MOTION FOR ATTENDANCE OF SENATOR McOOIG

Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that their Honours will give leave to the Hon. Archibald B. McCoig, one of their members, to attend and give evidence before the Seleot Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Is this motion based on

Questions
any report of the committee? And if so, has that report been presented? Of course, if it has not been presented, I presume that no motion based on it can be moved.


William Frederic Kay: This motion, Mr. Speaker, is
for the purpose of securing the attendance of the Hon. Mr. McCoig before the committee in order to examine him on the standardization of repair parts for agricultural implements, a matter not yet before the committee, but we wish to take it up at a later date.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it is
in order for a motion to be made on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture without a report from that committee being first presented.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS:: (Centre Vancouver) :	This matter was discussed in
the committee, and unquestionably it should be part of the report of the committee's proceedings. Why a report has not been presented to-day in the usual manner is, I think, a fit subject of inquiry. The rules of the House require that a report should be presented. None was presented when the appropriate order was called.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: I
think in this case, Mr. Speaker, opposition to the motion should be withdrawn. I understand it is the intention of the committee to investigate the standardization of repair parts for farm implements. Senator McCoig has given the matter a lifelong study and probably is as well informed in regard to it as any man in this Parliament. I understand he is willing to attend and give evidence, and, if so, I see no reason why any technical objection should be raised by my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I think the motion might very well be adopted and so expedite investigation of this very important matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from
Marquette (Mr. Crerar) wholly misunderstands me. I wish to submit this to you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order. The subject matter of this resolution was discussed in the committee to-day. In the ordinary course it should form part of the committee's report. I have absolutely no objection to the motion, except that I cannot understand why the ordinary procedure was departed from and no report presented to the House; at least, I have not been able to learn of any up to this moment. I submit, Sir, that this resolution cannot possibly
be moved until a report of the committee incorporating this resolution is submitted to the House.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The point of order is
well taken. A notice is required. The motion stands until the report is presented to the House.
Motion stands.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the largest amount of notes, of Canadian chartered banks, in circulation in each of the years 1901, 1911 and 1921?
2.	What was the largest amounts of deposits of these banks with the Minister of Finance for security of note circulation during each of these years?
3.	What was the largest amount of deposits of these banks in central gold reserves during each of the said years?
4.	What was the largest amount of railway and other bonds, debentures and stocks held by these banks in each of 6aid years?
5.	What was the largest amount of call and short loans in Canada of said banks in each of these years?
6.	What was the largest amount of call and short loans elsewhere than in Canada in each of said years?
7.	What was the largest amount of real estate other than bank premises held by said banks in each of these years?
8.	What was the largest amount of loans of said banks, to directors and firms of which they are partners, in each of these years, and does this amount include loans to incorporated companies, of which they are directors?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1901	1911	19211.	$60,397,097 $111,943,580	$229,608,2132.	2,568,918	5,815,000	6,529,3103.	-	95,302,5334.	33,061,712	64,889,452	46,605,6915.	39,324,335	72,640,526	113,818,3086.	50,963,477	104,009,030	193,001,119n 1 .	1,078,810	1,575,328	4,582,3288.	12,834,058	10,348,216	11,130,653The	return specified by the	Bank Act is
of the "aggregate amount of loans to directors, and firms of which they are partners."


IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Government under contemplation the appointment of a representative of the Immigration Department in China?
2.	Has the Government received an application from W. W. B. Mclnnes (former judge of
Questions

the County Court of British Columbia, and candidate in the last election for the Liberal party), to be appointed immigration commissioner with headquarters at Canton?
3.	Is the Government aware of any application being made by said W. W. B. Mclnnes, or any other person, to the Civil Service Commission for such appointment?
4.	If such an appointment is made, what will be the powers and duties of persons so appointed?
5.	In the opinion of the Government would such an appointment facilitate the emigration of Chinese to Canada?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	No.
2.	No formal application received.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

Mr. CHURCH:: 
Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	As regai-ds prosecutions under federal legislation, no prosecutions were held against trusts and combines and combinations in restraint of trade in Canada from 1909 to 1922, but under the Combines Investigation Act, which received the Royal assent on May 4, 1910, a Board of Investigation was established in February, 1911, by the Minister of Labour to inquire into an alleged combine on the part of the United Shoe Machinery Company of Canada in the manufacture and sale of machinery used in the making of boots and shoes, and the report of the Board received by the Minister of Labour on October 21, 1912, declared the United Shoe Machinery Company to be a combine. No other investigations were ordered under the terms of the Combines Investigation Act and the Statute itself was repealed by clause 15 of the Combines and Fair Prices Act, July 7, 1919. The existing law for dealing with trusts, combines and mergers in restraint of trade is confined to the provisions of the Criminal Code. The Government has no information as regards prosecutions under provincial laws.
2.	It is not deemed necessary to hold such an inquiry at present.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



CHARLES DAUPHINEE

Mon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Was Charles Dauphinee, janitor of the Public Building at Lunenburg, dismissed?
2.	If so (a) when and (b) for what reason?
3.	Did any one make representations with regard to Mr. Dauphinee, to the department?
4.	If so, who made such representations, of what nature were they, and when were they made?
5.	Was any investigation held as to the conduct of Mr. Dauphinee?
6.	If so, when, by whom, and was he given an opportunity of meeting any charges made against him?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) April 30, 1922.	(b) Public interest.
3.	4. 5 and 6. Representations were made to the minister which he considers satisfactory without an investigation, and assumes responsibility for the dismissal.



OLEOMARGARINE

Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Have there been any regulations issued under the act which permits the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine controlling the manufacture and sale of this product in Canada?
2.	If so, what are these regulations: (a) as to the manufacture of oleomargarine; (b) as to its wholesale distribution ; and (c) as to its retail distribution?
3.	What branch or branches of the Department of Agriculture, or other government department, are charged with the enforcement of these regulations (a) as to its manufacture; and (b) as to its distribution and sale?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Regulations as to manufacture:
Licenses to manufacture oleomargarine shall
be issued only to such applicants as have satisfied the minister that any building or buildings in which the applicant proposed to manufacture the oleomargarine is well lighted and ventilated, constructed of suitable material and provided with sanitary conveniences; that there can be no contamination of the oleomargarine by objectionable odours from packing houses, fertilizer or other sources; that the machinery and equipment is modern and capable of easy and efficient cleaning, and that the probable output of the proposed establishment will be sufficiently large to justify the employment of an inspector.
No oleomargarine shall be manufactured in Canada except under the supervision of inspectors appointed by the minister.
No oleomargarine shall be manufactured in Canada in any premises used for or connected with the manufacture or reworking of butter.
All materials intended to be used in the manufacture of oleomargarine shall be inspected and approved before being used for such purpose. The inspector may at any time take samples of any such materials for analysis.
No oleo oil or neutral lard shall be used in the manufacture of oleomargarine unless it is

Questions
the production of an abattoir under the inspection of the minister, and bears the Government inspection mark, or has been manufactured in the country of origin under inspection satisfactory to the minister and is at the time of importation covered by the official markings and export inspection certificate of the country of origin.
No milk shall be used in the manufacture of oleomargarine unless it is from non-reacting tuberculin tested cows, or has been pasteurized under the supervision of an inspector appointed by the minister, and no butter shall be used in such manufacture unless it is free from rancidity or any objectionable odour.
No preservative other than salt shall be used for the preservation of oleomargarine.
No person other than a licensed manufacturer of oleomargarine shall mix oleomargarine and butter.
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or shall sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale any oleomargarine unless the word "oleo" is stamped on the surface of the oleomargarine in capital block letters at least one	and	one-half inches	high and of
proportional width.
Every person who either imports, manufactures, or sells oleomargarine wholesale shall keep a special book in which is entered the date of each importation, purchase, sale and shipment of oleomargarine, and the quantity so imported,	sold	or	shipped, the	person fromwhich it has been purchased and to whom it has been sold or shipped, and the place from, in, or to which it was imported, Isold or shipped, and the name	of	the railway	or steamship
company or other transportation agency by which such oleomargarine was transported, and such books shall at all times be open for in-pection for any person authorized by the minister to examine same. This special book shall contain no entries or information other than required by this regulation.
(b) Regulations as to distribution:
No person shall sell, offer, expose or have in possession	for	sale	in Canada	any oleomargarine manufactured wholly from vegetable oils unless it is so designated upon all labels, brands or other markings.
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or shall sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale any oleomargarine unless the word "oleo" is stamped on the surface of the oleomargarine in capital block letters at least one and one-half inches high and of proportional width.
No person shall sell, offer, expose, or have in possession for sale in Canada any oleomargarine unless it is contained in-
(1)	the original package which shall bear the official inspection mark of the country of origin, together with the name and address of the manufacturer; or,
(2)	a small package wrapped separately having on the label or wrapper the word "Oleomargarine" printed or marked so as to form the most conspicuous word on the label or wrapper, as well as bearing the official inspection mark of the country of origin, together with the name and address of the manufacturer.
(3)	provided, however, that no person shall sell, offer, expose or have in possession for sale in. Canada any oleomargarine ibtearing
the package or container thereof the trademark or the name of the manufacturer in which is included any of the words " butter," " creamery," " dairy," or the name of any breed of cattle.
N) label, brand or other marking shall be used in connection with the sale of oleomargarine until it has been approved by the Minister. Such approval may be withdrawn at any time on account of the violation of any provisions of The Oleomargarine Act, 1919, and an Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act, 1919, or any regulation made thereunder, whether such violation is due to the action of the manufacturer either in Canada or elsewhere, or of any wholesale dealer or other person who may be interested in the sale of oleomargarine bearing such label or brand.
No person shall sell, offer, expose, or have in. his possession for sale any oleomargarine moulded or cut into prints or blocks unless such prints or blocks are of full net weight or one-half pound or one pound.
Every person who either imports, manufactures, or sells oleomargarine wholesale shall keep a special book in which is entered the date of each importation, purchase, sale and shipment of oleomargarine, and the quantity so imported, sold or shipped, the person from whom it has been purchased and to whom it has been sold or shipped, and the place from, in, or to which it was imported, sold or shipped, and the name of the railway or steamship company or other transportation agency by which such oleomargarine was transported, and such books shall at all times be open for inspection for any person authorized by the minister to examine same. This special book shall contain no entries or information other than required by this regulation.
(c) Answered by (b) with the exception of last paragraph.
3.	(a) The Health of Animals branch; (>b) The Dairy and Cold Storage branch.



COTTON INDUSTRIES-WAGES AND HOURS

Mr. St. PERE:: 1.	Has the Minister of Labour received, from the cotton manufacturers of Quebec and Nova Scotia, statements in regard to the number of hours which are devoted to these industries by the employees, and the wages they receive in return?
2.	If so, why were the statistics concerning said cotton industries, where the employees work fifty-two or fifty-five hours per week, not published in the Labour Gazette?
3.	Why were these statistics not published for each province as in the past?
4.	Are the returns made to the Department of Labour considered confidential?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Reports as to hours and wages have been received by the Department of Labour from cotton manufacturers in the province named. The reports are furnished on the understanding that the information in them is regarded as confidential.
2.	Considerable information as to hours and wages is published in bulletins issued by the Department of Labour as supplements to the Labour Gazette. In view of
Questions

the understanding on which the information is received care is taken that any information published shall not reveal the identity of a particular firm.
3.	Statistics as to hours and wages cannot be published by provinces where such publication would reveal the identity of a particular firm. The latest bulletin on this subject, issued February 1922, gave information as to hours and wages in the textile industry, but the circumstances under which the particulars were secured would not permit the information being arranged by provinces.
4.	Yes.



