PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No, 76 from the Senate, for the relief of Laura Grace Davis.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 77 from the Senate, for the relief of Alice Brouse.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 79 from the Senate, for the relief of Robert Lawrence Anderson.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. SO from the Senate, for the relief of Pearl Hibbard.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 81 from the Senate, for the relief of William John Taylor.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 82 from the Senate, for the relief of Albert Edward Cottrell-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 83 from the Senate, for the relief of Florence May Mott.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 84 from the Senate, for the relief of Ellen Mary Harvey.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 85 from the Senate, for the relief of Stella Florence Brickenden.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 86 from the Senate, for the relief of Frank Alexander Michel (otherwise known as Frank Alexander Mitchell).-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 87 from the Senate, for the relief of Thelma Adeline Rose Hands.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 88 from the Senate, for the relief of Jean Veronica Margaret Wright.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 89 from the Senate, for the relief of Ruth Darcy Blinn McCrimmon.-Mr. Shaw.
Bill No. 90 from the Senate, for the relief of Thomas George McElligott.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 91 from the Senate, for the relief of Alvin Wesley Richards.-Mr. Stewart . (Leeds).
Bill No. 92 from the Senate, for the relief of Cecil Tanner.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 93 from the Senate, for the relief of Ruth Ellen McGowan.-Mr. Shaw.
Bill No. 94 from the Senate, for the relief of Edith Kearsley Smith.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 95 from the Senate, for the relief of James Raymond Armstrong.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 96 from the Senate, for the relief of Josephine Royant.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 97 from the Senate, for the relief of Gertrude Margaret Burkart.-Mr. Ryckman.

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

Mr. POULIOT:: What were the names of the lawyers of the Quebec Harbour Commission, from 1902 to 1912?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1902-	Mr. J. A. Lane.
1903-	Mr. J. A. Lane.
1904-	Mr. J. A. Lane.
1905-	Mr. J. A. Lane.
1906-	Mr. J. A. Lane.
1906-	Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1907-	Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1908-	Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1909-	Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1910-	-Hon. L. E. Taschereau and Mr. J. A. Lane (special case).
1911-	Mr. C. E. Dorion, until May 15, 1911, when appointed judge of the Superior Court.
19H_From May 15, Messrs. Taschereau, Roy, Cannon, Parent and Fitzpatrick.
Questions

1912-Messrs. Taschereau, Roy, Cannon; Parent and Fitzpatrick, until April 29, 1912, when Mr. A. C. Dobell was appointed.
1912-Messrs. I. N. Belleau and Hon. E. J. Flynn acted on special cases in 1912.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ST. MALO WORKSHOPS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the name of the person or persons who sold to the government the land on which are located the workshops of the Canadian National Railways, at St. Malo, and what was the sale price?
2.	What is (a) the amount and (b) the value of the machinery transferred from the workshops of the Canadian National Railways, at Riviere du Loup, to those of St. Malo?
3.	What is the number of employees of the Canadian National Railways who were transferred from Riviere du Loup to St. Malo?
4.	Was this transfer optional?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.
L'Association des Terrains
Bruit				47
Wilfrid Emonds				00
Mrs. D. P. Bigaouette ..		.. 1.000	00
Mrs. C. Langlois				00
Mrs. M. L. Montmigny .		.. 1,000	00
Joseph Bigaouette				00
L'Companie des Carriers			
des Beauport	$9,983	90	Costs for above	434	19	- 10,418	09$188,179	562. (a) 22 machine tools;	3 sets blacksmiths'	outfits, (b) $36,705.	3. Ninety-three.	4. Yes.	ORTHOPAEDIC BUILDINGS	AND	EQUIPMENT


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1. How much have the government Orthopaedic buildings, grounds and equipment, cost to date?
2.	How many limbs have been constructed for each amputation case before the patient was able to wear one?
3. How many limbs have been discarded by the soldier amputation cases ?
4.	How many soldiers who had amputations, are not able to wear the limbs provided?
5.	Why is it that civilians can be fitted at Camp Hill, and does the government receive the money paid by said civilians?
6- (a) Is the stock of supplies at Camp Hill checked up at any time, and (b) does the official in charge sell and give supplies to civilians?
7.	Could not Canadian makers do the work to greater advantage?
8.	Why were Canadian makers not allowed to do this work in the first place?
IMr. Cardin.]


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.
(a)	The factory occupies part of the buildings at the Christie Street hospital, Toronto; Unit depots are housed in the most suitable accommodation available for that purpose in departmental centres or hospitals: available statistics do not distinguish between the cost of the buildings as a whole and the parts set aside for the use of orthopaedic and surgical appliances division.
(b)	The cost of all materials, labour and overhead charges' entering into the manufacture of appliances has been absorbed into the cost of each appliance, concerning which detailed1 2 3 4 5 * 7 8 statistics will be found in the sessional papers mentioned in the answer to Question 8.
2.	None.
3.	The department is not aware that any limbs have been discarded.
4.	None: an artificial appliance is never issued to a patient unless it is certified) by medical opinion-specialist orthopaedic consultants

that he will be able to wear and make use of it.
5.	The department does not deal with individuals other than war disabled ex-service men, but, appliances are supplied in certain cases at the request of other departments of the government and of Provincial Workmen's Compensation Boards, as authorized by order in council P.C. 2311 of the 25th September, 1920. (Published in Sessional Paper No. 14, 1920, page 157).
6.
(a) Yes. (b) No.
7.	No.
8.	The circumstances which influenced policy in undertaking the manufacture of orthopaedic and opthalmic appliances, and the subsequent developments, are set forth in detail in the annual reports of the department:
Sessional Paper No. 14. 1920, page 26 Sessional Paper No. 14. 1921, page 47 Sessional Paper No. 14a. 1922, page 37 Sessional Paper No. 18. 1923, page 63 Sessional Paper No. 18. 1924, page 27 Sessional Paper No. 18. 1925, page 18


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Have any ships formerly belonging to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine been sold?
2.	If so, what amount was chargeable against each vessel on books of Canadian Government Merchant Marine: (a) cost; (b) permanent changes or betterments; (c) interest and depreciation; (d) all other charges?
3.	What price was received for each vessel sold and who was purchaser?

Questions
4.	Was the amount chargeable to Canadian Government Merchant Marine reduced by all items in question (2)?
5.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 
CUSTOMS TARIFF-COMBING WOOL ETC.
Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Does item 555 of the customs tariff provide for a duty upon combing wool of two cents per pound, British preference, and three cents per pound under the general tariff ?
2.	Does item 556 of the customs tariff provide for duty on worsted tops of 10 per cent British preference and 15 per cent under the general tariff?
3.	Is the government enforcing the collection of duty on these two items, as provided for by law?
4.	Has the government received any complaints that the said duty is not being collected on these two items, 555 and 556, of the customs tariff?
5.	Were the said items (555 and 556) included in the customs tariff to encourage the establishment of the manufacture of wool tops in Canada?
6.	Since the inclusion of the said items in the customs tariff, has a factory to manufacture wool tops been established in Canada?
7.	Was such a factory established in Trenton, Ontario, and is the government aware that over 15,000 Oanadian citizens have invested in such a factory?
8.	Is the government aware that failure to enforce the collection of the aforementioned duties has resulted in serious loss to the aforementioned factory ?
Hon. Mr. COPP;
1.	Yes, upon wools of the following description: Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown, combing wools, or wools known as lustre wools and other like combing wools, such as are grown in Canada.
2.	Yes, when such tops are made from Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown, combing wools, or wools known as lustre wools and other like combing wools, such as are grown in Canada.
3.	Duty is not collected when the importer certifies on the customs entry that the wool, or tops are such as are not provided for in tariff items 555 or 556. This has been the practice of the departments since 1897.
4.	Yes, from the Dominion Combing Mills Ltd., Trenton, Ont.
5.	No information.
6.	Yes.
7.	The government is aware that such a factory is established in Trenton, but there is no information in the records of the Department of Customs and Excise of the number of Canadian citizens who have invested in such factory.
8.	Representations to that effect have been received from The Dominion Combing Mills, Limited, of Trenton.


ADJUSTMENT OF WAR ACCOUNTS
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	What amounts have been received from Great Britain on adjustment of war accounts and other indebtedness since January 1st, 1922?
2.	What amount has been received each month?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Amount received in cash on account of principal, $69,878,006.62.
2.
April, 1922.. .. May, 1922.. .. June, 1922.. .. July, 1922.. .. August, 1922.. . September, 1922 October, 1922.. November, 1922 December, 1922. March, 1923.. . March, 1924.. .

5.000.	000 00
5.000.	000 00
5.000.	000 00 10,000,000 00 10,000,000 00
5.000.	000 00
5.000.	000 00
5.000.	000 00
7.000.	000 00 7,878,006 62


MR. ALFRED GUENET
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has Mr. Alfred Guenet, keeper of the Royal Engineers Camp, at Levis, asked to be retired and given in his resignation?
2.	If so, what is the name of the person appointed to replace him, and what is his salary7
Questions


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	No. Alfred Guenet did not ask to be retired; but he was retired on account of advanced age (76) in order to have the benefit of the Calder Act.
2.	No person has been appointed to replace him. A military foreman of works has been detailed to carry out the caretaker's duties temporarily during the summer, in addition to his foreman duties, without any additional remuneration.


INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the total gross amount of federal income tax collected an each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, for the year ending March 31, 1925?
2.	What was the cost of collecting same in each
province ?
3.	What was the net collection made in each province?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	 ,
Alberta	
2.
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
3.	Answered by No. 1


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	When were the Crowsnest pass agreement rates put back into force?
2.	What articles are affected by that agreement?
3.	What rates are paid on such articles under said agreement, as compared with the rates paid on the same articles in other parts of the country?


CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend and consolidate The Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1912, and amending acts, and to make further provisions in respect to the handling and marketing of grain, or incident to the buying, selling and transportation of grain; the grading and weighing of grain; the handling of grain in and out by country elevators and at country points and inspection of such elevators; the operation, management and control of terminal, public and private elevators; the storing, cleaning and binning of grain; the mixing of grain, and the disposition of screenings.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to two statements which he made to the House on July 17 last. They will be found in Hansard of that date. Replying to a question by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) the Prime Minister said:
Under the circumstances, the government has decided not to proceed further with the bill which is before the House at the present time, but to take it up at an early stage next session of parliament.
The bill referred to is the Alternative Vote Bill, so called. The second statement was made in answer to a question of my own regarding the same matter and reads as follows:
In reply to the first question, I -may say that if we are all here when parliament re-assembles, certainly this alternative vote measure will be one of the first to be brought before the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not very early in the session-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Will the hon. gentleman put his question now, please?


William Charles Good: I am asking the Prime Minister, if and when the government proposes to re-introduce the bill which was read a first time last year?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The government does intend to re-introduce the measure at an early date.


MEMBERS' STENOGRAPHERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-oouata): Mr. Speaker, on Monday I dictated some letters and I got them only to-day. I do not wish to blame the stenographic staff, but I think there should be more stenographers so that the work may be performed expeditiously.
Hewitt Bostock: Do I understand that
the hon. gentleman is complaining about the stenographers?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Speaker; I am
complaining about the delay. When we give work to a stenographer I think that work should be finished before the stenographer is ordered to take work from another member.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind the hon. gentleman that many years ago we had no stenographers at all to look after our correspondence. During this parliament at least fifty stenographers are available for the work. Of course, if a stenographer were assigned to

C.NJt.-Minister's Statement
each member it would increase the sessional expenditure very much. However, it is a matter that I shall be glad to bring before the Commission of Internal Economy. I may say that this is the first complaint I have received during the session, because we have an excellent staff.


Mr. POTJLIOT:: I do not wish to blame
anyone.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Mr. Speaker,
there are two sets of stenographers: one for the Senate, who are not always busy, and one for the House of Commons, who are generally very busy. If these duplex systems were consolidated, more work could be done without any additional expense.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, now that the budget debate is over, I wonder if the government is prepared to make an announcement regarding the revaluation of soldier settlement lands?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry
the minister (Mr. Beland) is not in his seat at the moment. When he returns to the House I will bring my bon. friend's question to his attention.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: I understood the motion
which came yesterday was to be moved today. I presume it was a motion for the House to go into committee of Supply, because that motion could not be moved to-day.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The only way we seemed to be able to get on with this debate today was to get into committee of Supply, in which event the Speaker would leave the chair automatically to-day. Had that procedure not been adopted we should not have been able to proceed to-day.
Civil government-railways and canals-salaries, $206,070; contingencies, $38,000.


