NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificate of the election and return of Georges (Joseph) Bouchard, Esquire, for the electoral district of Kamouraska.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Georges (Joseph) Bouchard, Esquire, member for the electoral district Kamouraska, introduced by Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Ernest Lapointe.

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a report from the Clerk of Petitions, who directs the attention of the House to the fact that the petition of Alexander Birnie and others, presented yesterday, is irregular in that it is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada and not to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION COMMITTEE

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Before we pass from
motions, I have been informed that a resolution has been passed by the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. I desire to ask the -chairman of that committee if he is not prepared to make a report to the House embodying that resolution?


Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) :: I am informed by officials of the House that it is not necessary to make a report from the committee in reference to the motion which I presented to the House yesterday.


Arthur Meighen: I found it hard to understand the reply, but I believe the hon. member must have thought I referred to something else. The motion made yesterday is another matter. What I am asking is whether or not he proposes to make a report to this House of the conclusions of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization as arrived at.


William Frederic Kay: The Committee on Agriculture and Colonization has arrived at no conclusions as yet. It has nothing to report to the House.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 106, to amend The Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Act.
He said: Under the present provisions of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Act, the appointment and control of the port warden and the shipping master is in the hands of the Harbour Commission.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
The duties of these two officers are to enforce the Canada Shipping Act. In all the other harbours of Canada these two officers are appointed by and under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It is felt that these two officers at Vancouver should be under the same control.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 94 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Daly.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 95 (from the Senate), for the relief of Wrae Elizabeth Snider.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 96 (from the Senate), for the relief of Oliver Kelly.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 97 (from the Senate), for the relief of Vera Hamlin.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Drewery.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate), for the relief of Kate Holmes.

Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 100 (from the Senate) for the relief of Ernest Hull.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate), for the relief of Leslie George Dewsbury.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 102 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Douglas Stewart.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 103 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles William Murtagh.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 104 (from the Senate), for the relief of Helen Garrett.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 105 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Leslie Smith.-Mr. Ryckman.

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

Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Has any portion of the Marine Alowance of, (a) The shore of Lake Huron, immediately south of the Sauble River, in the township of Amabel, County of Bruce; and, (b) The south shore of the Sauble River, from Lake Huron towards the source of the river, Township of Amabel, County of Bruce, been sold, conveyed or allotted to any individual or company?
2.	If so, when, to whom, and what were the prices and particulars of the transfers?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GRAIN LEAKAGES
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1. What was the cost to the Canadian National Railways of leakages of grain, from cars, between points of shipment and the head of the lakes, during the past railway year?
2.	What was the cost to the said railways of new grain doors, and repairs to grain doors upon grain cars, during the same season?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	$193,339.48.
2.	Amount charged to operating expenses for grain doors during 1921 was $383,467; of this amount, $55,843.26 was for repairs to grain doors.
The foregoing figures include the Grand Trunk Pacific.	,


CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many editions of the Classification of the Civil Service were printed?
2.	What quantity of each edition were printed?
3.	How many were printed in French?
4.	How many were printed in English?
5.	How many of each edition were distributed prior to September, 1919?
6.	How many French copies?
7.	How many English copies?
8.	What quantity of the edition of September, 1919, were distributed?
9.	How many French copies?
10.	How many English copies?
11.	How many copies of the edition of the 10th of November, 1919, were distributed?
12.	How many French?
13.	How many English?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Two.
2.	First edition, 3,000; second edition,
3,300.	.
3.	2,100.
4.	5,000.
5.	294.
6.	15.
7.	279.
8.	1,037.
9.	81.
10.	956.
11.	No edition of that date.
12 and 13. Answered 'by No. 11.

Questions
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY-MENUS Hon. Mr. BAXTER:
1.	By whom are the menus of the Canadian National Railways printed?
2.	What quantities are ordered at a time, and what is the cost?
3.	How do these menus compare as to cost with those in use on the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Winnipeg Saturday Post, Winnipeg; Litho Printing Company, Toronto; Royal Litho-Printing Company, Halifax.
2.	(a) Dining car evening meal folder menus-
Cost of menu covers (per thousand) $24.50 Cost of menu inserts ( do.	) 8.35
Average cost of printing ( do.	) 30.00

(b)	Breakfast and luncheon cards- Cost of menu cards (per thousand) $10.00 Average cost of imprinting ( do. ) 30.00

(c)	Cafe and Buffet car menu cards

Cost of menu cards (per thousand) $10.00 Average cost of imprinting ( do. ) 30.00

(d)	Observation Library-Buffet car menu folders-
Cost of menu covers (per thousand) $ 8.00 Average cost of printing ( do. ) 30.00

(a) and (b) ordered in hundred thousand lots; (c) in ten thousand lots; (d) in five thousand lots.
3.	No information as to Canadian Pacific Railway costs.


PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE EXHIBITION
Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the minimum grant of $2,500 to the Portage la Prairie Exhibition Association?
2.	If not, does the Government claim that this grant has not been earned in accordance with regulations?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. All fairs which receive a grant from the live stock vote of the Department of Agriculture during the present fiscal year must have fulfilled the following conditions:
(a)	If a fair received no grant from the Dominion Government at its last preceding fair, it must have paid a minimum of $4,000, and up to a maximum of $16,000, in prizes for utility classes of live stock at its last preceding fair. Such a fair will receive a minimum grant of $1,875, and in addition 50 per cent of the amount greater than $4,000 expended on prizes for utility classes of live stock, the maximum total grant payable, however, being $3,750.
(b)	Fairs which received a grant last year must have expended at their last fair at least $4,000, and up to $16,000, of their own money, in addition to the amount of the grant received last year, in prizes for utility classes of live stock. Such fairs will receive a minimum grant of $1,875, and in addition one-half the amount spent for prizes on utility classes of live stock in addition to the combined minimum of $4,000, plus the amount of the grant received last year, the total maximum grant, however, not to exceed $3,750.
If the Portage la Prairie Exhibition ha3 complied with these conditions it will be entitled to a grant on the basis of the above regulations, under which the grant is reduced by 25 per cent as compared with grants made in previous years. [DOT]
2. Answered by No. 1.


STRUCTURAL STEEL IMPORTATIONS
Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	How many tons of structural steel were imported into Canada, consigned to (a) Ottawa (b) Toronto, (c) Montreal, (d) St. Johns, (e) Halifax, for the four months, January, February, March and April, 1922?
2.	How many tons, during the same period, were imported into Canada?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: The information is as follows:
122i
Questions

nipnm'S OF STRUCTURAL IRON OR STEEL ENTERED FOR CONSUMPTION IN " dominion OF CANADA, AND IN THE UNDERMENTIONED PORTS. DURING FOUR MONTHS ENDED APRIL, 1922.



-	Flat eye bar punched or use exclusi mfr. of br steel stru( or in car c<	blanks, not drilled, for vely in the idges, or of jtural work, instruction.	Steel plate, u or rolled ec steel over wide, for u ly in the m or of stee work or struction.	liversal mill Ige plates of 12 inches se exclusive-r. of bridges 1 structural in car con-	[ron or st sheets, pla knees and parts tl wooden, ir composite vessels.	eel beams, tes, angles, masts or iereof, for on, steel or ships orTons	Value	Cwt.	Value	Cwt.	Value$	$	$2,094 18,965	3,066 28,400	5,210	7,397Dom. of Canada	138	5,724	53,955	94,078	-	Rolled iron or steel beams, channels, angles and other rolled shapes of iron or steel, not punched, drilled, or further mfrd. than rolled, weighing not less than 35 lb. per lineal yard, not being square, flat, oval or round shapes and not being railway bars or rails.	Rolled iron or steel angles, tees, beams, channels, girders, and other rolled shapes or sections, not punched, drilled or further mfrd. than rolled, n.o.p.	Iron or steel bridges or parts thereof, iron or steel structural work, columns, shapes or sections, drilled, punched or in any further state of mfr. than as rolled or cast, n.o.p.	Cwt.	Value	Cwt.	Value	Value	Ottawa	
Toronto. .t	
Montreal	
St. John	
Halifax	
Dom. of Canada	1,281 35,323 75,640 656 178 201,C02	% 2,040 58,949 130,981 1,248 285 350,841	187 16,463 13,947 142 416 74,779	$ 425 28,074 24,649 364 722 137,557	% 280 2,150


INTEREST ON SAVING'S
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	In what year did the Government reduce the rate of interest on savings deposits?
2.	What was the reason for so doing?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	1897.
2.	The action taken was based on the general decline in the rate of interest cn money.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	How many civil servants were in the employ of the Government on the first of January, 1912, and what was the total amount of salary paid to them?
2.	How many civil servants were in the employ of the Government on the first of January, 1922, and what is the total amount of salary paid to them?
[Mr. Bureau. 1


GRAIN TRADE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) :: I beg leave to make a statement
in reference to the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba in the case of the King vs. the Manitoba Grain Company.
The Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada have concluded, upon the advice of their counsel, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba in the case of The King vs. The Manitoba Grain Company, whereby it was held that section 215 of the Canada Grain Act is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada, and pending the review of that decision

Supply-Railways
by the ultimate tribunal it is not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure to amend the Canada Grain Act based upon the view expressed by the Court of Appeal, and the existing provisions will continue to be administered as heretofore. Obviously if these provisions be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada no amendment will be necessary. If, on the other hand, the judgment of the Court of Appeal be affirmed, the Government will consider the propriety of introducing such further advisable legislation as may be found to be within the scope of the Dominion powers as interpreted by the court.


Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask the Minister
of Justice if he can give the House any information as to when this appeal will likely be heard by the Supreme Court?


Lomer Gouin: I could not say
exactly. It may not be until September or October, but in the meantime, I think, the commissioners can carry on with the statute
as it is.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that can be done I
think the situation is all right, but if there is any doubt of that, the question is one which should receive the very careful consideration of the Government.-


Lomer Gouin: It is receiving the careful consideration of the Government.


GRAND TRUNK FINANCIAL STATEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: There has recently been given to the public the annual statement of the Grand Trunk Railway system. That statement discloses the financial position of the system in such a clear and unmistakable way that I think a synopsis of it with the conclusions therefrom, should be transmitted by the Government in a manner calculated to receive the utmost publicity in the Old Country where, I think, it will have the effect of disabusing the minds of any reasonable people who may have entertained doubts as to the honesty and fairness of the recent arbitration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government will be very
pleased to consider the suggestion made by my right hon. friend.


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: May I ask the Government whether there is any safeguard against more immigrants coming into this country than can be employed? I noticed in the press a statement that the Department of Immigration and Colonization is making a change in the requirements concerning immigrants entering the Dominion, the change going into effect immediately. Under this change there will be a test to determine the fitness of immigrants and their occupation. In the past, if I understand, the sum which the immigrants brought with him was supposed to keep him until he obtained employment. Is there anything to guarantee that the immigrant on arriving in Canada will go on to the farm and remain there and not drift into the city and become an added charge on the community.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) :: Every precaution is being taken with respect to agricultural labourers to ascertain that they are really what they represent themselves to be, and that they will be more than likely to remain in that occupation. I intend giving a very full explanation when the estimates for immigration are considered.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) :: I did not happen to be in the House yesterday when the railway question was up for consideration, but I was present some weeks ago when the Minister of Railways made a statement in connection with our railways. In that statement, which was carefully prepared and very complete, the minister disclosed a lot of facts bearing on the railway situation, and also announced that it was the intention of the Government to recognize the principle of public ownership with respect to the railways which we have acquired and, in the administration of those railways, to give that principle a fair trial. Yesterday the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) addressed the House on the railway question and took quite a contrary view, although he too declared that he was favourable to giving public ownership a fair trial. Nevertheless the hon. member told the House frankly

has been so successful in the business of transportation. The Canadian Pacific, through the newspapers of this country and in various other ways, has told this House that we must not go into transportation; and yet the people of Canada, through its Parliament, created the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That is, the creature says that its creator must not do what it desires to do, but must keep out of the transportation business. When we created the Canadian Pacific and these other railways, we did not create them to say to us that we should not go into transportation if the people saw fit to do so and thought that they could get more efficient service in that way. Therefore, for all these reasons, there is no question about the advantages of public ownership. Under public ownership, you can finance railways better, you can manage them better; you can avail yourself of any system as a complementary system in connection with the railways, and moreover, you have freedom in connection with the railways for all time.
It was said yesterday by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) that public ownership had never been a success. Has private ownership, company ownership, in this country been a success? Has the Grand Trunk been a success? Has the Canadian Northern been a success? Have hundreds of railway companies in the United States been successful? They have practically all failed, and as I pointed out in this House some time ago, railways in the United States have made confession that they can not go on. Billions of the money of the people of the United States were put into these defaulting railways to carry them through the war, and they cannot go ahead to-day. What is the good of pointing out to us that public ownership is no good, when we know that private ownership, as experienced, in the United States, has been an absolute failure?


Mr. CANNON:: What about the Canadian Pacific?


William Findlay Maclean: It was subsidized, it was given millions of money and millions of acres of land, by the people of Canada; and it is charging exorbitant rates to-day to the people of Canada. Yes, let the Canadian Pacific make money under these exorbitant rates; but can the service be done for less money and better done by the people, with the men on this railway treated just as well as

they are to-day being treated by the Canadian Pacific? That is the question. Are we going to get a better service and to have the railway better financed? While the Canadian Pacific is an example of the success of private ownership, the more successful the Canadian Pacific becomes, the more likely is it ultimately to be the master of this country. Where is this great success of the Canadian Pacific going to end? Who knows how wealthy the Canadian Pacific is to-day, what millions it has in its strong box which really belong to the people of Canada, and which ought to have been returned to them long ago in the shape of reduced railway charges? That is the point, and not how successful the Canadian Pacific has been in making money. My hon. friend opposite, however, says: See how successful the Canadian Pacific has been in accumulating huge reserves in its treasury. As I said a moment ago, where is this growth of the Canadian Pacific going to end? Do my hon. friends, who speak so much in favour of the Canadian Pacific and who are constantly quoting it, know that there is a very peculiar thing in connection with that railway, and that is the creation of a voting trust which will become stronger if it is permitted to grow? How many members of this House at present know that the Canadian Pacific, which is exalted before our eyes as the most successful example of private ownership, has a voting trust; that only two members of the board retire each year, and that the concluding words of the annual report state that " Messrs. So-and-so " -two members-" retire from the board this year and are subject to re-election?" But to-day even the shareholders cannot exercise their freedom in connection with the Canadian Pacific and change if a new condition arises. Let me tell the House and the country that this voting trust in connection with the Canadian Pacific is the greatest menace that we have in Canada, because now the interests before the people-


Mr. MARTELL:: Why cannot the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific elect their own directors? I do not think there is anything in their charter to prevent them from doing so.


William Findlay Maclean: Only two
directors can be elected each year. The Canadian Pacific has created this permanent voting trust, which was not the rule

Supply-Railways
in the past, and this shows us that the Canadian Pacific is gradually getting stronger. It is an outstanding fact in connection with railway administration that, while it is the people who use the roads and the shareholders who own the roads, it is getting to be more and more these little inside trusts that control even the shareholders and their property, and the shareholders have not the freedom which they used to have. Gradually the railways have come into the hands of little cliques on the inside who control them and who keep themselves in power by these voting trusts. That is the situation to-day in connection with the Canadian Pacific. In the old days a fresh board of directors could be elected at the annual meeting.


Lucien Cannon: What control have the people of Canada over the election of directors of the Canadian National Railways at present?


William Findlay Maclean: I hope we have a responsible government in power to do that work. My hon. friend apparently does not believe in responsible government. The shareholders of the Canadian Pacific are entitled to have their directors come under review every year, instead of two being retired each year so that the trust can continue. This creation of voting trusts is getting to be more and more the menace of financial institutions. The richest corporation outside of railways is a certain mining company which has passed into the perpetual control of the people at present in control of it, because, by means of this voting trust, the control can be handed down in perpetuity to their descendants. This matter of voting trusts is the menace of business and of politics in this country.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my right hon.
friend allow me a question?


William Findlay Maclean: I am not your "right honourable" friend.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Well, my honourable friend," then. Do the shareholders in this company, which the hon. gentleman speaks about, control by a majority, just as in the case of other concerns?


William Findlay Maclean: I am not
going to go into the details of the matter, but I know that the system in connection with this company has worked very satisfactorily. It was decided that the management of the company could be entailed, like property, and an entailed administration in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was created by the people, is being developed in Montreal. I will now proceed to give my experiences in connection with public ownership. The member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) yesterday referred to some things that had happened in my province. Let me tell the committee what has been done in Ontario in regard to public ownership.


Lucien Cannon: The Hydro Electric?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, the
Hydro Electric; and if my hon. friend's province had an Adam Beck they would have a great future ahead of them. I should like my hon. friends from Quebec to visit the city of Toronto, where they would see the finest street railway in America, and one that is owned by the people. It is just as good as the street railway in Montreal, and the people own it, whereas the people of Montreal do not own the street railway there. The people of Toronto can reduce the fare the moment conditions will permit, and they intend to do so. The net rate is at present six cents.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is the service good?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, and it is being improved as expeditiously as possible. I might observe that the new cars that are being secured will be made in the province of Quebec. Now, I state without fear of contradiction that the best street railway in America to-day is that which is owned by the people of Toronto. The fares are reasonably cheap considering the effects of the war, and they can, and will be reduced whenever it is at all practicable to reduce them. I would seriously ask the hon. gentlemen to go and observe at first hand the satisfactory operation of this public-owned utility. Electrical energy is distributed more cheaply in Toronto than in any other city of similar size, and the facts amply prove this assertion. The municipalities of Ontario are to-day organizing the greatest system of distribution of electrical energy that will be found anywhere in the world. This power is all to be derived from Niagara, and the entire system is to be owned by the people. The scheme contemplates the distribution of energy to every house in the southern portion of Ontario. The plant is greater than that which is to be found on the Tennessee river, and this
Supply-Railways

system of public ownership applied to the development of power in Ontario will within two years produce at least half a million-I believe a million-horse power annually. At $10 per horse power this will represent an income of at least $5,000,000 a year; and if, as I believe, the power reaches the higher figure, the return will, of course, be $10,000,000. Many of the cities of Ontario own their own street railways and they would not part with them under any consideration. At Windsor on the Ontario side of the Detroit river there is a splendid system of public ownership and the service is splendid. Let me tell hon. gentlemen .who are denouncing public ownership that the city of Detroit has taken over the street railway there, following the example of Toronto and other Canadian cities, while in the western provinces the people have tried public ownership of street railways with success. We are building a great system of public ownership here notwithstanding a certain degree of opposition, and in the United States the President and his party are now committed tc a considerable scheme of publicly controlled development of electrical energy wherever it is possible in connection with the railways, in order to provide cheap transportation.


Lucien Cannon: If public ownership is such a good thing how does my hon. friend explain the fact that the American government turned over the railways to their private owners?


William Findlay Maclean: The fact is that the American railways could not serve the nation in time of war. They had absolutely fallen down. They had been so exploited by private ownership, the directors and managers being connected with different companies on the side, that the treasuries of the railroads were nearly depleted. They were nearly ruined-and I use the word advisedly-that they could not render the service required of them by the nation during the war, and the government had to take them over and administer them. They have given them back-


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


William Findlay Maclean: Well, things were in such a bad shape that there had to be a readjustment, and in the meantime they have been handed back to the private owners. But the government will eventually have to take them over again. They have spent millions of dollars on

them, and they will take them over just as we have taken over the railways in this country.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What about Great
Britain?
Mr. MACLEAN York) : Private ownership did not prove successful there, either, during the war. There were twenty systems in that country and the only thing that could be done was to nationalize them. Now, public ownership is sweeping all over the world, and that is what my hon. friends cannot see.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: What
about Prance? Have they not handed back the railways to the private owners there?


Lucien Cannon: What about Bulgaria?


William Findlay Maclean: Evidently hen. gentlemen are*not serious; they are not dealing with facts. Public ownership has vindicated itself in Europe, in this country, and in Australia, and they are realizing the wisdom of it in the United States. Those who do not see it do not want to see it. There are too many blind men in this House. It may be all right to have a blind


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Pig.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I am not talking about that. It may be all right to have a blind man, but it is disastrous to have a blind party.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Will you allow me a question? Why do you not come to Quebec and see what effect public management has there?


William Findlay Maclean: Well, who is to blame for that but the people of Quebec? That is the thing I am in favour of. When there is mismanagement, if the road is publicly owned it can be rectified, but if the road is privately owned, it cannot be.


Charles Marcil: If we are to make a success of these railways, the people must have a say in the matter. If the people of Quebec, for instance, have no voice in the matter, how can the railways be made a success?


William Findlay Maclean: Well, you have the Government here, with more ministers from Quebec than from any other province. The people must take care of themselves, but you must not deprive them of

Supply-Railways
the right to take care of themselves by handing these franchises over to private companies.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does the hon. member suggest that the Government should interfere in the management of the National
Railways?


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Railways says it is the intention of the Government to appoint a board of directors to administer the National Railways. I may say that I am confident that the Government will appoint a good board.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not my question. Does the hon. member suggest that the Government should interfere in the management of the National Railways?


William Findlay Maclean: Only to the
extent that the minister has mentioned- that the Government get the best possible board to administer the system. The minister is responsible for seeing that that is done.


Charles Marcil: To whom will that board be responsible?


William Findlay Maclean: As is the case in all our public administration, it goes back to the individual voter. But between the voter and the system is the government, and between the government and the system is the board of directors. My hon. friends opposite are fond of preaching the doctrine of, "Trust the people". Do they say that the people cannot be trusted to see that there is a good board of directors?