C. H. BLAND

Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	How many times has the classification of C. H. Bland, of the Civil Service Commission, been changed since he became connected with Commission?
2.	On what dates were these changes made and what was the maximum and minimum salary in each case?
3.	What salary did the said Mr. Bland receive ora his appointment to the said Commission?
4.	Was his title of classification changed on the 9th of May last with a minimum and maximum salary of $3,900 and $4,400?
5.	What amount of hack pay will he he entitled to on account of the last change of classification?
6.	What amount in all has he received in hack pay on account of previous changes in his classification?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Mr. C. H. Bland was classified Assistant Secretary of the Civil Service Commission as from April 1st, 1919, salary range $3,060 to $3,420. This was amended as from the 1st February, 1921 to " Assistant Secretary and Chief Examiner ", with a salary range of $3,660 to $4,020. The salary range was amended on the 9th May, 1922 to minimum $3,900, maximum $4,440.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	$800.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	$280.
6.	$1,315.
L'AjSSOMPTTOlN AND MONTCALM LIGHT-KE5RPERS


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names and respective residences of the light keepers in the counties of 1'Assomption and Montcalm, Quebec?
2.	How many of said light keepers were dismissed from the service from September 21st, 1911 to January, 1921, and by whom were they replaced?
3.	Who recommended said dismissals and appointments?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Leopold Rivest, Aime Payette, Repen-tigny, P.Q.; Jean Baptiste Giguere, Lucidas Beaudoin, Arthur Payette, Hormidas Dupuis, Zenon Pl'ouffe, Ovila Peltier, St. Sul-pice, P.Q.; J. Oscar Lachapelle, Eloi Thouin, Repentigny, P.Q.; Alphonse C'hicoine, Jr., St. Sulpice, P.Q.
2 and 3. None. Prior to 1914, however, a light was maintained at Ite a la Bague and the keeper thereof, Louis Dubois, was dismissed for political partisanship as a result of an investigation held on representations made by Mr. Jos. Morin, K.C., of Montreal, supported by a petition from certain electors of Repentigny Parish. Mr. Eloi Thouin was appointed to replace him on the recommendation of Mr. Morin, K.C. On the discontinuance of this light in 1914, Mr. Thouin was transferred to the keeper-ship of the back light of the range at lie Label.



ALIEN ENEMY BROPE1RTY

Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	Who are the officials who have charge of the clearing house for alien enemy property?
2.	Are they officials of the Government?
3.	If so, do they receive extra salary for the above work?
4.	What is the permanent salary of each, and what the extra amount for alien work?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Custodian, The Honourable the Secretary of State; Deputy Custodian, The Under ^Secretary of State; Assistant Deputy Custodian and Controller of the Clearing Office, H. Spencer Relph; Official in charge Property, Rights and Interests, William Pemberton Morling; Acountant, A. H. Mathieu; Chief Claims Clerk, Joseph Leslie.
2.	The Deputy Custodian is a permanent official of the Department of the Secretary of State. The other officials have been temporarily appointed under and by virtue of the Treaty of Versailles, and The Treaty of Peace (Germany) Order 1920, and are solely engaged in work of this nature.
3.	No.
4.	Permanent salaries: Under-Secretary of State, $6,000; Assistant Deputy Custodian, $4,500; Official in charge Property Rights and Interests, $2,500; Acountant, $2,500; Chief Claims Clerk, $2,500.



OTTAWA-KINGSTON PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Has any Federal grant been paid on the cost of the provincial highway from Ottawa to Kingston, Ontario?

Questions
2..	Were tenders called for the laying of that portion of this highway between Ottawa and Carleton Place?
3..	If so, who submitted tenders and for what amounts?
4.	Who were the successful tenderers, and what was the amount in each case?
.5. Were any quarries purchased on this section of the above highway?
6.	If so, who purchased same, and for what amount in each case?
7.	From whom were the quarries purchased and what are the locations?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: No project having been filed by the Ontario Government with the Federal Highways Bramch, and no agreement having been entered into under the Canada Highways Act, the Department of Railways and Canals has no information concerning the road in question.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. GORDON:: 1.	What was the consumption of binder twine and rope, in the various provinces of Canada, during the ye^r 1921?
2.	How much of this was manufactured in Canada?


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	What was the cost, in each Military District, of transportation, in connection with the Army Service Corps?
2.	How many horses, automobiles, motor trucks and other vehicles are there in the Army Service Corps?
3.	How many officers and men make up this section of the Militia?
4.	What was the total value of all equipment of the Army Service Corps, and what amount was spent on upkeep and repairs to equipment, Including forage, sickness, etc., during the year ending March 31st, 1922?
5.	Would this service cost less to the country if the forage, supplies, and transportation were given by contract each year to an individual, according to lowest tender, or done by day work?



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS

Mr. BOYS:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Italy and the Canadian Government, in reference to the International Conference now being held at Genoa, Italy, including the Order in Council appointing delegates for Canada, and all instructions given to the said delegates by the Government of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I beg to move, in accordance with notice given, that when the House adjourns on Tuesday, May 23rd, it stand adjourned until Friday, May 26.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I would suggest to the leader of the Government that we adjourn until the following Monday. That would make it possible for those hon. members, who do not want to hang around Ottawa for two days, to go home.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I suggest that we sit on Saturday.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I dissent from the suggestion of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Hocken). There are a good many members of the House from the maritime provinces and the far West who are desirous of having the business expedited as rapidly as possible. It is only a few hours journey to Toronto, where my hon. friend lives, and he can doubtless go home on Tuesday evening and return on Friday.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If the idea is to conserve time, then I think that we might sit Wednesday nights and on Saturdays as well. I am perfectly satisfied to stay here all the time if hon. members are anxious to get the business of the House done. Let us adjourn over the 24th and come back on Thursday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia) :: I would call the attention of the House to a statement made in the Ottawa Citizen of May 17 in regard to the proposed amendment of the Insurance Act. In that statement reference is made to the Woodmen of the World. I desire to state for the information of the House, and in justice to the Association, that the name of this body was never mentioned in committee at all. I believe that the Superintendent of Insurance advised the reporter that it might be as well not to mention the name of the company that was responsible for the suggestion regarding the proposed amendment.



RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Railways and Canals-Amount not exceeding $42,800,000 to meet expenditures made, or indebtedness incurred (where amount available from net operating earnings may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Railway Company or any company comprised of the Canadian Northern system, or any one or more of them, on any of the
Supply-Railways
[Stage Direction]
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. 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, $42,800,000.
Hon. WILLIAM C. KENNEDY (Minister of Railways and Canals) : This appropriation is required by the Canadian Northern Railway, as approved by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, for the year ending March 31, 1923. These estimates were prepared by the officials of the Canadian National Railways, submitted to and approved by the board of directors, and then laid before the Department of Railways and Canals. I am assured by the management that the moneys asked for are necessary in order to operate successfully the Canadian Northern railway during the coming year. In the course of the statement I submitted to the House some time ago in connection with the railways I said that in the matter of improvements and betterments we were laying new rails only for replacement purposes. That was thought advisable in view of the hope we entertained that in the near future we might have a unified system with one board of directors; and we felt that responsibility for any capital investment should properly be assumed by them. In arriving at that conclusion, I think it is only right to say that neither the management of the railway, the directors, nor the Government, have lost sight of the fact that there are extensions that should be made in the West, and when opportunity offers these extensions will be given every consideration. I have before me to-day an analysis of this vote of $42,800,000 as follows:
Construction	 $1,286,164	00
Betterments-
Western lines	
4,099,525	00Eastern lines	
2,031,390	00Halifax & Southwestern Railway	
112,235	00Co-ordination	
1,452,757	00Right of way surveys	
77,000	00Hotel department..	34,595	00Telegraph department, railway	186,378	00Telegraph department, commercial	
110,734	00
Canadian National Express
equipment	
Stores department	 74,222	00
Materials and supplies, fuel,
ties, etc	
'Special items	 285,000	00
[Stage Direction]
Financial-
Operating account	
5,000,000	00Taxes	
750,000	00Fixed charges interest..	..	18,667,120	02Sinking fund	
1,113,133	33Equipment principal	
4,767,000	00Securities maturing	
2,500,000	00Purchase of securities of subsidiary companies	Contracts payable..	..	..	..	223,827	62
[Stage Direction]
Grand total	$42,771,080 97
Vote No. 136	$42,800,000 00
I have not the contracts for land but they bring the total up to about $42,800,000. I shall be pleased to give the House all the information I can. I hope I have most of it here, and anything I do not have I shall be only too glad to obtain and present at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. EULER:: I note the minister anticipates a deficit of $5,000,000 on operating account for the coming year. How does that compare with last year?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Last year $5,000,000 was the estimated operating deficit.


William Daum Euler: I understand that you
are now making an appropriation for the coming year, and that the estimated operating deficit was $5,000,000.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The operating deficit last year was estimated at $5,000,000, but actually it amounted to $12,827, 411.


William Daum Euler: Do you expect to decrease that this year?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, according to these figures. This year we have an estimate of $5,000,000, and I am informed that we hope to be able to hold the deficit down to the estimate.

Supply-Railways


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Does that
cover the whole system?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The Canadian Northern.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman quite certain he is right as to the estimated deficit on the Canadian Northern lines last year? Speaking from memory, I am pretty sure that the deficit estimated then was more than it actually turned out to be.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This deficit
of $12,000,000 takes care of fifteen months last year.


Arthur Meighen: Instead of the deficit
turning out to be more than the minister's estimate, it is my recollection that it turned out to be less. The minister will see a reference to that in the last debate, when the figures were given.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That was
on fixed charges.


Arthur Meighen: No, fixed charges
could not be less. I do not know the period referred to by the minister a year ago, but the deficit was estimated at a certain figure and the actual deficit turned out to be less than the estimate, not more.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am dealing with the fiscal year and am giving the deficit as announced to the House last year when the Estimates were up, namely, $5,000,000 for the Canadian Northern system. It is the same this year, but last year in the actual working out the deficit turned out to be $12,000,000 odd for the fifteen months. My hon. friend is dealing with the calendar year, and I am dealing with the fiscal year.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that
really makes any difference. The point is not of very great consequence, but I think I shall be able to show the minister that the estimate was more than the actual deficit turned out to be, whatever the period was.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand that the
figure that has been given for the estimated deficit on operating account this year covers only what is known as the Canadian Northern lines.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It does not include the
Transcontinental.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What does the
item "Co-ordination" refer to?


