[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) presented the. third report of the select standing commitee on industrial and international relations, as follows:
The select standing committee on industrial and international relations beg leave to present the following as its third report.
Your committee has had under consideration a resolution which was adopted by the House of Commons on February 13, 1929, as follows:-
That the question of granting family allowances should be studied, taking into consideration the respective jurisdiction of both federal and provincial parliaments in the matter, and that the said question should be referred to the Committee on Industrial and International Relations, with instructions to inquire into and make report.
The following witnesses appeared before your committee to give evidence:-
Rev. Father Leon Lebel, S.J., teacher of philosophy, LTmmaculee Conception, Montreal,
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerald E. Brown, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, Ottawa, Ont.;
Mr. Joseph Daoust, shoe manufacturer, Montreal, P.Q.; and
Miss Charlotte Whitton, of Ottawa;
Mrs. Mildred Densit, of Montreal; and
Mr. Robert E. Mills, of Toronto; representing the Social Service Council of Canada.
Your committee begs to submit the evidence of these witnesses on the subject matter of investigation, and recommends that (a) as this proposal is new in Canada, and requires more careful consideration, no immediate action shall be taken; and	'
(b)	that before the next session of parliament the question of jurisdiction in matters of this nature as between the Dominion and the provinces be considered by the government;
(c)	that 500 copies in English and 500 copies in French of this report and evidence be printed in blue book form, and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough) presented the second, third and fourth reports of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries, as follows:
The select standing committee on marine and fisheries beg leave to present the following as their second report:
Your committee, to whom was referred for their consideration, the convention for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system, which was signed at Washington on the 27th clay of March, 1929, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada, by the plenipotentiary named therein, have taken the said convention under consideration and bog leave to recommend that the house do approve of the same.
The select standing committee on marine and fisheries beg leave to present the following as their third report:
Your committee have had under consideration Bill No. 26, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act. and have agreed to report the said bill with amendments.	_
A'our committee has ordered that the said bill be reprinted as amended.
The select standing committee on marine and fisheries beg leave to present the following as their fourth report:
Following the consideration of Bill No. 26, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, and in view of amendments made by your committee to said bill, your committee beg leave to recommend the adoption of the following departmental regulations in respect to the lobster and smelt fishing seasons:
That the lobster fishing seasons as now established by order in council be as follows:
1.	Charlotte county, N.B., November 15-June
8.
2.	St. John county, N.B. November 15- May 23.
3.	Remainder of Bay of Fundy to Burns Point Digby country January 15-June 29.
4.	Burns Point to Herring Point, Lunenburg county, March 1-May 31.
4. (a) Herring Point to Cole Harbour, Halifax county, December 1-December 30; March 1-May 15.
The late Mr. Lanctot
[Stage Direction]
5.	Cole Harbour to Red Point, Richmond county, including strait of Canso, May l-Junc
30.
6.	Red Point to Cape St. Lawrence, Inverness county, May 16-July 15.
7.	Cape St. Lawrence to south side river St. Lawrence, except Magdalen islands, and a portion of Northumberland strait, May 1-June 30
8.	Portion of Northumberland strait from river Philip, Nova Scotia to Chockfish river New Brunswick, and Victoria harbour to West-point, Prince Edward Island, August 16 to October 15.
9.	Magdalen islands, May 10-July 20.
10.	North shore, Gulf of St. Lawrence, May 20-July 31.
That the smelt fishing seasons as now established by order in council be as follows:
In Nova Scotia;
For gill nets, October 15 to the last day of February following, except in a portion of Richmond county, where it is October 1 to January
31.
For bags nets, November 25 to the last day of February following, except in Northport and Tidnish rivers, where it is November 1-January 15.
In Prince Edward Island;
For gill nets, October 15-February 15.
For bag nets, November 25-February 15.
In New Brunswick:
For gill nets, October 15-February 15.
For bag nets, November 25-February 15, except in Baie Verte and Port Elgin rivers, it is November 1-January 15.
In Quebec:
For gill nets, September 1-February 15.
For bag nets, November 25-February 15.
For drag seines, September 1 to close of navigation.
Your committee also recommend the adoption of the recommendations of the sub committee appointed to report on clause 5 of Bill No. 26, as amended:
That, in place of section 5 of the said bill, which was stricken out as amended in committee, the minister be asked to regulate the number and use of trawlers under chapter 73, clause 46, R.S.C., by issuing to said beam trawlers a license to operate, and that regulations may be made by the Governor in Council prescribing the form of license, the evidence to be furnished on the application for the license, the number of licenses at any one time, the conditions under which same will be issued, and any other provision respecting same;
That all said trawlers so licensed be owned and registered in Canada;
That no beam or otter trawler be permitted to fish within twelve miles of the headlands of the Canadian coast; and That the department use every effort to encourage line fishermen, both inshore and offshore, to increase the production of fish to meet any increased demand.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this house learned yesterday afternoon, I am sure with sorrow, of the death at his home at St. Constant, Quebec, of Mr. Roch Lanctot, member for Laprairie-Napier-ville. Mr. Lanctot had been in ill health for [Mr Duff.]
some time past; indeed, he was unable to be present at all during this session of parliament and was absent during the latter part of the last session. His death therefore, was not unexpected. At the same time, I am sure it will bring a feeling of sadness to the hearts of all present to realize that we shall not again see within this chamber or about the corridors of parliament, his familiar figure.
Mr. Lanctot was in his sixty-fourth year. In years of representation in parliament he was one of the oldest members. He came into the House of Commons after the general elections of 1904 and was again returned in the elections of 1908, 1911, 1917, 1921, 1925 and 1926, a continuous service, as a member of parliament, of some twenty-five years. During the whole of that time Mr. Lanctot was very faithful in the discharge of his duties as a member, in attendance upon the sittings and work of the house and in representing in parliament the interests of his constituents and, in particular, the interests of the agricultural classes with which he was specially identified. It was characteristic of his concern for ,the people and their welfare that, in addition to being a member of parliament he should have continued to interest himself in municipal affairs. He was, 'at the time of his death, mayor of the parish in which he lived.
Mr. Lanctot was a true son of the soil. He was born in the country; he came to Ottawa for his early education, but thereafter returned to the farm and devoted himself to rural pursuits. He was not only a son of the soil but a lover of the soil and was true to the soil. Had he lived in France he would have been spoken of as a peasant proprietor; had he lived in Great Britain he would have been referred to as one of the yeomen of the country, the class of men who in both these lands are the backbone of the nation, and who are known throughout the world as the salt of the earth. In Canada he brought to the rural life of our country what was best in the rural life of these older countries, with which through blood or birth he was associated. A true representation of the type of man of which Mr. Lanctot was an outstanding example is given, it seems to me, by Gray, in his Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard:
Some village Hampden, that, with dauntless breast,
The little tyrant of his fields withstood,
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.

The late Mr. Lanctot
Mr. Lanctot had many of .the characteristics of a Hampden. He was a man of sturdy independence and of sterling integrity; one who would not submit to arbitrary measures; who was fearless and courageous; prepared to stand alone for a principle in which he believed. He had many of the qualities of a Milton. He possessed a deep religious conviction, a strong faith. He was a lover of nature and there was about him, in his love of the simple and beautiful things of life, in his broad human sympathies and great friendliness of heart, not a little of the poet and the philosopher. He had, too, many of the attributes of a Cromwell. He was one who had a hatred of caste and of class; he was a great believer in the commonwealth, the commonweal, and at all times and on all occasions he stood for the rights of the people. This is the man who has passed away from our midst.
Speaking more particularly of the party to which he belonged, may I say that we had in him one of the firmest of upholders of Liberal principles. He was an intimate friend and strong supporter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier during the time that Sir Wilfrid was the leader of the Liberal party. In the ten years that it has been my privilege to be in the leadership of the party, he accorded to me a like friendship and an equally loyal support. Personally I feel his death very deeply. I am sure that feeling is shared in equal measure by all who sit on this side of the house, and I believe it is felt in great measure by all members of parliament, irrespective of party.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to convey to his widow the sympathy of this house in her great bereavement. The 'house I am sure will feel sympathy for the constituency as well, the constituency which has lost a member who has represented it continuously and faithfully for so long a period of time. Perhaps nothing more worthy could be expressed of his name and his fame than to say he was as much respected and beloved by members in this house of parliament as he was honoured by the constituency which over a quarter of a century gave him an unbroken confidence.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of those who are associated with me to your left as well as on my own, express my great sympathy with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his party in the loss they have sustained by the death of a beloved colleague? Mr. Lanctot possessed those qualities that endeared him greatly to those with whom he was associated, and I can
readily understand the reason for the moving sentences with which the Prime Minister expressed the sense of the loss sustained by him and his party in the passing of Mr. Lanctot. It was my privilege to know Mr. Lanctot for many years. I did not know him nearly so intimately as the Prime Minister and his colleagues did, but I knew enough of him to realize something of his sturdy character, sterling qualities and the devotion he gave to the service of his country. It may wel be said that he was desirous at all times of adding to his store of knowledge. Perhaps some members of the house will recall a speech that he made on one occasion in which he indicated that he came here a young man desirous of learning and that he had learned much by his experience in this house.
He was a very devout man and a son of his church in the true sense. I think from a brief conversation I had with him that he would describe himself as a Canadian with all that it involves-a son of the soil who loved his native province with a devotion that was sometimes touching, one who loved the soil as only perhaps a Canadian can who is proud of his country, proud of its achievements, and looks forward to its future with great hope.
He was a man of real integrity of character, and his views were not easily disturbed once he had arrived at a conclusion. While my hon. friend the Prime Minister described him as a very strong supporter of his party, I am bound to say that in the discussions that I have had with him, not less than in some of his public utterances, there was a strong indication that while his views were generally in accord with those of the Prime Minister, he held very conservative principles and I think most of those who knew him well will agree that that was so.
I am glad to associate myself with the Prime Minister in the sympathy that he has expressed for Mr. Lanctot's family, who have lost a loving and devoted husband and a father whose memory will be cherished with pride and satisfaction. He has rendered service to his country. His character and his achievements will serve as an example to those who come after him in the community in which he lived. His love of his country was manifested in every possible way in which it could be done within the sphere of his influence. The quotation which the Prime Minister has made from the poet Gray I would supplement with this other stanza:
No farther seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from their dread abode,
(There they alike in trembling hope repose,)
The bosom of his Father and his God.
Business o] the House


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, it was with regret that we heard of the death of Mr. Lanctot late yesterday afternoon. Mr. Lanctot was for many years a very very faithful member of this house and I am sure that he served his constituency well. We in this corner of the house desire to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in paying tribute to the memory of the late Mr. Lanctot, and we also wish to express our sympathy to his widow and his family.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	May I be allowed to voice my deep
appreciation of the work of Mr. Lanctot, of his very attractive qualities and of his sterling worth? He had a charming personality. He had two things in common. He had a deep love of the people who live on the land and till the soil, and he was extremely interested in the peace of the world. With me he believed that if we continued to train our boys and girls in military methods, we would continue to use military methods. For all of these reasons I want personally to associate myself with the three members who have spoken in appreciation of the work which Mr. Lanctot did for the coming generations in this country.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
king's BIRTHDAY-SATURDAY SITTINGS
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion on the order
paper with respect to Saturday sittings in order to be moved at this time will require the unanimous consent of the house. Before asking for that, may I say that in now presenting the motion I am doing so with a view to hearing hon. members express their views and feelings on the wisdom of sitting to-morrow. I recognize that we have had a pretty hoit week so far as the temperature is concerned, and a good many I imagine are feeling its fatigue and exhaustion, none more so than the members of the administration. However, we are quite prepared to sit to-morrow and continue with the work of the house with a view to hastening the termination of the session if such appears to be the wish of hon. members.
May I say in regard to sitting on Monday that last year, as I recollect it, the house sat on the King's birthday but adjourned during the afternoon in order that hon. members might attend the garden party given by Their Excellencies in honour of His Majesty's birthday. We had thought of following a similar

procedure this year but again, if Mr. Speaker would permit it, I would like to have an expression of the views of the house and the government -will seek to be guided in its final decision in the matter by what appears to be the general view.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I will put the motion. It is moved by the Prime Minister:
That on Saturday, the first day of June, 1929, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the session, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the forenoon and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is undoubted, Mr. Speaker,
that the notice of motion now given by the Prime Minister has only become necessary because it was found that the first motion was not sufficiently 'broad to cover the matter, for it was originally intended to deal with to-morrow as well as every succeeding Saturday until the house prorogued.
I think we are all desirous of doing our best to expedite the business of parliament. We certainly should not sit for three sittings to-morrow. Whether or not we should sit until six o'clock to-morrow is a matter in respect to which those who sit to the left of the Speaker are entirely in the hands of the majority of the house. If the majority of the house so desire, we certainly are willing to expedite business by sitting.
With respect to Monday, I think the course suggested by the Prime Minister is one that might well be followed. We can have a sitting in the morning, adjourn for the afternoon, and sit in the evening from eight until eleven. I see no reason why that should not be done, and those associated with me are quite willing to assist in carrying out that idea.


Robert Gardiner: So far as the sittings on Monday are concerned, it is agreeable to us to sit in the morning and in the evening, as the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition suggest, leaving the afternoon free for those who desire to attend the garden party. But to sitting on Saturdays we have very strong objection. We have been having three sittings every day all week, and we have other business in our offices that we must attend .to, and with three sittings a day we have not very much opportunity to take care of that business that our constituents expect us to take care of. Saturday is the only day we have left in which to do that business.
I want to draw the attention of the house to a very important point. The members from the maritimes and we from the west.

Mixing of Wheat
have to sit here week in and week out. We cannot go home on Friday night and come back on Monday night like most of the members from Ontario and Quebec. It is the practice of this house not to transact important business on Friday or Monday; no important votes are ever taken on a Friday or a Monday. The consequence is that we who have to sit here all week can only mill around, if I may use that expression, until the other members come back. We get tired of this kind of business. We do not think it is fair. Then when we come to the end of the session there is a great rush, against which we have always protested. As far as we are concerned we will not consent to sitting on any Saturday during the rest of this session. I understand that this motion is not in order, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as it was not placed on the order paper in time. Therefore I raise objection against the passing of the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: If objection is raised, I
must declare that it is valid, because the motion is out of order unless there is unanimous consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is understood then that the house will sit on Monday morning and adjourn on Monday afternoon. I therefore move that this motion be withdrawn with the consent of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Resuming again at eight o'clock on Monday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes,


Hewitt Bostock: It is understood then that I adjourn the house tonight at eleven o'clock until Monday morning as usual.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of the ministry, and especially the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mir. Malcolm) to a most mischievous and inaccurate statement which appears in the morning newspapers. This mischievous and inaccurate statement is the report of some publication in London, England. The diplomatic correspondent of the London Morning Post is reported by Mr. Lukin Johnston of the Southam Press as having said:
One aspect of American activity in Canada requires close attention and that is in the mixing of low grade American wheat with
Canadian, and exporting it as Canadian. This must affect, in a measure, the Canadian market abroad.
As that statement, Mr. Speaker, is inaccurate, is mischievous and calculated to do irreparable harm to our wheat industry overseas, I ask that the Minister of Trade and Commerce take the necessary steps to correct it.


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to thank my hon. friend the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), for calling the attention of parliament to this statement which, as he says, is entirely inaccurate. Neither from Montreal, Halifax, St. John or Vancouver is a Canadian western certificate issued on anything but all-Canadian wheat, and how the impression has gone abroad as to the mixing of Canadian and American spring wheats in Montreal I do not know. But I think at this time it might just as well be stated clearly to the house that there is an admixture of Canadian and American durum wheat, but that wheat does not go out under a Canadian western certificate. The wheat that is mixed at Montreal is what is known as macaroni wheat or durum wheat Those wheats of both Canadian and American origin are sold out of American seaboard ports and out of Canadian ports on what is known as an open or seaboard certificate, which does mot give the country of origin, either passing through an American port or a Canadian port. The statement that they are low-grades or high-grades as of either country is incorrect. Durum wheats are used in the macaroni trade in Europe, and the buyers know exactly what they are getting. In many instances the admixture may consist of a high-grade American durum and a low-grade Canadian durum. In other instances it may be that the grade of Canadian durum is higher than the grade of American durum, and I think it is with regard to this admixture which is sold on an open or seaboard certificate in both countries that the impression mentioned has been created. But may I repeat again, that all wheat passing through Canadian ports on Canadian certificates is entirely of Canadian origin, and that the statement referred to by my hon. friend, and contained in The Citizen this morning, is incorrect.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commence if he can explain the origin of the word "dlururn"?


James Malcolm: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot give my hon. friend the origin
Post Office Signs

of the word "durum" as applied to this particular variety of wheat. I mentioned in my previous remarks that it was descriptive of a certain flinty wheat which was used in the macaroni trade.



FISH TRAPS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a request of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). I have a telegram from Ucluelet, a small fishing place on the west coast of Vancouver island, saying that they are forwarding a petition with a thousand names on it against salmon traps, and that further largely signed petitions will follow. I asked a question about this some weeks ago but did not get any reply. I presume I will be within my rights in debating the matter on the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and in order that we may do so intelligently I would ask if the minister will be kind enough to lay on the table the report of Commissioner Ellis who was appointed to investigate. The sittings concluded about six weeks ago, so the report Should certainly be available now.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I shall do the best I can
to meet the request of my hon. friend.



POST OFFICE SIGNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the hon. Postmaster General whether or not there is any accuracy in the report that the enamelled post office signs that were formerly printed in blue on a white ground have been withdrawn, and signs with red letters on a white ground substituted therefor. I was asked to bring the matter to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General for the purpose of having him reply to that inquiry, and also to ascertain whether or not there is a contract pending for the purchase of the enamelled signs, and if so whether the Postmaster General will bring it down. I do not expect him to be able to give an answer at the moment, but I have had a communication asking me to bring the matter to his attention.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I am not in a position at the moment to give a reply. I will have the matter looked into, but I really think that it belongs to the Department of Public Works.



CANADIAN FLAG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I would like to draw the attention
of the Prime Minister to an article appearing in the Regina Leader of May 25, in which it is stated that at a meeting there our Canadian flag was in danger, and that the Right Hon. WT. L. Mackenzie King had appointed-


Hewitt Bostock: The article should be
sent to the clerk and read to the house.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if a committee has been appointed, as stated, consisting of six or seven Roman Catholic priests to provide a new flag for Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I understand rightly,
the hon. gentleman asks the question as to whether it is true that a committee of six priests has been appointed to devise a new flag for Canada. I cannot imagine a statement more remote from the truth, or more absurd.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading 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 the city of Montreal.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I had an amendment which I
had prepared but left upstairs. Perhaps by consent this can stand till the afternoon.
Motion stands.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 30 consideration in committee of Bill No. 313, to amend the Dominion Elections Act-Hon. Mr. Cannon-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. POWER:: Section 27 was allowed to stand in order that members might express an opinion as to whether or not in certain constituencies the period between nomination day and election day should be two weeks. I have now a list of such constituencies and I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), that section 27 be replaced by the following:

Dominion Elections Act
Schedule 3 of the said act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:	_
Schedule 3: List of electoral districts in which an interval of two weeks between nomination and the polling day is to be allowed: '
Province of Ontario: Algoma East; Algoma West; Fort William; Frontenac-Addington; Grey Southeast; Hastings-Peterborough; Kenora; Rainy River; Muskoka-Ontario; Parry Sound; Port Arthur-Thunder Bay; Renfrew North; Renfrew South; Temiskaming North; Temis-kaming South; Victoria.
Province of Quebec:	Charlevoix-Saguer.ay;
Gaspe; Pontiac.	.
Province of Manitoba: Brandon; Dauphin; Lisgar; Macdonald; Marquette; Neepawa; Nelson; Portage la Prairie; Provencher; Selkirk; Souris; Springfield.	_	.
Province of British Columbia:	Cariboo;
Comox-Alberni; Kootenay East; Slceena; Vancouver North; West Kootenay; Yale.
Province of Saskatchewan: Assiniboia; Kin-dersley; Humboldt; Last Mountain; Long Lake; Mackenzie; Maple Creek; Melfort; Melville; Moose Jaw; North Battleford; Prince Albert; Qu'Appelle; Rosetown; Saskatoon; South Battleford; Swift Current; Weyburn; Willow Bunch; Yorkton.	_
Province of Alberta; Acadia; Athabaska; Battle River; Bow River; Camrose; Lethbridge; Macleod; Medicine Hat; Peace River; Red Deer: Vegreville; Wetaskiwin.
Yukon; Yukon Territory.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Why is Southeast Grey given two weeks between nomination and election day when many other Ontario ridings have only one?


Charles Gavan Power: In quite a number of constituencies in Ontario at the present time there is a period of two weeks between nomination day and polling day. The former chief electoral officer, Colonel Biggar, prepared a list of constituencies which in his opinion should come within this category by reason of administrative difficulty, a difficulty which he felt could be met if the period were thus extended. Amongst these was Southeast Grey. If the hon. member would prefer it otherwise the list can be amended accordingly.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I just wondered why
it was included. I have no objection.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I believe Moose' Jaw was put in amongst those in which two weeks are allowed. The only reason for having two weeks is that it makes it easier for the returning officer to arrange for the polling subdivisions and for the ballot officers going out. In the constituency of Moose Jaw, which is half city and half country, not covering a very great area, I do not think there is any necessity for two weeks. I would rather have one week.


Mr. CAHAN:: I would move that section
26 of the bill be called and approved. I notice by Hansard that my contention was correct, that this section had not been read and passed. I think it is necessary that it should be called and I move accordingly.


Mr. DUNNING:: I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in asking that section 26 be called. I was responsible for the statement yesterday that I had heard it called.
I was under the impression that I had, but Hansard does not indicate this to have been the fact.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 26 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Section 26 agreed to.
On section 15-Preparation of lists.


Charles Gavan Power: With regard to section 15,
the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George thought that schedule (a) could be made more clear. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, that section 15, schedule (a), rule 20, be amended as follows:
Any person, whose name appears in the list of voters for any polling division in the electoral district, may make oath before a registrar giving particulars of the list upon which his name appears, stating that he is qualified to vote in the electoral district and alleging the death, disqualification, or real residence and appearance on another list, of any person on the list for any of the polling divisions in the registration district for which such registration has been appointed,


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 16-Polling day.
Charles Gavan Power: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is very desirable.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I direct the attention of
the committee to the answer given by the chairman of the special committee (Mr. Power) and by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) yesterday, which answer is correct, namely, that no record is kept of those who


Charles Gavan Power: I move that the constituency of Moose Jaw be omitted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
78594-196	pevised liition
Dominion Elections Act
[Stage Direction]
take oaths. They are permitted to vote on taking the oath as in form 25. Provision should be made in this bill for a record of the various oaths that are being taken by voters so that we may have access to them for future use in amendments to the Elections Act. I asked the electoral officer if he could give me information as to the number of votes polled under this section by virtue of the oath and he gave me the same answer as the hon. members gave me yesterday, that no record was kept. When you are appointing a permanent electoral officer or permanent returning and deputy returning officers, these experts should surely be able to give an intelligent account of the proceedings on election day. I think provision should be made somewhere in this bill whereby more information would be provided in regard to what takes place in the various polling booths on election day than is ascertainable at present.
Mr. CANNON:: I do not know if it would be possible to devise a practical method of securing the further information which my hon. friend wishes to have, but I might suggest to him that in view of the fact that the committee has considered other amendments than those included in the present bill, with the idea of having the further amendments adopted at the next session of parliament, my hon. friend might take up this question with the committee so that it might be considered when the legislation is being prepared next year.


John Frederick Johnston: There is an amendment before the committee. Mr. Power has moved that subsection 1 of section 16 be amended by adding the words "and shall name the same day for the poll."


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member for
Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) drew the attention of the committee yesterday to the fact that on Mondays there are at times certain religious feasts observed by those of the Hebrew faith and that it might cause some inconvenience to those people if an election were held on a Monday on which one of those religious feasts was being observed. In answer to my hon. friend I may say that I have absolutely no doubt that if the attention of the government were drawn to such a situation the governor in council would see *to it that no such Monday would be chosen as election day, so any inconvenience such as that indicated by my hon. friend certainly would' be overcome.


Mr. JACOBS:: I might point out that these fasts and feasts may occur on Mondays or Tuesdays; they are not definitely fixed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Polling day to be half holiday.
Mr. HEAPS:: Yesterday I asked that this
section stand in order to consider the question of the half holiday which, under the present bill, would be observed all over Canada. As I pointed out then, under the old bill employees were given two hours off with pay, but under this bill they would not be paid for this half holiday. In other words, they are to be denied certain rights they previously enjoyed, and I did feel that this was a retrograde step. I would be very much in favour of a half holiday, of course, if the employees received pay for that time off, but not otherwise. I do not think it was the intention of the committee to penalize employees in this way if they desired to exercise their franchise.
Yesterday I was under the impression that just before the one o'clock adjournment an amendment had been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), but on looking up Hansard I find that such was not the case. However, I see that the chairman of the committee accepted the suggestion on behalf of the government, for which I am very grateful.