Lucien Cannon: Would my hon. friend still support public ownership of the railways if the headquarters were transferred to Montreal?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know. Would my hon. friend himself trust Montreal? I attended a meeting of the Railway Committee this morning and I understood there was some doubt about trusting Montreal. Now, these are nice little questions, but they do not interfere with the argument.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Would my hon. friend be in favour of appointing a board of directors the members of which are already directors of companies which manufacture railways cars, locomotives, or steel rails, or operate coal mines, and so on?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I would not approve of that. We have heard some intimations from the other side along that
line, from some of the friends of the government. I have not the responsibility of administration of this act, but if I had anything to do with it I would do my share towards seeing that a good board was appointed, and there are good men in Canada who could carry out efficiently the work of such a board. We are just as good as the people of any other country; we have a great many men who are trained in railway matters and who could serve well in this capacity.
What would happen if we gave these railways back, as the Canadian Pacific suggests? Well, it would not be long before Parliament would be asked to vote an enormous sum to put them on their feet. We are not going to do that. We have these roads; let us stand for the deficits until such time as they can be put in shape. We are not going to hand them back to anybody, least of all are we going to hand them to the Canadian Pacific. We will keep them and get good men to administer them.
A great amount of the relief which is afforded in the way of transportation throughout the world is that which the waterways offer. In Europe they have not very good railroads, but they have a great system of waterways. There is not a town in Europe that is not connected with a section of seaboard or with a river; they have constant competition and good service. They have made more of their water transportation than anything else; in this country almost an opposite view is taken. In addition to waterway transportation we have the transportation of the highway. The highway is becoming one of the most aggressive of tjjie competitors of the railroad. Perhaps we shall have a system of transportation in the air before long, but the competitors of the railroad now are the waterways and the highways. Now, there is no doubt that transportation by motor truck and by vessels on our waterway systems will have to be harmonized and brought into co-operation with transportation by rail. The railways do not want to do it; they do not want to avail themselves of the waterways. But the great merit of these various systems is the competition in the way of rates and service which they afford. The advantage of the motor truck is that it transports commodities from door to door, from factory to retailer or consumer, from the mine to wherever the material is required. Therefore in attempting a solution of our transportation problem, we must deal with the

Supply-Railways
question of our waterways and our highways; we must consider all the methods of transportation, and we must harmonize them and bring them into co-operation. We must remember that we not only have to administer these roads, but also we have to see that they give good service.
I come now to the question of motive power for the railways. We have an immense mileage of railroads in this country that have been taken over by the Government, and we have to have motive power for them. The railroads of the United States are up against this same problem of motive power, and the President of the United States has had to come to their relief. He has propounded a great system of water-power development for the haulage of the railway trains of the United States, and the people of the United States are committing themselves to the expenditure of billions of dollars to solve this question of motive power. The railroads over there either own or control a lot of mines to supply the coal required in their operations. So, this problem is up in the United States as well as here, and the only way to solve it is through the development of water-power owned and controlled by the people. There is enough water-power in Canada, in the western rivers, in the rivers of Ontario and Quebec, to provide every railway in this country with motive power. That power cannot be developed in any other way as efficiently and as cheaply as it can under public ownership. There is no way out of the transportation difficulties of America to-day except by electrical energy applied to the railways, and all the railway authorities in the United States insist upon the electrification of their roads, at an enormous cost. I do not know where they are going to get the money, but they can only get cheap water-power as a public-owned proposition, they will never get it cheaply from private-owned concerns. We know how the mine owners exact exorbitant charges from the railway companies of the United States, and they would do the same here if they had the chance. So, we have to go in for the electrification of our railways, .just as the United States are doing. President Harding has accepted that responsibility, and has committed his administration to the principle of the great development of water-power, under public control, for the haulage of the trains of the United States. We in Canada have the railways on our hands, and we intend to keep them and to make them efficient, and we must undertake this duty of electrifying [Mr W. F. Maclean.]
them. We must find water-power for them, and if we do that, we shall be able to give our people a much better system of transportation than they have had in the past.


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that railway experts agree that electrification cannot be applied to railway yards, for shunting purposes, and so on?


William Findlay Maclean: That is a
small matter. How much power is required in the yards? . That difficulty has already been overcome in some cases. There is no other solution of our transportation problem than electrification. There may be minor difficulties, but electrification can undoubtedly be applied for moving the grain crops of our western provinces. There is only one way to move the trains, and that is by electrical power. We have the power in this country, and as the people are going to deal with the transportation system from now on-


Lucien Cannon: If electrical power cannot be applied at the terminal points, what would be its usefulness to the railways?


William Findlay Maclean: I have seen lots of terminals where electrification has been applied successfully. That is a problem, of course, but I think we have the mechanical genius in this country to overcome all these problems. My hon. friend wants to find hidden enemies at every point. He is looking for them, and for what reason? To stop the people of Canada, now that they have the roads after their failure under private ownership. We are going to try out electrification and the responsibility is now on the Government in office.
I come now to the last point I want to bring out. What does the Government propose to do in connection with this great problem? They have announced in the House that they assume the responsibility and are going to give the roads a fair trial. They are going to appoint a board of directors, and get competent men. I believe there are competent men available, and the sooner they are appointed the better it will be for the railways. There has been too much delay in the past, and the Government ought to get busy and appoint the board as soon as possible-the sooner the better so that they can get down and study the great necessities of this country, as outlined yesterday by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). There must be consolidation to effect

Supply-Railways
economy in the railways and the men to do it, I would say, are the directors who are to take charge of the railways. Put the men at their work, and let them survey the situation, so that these economies may be effected. I know line after line where great economies could be effected. I know a good deal about the two roads in Ontario, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, and I know where immense savings could be effected on those lines. We shall have to trust to competent railway experts, under the direction and charge of a responsible board, and I am sure that when they get to work they will find where great economies can be effected. There are a lot of trains run that should be cut out; and a better service could be given at a lower cost. It is this duplication that is wasteful. How long is it going to be tolerated? We have a great asset in our railways.
I know why so much opposition is made to public ownership. It is because the people of Canada have got two great railway systems in their hands, and the greatest railway asset in Canada to-day is the Grand Trunk which has passed into the hands of the people. It commands the strategic points all over Canada. The Grand Trunk is stronger to-day in Montreal than the Canadian Pacific. It is strong in the city of Ottawa, and in Toronto it has all the good points, and on the Detroit and Niagara rivers. The same is true of the Canadian Northern and of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We have got all the best points right across the continent through acquiring these railway systems, and they should be linked up into a unified system. When that is done, we shall get lower rates and better service, and we shall be in a position to treat the railway men better than they have ever been treated before. You can unify. The people now have in their hands the business of the transportation of freight and passengers, the express business, the money order business, the telegraph business, and the transfer of mails. It is all right when these are concentrated in the hands of the people. The Canadian Pacific say that we should not be in this business. The Canadian Pacific is in another great combination. The greatest combination in the United States to-day is the American Telegraph and Telephone Company. It controls all the telegraphs and most of the Bell lines all over the
world, and most of the cables all over the world. The Canadian Pacific is in with that combination, and I say it is absolutely necessary in the public interest, not only in Canada, but in the United States and every other modern country, that services associated with transportation should be in the hands of the people such as the telegraph, money order, postal and express business. These should not be in the hands of private corporations. And so I trust that the Minister of Railways will persuade his Government to assume this responsibility. The legislation passed by the previous government, providing for the consolidation of the railways, can be put into effect almost immediately and a good board selected almost at once. If the Government do that, and provide for the consolidation of these roads, you will see the railroads not only paying their operating expenses but beginning to discharge some of the deficits which they have incurred in the past. The prediction I make in connection with the National Railways is that we are going to wipe out these deficits; and it is because the era of public ownership is likely to come, and be a great success that the main opposition to it is encountered to-day. From our experience in the province of Ontario we believe more in public ownership to-day than we ever did. That policy has not fallen down, and there has not been the failure we have seen in the case of the private owned companies. The people did not bring about these deficits met with in the past; they were the result of maladministration and over-building. These railways are to-day in the hands of the people; the government have taken them in charge, and at a very early date they must disclose who are to constitute the board and what measures will be taken to ensure that the consolidation so necessary shall take place at the earliest possible date.
I have criticized the Canadian Pacific Railway Company here to-day, but I am willing that the Government should find a way to co-operate and to co-ordinate with that company if such a course will reduce traffic charges. There is no reason why the two systems should not work in co-operation, and, enable passengers to go from one railroad to the other if necessary, and in every way give a better service to the people. The railways of this country will very soon have all they can do, even though that condition does not exist at present, and the
Supply-Railways

people will be glad to see competition. The way to make the Canadian National Railways to do well is to keep the Canadian Pacific Railway as an efficient competitor. I do not object to competition with the National Railways. There is room for the two systems, and one day we shall want more railways in the West. We shall be able to get more settlers there when we are able to show that the best system of transportation in the North American continent is in Canada. Let us keep our national railways and make them efficient, and especially render them useful in the building up of our country.
Mr. CANNON Before my hon. friend resumes his seat will he state that public ownership is not one of the principles laid down by the Russian soviet government and denounced by every European government?


William Findlay Maclean: I have heard
soviet doctrines enunciated even in this country but that is not a part of the issue here. Furthermore I am not responsible for the Soviet government.


Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James) :: Possibly I should initiate
these remarks by saying, as most members say when they rise in this House, that this is the greatest and most important problem before the country. But hon. members will concede that such a remark would be truer in this instance than in other cases, because every one admits there is no greater problem before Canada to-day, and none more complex. For it is a great problem, when this country has to operate more than 20,000 miles of railway at a deficit rate of $70,000,000 in 1920, and $56,000,000 in 1921, plus the $15,000,000 of Grand Trunk railway deficit. It is also a * complex problem because we are not at its initiation. The question is not now whether we shall purchase these railways or not; the question is solely what we are going to do with them. And there are few solutions of the problem, if any, available to us. This is a matter as to which every hon. member should make his attitude perfectly clear. It is one that played a great part in the elections in that part of Canada from which I come; and I must say that it was possibly the main topic that we discussed in the late election, notwithstanding the innuendoes of some hon. gentlemen opposite that we dealt with other matters on that occasion. Personally I took a very definite stand on this matter, not only in

the constituency of St. James but in every other electoral district where I happened to speak, and I desire to take exactly the same stand on the issue before us to-day. Briefly condensed what was that stand? It was that the Liberal party should decline all responsibility for the present railway situation in Canada; that the purchase of railways by the state was a grave mistake; that I did not believe in government ownership; that the system had been a failure in other countries; that the Liberals if returned to power should immediately endeavour to reduce the cost of the government railways to the taxpayers of the country, and avail themselves of the first opportunity to return them, on reasonable terms, to private ownership. That was my stand, Mr. Chairman, in the last election, and it is my stand to-day.
As to the proportionate responsibility resting on the respective political parties for the existing railway situation, I regard that as a matter of less importance. I believe that those parties should accept their responsibilities before the country, as well as before Parliament; but I also think that, faced with a problem of this magnitude, even the question of political responsibility should be set aside when we are addressing ourselves to that solution of the problem for which we are all looking. However, as to the responsibility for this situation there cannot be two opinions on the matter. The Drayton-Acworth report made in 1919 has frequently been referred to as showing that whilst from 1901 to 1911 the construction of railways in Canada was ever proportionate to the increase of population, during the period from 1911 to 191& that proportion grew out of all bounds and clearly outran the increase in population. The figures are these:
Population 1901 .. .. 5,371,315
1911 .. .. 7,206,643
1919 .. .. 7,500,000
Mileage of
Railway	Proportion
18,140	1	mile	per300 inhabitants 25,400	1	mile	per284 inhabitants 40,584	1	mile	per
185 inhabitants
In other words, from 1901 to 1911 the population had increased by 34 per cent, and the railway mileage by about 40 per cent, while from 1911 to 1919 the population had practically only increased some 7 per cent and the railway mileage had increased over 40 per cent. We might appreciate the proportionate responsibility of the parties by taking the grants, cash subsidies, guarantees and other methods of

Supply

Railways
helping the railways that have been adopted by the Government. I do not like to quote figures, as my short experience in this House convinces me that when you ask for figures in regard to the expenditures on different railways, it is very hard indeed to get them to agree. There have been so many grants, subsidies and guarantees for the benefit of railways that it is hard to reconcile the figures, and to arrive at a conclusion. But I will quote, as an example, the figures that I obtained this year. The cash subsidies given to the Canadian Northern from 1883 to 1907 amounted to $6,226,000, while from 1911 to 1917 the cash subsidies amounted to $21,056,000 odd. This is the information given by the Government on May 5 of this year. If you ask about the guarantees, subventions, or any other form of aid, you would find that the different governments had helped the railways in the same proportion-that is to say, before 1911, when we were building only according to the increase in population, aid was given in a very moderate way, but from 1911 up to the time of the purchase of the railway, when the population was not increasing in proportion to the building, we were giving subsidies, guarantees and benefits in far larger amounts. The responsibility of the Liberal party in this matter is very clearly indicated by the position which that party took in opposition from 1911 till 1921. When the Borden government began their bungling of the Transcontinental, the Liberal party protested. When the same government, by the direct and persistent work of the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), purchased the Canadian Northern, the Liberal party protested with renewed energy. They contended, with the best of reasons, that it was a pernicious deal. Not only did the government place a fictitious value on the stock of the bankrupt company- and that was a very grave error-but by becoming the owner of the road, gave a par value to all obligations, debts and promissory notes of that company, and thereby imposed on the country a burden of colossal proportions. When the present leader of the Opposition submitted to the late parliament his deal for the Grand Trunk purchase at the end of the session which had been called to discuss the peace treaty, again the Liberal party protested. There could be no doubt at that time that we stood against public ownership, that we considered it a colossal bungle, that the Borden-Meighen government had imposed
a burden on the country, and that we favoured the Laurier policy of private ownership under the judicial control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. But now we are in power and we find an established situation. That is to say, we have railways which have not been purchased by us, but which have been thrust upon us, and the question is, not who is responsible for that situation, but what are we going to do about it? That is a much more important matter.
Possibly, at this point I might just outline what government ownership means to us. It means a capital outlay of an immense amount-over a billion dollars-imposed on this country; pretty nearly half of the public debt of Canada. At page 386 of Hansard of this session hon. members will find that the total obligation of the Canadian Northern Railway amounted, at the time these obligations were calculated, to the enormous figure of $586,000,000. If you take the obligations of the government railways, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Transcontinental, the Intercolonial, the smaller railways, and finally the Grand Trunk, you will find that the capital outlay on Government railways is well above, or at least well around, the one billion figure, and I repeat that that is pretty nearly half of the public debt of the country. What do the annual deficits of the railway mean to us. The deficit of 1920 was $70,000,000. Add together past deficits and those in prospect, with interest at 7 per cent a year, and you find that in 1925 the total will amount to $492,000,000. Or, if hon. members think the rate of interest is too large, put it at 5 per cent, and you will see that the aggregate deficit on these railways, with the yearly interest added, will mean a total of $470,000,000 in 1925. We must add interest, for we are not meeting the deficit but are simply adding it to the public debt. Unless a miracle is performed in the administration of the railway, the deficit will be increased every day by the constant increase in the fixed charges. The report of the minister, page 934 of unrevised Hansard, shows that the increased fixed charges in 1921 for the Canadian National Railways was $7,583,000, and for the Grand Trunk, $5,220,000. That is to say, the increase in fixed charges in 1921 alone amounted to $12,803,000.
Possibly we can ascertain what government ownership has done in this country by looking at the figures. I quote from the public statistics. In 1918 the Canadian Northern had an operating surplus over
Supply-Railways

current expenditure of five and a half million. The deficit, after paying all the fixed charges, amounted to $11,674,187. The government took it over, and two years later, in 1920, the deficit had increased to $34,074,847. The trade depression did not start until 1921. In 1920 the Canadian Northern earned $21,036,000 more than it did in 1918, and $13,133,221 more than it had earned in 1919. In other words, the earnings of the railroad had increased, and yet the deficit, under government ownership, was much larger than it had proved to be even under the administration of the former company. The increase in the employees of the Canadian Northern has been absolutely out of proportion to the increase of the mileage of the railway. In 1916, the mileage in operation was 9,702 and the employees per 1,000 miles numbered 2,151. In 1920, the mileage had not been much increased; it was 9,743, and the number of employees per 1,000 miles was 3,433.


Mr. LAFLAMME:: In that connection, is the hon. member able to give us his views regarding a feature which, to my knowledge, has not yet been discussed? What would be the effect of state ownership and state operation of railways on the liberty or freedom of the franchise, if it is true that, in 1919, there was one mile of railway owned and operated in Canada per 185 persons?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I did say that I would not like to take a partisan stand on this matter. My impression is that, even with the best of willingness, you can hardly dissociate political advantage from political administration of railways, and I suppose my hon. friend feels as I do on this matter, namely, that when we advocate the doing away with the immense patronage that government ownership would mean to this country, we are advocating a policy which should prove to be for the good of the country.


Napoléon Kemner Laflamme: Does the hon. member know that statistics in France have shown that state ownership there means the hand of the state on about 12 per cent of the voters?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am aware of that, and I am also aware of the fact that the French government-I am going to refer to this in a minute-has done away with government ownership altogether. Possibly the French government has not had the ad-
(Mr. Rinfret.]
vantage of hearing some of the speeches that are delivered in this House. I may also point out, before leaving this part of my remarks, that unfortunately the receipts of the Government railways have decreased very much this year. The figures for the week ending April 30, are $2,467,145, a decrease of $352,133 over the same period last year. But what is more grave, is that from January 1 to April 30, that is, for the first four months of this year, the receipts amounted to $33,579,677, a decrease of $7,647,545 over last year. That is to say, if the receipts are to continue at that rate during the year, we may face, at the end of this year, a decrease of over $20,000,000 in receipts on our government railways. As I do not see any hope of a similar decrease in expenditure, I am very much afraid that the deficit next year will prove to be much greater than it was last year.
I am coming to another point which is often mentioned in debates of this kind, and that is the result of government ownership in other countries. It is a fact that only lately we have had examples of nations abandoning the system of public ownership altogether. I have in my hand a despatch dated March 7, which was published in the Montreal Star and later in all the other Canadian papers, stating that the French government has ended the state ownership test. It reads:
After being a drain on the French treasury for fourteen years, the Etat railroad system is to be handed over to a private corporation, the French government having decided that its talents do not lie in the direction of railway management. A parliamentary commission is completing plans for the disposal of the road, which has the reputation of being the most disorganized in the country. On completion of the commission's work, the chamber will be asked to approve its decisions, which, it is understood, are heartily backed by the Government.
On March 14, we were informed that in Newfoundland they had a government railway which cost the treasury about $1,500,000 a year, and that they were also very anxious to get rid of it. On May 9 of thi3 year, we were told that the South African deficit in government railways was so large that that government also intends to dispose of its railways.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the benevolent efforts of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) to show us that the government of the United States had taken over their rail-

S apply-Ra ilways
ways during the war, because they had been a failure under private ownership and -I do not quite recollect what explanation he gave, but he stated-that after losing about $500,000,000 a year on them the United States government returned them to private ownership. Possibly we shall hear more about that, but this is the first time that I have ever heard the experience of the United States in connection with their railways given as a good illustration of what public ownership could do, that is, given as an argument in favour of public ownership.


William Findlay Maclean: I gave it as an illustration of the failure 'of private ownership. The United States government had to take them over during the war.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is exactly what I icannot understand. The hon. member says that private ownership failed, so that the United States government had to take the railways over. Why did that government return them to private ownership?


William Findlay Maclean: They took the railways over as they were.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I might remind the committee that the system in connection with railways is different in the United States from that in Canada. As they do in the case of banking, they have small railway companies, and the United States government thought that it was proper, during the war, to bring those numerous companies under one system for war purposes; but it found out at the same time that, while that might prove useful for war purposes, it was very costly. I do not remember for how many years the United States government retained control of the railways; but it was for only a few years, and, as soon as the war was over, they took steps to return the railways to private ownership, because the taxpayers in the United States would not pay the cost of government ownership of railways in that country.
Let us view the situation in Europe. I have a table which I will not read, showing around 1914, before the war, the proportion of government owned and privately owned railways in the world. I am merely giving the figures; they are open to discussion. The proportion was 70.9 per cent privately owned railways and 29.1 per cent publicly owned railways. I might explain, without going into details, that the enormous proportion of privately owned railways is due to the fact that, in the United States and at that time in Canada, practically all the railways were privately owned. The proportion in America was 96.3 per cent privately owned and 3.7 per cent publicly owned. In Europe, Asia and even in Africa, the proportion was about even between the two systems.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: From what authority is the hon. member quoting? I ask just for information.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am quoting from a well known book on the matter, "The Case Against Nationalization," by Ediwin A. Pratt, a book which was published around that year. I give the figures merely as information; I do not pretend to base any argument upon them. We find that at that time, whilst Germany and Hungary had mostly public owned railways, in France and England there were no publicly owned railways at all; and while the railways were practically all under public ownership in Italy, in Spain and Portugal they were privately owned. The fact is that previous to the war, outside of America, the practice was about evenly divided between the two systems of operation. This author explains the case of Germany, which is very often cited as an illustration of the profitable operation of government owned railways. I shall merely sum up his argument, which is open to discussion, although it appears rather convincing to me. He points out that as regards Germany, the government owned railways are remunerative principally in Prussia, and this is due to many reasons. In the first place, it costs comparatively little to build railways in an exceedingly flat cou.ntrv: there is no heavy outlay on tunnels, viaducts, embankments and cuttings.