Arthur Meighen: I understand that coordination was to save money. I did not think we would have to vote money to pay for that work.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think we
will, but spending money on co-ordination will mean a great saving in the actual working out. We must, however, pay for the arrangements that are necessary in order to effect co-ordination. As far as the item itself is concerned it includes for coordination facilities:
$250,900 at Quebec and Limoilou;
$142,000 for the purpose of making a connection between the Canadian Northern and G.T.P. at Rowan, a point just west of Fort William;
$475,000 for the construction of a yard at Ft. William, and
$171,000 for the consolidation of terminal facilities at Jasper, Lucerne and the Yel-lowhead pass.
The balance is made up of a number of smaller items at various points of contact between the various railroads embraced in the Canadian National system.
The amount included in this budget is the portion of the co-operation expense chargeable to the Canadian Northern railway.
Mr. MITiC/HEiLL: In view of some of the criticims that have been directed to certain members on this side, including m self, as to the stand we took during the last electoral campaign, in view of the statement made by the Government in the Speech from the Throne to the effect that they intended to give public operation of railways a fair trial, and finally in view of the statement made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) on the eleventh of last month, I feel that it is my duty to discuss the position maintained by us at that time. I may say that my position upon that question has not changed. I am still of the opinion that I was before and during the campaign; but in view of the statement that has been made by the Minister of Railways I feel that I owe some explanation, not only to the House but to my constituency and to the people of my native province where I discussed this question very freely. I realize and understand that there are many hon. members of this House, and many men throughout the country, who do not agree with the position I took during that campaign, which was to the effect that I was against public ownership and operation of railways. I have no quarrel with those who disagree with me upon this matter; they are entitled to their opinion. I respect (their view fully, but I ask them to give the same thought to my own-an i op inion

Supply-Railways
which I can assure the House has been reached after having given a great deal of honest and sincere consideration to the question and after having studied the matter in all its aspects.
Let us endeavour, if we can, to discuss the question freely and frankly, entirely apart from all bitterness of any kind, because, to my mind, it is not a political issue and should not so be considered; it is too serious for that. It is a question which I think, should be looked upon as a national issue because, if I am right in my beliefs with respect to it, it is a danger to the very credit of our country. In saying that I only reiterate what I said during the last election campaign. In saying that I took into consideration then, and take into consideration now, the vast area of our country; I took into consideration our sparse population; I took into consideration the development that has taken place in Canada; I took into consideration the enormous debt that we have and I took into consideration the fact, as I believe, that we are taxed pretty nearly to the limit. Taking all these elements into consideration I stated then, and I state now, that I do not believe our country can stand a deficit of $72,000,000 a year-even if it is only that, and I expect to be able to show that there will be a far greater deficit on the operation of our railways during the past year. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding about the position I took upon this question during the last electoral campaign, allow me to read from the remarks I made when I accepted the nomination for St. Antoine division at the very beginning of the campaign. I said:
My stand on the railway question is just as clear and pronounced as it is on the tariff. On general principles I am against public ownership of railways. I realize that we have the railways. I think it was a mistake to acquire them. I think it was more than a mistake to take over the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk. It was a national blunder leading to national disaster. "When the Borden and Meighen rfigime undertook to purchase and operate the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Railways they started out on a road which leads to national bankruptcy, and the responsibility is theirs, and theirs alone. But these railways are costing $100,000,000 a year. Does any one imagine that this can continue for long? We are losing as much money in railway deficits as would build another transcontinental railway in a few years. Everybody agrees that something must be done.
What is the Solution?
The government should get together the best railroad brains that the world can produce. Let them not confine themselves to Canada, or the United States, but get men from Europe and 
elsewhere whose railway experience would help. Let them investigate this problem from beginning to end, and allow them to do it without interference. I would not allow them to be told beforehand what their report must be, nor that they would have to favour this or that town. They would be told to devise means, and when I had the report from these experts before me, I would assist in finding a solution of the railway problem-a solution satisfactory to the people of Canada

but a solution without deficits, it must be so if we are to save our country.
Again, just previous to election day I issued a manifesto to the electors of St. Antoine division Which contained the following :
The present government committed the stupendous folly of saddling the country with the Canadian 'Northern and Grand Trunk Railways, and with the (Canadian Merchant 'Marine. I am in principle opposed to government ownership and operation of public utilities. Thanks to the present administration, however, the problem is now on our hands and must be faced. We should secure the advice of the most competent experts that can ibe found. We must get at the root of a system which results in yearly deficits that are staggering and that are leading Canada straight to bankruptcy. The next government must take up this question courageously and find a solution that will put an end to a financial burden that is unbearable.
These statements, I think, fairly represent the position I took on every occasion when I spoke in the province of Quebec. What is the position I took? I simply said that in principle I was against the government operation of railways. I believed that we would have a deficit of $100,000,000 a year, and I asked that we should investigate this matter. I asked that we go into the whole book-keeping systems of these great railway systems and get down to the very

root, I think, was the expression I used-down to the very bottom of this whole question of government operation of railways in this country. We must have an investigation full and complete of the book-keeping systems of the Canadian Northern, the Transcontinental Railway, and all the other railways concerned. Let us have a full and complete investigation of those book-keeping systems and place the result before Parliament and the Canadian people. In addition to that, I suggested that we should obtain the best railway experts in the world, and that we should get them from Canada or the United States. I even suggested we should go to Europe, and I made that suggestion simply because I understood and believed that they had had great experience in Europe in the operation of government railways, and I did not think that any harm could come from getting the very best rail-

Supply-Railways
way advice whether in favour of public ownership of against it, in order that the minister could place before Parliament and the people a true inventory, a true statement, and a true solution of this vast, intricate and perplexing problem, which I believe is the most serious problem facing the Canadian people to-day.
Some hon. members opposite ridiculed my suggestion as to getting the best expert advice and accountants to investigate bookkeeping methods. I can see nothing in that suggestion calling for ridicule. I think it is good common sense, and a business method that would he adopted by any competent business administration on any of our great railways, or in any of our great corporations, if they had a like problem to deal with. If that advice had been followed in the past we might have saved hundreds of millions of dollars for this country. If that advice is not followed now, it will be followed sooner or later, because no matter what kind of a trial is given to the operations of the railways in this country, no trial would be satisfactory, either to those in favour of public operation of railways or to those who are opposed to it. No trial will be satisfactory to the Canadian public unless we know that we are getting a fair start, and unless the people who are asking for the trial know that they are getting a show for their money, and that we are going to get, at the end of the trial, a statement of facts and figures and a result that will be worth something to them.
What will happen if we do not do that? In a few months or years, whenever the occasion arises, they will come back and say that the statements were incorrect and that the trial was not fair and cannot be depended upon. If we want to give our government railways a fair trial, we require a true statement of the bookkeeping and accounting methods from one end to the other, and the best engineering advice we can obtain on this problem. When I heard the hon. Minister of Railways present to this House the other day a statement of railway operation for the last fiscal year, I was struck by the very fair and generous treatment that was given by him to the figures and accounts as presented to him by the management of these different railways. I must congratulate him upon his fairness and generosity, but I am glad to say that he coupled with that fairness and generosity a certain amount of caution, because he reiterated, time and again during his speech, that it was not his
statement that he was presenting to the House, but that it was the statement of those responsible for the management and direction of the Canadian National Railways. In order to make that point clear, I quote from the statement made by the Minister of Railways a few days ago. He said:
I would like to say that seemingly the outstanding feature of 1921 operation was the improvement in the position of the Canadian National-Grand Trunk combination.
Secondly he says:
The National system is said to be the only transcontinental system in America whose earnings in 19211, etc.
Further on he says:
It is claimed on behalf of the management that this reduction was not made at the expense of the property, and that deferred maintenance and betterment made during 1919 and 1920 were reflected in 1921.
He says again further on:
It has been submitted by the management-
And again:
The management informed me that the labour situation has greatly improved.
And again:
1 am glad to give expression to the views of the management in that regard.
And again:
The management estimates the reductions in tie expenditure last year to have been-
The figures are then given. And again he says:
The management state that in 1921 they did not purchase for the Intercolonial railway or ship to the Intercolonial railway east of Montreal any American coal.
And then he concludes by the statement that there has been so much criticism of the management of the Canadian National Railways, and also concerning the Grand Trunk, as to impair parliamentary and public confidence in figures and statements which have been put out from time to time. Then he concludes with the statement that he is going to appoint a committee to investigate the book-keeping methods of the Canadian National Railway system. Could there be anything clearer or more convincing than that the minister intended to throw the responsibility for all that statement he submitted to the House where it properly belongs, namely, on the management of the different railway systems which comprise the Canadian National Railways.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member not aware that the Government has now, and

Supply-Railways
has had for years, under its charge an independent audit of the Canadian National system which reports to the Government direct, and that, consequently, if the minister does not know the real position it is his own fault.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have no knowledge whatever, except the statements that are contained in the remarks made by the Minister of Railways the other day, and if you have that independent audit to which the leader of the Opposition refers, or if we had half a dozen independent audits, it would not alter the point I have made that the Minister of Railways and the Government say that the responsibility for the management and the statement that was submitted belong to the management and to the Government which appointed that management, and which controlled it during the whole time this statement covers. The fact that an independent audit may have been made does not in the least alter the situation, because the Minister of Railways told us that the public, and even this Parliament, did not have faith in the statements that were submitted nor in the bookkeeping methods that were employed by these companies, and that, therefore, the Government were going to ask the new management to appoint an investigation committee to go into all the circumstances.
As regards the question of the deficit upon the government railways, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) a few days ago asked the Minister of Railways whether the deficit should not have been less than it was. I think this will answer his question. If I remember correctly, the estimated deficit on the whole system last year was some $70,000,000; but that was corrected to $67,000,000, and then the Minister of Railways announced that the deficit on the Canadian National, not including the Grand Trunk, amounted to $56,000,000 in round figures.


Arthur Meighen: That was not an estimate at all. The figures to which the hon. member refers were the actual figures of operation for the previous year.


Walter George Mitchell: I thought the leader of the Opposition, when he was talking the other day in regard to the $70,000,000 and the $67,000,000, was referring to the estimate, but I may be wrong in that. In any event, the deficit last year upon the operation of the Canadian National system, not including the Grand Trunk system was $56,673,934, and the deficit on the Grand Trunk system was $15,672,298, making a

total deficit of $72,346,232. By a simple process of calculation, we find that that deficit of, in round figures, $72,000,000, has added a per capita debt to our population of about $7. When we consider that the public debt of Canada at the end of the last fiscal year amounted to $2,340,000,000, or about $266 per capita, and when we find that, in the operation of our railway system, we have a deficit of $72,000,000, is it not fair for me to suggest to this House, to the Canadian people and to all these gentlemen who are in favour of government operation of railways, that we " stop, look, listen," before we go too far upon this road which, in the campaign last fall, I described as the road that was leading to disaster.
For the purpose of finding out whether that deficit of $72,000,000, which was referred to the other day by the Minister of Railways, is the actual deficit, I should like, for' a moment or two, to discuss the returns which were filed by the Minister of Railways. We find that the operating expenses last year amounted to $142,784,000-my point is this, that all the savings in connection with the operation of government owned railways were savings in operating expenses. In 1920, the expenditure on this account was $162,484,000. Thus, in 1921 there was a saving of about $19,000,000 in operating expenses. I will show the committee in a few minutes how that $19,000,000 was saved in the expense account. The other day there was delight in the voice of the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Stewart) when he told us that the operating deficit was only $16,000,000 last year as against $36,000,000 the year before; that last year there was an improvement to the extent of $20,000,000. If hon. members will look at the monthly returns that are filed, one thing that will strike them as rather peculiar is that from the first of January to the end of June the monthly deficit in the operation of the Canadian National railways amounted to over $2,500,000 and, in some months, to nearly $3,000,000; that in the month of July we had an operating deficit of $1,261,000 and that then the surpluses began: August, $47,231; September, $504,174.87; October, ($1,036,030,34; November, $734,149.65. Then in December we go back into the deficit 4 p.m. column, and we have a deficit of $1,114,794.38. That is to say, during the first six months we had a deficit of over $2,500,000 and sometimes nearly $3,000,000 per month; then for

