my hon. friend from Moose-jaw. The complaint of the citizens of Quebec was not that the harbour facilities were inadequate; the impression left on my mind was that they had one of the best equipped harbours in the country or on the continent, but the regret was that there was no business to be done. The complaint was directed entirely to the fact that the business coming over the National Transcontinental Railway did not reach the city of Quebec.
The complaint was a complaint of freight rates. They complained of a rate which they said discriminated against the city of Quebec, and my information on those occasions was that if a proper adjustment of freight rates was made, the port of Quebec would be one of the busiest in the Dominion. Well, the freight rate question has not yet been adjusted. From information I gathered, and from anything I saw, I certainly formed the opinion that the facilities were there far in advance of the requirements. The facilities were there for a trade enormously in advance of any trade they are doing at the port of Quebec at the present time, or can hope to do within a reasonable period irt the future. If that be so, would it not be idle for this House to advance another $1,500,000 at the present time?
I view the matter this way. I do not want by my voice or my my vote to interrupt the progress or development of that port. I want to see it go ahead, but at the same time would it be a wise thing to expend $1,500,000 under the conditions as we know them to-day in this House? Is not this a matter that can well wait for future consideration until we see what is going to be done about railway rates, railway schedules, and the like? If the conditions as they exist to-day are to continue in regard to railway traffic, there are more facilities at the port of Quebec now than will be used for many, many years. If a change takes place, the facilities there to-day will take care of a very largely increased business for a number of years to come. Then, cannot we allow this present
Quebec Harbour

proposal to stand until the trade figures warrant additional expenditure, until we can see some hope of getting something back, or at least of having an investment of some value to the Dominion of Canada.
Criticism has been made against the city of Toronto. It has been suggested that the harbour expenditures there have been in the nature of gifts to the city ox Toronto. I think it is something to the credit of the city of Toronto, a proof of their progressive spirit, that while the Government has contributed, and contributed on a fairly liberal scale, to harbour improvements in that city, the citizens themselves have also contributed very much more liberally. For every dollar that this Government has spent on harbour improvements in Toronto, I am told that the citizens have spent five or six dollars of their own money. I do not believe the city of Quebec has ever made a contribution of any kind towards its harbour, not for many years, at all events. It may originally have done so, but in the last twenty or twenty-five years there has been no municipal expenditure on the part of Quebec. So long as we view that port solely as a national port, I do not know that the citizens of Quebec should be called to make any expenditure, but these improvements are undoubtedly a convenience and an asset to the city. They are a help to the citizens; the more trade that is done there, the better for the city of Quebec, but during the last twenty or twenty-five years, I believe I am correct in saying', the citizens of Quebec have not paid anything towards their harbour, while the citizens of Toronto have taxed themselves to the tune of something like $20,000,000 for harbour improvements there. If the money must be spent now, if the minister can make out a case for this expenditure at the present time, I shall not stand in the way of it, but I must say that in my judgment this expenditure might stand for one or two or three or five years, until we see some business in sight at that port which is not there at the present time.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I am really surprised to hear the hon. member state that the citizens of Quebec have never made any contribution towards their harbour, or any sacrifice to obtain what is due to them. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that on many occasions in this House I have had the honour to quote from the written agreement between the federal govern-

ment and the city of Quebec, by which the Government bound themselves to make certain improvements and construct certain works at that port. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the attitude he has taken to-day with regard to this expenditure is not the attitude that his late chief, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, and his colleagues took when they were entertained at a banquet at the Chateau Frontenac in the city of Quebec in 1913. On that occasion the Prime Minister of that day told the citizens of Quebec that there was nothing too good for them, and that the pledges of the government in respect to the port of Quebec would be fulfilled. I would also remind the hon. gentleman of the statements made by Sir Robert Borden when he came down to inaugurate the works at the port of Quebec. He stated then that moneys would be provided for the Quebec Harbour Commission, and that the proper equipment would be provided.


Hugh Guthrie: We have provided all that.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Is the hon. gentleman really able to state what has been done by the Quebec Harbour Commission lately? The promises which the late government made of improvements to the port of Quebec have never been fulfilled. I do not know of any solid promise which was made by the late government and the gov-* ernment of Sir Robert Borden to the city of Quebec which has been fulfilled. Millions of dollars have been promised the city for docks, wharves, grain elevators, and all kinds of improvements.


Hugh Guthrie: They have got all that.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: We have got a
grain elevator, but it is only a small one, and not of the capacity we should have in the city of Quebec. An elevator of the proper capacity in that city would be a benefit to the country as a whole. Our elevator has a capacity of 2,000,000 or
3.000.	000 bushels.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A capacity of
2.000.	000 bushels.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: We should have an elevator with a capacity of at least
10.000.	000 bushels. That is what we were promised.


Mr. MILLAR:: How much grain passed through that elevator last year?


Ernest Lapointe: About 5,000,000
bushels.

Quebec Harbour


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: If we had the proper facilities, and the proper freight rates, so that the grain from the West could be brought to the city of Quebec, if we had the tariff of twenty cents a bushel which was promised, the business done would be very much larger and several millions of dollars would be saved to the people of the West. The country as a whole would benefit from the application of such a tariff, but even if we had the traffic, we have not the port facilities to handle it at the present time. I am delighted to see that the Minister of Marine has placed a sum in the estimates to enable proper equipment to be provided for the harbour of Quebec. But even that amount is only a small contribution towards carrying out the promise made to the citizens of Quebec subsequent to 1911, a promise which has never been fulfilled.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to point out to the hon. member (Mr. Lavig-ueur) that he is making a mistake in saying that nothing has been done. I am afraid some people will think we did a great deal too much for Quebec. It was thought a great deal could be done for "the fair city of Quebec" and we did hope to do a great deal. I would remind my hon. friend that the carrying out of that intention resulted in an expenditure of three and a half millions on the Quebec harbour in 1913; an expenditure of $2,000,000 in 1914; and an expenditure of $1,491,-(00 in 1917.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The statement I
made was that nothing has been done to carry out the written contract entered into by the late government. My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) a few minutes ago stated that Quebec had never contributed anything toward the contemplated improvements in that city. I would point out that the city of Quebec has given property worth over $2,000,000 in order to secure a proper equipment for the port. Quebec gave up the Champlain market which was a property valued at over $2,000,000, and what did it get in return for that surrender? The late government built a terminal station on that site which is a disgrace to the city, and worth at the utmost only some twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars. Under the Laurier regime the contract was awarded for the erection of a station on the Champlain market site to cost over $1,000,000. When the Borden government came in they cancelled that contract, and instead of giving us the
magnificent edifice planned by Sir Wilfrid Laurier they erected a miserable building which they thought was good enough for the citizens of Quebec.


John Millar: It seems to me that during the years of the war period, and during the years when prosperity reigned, we acquired habits of extravagance. It is not easy to escape from these habits, but I believe the time has come when instead of talking in terms of millions when contemplating expenditures we shall have to be more economical and speak in the language of thousands. While formerly we talked in language that is parochial, looking after our own interests in our own particular section, we are now compelled to look at matters from a national viewpoint. Much of the discussion that has taken place to-day would indicate that the gravity of the financial problem confronting the Government at the present time has not been fully realized. I am not going to devote much time in repeating what has been already said, and said in better terms than I can employ. I would say, however, in reply to my hon. friend from Quebec (Mr. Lavigueur) in regard to Sir Robert Borden's reported statement a short time ago "that nothing was too good for the city of Quebec," that we are now living in other days. Many great changes have taken place since the time to which my hon. friend has alluded; and that whether we want to or not we are compelled to-day to prune down our estimates. Many of us thought that drastic cuts in the public expenditure could be made. Now we begin to realize that trade would be so upset and the inconvenience would be so great in consequence that ws cannot go to extremes in the matter. But there is no doubt that there must be a paring down of expenditures.
There is one phase of this matter I would like to deal with particularly. I believe that many members of this House and many people in the country, consider the economic depression-and I refer more particularly to the state of agriculture-is such that all that is necessary is to have a little patience and things will right themselves in a very short time. I believe the people who entertain that view are very much mistaken. Let me indulge in a little retrospect. Many of those hon. members who have farmed in the West can remember the days wThen land on the prairies ready for the plough was purchased at $6 an acre-yes $2.50 an acre, the very best land that lies out of doors. That land was
Quebec Harbour

absolutely free from weeds; all we had to do was to scratch the surface and it would yield a crop. In those days of prosperity we could stand a great many burdens, and we did support many and did not raise much complaint respecting them. We hardily counted the cost. We knew we were carrying great burdens, but we were living in times of prosperity and felt able to stand them. Now the time has come when that land is not so productive as it was. During the last twenty years it has decreased in production to the extent of six bushels per acre. My remarks, of course, apply to the prairie provinces. The cost of production has now become very high, and, in a very few words, I will give you my reason why there has been such an enhancement in cost and why we cannot get back to normal conditions without drastic efforts on the part of the federal government. The time came when competition was set aside by some of those engaged in manufacturing articles for our use, but at first we thought we could stand it. I will not say that the manufacturers of farming implements were the first to inaugurate this proceeding but I know they were among the first. Let me illustrate what took place by a concrete case. I said to a man who was a manufacturer and seller of sheaf loaders "That article should not cost $500; it should not cost more than $250." He replied "We do not figure the selling price according to the cost at all. We believe that the man who is threshing grain will regard it as worth his while to pay $500 rather than be without it. Therefore we charge him $500." Now that sort of thing has taken place all along the line. All the various interests have organized even down to labour. When labour organized and demanded a high wage, the time arrived when it was absolutely impossible for us to continue to pay that high wage any longer. During last fall, because of this economic depression, the loan companies took this action. They were not able to collect their loans or the interest. Of course matured loans must be renewed. They were renewed in many cases, not at 8 per cent, but 9 per cent.
THE CHAIRMAN: This discussion as to loan companies in the West can hardly be relevant to this particular issue. I observe the hon. member is drawing a comparison, but I think he is going a little beyond the length of address he is entitled to give in drawing that comparison.


John Millar: I was only mentioning
that as an incident, not dealing fully with it, but merely wishing to show that conditions surrounding agriculture are such that, unless economy is practised by the Government, so as to lessen the burden the country is carrying at the present time, no grain or other freight would go to the port of Quebec or any other port. An effort has been made to show that an expenditure on the port of Quebec would be wise if the railways could be persuaded to carry the freight east, instead of letting it go by water. This, it seems to me, is an effort to make water run uphill. The freight will go very much cheaper by water than by rail, and I see no good reason why any effort should be made to cause it to go by rail, in order that the port of Quebec may be built up. Considering that about $11,000,000 has already been spent on this port, and the amount of traffic passing through it has been very small, it certainly seems to me very unwise that another million and a half should be spent.
Reference has been made to the necessity for branch lines. A few days ago I received a letter from some gentlemen, who are interested in a branch line that has been partly built for some two or three years. Ties have been laid, and I believe a large quantity of rails is ready to be laid down, and these gentlemen said "If the Government is not ready to complete this railway at this time, we farmers of this district would like to complete it ourselves, and be paid for our work by way of freight on the produce, principally grain, that will be carried on the railway." At the present time one reason why this branch line should be built is because a great deal of the grain that would go to the Government railways is now going by the Canadian Pacific railway. When many districts require the expenditure of money that
5 p.m. will bring good returns in order to help a basic industry like agriculture, I ask if it would be wise to consider spending another million and. a half on the port of Quebec. It sems to me not.	.
You may think, Mr. Chairman, that I have wandered a little from the subject, but I have not spent very much of the time of this House in discussing any matter. If it costs $2,000 an hour, as some have figured, to talk to this House, I believe other members have been greater sinners than I have. Let me say to the cities of the pro-

Quebec Harbour
vince of Quebec, and to all other cities, that it is well that they should get together and consider this difficult problem in which Canada is placed, because the reaction has already set in. Manufacturing concerns and the railways are suffering; in fact, almost every industry in Canada is suffering. If hon. gentlemen stop to think for a little while, I think they will see why. You can lay such burdens on the basic industries of Canada that their purchasing power will be impaired, and that is what has taken place during the recent years and months. Those engaged in farming-and I suppose many others are similarly placed -are unable to purchase as they used to. They have to cut their purchases to the very bone, and when they cannot purchase, naturally those who are manufacturing have to close their shops. There is unemployment; the railways have not the traffic to carry and there is impoverishment all along the line. I think it would be well, for that reason, that those who think of spending money in Government work that could very well wait for a year or two, should take that fact into consideration. If they would wait a few years until the basic industries get on their feet again, and a certain degree of prosperity returns, then if the million, or two or three million, is required to improve the port of Quebec, or Montreal, or even Toronto-which, as a matter of fact, has been very persistent in its demands-I think you would find those who are engaged in agriculture would not be backward in supporting their demands. We are not looking at things in a narrow way, but rather in a broad way. We see that a reaction has taken place and that there is no chance of a return of prosperity in Canada until the basic industries receive the consideration to which they are entitled because of their importance. I ask the Government to give consideration to that point.