Charles Gavan Power: No,


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend shakes his
head; I will quote what he said:
I understand that the government have no objection to accepting this amendment-
Such being the case, I do not see now why the chairman of that committee should shake his head and object to the statement I am making. I think most members of the house [DOT]will remember that just before one o'clock yesterday the hon. member did make the statement as reported in Hansard.


Charles Gavan Power: If I may just interrupt, I
may have made the statement but I have no recollection of doing so. I really did not intend to say that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will attribute it to the
heat, but I presume that the Hansard reporter took down exactly what the hon. member said, even though he does not remember making the statement.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not mean to Say it;
I think my hon. friend will permit me to

Dominion Elections Act
make that correction. I am quite clear in my own mind that I did not mean to attempt to bind the government, over which I have no power or influence, or even to bind myself, over whom I am presumed to have some influence.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I must say that the hon.
gentleman is very modest. However, Mr. Chairman, I intend to move an amendment to section 4 as follows:
That section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act be substituted for section 4 in the present bill, Ho. 313. except that the word "three'' shall be substituted in the second line for the word "two".
The effect of this amendment, which I hope will receive the support of the government, will be to give men and women Who are employed in factories and elsewhere three hours off on election day without any deduction from their pay.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not make the motion in the exact terms in which you wish it adopted?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think that is what I have
done; I think this covers exactly what I wish. As a matter of fact I thought this amendment had been moved yesterday; only a few moments ago I learned that this was not the case, so I drafted this amendment hurriedly to cover the point. The only change from the old act I am asking is that the word "three" be substituted for the word "two," which would make the section read as follows:
Every employer shall, on polling day, allow every elector in his employ at least three additional hours other than the noon hour-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest that in as much as section 4 had been adopted-


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, it has not been adopted; if that had been the case I could not have made this amendment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You are substituting the old section and inserting the word "three" instead of two."


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. It has been stated that this parliament has no power to legislate along these lines. I cannot say as to that, but nevertheless I do know that in past years the large employers of labour in this country have carried out the spirit of the act and have given to their employees the two hours provided for in the old elections act, which we are now amending. I know what has happened in the large shops out west; on election day they closed down at 3 o'clock m the afternoon, so the employees were given 78594-1961
two hours off with pay. I beiieve the same practice has been followed by other companies employing large numbers of men and women. Under this bill now before us a half holiday is declared on election day; that is something I would like to see carried out, and I believe the wording of my amendment is in accordance with the intentions of the committee. The large employers of labour usually keep open from 8 to 12, and then from 1 o'clock in the afternoon. They would probably work from 8 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock in the afternoon under this arrangement, and I think every large employer of labour in the Dominion would follow that practice. I am not so much concerned with the question of the powers which we have under the British North America Act, because it strikes me most forcibly that whenever anything comes up which concerns the working people of this country the British North America Act is always brought forward to their disadvantage. Under the old act the employees were given two hours and when we try to extend that by one hour we aTe told that we have not the power to do so. It was done in the past, the employers of labour carried out the spirit of the enactment of parliament and I feel quite satisfied that if this amendment is adopted they will carry out the spirit of the amendment in the same way as they carried out the provisions of the Dominion Election Act.


Charles Gavan Power: I have a copy of Hansard
before me and I find that the hon. member is quite correct; I did intimate that the government seemed to be willing to accept that suggestion, but I said also that as chairman of the committee I wished to dissociate myself from it. May I repeat briefly my reason for taking that stand; it is quite true that there are provisions in the act whereby an employee may, for a period of two hours, absent himself from his work for the purpose of voting, and the act states definitely that the employee shall not forfeit his pay for that time. That provision has been in the act for some time, and there has been no protest about it. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has said, the employers all over the country have entered into the spirit of the act and have not contested the validity or the legality of that provision. The point I wish to make is this; it is of doubtful validity. In saying that I am not giving my own opinion only, because in the legal sense I do not think it would be considered as worth very much, but those who know something of our laws have
Dominion Elections Act

declared as of doubtful validity an enactment by which the parliament of Canada seeks to bind an employer to pay an employee for something, which is only a matter of contract and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In a matter of at least doubtful validity, when we stretch that period to three hours, the employers of labour might say, "We were willing, without going to the trouble of appearing before the courts, to allow our employees two hours' time, but three hours would be of considerable consequence to us." An employer of labour employing three, four or five thousand hands, might find that the cost would be somewhat excessive. I am under the impression that it is quite likely that some employers might not be willing to comply with the spirit of the act, and might decide to test its validity. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many whom I have consulted, if that is done it will be found to be invalid and the labourer will be in the position where he will not receive any holiday or any pay.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: He would not
receive any pay if it were a half holiday?


Charles Gavan Power: None at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then he would be no worse off than he would be under the proposed change.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not suggesting that
the half holiday would be an ideal arrangement, nor that the previous arrangement of allowing two hours is ideal, but I say that I do not wish to associate myself with the proposed change to three hours for these reasons:	First of all, I do not believe it is
good law, and secondly, I do not believe it is in the interests of the labouring classes. I am not opposed to this principle in any way; if it were possible to grant a half holiday with pay I would be only too willing to do that.


Alan Webster Neill: Suppose the act is left as it is, and the day is made a public holiday; could an employer refuse to pay an employee's wages for a period which has been proclaimed to be a public holiday?


Charles Gavan Power: Undoubtedly.


Alan Webster Neill: I question if he could deduct those wages.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the contract between
the employer and the employee is a monthly one, then the employee must be paid by the month, no matter how many days are declared to be public holidays; the same principle would apply to a weekly contract.


Alan Webster Neill: But not where the employee is being paid by the day?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If he is being paid by the
day, and a half day is declared to be a public holiday, he will only receive pay for the half day that he has worked.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, it
may seem to many members to be a matter of small consequence as to whether or not payment shall be made for one hour or two hours, but I think the very fact that we have to debate this matter is an indictment of our present wages system. Many of these men have to pare things down to a very fine * point, and I take it that the real purpose which we have in view is to enable as many as possible of these men to exercise their franchise. Unless provision is made for a certain period when they can take time off, it is impossible for many of them to do so. A great many of the electors in Winnipeg work in the railway shops at Transcona, and in order to vote they must travel a distance of eight or nine miles to Weston, the western suburb of Winnipeg. Unless they have time off it is impossible for them to do that. They should be allowed several hours off, or given a full half holiday. I recognize the fact that there may be some difficulty, as suggested by the chairman of the oommittee, but I can hardly conceive that where the employers are willing to give two hours, they would go to the trouble of appealing against this legislation when one hour only is added to the free time. In case the validity of the act is tested, the worker would be in no worse a position then he would be under the proposed arrangement for a half holiday. It seems to me that we might very well take the chance and give the three hours which would actually meet the requirements Of the time necessary for voting.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member and myself are in substantial agreement, but it is only a matter of opinion. I give it as my opinion that the employers of labour, when they find they must allow pay for three hours, are not as likely to enter into the spirit of the act, as they have been in the past when they were obliged to allow two hours only. It is my impression that they will test the validity of the act, but that is only my opinion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, the committee in presenting these amendments sought to limit them to proposals on which we were practically unanimous. We sought to avoid bringing before the house at the close of the session any issues which might be disputed.

Dominion Elections Act
Inasmuch as this trouble has arisen, I suggest that the Solicitor General give favourable consideration to the withdrawal of section 4 of this bill repealing section 14 of the original act, and allow the original section 14 to stand.
I think that would, for the present session, be preferable and would allow further consideration of the proposal made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, when other matters are brought before the house next year, because a number of controversial issues in respect of the Dominion Elections Act must come before us next session in the bill then to be introduced, I understand, by the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If there is any
difficulty over validity, is there not a possible difficulty in the Dominion parliament forcing an employer to give a half holiday for election purposes? It seems to me that might readily be construed as interfering with freedom of contract. If objection is taken to the payment of wages for one hour, objection might easily be taken to the cessation of work for half a day.


Charles Gavan Power: It is for three hours.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, for one or
two or three, I do not care which it is, the principle is the same. If objection is taken to that, objection might be taken to the forced cessation of work and the tieing up of the entire plant for a half day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This parliament has legislative jurisdiction to declare a holiday or a half holiday for the purpose of carrying out any public business over which parliament has exclusive jurisdiction; that is, such business as a general federal election.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But in practice
that penalizes the worker.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That may be so, but in this case, in order to avoid penalizing the worker any more than he is at present penalized, I would suggest that for the time being we should revert to the terms of the original section 14 of the act, because I think a good deal is to be said in support of the suggestions made by the chairman of the committee which has for some months been considering the bill amending the Dominion Elections Act. That is, if you impose too much upon the employer, you will find that he will contest the matter, whereas at the present time the giving of two hours as a holiday with full pay has become a general standard and accepted. But there is a very strong body of
opposition against extending the time, and as we wish now to reach amendments which are generally acceptable I would suggest that we might drop clause 4 of the bill and allow for the present the original section 14 to stand.


Mr. THORSON:: When I suggested this
change to the committee when it was last in session on clause 4 of the bill, I had in mind a situation which became very evident in Winnipeg at the last election. Many of the workers who live in South Winnipeg, St. James, Weston and other western suburbs of the city of Winnipeg, work in the Transcona shops which are from ten to twelve mdes distant from their homes and from the polling subdivisions where they cast their votes. They leave their work at Transcona at three o'clock; it takes them half an hour to an hour to get home; they wash and change, and then they pile into the polling booths in the last hour or so of polling day.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The polls close at six
o'clock.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes. The result was that a great number of these men were not able to vote. That was one of the reasons I had in mind for suggesting that the word "two" before the word "hours" in the original section 14 should be struck out and the word "three" substituted therefor. I am not prepared to admit the constitutional invalidity of section 14 of the present act. I think the Dominion parliament, having jurisdiction to legislate with regard to the subject of Dominion elections, may set forth the conditions and circumstances under which the elections shall take place.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are various contentions both ways, but we cannot decide the matter.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am not prepared to
admit that section 14 of the present act is ultra vires of this parliament. I think the argument can be made just as strongly for its validity as for its invalidity; in fact, I think the argument for its validity is stronger than that for its invalidity. Rather than see clause 4 of the present bill stand, I would prefer the old section 14 of the present act. If it is the sense of the house, I would prefer, for the reasons I have stated, to have three hours instead of two given to the employees.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why not extend the
hours of voting?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That might be one
method of meeting the particular difficulty I had in mind, for instance, by extending the
Dominion Elections Act

(polling hours to seven in the evening. I do not know whether the committee has that in *mind or not in any subsequent report that it may bring down.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: There is no doubt that the old act gave a special privilege to one particular class. No argument is being advanced to give a farmer two or three hours' pay for going to the polls. No argument is being used to give a fisherman so much extra time to get to the polls. In my judgment, we have stretched our authority in giving the two hours. Let us be content with that. Do not let us exaggerate the thing and ask for so much that we may regret it later. This is a tax upon the employer of labour. If it is proper to give two hours and if it is within the law, as my hon. friend who has just spoken, says, to give three hours, why not half a day, and, if half a day, why not a whole day? Do not make an absurdity of the thing. We have gone far enough. No manufacturer or employer of labour has made a great deal of fuss about the matter. We are giving a good deal; do not let us carry it to an absurdity.


Lucien Cannon: When this clause was
under consideration yesterday, I stated on behalf of the government that, if it were the desire of the house, I saw no objection to the withdrawal of the clause from the bill and to our reverting to the old law. When I made that suggestion, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) who now moves his amendment, stated that he was not in a position to decide Whether this would be acceptable or not, and the section was allowed to stand, I reiterate that the government has no set opinion; that we are introducing in this case legislation along the lines of the recommendations of the committee. It seems as if this half holiday without pay might not be as satisfactory as the two hours with pay as provided for under the old act.
I am not going to prolong the debate by discussing the question whether we were within our constitutional right in legislating as we did in the past. There is one. side that has been expounded, that is, that salaries and wages are matters of contract and civil rights and, generally speaking, those matters are within the purview of the provinces and not of the Dominion government. But there is also another side that might be urged, and that is that this question of declaring that wages are to be paid during those two hours might be considered as a matter ancillary to the general scheme of legislation regarding elections. These are two viewpoints, one
fMr. Thoreon.]
which would indicate that iwe are not within our jurisdiction, and the other which might indicate that we are perfectly within our province when we have legislated as we have done in the past. I repeat, I am entirely in the hands of the committee and we will stand by the opinion of the committee as it is expressed.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: I am in favour of this amendment for various reasons. In the first place I do not think any deduction will be made for the half holiday from the pay of monthly employees such as clerks. With regard to other employees, it is not necessary for any of them to take the half holiday. If a man is employed in the steel works, for instance, and his work is necessary, he can stay at work, and if he works he will get extra time for holidays. I think this should go through as we arranged it in the committee.
With regard to the eight-hour day, I do not see how a man who is working only eight hours a day can take three hours off in the afternoon because that leaves him only one hour to go back and work, and that is hardly worth while. I think the sensible thing to do is to make it a half holiday.
Amendment negatived.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We now have the situation
where we either have to accept the half holiday without pay or the' provision of the existing Dominion Elections Act, and if I have to choose between the two I prefer the existing act to the provisions of the bill now before us.
There is one point that I would like to bring to the attention of the chairman of the special committee. It is rather an important point which he raised. I do not understand much of the law on this question-


Charles Gavan Power: Neither does the chairman.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member (Mr. Power) made the statement here to-day that the validity of the existing act could be challenged and that under the act the worker would not be entitled to two hours with pay. This would raise a very important question. Assume that at some future time some employer or someone interested challenges the act, and that it turns out as the chairman of the committee thought it would turn out. It would mean that hundreds of thousands of electors would have no opportunity on election day of going to the polls and casting their votes. I do not say that anything of that kind will happen, but if it does then it means that we would have to recast completely tho

Dominion Elections Act
provisions of this act. That danger occurred, to my mind, when the chairman of the special committee gave that opinion, either as a lawyer or as the chairman of the committee, I do not know which.


Charles Gavan Power: As a very poor lawyer I
gave that opinion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think, since I have been in this house, that a special committee of the house has ever sat with a more sincere desire to obtain amendments that would be satisfactory to all concerned and that would be fair and impartial to all interests. On this section there were differences of opinion. They arose in this way. All the large corporations employing men and women have a rule almost universal in this oountry that if employees are brought back on a holiday to work they are paid doubfe pay for the time in which they are engaged in such work. Large corporations such as the steel and coal industries cannot shut down for a half day conveniently, and therefore when there is a half holiday they arrange to bring back a certain number of men to keep their works in operation, and they pay them double time. So if we declare this a half holiday a large body of the workingmen and workingwomen of this country who desire to work on that half day will receive employment at double pay for the time in which they are employed.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it not possible that it
will have quite the contrary effect to what was intended and that a large number of people will remain at work at double pay rather than go out and vote?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is the difficulty. We believe in liberty of opinion and liberty of action within certain limits in this country. I am simply stating how this question appeared to the committee. On the other hand, the ordinary day labourer who is employed in the village factory or in the small store in the smaller urban centres has no difficulty whatever in arranging with his employer for ample time to go out and vote. The relations between employers and employees of that class are so amicable in this oountry that very little difficulty has arisen in respect to voting. I prefer the half holiday for this reason, that it assures the hundreds of thousands of men who are employed in the larger factories and the great industries a half holiday for them to go to the poll, and if they are brought back to work for the purpose of carrying on the operations of the company it entitles them to double pay.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A few moments ago the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was arguing against the amendment of my colleague, and suggesting that it would be wise under the circumstances to leave things as they were, but as soon as the amendment is turned down he suggests that now we adopt the half holiday.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg pardon. That is a
mis-representation of my intention. My intention was not to make an argument but to state to the committee the views that influenced us when we were dealing with the matter as a committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But the effect is as I stated, whereas a few moments ago the hon. gentleman was suggesting that we leave things as they are; he now suggests an amendment.
I submit that that is hardly a consistent attitude. There may be some truth in what the hon. member has said in regard to a few people in the large industries, but there is a very large number of shops where men are not brought back to work on a holiday. I should say that the vast majority are not brought back and paid double time for the holiday. The suggested plan would work a substantial injustice in their case. It would seem to me that when we remember the very narrow margin on which a great number of the workers have to operate, it is highly desirable that they should be given the opportunity to vote without being penalized too much for so doing. Further than that, I would point out that whilst the relations between employer and employee may in some instances be amicable in many instances they are not of the most cordial nature. It may be all very well to say that a man is free to go and vote, yet in a great many plants a man is not free unless his employer gives him the opportunity. I myself have had difficulty with large employers in that connection who paid no attention to existing legislation for providing suitable hours in which their men could go and vote. They said they could not arrange to let them all go at the same time, and so on. It is quite true I was representing the interests of the employees, but I would take that position whether a man were voting Liberal, Conservative or Labour.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the hon. gentleman in
favour of continuing the original section?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Most	decidedly.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are all agreed.


Lucien Cannon: I think the committee
would be satisfied if we simply dropped the clause, and left the question open; we might attend to it next year. That is section 4, subsection 14.
Dominion Elections Act


Mr. BOYS:: I agreed with the clause as
it appears now. I did not take the trouble to look it up myself, but I was informed- I think the information came from the chief electoral officer who appeared before the committee-that this very question was dealt with in the house in 1925, and that by a vote of 54 to 32 the change was then made, and that merely by oversight it was not incorporated in the act. I feel that that being so it would be very proper now to adopt what was done in 1925. I have no very pronounced views on the matter myself, and if they who feel that they have some right to speak for labour think that it would be better to revert to the previous subsection whereby two hours are given with pay I would have no objection to that. On	the	other	hand, I	have nodesire to oppose the suggestion of the Solicitor General that the matter be dropped now, and with many other matters to be attended to which will be subsequently referred to in another report	of	this committee	it mightwell stand to	be	dealt	with at	the next
session of parliament.
Section withdrawn.
On section 20-Name not on the list.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I ask the permission
of the committee to refer to another section which oame up yesterday in the house when I was attending a rather important committee? It is a	small	matter but it is
rather important. With the consent of the hon. Solicitor General, who I suppose is in charge of the bill, I would like to insert one word in section 20. If you will refer to section 20 of this bill you will find that it deals with the question of allowing, as it is known in popular parlance, a man or woman to swear himself in on election day. I am talking entirely of rural matters. This does not concern the urban electors at all. There is a privilege there where a man can, as I say, go and swear himself in, on complying with certain formalities, and it is a highly-prized right in those .country places. It is a safeguard against a lot of things; it is a safeguard against corruption, if such should exist, although it does not in the district that I represent; it is a safeguard against carelessness which might exist, or ignorance oif the local deputy returning officer, who has no desire to do an injustice. Under the old act a man went there and he swore, aided by a voter who was on the list, that he had resided in the electoral district the regulation number of days and that he was now a resident in the polling division. Now they have gone further, he has to swear not only that he has been the regulation number of days, and so on,
[Mr. Cannon.3	.
but that so far as he is aware his name does not appear on the list of voters prepared for any other polling division. That is the trouble. Those registrars, as they are called, who put the names of people on the list, are paid so much a head, and sometimes for that reason, and sometimes due to pure carelessness, they just take the last list, or some other list, and they jam on every name that is there, men who have been away for years, or men who have been dead for years. They do not put them on deliberately; they simply take the list and will not be bothered checking up to see whether Bill Jones has left the district, or has gone to heaven or to some other place in the meantime. Then the man comes along on election day and wants to vote in this other polling division where he has been residing for perhaps six months. He knows his name is on the old list, or someone tells him so; he may be aware that he is left on the old list, but-improperly. What is he going to do? He has no remedy; he loses his vote. That is not the intention of this amendment.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: He can vote at the polling division where he belongs.


Alan Webster Neill: But he does not want to.
He cannot afford to take a long trip. His interests are in the polling division where he then resides. We are proposing to make it easy for the workingman, and for everyone, to vote. I would ask the Solicitor General to be permitted to insert this one word. It is not the way I would like to have it, but I know it would open up a lot of discussion to change the whole section. I would ask leave to insert the word "properly" down on the second last line of the section, so that it will read that the man has got to swear that so far as he is aware, his name does not "properly" appear on any other list. There is no opportunity for abuse; he has to have someone who lives there swear to his identity. He has got to swear himself that he has resided in that polling division. It is rather a retrogade step from the old act. If the Solicitor General would allow me to put in that one word "properly" it would, in great part, meet my objection.


Lucien Cannon: I have no objection. I
think that would improve the section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I. ask the
chairman of the committee whether the committee gave any consideration to the question of proportional representation which question,
I think, was presented to the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We had a speech on it yesterday before this committee.


Charles Gavan Power: The committee did give
some consideration to the question of proportional representation. We even invited representatives of labour to appear before us to give us their views on it. They did speak briefly. We also heard another witness who told us what he thought of proportional representation, but the committee did not see fit to change our present system.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Nor to introduce so controversial a question where we were anxious for unanimity.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.



RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Vote No. 93-Railways, to provide for additional car ferry and facilities for car ferry service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, $3,500,000. This vote, on motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) last evening has been reduced by $1,000,000. Shall the item carry?


Mr. MacLAREN:: I think this includes the estimate for a new ferry.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: Some reference was made to this matter last evening, and since then I have refreshed my memory with regard to the accounting in connection with the ferry service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. I wish to quote from page 28 of the report of the royal commission on maritime claims. The particular reference to which I wish to direct the attention of the minister is this:
We further recommend that, so far as the ferry boat service is concerned, it should not be run as part of the railway operations, but should be run by the railway administration under separate account for the department. We feel that, by reason of its association with railway accounts, this service does not get the attention it should receive.
This bears out substantially what was represented to the minister last night. Now at the present time the operative charges are included in the accounts of the railway lines on the eastern division, and it is recommended otherwise in the Duncan report. Not only that; it is fair and reasonable that the operative charges should not be included in the eastern lines operating account, where it
Supply-Railways-Car Ferry
does not properly belong. The reason is obvious: it makes a much larger deficit in these accounts than otherwise would be fairly represented. I do not think the minister has any particular objection except the difficulty of accounting. I believe his attitude is one of preparedness to recognize that, provided the difficulties of accounting are not too great. He says there are very considerable difficulties in the matter of separate accounting.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is, of course, no difficulty in separate accounting for expenditures. The only difficulty relates to separate accounting so far as revenues are concerned.


Murray MacLaren: I take it there are difficulties at any rate.


Charles Avery Dunning: Entirely in relation to revenue.


Murray MacLaren: The recommendation of the Duncan report is that the accounting be separate. The minister says that will not be an easy matter. There is nothing more unsatisfactory than the present method.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why?


Murray MacLaren: Because it heaps up the deficits in the operative expenses on the eastern division of the railways and makes the apparent deficit larger than it actually is. Another reason is contained in the Duncan report; that is, that more attention would be given this important service. I submit that some other method than the present should be adopted; it is absolutely the worst so far as having the true results of operative expenses on the eastern lines is concerned. The minister says there are difficulties, whatever they may be, in the accounting. It seems to me that accountants possess considerable powers of adaptability and resourcefulness, and surely they can arrive at some system whereby the accounts will be kept separate without too much expense and too much labour. If there are difficulties-and on that score I cannot express an opinion-I believe they should be overcome, or at least an attempt should be made to overcome them. I would even go the length of suggesting, if this is the last recourse, that the operative expenses on the car ferry service be arrived at in a fair way by estimate, allowing that amount to be written off the operative expenses of the eastern lines.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not prepared bo admit for a moment that the deficit on the eastern lines is largely inflated by the operating loss on the ferry.
Supply-Railways-Car Ferry


Murray MacLaren: It is to that extent.


Charles Avery Dunning: No one knows to what extent it exists. I think we can get the exact cost of operating the ferry; I believe it is in the neighbourhood of $200,000 a year. That is the oost of operating the ferry, exclusive of interest and depreciation, which, of course, is taken care of by the fact that the ferry is built out of an appropriation by this parliament. No interest is charged to the railway with respect to the cost of this ferry or the cost of the work; it is borne by parliament. Therefore, so far as interest on capital is concerned, that interest does not operate to increase the deficit on the eastern lines; so that the operating cost is the only matter to consider.


Murray MacLaren: That is the only point I have raised.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, the operating cost is $200,000 a year. My hon. friend desires that we should endeavour to ascertain the proportion of every ticket issued from any point on the mainland to any point in Prince Edward Island, or vice versa, which should properly be credited to the ferry.


Murray MacLaren: I said I would be content with an estimated amount.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid if I came
here with an estimated amount from year to year my hon. friends would question its accuracy, and with all deference I submit that a statement of revenues should be exact or should not be submitted. An estimate would be open to all sorts of suggestions as to the possibility of manipulation and so on.


Murray MacLaren: We would not do that
with the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thank my hon. friend. Yesterday I gave the number of passengers and the amount of freight; those 73,000 passengers came from many different places and part of their through tickets was passage over this ferry. Accounting machinery would have to be set up to take out of those tickets the proportion properly chargeable or creditable to the terry. I am not prepared to admit that the ferry at present does not pay the cost of operation; I would doubt very much if there is very much of a deficit, having regard to the fact that the capital cost is borne and is proposed to be borne, under the estimate now before us, by the Dominion government. It becomes part of the public debt and involves no interest charge on capital to be charged against the
LMr. Dunning.]
eastern lines. I think if the amount to which my hon. friend refers could be arrived at it would be found to be rather small.
I will tell my hon. friend what I will do; before this session is over I will endeavour to get some kind of approximation of the revenue which would be properly creditable to the ferry for last year. Of course we can very easily get what it cost to operate the ferry, and in that way we will get some idea as to whether or not it will be worth while to set up an elaborate accounting service to separate these revenues in order to show what would be properly creditable to the ferry.