Walter George Mitchell: That would annlv to the West.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes; I will come to that point later. I might remark in passing, however, that in my humble opinion the Canadian Northern should be confined to the West. It becomes costly when it crosses the Algoima district and the Rocky mountains. But to return to Germany- and I promise not to keep hon. gentlemen there much longer. The second reason which this author gives for the profitable operation of railways in Germany, and particularly in Prussia, is the fact that certain outlays that are made in other countries are avoided there. For example, in most cases the stations in Germany are very modest, and if the surroundings are embellished or beautified the municipalities

Su pply-Raihvays

contribute to t'he cost. Then, those railways that have 'been acauired from nri-vate companies have been purchased at very low cost by the Prussian government. And another reason for the cheaper operation of the government owned railways in Prussia is the fact that they are under a military system which precludes patronage and the political influences that are brought to hear on government railways in other countries. Furthermore, they do not pay to the state the same amount of taxation exacted from private companies. The German government has full control over freight rates and the law prevents strikes, and the wages paid are not as high as those paid in this country, for instance. These are among the reasons why it has been possible for the German empire, and particularly in Prussia, for government railways to be operated more profitably than elsewhere. It is also pointed out that they calculate their surplus on current expenditure. That is to say, the state incurs the expenditures, and the reports made from year to year give merely the surplus earnings on current expenditures. In Belgium, also, the state owned railways have had fair results. But it must be remembered that Belgium is an exceptionally prosperous Country with a large population per square mile. Indeed, the population is very dense, and the people are industrious; and Belgium being a flat country, operation is necessarily cheap. Without labouring the point, I think it will be found that in most cases government ownership has been disastrous in every country where the experiment has been tried, and in those few countries where this has not been the result, whatever success has been achieved has been due to conditions that do not obtain in Canada.
The partisans of public ownership in this country may be assigned to two categories. The first comprises those who believe in public ownership as a gospel. The fate of other countries has failed to impress them; nor does our own misfortune move them. The theory sounds good to them, and they hope that facts and figures will some day confirm their belief. This class of worshippers, the Messianic hopeful, is in my opinion getting scarcer every day. But there is another category, much more numerous, who believe in public ownership in their own peculiar way. They do not believe that public ownership can be as successful financially as a private enterprise, they know that it will produce deficits; but they consider the necessity of

retaining the local advantage that it holds for their own portion of territory. In other words, they claim that the railways are a public utility and not a business venture, and that the whole community should control it in order to ensure low freight and passenger rates. These claims may have considerations of local interest to substantiate them, but they are certainly no argument in favour of public ownership as a sound economic and practical business principle.
But what makes the problem complex is that we have no choice to-day as between purchasing or not purchasing. We have the railways; and the only question is, what we are to do with them? This government has proposed that as there is no other solution in view we should give government ownership a fair trial in this country. In this respect I share very much the view expressed yesterday-in my opinion, a wise, moderate, and very frank view-by the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell). I do not wish to renounce my personal belief, which is absolutely opposed to the principle of government ownership. At the same time, however, I do think that even those who are not in favour of government ownership should co-operate with the government in their own humble way and do their very best to ensure that the trial shall be as fair, as complete, and as convincing as it possibly can be made.
Let me point out, though, that a trial made by a government is always subject to future objections. There are those nonbelievers who will tell you that the government is submitting optimistic figures. Indeed, the statement has already been made this year that apparently satisfactory results are, in fact, only a mere matter of book-keeping, and that if the government railways show a profit, or any improvement, it is only in the books and not in reality. Then there is the other class, those who will say that the trial has not been fair. The leader of the Opposition himself (Mr. Meighen), in the debate on the Address, asks, how can we have a fair trial by a government which comprises in its membership men that are opposed to government ownership and who will do their utmost to bring about its failure? I am not quoting the right hon. gentleman verbatim, but words to this effect will be found on page 34 of unrevised Hansard in the speech of the leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the session. The trial will prove little to the majority of people

Supply-Railways
who will disclaim its appropriateness; it will, I fear, end where it has started; it will leave us exactly in the same position, and in the meantime cost this country, according to the number of years, several hundred million dollars. But, as we say, we have not the choice. These railways have been thrust upon us, and we can only do the best we can in the meantime.
Some hon. members may say that I speak with a prejudiced mind; that I come from a part of the country which is prejudiced on this matter. Speaking for the province of Quebec, I would like to say this. We have fewer railways than any other province, and we have guaranteed less money-* in fact, in certain cases no money at all- than any other province. In that respect, I think the course adopted by our provincial government was a wise one. Yet we are one of the most important and most densely populated provinces. We have to pay a large share of the deficits incurred in the operation of railways which we do not enjoy, and for which we have never guaranteed one cent. I could make this plainer by quoting figures to show, for instance, that the Canadian Northern had very little mileage in Quebec when it was purchased by the government. But this fact and the others that I have mentioned are so well known that I do not think I shall delay the committee by going into them. But, as I say, let it not be thought for a moment that we from the province of Quebec come into this House with a prejudiced mind on this subject. I acknowledge at once that if we enjoy fewer of the railways for which the country pays, we have the St. Lawrence channel which has been deepened at the expense of the country and which is of use to the whole Dominion, but more especially, of course, to the part of the country through which it runs. I do not claim that my stand in this matter represents the full sentiment of my province; but neither my sentiment nor that of any other part of the province of Quebec is actuated by prejudice or by a feeling that the province has been less favoured in the matter of railway facilities than any other part of the Dominion.
Now, some people are asking the question:	What are we to do with the railways? On that point I agree with the remark made by the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) yesterday, that we have too many railway lines in Canada. One who travels to the Pacific coast is struck with the fact that on exceedingly long distances
we have parallel lines traversing wild and unsettled parts of the country in order to link the East and the West, the West and the Coast. Such is the case of the Canadian Northern line from North Bay to Winnipeg, which merely duplicates the Canadian Pacific. Such is the case of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific from Edmonton to Mount Robson junction-in fact, only one of the two is now being used. After a few hours of travel to the south, the Canadian Northern parallels the Canadian Pacific from Kamloops to the Coast. In the last instance, the Canadian Northern being junior to the Canadian Pacific, the line had to be built on the less advantageous slope of the Thompson and Fraser rivers, taking a second choice. It must have been built at tremendous cost, but on account of these circumstances it is decidedly handicapped. In my humble opinion, the transcontinental line from Quebec to Winnipeg and the Grand Trunk Pacific from Edmonton to Prince Rupert have great trade possibilities in the distant future, but I fail to see how the Canadian Northern in the parts that I have mentioned can ever hope but to be operated at a tremendous loss, because it meets no requirements, it merely duplicates a senior line which itself operates at a loss in that part of the country. The case of the transcontinental railways may well be likened to human beings who, we will say, are fed only every two days. The railways have to take a lot of nourishment in the East if they want to avoid starving in the Algoma district, and, again, must overfeed themselves in the West before they cross the Rockies. In my estimation the Canadian Northern should have remained a mere feeder; it should never have attempted either to come East or to reach the Coast.
I believe also that much can be done by the exercise of rigid economy and by increasing immigration. These subjects have already been dealt with, however, and I shall do no more than allude to them. But if we are going to give these railways a trial, the Government is to do its utmost to decrease the deficit, it should not fail to take advantage of any opportunity that offers itself to free the country from that burden.
In conclusion, I admit that the Government may have no other course open to it than that of operating these lines to the best of its ability. Advocates of government ownership may rejoice over the fact that this will constitute a trial of the prin-
Supply-Railways

ciple that they favour. But, disbelieving, as I do, in that style of administration, I am quite convinced that the result will inevitably be to add many millions to the public debt. Possibly we are not able to avoid that, but we should make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that, hard as we may try to make the burden lighter for the Canadian taxpayers, we on this side decline all responsibility; that these railways were thrust upon us; that we accept the burden only with the greatest reluctance; that the railways are on the market for the earliest buyer who can give sufficient guarantee of good faith and fair operation; and that the sooner we can dispose of them and return to private ownership the better it will be both for the Government and for the country.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I have only two reasons to offer for rising to intervene in this debate. One is because of the tremendous importance of the subject under discussion, and the other is because of the rather remarkable trend of the debate on this side of the House. It would be very easy, Mr. Chairman, to criticise the policies of former governments which have brought us into our present position with regard to the national railways. That sort of debate, however, is, to my mind, largely a waste of time.	We have arrived
at a certain condition; the facts are as they are, and I do not care to indulge in partisan recriminations which sometimes engage the members.
There are only two alternatives before Parliament. One is to accept our responsibility faithfully to operate the railways as a publicly owned utility in the interests of the people; the other, as has been suggested by my hon. friend who preceded me, is to return the National Railways to private ownership as soon as possible. I may say frankly that I very much prefer the first alternative. I am a believer in the principle of public ownership, and I believe that the railways of Canada, now under our control, can succeed provided that we make an honest and whole-hearted effort to make them successful. If we returned these roads to private ownership, it is my opinion that the ultimate outcome would be their incorporation in the Canadian Pacific Railway system. I think the. people of Canada would consider that a calamity. They would view with alarm any suggestion that any one railway com-
pany, however efficient it may be, should have a monopoly of the railway business of this country.
I know that there are rumours in the corridors and occasionally in the press that there is still another alternative to that of the Canadian Pacific taking over the National Railways, and it is that another private company might be formed which would take over our railways and operate them in competition with the Canadian Pacific. I have not a great deal of faith in that alternative. Even under the most favourable conditions we shall most probably have serious deficits in the operation of the National Railways for some years to come, and I for one question whether a company sufficiently strong financially could be found to bear the strain for the number of years it would be necessary to operate, until they would reach a period of prosperity. I fear that even if the roads did go to a company other than the Canadian Pacific, the final result would be the same, and the Canadian Pacific ultimately would be found in possession.
I believe this also, that if one private railway company came into control of all the railways in Canada, we would no longer receive the efficient service that we now receive from the Canadian Pacific; for, if you remove competition entirely, you remove that incentive to efficiency and service to the public which exists to-day.
Yesterday the hon. member for Marquette delivered what I thought was a most excellent speech on the railway situation. I agreed almost entirely with his views. He said what I would have said, and much better than I could have said it. For that reason it would be out of place for me to reiterate the views he has expressed so exhaustively. Yet, on the other hand, it would be regrettable if there were not at least one member on this side of the House to declare that he believed in the principle of public ownership and had some faith that the National Railways under public management can be made a success if we address ourselves honestly to that task.
The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) also delivered a speech yesterday which, in its general tenor, was directly opposed to that of the hon. member for Marquette. With much that the hon. member for St. Antoine said yesterday I was in hearty accord. That the National Railways must secure the very best men possible for the management of the roads I quite agree, and every member of the House

Supply-:Ra ilways
takes the same position. In fact, that goes without saying, unless we deliberately set out to wreck the National Railways, which purpose I do not for one moment attribute to any one. The most important official that we have to find is, of course, the chairman of the new railway board which is to be constituted, and which will be named by the Minister of Railways, I hope, at a very early date. It may be that such a man may be found in Canada. It is even conceivable that he may be a man who has not been entirely and exclusively associated with railways. But we do need a man of first-class and proven executive ability. We need a man of strict integrity, and one who has the confidence of the people of Canada as well as the confidence of the members of Parliament. We need a man who has himself faith in the public ownership principle, and who has, something of a passion for public service. His will be a great task, but if it is a great task for the chairman of the new board and a tremendous responsibility, I say that it is also a tremendous opportunity and a splendid challenge for some big man in this country to perform perhaps the greatest service that is possible for the people of Canada to-day.
The hon. member for St. Antoine also spoke of the necessity for a proper accounting with regard to our national railways. I do not know if he has information with which I am not familiar. It may be that the books of the National Railways are not kept in a proper manner. It may be that we have entered as assets upon these books some things which have no longer any existence in fact, such, for example, the abandoned road-beds as referred to by the hon. member for Marquette yesterday. If that is the case, they should certainly be written off, so that the books of the National Railways will show the facts and the assets as they are. It may also be that there has been a practice, as there very frequently is, not only in connection with publicly owned utilities but with private corporations as well, of charging up to capital what is properly chargeable to profit and loss account. If that has been done, I think the matter should be investigated, and corrected.
The hon. member for Marquette said yesterday, as he did also in last year's debate, that there should be a revaluation of the National Railways. I agree with that. It is good business practice to have your books show exactly what your assets are, and not to carry any that are fictitious or over-valued. I would, however, say this: If he implies by What he said yesterday that certain assets should be wiped off the books, and in connection with that, that the annual charges based upon those assets and covered by bonds should no longer be chargeable to the railways but to the Consolidated Fund, that may be good practice; I have no fault to find with that. But the public should thoroughly understand that that in itself will not lighten the burden of deficits on the people. It may have a good effect in this way. The board of management will be encouraged by the fact that they are relieved of some of the present heavy fixed charges, although as a matter of fact the charges are merely transferred to consolidated revenue account and in no wise relieve the Canadian tax-payers. I have said that in the statements of the hon. member for St. Antoine to which I have referred, I quite agree with him. But when he declares himself opposed in principle to public ownership and expresses lack of faith in the ultimate success of the National Railways, I must disassociate myself from those sentiments. I have a good deal of regard for the hon. member for St. Antoine. He comes to this House from a most important office in the province of Quebec, with a reputation for efficiency and as a successful executive in the government of that province.
And so I say I regard his opinion as worthy of consideration. I do not question his right to take the attitude that he does, although I will say frankly, and without any thought of giving offence to anyone, that I doubt very much-considering all the circumstances and the fact that we now have the railways and have declared that we are going to give them a fair chance to succeed-I doubt very much the judgment of those who to-day declare that they do not believe we can be successful in the management and operation of these roads. The expression of such sentiments does not make for success in our great undertaking.
Now that we have these railways I agree in part with the hon. member (Mr. Rinfret) who has just spoken, that it becomes our duty-at least the duty of those of us who believe in public ownership-under all the circumstances as so far disclosed in the debate, to declare our faith in the principle and in the prospect of success. I admit frankly, Sir, that I listened with consider-
Supply-Railways

able regret to the remarks derogatory to public ownership and the operation of national railways that have been made. When a man goes into a fight and declares beforehand that he knows he is going to be beaten, he has lost the fight before he starts. I know very well that many hon. members on both sides of the House disagree with me on the matter of public ownership. One of my friends who generally sits to my right, would give the railways away for the sum of one dollar, but I hope he was not serious in that observation. It is true that in the previous parliament there were probably not more than half a dozen members who honestly believed in public ownership and operation of railways. If there was more than that number they never declared their belief in this chamber. And I am sometimes humiliated as a Canadian to have my fellow members, and the press of this country, say that they do not believe there are men in Canada who can run our railways as well as private corporations can. Sir, I believe there are men in this country who have the ability and the public spirit to administer this great trust in the interests of the Canadian people. To believe less than that is, in my opinion, to display an attitude unworthy of the representatives of a people who have shown in the past that they can rise to any emergency in the interest of Canada.
In matters such as this we judge, or ought to judge, by experience, if experience is available. I am very sorry that the experience of the hon. member for St. Antoine has been so unfortunate as regards the matter of public ownership and operation of public utilities. He told us yesterday that in his experience of municipal affairs in Quebec he did not know of a single instance where public ownership had been successful. Now, I hope he did not have th^ opportunity, or necessity, of dealing with very many instances, because I would be sorry to know that in the province of Quebec they cannot make public ownership a success. I do not care to make comparisons but I will say that I can tell a brighter story for the province of Ontario, and especially for western Ontario of which I know something. Dozens of municipalities in that province have administered their public utilities with entire success. They have operated their gas plants, their electric light plants, their waterworks, and in many instances their electric railways, with entire success and to the satisfaction of the people. In my own city of Kitchener

-where the population is 23,000, but combined with that of Waterloo reaches a total of 29,000 or 30,000 people-we have operated all these utilities. We have operated our street railway and it has been successful. There has never been the slightest accusation that into the operation of that road, or in the employment of men, favouritism, or local politics, or anything of the kind, has ever entered. We have had business men with sense of public duty who have administered these utilities without any remuneration whatever; and so far as our railway is concerned, if I might particularize in that one case, it has been operated with a profit each year. It has taken care of its debentures both as to principal and interest, as they matured, out of the revenue. It has, almost each year, paid into the municipal treasury an amount, larger or smaller, towards the reduction of taxes; and it has done that with a five cent fare. From the operation of public utilities in the municipalities, the province itself has advanced into a larger field. We have there what is known as the Hydro Electric system. I want to say this-and I do so with a full knowledge of what I am saying-that the Hydro Electric in the province of Ontario, despite the reports and propaganda to the contrary, that has been carried on in certain parts of Canada, has been an undoubted success. I am not now referring to certain other suggestions with regard to the proposed construction of radial railways; I am now referring to the distribution of hydro-electric energy for the purpose of power, and electric lighting throughout the municipalities of western Ontario. To-day we pay only a fraction of the cost that was paid under private ownership for electric current. We know it is a success by having recourse to the same method that Sir Wilfrid Laurier invited the people of Canada to use in order to test the success of his policy when he said, "We do not have to tell you that there is prosperity in Canada, you feel it in your pockets." That is exactly how we measure the benefits of the Hydro-Electric in western Ontario. Now I admit that that in itself is not an absolute proof that we can do the same in the national field and make public ownership and operation of railways a success; but it is at least evidence tending in that direction and encouraging in the matter of going on with it. And why should it not be?
Contrast public ownership, and the success that has been obtained in western Ontario, with private ownership of railways

Supply

Railways
in Canada and in some other countries of the world. I have never yet heard the statement contradicted that practically every privately owned railway in the United States has, at some time or another, been in the hands of a receiver. The Canadian Northern railway has been cited here as an example of the failure of private ownership, and no better example could be given. Three hundred million dollars from the public treasury went into that railway under private ownership. And yet it failed. We sometimes hear of the Canadian Pacific and of the success which it has attained. That is quite true, and I have absolutely no criticism to make of that system. It is a well managed railway and a benefit to the people of Canada; but the success of that company is not entirely the result of their own efficiency. Even to-day a very substantial proportion of their dividends is based on the benefits and grants of land which they received from the Dominion of Canada.
It is the fashion to-day to decry public ownership. So much so that I am sometimes tempted to think-and any remarks I may make in this direction are nor directed at any gentlemen who have spoken or may speak-I am tempted to believe that the fashion has been inaugurated as the result of definite propaganda on the part of private ownership interests as against public ownership.


Napoléon Kemner Laflamme: By which organization?


William Daum Euler: I do not believe it would be very difficult for the imagination of hon. members in this House to tell just exactly what I am thinking about.


Jacques Bureau: Do not impute motives.


William Daum Euler: I am not imputing any motive to anybody, and if those who are interested in private enterprises are now doing their best to discredit public ownership, I am not sure that I can find a great deal of fault with them, because, after all, self preservation is the first law of nature. But for the public in general consistently and persistently to close its eyes to the undoubted fact that private ownership has been a failure is rather more than I can understand. No one expects that the national railways are going to succeed unless certain changes are made. We must consolidate the roads. We must cut out unnecessary duplication and unnecessary overhead expenses. That is going to take time, and I, for one, would
express the opinion, off-hand, that it will take a period of at last four or five years to enable us to decide whether the great experiment which we are making will be a success or a failure. I presume it would be rank heresy for anyone to say in this House that the failure of the Grand Trunk was a blessing in disguise, because it would not have been possible, to make the national railway a success without the inclusion of the Grand Trunk Railway. I do not think that it was possible for the Canadian Northern, combined with the Grand Trunk Pacific, to make a success of operation unless they had in Ontario some such freight gathering agency as is supplied by the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk supplies in the east what the Canadian Northern did not have. The Canadian Northern supplies in the west what the Grand Trunk did not have, and a proper co-ordination and consolidation of the two carefully made ought to give us a system that will be able to compete, on something like even terms, with the Canadian Pacific Railway.
There is another point which has not been brought out. It seems to be the impression throughout Canada, in the press and in the House, that the whole purpose of public railway operation is the making of profit-financial profit. That is not the purpose of public ownership at all. The primary purpose of public ownership is to give service to the people and to give it at cost. I frankly admit that it would be bad business to operate the national railways with a view only to give service, having no regard at all as to whether the railways would carry themselves or not. But, primarily, the object of public ownership is to give service to the people, and the primary object of private ownership is to make profit, and service on a privately operated railway line is merely a secondary matter and a means to an end.
It is extremely regrettable that the test of public ownership, or public operation of railroads, comes at a most inauspicious time and under the most unfavourable circumstances. The Government was forced to take over these roads. They were taken over by a government that was not in sympathy with the principle of public ownership, although the Acting Prime Minister, Sir Thomas White, tried to make a virtue of necessity, and declared that his party was the party of public ownership. However, that claim was dropped very soon afterwards, and has not been repeated by any government since. A
Supply-Railways

parliament which did not believe in the principle was forced to take it over, and we were forced to make the test of public ownership under conditions which made financial success almost impossible for a good many years to come. Thus public ownership is charged by its foes with losses for which it is not logically responsible. Thus also an ideal situation was created for the opponents of the principle, and if they had had the selecting of the battle ground on which to fight their foes, they could not have chosen any better ground than the one upon which they stand to-day. Here was public ownership making headway day by day, in many parts of Canada. Municipalities were making a success of managing their public utilities in various parts of the country. Hydro had been a success. Labour was asking that the principle be applied much further than had ever been done before. It asked that it be applied to all the great public services upon which the convenience and the prosperity of the great mass of the people depend, such as telephones, telegraphs, control of water powers and other great natural resources. That feeling was making progress throughout Canada. Then providentially for the purpose of those who are opposed to public ownership, a situation was created which lent itself to the discrediting of the hated principle. What, then, was more easy, or natural, or misleading, than to frame the syllogism, with its false conclusions, that certain railways were losing money, that these railways were publicly owned and publicly controlled, and, therefore, that public ownership was responsible for the loss and would always result in failure. I say that public ownership up to this time in the national railway field has never had a fair chance. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his courage, during the election campaign when he made the statement that the national railways shall be given a fair trial, which statement has since translated into government policy. I also congratulate the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) because of his pronouncements in that regard. But a fair trial means good management free from politics and the consolidation of the railways at as early a moment as possible. It means also retaining the confidence of the people of Canada in the sincerity of the Government as to its declared railway policy. That is absolutely essential. I believe in the sincerity of the Government, 'Mr. Euler.]
but I say that it becomes the duty of the Government, and of its followers, if we are to give public ownership and operation of the railways a fair trial, to do nothing that may create distrust in the minds of the people. That is why I deprecate the criticism from this side of the House.
The national railways have one tremendous advantage over any private railway; it has been referred to very seldom, and I do not know that anyone has spoken of it in this debate. If the people themselves have confidence in the government and in the management of the road, they will take a pride in what is their own and patronize it. It will be the duty of the board which is to be appointed in due course to cultivate that feeling, and to educate the people to the desirability and the necessity of patronizing that which belongs to them. I would say that it makes a very strong combination when you impress upon the public that in supporting their own railways, they are also serving their own financial interests. I venture to suggest that even today privately owned railway systems are not quite so sure as they were that the National Railways are not going to be a success and are already feeling the competition which greater efficiency has brought. For example, we have an excellent passenger service between Toronto and Ottawa. It is only two or three years ago when, if a man desired to obtain a lower berth on the Canadian Pacific, he had to reserve it two or three days ahead, whereas he could always get a lower berth on the National Railways right up to the last moment. That condition of affairs is pretty well reversed, and it is because the National Railways are giving service. It is also because the people are beginning to think they ought to patronize that which belongs to them. In this, I reflect in no way upon the service given by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is excellent.
I have not gone into figures nor into details, because I do not think it is necessary to do so. The question is largely one of principle. I, for one, believe that the people of Canada have, in themselves, the genius, patriotism and self-sacrifice, if necessary, to succeed in the great work to which they have put their hands. But it will be a very difficult fight, if this Parliament or its members are the cause of any doubt arising in the mind of the people as to our sincerity in our efforts to give public ownership a fair chance. Let those who believe in the principle say so in this House

Supply-Railways
and elsewhere and let those who cannot say so, await results, meanwhile doing nothing to prejudice the great experiment. I believe, if we do that honestly, the time will come -and it is not so very far distant-when Canadians will say that the nationalisation of these great roads was in the interest of the people of Canada.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary) :: I do not rise to oppose the estimate and, therefore, I shall not take up much of the time of this committee. It has been rather surprising that the discussion on this estimate has centred largely around the principle of government ownership. I am unable to see the relevancy of the discussion inasmuch as we have government ownership of railways now, and the estimate, I presume, is to continue their operation. I do not, of course, profess to be a man schooled in the strategy of politics; but I would hazard the opinion that hon. members on the government side who have spoken against public ownership, have been compromising their party, for, if government ownership is a failure, it will be said, no doubt, that it could not be anything else when run by a government that did not believe in public ownership. If it be a success, that will be proof that their judgment was bad. It might be well just to "wait a wee," as the Scotchman says, before you come to your conclusions. Hon. members opposite, however, do not need any advice from me along that line. It is, of course, reasonable to suppose that when a government is opposed to a principle, it will make a bad job of administration. That is not always true; as a matter of fact the Liberal party has traditionally been opposed to tariffs, and yet it has made an excellent job of administering tariffs. It has done it equally as well as the Conservative party has done. While a number of Government supporters may be opposed to the principle of public or government ownership, I have no doubt the Liberal party will make, perhaps, as good a job of administering government-owned railways as it will do in administering a tariff, and if it does that, we shall be perfectly satisfied with the result.
Government ownership of railways may not be the solution that we are looking for; but hon. gentlemen who have spoken against it ought to be fair and admit the fact that the taking over of the Canadian Northern was not merely because the government of the day believed in government ownership, but because of the necessity
brought about by a government subsidized line on the verge of bankruptcy and when hon. members of the present Government criticise the action of the former government in this regard, they have failed to tell us what should have been done under the circumstances. Would they have subsidized the railway further, or would they have sold it out for a song to a private company and given one railway company a monopoly of the railway business of the country? Or, what would they have done? I think we can safely leave that question aside and deal with the fact that we have at the present moment a government-owned railway, and that the job is to run it. It has been demonstrated that private ownership of that road was a failure. If it be heresy, as my hon. friend (Mr. Euler) remarked, to say that the failure of the Grand Trunk was a blessing in disguise, it could not be any more than heresy to hope for the failure of the Canadian Pacific also that we might have another and a larger blessing in disguise. That would help us to consolidate further and to have a real government-owned system of railways in Canada. I doubt very much whether we can hope for complete success of government-owned railways in this country while they are being run in competition with a large company that has been subsidized also from the public treasury. Therefore,. I hope that, some day, instead of speaking against government ownership of a part of our Canadian lines, hon. members of this House will be advocating government ownership of all the lines in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


William Irvine: An hon. gentleman opposite says: "Never." It is very easy to say that, of course, but it does not get him anywhere. The same could have been said of a thousand things that are to-day in practice. I presume the same hon. gentleman would have said: We shall never be able to fly in the air; but we are doing so now, and what he is "nevering" about now will be in vogue soon.
I have a suggestion or two to make, and I think I can say before six o'clock what I want to say. If co-operation be necessary to the success of business, it is, perhaps, more necessary on government railways than anywhere else. I believe that it will contribute largely to the success of the enterprise if the highest possible degree of co-operation can be secured along the whole line of administering that business. I am glad to think that the Prime Minister
S upply-Railways

(Mr. Mackenzie King) has gone on record in his book on "Industry and Humanity" for the principle of co-operation in running large public utilities; that is, that there should be co-operation between the public, the owners and the workers engaged in the industry. I would like to suggest very briefly that the present Government, in the operation of the Canadian National Railways, should adhere to that principle and that the great masses of the people who are engaged in running the railways, should have their quota of representation on the railway board in order that the highest possible degree of co-operation may be secured in the enterprise.
Furthermore, I should like to point out to the Government-it is not, of course, necessary to do so, because they know it better than I do-that one of the largest items in the deficit on our government railways is for interest charges. I believe I am right in saying that. I think the interest for last year amounted to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $17,000,000. Allowing, on the capital expenditure of over $471,000,000, 3i per cent interest, we shall have approximately $17,000,000. Now, with a running tap of that nature it is not likely that we are going to be able to keep the reservoir full, and I urge that the Government take into consideration the possibility of turning the tap off. I have asked on previous occasions, and I ask again, is it possible for the Government to finance its own railways, financed for and by the Government in such a way as to eliminate interest? I would advise them to make the experiment along this line, and if it prove successful in this particular instance it may be possible to apply it to all other government operations and ultimately make it the national policy to finance every industry in Canada.
Now, it is six o'clock, and although I should like to say some other things I do not wish to detain the committee. I shall therefore sum up my remarks by saying that we need, first of all, co-operation in this great enterprise, among all the people working on it, as well as on the part of the representatives of the public and the Government, and I ask that the Government appoint a representative of labour, not only on the railway board of directors, but on the Board of Railway Commissioners. I would also emphasize the necessity of investigating the possibility of securing our own loans for the National Railways

from our own treasury and thereby save interest to the people of Canada.