Arthur Meighen: There are one or two
other features of the minister's statement of yesterday to which I want to refer. The minister made some very favourable comments on the great success of the government in getting its new railway loans floated at a cheaper rate than those floated in 1919-20. I
know the minister well enough to assert with positiveness that he was quite aware that there was not the slightest thing in what he was contending; that it was merely a question of what the value of money was in the world's markets, and that the government were no more responsible for the money rate of 1924 than they were for the price of wheat in 1924; no more responsible than they were for the cattle values of 1922. What is possible in these matters is entirely a matter of market conditions, and if the minister intended to make an argument the only way he could have set about it was to compare the rates this company was able to secure on government guarantee with rates which other governments were able to secure in other parts of the world. Into this he did not launch; consequently I have not overstepped the mark when I say that his words were merely vain. Attempts have been made frequently to make these comparisons. They are very easily made. If hon. members will look at the Hansard report of the budget debate of 1923, and especially at certain accounts of loans presented by the former Minister of Finance, the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), they will get all the information they desire to show that the lowest possible interest rate was secured in 1920 and 1921, and that our bonds were sold on an interest basis lower than were those of any other country at the same time.
While I am on the subject I wish to say a word on a matter very much akin to it. Repeated assertions come rather flippantly, I think, from many members of the government and from some hon. members to my left, to the effect that a very stupid and a very gross financial crime was perpetuated when, during the war, tax-free bonds were issued. It is hard for me to conceive of anything more futile or more childish than the attempts of hon. members to declare how much has been lost to Canadla by the issue of these tax-free bonds. It would be just as easy to ascertain how much more rainfall we would have had in these ten years had there not been an earthquake in San Francisco. No man knows, or can know, or give an intelligent opinion, whether or not there has been a dollar lost to Canada. One would actually think that a decision to issue the bonds tax free was come to in order to see that people who had money to lend at that time would be in a comfortable position for the rest of their lives; that the treasury was not considered; that the tax-payer was not considered'-only the money lender. Well, I do not think any government or any party

C.NJt.-Minister's Statement
is so utterly idiotic as that, and I do not think any hon. member thinks it is; much less that the Minister of Finance of that time, whose record during the war will bear comparison with that of the Finance minister of any other allied country, would have been guilty of conduct so careless or precipitate. Every consideration was weighed on all sides of the argument. We were faced with this condition. The American republic was issuing tax-free bonds, and issued them throughout the war-has been issuing them right up to this day. And these people are referred to by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) as the shrewdest financiers in the world. I do not think he is very far astray; there are just as good, but there are no better. They believe it pays to do that; and the ascending scale of their income tax law is even more precipitate now than ours, for they have lowered their income tax on the lower incomes while those remaining at the high figure are unchanged. I quote one sentence from the annual report of the treasurer of the United States, issued just a few months ago:
Fully tax exempt securities outstanding in the hands of the public now amount to $13,284,000,000 and are increasing at the rate of one billion dollars a year.
This is the conduct of those men described by the minister as the shrewdest financiers in the world; but this conduct, or exactly the same conduct on our part is referred to by those super-financiers to my left and opposite me as the work of childish knaves. No; the money had to be secured; failure to secure it would have been fatal. Looking back upon the period now from the vantage ground of ten years thence, we may be honestly convinced that the money could have been secured if the bonds had not been tax free. One thing is certain: a higher price would have had to be paid. Whether that higher figure would in the long event have counterbalanced the taxes we now might collect; no man can say. But how is anyone to tell at the opening of a great war, or even a year after, or two, or three, what is to be the burden when the war is over, and what is to be the history of taxation for years thereafter? The best judgment, the judgment exercised by other nations at the same time, was exercised here, and the considerations that moved the financiers of other countries moved the Finance Minister of Canada. Certainly no one could honestly even think-no one could honestly say-that any other consideration affected him at all. Even to-day the United States of America adopt this plan of securing loans. Nobody would suggest that they could not secure them were the

bonds not tax free. Certainly they could; their country is abounding with money within all its boundaries. But their judgment is that in this way they can get the loan more cheaply and in the end be in a better position than if they issued them otherwise.


Mr. CAHILL:: Will my right hon. friend
permit me? Is it not a fact that all the states and municipalities have the right to issue tax-free bonds, and1 that the national treasury, therefore, could not very well compete with them if they issued taxable bonds? It is just the reverse in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: It is just the reverse.
We have to compete against them just as well as the United States federal government, and always had to. Certainly they have the right to do it, but does the hon. member think they would continue to have such right if it was not considered good business?


Frank S. Cahill: Would it not seem impossible for the federal government to compete in the bond market selling bonds against the states and municipalities, which have the right to issue tax-free bonds?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly we are competing with them, and with England too.


Frank S. Cahill: Not in domestic loans.


Arthur Meighen: Of course we are. The
rate of money here is influenced by their rate and by their conditions all the time, but it was much closer, far more delicate at that time than it is to-day.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is it not a fact that the last loan was liable to taxation and that it was over-subscribed?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly; the money rate had reduced. The last loan was at least subscribed to the full. The last loan issued by the late government was liable to taxation. We felt that conditions had passed when it was necessary to issue a tax-free loan, but we could have got a better price for that loan if we had made it not liable to taxation. But against the difference we would have gained, we would have had to set off what would have been lost in taxes.


Mr. LEWIS:: The right hon. gentleman
refers to the United States. Did we start the tax-free loans first?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, certainly not. I
do not know when they started; I do not know there ever was a time when the United States did not follow the practice of issuing tax-free loans. There may have been.

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
Those are the circumstances to which I wished to refer, and I have taken the liberty of doing so notwithstanding the fact that it is aside from the main current of the minister's
statement.
The Minister of Railways then went into the question of the condition of the system and the results of last year, and expressed the view that the result was wholly satisfactory, and indeed phenomenally so under all the circumstances. Well, the qualifying phrase is, of course, a very useful one-a very sweeping one. I wish I could take as much sunlight from the report as can the Minister of Railways-earnestly I wish I could. I think I would have everything to gain if the result were as good as the Minister of Railways depicts it. I believe he is influenced by the best of motives in so presenting it; but I cannot see, that we can look forward to the future with quite the optimism that the Minister of Railways expresses.
He says that we lost in business some $17,000,000, and that this was atoned for to the extent of some $14,000,000 by economies in operation. I do not hold the National Railway Board responsible in the least degree for the loss of business; that is something for which other conditions are responsible altogether. The minister attributed those conditions to the comparatively small crop in western Canada. Our crop was something below the average, it is true, but the reduction in tonnage which resulted therefrom was only 2,300,000 tons, while total reduction in all tonnage on both systems in Canada was between 9.000.000 and 10,000.000 tons, if not over 10 000,000 tons-it was 8,800,000 I think at the end of October. Now why the difference? Is it due to the relatively small crop in western Canada? We had a large crop in eastern Canada, the largest in our history, and while the western crop was somewhat below the average, the farmer Obtained more for it for the purpose of his purchases than he had ever obtained since the days of the war. He was in a better position to buy in so far as crop returns were concerned. Why is it that the other tonnage fell off from three to four times as much as the grain crop? It certainly is not due to the National Railway Board, but I fancy if the minister in the quiet of his closet would ask Sir Henry Thornton why it was, he would find Sir Henry Thornton's explanation pretty much the same as mine; and if he would ask Sir Henry Thornton what the cure should be, I think he would get a remedy not very radically different from my own. The other business of Canada was depleted in masses, and
it was depleted from the year 1923 when we undoubtedly had no boom. It was not like 1923 in the United States when they reached the Mount Everest, when they bad a tidal wave of prosperity from which you would naturally expect some recession in the following year. No, we were in a period of comparative langour in 1923. But in 1924 we had iron tonnages drop off 57 per cent, and other tonnages drop off in lesser percentages; but down and down they went until the National railways lost some $17,000,000, and the employees of the National railways had to pay the bill. Those employees were out of work, thousands of them as compared with the year before. In that year $7,690,000 less went into their pockets because they were walking the streets. So we cannot take very great comfort from the fact that millions were "saved" out of the pockets of the workmen. And even this kind of "saving" atoned only in part, for the loss in tonnage of $17,000,000.
What, though, is the final result? We are $3,186,000 worse off on operation than the year before. The year before was better than the previous year. That was the first year of the new board; but the improvement was by no means as great as it was the previous year over 1921, and still further was it from being as great as the $20,000,000 improvement of 1921 over 1920, The rate of improvement got less and less until the end of 1923, and then ceased altogether, and now we are, in operation alone, $3,186,000 worse off and in fixed charges some $4,400,000 more. So, for 1924 we are behind 1923 a total sum of $7619,820.
Where are we going to be this year? The year 1924 saw an addition to the capital debt, according to the minister's own figures-and the minister was very, very delicate in his touch on this subject-of $118,000,000; according to the reports of the company it is somewhat more, but not very substantially more. That $118,000,000, even if it is right, will take $5,000,000 more to pay the interest on it. So next year there must be an improvement in operation of $7,600,000 odd, plus $5,000,000 odd. All that has to be overtaken before we have a chance to move one single inch, one single dollar, towards the balancing of our railway budget. Is it likely to occur? If the process of reckless expenditure of last year goes on this year, it will not.
The serious feature of our whole National railway position is this: It is the continued multiplication of the capital charges of the road. The government of Canada under the statute is responsible for new capital charges.

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
If, as is stated, and very responsibly stated -the minister will correct me if it is a rumour which is false-great new investments are being made in Montreal for some proposed terminals, or other purposes, investments running into hundreds-yes into millions-


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: Well into hundreds of
thousands. If this is true and on the top of these other expenditures, all in a mad race for a limited traffic, then we are not on the road that leads to solvency of this National system. Think of $327,000,000 being added to the debt of that system in three years and three months. I know the debt was added to, and rapidly added to, up to the end of 1921; but we had to restore a dilapidated system; we had to restore one semi-dilapidated; and we had to restore one wholly dilapidated- S,000-odd of freight cars alone had to be built for the Grand Trunk and for the Canadian Northern railways; and we had to put the thousands of miles of road into good working shape. But even then the rate of increase would scarcely equal the rate now after all this upbuilding has been done. In 1922, the last year of Mr. Hanna's board, this expenditure ceased, and only $59,000,000 was added to the capital charges that year. But, with the new board coming in control, $116,000,000 went on the first year, $118,000,000 the year following, and $18,000,000 in the first three months of this year. And where is it going to end? According to the reports of the company the total is $312,000,000; according to the total which I have given the figure should be $327,000,000. There is $14,000,000-odd unaccounted for, and I should like very much to have an explanation of where that fourteen millions comes in. However, assuming that the minister's figures are correct and the report of the company is wrong, even then the rate of increase is appalling, and it must be checked or we cannot see an exit at all. And it must be remembered that this pace has been set in the face of a continually contracting business; been set in the face of a contracting business to such a degree that $17,000,000 is swept off the receipts in one year alone; and it is set in the face of the most obvious fact-that you cannot multiply by advertising, by publicity, by radio and all those features, you cannot multiply, you cannot add a tithe to the business of the country. All you can do is take it from another system; and we have had capital investments in large sums for no other purpose than to help get a larger share from the one system to the other. Is that good business for Canada?

Every hon. member knows to-day-at least every hon. member who is prepared to admit, and I think we all are, that the soundness of the Canadian Pacific Railway is vital to the soundness of Canadian finance in general -that we would only be cutting our own throats if we were to impair the essential financial .validity of that system, Now, assuming that- we do not need to go any further; and nobody wants to be generous to them, they have done pretty well and we are looking after ourselves not them'- assuming that, surely it is not policy to throw the money of this country in millions in a mad race not to get more business into Canada but to get into one system a share of business from the other; the people of Canada to pay for it all.


George Perry Graham: Let me ask my right hon, friend a question. If he had been entrusted with the management of the Canadian National Railways by the people of Canada, would he sit still while another company was endeavouring to get traffic from his line, and not try to hold his own?


Arthur Meighen: I will tell you what T
would not do. I certainly would not sit stilt and have the traffic go; but I would not set the pace by radio installations, and the like of that, which the other company would have to follow.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to interrupt my right hon. friend; I intended to deal with this yesterday. One company uses full page advertisements in the newspapers which runs into money faster than the radio, and it is a question of which is the better policy.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know which,
company uses full page advertisements.


George Perry Graham: I do.


Arthur Meighen: I know that our company spends a million-odd in advertising as well as the money I have mentioned on radio installations; and while I do not say that the other company is faultless, I do say we have got to find some way of preventing these two roads from competing at the expense of our pockets.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: In view of
the fact that the cost in connection with both roads comes out of the people of Canada is it not essential that we should have as full information about the financing of the Canadian Pacific as we have of the Canadian National?


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, I think it is;
I think we have a perfect right to know,.

C.NJt.-Minister's Statement
because the necessities of the company determine the level at which rates must be set. You can go down just so far but you cannot go farther without interfering with the essential soundness of the enterprise, and you do not know what is essential unless you know the condition of its finances.
Now, it has been stated that from these railways we have the best service in the world.
I think we have. I think the minister is wholly right when he says that the trouble is our service is too good. Our service to-day is beyond the competence of the people of this country. We to-day are travelling de luxe over this Dominion. I suppose this is one of the glorious fruits of "competition." As a matter of fact it is nothing but a slow process of financial suicide on our part. We are paying for all this, and necessarily so. But there must be some way found by which it shall be made to cease, and we are not going to find it by the path pursued in the last two years, the path of heaping upon our own heads a capitalization beyond our competence to sustain.
Now, the minister says also that we should be very grateful, because while there have been bankruptcies of railroad systems in other countries, including the United States, there have been none here. Well, I do not know that we could take very much satisfaction out of that; I do not think the remark is very appropriate. If the Dominion itself did not stand right under more than half the railway mileage of this country why, of course, there would be bankruptcy. But the fact of the matter is that in the United States of America, while it is true their rates are higher than ours-we do enjoy in my judgment the lowest rates in the world,-in the United States of America, while there have been isolated cases of failure in their two or three hundred systems, the fact of the matter is that on the Wall street market the securities of the American railways have been in an almost continual ascent during the year 1924. Those roads and the traffic conditions of that country have been such that the public has confidence in their being paying ventures. The index that I have just referred to shows that the people of the United States feel that trade conditions generally, upon which traffic conditions ultimately rest, are on a sound basis in that country, a basis that justifies the continuous rise on the part of railroad securities.
What I would suggest to the government is this: Take the action which should have been taken many months ago. Stop these continual capital additions to the cost of the
national system. We are now up, exclusive of the Transcontinental and the Intercolonial, to a billion and a half. With those added, and with interest, we are in the two billion class. That is about what we have invested in our system. If we add interest on what we have put into the Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge we are away beyond the two billion class. The investment in railroads in Canada is colossal. It is one of the causes of the difficulties which surround us now; and we certainly should not through these years, even for purposes of service and competition, have permitted any directorate to run into the tremendous figures which this directorate has run into in the last two years and a quarter.
On this question of amalgamation I make no comments on the hon. minister's remarks. Certainly this country does not like monopoly, and if there is any way of avoiding it let us avoid it. But we are getting nearer monopoly every year that we permit to continue this process, which has been going on for twenty-seven months and has resulted in the position we find ourselves in now.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I am sure we all listened with a great deal of pleasure yesterday afternoon while the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) made his statement to the House. It was illuminating, and he made his statement in such a way that it was interesting, easily listened to, and easily understood. I desire to express my 4 p.m. appreciation of a debate with a little touch of humour in it now and then. It makes things go on a little more pleasantly. I think perhaps the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) make rather a happy combination, because-taking their speeches in conjunction with each other -if the one is a little too optimistic, the other comes along and brings things down to their proper level.
In commenting this afternoon, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) spoke about the tax-free bonds, and said that it was all right to issue those bonds free of income tax. I know a great deal can be said in excuse of what was being done at that time. These bonds were bought by all classes of the people, though no doubt the great bulk of them were bought up by wealthy people and wealthy corporations. A great many small investors bought bonds at the time they were issued, but the trend of these securities as to ownership affords a pretty accurate gauge of how the common people have been prospering