Murray MacLaren: I think the minister has said enough now to justify my remarks. Let us find out about it then, if the minister does not know the actual figure. I think it would be reasonable to let us have that amount first.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not pretending
that I can tell my hon. friend the exact amount; that certainly would involve in the first place the checking of 73,000 railway tickets, and in connection with freight it would involve very much greater difficulties. Potatoes are shipped from the island on a through rate basis, which includes transportation on the ferry, and we would have to find some way of allocating to the ferry its fair proportion of the freight rate paid on every carload of potatoes. If my hon. friend understands my proposal as one which involves accuracy I must withdraw it, because I cannot guarantee the accuracy of an estimate. Every word I say emphasises the very great accounting difficulty involved in the separation of such a short journey from a through freight rate or a through passenger fare.


Murray MacLaren: At any rate, as a preliminary move I suggest an estimated amount; I think that would be quite all right for now, although I would not accept that as the final word. We must get some idea of how this is working out, and surely it would not be a very difficult thing to arrive at a reasonable and fair estimate of the operating expenses as compared with the income derived.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We should be able to
get that roughly.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I pointed1 out, the
expenditures are easily ascertainable, and I will undertake to see if there is any means by which we can get even a reasonable approximation of the revenue.

Supply-Railviays-Hudson Bay


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the basis of 75 cents a passenger and $4 a car you could get some general estimate.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member who
was speaking at one o'clock is not in his place, but I do not think I can add anything to what I have previously stated regarding the revenues of the ferry. The question raised by the hon. member for St. John Albert (Mr. MacLaren) really had nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of building a new ferry; it had to do rather with the principle of ferry operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hudson Bay railway and terminals-construction and betterments, including E. B. Jost at $2,500, $6,500,000.
Mr. JELLIFF:: Oould the committee have
a statement as to what is being done at Fort Churchill?


Charles Avery Dunning: This vote is to cover
work on the Hudson Bay railway and terminals. So far as the railway work is concerned, it is for the purpose of paying the Canadian National Railways, who are acting as the agents for the minister in the construction of the road. The work at the port is being done by the forces of the department, under the control and direction of the chief engineer, and the division 'betwen the two, as estimated for this year, is $4,500,000 for the railway and $2,000,000 for the terminal. The steel reached Fort Churchill in March last, but approximately 100 miles still requires to be graded, as it is merely a skeleton track, This work is being pushed forward by the Canadian National Railways as speedily as possible.
As I explained last year, we expected to use most of last year in getting stores, equipment, machineiy and plant into the port and in providing buildings for the accommodation of the men and plant in the expectation of being able to proceed with the dredging work during the summer of 1929. I may say that that expectation was fully realized, and the two dredges which were built last year were towed into Fort Churchill from Montreal and all the equipment necessary to start dredging this summer is now on the ground. In addition, we took in some 15,000 tons of other
material and plant, and I think I can say we are now well equipped to commence the actual work of dredging a channel from deep water within the harbour to the site of the dock itself. I think that is the general information desired by the committee. The expenditures on the port itself up to the present time have been very largely for plant and have been made in the proportion I have indicated.


Mr. SPENCER:: I am sorry that I was not in the chamber when the minister began his explanation, but would he be good enough to give us a statement with regard to the position which the government has taken as to the townsite; on what terms it was turned over to the Manitoba government and whether or not there are any restrictions as to private speculation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I undertook last year
to examine into this matter very carefully, and it was determined that it would be better to turn over the control of the town site to the provincial authorities, who under the constitution, are in control of municipal development. A careful survey of the east peninsula was made by the officers of the department and of the Canadian National Railway, in order to determine what area would be required for the purpose of the railway and for the purpose of the port; in other words, what area was required foT Dominion government purposes. That area was set out on a plan and the remainder of the eastern peninsula as shown on the same plain has been turned over to the government of Manitoba. No restrictions were placed upon the government of Manitoba in receiving it from the Dominion, but discussion revealed that the government of Manitoba had determined to go carefully into the best method of dealing with a municipality of that particular type. I feel sure that satisfactory plans will be evolved by the local government who, of course, have the legislative jurisdiction in respect to municipalities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to ask a question in connection with the Beach property. While on a passenger train one day I was spoken to by one of the representatives of the Beach estate, and it would appear-I made a note of the matter-that the original homestead was granted to Beach, I think in 1905, and in 1928, so far as I can remember, the minister expropriated all the privately-owned property on the eastern peninsula at Fort Churchill. I believe that is correct. These people have been paid no money since, so

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
far as I can ascertain. It is more than a year and a half since the property was expropriated and the principle which the railways have always proceeded on is that when property is taken, the people must he paid for it. At the moment they have not been paid for it, so far as I understand the matter- I am asking for information-and there is no likelihood of their being paid within the immediate future. The minister might state what the situation is.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my hon.
friend that the delay in settling for the property expropriated is in no sense the fault of the department. We have been ready to go ahead with the exchequer court proceedings. If my memory serves me aright-and I am practically certain it does-application was made -for delay by those representing the owners of the property in order that they might have someone go up there and look over it. My understanding is that the case is set down for hearing at the next sitting of the exchequer court in the province of Manitoba, but I am quite sure that the department is proceeding as rapidly as possible in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My point is that, as I
understand the matter, the government has taken possession of the property.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government expropriated the whole area without any restriction or limitation of any kind. The people who owned the property are out of possession of it and they have received no compensation.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I remember the late
chairman of the railivay commission, Mr. Justice Mabee-


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the hon. member stated the date of expropriation wrongly. The date was the fall of 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said 1928. I was
wrong in my memorandum. It was 1927, apparently, which will be two years ago this fall. I made a note that it was two years ago and I did not know exactly what that meant. I remember Judge Mabee taking the view that if railway companies did business in that way, he would quash the expropriation proceedings entirely. The reason is this: that in fixing compensation, regard is had to the date of expropriation. If you let the matter drag beyond a given time, then you have another set of principles upon which to fix expropriation damages than you otherwise

would. I recall that the Railway Act was amended to meet that situation. For two years these people have been out of their property; somebody else is in possession. They have received no -money in compensation and they have to go to the exchequer court. The offer in this case was, I think, $10 a lot, because the property had been subdivided. I understand the matter is to be determined by the exchequer court in its sittings, not in Manitoba, but in Moose Jaw this fall. The submission I make to the minister is that if this were a railway company dealing with the matter as an ordinary railway company would, the delay would be such that regard would be had to the conditions at the later date and not as they were when expropriation proceedings commenced in 1927.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
mean the added value to the property by reason of these works?


Richard Bedford Bennett: By reason of the fact
that when expropriation took place, the future of the port as to development had not been settled, and if you had to take the piece of property to-day, you would pay more for it than you would two years ago. The Railway Act was amended to provide that if the railway company did not proceed to do something within a given time, the damages had to be assessed as of the date when they came in de novo. This is not an unreasonable view to take.


John Gordon Ross: With regard to
the point brought up by the leader of the opposition, the Beach case is a special one. In the first place, a homestead was given to the elder Beach.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About twenty years ago.


John Gordon Ross: This homestead was then traded to the government for the land that now belongs to the Beach estate. Any rights that the government may have had over the homestead lands for railway purposes or expropriation were given up, I think, at the time this land was traded for the homestead. This is a special case and it should be treated specially and as rapidly as possible by the department.


Charles Avery Dunning: Both the leader of the
opposition and the hon. member for Moose Jaw will, I am sure, appreciate the fact that I do not intend to try an exchequer court case in this committee. I was rather dealing with the question which the leader of the opposition raised as to the delay. I have

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
since made sure of the facts. Every effort was made by the department to arrange with the parties for a hearing this spring just passed, and it is at the request of the other parties that the delay until the fall occurs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume there was an
offer of so much money.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the law there
had to be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was it?


Charles Avery Dunning: The committee will
appreciate that it was a matter of some difficulty to arrive at the value of property situated four miles from where the port of Fort Churchill will be, property whioh had been left as nature made it since the original shack was built.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then how does the minister justify expropriating it?


Charles Avery Dunning: I justified my action in
the house a couple of years ago, and I think the house generally approved what I then said. Part of it is undoubtedly required for railway purposes. I will not go further into that at the moment unless I am pressed. I am willing to enter into a debate on the general desirability of expropriating property, but I do not desire to delay my estimates more than can be avoided. To arrive at a value to offer for property of that description was a matter of some difficulty. I gather from the legal staff that they arrived at it by taking the value mentioned in the probate of the will of one of the original owners of the property. That is, we took as a basis the only thing in sight which would afford a basis.


Mr. STEVENS:: The last legal process to
which the minister refers would hardly be fair. This, if I recall aright, was a homestead taken up by a man called Beach about twenty or twenty-five years ago. In those days, to go there was quite a trip for anyone to take. He went there; I think he took his wife with him and they lived on the property for some years. While there necessarily was not very much clearing or farming of the property, because there is not much of that done at Fort Churchill, nevertheless the man lived there and settled on the property, having in mind, as far as I can judge, the fact that some day Fort Churchill was destined to be the site of a city or a town, a point of export. That foresight on his part, his efforts to get there and the time he spent there are worth something. He was, in other words, a typical pioneer. The railway comes along and decides that Fort Churchill is to be the railway
terminal. In the meantime Port Nelson had been going on for fifteen years and this man Beach might very well have thought that as far as he was concerned the railway would never come there, but still he stayed with his property. I think his father died later, but Beach held this property. The minister shakes his head. There is no doubt that the property was held under the control of Beach in some form. There was some difficulty about the homestead entry and so forth, but in any case the man was in possession of the property when he died. Then the railway decided to go to Fort Churchill. The minister says that this is three or four miles away from where the actual railway works will be located, and that it is a question whether the property owned by Beach will be required for railway purposes at all. The government decided, perhaps wisely-I am not criticizing them at all for that-that it was better for the government to control the whole townsite, and therefore they decided to take in all the property that was likely to be townsite property and own it. That is not acquiring property for railway purposes. Mark you, I am not complaining because the government took control of the townsite, because I think the minister's objective was to prevent unwise speculation in townsite property in a prospective terminal. I think the government was wise in doing that, but if the government felt that in the public interest it was desirable that they should own the townsite, it was due to this man Beach or to his estate that he should get the full value of his property. Instead of simply taking the property over as an abandoned homestead, it should have been regarded as part of what would be a valuable townsite, because if the government is going to exercise control over that town-site and reap the full benefit which some people think in future years will be very great, these property owners are certainly entitled to a very different basis of valuation than simply as land taken over for railway purposes. That, I think, is the point at issue.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend does
not quite appreciate what the situation was. I would be the last to detract from the pioneer spirit and the foresight of William Beach, but facts are facts and the exchequer court will no doubt take into consideration all the facts. That is why, instead of attempting to settle it in any other way, the exchequer court is to deal with the matter. My hon. friend is wrong when he assumes that either William Beach or the estate of William Beach or any of the Beach family
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay

own all of the property in question. The property was subdivided and sold many years ago; not all of it, but much of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only part of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Parts here and there of
that quarter-section were sold to people in the west and elsewhere who believed that Fort Churchill was destined to be a port.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is true.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have had letters from
people who paid as much as $600 for a lot twenty years ago in Fort Churchill. I do not know how much Beach made by the sale of the land to others, or whether he made anything. Very often when a man subdivides his quarter-section everybody but himself makes money out of it, and in all probability real estate operators and manipulators made the money and not Beach. I am not in a position to discuss that but I do know that there are now hundreds of owners, if my memory serves me. We have not got track of them all yet. There are people in the United States owning lots on this quarter-section of Beach's, and there is a very good reason why we cannot get track of them. Many of these people own this property for one reason and one reason only, and that is that there was no means of getting rid of it until the government took it over for the purposes of the Hudson Bay railway. There was no means of getting rid of it even by tax sales because there were no taxes up there and no taxing body. They held the property in spite of themselves.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Foresight.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend may call it foresight if he wishes. In saying these things I trust I am not to be considered as attempting on behalf of the government to take from the Beaches or any of the other owners that which is justly their due. I take this position: There is a tribunal, the exchequer court of Canada, to decide what is right as between the crown and the subject in a situation such as this, and I have no doubt that the exchequer court will take into account all considerations which could be advanced here in connection with the matter; in fact, I doubt very much whether we are really in order in discussing it at the length we have been doing, having regard to the fact that it is before the exchequer court. If anybody objects to that procedure of taking it before the exchequer court, then it is a

proper subject for discussion, because it could be withdrawn from the court and other means of settlement adopted, but frankly I know of no better means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister perhaps has not taken fully into cognizance the point I was desiring to make. Section 171 of the Railway Act reads:
In granting any such sanction, or in giving leave under any provision of this act to take lands without the consent of the owner, the board may fix a period
(a)	within which the company must acquire the lands or take the necessary steps for such purpose; or
(b)	within which the notice hereinafter required to he given, preliminary to proceeding to arbitration to fix compensation or damages, shall be conclusively deemed to have been given.
2.	In the event of the order granting such sanction or leave, whether made before or after the passing of this act, providing no such time limit any owner or person interested in the lands may apply to the board for an order that the company shall acquire such lands or take the necessary steps for such purpose, within such time as the board deems proper, and thereupon the board may make such order in the premises as appears just.
3.	Where no time is fixed by the board as above mentioned, if the company, within one year after any such sanction or leave has been given by the board, or in any case where no such sanction or leave is necessary, if the company within one jmar after the plan, profile and book of reference have been deposited with the registrar of deeds, does not either acquire the lands covered by such sanction, leave, or plan, profile and book of reference, or give the notice hereinafter required to be given preliminary to proceeding to arbitration to fix compensation or damages in respect thereof, the company's right to take or enter upon, wi then it the consent of the owner, any part of such lands which it has not within the said year either acquired or given such notice in respect of, shall at the expiration of such year absolutely cease and determine, unless the board, after notice to the owner and upon such terms as the board may deem proper, otherwise orders.
The point I am making is this: This man's lands were taken from him compulsorily, without his consent. Secondly, the crown, as distinguished from the railway company, filed expropriation proceedings against the whole of that land regardless of whether it was required for railway purposes or not. I think it is proper to use that word "regardless," because it is not asserted by the railway that these lands were to be used for railway purposes. Had it been a private enterprise taking over these lands without the consent of the owner, then under section 171 of the Railway Act, which was inserted in the Act at the instance of Judge Mafoee, then chairman of the railway commission, the notice would have lapsed and they would have had

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
to start de novo to take the lands, and the principle with regard to compensation would govern as from the date of the filing of the new notice, which, of course, changes the whole situation, as the minister will see. It is because of the long delay in taking the proceedings, which the minister now says was partly attributable to the owners themselves, that I was endeavouring to bring the matter to his attention. I am frank to say that I know very little about it except what was told to me by a gentleman whom I have often met travelling up and down this country for the last twenty-five years. What the minister says about the lots having been sold is true, but multiply the number of cases by five or six hundred and you get into an intolerable situation. The crown when it expropriates, as distinguished from a railway company that expropriates, has been offering compensation that poor unfortunate people have been compelled to take, and which they would not take at all from a railway company where they could take proceedings before the local district court judge and have compensation fixed in the local court. But people who are not in good circumstances naturallly think with much doubt and diffidence of approaching the exchequer court, because they cannot afford to go into litigation against the crown. They have not the facilities. I direct attention to that, because I do not think those people have been treated with the consideration that would be accorded to them were they the owners of property that had been taken from them without their consent by a private railway company.


Charles Avery Dunning: What would my hon.
friend suggest I might now do?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think what might be
done is to revise the whole basis upon which compensation has been offered. This is not in the hon. minister's department, but in the Department of National Defence; a situation arose in North Vancouver, and I must say I feel very sorry for the poor Old lady who had a lot out there for which she paid several hundred dollars. They appropriated and she lost her property. She said, give me another lot equal to this but, of course, that was not done. I think she got less than $100. This is a case in which the basis of compensation is wholly inadequate.


Mr. MANION:: I have seen a good many expropriation proceedings. I am not speaking of this case at all, but one or two things in
connection with expropriation proceedings have struck me rather forcibly for a number of years. I notice in practically all expropriation proceedings, and probably there is a good defence for the attitude, that the judges, whoever they may be, whether exchequer or county court judges before whom expropriation proceedings of any kind are taken, invariably hear a good deal of evidence as to the utility value at that moment. Frequently it can be shown before these courts that the actual utility value is very, very little, and as a consequence some man who had the foresight perhaps fifteen or twenty years before to purchase a piece of property with the prophetic idea that it was going to be required by a railway or some other company, has that property taken from him for practically nothing, although not only the original purchase but the carrying charges may have cost him a good deal of money. I have seen not one but many cases where properties were expropriated, and that was the ultimate result to the man concerned. I admit that in many instances a railway or a government may require property for very good and sufficient reasons, and in that case it is right to expropriate. But this is the principle I wish to offer as my suggestion-not in regard to this case but in regard to cases in general: I do not believe that either the government or the railways in this country should expropriate property at any time unless there is absolute need for that property. That, in my opinion, is a principle that should be laid down. I have seen cases of expropriation where the railway, or the person concerned for whom the expropriation took place, did not have actual need of the property in question, and this would appear to be such a case. A large area of land was taken for the purpose of preventing speculation; I remember reading something of it in the press, and I think I am right in that. There probably is a good defence of such a course, but there is also a good defence of speculation. If some man had the foresight to see that some day the land would be valuable, I rather think it a good argument that his foresight should be taken into consideration, a thing which is very rarely done before any of the courts I have seen adjudicating on expropriations.


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr, Stevens) spoke a moment ago about the homestead of this man. I want the minister to correct me if I am not right, but I think this is the position in regard to this matter; this land was homesteaded by William Beach,
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay

who figured that at some time in the future there would be a city at Fort Churchill. There was some trouble about getting title to the homestead in the first place, but finally William Beach did get title. After that, when the government had an idea of going into Churchill, or Nelson at one time, as I understand it, a deal was made with William Beach and his property was taken away from him then, and in place of it other property was given to him. My bon. friend the leader of the opposition says that this is expropriation. I claim that it is reexpropriation, that the land was taken from this man in the first place, and in lieu of that land he was given the land which is now held by the Beach estate. Then the government comes along and takes the land again, and this is a special case different altogether from any of the others that may be there. This man has already given up certain rights to the government on account of the port at Churchill, and the government comes back and asks him to give up rights again. Briefly, that is the case. That man had the foresight to go there, and on account of having given the land away he should be given abundant compensation for it.


Murray MacLaren: I wish to give an instance, for the minister's benefit, of how this question of expropriation by the crown works out, an instance in Vancouver not long ago to which attention was drawn; a small lot of land was held by a man who had bought it, from a speculative standpoint, and the land has been expropriated for the purpose of a rifle range near Vancouver. He paid a few hundred dollars for it; he paid taxes for something like ten years. Under the expropriation proceedings this man was awarded $14.75 for his lot, for which he paid a few hundred dollars and several years' taxes. I brought the case to the attention of my leader. The matter is absolutely too small to take proceedings in, and yet the property has been taken on the initiative of the crown. There is no request from the individual. Surely there is some compensation coming to a man whose property is taken away from him against his wishes and without any application from him.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot confirm what
the member for Moose Jaw related, as to the circumstances, because I approached the matter only from the point of view of the situation in which I found it. Standing on that east peninsula myself in 1927 I had to face this situation; that a quarter-section of land four miles from where the dock would most naturally be placed was owned by a
TMr. J. G. Ross.]
number of private parties. The ownership had not changed for a great many years; the land was entirely oovered with brush; there never bad been any attempt at development of any kind. And, in addition to that, on the original government townsite-the peninsula was surveyed, as I think my hon. friend knows-there were here and there lots-I forget how many, but quite a few-that in some way or other in the past had also passed into the hands of private parties. I had to face the problem of what would result when it was announced that Fort Churchill was to be the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway. I had hoped to get a little support on account of the government having prevented the kind of speculation which undoubtedly would have involved hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadian people in serious loss. Everyone knows what happens in such cases. That quarter-section of land, four miles out, would have been acquired, or some arrangement would have been made, and real estate promoters would have got hold of it; the publicity regarding the project which has developed since the change in port was made would have been used to exploit it; people everywhere would have been encouraged to buy lots at outrageous prices and inevitably would have lost a great deal of money. No one has yet suggested any other means of preventing that sort of thing than the means I have employed on behalf of the government. True, not all of the property is required for strictly railway purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of it? What fraction of it?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer exactly as to the size.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told, practically none.


Charles Avery Dunning: A comparatively small amount I agree. But these people are to be compensated. That, of course, was a question I had to face in reaching the decision and I was advised that there was in Canada an exchequer court whose business it was to decide as between the subject and the crown with respect to values in such cases. Later it developed that legally we had to make an offer in order to start the machinery of expropriation, and our people were further concerned as to what offer should be made. I can well imagine t'he criticism I should have encountered in this house had we made any considerable offer for property so situated- property which was of no use for farming purposes, in fact, of no use for any other

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
purpose than the possible extension of Fort Churchill to a point four miles beyond the docks. I can imagine the criticism that would have been made, and justifiably, if I had offered any large sum. Finally the legal officers of the department discovered that one of the principal owners had died and it was necessary, in probating his will to declare a value for these lands, which really had no intrinsic value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But his death was prior to Churchill being selected.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly; and will my hon. friend contend for a moment that that decision to go to Churchill should have the effect of giving to the owners of private property there an unearned increment in connection with what was brought about thereby?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The exchequer court will settle that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and that is exactly my point. There is just as much argument, from the poinit of view of the ordinary citizen, against any unearned increment going to the speculator in such a case as there is on the other side. I am not going to pretend to settle that; I did not pretend to settle it in the first place. I referred the matter to the exchequer court, and in settling the amount which should be offered, our legal officers proposed the amount stated in the probation of the will plus, I think, 15 per cent for forcible taking. At any rate, $11.75 per lot is the offer which was nfade to start the exchequer court proceedings, and the exchequer court will determine whether or not we should pay more. Of course, we shall have to pay whatever the court awards. But I will put it up to this house: It is not yet too late to surrender to these private parties all the property other than that which is required for the railway purposes, and if this committee of the House of Commons thinks that would be in the best interests of Canada I should like to hear the views of hon. members on the point.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: A gentleman who owned one of these lots, or several of them-I do not know whether acquired from the Beach estate or not-saw me with reference to what should be paid. He received this notice of expropriation but he did not receive any offer of $11.75 per lot. On his behalf I wrote to the department-I regret I cannot recall bis name-and I received a very courteous 78594-197
reply intimating, as I remember, that the matter will be proceeded with immediately in the exchequer court. But I cannot learn that any sum was at any time offered to him.
Mr. DUNN'ING: I can explain that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is that right?


Charles Avery Dunning: It may be in an individual case. We were in this difficulty, that we could not make offers to all, for a large number of them are completely unknown and cannot be found; some are in the United States, and others in England and elsewhere. And so an offer was made to the principal owners, the Beach estate, the largest individual owner. Exchequer court proceedings are being taken in that case in the hope of settling a scale of compensation which can be applied generally in connection with the expropriation.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is it correct that $11.75 is the largest sum offered?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the only sum.


Mr. CAHILL:: Since the minister has
raised the question as to the principle of expropriating property to save people from themselves, I want to voice my objection. I am not familiar with the case except as outlined by the minister to-day, but I do think it is a bad policy for the government to expropriate private property if the principal purpose of expropriating that property is to save citizens from themselves in speculating therein. I think it is uncalled for on the part of either the Dominion or the provincial government to take that attitude.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not want to savepeople from themselves, but I did think it was the duty of the government, in connection with a wholly government enterprise, to endeavour to save people from being exploited unmercifully, not by themselves, but by others, and not in the ordinary speculative sense of market transactions but in connection with something which, judging from my experience in the west, would undoubtedly be the subject of misrepresentation and would undoubtedly be sold at a figure far in excess of actual value.


Frank S. Cahill: I do not think the government can avoid that difficulty arising in any event. At any rate I do think it is bad policy for the government to expropriate property on any pretext other than the necessity of the government for that property. I rise merely to object to the principle involved in that course. If it were left to me, I would simply let the Beach estate retain the property and dispose of it to the best possible



Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
advantage, exercising their own judgment with respect to misrepresentation. No one would be hurt if that were done, whereas under the other procedure it is possible that people may be injured. They will certainly have agreements and it is uncalled for on the part of the government to interfere in the matter at all except for the necessities of the railway, in taking what property is required for railway purposes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am in accord with the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). He says he thinks it is unwise; I think it is unlawful. I do not believe the government can do it under the British North America Act. What is the position? I should like the minister to consider this. He says that on behalf of the government a large extent of property is expropriated so that speculation therein may not take place, although the Dominion may not want it for the actual purposes of the railway. Then what happens? This expropriation may not be resisted by the man who could resist it. He allows the government to hold that property and the government builds the railway. There is settlement there and improvements follow; as suggested, a considerable city grows up. Now the government is taking an enhanced value for property which it could never use in connection with the railway and has a lot of property to which it is not entitled and which belongs to the individual.	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister asked what
suggestions could be made, and later on he inquired whether the committee would have the government abandon the whole project to speculators. I suggest this. Inasmuch as the government is apparently going into a townsite (proposition-because that is what it amounts to; the minister cannot escape it, for there is bound to be a townsite at Churchill -in that case there is going to be a large expenditure. Between the $34,000,000 and another $8,000,000 to finish, there is going to be a townsite.