Mr. KENNEDY (Essex) :: The member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low) asked a question yesterday with reference to the deficit of last year. I could not answer him at the time, as the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) had the floor. I have had a statement prepared which I desire to place on Hansard:
The total deficit for the year 1921 on the Canadian National amalgamated system, which includes the Grand Trunk System (including the Central Vermont), and the Canadian National Railways, (including the Canadian Northern Railway, Canadian Government Railways and the Grand Trunk Pacific), was $72,662,278.16. This includes the fixed charges due the public and also the fixed charges due the Government, hut does not include any interest on the capital cost of the Canadian Government Railways, which includes the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Sydney, Halifax and St. John, and all branches, including the Prince Edward Island Railway, nor on the Transcontinental Railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, nor the Hudson Bay Railway.


Arthur Meighen: What is the corresponding figure for the year before?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The corresponding figure for 1920 was $74,378,318.80.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How much of the
$72,000,000 odd referred to in the statement just read by the minister represents interest?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The fixed
charges, other than government, were $40,453,509.49; the fixed charges, government, were $19,569,989.79.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. A. J. Lewis (Swift Current) : I do not wish to enter into a lengthy discussion of the railway situation, but as the hon. member for (South Waterloo (Mr. Euler) said before recess that he thought every member of the House who was in favour of public ownership should get on his feet and say so, I wish to state that so far as I am able to interpret the wishes of the people whom I represent, they are in favour of public ownership. I shall not go into any argument in regard to public ownership, because I understand that the policy of the Liberal party is public ownership of our

Supply-Ra ilways
railways for the time being; at least, they are willing to give it a fair trial. The party to the right of me have also expressed their desire for public ownership, and I believe the same is true of the Progressive party. It seems to me, therefore, that this item is a very important one, because public ownership to-day is being weighed in the balance of public opinion, and in order that that public opinion may be favourable to public ownership it is well for the Government to take into consideration the very best means under which it can be made a success.
I wish to congratulate the minister upon the very favourable and optimistic outlook which, in bringing down his report, he displayed in regard to public ownership. It is gratifying to know that public ownership is being favourably received by the minister and also by the people at large, and that, carrying out the suggestion contained in the Speech from the Throne, the Government intend to co-ordinate the great railway systems which are nationally owned in Canada. It seems to me, Sir, that there are certain ways in which public ownership can be made to pay. First, there is co-ordination, and I understand that this is to be put into effect as rapidly as possible by the Government. I believe, like former speakers, that men can be found in Canada who are willing to give of their best advice and service to make public ownership pay. The men who run our great provincial universities are able to make them successful, and they also make them pay; and I see no reason why the same thing cannot be done in respect to our great nationally-owned railways. Of course, there is this difference between publicly-owned and privately-owned railways: those which are privately-owned take into consideration not only the question of service, but also the question of revenue with a view to paying dividends. It may be a long time before the Canadian National Railways pay a dividend, if they ever do; but if the quality of service which they render to the Canadian people is satisfactory, then the question of dividends is not a matter for consideration. It is not the hope that the nationally-owned railways will pay dividends; if they can come out even in the years to come, rates will be satisfactorily reduced until the cost of upkeep and general maintenance is at a minimum.
Not only must we have co-ordination of the systems included in our National Railways, but we must place them on a sound business basis. The railways should be taken altogether out of politics. That is one reason why I favour public ownership: because corrupt influences are often exerted in governmental circles as the result of private ownership. When we acquire a railway on behalf of the people; when it belongs to the people and they take an interest in it, it should be removed from the influence of politics and placed on a sound business basis; that is the only way, I believe, in which a nationally owned railway can be made to pay.
But there is more than that. I think the speech of the minister was good all the way through; it was optimistic, and there was a policy involved. But there is one point in the policy which I think is faulty, and that is the lack of any intention to continue to build branch lines. It is a well known fact that if the transcontinental railways that belong to Canada are ever to be made to pay, it will only be in respect of the traffic and business originating and carried on in that part of the system west of the Great Lakes, or west of Winnipeg. The trunk lines are already in existence and we know that alongside of these trunk lines the settlers are, and have been for many years. All the products of the farm are going to those lines and the only way we can bring prosperity to the national lines, is, in a measure, to increase the service. But how are we going to increase the service if we cut off all feeders to the trunk lines? There are various ways in which this matter can be dealt with. One way in which we can increase the service of the transcontinental railways is by increasing the number of people on each side of them. Looking over the statistics of immigration during the last twenty years, I find that 3,428,834 people have come into Canada, but of these, 2,000,000 have remained on this side of the Great Lakes, and only 1,423,538 have settled in the three prairie provinces.
I understand that contiguous to these lines to-day there are over thirty million acres of land not settled, and for that reason we must direct the stream of immigration to the West, so that these people will settle on the farms and increase the productivity of the land, thereby providing more business for the railways. It is only by increased service that we can get an increased revenue for the railways and place them on a paying basis.
Supply-Railways

I want to say a word or two in regard to the situation in my own constituency. I do not know how far a moral obligation of the former government obligates this one, but only last night I heard the Prime Minister ask of the leader of the Opposition if he when Prime Minister had in any way obligated this Government in regard to the naval question. I am not interested in that question at the moment. What I am interested in is this. Last year the Minister of Railways promised the people in my district that a certain railway extension would be completed. He said to these people: If you will go into that village and build an elevator we will see to it that the line is completed. In order that there may be no doubt whatver I will read what the minister said:
Hon. Mr. Reid: In speaking to Mr. Hanna about the maitter he mentioned that they would lay this ten miles this year for the reason that an elevator would be built, and it was for that purpose the rails would be laid. I am quite satisfied that it is the intention of the Canadian National Railway management to lay the ten miles in quesion, and I feel satisfied from the way Mr Hanna mentioned it to me that there is no doubt it will be done. Unless something unforeseen should happen it is the intention anyway to lay the rails before that time. The 50,000 tons of new rails which were purchased are now being rolled and sent on to the main line. The rails thus released will go on to the branch lines, and the branch in question is one of those that will be taken up first.
On this promise of the minister the people went into that village-the construction way had already been laid, but not the rails-and the village came into existence and an elevator was built, people put more crops into the ground, and then last year, when the crop was harvested, they had no railway to take it out. At the present time these people are anxiously awaiting the fulfilment of this promise, which was made not only on one occasion, but repeatedly since 1918. It seems to me that if the national railways are ever going to pay, you must build these branch lines in order to serve as feeders to the trunk lines. It is poor economy, in my view, to cut off the branch lines. You cannot do that and reasonably expect the trunk lines to pay.
In looking over this item of $42,000,000 which is to be expended on this road, I find that only a very small amount is to be devoted to construction, namely, $1,286,164. This to me seems a very small amount, and I do believe that it would be in the interests of this great system to send out small feeders into the country to encourage the farmers-the wheat growers and the
[ Mr. Lewis. ]
dairymen-to put more seed into the land and intensify their farming, and thus provide a greater volume of business for the railways that are on our hands at the present time. That would be real economy, and it would result in a larger share of business for the national railways, and in the sum total be the means of making them
pay-
I trust that in the near future when these roads are co-ordinated, the men in charge will look into this aspect of the question and see to it that small branch lines, not very extensive ones, but lines that will reach to the people and bring business to the main line are built. Such a policy will produce a revenue that will probably put the railways on a paying basis.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's P.E.I.) :: The speeches that have been delivered to-day have been very interesting, perhaps instructive, but very largely academic. The speakers appear to have overlooked some facts which, if recognized, might perhaps have made the speeches shorter.
The first fact is that the country finds itself to-day the owner and possessor of about 22,000 miles of railway. The second fact is that the Government finds itself obliged to take over these railways. The third fact is that the Government has announced its policy to own and operate these railways, and to give that policy a fair trial. The fourth fact, I think, is that a large majority of the members of this House are prepared to support the policy of the Government. I think that the members of this House have sufficient information at the present time to enable them to give an intelligent vote on this question. I further think that a majority of the people of this country are prepared to support the Government's policy, and that those of them who take an interest in the question are fairly well informed. Therefore, I think that further speeches would not give much information, and I would respectfully suggest that under these circumstances we cut out any more speeches, proceed to business, pass the estimate, and advance towards the end of the session


Hon. J. A. STEWART (Lanark) :: I shall try as far as possible to follow the advice, with which I do not quarrel' very much, of the hon. member for King's, but there are just one or two matters to which I desire to make reference.

Supply-Railivays
In the first place, I agree with the last speaker that a number at least of the addresses to which we have listened this afternoon have been academic discussions of the question of public versus private ownership. I do not propose to follow the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret), the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), or the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) through their discussion for and against public ownership and government operation of railways. I do desire to say this, however, that it is gratifying to the party who sit in this end of the House, and who represent what is here to-day of the late government, to find that all parties in the House to-day are endorsing the policy of railway management which was inaugurated by the government which was in power up to the 6th of December last. Both from those who favour government ownership and operation, and those who are opposed to that policy and favour private ownership, and who sit uipon the government side of the House, we have the assurance that it is their wish that government ownership as at present carried on by the present Government, and by its predecessor, shall be given a fair trial.
It does seem to me, however, that it would be consistent, at least, for some of these gentlemen to explain to the House when they became convinced that the present system was the best system in the interests of Canada at the present time. It is a fact that up to the 6th of last December, when all the information that we now have was available to men in public life, there was no feature in connection with the policy of the late government which was more severely and intensely denounced and repudiated by its opponents than its railway policy. However, I am not going to attempt to follow hon. gentlemen opposite through their various stages to their present position on that question. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that it would be desirable for the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) to confer with the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) and the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), and possibly with the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), and that these gentlemen should try and reconcile their positions upon this great question.
I want to say this: That so far as the policy of the late government-which is the policy of the present Government in connection with the management of the
National Railways-goes,	that policy
was arrived at without any question of public or private ownership; it was arrived at by reason of the fact that the late government was forced to provide for the management of these railways which were practically left on its door-step. I do not think that it matters very much who was to blame for that. The question as to whether the Liberal party or the old Liberal-Conservative party was responsible for Canada's railway problem has been a fruitful matter for political discussion for many years. It has been threshed out in past parliaments and in past elections, until it is possibly a threadbare matter for political discussion today. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the late government was forced to solve the question of handling the railways which became national property during the war; and I do not think there is any real opinion in Canada to-day that will question the wisdom of that policy at the time it was arrived at by the late government. In that connection let me refer for a moment to what the member for St. James said with reference to the subsidies which have been paid out to the old Canadian Northern system. He divided the periods during which subsidies were given into the period prior to 1911, and the period since and showed, of necessity, that a very large proportion of the amount which had been paid in subsidies and in cash advances to the Canadian Northern was paid over to them subsequently to 1911. No one will dispute that, but why were these subsidies paid? The reason is very clearly set out in the address of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier on May 13, 1914 when, in discussing the Canadian Northern loan, which was then before the House, he made this statement:
In 1899, or thereabouts, alter we came into office we asked Parfliament to give them assistance to extend the railway system then in exiistence in Manitoba eastward to the end of Lake Superior. If I remember rightly we gave them a cash subsidy of $6,400 a mile for that length of railway. Later in 1903 we induced parliament to give them a guarantee of $13,000 a mile for a line of railway running through Manitoba to the city of Edmonton. Afterwards, in 1908, we asked Parliament to give them another guarantee of bonds to provide for several branch lines which would be feeders of the line in the prairie provinces. In 1911, as has been explained by my right hon. friend, it was considered that the system would not be complete unless it were extended eastward to tthe St. Lawrence and eventually to the maritime provinces, that is to say unless it was made a transcontinental railway, and in that year we asked Parliament to give to the enter-
Supply-Railways

prise from Port Arthur to Montreal a guarantee of bonds to the extent of $25,000 a mile. After the new government came into office they took up the policy which we inaugurated. In 1912 Parliament was asked to assist a line from St. Albert to the limits of the province of British Columbia, a distance of 115 miles, witih a subsidy of $35,000 a mile.
My hon. friend from St. James is entirely correct when he states that large sums were paid in subsidies to the Canadian Northern system subsequent to 1911, but these subsidies were paid in pursuance of obligations and commitments made by the government prior to 1911. I am not quarrelling with the wisdom of that policy, but what I object to is that an attempt should be made to show that these payments were made as a result of the action of the government which came into power in 1911.
What was the policy of the late government with reference to the management of the Canadian National Railways, and after all that is the question that goes to the very root of the matter? When the late government was forced to provide a system for the control and management of the railways which became its property a system was adopted which has recommended itself to the present Government, and which meets with the approval of hon. gentlemen to the left, and it was this: To provide for the control of these railways, for the management of the system, by an independent board freed entirely from political control, and I agree with hon. gentlemen opposite that it is only by carrying out that policy that there can be any future for the National system. The management must be free from political control.
In the report which the Minister of Railways presented to the House on April 11, for the calendar year 1921, there was a very full statement given of the operations of the National lines, and I would like to draw attention to this fact: That report covered the railway operations for a period during the whole of which, with the exception of two days, the late government was in power, and it is a matter of satisfaction to those who were associated with the late administration to know that in the report there was not one word of criticism of anything that the previous government had done in connection with railway operation. The very greatest compliment that could be paid to the late government in connection with the operation of these railways is to be found in the fact that no report ever presented to this House dealing with the work of any public department has met with

more general approval than the report brought down on April 11. There has not been one word of criticism of that report in this House; nothing but the warmest words of commendation have been heard. Similar commendation has appeared in the press of the country irrespective of political alignment, and I say that speaks as strongly as anything possibly could for the policy of the late government. Furthermore the policy adopted by the late government for the management of the National Railways providing for a unified board was crystallized into law and is on the statute books of Canada to-day, and that policy we are assured by the present Minister of Railways will be carried out.
I am not going to further discuss the general railway policy but I do want to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for St. Antoine yesterday.
I have no desire to introduce again the discussion with reference to the advance purchases of supplies made under the provisions of the Order in Council of 6th October, 1921, but I want to say that my hon. friend from St. Antoine has confused the issue, I think, in the minds of the public, and I think he is possibly confused himself, ii I read his statements in Hansard aright as to the part the government played with reference to the ordering of supplies. I refer to it again for this reason: that the point raised by the hon. member from St. Antoine strikes at the very root of the whole system of government operation or control of the National system. If political considerations are to influence the board of management of the National system, then I agree with my hon. friend from St. Antoine that it would be a most dangerous thing for the future of the system. I know of nothing more dangerous than that the board in control of our National Railways should in any way be influenced by political considerations in their administration. If we reach the time when they are influenced and affected by political considerations we will have struck a blow from which it would be impossible to recover.
Reference has been made so often to the Order in Council of the 6th October, and the Order in Council of the 13th August that, it seems to me, these documents should be read into the record, in order that it may be complete, and I propose to place in the record, first the Order in Council of the 13th August, 1921, which is known as Order No. 2861, and reads as follows:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 9th August.

Supply-Railways
1921, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, representing that, by an Order in Council of the 21st of April, 1921, (PC. 1403) authority was given for the ordering by the management of the Canadian National Railways from the Algoma Steel Corporation, of 50,000 gross tons of 85-pound steel rails at $55 a ton, f.o.b. Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., and from the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, of 20,000 gross tons of 85-pound steel rails, f.o.b. Sydney, N.S., at the same price.
Of the 50,000 tons ordered from the Algoma Steel Corporation, approximately 39,000 tons have been delivered to date, leaving a balance of 11,000 tons which may not be required this year. The Algoma Steel Corporation suggest that this balance be rolled and put in stock, to be shipped out when required, any tonnage accepted before the end of the present year to be paid for at the above mentioned price, and the tonnage held over to be delivered at the price which' may be agreed upon for rails for early spring delivery next year. In connection with this suggestion, and also with reference to the requirements for next year, Mr. D. B. Hanna, president of the Canadian National Railways, advises, as follows:
"The present probabilities are that we will not require more rails this year, but it would be quite in order, as a matter of convenience to the Steel Corporation, to roll the balance (approximately eleven thousand tons) at their convenience, subject to a price to be fixed for next year's requirements, such price not to exceed the price quoted to other Canadian railways.
"The outlook for employment next winter is not satisfactory at present, and I would suggest for your consideration the passing of an Order in Council, authorizing us to place a contract at an early date for forty thousand tons of rails (which is in addition to the eleven thousand tons referred to) for winter rolling, as we will require the tonnage, and if we can indicate to Mr. Franz that the rails will be required, it will enable him to take in sufficient raw materials in the shape of coal and iron ore before navigation closes, and thus permit him to give us a substantially lower price per ton than present year's prices."
The Minister, on the advice of the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, recommends that authority be given for carrying out the suggestions of Mr. Hanna with reference to the said balance of 11,000 tons of rails remaining undelivered this year, and to the quantity of 40,000 tons required next year; the price to be paid for the 40,000 tons to be agreed upon, but not to exceed lowest prices paid by other Canadian railways, and payments to be made as deliveries taken.
The committee advise that the requisite authority be granted accordingly.
That is the Order in Council passed on the 13th day of August, 1921, and it agrees as to date with the statement of the hon. member from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) as to unemployment, made in the early stage of this debate. On the 13th August, before there was any question of an election, or any statement or thought as to the dissolution of the House, the question of unemployment was raised in the communication of the President of the Canadian National Board to the Minister of Railways as set out in the Order in Council itself.
In order that we may follow as to date, let me read to the House, next, a letter, dated 13th September, 1921, from the President of the Canadian National Board to the Minister of Railways of that date. The letter is dated Toronto, September 13th, 1921, and reads:
Toronto, Ont., September, 1921.
My dear Doctor,-
Referring to conversation regarding repairs to Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian National freight cars.
In the early months of the year indications pointed to a substantial recession in freight traffic, and to meet this condition we made a substantial reduction in our forces over the entire System and at all important divisional points in the hours of labour of such men we carried on the pay rolls. The effect of this in our repair work was very noticeable. We sidetracked a very large number of freight cars, until at the present time we have approximately 8,0-00 cars waiting repairs. Of this number, either in partial service or side-tracked on repair tracks, there are not less than 2,0-00 Grand Trunk Pacific cars. Many of these cars have been out of service for a period of time before we had anything to do with the management of that Company, and having regard to the fact that most of the Grand Trunk Pacific equipment has been in service around fifteen years, it follows that a large number have yet to be repaired, or rather rebuilt. This leaves approximately 6,000 National System cars in bad order. It is estimated that 3,000 of these require more or less heavy repairs, and the work to be done on the balance of 3,000 is of a minor nature or what is called running repairs, and will be restored to service by our own shopmen.
It occurs to me, in view of wide spread unemployment, that the car plants of the different operating companies are* in respect of some of them at all events, closed down; that in all probability the Dominion Government will be called upon this fall and winter to help out the situation with cash contributions to an unemployment fund, it might be a good move to distribute to these plants sufficient cars requiring heavy repairs (having regard to their daily output) to keep the companies going during the winter and into the early spring months, with the hope that conditions will have improved by that time to take up much of the unemployed forces.
The following plants, I am advised, are and have been closed down for some months:-
Fort William plant,
Eastern Car Company's plant, New Glasgow,
Amherst plant,
and the following plants partly under operation :
National plant, Hamilton,
Canadian Car and Foundry plant, Montreal.
The need for repairing all of our equipment, including the Grand Trunk Pacific equipment, from a traffic standpoint, is not a vital one, as we are with our own organization able to keep up our ordinary running repairs. But it does seem to me, if the unemployment situation can be to some extent relieved as suggested in this letter, we should be authorized to

Supply-Railways
make arrangements to put as much of our equipment as possible into good repair, even though, because of trade conditions, many of ihese cars are, after being repaired, side-tracked waiting for loads. In other words, instead of handing out contributions to an unemployment fund, It would be much better to use the funds proposed to be expended in that connection and authorize us to negotiate with the car plants to do repair work for the National System.
Please let me hear from you.