C.NJi.-Minister's Statement
during the last year or two. Why is it that the bonds have now filtered away from the small investors into the hands of the large investing public? I could tell hon. members about people who bought bonds years ago and who have none now. I am simply making the statement; the House can judge of the truth of it. I think I am perfectly correct in saying that the majority of the tax-free victory bonds are not in the hands of the working people of this country to-day. However, that is past and gone, and there is no use wasting time over the matter.
The railway situation in Canada no doubt is a very serious one, we all realize that fact. But I hope it is not without some ray of brightness, and that in the future it is not going to be altogether hopeless. I have no fault to find with the arguments which have been advanced by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I think it is just as well that hon. members should know all the circumstances and look at the situation from the worst possible side that we can see. I have no doubt that the statement my right hon. friend made, that we are over $7,000,000 worse off this year than last year in the way of profits in the operation of the Canadian National Railways is correct. In regard to the traffic and the loss of business on these railways, there are several different ways of looking at it. I know the right hon. leader of the opposition immediately went along the old track when he began to tell us why the railways were losing business. It was the old story of the closed factories, people out of employment and all that sort of thing. I think there might be another explanation upon which I may say a few words at a later date.
In regard to the management of the Canadian National Railways, I think the people of Canada to-day as a whole, are pretty well satisfied with the management of Sir Henry Thornton. But there are perhaps other factors in which possibly some improvement could be made. I often wonder that we hear so little in this House about the 'board of management which is supposed to advise Sir Henry Thornton. I do not know exactly what their duties are. I suppose their duties are to act in an advisory capacity. While Sir Henry Thornton may be a great authority in the physical handling of railways, I do not know whether he is a financial wizard or not, or whether he is capable of handling the finances of the railway just in the best possible way. How is he advised? How is he guided in financing the railways? Is the board of management composed of men who 
are able to give excellent financial advice? I do not know. I am not in a position to go into a criticism of the financial management of the Canadian National Railways; but I apprehend, Mr. 'Speaker, that perhaps something could be done along that line. I desire to say in passing, that I am not acquainted with the personnel of the board of management. Hon. Edward Brown, of Winnipeg, I imagine, would be a good man in financial matters.
I understand the government is responsible for the capital expenditures on the Canadian National Railways in the final analysis. While we admit and believe that the only possible solution of the problem at the present time is to allow the freest opportunity to the president and the board to conduct the business of the railway, yet, when large capital expenditures are being made, I believe the government is held responsible. I am not just exactly in a position to criticize with any degree of accuracy what is being done in this way, but I agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition that this is not a time to make extensive capital investments unless they are absolutely needed for the successful management and equipment of the railway as a going concern; and I believe that the utmost economy should be practised along that line during a time when we are having such difficulties and such deficits as are occurring in the operation of the railway.
In reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I agree with all the hon. members who say that the prosperity of the Canadian Pacific is almost as important to this country as the prosperity of the Canadian National, and we are interested in both. The only trouble is that we have to pay the deficits of the Canadian National Railway, and consequently it comes a little closer home to us than the other railway, which is able to pay its way in the meantime. At the same time it would be a calamity to this country if anything were to happen to the financial standing of the Canadian Pacific Railway; and when we work and speak in the interests of the Canadian National it is not with any degree of hostility to the Canadian Pacific.
In reference to the services that are being rendered, I do not know if there is so very much to be said. They are important in some respects of course, but I do not know that there is very much difference between the first-class car on the railway to-day and a first-class car which has been used in the last twenty years. I think we have a more expensive style of travelling, where the greatest

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
improvements and great embellishments have been given to modern railway travelling. I know that the trains run on time very much better than they used to. They travel faster, and that costs more money and may have something to do with the increased expenditure. Speaking of the services, I would like to take some members back thirty or forty years-and that is a good long time in the history of the country-and speak for a minute about the service we used to get from the Canadian Pacific Railway in those years. I can remember that when I came to Canada as a young man and first came in touch with some of the Canadian Pacific Railway officials I concluded that the aristocracy of Canada was to be found among the servants in the employ of that railway at that time. This is long ago, and whatever I say can be in no way a reflection on any of the men who occupied positions with the railways at that time. But I remember the time when the ordinaiy man would approach a railway ticket office with misgivings; he would ask a question and wait a considerable time before the gentleman in charge found it convenient to look up. And when he did look up and the question was asked again he would turn over a number of leaves and after a while vouchsafe a curt answer. If you persevered long enough you might get what information you were after. I do not think I am exaggerating. But what is the case to-day with the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways? You get the very best attention, the most courteous treatment, and accurate advice, and no one can complain in any degree of the services rendered by the officers of either company. I do not know what has brought about the change but there is no doubt that a remarkable change has taken place in the services rendered by both companies to-day in comparison with the state of affairs that existed in the early years of our history.
As regards advertising, there is a good deal in what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said; you cannot increase the railway traffic of a country by means of advertisements. But what the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) said was also true, that one railway could not afford to have the other draw away its business. Now this is one of those cases where a little real co-operation might prevent a good deal of unnecessary expenditure and eliminate the present duplication of services; there should be no working at cross-purposes nor unnecessary competition between these two great railway systems. Within recent days the word "co-operation" has been used a good 187
deal; co-operation is coming to be more desirable than competition to a very large extent in conducting the business of the country. Personally, I believe that something must be done to get rid of competition between these railways; there must be more co-operation in the interests not only of the people at large but, as well, of the railway companies themselves.
The question of amalgamating the two railway systems was discussed a few days ago, and after considerable thought I am inclined to the opinion that it would not be a very good idea. It may be possible at some time in the future; it may become a necessity some day. But when I look at the matter coolly and calmly it seems to me that it would not be very wise to have an amalgamation of the two systems, for I do not think it would be a good idea to have either railway monopolize the business of the country. I believe I mentioned that fact while the hon. member (Mr. Euler) was speaking the other day, when I pointed out that if the Canadian Pacific Railway operated all the railways in Canada we should have that monopoly of which the minister epoke yesterday. In my opinion, if any company owned all the railways in Canada it would simply mean that the country would be in its possession. Consequently I could not for one moment think of the Canadian Pacific Railway operating all the railways of Canada. On the other hand, if all the railways were to come into the possession of the Canadian National Railway Company, and owned by the people of the country, with all the faith I have in human nature, and in the light of all the knowledge I am gaining in these days in political affairs, I could not believe that it would be possible to keep the railways free from political manipulation in some way or other. This is the situation as I see it. It is a fine idea, and it looks splendid at first sight, to have all the railways of the country owned' by the Dominion and run in the interests of the people, not emctly for profit but for service, but it is Utopian, and we are not likely to see it materialized'. The only thing we can do is to see to it that the two systems are run as profitably and economically as they possibly can be in order to give the best service to the people.


Mr. AVOODSWORTH:: Might not this
argument against the amalgamation of the two roads be applied against the present system in connection with the carrying of our mails, which is practically a monopoly? Might we not as well have a dual system in the postal service?



C.N.R.-Minister's Statement


Robert Forke: 
Mr. HERBERT MABLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Chairman, after the very
able and eloquent address of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and the equally eloquent addresses of the two leaders opposite (Mr. Meighen and Mr. Forke), it is hardly necessary for me to discuss in detail the general railway situation. There is, however, one phase which was only briefly touched on by the minister, and also alluded to by the leader of the opposition, and that is the increase

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
in the debt to the public by the National Railways during recent years.
As hon. members will recollect, in my observations on the budget I spoke as regards that increase, and at that time I made certain assertions and submitted certain figures, all of which are reproduced in the records of this House. In addition, I offered to submit to my right hon. friend who leads the opposition the statements I had so prepared. I made that offer, not with any idea of magnifying my knowledge of the subject then under discussion, nor with the object of directing attention to anything I might know of the railway situation, but simply for the purpose of enabling us, if possible, to arrive at the same conclusion and the same figures, so we could give the public the true and correct situation respecting the increase in the railway debt to the public. The right hon. leader of the opposition did not accept that offer; as a matter of fact he brought down his own figures when addressing the House on the budget. Those figures entirely disagreed with mine. At the time I asked certain questions, which my hon. friends of the Conservative party did not allow me to continue very fully, and finally my right hon. friend wound up with the admonition that I should be more careful and deliberate in my inquiry and show less determination to reinstate myself in the favour of the government. Well, Mr. Chairman, that was not my intention at all in giving those figures. My intention, I repeat, was in order to enable the public to understand just to what extent the railway debt to the public had increased during recent years. That is of the greatest importance, because that increase is reflected in the combined debt of the country, and it is impossible to arrive at the increase in the combined debt without properly arriving at what is the increase in the debt to the public on account of the National Railways.
In his speech on the budget the Prime Minister gave certain figures as regards the increase in the combined debt of the country during the last three years. He stated that that combined debt had increased to the extent of ninety-nine million dollars. His statement was correct in every respect. To some extent it was founded on the figures which I submitted previously in my address on the budget, showing what had been the increase in the railway debt to the public. Now, my right hon. friend who leads the opposition-and I am extremely sorry he is not in his seat this afternoon-while agreeing with certain conclusions which I then sub-187i
mitted to the House, disagreed with others I would remark that so far as he is concerned it is quite impossible for him to agree with one set of those conclusions without agreeing with the other set, because if one set was right the other was right also. However, Mr. Chairman, there are three points which I desire to take up to-day. I shall not be very long in discussing them, but I would like to be very clearly understood what these three particular points are I desire to establish. The first is this:
That t'he proceeds of the railway bond issues made during the fiscal years 1920, 1921 and 1922 were not all used for refunding, that the portion not so used was not all supplied out of cash from consolidated account, but that the surplus over from the bond issues less refunding from cash during this period was 150,884,485 which was not added to the combined debt of the country. In answer to this the leader of the opposition says that the proceeds of the bond issues, were used for refunding-and any part not so used was paid in cash for refunding-and hence there was no occasion to add any part of the bond issues at all to the public debt.
The second point which I desire to make is this: that during the period comprised in the fiscal years 1923, 1924 and 1925, that is to say, the three following fiscal years, the railway indebtedness to the public increased only to the extent of $102,122,196. In that respect I am not using the revised figures as submitted by the Prime Minister; I will use those later. I am using these figures for the purpose of making those I gave to the leader of the opposition in his speech on the budget agree with these I desire to give to-day. In answer to that assertion, the leader of the opposition states, that the railway indebtedness to the public from December 31, 1921, to March 31, 1925 increased to the extent of $176,796,490.
The third point I desire to make is this: that during the three fiscal years 1923, 1924 and 1925 the combined debt of the country, that is to say, the net consolidated debt plus the increase in the railway debt to the public -I am again using the figures without the revision submitted by the Prime Minister-increased to the extent of $111,473,508 and using the revised figures as submitted by the Piime Minister, during the same period the increase in the combined debt during those three years amounted to $99.000 000. In answer to this the leader of the opposition says that from December 31, 1921 to March 31, 1925, the combined debt increased $262,561,105.

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
Now, these are the three points that I desire to discuss this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and these are the three conclusions I desire to arrive at, conclusions which are denied by my right hon. friend who leads the opposition.


Mr. KELLNER:: You gave the increase
in the combined indebtedness at $111,000,000, and the Prime Minister gave it at $99,000,000. Do you not think that discrepancy should be explained? It is too great to be merely stated. The difference in the figures should be accounted for.


Herbert Meredith Marler: 
George Perry Graham: Just a banking transaction.


Herbert Meredith Marler: 
George Perry Graham: That only includes the
increase in the debt to the public in those

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
years? It ddes not include at all the money advanced by the government on loan to the railways?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is the increase in the
debt to the public only. It has nothing to do with the increase in the consolidated debt so far as the railways are concerned. Now how do I arrive at each of these separate figures in each of these years? It is important to get this idea firmly fixed in one's mind before proceeding. This is how the increase is arrived at. In the first place, there must be determined what bonds were issued in the particular fiscal year in question. The second thing to be determined is what was done with the proceeds of those bonds, so that it can be determined what amount out of the proceeds of those bonds was used for refunding purposes. The third thing to be determined is what was done with the cash advanced from consolidated account to the railways in each year, in order also in this case to determine what amount out of such cash was used for refunding purposes. Now if you take the bonds less the refunding from bonds, less the refunding from cash, you will arrive at the net increase in the railway debt to the public in each of the years in question.
Now I will give figures as regards one of the years. I do not want to weary the House by giving all these figures, but I intend to give the figures for one year only, 1920, in order to show exactly how the other figures are arrived at, and if I may have the permission of the House I will place on Hansard schedules showing exactly how the figures for the other years are arrived at also.
Take the year 1920. The first question to ask is, what bonds were issued? Bonds were issued in that year to the amount of $42,109,026. What happened to the money derived from those bonds? It was used as follows:
Construction and betterments, capital, outstanding liabilities and supplies to the
amount of	4 9,483,454
Refunding to the amount of	 17,109,029
Discount to the amount of	 516,540
Equipment from bond proceeds	 15,000,000

Now what cash was advanced from consolidated account during that year? There was advanced to the railways in cash that year, $65,264,144. What was this cash used for:
Operating deficits and interest due the public $23,360,893 Construction, betterments, capital, outstanding liabilities and supplies	 25,789,014
Refunding	*	 6,1141237

Now we have to bring these two facts together, as I have stated. There were loans issued to the amount, as follows:
Guaranteed loans	$17,109,026
Non-guaranteed loans	 25,000,000
Total amount of loans issued	 $42,109,026
Less proceeds of these issues used for refunding	 17,109,028
Balance	$25,000,00G
That left a net addition to the railway debt to the public by way of borrowing of $25,000,000, but there was paid against that net addition out of the consolidated fund for refunding $6,114,237, making a net addition to the railway debt to the public of that year, 1920, of the figures which I have just given $18,885,763.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That refers to the fiscal year?