Charles Avery Dunning: The government is not
going into townsite business. It has turned over to the government of Manitoba all the area which would be used for ordinary town-site purposes^


Henry Herbert Stevens: The government of Manitoba, then; it makes no difference to me which government it is. What I suggest is this. The property expropriated, which was originally taken by persons whose foresight indicated that at some time there was going to be a port there, should 
be taken from them on a share basis; that is, whatever value accrues to that property later on should be shared with these pecuple. I think it is an unfair thing to expropriate that property under the aegis of a railway company or a railway development, or under the power of the crown, and prevent these people from reaping some return on the investment they made ten, twenty or thirty years ago. I think this movement started about twenty-five years ago and was carried on for perhaps ten years. There is objection to wild speculation, but there is no doubt that these people went in there, some of them locating on land and others purchasing on a purely speculative basis. However, they paid their money for the land; the minister has said that in some cases $500 was paid for some of the lots. Why should not these people have an opportunity to get back some of that money?


Charles Avery Dunning: Then my hon. friend
suggests the withdrawal of the expropriation proceedings?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not say that at the
moment. I would not encourage wild speculation, but I think the element of vicious speculation which has been described by the minister will be abundantly provided against by the fact that the government itself, or the railway company, will make announcements from time to time as to what the likely busi- * ness of the port will be. There is not much danger of vicious speculation being carried on if the government does its duty in issuing fair, truthful and accurate reports of this kind. Frankly, I think it is unfair to deprive those people of the opportunity of reaping some return on their investment.


Mr. IRVINE:: I have not been able to
ascertain what the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in this discussion have been objecting to in connection with the townsite at Fort Churchill. So far as I have been able to understand it, their objection has been to some detail in connection with the expropriation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the objection is to
the principle.


William Irvine: Then I wish to congratulate the minister on standing up for that principle.
I do not know whether my agreement with the minister comes about because for once he is right, or whether it is because I am wrong-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are both wrong, as
usual.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


William Irvine: -but at any rate I am bound to express my opinion on this issue. Anyone who knows anything at all of Canada in particular and of the entire North American continent in general knows that the inflated values of land and especially of townsites has been one of the greatest curses in the development of the west. I do not think there is any doubt about that; I do not think even the hon. gentlemen, who are objecting to this principle will take issue with that statement. It is all very well to object to the principle of expropriation in a case of this kind, which I presume has been carried on intelligently by the minister after investigation, but what about the expropriation which takes place after a big boom, when people who have put a lttle money into land find themselves unable to hold the land because of inflated values, and it goes back either to the original owner or to the city. What about that kind of expropriation? It is not called by that name; it is part of the game, part of the gamble, and we forget about it, but after all I presume that is the thing the minister is trying to prevent. I do not know that this ever has been done before.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think it has.


William Irvine: For that very reason I
wish to congratulate the minister on having had the courage to make this one experiment. Heaven knows we have had sufficient experiences of the other kind, and I do not believe anyone wishes more of them. There is not a town in the west that is not an object lesson in bad speculation of this kind, and if anything can be done to prevent that sort of thing in the future development of western Canada, it should be carried out; if this is not the way to do it I want to find out how it can be done. Let us have other constructive suggestions.
I have no quarrel with this expropriation; I think the course taken by the minister was the courageous one, which showed initiative and statesmanship on his part. I hope the venture will be a success; I presume now it will be continued by the provincial government, but I hope they will carry out this idea. If the experiment fails we will know enough not to do it again, but after all this is a comparatively small experiment in itself. If it is successful, as I am sure it will be if it is carried on properly, then we shall know how to prevent speculation in land in future, and that will be a fine thing for everyone concerned.
Everyone knows that the increase in land values is not due to any individual but rather 78594-197^
to the population at large; it is a social value which should not be monopolized by any individual or any concern. By this course which has been followed by the minister the social values which have been created by the people will be left to the people instead of being taken by a few individuals who happened to get in on the ground floor when the developments began.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
support the position taken by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. It may be that the family which went in to Churchill to homestead some years ago have certain claims upon the government; as a matter of fact I think they have, and their rights should be safeguarded. Ostensibly they took up homestead land; possibly they had some ulterior motives, but at least the fend w-as granted to them on the ground that it was agricultural land, which is in an entirely different class from a townsite. I do not see why an individual family should reap all the benefits from a townsite when they secured the property in the first place as agricultural land; I cannot see that they are entitled to all the enhanced value. Further, with regard to those people who made early investments, those were distinctly speculative in character. It might be the part of wisdom and of justice to allow some fair return on investments made by those who went there in the early days and perhaps from the very first advocated this scheme, but if we do that I think we are going as far as we should go.
The principle of excess appropriation has been adopted in a great many countries, including Great Britain, and I am inclined to think that some of us, as I suggested on a previous occasion, from now on will be drawing the policies of Great Britain to the attention of the house much more than has been the case in the past. In connection with the construction of one of those great thoroughfares in the city of London I remember that the principle of excess appropriation was adopted; a great deal of fend on both sides of the highway was taken oveT and the enhanced value of the land on each side was sufficient to pay for the entire improvement. The same thing has been done in other countries. I am not discussing the question of whether or not such action comes directly under the Railway Act, but I do not see any objection to the recognition of the principle, and it is the principle involved to which objection has been taken.
As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has said, the enhanced value of the land is entirely a community created value. The fact

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
that individuals have been able under our laws to appropriate what really 'belongs to the community is no reason why we should continue that policy in future, especially in such a case as this where the government has, by its own action, constructed a road which is definitely responsible for the enhanced value of the land. I hope the minister will see his way clear to carry through his policy in that regard.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no desire to arvoid this discussion, but, of course, the source of the support makes me rather scratch my head and wonder as to whether or not I have made a mistake.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it must convince the minister that he is wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is convinced that I am wrong?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely; I have been convinced from what I have heard.


Charles Avery Dunning: That observation by my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, is more or less of a counterweight to the discomfort which I was feeling a few moments ago at receiving support from the far comer. In this country, matters of equity and justice are decided by our courts, and the exchequer court will decide the equitable treatment to be given the owners of property. I can well imagine what would have happened in the house had I not taken this action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What nonsense.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would have been asked how many friends of the government had lots in Fort Churchill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Four miles away from
the port?


Charles Avery Dunning: That would not matter.


John Gordon Ross: Did not the hon. member see the same thing in Calgary?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Six miles away.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am fairly well satisfied that this will not work out disastrously for any one concerned. I must suggest that the expropriation of a quarter section of land is after all a comparatively small part of the great development of the north country occasioned by the Hudson Bay railway, and I would rather encourage the committee to a discussion of the matter in hand rather than on this one quarter section.


William Alves Boys: I understand the minister
to say that the lands in question had been handed over to the Manitoba government?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not this quarter section.


William Alves Boys: Have any of the lands which
are being expropriated been turned over to the Manitoba government?


Charles Avery Dunning: As I explained a few
moments ago, in the area immediately surrounding that site there were occasional lots which were owned by private parties, and they were expropriated. Some of these may be in the area which has been turned over to the Manitoba government, but the land comprising the Beach homestead is four or five miles away from that point, and it was not thought necessary to turn that land over to the Manitoba government for townsite purposes. In addition, there is the matter of a water supply for the port. This will involve the consideration of the drainage area a few miles out, and it may be considered that the Dominion should retain that particular part of the peninsula, and also of all other crown property. It must be remembered that this quarter section is completely surrounded by property which has never left the ownership of the crown.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Chairman, I do not
wish to delay the passing of this item, but there are certain matters connected with the Hudson Bay railway which are of vital interest to the people of the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba and I think they should be brought to the attention of this committee. The hon. Minister of Railways is to be congratulated upon the energy with which he has pushed forward the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, but he has not yet finished the task which he has undertaken. There are two questions of particular interest to the' province of Manitoba and to the city of Winnipeg which have been the subject of a great deal of discussion during the past year. The first has to do with the freight rates which will prevail on the Hudson Bay railway, so far as Manitoba points are concerned, and the second relates to shorter and more direct railway connection between the city of Winnipeg and the Hudson Bay railway itself. These questions have been widely discussed and have been the subject of two resolutions passed by representative bodies in the province of Manitoba. The first of these resolutions was passed at the city of Winnipeg on February 12 of this year by a representative gathering of business men from all points in Manitoba meeting in conference with the Winnipeg Board of Trade.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
I think there were 12S delegates at that meeting, representing 51 different boards of trade. They passed unanimously the following resolution :
Be it therefore resolved: That in the opinion of this meeting it is Manitoba's just right that it should be maintained in equally as good relative position in respect to railway facilities and rates for the marketing of its produce, both crops and live stock, as well as its products of the mines, lakes and forests, as it heretofore enjoyed.
And that in any construction of new routes or rearrangement of traffic or rates that this position be provided for either by the construction of such lines of railway as may be necessary to effect that result which the Union of Boards of Trade may endorse or by the equalization of rates as will compensate for any altered position in which the people of Manitoba as a whole may be placed in the shipping of their products by reason of. newly constructed lines in adjoining provinces or exchange of commerce between the various parts of the province.
And that for the purpose of insuring such protection that the parliament of Canada and the various ministers thereof as well as the Board of Railway Commissioners be memorialized on behalf of the residents of the province setting forth fully their case in this respect.
On April 9, of this year the second resolution was passed, by the legislature of the province of Manitoba as follows:
1.	Whereas there is a need for a more direct railway connection between the agricultural areas and distributing and manufacturing centres of the province of Manitoba upon the one hand and the northern natural resources and the Hudson bay seaports of the said province, upon the other for the purpose of improving and facilitating trade; of participating in the import and export trade through the Hudson bay, and developing the said northern natural resources.
Therefore, be it resolved, that this house hereby approves of the action of the Hon. Charles Dunning, Minister of Railways in the federal government, in authorizing the compilation and coordination of all existing data as to the alternative routes for such more direct railway connection, with a view to ascertaining which route or routes is the most suitable.
2.	That this house hereby respectfully urges that such compilation and coordination be carried forward without interruption or delay until completion, and that, as soon as possible thereafter, a decision be reached as to the most suitable route or routes over which to construct the aforesaid direct railway connection, and that the work on such direct railway connection be forthwith commenced and carried forward to completion with all dispatch.
3.	That this house is of the opinion that, pending the completion of such direct railway connection, the railway rates between the shipping points on the existing lines of. railroad in southern and western parts of the province, upon the one hand, and the shipping points on the Hudson bay and Flin Flon railways, upon the other, should be adjusted, having regard:
Firstly-To the railway rates which would or could prevail, upon a mileage basis as if the projected direct railway connection so decided upon, as aforesaid, were actually completed and in operation.
Secondly-To the actual and potential competition by water haul over Manitoba's great lakes and the Red, Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers.
Thirdly-To the favourable geographical position of southern and western Manitoba, with respect to northern Manitoba and the Hudson bay.
Fourthly-To the fact that northern Manitoba is, or should be, tributary to the province of Manitoba, on at least as favourable terms as any other province, in view of the expenditures, undertakings and administrative responsibilities of the government of Manitoba in the development of northern Manitoba.
And that, in the opinion of this house, eventually by such more direct railway connection, and in the interim by such rate adjustments, effect should be given to Manitoba's just right to be maintained in equally as good a relative position as regards railway facilities and rates upon freight moving into and out of northern Manitoba, as Manitoba has enjoyed until the date hereof.
I think this second resolution may be considered as being the opinion of the people of Manitoba as expressed by their elected representatives. I do not need to argue at any great length the benefits which would accrue to the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba through shorter and more direct railway connection between the city of Winnipeg and the Hudson bay railway. These benefits are obvious. There have been four proposals put forward. The first is that a cut-off be constructed from Mafeking to The Pas; the second is that the present Canadian National Railway line east of lake Manitoba be extended from Gypsnmville to the Hudson Bay railway; the third is that a water and rail route should 'be established from Winnipeg by way of the Red river, lake Winnipeg, the Nelson river, and then by rail from a point on the Nelson river to connect with the Hudson Bay railway; and the fourth is that a railway line be constructed east of lake Winnipeg to connect with the Hudson Bay Railway.
I do not propose to enter into any prolonged discussion as to the relative merits of these various proposals. I realize, of course, that a great deal of study must be undertaken with respect to the various proposals that have been brought forward, but there are certain facts which, I think, should be placed before the committee in order that it may understand clearly the importance of this question of shorter, more direct railway connection between Winnipeg and the Hudson Bay railway. The present distance between Winnipeg and Fort Churchill by rail is approximately 960 miles. The construction of the Mafeking cut-off would reduce that by a comparatively short distance, I think about seventy miles, but the extension of the line from Gypsumville to the
310S

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Hudson Bay railway would reduce the railway distance by more than 200 miles, and the establishment of the rail and water route or the construction of the road east of lake Winnipeg would shorten the railway distance by more than 330 miles, or more than one-third of the present distance. I do not wish to delay the passing of this item, but we feel in Manitoba that we are entitled to share to as full a degree as possible the success which, we	are	confidence,	will attend	thecompletion of the Hudson Bay railway, and that we are entitled to be placed upon an equality with our sister province to the west in the enjoyment of the benefits that will follow from	the	completion	of this new	outlet to the	sea.	I should	like to ask	thehon. Minister of Railways	to state to	the
committee and to the country at large what consideration has been given by the government to the proposals that have been put forward, and what action will be taken with regard to them.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is very difficult to
review, without going into great detail, the ground' that has been traversed by my hon. friend. Broadly speaking, it is a question of adjusting the present railway systems of the west so as to enable the Hudson Bay outlet to be reached most economically by all parts of the area	which	it might	reasonably beexpected	to	serve.	I regard	this not as a
Manitoba question, or a Saskatchewan question, or an Alberta question, but rather as one relating to the railway economics of that part of the country.
As is well known by members of the committee, the Canadian National branch line program	of	1927	and also	of 1929 gaveevidence	of	the	desire of	the Canadian
National to provide such links as would make possible the fullest utilization of the Hudson Bay railway. But I am free to say that the work of the Canadian National along that line so far has been with regard to the outward-bound shipment of grain and other western produce rather than with regard to what may be termed inbound traffic which, of course, is as yet uncertain in volume. That must be worked out. I have every faith that such traffic will exist, but as to its movement, a great deal depends upon what ocean rates may be established after the port is opened.
With regard to the specific question to which my hon. friend directs attention, that is a more direct route from the city of Winnipeg to the north, it is difficult to give a definite answer as to which would be the more practical solution which should be embarked upon. Iu fact, I believe I am cor-

rect in saying that those in Manitoba who have given the question painstaking and careful study, as indicated by my hon. friend, are not themselves absolutely agreed upon any particular solution of their northern outlet problem. I think the best course to follow in connection with the matter is to investigate carefully the practicability of the various proposals advanced and any others which may develop out of them in order that we may be sure that the expenditures we are. proposing to the house are wise. My hon. friend will surely not expect me to say anything regarding the rate aspect of the resolutions which he read. The matter of railway rates is, of course, one for the railway commission to deal with and I shall not, at the moment at any rate, attempt to discuss that phase of the question.


Mr. FORKE:: That is the important part.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Will the hon. minister
be good enough to undertake on behalf of the government that the department will investigate as fully as it lies within the power of the department to do, the feasibility of the various proposals for shorter and more direct railway connection that have been advanced?


Charles Avery Dunning: Some weeks ago, as a
result of representations of the character to which my hon. friend refers, I gave instructions to the deputy minister that that should be done. I do not want to be bound to a particular day or hour at which it will be completed because the department has very many enterprises and investigations going on, but I can assure my bon. friend that it is intended to investigate the whole matter of possible northern routes from Winnipeg.


Mr. WARD:: This year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Please do not ask me to bind myself to completing it this year.


William John Ward: No, but will the survey be
made this year?


Charles Avery Dunning: At least a start will be
made this year. The field of investigation is much larger than some people think, but I can assure my hon. friends it will be undertaken as soon as possible. I would prefer not to be bound to a definite promise as to time because that is rather uncertain.


William John Ward: But some progress will be
made this year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I can guarantee that some progress will be made this year.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Quite a bit of progress?

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the Hudson Bay townsite, I find that the privy council dealt with a couple of the clauses that we have discussed, in the Boland case in 1926. When I heard the hon. member for Pontiac make the observation that he did, coupled with the speech of the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin, I realized that we were getting into dangerous waters. To assert that a minister of the crown, of his own mere motion, can file an expropriation plan and thereby deprive a citizen of this country of his property, and thereafter fix a price for it based upon any assumption that is thought desirable is at variance with all the principles that govern our law, and when the hon. gentleman cheered so loudly about unearned increment from property, certainly it was not their property that was being taken.


An hon. MEMBER:: Both of them have
gone out now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Having saved the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You may be sure that it is a dangerous principle to lay down that the decision of the minister shall not be called in question except by some person acting for him or for the crown. He can go to work and expropriate property in the name of the crown and fix compensation on the basis of what somebody else fixes for probate purposes. That is all wrong. When you talk of unearned increment, that unearned increment belongs to the provincial government, not to this government. What about the unearned increment of the Chicago man who bought, a lot in good faith for 1600 many years ago? The minister has said that he himself is the saviour of the country; he is saving it from speculation.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, from exploitation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right. He comes
down from Fort Churchill and gives an interview to the press of what he has done and makes a hero of himself as the great saviour of his country from exploitation. Is he going to save from exploitation every town-site on this railroad or not? Is he going to save from exploitation every townsite on the Canadian National? If he is going to do that on the Canadian National, is he going to do the same thing in respect to the Canadian Pacific? Is he going to save every community from exploitation? Here was a quarter-section of land four miles from the docks, and the minister, when he is nailed down, says that practically no portion of it is required for railway purposes. He does not take it for the railway; he expropriates it for the crown, and the section says that that
proceeding canniot be called in question except by the minister or some person acting for him or for the crown. In the Boland case the railway desired to expropriate a piece of property and the first judge yielded to the contention that they had the same powers that the crown had and so, as the railway wanted the land, it could be taken. The case was appealed to the appellate division in Ontario, and Lord Dunedin, when the case was decided in the privy council, where the judgment was reversed, said:
It is not a conclusion to be easily reached that they should act in such a manner with all the powers of an autocratic despot.
Those are words that every thoughtful man should ponder. We have now diplomatic relations with the United States. Since this parliament began, the rights of an American citizen were alleged to have been infringed in this country. He makes representations to Washington, and Washington makes representations to our diplomatic representative as to what is to be done. In this case we have a man in Chicago buying in good faith a lot in Fort Churchill for $600. According to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and the hon. member for Winnipeg, what is wanted is some red-blooded, virile, strong minister who will say, "I will save Canada from exploitation. I will take this man's property and offer him $11.75 for it." Does not that come within the language of Lord Dunedin. I say that you cannot reach a conclusion favourable to the minister except by assuming that the minister is to act with all the powers of an autocratic despot. That is not the function of the Minister of Railways in Canada. There are ministers who think it is, not necessarily the Minister of Railways. When you talk of unearned increment, whom are you taking it away from? A man puts $600 into a lot, and you offer him $11.75 and say that the Dominion can take the difference between the $600, and the interest on it for those years, and $11.75, although there is a commandment that says "Thou shalt not steal."


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows how unfair that is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not unfair.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend said
"Thou shalt not steal." He insinuates that the government is stealing this property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What else is it? According to Lord Dunedin-


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not care what Lord Dunedin or any other lord said in regard to

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
that. It is mot stealing. The government of Canada is taking something which had no value whatever save as the government of Canada gave it value-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman sit down?


Charles Avery Dunning: -and will pay for it whatever the court decides.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman once more must remember that this is not the Saskatchewan legislature.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the floor.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the usual cry. What is it now?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will state the point of order as soon as my hon. friend takes his seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the point of order?


Charles Avery Dunning: The point of order is this, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend has cast reflections on the conduct of another legislative body in this country, as he frequently does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not a question of order.


Charles Avery Dunning: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule on the point of order, and while I am on my feet I will raise another point of order, as to whether it is in order by inference to accuse the government of Canada of stealing.
Mr. BENNETT. Stealing. The point of order, Mr. Chairman, was that references were made to another legislature. I said, "This is not the Saskatchewan legislature." That is all. The hon. member raised a second point of order. He says: By inference I accuse the government of stealing. I made no such observation. I said that there was a declaration, "Thou shalt not steal" and that still stands. The hon. gentleman says that he cares not what Lord Dunedin or any other lord says. The Lord I had reference to was the Lord of all -creation, and I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman's statement as to his freedom in regard even to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: This surely cannot be allowed, Mr. Chairman. I aSk the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement. He stated that I had no regard for the Lord of creation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said that he did not care what Lord Dunedin or any other lord said, and I said that it was the Lord of all creation that made the statement I was referring to.


Mr. POULIOT:: Our Lord said: You shall love each other.
The 'CHAIRMAN: I heard the hon. gentleman's remarks with respect to another legislative body, but I did not take it that there was anything derogatory to that other body in his references. With respect to the other matter, I fail to see that there is a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was observing, Mr. Chairman, that it is not right to say the difference -between $11.75 and $600 should be taken by anybody, whether at be the collective power of the state or somebody else. It is not right to say that the aro-wn, unless it requires it for the overwhelming interest of the -country, should take that property away and say, we will give you $11.75. We have a certain principle in connection with these matters. The principle is that a man who has the right of possession and of title to a property -cannot have it taken away from him lightly unless it is required for the overwhelming interest of the state. And in this instance the crown-not the railway, mark you, -but the crown-expropriates this property, and tenders the man who paid $600 for it, $11.75. Then the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) says the minister is to be congratulated because he expropriated another man's property, not for the railway but to prevent exploitation. I submit to this committee and to this country that the minister has undertaken a responsibility which cannot be narrowed down to Fort Churchill; he must make it apply to every part of Canada through which this system carries its ramifications -and lines. That is a position which he cannot maintain. If we are to be the guardians of the people of the country with respect to their speculations and their purchases, well and good, let us say so. We have in British law this principle running down for a thousand years, that when a man buys property and pays for it and gets title to it, it cannot 'be taken away from him by compulsory proceedings unless the interests of the state are paramount to the private interests. We hear about the question of unearned increment. It might be well to remember the legislation passed in Great Britain by the Right Hon. Mr. Lloyd George in connection with that very thing, and yet we lived to see the day when it was quietly repealed.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Charles Avery Dunning: I have only a little to
say.	I sometimes envy the ability that
makes it possible to take half a truth and twist it around with -most dexterous language into something which is entirely untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is strictly out of
order.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my friend cares to
raise a point of order I will argue it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all. The great
parliamentary experience of the hon. gentleman Should be a guide to his conscience.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend finds
the cap fits him I hope he will wear it. I made no reference to my hon. friend, and I am very glad that he confirms what I said. The facts are what count, and the facts are simple. Here was a decision to be made by a government-it could not be made otherwise-as to the change of location of the port and of the terminal of the railway. Here was certain property, the greater part of it owned by the crown, a small part owned by a large number of private individuals, the majority of whom had ceased to have any hope of getting anything out of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But whose judgment was
now being vindicated.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps that is so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps it is so.


