Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: I beg to lay on the -table of the -house the third, final and unanimous report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
On motion of Sir Eugene Fiset the report was concurred in.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.
On motion of Mr. Hay the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID GIROUARD (Drummond-
Arthabaska) moved that the second report of the joint committee of -both houses on the printing of parliament be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the opinion was
expressed by an hon. member that one or two of the reports should be printed. Perhaps it would not inconvenience the mover to let this motion stand so that an opportunity may be afforded that hon. member to look into the matter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion may be altered accordingly to-morrow.
Motion stands.



PRIVATE BILLS


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed that many of the members whose names appear as sponsors for these bills are this morning attending committee meetings. With the consent of the house I will relax the rule which was applied when objections were raised, and call bills whose sponsors are not at present in their seats.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, where a member -is sick or is in attendance at a meeting of a special committee,
Private Bills

I do not think there would be any objection, but when a member is simply absent from the house I do not think the bill should be called.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Barbara Elise Sewell de la Penotiere.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Oliver Milton Martin.-Mr. Garland (Carleton), (for Mr. Harris).
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Catherine McRae Beattie McRae.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Mary Jane Teeson.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 318 for the relief of Sam Gladstone.-Mr. MacLean (Prince) for Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 319 for the relief of Charles Smolkin.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 320 for the relief of James Franklin McDonagh.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 321 for the relief of Joseph Louis Philippe Corbeau.-Mr. Bancroft for Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 322 for the relief of Ruth Elizabeth Greene.-Mr. Kaiser for Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 323 for the relief of Frances Thirsa Edlund.-Mr. Kaiser for Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 324 for the relief of Vivian Elizabeth Pearce.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 325 for the relief of Alice Clarke. -Mr. Church for Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 326 for the relief of Kathleen Mary Hambourg.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 327 for the relief of Florence Gertrude Singer.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 328 for the relief of Mabel Bullis. -Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 329 for the rehAf of Fanny Elizabeth Reed Kendall.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 330 for the relief of Robert Henry Dunlop Ellis.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 331 for the relief of Evelyn Cowie. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 332 for the relief of Enid Marjorie Judd.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 333 for the relief of Vera Alice Griffin.-Mr. Milne for Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 334 for the relief of Christina Adams Bourne.-Mr. Church for Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 335 for the relief of Ruth Agnes Townsend.-Mr. Lawson.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What number of commercial radio stations are in operation in Ottawa, and what are their names or letters?
2.	What license fees are paid by each station?
3.	What is the total revenue from these stations?
4.	What operating hours, if any, are given each station?
5.	That wave length is given each station?
6.	What is the total number of radio receiving set licenses issued, and total revenue from this source per annum?
7.	Is the department of radio telegraphy making any serious attempt to alleviate the chaotic conditions as between commercial radio stations and the radio receiving public, in so far as allotment of commercial hours, wave lengths, etc?
8.	When will the radio department be in a position to stabilize the conditions of_ radio as at present existing, and what action is the department at present taking in this regard?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Two.
Canadian National Railways, Jackson building-CNRO.
Dr. G. M. Celdert, 282 Somerset street W. -CKCO.
2.	Fifty dollars per annum.
3.	One hundred dollars per annum.
4.	CNRO-2.55 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. daily except Sunday; 7.00 p.m. to midnight Monday and Thursday.
CKCO-10.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. Sunday;
7.00	p.m. to 11.30 p.m. Sunday; 7.00 p.m. to midnight Tuesday.
5.	434.8 metres.
6.	Total private receiving licenses issued in Ottawa during fiscal year ended 31st March, 1929, 7,030. Total revenue for same period, 86,415.65.
7 and 8. Wavelength allotments are made in accordance with standard practice on the North American continent, the separation between channels being 10 kilocycles. The channel assigned for Ottawa was selected from the limited number available for use in Canada after due consideration of the technicalities involved and with a view to the minimizing of interference between stations. Complete immunity from interference of this class is difficult in the case of receivers of the less selective type and those which are located in the immediate vicinity of a broadcasting station. Hours of broadcasting are arranged by the stations to their mutual satisfaction and are registered with the department. The department maintains a staff for the purpose of dealing with preventable interference, a great

Questions
deal of which has been suppressed throughout the Dominion. Special cars fitted for this work are operated in the larger centres including Ottawa.


SEPARATIONS CLAIM OF FRANCIS WILLIAM CLARKE
Mr. CAHAN:: In the case of Francis William Clarke, who filed a claim (case 799) on account of the death of his wife and loss of personal effects by the sinking of the steamship Lusitania, but who was so ill at the time of the hearing before Commissioner Friel that he was unaware of the hearing being held, and whose claim was dismissed on account of claimant's absence, without prejudice to its being taken up again should occasion arise, will the government provide an opportunity for this claimant to be heard in support of his said claim?


Mr. RINFRET:: The case of Francis William Clarke, No. 799, will be dealt with under the provisions of an act to provide for the payment of claims for compensation for loss sustained by the civil population of Canada during the late war, which is now pending before the senate, as and when enacted.


ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Mr. TUMMON:: 1.	Is the position of Assistant Commissioner of Patents vacant?
2.	If so, when will the vacancy be filled?
3.	Will the standing of seniority be recognized in connection therewith?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is before the Civil Service Commission.
3.	Seniority is one of the factors considered.


DREDGING AT AMHERSTBURG
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What dredge is or has been working at Amherstburg, Ontario?
2.	Where are provisions purchased for this work and under whose instructions?
3.	Where is coal purchased and at what price per ton?
4.	Where was coal purchased on last dredging job at Amherstburg?
5.	Why?
6.	Could coal not have been purchased at same price within a short distance of dredging job?
7.	How far did tug travel to obtain coal supplies on last job at Amherstburg?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Dredge "Q & R No. 1."
2.	Provisions are purchased by captain of dredge with monthly allowance made him.
3.	(a) Amherstburg; (b) $525.
4.	Sandwich five years ago.
5.	Because a contract had been entered into with a company at Sandwich to supply dredge "Q & R No. 1" during the season of 1924, while working in the neighbourhood of Sandwich, and when he was ordered to stop over and dredge at Amherstburg, the captain took from the company at Sandwich the 169 tons he would require during the two weeks he worked at Amherstburg.
6.	No information.
7.	Approximately 15 miles.


VALIDATION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved:: That the following orders in council, laid on the table on the eighth day of February, 1929, be approved:-
Orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 20th December, 1927, and the 28th November, 1928, in accordance with the provisions of Section 75 of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 113, K.S. 1927.
Orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 20th December, 1927, and the 28th November, 1928, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph c, Section 21 of the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, chapter 78, R.S. 1927.
_ Orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 20th December, 1927, and the 28th November, 1928, in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the Yukon Act, chapter 215, R.S. 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister explain?


Charles A. Stewart: This is
merely to carry out a provision of the Dominion Lands Act. Hon. members will recall that for a number of years a resolution was not passed in the house, and I was forced to get special legislation covering that omission to validate many of the cancellations of leases foT Dominion lands and mining leases. This is simply carrying out the provision of the statute. The orders in council are placed on the table, remain there a reasonable length of time, and then by resolution are validated by the House of Commons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand that all the orders in council that are mentioned in the resolution have been laid on the table?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is that
we are giving approval bo orders in council that may be ultra vires entirely of the executive. I apprehend, however, that a mere approval of the House of Commons gives no validity legally to an order in council that is otherwise ultra vires because the mere

Civil Service-Technical Officials
approval of only one branch of parliament, instead of the three branches that constitute the legislative power, would not give validity, so I suppose there is no harm in. approving them.


Charles A. Stewart: It is merely carrying out the provision of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I have received several telegrams from professional and technical men throughout the Dominion the gist of which is that they are vitally interested in the report of the royal commission on salaries and would request the government to make provision so that the recommendations of the royal commission may become effective for this current year. I was not aware that the report of that commission was about to be issued, but evidently there has been a widespread report to that effect, and possibly the Minister of Finance could give the house some information upon it.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I hope that my hon. friend will not run away with the idea that he is the only member of parliament who has been receiving these telegrams. It occurs to me that the so-called technical men must have more time and money to spend on sending out telegrams than on government work. So much for that. Considerable lobbying is being carried on, I observe, from telegrams coming into the department, so much so that it takes about the whole time of one secretary to reply to those coming into the Department of Finance. But that is not the only lobbying that is being canned on by people who are serving the state, and serving it well, and who think that they should be entitled to greater remuneration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question that I was asked to put to the minister in the telegram that I received was whether or not be would make provision in the supplementary estimates to deal with the report that might be made by the royal commission on the salaries of professional and technical civil servants, so that they would not have to wait a year for

the benefits of any recommendations made in their favour, but would get the benefit for the year 1929. Apparently the telegrams are so worded as to catch both the Minister of Finance on the one hand, and those who sit to the left of the Speaker on the other.


James Alexander Robb: Answering my hon. friend, who is a privy councillor, he understands quite well that anything going into the supplementary estimates must first have the O.K. of His Excellency the Governor General in Council before it can be submitted to parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I never heard of the words O.K. in a statute.


REPORTS OF HARBOUR COMMISSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Al-bert):: Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). Since then he has privately given me a certain amount of information, but I would like the reply to appear on the records of the house, and therefore I would ask if he would give the information to the house regarding the reports of the harbour commissions. I understand that the report of the St. John harbour commission has not yet been, received. If that is so, I would ask the minister when these reports are expected to be submitted to the governor in council.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: All the reports of the harbour commissions have not yet been printed. We have received typewritten copies of the reports from the harbour commissions of St. John, Halifax and Vancouver. Up to the present time 'the only printed reports that we have received are from Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers and Chicoutimi. I understand that the other reports are being printed and will be available in a very short time. As soon as they are available I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend a copy of each of them.


Murray MacLaren: My question was
rather: when should these reports be submitted to the governor in council?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no definite time
fixed by the statute.


Murray MacLaren: The minister will agree that the reports have an important bearing on the passing of his estimates, and that we should have these reports before the estimates are under consideration.

Harbour Commissions Reports


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The harbour commissions
throughout the country are not considered or discussed under the estimates of the Marine and Fisheries department. There is no item in the estimates of that department giving the opportunity to discuss the harbour commissions. The operations of the harbour commissions are discussed when the affairs of the different commissions are before the house. They are dealt with under a special law governing them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister will remember that last year and the year before we discussed this question and the undertaking was that an opportunity would be offered to discuss these matters in the light of the reports that might be made. I was under the impression that there was a definite time fixed by the statute within which the reports should be made, but apparently the minister has to make the collection himself, and must ask for and gather all these reports; otherwise, he would not receive them. I think it is highly desirable that they should be before the house so that they may be discussed when the estimates are under consideration.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no objection to
repeating what I have already said, that an opportunity can be given to hon. gentlemen to discuss anything relating to these harbour commissions, and the discussion can be wide open. These reports, as a matter of fact, are published and distributed all over the country. According to the law these reports are made not to the house, but to the governor in council, but they are available to anyone desiring information in regard to the administration of any of these harbours. As far as I am concerned I am quite ready to give every opportunity to any hon. member and to the house generally to discuss the affairs of these harbours.


DOMINION ARSENAL, LINDSAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. PECK (Peterborough):: I would remind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that an order was passed by the house on the 24th of April last for a return in regard to repairs to the Lindsay arsenal. The return would be a very simple one to prepare, but it has not yet been brought down.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: There was one return tabled.


Edward Armour Peck: This is a supplementary one. The order was passed by the house on the 24th of April last, and is overdue.


James Layton Ralston: I will look into it.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE PROSECTIONS -MR. HARRY BRONFMAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: On the 16th day of November last in the town hall of Craik, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan told tihe electors in Arm River constituency-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


John Evans: I am going to put a question, Mr. Speaker.	[DOT]


Hewitt Bostock: Put the question.


John Evans: He stated that the prosecution of Harry Bronfman would be carried through to the bitter end. Did the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) give the Attorney General of Saskatchewan that assurance?


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Evidently there is an election going on in Saskatchewan. I may tell my hon. friend that I have nothing to add to what I stated the other day.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 313, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. CANNON (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as the house will recall, early in the ' session a special committee was appointed for the purpose of examining into the Elections Act and to recommend amendments which would improve the electoral system which now prevails in the Dominion. That committee has sat throughout the session, has held numerous meetings, heard a large number of witnesses, and has brought in a report attached to which is a draft bill containing the unanimous recommendations of the committee. I wish, Mr. Speaker, not only on behalf of the government but on behalf of the members of the house, to offer my hearty thanks to all the members of the committee for the work which they have performed, and for the unanimity of the decisions which they have reached. And may I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to make a special reference to the work done by the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).
Dominion Elections Act

The legislation which is now introduced embodies the unanimous recommendations of the committee. I am ready to give any explanation on the bill that may be necessary when the clauses are considered in committee. May it suffice for me to state now that this legislation contains chiefly two new principles in our electoral system. The first concerns the appointment of the returning officers. Under the existing law returning officers were appointed by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State. There had been an attempt to give to the office of returning officer the character of permanency, but on account of the feeling which prevailed in the two leading parties in Canada, it has been the custom for the party in power to appoint the returning officers, and if that party did not happen to be returned to power the returning officers were dismissed and replaced by others. As a result, there has been among the members of the committee a feeling that this system ought to be altered, that the governor in council, that is the government or the party in power at the time of the issuing of the writs, or before, should no longer have the authority or the power to appoint the returning officers but that that authority and power should be vested in the chief electoral officer whose actions are surrounded by such safeguards as to guarantee his entire and complete independence in these matters. That is the first amendment, the first new principle introduced in this legislation, namely, the appointment by the chief electoral officer of all returning officers throughout the Dominion.
The second new principle introduced by this [DOT] legislation is that of the appointment of enumerators to prepare the election lists in urban centres. It appeared from what was said by members of the committee, and by witnesses who were heard before that committee, that in rural constituencies the present system of making up the lists has given, if not complete satisfaction, at least considerable satisfaction, and that only minor alterations will be necessary. On the other hand, in the large urban centres, the present system of making up the electoral lists is open to a great deal of criticism, and that for three reasons. The federal list which was made up for the purpose of the election was based on the provincial list then existing, if there was such a provincial list, and that as a result there were many inaccuracies in the Dominion list and the candidates had to go to considerable trouble and expense to check up that list; that the delays were very often prolonged, and that as a consequence of those

delays the lists were put in the hands of the candidates at a time so near the election date that they were practically useless. By this bill we do away altogether with provincial lists as a basis for the Dominion list, and the work of drawing up the list is assigned to officials, to be called enumerators, who will be appointed by the returning officers, and who will perform in the urban centres the work that at the present time is done in the rural constituencies by the enumerators.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: By registrars in the rural districts.


Lucien Cannon: Yes. My hon. friend is
right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Enumerators in the urban
centres.


Lucien Cannon: They are called registrars
in the act, but they are really enumerators on account of the character of the duties which they perform.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have had a lot of contention about it. They are enumerators in the urban districts but the duties performed by the enumerators in the urban districts are performed by registrars in the rural districts. In the city districts they are called enumerators, and in the rural districts they are called registrars.
Mr. ClANNON:	My hion. friend is right.
In the act they are called registrars. As a result of the introduction of this second new principle, the list will be completed in the rural constituencies twenty-one days before election day and in the urban constituencies eighteen days before election day. These arc the main features of the bill.
I may say in conclusion that the bill also contains certain ancillary amendments to ensure the proper working, in view of the new provisions which have been introduced. This legislation is brought down at this session upon the recommendation of the committee because it has been represented by the chief electoral officer to the committee, and by Colonel Biggar, who acted as legal adviser to the committee, that it would take considerable time to work out these amendments and put them in such shape that they would be of practical use in the next general election, if this election is held within a year or later. I gathered from what was said that it would take a year practically to puit these amendments into working condition. These are the main amendments brought in, and I repeat that I will give any additional information or particulars when each clause is being considered in committee.

Dominion Elections Act
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Urban polling division.


Mr. HEAPS:: The bill has not been distributed and I am at a loss to know what is before the committee.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: There are no
copies of the bill available just now and I do not see how we can proceed.


Mr. McINTOSH:: There are fifty copies
for distribution and most of them are on the other side.


Malcolm McLean: I have been told that there are none to be distributed.


Lucien Cannon: In a few minutes there
will be a copy for every hon. member, but all the clauses of the bill may be found in votes and proceedings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) is apparently of the opinion that we were favoured with a larger number of copies on this side. It is only a case of coming events casting their shadows before.


Mr. POWER:: It was that contingency
that this act was designed to cover.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to call
attention to the wording of paragraph (y) of section 3, which reads:
/'Urban polling division" means a polling division which is wholly contained within a place having a population of more than 10,000 persons and being, under the provincial law, a city, town or incorporated village.
In my opinion the word "and" at the end of the third line should be "or." A place with a population of 10,000 cannot be a village; it is a city.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that the change
proposed by my hon. friend will not meet the difficulty. There are two things necessary: first, that it shall have a population of more than 10,000, and secondly, that it shall be incorporated under provincial law. Being incorporated under provincial law it may be a city, town or incorporated village; but if there is any incorporated village having a population of 10,000 it will not come within the provision of this section of the statute. I am not interested to know whether or not there is an incorporated village having a population of more than 10.000, but if there is or should be then i't would come within the statute, and not otherwise.
Mr. STEWART deeds): Am I to understand that this applies only to a municipality having a population of 10,000 and to no other? That is the effect of it now; as it stands, it applies only to a municipality with a population of 10,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A population "of more than
10,000."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But a town
might not have a population of 10,000; the population might be only 5,000. As I read the section now, it applies only to a corporation having a population of at least 10,000.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: More than 10,000.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not prepared to discuss the question whether the legal phraseology meets the intention of the committee, but that intention was that any town or collection of dwellings, if I may put it that way, containing 10,000 persons, should be treated as an urban polling division. If a town contains a population under 10,000 it should be treated as a rural polling division, except that under certain circumstances the chief electoral officer might decide that it was an urban polling -division. This was intended to cover cases of fast-growing towns, mining municipalities and so forth, where the people are not well known one to another, and where a system such as is in force in the cities should be brought into effect. It is left to the discretion of the chief electoral officer to decide whether or not a town of under 10,000 shall be subject to urban registration, every place with a population of over
10,000	being subject to such registration without any discretion whatever.


Mr. BRADETTE:: There is an anomaly
in (his section. I believe that the ruling about the population of urban centres, as included in the revised Electoral Act, is not definite enough. The hon. member for Quebec South mentioned the rapid increase in population in certain mining centres, but that should not be a reason why we should not try to stop the abuse of creating urban centres out of sections which should remain absolutely rural.


Charles Gavan Power: The whole idea underlying
urban registration is that there must be in such districts a closed list, and there must be an opportunity for checking that list, giving candidates some considerable time before the election. That is the idea underlying urban enumeration, registration and revision. In rural districts we do not provide for that because th-e people of a small community are
EF.VISr.D EDITION
Dominion Elections Act

assumed to know one another and there are no opportunities for personation or for false entries on the list. It is different in fastgrowing communities. As an extreme case I might cite a community with a population of 4,000, a community which has just sprung up within two or three months. I mentioned mining communities because it is more likely to occur in connection with that industry than with any other. It would perhaps be advisable that the chief electoral officer should have the right to decide that in such a community, in view of the fact that people do not know their neighbours, there might be a system of urban registration as a safeguard against the offences which might be committed under the act in connection with the other system where people are not acquainted with their neighbours.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Polling day to ibe half holiday.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Under the old act the voter was entitled to two additional hours off in order to go and cast his vote and nothing was deducted from his wages for that time. Under the wording of this new section it 's provided that the afternoon of polling day shall be a general holiday in Canada. This means that the average working man-and the same applies to women

will probably have a part of his wages deducted for the time he is off. I think this provision is rather a backward step. Under the present act they are given two hours with pay, but now you are giving them five hours without pay. I would like to suggest an amendment to this section, but since I have had the bill in my hands for only a few moments I have not had time to draft a proper amendment which would give the working people the privileges they enjoyed under the old act. Perhaps the minister would be prepared to place such a provision in this act.


Lucien Cannon: The amendment as we
have it now was carried in 1925, and at that time it appeared to have the support of the labour people; because of some mistake the . amendment did not reach the Senate and was not included in the legislation of that time. I may state that the opinion of the government is similar to the opinion of the committee; we thought we were meeting the wishes of the labour people in Canada by reintroducing that amendment. However, if it seems more satisfactory to revert to the old provision I have no (Objection to dropping this section entirely.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps this might be allowed to stand in order to give me an opportunity of considering the matter. I do not know whether it is the intention to complete consideration of this bill to-day, but I would like time to consider this matter.
Section stands.
On section 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Office for returning officer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It would be well to correct
the spelling in the last line. The word "noted" should be "notice".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
On section 15-Preparation of lists.
Mr. ARTHURS:: Subsection 5 provides a
penalty of not less than one dollar or more than five dollars in respect of each name illegally dropped off the list, and I would point out .that such a fine is totally inadequate. Under this section an election could be vitiated very easily, and if fines were imposed the total amount would be very small. I think the penalty Should be much greater.


Lucien Cannon: This is a special penally
imposed in addition to any other penalty which may exist. The other penalties contained in the act are very severe.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 12 gives the penalty which is applicable.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
look at page 5 he will see the other penalties. These officials are liable to the general penalities in addition to the penalty mentioned in this section.


James Arthurs: My contention is that
in itself this penalty is a farce and does not amount to anything. If there is to be a penalty at all it should be much greater.


Lucien Cannon: The members of the committee had this idea. Some people are in no way frightened by very heavy fines; if you mention fines of 11,000 or $500 they are not at all impressed, but they understand a fine of fifty cents or one dollar much better.


James Arthurs: Is that the general idea
of the Department of Justice?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedules A and B to section 32:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: One paragraph of this
schedule appears to have been drawn in a

Dominion Elections Act
slightly different way from what I thought was the intention of the committee. Rule 20 reads:
Any voter qualified to vote in any polling division in the district allotted to any registrar, and duly entered in the list of voters for such polling division, may make oath before such registrar alleging the death, disqualification, or real residence and appearance in another list-
And so on. I think any voter in the electoral district, especially in our city districts should be entitled to make such a protest.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no objection to
that, but I believe this is an exact copy of the former act, and that is why it remained in this amendment. That provision was in the old1 act, but there is no objection to my hon. friend's suggestion, and I think the point is well taken.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In a large city, where there are many tenement houses and a large number of people resident in a polling division, sometimes it is difficult to get a proper scrutineer. The man who makes that search and makes out an affidavit disqualifying another person should be a pretty reliable man, and I think you should be able to select him from the voters in the entire electoral district rather than from those in any particular polling division.


Charles Gavan Power: Then my hon. friend's suggestion would foe that the clause read something like this: " Any voter qualified to vote in the electoral district for which the registrar has been appointed." Is that correct?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Colonel Biggar has just
pointed out that the registrar is not likely to have before him the complete list of all the voters in the entire electoral district. In the ordinary course he will have before him the list of twelve polling subdivisions which comprise his registration district, but he will not have the complete list of all the electoral divisions, so it would be fairly difficult for him to check up in order to see whether or not the objector is a voter in that particular electoral division.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it would be quite
sufficient if an elector, coming before the registrar, made oath that he was a qualified voter. At least that would be presumptive evidence that he was a voter and he should be allowed to file an objection against a name on the list which properly should not be there. I think that should foe sufficient, because it is so difficult in some of the city
78594-192J
divisions where you are limited to the polling division to obtain the aid of those who are really qualified to examine into the qualifications of the voters on the list.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. member will
permit thi ssection to stand, we will insert the proper amendments afterwards.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Is any provision being
made for the man qualified to vote but who objects to being put on the list because the assessor might assess him the So poll tax? In Walkerville and Windsor we find many cases where single men avoid being placed on the list in order to escape the $5 poll tax.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no provision made for compulsory registration or voting, if that is what the hon. member means. Where a man's name is placed on the list by the enumerator he will have a pretty hard time to get it off unless he is willing to swear that he is not qualified to vote.
Schedule stands.
On section 16-Polling day.


Mr. KAISER:: Mr. Chairman, has an
endeavour been made to ascertain how many people are carried to the polls in any constituency and having neighbours vouch for their being residents of the district?