Herbert Meredith Marler: C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
debt of the public and1 that increase was not added to the combined debt of the Dominion. That is the point I desire to make, Mr. Chairman, and with your permission, instead of reading ail these somewhat complicated schedules to the House I will put them on Hansard so that hon. members can fallow them themselves.
The schedules (see pages 2947-52) are therefore Submitted marked as follows:
Raid way 1. Showing bonds issued during each of the fiscal years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925.
Railway 2. Showing disposition of cash and loans issued by or on behalf of Railways.
Railway 3. Showing addition to Railway debt to public caused by borrowing less refundings.
Railway C. Showing identical issues redeemed.
Railway 4. Showing new money issues placed in Railways since 31 March, 1919 less refundings.
Note.-These figures were prepared before the revised figures for fiscal year 1925 submitted by the Prime Minister.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does the
hon. gentleman mean that this was additional railway debt but not shown as a debt of the country?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, that is additional to the railway debt to the public taking into consideration all guaranteed and not guaranteed securities. The claim made by the leader of the opposition was this: That refunding had taken place for the issues which had been put out. My claim was that the proceeds of those issues had not been all used for refunding, and that the part not used for refunding not paid out of the consolidated fund in cash had to be added to the combined debt of the country in exactly the same way as the Prime Minister in his address added all the guaranteed and unguaranteed securities, less the refunding from proceeds of bonds and less the refunding in cash.
Now, the next point I desire to make is this: I stated that during the fiscal years 1923, 1924 and 1925 the present government had increased the railway indebtedness to the public to the extent of $102,122,196. These are the old figures, without taking into consideration the revised figures given by the Prime Minister in his speech on the budget. Those were the figures used by the Prime Minister, less the revised figures which he subsequently obtained. The leader of the opposition states that those figures are not correct. That the debt to the public in so far as the railways are concerned increased not $102,000,000 and some odd thousand dollars but $176,796,490. How does he arrive at that? He takes the debt to the public of the Canadian Northern Railway on 31st December, 1921, the debt to the public of the Grand Trunk Pacific on the same day, and the debt of the Grand
Trunk to the public on the same day. He adds these three together and deducts them from the debt to the public of the Canadian National Railways on 31st December, 1924, plus $18,000,000 subsequently, issued. Now, hon. gentlemen will at once admit that in order to make any comparison between accounts of any description those accounts must synchronize-that is to say that all the liabilities which are in the later account compared with the former account must be included in the former account, that if you eliminate liabilities in the former account it is utterly impossible to get a comparison of any description. That being understood let me say that I hold in my hand the report of the Canadian National Railways for the railway year ending 31st December, 1924, being the railway report that my right hon. friend quoted from in arriving at his conclusion that there had been an increase of $176,796,490 in the railway debt to the public for the period from 31st December, 1921-31st March, 1925. I would ask hon. members to consider what is in that account. It can be seen at a glance. It is the long term indebtedness of the railway company, which includes the guaranteed debt,-the indebtedness guaranteed by the Dominion, certain indebtedness guaranteed by the provinces, and certain long term securities not guaranteed at all. In addition to that this account includes-and I would ask hon. members to mark this well-certain equipment securities and also certain securities of affiliated companies. Now the same situation must be viewed with the 1921 accounts. You have to take into consideration the long term debt, the equipment securities, and also the securities of the affiliated companies which are reproduced in this particular account, or in other words the balances unpaid which are reproduced in this particular 1924 account. I will call the attention of hon. members particularly to one security mentioned in this account:
Five per cent Canadian Northern income charge debenture stock, $24,137,846.08.
Now the leader of the opposition arrives at his figure of $176,796,490 in the following manner. He took the Grand Trunk Railway account of 31st December, 1921, as taken from the Grand Trunk Railway report of 1921, page 8:
Interest bearing obligations outstanding.. $371,042,194 Less Dominion government (as per page 13) loan and interest	 76,965,322
Balance to the public	 $294,064,872
The Canadian Northern debt as at 31st December. 1921, is taken from the Railway and Canals report for 1921, pages 35 and

C .N ,R.-Minister's Statement
to the public from that date being virtually during the fiscal years 1923, 1924 and 1925, and deduct from the face value of those issues the amount used for refunding less also refunding from cash and that would give an increase of $102,122,196. Nothing could be simpler; the matter is perfectly clear. The only way the railway could increase its debt to the public was by borrowing; and if you take the sum total of borrowings, less the sum total of refundings from bonds, and less the sum total of refundings from cash, you will get at what is the correct figure. And there is no other figure you can arrive at. That is precisely how I calculated the increase during the three preceding fiscal years; and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House I will place on Hansard schedules showing how that increase is arrived at. During the last three fiscal years bonds were issued to the public to the extent of $173,875,000, and there were refundings and reductions in the railway debt to the public from proceeds of bonds or from cash to the extent of $71,752,804, bringing out precisely the figure of $102,122,196. I have all these figures prepared in a statement, but it is a dreary business quoting, and a still more dreary business listening to, statements of this kind. I will simply put them on Hansard in the shape of tables so that the balance may be struck.
For particulars see schedules-marked Railways nos.-1-2-3-C-
31 Dec., 1921-Bond issues	 11,000,000
31 March, 1922-Refunding	 11,000,000
Increase.
Fiscal year, 1923-Bond issues	
Refunding from cash. 25,275,902
Fiscal year, 1924-Bond	issues	 72,500,000
Refunding from bonds. 11,469,369
Increase	   61,030,631
Fiscal year, 1925-Bond	issues	 90,375,000
Refunding from bonds. 24,007,533
Increase	   66,367,467
Recapitulation-Increase,	1924	
61,030,631Increase,	1925	
66,367,467Total increases	
127,398,098Decrease, 1923	
25,275,902
Increase 31 Dec., 1921-31 March, 1924.. $102,122,196
Note.-
Before revised figures as submitted by the Prime Minister.
This process is preoisely the same and with the same particulars in all respects as the increase of $50,884,485 is arrived at for the previous three-year period fiscal years 1920, 1921 and 1922.

The third point I desire to make is one I emphasized when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was speaking. I stated that the combined debt of the country, that is to say, the increase in the net consolidated debt and the increase in the railway debt to the public, had increased during the three fiscal years 1923, 1924 and 1925 to the extent of $111,473,508, less the revised figures as submitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The leader of the opposition brought forward an entirely different set of figures; he said that the combined debt of the country had increased to the extent of $262,560,105. In that sum was included of course the $176,796,490, which is the increase he claimed in the railway indebtedness but which increase was really $102,122,198-unrevised figures. He claimed also that the increase from December 31, 1921, to March 31, 1922, had amounted to $64,625,860; and his claim in that respect was this, that the new government having taken over on December 29, 1921, was responsible for all expenditures and all increases in the debt after that particular date. All I can say in reply to that is that the idea is preposterous. W'ho ever heard of new directors coming into a company who cut off as sharp as possible everything that had gone before and started out at once making purely new expenditures? Why on December 31, 1921, when the present government took charge, there were countless contracts and countless obligations that had to be fulfilled, with which they had had absolutely nothing to do with the making of. The estimates which were prepared and brought forward and on which all these contracts were based were prepared and passed by the preceding administration and all had to be met. And more than that, a great deal of the income of the country for the fiscal year 1922, had been paid in by December 31, 1921, and that was all applied to that period. Certain portions of the interest due for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, but securing up to 31 December, 1921, had not come in at all. It is utterly impossible therefore to strike December 31, 1921, as the line of demarcation and to say that the debt at that particular period of the year was such and such an amount, and that at March 31, 1922, it had increased by reason of the operations of this government, in that particular period, to the extent of $64,625,000. The only fair way to take the increase in the debt, the only just and reasonable way, is to take the commencement of the fiscal year 1923, when the present government took charge and entered into their own obligations, plus the obligations of the preceding administration, for which they were responsible

C.NJt.-Minister's Statement
in great part and which they had to carry out. Further than that, my right hon. friend submitted certain other calculations which brought the increase, as he figures it, up to $262,000,000 odd. I have prepared, and with the permission of the House I shall place on Hansard, figures showing exactly what was the	increase	in	the	combined debt for	the two	3-year periodsin question-that	is to say,	for	the	3-yearperiod fiscal years 1920, 1921 and 1922 and for the 3-year period 1923, 1924 and 1925. And as I have stated, the increase in the net consolidated and in the railway debt to the public for the period fiscal years 1923, 1924, 1925, the figures in regard to which I have checked up, balancing them correctly in all respects, comes to a total of $111,473,508 which is the increase in the combined debt. Taking from that the adjustments given	by	the	Prime
Minister in his speech, as will be seen at page 2645 of Hansard, of $11,643,000, it makes the net increase in the combined debt for the 3-year period of fiscal years 1923, 1924 and 1925 inclusive the sum of $99,830,508.
These are the three points I desire to bring out, and I have submitted my authorities. These authorities and statements, as I have said, will be placed on Hansard to prove these
thiee points, which are these: That during the first 3-year period covering the fiscal years 1920, 1921 and 1922 the railway indebtedness to the public increased by over $50.000.000. which should have been added to the public debt and which was not so added; that during the succeeding 3-year period the railway indebtedness to the public increased $102,000,000, which was added to the combined debt of the country, and not by $176,000.000; and that the combined debt of the country increased during the last three fiscal years $99 830,508.


Mr. HUGHES:: What was the combined increase in the first three-year period?


Herbert Meredith Marler: We must not forget that the war period came in there.


James Joseph Hughes: But apart from that?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Apart from the war expenditure. the increase from expenditure was $307,124,600.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, on this rather complicated and dry subject, but I wish to get these figures before the House and on Hansard to refute the statements made by my right hon. friend in the course of his speech on the budget a few days ago.
Bond Issues:
Railways 1
6% Notes	
6% Notes	
5% Notes	
51% Notes	
51% Notes	
6% Equipment C. 6% Equipment D.
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Canadian
Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern Northern
Fiscal
Year
1920
1920
1920
Due
1922 1924 1922 1922 1924 Ser. 1929 "	1929

5.651.000
4.349.000 5,1C9.026 6,000,000 6,000,000
7.500.000
7.500.000
N/G.
N/G.


G. G. G.
[Stage Direction]
N/G.
N/G.
Total during year
7% S. F. Deb. Bonds...
7% S. F. Deb. Bonds..
7% Equipment E	
61% Equipment F	
Canadian Northern
Grand Trunk	
Canadian Northern Grand Trunk	
1921
1921
1940 1940 Ser. 1935 "	1936
Total during year
42,109,026
25.000.	000
25.000.	000
15.000.	000
12.000.	000
77,000,000
[Stage Direction]
N/G.
N/G.
61% S. F. Bonds	
6% S. F. G. Debentures... 5% 3-year Notes	
Total during year.
5% Equipment 1-5	
5% 30-year Bonds	
Total during year
Canadian Northern	1922	1946Grand Trunk	1922	1936Canadian Northern	1922	1925Canadian National	1924	Ser. 1938Canadian National	1924	195425.000.	00025.000.	00011.000.	000
61,000,000
22,500,000
50,000,000
72,500,000

[Stage Direction]
4% 3-year Notes (July)__
41% 30-year Notes (Sept.) 41% 10-year Notes (Feb.). 41% 5-year Notes (Feb.).. 41% Equipment H	
Total during year.
Canadian National	1925	1927	20,000,000Canadian National	1925	1954	26,000,000Canadian National	1925	1935	17,000,000Canadian National	1925	1930	18,000,000Canadian National	1925	Ser. 1939	9,375,00090,375,000

[Stage Direction]
N/G.
Note.-No bonds were issued during fiscal year 1923.
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
Railways 2
DISPOSITION OP CASH AND LOANS ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALP OF RAILWAYS:
Fiscal Years:	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925$	t	$	S	*	$Cash	55,264,143	109,662,654	23,710,617	18,027,000
Operating deficits and interest						
due public		23,360,893	52,787,194	36,543,342	36,722,181	20,285,149	18,027,000
Construction-betterments,						
capital, o/s liabilities-supplies		25,789,014	49,436,796 7,438,664	39,486,309 21,920,994	15,865,855 25,275,902	3,425,467	
Refunding		6,114,237					
						
	55,264,144	109,662,654	97,950,645	77,863,938	23,710,616	18,027,000'
						
Guaranteed Loans		17,109,026	50.000.	000 27.000.	000	61,000,000		72,500,000	81,000,000 9,375,000
Loans not guaranteed		25,000,000					
						
Total Loans		42,109,026	77,000,000	61,000,000		72,500,000	90,375,000
						
Loan proceeds used for-						
Deficits			432,591	19,660,690			3,316,940
Construction - betterments -						
capital-o/s liabilities-supplies		9,483,454 17,109,026 516,546		13,055,994 27,697,659 585,657		37,437,131 11,469,369 1,093,500	51,765,527 24,007,533 1,910,000
Refunding			48,943,961 623,448				
Discount							
Equipment from bond pro-						
ceeds		15,000,000	27,000,000			22,500,000	9,375,000
						
Total		42,109,026	77,000,000	61,000,000		72,500,000	90,375,000
						
Railways 3

[Stage Direction]
REFUNDINGS:
Fiscal Years:	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925Guaranteed loans issued	
Loans not guaranteed issued.. Total amount of loans	
Less proceeds used for refunding Net addition by way of borrowing	
Less refunding from cash charged Consolidated Revenue Fund	
Net addition to railway debt.. Decrease in railway debt	$ 17,109,026 25,000,000	$ 50.000.	000 27.000.	000	S 61,000,000	$	8 72,500,000	t 81,000,000 9,375,00042.109.026 17.109.026	77,000,000 48,943,961	61,000,000 27,697,659	72,500,000 11,469,369	90,375,000 24,007,53325,000,000 6,114,237	28,056,039 7,438,664	33,302,341 21,920,994	25,275,902	61,030,631	66,367,46718,885,763	20,617,375	11,381,347	61,030,631	66,367,46725,275,902	
[Stage Direction]
C.NJI.-Minister's Statement
Railways C;