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of fact if
those people had any complaint it should be directed against the government which changed the port from Churchill to Nelson in the first place, because the judgment of the individuals who acquired that property was exercised before the original contemplation of Churchill as the port, and government action took the port away from Churchill completely, and not action by this government. However, this situation existed, as I said a while ago. It had to be faced; decision had to be made. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition recited the circumstances correctly up to a certain point, and there he stopped. He says the minister autocratically -he uses the language of Lord Dunedin, or some other lord, but I would like to read the whole of the judgment before I would accept that part of it as being the complete expression of Lord Dunedin's opinion; that would only be fair. And then my hon. friend says there is a law, " thou shalt not steal," with the plain inference that the government was stealing this property from those people. That was the clear insinuation of my hon. friend. After all, what is the fact? The government says it was in the best interests of
this country, having regard to all the peculiar circumstances surrounding Fort Churchill, for the state to take this land. And there is a statute which my hon. friend read, the Expropriation Act, which enables a minister of the crown	to file expropriation plans. Those plans were filed. Then my hon. friend stops and says dramatically, " thou shalt not steal." He knows perfectly well that no stealing is either intended or possible. The Exchequer Court Act was passed by this parliament. Why? To insure that in cases where the government of the day decided in its wisdom, or lack of it, that a certain piece of property was required for governmental purposes, machinery should be available by which the rights of the subject could be protected. My hon. friend says,
" thou shall not steal." Does he attach any importance whatever to the fact that there is an exchequer court in Canada, one of the high courts of this country, set up specifically for the purpose of insuring that nothing shall be unjustly taken from the subject by the crown? The minister did not take this property, the government did not take it, without compensation. The government took it subject to the provisions of the Expropriation Act and subject to the decision of the Exchequer Court of Canada as to the value of the property, which, when determined, will \ be paid to the owners thereof.
In fact most of the discussion this afternoon on this matter, Mr. Chairman, is out of order, because the subject matter of the value of this property is now under adjudication by one of the high courts of this Dominion. Nothing that we say here should affect, at any rate, the judgment to be rendered by that court.. I know that the exchequer court will not, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition intimated, steal this property or allow the crown to steal it from the people who own it. If it were possible for the government to steal the property of any individual I should be one of the first to cooperate with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in setting up machinery to prevent it. Neither the crown nor anyone else has the right to steal. But " stealing " is an entirely wrong word to use in connection with a transaction of this kind.
I do not know that we can, with advantage, further discuss the matter. It is before the court. There is one way in which it could be dealt with here, and that is by a motion, on the part of members who feel as strongly as the leader of the opposition does that this policy is a wrong policy, that the proceedings for the expropriation of the privately-owned property on the peninsula at Fort Churchill

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
should be withdrawn. That will require an expression of opinion from this house as to whether or not the government took the proper course in what it did on that occasion. The house cannot settle the value to be paid for the property; that is a matter for the exchequer court. But this house can pass very easily upon the principle as to whether . or not, having regard to the unique circumstances, the proper policy was pursued.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister has
perhaps overlooked one fact. It was to that fact my criticism was directed. Section 1 of the subsection under which he acts reads as follows:
In all cases, when any such plan and description purporting to be signed by the deputy of the minister, or by the secretary of the department, or by the superintendent of the public work, or by an engineer of the department, or by a land surveyor duly licensed as aforesaid, is deposited of record as aforesaid, the same shall be deemed and taken to have been deposited by the direction and authority of the minister, and as indicating that in his judgment the land therein described is necessary for the purposes of the public work; and the said plan and description shall not be called in question except by the minister, or by some person for him or for the crown.
That is the section,, and I hope the minister gets the point of my criticism, which is also the point of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). It is this: that the right to take the lands required for any public work shall not be called in question, except as herein provided. And the minister distinctly said that he took the land to prevent exploitation. That is my criticism. But let me read the rest of the clause:
And tile said plan and description shall not be called in question except by the minister or by some person acting for him or for the crown.
In other words, the question whether or not this land was required for a public work is a question which the unfortunate persons who bought the land may not litigate, inasmuch as it can be litigated only if the minister calls it in question. That was really the point of my criticism, with respect to which I made the observation I did. I trust the minister realizes what is at issue. It is not a question of exploitation. The minister himself this afternoon distinctly said that most of the land was not required for public work.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not for railway purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is the only reason for which he could take it.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I will discuss that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the statute so declares.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend confuses


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said he
wanted to prevent exploitation. That being so, and the section being as it is, I say that the lands in question do not come within the section; and these people have property taken away from them for, mark you, a consideration that may or may not be adequate. But that was not the issue. The minister will not admit that it is not required for public work, and no question can be raised except by himself or by some other person acting for the orown.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is confusing two statements I made, or ignoring a part of one or the other. The statute under which the expropriation was made is just what he is quoting-necessary for a public work. This afternoon I was asked the question: Is this required for railway purposes? I said, no, beyond a certain small portion of it which the railway or part of its yards might conceivably require. May I point out to my hon. friend that no expropriation at Churchill could be completely covered by the term railway expropriation. Docks and other works connected with the port are distinctly public works and not railway works.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this required for a
public work?


Charles Avery Dunning: At the time the expropriation was contemplated a decision had to be made immediately.	'


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has to be taken
by the Minister of Public Works.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. My hon. friend
knows perfectly well that under that section the minister acted within his powers, and if the minister did not he will be told in court very plainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; they cannot question his judgment.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is surely
evading the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Here are the words: -the same shall be deemed and taken to have been deposited by the direction and authority of the minister, and as indicating that in his judgment the land therein described is necessary for the purposes of the public work;

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Charles Avery Dunning: I have allowed nay hon. friend to interrupt me. Now I hope he will allow me to complete the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me; the minister, raised the question.


Charles Avery Dunning: When I was at Churchill I was compelled to indicate my views to the government in order that government action might be taken, and an immediate decision was necessary, a decision in advance of the determination of detailed plans of all! that would be involved in the Fort Churchill works, harbour, railway and everything else. As a matter of fact, the chief engineer tells me now that this area will quite probably be required for water supply purposes for the town and works on the east peninsula. I know that portion of it will certainly be required for railway purposes. The question I was asked this afternoon was in relation to railway purposes, and I told my hon friend frankly that we did not know yet how much land in the vicinity of Churchill would be required for bona fide port development purposes. Particularly is that true with respect to areas containing gravel, a large quantity of which will be required in connection with concrete works. At the time., the expropriation was filed there was no doubt at all as to the possible need of this particular quarter-section for bona fide public work development at the port, either in connection with the railway or in connection with the works themselves.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then it was not taken to prevent exploitation?
. Mr. DUNNING: That was a very important factor in my mind in recommending the course to be followed-undoubtedly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he has no right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which is it?


Mr. BIRD:: I wish to make some remarks with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr Thorson). I had not intended to speak, but the remarks made by the minister in reply to the hon. memlber for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) raised a doubt in my mind as to the appraisal of the situation by the minister. I should like to impress upon him that the public of Manitoba are very much exercised hbout this matter, and I should not like the minister or the house to think that this is a question of connecting Churchill with Winnipeg. It is a broader question than that; it affects the connecting of southern Manitoba with northern Manitoba. Unfortunately nature has
divided Manitoba in a diagonal fashion by the great lakes of Manitoba, an obstruction which has not been felt in years gone by. for the reason, as everyone knows, that northern Manitoba was but a hazy possibility until two or three years ago. But with development in mining north of The Pas, and with the prospective seaport at Churchill, northern Manitoba has become the land of hope and glory for southern Manitoba, and we are all very much disturbed in our minds as to the immediate future.
Manitoba, as all hon. members know, is very restricted in an agricultural sense. We have pretty well reached the extent of development agriculturally, and the opening up of the northern part of the province in the last few years has created a new spirit throughout Manitoba. But we find that there is just a possibility of this prospect vanishing from before our eyes, because we have no railway connection whatsoever between north and south. The great lakes, as I say, cut our province practically in two.
I do not think there is any public question so vital to Manitobans at the present time as this one. The hon. member for Dauphin will agree with me that there is no subject on which it is easier to call together a public meeting than this one; irrespective of party, we are all deeply concerned and interested. I should not like, therefore, to have the impression go abroad, from what the minister said in reply to the hon. member for Dauphin, that he is not thoroughly apprised of the state of public opinion in that province. I do not think he meant it in that way, but it seems to me that he conceived there was no haste, that there was considerable time in which to discuss the matter, and that no decisive step was necessary this year. If that is so, the minister ought to revise his attitude. I believe that public opinion is so unanimous in Manitoba and so much in earnest that the minister ought to pay very close attention to this matter and do something substantial this year. An investigation ought to be set on foot. I think the investigation could be easily finished this year so that the question of some concrete scheme might be faced next year, and I do not think the problem is so very big.
I am sorry these alternative schemes mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre have entered into the question and created some difficulty. I do not think the combined water and rail route should be considered at all; I think it is one of those fanciful propositions which really might be swept aside at once. As for the

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Gypsumville proposition, that has considerable merit, but the minister will admit that it means the construction of an entirely new Hudson Bay railway, a proposition which I think parliament will not be likely to consider for some years. However, I would remind the minister that the original Hudson Bay railway, which runs through the length and breadth of old Manitoba, is still in existence and that with very little adaptation, very little straightening out and the addition of cut-offs it could be made a very effective connection between northern and southern Manitoba. It would have advantages to which the other routes cannot lay claim at all. The old Canadian Northern runs diagonally across Manitoba to the west of the lakes and connects up the most fertile, productive and picturesque parts of that province. In addition to that, there is almost a direct connection between Winnipeg and The Pas which, as far as I can see, for all future time will be the basis for the great mining development in that country.
_ I would not like the minister to think this is simply a matter of connecting Port Churchill and Winnipeg; in its broader aspect it is a question of provincial patriotism. We feel that we do not want to be deprived of the advantages which for all these years we have imagined would be ours. It would be strange irony if the province which has been foremost in advocating the Hudson Bay railway should be finally deprived of those advantages, which certainly will be the case if within the next few years some way is not found to connect us up more directly with the Hudson Bay Railway and with the other developments in that northern country. I am afraid all the forecasts made during my advocacy of the Hudson Bay railway in this house in years gone by will fall short of fulfilment if we do not very shortly get some connection with the road.
As I have already said, I do not want to leave with the minister the impression that I think he is treating this matter too lightly, but his rather offhand reply to the hon. member for Dauphin made me feel that his attitude would create a great deal of dissatisfaction back home in Manitoba.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry if the brevity of my replies to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Dauphin gave the impression of offhandedness. I can assure my hon. friend that continuous representations in connection with these matters have been made to me during the last several months, especially by the hon. members from Manitoba, and I had no intention of conveying the idea that I did not 
regard the whole matter as one of very serious importance. I certainly do so regard it. If it were as simple from the point of view of the people of Manitoba generally as it is to my hon. friend from Nelson, who would build a connection from Mafeking to The Pas as the most satisfactory solution, the proposition would not be so difficult, but unfortunately the people of Manitoba do not agree that that is a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I am not prepared to say, and no one else is prepared to say, what is the best thing to do having regard to the situation which has developed; I will go further and say that none of us will be able correctly to estimate what is best until we know more about the volume of inbound traffic via the bay and the ocean rates which will prevail. By that I do not mean that there should be any delay in tackling this problem, but I do say that this one uncertain factor is of very considerable importance in connection with its solution.
If I had desired to be so offhand as my hon. friend feared I was, I might easily have said that this was a proper problem for the management of the Canadian National Railways. I did not do so because of a recognition on my part and on the part of the government that the Hudson bay policy is a matter of government policy rather than of Canadian National Railway policy, although it must be remembered that all the connections at every point south of The Pas are Canadian National connections, and I am not sure that as a parliament we can undertake the building of another Hudson Bay railway down into the southern area, as my hon. friend indicated.
I think he said that he doubted whether it would be possible to bring the government portion of the Hudson Bay road, as distinct from the Canadian National portion, south to Winnipeg. I am inclined to agree that before embarking on any project of that kind the government would have to consider very seriously many different aspects of the question. I did not tell my hon. friend from Dauphin to go to the Canadian National management, as I would have done in connection with an ordinary branch line, for the reason I have indicated, because at present this is a matter of government policy. Because of that fact I am prepared from a departmental point of view to investigate all these possible solutions and I will give the assurance that this investigation will be undertaken just as soon as we can organize for it. It was only when my hon. friend from Dauphin tried, with very good grace, to pin me down to a definite time for completing

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
that investigation that I refused to be bound, and I think the house will appreciate that it is very difficult for me to be definite in that regard, bearing in mind the volume of work on hand in the department in connection with the Hudson Bay railway and many other great undertakings in various parts of the country.


Mr. CLARK:: I should like to ask the minister who lets the contracts for the construction of either the railway or the terminals?


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with the
railway the Canadian National acts as agent for the minister and handles the contracts just as its own contracts are handled. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre obtained information in the special committee on railways and shipping with regard to the contracts let by the Canadian National in that regard. With respect to the port itself no contracts have been let; the work is being done and has been done by the forces of the department up to the present.


John Arthur Clark: That is, the work on the
terminals is being done by day labour and there is no cost plus contract at all?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no contract.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister say what
proportion of the total number of contracts for the construction of the line was let on a cost plus basis?


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend is
dealing with new construction, which of course is all with which I have had anything to do, no portion of the work has been done on a cost plus basis.


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister formally
approve the contracts negotiated by the Canadian National Railways before they become effective ?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: And the minister states that there have been no contracts of any kind at all relating to the Hudson Bay railway which have been let on a cost plus basis?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know of any
and I think that was the answer which was given, after investigation, to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), who asked a question relating to the matter. These answers are a matter of record in the proceedings of the special committee.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: It is in the evidence.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is in the evidence, yes. The following question was asked:
Wliat portion of the work is being done by day labour or what portion on a cost-plus basis, and if so, by whom is such work being done?
The answer given was as follows:
The culverts, the telegraph lines, the track laying, the ballasting, and rehabilitation is being done by the Canadian National Railway forces, and no portion of the work is let on a cost-plus basis.


John Arthur Clark: That would mean it is being done by day labour?


Charles Avery Dunning: By day labour.


John Arthur Clark: Practically all the construction, including the terminals is being done by day labour?


Charles Avery Dunning: The only exception is the grading on the new portion of the line. My hon. friend will find that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre asked all these questions.


John Arthur Clark: The minister is making a too frequent reference to what was brought out in the committee. If the house has to accept what was brought out in a special committee, we will not get very far. Personally, I have not "had the time to read the evidence given befose the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will ask the question I will answer it, even though it means that it is being answered for a second time.


John Arthur Clark: If it has been answered already in this house then the minister is justified in his attitude.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought my hon.
friend would be satisfied to know where it could be found.


John Arthur Clark: I thought the hon. minister
was complaining that I am going over ground which has been already covered before a small committee of eight members; if that is going to be his attitude, then I shall certainly be an objector to any such committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend does not understand me as making that complaint. I was merely indicating to him where he could conveniently find the information about which he was inquiring. If he desires me to repeat that information I shall be happy to do so, but it is already printed in the evidence. If my hon. friend will repeat his question I will be glad to answer it.


John Arthur Clark: If the minister will give me the reference in the evidence where the

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
answers can be found, that might hasten matters. I would like to know what portion of last year's vote was spent in contracts and what portion was spent on day labour.


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to answer that question intelligently it will be necessary to separate the two pieces of work, the railway and the port. In connection with the railway, the grading work was the subject of tender. Seven tenders were received and the lowest tenderer received the contract for the work at the price of $1,270,100. With respect to all the other work .on the railway it was done entirely by Canadian National forces on a day labour basis in the same way as the Canadian National carry out similar work for themselves. The department audits the day labour costs of the Canadian National on the work and the department pays the amount necessary to meet the accounts of the Canadian National in that regard.


John Arthur Clark: Is it not a new departure for a railway company to construct its line by day labour? Has it not always been recognized as being the best practice to call for tenders for certain sections of the line and let the contracts to the lowest responsible bidders?


Charles Avery Dunning: That fs true with respect to grading, and that is being done by the Canadian National at the present time in connection with all their work. The balance of the work such as ballasting, track laying, small bridges, culverts and telegraph lines is all done by Canadian National forces on a day labour basis. I am not sure of the practice of other roads, but I believe it is the same. For instance, large steel bridges would be matters of contract as my hon. friend can well understand that the day labour force of the railway would not be equipped to do work such as that. The practice followed here is the practice which has been followed by the Canadian National for some years in connection with their work, and it has-been found to be satisfactory in operation.


John Arthur Clark: I assume that engineers' estimates are given for particular sections of the line before the work is commenced. Will the minister state whether or not those estimates have been exceeded, and if so, in what instances and by how much?


Charles Avery Dunning: In answering my hon.
friend's question, we have to take into account the character of a large portion of this work. Some 332 -miles of the railway were, as my hon. friend knows, built a considerable number of years ago and were allowed to fall into

very bad disrepair. That matter was alt threshed out in the house during each of the last two sessions, and to estimate accurately what would be required to rehabilitate the old track, a large portion of which was not and could not be used for many years, was a matter of some difficulty. I do not think I have available the original estimate of the cost of rehabilitation which is, of course, the major factor. I can give the estimate of the cost of completion of the line from the Limestone river to Churchill, because that is all new work. Up to date I believe I am correct in stating that it is reasonably close to the estimate. Of course the work is in process of being carried out and it is impossible to give final figures in connection with that part of the work which is new work, that is the only new work on the railway.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister give the
committee, then, the original estimate for the rehabilitation of the line and the actual cost?


Charles Avery Dunning: The rehabilitation is not yet completed, but I will give such information as I can.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister any information to indicate whether or not the estimates of the engineers are being exceeded?


Charles Avery Dunning: The original estimate is
likely to be exceeded with respect to the rehabilitation of the old line to mile 332. That statement is subject to the qualification that it dtepends upon what may happen with respect to subsequent settlement of embankments where the later are founded on frozen material which may disintegrate over a period of years. Then we have on the new portion of the line a problem which is also a qualification, namely, the possible cost of dealing with snow trouble a-cross thirty-odd miles of open tundra. That is, there are thirty-odd miles of completely open country which, in those latitudes, produces a special snow problem that may add somewhat to the cost. There is a third qualification applying to the old line, namely, a possible cost of putting gravel ballast between mile 100 and mile 356, rather than leaving the present sand ballast, because in that area there is a stretch of the line which does not happen to contain locally adjacent ballast pits, and so far the best locally available material, pretty sandy in character, has been used. If the order is given to use gravel ballast drawn from considerable distances, that will be a qualification tending to increase the expenditure.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister an approximate estimate of the amount by which the original estimate of the engineers will be exceeded? There must be some report on that.


Charles Avery Dunning: As nearly as I can gather from the reports of the Canadian National engineers with respect to the matter, the original estimated cost to build the line from mile 356 to Churchill, that is what I call the new railway, was $7,543,000. It is not expected that that item will be exceeded save as affected by the qualification which I mentioned a few moments ago. With respect to the rehabilitation, the figures I have are of an inclusive character, including both the old line and the new, and I am trying to separate them as I go along, although it is somewhat difficult to do so. The present estimate of $29,300,000 to rehabilitate and also to complete the line to Churchill includes original cost figures, the cost of building the line originally. There is an estimated expenditure, from April 1, 1926, of $13,973,000, indicating an additional cost of $2,700,000 against the estimate for the lower standard, or about $1,362,000 greater than the estimated cost for the higher standard.


John Arthur Clark: I must confess that I am completely in the dark. I asked the minister whether he 'had an estimate of how much it would cost to rehabilitate the line. Let us fix that matter now. That was not my whole question. I asked him how much the original estimate for the rehabilitation of the line would be exceeded. I suggested to him that he must have from the engineers some statement as to the approximate amount by which the original estimate would be exceeded. I am now suggesting that we start at the beginning. Will the minister state what was the engineers' original estimate of cost for the rehabilitation of the line?


Charles Avery Dunning: There were a number of qualifications, as my hon. friend will remember, to engineers' estimating upon such an, uncertain proposition as rehabilitation. I am now having the black records searched to see whether we have any definite estimates from any engineers at any time as to what it would cost to rehabilitate the old line. My hon. friend will understand there were no standards whatever to apply to such a job. In some cases the cost was greater than it would have been to build an entirely new line. Then there would be stretches that would not be so bad. The best information I can give to my hon. friend is in this form.
This is an old estimate by the Canadian National as to what might be required:
IA.	Branch line standard rehabilitation from LePas to mile 332, $3,000,000.
IB.	Better standard and facilities for heavier traffic Le Pas to mile 332, $4,373,000.
The total estimated cost, inclusive of the line to Churchill-that is the awkiward feature because new line and rehabilitated line are used everywhere in the figures I have before me-is $12,611,000.
We are not in a position to say that that cost is being exceeded, until we get further along with the work but from the reports of cost we anticipate that difficulties of the kind that I referred to a little while ago, will develop to a point which may involve higher cost on the rehabilitated portion of the line than the estimate.
It appeans, however, at the present time that the new line from mile 356 to Churchill may be expected to be completed reasonably within the figure I gave of $7,543,000. As I pointed out, our experience in those northern latitudes is that it is not possible to say with certainty when you finish a line, that it is really finished; that is, troubles are likely to develop in subsequent years and to require to be adjusted by capital expenditures.


John Arthur Clark: Apparently the major portion of this work consists of rehabilitating the line. The minister is unaJhle to tell the committee what was the original estimate for the rehabilitation of that line?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the figure I gave.


John Arthur Clark: I want to be sure about this. I understood the minister to say that the cost of rehabilitation and of building a new line to Churchill was $12,600,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is rehabilitation and constructing a new line.


John Arthur Clark: Exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of which $4,373,000 was the original estimate for rehabilitation.


John Arthur Clark: Plus $3,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; that $3,000,000 was for another standard, a lower standard. If one standard were adopted, the cost would be $3,000,000. If another standard were adopted, the cost would be $4,373,000. The question is not one of adding the two amounts together.


John Arthur Clark: Then the estimated cost of rehabilitation is $4,373,000 on one 'basis and $3,000,000 on another. Which basis was adopted?


Charles Avery Dunning: The higher.
31 IS

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


John Arthur Clark: What has been the cost to date?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is asking a type of question for which it is rather hard to get the answer out of information I have, which necessarily relates to the whole job, not merely to the part of it which goes to mile 332 and is rehabilitation, but I will try to get the information my hon. friend wants.


John Arthur Clark: Are the accounts not kept so that one can pick out the portion that relates to rehabilitation and that which relates to any ten-mile section of the road?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the accounts
are so kept, but I would ask my hon. friend not to expect me to bring all the accounts of the department here. I will get the information and I hope I may be able to extract it from the summaries which I have. But I would point out to my hon. friend that in apite of my bringing somewhat voluminous information, he has succeeded in presenting a question which requires a closer examination of the accounts to get an answer, but I will get it. Down to March 31St of this year we have expended through the Canadian National on rehabilitation, $4,413,000. That is to mile 332.


John Arthur Clark: What remains to be done?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can best answer that
by taking an estimate here given that it may exceed the amount originally estimated by about $1,362,000.


John Arthur Clark: That would be about 30 per cent more than the original estimate. I am correct in that, am I not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say. My hon. friend is making the calculation.


John Arthur Clark: The original estimate was
$4,373,000, and it is estimated that that will he exceeded by $1,362,000, which is roughly 30 per cent in excess of the original estimate. Apparently all this work on the Hudson Bay railway is being done on this basis-estimate, day labour, and then later we face excessive cost. Certainly we do in this case up to about 30 per oent. A contractor is bound to give a more accurate estimate than that. We could ask numerous contractors for their estimates, and the one who gives the lowest estimate could be tied down to that amount, and he would not be paid an excessive cost to the amount of $1,362,000 as in this case. The country would be saved money by constructing that line on a contract basis rather than by day labour or on a cost plus basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
wants to be fair, but again he is confusing two things-the reconstruction or rehabilitation of the old line and the building of that portion of the line which is new. He is basing his criticism upon an engineer's estimate which was made on the cost of rehabilitation. I am critical of engineers as a general rule, but I certainly think they cannot be criticized very severely in connection with an attempt to estimate what it will cost to rehabilitate 350 miles of railway over muskeg, with all the variable conditions of the track. That was an effort to give us something to guide us, and the engineers made it quite clear that there were none of the usual factors present which would enable them to estimate with any degree of accuracy. When it came to building neiw track we did let a contract, but my hon. friend is surely not under th|e impression that any contractor would make a bid for building a road through that country on a lump sum basis and stand by it. The Canadian National is doing the work under virtually the same conditions as those upon which a contractor would undertake it; that is, a unit price, so much per yard for this, that and the other material. A contractor would never think of tying himself down to a lump price for the whole job.


John Arthur Clark: I realize that.


Charles Avery Dunning: When my hon. friend
draws the conclusion that we could have saved money by letting a contract for this rehabilitation to some firm other than the Canadian National, I cannot agree with him at all. If we had asked for tenders for that work, in view of all the variable factors connected with it and the different kinds of work involved, we would have had to pay mure than it will cost us to have it done by the Canadian National, with experienced forces and equipment of their own. If we had let a contract for that rehabilitation to some outside contractor we would have had to pay interest on the equipment and all that sort of thing. The Canadian National has the equipment in its own service and hence could perform and did perform that service more economically than a contractor could possibly have done.


John Arthur Clark: The minister, then, is of the opinion that day labour is more economical than tender and contract?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows that I did not say that. In connection with this piece of work, being of the character it is, it was more economical for us to get the

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Canadian National's regular forces to do that work for us, paying them actually what it cost them, than it would have been to let a contract to a contractor who 'because of the uncertainty of the volume and character of the work involved would undoubtedly have allowed a tremendous margin for safety in addition to his ordinary profit.


John Arthur Clark: A lot of the new work is being let on the day labour basis, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Arthur Clark: I understood the minister to say that only the grading had been let by contract.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


John Arthur Clark: And that the remainder, the terminals and the laying of steel, was being done by day labour. Am I correct in that?


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as the terminals, the roundhouses and that sort of thing are concerned, the Canadian National follows the same practice as it does with simiLar structures on its own lines. That class of work is done by contract. But again, I repeat, there are certain kinds of work which the Canadian National management, who are experts in this work, and who have proven by their successful management of the road that they know what they are about, have found can be most economically done by day labour; and we take their word for it that the application of precisely the same principles by the same men is the best and most economical way of building this new road.