Hugh Guthrie: Who are the Quebec harbour commisioners at the present time?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Power, Mr. Gau-vin and General Tremblay.	*


Arthur Meighen: What was the minister's idea in changing the harbour commissioners?


Ernest Lapointe: To form a new board, in order that there might be co-operation in the work of the commission.


Arthur Meighen: What reason had the minister to think that with the old board there would not be co-operation?


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend knows what the old harbour commission was, and he was anxious to have the documents of the House, and they have been laid on the table.


Arthur Meighen: They give no reason.


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to give reasons. I do not think anybody could accuse me of being a very bitter political partisan and, I think, if I have any reproach laid against me, it is quite the contrary.


Arthur Meighen: I never heard the contrary reproach.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman is not in the right camp to hear that report.


Ernest Lapointe: I think political patronage must be eliminated, as far as possible. But what were the conditions there? The chairman of the harbour commission was a friend of mine personally. He was a gallant soldier and did his duty for his country. Unfortunately, he is dead now, and it is a delicate matter to speak of him in any way, but I am sure my right hon. friend will not consider that I am speaking disparagingly of him when I say that he was a strong partisan of my right hon. friend and of hisjparty. That was right; I have no complaint whatever to make in that regard. But he was the owner, the publisher and the manager of a newspaper in the city of Quebec called The Quebec Chronicle, which is perhaps the strongest political journal in that province.


Jacques Bureau: Tory.


Ernest Lapointe: The chairman of the
harbour commission continued as publisher, manager and owner of that newspaper after the new cabinet had come into office, and almost every day there were editorials in that newspaper not only against the Government, but directed against the Minister of Marine in particular. I have nothing to complain about concerning any such criticisms coming from any citizen, but my right hon. friend will admit that this was a condition of things that could not be tolerated. The chairman of the harbour commission is not, perhaps, a civil servant. If he were he would have been instantly dismissed for offensive political partisanship, under the Civil Service Act. But he is more than a civil servant; he is even more than a deputy minister, because there is less control over him. He is the administrator
Quebec Harbour

of the harbour, and surely he must have some confidence in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as the minister must likewise have confidence in his officer. There could he no co-operation if the two were distrustful of each other so far as political questions are concerned. That was the only reason for my having asked for his resignation; and I may say that everyone expected it. The matter was not criticised by the friends of my right hon. friend in Quebec. The new Harbour Board is considered by all the citizens of Quebec as a good business body. They were entertained last night by all the business men of the city, Conservatives as well as Liberals, and I think that my right hon. friend will concede that it was impossible to act otherwise under the circumstances. At 'all events, I thought I did the right thing. I could not do otherwise, and I oifer no apology whatever in this matter. If there is anything wrong about what I did, I must confess that I am an unrepentant sinner and certainly deserve all that may be coming to me in consequence of my action.


Arthur Meighen: What was the offence
of Mr. Gravel? Was he a criminal in the sense of being a Conservative too?


Ernest Lapointe: Three or four years
ago, when Sir David Watson was appointed chairman of the Harbour Commission in Quebec, Mr. Pennington, who was a member of the board, did not resign. The former government, properly as I think, thought that when the board had to be reorganized and the chairman had severed his connection with it, it was necessary to appoint a new board altogether. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) shakes his head, but I know that that is what was done three years ago, and it was done this year also. It was thought advisable to retain one of. the three former commissioners, and General Tremblay was retained. There was no question about political partisanship on his part. He was not the owner of a newspaper carrying on an offensive campaign against the Government, and nothing concerning him deserves criticism.


Arthur Meighen: Are any of the present appointees related to the minister?


Ernest Lapointe: Not in the slightest
degree. My right hon. friend has been utterly misinformed.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say I was
informed at all. Now, I take a different view altogether from that of the minister

of his conduct in this regard, and if I may interpret his own heart at this moment, I am not sure that he has fully confessed his own sense of his conduct.


Ernest Lapointe: I certainly have.


Arthur Meighen: At the time Sir David
Watson was appointed, one member of the board was asked to retire. As I understand, it has been the custom to have two French Canadians and one Protestant member on the board, and it was in order to maintain the two French Canadian members that the other one was asked to re-' tire. That is what the late government did; it was not because of any political reason. On the contrary, so far as I know, the man who was asked to retire was a friend of the Government. But this government comes into office; it finds Sir David Watson with almost five years of service in Europe, service recognized by the appointment of him as Chairman of the Harbour Board. It finds him eminently successful in his office; it also finds Brigadier-General Tremblay in office, a man also of some length of service in the war. It finds him successful as well. It finds in office Mr. Gravel, who represented particularly the Levis side of the river on the board. And almost the first act of the minister is to write letters to these gentlemen and ask for their resignations. I have before me a copy of the letter which the minister wrote to Sir David Watson. Let me read it:
Dear Sir David Watson :
Since asuming the direction of the Marine and Fisheries Department, I have given consideration to the policies that should, in my judgment, he adopted by the Government with reference to the administration of the harbours of Montreal and Quebec. In order that the Government and myself should have a free hand in the creation of an administration in sympathy with those public policies, the former Commissioners from the harbour of Montreal voluntarily tendered their resignation.
I have not yet asked for the correspondence in that connection.
You will, I am sure, appreciate that the adoption of a similar policy respecting the harbour of Quebec is eminently desirable in the public interest. I have therefore to respectfully request you to forward to me your resignation as president of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, so that the Government may be enabled with as little delay as possible to organise an administration along the lines heretofore indicated. I am forwarding a similar request to the other members of the Commission.
The request goes to General Tremblay and to Mr. Gravel. I have the reply which Sir David Watson sent, as brought down

Quebec Harbour
by the minister. It will be noted that the reason given by the minister for requesting the resignation of these gentlemen is in order that the Government may be free to appoint men in sympathy with those public policies which the Government con->
templates in respect of the harbour of Quebec, without the slightest information as to whether or not Sir David Watson was in sympathy with those public policies. That is what the minister said in his letter. Without any intimation to Sir David Watson as to what those public policies were-and I suppose we are getting them now-the minister assumed, that he was opposed to them, and on that ground demanded the resignation of as gallant an officer as ever served this or any other country. I shall read Sir David Watson's reply and leave it to the House as to where the honours of the argument lay after the minister had received it:
Quebec, February lOith, 1922.
Dear Sir,-This "will acknowledge yours of the 7th instant, in which you request me to forward my resignation as President of the Quebec Harbour Commission, arnd also note that you are forwarding a similar request to the other members of the Commission.
You state that you have given consideration to the policies that should, in your judgment, be adopted by the Government with reference to the administration of the Harbours of Montreal and Quebec, and point out that in order that the Government and yourself should have a free hand in the creation of an administration in sympathy with those public policies, the former Commissioners for the Harbour of Montreal voluntarily tender their resignations.
But when you go on to say that I will, you are sure, appreciate that the adoption of a similar policy respecting the harbour of Quebec is eminently desirable in the public interest, I fail to follow you. Since you have never enlightened me as to what these policies are that should, in your judgment, be adopted by the Government with regard to the harbour of Quebec, and have made no attempt whatever to ascertain my view's relative thereto, I am at a loss to know by what right you can assume in advance that my administration would not be fully sympathetic to the public policies to which you allude.
It will be a surprise, not only to myself but to the Citizens of Quebec, if you have any other policy in View than that of securing a maximum of business for the harbour, without prejudice to the legitimate claims of other Canadian ports, and of administering its affairs in general with efficiency and economy. With such a policy I am and have always been in complete sympathy; as evidence of which I may point out that for a great number of years, prior to my appointment, the Quebec Commission was administered at a considerable loss annually, due to lack of business in the port. Since my administration as Chairman, however, this deficit has been converted into a surplus as per extract from Official Auditor's report, handed in last week as follows:
"The revenue statement show's a marked improvement on the previous period, the gross deficit of $65,221.96 of last year being converted this year into a surplus of $52,020.74 showing a betterment of $117,242.70.
"Operating expenditures have been reduced from $387,619 to $335,303, a gain of $52,316. All items show a reduction except the 'Elevators' which against an increase in operating expenses of $22,322, show an improvement of $71,120 in revenue.'*
I was appointed to the chairmanship of the Quebec Harbour Commission in 1920, not by reason of services rendered to the late government or of sympathy with iits policies-so far as the harbour is concerned I never hesitated to urge its requirements and its rights-but for the same reason as my fellow-commissioner, Brigadier-General Tremblay: in recognition of five years of continuous war service in France, in the interest of the people of Canada.
In this connection, I assuredly cannot agree with your policy of treatment of returned men as Illustrated by your request for the resignations of Brigadier-Generar Tremblay and myself, and I further disagree with your policy if it is not directed towards the same satisfactory results as I have already been able to obtain, and which appears in the official Auditor's report quoted herein.
But above all I have no desire, nor would it be possible for me to co-operate with an administration whose policies appear from your letter to be so utterly at variance with the most elementary principles of justice and honour, and my resignation is herewith tendered in accordance with your request, to take effect at the end of the month.
Yours truly,
D. Watson,
Major-General, K.O., formerly commanding 4th Canadian Division.
Brigadier Tremblay tendered his resignation. I do not know what may have transpired between him and the minister, but the brigadier, being a consistent Liberal appointed by the late government, was reappointed by this Government. Mr. Gravel, who had been appointed to the port of Levis, was requested to hand in his resignation, which was accepted, and he also was effectually dismissed.
Sir David Watson's offence, according to my hon. friend, was that he was the owner of the Quebec Chronicle. It is true he was the owner of the majority stock of the Quebec Chronicle. It is true that the Quebec Chronicle supported the late government, and has always supported the Liberal-Conservative party. I want to know if the holding of majority stock or control of a newspaper supporting the late government is a bar to the holding of office as a harbour commissioner under this Government. Did the minister speak to me?


Ernest Lapointe: I was telling my hon. friend for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Quebec Harbour

Jacobs) that Sir David Watson was not only the owner of the majority stock, hut he was general manager of the paper. The paper was published under his sole control.


Arthur Meighen: Assuming he was general manager of the paper, did that interfere with the performance of his duties as harbour commissioner? It did not appear to. The duties of that office were performed more successfully by him than they had been performed by any one before.