Charles Gavan Power: In rural polling divisions it is done- very generally, but I do not think any record is kept. The information could be obtained by looking at the poll books for the rural polling subdivisions throughout the country.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I suppose the Solicitor
General concurs with the chairman of the committee in stating that this practice is pretty general. I desire to state that it is not general, that very few people vote in that way. I believe that very simple factor prevented! the committee from considering a matter which, in my opinion is of supreme importance. We all believe in what might be called educated democracy; we believe that the people should be the jury which pronounces upon governments. As a matter of fact, what happens? In Canada 66 per cent of the people who. are entitled to vote go to the poles to register their vote, and of that 66 per cent, 33 per cent are carried to the polls by the energy and efforts of the political parties. One-third of the people of our country only are sufficiently concerned with the affairs of Canada to go to the polls and register a vote without being urged to do so. That condition is not peculiar to Canada; it obtains in a great many countries. We
Dominion Elections Act

have gone to a great deal o>f trouble to work out amendments to take care of matters which are insignificant as compared with this. Our efforts should be directed towards those who do not vote or who do not care to vote, just as is done in other countries.
In Australia, for instance, they had only 48 per cent of the people casting their votes in general elections; the percentage rose to 50 and the government of Australia began to recognize the fact that something should be done to induce the people to cast their votes without being carried to the polls. What was the result? In the two last general elections over 90 per cent of the people on the voters' lists went to the polls and voted. I am not saying that we in Canada should carry out the methods adopted in other countries, because that might be considered as compelling the people to vote. But what I do say is this: Something should be done with regard to the man who does not vote, and I consider that it is quite within the rights of the people who make the laws of the country to ask the jury to appear at the polls once in four years and pronounce upon the conduct of the government. It is surely not asking too much of a man to say that he should appear once in four years to register his vote. If there is a reason why he could not go to the polls, nothing should be done, but if there is no reason, measures should be taken to impress upon him the importance of casting his vote. The first and the simplest suggestion I have to offer is this:	That
man's name should not appear upon the voter's list for some little time. I would not say how long that time should be, but there is an absurdity in looking up these people every four years and going to the cost of preparing lists, putting the same people on those lists year after year, and election after election, and then having 30 per cent of them absenting themselves from the polls. Thirty per cent- of the cost is absolutely wasted. I would like to place upon Hansard a letter which I received from the Prime Minister of Australia, dated March 16, 1927, as follows: Dear Dr. Kaiser:
With reference to your letter of the 8th January, I have very much pleasure in forwarding you herewith copy of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-25, and copy of the Electoral and Referendum Regulations, Statutory Rules 1926/201. I am also enclosing a graph which shows in respect of each eeetion and referendum held since the inception of the Commonwealth:

(a)	the number of electors enrolled;
(b)	the number of electors to whom ballot-papers were issued; and
(c)	the percentage of electors to whom ballot-papers were issued to electors enrolled.
(Mr. Kaiser.]
I cannot recall press criticism of any consequence against the introduction of compulsory voting. At the 1925 federal elections the government was returned to power with a very strong majority in the House of Representatives and it secured every vacant seat in the Senate. In the press after the elections there was much comment as to whether compulsory voting had been responsible for the government victory.	,
Some sections of the press took the view that the introduction of the compulsory voting did not affect the proportion of votes in favour of the government, while other sections claimed that it had materially assisted the government. The outstanding feature of the voting, however, was the large number of electors who recorded their vote, the percentage for the last election being 91 per cent. Prior to the introduction of the compulsory voting in 1917, the percentage of federal voters was 78.30 and in 1922 it fell to 59.36.
It is rather difficult to gauge the effect of the compulsory voting at the last federal election, as at the time owing to the activities of the communistic element in Australia there were many people who had previously voted for the Labour party but wbo did not do so on the last occasion.	.
I very much appreciate the remarks which you have so kindly made regarding my recent visit to Canada.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd) P. M. Bruce.
Those are the simple facts in connection with Australia. I would like to see similar ideas given currency in this country to the end that greater attention might be paid to the 66 per cent who either do not vote or who have to be carried to the polls, and less attention to the 33 per cent who voluntarily go to the polls.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: In his opening
remarks, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) stated that the committee had no knowledge that many people had their votes sworn in on election day. In my experience in western Canada, and I think in the experience of practically all the members from that section of the country, we find that in the rural districts many votes are sworn in on election day. Our enumerators have long distances to travel. Some people live in remote parts of the polling divisions and are missed in making up the electoral lists. The result is that on election day, in practically every poll in the rural districts of western Canada, a few are sworn in who are entitled to vote.


Malcolm McLean: In answer to the last part of the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario, may I point out that it is a common thing in the rural districts to find from 75 to more than 90 per cent of the electors turning out on voting day. This is all a matter of whether the electors are interested in the election or not. If they are

Dominion Elections Act
not interested, no amount of law will make them vote. You could prosecute and go to a great deal of trouble in the matter and yet you could not force them to vote unless they were interested in doing so.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member for
Ontario put his views before the committee in a very interesting way, but the committee, after having considered the views as expressed by the hon. member, decided not to include them in their report. This legislation is along the lines of the unanimous report of the committee. I hope the hon. gentleman within a very short time will manage to have more converts on his side and then we shall introduce compulsory voting in Canada. This year, however, apparently the members who sat on the committee and considered the question, were not ready to go as far as the hon. gentleman was prepared to do.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The Solicitor General was
very courteous to me from the beginning of the discussion and I have no fault to find with him. All that I endeavoured to do was to begin casting a few seeds so that some day something along the lines I suggested might be done. There is no harm in doing that.


Mr. JACOBS:: May I say a word or two with respect to subsection (2) which reads:
The day fixed for the poll shall at any election be a Monday, unless the Monday of the week in which it is desired to hold the poll
(a)	is a holiday as defined by the Interpretation Act; or
(b)	at a general election, is a day which is generally observed by the residents of any province as a day for religious exercises and is declared to be a holiday by the law of such province.
Why is it that those who drafted this section fixed Monday as a rigid, definite day upon which the election should be held? Perhaps it is because it so immediately follows Sunday that the electors come to the polls in a holy frame of mind.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: And it is two days from Saturday.


Samuel William Jacobs: That would make people of my persuasion half as religious on Monday as those who attend church on Sunday. A number of holidays, which are observed by the people of my persuasion, take place in the autumn of every year. If it were to happen that the election should fall on any one of those days, it might mean that I would disappear from the house at the next election and also my good friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. The latter would be a calamity frightful to contemplate.


James Dew Chaplin: For the hon. member.


Samuel William Jacobs: It seems to me that this
clause ought, to stand over for further consideration. I am sure it is not the desire of any hon. member to have a law passed which would in any way interfere with the franchise of British citizens who hold religious views different from those of the majority. I am sure that is not the idea and there are people of my persuasion to be found in every electoral district in Canada. It is only right that I, as a member of that persuasion, should point out to the government the difficulty of adhering to a rule of this kind. There ought to be some flexibility. If it be found that Monday is a religious holiday observed by a number of people, it should be changed to Tuesday or some other day which would be agreeable.


Lucien Cannon: The reason why the amendment was inserted was that it was represented by the chief electoral officer and by Colonel Biggar that, by having Monday as election day, it was more convenient to fix the dates upon which several different things were te be done by officials and so forth. I appreciate the argument brought forward by my hon. friend. He wishes the clause to stand. I might point out that subsection (2), as it reads now, states:
Unless the Monday of the week in which it is desired to hold the poll (a) is a holiday as defined by the Interpretation Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: That would not apply.


Lucien Cannon: That would not apply to holidays which are not included in the Interpretation Act. We might let the clause stand for the present and see if we cannot devise some way of meeting my hon. friend's wishes.
Section stands.
Sections 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Name not on list.


Mr. ESLING:: We on this side have not
had an opportunity of looking at the bill. I just want to ask the minister whether it has been made clear in this section as to a voter casting his vote in the electoral district or in the polling division. For instance, the act specifically provides for a residence of two months in the electoral district. Then when the man comes to cast his vote, the instructions sent to the deputy returning officer read
Dominion Elections Act

"in the polling division" and not "in the electoral district" so that one contradicts the other. I brought the matter to the attention of the committee.


Lucien Cannon: The idea which underlies this clause is as follows: In a- rural constituency, if a man found that his name was not on the list, he could, by taking the appropriate oath, register his vote, whereas the same privilege does not exist in the cities. But the returning officers were prone to interpret the act as meaning that if a man's name were not on the list, he was deprived of his vote. This amendment is inserted in order to make the matter very clear that if a man has his name on the list he is entitled to vote at the appropriate polling station, and in order to make the distinction very clear as between rural and urban polling divisions.


William Kemble Esling: I understand that. My question is whether the act has been changed so as to make it specific whether the qualifications call for a residence of two months in the electoral district or in the polling division.


Charles Gavan Power: The oath has been changed to suit the wishes of my hon. friend. I remember well that he made certain representations to the committee with regard to the oath to be taken by people in rural polling divisions, and I think the oath has been changed to suit his views.


Mr. FRASER:: To be quite clear on that, do I understand from the answer that has been given, that the principle has not been changed, but that it has been made a little more specific?


Charles Gavan Power: Exactly. At the present time in order to vote under those circumstanices the applicant for a vote must take the whole oath. He is not allowed to swear as he did before simply that he resides in the electoral division. He must take the whole oath, that ihe has resided in the division for two months,
a British subject, and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-Advance polls.
Mr. SPOTTON:: I have not had time to read this section carefully, Ibut I would point out that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in the rural constituencies in regard to advance polls. If the chief electoral officer is advised that there is a certain number of railway men, commercial travellers and others who want to vote at an advance poll he will establish an advance poll for that

town. It may be a town of three or five thousand people. The question did arise where there was an advance poll in one town and commercial travellers, railway men and railway mail clerks went to the returning officer of their own municipality and asked him for a certificate to allow them to go over to the neighbouring town and vote at the advance poll there. I can understand that in any city constituency there .might be trouble about it, but there would be very little trouble in a rural constituency where everyone knows everyone else, and it would seem to me to be well that in a village or town where there are commercial travellers, railway men or railway mail clerks, they should receive a certificate from the deputy returning officer of their polling division allowing them to drive over to the neighbouring town and vote at the advance poll there. There was a difference of opinion about this question in our by-election, the Conservative lawyers holding that the men could go over and vote, and the Liberal lawyers holding that they could not. I should like the Solicitor General to make the point clear.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the law at that time the Liberal lawyers were right.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will read subsection 2A of section 21 he will see that it provides for the case he mentions.


George Spotton: I take it, then, from the Solicitor General that a railway mail clerk, a commercial traveller or any of the classes I mentioned, has a right to drive over to a neighbouring town where there is an advance poll being held and vote in that constituency.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, if the chief electoral officer so directs. The chief electoral officer may direct that an advance poll may be used for a certain area, not only for the place where it is situated but for adjoining sections.


George Spotton: He may so direct, but would it take in the entire rural constituency? It would be necessary to secure his ruling in the matter prior to election day.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, but under this law the returning officers will be made permanent officers, and they will organize their constituencies and be in a position to make all these arrangements with the chief electoral officer in advance, so I think the needs of the situation mentioned by my hon. friend will be met.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Dominion Elections Act
On section 22-When polls to be open.
Mr. LADNER:: Instead of having the
hours from two to ten o'clock on Saturday would it not be better to fix an earlier hour? What objection would there be to having it from eight o'clock on the day immediately preceding the voting day, because circumstances might arise which would make it advisable for citizens to vote in the morning.


Charles Gavan Power: The answer is to be found
in the note. This matter was discussed in the committee. The note says:
The proposed extension of hours on Saturday is thought likely to meet the necessities of the situation without compelling the election officers and candidates' agents who serve at advance polls to give up their regular employment for the purpose.
One of the reasons why voting day was fixed for Monday was that then theTe would be the whole afternoon of Saturday as well as Thursday evening and Friday evening for the advance polls. If it came in the middle of the week it would mean withdrawing from their regular occupation the number of people usual to man the polls. The same objection arises with regard to Saturday morning. It is a matter of convenience for the candidates and the electoral officials and for the public generally.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does not the hon. member think that any inconvenience to the candidates and electoral officials would be outweighed by the convenience to the public at large being able to yote on Saturday morning while in town on their business, and then they could have the whole of Saturday afternoon free.


Charles Gavan Power: These are advance polls for people who have no business in the towns- commercial travellers, railway men, mariners and so forth,


Leon Johnson Ladner: But they may want to go away.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is it provided in this
bill that newly naturalized citizens will have to have their naturalization papers with them in order to vote?


Lucien Cannon: There is nothing in the
law about that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The law should provide for that because in my home town I have known fifty people to vote on the same naturalization paper who were not entitled to vote at all.


Lucien Cannon: If he takes the oath it
is not necessary for him to show his naturalization papers.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In this country a great
many newly arrived people are easily made the tools of other interested people. I know for a fact that interested! people, knowing that these newly arrived do not appreciate the value of their naturalization papers, will use them for fifty other people who are not entitled to vote.


Charles Gavan Power: That is somewhat in line
with the suggestion frequently made that people who register at hotels should carry their marriage certificate with them. If we were to insert any clause of that sort in the act every person who went to the polls would have to produce his birth certificate or his naturalization certificate. It was felt that when we provided that people could be sworn as to their qualifications we were going as far as we could go.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And there is always the
penalty for perjury.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In some sections of
Europe they have to bring their papers to be allowed to vote.


Lucien Cannon: Not under the law.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is an anomaly
there. A good many people with the best intentions are voting when they are not entitled to vote. I have a good many of them in my section, and some interested people make it a point to see that these.people who are not entitled to vote do vote.


Charles Gavan Power: Swear every one of them.


Samuel William Jacobs: There are a good many
people who vote that way, but I do not agree with my friend that they do it with the best intentions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the suggestion of the
hon. member were earned out it would prevent hundreds of legitimate voters from voting on election day. I have seen cases myself, of men who have been in this country for twenty or thirty years who have been precluded from voting on election day; their names were on the list but the returning officer positively refused to allow them to vote, and I am glad to have the 'assurance of the Solicitor General that these people will now be allowed to vote. As I say, I have known hundreds of men and women who have been in this country for many long years being sent out of a polling booth on election day because they did not have their certificates with them; they were told to go and fetch them, but they went out of the polling booth
Dominion Elections Act

anad never bothered to return. It should be the duty of the returning officer to see whether these men and women are naturalized or not. If he is not satisfied that a man or a woman is a Canadian citizen he should siwear them, and if he feels then after they have been properly sworn that everything is in order they should be allowed to vote.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In our section of the country practically one-fifth of the people are not on the list; there are many people up there whose votes were taken away from them in the manner mentioned by the hon. member, but that statement does not do away wilbh the fact that hundreds, yes, thousands of people are voting and who are certainly not entitled to vote.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, if hon. gentlemen will turn to page 29, there is a schedule which includes the constituencies where the fifteen-day system will exist instead of the eight-day system which is general throughout the Dominion. It has been generally agreed that this schedule 3 might stand, and any member of the house who wishes to have the name of his constituency included might so inform the officers of the house.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: What page is that?


Lucien Cannon: Page 28.


The CHAIRMAN:: There are a number of other sections before we reach that.
Section 25 agreed to.
On section 27

Two weeks interval between nomination and polling days.


Lucien Cannon: This is under section 27, as to the names of the constituencies-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let us pass this act up to the point-


Lucien Cannon: The said act is amended by adding to schedule 3 thereof-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have had form 35. We have not yet passed form 36 following.


Lucien Cannon: No. We are at section
27 now, page 28.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 
Lucien Cannon: Yes, that is done.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I have been listening and I did not hear the forms.


Lucien Cannon: We are at 27 now.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is it proposed to allow this section 27 to stand for further consideration?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.
Section 27 stands.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish this committee to have any misunderstanding. We have passed clause 25-


Charles Gavan Power: There is a section missing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Which included form No. 36, but I did not hear you call section 26 of this act.


Charles Gavan Power: No, it appears to be missing.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I mean section 26 at the bottom of page 26. I have not heard that section called. It may be because I did not understand, but that section 26 is important.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend has any remarks to make let us go back to section 26.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not a case of my making any remarks, it is a question of this committee passing 26.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend misunderstands me. If my hon. friend did not hear 26 being called let us go back to it, because I would be delighted to hear from him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not a question of
hearing from me. I have nothing to say, but every section should be called.


Lucien Cannon: It was called.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I am in error, but I did not hear section 26 called.


Lucien Cannon: Well, it was called.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was listening carefully. If section 26 was called there is no doubt about it. I have no objection then to going to 27.


Charles Gavan Power: May I call the attention
of the committee to section 27 which has been allowed to stand? The chief electoral officer, during the course of his period in office, came to the conclusion that a large number of constituencies which were not now in the schedule of what I might call two-week constituencies, that is to say, between nomination day and election day two weeks must elapse, should be added. For instance, in the western provinces: Manitoba-Brandon, Dauphin, Lisgar, Macdonald, Marquette, Neepawa, Portage la Prairie, Souris; in Saskatchewan-

Dominion Elections Act
Assiniboia Humboldt, Ivindersley, Last Mountain, Long Lake, Mackenzie, Melville, Moose Jaw, Qu'Appelle, Rosetown, Saskatoon, South Battleford, Swift Current, Weyburn, Willow Bunch, Yorkton; in Alberta-Acadia, Battle River, Bow River, Calgary West, Cam-rose, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red Deer, Yegreville, Wetaskiwin. It was suggested in the committee that members of parliament who thought it was in the public interest that their constituencies should be placed in the schedule could have the same done by way of amendment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But election day would be the same for all of those constituencies.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: With regard to section 29, would the Solicitor General say whether that applies to past elections or future elections?


Lucien Cannon: Future elections. The committee was of opinion that these amendments should apply only at the next general election, that they should not apply to the by-elections which will be held during the present parliament.


George Black: But if the present members of parliament are candidates at the general election will this apply to them or not?


Lucien Cannon: Any member of the present parliament.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What about future parliaments?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The act is amended for that purpose, and we have this last clause saying:
This act shall not apply to the election of any member to the present parliament.


George Black: It seems to affect
general elections as well as byelections.


Lucien Cannon: It will be in force at the next general election.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Could not that be stated
a little more clearly?


Lucien Cannon: I do not know how it
could be worded any more clearly than it is; the word "to" makes it perfectly clear. It is not "of."
Section stands.
On section 4-Polling day to be half holiday.


Mr. THORSON:: I suggest that instead
of taking the clause which is now in the
bill we should go back to the old clause and substitute the word "three" for the word "two" in the second line thereof. That would give the employee three hours in which to vote and it would not deprive him of pay for any portion of time on election day.


James Dew Chaplin: Why does he need three
hours-to have a drink?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In parts of Winnipeg
many persons work as far as ten miles away from their polling division.


Charles Gavan Power: I understand that the government have no objection to accepting this amendment, but as chairman of the committee I wish to dissociate myself from it. We considered the matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the federal parliament had no authority to grant a holiday with pay.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With compulsory pay.


Charles Gavan Power: There is, it is true, a clause
in the Dominion Elections Act providing that every employer shall on polling day allow every elector, his employee, at least two additional hours in which to vote and that no employer shall make any deduction from the [DOT]pay of such employee. I think it is a question of civil rights and contract and not one for the federal parliament.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock. RAILWAYS AND CANALS COMMITTEE
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): With the unanimous consent of the house I would like to present -the thirteenth report of the select standing committee on railways and canals.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF CANADA
Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: With the consent -of the house I desire to move that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill 84, to incorporate the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, be now read a first and second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the first and second times and concurred in.
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 27 consideration in committee of Bill No. 254, respecting the construction by the Canadian National Railway Company of certain terminal facilities with grade separation and other works at and in the vicinity of t'he city of Montreal.-Mr. Dunning.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: Certain sections of this
bill were allowed to stand in order to give me an opportunity to consult the law officers in order to make sure that the intentions which I expressed to the house and which were agreeable to the house really had been carried into effect in the bill. A careful check of the matter with the law officers of the department and those of the Department of Justice convinces me that the bill as drafted does in fact leave the Board of Railway Commissioners in exactly the same position with reference to this work as they would be in reference to any other piece of work done by the Canadian National, but in order to establish that fact beyond question and to satisfy the house generally as to the clarity of the legislation, in connection with section 7, which was allowed to stand, I propose to eliminate these words, commencing on line 13:
Detail plans of crossings of railways and crossings by the railway of streets or highways shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
By the elimination of those words there can be no doubt but that the provisions of the Railway Act with respect to the powers and duties of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and those of the Canadian National Railway Act, will apply to the works contemplated by this bill.
In connection with section 8 a similar question^ was brought up by the hon. member for South Toronto, and I now propose a redrafted section in order to make it quite clear that the matters dealt with in this section are not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners in any case, and to provide a manner whereby they may be dealt with. The redrafted section reads:
Where streets or highways are affected by the said works but are not crossed by the company's tracks or diverted incidental to any suoh crossing and by reason thereof the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada has no jurisdiction under the Railway Act with respect thereto, the company may with the approval of tire governor in council, enter into agreements, where it may be desirable, with the city of Montreal or with any other municipality with respect to such streets or highways or with respect to the opening of new streets, the closing ot existing streets and ways, the making of 
diversions or widenings of such streets or highways, and the making of sub-streets, subways or overhead facilities in connection with such streets or highways, and the apportionment of the cost thereof.
I think that amendment will make it quite clear that the agreement contemplated is one with respect to improvements, which, under the Railway Act, are not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
Many objections were offered to section 10 of the bill, and I propose to move that that section be struck out. I think these amendments will meet the various objections raised the last time this bill was in committee.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, before this
amendment is taken up I would like to take this opportunity to present a few views on this matter. This proposed station will not be a union station, but a station for one railway only. Does the minister propose the same equality of treatment for other places as for Montreal herein?
The port of Montreal has developed in a wonderful manner. The city of Toronto has had to pay about $12,000,000 to have a viaduct constructed there. During the past eight years, since I have been a member of this house, the Dominion of Canada expended $15,000,000 to construct a great bridge at Montreal. This parliament should only be concerned with interprovincial or international bridges, or where navigation is affected, but the Dominion government paid the full cost of this purely municipal bridge for the city of Montreal or a bridge between two provincial municipalities. A great real estate movement is taking place in the city of Montreal in connection with this particular proposition. Land is being bought up by speculators whereas the whole business should be handled by the government. The government could buy more land than is needed and then take advantage of the unearned increment. The city of Montreal should be contributing 50 per cent of the cost of this work. In the old days of the railway commission, the late Mr. Justice Mabee gave a ruling which affected every municipality making an application for the removal of level crossings. His ruling was that where the highway had been there ahead of the railway, the railway paid, but where the railway had been there first then the municipality should shoulder the whole burden of the work.
The city of Toronto gave the Canadian Pacific Railway a right of way down the Don river for $600 per year, when it would have cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to get into the heart of the city. The

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
city leased the station site, that is the new union station site, to the Grand Trunk for a station and the railway leased part of it to the post office. The cost of the station at Toronto will come to about $6,000,000, while the viaduct will cose about $32,000,000. The member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) said that it would cost $10,000,000 before they got through, but the city of Toronto will have to pay over $12,000,000 in order to provide a viaduct and rights of way for the railways for a distance of fifteen miles along the water front. The minister's amendment does not cover this phase at all; the railway commission cannot change the agreement between the government of Canada and the Canadian National Railways and a third party, such as the city of Montreal. They cannot interfere with vested rights; their duty is to enforce the Railway Act and any provisions of that act as to plans, routes, and other technical layouts.
I have no desire to cripple the national railways, far from it; I hope they grow in strength from year to year. I think they have been doing far better than anyone expected. This burden of $50,000,000 is being put upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of Canada. If this amount -were not being expended in this way reduction in the income tax and sales tax would be possible but the government insists upon continuing to spend money like water. It seems to me that this particular matter might stand over for a while. The government should say to the city of Montreal, "We are not going to continue to place the municipal burdens of the city of Montreal upon the people of Canada." New highways, town planning, new subways, widening of street, and other local improvements are to be made at the cost of the people of Canada. The principle property and civil rights in the province is involved when a municipality receives consideration of this kind. If the minister were up and doing he would say to the people of Montreal, "It is nearly time that the municipality paid for its own municipal work," and not have that cost saddled upon the people of the province of Ontario and other provices in the Dominion of Canada. The rest of the country has been asked to pay too much money for the benefit of this municipality: this city is well able to take care of its own municipal burdens.
If this were a union station the argument might be a little different. The suggestion was made that union station should be built in the city of Hamilton, to be used by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway, and the Grand
Trunk, but nothing has come of that proposition. The city of Hamilton, like Toronto, was asked to contribute. The government can build an elevator in Port Huron, which might just as well hiave been built in Sarnia, and they are quite content to pay the cost of the elaborate improvements which are being made in the city,of Detroit instead of having that city pay a fair share of the cost of those Canadian National improvements.
This is a very improvident bargain as far as the people of Canada are concerned, and it might very well stand for another year. The government should ask the city of Montreal to pay $20,000,000 towards the cost of this work. The time has come for someone to stand up and say something about this matter. Does the minister propose similar equality of treatment for the other cities in the Dominion, or similar gradte separation? If that is the case, then the city of Toronto would have a good claim for a refund of the money it has paid. In 1911, 1912 and 1913 we attempted to arrive at an agreement with the railway commission, but we were told that not a dollar would be spent in Toronto unless we came across with $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 for the grade separation viaduct work along the waterfront. I do not know of any state government in the United States that is doing this for the municipalities. Certainly the state of New York would not do it. The cities of Buffalo, Rochester and Cleveland have had to spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money in order to carry out similar improvements. If you go along lake Erie, the cities of Toledo and Detroit have had to spend money to remedy the evils of these level crossings. If the city of Montreal is to go scot-free in regard to level crossings and bridges as well, what is the next municipal service that that city will want the Dominion to pay for? It will mot be long before they want the country as a whole to pay for a new trunk sewer service or a new water supply. If you read the Municipal Act in the Code of Quebec, you will find that these services are all municipal. I have looked over the situation and what is proposed to be done is nothing but municipal town planning. The government is going to contribute more than half of this money in order to do town planning in Montreal. Look at the own planning in Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, where they have widened boulevards which are a great credit to the people of those cities. Are they going to come to parliament to ask the government to pay part of their cost out of the public treasury? No. If we are going to pass this legislation, there will be an

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
agitation made to the government for the refund of the cost of improvements such as these. The city of Toronto could make out a strong case for a refund of $10,000,000 for viaduct work from this parliament.
The port of Montreal is one of the largest ports in the world. The administration of that port is not, I think, excelled anywhere else, and the people are going to get back every dollar spent on that port. But as regards this local town planning scheme, a very strong case could' be and has been made out that the city of Montreal should shoulder some of these burdens itself and not unload its town planning and other municipal improvements upon the Dominion.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Robb moves that section 7 be amended by striking out the words beginning in the thirty-sixth line with the word "detail" down to and including the word "commissioners" in the thirty-ninth line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Robb moves that
section 8 'be amended to read as follows:
8.	Where streets or highways are affected by the said works but are not crossed by the company's tracks or diverted incidental to anv such crossing and by reason thereof the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada has no jurisdiction under the Railway Act with respect thereto, the company may with the approval of the governor in council enter into agreements, where it may be desirable, with the city of Montreal or with any other municipality with respect to such streets or highways or with respect to the opening of new streets, the closing of existing streets and ways, the making of diversions or widenings of such streets or highways, and the making of sub-streets, subways or overhead facilities in connection with such streets or highways, and the apportionment of the cost thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 10 has been
struck out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to suggest.
to the minister, looking at the bill in its amended form, that it would make it perfectly clear if a special section were added stating that matters with respect to the crossing of streets or highways by railways and the crossing of railways by streets or highways, shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners as provided by the Railway Act. As the bill stands now, there is no reference as to how the matter is to be dealt with. My hon. friend's submission is that the provisions of the Railway Act will therefore apply. Might it not be desirable to state in the bill itself that the provisions

of the Railway Act with respect to crossings of railways and so forth Shall apply? I am offering this as a suggestion, and another suggestion which I have in mind and which, I suspect from the conversation I have had wdth the minister, he will not accept, is that an amendment be made to the legislation by adding a section declaring that:
This act shall come into force on proclamation by the governor in council after approval of the plans of the said works by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the whole scheme?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I am still most
desirous, if possible, of bringing about a simplicity of terminals which, admittedly, this does not do. Whether or not, as I already said to the minister the other day, if an opportunity were afforded before an independent tribunal for all parties concerned to be heard, a plan might result that would bring about the creation of union facilities, I cannot say, but I have thought a great deal about this. I sent to the library and got the life of the late J. J. Hill for the purpose of refreshing my memory about what he said of the desirability of great terminals in a large city like Montreal. I have not forgotten the fact that these terminals can in no sense be made profitable by passenger traffic.
I remember that the president of the road has said that the passenger traffic produces no profit so far as this terminal is concerned, and I realize that something between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 per annum must be provided by the traffic on the system to pay interest and depreciation upon those properties. The amount may be a little more. When I say that, I mean not only the sum now presently contemplated to be spent, but the $12,500,000, authorized and expended on the previous scheme, together with the accumulated interest which is large, and the $1,500,000 of securities which the hon. member mentioned the other day. This means that when the property is completed five or six years hence, it will involve a fixed annual charge of between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000, and if my idea as to the ultimate cost is fairly correct, the fixed annual charge will be nearer $5,000,000 than $4,000,000. That money will not in any sense be made out of passenger traffic except that there may be in suburban areas some passenger traffic th&t may be profitable. Within the last five years the Illinois Central have spent $30,000,000 in terminal facilities in Chicago. They have changed from steam to electricity, and the result has been that a loss of $5,000,000 in the terminal traffic