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year 1919-20
Redeemed from Cash Loans-
Canadian Northern Railway-
Loan from the Canadian Bank of Commerce, Toronto, obtained in
1914	$	1,250, COO
Miscellaneous London loans	 104,504
[Stage Direction]
 $	1,354,504
Equipment Trust Notes redeemed	 4,705,000
Sinking Funds	 54,733
Total from Cash Loans	 S	6,114,237
Redeemed from Guaranteed Loans-
Canadian Northern Railway-
Loans from the Canadian Bank of Commerce, Toronto	$	12,000,000
Loans from London Bankers, £1,049,800	 5,109,027
Total from Guaranteed Loans	
$	17,109,027Grand Total 1919-20	
$	23,223,264
Fiscal Year 1920-21
Redeemed from Cash Loans-
Canadian Northern Railway-
Equipment Trust Notes	$	5,530,000
Sinking Funds	 54,733
[Stage Direction]
 5,584,733
Deduct-Amount repaid the Government on account of loan under War Measures Act, repayment made from proceeds of Guaranteed
Loan as shown below	 L 400,044
$	4,118,689
Grand Trunk Railway-
Short term bank loans	$	2,456,275
Equipment Trust Notes	 863,700
[Stage Direction]
 3,319,975
Total from Cash Loans	 $	7,438,664
Redeemed from Guaranteed Loans-
Canadian Northern Railway-
3 year 5% Guaranteed Notes, £3,650,000	$	12,934,487
10 year 5% Duluth, Rainy Lake and Winnipeg Bonds	 2,000,000
Canadian Bank of Commerce demand loans	 9,132,272
[Stage Direction]
 24,066,759
Repayment to the Government on account of loan under War Measures Act	 1,466,044
$	25,532,803
Grand Trunk Railway-
5 year 5|% notes issued in London in 1915, £2,500,000	$	12,166,666
Current loans from London Bankers	 5,992,492
Detroit G. H. and M. Bonds	 5,252,000
[Stage Direction]
 23,411,158
Total from Guaranteed Loans	
$	48,943,961Grand Total, 1920-21	
$	56,382,625
Fiscal Year, 1921-22
Redeemed from Cash Loans-
Canadian Northern Railway-
Retirement of mortgages on property	$	304,215
Acquisition of Capital Stock of G.W. and P	 1,407,000
C. N. Coal and Ore Dock Co	 125,000
Dalhousie Navigation Co., including purchase of Str. Dalhousie City.	68,905
G.N.W. Telegraph Co., 570 shares	 5,700
Equipment Trust Notes	 3,372,500
Sinking Funds	 70,757
[Stage Direction]
 $	5,417,077
Deduct-Amount repaid to Government on account of loan under War Measures Act, repayment made from proceeds of Guaranteed
Loan as shown below	 1 * 228,263

[Stage Direction]
C.NJi.-Minister's Statement
Grand Trunk Railway-	[DOT]
3 year 6% notes issued 1918	$	4,866,667
G. T. Pacific 5% notes issued 1914	 9,733,333
Retirement of outstanding serial issued matured	 138,000
G. T. second equipment bonds	 719,780
Equipment Trust Notes	 2,024,300
Sinking Funds	 250,000
17,732,080
Total from Cash Loans,
21,920,994
Redeemed from Guaranteed Loans-
Canadian Northern Railway-
Equipment Trust Notes	$	3,193,500
Sinking Funds	 308,400
Repayment to Government on account of loan under War Measures
Act	
Grand Trunk Railway-
3-year 6% notes £3,000,000	S 11,200,896
Retirement of outstanding serial	issues matured	 150,300
Equipment Trust Notes	 366,400
Sinking Funds	 250,000
3,501,900
1,228,163
11,967,596
C. N. R. Ry. SI 1,000,000 Guarantee of March, 1922-
5-year 6% secured notes	S
3-year 5% Guaranteed notes, £1,049,800	
Repaid to Government in 1922-23, on account of loan under War
Measures Act	
Discount on issue	
5,651,000
4,601,790
700,500
46,710
[Stage Direction]
11,000,000
Total from Guaranteed Loans,
$	27,697,659
Grand Total, 1921-22

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year 1922-23
Redeemed from Cash Loan-
Canadian Northern Railway-
5|% secured notes issued 1919 to retire London bank loans of 1914... .$	1,250,000
Canadian Bank of Commerce Demand Notes	 1,250,000
5f% Govt. Guaranteed notes issued 1919 to retire bank loans... 6,000,000
5% land mortgage debentures issued 1913	 7,099,493
Retirement of mortgages on property	   222,338
Equipment Trust Notes	 4,387,000
Sinking Funds	 554,733
Grand Trunk Railway-
Retirement of outstanding serial issues matured	$	86,180
Detroit, New Haven and Milwaukee notes	 200,000
Repayment of Temporary Loan from International Bridge Co		1,747,834
Equipment Trust Notes	 1,420,400
Sinking Funds	 1,057,923
20,763,564
4,512,337
Grand Total, 1922-23.
25,275,901
From T.oans-
Fiscal Year 1923-24
Canadian Northern Railway-
5-year 6% secured notes issued 1919
Equipment Trust Notes	
Sinking Funds	
Grand Trunk Railway-
Retirement of outstanding serial issues matured
Equipment Trust Notes	
Sinking Funds	
Canadian National Railways- Equipment Trust Notes___
$	4,349,000
4,112,000 363,133
31,836
1,063,400
800,000
8,824,133
1,895,236
750,000
Grand Total, 1923-24
$	11,469,369
[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
Fiscal Yeak 1924-25
From Loans-
Equipment Trust Notes	
Sinking Funds	
3-year 5% Government Guaranteed Notes issued March, 1922.
5-year 5\% Government Guaranteed Notes issued December, 1919
6,856,400
151,133
[Stage Direction]
7,007,533
11,000,000
6,000,000
Grand Total 1924-25
$	24,007,533
Railways 4

[Stage Direction]
OBLIGATIONS SINCE THAT DATE:
Fiscal Years:	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	19251. Cash charged consolidated	$ 55,264,143 42,109,026 25,881,433 6,792,648	$ 109,662,654 77,000,0(0 7,002,993 6,954,621	$ 97,950,645 61,000,000 1,381,024 6,326,800	$ 77,863,938	« 23,710,617 72,500,000 309,455	$ 18.027.000 90.375.0002. Securities issued by or on	1,400,000 5,695,669	3.	Capital expenditure charged consolidated revenue fund. 4.	Working expenses Canadian Government Railways C.R.F	
130,047,250 23,223,263	200,620,268 56,382,625	166,658,469 49,618,653	84,959,607 25,275,902	96,520,072 11,469,369	108,402,000 24,007,533
Less refunding of previous obligations							
Net cost in new money for the year	106,823,987	144,237,643	117,039,816	59,683,705	85,050,703	84,394,467Items 1, 3 and 4 charged into	87,938,224 18,885,763	123,620,268 20,617,375	105,658,469 11,381,347	59,683,705	24,020,072 61,030,631	18,027,000 66,367,467Add increase in railway indebtedness to public	
Total		106,823,987	144,237,643	117,039,816		85,050,703	84,394,467
						
Railway bonded indebtedness				25,275,902

[Stage Direction]
Three Year Period-1920-1921-1922-Previous Administration
Increase in Consolidated debt
Railway Bond issues	
Less refundings from Bonds... Less refundings from Cash__
	$	42,109,026
$	17,109,026
6,114,237
[Stage Direction]
 23,223,263
[Stage Direction]
Increase in Railway indebtedness to public Increase in Combined debt	
18,885,763
693,223,354
Increase in Consolidated debt
Railway Bond issues	
Less refundings from Bonds	$	48,943,961
Less refundings from Cash	 7,438,664
77,000,000
56,382,625
[Stage Direction]
92,010,360
20,617,375
112,627,735
Increase in Railway indebtedness to public Increase in Combined debt	
[Stage Direction]
C JN JR.-Minister's Statement
SCHEDULE SHOWING INCREASES IN COMBINED DEBT-Concluded.
Increase in Consolidated debt	
$	81,256,818Railway Bond issues	
$	61,000,000Less refund ings from Bond s	$ 27,697,659Less refundings from Cash	
21,920,994:
49,618,653
Increase in Railway indebtedness to public	 11,381,347
Increase in Combined debt	 92,638,165
Recapitulation-
Increase Combined 1920 Increase Combined 1921 Increase Combined 1922
% 693,223,354 112,627,735 92,638,165
[Stage Direction]
 * 898,489,254
Increase Due to-
Demobilization to extent of	
Assets transferred to non-active List_
Expenditures other than demobilization Railway indebtedness to public	
Net Consolidated debt March 31,1919 Net Consolidated debt March 31, 1922

[Stage Direction]
Increase three year period	 847,604,769
Add increase in Railway indebtedness to public	 50,884,485
Total increase in Combined debt	 898,489,254
Three Year Period, 1923, 1924, 1925-Mr. Mackenzie King's Administration
Increase in Consolidated Debt	 31,641,066
Railway Bond issues-
Refundings from Cash	 25,275,902
Increases in Railway indebtedness to Public	 25,275,902
Increase in Combined debt	 $	6,365,164
Decrease in Consolidated debt	 35,993,594
Railway Bond issues	 72,500,000
Less Refundings from bonds	 11,469,369	11,469,369
Increase in Railway indebtedness to public	
Increase in Combined debt	
Increase in Consolidated debt	
Railway Bond issues	'	
90,375,000Less refunding from bonds	
24,007,533	24,007,533
61,030,631
25,037,037
13,703,838
Increase in Railway indebtedness to public	 $	66,367,467
Increase in Combined debt	 $ 80,071,305
Recapitulation-
Increase Combined 1923	$	6,365,164
Increased Combined 1924	 25,037,037
Increased Combined 1925	 80,071,305
Increase due to Demobilization to extent of	$	5,385,842
Increase due to Assets transferred to non-active	 904,730
Increase due to Expenditures other than Demobilization	 3,060,740
Increase due to Railway indebtedness to public	 102,122,196
111,473,506
111,373,508
Net Consolidated debt-31 March, 1922	 2,422,135,801
Net Consolidated debt-31 March 1925	 2,431,487,113
Increase three year period	 $	9,351,312
Add increase in Railway indebtedness to public	 102,122,196
Total increase in Combined debt	 $ 111,473,508
Less adjustments as per speech of Prime Minister-
Hansard-p.-2752	'	
11,643,000Increase in Combined debt-3-years period	
$	99,830,508
[Stage Direction]
C.NJ{.-Minister's Statement
William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I am not going into details of the financial statement which has been submitted by the hon. member for St. Lawrence^St. George (Mr. Marler). I know the debt of Canada to-day is enormous, a large amount of it being due to ithe war, and also to unnecessary expenditure in railroad building. Faced with that condition, we have to find a way to meet it and to reduce our expenses, if this is possible. The net result, I find, is that we are not meeting the situation, but we are continuing in the carnival of extravagance in connection with railways that was begun some years ago.
Not long ago in this House I took occasion to draw the attention of hon. members and of the country to this mad carnival of extravagance, and while I did not get much of a report in the newspapers, I got a fair report in Hansard. Somehow the discussion I then started has spread all over the country, and to-day there is one question, and one question only, before the public: How can this awful carnival of extravagance be stopped?-how can -curtailment be effected which will not injure the transportation service, and so help us to retrieve something from the mistakes that we have made in the past? My proposal was a very simple one, and it fitted in with the proposal made by the government to get control of ocean rates. I had the hardihood- perhaps it was courage-to suggest that the first thing to do in the way of solving this serious condition of railway extravagance was for the government to take over the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which not only has a good railway system but also a first-class steamship service; and that if these two services were taken over and co-ordinated with the National, we would get a real steamship service which would enable us to control the ocean freight rates, and we could proceed- to solve the railway question, which continues to become more and more serious, and which will almost wreck the country if it is not solved. The ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) to-day said that something must be done or wreck will come to somebody. I say this also, that that excellent railroad, referred to this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, the Canadian Pacific, will eventually be wrecked by the competition that is being forced on it by these demands for unnecessary railway services.
The Minister of Railways admitted practically everything said either by myself or by the member for North Waterloo as to the awful railway extravagance that prevails. The hon. member (Mr. Euler) made some in-188
quiries and was in touch with Sir Henry Thornton when he prepared his argument, in the course -of which he said, in effect, that if there was consolidation of these two railway systems, the economies that could be put into operation by reason of the consolidation would effect a saving to the country of $100,000,000 a year. That statement has not been denied. The public of C-anada who have to pay this debt and pay the railway charges will hold this parliament responsible -will hold this government, this official opposition, and gentlemen down the line in their capacity as a portion of the opposition responsible-if we do not try to cure this evil.
Now, the minister said that certain proposals -had been made to do away with this duplication, and also that certain proposals had been made in regard to a merger of the -two railway systems; but virtually he said that it could not quite be done, that nobody wished to stop the fine service that the Canadian Pacific is giving to the country, that that company 'had to bg kept in existence, and he -made other statements along that line. But the responsibility is on him to deal with this situation, and not to sidestep the issue-for I take it that what he said amounts to sidestepping. In referring to my proposal, or the proposal of the member for North Waterloo, the minister also said that there was not anything definite to be dealt with. Well, I want to tell hi-m -that on March 31 of this year, when I brought up this question, I did present to the House and to the country-and it will be found on page 1771 of Hansard-a definite proposal to stop this awful -extravagance, to secure economies, and so bring relief to the country. If anybody cares to turn up that he will find it all on that page. I have this further to say, that while I was brought up as a newspaper man and -had a paper at one time, -through which I could place my views before the public generally, not a newspaper in this country has published that little statement, which is a proposal to overcome this difficulty.
The main part of my proposal the Minister of Railways sidesteps again. My proposal was this-and he must deal with it, no matter what the cost of these railways was to us if we want to stop this carnival of extravagance, if we want to deal with the question effectively-we must consolidate the railways or we will get deeper and deeper into debt. It has been proposed that the two organizations should co-operate to cut off a train here and a train there. That

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement

will give some relief, but the main relief can come only from consolidation. We must take the two systems and then by co-ordinating them we shall be able to give the best service at the smallest cost, and gradually pull the country out of the hole. But the government is not dealing with that proposal, nobody in this House is dealing with it. And yet the people are demanding that it be dealt with, and it will be the principal question before the electors when the next election is held. I am not going into the details of my proposal any further. The leader of the opposition in the course of his address here this afternoon justified the Canadian Pacific Railway, perhaps very properly so, and he seemed to think it was absolutely essential to the people of Canada that the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National be kept in this state of most extravagant competition. I say this duplication of services, wherever unnecessary, must cease, and the only way to bring about its cessation is to create public opinion in that direction, and I am confident that that public opinion is now being created and will enforce itself in such a way as to compel some action by parliament.
Let me relate a little experience I had last week in regard to this duplication of services. After the all-night session, having an engage-men in Toronto for that day, I had the alternative of taking a local train from here to Bediell and there connecting with the Canadian, the Canadian Pacific train which arrives from' Montreal that morning, and proceeding thence direct to Toronto; or I could go to Cobourg and' there transfer to the International, the old Grand Trunk train of the Canadian National. Well. I made that transfer, and what did I see? Before I got to Belleville I had reached the area of competition which is the most lamentable and most shameful thing before the Canadian people to-day. For two hours the trains of these two different lines, trains of the Montreal-Toronto route, were racing each other to see which would get to Toronto first, and they were not as far apart as half way across the floor of this House. There they were, two mad trains rushing to Toronto, neither overloaded with passengers; the passengers looking out the windows, admiring the race and joking about it, and wondering at whose expense it was kept up. That went on until there was a diversion, but the race continued with the trains some distance apart. Now, that kind of race is going on all over the country through the unnecessary duplication of main lines and also on the branch lines system. My hon. friends of the Pro-

gressive party say it must continue in regard to the west. Well, if it is to continue they will have to pay the cost, because the people of Canada will no longer submit to paying it. The Minister of Railways and the government and parliament must deal with this situation, otherwise the country will become bankrupt. The hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Marler) has just pointed out that the debt of Canada, both on account of railways and on account of consolidated debt, is steadily increasing. I do not want to be an alarmist, but something must be done. The minister is getting the figures ready with regard to the amounts owing by the various entities' of the Canadian National system. The leader of the opposition said yesterday there were several hundred companies, was it, involved in the old Grand Trunk-


George Perry Graham: More than a hundred in the two companies.