Mr. JACOBS:: His other duty was to attack this administration every morning for breakfast.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. In the city of Quebec only one of the four or five papers is supporting the late government. A policy of purchase of antagonistic papers has been carried on by the friends of the hon. gentleman.


Samuel William Jacobs: Name them.


Arthur Meighen: I take the name of a paper right beside us-L'Evenement.	I
did not have to go far, did I?


Ernest Lapointe: Let those speak who know.


Arthur Meighen: But where the attempt to purchase fails the big stick is applied, and the owner of the majority stock in the one remaining Conservative paper of the great city of Quebec is exposed to summary dismissal at the hands of my hon. friend though he was commander of the 4th Canadian Division for four years in France, and one of the most gallant men that this or any other country ever sent to the front. What offence did Mr. Gravel commit? I did not hear. The only offence he committed that I know of was to hold the office that the hon. minister wanted to fill with one of his friends. Everything the minister has advanced to-day, yes, many times in much stronger form, would be applicable to every case of political patronage the grossest that the country could conceive of; he could defend every case of patronage with the language he has employed this afternoon. Yes, patronage is bad enough, and I know how the minister is hankering to get back to it in all its various forms, but patronage as applied against the holding of offices that have been filled successfully by returned men is the most indefensible form of patronage.
Nor is this the only case to which it has been applied; there are many such cases throughout the country, reference to which has been made in questions put upon the
[Mr. Lapointe. |
Order Paper. But this is the most conspicuous one-a demand for resignation on a ground that is so manifestly indefensible and untenable that I am surprised the minister would put it forward. He had not the least reason to expect that Sir David Watson would change the political allegiance of his journal-a journal whose circulation was naturally with those of sympathetic views to itself. Sir David Watson personally was not in any sense active in the management of the Quebec Chronicle. He attended to his duties as harbour commissioner just as assiduously as he attended to his duties as general of our 4th Division in France; that was his conduct in office. Sir David Watson by his services to this country merited better treatment, and might have expected better treatment, at the hands of a generous foe. I may say that in correspondence received by myself from one of his friends, I am informed that the treatment accorded Sir David Watson was very severely felt by himself as unjust, cruel and ungrateful. To quote the last sentence of the letter:
I personally do not consider it too much to say that what the Huns failed to do the Liberals succeeded in accomplishing-killing him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who is that written by?


Arthur Meighen: A close friend of the late Sir David Watson.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is his name?


Arthur Meighen: I will give my hon. friend the name personally, if he wishes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my right hon. friend should give the name to the House.


Arthur Meighen: I will ask the writer of this letter for the privilege of giving the name. As soon as I get it I will give it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend should not read a letter in the House unless he is prepared to state the authorship of it.


Arthur Meighen: I am not a minister of the Crown. If a minister of the Crown reads a letter in the House, he is bound to lay it on the Table in support of policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is the leader of a party; that carries with it some responsibility.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman will show me the rule, I will adhere to it.

Quebec Harbour


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
some rules that apply to ordinary courtesy, and my hon. friend ought to know them.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
had better hold his own followers to that rule.


Ernest Lapointe: I have nothing to complain of concerning what my right hon. friend has done or said; it is like him, absolutely. He cannot induce me to say anything against the late Sir David Watson. The committee understands how delicate the subject is under the circumstances, so I will confine myself to stating again that I think no minister of the Crown, on whatever side of politics he may be, can, in his capacity as head of a department, co-operate with a deputy minister or the chairman of a board under his jurisdiction when these officials are assailing each other every morning in the newspapers, politically or otherwise. It would simply be stupidity to take any other course than was taken, and were I placed again in the same position I would act exactly as I did.
Now, my right hon. friend, in his very insinuating way, has said that he does not know about the commissioners of Montreal because he has not yet moved for the correspondence. Let me tell him that as soon as this Government took office the harbour commissioners of Montreal sent in their resignations. They did it in a very courteous way, and they were pleased to welcome the new commissioners who were appointed by this Government.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Did not the chairman of that board previously resign to become a candidate in St. Antoine?


Ernest Lapointe: The chairman had resigned to become a candidate for my right hon. friend in St. Antoine, and the two other commissioners resigned as soon as this Government took office. The Montreal Gazette, which is a respectable organ of my right hon. friend and has always been a Conservative newspaper, had something to say about that. The Gazette certainly does not share the opinion of my right hon. friend as to the co-operation which should exist between the Government or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the harbour commission of any port. Here is what the Montreal Gazette said in an editorial in its issue of February 1, entitled "The Harbour Board," in which it welcomed the appointments made by the Government:
The office of Hai-bor Commissioner has always been political in the sense that its occupants come and go with the changing governments at Otitawa, and in view of the intfimate relation between the port and the Government there can be no objection to this procedure. Montreal is the national port of Canada. Physical conditions have made it such, and on the progressive development and capable administration of the port depends not a local but a Domintion-wiide interest. For progressive development it is desirable that the Harbor Board should be persona grata to the ministry at Ottawa, a fact of which no one is more conscious than the recently resigned commissioners after a period of exceptional progress, and good service.
I would not go as far as the Montreal Gazette did.


Arthur Meighen: Neither would I.


Ernest Lapointe: But I still maintain that when the chairman of a harbour commission is not only a strong political par-tizan, but takes an active part in political warfare; when he is the publisher of a newspaper which attacks the Government every morning, and when he assails the Minister of Marine and Fisheries under whom he is supposed to act-that is a condition of things which nobody in the House and nobody in the country would tolerate. I would not have been true to myself; I would not have been true to the position I occupy, had I been willing to permit such a condition to continue.


Charles Marcil: I do not want to assail the present Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, but I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition might complain if he were in my position. The first appointment made by the new harbour board was that of Captain Ambroise Landry as harbour master of the port of Quebec. Captain Landry was the man who sought to be my opponent in Bonaventure county four years ago. He was actually in the running; his nomination papers had been prepared, but he was pulled off by the Quebec committee, and
Mr. Philippe Furois put in his place. I think the new harbour board of Quebec must be pretty liberal in their views when they appoint as harbour master a man who had been willing to be a Conservative candidate in the constituency.


Arthur Meighen: He is not a commissioner.


Charles Marcil: No, but he acts under these gentlemen who have been appointed by the present minister.

Quebec Harbour


Samuel William Jacobs: Probably he was appointed because they wanted the hon. member to have no opposition the next time.


Thomas Langton Church: Any questions asked
from this side of the House are not by way of objection to items to provide for the development of our national ports. We are simply looking for information-because every member of the House was not invited to go to Quebec on that trip the other day. I myself was not invited. This resolution was placed on the Order Paper on the 24th of March. It was called almost every day, but was not gone on with until some members of the House had been invited to go and inspect these improvements. I am glad they did go there, because seeing is believing, and that applies to harbour works as well as to anything else. If you want to understand a harbour development, you have to see it. I do not blame the minister, as one of the representatives of the Quebec district, for his interest in Quebec harbour. He said that some were hungry who were not thirsty. I may say in answer that the minister is both hungry and thirsty to get this matter through in the form of a resolution rather than to take a chance with an item in the main estimates. The resolution is dated March 24, but it was not gone on with until the Progressives were invited to Quebec last Saturday. As I was not one of those invited, I may say to the minister that I do not know what it is to be either hungry or thirsty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that there has been altogether too much politics in connection with the Quebec harbour since Confederation. I have a table here which was prepared the other day in answer to a question, giving certain figures and total expenditures with respect to the various ports in Canada. As I say, there has been too much politics and too little business in connection with the development of our national harbours, and the mixing up of politics with the matter, and the absence of business methods, has cost the country millions of dollars. It is true that terminal facilities are necessary at ports like Quebec and Montreal to take care of the increased business, but how is it that some of these ports are dealt with by resolution, while the others are left to shift for themselves in the main estimates?

Here is the port of Victoria, B.C., badly in need of a dry dock and terminals; what is going to be done there? What about Halifax, St. John, Toronto, Hamilton and other places which need adequate terminal facilities also and cannot get them? What I urge is that there be equality of treatment. I do not blame the minister for what has happened in the past; he has been in office only a few months. But I do not see any reason why there should be a change of officials and commissioners at the port of Quebec or the port of Montreal. If you want good government of a port and value for your money you must have continuity of officials, engineers, management, commissioners, and financing. Things must 'be done in a businesslike way. As it is now, the officials change with the Government, instead of the ports being administered by a permanent commission along business lines. A permanent commission would1 be in a far better position to decide as to how much dredging was to be done this year, how many immigration sheds and elevators, etc., should be provided, what would likely be the revenue from the port, and what increased business they could get.


Mr. MARTELL:: Were not the harbour commissioners of Montreal and Quebec changed after 1911? Every Liberal that cropped up then was discharged.


Thomas Langton Church: I am not interested in the past or in politics in the way the hon. member is. He has politics for his breakfast, dinner and tea. I am not interested at all in that phase of the problem. Never mind what has happened in the past. Let us concern ourselves with the future. Let us get value for this money that the minister proposes to spend.
What does the minister mean by equipment of the port? I see by this statement and comparison of expenditures in harbours that only very small amounts were spent on Quebec harbour in the years when immigration was the greatest. In 1895-96 only $8,000 was spent, and there was a large immigration in that year. The next two years $6,000 was spent. In 1910-11 the amount was much greater, $392,000; in 1911-12, $529,000, and in 1914 $497,000. Of the entire expenditure of $11,000,000 on the Quebec harbour, $5,500,000 was spent between 1914 and 1918 while the war was on. During the war the port was able to take care of all the business, of all immigration navigation, including inward and outward bound traffic at no very great expense.

Quebec Harbour
I should like to see equality of treatment as between harbours and ports of this country. If the minister is prepared to go and do likewise for other ports and harbours that are badly in need of equipment and facilities, all very well and good. There are many places that want terminal facilities, but they have to pay for them. It does not do them very much good if they are hungry and thirsty in a terminal facilities sense, as they must provide for their terminal facilities themselves. It is the same with expenditures for post office facilities. I have no objection to the minister equipping Quebec harbour to make it fit for the business that will be done to-morrow, not only in an immigration sense, but a transportation sense, so that he will be able to take care of the great increase in navigation and general trade which will develop at the port in the near future. If the Government would extend the same treatment to other ports in the country and give them equality of treatment, I think such action would1 commend itself to the wisdom and judgment of the country generally.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say again to
my hon. friend from Toronto that the only reason why this is being done by way of legislation is because it is the law. It would be much easier to have an appropriation in the Estimates, as is done for Toronto, than to bring down legislation which is closely scrutinized by the House. But the law requires this procedure, and that is the only reason why we are proceeding in this way.
Most of the discussion that has taken place has arisen through a misapprehension.
I was very glad indeed to hear many hon. gentlemen speak of the magnificent-harbour of Quebec and say that it possessed all the facilities that are required. For this to be said in the House of Commons of Canada is a good advertisement of the port, and I am glad for that reason. I must once again try to impress upon the members of the committee that these advances are not for the purpose of adding to the facilities which now exist at the port. They are not, as my hon. friend who spoke on the other side some time ago suggested, for the purpose of improving the harbour, but they are for the purpose of maintaining the present facilities. This money is required to keep in good order the present equipment. Perhaps I had better read some of the items on which it is proposed to expend the money which is the subject of the present resolution.
The first item is to cover the cost of operating the commissioners' bucket ladder dredge, for three seasons. The dredging to be done during the above period, will consist of widening out the entrance of the river St. Charles Basin, widening out the basin to uniform lines and grades, and removing materials that accumulate at the various berths, so as to maintain the standard depth of 35 feet at low tide.
An item of $25,000 is required to cover the cost of alterations and mechanical improvements for Grain Elevator No. 2, in order to render the operations more efficient. Last year when the grain was sent to Quebec it all came at the same time, and the men had to work day and night. It was realized that some alterations were necessary to facilitate the work and make the operations more efficient.
Then there is an item of $18,000 for a new floor at shed No. 26, as the present old floor from long use has become so worn as to render the work of trucking goods a difficult and costly operation.
An item of. $20,598 is required to cover the cost of laying down a 21 inch tongued and grooved flooring in shed 19, and surfacing the quay front and open wharf at east end of shed with concrete. This work is required as the present shed and wharf planking is worn out and requires to be renewed.
For breakwater facing $53,470 is required. This is to cover the cost of rebuilding the river face of the old breakwater, for a length of 880 feet. This work is rendered necessary owing to the fact that the wharf, timbers from low water mark up to coping level have become decayed, and are no longer capable of retaining the filling materials in wharf.
Then $20,000 is required to cover the cost of certain alterations and additions to the foundations of shed 29 rendered necessary by the uneven settlement, due to the varying depths of the sand filling on which the shed has been erected.
An item of $30,000 is required to continue the work of reinstalling the long wharf at Indian Cove damaged by floods, and which work has already been approved to the extent of $53,900.
Six new floating fenders, amounting to $4,800, are required for the protection of vessels moored at pier No. 1.
Does my hon. friend want all the items?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be just as well.