Supply-Raihvays
August, September, October and November, we had surpluses; then in December we go back into the deficit column, and I understand that we are still continuing in that column. I would point out that there was a great difference between July and August, and between November and December. Hon. members will find that in the one case the actual difference amounts to $1,308,000, and in the other it amounts to $1,848,000. What I would point out to hon. members is what seems to me to be a queer coincidence, namely, that the four months during which we had surpluses in operation upon the Canadian National railways were the very four months when hon. gentlemen opposite were appealing to the Canadian people for support during the [DOT] last campaign. Some hon. member may ask, what about July? If you will remember, the improvement started in the early summer and not right at the beginning of the election campaign. It will be recalled that, early in the summer, a demand was made by the press from the Atlantic to the Pacific upon the then Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) calling upon him to go before the people of this country. That was continued day in and day out, and if I am not mistaken, the then Prime Minister stated early in the summer that he would announce his policy on the first of September. I think it was at the city of London, in the province of Ontario, that he announced that there would be a general election before the end of the year, and on the 7th October he announced dissolution, and fixed the elections for the 6th December.
Now, Sir, of course I know that hon. gentlemen opposite have often pretended that there was no interference by them with the management of the Canadian National Railways, but it does seem to me that the coincidence to which I have just referred would strike hon. members as at least somewhat remarkable.
And, further, on Thursday night we had a discussion over an Order in Council passed on the 6th October last,-the day previous to the dissolution-during the course of which we found hon. gentlemen opposite defending the Government for interfering in the management of the Canadian National Railways, and on this side we had hon. members calling for further contracts to be awarded to their particular constituencies. Is that the kind of fair trial of our railway system under public ownership that hon. members want? I agree with
the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) the other night when he said that there should be no interference with the management of our National Railways whether it be by ministers of the Crown, members of Parliament or the public. It is only by freedom from such interference that our National Railway system will ever get a fair trial. If that is not possible, then I say the trial is not by any means a fair trial and the system is doomed to failure.
My reason for being against government operation of railways or similar undertakings has always been the same. While I have every confidence in the Government which I have the honour to support, in the members of this House, and in our people, yet I am afraid that until human nature is freed from the weaknesses that it has displayed for generations past, or until we have supermen in control of our Canadian National Railways who will stand inflexible against all demands whether by ministers of the Crown, members of Parliament or the public, we will not be able to get that satisfactory management and operation under public ownership suggested by the hon. member for Marquette.


Mr. GOOD:: Did I understand the hon.
gentleman to say that he was opposed to the principle of public ownership and operation of all public utilities?


Walter George Mitchell: That is what I said,
and I still am of that opinion. I have had some experience, not much, of the public operation of public utilities, under which description, of course, I do not include every little waterpower or electric plant in a small village or town. From my examination into the operation of such utilities I have come to the conclusion on general principles that the public pay more in taxation than they benefit from lower charges under public ownership.
But I do not want to get away from the railway question. I know that in the great province of Ontario there is public ownership and operation of one of their public utilities that the people are proud of and want continued. I do not wish to discuss that feature to-day. I am dealing solely with the question of railway operation. But in answer to my hon. friend, I say that as a result of the examination I had occasion to make, in my capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs in the province of Quebec, into the operation and management of various publicly

Supply-Railways
owned enterprises I was forced to the conclusion that no public utility of any importance can be operated to the advantage of the community under public ownership, if all the charges of every description that would be allowed for by a business organization running the same public utility were taken into account in making up the *balance Sheet.


Mr. SPENCER:: Does the bon. member include the Post Office Department in that statement?


Walter George Mitchell: Oh, no. The hon. gentleman knows that I do not refer to the post office or similar departments which have been run by governments from time immemorial and which have always been *recognized as a part of the governmenf's activities in any country. The hon. gentleman is evidently asking me the question in order to divert my attention from the subject of government operation of railways.


William Daum Euler: The hon. gentleman has referred to his examination into the operation of various public utilities in the province of Qudbec. Would he be kind enough to be a little more definite and state the nature of the public utilities that he investigated?


Walter George Mitchell: I do not think that is a fair question.


William Daum Euler: You referred to it.


Walter George Mitchell: Any investigations I made were made by me as Minister of Municipal Affairs. I ask my hon. friend to accept my statement for what it is worth, and I give it to him frankly. It was my conclusion-I may be wrong; he might hold an investigation and reach a different conclusion-that public operation was not a success. I did not find one case of successful operation under public management. I trust the hon. gentleman will not ask me to give the names of the public owned corporations that I investigated.


William Daum Euler: I do not desire to be misunderstood. I was not asking for the names of the corporations that my hon. friend investigated; I was asking for the nature of the service they performed. Were they railways, gas companies, electric companies, or water companies? What service did they perform?


Walter George Mitchell: Principally electric
plants, small railways, and waterworks that were operated by various municipalities throughout the province of Quebec. Notv,

*Sir, I want to call the attention of the House to one other fact, that not only did the improvement to the extent of $20,000,000 in the operation of our National Railways result from a decrease in the operating expenses which were under the control of the management of the Canadian *Northern and the other railways forming the government system, but the Minister of Railways on behalf of the management made the following statement recently:
It is claimed on behalf of the management that this reduction was not made at the expense of the property, and that deferred maintenance and betterments made during 1920 were reflected in 1921.
And he also stated:
After the very heavy purchases of rolling stock and motive power in 1918, 1919, and 1920, it was not necessary to go into the market for equipment of any kind during 1921.
We have from the management of the railways the statement that the operations of 1921 benefited from improvements, betterments and maintenance and the purchase of rolling stock made previous to that year, and properly chargeable to the year 191920. So I say that in all fairness, you have to deduct from 1921 an amount equal to the improvements charged to 1920. In the Order in Council which was discussed the other day in this House the last clause but one reads:
That in neither case shall expenditure incurred this year in anticipation of next year's requirements be chargeable against current operation or financing.
In other words, the government of that day took it upon themselves to instruct the management of the railways, under their direction and control, that they should charge against the year 1922 expenditures that should have been chargeable to 1921. I not only say that if that were legal, it would be wrong, but I emphatically declare that it is illegal, and there is no authority that can be found to justify that government or any other in instructing the management of the Canadian National Railways to charge against 1922 what is properly chargeable against 1921.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend
explain just how he fits that argument into the section he read from the Order in Council? I certainly cannot follow him.


Walter George Mitchell: It occurs in several
places. The Minister of Railways of that day had suggested to the management that they should anticipate an order for rails

Supply-Railways
and cars, as stated by him the other night, the object being to relieve unemployment. That was done during the fall months of the year, and after he had made that suggestion to the management, he says in his report:


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the date of the
Order in Council?


Walter George Mitchell: October 6, 1921. That was the day before |the dissolution of Parliament, if I mistake not. At any rate, it was about the time the Prime Minister announced the dissolution. The hon. gentleman in his report said:
In doing so, however, it is only lair to the railways that expenditures so incurred shall not be considered a charge against the current year's operations 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 charged against the railways but against such financial provision as may, from time to time, be made by the Government to deal with unemployment.
The clause before the one I read a few moments ago is as follows:
That in placing orders for the rebuilding and repair of freight equipment the charges against the railways shall only be the fair and reasonable cost of same at the company's shops, and that any extra expenditures involved be a proper charge against unemployment generally and be regarded as such.
If the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Stewart) will go into the accounts he will find that operations in the year 1921 benefited from expenditures which were charged against the year 1922. And the statement that I made during the last election campaign was not at all exaggerated. The deficit on the operations of last year, if the accounts are carefully examined, will be found to have been not only $100,000,000 but considerably in excess of that amount. If on top of all that my hon. friend the exMinister of Railways will add the interest on the Intercolonial, the interest on the Transcontinental, and the other interest charges which, I understand, were not compounded from time to time, he will discover that I am well within the mark when I fix the deficit at $100,000,000.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does my hon. friend
suggest that in connection with the orders which were anticipated in October of last year, the companies got too much for the rails?


Walter George Mitchell: Not at all. I do not
suggest anything of the kind, nor do I
imply that there was anything wrong in the transaction in a general business way. I am simply criticising the business method that has been pursued in connection with the government operation of railways, and I say that neither the late government nor this Government, nor any member of Parliament has the right, under a proper system of management, to tell the railways that when they anticipate and purchase something this year for next year, they shall charge the expenditure to next year's account.


William F. Carroll: Is the hon. member not aware that at this present time the Canadian Pacific Railway ai'e anticipating rail requirements for next year?


Walter George Mitchell: That statement was
made the other day, I think, by the exMinister of Railways, and I took the trouble to inquire of the Canadian Pacific Railway as to the accuracy of it. I am informed that at no time, on no single occasion, have they ever ordered any equipment in anticipation and charged it up against the following year's accounts. They have not charged to next year something that is chargeable to this year.


William F. Carroll: Does my hon. friend
not know that it is a fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway are this year anticipating requirements of next year for the reason that rails manufactured and kept in storage five or six hundred miles from salt water improve?


Walter George Mitchell: I have not gone into
the question of the effect of salt water on rails, nor do I dispute for a moment that the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway has the right to order this year any rails 'that 'they may require next year. I do not dispute that; I have not discussed that feature of the subject at all. The only point I am endeavouring to make is that you cannot order to-day something to be used in any way this year and charge it to next year's account.
I am not criticising the management of the Canadian National Railways for ordering for next year's requirements, but I am criticising the late government's suggestion that they should do that for the sake of relieving unemployment. If unemployment was the sole reason, there would be a great deal to be said for that action. But what I say is, they have no right to authorize charging to next year's account what should have been charged to 1921.

Supply-Railways


Mr. STEWART (Lanark):: Does the hon. member suggest that the rails authorized under Order in Council of October 6, or the cars which under that Order in Council were authorized to he repaired, entered into the operation of the system for 1921?


Walter George Mitchell: I am not ready to say they actually did. What I ask is, that we go into the account. Because, if you take the benefits that 1921 got for the work that was done previously, and take the work which should have been charged to 1921 but was charged to 1922, you will find that the $20,000,000 of improvements disappears. I may be wrong, but I say that we are entitled, in view of the Orders in Council that were passed and the statements made by the management itself, to have an investigation to find out actually what was charged and what was not, and I can assure the ex-Minister of Railways that I shall be delighted if I find I am wrong on this point.


John Alexander Stewart: The hon.
gentleman has stated more than once in his remarks to-day that it was unfair to charge up to 1922 purchases authorized in 1921 and which affected the statement for the calander year 1921. I think, in view of his repeated statements, it is only fair that he should tell the House upon what he bases his remarks; because I have no hesitation in saying that the purchases authorized under that Order in Council did not enter into the operation of the system during the last calendar year.


Walter George Mitchell: That is where I disagree with my hon. friend, and I say further, he should not require much more proof than is contained in the Order in Council itself, which says that what should he charged to this year shall be charged to next year.


John Alexander Stewart: It does not say that at all.


Walter George Mitchell: On betterments, maintenance, interest and like, accounts you will find, not thousands, but millions of dolars charged to 1922 that should have been charged to 1921. In the discussion the other day I asked the exMinister of Railways at whose suggestion this Order in Council was passed, and in order to make the matter clear, I shall read a clause of the Order in Council which covers the point we discussed here last Thursday. I asked the Minister of Railways several times whether the instructions went from the Labour Department to the 
management of the railway, or whether they went to the officials of the Railway Department, and if I understood him correctly he said that the negotiations or the correspondence, or whatever it was, went on between the Labour Department and the management of the railway itself, not the Department of Railways over which he presided. I quote from the Order in Council:
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 Labour, whose departmental officials are closely in touch with the 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 as it affects the railways under government control-
And so on. I take the Order in Council for what it says, and it seems that the whole situation was engineered, governed and directed from the Department of Railways and the Department of Labour. Of course, I know that the solicitude of the hon. gentleman for the unemployed took a spurt just at that moment, but I could not for one moment imagine that this solicitude led to the placing of the contracts for rails and cars. The fact remains that the Order in Council of the 6th of October was not the first Order in Council that was passed for the giving of contracts for cars. We find that on the 13th of August, 1921, an Order in Council was passed, and on that occasion there is no mention at all of labour troubles. The only statement we have is one from Mr. Hanna which says that "for the convenience of the company" it might be wise-I am not quoting when I say "it might be wise"-"to give a contract to the Algoma Steel Company for 40,000 tons of rails." An Order in Council had been passed previous to that, on the 21st of April, 1921, placing an order for 50,000 tons of rails at $55. The order under that contract was not completed up to the 50,000 tons, but only up to 39,000 tons, so another Order in Council was passed on the 13th of August confirming the balance of 11,000 tons and awarding a new contract for 40,000 tons, and there was no question raised about unemployment whatsoever, except that I think the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) in discussing this matter said that early in the spring the question had been raised-evidently in connection with the contract authorized on the 21st of April. This is what the hon. member for West Algoma said:

Supply-Railways
1 may say that strong representations were made to the management of the railway companies last spring by representatives of the steel companies at (Sydney and Sault Ste. Marie to place railway business in order to provide employment for the men during the coming season.
That is the only mention of unemployment, and I notice that the representations did not come from the men who were unemployed, but from the companies that wanted the contracts.