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
of the Illinois Central has been converted into a yearly profit of SI,000,000, a change altogether of $6,000,000 by reason of an expenditure of $30,000,000 in electrifying the terminal facilities and suburban lines of the Illinois Central in and about the city of Chicago. That is an exceptional situation owing to the lake front and the heavy congestion of passenger traffic to the east of the city of Chicago, providing revenue on a very large scale.
This scheme has been described in some quarters as ambitious. It must be so, if the principles in connection with terminals as laid down by Mr. Hill are to prevail. After all. a great railway must have great terminals. It must look to the future. It is not sufficient to look to to-day. It must look beyond the conditions of to-day and see tomorrow, and more than to-morrow; it must see the day after.
There are acute differences between the two systems with reference to these terminals. The minister and I have discussed this matter. One system thinks that a through traffic terminal is not necessary. The other says that a through traffic terminal is essential both for traffic south, east and west. I realize that the expenditure of money sometimes is the best method' to ensure the making of money. In other words, I realize that money that is not profitable can at times be made profitable by the expenditure of large sums of money.
I have not forgotten the boldness of Mr. Harriman and the courage with which he crossed Salt lake at an expenditure of $9,000,000. with a short cut-off or his construction of 332 miles of road to take the place of 374 miles of abandoned road, in order to make large sums of money. I am not unmindful of other similar instances in the history of railroading, but I am also remembering that this is a country of only 10,000,000 people.
There is one factor that I hope the minister will not overlook. We own a railroad a very considerable portion of which is in the United States, and the .president of the road1 has told U3 that the most profitable mileage that we have to-day is that portion of the Grand Trunk that lies in the United States. That is a very serious situation because it must be admitted by every thoughtful observer that when you have a very substantial section of your national railway in another country, the question as to its profitable operation does not depend on anything that you can do, but depends upon conditions as to traffic that exist in that other country, together with the maintenance of a rate that will enable a profit
to be made. We have no control over those conditions. We cannot control the situation on the Vermont section as to profit and loss after we have completed our investment and taken up our receivers' certificates. We cannot change the situation in respect to Portland and the terminals there, or in respect to the Grand Trunk Western and all that is involved in the consolidation of the many lines included in the system. These are matters that are beyond our control, and at the present time some sections of the road are highly profitable. We realize in the light of what the president of our own railway has said that we must rely on freight traffic proper to pay the annual interest and charges on this terminal; in other words, passenger traffic will produce no profit, and that directly affects every producer of freight on the system. It affects the man on the prairie, the manufacturer in the east, the automobile manufacturer to some extent on the Grand Trunk Western lines, and I d'o not think it would be too much to ask that before these plans are finally acted upon by the governor in council the whole matter should be considered by an independent tribunal. I confess to the .minister that in looking about for that independent tribunal, the only reason why I fixed upon the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada was because it is the only tribunal which is charged under our general laws with responsibility in connection with railroads. I do not say that I think it is the best tribunal in the world. There are many difficulties that I see. Mr. Ruel's view is that it is undesirable to submit any Canadian National railway matters to the Board of Railway Commissioners. In putting this amendment before the minister for his consideration I apprehend, as he said to me in discussing the matter, that he may not accept it, and that it may be my duty when the bill is read a third time to-morrow-formally to offer this amendment for the consideration of the house.
I had not intended to speak at such length at the moment, but I do confess after having followed the development of the railroad situation in Canada with a good deal of interest for the last thirty years, and having been particularly interested in it in the days of the old Grand Trunk and National Transcontinental, I ventured upon the role of a prophet and made a prediction which, though it was not generally accepted at the time I made it, proved to be right in the end, and both Alberta and Saskatchewan were called upon to pay on their guarantees of interest on branch lines of $13,000 and $15,000 a mile respectively.
303G

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
Few people realize what it has meant to those provinces to have the national railways consolidated. Had they not -been consolidated and taken over by the crown, a burden would have been imposed upon the provinces that would have been very considerable and although some people think that British Columbia would 'have escaped, I think that thoughtful observers who have studied the economics of the situation, as did at least one of the directors of the Canadian National, who is now the deputy minister, will agree' that the province of British Columbia would have been called upon to pay substantial sums of money but for the taking over of the Canadian Northern iby the crown. Bearing in mind the six or seven lean years that Joseph experienced in Egypt, which lean years have also been known in Canada, and that these days will come again, and that somebody must find between $4,500,000 and $5,000,000 every year to pay the interest on the investment which we will have in these terminal facilities, I have made the suggestion I have. I am sorry the minister feels that it cannot 'be accepted. I shall have to turn over in my own mind the desirability of submitting the suggestion in the form of a formal amendment when the bill is under consideration for third reading.
I want to say that the minister has approached this matter certainly not with a desire to press it upon the house in a sense of it being a government measure, although, of course, it is a government measure, and he has endeavoured to eliminate, by striking out the section to which I directed attention the other day, and in making the changes which he has submitted to the house to-day, those sources of difficulty which I think he will admit the experience of the past has taught us are present, with a view to ensuring so far as possible that there shall be a minimum of such difficulties to be encountered in connection with this undertaking; but there are still many matters of great moment that will rest for their solution upon the discretion and ability and fidelity of the men concerned. It is for these reasons that I have ventured to make this suggestion to the minister, and as the bill will not be read a third time to-day I shall in the meantime consider whether or not it will be desirable to submit a formal amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall not deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest for the reason that it is quite apparent that he is under a complete misapprehension as to the scope and purpose of the bill before the houoe, and the leader of [Mr. Bennett. J
the opposition and others I feel sure would not associate themselves with his remarks in that connection.
With regard to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, as I stated at the outset careful consideration was given to the suggestion which he made, and I fully appreciate the force of his remarks just now in relation to the importance to the national system of that portion of the railway which is located in the United States. I should not like, and I feel sure that he would not like, his remarks to be interpreted as implying that the national system is dependent for its profitable operation upon that part which is located within the United States. Some 1,600 miles out of a total of 22,000 miles in the system are located in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that the
system was dependent upon it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was saying that I felt sure my hon. friend would not want that impression left.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made it perfectly clear that the president had said that that was Ihe most profitable mileage which they had. That is on record.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not disputing the record; I was proceeding to analyse it in order that there might not 'be an impression left *n the country by the hon. gentleman's remarks that the system was in any sense dependent upon its American mileage. Some 900 odd miles of that American mileage, which is comprised in what we call the Grand Trunk Western system, undoubtedly is the most profitable 900 miles of the system, but it is only 900 miles out of a total of 22,000 miles. The rest of our American mileage, comprised within the Vermont Central, of something over 400 miles, and the line down to Portland in the neighbourhood of 200 miles, cannot be described as exceptional money-makers, but I would not depreciate for a moment the value of the Grand Trunk Western portion of the system.
I wish to examine for a moment my hon. friend's suggestion that he might move an amendment on the third reading. I do so in order that we may get an appreciation of what it would mean, and in order that the house may get an appreciation of the reasons which prompt the government in hesitating very much to accept any such suggestion. In connection with the expenditure of any money on railroads in Canada, whether publicly or privately owned, the first move

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
would be the action of the proprietor in authorizing their management to expend the money, and we are, as I pointed out the other day in this house, in the position of representing the proprietors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is the governor in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: Parliament is conferring
authority upon the governor in council to authorize the management to expend, under terms set out by parliament, the moneys dealt with in this bill. The proprietorial relationship must not be lost sight of. The Board of Railway Commissioners has, under the law with respect to all railways, a very definite function, and it is not in any sense to be confused with the function of proprietorship; they are not in the position under the law of advising the proprietors of a railway as to how and upon what works the proprietors should expend their own money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not their own money.


Charles Avery Dunning: The proprietor's money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the railways' own
money.


Charles Avery Dunning: The proprietor's money I said. The Board of Railway Commissioners, to put it in a manner I feel sure my hon. friend will not disagree with, is not under the statute creating it placed in a position where it can advise the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian National Railways, or any other railway, as to the manner in which those railways shall expend the money of the proprietors. The function of the Board of Railway Commissioners is judicial as between those proprietors represented by their management and the public who may be affected by the works which are to be built, constructed or operated with the moneys which the proprietors have allocated for that purpose. My hon. friend, I am sure, sees the principle I am trying to point out. In no other case has it ever been proposed that the Board of Railway Commissioners should be called in to pass upon what the proprietors themselves should authorize to be expended upon their own works. But the Board of Railway Commissioners are always authorized to come in and examine the relationship between that expenditure and the rights of the public, or the rights of individuals in relation thereto. We are proposing in this case to preserve intact the functions of the Board of Railway Commissioners and their relationship to undertakings of this character. And I hesitate very much to establish that, in addition to exercising that function, which is judicial in character, the Board1 of Railway Commissioners should assume one of the functions of management in determining the nature of the works to be built with the moneys provided by the proprietor. That is the matter of principle wthich I had in mind as an objection to what is proposed by my hon. friend.
Having said that, let me go further and say. that so far as the government is concerned it is under no illusions as to the far-reaching character of proposals of this kind. The government appreciates to the full the responsibility of embarking upon an enterprise of this kind. But we all recognize, all of parliament I think recognizes, representing as we wo the proprietors, that this is something which we must undertake. We have, whether we will or not the responsibility, and the final responsibility for the operation of two billion dollars' worth of the people's property in this railway system. And here is a problem which has been studied for many years, a problem which is recognized on all hands as one which is crying for solution as no other single problem on the railroad is crying for solution. A result of the studies which have been made by the officials of the railway and 'by the management, has been submitted to outside opinion; that outside opinion has been submitted to the house, and we have gone as far as we think we can go in that direction. But, nevertheless, I would say to my hon. friend this; the government does not take the position that the door is closed in so far as unionizing this work is concerned. I think I can say that with the entire concurrence of the government.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What do you mean by
" unionizing "7 It seems to me an awful word.


Charles Avery Dunning: Making of the terminal
a union terminal. The door in that respect is not closed. The door in that respect will not be closed during the years in which the project is being developed, during the building years; it will still be open for other parties desiring to come in and to create of this project a union terminal; the door will still be open for them to do so; the field for negotiation is still open.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That means the field with
regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway?
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal


Charles Avery Dunning: Absolutely. It is still
open. But we may as well face the facts, Mr. Chairman. The leader of the opposition stated them in one way. I will state the same set of facts in another way although there would not be any difference of opinion between us as to what the facts are. They were related in the committee and again when this matter wAs before the house previously, that the Canadian Pacific Railway does not believe that a union terminal at the tunnel site would be suitable or economical from the point of view of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian .National Railways do not believe that a union station at Windsor street would be suitable or economical from the point of view of the best interests of the Canadian National Railways. That difference does exist. We cannot overcome it. The leader of the opposition the other day pointed out very clearly that the only way to overcome it would be to exercise the powers of this parliament to force one or the other to go into the terminal of the other. And no one has yet suggested that the power of parliament should be used to force the Canadian Pocific Railway to go into the tunnel terminal, and no one has yet suggested that the power of parliament should be exercised upon the Canadian National Railways to force them to go into Windsor street. The issues are too great for parliament to attempt to exercise force in connection with that matter.
That is, I think, all I have to say on the matter. I trust my hon. friend will appreciate the reasons which prompt me in hesitating very much to set up the Board of Railway Commissioners as advisers to the management of any railway. To my mind it would impair, and possibly conflict with, the operation of their judicial function which they would undoubtedly be called upon to exercise in connection with many phases of the same matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, the minister
appreciates that the commission could be authorized to do so. I felt after looking casually through the report that the hon. minister was good enough to give me the other day that if the wealth of learning about terminals that could be brought before the commission was brought before the commission by experts of outstanding ability on this continent it might create such a situation as would inevitably induce the management, of the two enterprises to go into a union station enterprise. I might say that I wholly agree with my hon. friend that the commission as such is neither qualified nor empowered to 
compel either one road or the other to take the action suggested, but my hope had been rather that with the evidence that might be brought before the commission as such the deferring of the coming into force of the act would bring about such a state of affairs as might induce the parties affected to realize the desirability of taking the action which we so much desire, and thereby lessen what I conceive to be a very heavy load to be borne by our national system. That is the whole reason behind my suggestion. I did not go into detail because I thought the minister realized that I was not for a moment suggesting that some of his appointees on the Board of Railway Commissioners would be the best people to determine on a plan of the magnitude of the one now before the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: I had in mind previously that my hon. friend apparently had more faith at this stage in the Board of Railway Commissioners than he had at an earlier stage in the session. But I would say in that regard, to repeat in rather more amplified fashion what I said a moment ago, so far as ithe government is concerned, in authorizing the carrying on of these works, the door is still ' open. And, of course, as my hon. friend knows, it is within the power of the government, if the government so determines, to refer any matter such as this to the Board of Railway Commissioners. And I can go as far as this: If there does appear any hope of a solution, more advantageous to the country, to the national system and to the Canadian Pacific system, being arrived at by conference or in any other way, the government will not hesitate to use the power which it has to refer to the Board of Railway Commissioners any question the solution of which might involve a better scheme or a better arrangement than the one now proposed.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Has not the railway commission power to compel the railway companies to have a union station in any town?
Is that out of their jurisdiction entirely?


Charles Avery Dunning: They have no such power.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I find very confusing indeed the explanation of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) with regard to proprietorship and the suggestion that the members of this house represent the proprietors. Is it not clearly expressed in this bill, and in the other enactments which apply to the Canadian National Railways, as an entity in itself, that it so far comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners [DOT] that, acting in its judicial capacity,

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
the board has the same jurisdiction to decide as between the Canadian National Railways and any other public interest, as between the Canadian National Railways and any city or municipality, and as between the Canadian National Railways and the harbour commission of Montreal, for example, in so far as the Canadian National is a railway corporation, as it has when any similar issue arises between the Canadian Pacific Railway and any public interest, between the Canadian Pacific Railway and any municipality, or between the Canadian Pacific Railway and any other public corporation?


Charles Avery Dunning: The only difference is- I think this has been mentioned before-that with respect to the approval of actual detailed plans of a railroad, the Canadian National Railways, by virtue of its original statute enacted in 1919, is required to secure the approval of the Minister of Railways, whereas any other railway is required to secure the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Subject to that one qualification, what my hon. friend says is perfectly correct as to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners over the Canadian National Railway. But I cannot understand what the hon. member means about being confused as to the term proprietor which I used. The proprietors of an ordinary railway are, of course, the shareholders.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We all know that, of
course; it passes without comment. But we are not dealing with this matter now as merely the proprietors of the Canadian National Railways; we are dealing with it as the parliament of Canada, giving powers to an institution known as the Canadian National Railways which we have already constituted by statutes of this parliament. I would rather deal with the matter from that point of view, and I do still think that in all respects in which the Board of Railway Commissioners, as a judicial body, has jurisdiction as between, for instance, the Canadian Pacific Railway and any public interest, or between the Canadian Pacific Railway and any municipal or civic interest, or between the Canadian Pacific Railway and any other corporation constituted by this parliament, the Board of Railway Commissioners might well have the same jurisdiction when a similar issue arises between the Canadian National Railways and such bodies as I have mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section in the Railway Act to which the minister has referred is not broad enough to enable him to make 78594-193
reference to the board. I looked it up the other day and this was one of the reasons that impelled me to offer the suggestion I did. The section in question is 69:
(1)	The board may appoint or direct any person to make an inquiry and report upon any application, complaint or dispute pending before the board, or upon any matter or thing over which the board has jurisdiction under this or the special act.
(2)	The minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, appoint and direct any person to inquire into and report upon any matter or thing which the minister is authorized to deal with under this act or the special act.
The limitation as to the reference is that it must be a matter which the minister is authorized to deal with under the Railway Act or under the special act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under this act.
M. BENNETT: But this is a special act empowering the minister to deal with a limited number of matters. For instance, the very section with which we were dealing, section 7, authorizes the Minister of Railways to deal with the question of railways and canals and the crossing of canals. The Minister of Marine must deal with the harbour of Montreal, but the minister is not as such authorized to deal with the plan as a whole.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give my hon. friend the section in a moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think my hon. friend's construction can be placed upon it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Take the beginning of section 7; that will help my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well. That section begins:
The general plan or plans of the said works and amendments or additions to such general plan at any time made, shall, on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be subject to the approval of the governor in council.
But that is mot the point. What we are dealing with is, for instance, the question of cost. We have had no details yet as to the question of cost; no engineers' estimates have been submitted. We have merely men standing up and saying that in their opinion it will cost so much. But this vote is for $50,000,000. So far as we are aware, it might be $10,000,000, because that is all that is to foe spent this year; and the total cost as said to be $51,400,000. It is abundantly dear that four years from now, if the appropriations overrun, the matter is to be dealt with in the way I have indicated; and the only difficulty I see is this-and the minister put his finger on it a moment ago: How is the governor iD



C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
council to obtain its knowledge to deal with this matter in t'he public interest, representing the people of Canada as a whole, as distinguished from its political action as the government of the day? It was for that reason that I made the suggestion I did, rather than that the matter should be dealt with simply by the governor in council. In other words, I was endeavouring to ensure that there should be detailed information in connection with this matter placed before some tribunal that would approve generally of the enterprise, beyond mere statements such as I heard the other day-I do not care how long the situation has been studied-and the views of the minister himself. The minister knows more about, this matter than any other member of the government; yet I venture to say that if I examined him to-day I could within a few minutes indicate that his knowledge was not such as would warrant him in undertaking to expend such large sums of money if he were in the position he once occupied in connection with a great industry in western Canada. In short, he has not secured that detailed information which he would insist upon having in connection with any enterprise he had to do with, before authorizing so relatively large an expenditure as that which is here involved. All I am urging is that the approval should be secured of some body, with a volume of expert testimony behind it, as to the cost of the scheme, the plans, feasibility, general relation to the future, the adequacy of all the facilities, and every other question involved in the undertaking, having regard to what Mr. Hill pointed out as being in the ultimate analysis the important thing to consider. I was trying to make sure that all these matters would be dealt with before the minister and the government were pushed- I am not using the word offensively-into the position where they had to decide upon some course of action.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to illustrate
what I had in mind a moment ago when I addressed a question to the minister. The last three lines of section 7 are as follows:
Detail plans affecting the property of the harbour commissioners of Montreal shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
The harbour commission of Montreal is a corporate body having certain express powers delegated to it by this parliament; the members of that board have a practical knowledge of the conditions of their property and a large experience in dealing with the whole undertaking. Suppose a difference of opinion arises

between the management of the Canadian National Railways and the harbour commission, with respect to detail plans which affect the property of the harbour commissioners of Montreal. Should not such a difference of opinion be referred for settlement to a judicial body such as the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Charles Avery Dunning: This has reference to
detail plans.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, and those are the important plans. If this section provided that general plans should be first approved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that would have had another signification, but the actual plans which are prepared by the management of the Canadian National Railways, when once approved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, will have full force and effect in so far as they affect the property of the Montreal harbour commission. I do not think the political head of such a department as that of Marine and Fisheries should have the sole and exclusive decision in regard to issues which may arise, which are likely to arise and which in my opinion inevitably will arise between the harbour commissioners of Montreal and the executive of the Canadian National Railways in carrying out the detail plans for this enormous development. I am not in the confidence of the harbour commissioners at all; I have not approached them nor have they approached me, but I am sure they have very definite opinions as to the best method of carrying to completion those terminal facilities having regard to that harbour, and I understand that the leader of the opposition has suggested that in matters of this kind, where issues arise between the Canadian National Railways and other corporate public bodies, those issues might well be placed before a judicial body such as the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point raised by
my hon. friend is of some importance, but I should like to explain why the particular phrase to which he is referring was inserted in this bill. It will be noticed that in the first part of section 7 the authority to approve of general plans is given the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals. In connection with the detail plans affecting an enterprise which, in its relation to parliament, is under the overseeing eye, if I may use that term, of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, it was thought that in case any difficulty arose between the harbour board and the railway

C.N.R-Montreal Terminal
executive the hatbour board should not be placed in the position of having to appeal to the Minister of Railways, but rather to that minister who is particularly charged with looking after harbours and harbour interests.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not that mean that
the issue will be settled by political considerations?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot quite see that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let us assume for the
moment that grave differences of opinion do arise between the harbour board and the management of the railways, just such issues as might arise between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the harbour board, with reference to electrification or any other matters which might come up. It would take us days to consider these plans in all their details. Now, why should that decision be left to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; what special knowledge does he possess of matters of this kind? I am not speaking particularly of the present minister, but what equipment, what qualifications are possessed by the minister presiding over the Department of Marine and Fisheries which enable him to decide intricate engineering problems such as those which may arise between these two corporate bodies? Why should such issues be left to the decision of a mere political head; why should they not be left to the Board of Railway Commissioners, who at least have expert advisers to assist them and who have a procedure, a practice and a method whereby they may summon all interests affected and hear expert evidence as the basis for their decision?


Charles Avery Dunning: I might point out to my hon. friend that this does not take away any of the powers otherwise possessed by the Board of Railway Commissioners; if the matters affecting the property of the Montreal Harbour Board do come within the purview of the Board of Railway Commissioners, under the Railway Act, then their approval certainly must be secured. As a matter of fact my hon. friend is inaccurate in one particular; he says that the plans do involve works on the property of the Montreal Harbour Board. That is not the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may be mistaken, of course, but on the plan I saw that line running through property which either has been acquired or is in process of being acquired by the board of harbour commissioners, and I think issues are likely to arise in that connection. Perhaps I should not say so decidedly that these issues are likely to arise, but they may arise, and it is so probable that they will arise that in the bill before us the min-78594-193J
ister is providing a method of determining such issues if they come to a head. By the express terms of this section he has placed the power to make such a decision entirely within the discretion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who, while he has a certain oversight over the Montreal haifeour commissioners, should not it seems to me be vested with jurisdiction to decide issues which may arise as between those harbour commissioners and the management of the Canadian National Railways. I do not think I can say more.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just to complete what
I was saying regarding the harbour commission property and the work to be done thereon, I might say that the plans contemplated by this bill cover work to be done by the Canadian National Railways which will connect the harbour commission's tracks. The plans contemplate also certain work which will be carried out by the harbour commission and which it is agreeable to carry out. I would point out to my hon. friend that the Montreal harbour commission have been made fully aware of the contents of this bill as they relate to themselves, and that commission is quite satisfied with the arrangements made.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My information was that
they had not 'been fully consulted. I was not told that by one of the harbour commissioners, but received my information from another source. Why vest in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the sole discretion of deciding such issues as they arise?


Mr. GUERIN:: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter which should be included' in this particular bill, and that is provision for the electrification of the system within the city of Montreal. The railway is to be elevated over certain portions of the city but, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the bill which provides that the system shall be electrified. Electrification is absolutely necessary; otherwise the undertaking will be most destructive to property in the vicinity. We are suffering a great deal of inconvenience at the present time due to the non-electrification of the railways within the limits of the oitjr; in fact, I believe Montreal is the only city on the American continent which puts up with the smoke nuisance existing in the city. We are suffering from the operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway as well as from those of the Canadian National Railways, and I think something should be done to ensure that in densely populated municipalities the health of the people shall not be endangered by the continued use of coal-burning locomotives
C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal

within the municipal limits. I had hoped that provision would have 'been made in this bill for the electrification of the system within the city limits. I believe that all railway systems within the city of Montreal should be electrified.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, with
regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin), I might inform the committee that it is proposed to electrify the tunnel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The tunnel is electrified
now.


Charles Avery Dunning: To provide for tihe increased traffic which will be brought about by the completion of this larger scheme. The Canadian National Railway has conducted some very successful experiments and tests in the use of Diesel locomotives, and it is proposed to use Diesel powered locomotives very extensively in the operation of the terminal scheme.
The matter of general electrification comes within the realm of railway economics. Such schemes depend upon the density and the constancy of t'he load, because hon. members will appreciate that the power must be there at all times. The cost of producing the power must be paid whether or not it is uitlized to the fullest extent. I cannot give offhand what might be called the datum point of economical electrical transportation, but there is a point at which the traffic becomes heavy and constant enough to make it economical to electrify a line. For instance, at the present time it would not be good practice to electrify the line between Ottawa and Montreal; the load is not sufficiently constant to make that proposition economically sound, as it would cost far more than to operate under the present method. On the other hand, in a terminal such as the Pennsylvania station in New York city, where the density is ever present, electrical operation is very economical. I can say to my hon. friend from St. Ann that the Canadian National is watching veipr closely the development of traffic densities in and around the city of Montreal, and I can assure him that no time will be lost in putting in such improvements when they are warranted.


James John Edmund Guérin: Would the use of the
Diesel engines mean that coal would have to be burned?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are powered by oil.