Quebec Harbour


Ernest Lapointe: An item of $6,000 is required for painting the exposed iron works out of the dock front grain galleries which have not been painted since erection, and are now depreciating for want of painting.
An item of $5,000 is required to cover the cost of installing the machinery, electrical wiring, etc., in the travelling grain loader, structural steel work, which was completed last year and is now ready to receive machinery.
An item of $2,520 is required to cover the cost of laying down concrete paving, to replace the present decayed planking over the space between the landing sheds 18 and 26 along the dock front.
An item of $15,000 is required to cover the cost of laying down additional railway lines to serve the space at the western end of the embankment.
An item of $113,191 is required to cover the cost of constructing a fixed fender for a length of 300 feet along the river face of pier No. 1 at shed No. 26 berth. This fender will take the place of the present floating fenders at this part of the frontage and will keep vessels at this berth clear of the wharf, as do the present floating fenders, except in case of severe storms of easterly wind, when they may become misplaced or be carried away, thus allowing the vessel to come in contact with the wharf and be liable to injury. It is to avoid this contingency and to make this berth as secure as possible under all conditions, that it is considered advisable to replace the floating fenders by a fixed one for a length sufficient for one vessel's berth. Then:
Oil tank, $42,275.	_
The commissioners have entered into an agreement with a company for the erection of oiil tank for the supply of fuel oil to vessels henth in Louise docks. This amount is to cover the cost of laying down the pipes, installing the valves and other appliances required to complete the installation.
The commissioners have already entered into a contract with that company, and the amount which they will get from that company will be more than sufficient to pay the interest and the expenditure on that account.
Coal tower foundation, $17,572.
This is to cover the cost of replacing foundations for coal towers on the area leased of the Canadian Import Co. on the St. Charles frontage, and there is a continuation of a contract by which the commissioners lay down similar foundations in the wet dock for the same purpose.
Pliers at entrance of St. Charles river, $125,000.

This item is to cover the cost of constructing guide piers at the entrance to the river St. Charles quay frontage in order to protect vessels from the bank on the northern side of the entrance works and to render the navigation into this part of the docks easy and secure.
Landing stage and overhead passage at sheds Nos. 25 and 26, $30,000.
I think my hon. friend will see that this expenditure is not to provide new facilities in the harbour, but to keep the harbour in good order and maintain works that are already in existence.


Mr. LADNER:: I have a question to
ask. I happen to be one of those fortunate people who received the hospitality of the city and Harbour Commissioners of Quebec. My only disappointment is that before this question of harbour improvements came up we in Vancouver did not have our friends from the East visit us because then there would have been two resolutions introduced instead of one. Now my question is this:	I understand that considerable negotiations have taken place and many representations have been placed before the Government in respect to the harbour of Vancouver. I happen to be one of the members for that constituency and I can say there is a real need for dock accommodation, a great business need, which exists at the present time because the larger boats are compelled to go to Seattle to secure that accommodation. Is the Government willing to complete the dry dock which has been undertaken at Vancouver?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will
understand that I have no authority to speak on that subject. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works would know more about it than I do. All that I can tell my hon. friend is that works are going on in Vancouver harbour at the present time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I refer to the dry dock.


Ernest Lapointe: I refer to the works
under the control of the Harbour Commission and undertaken on an advance made by this Parliament which has not yet been all expended. There still remains over two millions of that advance to be expended on the harbour of Vancouver and may I say this: Although some hon. member stated that Vancouver was paying interest on the advances made, the Government has not yet had the good fortune to receive any of that interest. I am sure, however, that Vancouver will pay its own way in the very near future on account of the very great facilities provided there.

Quebec Harbour


Leon Johnson Ladner: My question related particularly to the dry dock.


Ernest Lapointe: In regard to the dry
dock I am not in a position to make any promise.


Leon Johnson Ladner: For the minister's information I may say that I asked the same question of the Minister of Public Works and he had some reason which evaded the answer.


Ernest Lapointe: I see.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I shall therefore await the next opportunity of trying to get an answer to my question.


Ernest Lapointe: I will endeavour to secure the information for my hon. friend.


Mr. CLARK:: What work is to be done in Vancouver during the coming year with the $2,000,000 to which the minister has referred?


Ernest Lapointe: It will be necessary to complete the Ballantyne pier.


John Arthur Clark: Is it not the custom to consult the Harbour Commissioners for the port during the season each year regarding the work projected?


Ernest Lapointe: The work is entirely under the control of the Harbour Commissioners. Of course, they submit for approval by the Governor in Council the various schemes upon which they decide, but we are not directing this work-they are doing it themselves.


John Arthur Clark: Have they not submitted any proposals to the Governor in Council this year?


Ernest Lapointe: Not for the works of the present year.


John Arthur Clark: In other words, there are no proposals at present before the Government that have not yet been dealt with?


Ernest Lapointe: No proposals for new work but, as I say, there is a balance of $2,000,000 to be expended there. Every advance must be approved by the Governor in Council, and any work to be done with that money must be approved by our engineers as well as by the Government.


John Arthur Clark: Have any new proposals been submitted to the minister or to the Government, with regard to the projected work on the terminal railway and connection with North Vancouver?


Ernest Lapointe: Some proposals to that effect were submitted years ago but none have been submitted this year.
Mr. CLA.RK: Have those proposals been dealt with by the Government?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


John Arthur Clark: Are they before the Government now?


Ernest Lapointe: They may still be in the department but they have not come under my consideration. I will be pleased to look into the matter if the hon. member desires it.


William Charles Good: What amount of this $1,500,000 does the minister think will be necessary this year-I mean for maintenance, not for new construction?


Ernest Lapointe: As I have already
said, this money will not all be spent this year.


William Charles Good: How much of it will be
expended this year?


Ernest Lapointe: I think perhaps one-third. This legislation is to enable the Government to make advances from time to time to the Harbour Commissioners for work which they desire to have done. Such work will have to be approved by the Government but it may not be carried out for two, three, four or five years.


William Charles Good: Then why authorize such a large expenditure if it is not to be paid out this year?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will understand that if we have to come every year and ask for legislation of this kind it will take up a great deal of the time of Parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister is really still of the opinion that this vote should be asked for? I would like to point out to him in the first instance that he is putting in some new work-not very much but still some. I would also like to point out to him that works of a commercial character have never been paid for by harbour commissions. Take for example the coal plant. The coal plant at Montreal, I am informed, was installed by the commissioners at their own cost, they making some money out of it. It is the same with the oil plant. There does not seem to me any reason why the Quebec Harbour Commission should have to make these capital investments. However, I would like to
Quebec Harbour

seriously ask my hon. friend: Does he think at good business for this Government to issue bonds for any such purpose as mentioned? The explanation given by my hon. friend simply adds so much more force to what has been stated before as to the position of the Quebec Harbour Commission. They are owing the country these millions of dollars interest in arrears. Of course it is an investment, as my hon. friend knows, because the money could only be advanced in that way. It is intended to be, and really is an investment. In fact, it is an investment in Montreal, and will be an investment in Vancouver. But over and above all those tremendous losses, we find now that the business of this port obtained by the board is so small that they cannot keep up their current) painting. Surely, it is about time they stopped issuing bonds for any such purpose.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is the fair wage
clause inserted in all contracts given by this corporation?


Ernest Lapointe: I have already said that I shall see that the Harbour Commission inserts such a clause. I am in favour of such a clause in all contracts on subsidized work.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton) :: When
was the last appropriation made for this port?


Ernest Lapointe: In 1917, five years
ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the hon. gentlemen is wrong about that. That was the date of the legislation. The hon. gentleman was not asking as to enabling legislation, but as to when the last appropriation was made.


Ernest Lapointe: The money has been paid from time to time since 1917. There is no more money now that can be advanced under the legislation.


John Arthur Clark: Did I understand the hon. minister to say there had been no appropriation made for the harbour from 1919 to 1921?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I did not say that. I said the last legislation granting advances to the harbour was passed in 1917.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No appropriations have been made since then.


John Arthur Clark: The appropriation of 191617 was $1,532,244.33; in 1917-18, $1,121,413.40; in 1918-19, $875,503.72; in 1919-20, $258,276.09; in 1920-21, $181,877.89, making

a total of $9,573,085.97, from 1896 to 1921, as compared with $5,151,867.65 for the port of Montreal, and $4,415,860.64 for Vancouver.


Ernest Lapointe: All these appropriations are part of the legislation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the second reading of Bill No. 61, respecting Niagara River Bridge Company.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Mr. GRAHAM:: This is a rather important bill and the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is not in the House. I do not know anything about the matter and am not aware whether or not there is any objection to the bill, which has reference to an international bridge that is being constructed by a combination of two companies, one incorporated by the state of New York and the other by the province of Ontario, or possibly by the Dominion of Canada. This bill possibly might encroach on certain provincial powers, but as to that I do not know.


Mr. STEVENS:: Should it not go to the Railway Committee? That is the proper forum.


George Perry Graham: The principle of the bill is all right, and I am quite agreeable to its being referred to the Railway Committee, so long as it is understood that we do not acquiesce in its provisions, because as yet I do not fully understand them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Meighen the bill was referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.




[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 63 (from the Senate) for the relief of Ethel Turner.-Mr. Duff.

Canada Shipping Act
Bill No. 64 (from the Senate) for the relief of Walter Michie Anderson.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 65 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Fredenburg.- Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 66 (from the Senate) for the relief of (Sheriff Elwin Robinson.!-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 67 (from the Senate) for the relief of Rhoda Renfrew McFarlane Brown. -Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 68, to incorporate the Frontier University.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 69 (from the Senate) for the relief of Abraham Leibovitz.-Mr. MeQuar-rie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, respecting Prudential Trust Company, Limited.-Mr. Mitchell.
Bill No. 28, respecting The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 48, respecting Aberdeen Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Manion.
Bill No. 49, respecting Armour Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Manion.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
That it is expedient to amend Section 477 of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by addling the provisions that ships of war and hospital ships belonging to such foreign nation or nations as may be specified by the Governor in Council; and ships registered in Canada engaged exclusively in fishing; shall be exempt from the payment of pilotage dues.
Ernest Lapointe: Under the Canada
Shipping Act all vessels entering certain ports have to pay pilotage dues whether they employ a pilot or not. Certain exceptions are made in all other countries, of course, there are a few exceptions under our own act. We want to add the exceptions mentioned in the resolution. The first is with respect to war and hospital ships- of friendly countries, of course; that is why the matter is to be dealt with by the Governor in Council. As to fishing vessels registered in Canada, the custom has been to exempt them from pilotage dues, but the law does not permit that. This legislation is simply to enable the matter to be dealt with as it has been, but in a legal way.