Mr. CAHILL:: Whom is that letter from?


John Alexander Stewart: As I stated when I read it, it is a letter addressed by the President of the Canadian National board, Mr. Hanna, to the Minister of Railways at that date.
Nothing further, so far as my knowledge goes, occurred until the 6th of October, 1921, when the following Order in Council was passed:


P.C. 3800-
[Stage Direction]
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 4th October, 1921, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, stating that, in his capacity as Minister of Railways, he has discussed with the Canadian National management, and with the chief executives of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the question of unemployment in its relation to the railways now under Government control and operation.
*Serious consideration has been given to the possibility of the National railways (including the Grand Trunk) so anticipating their requirements as to permit the placing in the immediate future of next year's orders for rails and accessories, and for the rebuilding and repair of freight equipment, in order that present unemployment may be relieved, and work provided during the winter months.
Under normal conditions, it is the practice to pflace such orders during the early spring months, and to confine rebuilding and repair work, as far as possible, to system shops. The minister believes that, in view of the present abnormal industrial situation, the usual practice might well be varied to the extent of placing, at an early date, next year's orders for rails and accessories, and, in addition to repair work now being done in railway shops, by arranging with the various equipment companies though-ou't Canada to participate in the rebuilding and repair of freight equipment.
In doing so, however, it is only fair to the railways, that expenditures so incurred shall not be considered a charge against the current year's operation or financing, and while the management will make every effort to see that repair work undertaken outside the railway shops is done at fair and reasonable prices, any increased expenditure involved should not be a charge against the railways, but against such financial provision as may from time to time be made by the Government to deal with unemployment.
And in order that there may be no question of considerations other than unemployment influencing the placing of these orders, the minister suggests that the allocation of this business be on the concurrence of the Minister of Uabour, whose departmental officials are closely in touch with conditions affecting labour

throughout Canada, and whose officials shall co-operate with the officials of the Department of Railways in dealing with this situation so far a it affects the railways under Government control.
In order that the management may have a free hand and that the business may be distributed 'to best advantage, it is considered advisable that the Order in Council to authorize the purchase of 40,000 tons of rails from the Algoma 'Steel Corporation for next year's delivery be cancelled, and that such new business as may be given the Algoma Steel Corporation be contingent upon the general situation as it may develop.
The minister, therefore, recommends, on the advice of the deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, that Order in Council of the 13th August, 1921 (P. C. 2861) granting authority to the management to order 40,000 tons of 85 lb. steel rails from the Algoma Steel Corporation for next year's delivery be and hereby is cancelled in so far as it relates to the 40,000 tons in question.
That, having due regard to the unemployment situation, as well as the requirements of the railways, the management of Canadian National Railways and the management of the Grand Trunk railway be authorized to order on next year's account, and not exceeding next year's prices, a maximum of 75,000 tons of rails and necessary accessories, and to arrange for the rebuilding or repair of 2,000 cars at suitable points at fair and reasonable charges, and that the expenditure so incurred be provided for in the Supplementary Estimate to be brought down at the next ensuing session of Parliament.
That in placing orders for the rebuilding and repair of freight equipment, the charges against the railways shall only be the falir and reasonable cost of the same in the company's shops, and that any extra expense involved be a proper charge against unemployment generally and regarded as such.
That in neither case shall expenditures incurred this year in anticipation of next year's requirements be chargeable against current operation or finance.
The Committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
(Sgd) Rodolphe Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
In pursuance of this last Order in Council, the cars referred to by the President of the Canadian National Board in his letter of the 13th of September were placed as follows: 500 cars were contracted for with the National plant at Hamilton; 500 with the Canada Car and Foundry plant at Montreal; 500 went to Amherst and 500 to New Glasgow. For the Grand Trunk Pacific, there were 1,000 cars that went to Fort William, and that order was placed and authorized in pursuance of the order appointing the receiver; it was approved by the Exchequer Court of Canada.
The point I desire to make in connection with this, is that the Orders in Council were absolutely necessary in order to enable the board to contract for car repairs, and

Supply-Railways
to purchase the rails. The board had no authority under the law to proceed, without the authority of the government through an Order in Council. The reason for that is this: Last session Parliament in its estimates provided certain sums for these purposes. As regards the expenditure of the sum authorised in the estimate of last year, the amount could be expended by the board upon the authority of the estimates; but when the question became one of anticipating the requirements of the road and ordering, in the fiscal year 1921-22, rails and car repairs that would naturally fall into the fiscal year 1922-23, it became necessary, for the purpose of financing and preventing the amount being a charge against the fiscal year 1921-22, that an Order in Council should be passed. The point which I desire to make clear if I can is, that as regards any of the items authorised in the Order in Council of the 6th of October, not one dollar's worth went into the operations of the fiscal year 192122, as would appear to have been the idea of the hon. member for St. Antoine. Not one dollar of that would operate to improve the financial statement for the past year.
If we admit unemployment and if we admit the wisdom of the late government in anticipating, during the past winter months, the requirements which would be inevitable when we reached April, May and the summer months, then surely no question can be raised as to the wisdom of the late government's policy. If we admit that unemployment existed, if we admit that there was any duty or obligation upon the government to relieve that unemployment, so far as it lay in the power of the government to relieve it, the logic of the late government's position is irresistible.
I wish to refer to one other matter, the point raised as to the great improvement that took place during the four months of August, September, October and November, 1921, an operating account. I do not think any one ever claimed that the late government was entitled to credit for that. If the claim has been made I have never heard it. The point was answered by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) last night. It is to be explained by the fact that during these months we reached the peak in grain transportation, and consequently it was a natural result that we should have had an improvement in operation account.	.
Walter George Mitchell: Yesterday when I referred to this matter I pointed out that
the whole saving of $20,000,000 was in operating expense account, so that the question of increased freight during those months would not affect the statement I submitted to the House.


John Alexander Stewart: I was referring to the point as it arose in the address of my hon. friend from Marquette. He referred particularly to the increase in freight, and I thought that my hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) had done the same. But a review of the financial operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway during the same four months will reveal that in that period they also showed a substantial increase on operating account. While possibly the late government are not entitled to any credit for the results obtained during those four months, I am sure that my hon. friends opposite must rejoice that the greatly increased proportion of grain that was handled in 1921 played a large part in reducing the operating deficit for the year. I have nothing further to say in connection with this item, and I see no objection to its adoption.


Mr. GOOD:: I can say all that I wish to say in less than five minutes, because my views have been very fully expressed by the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). But there are two points which I should like to mention. I was very much surprised yesterday to hear the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) declare that he did not believe in the principle of public ownership of public utilities, and I took it that he based his belief upon his experience in the province of Quebec. If I am wrong in that interpretation of his remarks I stand to be corrected; but I would submit that the logic of the inference is decidedly questionable. Granting a break-down in public 'ownership, there are two causes: either the one assigned by the hon. member, or another one which he did not mention, and that is the lack of public spirit and the disposition on the part of those concerned to regard the public service as a happy hunting-ground for private graft. Of course, public ownership of public utilities will fail and must fail if that is the attitude of the individuals who have to do with them. And there is a very different interpretation which may be put upon the facts as submitted yesterday in that connection, an interpretation which, I think, the hon. member would hardly care to impute to his native province. But public ownership of public utilities need
REVISED EDITION!
Supply-Railways

not fail. It has not failed in thousands of cases, and it will not fail, given a reasonable amount of honesty and public spirit. We are not asking for the application of public ownership to our farms and thousands of other businesses. But in connection with natural monopolies, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal, the conditions, I submit, are such as to render public ownership the wise, the prudent and the right policy.
Now, there has no doubt been a great deal of bungling in the past in regard to our railways, and things have reached a pass which is very regrettable. We have to face the conditions, and I just want in conclusion to deal with one suggestion that has been pressed in this House during the past two days as a solution of these difficulties, and that is, the getting rid of our National Railways. Well, who is going to buy them? There is only one concern in Canada that can take the National Railways off our hands, and that is the Canadian Pacific Railway. And if they did, what would be the result? You would have a practical monopoly of all railway transportation in Canada. In that connection I might refer to an article I read in the Grain Growers' Guide a few years ago in which it was stated that 42 men whose names were given, all but three of them residing in the cities of Montreal and Toronto, through interlocking directorates, had what might be described as a strangle hold on nearly all the manufacturing, transportation and financial interests of this country. Now, if the Canadian Pacific Railway were to absorb our National Railway system, and the Bank of Montreal should continue the absorption of our banks, what a huge octopus we should then have controlling the whole transportation and financial machinery of this country. I say, without casting any aspersions on the gentlemen concerned, that such a condition as that is a menace to democracy in this country, even though the parties who constitute such an enormous corporation might be angels. I wish to declare, and lay down as a principle, altogether apart from the character of the people involved, that this is a state of things which we ought not to permit in this country. And it is a condition of affairs that is apparently in anticipation in certain quarters. That is all I have to say in this connection. I wish to endorse the points of view presented by the member for Marquette and the member for North Waterloo.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I merely wish to make a short comment and to ask a question or two. This Government has been in power for four and a half months. On the 8th March we were told in the Speech from the Throne that it was the policy of the Government to co-ordinate the railways, thereby effecting economies; and it was stated that that would be done at an early date. Later, on the 11th of April, this declaration was emphasized in
9 p.m. the very excellent remarks which were made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy). I have been informed upon what I consider reliable authority that the consolidation of the government owned roads would save to this country at least $50,000 a day. My information is that the estimate is even larger. Now, while I am always anxious to be on the safe side, yet if I had the choice of $50,000 a day on one hand, and, on the other, the unknown figure, I would choose the latter, because I am certain that the consolidation of the railways would effect a greater saving than $50,000 a day. That amount in less than twenty days would equal all that was paid during the last fiscal year by way of duty on agricultural implements coming into Canada. In less than twenty days-to make the matter personal-it would pay the indemnities of all the members of this House. In fourteen days it would pay the amount that the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) struck off his estimates and which we wish was still there. There is no doubt that every succeeding sun finds a loss settled upon this country, a loss that cannot be recovered. Nor can we make up at the other end what we are losing now; it is absolutely dead loss.
Now, I think if this were a business proposition it would be tackled iby a board of directors-business men-and some solution would long ago have been arrived at. By the way, I was told-and if it were not for this evidence to the contrary, I would be inclined to believe it-that the Minister of Railways was a strong, silent, business man. If he is not, there ought to be other men in the Cabinet who would take this matter into consideration and decide upon it. I am not one who believes that no one can be got in Canada to take up this important problem and settle it in a business way. I am satisfied that if it were committed to Mr. D. B. Hanna or to Mr. Mitchell, they could help us very much. At all events, there are business men in this country who, if they had to deal with this proposition,

Supply-Railways
would take it in hand at once; they would not permit loss to succeed loss as the days go on. Why, some hon. members of the House have been able to tell the minister how they would effect pronounced economies if they were asked to take the matter in hand. Surely something will be done long before the House prorogues to bring about what is so much desired by everybody. I would ask the minister then, if he ban say that my estimate of the saving which would be effected by the consolidation which he has promised is incorrect. If not correct, can he give me the estimate that he has? Finally, and most important, when is this thing going to be done in a business way?
Mr. KENNEDY Essex: I am not in a position to verify the statement that my hon friend (Mr. Ryckman) has given the committee as to what might be saved in the event of immediate consolidation, nor am I in a position to give, .to a dollar, the saving that would thus be brought about. But I may say that having in view the annual expenditure involved-. which, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said yesterday, amounts to over 8330,000,000-perhaps we are justified in going slowly and carefully, in taking our time to see that the men who are placed in charge of this undertaking are men who will carry it to a successful conclusion. I may say that an example was set in this regard by the government which my hon. friend supported in the last election. They appointed their directors in May, 1921, and in their wisdom they decided to go slowly in the matter of consolidation. I think, perhaps, they were right. So far as the Government is concerned, we are going to bring about coordination as quickly as we can.


Mr. EVANS:: I have listened with some interest to the discussion of this important question. I look upon it as the greatest problem that faces the Government and the people to-day. Our attention is forcibly directed to the deficit we have to face. In order to enable the railways to pay their way, we have repeatedly raised the freight rates-to such an extent, in fact, that it is like the tariff for revenue; the higher the tariff, the less revenue we get. It is evident that the present rates do not permit the commerce of the country to move freely. I do not think there is any need of engaging experts, either from the United States or from Europe, as has been sug-
124i
gested, to tell us how we shall run our roads. But to the casual observer there seem to be several ways in which improvements could be made.
I believe there are many leaks at present, and these are apparent even to those who are not very well acquainted with railway matters. I will mention one or two. One is the expensive duplication of service over the lines in western Canada, and, I think, as well in eastern Canada. For instance, we have two lines west of Saskatoon running so close together for one hundred miles that you could hand a message from one train to the other. As if that incongruity were not complete in itself, express trains on both lines-on the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific,-run the same way at exactly the same time each day; service to the public is not considered at all. That has been going on for several months, and if attention is called to the matter we are told that a change cannot be made.
We have to evolve some method that will give the railway employees the proper viewpoint; that will bring them to realize that they are part owners, with the rest of the people of this country, of our national system. This may apply to the operators, engineers-yes, all the way down, even to the switchmen and sectionmen. Something should be done to give them the idea that the railways belong to them as well as to the rest of the people. It would be interesting to know what loss occurs annually in transit, due to breakages; for I believe that that loss could largely be prevented. I have no doubt the minister will give us that information before the discussion closes. In fact, I have even thought, Sir, that it may become necessary in some way to bonus the railway employees according to the length and quality of their service. Something will have to be done to offset this great waste.
It would be very interesting to know what the travelling expenses of certain officials over these lines are, their purpose in travelling, and whether such travel is really necessary. The hon. member for St. Antoine has said he did not believe in government ownership. Therefore, I take it he is not an unprejudiced observer of the government operation of railways. The fact remains that there is quite a suspicion in these days that those who have had the directing of these railways have not approached their task with a single eye to the successful operation
Supply-Railways

of a government owned and operated system. We must realize that we have these railways on our hands, and although perhaps we do not want them under our ownership all at once, there is nothing for it now but for the Government to make the best of it. At this time we need at the head of the railways men who believe in the system they are trying to run, who believe in government ownership, and have faith in their own ability.
We are always being reminded that the Canadian Pacific is a tremendous success, both as to service and profits. I myself am not so sure of that, in view of what it has cost the Canadian people to establish that great system. I think it is worth while to ask, when considering this question, what we have paid for the Canadian Pacific Railway. No great corporation was formed and built this system for the benefit of the people particularly, but this country has given to that company in money grants, cash subsidies, finished railways and lands, amounting, if we take a fair average valuation of the land, to a gift at the expense of the people of this country of nearly $40,000 for every mile the Canadian Pacific owns and operates to^ day. These figures were staggering to me when I first worked them out. Furthermore, the Canadian Pacific have always been the first to set the cost of service, and they have set it high enough to cover the cost of paying a dividend of 10 per cent yearly, and do some melon-cutting among themselves. In fact, I think some people have come to think that this country was developed for the sake of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But at last even this great company, I think, has come to realize that we have in the National Railways a system that is able to compete with them, and I am glad the minister has given it out as his policy that everything is to be done to give government ownership and operation a chance to succeed.
As far as the West is concerned, I know that the people there are proud of their national system, and that they will cooperate with the minister and with the directors of the road with a view to making this great system a success. But one thing they do ask of the minister and of the management, and that is that to the responsible positions in the system only men who believe in government ownership be appointed.
I think another factor that would help towards making the National Railways pay is a system of feeders. There are

many parts of the West to-day without railways, where settlers who went in many years ago expecting a railway are still without transportation facilities. In the prairie provinces some of these roads were projected and even surveyed while they were still under the control of the provincial governments, but these charters have been allowed to lapse. The Canadian Pacific have surveyed lines and obtained charters in certain parts of the country with the idea, I believe, of heading off the Canadian National system, and the settlers there are still without transportation facilities to market their produce. These charters were allowed to lapse and to-day the Canadian Pacific is seeking for the second time that I know of, to renew them. I hope the management of the Canadian National Railways will see to it that duplication, as far as possible, is eliminated, and that feeders will be built in those districts where they are so much needed at the present time.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is any portion of the item of $1,286,000, for construction, to be used for the purpose of laying rails this summer on completed roadbeds?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.


Robert Gardiner: Is any portion of the item of $4,990,000, for betterments, to be used for that puropse?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.


Robert Gardiner: What does the Government propose to do with regard to the bridge over the Red Deer river from Hanna to Medicine Hat? Is that going to be gone on with this year?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have not the information here, but I shall be glad to get it and give it to my hon. friend at the next meeting of the committee.


Robert Gardiner: I should like to go a little further into this matter. In western Canada at the present time, the Canadian National Railway have built many miles of roadbed on which at present there are no rails. Some of these roadbeds have been built over two years, and they were built for the purpose of giving the settlers in these various districts the accommodation they required. I understand from the minister that it is not the intention of the Government, or, so far as I know, of the railway officials, to lay rails on these roadbeds during this summer. I would point out to the House that at the

Supply-Railways
present time the people who live in these remote districts require transportation facilities. The roadbeds have been built in many places, and all that remains is for the steel to be laid. I think that the policy of keeping these people without transportation facilities, merely for the sake of not spending the money for laying the rails, is a policy that cannot be upheld under any circumstances whatever, and I would submit that the officials who are to be appointed to look after the National Railways should take into consideration this very important question at an early date. These roadbeds are deteriorating all the time, and they might just as well be made use of in order to serve the people in those remote districts. Some two or three days ago I received a letter from a man in the constituency I represent who resides alongside a piece of this completed roadbed on which no steel is laid-it is the Hanna-Medicine Hat branch of the Canadian Northern-and he tells me that no matter what the crop conditions are, there are over two hundred Hollander families who intend to pull out of that district unless the steel is laid there this year. They live right alongside the roadbed, and any one who knows the Hollanders as settlers in western Canada knows that they are perhaps the very best settlers we have. They are industrious and mind their own business. They are good farmers and they make very successful settlers. As I stated in this House two or three evenings ago, we have been spending millions of money to get people into this country and yet here are completed roadbeds of railways without steel on them, although by simply putting the steel on these roads we could attract the needed settlers. I maintain that the matter should be looked into and if possible steel should be laid wherever needed without further delay.


Mr. MILLAR:: I want to ask the Minister of Railways a question. I am not going to speak on this matter, although I would very much like to do so, because in my constituency there is a short railway very similar to the one just spoken of. In this case also the ties are down, the road bed is built, and the people there are very anxious to have the railway completed and operated at once. If the line cannot be completed in any other way the farmers there would like to undertake the work themselves. Now, as to the question I desire to ask. Men who have travelled round the country considerably, and have
had an opportunity of knowing the conditions, tell me they have noticed very careless handling of freight at the freight sheds. During the Easter holidays, to mention a specific case, a man who is a cheese inspector said he was standing at a freight shed and noticed the railway employees turning over a box. He knew what was in the box and the value of its contents, and that it would break if not handled carefully. In a few minutes the box did break and the goods to the value of $12 were utterly destroyed. Folks have told me that they have noticed a great deal of this careless handling and I was just wondering whether the minister could give us any information on the subject. I shall not criticize the department, previous ministers, or anyone else because I realize how difficult it must be to keep tab on men when they are beyond the reach of a foreman, and it is difficult enough when the foreman is standing right over them; but I thought that possibly the minister might have some figures which would give an idea of the extent of the annual loss from this cause. I know the present minister has not been long in office and perhaps it might be difficult for him to give exact details, but even an approximate estimate would serve the purpose.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I feel indebted to the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the committee, a matter which we are all interested in. I have had no report from the railway management in connection with it, or on the subject of breakages particularly, beyond the fact that they state that the breakages on the National Railways are not any more than they are on other lines. Just how much that represents I could not say, but I will bring the statement the hon. gentleman has made to the attention of the management, and I feel perfectly sure they will only be too glad to rectify such conditions if they exist.
Hon. JOHN B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert) :	I doubt the wisdom of offering
any observations owing to the length of time the debate has already lasted and yet, Sir, feeling that in a good many matters that have been discussed I personally differ, in some respects, from what I might call the prevailing opinion I think there is perhaps an obligation on members to express their views. There has not been since this House opened, I think, a better or a more useful debate than the one which
Supply-Railways

is drawing near a close. It has been marked-I think eminently marked-by the avoidance of all semblance of party struggle, or the desire for party advantage. It is right that it should be so. No greater proiblem has ever confronted the people of Canada, and it is doubtful whether any problem, at any rate in our generation, will summon the people of Canada to share a greater burden, or call upon them for greater ico-operation in thought and in action, than this railway problem which faces us at this time. We can do no possible good by delving into the past and suggesting that it was not quite wise to have constructed large stretches of these railways when they were built and with the assistance which they received. All the talking that we can indulge in here will not turn back one page of history, or put back into the public exchequer one dollar that has already gone.
It is no use discussing the question that has been quite largely debated in this House as to whether government operation or private operation is the better. Nothing that we can do at present, so far as I can see, can take from the representatives of this country the Obligation to make the best they can of these roads. We have public ownership. There are some in this Chamber who, like mysellf, despite the majority of voices we have heard in debate, do not believe that public ownership is accompanied by the same economy or the same efficiency as private ownership. I have seen too much of the waste that is incidental to public management to be easily converted, even by a round of speeches, to a belief in the absolute efficiency and economy of public management. There is, I grant, a wave on in Canada, and perhaps all over the continent, at the present time in favour of public administration. It. may be the best thing for our country, but I do not subscribe to the belief that it is the cheapest, the most economical, or necessarily the most efficient system and there is an underlying reason. The private road, or the private utility, or the private company, hires whom it pleases and fires whom it pleases, and does not have to respond to the political dictation of the people whom it employs; and until you can write that out of public ownership you cannot have public ownership as independent and as efficient as private ownership. I do not suppose that I am in very much accord in that belief with many of the members of the group of this House of which I am a member; I do not suppose I am in accord with a single

gentleman who sits to the left of this group; I know I am in accord with some of the gentlemen who sit across the Chamber but not all of them. But it is not necessary, it is not worth while, to pursue this subject because we have public ownership and we are bound to make the best of it; and whether I believe it is the best thing or not it is my duty, if 'I Can help in any way to make that public ownership more popular or make it more efficient, to contribute what I can to that end. Perhaps nothing that I can contribute will be of value; but I have one thought in my mind Which I wish to express before the debate terminates.
You will pardon me a moment longer, Mr. Chairman, but I want to touch as lightly as I may upon some phases of the discussion, and to ask hon. members to consider how they may appear to the country and how they may appear to other members. We have heard-oh, I will not say much-but we have heard some reference in this House to all private enterprises as if there could not he such a thing as a private company unless it was accompanied by stock gambling, stock watering, graft and mismanagement. Now, as a citizen of Canada, I must say that I do not think that is a fair description of the bulk of our industrial enterprises; I would be very sorry to think so. I do think that the attacks largely come from an unconsidered habit of dealing with questions of this character by which people, more for the sake of oratory and more for the sake of inflaming the public mind, launch into a generalized attack upon every form of capital in the country; and I tell you it is absolutely unwise. In the year when we have to carry a debt as great as we are carrying, when we have to face the making up of a deficit as great as the deficit is, and must be on these railways, what we want to create in this country is confidence in its institutions, confidence in the capacity of this Parliament to find a solution of the problem, and confidence in the great industrial enterprises of Canada to see and to fight their way through this difficult period.
It is not the man who indulges in idle and ill-considered criticism who helps to build up the country. I am not an advocate of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I hold no brief for that organization. I do not think I ever received a dollar from them in my life. I do not expect and do not look for it, but in the part of Canada from which I come there is some apprecia-