James John Edmund Guérin: There would be no smoke?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is very little.
[Mr. Guerin.l


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is an explosion of oil
rather than the burning of it.


Mr. LAYIGUEUR:: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the citizens of Montreal upon having such excellent terminal facilities for that metropolis of the Dominion of Canada.


Eugène Fiset: What about Quebec?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: This city is in the
province of Quebec. They should take great pride in the facilities which are being provided by the Canadian National system. I think the declaration has been made to the house by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that it is the policy of the Canadian National system to provide proper terminal facilities in most of the large cities of Canada. While I congratulate the citizens of Montreal upon the treatment they are receiving at the hands of the government, I would like to see the people of the old city of Quebec treated in the same manner. Montreal, Toronto and many other cities in this Dominion have been treated quite generously by the Canadian National system while we have been endeavouring for over twenty years to obtain the proper terminal facilities in the city of Quebec. We were told by the government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier that the city of Quebec was the real terminal of the Transcontinental and the Canadian National railway systems, and that we would have proper facilities. We were promised those facilities in 1910, when the Hon. S. N. Parent was chairman of the National Transcontinental railway commission. Proper engineering plans were prepared; a site was decided upon, and a contract was entered into between the city of Quebec and the Transcontinental railway. The city of Quebec consented to give a most valuable property fronting on the St. Lawrence, the Champlain market, a property worth more than $5,000,000. A contract was given to a contracting firm to erect a million-dollar railway station, and there was constructed from the Quebec bridge to that station a road six and a half miles long. After the change of government in 1911, a year later, the contract was cancelled; all work was postponed, and an agreement was entered into between the Transcontinental and the Canadian Pacific whereby the Transcontinental was to use the Canadian Pacific railway facilities at a rate, if I am not mistaken, of $200,000 a year which the Transcontinental paid to bring people into the city of Quebec and then hand them over to their competitor, the Canadian Pacific.

Supply-Pensions and National Health
As I have said, the citizens of Quebec have been making requests of the governments that have been in power from 1911 to 1921, but they have always been told that their requests were under consideration. I remember in 1917 and 191S asking some questions of the then Minister of Railways, the Hon. Doctor Reid, and the then Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Mr. Carvell, and that was the answer which was given. The Minister of Public Works at that time said that the way in which the work had been carried out in the city of Quebec was a tragedy. They admitted that our need was most urgent and1 that something should be done. The present government seems to be well disposed towards the city of Quebec, but we fail to see that anything is being done in our city. A few weeks ago I put a question on the orders of the day, but the same answer was given me by the government, namely, that the matter was under consideration.
Quebec is the oldest and one of the most important cities of the Dominion; it is the only one vdiieh has contributed towards railway development, towards the building of the Quebec and Lake St. John railway and the building of the Canadian Northern railway, and it has given to the Canadian National railway system a property worth more than
85,000,000 in order to obtain proper facilities in the city of Quebec. We are ashamed to say that we are treated as a flag station rather than in the way we should be treated. I do not blame the government, but I say that there is lack of attention on the part of the administration of the system. Sir Henry Thornton does not treat the people of the city and district of Quebec in the way in which we should be treated, and whenever an opportunity is afforded me I will protest as I have done to-day against the way in which we are treated in our city. I am glad to see that the government is dealing so generously with the city of Montreal and I hope it will press the urgency of our needs upon the administration of the railway and do something to render justice to the citizens of Quebec in whose behalf I will continue to protest.


John Frederick Johnston: The committee has
considered all the sections with regard to which the bill was allowed to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister was
going to make an amendment to paragraph (d) in the schedule.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was done.
Bill reported.


PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Pensions-civil flying, $5,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: How much of this vote
was spent last year?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Only a very small amount, S240.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the minister give
us some particulars of this item? We do not get much information from the two words "civil flying." Is it for encouragement to civil flying or for damage to men who may be hurt?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: For men who
may be hurt in the government service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Dominion roads and bridges-generally, $5,000.
International bridge over river St. John between Clair, N.B. and Fort Kent. Me., the state of Maine to provide $130,000, $130,000.
Interprovincial bridge over Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Quebec and Ontario governments each to contribute one-third of the cost. $40,000.
Ottawa-maintenance and repairs to bridges and approaches, $12,000.
George Halsey Perley: Before we take up any item I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that the air in the chamber is very hot. It is veTy close in here, and I wonder if there is no way in which it can be remedied to give us a chance in this hot weather. Is at not possible to have some of these windows open or electric fans going?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I quite agree with my hon. friend that it is very warm, and just half an hour ago I requested the engineers to see if it was not possible to get in some colder air. The difficulty is that it is pretty hard to find any cold air to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are these windows permanently fastened?


John Campbell Elliott: No, but if they are opened they let in air of a temperature of ninety degrees.


Eugène Fiset: Why not damp the curtains as was done last year and then open the windows? You would then have cooler air in the chamber?

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
Sir GEORGE PEtRLEY: It is not a question of getting cold or hot air, but a question of getting some air.


John Campbell Elliott: Just a feiw moments ago I felt just as my hon. friend does and I looked at the thermometers. The one at the end of the chamber read 75 degrees, and the one that I keep here Aows a higher temperature than that. I will read a memorandum that I have just received from my secretary, and I shall be glad to have any suggestions that hon. gentlemen can give:
I have just been down to the basement with the engineer of the building and gone over the machines with him. The air which is being pumped in for ventilation purposes registers ninety degrees. With the machines going as hard as they can, this is being reduced to seventy-six degrees. It has been pointed out, however, that with the windows and doors around the chamber open, hot air is flowing in which is raising the temperature above the temperature of the air which is being pumped into the chamber through the ventilating machines.
I have urged the engineer to keep the machines going just as hard as he can, and to do everything possible to lower the temperature in the chamber.


Mr. MANION:: I have listened to this story from the Minister of Public Works- I am not reflecting on him pereonaly at all'- every time that we have sat here in June. Personally I am tired of these engineers' opinions; I do not think they are any good. Here we are in a stone building and it should be one of the coolest .places in the capital. Even the rooms upstairs are cooler than this chamber. I think it is time that we ignored the opinions of the engineers and got some of these windows open and let this air out. It is a case of letting a breeze through the chamber. The engineers have made a complete fizzle of it, and it is time we tried another scheme. The air is absolutely unbearable here to-day.


John Campbell Elliott: The air is being changed
all the time. It is not a question of pumping in fresh air and getting the old air out, because the air is being continually changed. There is no place very cool in the city today.


Robert James Manion: I differ. You can go into all kinds of residences in the city to-day and be perfectly comfortable, yet this big stone building is one of the most uncomfortable buildings in the city of Ottawa. I think that the ventilation system is defective; I have thought so ever since we came into this new building. I will admit that during the winter this year it was better than past years. I am not criticizing the minister at 
all, but I do not believe that the engineers are familiar with what they should do. This chamber should be a cool chamber, and it is anything but a cool chamber. It is terribly hot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At times I have seen
it pretty hot in the winter.


James John Edmund Guérin: The air should be put into circulation by means of fans or something of that kind. The value of that is quite generally recognized. Even if a person is confined to a room, if the air is put in motion he does not suffer. If there is nothing better to be done I tbink it would be well to install a certain number of electric fans to keep the air in circulation and give us a chance to breathe.


Eugène Fiset: I would suggest to the minister that first of all the heat in the radiators should be turned off, because there is heat in these radiators at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right. I found
.heat in the radiators the other day. Somebody did not have the coal supply all burned up.


Eugène Fiset: Damp the curtains and open the windows, and then you oan get fresh air in. We did that last year.


James Arthurs: The minister was good enough to allow discussion on any subject relating to public works on this item which stood over. I am desirous of calling his attention again to the fact that there is a very pressing need at the present time of a reasonably small grant for dredging in the harbour of Parry Sound. The harbour of Parry Sound is probably one of the best harbours, if not the best, on the great lakes. It usually has water enough to float any boat on the great lakes, but unfortunately conditions there are somewhat peculiar. The government wharf at that point is situated near the mouth of the Seguin river and below a point where there existed for many years one of the largest sawmills on the Georgian bay. The result of the year's activities of that mill was that a great accumulation of bark and other mill refuse was deposited in the stream. During the last two or three years in succession we have had, unfortunately, high water in the river, and on two or three occasions large dams have broken away causing an extremely heavy flood which moved this mill refuse and deposited it at or about the government wharf. The government have attempted to remedy this condition during the last two years by using one of the

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
boats belonging to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, tying her up to the wharf and endeavouring to blow this sawdust and refuse out of the way by the revolutions of her screw. This has not been successful. The only result has been to blow it away for a distance of about twenty feet immediately opposite the wharf and the refuse has piled up in a heap where it is an obstruction to any boat trying to approach the wharf. The result is that many boats have had difficulty approaching the wharf and some have been unable to tie up to it at all. A large shipping company in Chicago which operates several of the largest passenger -boats on the great lakes runs a seven-day excursion every week from Chicago to various points on the great lakes. The only Canadian -port of call is Parry Sound. These boats carry an average of 800 passengers on each trip, so that they are one of the greatest advertising agencies that we have for Canada. These boats coming in and going out of Parry Sound pass through a part of the Thirty Thousand Islands of the Georgian bay in daylight, both ways. Many people from Chicago take advantage of these weekly trips and become regular tourists in Canada. Many of them have purchased cottages in various parts of northern Ontario. It is very desirable therefore, that these boats continue this service. This steamship company has advised the town council of Parry Sound -that it will be unable to -make Parry Sound during the present season on account of the depth of water, as they have no desire to jeopardize their boats. The matter was taken up with the Department of Public Works, and assurance was given to the council -that a grant would be made sufficient to do this small amount of dredging in order to remove this refuse in front of the wharf during the present season. Well, the main estimates are down and nothing has been put in. After all, these boats are so large that they are tihe ones principally affected. These people visiting Parry Sound on these weekly trips-probably a thousand or fifteen hundred per week-have the privilege of taking back with them to the United States goods to the amount of $100 free of duty, and very many of them take advantage of that privilege. The result is that a large trade has grown up there, principally in woollens and linens, all of which is advantageous to us as Canadians. I would therefore impress upon the minister the necessity of making at least a reasonable grant in the supplementary estimates for this very necessary work. I would also point out that this is not going to be a recurring vote. The
circumstances are as I have stated them. The refuse from this old mill has been swept down and is now lying in front of the government wharf in Parry Sound. When it has been removed there will be no second visitation; everything has been swept a/way and the river is absolutely clear owing to the very heavy freshets that we have had in the last two or three years. I hope the minister will take this into his most serious consideration.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I will say to him that a deputation interviewed me in regard to this very matter not very long ago-I would say within the last two weeks, probably-and urged upon the department the very things that he has now urged.


James Arthurs: I may also say, Mr. Chairman, that this -matter has been before the minister for the last tiwo years.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, the information that was given to me by this committee is not as accurate as -I had thought, because I was told that on account of the extra flooding this spring the amount of sawdust and other refuse brought down from -where they formerly had saw mills made the harbour much more impossible of access this spring than it had ever been before. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, the water has been particularly high this year, and this is a matter which comes or could come properly within the category of the things that could not very well have been foreseen at the time the main -estimates weTe prepared. I would say to my hon. friend, however, that it has already received the best consideration the department can give it.


George Spotton: Mr. Chairman, in these dying hours of the session I hesitate to take up very much of the time of the house, especially in view of the extreme heat which many of the thin men in the house feel so greatly. But I have not unduly trespassed on the time of this house during the present session, consequently I feel that it is my duty, on behalf of my constituents in the town of Goderich, to place upon record the great national importance of Goderich harbour, and to try to show t-hat it is a national necessity that the work there should be proceeded with in a more energetic manner.
I have not risen to criticize the Minister of Public Works with regard to the amount placed in the estimates this year for harbour improvements at Goderich, namely $205,000, which, when he viewed Canada from coast to coast, was perhaps the amount he thought

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
we were justly entitled to. I am not at the moment complaining of the amount of the vote. What I am asked (by his own political friends to do is to stress the fact that the work should be proceeded with energetically and that the amount placed in the estimates be spent. (Last year there was placed in the main estimates $75,000 for this purpose, and the people of Goderich and western Ontario were delighted when the minister brought down in the supplementary estimates an additional $100,000. But they were not so delighted when they found at the end of the year that out of this $100,000 which he brought down in the supplementary estimates he had spent only $10,000. The minister may meet with difficulties which I do mot understand, but what we would like to have done is-


John Campbell Elliott: Just a moment, so that there may be no misunderstanding. Is my hon. friend under the impression that only $10,000 was spent on the harbour of Goderich last year?
Mr. SPO'TTON: No, I did not say that. I said that $75,000 was brought down in the main estimates. Then the people of the town of Goderich and western Ontario rejoiced to know that the minister had brought down an additional $100,000 in the supplementary estimates. But of this additional $100,000 they were chagrined to learn that only $10,000 was spent. In other words, of the $75,000 in the main estimates and the $100,000 in the supplementary estimates-$175,000 in all-the department expended only $85,000; $90,000 was returned to the treasury and is handed back to us again this year.
This is the point .that I am trying to stress: we are satisfied with the $205,000 which the minister has placed in the estimates, provided it is spent. But when the government and the department sent out the information that for the purposes of a certain public work, $175,000 is to be appropriated, thus getting the advertising effect of that announcement, and then spend only $85,000, holding back $90,000 and handing it to us again the next year, we think they are very much in the position of an old gentleman up in my native township who used to give his son a penny to go to bed without his supper, and when the poor little fellow was sleeping the old man stole the penny and gave it to him again the next night. Now, I admit that this administration is an excellent advertising institution, and I want them to get full credit for everything they do. But I wish to state this: that every school child in the town of 
Goderich knows that this government took the advertising effect of $175,000 last year but spent only $85,000. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if you take the revotes of the last four years the total almost equals the $205,000 which we are getting this year. The minister explained1 to the deputation that he had his troubles, that as the estimates were late in going through it necessitated some delay in getting the work started. I should think that with unfinished contracts, and with a government who have a large submissive majority at its back, there should be no difficulty in the administration carrying out any work they wisned to undertake. Any contractor should know that.
Now I wish to place a few things on Hansard. I do not propose to be taking this matter up every year if I am longer in the house, but I do wish to make a brief review of Goderich harbour as presented to me by friends of this government, and which they wish to have presented to the Minister of Public Works. In 1896 Mr. Cameron, who had represented since confederation the constituency in which the town of Goderich is located, made the statement that in 1870 at his request Sir John A. Macdonald had appointed a commission to take evidence and to view the situation right along the coast line from Sarnia to 1 obermory. That commission reported that Goderich was the only harbour of refuge along that stretch of 150 or 200 miles, and feir John Macdonald's administration, at the request of a Liberal member representing that riding, took action in the matter. Sir John showed him every courtesy, without striving to make Mr. Cameron believe that because he was of a different political persuasion he should come hat in hand and on bended knee before the throne of the Minister of Public W orks. .Yet the other day, when I rose in the house to ask that another town in my constituency be given a public building, the answer of the Minister of Public Works was in effect that I had a nerve to ask for anything else in my constituency in view of the expenditures that had been made on this great national port, which was founded by the party to which I belong and which has been maintained by every government up to the present moment, despite the fact that in nearly every instance the sitting member has been politically opposed to the administration of the day.
The Hon. James Sutherland, Minister of Public Works in 1903, stated1 that up to that time Canada had spent $713,341.43 on the harbour. Before I proceed I wish to point out to hon. members of this house that this

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
is no ordinary harbour seeking a little donation. Through the activities of this harbour the Canadian National Railways, our own system, takes in over $1,000,000 of revenue in freight annually while the Canadian Pacific Railway takes in over three-quarters of a million. We bad afloat in the harbour last year 22 vessels carrying five and three-quarter million bushels of wheat. Last year twenty million bushels of wheat were handled at this port. In cargo deliveries to Canadian ports Goderich stood third, exceeded only by Port Col'bome and Montreal. In cargo deliveries to lake Huron and Georgian bay ports Goderich stood first. It appears to me that t the Hon. James Sutherland, the former Minister of Public Works, had a very good grasp of the situation and he sounded somewhat of a prophetic note. According to Hansard, Mr. Kemp of Toronto arose and asked this question :
Does this constitute all that the people of Goderich demand from the Department of Public Works?
The then Minister of Public Works replied:
No,, demands have been made, not only from Goderich, but the whole of the district and from Toronto west, that a breakwater should be built at that port. I myself believe it is a matter of necessity, if we are to have the benefit we should have on lake Huron. At present mostly all the shipping goes up the American side of the lake because we have not any harbour of refuge on the Canadian side. There are in addition splendid facilities already erected there in the shape of an elevator and other improvements at the harbour. I am very much impressed with the representation that a great deal of the grain of the west might be taken care of here if we had the proper facilities. However, the discussion of that matter will come up more properly when I ask the house to consider an appropriation for the purpose of improving Goderich harbour.
I should like the minister and the house to note this particularly:
I do not think it is a local work, but national in its nature. And the shipments to Canadian ports depend a great deal on our being able to take care of the grain which comes to these lake ports. Larger vessels could come to Goderich than to many of the other places. 1 am informed by the Grand Trunk that they would be prepared to take care of the grain, and that perhaps from fifteen to twenty millions of bushels could be easily handled if there was a very moderate expenditure on the harbour.
This was in 1903, and twenty-six years later -a quarter of a century-I am glad to be able to rise in this house and say that the prophetic utterance of the Hon. James Sutherland, a Liberal Minister of Public Works, has come true, and that in the past year there have been twenty million bushels. Mr. Maclaren, who represented North Perth at the time, said:
I have many communications from that part of the country with regard to the harbour, 3nd they say that for two hundred miles along the shore of lake Huron there is not a safe harbour for steamers to enter in case of storm, the grain men and millers all through that part of the country are very anxious to have the harbour put into proper shape. I may say also that I have a resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Stratford, and letter and telegrams from Mitchell, Seaforth, Goderich and all along the line; and I think the government should do something to put the harbor in proper shape. So far as I am concerned, I will do everything in my power.
I do not wish to go into any historical review of the situation by taking up the Hansards of the various years since confederation, but it has been freely admitted by every Minister of Public Works that Goderich is a harbour of national importance. Once more I would impress upon the minister the fact that any harbour which will contribute $1,000,000 in freight rates to the Canadian National Railways and three quarters of a million to the Canadian Pacific Railway is a harbour that should receive every consideration. On the strength of the sympathetic attitude of the present administration the Goderich Elevator Company has gone ahead with an expenditure this year, there being in course of erection a one million bushel extension to their elevator, at a cost of $350,000; and they confidently anticipate that the work will be proceeded with vigorously.
If we are going to have sessions of parliament lasting away on into midsummer, with estimates being brought down only at the close of the session, then we are going to-have a perpetual excuse for holding up a work of such importance nationally; and if that be the case I would appeal to the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) to call this house in session earlier in the year, say in the month of November, and let us get home by Easter. This would give the public works of Canada a chance. It is not the fault of hon. members on this side of the house that these estimates are going through at this late hour. I believe there are some unfinished contracts in connection with these public works, and while we are satisfied with the amount of $205,000 we believe all that money should be spent. We feel that it should be more; we feel that this government as well as previous governments has not kept pace with the activity of that harbour, but at all events we desire to get away from this business of putting $175,000 in the estimates and then spending less than half that amount.
I want to leave that thought with the government; I know the Minister of Public Works feels his responsibility, and I would appeal to the government to get away from petty

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
politics. They should not go into constituencies during 'by-elections-I am not speaking of my own riding in particular; -this has reference to the constituency of Victoria and others-and try to bribe the people of Canada with their own money. We believe that this is the money of the people of Canada which will be spent for the development of Goderich harbour. If it is to be a personal donation from this government I would suggest that the minister dress up as Santa Claus, get a few reindeers, have the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who knows the blue water highway well, drive him there and present the gift, if it is a national necessity it should be proceeded with vigorously, but if it is not a necessity not one dollar should be spent. We are just asking what the merits of the case demand, and I want to protest against the administration making promises during both by-elections and general elections which apparently they have no intention of fulfilling. I think it is not a very big jump at all from that sort of thing to the man who, running for alderman or mayor of a city, goes around promising public works in order to get votes. In fact Mr. Chairman, to my mind there is no difference between offering a public bribe for a bunch of votes and the straight purchase of so much per head.


John Campbell Elliott: Just a moment. My hon. friend knows very well that I was Minister of Public Works at the time of the last byelection in his riding. Does he mean to suggest that I went about promising public works to anyone in that riding, or making suggestions of that kind?


George Spotton: I do not; I think I placed myself clearly on record last year to the effect that the Minister of Public Works did not do so, and I am prepared to stand by what I said then. However, I never heard of his slapping on the wrist any of the fellows who did that sort of thing, and I appealed to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works through the press to come out in the newspapers and say that regardless of how the vote went this harbour would be treated in a businesslike manner.
Now I wish to place on Hansard a report from the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association showing the relative importance of the various harbours, together with the statement of a gentleman who is deeply interested in this matter and who knows much more about it than I do. I have never wearied the house very much by reading articles, but I propose to place this statement on record for all time:
Grain Traffic Through Goderich
Annually we handle from fifteen to twenty million bushels of grain from vessels to cars, IMr. Spotton.]
principally of Canadian origin, shipped from Fort William and Port Arthur. The major portion of this grain is destined for domestic milling and feeding requirements in Ontario and Quebec, with the balance going for export abroad through our Canadian eastern seaboard ports, and for domestic distribution in New England states. In 1929 we have handled through the "transit" elevators 17,000,000 bushels of Canadian and American grain, while an additional 4,000,000 bushels has been handled through the elevator of the Western Canada Flour Mills. The freight revenue on this will amount to over $1,800,000 of which our Canadian National Railways secures over 60 per cent. Additional to the grain traffic from our harbour is that of salt, coal, timber and other merchandise.
The first grain elevator at Goderich was built in 1860 by the Buffalo and Lake Huron . Railway, as a utility for handling grain from Milwaukee and Chicago for furtherance to New England points by the Buffalo gateway.
In 1890 it was converted into a facility for handling Canadian western grain from vessels to ears, for distribution to Ontario millers. In 1898 a company consisting largely of Ontario millers built a more modern structure of 500,000 bushels capacity, replaced in 1906 with one of concrete. The extension of the Canadian Pacific to Goderich in 1907 increased the field for domestic distribution, which necessitated the addition of another 500,000 bushel storage.
In 1923 this was doubled to 2,000,000 storage capacity, and now in 1929 the capacity is being increased another 1,000,000 bushels, and the mechanical equipment being enlarged and speeded up to make this elevator second to none on the lakes. Similarly the flour milling industry has grown at Goderich, and with it the manufacture of coarse and table salt. A mill of Ogilvies and Hutchinson which in 1875 served the local community and ground out probably 100 barrels a day, now the Western Canada Flour Mills, works to a maximum capacity of 2,300 barrels of flour and fifty tons of salt per day, every day in the year but Sunday.
That Goderich still stands to the fore in the handling of Canadian grain shipments through lake and bay ports is evidenced in the statement published by the Lake Shippers Clearance Association, Fort William, for the year ending July 31st., 1928, copy of which is herewith attached. This, of course, is exclusive of American grain. You will observe that with the exception of Port Colborne and Montreal, which are principally export points, Goderich exceeded Port McNicoll, Midland, Tiffin, Depot Harbour, Owen Sound and Sarnia.
Goderich, in the earlier schooner days, was established as a harbour of refuge, but in 1880 when steam carriers were supplanting the slower sailing vessel, the safety of this port for the larger craft was no more. Shallow draft in the harbour and an unprotected entrance made the mariner shun the place in stress of weather. Fortunately our governments realized the possibilities of the port and after private enterprise had demonstrated a determination to develop grain distribution and flour milling it was found necessary to build breakwaters and deepen the channels and harbour basin. But our Public Works departments have not kept pace with the development of traffic, especially in the accommodation of winter storage cargoes.