Arthur Meighen: As I understand it, the act provides for the payment of pilotage dues by all vessels, with certain exceptions the minister has not mentioned. What are pilotage dues for? I must confess to a dismal ignorance of the subject. To whom are they payable?


Ernest Lapointe: The law makes it
obligatory on all vessels to pay pilotage dues. They are not compelled to take a pilot if they think they can enter the port without one, but they have to pay the dues, just the same.


Arthur Meighen: Do they pay them to the Marine Department?


Ernest Lapointe: No, to the pilots themselves. They are usually formed into a corporation.


Arthur Meighen: That is, the ships are corporations of course.


Ernest Lapointe: No. I mean the pilots. In Quebec, for instance, they have a corporation of pilots; the same is true of Montreal. The dues are fixed by the Governor in Council. The money goes into a general pilotage fund.


Arthur Meighen: If they employ no pilot, whom do they pay?


Ernest Lapointe: The money goes into the common fund of the pilots.


Arthur Meighen: That is, they pay the corporation?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: We are at peace with all countries' now; why does the Government ask to have reserved to itself the power to select and make favourites of nations? Is not the minister afraid that might possibly lead to Order in Council government?


Ernest Lapointe: I hope it will never
happen; on the other hand, there is no injury to anybody to leave the matter in the hands of the Governor in Council.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: In the interests of the pilots themselves it is not wise that all these restrictions should be taken away. These men devote their whole lives to the business of piloting vessels into port, and they obtain their livelihood through the collection of dues from vessels that come in. Foreign vessels should
Montreal Harbour

be required to pay, because the pilots have no other means of earning a living and their work must all be done in the summer when the harbours are navigable, The exemption, therefore, should not go too far.


Arthur Meighen: But should Parliament not say how far it should go? As I understand the way it reads, the Governor in Council could exempt the ships of half a dozen nations and subject the vessels of all the others to the payment of the dues. Why does the Governor in Council want the power of choosing between nations? Why should it be a respecter of nations when we are on the same terms with all?


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly we are on the same terms with all nations, but in the event of some nations not granting a similar privilege to British vessels, it is only fair that we should not grant these privileges to theirs.


Arthur Meighen: That sounds reasonable. The purpose, then, is to grant them wherever corresponding privileges are granted to British vessels?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Pilotage).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. E. LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
Resolved, (1) That it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Harbour Com-misstioners of Montreal, hereinafter called "the Corporation," in addition to the moneys, if any, heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by any act, and which have not at the date of the passing of any act founded upon these resolutions, been so advanced, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of five million dollars, as are required to enable the corporation to carry on the construction of terminal facilities in the harbour of Montreal, for which plans, specifications and estimates have been approved by the Governor in Council before the passing of the act founded upon these resolutions, and to construct such additional terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the said port.
(2)	That no such advance shall be made in respect of the construction of terminal facilities,

unless such detailed plans, specifications and estimates, for the works to be performed by the corporation and on which the money so to be advanced is to be expended, as are satisfactory to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, have been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before any work on the same has been commenced.
(3)	That the corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances. With statements showing total expenditure on different items, in detail, and upon approval, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
(4)	That the corporation shall upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue and bearing interest payable half yearly, at the rate of five per cent per annum.
(5)	That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any act founded on these resolutions shall be payable out of the revenue of the Corporation mentioned in section 8, of chapter 10, of the Statutes of 1896 (First Session), and shall be a charge thereon as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under said chapter 10.
Ernest Lapointe: It will perhaps interest the committee to know what is the financial position of the harbour of Montreal. There has been expended by the Government for the harbour at Montreal, through the Public Works Department, $1,055,725.08, and by the Harbour Commission $33,121,777.45, or a little over $34,000,000 altogether. The revenues of the port last year amounted to $2,891,274.42, or nearly $3,000,000, and the expenditure, including the interest paid on advances made by the Government, amounted to $2,724,100.02. So as may be seen, the port of Montreal is a paying proposition. As my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said this afternoon, it is a good investment to make these advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. The commission needs the further amount stated in the resolution for completion of their works, and I am informed that for every addition which is going to be made to the port facilities, arrangements or contracts have already been entered into assuring a fair revenue to the commission.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with the minister that this is a proposition entirely different from the proposal this afternoon, when this committee was asked to grant $1,500,000 to the Harbour Commissioners of the city of Quebec. I agree that the Montreal Harbour Commissioners have performed a very useful work for the Dominion of Canada. They have managed their business as a business should

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
be managed, and have been able at all times, I belreve, to meet their obligations. It has been a great boon to the whole Dominion of Canada to have such a harbour as we have in the city of Montreal. I believe, of course, that Montreal has been specially favoured by Providence in as much as it is an ocean port about 170 miles farther inland than the port of Quebec, and has great physical advantages. I think Montreal will in all probability be able to maintain its supremacy as a shipping port unless it be that in the future the tonnage of our ocean-going ships so greatly increases that they will not be able to go up as far as Montreal by reason of the levels of the St. Lawrence. At the present time, undoubtedly, Montreal is the great summer port of Canada. It has been well managed in the past, and I assume it will be well managed in the future. The proposal here is in the nature of a loan which will be returned to this Government. We will accept the bonds of the Harbour Commissioners, and those bonds bear interest sufficient to pay the cost to this country of carrying the loan, but in the case of the Quebec Harbour Commission which we discussed this afternoon, the proposal was not in the nature of a loan at all, but a straight grant of money without the chance of obtaining any interest or even the principal for many, many years to come. Personally, I would approve this resolution without further discussion.


Arthur Meighen: The figures given by the minister disclose an investment that the country has in the port of Montreal of about $34,000,000. That is the aggregate of the various years right up from Confederation until now. The minister's figures also disclose a revenue last year that, if I figured it correctly in my mind as he read, amounted to about nine per cent. The commission pays, as I understand it, five per cent on its bonds. I do not think the whole investment is covered by bonds. Consequently, there will be more than four per cent of a surplus, or a surplus somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000. That surplus, of course, is not paid to the Dominion Treasury. It is held by the Harbour Commissioners. Is that surplus applied under the supervision of the Government towards improvements, towards extensions, towards facilities? If so, is this $5,000,000 in addition to the application of accrued surpluses by the commissioners, and what is the extent of the accrued surpluses that have been invested and are being invested this year?


Ernest Lapointe: Improvements made that have been paid from revenue income amount to $2,266,777.45.


Arthur Meighen: Improvements from surplus income last year?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Last year?


Ernest Lapointe: No, the figure I gave covers a number of years.


Arthur Meighen: The surplus received last year, according to the minister's figures was about $1,500,000.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the minister to read two million odd as the disbursements and $3,800,000 as the revenue.


Ernest Lapointe: No. The revenue
last year was $2,891,274.42, and the expenditure $2,724,100.02.


Arthur Meighen: I did not catch the figures the first time.


Ernest Lapointe: Let me state that last year the total quantity of grain shipped through the port of Montreal amounted to
135.000.	000 bushels, and of that quantity
55.000.	000 bushels was United States grain shipped to Montreal.


Arthur Meighen: That is, 135,000,000
bushels through the port of Montreal as against 5,000,000 through the port of Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80 to grant further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Maintenance and repairs to Dominion Steamers and Icebreakers, $1,600,000.
George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are rather taken
by surprise. We understood the Minister of Public Works was going on with his estimates to-night and we were all loaded for him; we did not expect that the esti-
1490	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
mates of the Department of Marine would be taken up. I may say that we are also deeply interested in the date when the Minister of Militia is going to try his hand again after his somewhat harsh experience the other night. He knows, of course, that he has a lot of good friends on this side and we are very anxious to once again demonstrate that friendship to. him. In reference to the present item, if I am correct it is the intention of the Government to repurchase an icebreaker that was sold during the war, or perhaps they have already done so. Is that repurchase included in this item?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then would the minister give us the details of what is included in this $1,600,000?


Ernest Lapointe: There are twenty-'
seven ships whose operating expenses and repairs are chargeable to this particular appropriation. I may explain that the decrease of $150,000 in the vote is due to the reduction in the cost of fuel.


Arthur Meighen: In what service are
the ships whose repairs are chargeable to this item?


Ernest Lapointe: In the lighthouse and buoy service.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I recall correctly,
the Government had several lighthouse tenders chartered on the Pacific coast. Are there any chartered there now?


Ernest Lapointe: There are not any
chartered now.


Mr. MANION:: Does not the contract for icebreaking at the head of the lakes come under this item?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it does not. But there is such a contract, I am informed.


Arthur Meighen: We have 27 lighthouse and buoy service vessels. The service has more meaning to other hon. members than it has to me but still I have some idea of its nature. And it takes $1,600,000 a year to keep these vessels in repair and maintenance?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, for their operation.


Arthur Meighen: And the economy
effected is owing to the lower price of fuel?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and supplies
generally, but it is especially (fwing to the reduction in the cost of fuel.


Arthur Meighen: It is all owing to reduced costs?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Examination of masters and mates, $20,000.
Mr. DUFF:: Before this item carries I would ask the minister if this money is expended for the payment of salaries to the men who conduct navigation schools in different parts of the country-


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so.


William Duff: -and teach the sailors navigation?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is merely to pay the examiners of masters and mates.


William Duff: Who are they?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a resident examiner at the following ports: North Sydney, Yarmouth, Halifax, Charlottetown, Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Collingwood, Port Arthur, Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Nelson, Edmonton, and Selkirk.


William Duff: I think I am right in the belief that Captain O'Hara, who is in charge of the school at Halifax, would come under this vote.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Duff: Captain O'Hara is an experienced ship master of a great many years standing. At the present time he is in charge of the service at Halifax and he is being paid by the federal authorities the munificent sum of $110 a month. That just shows what little knowledge the Grif-fenhagens, the Arthur Youngs, and the rest of the bunch who made up the classification in the Civil Service a few years ago knew of their business. Captain O'Hara is worth at least $200 a month. His services to the shipping industry of Canada are something which we in the province of New Brunswick are very proud of, and we feel that he is doing a great work. Captain O'Hara left his ship some years ago to take up these duties with the promise that he would get a fair remuneration. Instead of that all he gets, under the classification referred to, is $110 a month. If the minister cannot get any satisfaction from the Civil Service Commission, who do not know any more than Griffenhagen, he should take some steps to see that Cap-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
tain O'Hara is paid properly for the services he performs for the country, and I would like some assurance from the minister that this man, who lives in Halifax, and has to look after his family and pay rent-and rent is very high in that city- is properly paid for his services. It is impossible for him to live on $110 a month. It is unfair that he should not be paid a better salary. He is a good man, and should be properly paid for the services he rendered his country.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I want to reiterate
what the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has said in regard to Captain O'Hara. He happens to be a personal friend of mine, though a political friend of the hon. gentleman opposite, and it is seldom that hon. gentlemen will find me advocating the claims of political opponents. He is a very excellent man. Large amounts of money are spent for the purpose of instructing people in other arts, and it is only fair that a reasonable amount of money should be expended in teaching the young Nova Scotians the art of navigation. The constituency that I have the honour to represent, in the old days of shipbuilding in the province of Nova Scotia, built the largest sailing ship ever produced in the country. I need not mention the name, and we have a great number of sea captains in my constituency whom I happen to know. Captain O'Hara is probably about my own age, and when he was a boy he began as a sailor before the mast, went through the various stages a sailor is required to go through and holds a master mariner's certificate. I believe if you were to ransack the whole Dominion of Canada you could not find a man more competent to discharge the duties of an instructor in navigation and seamanship than Captain O'Hara, and I would beseech for him a fair consideration at the hands of the minister. I suggest that in arriving at a decision the minister should take the advice of his departmental officers, and not the advice of Griffenhagen and Young.