Supply-Railways
tion of the great value to Canada of the development of that enterprise which has put Canada on the map of the world. I understand-and I think I am not wrong -that the Canadian Pacific has not been a company of watered stock. It got help, and not large help as we have measured later day subsidies, to put the line of steel across the continent; and in spite of much discouragement and many difficulties it did it. The Canadian Pacific Railway was the work of great master builders of empires, ruthless, possibly, at times, but valiant men, who saw their work and carried it through courageously. It is a work of which Canada may be proud. I know that in the East it does, at least, help one part of Canada, and help it magnificently, by simply doing the work for which it was created, and keeping the Canadian trade within Canadian channels. We can thank that railway for building up, at least, one of the ports within Canada, a doctrine which does not seem to have found very ready acceptance by some hon. members within the Chamber this session, but which I believe, after all, is the real aim of true Canadians who have vision enough to frame a policy for the whole of Canada and not for a section.
I trust that in whatever the minister does there will be no divorce, either by the Senate or by the House of Commons, of the Intercolonial Railway from the whole system of Government railways. Some people may take a partial view of it. The real future of the east is not in separation, but in greater and closer union. The same thing is true of the rest of Canada, and I hope that fact will be realized throughout Canada from end to end. Do not cut us off from the general system. We in the maritime provinces, in Halifax and St. John, give you your winter ports. You can find your summer ports on the Atlantic borders of this country as well. Keep us united with the railway system. Have the whole thing managed by the best brains that can be obtained, but let it be managed as a unit, and not as several distinct organizations, which will or may injure one another. At the same time give us a fair, reasonable and proper share of home rule. Let us have the administration within regions, by which the people in those regions can get more closely in contact with those who can feel the pulse of the business in the community, and shape the" course of the railway, so as to bring about the best development in each locality. I am not asking more special privileges but simply what every man asks
for, the opportunity of being easily heard, and of having just claims considered without delay, and without too much distance intervening. It was the policy of the late government to have-I will not say insisted-suggested or supported the idea that I believe took shape with the board of management of the railways to divide these railways into groups, or regional sections, where there would be an authority subject to the centre, and yet each authority would be supreme within the region. I believe, from remarks which have been made, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) does not intend to depart from that principle. I trust he will not, and in the constituency where my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) finds a very powerful vote in his support, I think the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) may advise that the centre of a very great region may be located.
I listened with great attention and much pleasure to the discussion of this matter by the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). To my mind, he advanced principally two matters for consideration. First he was in agreement with us in the maritime provinces as to the question of regional administration, but he advanced another proposition. He thought that writing off charges against the railway, the funded debt, would give some assistance. I entirely concur with the statement of the hon. member from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that that is simply a question of book-keeping and does not touch the crux of the matter at all. We could get no possible relief from that. I am heartily in accord with my hon. friend from Marquette, when he suggests the colonization of this country along the line of railway. That is a good idea and I trust the Government will make every effort to give us colonization with the right kind of people.
I need not dilate further upon that matter, but I would like to remark that down to the present hour, with the exception of something that -fcras stated a few minutes ago, by, I think, the hon. member from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) there has not been a hint, a whisper or a suggestion of anything that may be done to ease this problem, or to cut down the tens of millions of dollars of annual deficit. This is not a case where, by merely looking for some petty economy in the running of a private car or something of that kind, we are going to solve the problem. We have to go into bigger matters than that, and I think the member for Saskatoon came pretty near
Supply-Railways

the idea which I had in mind. Perhaps the idea is worth nothing, but I have confidence that, at least, there is the germ of a policy in it, and, therefore, I desire to present it to the House to-night.
In thinking over the problem I have been much impressed by a remark that was made, either by a gentleman in authority on the National Railways or someone on his behalf, perhaps a year ago, to the effect that the government railways were getting in a position to give the Canadian Pacific Railway a little healthy competition. I can understand a great many people in Canada applauding that remark, and thinking that a new and bright era was going to dawn for Canada, or their particular part of Canada, but, unfortunately, I do not construe that remark in that way. What does a little healthy competition mean when you get down to actual work and to dollars and cents? Commercial competition is commercial war, and commercial war is just as destructive of capital and resources as a war between nations. It may be less destructive in degree, but it is in the same character. What we want is not, I submit, the rivalry of two systems, each fighting the other, each trying to undercut and dislodge the other. What we want is harmonious cooperation between the two great systems for the purpose of giving the people, not the service that the people want-I am not going to use that phrase; I will be a little more careful of my language because I want to speak with a sense of responsibility-not the service the people want, but the service that this country can afford to give them, and that the people can pay for, not a service represented by a deficit, but a service which will produce a return sufficient to meet its cost. You cannot violate that principle without making the condition worse. What do we have? The hon. member for Saskatoon referred to parallelling conditions in the west and he spoke with knowledge and authority. I cannot follow him as to the geography of those roads; but I can invite the attention of this committee to something that, to my mind, is typical of general conditions and will illustrate the idea that I desire to submit for the consideration, not only of the minister, but of the committee as a whole. Travel, if you will, from Ottawa to Montreal; you can do it [DOT]by three separate lines.


An hon. MEMBER:: Four.


Mr. BAXTER:: Four if you like. These lines, I will grant you, serve different terri-

tory. Two of them are Canadian Pacific lines, one is a Grand Trunk line, and the other a Canadian National. The Canadian Pacific line that terminates in Place Viger station does not provide a rapid train; the Canadian National provides a train that might be classed as fairly rapid, a good through train with all the appointments; the Canadian Pacific short line does the same, and the Grand Trunk does the same.
I shall not advocate that anybody living on those routes shall be cut off from the world by the stopping of an entire line of railway; but I say that, if there were just plain, ordinary horse sense in the management of this business, the heads of the Canadian Pacific and the heads of the Canadian National would have talked together and would have arranged for one fast train to bring people who are in a hurry from Montreal to Ottawa or to take them back, instead of triplicating the fast trains. Accommodation trains would be run for the slower local service on each road, because you cannot get away from that without abandoning a road. That is only typical of conditions prevailing in many parts of the country. Hon. members will, perhaps, appreciate why I have asked this committee not to adopt the rather haughty language that impeaches the Canadian Pacific as if that company were a criminal standing at the bar of this House. That, in my judgment, is not the proper attitude to take.
In the army they have what is called a liaison officer, and what we want is something like a liaison committee. The Canadian Pacific will appoint from its directorate or its passenger or freight traffic experts a few men; the Canadian National will do the same, so that they will have equal numbers on such a committee or board or whatever you like to call it. They will bring expert knowledge to bear; they will confer about just such things as I am speaking of in relation to passenger business, and about things that I know nothing of in relation to freight business. The problem will be to advise each railway what can be cut out, what expense can be reduced and how much useful service can still be given to the public without duplication. I think that is the right spirit in which we should proceed. I admit I am not making a suggestion that is going to wipe out the deficit or anything of that kind; but having the idea that co-operation, ordinary conversation, ordinary meeting together to discuss these matters would be of value, I thought I would

Supply-Railways
19G9
take the opportunity of suggesting it to the minister and to the committee on this occasion as one slight contribution towards solving the railway problem.
Other hon. members may have better and more potent ideas than mine; but let us not rehash the question how this difficulty came about; let us make suggestions that will be helpful for the board, and that will cut down to some extent the tens of millions of dollars that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has to find, not for stock-watering, not for capitalists, but to provide for the people of Canada a service at just that much less than cost. If hon. members will visualise the matter in this way; if this country has to raise forty orfifty million dollars to pay the deficit, that money is not going to some bloated bondholder; it is going to give people freight rates lower than they ought to have, passenger rates lower than they ought to have. Until you face the problem in that way and also face the cost of providing the service-I say this in the widest sense-cut where cutting can be done, and get the people paying the cost of the service, a certain class of people are taking something out of the country every year instead of putting something into its exchequer. I cannot see the problem in any other way. The question is a simple one of arithmetic; it is also a question of principle. It is a question of policy, not great policy, not great strategy; it is simply the old homely idea of a man keeping within his income and, if he cannot do that, of finding means by which he will work harder and increase his income so as to catch up with the expenditures which he thinks are necessary.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We have had two days of very useful and instructive debate, and as regards the Government and the Minister of Railways, I am sure the ideas that have been expressed will all be given due consideration. The fact, however, remains that we have not as yet passed a single item. We have three items, one after the other, that all practically pertain to the matter under discussion. The suggestion which I would make to the committee is that we pass these items and then go on to the next; and at any time while the debate is in progress, or the committee is sitting on the estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals, members of the committee will have an opportunity of discussing the matter again if they see fit.


John Alexander Stewart: Those are
the items under which the general discussion of the question most properly comes, and as many members are absent from the House to-night, I should like to have the assurance' of the minister that, upon the other items in the estimates, a general discussion of the railway question will be permitted. If that is done, I see no objection upon our part to the three items going through. I understand that the two items that follow this and that provide for the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, have been passed upon by the board and have been approved. In view of that, I have no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Amount not exceeding $25,750,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, or any company comprised in the Grand Trunk Railway system or any one or more of them (excluding herefrom however expenditures or indebtedness incurred by or on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company except as specifically provided in item (g) hereof) on any of the following accounts: (a) Operating deficits, (b) Acquisition of property, materials and supplies, (c) Interest and sinking funds on notes, securities or obligations. (d) Principal and interest of maturing or matured loans secured or unsecured. (e) Construction and betterments. (f) Co-ordination or consolidation of railway lines and facilities, (g) Guarantees by the said Grand Trunk Railway Company of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time, in the discretion of the Governor in Council, by way of loans in cash or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other. If by way of loans, the amount or amounts advanced shall be repayable on demand', with interest at the rate fixed by the Governor in Council, payable half-yearly, secured by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the Governor in Council may approve. If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be of the principal and interest of the notes and obligations or securities of -one or more of the said companies specified by the Governor in Council, and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto, $25,750,000.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount not exceeding $15,900,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or any Company comprised in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system or any one or more .of them (excluding herefrom however guaran-
Supply-Railways
[Stage Direction]
tees by the Grand Trunk Railway Company which are provided for in item (g) of the next preceding item) on any of the following accounts: (a) Operating deficits. (b) Acquisition of property, materials and supplies. (c) Interest and sinking funds on notes, securities or obligations. (id) Principal and interest of maturing or matured loans secured or unsecured. (e) Construction and betterments, (f) Co-ordination or consolidation of railway lines and facilities. The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time, in the discretion of the Governor in Council, by way of loans in cash or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other. If by way of loans, the amount or amounts advanced shall be repayable on demand, with interest at the cate fixed by the Governor in Council, payable naif-yearly, secured by mortgage or mortgages upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the Governor in Council may approve. If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be of the principal and interest of the notes and obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the Governor in Council, and may be signed by the Minister of Finance, on behalf' of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto, $15,900,000.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay Railway-Port Nelson Terminals -$40,000.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: While I am only too anxious to see the committee proceed, and to assist the minister in getting his estimates passed, I would ask that this item stand, because there are a great many members in this party who would like to speak on this resolution and who are not in the House to-night.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I had in mind the fact that many hon. members desire to discuss the Hudson Bay Railway question, and I have therefore, in accordance with the request of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart), reserved item 350, "Canadian Government Railways," on page 65 of the Estimates, for the purpose of allowing the discussion of the Hudson Bay or any other government railway.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps it would be
better to let the item stand. Speaking for myself and, I think, for the general locality from which I come, we do not
10 p.m. see any reason for spending even $40,000 on this particular railway at the present time, in view of the fact that we have a National Railway equipped to do the work. Why is it needed to spend this money this year?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If hon. members insist I shall be glad to let the item stand. I may explain, however, that this $40,000 is to take care of goods and chattels at Port Nelson belonging to the government.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Does it represent new
construction in any way?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then I will not object.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING:: The Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) was to have taken up his estimates. He is not here, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) will proceed.

Labour-Unemployment relief, $100,000.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) :: When we came to this item some weeks ago the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) requested, because of the lateness of the hour, consideration of it be deferred for a while. I do not know whether he still desires to discuss the matter.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Perhaps the minister
could take up another item. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is anxious to discuss this item but he is not present.
Item stands.
Miscellaneous-Printing Bureau-Plant, repairs and renewals, $30,000.


John Frederick Johnston: How is the increase of $10,000 accounted for?


James Murdock: It is to provide for one monotype and two monotype casting machines. This is additional equipment for the purpose of reducing the overtime period.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing Bureau-plant, new, $67,100.
John Alexander Stewart: What is the explanation of the large increase in this item?


James Murdock: I think I unintentionally gave my hon. friend, on the last item, some information that was not entirely accurate; so I will just read the estimated plant requirements for the Printing Bureau for the fiscal year 1922-23.

Supply-Labour
Composition
Hand-
No. 1 item-Two N<o. 2 size proof
presses at $565	$ 1,130
This is an addition to plan/t.
No. 2 item-One No. 1 size proof
press	 150
This replaces an old Washington proof press.
No. 5 item-Two new fonts of wood
[DOT]type and four refills	 90
This is an addition and also replenishing defective wood type fonits used in poster printing.
No. 6 item-6,100 .pieces of metal
furniture	 100
This is additional working material.
No. 7 item-12 Monotype sort cabinets	 1,200
This is an addition for storing and constant use of type matrices fonts.
Monotype-
No. 3 item-Two Monotype caster
machines, complete	 10,000
This is additional equipment to reduce overtime period.
No. 8 item-One set each of sizes Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of six point No.
347J, 8 set, matrices for Monotype
Caster machines	 115
This is additional equipment.
Linotype-
No. 4 item-New dress of matrices for present equipment of twenty
Linotype machines	 12.000
This wiill duplicate the most frequently used Monotype size and faces of type and enable work to be performed simultaneously or singly by either process of composition.

Bindery
No. 1 item-One 12-in. by 16-tin. ten-box standard mechanical gathering
or collating machine	 $ 6,000
No. 2 item-One mechanical side wire-stitching machine for lj-dn. book thickness and 3-wire stitch
maximum	 3,850
No. 3 item-One mechanical, continuous covering machine for 12-in by 16-in. maximum book size. . . .	9,350
These three machines are to be linked up as one machine and handle all operations in one continuous control and output or may be used separately or in varying tandem combination.
With t>he addition of "Item No.
4," they will replace 13 individual machines now in use.
No. 4 item-One mechanical saddlestitching machine, full equipment. 3,792

Or edit
Sale of-2 old, single-covering
machines at $500	$1,000
Sale of-10 individual Latham
Stitchers	1.311
One obsolete harudgathering wheel-no value	

	2,311

Then, there are various items of requirements in each press room and in the chief mechanic's division, together with general plant repairs and renewals.


Mr. JOHNSON (Last Mountain) :: The minister spoke of certain machines having been sold. Can he inform me whether they were sold by private sale or by public auction, or otherwise?


James Murdock: I am glad my hon. friend asked me that, because I am not entirely clear on it myself. I will have to get the information for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-distribution of parliamentary
documents and other government publications, $40,900.
John Frederick Johnston: I am convinced that many tons of this mat-
Supply-Labour

ter are sent broadcast throughout the country with no resulting benefit. I know that I myself get much of it, and I have heard other members refer to the matter. I would suggest that questionnaires be sent out before this material is sent broadcast throughout the country, asking the people to whom it is proposed to send the material to state whether or not they wish to obtain it. There is no use sending it out at a great expense if it is not used.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation-general-[DOT]
Printing, printing paper, and binding. .$125,000 Printing, binding and distributing the
annual statutes	 16,000
James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister intend to do more printing this year than last?


James Murdock: From the 1st of April, 1921, as per Order in Council 1940, dated August 18, 1920, all requisitions for the printing of annual reports are charged directly against the department concerned, instead of against the general vote. There has -been a change made in the manner of charging these items up as compared with former years.


James Dew Chaplin: My remark was based upon the fact that paper is a good deal less in price than it was a year ago, and it seems to me the item might reasonably be reduced.


Hugh Guthrie: With respect to the item for printing, binding and distributing annual statutes, heretofore that work has been done under the Department of Justice. I understood from remarks which fell from the Speaker a few nights ago that it would be continued to be charged against the Justice Department. Can the minister tell me why it now appears under the Department of Labour?


James Murdock: My hon. friend will understand that this item does not concern the Department of Labour particularly. The estimate is in exactly the same position as formerly except that the Printing Bureau was under the authority of the Secretary of State until some time last summer, and is now under the Department of Labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Naval service,-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $1,500,00b.
Hugh Guthrie: I would rather the minister would take up his militia estimates. The leader of the Opposition has something to say with regard to the naval estimates, and he cannot be here for some little time yet.
Ml'. CHURCH: When will the naval estimates come up?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The item has been
called but my hon. friend from South Wellington asks that we take up the militia instead.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Church), the hon. member for East Hamilton, (Mr. Mewburn), and the hon. member for Kingston, (Mr. Ross) wish to speak on the naval service estimates, and they will be obliged if the minister would not take them up before Monday, as they cannot be here to-morrow.


George Perry Graham: We will take the naval service estimates on Monday.
Item stands.


MILITIA AND DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Militia and Defence-cadet services, $450,000.
George Perry Graham: In fairness to the committee I must say that the last time the militia estimates were up I said I would make certain reductions. I have an amendment here, but according to the ruling of the Chair, I cannot move it myself.


James Murdock: I move that the item of $450,000 for cadet services be reduced by the amount of $100,000.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps the minister
would explain what he proposes to do with the cadet services, with this $100,000 reduction.


George Perry Graham: I am at a loss for details because my deputy is not here, but in short I understand that it will mean doing away with the boys' camps this summer. I think the boys will bear with me for this season and shoulder their share of the sacrifice we are making in these estimates. The other boys' training can go on in the institutions as formerly, but there will not be any oamps this summer. I want to tell the committee that I am doing that for this year, and that is as far as any pledges will go, because if

Supply-Militia
the public understood this work, I am sure they would appreciate its great value. The number of cadets is increasing very greatly every year. This year we have a great many more than were ever enrolled before. To give the committee an idea of the work that is being done, I may say that the cadet training is carried out during the whole school year and includes instruction in signalling, first aid to the injured, physical exercise, organized games, elementary military drill, scouting and rifle shooting. Last year the cadet camps were of six days' duration, advance instruction being given in all the subjects I have enumerated. To show how the work is expanding I will read the following statement:
Enrolled Strength
Province	April 30,
1922.
Nova Scotia	 3,634
Prince Edward Island	 735
New Brunswick	 1,6'0'3
Quebec	42,0*81
Ontario	 29,573
Manitoba	 9,803
Saskatchewan	 5,004
Alberta	 5,3<30
British Columbia	 5,303


Mr. CHURCH:: I regret very much to hear of the action the minister has taken with respect to the cadets. I think it is the blackest eye the militia of Canada has ever received to cut out the cadet camps held at Niagara, Barriefield, London and other places. The cadets were brought to these camps from the public, separate and the high schools all over the province and received a good training there. I do not know of any money appropriated by Parliament which has been spent to better advantage by the government than the money spent on the cadet service. The training the boys receive at these camps, instils patriotism into them; it is an education in itself, and furthermore I look on it as a work of religion. These children, after spending ten months of the year in their schools, are brought to the camps and remain there for a week or ten days. During that time they are given physical drill, camp life and a little military drill. They are also taught to be men, and they learn patriotism.
I look upon this item, out of the whole of the militia estimates, as one which should never have been interfered with. If there was one item which should have been left untouched by the Government it is the vote for the cadet service because the cadets to-day are the backbone of our militia. A cadet of fifteen or sixteen today is the volunteer later; nobody knows that better than the officers of our militia battalions. I saw the twelfth York battalion enter camp, along with others last summer, and many were cadets of seventeen and eighteen years of age. You are going to disorganize the whole militia if you wipe out this item. You are going in opposition to the popular demand, because there is a demand for cadet camps in Canj ada.
An organization has been formed in the city of Toronto (palled the Sportsmen's Patriotic Association and the Ontario Athletic Commission and it has already spent a great deal of money, preparing pupils of the public, separate and high schools for these camps this summer. The president is Mr. P. J. Mulqueen who is giving his services for nothing. Camps were to be held at Niagara, Barriefield, London other places. They have been preparing all winter for these camps where training will be given which will make good citizens of the boys of Ontario. The Association pro-* vide instructors who visit the public, separate and high schools one day a week during the winter months and teach the boys physical drill and games and give them other training and when the summer comes they will be ready to go to the cadet camps.
This is not militarism at all; it is building up Canadian youth. We are spending immense sums to aid the live stock industry. The city of Toronto itself has erected a building with this object in view at the cost of a million dollars. Such expenditures as these are all right in their way;^ but my complaint is that not enough iS being done by the Militia Department re cadet camps or by the Department of Health to develop the rising generation. The boy of to-day is the citizen of to-morrow. I am sorry that this Parliament is not spending even a five cent piece for the development of our youth. It can vote millions for railways but for building up character in Canada we have not a cent. The time is close at hand when the children from these schools should be aided to take the training I have mentioned, but how is it to be carried out if this vote is cut or disappears altogether? When I was at the Niagara camp last year I saw from seven to nine thousand children of all denominations, many of whom had come from the poorest slums of the cities and towns. Some of them were underfed. They went over on the Cayuga, the Corona, and other boats; and one boat came from Hamilton, General Mewburn's constituency.
Supply-Militia