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
Last fall some twenty-two steamers held cargo for winter unloading, utilizing every available foot of space, and when this was filled other consignments had to proceed to Buffalo, Toledo, Erie and Fairport, where American railways secured the haulage on their export cargoes. Most of these storage vessels are American owned, which seek winter mooring at lake Huron ports so that they may make an early start in spring, to lake Michigan ports or to the westerly coal ports of lake Erie before Buffalo may be freed of ice. They find their winter mooring charges and shifting much cheaper at lake Huron ports than obtains along the expensive frontage of_ American ports. That the almost land-locked harbour of Goderich is secure is evidenced from the results of the gale of March 7th of this year, which shifted many and sank one or two steamers at lake Erie ports, to say nothing of the damages to wharves and bridges, while at Goderich every steamer remained secure.
While these twenty-two steamers of varying capacities held five and three quarter million bushels of grain last winter, there is ample area, if properly developed, for from thirty to thirty-five steamers of larger capacities which would easily accommodate twelve million bushels. The rail haulage on this grain would serve to keep our railways quite occupied throughout otherwise lean months, and similarly distribute valued wages to a number of men when they most require it. To attain this it is necessary that our Government prosecute promptly and expeditiously the program of improvement which has been requested of the Department of Public Works.
The following comparative statement taken from the records of the Lake Clearance Association, for the week ending December 14th., 1928, shows the quantities of grain carried afloat for winter storage, ex-Fort William and Port Arthur shipments:
At Canadian Ports:
	Bus.	American Bus.
Goderich		. 5,268,067	446,867
Montreal		. 1,753,921	
Midland		. 4,880,495	
Owen Sound. . .	. 2,107,064	
Kingston		. 138,801	
Port Colborne. .	. 3,659,668	
Port McNicoll. .	. 2.248,982	
Sarnia		. 4,739,694	
Tiffin		. 1,160,632	
Toronto		. 1,031,391	
At American Ports: Buffalo	26,988,715 Bus. . 14,414,738	UnknownCleveland. . . .	. 215,148	14Erie	. 5,360,084	aFairport	. 1,927,679	nMilwaukee. . . .	. 102,802	Toledo	. 1,368,667	*(
23,389,118
It has been conclusively demonstrated that the handling of grain through Goderich is of a permanent character and that any harbour development is of national advantage, directly benefitting those who grow the grain in the west, the transportation facilities, lake and rail, the milling and feeding trade in the east, and in fact the consuming public in Ontario. Quebec, and abroad.
The expenditure in harbour deveopment at Goderich is not of any speculative venture; on the contrary, it is returned four-fold to the public in the economic distribution of their cereals through a most convenient gateway, and to our railways in profitable haulage on the grain and subsequently on the flour product. Once dredged this harbour stays dredged-there is no river or back wash to deposit silt, gravel, or other debris.
Lake Shippers' Clearance Association
Statement of grain shipped through the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association from Fort William and Port Arthur, lake and rail, during period August 1, 1927,
to July 31, 1928
Destination	Wheat
Oats	Barley	Flax	Rye
Totals
Buffalo. .	.
Chicago. . . Cleveland. . Erie. .	.	.
Fairport. . . Duluth. .	.
Toledo. . . .
130,562,682
5,483,293
5,897,337
2,778,458
2,263,893
51,524
73,470
14,217,502
134,556
233,000
1,152.566
573,625
669,339
4,763,885
803,772
152,900,528
625,149
669,339
5,617,849
6,934,109
73,470
2,778,458
United States total
169,598,902
Depot Harbour.	748.751	
Goderich . . .	11,516.385	794.203Midland. . . .	10,189,220	1.332.166Montreal . . .	8,855,026	4,258.653Owen Sound. .	3.985,102	1,427,875Port Colborne .	55,225,014	8,468,448Port McNicoll .	9,076,762	Port Stanley. .	266.000	Quebec	411,259	461,546Sarnia	2.415,921	96.293Tiffin	6,268,473	76,428Local elevators.	9,734,475	14,435863,926	1,612,677222,582	566,992	364.535	13.464,697348,331	40,000	439.341	12,349,0582,086,472	161.121	584.778	15,940,050370,248	60,000	107.996	5,951,2214,678,506	695,428	3,788,348	72,855,74460,000	197,604	9,334,36655,216	321,216 872,805 2,637,43091,342	33.874	50,000	347,967	6,742.868122,889	171,118	10,042,917Canadian total	
152.131 049
Supply-Public Works-Bridges
Carried by:
Canadian vessels to Canadian ports 662 cargoes carried Canadian vessels to American ports 125 cargoes carried
American vessels to Canadian ports 25 cargoes carried American vessels to American ports 468 cargoes carried
321,729,951
Bushels
145,110,250
27,669,927

172,780,177'
7,214,621
141,735,153
In cargo deliveries to Canadian ports Goderich stood third, exceeded only by Port Colborne and Montreal.
In cargo deliveries to lake Huron and Georgian Bay ports Goderich stood first.


John Campbell Elliott: By whom was this article written, and what is the date?


George Spotton: It is dated April 2.


John Campbell Elliott: This year?


George Spotton: This year.


John Campbell Elliott: Whose statement is it?


George Spotton: I will not give the name
of the man who sent it.


John Campbell Elliott: I submit, Mr. Chairman,
that a statement read in that way should include the name of the party signing it.


George Spotton: I have a very good reason for not giving that name; I will read it as my own statement and take the responsibility for it.


John Campbell Elliott: You have not done that.


Eugène Fiset: I
am afraid the hon. gentleman is completely out of order, and I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that the whole discussion is out of order. We are discussing vote No. 70, roads and bridges.


John Campbell Elliott: It was understood that
when the item of harbours and rivers generally was brought before the committee again any item of that nature could' be discussed. While we are not discussing harbours and rivers at the present moment, I would like every latitude to be given to the hon. member.


George Spotton: The minister was courteous enough to permit that, and I wish to thank him.


John Campbell Elliott: It was an understanding
which I entered into. I think the committee should have the name of the author of that article in order to know just what weight should be attached to it; that is quite clearly a rule of the house.


Eugène Fiset: I
would call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that the hon. member has stated that it was some notes he was reading.


John Campbell Elliott: No, Mr. Chairman, that
is not the fact.


George Spotton: The Toronto Telegram,
said quite recently that they did not care who read the speeches, what they were interested in was who wrote them; the minister seems to have taken the same attitude.. This is the first time I have ever read anything in the house, and I think I should be given the privilege of placing on Hansard this article which was sent to me by a gentlemen who I think knows moire about the harbour of Goderich than any other person in Canada. I have a very good reason for not wanting to divulge his name, but if the Minister of Public Works presses me I will give that reason to the house.


John Campbell Elliott: I was not pressing the
hon. member, I was simply raising a point of order. If the hon. member will father the article himself, that will render it as innocuous as possible.


George Spotton: The development of
Goderich harbour is not a speculation; once that harbour is once dredged it will remain dredged, because there is no river or backwash to deposit silt, gravel or other sediment. I do not know to what extent the minister is carrying on the work there at the present time, but I do hope that it is being proceeded with as speedily as possible. I notice-in a Liberal paper that the minister stated to the delegation which visited him that, the proposed expenditures were as follows:
The minister informed the delegation, that the federal government intends to do all it can. within reason, to make Goderich the port it: should be. He said every effort would be made to initiate the work early in the season, if parliament approves the departmental estimates at an early date.
The minister gave the delegation details of the proposed expenditure this coming summer, as follows: Completion Forest dredging contract, $70,000; completion Jackson Construction Company, contract on north pier, $22,000 and $43,000 on moving wharf; completion Vance Construction Company contract on south pier, $9,500; Killmer and Barber, dredging contract,

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
$5,000; improved dockage accommodation, $5,000, and a start on $143,000 contract for partial removal of ship island for improving turning basin in the inner harbor, $50,000.
I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that this is Ship island and not Indian island, and when I send a communication to the Minister of Public Works with regard to Indian island I refuse to be misrepresented to the present occupant of Ship island as having designs upon his island. I am not making any attack upon the minister as to the amount of his estimates; I believe the amount is quite fair and I do not think the minister should get peeved when, at the request of Goderich citizens, I ask him that as much as possible of the money be spent this year and not less than fifty per cent of the amount as was the case last year.


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow my hon. friend through all his discussions, but I would just say that I am in the judgment of the people of Goderich and of the people of that county as to whether or not they are being treated fairly. They visited the department a short time ago, accompanied by my hon. friend, and they expressed their appreciation of what was being done by this government. The hon. member has his own views with regard to Goderich harbour; perhaps they are better known in that particular district than they are down here, and I do not intend to quarrel with him in any way. I do not know whether my hon. friend keeps closely enough in touch with Goderich to know that the dredging is proceeding at the present time and that contracts were let last year amounting to $205,000, and therefore the difficulty which he has anticipated as to this work being held up until these estimates are passed does not apply. I have been given to understand by the people of Goderich that the work is proceeding satisfactorily to them.
The hon. member is quite within his rights in making any statement or offering any criticisms with regard to the manner in which the work is proceeding at Goderich, but nothing he can say will divert this government from the fixed policy which it has announced of doing what it considers to be ample justice to the port of Goderich. I would direct the attention of the hon. member to a fact which he omitted to tell the house, that since the year 1922 the amount of $662,070 has been expended by this government upon the harbour at Goderich. I have a report of the engineer of that district, dated December 17, 1928, in which he says that when navigation officially closed for the season on the great
lakes Goderich had a winter fleet of 22 steamers, the greatest in tonnage and value ever assembled there. I do not intend to proceed any further, Mr. Chairman, as I do not think I need to offer any argument to convince the people of Goderich that they are receiving fair treatment at the hands of this government.


George Spotton: I just desire to repel the covert threat conveyed by the minister's remarks, which is quite in accord with his attitude on a former occasion. The minister is simply coming back to the point which I tried to stress when I quoted his remarks from Hansard; when I urged upon the member for Victoria to see that the government spent this amount of money $46,000, the member for Victoria replied, " They always do, do they not?" and I said, "No, they do not." It is not a habit but a gift with the present minister to put large-sounding, advertising amounts in the estimates and then spend only a percentage of them.


John Campbell Elliott: What does the hon. member say to the fact that we have entered into binding contracts?


George Spotton: The full amount was not spent last year.


John Campbell Elliott: The contractors did all
they could.


George Spotton: The minister is quoted
in Hansard as saying, " That is a suggestion for North Huron," and there are other remarks which do not appear in Hansard. He says now that notwithstanding anything that the representative for that riding might say and in spite of the way they are represented, it would not divert this government from their fixed policy of procedure. I am glad he is going to carry on so manfully, and I wish to congratulate him on that policy. But he must not forget that there have been other governments and there was a government bearing the heat and burden of the day, a war government, that put an item of $200,000 in the estimates in 1915. Some day another government may be in power, and if I have the honour to have a seat in the house- if the minister will not carry out his threats to bring about my retirement-I shall stress still more forcibly to the new government that this work should be carried on. My whole point with the minister is this:	I am
requested to say that the citizens of Goderich are satisfied with the amount in the estimates, but they will not be satisfied if that amount is not spent. We do not believe in getting $205,000 and having only $100,000 of it spent.

Supply-Public Works-Bridges


George Halsey Perley: I want to make an appeal to the minister in connection with a portion of estimate No. 142 in regard to the interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, for which bridge an item of $40,000 has been in the estimates for a good many years. The proposal of the government is to build this bridge, provided the Quebec and Ontario governments will each contribute one-third of the cost. The difficulty of the position is that three governments are interested in this matter, and someone has to take the initiative. In all courtesy to the Minister of Public Works, I say that in his position he is the natural person to take this matter up with the other governments. I want to urge upon him that he ask the representatives of the other governments to meet him, talk the matter over and see if there is not some way whereby this very important and necessary work may be built. I want to ask him as a personal favour to take the matter up with the other governments and see if some solution cannot be found. Perhaps the minister does not know the location. The bridge is very urgently required, because there is no bridge over the Ottawa river between Ottawa and Ste. Annes, a distance of 110 miles or thereabouts. I know that at or near Hawkesbury and Grenville many lives have been lost in the last twenty years owing to the fact that people had to cross the river in the fall or spring of the year when the ice was bad and perhaps unwisely took the chance of crossing on bad ice. For humanitarian reasons, therefore, this bridge is very much needed and we have been agitating for it for a long time. With the present development of motor traffic there is a great necessity from the commercial point of view for the building of this bridge, because, if motorists coming from the United States were able to cross at Hawkesbury they would get into the north country via the shortest possible route instead of having to go to Montreal and taking a roundabout route. In the north country back of Grenville there are many lakes and wonderful scenery to attract people from the United States, and if this bridge were built it would be greatly used by motorists who desire to visit that section.
When the Borden government was in power, at my request it was decided to build the bridge and in 1914 tenders were called for the purpose. Unfortunately they came in just about the time war was declared, and on account of the war it was considered impossible to go on with any public works that were not absolutely necessary, so that no tender was accepted. As a matter of fact if the war 
had not intervened, this bridge would have been commenced in 1914 and completed many years ago. At that time it was the intention of the Dominion government to pay one-half the cost of the bridge, and on that basis arrangements were made with the provincial governments each to pay one-quarter. The minister tells me that the policy of the present government is to pay only one-third of the cost of bridges such as this, and he absolutely refuses to alter that decision. There should be a conference between the authorities of the Dominion and the two provinces on this particular point and with regard to this very necessary work. The counties on either side, one of which I have the honour to represent and the other 'being the county of Prescott in Ontario, have very little money spent in them. We are satisfied to have our friends from the great lakes and other parts of Canada receive the greater part of the public money that is being spent 'by the minister's department. We do however demand that this small expenditure be made, and surely in all fairness the people of those two counties ought to be helped to have this bridge built which is so very necessary for the preservation of life and also for the use of tourists who bring so much money into the country. Therefore I appeal to the minister to take a personal interest in the matter and to try to get the representatives of the provinces together to find a solution so that this bridge may be built in the near future.


John Campbell Elliott: This is a matter that has been before the government for some time and in regard to which the attitude of the government, as my hon. friend said, is quite well known. It is true that in the earlier years, as I am able to read the history of interprovincial bridges, it was clearly intended at the time of the passing of the British North America Act that bridges between provinces other than military bridges should be constructed by the two adjoining provinces. Practically the same rule applies as between counties. I am able to speak of the province of Ontario especially, and that rule applies as between two counties. Between townships, the two townships would build it, and between a township and a village the cost would be borne half by each. That has been the practice. Following out that, you would naturally expect that bridges that were not originally military bridges would be built by two adjoining provinces on an equal basis. However, the system has grown up under which the Dominion has contributed different proportions of the cost of bridges at different times, but for the last fifteen years the policy has .been consistent.

Supply-Public Works-Bridges


George Halsey Perley: Not for so long
as fifteen years,-I think.


John Campbell Elliott: Since the interprovincial
bridge over the Chaudiere was built, and I am informed that that was fifteen years ago. Where two provinces have decided upon the necessity of a bridge, I think the Dominion government has since that time agreed in every case to contribute one-third of the cost, each of the two provinces contributing one-third. I quite agree with what my hon. friend has said with regard to the right of a county like either of the two he has mentioned. They do not require much expenditure in the way of wharves, breakwaters and that sort of thing, and they should receive some reasonable consideration by way of assistance, so far as it is legitimate for this government to assist in transportation facilities. I was under . the impression after a conference I had with my hon. friendl some time ago that he was going to foe good enough to see one or two or both of the representatives of the provinces with regard to taking the initiative. I question the wisdom of the Dominion, as a general rule, taking the initiative in regard to an expenditure of which the two provinces really have to be the judges to a large extent, and in relation to which their outlay between them is twice as much as that of the Dominion. But I do agree with my hon. friend as to the necessity of a bridge at this point, and as far as I am concerned I am not going to stand on any formalities if I can be of assistance in getting all the parties together and getting an arrangement completed. I know that my hon. friend will be glad to join with me in offering his good offices in getting all the parties together and having this much required bridge got under way at the earliest possible moment. I shall be glad to have a conference with my hon. friend and anything that can be done in the matter I shall be glad to do.


Mr. MAYBEE:: I would direct the attention of the minister to the revote of $41,000 for Cobourg harbour. I assume this is to complete the dredging in that place. I would ask the minister just how the matter of the repair of the esplanade stands between the department and the town of Cobourg.


John Campbell Elliott: As my hon. friend will
know, the title to the site on which the work will be done is in the town of Cobourg. Some time ago they agreed to transfer that to the Dominion government, but for one reason or another-I do not wish to atthch any criticism to the town in connection with it-through no
fault of this department the town was unable to complete that transfer until a couple of weeks ago. It is the intention to proceed with the dredging right away.


Milton Edgar Maybee: I understand from the
minister that the town have completed theit part of the arrangement satisfactorily.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, within the last twit
weeks.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Then there is no disagreement between the department and the town as to the department going ahead and repairing the esplanade, and there will be no delay in making the repairs.


John Campbell Elliott: It is only fair for me
to say to my hon. friend-he probably knows something about this-that now that we are committed to what is know as the esplanade proposition a more ambitious progjram, a larger scheme, is proposed by the town. They are urging that at the present time, and I might say that it is under consideration. But just to what extent we can vary the arrangement we made last year I cannot say.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Is the minister aware that the esplanade has slid into the harbour since the high water that came with the last storm? At the present time the harbour is not in use for shipping as previously; shipping is being diverted from the harbour of Cobourg to other ports, and the town of Cobourg is thereby losing considerable harbour fees. I would also call the minister's attention to the shipping that has been done at this port. The waterborne tonnage for the port of Cobourg for the year ending April 1, 1929, amounted to 345,600 tons of coal and 115,201 tons of merchandise, or a total of 460,801 tons. The outward tonnage amounted to 194,223, or a total tonnage of 655,024. That means 92 tons for every man, woman and child in the town of Cobourg, which is the highest record, I believe, for any town in the Dominion.
I would) also direct the minister's attention to the fact that the town is still under considerable obligation for the cost of the harbour, having debentures that do not mature until 1934. They are therefore very desirous of having the revenues from the harbour maintained so that this obligation can be taken care of.


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon
friend that I am quite aware of the revenue. Before we decided to proceed with any scheme of improvement there the possible business to be done was considered very carefully. He is aware of the fact that the proposal known as the esplanade scheme involved aboui

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
$40,000. Since that time recommendations and requests have been made, very urgently, to take out the rock necessary to give them a 22 foot depth and build there a harbour that would give them a 22 foot depth right up to the esplanade wharf. That would cost about $140,000, involving a good deal of blasting. I should be very glad if my hon. friend, who knows the local situation, would give me his views as to the comparative merits of the two propositions; they are not entirely in harmony.


Milton Edgar Maybee: That is as to the depth?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, as to Whether to go
on with the scheme that was considered last year of repairing the esplanade wharf, or the other scheme of building a larger wharf.


Milton Edgar Maybee: I would certainly urge
that the harbour be made to accommodate the vessels drawing the greater depth.


John Campbell Elliott: They do now up to the
esplanade; this would be an addition.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Not over 15 foot draft,
I understand, and I believe that considerable shipping that would have come into the harbour last year wras lost owing to lack of a greater depth of water. I certainly would urge upon the minister that they make their program to fit the greater depth for the harbour.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not a question of
depth; it is a question whether the harbour should be extended to the larger size.


Milton Edgar Maybee: I think the shipping cf
the harbour justifies that expenditure.


John Campbell Elliott: The present shipping does not. It depends to a large extent upon the relative merits of Port Hope and Cobourg with regard to certain shipments of coal and ore that are liable to go to the one place or the other. When this was started a year ago it looked as though those were going to go to -Cobourg. It looks now as if the parties most directly interested have some notion of using Port Hope.


Milton Edgar Maybee: I think that that traffic
is temporarily diverted due to the present condition of Cobourg harbour. That is my understanding of the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: Either harbour is available for use at the present time.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Not for unloading coal
from the esplanade, as it has all slid into the harbour as well as some of the railway track.


John Campbell Elliott: They cannot do it ai
Port Hope either.


Milton Edgar Maybee: I understand that soma
of the Shipments of the coal company go to Port Hope in preference to Cobourg.


John Campbell Elliott: Did my hon. friend say
that he understood that they were going to Port Hope in preference to Cobourg?


Milton Edgar Maybee: I did.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, that is the information we have.


Milton Edgar Maybee: It is due to the esplanade at Cobourg being unavailable,


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, no, because there :s
no accommodation at Port Hope now.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Certainly they cannot land and unload at Cobourg. That is the fact. I would like to ask the minister if he will have placed in the supplementary estimates an amount at least necessairy for the work on the esplanade. Has the minister had an engineer on the ground and been advised as to the present condition of the esplanade?


John Campbell Elliott: Our engineers have been going as rapidly -as they can all over the flooded areas where the washouts have been particularly heavy this spring. I do not know that there is a very recent report in regard to Cobourg, but we know pretty well the condition there through various reports that have reached the department. My hon. friend asks if It is our intention to put in the supplementary estimates an amount to provide for harbour improvements at the esplanade. I would call his attention to the fact that the item already in the estimates at page 41 is an item for Cobourg harbour improvements, $75,000. That is for the esplanade and dredging in the harbour.


Milton Edgar Maybee: I understand from the estimates that that is only a revote of the $75,000 that was voted last year, and that that was being expended upon dredging -and some repairs to a pier.


John Campbell Elliott: Of that amount $34,000 is a new vote entirely; $41,000 is a revote.


Milton Edgar Maybee: My understanding is that it will require that or more for dredging.


Mr. CLARK:: The minister stated that some fifteen years ago the principle was recognized of giving grants toward the construction of interprovincial bridges. Sixteen years ago the principle was recognized of giving grants to bridges, within municipalities, that crossed public harbours. An aot was .passed by this

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
parliament in 1913-I cannot at this moment give the name of the act, but it was a subsidy act for the purpose of assisting in the construction of a bridge over the public harbour of Vancouver. Unfortunately the war intervened and the bridge was not constructed within the period of time laid down in the act. After-the war the demand for a bridge in that particular part of the harbour was so urgent that the municipalities surrounding, the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia, constructed the bridge. This government declined-well, I would not say they declined to give a contribution at that time, but the contribution was made through the harbour board of the city of Vancouver. In that particular instance it was very natural that the contribution should be made in that way, because the bridge was a toll bridge and the harbour board of the city of Vancouver will be able to liquidate the advance through the return on the investment, because it is a paying proposition and eventually they will receive back dollar for dollar that has been advanced. For some years past the city of Vancouver has suffered greatly owing to the lack of a bridge across another portion of the public harbour from the foot of Burrard street over False creek. I want to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that in this instance all the international traffic that comes into the city of Vancouver must necessarily cross that public harbour at one or other of two or three points on False creek. There is great congestion of traffic. It has been almost unanimously recognized that another bridge must be provided. With that in view, the province of British Columbia has agreed to contribute a very substantial sum of .money towards that bridge. The Canadian Pacific Railway has agreed to contribute a very substantial sum of money towards that bridge. The city of Vancouver was quite prepared to contribute the major portion required for its erection, but it did request the Dominion government to make a contribution inasmuch as the bridge crosses a public harbour. Now the principle has been recognized of contributions towards interprovincial bridges; the principle was recognized by statute sixteen years ago of contributions towards bridges crossing public harbours, and the principle is' recognized of contributions towards international bridges. And I would point out that an enormous amount of international traffic crosses the bridges over Vancouver harbour. Recently, and after this government's refusal to make a contribution, a by-law was submitted to the electors of Vancouver for the construction of this bridge, involving payment by the city of 78594-194
Vancouver of the total cost with the exception of the contributions by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the provincial government. But although the people voted on that by-law and indicated that a tremendous majority was in favour of the bridge, the bylaw was unfortunately defeated by a few votes because it required a two thirds majority. Since the defeat of the by-law I have received numerous letters on this subject from public bodies and others, which indicate to me the certainty that the bridge must be built, for the city is suffering in the meantime to a great extent through want of it. In view of these facts is the minister prepared to do what he has done-and I am not criticising him for having done it-in connection with the interprovincial bridge at Hawkesbury? In this case, apparently, the government is prepared to take the initiative; but I would point out that in the matter of the bridge which I am discussing the initiative has been taken by the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver. There is an urgent demand for that bridge. In view of these circumstances will the minister not consider placing in the supplementary estimates a vote as an offer to the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia that if they wish to proceed with the construction of the bridge this government will contribute a sum sufficient to take care of the extra cost entailed, by the fact that the bridge crosses a public harbour belonging to this country and a harbour which must be protected.


John Campbell Elliott: The matter my hon. friend has brought up has received a good deal of attention by the department. He knows, of course, that this is not an interprovincial bridge but a bridge within a harbour in the province and within the city. It does not come within the category of the interprovincial bridges.


John Arthur Clark: I said so.


John Campbell Elliott: Inasmuch as the bridge
is within the harbour, the department has decided that it comes under the harbour commission, which is really controlled- by the Department of Marine. The minister in charge of that department was good enough to consider the matter with me and we gave it the best attention we could, and so far as this department was concerned I had little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the matter was outside our jurisdiction.


John Arthur Clark: Does it differ from the bridge over the second narrows for which this parliament passed a bill sixteen years ago, offering a subsidy of $350,000? How does it differ in principle from that?



Supply-Public Works-Bridges


John Campbell Elliott: That was a railway subsidy.


John Arthur Clark: No.


John Campbell Elliott: If my information is correct, it was in the act with regard to railway subsidies.


John Arthur Clark: I do not think so; I think
it was a special act.


John Campbell Elliott: Then my information is
entirely erroneous.


John Arthur Clark: My recollection is that it
was a special act, although I have not seen it for years.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
will find that these are the facts.


John Arthur Clark: In that case I will look
it up and have the information here at eight o'clock. At the moment I am quite satisfied that it was a special act relating to this particular bridge, although the subsidy may have been granted because of the railway. May I point out that three railways will use this bridge. The Canadian Pacific Railway already have a bridge which crosses the harbour and which is used by the Canadian Pacific and the British Columbia Electric Railway, and it is the only means of access for the Canadian National Railways to that side of the harbour. If this new bridge is constructed it will give access to that part of the harbour to the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific and the British Columbia Electric Railway. And that reminds me I think that the British Columbia Electric Railway is also contributing; it may foe doing so in the name of the Canadian Pacific Railway but the fact is that there is a railway contribution. And if it is to be of benefit to the Canadian National Railways I suggest that the government should take the matter again into consideration. Apart from the position of the railways, the fact that extra cost is entailed by reason of the bridge crossing a public harbour should warrant the government in contributing to that enhanced cost. The work is for the protection of one of the most important harbours in the country.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'olock.


John Campbell Elliott: I desire to table now, if I may do so, reference No. 97, asked for by the hon. member for Fort William, containing all correspondence entered into by the government in connection with the dredging
(Mr. Clark.]
contract for the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William during the year 1928. I do not see my hon. friend in the house at the moment, but I promised to lay the correspondence on the table at the earliest possible moment.


John Frederick Johnston: It is not customary, and in fact I think it is not permissible, to table papers in committee. The clerk must enter them on his scroll.


John Arthur Clark: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing the question of a bridge over the harbour at Vancouver and I undertook to advise the minister of the statute which authorized the subsidy. I find that the subsidy was originally authorized by the Railway Subsidies Act, as the minister suggested, but it is authorized by an earlier act than I had thought at the time; the act was passed in 1908 and renewed in 1912 and 1913. So the principle of granting subsidies for these bridges has been recognized for twenty-one years. In view of the fact that this subsidy was authorized for one bridge over a portion of Vancouver harbour but was never used; in view of the fact that the bridge Which was then contemplated has been built; in view of the fact that every cent which may be advanced by the Vancouver harbour commission will be repaid with interest out of the earnings of the bridge; in view of the further fact that the bridge which is now contemplated and for which this grant was asked is a rail bridge in addition to being a bridge for general purposes over the public harbour, I consider there is very much more merit to this request than to any of the requests I have heard for bridges over rivers or between provinces, and I would like to ask the minister again to take this matter under consideration and recommend this grant to the government.
The city of Vancouver is only asking that the government pay whatever extra cost may be entailed by reason oif the fact that we must protect the .public harbour when constructing the bridge. W'hat could foe more just than that the country should pay the extra cost so entailed? It will be necessary, if the bridge is constructed, to have either a swing bridge or a lift, and I believe if the country pays that extra cost the people of Vancouver will be satisfied. I submit that the principle of granting such subsidies has been recognized; we are not asking for anything unreasonable but merely the actual cost entailed by reason of the fact that we are

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
crossing property belonging to the country. In addition to that there is the fact that the country has already recognized the claim of Vancouver for the bridge over this harbour, although that grant never was used. I do plead with the minister that in all fairness this matter should be reconsidered by the government and very much 'better reasons given than those so far advanced if the government insist upon refusing this request. Before I sit down I should like to ask the minister if he will table the papers relating to this request and to the refusal on the part of the government.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. First of all, I think perhaps my hon. friend is under some misapprehension as to the manner in which this grant was made previously. If he will look at the estimates for 1925-26 he will find that the vote was not under this department at all, although for his purposes I quite agree that it does not make any difference what department it comes under.