Mr. SIMPSON:: A large deputation of the men from the steel plant at Sault Ste. Marie came down to Ottawa and applied for rail orders to be placed to provide employment.


Walter George Mitchell: Why did you not give it to them then, and not wait until the day previous to dissolution? The contract was given subsequent to April 21, and then a new contract was awarded on August 13, and when the hon. member for Fort William-


John Alexander Stewart: Does my hon. friend say an order was placed on August 13?


Walter George Mitchell: I intended to say Order in Council; if I said order I made a mistake, I meant Order in Council. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), I think it was, the other night defended the Order in Council of October 6, on the ground that it was looking after the unemployment in certain districts.


Mr. MANION:: Will the hon. member permit me; I did not mention Order in Council at all. I defended the policy of looking after the unemployment in this country, but I did not discuss the Order in Council.


Walter George Mitchell: The Order in Council was being discussed at that time and I took it that my hon. friends were defending the government for having given a contract by virtue of the Order in Council of October 6, as representations had been made by different boards of trade and other people, according to the ex-Minister of Railways, to give work to the unemployed.


Robert James Manion: Would my hon. friend condemn the policy of the government in endeavouring to relieve unemployment in any manner?


Walter George Mitchell: 
John Alexander Stewart: My hon.
friend has again referred to the order that was placed on August 13. No order was ever placed with the Algoma Steel Company or with any other company under the Order in Council of August. That Order in Council authorized the Board of Management to make contracts for a given sum, but no contract was ever entered into under it; the only contracts that were entered into were under the Order in Council of October 6.


Walter George Mitchell: Not at all, the hon. gentleman is mistaken because they had furnished 39,000 tons of rails under the Order in Council of October 21-


John Alexander Stewart: Under the April Order in Council.


Walter George Mitchell: Under the April Order in Council I think the government renewed or confirmed a contract to the extent of 11,000 tons and authorized the giving of a contract for 40,000 tons. On October 6, the authorization that was given in the Order in Council of August 13, was cancelled, and, as I said a moment ago, the Algoma Steel Company, so I am informed, got an order for an equal amount by virtue of the Order in Council of October 6.


John Alexander Stewart: I do not wani, to interrupt my hon. friend but I would like to ask this question: Does he suggest that it would have been possible for the Board of Management of the National Railways to have anticipated their requirements for the purpose of relieving the unemployment situation without coming to the government, and without authority by Order in Council to do so? In the estimates of last year certain appropriations were made for the year. Now, if these appropriations were made-


Walter George Mitchell: I have no objection to the hon. gentleman asking questions but I think he better refrain from argument.
Supply-Railways


John Alexander Stewart: I am suggesting this to my hon. friend: If the Board of Management were to place orders to relieve unemployment in excess of the appropriations that were made in the estimates cf last year, does he suggest it would have been possible to do so without coming to the government and asking for an Order in Council?


Walter George Mitchell: I have not examined the powers of the Canadian National Railways or the Grand Trunk Railway system to anticipate their orders but I presumed, and I understood ever since the government took these railways over, that the Boards of Management were running the lines completely and fully, and that there was no interference by the government in any way, shape or form. That is what I understood, but now I find I was wrong in that view. When the ex-Minister of Railways asks if it would be right for the Board of Management to come and suggest things to the government he forgets that he mentioned the other night that it was not the Board of Management that made the suggestion but that he himself suggested to the management to anticipate these orders.


John Alexander Stewart: I do not think my hon. friend is quoting me correctly. I think he will find, if he refers to Hansard, that I stated there were conferences between the department and the board, and I think it would be fair to say that the conferences started prior to the time that I became Minister of Railways.


Walter George Mitchell: Very well, we will not take the conferences, but we will take the ex-minister's own statement. In the Order in Council passed on October 6, we find this statement:
And in order that there may be no question ot 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 Labour-
If the ex-Minister of Railways will refer to his remarks made on May 11, I think he will find the following in connection with this item:
I should like to explain to the committee that, in the closing months of 1921, very strong representations were made, not only to the Department of Railways and Canals and the government, but to the boards in charge of the operation of Canadian-owned railways.
Further on the ex-Minister of Railways said:

The government conferred with the Canadian Northern board and the Grand Trunk board and suggested to them-
And so on. I am taking the ex-minister's own words, and I presume that what he gave us the other night was a correct statement of the facts. I think that if I have not conclusively and logically proven to the hilt that there was interference, I have at least made out such a case in connection with the management of these railways that those gentlemen who are in favour of government operation will at any rate want to have an investigation into the accounting of last year in order to see that when they start out on a fair trial of government operation they will get an honest start and one that may be worth something to them when the period of trial is over.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Does my hon. friend suggest that a price in advance of the market rate was paid for rails?


Walter George Mitchell: No I simply gave the figure of $55 which was mentioned in the Order in Council. I do not suggest such a thing in any way in connection with any of these transactions. What I am asking for is an accounting to find out the facts. Evidently my hon. friend has not got the point I endeavoured to make That is that in view of the statement made on behalf of the Board of Management that many expenditures were charged to 1918, 1919, 1920 and should be charged to 1921, I want to find out what the facts are-. nothing more or nothing less.


William F. Carroll: Did my hon. friend state that a contract for rails was awarded to the Dominion Steel Company last year at $55?


Walter George Mitchell: I did not mention the Dominion Steel Company; I did not know there was a contract given to them.
I mentioned a moment ago that the debt of Canada was over $2,340,000,000, and I have endeavoured to show that in my judgment the deficits will be $100,000,000 if a proper accounting is made with respect to the operations of these railways. When we take into consideration the fact that during last year, up till the 31st March, we collected $101,500,000 from the business profits tax and from the income tax, all of which has gone into the sink hole of the Canadian National Railway deficit, is it not fair for us to inquire how we are going to meet this liability? I am sure that if the members of this House are not asking themselves that question, one member in

Supply-Railways
this Chamber is seriously considering that matter, and that is the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). If every dollar which he Collects from income and business [DOT]phofit taxes, instead of going to pay off the war debt, is to be sunk in railway deficits, is it not time that we should try, at least, to make an honest and earnest endeavour to find the solution of this difficulty? It may not be the solution that I want. The hon. member may be able to prove that government operation is possible, but I ask, in conclusion, that before the Government makes a start-and I make this appeal to those in favour of public ownership-see that it starts right in order that the system may get a fair trial.
Reference has been made, in connection with government operation, to my position on the railway question. Someone has suggested, I do not know whom, that I was in favour of monopoly in railways. I [DOT] would like to know where the idea came from because ever since I have been in public life I have been fighting monopolies and have been endeavouring to control them at all times and on all occasions. I am against government operation of railways in principle, as I have stated, but I [DOT]am just as firmly against monopolies of railways, whether by the government or anybody else. I do not care Who it is, because to my mind, in order to get service which, after all, is what we want, we must have competition. Let us get competition and we will get service. I sympathize with those who are asking for reduced freight rates. I believe we must get reduced freight rates in this country. But do not ask for a reduction 'below the Cost of the operation of your railway, because that means a greater deficit, and will, of course, mean more borrowing, which, in turn, means more taxes. Let us get to the rock bottom of this question and endeavour, each with the other, to arrive at
solution that will get rid of these deficits. iSuch a solution must 'be found, and, in order to find that solution, we will have to bring in more immigrants, which will give us more business and more traffic. That will be the surer way of reducing freight rates. I may, perhaps, exaggerate the seriousness of this question, but I believe it is an extremely serious matter and we should co-operate in an earnest endeavour to wipe out the enormous deficit that the taxpayers of this country have to pay.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member answer one question which will, perhaps, help the point of his address? If, after
the investigation he demands, the accounts are found to be correctly kept, and the returns are found to be true returns, what does he say ought then to be done about the National Railways?


Walter George Mitchell: When the hon. leader of the Opposition was questioned similarly the other day he stated that he would answer that question when his duties called upon him to do so, but I will not take that course. I say that, taking everything into consideration, unless some method is found to get rid of the deficit $70,000,000, or $100,000,000 as the case may be, the credit of this country cannot stand it, and if no solution is found, either by the experts or in some other way, we should devise some means of getting rid of the railway. We will have to get rid of the enormous deficit which this country has been burdened with during the last few years.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry the answer of the hon. member had so many "ifs" in it that it did not add to the point of his address. I do not know yet what the hon. member would do. If there is no solution, he wants something else done.


Walter George Mitchell: I see what the hon gentleman is trying to do. He wants to get me to say that I will take one or the other course. I have stated to this House that, first of all, this country cannot, in my judgment, stand a deficit of $72,000,000. Secondly, if, after investigation, those accounts are found correct, and if the experts tell us that we cannot re-systematize the railways in such a way as to wipe out that $72,000,000, there will be nothing to do but to turn them back to private ownership.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Walter George Mitchell: Absolutely. I thought I had made that point clear in my opening remarks. I said that the Government had announced in the Speech from the Throne, and the minister had announced that they intended to give the railways a fair trial.
I intend to co-operate absolutely in every possible way, in order to give that fair trial. My hope is-and what I ask for is -that, in order to give that fair trial, we should have an investigation and obtain expert advice, so that it will be a real fair trial.
Supply-Railways


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member supports the policy of the Government, as announced by the Minister of Railways. Will he now tell us wherein he differs from the policy of the late government?


Walter George Mitchell: I hope the present
management will endeavour to operate without government interference and I say that if they do not operate in that way, they will not get any better results than the last government.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's only complaint, in respect to which he waged his campaign through his province and in this country, as to the late government's railway policy was that we endeavoured, by conference with the railways, and by standing for any loss ourselves, to relieve unemployment last winter. That, after all, was all the objection he had to government operation of railways as conducted by the late administration. Well, the mountain certainly has laboured, and the House will observe the result. I do not wish to say anything by way of reply, because, really, in the last words of the hon. member from St. Antoine are contained the sum and substance of his whole case. He really has no case at all. I know that we have a deficit. Every one knows that we have a deficit and knows the cause of that deficit. If the National Railways had been constructed by men desiring to make money out of them on a commercial basis for purely commercial purposes, then that deficit would not exist. But the National Railways were constructed under impulses, of which the hon. member was a considerable factor himself, political impulses, sometimes colonization impulses, sometimes for reasons going to the very root of Confederation, as in the case of the Intercolonial. That is the character of the National Railways, and because they are of that character, they cannot, under present conditions, be made to pay. The hon. member knows that, under present conditions, they cannot be made to pay; he knows that no separate private company, no private individual would take them with the idea of making money out of them. The only way that they would take the National Railways would be on the basis of the country standing good for these deficits, for which the country is responsible because of the construction of the road.
The hon. member makes a speech of an hour and a half on the matter of accounting. What reasons have we for thinking 
that the accounting of the National Railways is wrong? The hon. gentleman does not seem to be aware that, not only have we the authority of the various accounting firms who superintend the auditing of the different elements of the National system, but an independent audit has been carried on by one of the most reputable firms, I think, in the world, the Marwick, Mitchell firm, an audit for the advantage of the Government and independent of the railway auditors altogether. These independent auditors go into all the matters that the hon. member has referred to, such as charging against one year something that should be be charged against another. It is the business of the auditors to report such matters with their audit. Has the hon. member in his speech of an hour and a half adduced any reason that would be authority for us to challenge the auditors' report? I did not find one. Consequently, the plea he makes that there be some investigation into the accounting system, into the question whether or not we are really getting the facts, is not supported in any way by the statements that he has made. The whole fact turns out to be that he took advantage of a feeling, engendered by the press in his district and in his province, to ride on the wave into office, challenging the whole principle of government operation, challenging the whole principle of government ownership of public utilities; that he finds out when he gets here that conditions are such that there is and has been no alternative except government ownership and operation, and he places himself right behind both.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: Does the
right hon. member think that Canada, for all time to come, will have to maintain deficits under government ownership and operation?