John Arthur Clark: Are the terminals being built by day labour?


Charles Avery Dunning: When my hon. friend says terminals, just what does he mean?


John Arthur Clark: I understand that this estimate . that, we are considering is for the Hudson Bay railway and terminals. I think the minister should be in a much better position than I to say what the terminals are. He has the information surely; I have not, and I am asking him. If there are no terminals, why is the word "terminals" used in this vote? It is a substantial amount, $6,500,000. What are we voting this money for if there are no terminals? If there are terminals what are they and how are they being built?
Mr. DUNNING': Surely my hon. friend is not serious, but I will try to comply with hi3 request for information in so far as I can, and in so far as his questions are reasonable.


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister say it is unreasonable for me to ask what the terminals consist of, when the word "terminals" is used in this vote?


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand fully my hon. friend's object, and I will try to be as courteous as I can in helping him to attain it. My hon. friend started by asking whether the terminals were being built by day labour. I asked him what he had in his mind when he asked the question regarding terminals.


John Arthur Clark: The terminals that are being built under this vote.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try again. Such
structures as the Canadian National, for their own railway, would have built by contract- I have in mind roundhouses or station buildings-are being let to contract by the Canadian National in the case of the Hudson Bay railway. Such work as would be done on the Canadian National lines by the company's own forces is being done by the company's own forces in this case. All the work which is at present- being carried on by the departmental forces in connection with the harbour terminals, the dredging work, and so forth, is being done by day labour.


John Arthur Clark: I wonder if the minister
could tell whether in the committee the list of the contracts which have been let and are outstanding was given, with amounts.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it was not asked
for. I can supply that readily..


John Arthur Clark: I should like to have that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know that I
have it before me. There-was just the grading contract, and I believe there was one contract for a steel bridge-


John Arthur Clark: The minister stated that
the contract had been let for roundhouses, for instance. He now states that only the grading contract-


Charles Avery Dunning: I was going on, if my
hon. friend ih-ad not interrupted me, to speak -of the possibility of there being contracts in connection with roundhouses. I know my hon. friend does not want to delay me, and that he is serious in seeking all this information, and I am very anxious indeed to give it to him. We have not at the moment a list of all the contracts let by the Canadian National Railways up to the present time. Such a list will be secured and will be supplied later, if possible to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This money is being voted by .parliament, and it is being voted for a



Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
government undertaking. The Auditor General, therefore, should have control over the expenditure so far as this work is concerned. Is there any evidence, other than the payment to the Canadian National Railways, by which we can check it up in the public accounts?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is quite
right in stating that this being an expenditure by the government of Canada, of the funds of Canada, it is subject to the audit of the Auditor General. As to the agency relationship, the department, I presume under the direction of the Auditor General,-which is the same arrangement as exists in the department itself,-that is, under our own auditing staff, audits the accounts of the Canadian National Railways as presented to us, the day labour sheets, and all that sort of thing, in the same manner as the departmental audit staff deals with any other expenditure that is in progress.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That partly answers the
question I am asking. To-day we vote, we will say, three millions dollars for the Hudson Bay railways. To what extent has this parliament, through the public accounts committee, the power next year to examine those accounts? As I see it, none at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Offhand, I do not know
what the legal position is, but I would certainly expect the public accounts to have authority to examine everything. That would be my attitude absolutely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not a fact that the moneys are paid to the Canadian National Railways ?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that all we have
control over is that the Canadian National Railways get the money, and we have no way of checking its expenditure of that money.


Charles Avery Dunning: I consent to the principle right now that we are entitled to follow their expenditures right to the end when they are acting as agents for the crown in this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister sees the
the difficulty, does he not? If we had the expenditure made by the government direct to a contractor-and the Canadian National Railways must occupy that position either as contractor or as agent-wc would then have in the public accounts committee all the IMr. Bennett.]
expenditures made in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. At the moment all we have is a check to the Canadian National Railways; the Auditor General's report does not deal with that money so far as I can ascertain.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am advised that the
amounts paid to the Canadian National Railways are itemized in the public accounts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part of them; and in
that connection I could not quite follow the answer given 'by the minister to my hon. friend from Vancouiver-Burrard (Mr. Clark)


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what I am
advised. Quite frankly I have not checked up on that feature of it, but I have no doubt at all as to the .matter, particularly with respect to the public accounts committee having the right to follow these expenditures completely to the end. And1 I am advised that details of the amounts paid to the Canadian National Railways are given in. the public accounts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right, but the
answer to a question asked by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard is certainly at variance with that understanding.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not recollect the
answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a dredge at
Port Nelson at the end of a pier. I think it cost one million dollars delivered at Nelson, did it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will get the accurate
information. There are many years ot history behind this project, and it is very difficult to have everything here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to press
the minister to answer what he is not in a position to answer. My advice is that the dredge cost something like one million dollars and is lying across the pier, thirty feet at each end, with just enough extension at one end to balance the machinery at the other, and the dredge is in good shape. But another dredge was purchased and 'brought in to be used at Churchill, and two new lighters from eastern Canada were brought to Churchill although there were boats at Nelson which, while a little out of repair, could easily have been put in commission. That is a matter about which I should like a statement from the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know the
original cost of the suction dredge. My best advice is that it was delivered to the govern-

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
ment of that day at some point in eastern Canada at a cost of $270,000, to which must be added, of course, the cost of taking it up there, which would be very considerable. I do not want again to appear condemnatory of previous governments in regard to what was done, but my answer to my bon. friend may involve some iitble criticism in that connection. However, I will relate the facts as I know them. The material to be dredged at either Churchill or Nelson cannot be successfully and economically handled by a suction dredge. That was proven in the effort to use the suction dredge in question at Nelson, and the material at Churchill does not differ very much from the material at Nelson. I have related in this house before the circumstances of the storm which occurred before my time, and resulted in the dredge landing in its present position, substantially as stated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.. As to the suggestion of my hon. friend that it could easily be taken down and at little expense, I should like to say that the engineers are not agreed as to how that dredge is to be taken down from its present position either economically or safely. In view of the fact that it was certainly not suitable for any work we had up there, I did not deem it the part of wisdom to spend money on it at the present time, and, instead, secured the kind of dredge which everyone agrees can handle the type of work requiring to be done at Churchill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were they purchased?


Charles Avery Dunning: The contract let for the building, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who supplied the new
dredges?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian Vickers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were two, I am
informed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did they.cost?


Charles Avery Dunning: Churchill No. 1, $357,500; Churchill No. 2, $360,650. My hon. friend read or made some statement with regard to lighters at Nelson which might have been used and were not. I want to assure him that all floating plant there which was at all serviceable was put into shape and moved to Churchill and is there a-t the present time. There is left at Nelson no floating plant which is usable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were two new
lighters bought, were there not?
78594-198}


Charles Avery Dunning: We have a dump scow that is new, and a barge, and we got another scow from the Department of Public Works. The rest of the equipment, outside of tugs, is the equipment which was at Nelson and which is being put into shape. We had also at Nelson one tug which has been reconditioned and is in use at Churchill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was there a fire in the roundhouse at Churchill last summer?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; my hon. friend's
informant is evidently referring to what I mentioned in the house last winter. I gave then an account of a fire which had occurred in the roundhouse at Nelson, not at Churchill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then there has been no fire at Churchill since the 'operations were commenced there, by which any locomotives or materials were destroyed?


Charles Avery Dunning: The fire occurred at Nelson.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is advisable to clear this point up, not for my purposes but for the information of those who may read it and wish to be satisfied as to what the facts are.


Charles Avery Dunning: The fire was at Neison.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the government be in any sense responsible for the care of labourers who went to Churchill in the summer of 1928?


Charles Avery Dunning: What does my hon. friend mean by "care"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were eighty-five workmen who were supposed to be at Churchill last year, including store bosses, blacksmith bosses, tractor bosses and superintendents and foremen. My information, given me by a reputable citizen desiring to find out the facts, is that twenty out of the eighty-five were superintendents and foremen, while the rest were labourers. The foremen received eighty cents an hour and worked fourteen hours a day and the labourers received forty cents in the warmer weather and forty-five in the colder and paid a dollar a day for board. We will leave it at that for the moment. Would the department know anything about this, or would it be the Canadian National Railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: If what my hon. friend is stating relates to Churchill-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, Churchill.


Charles Avery Dunning: -then the workmen at the port would be departmental.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am advised.


Charles Avery Dunning: If they were working on the railway they would be Canadian National people. If my hon. friend would give me a copy of his statement I should be glad to have the facts ascertained and submitted to him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement sent to me is interlarded with observations and queries, and I could not detach the statement itself. I am anxious to ascertain whether or not the Department of Railways and Canals carried on operations at Churchill in the summer of 1928, what wages were paid, and whether there was a doctor in charge of the men.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many men were
there? Then there is another question-


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend ask the questions one by one? I have a record of all the operations at Churchill and perhaps I could answer them more intelligently that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be a good thing to put them on the record and my hon. friend could look them up in the meantime. The first question is this: Did the Department of Railways and Canals carry on, direct, operations at Churchill during the summer of 1928, employing some eighty-five men or thereabouts, of whom twenty were superintendents and foremen, the others being workmen? And what was paid the foremen per hour, and how many hours per day did they work?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have more men than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the summer of
1928.


Charles Avery Dunning: While the information is being looked up, I may advise my hon. friend that last summer's work consisted very largely in getting ready for the actual work of this year. Some fifteen thousand tons of cargo were taken in and unloaded, temporary piers were built, temporary tracks laid, two dredges taken in, bunkhouses built, and a lot of work of that character done. As I said a moment ago, a doctor is there appointed by the department to look after the men, and there is a limited hospital accommodation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the doctor's
name?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total number of men at Churchill last year was three hundred and thirty-six.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the whole time, including the summer.


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1928, yes. The numbers by months were: February, 17;. March, 30; April, 62; June, 227, making a total of 336.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many stayed on
the work?


Charles Avery Dunning: They practically all
stayed until the work was curtailed, and the staff put on a winter basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was the work
closed down?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our last boat last year
left Churchill about October 15 and there was a progressive reduction from that point on as the men could be taken out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was labourer's
pay?


Charles Avery Dunning: Forty to forty-five cents per hour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many hours a day?


Charles Avery Dunning: Time and a quarter for
time over ten hours and Sunday time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Time and a quarter?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what did the foremen get?


Charles Avery Dunning: Foremen-labourer, does
my hon. friend mean?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were both superintendents and foremen; what did they get?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are different kinds
of foremen. Does my hon. friend mean the foreman-1 abourer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will do for one.


Charles Avery Dunning: Foreman-labourer, fifty
to eighty cents an hour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anything for overtime?


Charles Avery Dunning: The same arrangement
for overtime; over ten hours, time and a quarter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And board was paid for
at the rate of $1 per day? Who ran the boarding house?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was part of the organization.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who was the doctor in charge?


Charles Avery Dunning: Doctor Walton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did he receive in the way of pay? Was there a fixed deduction from the men's wages?


Charles Avery Dunning: He received $250 a
month and board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the employment of
the men commence at The Pas?


Charles Avery Dunning: For a time, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were any of those men
who went to Fort Churchill rejected because of medical unfitness at Fort Churohill and paid from the time they left The Pas until they returned?


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer advises me that there was only one such man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only one?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was there a man taken
on at Tisdale, subsequently rejected at Churchill and sent back at a cost to the country of $75 or $80?


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer in charge
states that he can remember only one such case and it does not come to his mind where the man was sent from. He was sent out with the idea that it was cheaper to do so than to keep him in the hospital there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was there a man named Scott employed as a carpenter on the recommendation of Curtin and Grant, barristers, Regina?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend might ask some of his own friends about the letters they sent me and the endeavours which were made to get men employed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not dealing with the minister himself but with Curtin and Grant of Regina.


Charles Avery Dunning: As far as I know Curtin and Grant of Regina had mo power in the matter at all. Mr. Curtin is a friend of mine; I know him very well a,nd he has recommended men to me on various occasions, but not as a barrister or anything like that. With regard to the man named Scott, what is it my hon. friend wants to know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was there a man named Scott who was sent up as a carpenter at 75 cents an hour? According to my information he did not know a crosscut saw from a rip saw.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend mentioned Scott previously this session. There were four Scotts there, working at different occupations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This man was employed as a carpenter at 75 cents an hour.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a Scott who was a carpenter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Classified as such?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, classified as such and working as such.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is said that he did not know the difference between a jig saw and a rip saw.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can my hon. friend
make that statement on his own responsibility?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I am getting enough, much more than I expected. Then there was a man named Don Collins-inot John-a former druggist and a brother of Matt Collins of the Saskatchewan Liquor Board Was he employed; how long was he there; how long did he stay and what did he get? He was taken in to drive an engine at 85 cents an hour.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend making that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am asking questions.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is putting statements on record and I want him to be fair to me in these matters. Inasmuch as my hon. friend is reading constantly from a document I am beginning to think I have a right to ask for that document.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can keep on beginning, because you are not going to get it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think someone should
take responsibility for some of the statements my hon. friend is making. I am willing to answer questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then suppose you do so. If the minister would answer questions he would advance the work of this committee. I asked if there was a man named Don Collins employed as an engineer at 85 cents an hour.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then my hon. friend
went on to make a lot of statements about the Saskatchewan Liquor Board and so an.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said he was a brother
of Matt Collins of the Saskatchewan Liquor Board.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know that
there is a Matt Collins on the Saskatchewan Liquor Board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say you did.


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer informs me that there were two Collinses, one of whom was an engineer and the other a timekeeper. Be is not sure which one of them was Don.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does he not know their
initials?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have not the list of employees here. Has my hon. friend any criticism to make with regard to the employment of these two men? I am asking for my own information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with that when the time comes. I am asking questions of the minister now; his estimates are before us. The public money is being spent and I am inquiring as to how it was spent. Now I want to know if a man called Buck Freeman was hired; if so, was he hired by a man named Miller of Ottawa, again on the recommendation of Curtin and Grant?


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend asking questions or making statements?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister knows exactly what I am doing.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend should
be fairer to me than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will put the question
again. Was there a man named Buck Freeman taken to Churchill as a carpenter at 75 cents an hour; was he hired by a man named Miller, of Ottawa; was that done on the recommendation of Curtin and Grant; what was his physical condition when he went to Churchill?


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer cannot recall any such circumstances as those related by my hon. friend. I know nothing of the matter myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many storekeepers
were employed?
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Henry Feld' man.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 250, respecting The Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 251, to ratify and confirm the organization and1 the election of directors of Family Trust, and to change the name of that company to Financial Trust Company.- Mr. Laflamme.
Bill No. 280, respecting Alliance Nationale. -Mr. Mercier (Outremont).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 283, respecting Central Finance Corporation.-Mr. Lang- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Object.
Mr. COOTE:: Has this bill been printed?


John Frederick Johnston: It will be found on
the Senate file.


George Gibson Coote: Have these bills been before the banking and commerce committee?


John Frederick Johnston: All have been before
that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth) (for Mr. Lang) moved the third reading of the bill.
Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to call Your Honour's attention to the filing of these bills. It is impossible for any hon. member, unless he spends an hour or so, to find a bill on the Senate file. The letters are all mixed up.


Hewitt Bostock: This is letter P2 oif the
Senate.


Edward Joseph Garland: I know that. It is impossible in a reasonable period of time to find a bill on the file. I should like to have a brief explanation of the bill before it is passed. As a matter of fact, I think there should be a revision of the rules with respect to the filing of these bills. They could easily be filed and numbered in some simpler form. They are a hopeless muddle at the present time.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member's suggestion is a good one, and instructions will be given to that effect-

Private Bills


Mr. SANDERSON:: The hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Lang) ia ill and has asked me to take charge of the bill to-night. The bill passed the Senate committee and was before the banking and commerce committee of the Commons. The superintendent, Mr. Finlayson, found no objection to it in any way. As a matter of fact, no objection was raised to it in the committee by any member. It is a bill, as I understand it, for the relief of those who have to borrow small amounts of money and who cannot be accommodated by a chartered bank where certain securities are required. They borrow from this company which, I understand, has been doing business for a number of years and is in a sound, healthy financial condition. It is for the relief of those who from time to time borrow small amounts of money and give their own notes or those of their friends. That is about the substance of the bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member said that the company had been in operation for a considerable time. What is it asking for?


Frederick George Sanderson: It has been in operation carrying on a certain form of loan business, but not the particular business it asks for under this bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is asking for an extension of powers.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are the powers it is asking for?


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not know that I can answer that question, although I was present at the committee when the bill went through. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) were here, he could answer it, because it went through his department and was endorsed by his superintendent.


Edward Joseph Garland: I see it
deals with an increase in the interest rate.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 309, respecting The Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company, and to change its name to "The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company"-Mr. Geary -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Name changed.
Edward Joseph Garland: Is this a senate bill?


John Frederick Johnston: This is not a senate bill; it is to be found on the House of Commons file.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This bill has been before the banking and commerce committee. No objection was taken to it by the Superintendent of Insurance. There was no conflict of opinion on any point. The bill provides merely for a change of name, saving of rights, and an increase in the capital stock. The company is an old-established and flourishing insurance company. It deserves all it asks for and everybody has conceded this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 281, respecting The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.-Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Stella Pearl Duncan.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Hurley Alexander Fummerton.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Barbara Elise Sewell de la Penotiere.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill 315, for the relief of Oliver Milton Martin.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Mary Jane Teeson.-Mr. Church.
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. Sanderson.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Ruth Elizabeth Greene.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) .
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Frances Thirza Edlund.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Mabel Bullis. -Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of Vera Alice Griffin.-Mr. Sanderson.	'

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill No. 318, for the relief of Sam Gladstone.- Mr. Jacobs.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I notice that
several of these bills are being presented with the sponsor absent. These sponsors live in

Procedure Respecting Divorce
Toronto and Montreal, and they say they are unavoidably absent. They are usually un-advoidably absent on Friday evening. I think we shall have to ask that these bills stand until the sponsors are present. Some of us who come from a distance are utterly tired of carrying on business in the absence of members who find it convenient to be away over the week end.
Motion stands.



FLORENCE GERTRUDE SINGER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park, for Mr. Lawson) moved the second reading of Bill No. 237, for the relief of Florence Gertrude Singer.
He said:	The sponsor of this bill was
called away from the city last night but will be here to-morrow. In his absence I would move the second reading of this bill. He is very regular in his attendance in the house.
Hewitt Bostock: There can be only one
rule.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Might I ask what that
rule is, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: It is that the sponsor of
the bill must be present. I am quite willing, however, that the motion be put by the hon. member for Toronto-High Park if there is unanimous consent.


Mr. ANDERSON (High Park):: I would
ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not been
able to hear at this end of the chamber one word of what has been said.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Toronto-High Park has said that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) is constant in his attendance at the house but has been called away and will be here to-morrow, and has asked the unanimous consent of the house, in the absence of the sponsor, to move the second reading of this bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not like to be discourteous, but there have been a number of other bills standing in the name of the hon. member for West York. I cannot see how we can object in the one case and let other bills pass.


Hewitt Bostock: The objection is well
taken.
Motion stands.
	.



DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) moved the third reading of Bill No. 75, respecting the domicile of married women in proceedings for divorce.
Hewitt Bostock: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
The house divided1 on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Adehead,	Lucas,
Anderson (Toronto-	MacDonald (Cape
High Park),	Breton South),
Anderson (Halton),	MacLaren,
Bancroft,	MacLean (Pri nee),
Barber,	McLean (Melfort),
Bell (St. John-Albert),	Macpihail (Mies),
Bennett,	McIntosh,
Bird,	McKenzie,
Black (Yukon),	McPherson,
Bowen,	McRae,
Brown,	Millar,
Campbell,	Milne,
Casselman,	Neill,
Cayley,	Plunkett,
Chaplin,	Price,
Clark,	Ralston,
Coote,	Rennie,
Dickie,	Ross (Kingston City),
Donnelly,	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Dunning,	Ry ckman,
Edwards (Waterloo	Senn,
South),	Simpson,
Elliott,	Sinclair (Queens),
Euler,	Smith (Stormont),
Evans,	Smoke,
Fansher (Last	Speakman,
Mountain),	Spence,
Fansher (Lambton	Spencer,
East),	Spot ton,
Forke,	Steedsman,
Fraser,	Stevens,
Gardiner,	Stewart (Edmonton
Garland (BowRiver),	West),
Garland (Carleton),	Stinson,
Gershaw,	Stirling,
Glen,	Telford,
Gott,	Th orson,
Irvine,	Vallance,
Jellaff,	Ward,
Johnston (Long Lake),	Woodsworth,
Kellner,	Young (Toronto
Kennedy,	Northeast).-80.
Ladner,	
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Beaubien,	Cahill,
Benoit,	Chevrier,
Boivin,	Desaulniers,
Boucher,	Deslauriers,
Boulanger,	Dubuc,
Bourgeois,	Fafard,

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Ferland,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Jenkins,
Laflimme,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Letellier de St. Just. McMillan,
Morrissy,
Motherwell,
Perley (Sir George), Perras,
Pouliot,
Power,
Quinn,
Robitaille,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Seguin,
Yerville.'-32.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I was paired with the
Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). Had I voted, I would have voted in the affirmative.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavi-gueur). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
First and final report of the joint committee of both Houses of Parliament on the restaurant. -Mr. Speaker.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee rose I was asking the minister a question with respect lo the employment of two or three persons named; I wanted to know whether or not he could locate them.
Mr. DUNNING': Donald Joseph Collins was an engineer operating the dinky locomotive. His rate of pay was 65 cents per hour and the hours worked were June, 30; July, 336i; August, 351; September, 338 and October, 372i.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At sixty-five cents per hour?


Charles Avery Dunning: ''Yes, with time and a quarter for over ten hours whenever more than ten hours were worked in one day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The next was Buck Freeman.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the man in question was Charles Freeman, who apparently was the only Freeman we had, he came in as a carpenter at 75 cents per hour and on August 1 was disrated to the status of a labourer and reduced to 45 cents per hour, and he continued in that capacity until October. The number of hours worked were June, 30; July, 340; August, 293; September, 289 and October, 291. From August 1 he was paid 45 cents per hour and prior to that time he received 75 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the same rate for overtime?


Charles Avery Dunning: The same condition applied to all overtime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there anything in the records with reference to a man who became mentally deranged and was taken out?


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer advises me that during the winter of 1927-28 there was such a man, but not during the past year. This man went wrong mentally during the winter and was taken out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently this man has been confused with someone else. Were the supplies which were purchased for the operation of that camp acquired by tender or otherwise?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not catch what my hon. friend said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had given the minister the names of several persons, asking if they were employed and if so in what capacity, at what rate per hour, how many hours constituted a day, and the allowance for overtime.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will give me the names, I have brought down the files in reference to all these employees and I think we can pick them out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first one was Don Collins.


Charles Avery Dunning: The purchasing department had charge of that in the usual way; I have no personal knowledge of it, but we will get the information for my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information is that they were not purchased by tender.


Charles Avery Dunning: Undoubedly the general policy of the department is purchase by tender.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason for my question. Will the accounts in connection with this expenditure be available? In the answers given the other day before the select standing committee it will be observed that during the
312S

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
year 1928 over $8,000,000 was expended, and that about $319,000 has been expended under the 1929-30 estimate. Of that expenditure $2,770,000 was made at the Fort Churchill terminal by day work and for material.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would probably cover equipment purchased, including the two barges and the tugs, which would account for a very considerable amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was spent on the railway roughly $3,390,000. The answer given to the first question was that the only contracts let by tender amounted to about $1,270,000, and therefore the balance of the money must have been otherwise expended.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not quite understand that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first question put
in the select committee was with regard to contracts, and it was stated that the only contract, which was let to the lowest tenderer, was for $1,270,000. Therefore the remainder of the expenditure must have been made on the basis of day work or under some other scheme worked out by the Canadian National system. I was seeking to ascertain whether it is correct to say that the expenditure, less the amount mentioned as being the amount of that contract, was expended on day work or under the system mentioned in connection with the operations of the Canadian National?


Charles Avery Dunning: Subject to this contract
into which the Canadian National entered with the Canadian Bridge Company, Limited, for the fabrication, delivery and erection of steel superstructures for two bridges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much was that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will have to refer to
the order in council Which it was necessary to pass approving of the contract. Section 2 of the order in council states that the lowest tender received was that of the Canadian Bridge Company, Limited, which for both structures amounts to $60,740.90, being $2,109.80 lower than the next tender.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There seems to be some difficulty there, because in the answer to the question asked in the select standing committee no mention was made of the tender to which the minister has referred. However, we will leave that for the moment; it is quite clear that some $6,000,000 was expended last year, and I am endeavouring to ascertain what part of that amount was expended under contracts which wer-e let after tenders had been called for.