John Arthur Clark: I did not think there was a vote in 1925.


John Campbell Elliott: At page 59 of the estimates for 1925-26 my 'hon. friend will find that in the miscellaneous items presented by the Minister of Finance there is included the following item:
Grant to the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company towards construction of bridge over the second narrows of Burrard inlet, B.C.. being revote of portion of subsidy authorized bv statute, chapter 46, section 3, 1913. Revote, $100,000.
The total amount provided was $270,000, while the act provided for $350,000.


John Arthur Clark: I think the minister is under a misapprehension. Was that money not voted to the Vancouver harbour commission and in turn loaned by the harbour commission to the bridge company?


John Campbell Elliott: No, at was voted exactly in the terms I have mentioned. My hon. friend is correct in saying that chapter 46 of the statutes of 1913 authorized a grant of $350,000, but I understand that the entire amount voted in 1925, $270,000, was spent.


John Arthur Clark: And was it not charged to the Vancouver harbour commission, Who are under obligation to repay it to this government with interest?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think the harbour commission was in existence at that time.
78594-194J


John Arthur Clark: My impression was that
every cent of money advanced by the country in connection with that bridge was charged to the Vancouver harbour commission with the obligation of repayment with interest. I should like to have confirmation of that.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not intend to argue
with my hon. friend about that, but if there was such an arrangement it must have been a subsequent one; it could not have been done under this vote if the terms of the vote were carried out. I realize that the matter is one of importance and already we have given it a good deal of consideration. As the situation now is, I think this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Marine and Fisheries department and not the Public Works department, but from the standpoint of the people who need the bridge I do not suppose that that makes any real difference.


John Arthur Clark: The minister says that he
has actually consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries?


John Campbell Elliott: We heard the deputation
together, and we have had numerous consultations in regard to it. I shall be very glad to see if there is anything further which can be done.


John Arthur Clark: What has the minister to say about the fact that this bridge will carry a line for the Canadian Pacific Railway and will provide a means of access to the Canadian National Railway for that portion of the harbour which lies south of False creek?


John Campbell Elliott: I think that is correct.


John Arthur Clark: What has the minister to
say with regard to that feature of it? Are we not justified in asking the government for a grant upon the basis of the principle, already recognized by parliament on numerous occasions under the Railway Subsidies Act? During the past years many subsidies have been authorized under that act for bridges for one or the other of these railway companies, while it is refused in this instance.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that that
act is not resorted to at the present time to the extent that it formerly was. Such matters naturally come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Railways and Canals, and not of the Public Works department, and this particular matter, because it involves a harbour, comes under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I shall be very glad to take this matter up again with the different de-
305S

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
partments involved and see if there is any possibility of bringing about a change in the viewpoint which was taken when this matter was considered before.


John Arthur Clark: In addition to the viewpoint to be taken of the grant as such, will the minister canvass the situation and advise the city as to what other possible course there may be? For instance, after the situation is canvassed it may appear to the minister that we would be perfectly justified in asking for a subsidy under the provisions of the Railway Subsidies Act. It may appear that we are justified jn asking for a grant in the estimates because of the extra cost entailed by the fact that the bridge crosses a public harbour and it has been found necessary to provide a draw and go to the expense of special construction. Then again, it may appear that this is a proper subject for action by the Vancouver harbour commission. I cannot overestimate the importance of this matter to the city of Vancouver. The bridges over that harbour carry practically all the international motor vehicle traffic which comes into the city. I ask the minister not only to consider this matter, but to advise the city of the course which would be the most advantageous for them to pursue in this connection.
I do not know whether it comes under this item or not, but I Should like to have some information in regard to the New Edinburgh mill property, as to how much has been spent on that building since its purchase.


John Campbell Elliott: That would come under
the heading of public buildings, not harbours and rivers. There is no item in the present estimates for the New Edinburgh mill property, but I would refer my hon. friend to the particulars of expenditures Which were tabled in the house.


John Arthur Clark: Under what heading?


John Campbell Elliott: It was the return which
was made relating to the expenditures in connection with the New Edinburgh mill.


John Arthur Clark: Would that be up to date?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it is; if not, I
shall be very glad to furnish my hon. friend with the details up to date.


John Arthur Clark: Has anything been done to utilize the water-power?


John Campbell Elliott: Not so far.


John Arthur Clark: Is it lying idle now?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: A year ago the minister estimated that it would yield an annual return of $26,400, and that estimate has not materialized.


John Campbell Elliott: It will, when we start to utilize it. Up to the present time the demands have not been sufficient ito justify the expenditure necessary to utilize these powers.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister attempted to sell this water-power?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister attempted to lease it?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Arthur Clark: In the meantime we are losing the interest on the minister's estimate of the value of $200,000?


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend wants to be fair about this matter.


John Arthur Clark: At page 4105 of Hansard of 1928 the minister made the following statement:
It is obvious, therefore, than an average of 1,100 horsepower could be obtained and if this power was disposed of as rated, it would yield an annual return of $26,400 for 1,100 horsepower at $2 per month.
I would like to 'have some information as [DOT]to what has been done in that connection.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite correct regarding the statement which was made. That statement was made in accordance with the valuations of expert valuators which we bad before us at the time, and I believe it is still correct. It is expected that the whole of that power will be required for the purposes of government services in connection with the research buildings when they are in operation. The government considered that it was not wise to go to any extra expense in order to develop the power and distribute it for the one building which we are occupying at the present time. I shall be very glad bo give my hon. friend a comparative statement showing what it costs to buy the power under our present rates and the cost of developing this water-power. This statement should be considered in the light of the fact that in the near future we expect to utilize all this power. It was not considered advisable to develop it at the present time and enter into contracts which could be made only for a short period of time.

Supply-Public Works-Bridges


John Arthur Clark: The purchase price, as I recall it, was $525,000. Can the minister tell us what portion of the total investment is being utilized in the public service? We know $200,000 of it is not being utilized, and we are losing, it is estimated an income of $26,400.


John Campbell Elliott: We are, at the present
time, utilizing from the standpoint of strict operation practically nothing but the building that is used for the Bureau of Statistics. Engineers and architects have been working out a plan for the research buildings and for some other buildings that, it is expected, will be built upon the site. Of course the main part of it is site for public buildings yet to be erected, and none of that is being utilized.


John Arthur Clark: Are some of the existing
buildings going to be torn down?


John Campbell Elliott: I fancy so, though I think we may be able to utilize for research purposes the big building at the other large mill, and probably utilize in one way or another most of the buildings that are there.


Mr. McGIBBON:: The minister has touched a very important item, that of research. Will he be good enough to tell us what they are doing in that regard?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to limit the discussion, but I respectfully suggest that we would make better headway if we tried to confine ourselves at least to the item with which we are dealing. We are now dealing with item No. 142, which does not at all touch what my hon. friend has suggested. What my hon. friend refers to was passed under item No. 117 some time ago, and in view of that perhaps I might endeavour now, as far as I can, to answer, without the details before me, any questions that my hon. friend cares to ask in regard to that. Under 117, there is an appropriation of $750,000 for National Research Council laboratories. The operation of the buildings, of course, comes under the department of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with any information that is available in my department.


Peter McGibbon: The minister himself
brought the matter up, and that, I think, is my justification.


John Campbell Elliott: I brought it up in answer to a question of an hon. member with regard to the power.


Peter McGibbon: This is one of the most important things that the government has taken up. In fact, the government has been
rather slow to act, and, if I might express an opinion, it has allowed the government of Ontario probably to steal a march on it in this regard. Would the minister tell us what they are doing and what they propose to do with regard to research?


John Campbell Elliott: From the standpoint of this department I might say that nearly a year ago Messrs. Sproatt and Rolph, architects of Toronto, were engaged to act in conjunction with members of the Research council in devising what would seem to be the best and most up-to-date buildings that could be provided for the purposes of the researches that it is proposed to carry on. The class of buildings and laboratories required involves buildings that will be used for purposes of a very technical nature and we have been from time to time impressing upon the architects the anxiety of the department to be able to let a contract at an early date in connection with these buildings. It is hoped that before long we shall be able to do that. I do not think my hon. friend will have any reason to complain that the Department of Trade and Commerce have not been diligently devoting attention to equipping themselves with the best facilities that can be provided for carrying on the researches necessary.


Mr. BOYS:: Is there any definite scheme for the utilization of either the power or these buildings? There evidently was something of that sort very definitely in the minister's mind when he addressed the house on June 9 last, when he stated:
We are going to use tHem for lighting, heating and various other services.
The minister then elaborated upon the subject, pointing out the available horsepower and so forth, showing that the matter had been receiving attention. He stated that the country would receive some $26,000 as a result of the proposition. What, if anything, has been done in furtherance of the proposal he then presented to the house?


John Campbell Elliott: Was my hon. friend in the chamber a few moments ago when I answered the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in regard to that very question?


William Alves Boys: If the minister answered the question, I did not hear it.


John Campbell Elliott: I did, but I have no objection to answering it again.


William Alves Boys: I do not want the minister to repeat, but I will put this very definite question to him: Is there at present any definite scheme under way for the utilization of these buildings? If so, are there plans that we can examine?	.

Supply-Public Works-Biidges


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend, J take it, is referring to the buildings?


William Alves Boys: Both power and buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: I have answered with regard to power that it is expected to be utilized entirely.


William Alves Boys: But up to the present nothing has been done?


John Campbell Elliott: l?o. With regard to the buildings, one of the main buildings is now being utilized. The other is in process of being fitted up for temporary purposes of research until the research buildings are completed. Quite substantial progress has been made along that line.


William Alves Boys: I wanted to find out whether there was any definite scheme. The minister said that the architects were now preparing plans. Is that what the minister referred to as being for temporary purposes?


John Campbell Elliott: No; that is for permanent buildings. The work of fitting for temporary purposes the large mill that is not now being utilized is under way and the other building has been occupied, as my hon. friend knows, for nine months.


William Alves Boys: I ask this because with two or three others I went to loo-k * the buildings over, and as I looked at them-stables, factory buildings and so on-from a layman's point of view I could not see how they oould be utilized as they were for government purposes; it seemed to me that it would be necessary to pull them all down and erect new buildings. I was wondering if any scheme was in contemplation. If so, the committee should know what the scheme is and whether the expenditure is justified. The minister says that so far nothing has -been done with regard to power, and it is a question whether a further expenditure of money for the utilization of power would be justified.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend's question; because I could not understand how a member of the house as diligent as we all know he is would not know *that the Bureau of Statistics has (been housed in one of these buildings for nine months or thereabouts. We are thereby escaping a rental of about $64,000 per year. We have our statistics now housed in a building that is absolutely fireproof, and if my hon. friend looks it over I think he will agree that it is a building exceptionally well sauted for the requirements of that branch.
[Mr. Bovn.l


William Alves Boys: What expenditure is involved
in connection with fitting that building for the purpose for which it is being used?


John Campbell Elliott: Around $75,000, a little
over one year's rent. The other building is in process of being equipped for the purpose of research until the new buildings are complete. The office that is on the corner of Stanley and Sussex streets has turned out to be exceptionally well fitted for the purposes of the research council and has been in use by them for some months.


William Alves Boys: I would like to know whether there is any scheme of a comprehensive nature under way for the permanent use of these buildings beyond the use to which the minister has referred, which is of a permanent character, and the temporary use to which 'he referred a moment ago.


John Campbell Elliott: So far as the statistics
branch is concerned in all probability that work will be carried on in that building for a number of years. So far as the other building is concerned it is expected that even after the new buildings are erected, as there is certain work that requires a building in the nature of a factory, it will be utilized as well as some of the other buildings; in fact I think that there will be none that will not be utilized.


William Alves Boys: That is in contemplation, but there is nothing definite yet?


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


William Alves Boys: Would the minister mind my interjecting something here which I realize is utterly out of place? The opportunity may not again present itself to me; I refer to the Barrie post office. I would ask the minister to make a note of what I am going to say. I understand that it is impossible to carry on operations inside the Barrie post office, if there is a serious rainstorm, without the use of umbrellas. It might be well if some attention was given to this matter and the roof made watertight. These repairs are absolutely required for the comfort of the officials of the post office and for the preservation of the building.


John Campbell Elliott: 
William Alves Boys: Before even venturing to say what I did I took the precaution to ascertain whether or not the situation had been brought to the attention of the district engineer and of the department, and I was given to understand that it had been, and on more than one occasion. I really feel, therefore, that I was justified in bringing the matter up to-night.


John Campbell Elliott: I regret that I am not able to say at the moment just what the decision was, except that some repairs were necessary at that place, which we shall make either out of the general vote or out of a special vote.


John Arthur Clark: In connection with the New Edinburgh mills water-power, is there sufficient water-power there to operate continuously the year round?


John Campbell Elliott: My recollection is that
there is about 1,100 horse-power available there the whole year.


Mr. STEVENS:: No.


William Alves Boys: The minister said 800 last year.


John Campbell Elliott: From 800 to 1,100, but I think you will find it is nearer 1,100.


John Arthur Clark: Are there some portions of the year when there is not sufficient water to operate at all?


John Campbell Elliott: In the low water season there is not as much water available as during the period of high water.


John Arthur Clark: What is available during the low water period?	.


John Campbell Elliott: I have just said that my
best recollection is from 800 to 1,100 horsepower, and I think it is nearer 1,100, according to the best information I can get.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Alberta-Saskatchewan-Alberta and Saskatchewan telegraph and telephone lines-general repairs and improvements, $21,000.
Island Hill-He a la Crosse telegraph line- clearing right-of-way, $11,500.
Peace river-building for telegraph service, $5,000.
Reconstruction of Grouard-Peace river telegraph line, $3,800.
Telegraph line from Peace river to Fort \ er-milion, $75,000.
Mr. MicRAE:	I want to take this opportunity to compliment the hon. minister on
this vote of $75,000 for a telegraph line from Peace River crossing to Fort Vermilion. It is not in my constituency, but I happen to be very familiar with the situation, and I must say that this is a very much needed improvement and will bring into touich with the world several communities one of which at the present time is about two hundred miles from transportation facilities. I hope the minister will see to it that the usual telephone facilities which are granted on the government telegraph lines will be extended to this line, at all events in Battle River, Keg river and several smaller 'places where a telegraph operator would hardly foe justified, but where I think a telephone would perhaps serve these smaller communities equally well.
While I am on my feet, I want to say that these government telegraph lines which serve such a large area in the northwest as well as in British Columbia are among the most accommodating and best run of all our services, ' from the superintendent down. I want to speak a word for these men who are responsible for this service throughout that far-flung country. They give, wdith the assistance of their families, practically a twenty-four hour service. You can reach them and send a message at any time during the day or night, and I hope that when salaries are being readjusted, the work done by the employees of the government telegraph lines, and particularly the men out along the line, will not be overlooked.
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines-British- Columbia-British Columbia Northern District -general repairs and improvements, $17,450.
British Columbia Vancouver Island District -general repairs and improvements, $14,000.
Mainland telegraph and telephone lines- general repairs and improvements, $8,000.
Telephone line from Dawson Creek to Sunset Prairie, $2,650.
Telephone line from Rolla to Rolla Landing, $2,500.
Yukon telegraph system-general repairs and improvements. $18,870.
Extension of telephone line on Galiano Island, $2,025-Total, $258,945.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: What is it that is wanted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just where the lines
are.


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon.
friend that they are within the British Columbia mainland system, on which we had a total expenditure last year of $68,337. Then there is the Vancouver island system, on which we had a total expenditure last year of $156,509. I can give my hon. friend more detail if he wishes it.	.
3062	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Lines


John Anderson Fraser: What do you mean by the northern district; what does that include?


John Campbell Elliott: The requirements are:
1.	General repairs-Queen Charlotte Islands line, $2,414.00.
2.	General repairs-Alice Arm to Stewart, B.C., $1,331.25.
3.	Purchase of rowboat for use in line repair work between Alice Arm and Stewart, B.C., $60.00.
4.	Ashcroft-Highland valley line, $750.00.
5.	Ashcroft-Forestry line, $450.00.
6.	100 Mile House-Canim lake line, $3,200.00.
7.	Quesnel-Barkerville line, $1,260.00.
8.	Clinton-Gang Ranch line, $250.00.
9.	Lillooet-Lytton, $6,500.00.
10.	Ashcroft-Savona line, $750.00.
11.	Repairs to Barkerville buildings, $500.00.
That is how the $17,000 is made up.


John Arthur Clark: What about Vancouver
island? Where are the improvements there?


John Anderson Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I just want to extend my thanks to the minister for including in that vote $500 for repair? to the Barkerville building. Some of the other items there are also very necessary, but that was particularly brought to my attention last fall, and I examined the building and my conclusion was that unless you repaired it this year it would1 be falling down next year. I must, therefore, compliment the minister for giving us the $500 for the repairs to that building.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister give us the detail of the Vancouver island repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: This $14,000 is required
for the improvement to the Vancouver island district lines, and is made up as follows: Estevan section, $135.
Nootka section, $75.
Sidney inlet section, $175.
Vargas island, $240.
Tofino section, $100.
Kakawis branch, $50.
Ucluelet section, $130.
Uchucklesit section, $200.
Bamfield section, $175.
Pachena section, $150.
Clo-oose section, $100.
Carmanah section, $150.
Camp Bay section, $175.
Port Renfrew, section, $175.
Jordan River section, $175.
Shusartie to San Josef bay, $225.
Sea Otter cove to Holberg, $225.
Quatsino section, $250.
Alert Bay section, $300.
Rock Bay section, $275.
Campbell river section, $190.
Union Bay section, $150.
Parksville section, $200.
Port Alberni section, $150.
Sooke section. $150.
Victoria section, $100.
Bowen island section, $150.
Whyteeliff section, $250.
Squamish-Cheakamous section, $100.
Seaside park section, $100.
IMr. Elliott.]


John Arthur Clark: Some of the .places the minister is now reading are on the mainland, not on Vancouver island at all.


John Anderson Fraser: In that connection I would like to ask the minister a question. He mentioned a moment ago the Squamish-Cheakamous section. Have you a telegraph service there?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I see there is $100 for general repairs and improvements, as requested by the general superintendent of government telegraph service in a memo dated December 17, 1928.


John Anderson Fraser: Have you any record of the requisition then for the extension of that service?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not have that here. I have here only the detail relating to the items that we have placed in these estimates.


John Arthur Clark: In vieiw of the fact that many of the plaices the minister has referred to as being included in this Vancouver island district are on the mainland, will the minister give us a statement of the constituencies in which these votes are allotted, with the amounts?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not here the information by constituencies. I shall be glad to furnish my friend with a statement of it, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the constituencies to be able to say just from glancing at the places. But these are the requisitions made.


John Arthur Clark: How does it happen that there are so many mainland points included in Vancouver island?


John Campbell Elliott: The superintendency is on the island, and all that comes under it, I take it, is included in the Vancouver island district. It is served by a superintendent at Vancouver.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Anderson Fraser: I should like to have the
same information in regard to the mainland telegraph and telephone lines as in regard to the others.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $8,000 is
required for general repairs and improvements to the mainland telegraph and telephone lines throughout the province of British Columbia, as follows:
1.	Kamloops section, $793.50.
2.	Barriere section, $331.75.
3.	Chase-Revelstoke section, $1,437.50.
4.	Golden-Invermere section, $5,361.55.-Total, $7,924.30 say $8,000.

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous


John Anderson Fraser: A year ago the department
sold the Merritt-Vernon section to the British Columbia Telephone Company. Are any negotiations being carried on at the present time for the disposal of these lines to the same company?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say to the
same company. There are two companies who would be reasonably in the market for the purchase of whatever lines we have to sell in that district, and we contemplate advertising for tenders in two or three weeks' time for these lines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous
Accounts branch-salaries of agents, clerks, travelling and contingent expenses of outside service, $25,000.
Architectural branch-salaries of architects, cleTks of works, inspectors, draftsmen, clerks, messengers of outside service, $83,000.
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $495,000.
For operation and maintenance of inspection boats, $20,000.
Maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys in connection therewith, and settlement of land damages, $50,000.
National Gallery of Canada, $130,000.
National monument on Connaught place, $75,000.
River gauging and metering. $30,000.
Surveys and inspections, $120,000.
Balance of expenditure for works already authorized for which the appropriations may be insufficient provided the amount for any one does not exceed $200, $5,000.
Compassionate allowance to Alphonsine Thi-bault, widow of the late Paul Thibault, foreman at Bic, P.Q., who was fatally injured by an accident while on duty, $3,355.

Total, $1,036,355.
John Anderson Fraser: There is an item here of
$130,000 for the national gallery. What is that for?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $130,000
was requested by the boiard of trustees to provide for the operation and maintenance, workshop supplies, upkeep of premises, purchase of works of art, management of exhibitions and the usual travelling scholarship of the National Gallery of Canada.
It is proposed to expend the 1928-29 appropriation as follows:-
To continue necessary work on Canadian war memorials if new storage provided, $10,000.
Salaries and wages, $10,000.
General maintenance, etc., $25,000.
For additions to the National Gallery collection, $85,000.-Total, $130,000.


Mr. CAHILL:: I may be out of order in
whait I wish to represent now, but as this item is miscellaneous I would suggest to the
minister that if possible, -if not out of this vote then out of some other this year, he provide silencers for the typewriters in the stenographers' rooms. These people work under most difficult conditions. They are doing arduous work and the rooms are not as well fitted for tlhe purpose as they might be if the machines were supplied with silencers. If this were done it would add very much to tlhe comfort and possibly to the health of the stenographers in this building. I may add that neither the officials in that room nor any of the employees there -have mentioned this bo me, so that I am not pleading for anyone in particular. I do -think, however, that it would add to the efficiency of the work and make for the health of those in the government service in that department.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to direct
the matter to the attention of the Speaker, under whose jurisdiction it comes.


Frank S. Cahill: It would be a good thing
if the minister would visit the room.


Mr. IRVINE:: Now that the minister has
promised to -call the attention of the Speaker to the necessity for supplying the machines in the stenographers' rooms with silencers, I wish he would direct His Honour's attention to the fact that we have no gymnasium in this parliament, nor a shower bath. It might be good for the health of the entire assembly if we had something of that sort in the basement.


John Campbell Elliott: There is a good deal to
be said in favour of the suggestion.


Mr. SHORT:: With reference to the condition in some of -the rooms under the Public Works department, I wonder whether the minister ever visited the offices of the pensions board. The condition there is a disgrace to this government. It is a discredit to them that they should ask the officers of so important a department as that bo carry on their work in the present offices. The ceiling is tumbling down and the whole room seems to be badly out of repair; besides, it is barely furnished and is totally inadequate for the purposes for which it was intended.


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad to have information in regard to that building, which oomes under this department. It does not belong to the department but is one of the numerous buildings which we rent.


Mr. MALONEY:: Does not the government -own the Daly building?
3064	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellan-eous


John Campbell Elliott: The Daly building now
almost belongs to the government, most of the payments having been made. I am not going to enter into a discussion as to the wisdom of tlhe purchase of that building, but we shall try to keep it in reasonable repair. I will have the matter looked into.


Martin James Maloney: The minister will not
discuss the wisdom of that purchase, but what can he have to say with regard of the Edwards sawmill at Rockcliffe? That is the most ridiculous transaction in the history of the Public Works department. If the minister will go to the sawmill he will see the conditions under which many fine young ladies and gentlemen have to work, and I am sure he will agree that by comparison the Daly building is a palace.


John Arthur Clark: I am sure the purchase
of the Daly building will readily bear comparison with the most recent purchase by this government of the New Edinburgh mills. Nothing would be productive of more good than to have the taxpayers of the country view these two purchases and make the comparison for themselves. That comparison certainly would be a reflection upon the business ability of this government and particularly that of the Minister of Public Works. The minister has just admitted that of the total of $525,000, $200,000, from which he estimated just a year ago we would receive an annual revenue of $26,000, will not produce one dollar in revenue. There is no chance that we will ever obtain any revenue from that money, and the minister as well as every hon. member of this house knows that to be the case. The minister also knows that he will never utilize that power except at great extravagance; if he ever utilizes it for the public service of the country he will be wasting money, because we can buy power from the Hydro Electric Power Company for far less than it will cost to generate the power there. If the minister had investigated this matter as he should have done he would know very well and would be able to tell the committee that he cannot generate power there the year round. His statement in that-respect will be found to be just as inaccurate as the statement that this sum would bring in annual revenue of $26,000 to the country.
I did not intend to make any comment upon this situation until I had reviewed this return, which relates more particularly to it, but quite apart from the return I do think this house is entitled to a very frank statement from the minister showing every dollar that has been spent on that property since it was purchased a year ago, together

with a complete estimate of what it is expected will be spent during succeeding years, also giving the proposed development of the property and the cost of such development. I would like to know also if the minister has had this power question investigated by an expert and a report made as to its value. All we have at present are some very general and irresponsible statements which have been made to this committee with regard to the value of this water-power. What could be more irresponsible than the statement made by the minister a year ago that this power was worth $200,000 and could be operated so as to bring a revenue of $26,000 annually to this country? I think we are entitled to a detailed and very frank statement of just what has been spent in the development of the property, what is expected to be spent, what the minister proposes to do with the water-power, and so on. I think we are entitled to know how he justifies that expenditure, and we should know if any engineers in Canada will certify that the water-power is capable of economical development.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
give my h-on. friend all the information starting with the return he has already received and bringing it right up to date, showing every dollar that has been expended on that property since it was purchased-. I cannot add anything to what' I have already said in regard to the manner and time in which the power generated there is to be utilized. Neither can I make any definite statement with regard to what is to be done in the future, because that is -more or less problematical, but I shall be very glad to explain what is to be done with each vote as it comes along. Of course -my hon. friend is entitled to detailed information in each case., and I shall be pleased to furnish it.
Mr. SPEAKlMAN:	In connection with
this item for the national gallery I would like to know under what system these purchases of pictures and other works of art are made. Are they purchased by the board of directors?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman, it would
be much better if we could get some order;
I cannot hear what the hon. gentleman is asking.