Arthur Meighen: There will be no need
for such deficits as long as the railways are managed properly. Naturally, as the country develops and as the settlements along those roads- which were constructed as colonization roads increase, the system will develop; it will develop chiefly because of the policy which the late government adopted of bringing great railway factors east and west together, because of the economies which will result from the amalgamation of large railway elements into one, and because of that, there will be no need at all for the maintenance of deficits such as that of last year. Indeed, the result

Supply-Railways
of last year, much better as it was than that of the year before, should be improved on considerably this year, and so on from year to year. But the fact is that, owing to the very nature of the capital investment, there cannot be anything but deficits for some time. It all depends on the ability of the management and on the pursuance of the policy inaugurated which the minister now continues, how soon those deficits will cease.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon gentleman (Mr. Mitchell) is alarmed about the credit of Canada in consequence of these deficits. I would draw his attention to the fact that municipalities and provincial governments are issuing bonds to-day under better terms than it has been possible to get for some years past. I would also point out to him that the Canadian exchange to-day is less than one per cent. These are not evidences of Canada losing its credit, notwithstanding the deficits that we have had on the railways. There can be no doubt that these deficits will decrease, and under these circumstances I think our credit will constantly improve.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to ask just one question of the minister before we get far away from the remarks of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. member repeatedly used the figure $72,000,000 as the deficit last year, and he also added that if the figures were correct the deficit was more likely to be $100,000,000. Would the minister give to the committee exactly the deficit for last year on the National Railways system?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It was $72,602,278.46.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister analyze that briefly, showing how it is made up and give us the exact period? Is that for fifteen months, or for twelve months?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: For the
calendar year 1921.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is that figure made up of?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The items
are as follows:
Canadian National amalgamated system, including the Grand Trunk:
Canadian National Railway,
operating revenue for 1921	$235,789,013 30
Operating expenses	
247,509,397	41Net deficit, railway operations	11,720,384	11Other expenses	
602,350	17Total net deficit	-. ..	12,322,734 28
Fixed charges other than to
the Government	 40,453,509 49
Net cash deficit	 $ 52,776,243 77
Mr, MEIGHEN:	That is the figure
which corresponds with the $56,000,000 odd that the minister gave us in his statement on the 11th April?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That figure is now less than $56,000,000; it is $52,000,000 odd.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes. Then we have:
Fixed charges to the Government, $19,569,989.79.
These amounts make the total deficit of $72,346,233.56.


Arthur Meighen: On the 11th of April the minister gave the corrected figure for the deficit of 1920 as $67,000,000. That is the figure that compares with the $52,000,000 odd he gives now, because, in the $67,000,000, interest to the Government was not included. On the 11th of April he gave us $67,000,000 odd as the corrected deficit for 1920, and $56,000,000 odd as the deficit for 1921-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Estimated.


Arthur Meighen: Now he corrects the
$56,000,000 odd to $52,000,000 odd, so that there is an improvement of about $4,000,000 to-day over the 11th of April in the returns of last year as compared with the year before.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: That was only on the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk.


Arthur Meighen: I think it covered them all.


Walter George Mitchell: The deficit as announced by the minister was $56,000,000 on the Canadian National, and $15,000,000 odd on the Grand Trunk, or $72,000,000 on the two.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the point I should like to have definitely cleared up. The hon. member (Mr. Mitchell) persists in saying that the deficit is $72,000,000. The hon. -minister in reply to my question gives the figure as $52,776,000, to which he says may be added other fixed charges on amounts owing to the Government. Well, that is correct enough. But my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) added
Supply-Railways

to the $72,000,000 other imaginary charges, and he also added interest on the amounts, advanced by the Government; but that is included in the $72,000,000. The $72,000,000 covers the ultimate losses; but the actual losses on operation and charges to the public is $52,776,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, the estimates that we are now considering, following the annual statement submitted to the House by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) on April 11, relate to what is, I think, by common consent regarded as one of the most important matters that this Parliament has to deal with. Indeed, I would say that that annual statement comes only second in importance to the statement this House will have from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on Tuesday next.


Walter George Mitchell: May I interrupt my hon. friend to clear up the amount of the deficit? I did not understand the Minister of Railways said that the deficit was $72,000,000, or $56,000,000 or $52,000,000. According to his statement it was $56,000,000 odd on the Canadian Northern and $15,000,000 odd on the Grand Trunk, making a total deficit of $72,000,000. I would like to make sure that that is correct.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter of settling whether the deficit is a million more or less is not very momentous in my judgment as far as the whole problem is concerned.


Walter George Mitchell: Not $1,000,000, but


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This is one of the most important matters that this committee has to consider. I listened with very much interest to the remarks made by my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell). He stated quite frankly that he did not believe in the public ownership of public utilities, and he expressed very clearly his view that government ownership of such utilities could not possibly be made a success. I have no quarrel with the view entertained by my hon. friend. I recognize that there are in this House and outside many people who do not believe in public ownership, and I respect their view. I think they hold that view as honestly as I do the opposite view, that certain public utilities from their very nature are natural monopolies that can be administered by public agencies with better advantage to the public weal.
This is a question of the very greatest importance, because it touches the whole

subject of transportation, and when we consider the physical character of this country and the scattered nature of its population, we at once realize that there is no subject of such great moment to our people as cheap and reasonable transportation facilities. For that reason, if for no other, the subject is of the very greatest importance. But it is particularly important to us at the present time because of the financial considerations involved. Had it not been for the very great increase in our national debt resulting from the part we took in the war, our railway problem, serious as it is, would not have been by any means beyond our capacity to handle readily and easily without our scarcely feeling the burden. But I quite agree writh my hon. friend from St. Antoine that the existing situation, by reason of the enormous debt that this country has to carry, is one that must command the most serious and earnest consideration of this House and the country.
I quite realize the effect that sustained heavy deficits On the operation of our national railways may have upon our national credit. I cannot agree with my hon. friend, however, in the doleful picture he has drawn that if we do not get rid of these deficits immediately our national credit will go to pieces and we will be in a very bad way indeed. We have had these deficits for several years past, they are a matter of common knowledge not only in Canada but in the countries ih which Canada borrows her money; but as my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Hocken) has pointed out, it has not affected the interest rate on our loans. A few weeks ago my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) negotiated a large loan in the city of New York. That loan was oversubscribed in a few hours' time. I think it was one of the most striking evidences we could possibly have as to the innate soundness of Canada's financial position.
The question we have to consider is hoiw we can best handle this whole proposition, and before I address myself to a consideration of that question I want to offer a word of criticism of those who condemn the public administration of these railways, including my hon. friend from St. Antoine. We have those in the House and those outside who attribute all the difficulties we are in financially from our being in the business of operating railways, and they say that government ownership and operation can never succeed and we should get rid of these railways at once.

Supply-Railways
Now, the fair, -plain question I want to put to such critics, whether in the House or outside, is this: What is your alternative scheme? Why are we in this position in respect to our railways? For one reason, and one reason only, as I have stated in this House before. Canada did not take up the government ownership and operation of these railways through conviction or belief in the principle of public ownership at all. Practically all the mileage of our government-owned railways to-day has come to us through the absolute and complete breakdown of private ownership. That is why we are in our present position in regard to these railways, and I challenge my hon. friends to deny it.
What assistance has Canada given to the building of railways? I gave the figures in the debate on freight rates a few days ago. According to the Drayton-Ac-worth report this country has given almost $1,000,000,000 in aid to railwa s almost all privately owned and privately operated. What we have given to the Canadian Northern alone runs up to the enormous total of almost $300,000,000. Here was a transportation system, privately owned, operated and controlled, to which this country had given practi'caly $300,000,000, and yet that system broke down. What were we to do?.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman figures to show how much of that total is cash and hoW much loans or guarantees?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: These figures are contained in the Drayton-Acworth report of
1917.
Cash subsidies	   $38,874,148
Cold cash handed out from the pockets of the people.
Proceeds of lands	sold....	$34,379,809
Loans outstanding or invest
ment. .	    $25,858,166
Guarantees outstanding..	..	$199,141,140
Or a total aid from the public of $298,253,263.
These are guarantees by the Dominion and provincial governments. Those are the details of the assistance given to the Canadian Northern Railway, and do not include the large amounts given since this report was compiled.
Now, this fact must always be kept in mind in considering this question, that the country because of the guarantees it had given upon these securities was mot in the position of being merely an uninterested outsider. My hon. friends say, or rather those who have been opposed to the policy by which the Canadian Northern was acquired by the government-those critics say that the road should 'have been permitted to go into liquidation. 1 want to point out to them that even if the road had gone into liquidation the liability of the country under those guarantees could not have been evaded, unless the Dominion and the provinces repudiated their obligations. I submit therefore that the government of the day had no alternative but to pursue this policy and take over the road. There may he some criticism offered that in the arbitration of the value of the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway, a sum of money was paid to the promoters, to which they were not entitled. But that does not affect the substance of my argument at all. There was no other course for this country to follow than the taking over of this railway system. And the same thing applies just as fully to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Why was the National Transcontinental and whole Grand Trunk Pacific enterprise undertaken? It was undertaken first at the suggestion of the Grand Trunk Railway. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who was in the government of the day, will bear me out in this respect, that it was the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway who first approached the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier away back in 1902 or 1903 and asked for assistance in building the transcontinental line that would go into the prairie regions of the West. That was where the suggestion first came from. The Canadian government, with the full approval and consent of the Canadian people, undertook that enterprise. The government built the Transcontinental from Moncton to Winnipeg. By bond guarantees of a very liberal amount, it assisted the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the prairie regions and through the mountains of northern British Columbia. All that assistance was given and guaranteed by the government. What different course should have been followed when the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in March, 1918, notified the government of the day that unless they got further subsidies in cash they would close down the operations of the road because they could not pay the running expenses? There was no other course for the government of the day to follow than the course it did follow. Tens of thousands of settlers had gone in along the road and were dependent on the railway for their means of communication. Towns
Supply-Railways