Ernest Lapointe: This matter is engaging the attention of the department, having been placed before the department a few days ago. I shall certainly not forget the remarks of my hon. friend in regard to Captain O'Hara.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister purposes to have his department engaged in the individual cases of men who feel that they were not treated properly by the
Civil Service Commission, there will be ample for him to do, without any of the real work of his department being done at all.


Ernest Lapointe: I admit that.


Arthur Meighen: So the minister's
purpose is to deal with the unreal and not with the real. That is modern Liberalism, as I understand it. What I desire to call attention to is this: I am surprised that the minister did not state that Griffenhagen and Young and Company are not responsible for the classification. The responsibility for the classification rests with the Civil Service Commission. That commission had a Board of Hearing, before which all the officers could appear and make any case they cared to make, as respects any of their officials or clerks. That is where the classification question was decided. Griffenhagen arranged the mechanism under which the various officers would come, and what they did in that regard went again to the Civil Service Commission. We have had evidence of this already this session. One can never expect that the classification of anyone, when it comes to be arranged by the experts of the organization, will meet with the approval of all. Nevertheless, from the mouths of the Postmaster General, and as well from two or three other ministers, has come the frank confession that very large sums of money now left out of these estimates are left out just because of the work that Griffenhagen and Arthur Young performed.


Mr. KNOX:: Did I understand the minister to say that we have an examiner at the port of Nelson?


Ernest Lapointe: There was one, but I see that the position is vacant.


Andrew Knox: I hope the time will soon come when we will have an opportunity of making use of him in the district in Nelson. That is on Hudson bay.


Mr. TOLMIE:: How often are these examinations held, and at what points in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend made a mistake. I was referring to Nelson, B.C.


Andrew Knox: I did not understand that Nelson, B.C., was a seaport.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a lake port. I remember having left Nelson, B.C., two
1492	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
years ago in a boat, after having held a fine meeting the night before. In British Columbia there are examiners at Vancouver, Victoria and Nelson.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How often are these examinations held?


Ernest Lapointe: Wherever there is a sufficient number of aspirants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Investigation into wrecks, $12,300.
Lewis Herbert Martell: I presume that is the branch of the service presided over by Captain Demers?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I understand Captain Demers, as the official investigator, conducts his court, and after he gives his decision there is no appellate court to which an appeal can be taken. He is
9 p.m. known as the nautical assessor. What is the salary of Captain Demers?


Ernest Lapointe: It was voted under the civil government estimates. I have not the documents before me, and I cannot say offhand.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I understand the salary is in the vicinty of $4,000. I believe that Captain Demers presides over more courts than any judge in the Dominion of Canada. I do not believe there is a judge, either of a county court, of a court of King's Bench, or of an appellate court in the Dominion of Canada, who has half as much work to do as the official wreck commissioner in his investigations into marine casualties. Millions of money are involved1 in his inquiries, and there is no appeal from his decision. I believe it would be in the best interests of the service if Captain Demers were given a salary commensurate with his services and with the duties and responsibilities of his office. Will the minister take that into consideration? A wage should be given to him in accordance with his ability and responsibility.


Ernest Lapointe: I will take that into consideration when decreases are suggested, because we have been asked to decrease salaries instead of increasing them.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Decreases are very good, >but where you have a good official and a person exercising great responsibility and performing good service for his country, we do not want to give him a starvation wage.


Mr. LEWIS:: Does he come under the Civil Service Commission?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur John Lewis: One of the unfortunate lambs my hon. friend is pleading for?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navigation schools, $8,000.
Lewis Herbert Martell: Where are these schools conducted?


Ernest Lapointe: At Halifax there are two instructors. Captain O'Hara gives his whole time and receives a monthly salary of $110 besides the regular bonus. Captain E. N. Young, teacher in mathematics, at $100, also devotes his whole time to the work of the school. There is a school at Yarmouth with two instructors, Captain Hilton, with a salary of $66.66, and Dr. Crowell, who receives $50 a month, working part time. North Sydney there is one instructor, Captain Sutherland, who works about four months. He receives $90 a month. At St. John the instructor, Captain Pollock, gives his whole time and receives $125 a month. There is one instructor at Quebec, Captain Alphonse Halle. He also gets $90 a month, working four months. At Kingston the navigation school in Queen's University gets a grant of $500. At Collingwood Captain Coles is paid as examiner, and at Vancouver Captain Charles Eddie, who also lectures on navigation, is paid in the capacity of examiner.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is Captain Eddie paid for lecturing on navigation?


Ernest Lapointe: He is paid as examiner.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Captain Eddie is examiner of masters and mates, and I believe that he has performed the duties in this respect very satisfactorily for many years. But in addition to that, altogether in his own time, he delivers lectures to seamen on navigation, and in times past he was paid specially for this. Now I understand that under some new ruling these lectures are to be regarded as part of his services as examiner of masters and mates, and that strikes me as hardly reasonable, because I do not think that the amount paid him as examiner is in any sense excessive. I am not arguing for an increase, but I object to the cutting of that additional amount of $250 per year which in the past was paid him for the lectures he delivered.


Ernest Lapointe: He received two salaries formerly, one as examiner and the other as lecturer. These salaries have now been

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
consolidated, and he is receiving just as much as he did before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If that is the case my complaint is of course unfounded, but I understood that one salary had been cut off. So long as what the minister says is correct, there is no ground for complaint.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Registration of shipping, $3,000.
Arthur Meighen: How much was spent under this item last year?


Ernest Lapointe: 


Arthur Meighen: Less than half the
vote.


Ernest Lapointe: About half the vote. We have reduced the vote this year by $1,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $5,000.
Lewis Herbert Martell: Some time ago I called the attention of the department to the fact that there was a derelict off Horton Bluff in the marine channel leading to Windsor, Hants county, Nova Scotia. This was a schooner belonging to the Comeau Shipbuilding Company of Weymouth, Nova Scotia. It sank and now forms a serious menace to navigation, besides interfering with the fishermen who engage in drift net fishing. Last fall the department put a buoy over the obstruction to warn off mariners, and I understood this spring that instructions were given to have the derelict blow up so that navigation might no longer be impeded.


Ernest Lapointe: The department has noted the matter and something will be done before the opening of navigation.


Lewis Herbert Martell: While there is really no law in regard to fishing to compel the removal of this derelict, it is competent to have it removed under the Navigable Waters Act. This obstruction is a serious menace to fishermen, and the Act should be invoked and the derelict removed, the cost being charged to the owners of the vessel. If this were done two birds would be killed with the one stone, so to speak; navigation would be safe and at the same time the fishermen's gear would be freed from the present liability to destruction. I would urge the minister to have some steps taken in the matter at the earliest possible date.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent under this item last year?


Ernest Lapointe: The amount was $15,252.77. Of course, it is almost impossible to foresee the expenditure for the year to come; it is always the result of some accident.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is not the whole amount set aside for the removal of obstructions in navigable waters.


Ernest Lapointe: It is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What about the snag boat Sampson on the Fraser river? It is not maintained under this item.


Ernest Lapointe: It comes under the Department of Public Works.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why should two departments look after the same work?


Arthur Meighen: The minister does not explain why he puts only $5,000 in the estimate this year. If $15,000 was required last year, and the minister cannot control the expenditure for the coming year, since it depends on the number of accidents, what is the justification for the estimate of $5,000?


Ernest Lapointe: The usual amount
asked for is $5,000. Many years we do not spend more than that. Of course, I have no objection to increasing it.


Arthur Meighen: What was the special cause last year for the expenditure of $15,000? What were the accidents to which that expenditure was due?


Ernest Lapointe: It was due to a serious obstruction at the mouth of the Welland canal at Port Dalhousie.


Arthur Meighen: Due to an explosion?


Ernest Lapointe: A steamer was
wrecked at that place last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $35,000.
Arthur Meighen: What was spent to
the end of last year?


Ernest Lapointe: The whole amount.
The work is under contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unforeseen expenses, $5,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Several of our members from the maritime provinces who are absent to-night desire to discuss this item, and if the minister will let it stand over I shall be obliged.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection.


Arthur Meighen: Members from the
maritime provinces would like to discuss these estimates generally, and this item would afford them an opportunity.
Item stands.
Life Saving Service, including rewards for saving life, $90,000.


Mr. HUGHES:: Is there a life-saving
station at Souris, P.E.I.; and, if so, can the minister give us the names of the officers and crew?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a life-saving station at Souris. I do not think I have the names of the officers and men employed there.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell
us now what was the total expenditure last year on ocean and'river service of the 11,953,600 voted?


Ernest Lapointe: The expenditure to
May 5th, 1922, was $1,491,211.35.


Arthur Meighen: The minister means the expenditure chargeable against last year's vote only?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I presume the principal item not all expended would be the first?


Ernest Lapointe: I see I have given to my right hon. friend figures relating only to maintenance and repairs to government steamers, the first item. I do not think I have at hand the total of the other appropriations.


Arthur Meighen: There would not be
a very large amount saved out of the other appropriations, I should think.


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is the main amount.


Arthur Meighen: With the diminished
cost of coal, which would account for $150,000, one would think the minister would be able to get along on the first item-of course I know it is passed-with a million and a quarter instead of $1,600,000.


Ernest Lapointe: We have a decrease
on the first amount of $150,000. I think that is a fair reduction.


Arthur Meighen: That is only the difference in the cost of coal. But last year there was spent $300,000 less than the

vote, so that would allow $400,000 as a fair diminution for this year.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
will realize that when we are operating twenty-seven vessels in a season we cannot foresee what may happen; there may be accidents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence Ship Channel-maintenance and operating dredging fleet, $6X3,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give
us particulars of that item?


Ernest Lapointe: It is for maintenance and operating the dredging fleet engaged on the river St. Lawrence ship channel. The dredging fleet is employed in improving the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec, and Quebe- and Father Point. The vote is the same as for last year.


Hugh Guthrie: [DOT] How much was spent last year?


Ernest Lapointe: A total of $588,055.88. There are four elevator dredges with tugs, one sea-going elevator dredge, two selfpropelling barges, one self-propelling coal barge, two inspection and sweeping steamers, two stone elevators and one rock breaker; the greater part of the vote about $475,000, is allotted to them. There is also $135,000 for outfitting, docking and providing extra parts for the dredging fleet, including care of the fleet when not in operation, which includes fire boats.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the maintenance of the Sorel shipyard, comprising offices, shops and labourers, $90,000.
Arthur Meighen: I know the maritime province members desire to discuss this item, and I should like the minister to leave it in the same category as No. 231 previously reserved, especially as I observe there is an increase in the amount asked for.


Ernest Lapointe: All right.
Item stands.
Amount required for the completion of one self-propelling, sea-goring elevator dredge for service in North Channel below Quebec, $90,055.


Arthur Meighen: Is this a new ship?


Ernest Lapointe: This ship has been under contract with the Vickers Company since 1914. The contract price was $833,-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
700. The construction was suspended during the war but has since been resumed and the ship is now complete. This is to pay the final amount due to the contra; tors.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When was the vessel delivered?


Ernest Lapointe: Last fall.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should give a statement of the amounts paid on the contract, when paid, and just how this item is made up. I notice there was no vote last year, nor has there been any for a number of years with respect to this contract.