Charles Gavan Power: Order.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I was asking the
minister under what system these paintings and other works of art are purchased, and on whose advice.

Supply-Public IVorks-Miscellaneous


John Campbell Elliott: The purchases are made
by the trustees of the national gallery. There is an amount of $85,000 in the estimates which, as my hon. friend knows, is part of the general vote for the national gallery, and with that sum of mony the trustees purchase these works of art. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend wants the personnel of that board.


Alfred Speakman: I am not particularly
concerned with 'that, but I should like to know whether the members of the board are competent to judge of the merits of the works of art or if they 'have technical advisers who assist them.


John Campbell Elliott: They are gentlemen who
a.re supposed to be competent to judge in these matters, and that is the reason they are appointed. I may say that these gentlemen are sufficiently interested in art to give their services entirely free; only their actual disbursements are paid by the government One member of the board is a gentleman living in Regina who has a very fine gallery of his own; he is quite an authority on matters of that kind. Another member resides in Ottawa and he also is supposed to be one of the best authorities in Canada. Another member of the board is a very eminent, well known gentleman, whose name I will not mention since I have mentioned no others. There are five members altogether.


Alfred Speakman: That is quite satisfactory as fa.r as it goes; jbe members of the board are to be highly commended for their work and we owe them a debt of gratitude for giving their services in this way. However, I had a reason for asking these questions, and it is this:	It has been
drawn to my attention from time to time and from different parts of the country by artists and sculptors-and I may say at once that I do not consider myself a judge of these matters-that the purchases are not made on a nation-wide basis, but that there are one or two definite schools of art and a certain number of individual artists and sculptors from whom practically all the purchases are made. As to that of course I cannot speak from my own knowledge, but this suggestion has been made by gentlemen who are themselves artists and who feel that the system under which the purchases are made is not impartial and nation-wide but is confined to certain classes of art and certain small, select cliques of men. If that be the case I do not think the gallery is serving its purpose, which I understand is to present for
our view and examination and for the benefit of those from other countries a fairly typical and representative collection of the various phases of art in this country in order to show just how we are advancing in these cultural ideas. I should like very much to have some comment by the minister with regard to this matter, because these gentlemen at least were very serious, and if their allegations are true, as I have said, I would not consider that the gallery is fulfilling its purpose.


John Campbell Elliott: In reply to the hon. member for Red Deer, I would say that three or four years ago there seemed to be some difference of opinion which developed rather acutely with regard to whether or not the various schools of art were receiving the same amount of attention from the trustees. I think that matter has adjusted itself quite satisfactorily because I do not think there has been a single complaint from any of the schools during the past two years. I do not make that statement positively, but I do know that there has not been any trouble of any account and everything seems to be going along quite harmoniously. I agree with the hon. member when he says that the object of the gallery would not be served unless the different types of art were being equitably dealt with. I doubt very much if it is possible to get a body of men together who will give as much time and1 care to this work as do the present body of trustees.


Alfred Speakman: The representations
which have been made to me by different individuals were made within the last eight months. In order to satisfy myself and others who are interested, I had purposed asking for a list of the purchases and the names of the artists in order to ascertain whether or not there was any ground for the criticisms which had been made.


John Campbell Elliott: The list of purchases is
not a. very long one and I shall be very glad to furnish the hon. member with a copy of it.


Mr. GEARY:: It would appear in the
Auditor General's report.


Alfred Speakman: Perhaps this matter is
not looked upon as being very important.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh yes, it is.


Peter McGibbon: Apparently most of us
on this side of the house have got to the point
3066	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
where we have to take the crumbs from the rich man's talble. The member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) asked a very specific question of the Minister of Public Works and we would like to have an answer.


John Campbell Elliott: I have answered the question.


Peter McGibbon: I beg the minister's
pardon?


John Campbell Elliott: What was the question?


John Arthur Clark: I thought the minister heard the question. What the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) is referring to is the fact that the answer was not complete. The minister stated that he would be very glad to bring down a return showing the expenditures made upon the New Edinburgh mill up to date. I think the hon. member desires a statement as to the plans for the utilization of the water-powers and the plans for the utilization of the buildings which are now on the property but which are unoccupied, and a statement as to the construction of new buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know whether
the hon. member for Muskoka was in the house when I made my answer, but I shall be very glad to make it again.


Peter McGibbon: I heard all that the
minister said.


John Campbell Elliott: That is all I have to say.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Chairman, although the item is passed and I may be out of order to a certain extent-


Charles Gavan Power: Now that the hon. member calls my attention to the fact that he is out of order I might mention that I was waiting for some hon. member to do so. Under the circumstances I must rule that the hon. member is out of order, although he may proceed with the consent of the committee.


Arthur Edward Ross: The item under
discussion concerns the National Gallery of Canada, and I was going to ask the Minister of Public Works if it was his intention to put in that gallery the picture which I hold in my hand. It is really a scientific work and he should have this picture of the New Edinburgh mills framed and put in the National Gallery of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Put it in the archives.


Arthur Edward Ross: This picture might be inserted in the National Gallery of Canada-
(Mr. McGibbon.]


Charles Avery Dunning: "Inserted" is a good word.


Arthur Edward Ross: It certainly would
not be out of place, although it is rather hard to find the water-powers estimated to be worth about $200,000. If the minister would mark that particular item on this picture before it is framed it would give the people of Canada some idea of its value. A picture of the Plaza building, which the minister evidently prizes so much, might be put in the gallery also.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the hon. member's question is a fair one, and I can assure him it will receive the most careful consideration. There are many different schools of art in this country to-day and I will submit his picture to the trusteees of the national gallery and tell them that the recommendation has come from a gentleman for whose recommendations I have the highest possible regard.
Mr. McGIBiBON: As the minister has made such a brilliant suggestion-I notice that the brilliancy has come almost entirely from this side of the house-will he tell us what he has to offer from his own side?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, I have a
question to ask with regard to the gallery-


An hon. MEMBER:: Which gallery?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The national gallery. There
is a splendid selection of works in that gallery, but I think it should be made possible for the people to have entrance at fairly reasonable hours. At present the gallery is closed at five o'clock in the afternoon and during the daytime hardly a person enters the building. Anyone coming to the city, or anyone residing in the city has no opportunity of getting into the gallery before it closes, and I suggest to the minister that it be allowed to remain open until eight or nine o'clock in the evening. I hope he will pass this suggestion on to the proper authorities.


Martin James Maloney: Will the minister-


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could I have an answer from the minister?


Martin James Maloney: Mr. Chairman-


John Campbell Elliott: If the hon. member will
permit me, perhaps I should answer the other question first. At the present time the national gallery is open every day from nine to five, including Saturdays, except legal holidays. In order to allow freedom for putting up exhibits, necessary cleaning and so forth, local visitors, who can visit the gallery practically at any time without much inconvenience are not usually admitted before

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
ten o'clock, but this rule is always relaxed in the case of out-of-town visitors who may be unable to attend at the regular hours. The national gallery is also open on every holiday in the year except Christmas Day from ten to five p.m. The point my hon. friend raises was brought up, I do not know whether by himself or some other hon. member, a year or two years ago. There has been very little complaint that the gallery is not open long enough during the day. As the hon. member will understand, the total amount allowed for salaries, for running the gallery, is somewhat limited, and it is felt that the present hours fairly meet the requirements of the case. You have to be reasonable with the people in charge of the gallery, and at the same time try to place at the disposal of the visiting public at reasonable hours what is to be seen there. I think the matter is working out fairly well.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think it is working out fairly well, because on one or two visits I have made to the gallery, the only people I saw there were the attendants and policemen. There was hardly anyone else there because the hours are unsuitable for the average person who wants to visit an institution of that character. Unless the people visit the gallery it loses the purpose for which it was created, and consequently I think, without any hardship, the minister might try new hours. I do not think the average person wants to visit the gallery at nine or ten o'clock in the morning. The most suitable time is in the evening, and if there is no particular difficulty in the way of employing a few additional people in order that the gallery may be open longer hours, I would like to have the hours run from twelve noon until eight o'clock in the evening. The minister might try that anyway and see whether more people will visit the gallery than is the case at the present time. I do not see the good of having all these beautiful works of art there in such numbers and the place almost deserted. The money is more or less wasted unless the plaice is patronized by a large number of people, either from Ottawa or from the Dominion generally.


Martin James Maloney: Does the destruction of the city hall come within the scope of the capital city beautification scheme launched by the government? If so, when does the minister propose to commence the destruction of that buildling?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it has been explained here before that that is part of the general scheme. It does not come under this department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Under whose department does it come?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows the bill that was passed a year or two ago appointed the federal district commission which has charge of the arrangement.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But who answers in the house for the federal district commission?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it is the Minister of Finance. I think he is responsible for the grant.


Peter McGibbon: Would the Minister of Puiblic Works be good enough to tell the committee the qualifications for a picture being placed in the national gallery, and whether the picture of the present Minister of Public Works and his confreres will be placed there?


John Arthur Clark: Some years ago there were in the national gallery very fine portraits, I think by Orpen, of General Lord Byng, General Sir Arthur Currie, Major General Lipsett, former commander of the Third Canadian Division, who was billed in action in the service of his country, and others, that were ornaments in that gallery. Have they been removed with the other war pictures that formerly hung in the gallery?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not in a position to give my [DOT] hon. friend an answer to that question.


John Arthur Clark: Is any member of this government on the national gallery committee?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Arthur Clark: The hon. member for Argen-teuil has quite frequently drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister the question of the disposition of the war pictures. I am satisfied from the answers given by the Prime Minister that the portraits of Lord Byng, former commander of the Canadian corps, former commander of the Third Army, and former Governor General of Canada; of Sir Arthur Currie, the last commander of the Canadian corps, and of Major General Lip-sett. who, as I say, died fighting in the service of his country, now rest in some basement of this city. Before this vote is passed, I should like to know whether or not I am correct in my assumption.
3068	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous


John Campbell Elliott: Did my Lon. friend say
that they were at one time in the national gallery?


John Arthur Clark: Yes, and I have searched
since on several occasions to see whether they were still hanging there, I could not find them, and I assume, as the Prime Minister said, that they have been buried in some basement in the city.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the pictures to
which the Prime Minister referred were the war memorial pictures. I do not think they include portraits of these gentlemen. It is of no use my attempting to tell my hon. friend something that I cannot tell him, but I am not aware of any portraits of that kind having been removed from the national gallery. I shall be glad to make inquiries.


John Arthur Clark: I would suggest that this
particular item stand until the minister secures that information. I consider it of vital importance to this particular vote. I should like to know what we are voting the money for. If pictures of that kind cannot find a place in the national gallery, I am opposed to this vote and I should like to have an opportunity of discussing it in the light of that information.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend wants to be fair and I tell him that I will obtain the information and give it to him. If he is disposed to hold up the item until that information is given, I .cannt . prevent him from doing so, but I think that ought to meet the requirements of the case. I will make inquiries and furnish my hon. friend with the information.


John Arthur Clark: In justice to the minister
himself, the vote should stand, because the suggestion that I have made is, in my opinion, a very serious reflection upon the government , and if my assumption is incorrect, I certainly do not -want to make that reflection. I feel, however, that I am justified in making that assumption from the remarks that have been made by the Prime Minister himself on several occasions. I have noted them every time they were made, and I have thought of these pictures. I have gone to the gallery and made a search to see whether I could find them. I have asked the attendants if they are there and they tell me they are not. I may have missed them, and I want to be sure. If I am correct in my assumption, I seriously' wish to debate this item before it is passed.
Mr. MoGIBBON: I do not think we can allow the present minister, like the others,

to sit quietly in a kind of philosophical way and let these items go through. In the last few days we had before us the Minister of Immigration who knew practically nothing about his department. The Minister of Pensions and National Health knew practically nothing about his department, and to-night the Minister of Public Works, as item after item s called, practically says that he can give us no information. I for one, therefore, protest against any item going through on which we cannot get any information. Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard I have been in the national gallery three or four times in the last few weeks, and I say that these pictures are not there, and we can hold the government responsible for their not being there. I can conceive that this government has not any particular warmth of imagination for the war heroes of this country. Look over the ranks of the cabinet ministers and their followers and you can see that, but we on this side have a little different conception of what our duties are and what they should be.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not like the publicans and sinners on the other side, said the Pharisee.


Peter McGibbon: These portraits should be given a proper place in the national life of this country7, and I for one purpose to see that done. If the minister has no information to give us, then so far as I am concerned this item will stand until we get the information.


John Campbell Elliott: With regard to a portion of the remarks of my hon. friend I do not propose to attempt to reply.


Peter McGibbon: It is your duty to reply.


John Campbell Elliott: It is no more my duty to reply, I submit, Mr. Chairman, than it was his duty or his privilege to make the remarks that he did. He did not know what he was talking about or he would not have done so. As far as the items in this vote are concerned, I think I have all the details than can be provided. If there are any details in connection with these items which hon. gentlemen want, and which we have not here, I shall be glad to furnish them. If my hon. friends feel that the time of the house can be better spent in discussing these items further, I have no objection.


Arthur Edward Ross: This matter may
not be of interest to more than half a dozen or so of us, but there are some of us who are interested in this question. If we let this item pass without getting the information we have

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
no good reason later for discussing this question of the disposal of the portraits painted by a distinguished English artist named Orpen. For that reason I do not think it is unfair to ask that the item stand over until the information is given, and when the information is given the item will pass at once. I for one would be pleased if the minister would let this item stand, and between now and to-morrow he could ascertain where these portraits are. If they are in the building, then all discussion is ended.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to meet my hon. friend because while he may think that I think he is unreasonable, I do not. I have known him a long time and I have never found him unreasonable. I want to meet his wishes. We will have supplementary estimates to consider later, and there will be abundant opportunity at that time to discuss this matter on any item that my hon. friend chooses, and in the meantime I shall be very glad to furnish him with the information. I hope that that will meet his views.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to
accept that but I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that some hon. members who are interested in a particular question cannot always be in the house when that question comes up. There were one or two items that I wanted to discuss but they went through to-day and I had no opportunity to discuss them. I am sure that there will be no delay if this item stands; I believe it will save time. Will the minister say that when the item.is called again he will see that those interested in it will be in their places to discuss it?


John Campbell Elliott: I will undertake to hold some item until my hon. friend and his friends are in.


Peter McGibbon: That may suit my hon. friend from Kingston City, but not me. This item is going to stand until we get the information or the minister will have to force it through the house with the majority behind him.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Peter McGibbon: I move, Mr. Chairman, that this item be struck out.


John Arthur Clark: Included in this vote is a
number of other items, one for a national monument on Connaught Place, in regard to which I would like to ask some questions. I think I am correct in saying that the minister stated to me quite clearly that this item for
the national gallery might stand. I accepted his word and stopped all further observations I had to make on the subject. If this item is allowed to stand we can go on to the next one.


Frank S. Cahill: And hunt up the pictures in the meantime.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is not in order. He cannot move to strike out an item, but only to reduce it.


John Arthur Clark: We want to debate this particular item, not some other item. If I am justified in drawing the conclusions I have drawn, I want to vote against this item, but if I am wrong I will hold up both hands for it. Therefore I think I am justified in asking that the item stand. The minister was perfectly clear in his statement when he said that the item might stand until he secured the information so that we might have a vote on it. Here is a vote of $130,000. We desire certain information which can be furnished by the minister. Some of us at least may want to vote against this item. I certainly want, to vote against it, but if I am wrong in the inference I have drawn from the remarks of the Prime Minister I want to vote for the item. There are several other members of the committee in exactly the same position. We are entitled as members of parliament to the privilege of not only expressing ourselves but of standing up and voting on any money item that may appear in the estimates. We cannot pass an intelligent vote on this item unless the minister furnishes us with the information.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


John Arthur Clark: As far as I am concerned I want that information before voting on the item.


Peter McGibbon: There is no possible chance of carrying this item to-night. The minister sits there and practically ignores this side of the house. He cannot do that; he cannot conduct himself in that way. When we ask him for information we expect a reply.


John Frederick Johnston: When the debate ceases it is the duty of the Chair to put the question.


Peter McGibbon: The debate has not ceased yet.


John Arthur Clark: We are asking the minister for a statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be advisable to let this item stand until the minister can give the information?
3070	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous


John Campbell Elliott: If my ton. friend will say that he thinks the attitude of his friends is reasonable I will be perfectly willing to let it stand.


Arthur Edward Ross: I object to that. My leader is not going to say whether my attitude is reasonable or not. I am going to be the judge of my own attitude; I am responsible for my conduct in this house. If the minister is not prepared to answer the question we will go on to another item and return to this later. There are two items before this on which I would like to get information. The' first is "operation and maintenance of inspection boats". What does that refer to?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required for the maintenance and operation of the following inspection boats:
Wauketa (Toronto) part season, $3,000. Walrondo (Victoria) part season, $5,850. Marion (Nelson) new hull, $6,000.
D.W.P. (Charlottetown), $2,000.
Sachem (Fort William), $2,500. Contingencies, $650.-Total, $20,000.
These boats are used by the district engineers in inspecting works in the different districts, and are a necessity for the proper investigation and examination of the various engineering works throughout the country.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are any of these boats on the St. Lawrence?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Would it not be wise if you had one there instead of paying $75 a day for an inspection boat, which is really just a small botor boat? I am speaking of the one used last summer on the St. Lawrence.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend will find, if he looks into the cost of maintaining a boat and the cost of hiring one for temporary work, that in the long run, for the work which has to be done on the St. Lawrence, it is cheaper to hire.


Arthur Edward Ross: Seventy-five dollars a day would soon eat up this estimate.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, if you had days enough.


Arthur Edward Ross: The next item is "maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys in connection therewith, and settlement of land damages". What are these storage dams?


John Campbell Elliott: Timiskamiog dam and
Quinze dam.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the purpose of these storage dams?


John Campbell Elliott: The object of these dams and sluiceways on the Ottawa river and its tributaries is to store the spring floods and augment the low water flow, thus equalizing the runoff of the Ottawa valley throughout the year.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister tell us what the object of that is?


John Campbell Elliott: I have just given my friend the object.


Peter McGibbon: I beg your pardon. The minister has not given me the object. I think, Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to an answer.


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry if my hon. friend did not hear me. I stated that the object is to store the spring floods and augment the low water flow thus equalizing the run-off of the Ottawa valley throughout the year.


Peter McGibbon: That is not an answer to my question. I asked the minister what that was for. I hope he comprehends the question now. I am entitled to an answer to that question.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I do not think the minister should turn this matter into something of a farce. What is the purpose of equalizing the flow? That is the question, and it is veiy plain. The minister says that is was done to equalize the flow. Who is benefiting by it? Why is it sought to equalize the flow?


John Campbell Elliott: The object of equalizing the flow as my friend, I would have thought, would consider, is to have it higher at low water and lower at high water.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think I am entitled to know why it is better to have it higher at low water and lower ait high water. Who benefits from it? Any of your friends?


John Campbell Elliott: Well, this is a system that has not originated in recent years, as my hon. friend will probably understand. For instance, it is used for various purposes-in the floating of logs at low water. It is sometimes very difficult, if the flow is not controlled, to have water enough for the floating of the logs.


Peter McGibbon: Is that a Dominion
obligation?


John Campbell Elliott: Well, it has been assumed.


Peter McGibbon: The minister knows that it is not.


John Campbell Elliott: My friend knows more about it than the minister.


Peter McGibbon: I think I do.

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous*


John Campbell Elliott: I am not going to get into an argument with my hon. friend.


Peter McGibbon: I think we are entitled to an answer to this question. Equalizing the flow means one of two things. The minister has mentioned one of them, that is, getting enough water for the floating of logs, and the other is electrical power. Who is going to benefit by it? That is what we want to know.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course my hon. friend
will know with regard to the logs that the man who is floating the logs will benefit.


Peter McGibbon: Who is he?


John Campbell Elliott: The lumbermen further up the river.


Peter McGibbon: Who are they, friends of the government?


John Campbell Elliott: A number of them are not as good friends as I would like to have them, but I am in hopes that they are getting more friendly all the time.


Peter McGibbon: What electrical power is there behind it?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not able to say to my hon. friend.


Peter McGibbon: It is the same old story. Minister after minister in the government knows nothing about his department. We have had the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Health and Pensions, and now the Minister of Public Works. Later on we will have t he Minister of Agriculture, and probably some more, and when we ask for information they can tell us nothing about their own departments. I make this statement without fear of successful contradiction: this is done for one of two reasons, either to help lumbermen who have logs to float down this river, or help to develop electrical power. What right has this government to do that? That is what I want the minister to answer.


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry my hon. friend does not think I am trying to give him information.


Peter McGibbon: You are not trying.


John Campbell Elliott: I am doing the very best I can.


Peter McGibbon: Well, it is a mighty
poor effort.


John Campbell Elliott: But of course I have a difficult subject. My hon. friend surely 78594-195
realizes that the man who is floating logs down is aided, when the water is very low, by having that water dammed, if it is too low.


Peter McGibbon: Is it your business to dam it?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend will subside for a moment, because he is not adding very much to the discussion.


Peter McGibbon: Neither are you.


John Campbell Elliott: Take it in regard to power, the very thing my hon. friend was speaking of a few moments ago-power at the mills. If your flow were uniform the whole year round you would be able to utilize it to the full extent. I should have thought that was an elementary proposition.


Mr. ERASER:: I am very much interested in the remarks of the minister in regard to lumbermen floating logs down the river and the government providing a sum, which I presume is annual, for the maintenance of these dams. But I would ask this question: Do the lumbermen pay for that service? Is there a charge for the use of the water which is provided and for which we pay $20,000 a year?


John Campbell Elliott: It is one of the aids to navigation; I know of no concern that pays for it. It is a matter of the control of navigable waters.


John Anderson Fraser: There is no charge?


John Campbell Elliott: No. If my hon. friend is really interested I can give some examples of just what was done, and explain why it was done. Take the condition at North Bay, where the Nipissing enters into French River. At one time it was complained by some of the lumbermen who were operating along the Nipissing that at very low water they were unable to float their logs by reason of the insufficiency of flow. AVhat is called a sluiceway was made at the point where the Nipissing enters the French river, and that was intended to serve two purposes. First of all, by putting in these stop logs, they raised the height of the water in low water and provided enough water for floating the logs, and when the stop logs were taken out the effect was to widen the point which before was narrow, and that gave greater scope for the water to get away. That is one example of the control of dams.


John Anderson Fraser: I am very much obliged for the explanation, but my trouble is an entirely different one. On behalf of some

3072	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
lumbermen on the Fraser river I applied this winter for them to be allowed to put up, at their own expense, certain works on the Fraser river to catch their logs, and that permission was absolutely refused them. Now I find that the man on the Ottawa rriver not only has the privilege of doing that but you pay for it. What is the reason for this difference in treatment as between the lumbermen of Ontario and those of British Columbia? That is my point. Those lumbermen were absolutely refused permission to do what they wanted. All they wanted was leave to erect these works, and to erect them at their own expense, and that was denied them by the department. And it has been denied them for the last three or four years. I submitted the matter to the department in detail this year and was denied that permission. What is the explanation?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know the case
to which my hon. friend refers particularly.


John Anderson Fraser: I can give it to you.


John Campbell Elliott: The control of navigation is to a certain extent vested in this department under the Navigable Waters Act, and if the engineers report that the work proposed is likely to interfere with navigation then permission is refused.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister cannot get
away with that; there is absolutely no navigation on the river. I grant you it is a navigable river and has been navigated, but at the present time and for the last ten years there have been no boats operating on the river nor are there likely to be any.


John Campbell Elliott: What was the purpose of
the permit?


John Anderson Fraser: For catching their logs.


John Campbell Elliott: Does not my hon. friend
know that a river on which logs are floated is navigable?


John Anderson Fraser: I do not know the legal
definition of a navigable river, but I do know that this river has been navigated. As a matter of fact I have navigated it myself and I know that it can be navigated again. But I should be glad to know why there has been this difference between the treatment meted out to the lumbermen in British Columbia and that which has been given the lumbermen in Ontario. The lumbermen in British Columbia are merely asking for permission to erect certain works. It does not seem fair to me.
(Mr. Fraser.]


John Campbell Elliott: Our treatment is the same to everyone; there is no doubt about that.


John Anderson Fraser: Well I can inform the minister that be has never spent one dollar for the lumbermen in British Columbia, while evidently he is spending it in Ontario and making it an annual charge on the people of the Dominion.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend say
that this government has not spent millions in the Fraser river to allow the lumbermen to get their lumber out? I think the Fraser river is an unfortunate example.


John Anderson Fraser: The Fraser river, it is true, is 1,200 miles long, but I am talking about the stretch from Prince George up to mile 53. That is the part to which I have reference, and at the present time we have in that locality 25 operating saw-mills, all in the same difficulty. They canont get permission from the government to erect the necessary works to hold their logs properly.


Peter McGibbon: I would call the minister's attention to the fact that the lumbermen of Muskoka have to erect their own dams for floating their own logs. Why should they have to do this when the government of Canada gives assistance to lumbermen in the Ottawa river and pays the expenses? W'hy this discrimination?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: It will not be carried
until the minister has the decency to answer the question.


Charles Avery Dunning: Withdraw.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope my hon. friend
will not persist in that sort of language.


Peter McGibbon: I hope the minister will not persist in his attitude towards questions from this side of the house.


John Campbell Elliott: Something depends, of
course, on the question. I should say that the people of Muskoka are getting exactly the same treatment as the people in the rest of the country-


Peter McGibbon: Getting nothing.


John Campbell Elliott: -with regard to these dams.


Peter McGibbon: They are getting nothing at all, but here you have a vote for the lumbermen on the Ottawa river. What does the minister mean by saying they are all getting the same treatment?