The training the children receive at camps like that is of great advantage to them, and I am sorry to hear the minister get up at this late date and again change his estimates. If there is one minister whose estimates I would like to see go through more quickly than those of any other member of the Government it is the Minister of Militia. I have known him all my life; he is a good sportsman. The other day he came down and changed his estimates with respect to other services; and now he wants to make more changes and to cut out the vote for the cadet service. A night or two ago a sum of $25,000 was voted in aid of the Boy Scouts. It was money well spent; but I would like to see the minister do something for these cadet camps. If the work of these camps is stopped it will mean that the rising generation who come from places where the conditions are not good for physical development will suffer and have no recreation. Look at what has been done by the federal authorities in Washington, and by many of the state governments; they have multiplied by four or five their votes for the cadet services. In the parliament of the Australian Commonwealth an increased appropriation was introduced to provide for physical drill for the children, which the Minister of Defence declared he would never consent to cut off.
All this talk about militarism in this connection is futile. Not five per cent of the time in camp has been spent on military drill; games and physical recreation and sports of various kinds have been indulged in and the lads taught how to obey orders. I think that is something that is needed these days. The city from which I came is spending $11,000,000 in education this year, not omitting physical training. In the University of Toronto they are going to insist on physical drill. I hope the vote for this purpose will not be reduced or cut down. If it is it will mean that not only boys in Toronto, but boys in Aurora and other Ontario towns, will not be able to get to Niagara camp; the farm lads will suffer as well as. the city children. Why, children attended the Niagara camp from such long distances as New Ontario. One company of fifty boys came from Copper Cliff; they had never been much out of their own town before. At Niagara they mixed with boys from old Ontario, with mutually advantageous results. The education they receive there is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the government. I hope the

minister will re-consider his decision to reduce this vote. You cannot provide meals in camp for forty cents; at Niagara camp it costs sixty cents to properly feed the children. There are many other expenditures I would prefer to see reduced, or cut off altogether rather than the expenditure for this purpose which is going to build up character and stimulate patriotism in the children of Canada.
Many of the children who attend the Niagara camp are the sons of returned veterans. These men cannot afford to send their sons to play in the country and this camp has been a blessing to them. It has 'been a blessing to St. Catharines, Aurora, Newmarket, Copper Cliff and all the other cities and towns. I have letters from people in those districts asking me to do what I could. I urge the government to reconsider this item and give the public and separate school children a chance. Little enough money is being spent on the children. A dollar spent on the children will save later thousands of dollars in doctor bills, houses of correction, gaol farms and other institutions. By saving the rising generation and making good citizens of them, we are doing a great deal for the country. This is not a military work which the Militia Department has been doing; I look on it as a matter of religion. I hope the minister will reconsider the item. He has been a good friend of the Children. The cadets in Hamilton have been training for months and their teachers are working for nothing after -hours drilling them. The physical drill is far from military. Every university in Canada is going to insist on it. The largest universities in the States are insisting on physical exercises and participation in them by all the years in the university. The cadet movement is here to stay. This training is made compulsory in Australia and New Zealand. It is carried on in Great Britain, the United States and all over the world. I consider it one of the best works the government has undertaken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to join with the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) in urging anything that will extend physical training among the boys and girls of this Country. I also sympathize with any movement in the direction of giving an impetus to athletics, but I want to decidedly protest against any expenditure which will tend to develop the military spirit among the boys of this country, and this cadet training, though

Supply-Militia
it may be camouflaged1 as physical training, has as its object essentially the development of what has been called patriotism, but which, in the mouth of its exponents, is another word for militarism. I have before me a letter which was sent me by the mother of one of these boys who had been receiving this cadet training. He took his course during his high school work. The mother was under the impression that he was getting good physical training, that his character was being developed, and so on, but she learned immediately the boy was through his course that every effort was made to get him to join the local battalion. The letter reads:
Cambie St., Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Sir-I am writing you a personal appeal because I have watched with interest the cadet and physical training at the different schools in Vancouver.
You have now reached an age when you are to take your place as a citizen in this great new country of ours, of which there is none that can boast greater freedom or liberty for its citizens. As a unit in the British Empire it shares, not only the glories and liberties won in the past by our forefathers, but also shares in the glories of its history and its arms won in all countries of the globe, its literature and its commerce.
Have you ever stopped to think what you as a citizen will owe to this great country? You have been taught to sing "O, Canada," "The Maple Leaf," to swell with pride at tales of prowess, of the deeds of your forefathers, not only in the wars of Canada, but also in the wars in other parts of the world; of the part we played as Canadians in the Great War, and no doubt felt that, if need be, you would lay down your life for your country. But would not that be a silly sacrifice if in so doing you acomplished nothing. You know what happens to the boxer who goes into the ring without training; to the boy who, however plucky he may be, does not know how to defend himself. It is the same with nations; if one nation is indolent in preparing for its defence, and if it possesses, something that other nations covet, sooner or later it will have to defend its possessions. The surest way to prevent war is to be prepared for war.
The circular winds up by urging that this boy and others should arrange to join the 29th battalion of the 1st B.C. regiment. The letter is signed by H. S. Tobin, Lt. Col. Commanding 29th (Vancouver) Battalion, 1st B. C. Regiment.
It becomes very apparent from such a letter as that, and from other activities which we know are going on, that there is a distinct inducement held out to these cadets to enter upon a military career. There is more than that on the part if the officers who are training them; there is a distinct effort to build up the military spirit. I can quite appreciate that these officers are honest in that effort. I think
that they quite believe that that is what should be done, in order to carry out the patriotism which we all owe to our country, but I submit, Mr. Chairman, that those of us who do not believe in that have a right to help decide what the policy of this country is going to be. If we decide on a military policy, undoubtedly it for the experts to determine how that can best be carried out, but we stand at the point where we must decide the fundamental questions as to what the policy of the country is really going to be. If it is true, as this military officer says, that the surest way to prevent war is to prepare for war, by all means let us go ahead and train our boys. Let us proceed to carry out this idea with all the military expenditure that we can possibly afford. But some of us challenge that statement and that policy. We were told some years ago that if we went into this last war it would be an end to all wars. I say that those who made that statement have absolutely deceived us; they have proved that they were false prophets and that they did not know what they were talking about. We listened to them and went into the war. Do we find that the war has ended wars? Now, we are told by some of the self-same gentlemen-at least by those who advocate the self-same policy- that we have to be prepared for an even greater European war than that through which we have just passed. We gave of our best, and I, for one, have every respect for the men who joined the colours, because they believed they were doing their duty. I think that when these men come back they should receive the very best this country has. We asked them to go and risk their lives, and many of them laid down their lives. Those that come back and the dependents of those who did not come back should receive the best. But that consideration does not make me believe that we should prepare to follow along lines of public policy which in the past have proved to be so disastrous. Never was there a better opportunity on such a world-wide scale for demonstrating the advantages of war; and never was there a greater failure in the history of the whole human race. If ever we had a demonstration of the futility of war we had it in this Great War. And now, notwithstanding that demonstration, we are trying to inculcate these self-same ideas of militarism in our children.
A little over a year ago the cadets of Vancouver city were reviewed in the King
Supply-Militia

Edward High School by a brigadier gen-' eral. In encouraging the boys, he referred to the splendid showing which they had made as a result of their training, and he made this statement: "That nation whose boys can think clearly and can shoot straight is the nation that will be able to impose its will on other nations." That teaching is what we have ordinarily termed Prussianism-Prussianism pure and simple, and Prussianism does not look any more attractive to me in a British uniform than it does in a German uniform. We have complained again and again that, during the last few decades, the Germans have inculcated this military spirit in the minds of their young people; that they have introduced this teaching into their colleges, and that the whole of Germany was simply permeated by the military spirit. I have seen myself, in some of the universities in Germany, the result of that spirit, where those young college fellows dared not refuse to accept a challenge to a duel, and I have watched these student duels, as with a great deal of nerve, each man makes a thrust at the other fellow, all this being done to encourage the military spirit. I remember one of these students saying to me some years ago: "Oh, you Britishers; you have lost your old military spirit, your old military prowess; away back in the time of Shakespeare, you were a nation with noble ideals; to-day you are a nation of shopkeepers; you have lost the military spirit." That was the German idea of the situation, but we sit here tonight and listen to an hon. gentleman rejoice in the fact that we, in this day, in our universities are adopting the policy that Germany adopted thirty or forty years ago. I do not decry physical training in our universities; I am glad of it. I do not decry athletics in our universities. A few years ago I rejoiced to take my share in the athletics of my university. We do not want however to introduce military training into our universities, and we do not want to militarise the Canadian people.
It has been said that we want our boys to grow up to be manly boys. I have a boy of fourteen years of age taking his training in the high school, and my boy to-day is% practically penalised because I refused to allow him to take cadet training. I did so, not because I did not want my boy to grow up to be strong, to participate in athletics and all the rest of it; but I refused absolutely to allow him to he placed under those conditions in which he would be likely 'o develop anything of a military spirit,
[Mr. Woodsworth.T
because I believe that militarism to-day is bankrupt and has demonstrated its bankruptcy. Somebody might say that this was merely a personal opinion of mine; but I want to repeat what I said here the other evening, that, in speaking along these lines, I am speaking, not merely for myself, but, I think, for a considerable group of the labour men whom I know very intimately from Fort William to the Pacific coast. I think I have a right to speak for a large number of labour people, as I have received again and again communications from all parts of this country endorsing this position. I have an undoubted right to speak for my own constituency where this was one of the questions that we took up very definitely in the election campaign, where I received the fullest endorsation with regard to my position on military training in the schools and where we have discussed out this question in our municipal as well as in the federal and provincial campaigns. Under such circumstances, we have a right, in the consideration of these items, to consider frankly whether or not we wish, in the future, to continue to carry out a policy which must lead us into the same troubles into which militarism has led the race from the earliest times which history records.
Some hon. members will say: "What else is there ahead"? I submit that we might very well make some peace expenditures that would do a great deal more good than these war expenditures. This is not the time to suggest these things to the House; but I for one believe that if this Parliament voted a few of the millions that it is spending on military estimates, to feed the starving children of Russia, it would be an expenditure which would go a long way to cement international friendship. Other things that we could do could readily be mentioned. Why should we constantly think there is no other way in which we can spend our money for defence purposes than by maintaining a military force? We shall have a cessation of wars so soon as we remove the economic causes which are producing wars, and as soon as we remove those other causes which prejudice one nation against another. I should like to express in this House the hope-again if you like since other opinions have been expressed here again and again-that we, in this young Canada of ours where we have no enemy at our gates, would take the lead in working out some of these principles of good fellowship. I for one rejoice because of having come of parents and

Supply-Militia
grandparents who have been born in Canada, and this is my idea of patriotism. I think we are able to take the lead because of our connection with the great British Empire. I for one do not want to avoid any obligation that arises because of our connection with the British Empire; but we can fulfil our obligations in other than military fashion. There is, on the one hand, the tie that we have with Great Britain, and, on the other, the close connection that we have with the people of the United States to the south of us. We stand, it seems to me, in a unique position to foster those newer ideals, in which alone we believe the safety of the world consists. Within the last few days, it has been stated on the floor of this House that troubles are looming up in Europe to-day. Are we going to be drawn into this maelstrom of European troubles? Rather than that, I would say that we Canadians would have to stand here if needs be by ourselves to uphold the principles of peace. America has been separated more or less by the oceans from the old world. In the last few years we have seen the suicidal policies of Europe. Unless we are careful, those yellow races about which we talked a few days ago, are going to witness, as one of the great Counts of Japan said, the suicide of European peoples and the end of European civilization.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, carried, if you like. I have just about finished my remarks. I will vote for the amendment because it is a little better than the original estimate. We believe in taking small mercies. These things that I have been saying are things that, whether we like to hear them in this House or not, are things that are being talked and thought about by the ordinary people of this country from one coast to the other, and we in this House would be well advised if we endeavoured to keep a little more closely in touch with the current thought of the common people who suffered most in the last war.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want to delay the passage of this item, but I desire to add my protest to that of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) against the suggestion that this vote for cadet purposes should be reduced by the substantial sum of $100,000. We are, of course, all aware that the minister has committed himself, since he brought his estimates to Parliament, to a substantial all-round reduction.
All I propose to do is to protest against the reduction of this item. As I read down the estimates of the Militia Department I see several places where reductions might possibly be made which would cause less inconvenience and loss to the militia of Canada than would the reduction which is now proposed in regard to the cadet service in this country.


Lucien Cannon: What items do you refer
to?


Hugh Guthrie: Wait until we come to them; I will explain then. The cadet service has not heretofore been looked upon as purely military service at all. It has been considered in this country, and I think in other countries as well, more in the nature of athletic development than as military training; and I am sure that in the future, as in the past, the Government will continue the service with that end in view.


Mr. POWER:: Why not buy some hockey sticks?


Hugh Guthrie: This training has been regarded as the very best athletic development, being given under a system of military discipline. Military discipline and military training lend themselves with great advantage to physical development, and the best physical development that is given, whether in boys' or girls' schools, follows generally along the lines of military training. But that does not make it military training at all; it still retains the essence of physical development. And physical training is what is chiefly sought by the vote now under consideration. The expenditure is not a large one. Indeed, $450,000 for the development of the young men of this country is a very infinitesimal sum. Could we employ the money better in any other avenue of expenditure which we have in the Dominion at the present time? Last year's estimate of $450,000 provided for an annual camp for 8,000 cadets. That camp, it was estimated, would cost about $125,000. I assume that the estimate, when first brought down to Parliament at $450,000 all told, had in view the expenditure of about $125,000 on this annual training which is given to the boys in Canada. Now, it certainly is a splendid outing for them; it is a good holiday; it is a camp under strict supervision, where not only the physical condition of the boys, but their moral welfare as well is looked after. The moral conditions and the living conditions generally that obtain in these camps are of the highest standard. That $125,000 is money

Supply-Militia

as well spent as any we have expended in the Dominion, and I think that the minister should strain a point to rearrange these reductions, if he is bound to reduce, so that $125,000 may he spent on the boys in the annual summer camps. I think the camps are now held pretty generally throughout Canada. At all events, they were last year. It is not a movement confined to one province; it is now developed in all provinces, I believe, and it is growing with great rapidity. It is supported, I think, by the best elements in the community, by the best educationalists in Canada, by the various churches, without regard to denomination; and it is endorsed by leading medical and commercial men, as well as by agricultural people throughout
11 p.m. Canada. Here is an opportunity for the minister to recast his estimates. He can do a greater service by allowing these boys to go through the annual camp than by cutting this item by $100,000 as proposed. I do not want to delay the item at all; I want the House to deal with it as speedily as possible. But I certainly want to make my protest and to suggest that the minister recast his estimates and save the situation.


Mr. McBRIDE:: There is one point I
want to make clear. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) seems to convey the impression that he represents Labour. I might say that when I was nominated the Labour candidate did me the honour to withdraw, and I got 95 per cent of the Labour vote in the district I represent. I have always supported the cadet movement and the militia, and will continue to do so. In fact, I should consider myself a traitor to the people I represent if I did not, and I am sorry to see this amount cut down. These boys should get the training to which they are justly entitled. I regret also that the militia training item is reduced, and I am more than sorry that there is not more money in the estimate for the navy. I do not believe in training our young people for the purpose of offensive, but I do believe in training them so that they may be able to defend themselves if ever the time comes they are called upon to do so.


George Perry Graham: There is no better friend to the cadet movement in Canada than I, myself. I have always been their friend, as a private citizen as well as throughout my public career. But we are asking the militia and everybody else this year to

make some sacrifice, and I do not believe that the boys will be any the worse off for feeling that they too are doing their share. One year is as far as I can make any pledge, because I fully agree that the training of the cadets, apart from any military idea at all, lays the foundation for the physical and mental manhood of the Dominion. The only thing that will be reduced is the expenditure in connection with the annual camps. The other training the boys receive in the collegiate institutes, in the public schools, in the high schools and in the universities will be carried on as usual.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds) :: I was greatly pleased to hear the minister speak so highly of this branch of the serviee. He is conversant with what is done in his own town, and I know something about the matter myself. I believe that cadet training is one of the most valuable services we can render the youth of the country. Has the minister considered the possible very serious effect, upon all the training throughout the rest of the year, of the knowledge of these boys that they cannot look forward to the outing which the camp usually affords them? I am afraid it will tend to demoralize their training throughout the rest of the year.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows
the attitude I have always taken in regard to cadet training. I should not think that that knowledge would have any serious effect, because the training of the boys outside of the camps is about over for the year. At least, it is pretty well advanced. And as I have hinted, we are only asking that the boys shall make a sacrifice for this year.
Item as amended agreed to.
Clothing and necessaries, $361,400.


James Murdock: I move that this vote, No. 92, be reduced by $21,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and item as amended agreed to.
Customs dues, $25,000.
Mr. GOULD:: Why the difference of $15,000 between this vote and the vote of last year? Are we right in assuming that this indicates a difference between the respective fiscal policies of the two political aggregations?

Supply-M il itia


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say it is or it is not. I have not had time, really, to investigate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What does "Customs dues" mean?


George Perry Graham: It is to pay the customs dues on imported clothing, stores, supplies for the manufacture of munitions, etc., at the Quebec arsenal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion arsenal, Lindsay, $25,000.
Hugh Guthrie: I think this item and the next one-No. 97, Dominion Arsenal, Quebec-had better stand. There will be some discussion on these two arsenal votes.


James Dew Chaplin: How is it that the minister is able to make such a large reduction in the case of one arsenal while in the other there is practically no reduction at all?


Mr. PARENT:: One was a war measure.


James Dew Chaplin: I would like the minister to answer.


George Perry Graham: We have closed the Lindsay arsenal; we have only a number of caretakers there. As a matter of fact two arsenals will more than supply the requirements for the militia of Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister knows very well that the Lindsay arsenal is manufacturing small arms ammunition. What is the present stock of small arms ammunition and how long would it last?


Georges Parent: We give no secrets to Germany.


James Dew Chaplin: I would like the minister to answer.


George Perry Graham: I do not know that it would be proper to say how much ammunition we have on hand, but I can assure the hon. member that we have a sufficient quantity. With the Quebec arsenal working, there will be plenty of ammunition for the needs of Canada for a few years to come-perhaps a great many years.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not think the minister has answered the question fairly.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


James Dew Chaplin: He has not answered my question as to the small arms ammunition. I think he can give us more information as to how much small arms ammunition is on hand. The minister also knows that the Quebec arsenal is manufacturing the heavy ammunition.


George Perry Graham: I may be wrong, but I think it would not be advisable to make public either the amount of ammunition or the amount of arms.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a strange position. That information has been given every year in this House for the last five years.


George Perry Graham: I have not had time to look at Hansard.


James Dew Chaplin: A few days ago the
Prime Minister made a very strong address in this House complaining of the amount of large ammunition that had been brought from the Old Country; yet the minister is proposing a vote to run the Quebec arsenal, which makes ammunition of the same size.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution carry? Carried.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no; it is not carried. I ask that these two items stand. I think the minister will make more progress if he takes up some other items and accedes to the reasonable request which has been made with regard to these votes for arsenals. Of course, if the minister does not take that view, we will have to discuss them.


Jacques Bureau: Let one stand and discuss the two under one.


Hugh Guthrie: No; let them both
stand, and take up items which we can get through without very much discussion.


James Dew Chaplin: If the minister will let the matter stand and obtain the information, I shall be satisfied. The information has been produced here before, and I see no reason why it should not be given now. Otherwise, I will move an amendment to the item.


Mr. HALBERT:: I live not far from
Lindsay, and I know it is reported that there is a proposal to sell the arsenal there to the railway company. Can the minister give us any information on that point?


George Perry Graham: There was a suggestion in that regard; I referred it to the Railway Department, and just a day or two ago I received a note that was not very encouraging. But I may say I have been approached within the last two weeks as to the probability of a private company being able to purchase or rent the property. That matter is now under negotiation.
Supply-Militia


Robert Henry Halbert: Has any ammunition been shipped out of Lindsay from that arsenal? Has any ammunition ever been manufactured and shipped out?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say, but I think there has been.


Robert Henry Halbert: I have been given to understand there never was any ammunition shipped from there.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Graft.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Political ammunition.


George Perry Graham: I will get the information. We will let these two items stand.


George Newcombe Gordon: Items 96 and 97
stand.
Engineer services and works, $610,000.


James Murdock: I move that this vote be reduced by $50,000.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask where this $50,000 is to be taken from?


George Perry Graham: The engineer services are for the maintenance of military buildings, rifle ranges and that kind of thing. It is possible that no service may be neglected, but it is impossible to say at what point the reduction will be made. Small amounts might be deducted from a great many of the different items.
Item as amended agreed to.
Maintenance, military properties, $235,000.


Mr. HANSON:: There is a very large and valuable military property in the heart of the city of Fredericton which is now being used for no useful purpose except that a portion of the barracks is leased to the New Brunswick Liquor Commission. A portion of the property consists of what is known as the Officers' Square. It is right in the heart of the city, on the main street, and has been allowed to get into a very dilapidated condition. There is not even a caretaker to look after it. Would any portion of this vote be used to maintain that square in a tidy and decent condition, in harmony with its surroundings?


George Perry Graham: That would probably
come under the general vote. In reference to properties generally owned by the Militia Department I would say, and 1

think my predecessor made the same sort of statement, that the Government owns a great deal of property throughout the whole country that was devotetd to military purposes during the war. It is possibly not a good time to sell these properties now. I admit that a great many people would accept them at a price, but so far any offers that have been made have not met with the approval of the department. Every day we have requests for the properties in different parts of- Canada, and at the conclusion of the session I hope to get a report on all these properties and then if the Governor in Council sees fit to offer any of them for sale, I shall be prepared to submit a list of properties that I think might be dispensed with if a proper price could be got. I think it was in reference to the Fredericton property that I was waited on a few days ago and asked if some other use might not be made of a portion of it. I have asked my officers to make a report on that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think anybody has been asking the Government to sell the property to which I refer. I think there would be very great objection if the department were to sell it, as it has always been considered one of the beauty spots of the city. It is practically a little public park right in the heart of the city, and the property is now being neglected, no care being taken of it. When I was home at Easter the boys were playing ball on it, and it is becoming disfigured. There should be a caretaker to look after it and keep it tidy and clean, otherwise it will be a disfiguration to the city. It would entail the expenditure of only a very moderate sum, and I would like to know if this will be done.


George Perry Graham: I will refer the remarks of my hon. friend to the Engineering branch of my department and get their views on the matter. If it can be done under this estimate, we will be glad to help out.


James Dew Chaplin: At the same time that the minister is getting the views of his officers regarding that matter, he might get their views regarding four or five hundred acres of land belonging to the Militia Department in the county of Lincoln. I have on different occasions called the attention of the department to the way in which some land in that county is being neglected by the department. It is

Supply-Militia
good land, and a good price could be got for it; and it is possible the Militia Department will never use it again. It is growing up in weeds, and is a menace to the whole countryside in one of the best districts in the country.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The minister's
statement that it is not a good time to sell these properties would indicate that it is the Government's policy to dispose of practically everything in the nature of military property. It has just been intimated to the House that negotiations are on foot to dispose of the Lindsay arsenal. The training of the cadets is to be cut out, the annual training of the militia is to be dispensed with-


George Perry Graham: I shall have to correct my hon. friend. The annual training of the militia is not to be dispensed with, but only slightly reduced.


Donald Sutherland: The estimate for
the navy is also reduced, if the minister has his way. In fact, it would appear that everything in the nature of national defence is to be materially reduced, if not entirely dispensed with. It must have been encouraging for the minister to hear the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg approve of the policy which the Government are advocating at the present time.


George Perry Graham: Which he did not do.