Charles Avery Dunning: Expended on the railway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The figures with which
we have been supplied give the total expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, as $6,159,562.95, and I am endeavouring to ascertain what part of that amount was expended under contract after tenders were called for.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then my hon. friend
is including both the port and the railway in his question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: My deputy advises me
that probably the reason why this $60,000 was not included in the railway expenditure was because that contract was let during this railway year. In any case it was not included, but it is the only addition to the figures which have been given in that connection. Now with respect to the port, I am having the matter of supplies checked up, but I never have been advised that anything other than the usual practice of the department has been followed in that regard. The dredges, of course, were constructed under tender and contract, and that applies also to the hopper barge and the scows, and in addition one scow was acquired from the Department of Public Works. Other equipment which was at Nelson and which was still useable was conditioned and removed to Churchill. Nelson accounts would, of course, be credited with the salvage value of the material which was moved from there to Fort Churchill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a substantial sum of money, $6,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: The great bulk of it was on railway account.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At little over half.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I have the details before me, and my hon. friend will probably be able to follow them. They are as follows :
Dredge Churchill, No. 1	$357,500
Dredge Churchill, No. 2	 360,650
Dump Scow	 42,000
Hopper Barge, Chesterfield	 200,000
Repairs to the Ocean Eagle	 18,600
Hopper Barge foremost	 90,000
Tug Graham Bell (not yet built)..	110,000
Shear Legs	 11,200


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that all spent in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: The tug Graham Bell is not paid for; all the other items were expended in the fiscal year and would be in-

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
eluded in the figures. I rather expected that these matters would be examined into in the public accounts committee, and I should be very glad to have that done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was some difficulty in arranging for enough meetings to deal with the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: The details of the expenditure chargeable to capital on the Hudson Bay railway and terminal appear in the Auditor General's report, part W-57.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And does that cover all the expenditures or only those which were made by the department itself as apart from the expenditures made by the Canadian National Railways?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Auditor General's report gives the detailed accounts paid to the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I looked through the accounts I assumed that they covered both the departmental expenditures and the railway expenditures.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in view of the
answer which the minister gave this afternoon to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Burrard (Mr. Clark), I put this question to the minister: did the railway company call for tenders for any part of the work in connection with the Hudson Bay railway as agents for the department?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian National called for tenders for the grading and for the two bridges of which I spoke; with respect to the other supplies with which the department was charged by the Canadian National, such as ties and that sort of thing, they were handled by the purchasing department of the railway under the system which prevails in connection with the purchasing of the railway's own supplies. There is one item which is the subject matter of negotiation between the department and the railway, brought about through number one relay rail being used.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is eighty-pound
steel.


Charles Avery Dunning: Nothing less than eighty pounds. It is necessary to set a price for that material, but the price which is set is the same price as is used by the Canadian National within its own system and in connection with new branch line construction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Tenders were called for the grading of 300 miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, for the grading of the new work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much would that be?


Charles Avery Dunning: One hundred and fifty-four miles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would include
everything?


Charles Avery Dunning: Just the grading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that would include the total mileage?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total mileage of new work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that 81,270,000 contract the contract for the grading?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the only contract there is?


Charles Avery Dunning: Other than the contracts for the bridges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much was allowed for extras on the grading, if any?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no allowance; the contract entered into by the Canadian National Railways with the contractor is a unit price contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will take the answer
given before the select committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: That answer was based upon the computation of the quantities involved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that the minister-may not be misled, I will read the question. It is as follows:
How many tenders were received, and what was the figure in each instance?
The answer given is as follows:
Seven. $1,270,100; $1,377,700; $1,388,300; $1,496,500; $1,836,150; $1,855,450; $1,899,100.


Charles Avery Dunning: Grading contracts are made on unit price tenders and the figures are extended using the same multiplication factor which, as my hon. friend knows, is the number of units estimated by the engineers to be involved in the job. That computation was carried out in this case and the gross amount arrived at, assuming that the yardage is correct, was the figure given in reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much did it cost?

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the contract is not completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The grading is finished.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I said this afternoon, there are nearly one hundred miles of skeleton track.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that is just laid on the frozen ground?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much has been paid thus far on the contract?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not that information before me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to have that because it involves the question of classification, about which there are so many stories.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not anticipate that there will be any classification difficulties in this case, because there is comparatively little rock along that section.


Mr. GOTT:: The minister is in apparent good health; could not he raise his voice a little?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will do the best I
can.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no desire to inconvenience the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall get that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: All such contracts are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the work is not
finished, I should like to know how much has been paid out. Who was the contractor?


Charles Avery Dunning: Stewart & Cameron.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the unit cost?
I should like to have that information for a very special reason?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have a schedule here
which I will read. The contract is made up of the following schedule of prices, in the usual form which the railway company uses for this purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like the unit
cost of each item.


Charles Avery Dunning: The unit cost alone, or
the estimated quantity and>
the unit cost?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The estimated quantity
and the unit cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: The statement is as
follows:
Unit cost
Clearing, 2,200 acres	 $30 00
Grubbing, 1,200 acres	 75 00
Cross-waying, 10,000 square feet. ..	100 00
per 100 units
Solid rock, 5,000 cubic yards ....	2 00
Loose rock, 10,000 cubic yards..	1 00
Hard-pan, 25,000	cubic	yards..	..	50
Earth or other material, 2,960,000
cubic yards	 35
Over-haul, per 100 feet over 500 feet
free-haul, 40,000	cubic	yards	.	.	05
Riprap, 1,000 cubic yards	 3 00
Culvert excavation, 10,000 cubic
yards	 40
Freighting supplies, et cetera, 14,000 ton miles	 1 00
Cross-cutting winter roads, 80 acres 45 00 Cordwood for fuel in engineer's construction camp, 500 cords	 10 00
' Supplying of material for and erection, of four log houses for engineers' headquarters, lump sum of 4,000 00
Those things that are dealt with are in accordance with the call for tenders. Then the quantities are extended in the contract, making up the total referred to. I will find out just how much has been expended to date and give my hon. friend the information later. I do not know that I can get that to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister realizes
what I want. Owing to the difficulty in the public accounts committee, I want to know what sum has been paid that contractor.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will get it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to know also what amount of the work is still undone; what sums were paid as extras, if any; what variations of classification, if any, were made.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member means in quantity of each classification?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not quantities at all.
The engineers' estimates upon which payments were made, classified the material in a certain way, and I would like to know what those classifications were and whether, in the aggregate, there was a variation between that and the estimate of the engineers when the tenders were called for.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to get
that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister cannot get
it now?	.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Charles Avery Dunning: No, and my hon. friend
will appreciate the fact that the work not being completed and these quantities being aggregated as estimated quantities, I doubt whether-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the reason I am asking for this information. Does the minister realize what I mean? That is a contract based upon unit costs on an estimate of material. I want bo know how much the total is. It amounts, I understand to $1,270,000, as the minister stated.


Charles Avery Dunning: Assuming the quantities
were correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to see the variation between the quantities which it was alleged were the quantities upon which payment has been made to date, and conditions as indicated by the contract, and I should like to know what the classification was with regard to rook, riprap, hardpan and so forth; that is the engineers' classification upon which payment was made. Who is the supervising engineer?


Charles Avery Dunning: The chief engineer of
construction of the Canadian National, Mr. Gzowski, is in supreme charge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But who is the supervising engineer who classified and estimated the quantities?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. H. A. Dixon, chief
engineer of the western region is, I am advised, responsible for the classification of work in that region and for the estimating of the quantities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who was on the job?


Charles Avery Dunning: The man on the job is
Major J. G. MeLachlan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was he on the job all
the time?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the Canadian
National put him on the job when rehabilitation first commenced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he has been there
continuously since then?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister look
up the correspondence between the late deputy minister and Major MeLachlan by telegram and letter as to classification? I understand the minister himself to say he knows nothing about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The present deputy advises me that he knows of no such correspondence on the part of the late deputy minister, but we shall have that looked up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister must have
the last estimate, because it usually recites the previous one upon which payments were made, showing the advances made to the contractor.


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall get that.


John Arthur Clark: The minister stated that he had some answers to give to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understood they were
included in the answer I gave a moment ago as to the contracts let by the Canadian National on the construction of the road. I answered a similar question put by the leader of the opposition as'regards the contract for the grading and the $60,000 contracts let by the Canadian National for the building of two steel bridges.


John Arthur Clark: Were the amounts and names of the contractors given?


Charles Avery Dunning: As regards the grading,
the contractors were Stewart and Cameron under another contract price which we have just been discussing, amounting, on the basis of the estimated quantities, to $1,270,000, and for the two steel bridges the contractors were the Canadian Bridge Company of Walker-ville, the two contracts amounting to $60,000 for the superstructure, The substructures were erected by the Canadian National's own forces.
I should like to make just a general statement regarding the work which was carried out last year, in justice to the men engaged in and controlling it. The department and the Canadian National are well satisfied with the work which the men responsible were able to carry out last year under very difficult conditions. The work done in preparation for this year's work certainly merits appreciation on our part. The men worked well. The department endeavoured to feed them well, and so far as the Canadian National forces were concerned, their work was undoubtedly appreciated by the department. In respect to the answers that I may give on behalf of the Canadian National, I would naturally prefer that the officers of the company might be in a position to give that information directly. That was our intention in the special committee. The point arose early in the sessions of the special committee as to whether questions relating to the Hudson Bay railway would be answered

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
before that committee. Sir Henry Thornton stated that he would be very glad to have his officers give information to the committee in connection with the work done by the company on the Hudson Bay railway in exactly the same way as they were prepared to give information respecting any other railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the date of
the grading contract?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give that in a
moment. To continue my statement, the committee was very busy in connection with an exhaustive examination of tihe general accounts of the Canadian National railway, and not much time was spent on the Hudson Bay railway. I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre presented some questions in writing which were answered by the department or by the railways, and there was not much discussion. I think it would be better in connection with this work, as in connection with all Canadian National railway work, to examine wherever practicable the officers of the railway concerned in the work. The department has to deal with this matter entirely as it would deal with an ordinary Canadian National piece of construction, and I feel sure that the officers of the company would be just as ready to give information respecting it as they would with respect to any ether line that they may have under construction. The date of the contract was November 1, 1927.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Providing for completion on or before when?


Charles Avery Dunning: Time for completion,
from mileage 356.5 to mileage 450, by October 15, 1928; from mileage 450 to Churchill by September 1, 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The part that was to be completed by 1928 was completed within the time limit?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is my information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that the whole was to be completed by September, 1929; that is some time hence. The reason I am asking these questions must be apparent to the minister. Since the contract was awarded we have spent over $6,000,000 on the railway. The minister has said that much of the grading still remains to be done. I am endeavouring to ascertain how much has been paid to these grading contractors.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will get the figures for my hon. friend. I think my hon. friend forgets that a skeleton track has been laid 
from the end of the grade, from mileage 450 to Fort Churchill, and that includes all the rails and ties involved in that. However, I will get the figures and give the information later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would do this. We will complete as nearly as possible the discussion on this item, and then perhaps the minister can report progress and we can conclude the discussion in the light of the information that the minister will supply on Monday. The Minister of Finance spoke to me before dinner and said that one of his colleagues would be ready to go on, because I anticipated that the Minister of Railways would not be able to give all this information this evening. Perhaps the minister might be able to go on with some canal items, and this item might stand in the meantime.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Perhaps the hon. leader
of the opposition after bis lengthy cross-examination of the Minister of Railways, has now received sufficient information to enable him to communicate to the committee whether he has changed the opposition which he displayed towards the construction of the Hudson Bay railway in 1926, when he stated to the committee that he was opposed to the construction of a single additional foot on the Hudson Bay railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on and give the rest. Here is a gentleman who poses as the dean of a law school. He may foe able to take hon. gentlemen's amendments away from them and appropriate them as his own, but he cannot make a citation and call himself a member of the profession if he quotes only the part that suits himself.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am asking whether he has that additional knowledge now to enable him to indicate to the committee whether he is of the same view with regard to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and the terminals as he was in 1926. The leader of the opposition prides bimseilf on his excellent memory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I must give him credit for possessing a splendid memory. He gave a splendid example of it this morning. He said in 1926-


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this house.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes:
From the information I have I could not under any circumstances vote to extend the railway a single foot beyond the present end of steel.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Further on he gave some reasons for his opposition to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. He gave as one of his reasons the opening of the Panama canal and the possibility that wheat might be diverted from its present channels and go to the markets of the world through the Panama canal. Secondly, he gave as another reason that it would divert traffic from the Canadian National railway. Throughout his speech is one of opposition to further construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Is the hon. leader of the opposition now in possession of sufficient information to enable him to say to this committee that he is now favourable to the construction and completion of the Hudson Bay railway, or is he of the same view that he held in 1926 when he opposed the construction of a single additional foot of the Hudson Bay railway? I am sure that this committee would be interested in knowing what his views are and whether his opposition to the Hudson Bay railway scheme has altered or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can readily understand the distrust which those who have to deal with the hon. member have. Twice within the last five minutes he has left an entirely erroneous impression. I said, "from the information I then had" He commenced his question by leaving that out and also wound up his question by leaving it out. What sort of mentality has a man who is supposed to teach the young men the ethics of the profession and who will make a citation in part and leave out the vital part?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I read the whole of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not until you were driven to it-like the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg which he appropriated as his own. Let us deal with what took place in 1911. I came to this house and in the first speech that I made to this house I declared unequivocally for the Hudson Bay railway and for its immediate completion, and I gave reasons for it. In the meantime, from 1911 to 1926, certain events happened in this country through the action .of the hon. gentleman's friends in connection with the National Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk, and the Canadian Northern railway company, that brought disaster on this country financially in connection with its railways. The hon. gentleman seems not to have memory enough
to remember it. I am glad that I remember these things. I came to this house and I made that statement. Now the hon. gentleman at this late date, in 1929, wants to know what my opinion is. I pointed out in 1926 that from the information I then had I did not feel warranted in supporting it, but this house did appropriate the money, and in 1926 when the election was on, my then leader read a statement which I read to the electors of Portage la Prairie, and which was misstated in the press, just as the hon. gentleman is misstating my attitude to-night. This misstatement resulted in my having to go too a great deal of trouble and effort to secure from the Canadian press a statement that was made in every daily newspaper in Canada that my attitude had been misrepresented and that an injustice had been done to me, when in fact I had repeated the language of my leader in Portage la Prairie. I still say we have not yet proven that as a grain route the Hudson Bay railway is a success. It was built as such, but a continuation or extension of the precambrian field into that particular country and the construction of this line gives promise of its being a success. This is the story; the Conservative party up to 1922 spent $14,467,000 on the road, and since that time ten million dollars have been spent. It is true that there have been spent on Port Nelson some six million dollars, and a little over three and a half million dollars have been spent on Churchill since that port was selected. So far as I am concerned, my position is a very simple one. When this country's financial burdens were great after the war, when this country was in grave difficulty in connection with her national expenditures, I placed myself on record as requiring further information before I could throw myself wholeheartedly into this enterprise, to which I had given my fullest support, with all the power at my command, when I came into this house in 1911 and made my first speech in it. The Minister of Railways spoke this afternoon of stating half the facts and thereby misstating the whole truth. That is the kind of language he used this afternoon, but the hon. gentleman who has spoken chooses to read a part and then leave the rest out. I have onty this to say; .the minister knows perfectly well that what I said was the opinion of most of his friends with respect to this enterprise. I am one of those who believe

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
that it is always desirable to cut your garment according to your cloth, and everything I said in the House of Commons in 1926 with respect to the Hudson Bay railway, if read in its entirety, will bear out what I said. If we had plenty of money, few obligations, few liabilities, there is no reason why we should not have gone ahead in 1911 and completed the enterprise quickly. The minister himself said, in 1926 what his proposals were with respect to the matter, but mineral discoveries have made it possible to proceed with more expedition than we otherwise would, and with more confidence, which is more to the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to get into this fight, but if my hon. friend will please refrain from quoting me he would be on safer ground.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister's speech is on Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would much prefer to have it quoted from Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Than from my memory. He is quite light. I hesitate to rely upon my memory, in this house or elsewhere. I desire to rely on the record as far as possible.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I asked the hon. leader of the opposition to indicate -whether from the information which he has now obtained he is favourable to the Hudson Bay railway since in 1926 he was opposed to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. He certainly left the impression upon his own followers in the house that he was opposed to the construction of the Hudson Bay rail-[DOT] way. He may have advanced as a reason for that position the fact that he had not sufficient information at his disposal. But I should like to ask this committee whether we would have had the Hudson Bay railway in as advanced a state of completion as it is to-day if the members of the government had taken the same attitude towards it as the hon. leader of the opposition took to the construction of it at that time. There could be no doubt whatsoever in the minds of the people of western Canada what the attitude of the hon. leader of the opposition was with regard to the Hudson Bay railway, and had it prevailed we would not now have steel laid to Churchill.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggested to the minister that the matter should stand, and that we should proceed with the other items, so that the questions he will answer might be dealt with.
Item stands.
Trent canal-construction and betterments, $13,300.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Charles Avery Dunning: For the acquisition of
additional land submerged or affected by canal construction in 1904 on the Balsam-Simcoe subdivision; $4,000 outstanding and new claims for right of way, damages, legal fees, and so forth, $4,500, the whole of which is a revote, and lockmaster's (house, $4,800.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal-construction, $10,000,-
000.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: May I ask the
minister if the date set for the opening is the same as that set last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon..friend said "the date set". He will remember that one year ago I was very careful to say that I would not indicate definitely the date, (but that our expectation was during 1930. We still have that expectation. There is no reason at the present time for us to change our view in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for contribution of $32,000 to the town of Thorold and $18,000 to the village of Merritton towards the costs of constructing filtration system, $50,000.
Mr. FRASER:: Will the minister explain
this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: For many years the town of Thorold and the village of Merritton have been obtaining their domestic water supply from the summit level of the Welland canal under leases from the Department of Railways and Canals, and under which the department assumes no liability as to the purity or other conditions of the water.
Until construction operations commenced on sections Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Welland ship canal, this source of supply was satisfactory but the extensive dredging necessary for these portions of the ship canal work has during the past several seasons made the waters in the summit level of the Welland canal turbid and unsafe for domestic use- these conditions prevailing in spite of the

Supply-C anals
fact that the contractors for the various sections have taken every reasonable precaution to reduce to a minimum the turbidity of the water resulting from their dredging operation.
By reason of the unsatisfactory condition of the water supply the board of health of the province of Ontario, in the interest of public health, instructed both the town of Thorold and the village of Merritton to install filtration plants in their water supply systems, and, although the department has no legal liability in either case, the capital expenditures by these municipalities consequent upon the instructions of the provincial board of health have been largely necessary by reason of the unavoidable condition of the waters of the Welland canal resulting from the construction of the Welland ship canal. It is really on compassionate grounds, if one can view it that way. I do not anticipate much opposition from the other side. There might be if the constituencies were Liberal, but I feel sure there will be no opposition.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not think the remark of the minister is called for.


Mr. POW  ER@: Not at all.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not think the minister has any right to say there is no legal responsibility and that the question is merely
a moral one. As a matter of fact, the minister knows, and I know, that a former minister of the crown, when the Welland canal was originally projected, agreed with all these municipalities to take care of their water supply and this is the outcome of that agreement. That is all there is to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have met the situation to the best of my ability, but I am bound to stand behind the opinion of the Department of Justice, that there is no legal liability. Be that as it may, I can say something that will please my hon. friend. In the supplementary estimates I hope to take care of St. Catharines as well.


Charles Gavan Power: I understood yesterday from the Minister of Finance that it was not considered proper for any minister to disclose in advance what was going to come down in the supplementary estimates, and it is particularly improper for the minister to disclose to hon. members opposite anything so agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal-improvements, $274,175.
Mr. STINSON:: Will the minister explain
this vote?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount required is
made up of the following items:
tem	A.-Eastern Division
1.	Gate building plant and construction of replace gates. (Revote $6,000)
2.	Dredging	(Revote 10,000)
3.	Concrete protection at toe of canal embankment, dam No. 6	
4.	Concrete protection to slope below dam No. 3	
5.	Concrete piers and walls-dam at outlet of Grace and dark lakes.. ..
6.	Dam at outlet of Farquhar lake	
7.	Reconstruction of timber dam at outlet of Crab lake	
8.	Reconstruction of timber dam at outlet of Trout lake	
9.	Rebuilding and repairs to reservoir dams	(Revote 2,000)10.	Miscellaneous	(Revote 2,450)
B.-Western Division
11.	Dam at lock 25	(Revote 60,000)
12.	Dam at lock 22	
13.	Cement	(Revote 14,000)
14.	Motor truck for use on Severn subdivision	
15.	Wharf at Port Severn	
16.	Removal of rock and other excavated material from east side of
Couchiching lock	(Revote 1,000)
17.	Two gas light outfits	
18.	Forest fire pump for Severn subdivision	
19.	Miscellaneous surveys, investigations, etc	
20.	Engineering staff, salaries and working expenses.. ..(Revote 6,000)
Total


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Supply-C anals
[Stage Direction]
Welland canal-improvements, $30,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: When will this work be finished.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is for the existing
Welland canal. We are still hopeful of opening the new canal in its entirety some time during the summer or fall of 1930. I do not wish that to be taken as a promise because large undertakings of this kind sometimes involve unforeseen delays, but that is our expectation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada: maintenance and operation, $309,220.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give us the reason for this increase?


Charles Avery Dunning: Statutory increases and new positions involve an increase of $18,180; reductions amounting to $1,560 deducted from that figure leave a total of $16,620.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Are motor cars supplied to members of the board, and if so, to what members?
Mr. DUNNING': There is an item here for one official car, $3,000; but that amount is for the maintenance of the official railway car of the board, and there is nothing in this vote for the maintenance of any automobiles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister say when Mr. Commissioner Norris resigned as a member of the legislature of Manitoba? If my information is correct he continued to be a member of the legislature long after he was appointed to the board and did not resign his seat in Lansdowne until it suited the convenience of Mr. Bracken to have him do so. It has been suggested to me that we should have some statement as to whether a man should be eligible for an appointment of this kind while still a member of a provincial legislature, and I would like to know definitely when he resigned.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the information before me, but I will obtain it for my hon. friend, perhaps he might allow this item to pass in the meantime.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services, including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $38,-
000.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does this item include Mr. Palmer's recent fee?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
I Mr. Dunning.]
Civil government-railways and canals-including H. F. Alward, solicitor and counsel at $6,000, $274,065; contingencies, $8,900.
John Anderson Fraser: In connection with this vote I should like to ask the minister whether the officials of this department who have to do with the collection of revenue are bonded?


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of fact most of the revenue of the department is not handled by the officers but comes in the way of payment on leases and that sort of thing. However, wharfage fees are collected at some points and I am finding out now as to the officials who are responsible for the collection of those fees.


John Anderson Fraser: What revenue is collected by the department?


Charles Avery Dunning: For the last fiscal year the total revenue of the department was $1,237,022.98. I notice one item here under the heading of miscellaneous revenue, "wharfage and storage"; that amounted in all to just $40,000. I will procure the information with regard to the bonding of employees and give it to my hon. friend on any item, if that will serve his purpose.


John Anderson Fraser: I have some further questions along the same line. I do not know whether or not the minister was in the house the other day when I put certain questions to the Minister of Immigration-


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Anderson Fraser: Then I will read the question, which I asked of the several departments of the government:
How much of the consolidated revenue has been paid by each of the departments of the government as premiums on security bonds of its employees, in contravention of the Public Officers Act, R.S., chapter 164, section 5?
This was passed as an order for return, but I find that no reply was received from the Department of Railways and Canals. The officials of this department collect a substantial amount of revenue and I should like to know why the requirements of the statute are not complied with and why the question was not answered.
Mr. DUNNING': I am sorry, but my officials do not recall any return of that nature to which an answer was not given. I must have my hon. friend's statement checked up, but I can assure him that officials of the department who do collect revenue are bonded.


John Anderson Fraser: Are they bonded under a guarantee company or do you carry the insurance yourself?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is under a guarantee company.

Supply-Railways and Canals


John Anderson Fraser: Answers to this question were not received from the Departments of Labour, National Defence, Justice, External Affairs, Agriculture, Post Office, Railways and Canals and Public Works. I should like to have those answers.


Mr. ROBB:: I directed the attention of the officials of the treasury board to the questions asked by my hon. friend the other night and requested them to prepare for me a complete statement, since I expected the matter to come up later. I hope to be able to have that information for my hon. friend early in the week.


John Anderson Fraser: For all departments?


James Alexander Robb: I will ask for a statement from all departments.


John Anderson Fraser: Under section 12 of the
Public Officers Act each department is required to register with the Secretary of State within one month after the bond is entered into a statement of that bond. I have a statement which was laid upon the table and I find no return from the Railway department. Section 32 of the act provides that a report is to be laid upon the table within fifteen days after the session opens. This report was tabled but the information contained therein is very meagre; there are only 38 bonds registered for all departments, and those which are registered involve quite small amounts. I do not think this question of the bonding of officials is being followed up as it should be.


James Alexander Robb: With regard to the question
asked the other evening ;by my hon. friend, I have directed the attention of the officials to the matter of the legality of the payments referred to in my hon. friend's question, and I have asked them to obtain an opinion from the Department of Justice.