William Findlay Maclean: More than a
hundred, and no doubt the same kind of bookkeeping has to be kept on for some time yet to clear the thing up. But we shall not get relief until this extravagance of duplication Ts stopped, not until then will the country be able to regain its prosperity. The leader of the opposition said here to-day that something would have to be done, otherwise ruin would follow. With the duplication that prevails in the west, not only in the way of transcontinental lines, but in connection with branch lines, and with the constant demand for more branch lines all over the country, all involving a borrowing of additional capital, where is the thing to end? Who is to pay the debt, and what is to become of Canada? First of all, we should have a commission of about three men, trained actuaries, the best men we can get, to ascertain what the debt is in regard to the railways and what the debt is also of the country in connection with the war and other things; but I would clean up the railway question first. I would end all this discussion in parliament and the throwing of charges across the floor of the House as to what the actual amount of the indebtedness is. We know it is away up in the hundreds of millions; it is in the billions and it_ is growing, while the country is not growing proportionately to that increasing debt. I asked the minister about consolidation yesterday and he said it would take quite some time yet, perhaps two or three years. He is a very busy man, so I would get three of the best men available, put them in a room, give them the books and any clerical assistance they need, and have them get at the real

C.AT.R.-Minister's Statement
truth of our commitments in regard to these railways, as well as find out what are the essential railway services that ought to be maintained. As to the consolidation of the railways, I would suggest that once the two great systems are consolidated they should be put in charge of a board of from three to five men made up from t'he executives that now administer the two railways. The Canadian Pacific have succeeded in making good in connection with their railway, and they should certainly have representation on that commission. I would take care of the interests of the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific in a reasonable way; I would not want to see them wrecked. So we want one special commission to ascertain the debt and devise a scheme for paying it off, and we want equally a commission of from three to five men of recognized ability, men who have had successful experience in connection with the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, to make recommendations as to consolidation. I would say ito this new commission composed of the best men of the executives of the two railways:	Your duty
is to examine the railway services of Canada to-day, and find out what is the best way to reconstruct them, and most of all to re-route the traffic. I questioned the minister about that yesterday, and he said that he had some idea of it, but the real solution of the railway problem in Canada to-day is to re-route the services.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is
attributing to me so many things that I did not ^ say he has said at least a dozen things I did not say or even hint at-that I cannot be interrupting him all the time to contradict them. I just wanted to ask him, does the scheme he outlines now mean government ownership?


William Findlay Maclean: Absolutely. Government ownership has proven itself. It is the redeeming feature in the world to-day in connection with the problems of the world. I want to tell my hon. friend, and I have said it before in the House, that the greatest experiment in public ownership to-day is the National Reserve Bank system which is providing the reparations of the world in connection with the Great war. Public ownership in Canada has proven itself in the National Railways, and in Ontario, in the Hydro Electric system. We are running our street railways with electric power distributed under public ownership. I see the dangers of public ownership; I admit there are-some dangers. I see the danger of political interference, but political interference is nothing compared to 188|
this wild carnival of unnecessary overexpenditure in connection with the railways.
I have stated once before that there has to be a consolidation. I have gone further and I have said to-day that there has to be a consolidation of-the debt. I have gone still another step to-day, and I have said that a commission of three or five men made up of the members of the executive of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, with the Canadian National having a majority on that commission, should be appointed, and I would put on them the duty of giving the people a fair and reasonable service clear across the continent, but no unnecessary trains, no unnecessary extravagance, no expenditure in advertising, no expenditure in soliciting business, but simply provide a railway service that will do the business of the country and allow us to get out of debt, j see my friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is listening to me now. He assisted -perhaps he did more than I did-I claim no special credit for it, but between us we have called the attention of the people of Canada to the condition of affairs that exists, and now that the people have been seized of it and want to see something effected we find the government saying that this mad dance must continue-choose your partners and on with the dance. I say, Mr. Speaker, this mad dance must stop, and that a cure must come. I have suggested the cure of ascertaining the debt, I have suggested the cure of consolidation, and I have also suggested to-day that a commission of operation be made up of the executive of the two systems which will find a way to reduce the expenditure, to improve the service, and to help us get on our feet again.
I absolutely disagree with the statement made by the leader of the Progressives that he wants to see the two systems kept in the west. It is all very good to have them if you can pay for them, but can we pay for this unnecessary duplication? I admit what has been stated in the House, that eventually immigration may come to our relief, and may call for more extensive services than we have to-day, but-


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is the hon. member
sure that he is quoting the leader of the Progressives accurately, that he insisted that the two systems must continue? I do not believe he is.


William Findlay Maclean: I took him to
mean that, and I am taking also what I read in the western papers.
C.NJt.-Minister's Statement


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But you are quoting
the leader of the Progressives, not the western papers.


William Findlay Maclean: I said the leader of the opposition said to-day that he wants to see the Canadian Pacific remain where it is in competition with the Canadian National.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But that is not the
leader of the Progressives.


William Findlay Maclean: Who said that?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: You are now quoting
the leader of the official opposition.


William Findlay Maclean: No, if I may mention the gentleman by name, I am referring to Mr. Forke. He practically said today that he wanted the two systems maintained, that they were essential to the development of the west. I say all that the west can call for, and all that this province and the east can call for, is a reasonable service based on consolidation of the two systems and the wiping out of all unnecessary trains and unnecessary equipment, and the adoption probably of the newer equipment that is coming, for to-day nearly everything in railroading is being scrapped. The new equipment will be an electric drive on the railways from electricity generated probably on the streams that run to the Hudson bay, and we have enough water-power on the slope that runs to the Hudson bay to give all the power we want to drive our railways. I may be asked, how would you get that power to our railways? Well, the scientists to-day are finding ways for the transmission of electricity under high tension; they are finding a way of transmitting it almost without wires, perhaps through a beam of some kind. They are working at something of that kind, and there will be a way of cutting down the expenses and improving the service, and of stopping this over-equipment that goes with this overcompetition. Look at the equipment of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National to-day! Half of it would give a better service than the two of them give to-day, and at half the cost, and with half the number of men. The world is crazy to-day for duplication. We meet it every day in every direction, and we have got to stop it. I have said that unnecessary duplication exists in this parliament. Unnecessary duplication seems to be the craze of the world; there is duplication, duplication everywhere.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Of speeches?


William Findlay Maclean: And of speeches. My hon. friend is a good duplicator, but I scorn the allegation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not want to be
misunderstood. I thoroughly agree with the hon. member.


William Findlay Maclean: On behalf of the people of Canada I say, stop this railroad extravagance, find out what the debt is and consolidate it at the lowest possible valuation; then call in this commission from the two systems and put the responsibility on them of re-routing the service and of cutting off all unnecessary trains; let them give the country the service it wants, but no more than is necessary. For a time let us get down to the hard pan of the situation, and if we do that, you will see our country go ahead, and immigrants begin to come in here, and later they will be asking for increased railway accommodation. But in the meantime stop the extravagance, find out what the debt is, re-route the systems, and if you do that you will begin to solve the railway problem. But we are not solving it here when we talk about how big the debt is and how it is growing, unless we undertake the responsibility of trying to pay the debt and ascertaining what would be a fair valuation for the roads. If we will do these things we will give some real service to the country, and it would help us to recover from our mistakes of the past. In doing these things we will give some service to the country and we will try to retrieve our mistakes of the past, and certainly there has been a carnival of mistakes in connection with our railroads. If we do this, light will break on the present gloomy outlook, a great improvement will come to the country, and in that way there will be a better condition of affairs generally. Finally, we shall have a public prepared for economy instead of for a continuance of the wild extravagance that has prevailed in the past.


William Charles Good: I do not know that I would have intervened in the present debate if it had not been for the gentle reprimand given to me yesterday by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). I should like to say, however, in regard to the question of immigration-which he dealt with yesterday and concerning which I asked him a couple of questions-that in my judgment there is no member here who is opposed to immigration. I think every hon. member recognizes that Canada needs population, that our railways need population, and that other things being equal we would be very much better off if we had fifty millions of people in this country. Every one of us wants to see Canada grow-wants to see agriculture grow, manufacturing grow, and indeed

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
all our industries grow; wants to see a very much larger, happier, and more prosperous population in this country. There is no difference of opinion in regard to that matter at all. The difference of opinion arises wholly in respect to the policy of assisted immigration-if you like, forced immigration, immigration regardless of conditions existing in this country.
Now, as I see it, Mr. Chairman, we have a situation something like this:	We are trying
to pour water into a leaky pail. We are using tremendous efforts to fill the pail, and the water is running out as fast as we can put it in. I brought to the attention of the House a year or two ago statistics in regard to our immigration policy for the last twenty-five years. I stated the amount of money we had spent during that time in connection with our Immigration department; and the results-the negative or absent results-were also indicated. Now then, is it sensible to keep on pouring water into a leaky pail? I want to stop the leaks, I want to divert some of our attention and some of our money to the stopping of the leaks. I only wish the Minister of Railways was in his seat; I would like to tell him, and tell the House, that if we would put more effort into the stopping of the leaks it would be to better purpose than simply to continue pouring water into a leaky pail.
Now let me specify one or two examples to the government. A number of us in this quarter of the chamber who are sceptical of the benefits to be received from an aggressive immigration policy under present conditions, are very anxious that the government should undertake some worth-while rural credit scheme. But year after year the government declines to act; we cannot get action. I do not know whether we can push it into action this year; we certainly pushed as much as we could last year although without much result. This is something worth while, this is something that will stop one of the leaks in our pail. If we can introduce and establish in this country a rural credit system comparable to the system operating in the United States we shall at least put some of our farmers in this country on a basis equal to that on which the United States agriculturist works. In that way and to that extent we shall equalize conditions as between the two countries. This is one way in which we may stop the leak in the pail and help to retain the population that we have. I do not think there is any use in getting foreigners into this country if they go out as fast as we get them, or if our native population goes out. I agree with the
hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) that the best immigrants we get in this country are those who come by way of the cradle-they are the native born and they are the people that are going out. And why are they going out? The pail is leaking, and we have not made a real effort, not a determined and sustained effort, to stop the leaks. My theory and conviction is that the sensible policy is to get at the leaks first and then we can easily fill the pail. Now I suggest that rural credit legislation would be one way of stopping the leak. A sensible and just system of taxation wou'd be another way of stopping the leak. But we cannot get the government to move in this direction either. I submit arguments and suggestions to the government in respect to the question of taxation. I tell them that the present system of taxation is onerous and unfair to industry, and a burden on the workers in this country; that it is driving the people out of Canada, that it is a bad leak in the pail, and I want them to stop the leak. But they do not move.
I have just mentioned two examples. Here is another example that has been already mentioned by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), namely, the amalgamation of ' our two great railway systems. It has been pointed" out, and I do not think it has been denied, that thus we can stop a leak to the extent of $100,000,000 a year. That would be worth while surely. Surely that would help to retain our population, and to make immigration expenditures profitable, at all events to prevent their being entirely futile as they are likely to be under present conditions and as they have been in years past.
I must associate myself most definitely with the hon. member who has just gpoken, and with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), in my conviction that the only solution of our railway problem under existing conditions is amalgamation. Some time ago I was a little dubious, I suspended judgment in regard to what might be the proper policy, but to-day I begin to see, and I am coming more and more to the conviction, that this solution will have to come. If it has to come why not sooner rather than later? If we must deal with it some time why not tackle the problem now? Why go on wasting money? Why go on allowing the pail to leak? Why not stop the leak now? I must take issue with the remarks of my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) who fears that if we have government ownership-I prefer the expression "public own*r-

C.N.R.-Mmister's Statement
ship"-that if we have public ownership of all the railroads in Canada we shall have political interference and inefficiency. Why have we not got it now? I ask him and the House why it is, if we must have political interference and inefficiency in connection with public ownership of our railways, that we have not got it now? If the argument applies to the whole railway mileage it will apply to half the railway mileage, or a little more than half, that we are now operating under public ownership. I cannot agree with my hon. friend in his fear as to the consequences. I know that the problem of maintaining efficiency is a serious one in connection with all our business; but I see no reason in the world why in a matter of this kind, we cannot get just as faithful service under public ownership as we can under private ownership. I believe, and I honestly believe, that in the very few years that have elapsed since the present management took over the Canadian National Railway system we have developed a very marked degree of efficiency, a degree of efficiency that will compare very favourably indeed with that now obtaining in the Canadian Pacific organization. This is surely a direction in which we can stop one of the leaks, this is one of the ways in which our immigration policy may be made effective and not remain futile as it has been in the past. The Minister of Railways chided me yesterday-as he has chided other members in this quarter of the House-and hon. members opposite have often chided us, with having no faith in our country. I have faith in our country, I want to say that I resent the charge, I deny and repudiate the accusation of having no faith in Canada. Indeed I will say this: if by extending public ownership to cover all railway systems so that we can save $100,000,000 a year I think that I at least in advocating such a policy have more faith in the ability, the loyalty, and the public spirit of Canadians than has the Minister of Railways or my hon. friend the member for Brandon. I wonder if I might recall to the Minister of Railways the definition of faith which is given in the Good Book. Faith is there defined as "the evidence of things not seen" and "the substance of things hoped for."