had sprung up which were in the same position. What would have happened if the road had ceased operations? My hon. friends ask again: Why did you not let it go into the hands of the receiver? Would that have repaid the people for the $50,000 a mile bond guarantees they had given in northern British Columbia? There was only one business course to follow, and that was to secure the roads, link them into the whole national system of railways, and build upon that system for the future, recognizing their great potential value and hoping eventually to emerge successfully from the difficulty. I might add, in passing, that the assistance that was given to the Grand Trunk Pacific totalled $114,000,000.
Now, there has been a good deal of criticism of the late government in regard to this matter. I am referring to the subject not in order to provoke questions of controversy, but because I think that this aspect of the matter should be placed before the public. There has been a good deal of criticism of the late government in acquiring the old Grand Trunk. The situation in that respect is well known. The Grand Trunk desired to evade their responsibilities in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific, which was their subsidiary company. The government recognized that, in view of the fact that this whole enterprise, which had committed Canada to hundreds of millions of dollars, had been undertaken at the request of the Grand Trunk Kailway, the obligation of the Grand Trunk in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific could not be thrown aside. What course, then, was open to the government? It is a matter of common knowledge that they adopted the only wise course possible in the circumstances. There was nothing facing the old Grand Trunk Railway but absolute and complete bankruptcy, and it would have gone into the hands of the receiver and have been knocked down under the hammer to the highest bidder. But what would have happened if, in that event, the Grand Trunk had passed into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway or of some other private concern, that would not have been willing to make the necessary traffic arrangements with the Transcontinental system? The whole National Transcontinental system, the Grand Trunk Pacific system, was built entirely upon the assumption that it would be linked up with and be part of the Grand Trunk system in eastern Canada. If it

was necessary in 1903 to create a system of that kind, was it not just as necessary in 1917 or 1918 to maintain the principle that lay behind the whole enterprise in 1903? There was no other course to be followed. The Grand Trunk system had to be brought into the Canadian National system, and the government of that day, in my judgment, would have been derelict in their duty if they had failed to do so. There are many things upon which I have differed with my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), and I suppose that in our public careers in the future there will still be many points of difference between us. But I believe that the policy of the late government in respect of the whole railway question in its main essentials was the only sound policy this country could follow; and for that reason I consistently supported it.
I want to offer a word of commendation to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) on the clear and lucid statement he presented to the House when he made his railway statement on April 11 last. I was particularly gratified to note the main lines of policy he laid down. No one who has studied that statement will disagree with my view that the policy submitted by the Minister of Railways, which I take to be the policy of the Government, differs not, in any principle, from the policy followed by the previous administration. I am therefore glad to commend it. I am glad of the courage and, let me say, the honesty of the minister in presenting that statement "to the House, because the whole railway question should be lifted above the level of party controversy. For that reason, I say, I am gratified at the statement of my hon. friend. I was pleased also that he made it clear that the Intercolonial railway is to be part of the national system of railways of the country. I know the position taken by my hon. friends from the Maritime provinces in respect to the Intercolonial Railway. I have a good deal of sympathy with their position in that regard. It is true that the Intercolonial Railway was built as part of the compact of Confederation. The provision in the British North America Act respecting it was that the Government of Canada would construct such a railway. But nothing of this is changed in the policy of including the Intercolonial Railway in the Canadian National system, and I maintain that the Intercolonial, linked up with the whole national system of railways, when that system get?

Supply-Railways
operating smoothly and effectively, as I am convinced 'it will, will give better and cheaper service to the maritime provinces in the long run than it possibly could if operated as before. It is now part of the great national system of railways, and I do not think there is any question whatever as to what the final results will be.
The Government have very frankly stated, both since they came into power and before-and they are now only reiterating the statements they made during the election campaign-that public ownership of this system must have a full and fair trial. There may have been some differences in the statements made by some of my hon. friends opposite. In the heat of an election, we are all perhaps somewhat prone to make statements a trifle extravagant. But the Government's policy in stating that the system must have a full and fair trial is one that will command the respect and support of the country. Now, it is imperative that it shall in fact have a full and fair trial. I have said that the late Government's policy is the only one that could have been followed in the matter. There is no alternative; and I should like the critics of government ownership and operation of this system outside the House and in the House as well, if there be such, to state what their alternative policy in the matter is.
What is the alternative policy? I read the Montreal Gazette, for instance-an excellent newspaper-and I find it persistently and consistently opposing the policy of the. Government, and of the late government. It is saying that it means financial ruin to the country, and that we must get rid of the system if the country is to escape all the dreadful things that will follow in the wake of public ownership, but I have yet to see any suggestion from that newspaper, or from any other critic of the policy this Government has followed, and the*late government, of an alternative policy. This country has invested in these roads over one and a half billion dollars-fifteen hundred million dollars. What are you going to do about that? Turn the roads over to private companies? I say that if you put up the National system for sale you would not relieve the country of the liability it has at the present time. Why, the thing is absurd. Instead of getting rid of the deficit, you would simply be placing it permanently and. forever on the Canadian people -nothing else. My hon. friend from St. Antoine says that government ownership
will not prove a success in operation. I do not know what experience my hon. friend, who was Provincial Treasurer in the Quebec government, has had with public utilities, but I have seen a good many public utilities in operation which have proved successful, and there is no reason why a government railway cannot be as efficiently managed, under public control and operation, as a private railway.


Mr. ROBB:: Is my hon. friend referring r.ow particularly to the government elevators in Manitoba?


Mr. McMASTER:: That is an unkind
question.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not on very good ground in asking that question, because elevators are not in the nature of a natural monopoly. But aside from that, there is no reason why, with proper management and control, the elevators in Manitoba should not have proven a success. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he look up the records of the elevators owned by the Dominion government at the terminal points and see whether they have not proved a success financially. If he will consult the officials in his own department, and study the financial results of the government elevator at Fort William, one of the finest elevators at the head of the lakes, he will find that it contributes a very tidy sum each year to the Dominion treasury. Therefore, in order that this system may have a full and fair trial, I say it is absolutely essential that all lines owned by the Government be included in the system and I am glad to commend the policy of the Government in that respect.
There is another thing that is also essential. There must be complete unification in the control and management of the system. I quite agree with the suggestion of the Minister of Railways in his presentation of the case the other day, that there should be districts, regional districts, if you like, for the operation of these lines. That practice has been followed by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I think it can with profit be adopted on the Canadian National system. I understand that my hon. friends from the maritime provinces have had cause for complaint, and I think rightly so, over the fact that if they wanted to arrange for a special excursion to a fair or picnic or sports celebration they had to go to Toronto to arrange for it. That is not efficiency in operation or efficiency in
Supply-Railways

management, and that should be changed. But the general policy of management must be under central control, and it must be freed, so far as is possible, from any possibility of government interference.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Arguing as my hon. friend does in favour of government ownership, does he not think that the successful operation of any railway, private or public, depends on the way in which it is managed and the people who are managing it? If he does, does he not think it a very peculiar thing to put the railway system of this country under the control and operation of men who failed to operate it successfully as a private concern?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think peirhaps my hon.
friend is on pretty good ground in offering that criticism, but I am not going to dis-' cuss that at the present moment. The present administration have all the opportunity they wish to change that, if they so desire. I am not putting anything in the way of their doing that whatsoever.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was dealing with the general problem of public ownership.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I lay this down. I
think you can attract to a great national enterprise of this kind the brains, the ability and the spirit of public service that will make it a success, but you can never do it under the system that obtained on the Intercolonial when it was a department of the government, because then it was frankly and openly under government control.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was run with surpluses.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may or may not
be the case. I do not think my hon. friend's statement can be borne out by an examination of the facts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Cochrane, in 1913, when he was Minister of Railways, gave to the House a statement of the operation of that railway for five years, during which the railway showed a net surplus of $1,000,000 in operation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It may be true that during a few years-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not a few years, a great number of years.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, for quite a number of years, but I would point out to my hon. friend that from the time it was built right up to the present there was never

a cent of interest charged against that investment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Neither
was there against the canals of this country; they were built under the same conditions.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very true, but if you are going to operate the Intercolonial on that basis-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is entitled to his opinion, and will have an opportunity to speak later on if he wishes to do so. I repeat, it is possible to attract to the management of a great public enterprise of this kind the brains and ability and the spirit of public service that will make it a success. I am convinced it can be done, and I trust that that is the intention and desire of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, and the Government when they select their board. Let me say in passing that when they select their board, the men should be in sympathy with the whole proposition, so far as it is possible to get such men. We have had the suggestion from my hon. friend from St. Antoine that it is necessary to travel to Europe or the United States or Africa or somewhere else to find supermen, if such can be found, to handle this system. My experience in business, Mr. Chairman, running over a good many years, has led me to the conclusion that supermen are very difficult to find, and very often they are not of very great consequence after you have found them. This system will never be saved by supermen-never-but I am convinced you can find right in Canada, possibly in the system itself, men who have the potential ability and capacity to handle this thing.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member express it as his opinion that Mr. Hanna or Mr. Mitchell, who I understand are the only two directors from the old system, were in the least degree responsible for the inability of the Canadian Northern to finance itself?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would venture the
opinion so far as my knowledge goes that they were not, but that is not germane to the argument I am making. I am asserting that the ability and the capacity to handle the system can be found in Canada.
There is one other thing that is necessary if the system is to be made a success. You

Supply-Railways
must enlist public support behind it, and that can be done. I think it is possible to have this great national enterprise recognized by the people of Canada as a great national asset, an asset in which they can take pride, a thing that will help to link up this country and unify it. I believe that is possible, but it is not possible if political considerations enter into the management and control-if sectional considerations, whether west, east, middle, or anywhere else, enter into the direction and management of the system. Under those circumstances I do not believe it is possible to make it a success.
Reference was made the other night to a contract for steel rails that was let in the month of October last, and my hon. friend from St. Antoine paid some attention to it this afternoon. I think that the late administration can be fairly criticized in respect to that contract. The business of the National Railways in respect to contracts of all kinds should be put upon an absolutely definite business basis, and no considerations other than the soundest business principles should govern. If your national system of railways is to be used to advance the interests of any one section by giving employment to labour, or by letting contracts to companies who may want business, it is not upon a sound basis, the system cannot succeed in this manner, and so far as I am concerned I shall criticise and continue to criticise that method of administration of these roads.


Mr. LOGAN:: If by giving these contracts to private companies you could save a large amount of money to the treasury, would the hon. member not be in favour of placing the contracts where the work could be done most cheaply? If it can be shown, for instance, that cars can be repaired in a private concern, where perhaps the McAdoo wage scale does not apply, for a hundred dollars less per car than in the government shops, would he still advocate that the work be done in the government shops?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I regret that I failed to make myself clear to my hon. friend. I say that one consideration that should govern in the control of these railways is, having regard to all the factors of the case, to have the business done where it can be done most cheaply. I do not care where it is done, but no consideration other than that should govern.


Hance James Logan: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now, I want to say a word or two as to some of the things which in my judgment are essential.