Donald Sutherland: I could not help but think, as I listened to the arguments which were advanced, of the example we shall be setting to the youth of this country. Instead of cultivating and developing a vigorous spirit among the youth, of our country, what sort of a spirit are you likely to develop by cutting down these essential features of national defence? I notice an increase of $35,000 in this particular item. The Government are bound to reduce, so that they will be ineffective for any useful purpose, the items for important and essential features of national defence, while the non-essential items are being increased. The reductions that are being made in the essential features of national defence are such as to cripple the service and make it absolutely useless. I do not expect the Government will take any notice of any protest which may be lodged, but as a citizen of this country, as a representative of the people, and as the father of growing boys in this country, I refuse to
countenance any such policy as this. I have altogether too much respect for the traditions of our country especially in this age, after such a splendid example having been set to the people of the world by those who participated in the late war to have any sympathy at all with those who would claim that now it is the duty of Canada to blaze the way, as it were, for the rest of the world in becoming a spineless people who will stand for anything rather than defend ourselves against any emergency which may develop in the future.
That is the policy which is to-day being [DOT]advocated by the Government of this country. The minister to-night, after bringing down his estimates, calmly gets up and informs the House that he cannot move to reduce the items, so his colleague sitting next to him gets up and moves to reduce *item after item that would serve a useful purpose, but when it comes to the nonessential items, such as the one now before us they are being increased. There is no move on the part of his colleague to reduce tfiis item.
Why is it that the non-essentials are being maintained, and even increased, while the essentials are being so absolutely impaired as to be of no effective service whatever? Some hon. members may say "Oh, but see the time we are taking up in discussing these estimates." I suppose as time passes a feeling of apathy will come over the House and the remark will be made "What is the use of this anyway"? As one member of Parliament, I absolutely refuse to countenance any such policy as is recommended here; and I say-and I am most emphatic in my view-that the day is not far distant when the policy the Government is now advocating will be conclusively shown to be just as foolish and just as shortsighted as the policy which was advocated early in 1914, when we were on the verge of the Great War.
I was somewhat amazed to hear the terms in which the Prime Minister referred to the policy of the party of which he was a member at that time. I could not help but recall, as he was arguing that the policy his party advocated was the right one, a statement made by the late Colonel Roosevelt in 1917 when he said: "The only reason the war has not been brought to this country is because of Britain's navy and the British and French armies." The policy of this Government undoubtedly is "Somebody will take care of us; it won't be necessary for us to make any sacrifices in the event of any trouble arising. We have
Siij) ply-M ilitia

the British navy back of us and after all nothing may happen."
But there is a duty imposed upon every citizen of Canada. His first duty is to see that he maintains, and perpetuates to the utmost of his power, and bequeaths to his children unsullied, the heritage which has been handed down to him-a heritage secured at great sacrifice by those who have gone before. We cannot afford to place that heritage in jeopardy because of the fact that it might cost something to maintain it. This is the first duty of our citizens, but it is a duty which this new Government has lost sight of. I am afraid the Government is attempting to carry out some promises made before the election by the policy it is now advocating. I protest as vigorously as I can against what has already been done and what is proposed to oe done.
I am surprised that the member of the Government who is now sitting to the right of the Minister of Militia is not, if he intends to be consistent, attempting to reduce this item in some way, because he has cleanly indicated to the House that the Government proposes to dispose of these properties. He has intimated that negotiations are on foot to dispose of the arsenal at Lindsay and this is not a good time to sell some of these properties. Why were these properties purchased? What use have they been put to in the past? Will the ,minister now tell us what properties the Government is negotiating to dispose of in addition to the arsenal at Lindsay? Will he tell us what the arsenal at Lindsay has cost. The minister is also going to dispose of, or disperse, the navy; the submarines are going to be sunk, they are not going to be put into use at all; and he is going to maintain an arsenal down on the St. Lawrence. Why, if he does that, in the event of trouble occurring, a submarine may come up the St. Lawrence some night and blow the whole thing up. If there is one place where there should not be an arsenal it is the city of Quebec. The policy of the Government is to place in jeopardy the very establishment needed for the manufacture of ammunition in this country. I ask the committee to consider well what it is doing. I must say that I am surprised that the Minister of Militia, whom I have known for many years, would be a party to such proceedings, that he would allow himself to be made the mouthpiece of a party that is endeavouring to put into effect in Canada any such policy as this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Ordnance Arms, Lands, etc., $75,000.
James Murdock: I move that this item be reduced by $9,000.


Donald Sutherland: Would it not be well to hear from the minister in charge of these estimates as to what the Government's policy is in regard to this item? Which minister is enunciating the Government's policy-the one who has introduced the estimates, or the one who has moved that they be reduced?	<
Item as amended agreed to.
Pay of Staff, $265,000.


James Murdock: I move that this item be reduced by $10,000.


Donald Sutherland: I move in amendment that the item be reduced by $25,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been moved that the vote be reduced by the sum of $25,000.


John Frederick Johnston: Let us understand this. The Minister of Labour has moved to reduce the item by $10,000. That is an amendment to the resolution. The member for South Oxford has moved in amendment to the amendment that the item be reduced by $25,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: The order in which these amendments may be put to the committee is left to the discretion of the chairman. Usually the amendment calling for the largest reduction is put first. Mr. Sutherland's amendment is not put in the form of an amendment to the amendment, but as an amendment to the item under consideration.


James Dew Chaplin: It stands to reason that if these reductions are carried out there will be nonnecessity for the staff. If you are going to do away with all the clerks what reason is there for keeping the staff?


Oliver Robert Gould: That is a point I have endeavoured to stress.
Amendment (Mr. Sutherland) negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Murdock) agreed to.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Permanent force, $5,500,000.


Oliver Robert Gould: Is the Royal Canadian
Artillery included in the permanent force?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Oliver Robert Gould: Could the minister tell
me the number of officers who are now in the permanent force, who never had any

S u pply-M il itia
experience before the war, and are now in the rank and file?


George Perry Graham: There are not a great many. It must be remembered that there are certain distinct branches, and we have, in the several portions of the Dominion, men especially qualified to perform the duties, and the fact that they were not overseas in many cases is not their fault at all. Every man we have there has been recommended during the past year or two in the reorganization of the staff. There is a large reduction in this item, and it is hoped that during the year, perhaps in a few weeks or months, we will fully carry out the reorganization. It means a reduction in the staff of the permanent force of about 500 men all told of different ranks.


Oliver Robert Gould: The reason which prompted me to ask the question was, I confess, information I had gleaned around the city. Not alone in the House is there some opposition to these appropriations for militia and defence, but around the city there is opposition, and when you get in conversation with people you often find individuals who are well, acquainted with military conditions, not alone in Ottawa but throughout the country. I have been prompted to ask the question on account of information I received in that way. When the minister expressed the idea that these men possessed technical knowledge, a case came to mind which I wish to cite. It is that of an individual on the permanent force living in Ottawa at the present time who confessed that he was unable to handle a rifle well enough to fire a salute at a military funeral, and I wondered why such men as that were kept in the permanent force. I do not see what position they could fill, and I do not think the country should be asked to pay for the services of men who make such confessions. That is one of the reasons why I protest, from a military point of view, at least, on behalf of those who object to money being taken from the people for the supposed services of men who have no greater qualifications than the gentleman I have mentioned. I ask the minister, in all sincerity, to look into his department, and to weed out of the permanent force of Canada those whom I have in the past called parasites and whom I think I have rightly named.


Mr. SHAW:: Could the minister indicate the number of officers in the permanent force, as compared with the number in other ranks?


George Perry Graham: I hope to be able to get the information in a few moments for my hon. friend, but I cannot lay my hands on it just now. I am labouring under the disability of not having my deputy beside me. We have that information somewhere, and if I cannot get it to-night I will furnish it at a later date.


Mr. CHAPLAIN:: A few days ago, in discussing this item, the member from East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), former Minister of Militia, pointed out in this House that a very large sum of money could be saved, and I think this is the item in regard to which he referred. Has the minister taken the suggestion of the exMinister of Militia into consideration in reference to this matter? I listened very attentively to what the hon. member from East Hamilton had to say. If we intend to make a real saving in this Militia Department, there is the place to make it, and I would like to know why some of our friends from the West, who are so anxious to save money, do not move a resolution in regard to some of these items. I have not seen any resolutions coming from them to reduce any of the items.


George Perry Graham: This is following some of the lines suggested by the hon. member from East Hamilton to which reference was made, but it is not so easy to carry them all out. For instance, if I were to propose to abolish the military district where my hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin) lives I would be met by a strong protest. I have stowed away carefully the remarks of the member for East Hamilton, and the department has decided to give them full consideration. Some of the suggestions were very sweeping, and I am not sure that they would be altogether practicable. However, after investigation, possibly, they might be. I think the hon. member suggested that the Toronto and London districts might be amalgamated. The Toronto district is a very large one and in my opinion, from the information I have received, one man could not handle that district. The suggestions of the hon. member from East Hamilton will certainly be considered when the session is over.


Hugh Guthrie: I desire to call attention to the significant silence of certain members who sit on this committee now and who sat here a year ago when these matters were under discussion. The hon. member from Quebec South (Mr. Power) was in the House until a few minutes ago. He has now left the Chamber, and I call
Supply-Militia

the attention of the House to the fact that when this item was under discussion a year ago the amount which was asked in the estimates was six and a half millions, the hon. member from Quebec South moved that it be reduced by two million dollars, and every hon. member who then sat on this side of the House, in opposition, voted for that reduction. I think my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) was one of them-I am sure he was. The silence of these hon. members on this occasion rather staggers me. I thought they were serious. From their remarks last year one would judge they were serious. But a year has passed and the vote to-day standing at five and a half million is practically going unchallenged by those hon. members who moved last year for a reduction of $2,000,000. I certainly am not going to move for a reduction of the item. I believe it is just and proper and should be retained. What think you, Mr. Chairman, of 30 or 40 hon. members of this House who sat in opposition last year, and solemnly voted to reduce the item by $2,000,000, who have not the courage on the present occasion to move to reduce the item by a single cent?


Robert Henry Halbert: I do not wish to let the remarks of the hon. member from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) go unchallenged. So much has been said that I desire to say that I, as one from the province of Ontario, appreciate the action of the minister in starting off in the right direction in endeavouring to reduce the expenditure of the Dominion of Canada at the present time. That is one thing which we all want. I was in this House, and I may have supported a reduction of $2,000,000 in this estimate last year. I could not say whether I did or not, as I have not the estimate before me. The minister has already reduced this item by $755,000, thus showing that he is starting in the right direction, and as is said, "Well begun is half done." But since the militia estimates and other estimates too have been brought down in this House, we have witnessed something that, to my knowledge, has not happened in the House of Commons in the Dominion of Canada since confederation, and that is the Government desiring to reduce expenditure and the Opposition emphatically pounding and abusing the Government for doing so. At this time, I think the people of this Dominion are looking to the Government to reduce expenditures as much as possible under present conditions, and they will appreciate any reductions. I am of opinion also that the same feeling would have pre-

vailed throughout the country had the Conservative party been in power.
We have heard a good deal about the cadets not getting their drill; but in Canada there are other boys than those whom we want to train as boy scouts and cadets, boys whom we want to train up to be good citizens of this country. Only to-day I received a letter from a man whose only son and support went overseas and made the supreme sacrifice. This man, who is over sixty years of age, is, through misfortune, unable to earn his living, and to-day he is without his only son whom he raised and upon whom he depended for support. My room-mate, the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) is on the Pension Committee where such matters are being discussed, and I think we ought to be fair to the people who have made the supreme sacrifice and to their dependents before we start building up more militarism in this country.
Some people are not very consistent. We had the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) saying that, in his constituency, there was militia property that was growing up with weeds, and wanting to know what was going to be done with it, and then we had the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) finding fault with the Government for trying to do something with property that was not of use. Why not sell the property and turn the money into the treasury of the country, or give it to the dependents of those men who went overseas and made the supreme sacrifice instead of using this money to send our young men to the camps to be trained for militarism?
A day or so ago I had a letter in regard to the family of a man who enlisted, but who did not get overseas. This man was in a camp training, and owing to the effects of an electrical storm he died, leaving a widow with nine of a family dependent upon her. According to the law, the Pension Committee cannot give anything to the widow. If this property is of no use, why not sell it and give the money to those people to help them out? I am in favour of making any reduction possible, not only in this estimate, but in other estimates as well. I am not against the militia of this country, but if we can save a little on the estimates this year, it is our duty and the duty of the Government to be faithful to the people who sent us here and to reduce the estimates if we possibly can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply

M ilitia
Salaries and wages, $225,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: In connection with the
preceding item, Royal Military College, $345,000, I was under the impression that the Minister of Militia, in his opening address on these estimates, mentioned that he proposed to reduce this particular item.


George Newcombe Gordon: That has been carried.


Mr. WARD:: It is up to the Chairman
to give the members an opportunity to speak on the items.


George Newcombe Gordon: If any hon. member wishes an opportunity to speak, he will be given -an opportunity if he rises in his place.


William John Ward: We were not given an opportunity to speak on that item.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think we have a right
to rely on the statement of the minister that a reduction would be made. I move that we reconsider the item, Royal Military College.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Royal Military College, $345,000.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: I understood that in the opening remarks made by the minister on these estimates, he stated that he proposed to reduce this particular item. I may be mistaken in that view, but I should like to be advised by the minister.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is perfectly right. I did suggest that this item might be reduced by $10,000. That expenditure of $10,000 is a very small item, and I must say that I have had many vigorous protests by men from both sides of this House and from every group in this House saying that the Royal Military College was an institution that drew its students from all parts of the Dominion. If the House wishes me to move a reduction in the face of those protests, I am willing to do so; but unless the House wishes that, I would rather not. If hon. gentlemen from all groups could know the protests that I have received from all quarters, I think they would say that I have acted wisely in not making this reduction. I think I should make this explanation to the committee.


Hugh Guthrie: It would be well for us to get this item through as quickly as possible. Otherwise, we may have some more changes before the item carries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Schools of instruction, $140,000.
James Murdock: I move in amendment that this item be reduced by an amount of $50,000.


Donald Sutherland: I should like to have some information with regard to the instruction that is given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And where these schools are.


George Perry Graham: There is a School of Military Engineering at Chatham; gunnery staff course; ordnance officers' course; Artillery College, Woolwich; officers' class in artillery college; inspection of ordnance machinery; master gunners' course at Woolwich; armament artificers' course, Woolwich; laboratory course, etc. I have a long list.
Item as amended agreed to.
Topographic Survey, $45,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am informed that this is one item in the militia estimates that might very well be cut out for one year at least. What explanation has the minister in regard to it?


George Perry Graham: The following is the statement which has been prepared by the officers of the department:
Particulars of Topographic Survey referred to under "General Purpose", page 1.
Established in 1902 on the advice of the Imperial Authorities for the purpose of producing reliable topographic maps of Canada, primarily for military purposes, but also sold to the public, who appreciate them for various civil uses. With the exception of isolated areas mapped by the Geological Survey, these are the only topographic maps produced in Canada. Up to 1913 the completed drawings of the map sheets were sent to the War Office for reproduction and printing, but this plan was found unsuitable and a complete photo litho printing plant was established at Ottawa as part of the Survey division, and has been operating successfully from 1914 to date, printing all maps and diagrams required. The Survey division is thus enabled to do all the work involved in producing first Class maps, from the initial survey to printing the map.
Besides the regular series of 1" and i" maps a large number of other maps and diagrams have been produced,-larger scale maps of camp areas, various maps, diagrams, lantern plates, etc., for the use of trootps in training, schools of instruction, Royal Military College, etc. Original plates of all maps, etc. are preserved and reprints made as required.
The 1" maps show all water features, boundaries and nature of timber. County, township and city boundaries, concessions and lots are indicated. All public roads, railways, bridges, settlements, factories, forges and houses (wood or stone) at time of survey. The relief of the
S n p ply-M ilitia

ground surface is shown by contours at 25 ft. vertical intervals and the eflevation at many road corners.
The area surveyed and mapped to date is shown on the attached index maps.
Sq. miles
Total area mapped	 32,000
Surveyed, not mapped	 5,500
Partly surveyed	 5,000
In addition to making surveys and printing maps as above, the Survey division acts as a School of Instruction in Surveying for N.C.O's and men of the Permanent Force, with the object of selecting the best men to fill vacancies in the staff of the Survey division as they occur, and also to provide a nucleus of trained men in the Permanent Force for a Field Survey section. Ten men are at present under instruction (since January 1st) at Ottawa in theoretical work. They will be attached to survey parties as assistants for the summer, for practical work in the field.
The total at present consists of twenty-nine, all technical men,-surveyors, topographers, lithographic map draughtsmen, map engraver, litho-photographer, lithographer and transferrer, litho-pninter, office clerks and two helpers. Twenty-one of the above are permanent divil servants, who are paid from civil government salaries.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that this is one of the important votes in the militia estimates. It is not for the value of the map as a map. I believe that, at the rate they are going, the map will be completed in about two hundred years. There are portions of Canada already completed. These maps are very useful for automobilists, etc., as road maps, and a small amount is received by way of revenue by the Government through the sale of them. This is one of the most important parts of the military education. Map drafting and map reading are two very important elements in military instruction, and it is for that purpose that this vote is carried from year to year, far more than for the purpose of issuing a topographic map of Canada, important as that may be, if we can ever complete one. I was under the same impression as my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) two or three years ago when I questioned the item, but General Sir Arthur Currie and Major General MacBrien explained fully to me the real object of the vote. It is to carry out the training of officers in order that they may instruct non-commissioned officers and men in the important subject of map drawing, and perhaps in the equally important subject of map reading. I do think, though, that the question of topographic surveys in this country is far too extended. I believe that in no fewer than four, and possibly five, departments we are making surveys and drafting maps, all of which should be done in the Department

of Militia, where there are trained engineers and officers, who are quite competent to do that work and are now under pay. The expense would be very greatly reduced if survey work and the drafting of maps, now done by different departments, were carried out by the officers of the Militia Department. I made this suggestion to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) when his estimates were going through, and I trust that some one department of government will take the matter up and consolidate those various activities.
Mr. GRAHAM. My hon. friend is right. That matter has been considered, and at present we have a committee of officers from the various departments to look into the question and see whether there is not some way by which the work can be concentrated in one department. Each department, I imagine, thinks it is best fitted to do the work, but I agree that the standard of map the Militia Department produces shows that that department has facilities equal to, if not better than, those of other departments.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The remarks of the
member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) would apply to geodetic surveys, but I cannot see any possible reason why the vote should be carried this year for topographic survey work. Map reading, from a topographic viewpoint, is easy; any schoolboy can do that. From the military viewpoint it is the geodetic map that is required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Training areas, $15,000.
James Dew Chaplin: What is this amount
for?


George Perry Graham: We have cut the item
in two this year. It is for the purpose of purchasing any right of way that juts into training areas. We have no expenditure in view, but if it should occur that a piece of land juts into a training area the vote is provided so that we may be able to purchase it. The probabilities are that not a dollar will be spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport and Freight, $200,000.
James Dew Chaplin: My remarks in regard
to other items apply to this one. This is a case where the works are gone but the overhead remains. If you are going to do away with a large percentage of military camps

Supply-Militia
what is the necessity for $200,000 for transport and freight? Surely the item can be cut down.


George Perry Graham: Last year the whole of
the vote was expended but $2,000.


James Dew Chaplin: But you are cutting
down your camps at least 30 per cent, and it stands to reason than an item of this kind should be reduced. I would suggest that the minister get busy now and make a substantial reduction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I move that this item be reduced by $60,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


Mr. SPENCER:: I move in amendment that the item be reduced by $10,000. That is the reduction the minister volunteered to make a few days ago.


Oliver Robert Gould: When the estimates were before the House at an earlier stage I cited several items from the Auditor General's report. I referred particularly to an item with respect to transportation and travelling expenses of staff. A good deal of travelling was done by officers around Saskatchewan, as I pointed out before; and I mentioned certain items of theatre tickets and various other things which these officers evidently seemed to think the people of the country should pay for. In the vote for transport and freight, which includes these travelling expenses, no reduction is made from the amount voted last year. I used Military District No. 12 as an illustration; if the same conditions obtain in all the other districts in proportion to size, then a huge sum of money is wasted in that manner. If these officers believe they have the right to spend the people's money in this way, then it is our duty at this moment to reduce this vote by the amount which in our opinion, is being wasted in that manner. Now, there is an amendment before the committee-


James Dew Chaplin: Move another one.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. It is moved by Mr. Spencer that vote No. 110, transport and freight, be reduced by the sum of $10,000. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?


George Perry Graham: No.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The vote for annual drill has been reduced by thirty per cent.
Is there any proportionate reduction of transport and freight?


George Perry Graham: This vote is for transportation and travelling expenses of officers of headquarters and district staff, officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the permanent and active militia on change of station or travelling on duty, except duties connected with annual drill, cadet services, etc. It has nothing to do with the annual drill. Last year the whole amount of the vote was expended within $2,000. I ask the committee to put the item through as it is; any amount that can be saved out of the appropriation surely will be. What effect it would have to reduce the item by $10,000 when it has not anything to do with the other reductions, I am not in a position to say at this moment.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was rising to my feet when the hon. member got up who presented the resolution for a reduction of $50,000. I had in mind the soft impeachment of the hon. member for South Wellington and it was my intention to move in amendment that this vote be reduced by $25,000, an action which would be consistent with the statement I had previously made regarding these expenditures. I believe it would be well if it should be understood throughout the country that the people do not want these joy rides which go under the name of " staff rides "; at least, they do not want the excesses which these men indulge in when taking these staff rides. I believe the House would do well to give these gentlemen-gallant gentlemen, let us call them-a lesson by asking them to reduce their lavish expenditures by some $25,000, and I offer that as an amendment.


George Perry Graham: There is already an amendment to reduce the item by $10,000. I think the item should not be reduced, for the reasons I have given. I thoroughly understand my hon. friend's impression with regard to certain things that took place; I have had some particulars in that regard brought to my mind during the last few days. But that is a very exceptional case, and I am sure it will not occur again. Money expended in that way is certainly not expended as, I presume, Parliament intended it should be. But I would ask the hon. member not to press his amendment, because I am not sure of what its effect would be on the work of the department. This was one of the amounts
Supply-Public Works

that was fully expended last year; it has reference to services not connected with others which have been reduced. I assure my hon. friend that the performance to which he has referred is not likely to occur again.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am quite satisfied with the explanation of the hon. minister; I am sure he will look into these things and bring the matter to the notice of those who, we think, have erred.
Amendment (Mr. Spencer) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Perry Graham: I think we have done pretty good work. There is an item of war claims, but I would nor like to press it to-night. It is a very large vote, and I would also like to have the member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) here when it is discussed. He is chairman of the War Graves Commission, which met recently and decided upon a course to be followed in the erection of memorial monuments. He is better posted on the details than anyone else, and I should like to have him here to explain what this commission is doing and what it proposes to do.
Progress reported.


ROYAL ASSENT
Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, 18th May, 1922.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you thai the Right Honourable Sir Louis Davies acting as deputy of the Governor General will proceed to the Senate Chamber on Friday the 19th of May, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
(Sgd) F. L. C. Pereira, for Governor General's Secretary.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Friday.
Ottawa, May 19, 1922.