George Perry Graham: Has the hon. gentleman not got it wrong?


William Charles Good: No, I think that is correct.


George Perry Graham: Better take another look. I think you have quoted it wrongly.


William Charles Good: I am satisfied that I am
correct.


George Perry Graham: " The substance of things hoped for " and " the evidence of things not seen."


William Charles Good: We have not yet in our railway business realized the ideal of economy, the elimination of these tremendous wastes that have already been so well outlined by the hon. member for South York. What we have in our mind's eye is the evidence of things as yet unseen, and surely we have the substance of things hoped for in the picture portrayed by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken; faith is "the evidence of things not seen" and "the substance of things hoped for."


George Perry Graham: Wrong again.


William Charles Good: Well here is a splendid example of where it can be fittingly applied, and I suggest that if the hon. Minister of Railways wants to practise faith, he should accept the suggestion already made and tackle the problem now; a problem which surely will have to be tackled in the very near future at all events. I am sorry he was not in his seat when I made my earlier remarks, but I commend them to his serious consideration when he has time to read Hansard. .


George Perry Graham: I am afraid my hon.
friend _ will have to revise his scriptural quotations. He is all right in the rest rf his literature but wrong in that.


William Findlay Maclean: Who is to be the judge? The Minister of Railways?


George Perry Graham: No, the book from which the hon. member purports to quote.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: The Minister of Railways has read it more recently.


George Perry Graham: No, but perhaps I have
a better memory.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank S. Cahill: Minister's Statement

the railway commission should have the last word any more than it has now, but a railway company should have the recommendation of the commission before appearing before parliament for a charter to build a railway through any section of this country. In that way we would avoid the expensive competition that is going on now in railway construction and railway operation. Take, for instance, the train service between here and Montreal. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) told us yesterday that the president of the Canadian Pacific said it would not be fair to ask his company to eliminate a train that is now paying, and that these trains were paying. That is quite true. And the minister is hoping to get the two presidents together in order to agree on the elimination of unnecessary services 1 It looks to me on the face of it as a hopeless proposition. Take the two trains between Montreal and Ottawa at 8.30 in the morning, and the two at 3.30 in the afternoon. Do you suppose that either president would agree to taking off one train at 8.30 or another at , 3.30? Not at all. They are both profitable trains at the present time; but that business would be almost doubly profitable if handled by one train. If the railway commission were empowered to deal with the matter they might order one of the 3.30 trains of one company running from Montreal to Ottawa, and the corresponding train of the other company running from here to Montreal to be taken off, and in that way eliminate duplication. I think the same principle might be applied to freight traffic. We have the railways, but we are getting too much service for the traffic that is to be moved; that seems to be our great difficulty. The trains should be adjusted to the traffic. If there is sufficient traffic for all the trains now running, well and good, but if not, the superfluous trains should be taken off. Otherwise we shall never overtake our railway deficits. I feel that the minister should follow the suggestion made last night and bring this matter before the railway commission as early as possible. I do not think there is anything to be gained by delay, and I think there would be much saved by inaugurating this policy at an early date.
Some hon. members opposite, many of them of the Progressive group, and some members on this side as well, I think, and some of the Conservative party, are talking of reducing the capital of the Canadian National Railways. Well, at first sight that would seem to be a very simple matter-you merely write off a certain amount of capital. But it is not quite so easy as that. For instance, there are twenty-five million dollars worth of Canadian 'Mr. Cahill.]
Northern railway income debentures and about thirty-five million dollars of Grand Trunk Pacific guaranteed bonds, sold on the basis of dividend payments as soon as the respective railways earn dividends on their capitalization. These two issues amount to about sixty million dollars, and on these the Canadian National Railway Company is not called upon to pay any dividend because it is not earning sufficient to pay dividends on the prior securities, that is, the loans of the Dominion government. If you wipe off these loans, and relieve the Canadian National Railways to that extent, as soon as earnings are more than sufficient to pay dividends on the existing securities the surplus will have to be applied to dividend payments on this sixty million dollars. So by the simple process of writing off the Canadian National debt to the Dominion government, you let the railway in for payment of interest on this sixty million dollars, without getting anything back on account of our loans.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: Has the hon member considered the seriousness of asking the people of this country who are producing the tonnage for the Canadian National Railways to try to pay freight rates which would provide dividends on a capital that is in no sense reflected in the earning capacity of the road?


Frank S. Cahill: Does my hon. friend think
that anybody seriously considers that at-present as a basis of rate-making? If there was anything in my hon. friend's argument, would it not be better to say-the Dominion of Canada will reduce their interest charge to the National Railways from 5 to 2 per cent, or som ething of that kind ? Or if you want merely a mark to shoot at, why not say:	When you
earn fifty million dollars we will reduce the rate. But that has no bearing on rate-making whatever, and is not taken into account by the railway commission. The only objectionable feature about it is that you put before the management an impossible mark to reach if you ask them to overcome the interest on the deficits and on the huge capitalization. I do not think any person seriously hopes that we will ever reach the stage where the Canadian National Railways will be able to pay interest on the loans due to the government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have just one other suggestion to make. I think there are at present four committees before which the heads of the railways must appear at call There is a committee of the other House, there is a committee on National Railways and Shipping, there is the Railway committee, and there is the Ocean Rates committee.

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
The special committee which was appointed last year, and re-appointed this year, the committee on National Railways and Shipping, is to my mind the proper body to deal with National railway matters, but I think entirely too much time of the officials of the railway is taken up by that committee. That committee represents a meeting of the shareholders of the company, just as the shareholders of the Canadian- Pacific Railway company would meet. The officers prepare their report and submit it to the shareholders, and it is either approved or rejected. They do that in a day. It would be perhaps too much to ask the- members of parliament or the members of this committee to get through with all the business of the Canadian National in a day, but I think matters should be so arranged that the committee could sit continuously for two or three- days in order to go through the reports with regard to the railways. In this way you would save not only Sir Henry Thornton's time, but the time of perhaps twenty-five officials who have to come to these meetings. These men have to dlrop the work they are doing, come here and await the pleasure of the committee. The committee sits for two hours; perhaps some gentleman in the committee has a speech to make, and most of the time is taken up by that speech. Then the committee sav to the railway official, "We will call you tne day after to-morrow." But when that time comes some internal arrangement in parliament has disorganized that arrangement, and the committee says to the official who has again come to Ottawa for the purpose of the meeting, " We do not want you to-day, but we will want you the day after to-morrow or next week." I think the committee should sit continuously from the time it starts until the sittings are completed-morning, afternoon, and night if necessary-go that the work could1 be got through in two or three days, thus obviating the necessity of the officials coming back here at odd periods with resulting disorganization of the work of their offices, of their inspection trips and everything else for an indefinite period. I also think that the question of the proposed branch lines of the Canadian National might well be referred to that committee, because after all that is the committee that is investigating the operations of the railway for the past year and it would be in just as good a position to determine the necessity or otherwise of these lines as the other committee would be. However, that is only a suggestion which I think would enable the work to be carried out with greater expedition and with less loss of time to the officials
of the company, and consequently less financial loss to the people of Canada. But I think the first suggestion to put this thing in the hands of the railway commission and let them deal with it genera'ly would save this country as much money as amalgamation, and would be a very much better proposal for the people of Canada. It would be the best solution, at least for the time being, of the whole problem.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Railways on his very excellent statement on the affairs of the railway for the past year, and I also want to congratulate him on his good luck in having such a fine organization to carry on the work of the huge undertaking we have launched upon in the way of public ownership in this country. I think it is nothing short of marvellous that Sir Henry Thornton has been able to make the showing that he has in so short a time. There is no doubt that the service on the Canadian National has improved beyond the expectation of any man in this House in the last three years. As has well been said by many members of the House, there is only one way they can now make profits from or get traffic, and1 that is by taking it from the other road; and the more they take from them, the worse off they will be. Unless we can get something in the way of co-operation, we shall 'be in the position of building up one institution at the expense of the other, both of which the people of Canada must maintain out of their own pockets.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John city and counties of St. John and Albert):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) has made a suggestion as to the sittings of committees, especially the committee on Railways; he has advised that a change be made in the method of holding the meetings of the committee, especially with a view to saving the time of the officials of the departments concerned. This reminds me of what I learned last year in Australia, namely, that in the case of several committees, committees which take considerable time, meetings were held during the parliamentary recess. Of course, the meetings were arranged to suit the convenience of members, particularly those who lived a long distance from the capital. In any case it seems to me that with the view of allowing members to attend the sessions of parliament and to interfere as little as possible with -the work of parliament itself, these committees or certain committees might do their work during the recess. I understand that the plan is found to be a satisfactory one.


George Perry Graham: Would my hon. friend let me explain why? The reason why the Canadian National Telegraph Company works with the Western Union is that the other company made a contract to give all its business to the Canadian Pacific Railways, and we would get no return telegraphic traffic in exchange for any despatches the Canadian National might send that way. On the other hand, the Western Union give us a large share of their business, and by using their line we get an income that we could not get by using the other line.


Murray MacLaren: I am pleased to have
the explanation, even if it be not altogether satisfactory in regard to what I have in mind.

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement


George Perry Graham: It is not to me either. I
have tried to get the other arrangement made.


Murray MacLaren: I think I can suggest
a way in which the minister might accomplish it. But let me point out first that if a member goes to the Canadian Pacific telegraph office here in Ottawa and tenders a telegram, if he does not specify what line he wants it to go over, it is sent over the Commercial line, an American service, but if he specifies that he wishes the cable sent over the Imperial cable, the Canadian Pacific will so send it. Now there is a peculiar position. The Canadian National Telegraphs cannot and does not send cablegrams over the British cable; it transmits them over an American cable, whiie the Canadian Pacific as a rule sends the cables over the American line, but on request will forward them by the Imperial cable, the British-owned line.
This matter was brought up at the Imperial conference in October, 1922, and I should like to read the Canadian press despatch which was sent to Canada in reference to that matter. It is dated London, October 17, and reads:
Canada has made her .position on the Imperial conference cable question clear. At yesterday's sitting of the Economic conference Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, British Postmaster General, criticised some of the Canadian government departments for not using the Imperial cable which is operated between London and Halifax for the British government-


George Perry Graham: That was the Postmaster
General, was it not?
Mr. MaoLAREN: It is so stated in the despatch. I think the Minister of Railways was present.


George Perry Graham: That is right.


Murray MacLaren: It continues:
-its traffic being distributed in Canada over the Canadian Pacific Railway telegraph lines.


George Perry Graham: Solely.


Murray MacLaren: In reply Hon. George P. Graham, Canadian Minister of Railways and Canals, pointed out that the Canadian government was willing and anxious to do everything in its power to assist the Imperial cable, "but" he added, "it must not be forgotten that the Canadian National telegraphs are being operated as a business operation." Continuing Mr. Graham said, "we are prepared to have an interchange of traffic-


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Murray MacLaren: -with the Imperial cable-


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear. That is what I said.


Murray MacLaren: I do not quite see why
the minister does not get it.


George Perry Graham: I will tell my hon. friend if he will let me, because I remember very well.


Murray MacLaren: Shall I finish this statement first?


George Perry Graham: I do not warn to interrupt my hon. friend but I understood him to ask me a question.


Murray MacLaren: -but you cannot expect the Canadian National to hand their messages over to the Imperial cable if the National gets no traffic in return. If they are to get traffic for the Imperial cable we should get something for our own National lines in exchange.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Murray MacLaren: We want reciprocity in traffic.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Murray MacLaren: Now, Mr. Chairman, it
may be a very dreadful thing for me to suggest that perhaps the Minister of Railways was asleep at the switch-


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Murray MacLaren: -when he made that
remark at the Imperial conference.


George Perry Graham: No. Now if my hon.
friend will let me make the remark I was going to make a moment ago.


Murray MacLaren: Certainly, although I
should like first to say something more.


George Perry Graham: I was talking to the Postmaster General of the British government who made a contract to give all the business to the Canadian Pacific and none to the Canadian National. When the British government declined to allow the Canadian government to be in on it at all, I, as Minister of Railways representing Canada, took the ground that we were willing to make a reciprocal arrangement with the British government, but we were not prepared to give them our telegraph business unless they would give us some of the telegraph business which they control in return.


Murray MacLaren: I had not quite finished
my statement.


George Perry Graham: I am sorry, I apologize.


Murray MacLaren: May I say to the minister that if he had had a more specific knowledge of the conditions he might have succeeded better. Now what does the minister say? He says: We are prepared to have an interchange of traffic with the Imperial cable


George Perry Graham: Hear hear.

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
Mr. MacL.AB.EN:	How can it be done?
There is not any possibility of it. As I have pointed out to the House the Canadian National telegraph lines end at Moncton, 198 miles from the Imperial cable at Halifax. I would like the minister to explain-when he assures the Postmaster General in Great Britain that certainly he will do business in exchange-how he is going to do that when there is a gap of 198 miles between the terminus of the telegraphs at Moncton and the cable at Halifax?


Mr. GBAHAM:: We send telegrams to
Halifax.


Mr.   MacLABEN@: Not over the Canadian
National line.


Roy Theodore Graham: But we send them to Halifax. We could make the connection just in the same way.


Mr.   MacLABEN@: I do not think that is
altogether a satisfactory explanation on the part of the minister. The minister says that if the Imperial cable gets traffic from us we ought to get something for our own National line in exchange. But how can that be done? If the Imperial government sends a cable to Ottawa over the Imperial cable it will come to Halifax, and then it proceeds by some other telegraph line to Ottawa, because the Canadian National Telegraph Company has no connection at Halifax. I think that is quite clear.


Roy Theodore Graham: What about the existing
connection?


Mr.   MacLABEN@: On the other hand if
the National Bail ways want to send a message they can only send it as far as Moncton and from there it must be carried over the line of another company to Halifax.


Roy Theodore Graham: That is often done.


Mr.   MacLABEN@: With all due deference to the minister, and in saying this I do not think I am doing him an injustice, I think he was not familiar with the actual status of telegraphs and cables as regards the Atlantic coast.