Mr.   NEELL@: Perhaps the matter which I
would like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, is not entirely appropriate to this item, but it is near enough. I suppose we are allowed a certain latitude of give and take in discussing these estimates especially when they are being put through so quickly.
On January 16 of this year, Mr. G. G. McGeer, on behalf of the council of the United Farmers of British Columbia, presented an appeal by way of a petition to the privy council, which in this case is the .cabinet, against certain rates from the prairies to the coast. I am not going to start at this day and date to argue the whole question; I desire only to indicate briefly the situation and ask the minister when a decision" is likely to be given. The question at issue is the dis-7S594-199J
criminatory rates allowed on wheat for export going from the prairies to British Columbia, as compared with the rates on wheat of an inferior grade for domestic consumption. The export wheat is generally numbers 1, 2 and 3, while the domestic wheat used for poultry feed is generally numbers 5 and 6, yet the more valuable wheat takes a rate less than half the rate charged for the inferior grade. The rate on export wheat from a central point of the prairies to Vancouver is 21 cents per hundred, and the rate on wheat for domestic use in British Columbia, taken out under identically the same conditions, is 41^ cents; a very heavy discrimination. It was brought out in the argument that Alberta grain could be landed in Yokohama for 50 cents a ton less than the same grain could be landed in Vancouver for domestic use. It would seem more profitable for our poultrymen to migrate to China and raise their eggs there and ship them to Canada. It was Shown that the difference in rates amounted to something like 81,000,000 a year to our British Columbia poultrymen. The cry is being raised for protection against eggs coming in from the United States and China, but here is a method which can be used, without raising the bogey of a tariff, which would give very substantial relief. The Minister of Railways will probably offer the time-honoured argument that export rates throughout the world always take a lower rating. I do not think that that argument will apply in this case, because there is no competing water route. In most cases where a lower export rate is quoted it is generally quoted in connection with water competition in whole or part, but there is no such thing as water competition between Calgary and Vancouver. Even allowing that the export rates should be lower-I do not allow that proposition, and the argument of Mr. McGeer does not allow it; in fact, he argues against it quite successfully, I think- than the rates for domestic use, I would point out that perhaps ten years ago there was a certain spread between the two rates. But in the course of time, through the application of various legislative enactments, the export rate has been reduced but the spread was not reduced accordingly. The export rate was reduced again but the spread still increases. Assuming that the spread between the export rate and the domestic rate ten years ago, was just and fair, Which I do not agree to, it cannot be just and fair to-day, because that spread has been increasing. As each successive decrease in the export rate was made no appropriate and corresponding reduction was made in the domestic rate, so

Supply-Railways and Canals
that to-day the spread between the two rates is something like double wihat it was a few years ago.	.


Mr. LADNER:: Mr. Speaker,-


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, this is an important point which I think will have to 'be decided now because of the possibility of this discussion extending. We are now in this position; the parties have appealed to the privy council, from the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners in a .particular case. The hon. member is now asking me a question and I am in the position presumably of being one of the judges of the court which will Ibe trying this case. I do not know much about the rules of the house, but I do know that I cannot enter into a discussion with respect to a matter which I shall be compelled to hear in a quasi-judicial capacity. I do not object to my hon. friend bringing up this subject during the discussion of my civil government estimates, although, as he himself acknowledges, it hardly relates to that matter; but when I see indications of its developing into a debate I think it well to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the position into which we may be driven. I can give my hon. friend this information without any impropriety: the privy council has set the date of the hearing, I believe for some time in *September. I can confirm that date with the clerk of the privy council, but in any case the date of the hearing has been set.


Alan Webster Neill: The matter has not come up yet?


Leon Johnson Ladner: When the minister rose
I was on my feet intending to raise the .point which the minister referred to. Not that I disagree at all with the argument of the hon. member for Comox-AIberoi, on the contrary, I support it enthusiastically, but there is a certain form of procedure in our judicial system, which in my judgment-I think when the hon. member's attention is drawn to it, he will agree-should be followed with respect to these matters. As a matter of fact I am acting as counsel for the government of British Columbia and have in hand an appeal covering the same subject matter in which the United Farmers are interested. Although tempted many times to do so, I have refrained from discussing this matter, which is one of extreme importance to the people of British Columbia and of the prairies. It is an appeal from the Board of Railway Commissioners, a judicial body, to the Privy Council of Canada, another judicial body. Under the practice of our courts it is not considered good form, in respect to matters !\Ir. Neill.]
occupying such a position, either to spread propaganda or to discuss them in parliament or the press. I submit to my hon. friend, although I heartily concur in the viewpoint he has placed before the committee, that this is not the place to enter into the matter; otherwise it would invite a general discussion, and I have in my room upstairs an argument which would take three or four hours to deliver and which could be submitted with advantage to my province.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the minister for his courtesy in allowing me to introduce this in not exactly the technically correct place. He has stated that the case is now before the privy council and that he does not wish to prejudge it now. I can quite appreciate that. He states it will not be heard until September. That is all, I presume, I can do in the matter just now. But this house being the highest court in Canada-and the Minister of Railways says he is one of the judges-* I know of no better occasion than here and now to present my views before the minister on behalf of British Columbia.


Mr. KELLNER:: I wish to submit, on a
point of order, that the question which was introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is not the question which is submitted to the governor in council. The question which I understand, is submitted to them is that of Crowsnest rates not applying on Alberta grain going to the coast. The question my hon. friend introduced was as to the discrimination between domestic and export rates, a different question entirely. During the session of 1925, when the Railway Act was before the house, we had the assurance of the Prime Minister and, I think, of the Minister of Railways as well, that the Crowsnest rates would be made applicable to grain going from Alberta to the coast. That is the question which, I submit, is shortly to be brought before the governor in council, and not the question of discrimination between domestic and export rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can assure my hon.
friend that he is under a misapprehension in that respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the anomalies of
our present system is that after the Board of Railway Commissioners has dealt with a matter there is an appeal to the governor general in council, that is the privy council, which is a political tribunal. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will recall that one of the leading journals of western Canada a few months ago pointed out that in the end this meant that governments must accept re-

Supply-Railways and Canals
sponsibility in connection with even matters of freight rates, although a tribunal was appointed that heard the case in the first instance. I said to my hon. friend from Vancouver South, who has been retained to act in this matter, that clearly no answer could be given by the Minister of Railways in connection with it because he could not give an answer on an ex parte statement by the hon. member himself, and to involve us in an argument would probably take longer time than the hon. gentleman would care to give to the question. But we have the anomaly that while there is an appeal on a question of law under certain circumstances to the Supreme Court of Canada, there is an appeal on questions of fact to the privy council which is a political body, and that involves, it seems to me, with all due deference, a prohibition against the minister giving answers to questions that are asked in the House of Commons touching matters that must be considered by him and his colleagues who must give judgment after hearing all parties concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to collection of revenue-canals-staff and repairs, $2,690,812.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before we dispose of this item, I had intended to ask the minister some questions with respect to the item of civil government and particularly with reference to 1he salary of the deputy minister. I was under the impression the civil government item had not passed. I think the house is entitled to a statement in this regard in view of the dual position which the deputy minister occupies as a director of the Canadian National railway system and Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. The position is somewhat anomalous and may lead hereafter to some difficulties. I think it is not an unfair request that the minister should make a statement to the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: The item being passed, I do not wish to revert to it, but I will make a brief statement of the position. The house, of course, is aware of the serious loss which the department and the service of the country suffered in the death of the late deputy minister, Major Graham Bell, who had been a servant of Canada for more than thirty-eight years in various capacities, rising to Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals and a director of the Canadian National Railways. The problem of replacing Major Bell was a very difficult one. After casting around, the government determined on the appointment of the present deputy minister, Mr. R. A. C.
Henry, who had had a number of years' experience in the department and who, since reorganization, had been in the service of the Canadian National Railways as Director of the Bureau of Economics. I think all will acknowledge that Mr. Henry is eminently qualified in every way to serve. Frankly. I do not think I need enlarge upon the difficulty of securing, at the salary usually available for a deputy minister, the services of a man of the type required, who has to deal day by day with the high officers of the two great railway corporations. After the problem had been considered, it was decided to appoint Mr. Henry to the position at the salary usually accorded a deputy minister, to appoint him director of the Canadian National Railways, as his predecessor, Major Bell, had previously been, and, in addition, to take a few months of actual experience in the work to find out what extent the Canadian National Railways might properly be charged with a portion of his salary in respect to the services rendered as director of that institution. When I say a portion of his salary, I mean the enlargement of his salary beyond the amount ordinarily paid to a deputy minister. The committee will understand the problem when I say that Mr. Henry was receiving as Director of Economics of the Canadian National Railways more than half as much again as a deputy minister's salary. It is one of those difficulties which arise in connection with departments of this type dealing with such large affairs and requiring of its deputy minister a degree of ability and experience which the customary salary, as allowed by parliament, will not command. That is the difficulty, and I may tell the leader of the opposition that, as to the ultimate arrangement, nothing definite can be said to be settled. It was highly important that a capable and efficient deputy minister should be appointed. That was the first essential to keep the service operating and I am sure all who know Mr. Henry will applaud his selection, which I recommended to the government from the point of view of efficiency, ability and knowledge required. I am hoping that we shall succeed in making arrangements to retain Mr. Henry's services permanently. The problem had to be met immediately, and while I appreciate fully the difficulties involved, the solution arrived at is, I think, the best possible having regard to all the circumstances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The situation is obviously an embarrassing one to deal with. I have heard nothing but the highest recommendation and commendation of the gentleman in

Supply-Railways and Canals
question. But apart altogether from the National Railway and leaving out the Canadian Pacific, it must be remembered that we have in Canada the Michigan Central railway, the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway, and one or two other independent lines, the first named being the most important of them. The difficulty is that under the act the Department of Railways and Canals and the deputy minister must deal with problems of very great importance affecting sometimes questions that intimately concern the operations of the road of which the deputy minister is a director-, and it is not right to ask the gentleman to assume responsibility as a director, and then act in a judicial capacity in establishing relations between his company and other companies under the act in question. The position with Mr. Bell was entirely different. He was merely a nominal director of the Canadian Northern acting as a liaison officer between the government and the railway. The present incumbent oacupied a position of great importance with the railway company and has now assumed the position of deputy minister, and it is very difficult to divorce a lifelong association with the railway company from one's duties in a new capacity. Until 1911, during a number of the formative 3'ears of my life, I was associated with a railway company, and for many years afterwards I found it exceedingly difficult to approach problems with that free and disinterested mind which is absolutely essential for the oondudt of business. I merely mention that because it does appear to me that the difficulty is much greater than the minister has indicated. There are very serious problems with which the deputy minister has to deal, and there are unconscious influences that shade and temper one's judgment, as I learned in my own life during a period of five or six years after I divorced myself from my previous employment with a railway company. That is a fact that cannot be lightly disregarded. I mention it because I think it is in the public interest that it should be mentioned. It is not a pleasant thing to refer to on the floor of the house, but the minister must realize that in the conduct of public business there are duties cast on those who sit to the left of the Speaker which are not pleasant but which must be discharged if it is not fairly to be said that they are derelict to the duties devolving upon them.


Charles Avery Dunning: These further remarks
move me to say that both the minister and the deputy minister of railways are in a somewhat anomalous position in view of the present railway situation in Canada. Under

the Railway Act of Canada 'the minister and also the deputy minister have a definite statutory relationship and responsibility with respect to all the railways of Canada, but with respect to the Canadian National railway the minister occupies the position of representing the proprietors. He is, of course, for. that reason open-I will not say to the suspicion-but to conjecture that he might be inclined to favour the Canadian National system. In my capacity as Minister of Railways I have tried to be as judicial as one humanly can, and the deputy minister is just as capable, if not more capable than myself, of absolute fairness in these matters. But there is this to be remembered, which will be of some comfort to the hon. leader of the opposition, and I am sure he knows it already: that since the institution of the Board of Railway Commissioners the major part of what might be called the judicial functions of the minister and the deputy minister as between the different railways has been transferred to the 'board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not wholly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not wholly; because it is impossible to transfer them wholly, but certainly that anomalous position has been lessened by recent developments. I make no complaint over the question being raised by my hon. friend. I deem it of vital importance to the conduct of the Department of Railways and Canals that I should secure as deputy a man having the experience, training and ability, beyond all question, to deal with all phases of the department's work, and I am satisfied that in Mr. Henry I have such a man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be desirable that the country Should pay him a salary commensurate with his work on the principle enunciated in connection with the post office workers that the labourer is worthy of his hire? The deputy minister, with the best intentions in the world, sits at the board and arrives at a conclusion with respect to a matter of policy that greatly affects the interests of one or two or three of the other railways in this country. He must then give effect to that policy in his capacity as deputy minister so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned with administration in connection with that policy, and it is placing upon him a burden that is very difficult. He has to make invidious distinctions which, although I think he is a very highly trained officer, he must at times And it a little difficult to make. An ordinary person such as myself found that difficulty very

Supply-Railways and Canals
acute from 1911 to 1916. I should like to see the country pay a sum for such services as would gratify the wish of the minister that he should have about him a deputy upon whose judgment, knowledge and ability he can with confidence rely.


Charles Avery Dunning: The situation in that regard is, as I indicated, still unsettled. I shall bear in mind my hon. friend's observations, although I would point out that if we once concede, as I think we must, that Canada's tremendous railway interests demand that the Deputy Minister of Railways should be a man capable of acting at least as vice-president of a railway corporation,, then the magnitude of the problem from the point of view of adequate remuneration becomes apparent. I shall not discuss it further exceipt to thank hon. members opposite for the manner in which they have referred to the matter.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does this department have control over the right of way of steamships passing through the canals?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. We control the flow of traffic through the canals.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then I have three complaints which I would like to bring to the minister's notice. I tried to bring them up last year, but no action was taken. First, certain boats have right of way over all others. Second, there is the right of way that is given to what is known as package freighters, but there is a complaint that this right of way is given to package freighters carrying non-perishable fruit and that any boat not classed as such, when it comes to the entrance of the canal, may have to wait some hours till these other boats go through. The third complaint is that two American boats known as the Twin Ports and Twin Cities ran all last summer with right of way in Canadian canals which was not granted them in their own American canals. This right of way was given to the Twin Ports and the Twin Cities over the steamship Keystate. The complaint says that all last year and this year these tiwo boats have been given the right of way. They are a faster boat and the same right of way is not given them over their own American canals.


Charles Avery Dunning: I remember my hon.
friend raising the matter a year ago, and I am not sure that I then read the regulation. So far as the three boats which he mentions are concerned, it is a question of which class they fall into under the regulations. I will read regulation 24 which relates to priority of passing through locks:
As regards priority of passage through the canals or locks, the following shall be the order of precedence:-
1.	Any government vessel.
2.	Vessels built and navigated for the express
purposes of the passenger traffic, running on schedule time; also excursion steamers and market boats.	_
3.	Vessels carrying general merchandise or package freight running on schedule time and talcing on, or delivering freight at local ports en route.
4.	Vessels built and navigated for the express purpose of freight traffic, even though carrying passengers to some limited extent; also private pleasure boats, yachts, skiffs, canoes, etc.
In the case of a vessel of the first or second class, above-mentioned, approaching a lock and being within such distance that She would be seriously or unduly delayed if any other boat lying in the tier and over which she has precedence were passed through before her, the lock shall be held for her accommodation.
Any violation or attempt to _ violate these provisions of precedence shall subject the owner or person in charge of the offending vessef to a penalty of not less than five dollars, and not exceeding one hundred dollars.
I shall be glad, to have the cases referred to looked into again.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to
read this, because I asked the complainant to give it to me in writing. Last year he gave me the complaint that they arrived at the canal some hours before and yet had to wait there simply because these other two boats had sent a message ahead' that they were on their way. This is the complaint:
First, there are several Canadian boats which are listed as package freighters, but carry non-iperiishable goods such as iron, pipes, etc. westbound, and grain cargoes on the return trip. These vessels do not run on schedule yet they are being given the right of way, and due to the congestion in the canals we are compelled to wait from ten to twelve hours to enter the locks and then permit these boats to go ahead of us. Whereas a light ship requires only about twelve hours to pass through the canals these others take approximately twenty-four hours. At present there are a large number of boats which have a just claim for the right of way, and we are therefore delayed enough by these.
My second complaint is regarding the movement last year of two American boats, the Twin Ports and Twin Cities. These vessels were refused the right of way in American canals but still were given the preference over Canadian boats in Canadian canals.
In the third place I would like to refer to conditions at the west entrance to the Cornwall canal, Dickinson's landing. In previous years there was a float there which enabled boats to enter the lock in safety but it has been removed: and due to the current caused by the flow of water used for power purposes, the approach to the canal is now dangerous.


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to the
Cornwall canal, the last matter which he mentions, the improvement necessary there has been undertaken and is now practically

Supply-Railways and Canals
complete. With respect to the former matters I shall be glad, this being a matter of record, to have them carefully investigated.


Mr.   BOSS@Kingston: The reason I read this was so that it would be on Hansard. This is from the captain of the steamship Keystate. He feels that his complaint is fair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-J. L. Weller, $3,500.
Henry Elvins Spencer: This is a larger amount
than most of the other items in the same category. May we have a short explanation?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the same vote as last year. Mr. Weller entered the service of the department in 1883 as an engineer in canal construction and operation. In 1900 he was appointed superintending engineer of the Welland canal, which office he held till 1912 when he was appointed engineer in charge of survey and design of construction of the then proposed new Welland ship canal. He remained in charge of the work till 1917, when it was closed down owing to the war, and his services were dispensed with. From January, 1919, to March, 1927, the services of Mr. Weller were retained in a consulting capacity because of his early connection with the development of the Welland canal plans. He is now retired, and in view of his services it was thought that $3,500 was not an unreasonable allowance to make. He is a very old man and has no other pension rights whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
PUBLIC WORKS Public Works-Miscellaneous-
Accounts branch-salaries of agents, clerks, travelling and contingent expenses of outside service, $25,000.
Architectural branch-salaries of architects, clerks 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, foremail at Bic, P.Q., who was fatally injured by an accident while on duty, $3,355.-Total, $1,036,355.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: This is the vote which we had reached last evening when, we stopped. I want to hand to my hon. friend from Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) the statement which I promised him yesterday with regard to the total expenditure up to date on New Edinburgh mills. That includes everything. The net total for the acquisition of the property and the fitting pp of the buildings includes $36,047.94 expended on alterations, heating and electric fittings, and the shop that is at present being fitted up for the research council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May we have that statement put on Hansard?


John Campbell Elliott: \ es. The statement is as follows:
New Edinburgh Mills Property Cost of Acquirement-
Purchase price from Gatineau
Power Co. Ltd	 $525,000 00
Purchase price, small lot from
Mrs. M. D. Cranston	 8,250 00
Survey, recoupment to Gatineau Co. of outlay for taxes etc., etc. 6,998 99
T ,,	540,248 99
Less old machinery sold from mill 1,002 39
Net total acquirement of property. $539,246 60
Fitting up buildings on Green Island for Dominion Bureau of Statistics-
Cost of alterations and sundry permanent, heating and electric fittings	 73,720	07
Fitting up buildings on John St. for national research laboratory-
Cost of alterations and sundry permanent, heating and electric fittings	
36,047	94Grand total of expenditure upon acquirement and immovable improvements to these properties to date	$649,014	61
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) asked for a statement of the National Art Gallery purchases. I have had a statement copied, which I will hand to my hon. friend. I 'have also had prepared for him, and will hand to him-which is perhaps the most convenient way for him to get it-the annual report of the National Gallery for 1926-27, and also for 1927-28, and the catalogue. I desire to state with regard to the pictures to which my hon. friend from Vancouver-ilurrard, the hon. member for Kingston and the member for Muskoka referred, that I had hoped last night before the discussion ended to be able to give them the information they asked for. Some of the staff got in touch with the director and asked

Supply-Public Works
whether he could give any information with regard to the whereabouts of these three pictures. Unfortunately he was not able to do this offhand with any degree of definiteness. There aire in the gallery about 6,000 pictures which are exhibited at various points throughout Canada, being lent to local galleries, and it is difficult for even the director to be able to say offhand just where these particular pictures are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All he can say is, they
are not here.


John Campbell Elliott: He cannot say even that
without checking it up. However, he gave me a statement this morning with regard to the three pictures referred to. I 'have the following memorandum with regard to these portraits:
Lord Byng: This portrait by John Sargent belongs to the national gallery collection and not the Canadian war memorials and was purchased in 1925 from the national gallery vote. It has been hanging in the collection ever since and is hanging now on floor No. 2.
General Currie: This portrait by Orpen belongs to the Canadian war memorials collection. It has hung temporarily in the national gallery at various times and is at present on loan to His Excellency the Governor General, at government house.
General Lipsett: This portrait, also by Orpen, belongs to the Canadian %var memorials. It has been exhibited temporarily in the national gallery at various times.
It was withdrawn first for loan, at the urgent request of the commandant, to the Royal Military College, Kingston.
Later it was again lent to Sir William Orpen for the purpose of making a replica for presentation to General Lipsett's native^ town. Merthyr Tydfil, at the request of that city. It has now been returned and. pending the usual rearrangement of the exhibition in the national gallery it is being kept with the rest of the Canadian war memorials collection in the new fireproof storage space in the auditorium building.


John Arthur Clark: Since what date has the Sargent picture been hanging?


John Campbell Elliott: Since it was purchased.


John Arthur Clark: I made a very careful
search a few weeks ago and asked1 particularly for it but I could not find it.


John Campbell Elliott: I have given my hon.
friend the statement submitted to me by the director and I take it to be correct.


John Arthur Clark: What jurisdiction has the
director of the gallery over the war memorial pictures?


John Campbell Elliott: The national gallery has
been the custodian of the Canadian war memorials since 1919. The national gallery has exhibited them temporarily twice and
they have also been exhibited twice in Montreal and Toronto during that time. The whole collection consists of 360 paintings and sculptures and prints, and it would be impossible to exhibit them permanently in the national gallery for want of space. The national gallery, out of its own fund, has paid for necessary restoration work and upon its representations to the government last year, better and more perfectly fireproof storage was secured for them in the auditorium building. The collection is there now waiting for the building of a new national gallery which it is expected will include a special wing devoted to them. The trustees of the national gallery have never ceased to urge in every annual report and through every other possible means the necessity of providing a permanent and public home for the Canadian war memorials.


John Arthur Clark: What proportion of this year's vote	will be	expended	on new	pictures?


John Campbell Elliott: The sum of $85,000.


John Arthur Clark: Does the minister think
he is justified in purchasing new pictures when we have nowhere to hang them?


John Campbell Elliott: These picutres that are
being purchased are by noted artists and include what are considered by the trustees of the gallery to be works of special merit which they	should	obtain. Not only	arethey exhibited in the gallery, as far as it is possible to	display	them, but part of	thescheme is	to lend	them to	various local
organizations from one end of the country to the other. They are kept on exhibition practically all the time in one place or another.


John Arthur Clark: I cannot possibly understand why these war memorial pictures should be locked up in basements. Why is it necessary that portraits of men like General Lipsett should be stored in some basement in the city of Ottawa? Why should not such a portrait be hanging in the gallery? From personal observation I know that there are in the gallery things which I at any rate consider absurdities when compared with such portraits. If the minister will visit the gallery he will see there pictures of ducks and bunches of roses and geese and numerous landscape scenes, as well as George Washington, who, it is true, was a great character and all that. But why should there not be some portraits of our own national characters? I cannot understand a policy that excludes from the gallery the portraits of men who have made history for our country, while
Supply-Public Works

we hang there things that are really of no interest to the public. I should like to know from the minister who the men are that administer the gallery.


John Campbell Elliott: The present board of
trustees comprises Mr. Harry Southam, of the city of Ottawa, the chairman, who is replacing the late Doctor F. J. Shepherd of the city of Montreal. The other trustees are Mr. Norman MacKenzie of Regina, Hon. Vincent Massey, and Mr. J. O. Marchand, architect, of Montreal, with Doctor Mac-Tavish of the Civil Service Commission.


John Arthur Clark: I hope the minister will
direct the attention of these gentlemen to the remarks that have been made on this subject and suggest that cons:deration be given to hanging some Canadian portraits in the gallery. I am quite sure lhat if some of these men will visit the gallery they will be able to eliminate some of the roses, some of the fruit and perhaps some of the foreign gentlemen and consider making space for the portraits of our own men who have made history for this country, and which are now buried in seme of the basements.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to have
my hon. friend's representations forwarded to the trustees. Miay I point out, however, to my hon. friend that matters of art are decided only partly by the identity of the person whose portrait is toeing painted1. The question of who the man was is important in regard to the persons to whom my hon. friend has referred, and I quite agree with him with regard to the importance of General Currie and the other gentleman to whom he has alluded. I hope I have not left in his mind the impression that the (portrait of General Lipsett has been stored permanently in a basement; it is not in a basement but in the best fireproof space available in Ottawa for the storage and preservation of these various pictures at a uniform temperature and proper humidity.


John Arthur Clark: But that is only a recent
development; they were formerly in the basement of the Victoria building.


John Campbell Elliott: That is quite so, but
they have been transferred. The portrait of General Lipsett has been moved from one place to another, just as the other portraits have been placed on exhibition in various places, and this happened to be the only

one of the three pictures referred to which at present is temporarily stored in the auditorium building.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the minister tell
us whether all precautions are taken when these pictures are loaned to see that they are hot destroyed or injured?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, they are fully insured.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question puit, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 3, 1929