Ernest Lapointe: Payments have been made to the extent of $743,645. The balance is being asked by this vote.


Arthur Meighen: There are no extras at all?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: And no diminutions- that is to say, no set-offs?


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed that the contractors are claiming extras, but we have not finally decided that such extras should be allowed and we are simply asking for the balance of the amount of the contract.


Arthur Meighen: Does the department admit that the vessel is in accordance with contract, in every way perfectly satisfactory?


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for the construction of one self-propelling- hopper barge, $285,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this a new vessel?


Ernest Lapointe: It is new to the extent that' its construction has not yet been started. It is necessary in connection with the operation of the elevator dredge for which an amount has just been voted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has any contract been let?


Ernest Lapointe: Not yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Have tenders been called for?


Ernest Lapointe: Not yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will tenders be called for?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will tenders be called for from the whole of Canada?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Andrew Knox: Is the work contemplated by this and the preceding item to be carried out on the St. Lawrence channel only?


Ernest Lapointe: It is primarily for that purpose, but the dredge may be used elsewhere if it is needed.


Andrew Knox: Is this work in the nature of permanent improvement"


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. There is a very dangerous spot in the St. Lawrence river below Quebec called de Bsaujeu Bank. It is proposed to deepen the channel on the northern side of the river so as to avoid de Beaujeu Bank. Of course, the work is asked1 for by the navigation companies and the public generally. It will have, among other effects, the result of reducing considerably the rate of maritime insurance and increasing the safety of navigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lighthouse and coast service-agencies, rents an'd contingencies, $210,000.
Mr. LEGER:: I would like on this item to put a few questions to the hon. minister with reference to the marine agencies in our part of the country. In the winter of 1918 the marine agencies in the maritime provinces, which since Confederation had been run on provincial lines, were changed, apparently by the Marine Department's officials, in a very arbitrary manner. The marine agency at St. John, which properly had control of all the aids to navigation in the province, had the whole of Baie des Chaleurs, Gulf of St. Lawrence and Northumberland Strait taken away from its jurisdiction; the latter district was transferred to the Prince Edward Island agency at Charlottetown and the Baie des Chaleurs agency was transferred to the Quebec district. I believe the change should not have been made; I would like to see each province have its own agencies. For instance, if anything happens in Kent county, or on the north shore district of New Brunswick, we have to get the agent from Charlottetown to come to that district. Now, some of the matters requiring attention are of a very trivial nature and a method of that kind is certainly not economical. I wish to read the following item bearing upon this matter which I took from a New Brunswick paper the other day:
1496	COMMONS
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
W. H. Prowse, inspector of lighthouses, Charlottetown, crossed this week by the car ferry Steamer en route to Buctouche and Richi-bucto.
That is in my county.
At the former place he held an examination of applicants for the position of lightkeeper, the former keeper having died some time ago.
The holding of an examination for the position of lightkeeper is not a very difficult thing to do; it should not he necessary to have an inspector of lighthouses make a trip of that kind to carry out so trifling a duty. Besides, the cost is considerable. The clipping goes on:
At Richibuoto he will look into the matter of changing the Richibucto bar light, which change is necessary on account of the shifting of the channel.
This also, I am informed, is a trifling bit of work which almost any man around the district could do with satisfaction to the public. To my mind, the present system is an extravagance, and I would therefore ask the minister to look into this question with a view to providing each province with its own marine agency. It would give us a much better service. I hope the minister will bring back the old system that we had from Confederation down to a few years ago.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that my hon. friend is advocating the autonomy of New Brunswick and her exemption from any control by Prince Edward Island. I sympathize with his position, but on the other hand the department came to its conclusion to change the system a few years ago on account of geographical rather than provincial considerations. However, I shall be pleased to look into the matter, and my hon. friend may rest assured that his representations will be carefully considered.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I endorse what my hon. friend from Kent county has said in connection with this matter, and I hope the minister will look at the question not only from the point of view of geographical considerations, but will consider the needs of the province itself. We seem to have been neglected in the past few years so far as dredging and other maritime works are concerned, and I think it is high time that we should address ourselves to somebody who would take an interest in these matters.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am sorry I cannot
agree with the hon. member for Mada-waska and the hon. member for Kent. My constituency, I believe, happens to be under
[Mr. Leger.l
the control of the agency in St. John, N.B. I think the department did the right thing when they placed these agencies where the agents could be got at most easily and from where the service could be best carried on. The counties all along the Bay of Fundy coast can be most economically and efficiently managed from the agency at St. John, and the western counties can be reached from Halifax. With all deference to my hon. friends, I submit that it is very much more easy for the agent at Charlottetown to have jurisdiction over the northern portions of New Brunswick than to put that territory under the jurisdiction of the agent at St. John, which would necessitate the inspection and supply boats all taking a roundabout way to get to the counties of my hon. friends. I think this change is one thing the department should be commended for. However, that was not my purpose in rising. I want to ask the minister how many subagencies there are in the province of Nova Scotia, and where they are located. I understand there is one at Sydney, and one at Pictou. Who is the agent at Sydney, and in what building is his office located?


Ernest Lapointe: The agent at Sydney is Mr. V. Mullins. His salary last year was $2,040. This year he gets an increase of $120, making his salary $2,160. The agent at Pictou is Mr. J. R. Davis. He is getting only $400.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Where is the office in Sydney, and what rent is paid for it?


Ernest Lapointe: The office at Sydney is provided by the Public Works Department. I am not aware just where it is.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think it is in the Sydney Post building.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What amount was spent last year out of this $216,500?


Ernest Lapointe: The amount spent last year was $190,927.45.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Is there any provision made for pensions for lighthouse keepers when they become too old to remain in the service? I understand their salaries are very small, not sufficient to allow them to put anything by for their old age.


Ernest Lapointe: The Calder Act applies to the lighthouse keepers. Under that act the pension is based on the number of years' service and the average yearly salary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $650,000.
Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is a lighthouse at the entrance to Victoria harbour, and another at the entrance to Esquimalt harbour. What are the salaries of these lighthouse keepers?


Ernest Lapointe: I will look that up.


Mr. JELLIFF:: The lighthouses and lighthouse keepers is something I have always been interested in ever since I was a boy and learned to sing that old song, " Let the lower lights he burning, send a gleam across the waves." I have often thought of those poor lighthouse keepers away out on some lonely rock or point at the edge of the ocean, and of their isolated, almost heartbreaking existence. Could the minister tell us how many lighthouses we have in Canada, how many lighthouse keepers, and what amount they are paid yearly for the splendid service they are rendering in guiding vessels to safety from the perils and storms of the ocean?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will understand it is rather difficult for me to give all the details to-night, because there are 3,000 lightkeepers in Canada. Their salaries vary from $50 to $1,500 a year. Some of them are granted allowances apart from their salary.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: Is there any provision made for superannuation in old age?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


John Frederick Johnston: Under what act?


Ernest Lapointe: Under the Calder Act.


John Frederick Johnston: May I ask the minister whence the title came, " the Calder Act "?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is the name of a distinguished gentleman who was a member of a former administration in this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was spent under this item last year? While on my feet I would like to make this observation in connection with the light service: Speaking from a considerable knowledge of the Pacific coast-I do not know so much of the Atlantic coast-the light service is of a very high order. It has been maintained at a high standard of efficiency, and I think compares very favourably with a similar service by any other nation in the world. I am not at all inclined to criticize justifiable expenditure for this purpose. Will the minister give us the amount expended last year?


Ernest Lapointe: The amount expended last year was $649,296.12. That is a few hundred dollars less than the amount voted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was a pretty
clever and capable estimate on the part of ihe previous government was it not?


Ernest Lapointe: I must admit it, due to the good officers of the department.


Mr. SIMPSON:: May I ask if the minister has received a report as yet from the district superintendent of my county-Al-goma-with reference to the recent lamentable accident on lake Superior, when the government lighthouse boat Lambton is reported to have been lost with all on board, including some lighthouse keepers who were being taken up to their stations for the season's operations?


Ernest Lapointe: All the facts are being published in the press. We have no report except the one that came to the department that there is no trace of the vessel. It certainly is a case of complete loss of life and of property.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Is it the intention of the department to have an investigation made?


Ernest Lapointe: I was asking that question in the department but there does not appear to be much to investigate.


Thomas Edward Simpson: May I ask whether it is correct that this vessel left the dock at which she was moored much earlier than customary; also whether it would not have been more prudent for such a small vessel to turn back and take shelter in port when much larger vessels were doing that?


Ernest Lapointe: The instructions to the commanding officer of the ship were to leave as soon as the conditions of navigation would permit him to do so. Great latitude is left to the captains of these vessels. It is necessary, of course, that the lighthouses shall be operated as early as possible in the season, but the date of the departure of these vessels is left altogether to the discretion of their commanding officers.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Has my hon. friend any information yet in regard to the salaries of the lighthouse keepers?


Ernest Lapointe: Not yet, but many persons are working at the task of getting that information for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, $850,000.
Hugh Guthrie: How much was spent last year on the service may I ask?


Ernest Lapointe: The expenditure last year was $800,411.62.


Hugh Guthrie: You propose an increase of $50,000?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The money required under this appropriation is for the purpose of defraying the cost of maintenance of aids to navigation including the cost of supplies, fuel, illuminants, cleaning materials, delivering supplies, including freight and cartage, etc., also the cost of repairs to such aids to navigation including material and labour. I could give a statement in tabular form covering the last ten years, which would indicate, year by year, the growth of the service in principal aids to navigation and the cost of main-teance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction of lights and aids to navigation, including regulation of traffic in the Detroit river and such other places as may he found necessary, $400,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Does this relate to the
construction of lighthouses, and other aids to navigation? I notice the previous item has reference to lights, gas and signal buoys, etc.?


Ernest Lapointe: From this vote is
provided all new aids to navigation, such as lighthouses, buoys, beacons, fog alarms and submarine signals, including apparatus and machinery, as well as large repairs to existing aids and the replacing of obsolete buildings and apparatus by equipment suitable for the protection of modern heavy draught vessels. It also includes the purchase of the plant necessary for the carrying on of the works as well as the purchase of lands, wharves, etc., the erection of such supplementary works as may be required, the chartering of any boats that may be found temporarily necessary to properly carry out these works, the regulation of traffic in the Detroit river and such other places as may be found necessary, and the administration and operation of the lighthouse depot at Prescott.


William Duff: Last year I called the
attention of the then minister of Marine and Fisheries to the necessity of an aid to navigation off the Newfoundland coast. It was well known to this committee, of
[Mr. Lapointe.|
course, that Canada provides for the upkeep of certain lighthouses on the Newfoundland coast; and last year I asked that a powerful gas buoy or light ship be placed between Cape Pine and Cape Race. In this district, St. Mary's Bay, which is known as the graveyard of the Newfoundland coast, a great many steamers and sailing vessels belonging to Canadian ship owners, owing to the very strong current which runs along the south shore of Newfoundland are carried into this area and in the dead of night, or during heavj fogs, are cast ashore and wrecked with the loss not only of the ship but in a great many cases many valuable lives. That being the case it seems to me this is a very important matter and the Marine Department, in my opinion, should take steps to place there at a distance of about four or five miles off the land an aid to navigation in the shape of a gas buoy or light ship whereby vessels before they are drawn into the current will be able to hear the bell or the "droner," as it is sometimes called, before they get too close to the rocks. I repeat that this is a very important matter. Not only freighting vessels but fishing vessels pass up and down that coast, and from the conversations which I have had with the captains and crews of these ships-both steamers and sailing vessels- it is felt that the Canadian government would be doing the right thing by investigating this matter and placing some aid to navigation in this locality.