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Any question I put to the minister is quite sincere, and I expect a plain answer. Apparently none of this money was spent last year. Is that correct?


John Campbell Elliott: No, $26,552 was spent to March 31.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Then why is there a revote of $50,000?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a practice which was more in vogue years ago than is the case at present. We are cutting it down from $100,000 to $50,000 this year in view of the fact that we spent only $26,552 last year.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: When I asked the minister why this service was given he said it was to equalize the water flow; when I asked for what purpose that was done he said it was to help the lumbermen operating on the Ottawa river which, of course, is a navigable stream. The minister knows very well that in Ontario we have the Rivers and Streams Act, and none of the lumbermen of whom I know are leaning on the federal government. I think a short statement should be made by the minister explaining why the government is spending this money on the Ottawa river for the benefit of those who float logs on that river. That is a reasonable question, and I think we should have an answer.


John Campbell Elliott: This is for the control of the river for the floating of logs, for power control and for general navigation; it is not limited to any one thing. If I give the details of just what it is intended to include under this vote perhaps my hon. friend will get the point I am trying to make clear. For instance, in connection with the Timiskaming dam the sum of $8,800 is set apart; of that amount $4,968 is for maintenance and $3,834 for operation. For the Quinze dam $9,000 is set aside, $7,000 for maintenance and $2,000 for operation. These dams are operated by labourers who are required to work the various sluices and gates which are necessary.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am not interested in those details, since I know what the item covers, but I would like to know from the minister if any service of this kind is rendered by the Dominion government to a private interest in any other place in Canada, and if so where that service is rendered.


John Campbell Elliott: There is the case I have
already given, the control dam at the outlet of the Nipissing into the French river.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is that under this item?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is under the collection of revenue item.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Nipissing development is for hydro-electric purposes. Will the minister be good enough to tell the committee if any service similar to this on the Ottawa river is rendered in any part of Canada?


John Campbell Elliott: There are storage dams
on the St. Maurice in the province of Quebec. I can only refer to those we have noted here.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The vote for the St. Maurice is not under this item, surely?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no vote in these estimates in regard to the St. Maurice de velopment.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Then will the minister say it is fair to state that in no other part of Canada is a similar service rendered under vote 149?


John Campbell Elliott: I have already given the case of the French river; I cannot recall any others, and with that one exception I think my hon. friend's statement is quite accurate.


John Anderson Fraser: In view of that statement I would ask the minister to look very carefully into the situation I mentioned a short time ago. I know these people in British Columbia are subjected to a good deal of annoyance, and I also know that is a large, important proposition.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend give me the name of the stream?


John Anderson Fraser: The FrStser river. .


John Campbell Elliott: That covers a lot of territory.


John Anderson Fraser: I will give the name of one of the mills which has been very insistent in submitting the matter to me. I refer to the Sinclair Spruce Mills, whose post office address is Sinclair Mills, British Columbia.


John Campbell Elliott: I Shall be very glad to look into the question.


John Anderson Fraser: That is only one of the mills affected; there are half a dozen others. The Sinclair Mills have studied the situation thoroughly; they have a large file in that connection which I have perused and they can explain the situation to the minister much more clearly than any of the other companies.
3074	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous


Arthur Edward Ross: I began with a very serious question, and perhaps all this would not have been necessary if the minister had been a little more generous with his information and had told us that this is a very old vote and that it is intended that it shall be gradually decreased. However, I want the minister to consider whether or not the expenditure on these storage dams is not being made for other purposes than simply the floating of logs. The minister knows very well that water-powers are being developed now both above and below this point, and that this expenditure may be of benefit to the power development higher up. Has the minister any information in that connection? I also think the minister will find that the situation now is somewhat different from what it has been in the past; in some cases this storage development is interfering with those who are interested in the upper waters. Has the minister any data as to whether this work is of benefit to others than the lumbermen?


John Campbell Elliott: These dams were built
many years ago and are fairly permanent structures. I do not think there is any prospect in the reasonably near future of abandoning these projects.
Mir*. ROSS (Kingston):	Is this storage
of water of any benefit to the power companies?


John Campbell Elliott: It benefits all the power
companies who are interested in a steady flow of water.


Peter McGibbon: Now we are beginning
to get a little more? light. We discover that the Dominion treasury is paying out money to help the lumber and power companies, presumably friends of the government. What lumber companies float logs down this river?


An hon. MEMBER:: The J. R. Booth
Company.


John Campbell Elliott: The E. B. Eddy Company, the Booth Company, the International Paper Company and the Gordon Company.


An hon. MEMBER:: Senator Gordon.


John Campbell Elliott: For my hon. friend's information, I would advise him that the work was done about 1914.


Peter McGibbon: As the government has been so generous in this instance, will it extend that generosity to the people and the lumber companies in my riding? They are

building their own dams and running their own lumber mills, and i was wondering whether these other companies are in the preferred class.


John Campbell Elliott: If the circumstances are
similar to those under which this grant was made, they will reecive consideration from the department.


Peter McGibbon: On what grounds does
the minister give assistance to these private companies?


John Campbell Elliott: Every case has to be
settled on its own merits. I went over the file in connection with the Gordon Company not so long ago. They complained that during the low water periods they could not operate their mill. If there are any companies in the hon. member's territory which would come within this category, they will be treated in the same way.


Peter McGibbon: I would hate to think
that the minister is as simple as his explanation would lead one to believe he is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter McGibbon: The minister dispenses
money from the public treasury in order to aid private companies, and I have asked him his authority for doing that; I am not concerned with his excuses.


Eugène Fiset: It is done through money voted in the estimates.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: I can talk just as long
as the minister can, and he will not get this item through before eleven o'clock if he is going to take this attitude. I am asking upon what grounds he takes money out of the public treasury in order to help private interests. I am not concerned with the requests which these private companies make to him; I am asking him what justification he has for spending the money of the taxpayers of Canada in order to help private companies.


John Campbell Elliott: It comes largely under
the heading of navigation, and the various phases of it are merely incidental. These things were started by my hon. friend's friends years ago, and are being continued by the present government.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can the minister
tell us what settlement has been made as to land damages?

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous


John Campbell Elliott: Would the hon. member
be good enough to speak a little louder? I cannot hear him.


Arthur Edward Ross: What settlement
has been made as to land damages; what is the amount?


John Campbell Elliott: It is impossible to tell in
advance what the damages are going to be; that would include any land damage caused by the works erected by the government, through flooding or otherwise.


Arthur Edward Ross: What has been
paid in the past?


John Campbell Elliott: There are no claims under consideration at the present time, but an amount must be provided to take care of any claims which may arise.


Arthur Edward Ross: The land in this
neighbourhood will be land belonging to these companies; I do not see how there can be much damage done in doing that work.


John Campbell Elliott: The item of $4,000 is
being set aside to pay damages which may arise through the flooding of lands by the storage dams. At the present time there are no claims under consideration. However, claims may arise during the year and it i is to provide for that contingency that the sum of $4,000 is required. In 1928-29 one claim of $100 was paid to Odilon Champoux. That is the only claim which was paid during 1928-29.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister be
good enough to answer the question I asked a while ago? I am going to keep on asking it until I receive an answer.


John Campbell Elliott: Which question?


Peter McGibbon: I asked the minister
what justification he had for spending money from the public treasury of Canada in order to help private companies.


John Campbell Elliott: Navigation.


Peter McGibbon: That is not my question.


John Campbell Elliott: That is my answer.


Peter McGibbon: Navigation does not
concern private interests. I am asking the minister on what grounds he justifies the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers for the benefit of private interests.


John Campbell Elliott: I regret that I have not
made it clear to my hon. friend. It is done for the purpose of assisting not only public but private interests. All the people who use the waters are assisted by anything which is done to assist navigation.
Mr.	McGIBBON:	The minister has
changed his attitude; when I asked the question he said it was done for the purpose of floating logs.


John Campbell Elliott: That is one phase of
navigation.


Peter McGibbon: Are these streams
navigable?


John Campbell Elliott: That is getting into the
legal question as to what is a navigable stream. I think the best ruling on the subject is that any stream which will float logs is a navigable stream.


Peter McGibbon: Are there any boats
plying up and down these streams?


John Campbell Elliott: There are tug boats and
some passenger boats on the Ottawa river.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister
give us the names?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I cannot do that.


Peter McGibbon: I submit that we are
entitled to the information. The minister is asking parliament to grant him a certain sum of money and we have a right to know what he wants it for.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just as a matter of mercy to the rest of us, as it is extremely hot, would the hon. member say whether he was really serious in stating that he did not intend to allow the item to pass to-night? Because, if so, there is no use in the rest of us staying here. A quorum would be sufficient.


Peter McGibbon: The minister should
ask the Minister of Public Works whether the matter is serious or not.


Robert James Manion: Let us adjourn. It has
been a long, hot day.


John Arthur Clark: If the Minister of Railways wants an answer to his question, may I say that I do not think the item will pass to-night. The matter is very serious. We asked as politely as I think any minister could be asked, that one particular item be allowed to stand for what are, I am sure, most excellent reasons. I understood the Minister of Public Works to tell me that the item would stand. I consider this is a vital appropriation and I think the reasons I ad^ vanced were quite sufficient to justify the Minister of Public Works in saying: Yes, this particular item may stand; I shall be glad to let it stand and we can discuss it further in the light of the information I shall bring down. The minister apparently thought he could bulldoze the members on this side and push the item through. That is the in-
3076	COMMONS
Supply-Public TForfcs-Miscellaneous
ference I have drawn. I certainly have made up my mind in regard to the matter, although so far I have not had very much to say. Others have had plenty to say, and consequently I have not found it necessary to say much; but I can assure the Minister of Railways that I have enough to say to keep this item under discussion until eleven o'clock unless the Minister of Public Works will grant what, I think, is a very fair request. I do not think we were trying to take any advantage of the Minister of Public Works. I will outline the matter again if the Minister of Railways was not present.


Charles Avery Dunning: I heard what the hon.
member said. I have been here all the time waiting for some business to be done.


John Arthur Clark: Does the Minister of Railways not think it is a matter of interest to the Canadian people to know what disposition has been made of the portraits of two former commanders of the Canadian army, a former governor general and a former commander of a Canadian division who was killed in action in defence of his country? If he does not think that is of interest to the house and to the people of Canada, I am of an entirely different opinion.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that I did not say anything of the kind.


John Arthur Clark: No, but what am I to infer from the minister's statement that he was waiting for some business to be done? I am waiting just as patiently as he is. I do not think the Minister of Railways will say that I am an obstructionist. I am not attempting to obstruct the business of t/he country, but I can assure the minister whose estimates are now under discussion, that I am not going to 'be bulldozed. I am asking for information which is perfectly legitimate. I am asking for the whereabouts of three pictures that are of vital interest to the people, pictures which, if they belong to this country, should be given a place in the national gallery. All I want to know is where they are now and why they are there. In the light of that information I should like to discuss further this particular item relating- to the national gallery. If it be found that those pictures do not belong to the national gallery, do not belong to the Dominion of Canada, the matter is settled so far as I am concerned. If they belong to the country and will be put in the national gallery, it is also settled. But I think we are entitled to the information as to where they are and what disposition is proposed to be made of them. It is a very simple

matter to allow this particular item to stand over for a day. The minister does not have all his estimates through; he' admits that he will have supplementaries, and this item can stand and be discussed with the supplementaries. At that time it will not take two minutes if he will just give us the information.


John Campbell Elliott: I made the suggestion
which, I thought, was a reasonable one, namely, that my hon. friend or any other hon. member should have the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter under the supplementary estimates which will be brought down very shortly. I had hoped he would see his way clear to agree to that proposal. I do not want to appear to be-well, I am not going to -say as obstinate as some of us think some of our-	.


James Dew Chaplin: Opponents are. .


John Campbell Elliott: -opponents are.


John Arthur Clark: It is the minister who is
obstinate.


Peter McGibbon: The minister is not helping himself by a remark of that kind.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my suggestion is
reasonable.


Arthur Edward Ross: I pointed out to
the minister that the question of these portraits was perhaps in a different position from that of any other item; that it was an item which affected us a little more than some others that we could discuss under some other subject, that, therefore, we did not care to bring up under a general item a discussion in regard to the portraits of our former commanders; that we preferred5 to have it under this item. The minister tried to bluff us on thait. I went immediately to another question that is of interest to me as one bom and brought up along the Ottawa river and knowing aJlmost every foot of it. I know the reasons for these expenditures and I know there are now arising on the Ottawa river conditions which were not there a few years ago. The government of the day its proposing other matters in the way of power development, having arranged just lately for the Chats falls development. I felt that the time had come when, perhaps, the Department of Public Works would consider whether this work which we were doing in the way of benefiting the lumbering industry was not now going to the benefit of one or two other industries, and whether it was not time to consider the question of distribution of the expense. I know these facts. I have travelled the Ottawa river

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
and I know the upper waters as well as the lower. I pointed out one or two things that are occurring and any question I asked was put with a special object, with the interest of the people of Canada at heart and not with the intention of blocking. I stopped when the minister said that he could not see our point of view, namely, that we did not care to discuss on the general item, the question of the portraits of our former commanding officers, and I went on to deal with the other matter. There was no attempt on my part to block the estimates.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I feel it necessary to 3ay a word, because I have asked half a dozen or more questions. The minister has referred to the reasonableness of his suggestion and to the attitude taken with regard to the national gallery item. What has happened? These three paintings, the work of a most distinguished artist, who has painted a portrait of His Majesty the King, were hanging in the national gallery. They have been removed. The information was-and I was in the house and heard it-that they were in a cellar. The minister is asking for an appropriation of S130,000 for the national gallery. He could not get these three portraits for 830,000 of the $130,000. These portraits by a most distinguished artist are in a cellar, and yet the minister is asking us to-night to vote $130,000 to buy more pictures that cannot compare with the ones that were in the gallery and that have been removed. Who has the reasonable side of this? There is no doubt about it. W e want to know where those pictures are. We take a pride in the portraits and in the artist, and we are not going to vote $130,000 without knowing where these valuable paintings are, and why they cannot be put in the gallery or some other suitable place. If there is anything unreasonable in that, then I am unreasonable, but I submit that I am not.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Edmond Baird Ryckman: Why could not these three paintings be placed back in the national gallery? Why spend money to the large amount of $130,000 annually-and that is a large amount to some people-when here are three paintings by a distinguished artist that would grace that gallery and yet are not hung there.


Robert James Manion: We have been discussing
this question all evening and I think it is a very reasonable request that the information should be given. The minister must see that we are not making any advance at all. It is twenty-five 'minutes to eleven; we will surely adjourn at eleven and we shall not have made any more progress on this vote by that time. It has been a long hot day and I still adhere to my opinion that the ventilation in this building is abominable. I suggest that the minister would be doing a favour to the whole house if he reported progress, to be followed by the adjournment of the house.


James Alexander Robb: I. quite agree with my hon.
friend that we will not make any progress on this item, but we will stay and listen to the discussion. We can stay here until eleven o'clock.


Robert James Manion: I am just as young as the Minister of Finance and I can stay here if he can.


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the
Minister of Public Works why a different situation should prevail on the Ottawa river from that prevailing in any other paid of Canada?


John Campbell Elliott: I would say that under
the same circumstances there is no different situation prevailing elsewhere. It is the same policy for every part.


James Arthurs: Is that altogether true?
Is it not a fact that there are improvements on the French river, placed there by the Department of Public Works, which are at the present time said to be causing immense damage to the land and houses along lake Nipis-sing. It is also true that the government proposes to expend $25,000 to build a sluiceway in connection with a dam maintained by the Public Works department, and the prov-
Supply-Railways-Car Ferry

ince is being asked to put up a like amount for a dam owned and operated by this government.
Items stands.	*


RAILWAYS AND CANALS
[Stage Direction]
Railways-Canadian Government Railways- to provide for additional car ferry and facilities for car ferry service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, $3,500,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister explain this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be remembered
that one of the features of the report of the Duncan commission related to the necessity for improved ferry accommodation for Prince Edward Island. I need not go into the reasons therefor, because they have been discussed in the house on many occasions. Last year an amount was appropriated to start the work. In the meantime a careful investigation has been made with respect to the matter, so far as time and facilities would permit, by the Canadian National authorities on behalf of the department. There was a suggestion many years ago that money. might be saved and better facilities afford'ed at lower annual charges if a tunnel were constructed between the mainland and the island. I thought it desirable to have the old reports in that connection looked up and checked by the engineers in the light of present conditions in order to see, facing as we were a considerable expenditure in any event, what were the economics of the tunnel suggestion. Another suggestion was that a causeway might be built across to the island from the mainland.


Robert James Manion: What is the distance?


Charles Avery Dunning: The shortest distance
across is nine miles. The result of the investigation during the year reveals that, a tunnel would cost to-d'ay in the neighbourhood of $40,000,000. Hon. gentlemen will understand that that is not a detailed estimate, because considerable engineering work would be necessary to determine the subaqueous conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a Montreal
terminal estimate.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is not nearly as
great as that. With respect to the causeway, idea, which is held as sound by a great many people-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the difference
bfetween that and the tunnel?


Charles Avery Dunning: The estimated difference
is $6,000,000-$46,000,000 for the causeway and

$40,000,000 for the tunnel-but no engineer will take the responsibility of stating that a causeway, when completed, would stand up and be an effective means of transportation between the island and the mainland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is meant by a causeway in this connection?


Charles Avery Dunning: A breakwater structure
with a road on top and adequate facilities here and there for the passage of boats to and fro. I do not think that we can regard that as a practical solution of the difficulty. I think the island members on both sides of the house will agree with me that at present we cannot contemplate either a tunnel or a causeway as a solution of the problem. At the same time the trade of the island has been growing very rapidly; it is becoming increasingly apparent that the present ferry accommodation is not sufficient, and if anything happens to the existing ferry then real difficulties of communication will present themselves. We have also investigated during the past year the type of equipment which would be most desirable and economical from the ferry standpoint, having regard not only to the vessel itself and what it will carry but the nature of the terminals now existing, and the changes which would have to be [DOT]made in those terminals to accommodate the mew ferry services.
Naturally, the people of the island desire the best and most dependable ferry service that can under all conditions be provided. It so happens that the existing ferry was not designed to take care of automobile traffic and automobiles crossing to the island at the present time must be 'loaded on flat cars and run on to the ferry and carried across in that manner-a very - cumbersome method, and one which prevents the complete utilization of the ferry in the carriage of the ordinary commerce of the country. The result of the investigation has led us to the conclusion that it would be advisable to build a steam ferny larger than the present one, the dimensions being: length 310 feet, beam 59 feet, with 19 feet 6 inches of a draft. The cost of such a vessel would approximate two million dollars. Improvements to the existing pier at Tormentine, an auto roadway leading on to the ferry ramp, dredging, and so forth, is estimated to cost about $811,000. Improvements to existing pier at Port Borden on the island, auto roadway, ramp and dredging, approximately $592,000. A lay-up wharf, that is, an improvement to the existing layup wharf at Borden, and dredging, $192,000. It is proposed-and the members from the

Supply-Railways-Car Ferry
island agreed last year that it was desirable- that the new ferry should be an oil-burner because of the greater dependability and greater flexibility in ice conditions of oilburning vessels. Oil storage pipe lines and equipment generally for oil storage at Port Borden would cost about $172,000. It is therefore estimated that the total cost of providing the new ferry and the necessary facilities at both terminals would be slightly less than $3,800,000.
Consideration was also given to the provision of a larger vessel of broader beam which would permit a type of design more effective under ice conditions, but the cost of such a vessel would be very much greater, as much more extensive alterations would require to be made at the terminals in order to accommodate a vessel of broader beam. And in addition the services by the larger vessel could not be provided for the island in the same length of time. The proposal now before the house involves the building of a 59 foot beam boat, 310 feet in length and the works that I have just described.
In conclusion I wish to say that a careful review of what it is possible to spend this year indicates that it will not be possible to spend the amount of the estimate now before the house, $3,500,000, and I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Finance to move that the item be reduced by one million dollars. The naval designer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries has been loaned to us for the preparation of preliminary plans of the boat. We expect to be able to call for tenders before very long, and have reasonable expectation of delivery within fifteen months thereafter. During that time we hope to have the necessary terminal works completed, and by accepting a 59 foot beam boat we hope to be able to provide the accommodation one or two years in advance of the time that would be required for the larger boat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the width of the present boat?


Charles Avery Dunning: The width of the present boat is seven feet less than the width now-proposed.


Robert James Manion: I did not get the reason why the minister is reducing the item by one million dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will not spend it this year.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings) :: How does the length of the new boat compare with that of the present one?


Charles Avery Dunning: The present boat is 285 feet long, so that the new one would be 25 feet longer and 7 feet wider.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to criticize tlhe item as it stands. In fact I think I am but voicing the sentiment of the people of Prince Edward Island when I express appreciation of the minister's act in making the provision which is now proposed. The only criticism one can offer is the delay which has occurred in the matter. It is more than a year since $1,000,000 was placed in the estimates for this purpose, and yet even now the plans are not completed.
I can quite understand the minister's explanation of that to be that many representations were made by local bodies in Prince Edward Island asking for Changes; yet I should like to impress upon him the great importance of putting forth every effort to get the boat delivered as early as possible in the year 1930. The heavy traffic in the fall, chiefly the movement of potatoes, commences in the latter part of September and is very heavy by the middle of October. The present boat has been driven to the extreme limit in attempting to take care of the traffic and has not been able to handle it adequately. There is the further- feature which is of great importance, the danger of something happening to the present boat. Last winter a slight accident took place, and there was consternation all over the island when it was reported that one of the propellers of the boat had been broken off and that she would have to go to Halifax for repairs in the middle of the winter. An embargo was placed on all freight at a time when it was very important and desirable to move it, especially potatoes, and it is indeed iucky that in the fourteen or fifteen years that boat has been operating a more serious accident has not occurred,
The minister's explanation in regard to the whole matter has been very clear and explicit. With respect to the proposals for a tunnel or causeway, I am of the opinion, as the minister is, that under the existing conditions a car ferry service is as much as we can ask for, especially in view of the enormous amount of money which either a tunnel or a causeway would involve. It is very gratifying that all arrangements have been undertaken to provide particularly for automobile traffic, because, as the minister said, when the present boat was built there was a prohibition against automobiles on the island, and such a thing as carrying automobiles was not contemplated. My only reason for speaking at all of the present con-
Supply-Railways-Car Ferry

dition is to urge that all possible haste be made in the carrying out of the proposals, and that the boat be provided and put into service at the earliest possible date.


James Alexander Robb: I move that vote No. 93 be reduced by $1,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister tell me where the tenders are being called? Are they public tenders-I mean both Canadian and British? Where will the boat be built, in Canada or in Britain?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have scarcely reached that point yet, but if there is a Canadian firm that has the facilities I should like to give it an opportunity.


Robert James Manion: Surely there must be
some.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a very special type of construction. The existing boat was built in the old country, at Newcastle on Tyne, I believe. Certainly there will be public tenders, or at least tenders addressed' to any concerns which might reasonably be expected to be able to supply the type desired.


Robert James Manion: Is it the intention when this boat is built to have the two kept on the service?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Robert James Manion: What revenue has been derived from the ferry as it has been running?


Charles Avery Dunning: It cannot be segregated inasmuch as it is a part of the railway service. I can give information regarding trips of the ferry, if that will help. The trips per month in 1928 reached a higher average than for many years; I believe it was the highest average in the history of the ferry. There were 160 round trips per month in 1928. The number of passengers per annum is also increasing; in 1928 it was 73,000. The automobiles are increasing; the number reached the total, higher than ever before, of 7,416 in 1928.


Murray MacLaren: It is recommended in the Duncan report that a separate accounting be made of the ferry service, as distinct from the accounting for the Island railways. Has the minister considered that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not remember a recommendation with respect to a separate accounting for the Island railways, but I do remember something of that sort in connection with the operation of the ferry. I suggest, however, that it would be very cum-
bersome and difficult. We are really meeting the intention by providing this ferry, not to be charged to the Canadian National Railways, but to the funds of the Dominion of Canada directly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not the operation.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; its operation forms a part of the operation of the eastern lines and meets the intention of the Duncan report rather better than an elaborate accounting which would have very wide ramifications. For instance, I mentioned 73,000 passengers: a separate accounting would involve the separation of that portion of each passenger's fare which could be properly allocated to the ferry. And the same with freight, which is a through movement. Separate accounting would be unnecessarily cumbersome and would not be of advantage, whereas this method involves the assumption by the Dominion of the constitutional responsibility which belongs to the Dominion in providing the capital expenditure involved.


John Anderson Fraser: Has the minister any idea
whether the boat when completed will pay capital charge and operating expenses?


Charles Avery Dunning: The annual cost of operation, including interest and depreciation on the scheme we are now proposing, would be $804,800. I cannot give accurate figures with regard to the revenue 'but am reasonably sure we cannot hope that the revenue would meet the cost of providing the service which is the carrying out of an obligation of confederation.


Robert James Manion: What is the fare across?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no separate
fare; it is included in the railway fare.


John Anderson Fraser: It is a free service?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I understand that the fare for a single crossing is 75 cents and the charge for automobiles $4. The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) is of considerable importance. The cost of operation certainly cannot be taken care of by passenger traffic, and under present methods of operating it increases the deficit on the railway line there. That, in turn, is charged to the eastern lines, and when railway matters are discussed the charge is always made-and it is a fact-that there is a loss on these lines. The loss would be minimized to a considerable extent if this ferry, which is a direct obligation of the Dominion and is not part of the railway service, could be taken out of the Railway department altogether in the matter of expenditures. In regard to

Reports of Committees
the work done last year, I gathered from the statement made that about $220,000 was expended out of the $1,000,000 voted. Can the minister give us an idea as to what was done?


Charles Avery Dunning: That does not appear to be on my file. If I can supply the information privately to my hon. friend I shall be glad to let him have the details.


Robert James Manion: One hon. member told
me that he wanted certain details and I should be glad if the minister would report progress. It is eleven o'clock anyhow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is any part of the depreciation and fixed charges upon the investment which the minister mentioned a moment ago taken into consideration in determining the deficit in the operation of the eastern line?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 31, 1929