Mr. HUGHES:: If the statement made by the hon. member for Cumberland is correct, that cars can be repaired, or any work done, very much cheaper in private shops than the same work can be done for in the government shops would not that be a very strong argument against public ownership and operation? If the statement is true it is a serious matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not assuming, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend from Cumberland is correct in his facts but I do say this: If it could be done more cheaply there I would have it done there; there are many concerns that are in the business of doing this kind of work, that is their business. But that is a totally different thing, and upon a totally different basis from the operation of a great enterprise which is in the nature of a natural monopoly. That is the point of my argument, because there is no one in this House more strongly opposed to government interference in things which in their very nature are matters of private business than I am, because in such things people can best act for themselves; but in a great national enterprise like this, where you can only have one line of railway you must have either very rigid control of your system if the public are to be protected or it must be a vehicle owned and operated by the people as a whole through their government.
Now when my hon. friend interrupted me I was about to remark there are some other things that are essential to the success of this operation. I have suggested in the House before, and I again offer the suggestion to the minister, that when this unification takes place, and your board is selected, there should be a complete revaluation of the whole national system of railways. I think there can be little doubt that these roads to-day as an operating concern are not worth the amount of money that they stand in our books at, and they are not worth that amount because of the very manner in which they were built. I will give the House a case which illustrates the point I am making. West of Edmonton, running through the Yellowhead pass, the Canadian Northern Railway built its lines to the point where the railway turns down the North Thompson river to the Fraser river. Through that same pass was constructed the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Those two lines of railway
Supply-Railways

travelled for scores, yes, hundreds, of miles almost always within sight of each other, and indeed for many miles the tracks were so close together that they appeared to be a double track. During the war, when these railways were consolidated, it was necessary to lift the rails of a portion of one of these lines to send to the front. I know there has been some criticism of that action but that does not alfect the point of my illustration. You can travel, Sir, over that line to-day and see the scores, yes, hundreds, of miles of railways that have been abandoned. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway is on one side of the pass, and the old Canadian Northern right of way on the other side, and there have been hundreds of miles of track abandoned ifhioh were of the most difficult and costly construction. You can travel there and see the wreck of a railway: Iron bridges, tunnels, rock cuts, all this sort of thing, upon which no rails are laid at the present time, and upon which I venture to say none ever will be laid; and yet that expensive mileage, costing, I believe, something in the neighbourhood of $100,000 a mile, stands in the books of the Government as a part of the value of the assets of this concern. There should, therefore, be a complete re-valuation of the system so as to put it down to a sound business basis, following precisely the same practice that a merchant follows when he finds he has goods on the shelf that have deteriorated in quality, and he must write them down and take his loss. That should be done in the case of this railway system. You cannot get a management, I care not how efficient or how able they may be, who will tackle a problem of that kind with the vigour, the energy and the willingness that is necessary, if they feel that they have to make headway against a heavy handicap of that kind.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You think good headway would then be made?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, because it is a
sound business practice and for that reason I commend it to the Government. If we have a capital loss in the construction of these railways let us face it frankly and put it where it belongs-add it to the debt of Canada. Do not let it stand against the system, otherwise you wil prejudice the cause of public ownership from one end of the country to the other, and it will be said "How can you make your railways pay when you are operating
tMr. Crerar.]
under conditions which render it practically impossible for them to do so?"
There is one other suggestion I have to make and that is in reference to the question of immigration. I agree with the view-


Hance James Logan: My hon. friend has been discussing a very interesting matter, and I would like to question him further in regard to it. As to the revaluation of the government railway property, would he be favourable to revalueing at an operating profit value or on a replacement basis?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think a proper basis to take would be the basis of replacement under fair conditions.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid that would increase the valuation.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend suggests that the railways should be re-valued and the amounts covering the properties which have been apportioned should be written off. Does he suggest that the interest on the bonds, or any other obligation which covers the cost of construction, which is no longer in existence, should be no longer chargeable and help to make up the deficits on the operation of the roads?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am very grateful to my hon. friend from South Waterloo who has made the point clearer than I made it myself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it not a mere question of book-keeping, and the railway situation is not changed at all?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It may be as far as the net result to the country as a whole is concerned; but I am advocating this because of its effect upon the management of your system. That is the reason, and the only reason, that could be advanced in favour of it. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) suggests that it might lead to an increase in value of the system to act on the basis I suggested. I do not think he is correct in that. I was going to elaborate that point further. We have, for instance, three national transcontinental lines running through practically a thousand miles of wilderness between Ontario and Manitoba. I do not know how far I may be correct, but I certainly think it would be the duty of the management to give due consideration to the closing up of a portion of these lines. We have the same thing in the West where there is duplication of services. All these factors should be taken into account in arriving at a proper basis of operations.

Supply-Railways
I want now to pass on to the question of immigration and I agree with the remarks made by my hon. friend from St. Antoine in this respect, that the question of immigration has a very important hearing upon the ultimate success of these roads. The difficulty with our railway situation is that we are overbuilt with railways in Canada, and the only final solution of the matter-and I submit a solution can only be found in a long view of the situation-is in getting more people into the country, by a policy that will bring in immigrants by tens of thousands or scores of thousands, and it should be directed to placing those immigrants along the lines of the National system, because, when you place them along that line, particularly in western Canada, you put them in the best portions of the country, where there will he the greatest likelihood of their making a success. Not only are you ensuring success for them, but you are creating 'business potentially for your roads.


Mr. CANNON:: Is it not a fact that a great portion of those lands are now in the hands of private companies?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the statement of the hon. member from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) is true. I do not know the exact acreage in the hands of private companies. We find in western Canada, on account of the supertaxes imposed by the provincial governments on speculative holdings of land, that there is a very general disposition on the part of private owners to sell their lands at reasonable prices. There are still some homestead lands left, but I submit that, as far as possible, the Government should direct the settlement of the immigration to this country to districts that will provide business for the National Railways.
I am not going at the moment to touch that much contested question, the Tariff, but I think that the fiscal policy of this country has a great hearing on this problem. I hope that my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) when he comes to consider his budget will have regard to that. I have stated before in this House and outside that agriculture is the real foundation of the prosperity of the Dominion, and when I examine the traffic returns of the railways, I find the greatest contribution in tonnage to our railways comes from farms, forests and mines. Let me give some information to the committee in that regard, and my figures are taken from the annual railway report.
Taking the Canadian Northern Railway, for the year ending 1920 the farms contributed over 4,000,000 tons, or 28 per cent of the freight hauled over the Canadian National lines in that year. The forests- that is lumber, pulp, cordwood, fence posts, and so forth-contributed 4,155,000 tons, or 28.66 per cent of the freight. Our mines contributed 3,676,000 tons, and our miscellaneous freight and manufactures contributed altogether only 17 per cent. In other words, over 80 per cent of the total freight hauled on the Canadian Northern Railway system in that year came from the farm, the forest and the mine. If you examine the figures for the Grand Trunk Pacific and the old Grand Trunk you will find they are about in that proportion. If that is a fact-and it is beyond question- it Is a sound policy to direct your fiscal system along the lines that will give the greatest encouragement to these industries. I know there are a good many of my hon. friends to my right, I think probably all'of them-and, I was going to add, I am afraid more than I should like to see among hon. gentlemen on the Governrment side of the House-who do not agree with m ' argument in this respect. But, nevertheless, I submit that it is sound business, from the fiscal point of view to shape your fiscal policy to give the greatest possible encouragement to the development of these great natural sources of wealth, and if you do that you lay the foundation for success in your manufacturing industry. There is no gainsaying that fact. No greater boon could be given to the manufacturing industries of Ontario and eastern Canada than to place one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand good rugged farmers in western Canada, and nothing will bring more business to our factories. I submit to the Finance Minister and to the Government that when they are considering their fiscal proposals-and they are considering them now, because they are to be laid before the House next week-they could, with profit to the country, give recognition to the principle I have just laid down.
I desire to submit one other thought to the committee in this respect, and that is that these roads must be operated in such a way as to command public confidence. I believe that a way can be found to bring that about. I may say that a very great deal depends on the manner in which the Government handles the enterprise. If they absolutely, and beyond question of doubt, make it clear to the public of this country that they are animated and governed by considerations only that will bring success in opera-
Supply-Railways

tion, that they are maintaining this system free from political influences and control, they will be taking the longest possible step in establishing and maintaining, [public confidence in the system, and, from the national point of view, that is highly necessary. We have this system of railways. We cannot get rid of it. We must make the very best of it, and, consequently, that is, in my judgment, the only sound policy the Government can follow, in order to make a success of it.
I think, too, that public confidence will rest pretty largely on the fullest and most complete information that can be furnished by those in charge of the operation of the roads. I would like to see the annual report of the Canadian National system of railways made as full as possible in the information it gives to the public, as to the details of operation, the prices at which goods have been purchased, the sources where contracts have been placed, and everything else relating to the operation of the system, and to publish a sufficient number of these reports so that they can be distributed to all who wish to have them, particularly to newspapers and institutions and organizations of a public character. Let that information be diffused as widely as possible, and you will create a confidence in your system. Not only that, but you will create conditions in the public mind that will assist the Government in resisting the pressure that might involve the operation or control of these roads in political considerations. The results, I think, Mr. Chairman, in the operation of these roads for the past year are not discouraging. The hon. member from St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) suggested that the profits shown in the months of August, September, October and November last may have been fictitious profits. If he will reflect for a moment, I think he will find he is not correct in that statement.	*


Walter George Mitchell: I did not say they
were fictitious profits. I said that the operations were reduced very materially during those four months, and charged to other years under the Order in Council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I certainly do not wish to do the hon. member any injustice whatever, but I distinctly gathered the impression from his remarks that he had a question mark in his own mind as to the validity of the profits shown in those months. I may be wrong in that. If I have done

him an injustice I am sorry, but I would point out to him and to the House that those four months, particularly September, October, and November, are the months of the heavy crop movement in western Canada, and there is not any doubt that the movement of the grain in western Canada provide both the National system and the Canadian Pacific system with a very large share indeed of their total earnings. It just happened this year that the movement of grain was free and heavy; it was heavier on the National lines last autumn than it was on the Canadian Pacific, and that contributed, in a very great degree, to the profits shown during those months. The results on the whole are not discouraging. I believe that, with efficient operation, with as full a knowledge on the part of the public as can be secured in regard to the potential value in these assets, we can, within a very few years, bring these roads to the point where they will more than meet their operating expenses. I would point out to the committee and to those outside of this House who are opposed to this enterprise and who are criticizing it and, I submit, not giving it a fair show or trial, that we have in these roads a splendid potential asset. If we dissipate that now; if we follow the advice that has been given in some quarters, that the Government should get rid of this system, pass it over to private hands at any price at which they will take it, what will be the result? This country will lose absolutely and forever the potential value that rests in this system to-day, but it will not escape a very large share of the liability that is in the system; it will not escape its bond guarantees; we shall lose all the cash and land grants that we have put into this system in the past, and we shall lose them forever. Those are the business considerations that should govern in the whole survey of this question. These roads are a good potential asset; if we have courage, vigour and honesty in the administration of the enterprise and I venture to say that there are many in this House who will live to see the day when they and this country will be proud of the Canadian National system of railways, I am wholly convinced that it can be made a success.
I have already expressed my opinion as to the statement brought down by the Minister of Railways. I liked the clear, definite position that he took in respect particularly to the control and management of these roads. A heavy responsibility rests upon the Government in the selection of the board that will administer

Supply-Railways
this system, in the selection of the management that will control its operation. As the minister pointed out the other day, the total amount spent by the National Railways last year involved more than $343,000,000. That is a vast sum of money; but I am convinced also that the men can be secured who will give this enterprise their undivided attention, who will bring to their work, not only a spirit of public service, but the ability and capacity to manage efficiently an enterprise of this kind. Such men can be found, and I hope and trust this Government will do everything it can to find such men. This question, let me repeat, is too grave and too great to be lightly considered. The losses are great; the responsibility is great; but I am convinced, if this enterprise is tackled vigorously, earnestly and honestly, a great success can be made of it, and in the years to come this country and even the members of this House who are now considering the matter, will have good reason for pride in our National system of railways.
Progress reported.



MEMORIAL TO THE LATE COLONEL G. H. BAKER, M.P.

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a message from the Senate informing this House that the Honourable Messieurs Bradbury, Casgrain, Foster (Alma), Griesbach and Pope, have been appointed a special committee to further consider and determine the form of the memorial to be erected in the Parliament buildings to the late Lieutenant-Colonel George Harold Baker, member of Parliament for Brome, who- lost his life on the field of battle, and inviting this House to appoint a like committee to act jointly with the committee of the Senate.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without the question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 18, 1922.