Ernest Lapointe: Do you want an
answer?


William Duff: No.


Mr. MacLEAN (P. E. I.) :: I desire to bring a matter to the attention of the minister, although it is not so important as the question brought up by my hon. friend to my right (Mr. Duff). Down in our province we have a great deal of offshore fishing, and in two or three sections we have been asking that a small range light, as an aid to navigation, be furnished, to guide the fishermen coming in after night and to find the channel. Last year the matter was brought to the attention of the department and nothing was done. This year I have been endeavouring to persuade the hon. minister to give some attention to this small work. While it is not very important for our large seagoing ships, we have our humble fishermen who go to sea to earn their living, and why should we not give these men some as-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
sistanee? It is only a very small item. In some of these places two or three hundred dollars would pay for a range light to assist these men, and still they are denied this privilege. I simply want to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and I know it will receive his careful consideration. I desire to refer to the question of a buoy on the Tormentine reef, where the ferry crosses from Tormentine to Prince Edward Island. Perhaps it does not come under this item, but I may not have an opportunity to speak to it again. One of the most expensive ships owned by the Government is on that route and the Captain of that ship has been asking that a steel spar bouy that will not go under the ice be placed on the reef, and I trust that before another winter the department will give that matter consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine Signal Service, $80,000.
Ernest Lapointe: The amount spent last year was $74,997.07.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Government did so well last year under the previous estimates, will the minister explain the reason of the increase?


Mr. McCONICA:: Will the minister tell us whether it is splendid guessing on the part of the man who makes the appropriation, or on the part of the man who spends it? It is susceptible to both explanations.


Ernest Lapointe: It must be attributable to both; both must have credit. The amount is needed for increases of salary.


Robert James Manion: I desire to ask a question which, perhaps, should come under the previous item, but it might also be dealt with under this item. I refer to some of the lights that have been petitioned for at various times on Rainy river, an international water in my constituency, running on the boundary between United States and Canada. It is a good sized river, but used a good deal by small craft, fishing boats or small pleasure boats, some freight boats and passenger boats. I have taken it up with the late government, but I have not yet taken it up with this Government.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman will fare better with this Government.


Robert James Manion: I might have better
success with this Government. I think my
hon. friend is probably familiar with it, and may give it kindly consideration some time when he is dealing with this question.


Ernest Lapointe: All the demands for aids to navigation are submitted to the lighthouse board. The Deputy Minister of Marine is the head of the board. The superintendent of lights, the chief engineer of the department, and some other officers, and the representative of shipping federation as well, are on this board. Although the minister is an expert on those things, he would like to be directed, to some extent, by that board.


Robert James Manion: I am sure the good officers of the minister would have a beneficial effect on the boarll.


Ernest Lapointe: They are at your disposal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $300,000.
Hugh Guthrie: What does this item mean?


Ernest Lapointe: It is for the administration of pilotage. Under part 6 of the Canada Shipping Act, the Minister of Marine has control of 41 pilotage districts including Quebec, Montreal, St. John and ' Halifax, which are under the supervision of this department. We spent last year $187,720.46. The increase is due to the condition of the boat which is doing the service at Pointe au Pere. The
10 p.m. old ship Eureka is in bad condition, and will be replaced by a tug or motor boat, which will cost a hundred thousand dollars.


Hugh Guthrie: Is that included in the $300,000?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes it is included. That is the reason of the increase.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the minister is the official head of the pilotage districts in Canada, and, in that capacity has to do, not only with granting licenses or certificates to the pilots, but regulating the whole business. My information is that, particularly on the river St. Lawrence, the pilots are rapidly growing wealthy.
I have been informed that a pilot on the river St. Lawrence, in the course of a season of four or five months, makes as much as $6,000. At least, he receives as much as $6,000 for four or five months' work, and, during that four or five months, he

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
does not make more than 18 or 20 trips. If my information is correct, will the minister tell us how these fees or payments to pilots are regulated? I have seen notices of it in the newspapers, and have also heard it in conversation. There seems to be some complaint that the pilots are certainly not overworked, and that they are very highly paid, particularly on the St. Lawrence river district.


Ernest Lapointe: I must tell my hon. friend that there are two sides to the story. Not long ago I received a delegation of pilots, who complained that they were not earning enough money. The case presented by my hon. friend is a special case. The average salary of the Montreal and Quebec pilot is under $3,000 and they have to pay their own expenses to go and take trips and come back home again. They have to pay their expenses and buy their regular tickets. The amount they earn by the end of the season is far less than the sum my hon. friend has mentioned. We must also recognize the danger with which they are faced at all times of losing their positions. They have to undergo a very severe examination of their sight every spring, and if they do not pass the examination they are dropped. They are made responsible for all accidents which may happen, and the regulations, as well as the law, are very strict; so that they are taking many chances and running many risks. On the whole, I am not prepared to say that the rates of pay to the pilots are too high.


Arthur John Lewis: The resolution which the minister introduced earlier in the day provided that war ships, hospital ships and all vessels engaged exclusively in fishing should be exempt from pilotage dues. Is this item to provide for the payment by the Government of pilots who are employed on such vessels?


Ernest Lapointe: When such ships employ pilots they will have to pay them the usual rates, but they are not compelled to employ pilots. That is what the resolution which has been before the House provides. Such vessels are exempt from pilotage dues; other vessels have to pay whether or not they employ pilots.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The matter of pilotage dues is one of the main questions affecting the trade and commerce of the country, and it is one of the important items that enter into the cost of shipping coming into our ports. The minister a moment ago

spoke of the St. Lawrence charges and the earnings of the pilots there. I am not acquainted with the details so far as the St. Lawrence is concerned, but on the Pacific coast we had a similar situation a few years ago. There was a good deal of complaint from the shipping interests, who complained that the pilotage dues were too high, and it was pointed out, if I remember correctly, that the pilots were earning around $4,000 and over a year for services which did not seem commensurate with the amount they received. But in that case they worked the full year. There was no close season as there is on the St. Lawrence. Now, I do not say that pilots should not earn a substantial salary. Not at all; I do not wish to offer too much criticism in that regard. But there is a sense of proportion that should be observed in all these things. Shipping should be made as cheap as possible. Charges against shipping, whether wharfage, pilotage, harbour dues, or any other charges, should be within reason. We found the charges too high on the coast. There was considerable discussion and investigation for a couple of years which resulted in a remedy which I think might 'be adopted in other parts. The minister was constituted the pilotage authority of the port. He is, of course, the pilotage authority over all boards. But formerly we had a board which was abolished and the superintendent of pilotage was installed under the minister. So far as I know, the result has been very satisfactory, and I believe the salary of the pilots was fixed at $250 a month, with perhaps some moderate allowances for travelling. The minister mentioned the fact about sundry expenses, but I think it will be found in checking up his reports that in addition to this salary which the pilots secure by dividing the fees amongst them on the St. Lawrence, these charges are paid. The fees are pooled and the charges are paid out of the pool. After that the remaining amount is divided as salary amongst the various pilots. So that I believe my hon. friend is in error when he says that out of their salaries they have to pay sundry charges. In addition to that, I know that in some cases the pilot has little or no travelling costs, because he gets passes very readily on all shipping if he is not actually employed as a pilot. I know this is the case on the Pacific coast. They used to charge up cost for travelling which they did not expend. There are a great many little things of that kind, all of which add

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
to the general cost of pilotage. I am entirely in accord with the idea that we want to make our harbours safe and our pilotage system the very 'best it can be made. But expenses should not he multiplied because of that fact. We should keep down the expenses to shipping by keeping the dues as low as possible, and I believe the country at large would benefit, commerce would benefit, and the port of Montreal would benefit if pilotage charges were less on the St. Lawrence. I think that the scheme followed on the Pacific coast might very well be tried in the pilotage districts referred to by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).


Ernest Lapointe: There have been so many conflicting representations made to me on this very question that I shall inquire very seriously into the matter this year. The pilots contend that their salaries are no higher than those paid elsewhere both in the United States and in other countries, while the shipping federation seems to be of another opinion. I shall have this matter fully considered, and my hon. friend may rest assured that I shall see that justice is done by both sides.


Hugh Guthrie: The information I had came from a member of the shipping federation, just about the time when a delegation of St. Lawrence pilots waited upon my hon. friend in Ottawa and pointed out to him that one of the great hindrances to successful shipping on the St. Lawrence was the matter of pilotage dues. I did not know how the matter was regulated. I thought the Government had some right to regulate the amount of dues, but his statement was that pilots who worked four to five months made as much as $6,000 on the St. Lawrence line, and he added that the shipping men found they could not compete.


Ernest Lapointe: The pilots say that this is the case of one pilot who has refused to become a member of the corporation. He is an independent pilot and the others claim that he is very friendly to the shipping federation and has been employed more than they have been; hence the salary he gets. Of course, his is a peculiar case and the amount he gets is not the average earned by pilots, which is under $3,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does' not what my hon. friend has just said emphasize the need of his taking actual control of the pilotage situation? Here, he says, is a pilot who because of some pull, if I may use the common phrase, with some shipping companies gets a sum far in excess of two or more times the amount the average pilot secures. That is wholly unfair and unsatisfactory, and we shall never have a contented, efficient and satisfactory pilotage system if there is to be preference of that kind allowed or even made possible. My hon. friend is facing now the very difficulties which the previous minister faced. The previous minister took all the arguments that had been presented to him and which have been referred to tonight. The same claims were made, the same arguments advanced, and action was taken.


Ernest Lapointe: Not in the Montreal district.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. Action was taken on the Pacific coast, with satisfactory results. I strongly urge my hon. friend to do it in the interests of the shipping of the country generally, rather than in the interests of the pilots.


George Perry Graham: There was rather a suggestion from the Press Gallery that the House should close at ten o'clock, and if hon. members would let the few items on this page go through, we might call it eleven o'clock and adjourn. We have reserved two items on which discussion could take place next week.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not have an
understanding that we may have a general discussion on the item already allowed to stand on the previous list, which is a large item?


George Perry Graham: Yes. We will allow
these other items to go through and then adjourn.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: There are two items of the Marine Department on the next page that I should like to have passed tonight, items 250 and 251.
Scientific Institutions-Department of Marine -Meteorological Service, including Magnetic Observatory, grants of $500 each to Kingston and Montreal Observatories, and allowance of $400 to L. P. Gorman, Observer at Ottawa, $262,000.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know anything about that item.


Ernest Lapointe: It is for salaries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think, Mr. Chairman, we have done pretty well for the minister,
Cattle Embargo

and as this is a somewhat important item it might stand over. I notice some matters here referred to that members not present would probably like to discuss.


Ernest Lapointe: They are all unimportant, hut if my hon. friend thinks otherwise, I am quite agreeable to this and the other items standing over. I can assure him I have nothing to conceal there.	i	t 1
Item stands.
Progress reported.



CATTLE EMBARGO


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right
hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) spoke to me at the opening of the House to-day with regard to a communication received from the High Commissioner in London respecting the cattle embargo, and I promised to lay his telegram on the table at the earliest opportunity. I should like to do so before the House adjourns tonight.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House
the Prime Minister will lay the telegram on the table.


Hugh Guthrie: Will my hon. friend
read it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The
telegram is dated London, April 22, and .addressed to, Prime Minister, Ottawa. It is as follows:
Am informed by Canadian Associated Press that Lewis asked in House if I had stated that unless cattle embargo removed it might imperil Canada's relations with Mother Country. I take earliest opportunity of informing you that whatever opinion I have held in- private no -public statement of the kind has been made by me.
Larkin.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Monday, May 8, 1922