Roy Theodore Graham: I am willing to make a reciprocal arrangement.


Mr.   MacLABEN@: This criticism seems to have excited the minister somewhat.


Roy Theodore Graham: Not a bit.


Mr.   MacLABEN@: I quite recognize how very efficient the minister is, in fact we look upon him as an outstanding man in point of efficiency, but in that particular matter it almost seems that he was asleep.-
TMr. Graham.]


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Homer
sometimes nods.


Mr.   MacLABEN@: I did not say that he nods, I said he was " asleep at the switch " to use a railway term. I cannot help thinking that is the proper characterization to make.


Roy Theodore Graham: Not at all.


Mr.   MacLABEN@: The Canadian National cannot exchange business with the Imperial cahle because it is not connected with it; the Canadian National line does not come within 198 miles of it, and there is that gap to be bridged. Be that as it may, the minister seems to be willing to meet the conditions now even if there was a lack of appreciation on his part of the conditions at the time in London. I would submit to the government and to hon. members that the present condition of our telegraph and cable system is not satisfactory either from a Canadian or from an Empire standpoint. It seems only fair that our country should have some financial interest in a British cable, that is one suggestion I make. The other is that if possible the government should proceed to obtain direct connections from Moncton to Halifax over a telegraph line controlled by the Canadian National Bailway. I think it is a matter of common knowledge- and this shows that I am correct in the views I have been putting forward regarding the position taken by the Minister of Bailways in London-that negotiations have been going on with the Western Union to attempt tc secure a telegraph line, or running rights ovei such a line, to Halifax. I only wish they may succeed in the undertaking.	I hope
the government will persevere in securing connection by this means or by accomplishing it in some other way. But it certainly establishes a further point in my argument that as far as Canada was concerned the matter was in a confused state when discussed in London. I propose to say nothing further on this question except this' I hope that in our own interest, and in the interests of the British Empire, the Canadian National telegraph line will be extended to the Atlantic coast, and that we may also secure a certain financial interest in at least one cable. Because I believe that not only would this 'be a patriotic thing, but it will be in the interest of trade and the general prosperity of us all.
I do not propose to say more than a few words on the subject of the National Bailways themselves. Eulogistic remarks have been made regarding the Canadian National Bail-

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
ways but I feel that I cannot concur in them; I dissent entirely from them. Why do I say this? I do not say it because I am opposed to government ownership. My sympathies lean towards government ownership and I do not criticize the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways on that ground. I base any criticism I have to make on the work of the board of directors not on the policy of government ownership. I think that the board of directors have failed in the task entrusted to them, first on account of the most obvious extravagance and unnecessary expenditure. If you consult the people of the Dominion at large you will not find three out of four who will not agree fully in the statement that the board are expending, especially at this time, absolutely beyond what is necessary and what is proper. That is one very brief criticism I have to make. I cannot concur in this acclaim of approval and applause for the board. I think it is a harmful thing to do. I think it should be brought home to the chairman of the board in the most forcible way that he is not consulting the interests and the pockets of the people of Canada.
Another point I desire to bring up is this. While the Canadian National Railways con-time to use Portland, Maine, and New London as two of their ports, and while they continue to export over these rails and through these ports to the detriment of our Canadian ports and rails, it is a bad policy for this country alone. It does not pay. It pays the chairman and the board to make a little higher financial showing, but it does not pay the country. The money is not being spent here, but is being spent in Portland, Maine, and in New London, and so on. It is a bad financial venture, I take it, for the country to do that. In addition to that, it is contrary to. the most solemn undertaking of parliament and contrary to the enactment of parliament that such a thing should go on, and therefore if the board continues to violate those enactments, it is the duty of the government to deal with the matter. Now I can assure the minister-and I know he takes a deep and kindly interest in the matter-that we will not have contentment and will not have satisfaction, in a large portion of the country, particularly in the Maritime portion of the country, while this trade going over our own rails is carried on in this manner, to the detriment of our own ports.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: I
should like to say a word on this important question from an agriculturist's
point of view particularly. I realize that the railway problem of this country constitutes a national matter of the first importance; but before we make any move in the way of easing the burden of taxation in this respect, I think we should deliberate very carefully, so that we would not make another mistake which perhaps would land us in as bad a position as we have been in heretofore. We have two splendid systems of railway, I think as good as any in the whole world. They traverse territory which is ahead of anything in the world for productivity. I am not one of those who decry this country. I thoroughly believe in Canada and in our ability to meet every problem facing us today; but not just under present conditions. The only limit to production from an agricultural point of view, from one end of Canada to the other at the present time, is the tremendous cost of transporting the produce of the farms to the market; that is, in combination with the high cost of production and the wages-which it is necessary to pay in order to meet the high cost of living. Any move we now make must be with the one object in view, namely of obtaining cheap transportation for the heavy products such as wheat, cattle and so on, to the markets of the world, because these will be our chief exports for many years to come. The prosperity of this country will depend on the ease and the continuance of the transportation of these bulky commodities to the markets of the world.
I believe in amalgamation, and I am quite in accord with the view expressed by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), and some other hon. members in this House. The railways are a public utility, and must be publicly owned and managed in the interest of the public. I think it is unreasonable to expect that a public utility managed by a private concern will be run in the interests of the people at large. I believe in government ownership, and I am convinced that the time has come, because of the organization and concentration of capital, that public utilities must be owned and operated by the government That situation must be brought about in the interests of economic freedom and justice for all alike. I believe that all railways and all railway subsidiaries, such as express and telegraph services, should be taken over by the government and operated on behalf of the people. Private ownership of these public utilities has proved a dismal failure in the past in this country, from the viewpoint of the people. The present National Railways, when in private hands, was
C.N.R.-Minister's Statement

quite as costly to the workers of this country as it is at present. Amalgamation under private control, would be even worse. The terrible cost of the National Railways, totalling perhaps a billion dollars, is hardly any more than the country has paid for the Canadian Pacific Railway up to date, if we reckon in everything. The land, the money grants and the completed lines handed over to that great corporation, with the tax exemptions, are hardly less than the amount the Canadian National stands the country to-day. But this situation can be overcome yet, even if we have to pay full value to bring the Canadian Pacific Railway under government control. At present the railway situation in Canada constitutes a menace, with half of it in private hands and the other half under government ownership. I think government ownership would be a reasonable thing for an intelligent people. The present situation constitutes a menace both to good government and service alike. We have witnessed the spectacle of this House and the Senate being divided on the matter of branch lines; and the government-owned system has already been put to a disadvantage and will continue at a disadvantage for all time to come if the railways are to remain as at present half publicly owned and1 half privately owned. By that statement I mean that the people's rights have really been sacrificed by their own representatives for the sake of the privately-owned concern. I could name instances of this, because of the delay in putting the branch lines bill through. The privately-owned concern, the Canadian Pacific Railway, has practically made, their extension on the grade of the Canadian National Railway. A serious menace to good government and efficient service alike confronts us and we have to look this matter squarely in the face. The present railway arrangement in this Dominion can never be satisfactory, for there is distrust among the people and intrigue in government circles, which is the natural outcome of a dual system such as we have. The present state of affairs is fraught with dissatisfaction to the people in every way from the standpoint of service, as well as being pregnant with intrigue and corruption in our public life. It was mainly through the influence of the railways that reciprocity with the United States was defeated in 1911; which shows what a hold and influence they have over the popular will of the country.
Looking at the matter from another standpoint, I believe that either the government system must become simply a subsidiary to the privately owned railways, as they desire, to further their schemes of profit and
[Mr. Evans. 1
aggrandizement through intrigue, or the privately owned system will be reduced perhaps to a stage of beggary comparable to that of the Grand Trunk Railway, when nothing will be left for us to do but to absorb the whole thing. The immediate problem of the government railways at the present time is to get them to pay their way. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has mentioned immigration as the one thing in sight to which we may turn for immediate relief. It seems to me that there is no basic industry to which we may look for relief in our financial distress except agriculture. With the exception of the fishing industry, the raw product of which enjoys no protection, agriculture is the only industry that pays its way; and it is doing so without any law-provided privilege. According to the owners of tariff-fed industries, all their finished products are of less value than the labour and material that enter into their makeup. If agriculture were freed from this incubus to-day it could in two or three years' time double its production ; it could double its products for export and by 1928 it would I think tax our railways with their present capacity to move our wheat and cat-tie, our butter, cheese and meat and other products to the markets of the world. High freight rates during the last few years have seriously reduced our export trade. High freight rates have been caused practically by high wages; high wages have been necessary to meet the high cost of living; and the high cost of living is due to protection or the legalized privilege of price-fixing. The high cost of production on the farms has seriously cramped development in all parts of the country and it is unreasonable to expect much improvement in the railways until agriculture is freed from the burden of trade prevention taxes as a fiscal policy.
During the Easter holidays I took a trip to some of my old haunts near Owen Sound and it was borne in upon me that all agricultural development had years ago been arrested. I noticed that the same old heaps of stone that were hastily thrown into the middle of the fields when they were cleared were still there, and no improvement had been made. As a matter of fact, there has been no improvement. on the farms of Canada for many years past, and it is disheartening to see the many vacant farm houses and abandoned homesteads which once were occupied by settlers hopeful of founding homes and families. Under present conditions immigration is simply useless and it is fraught with serious consequences by reason of the failures that are bound to ensue with the resulting

C.N.R.-Minister's Statement
drift to the urban centres. I do not want to be misunderstood in this regard; I believe in immigration. But immigration is not the first thing to be attended to: the first thing is to create the conditions that will enable immigrants to make a living on the farms. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) said in his speech yesterday, at page 3029 of Hansard, that if the men who come to Canada and those who are already here will show even to an approximate degree the stamina of our fathers and our grandfathers there will be more work and more men working in the country. Let us see. Our fathers and grandfathers who settled in Ontario came here to establish homes, and they spent all that they had in the attempt. They underwent many hardships in the hope of better times ahead. But as the years went on and the farms became cleared, the farmers found that in the meantime the government had made a bargain with another class of settlers, who founded cities, and who arrogated to themselves a privilege obtained by Red Parlour methods and political intrigue -the right to lay heavy burdens on the farm settler. These burdens have got heavier and heavier as the years have gone, until they are becoming unbearable, so that instead of farm proprietorship increasing, the increase is taking place among the wage-earning class in the cities, an increase out of all proportion to the rest of the population. Our railways as a public utility have been the first to feel this. The want of production is to-day the one reason why our railways are not paying their way. Only the other day I received from the Ministerial Association of Toronto, that good city, a circular letter protesting against immigration and consequent unemployment. The problem is already one of serious proportions in our cities. Now, these are the conditions at present prevailing; our farms are vacant and our lands undeveloped.
The Minister of Railways has said-and I do not think he should have said it-that our young men are. Losing their stamina as compared with our fathers and grandfathers. I do not think he should have said that of the youth of Canada. I think it is shown to be wrong by the very willingness of our youth in late years to shoulder the burdens of war. I believe that, given a fighting chance to-day, the youth of Canada wiilll redeem the Dominion from this financial! crisis. I say again, I bdieve in immigration as well, but immigration is not the first step to be taken. If the Minister of Railways had applied his words to the war profiteer, to the tariff-fed owners of factories, and t,o the 'bounty-bloated steel
manufacturers, I think his words would have fitted much better.
There was, however, a very hopeful note struck throughout his .presentation of the railway situation, and I believe that during the last three years the Canadian National Railway Company from being la by-word of mismanagement has passed to a position where a feeling of pride is felt by all of us in the knowledge that to-day we have a railway system unexcelled for efficiency. Sir Henry Thornton undoubtedly is doing well in that way. But it is certain that the farming population will yet need further railway facilities to carry their surplus products if they are to be given a fighting chance with other industries. I believe this is the reason why our railways to-day are not making good,-production is being diminished on our farms; and I think the best thing the government can do is to find out how to .relieve the conditions that have brought about this diminution and so relieve of the .incubus of every other industry in the country that one basic industry which alone can pay its way-agriculture.


Mr. JOHN CARRUTHERS (East AI-goma):: Mr. Chairman, in the first place
I wish the House to understand that I am not wedded to the theory of public ownership, notwithstanding Sir Adam Beck and hydro and all that, but I must confess that in regard to our railway situation we are faced with a condition not a theory. Ever since the union of the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk under government ownership I have maintained that it is not feasible to conduct two great railway systems in this country in competition one with the other if we wish to be fair to the privately owned company. I am not a recent convert to this idea, for last session I spoke upon this question in the following words:
Let us look for a moment at the railway situation. In my opinion it is anomalous and cannot continue. Tme two great transportation systems comprise about thirty-eight thousand miles or more of road, built at a capital expenditure of over two billion dollars, large stretches of both systems running through barren territory which does not contribute any local traffic. In the next twenty years, even allowing for natural growth and development, there will not be traffic enough to pay interest on this immense capitalization. Yet Sr Henry Thornton states that he expects in less than five year3 to meet all overhead charges on the Canadian National lines, and I think he will be able to do it. If so, it will have to be done at the expense of the Canadian Pacific's business. Let our people be honest with themselves. This is a question of business competition, and as our business men realize more and more that every dollar they pay into the national treasury to meet our railway deficit is that much more added to their freight bills when they ship their goods over the Canadian Pacific Railway, there can be but one result.
C.N.R.-Minister's Statement

Further on I said:
It is soil-evident that the people of Canada will never permit the Canadian Pacific to absorb the National linos and thus form a huge monopoly which would own the political soul of this country, so the only alternative is for the government to take over the Canadian Pacific Railway, as iit Should have done long ago. I have nothing against the Canadian Pacific; I think it has been a splendid institution for this country and I would hate to see anything happen to it, but from the way things are shaping to-day I see nothing but ruin ahead, in time. _ Contrary to what a great many think, the majority of the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not held by Canadians in Canada; in fact, only about 20 per cent of the stock is held in this country, 23 per cent in the United States and the remainder in other countries, chiefly in Great Britain. However, that does not matter. As I say, we do not wish anything to happen to this great institution, and I am therefore strongly of the opinion that the government should take it over in connection with the Canadian National lines. If these two systems were amalgamated they could be operated much more economically and the ocuntry would obtain the advantage in the lower freight rates.
That, Mr. Chairman, was my view a year ago. Since then I have travelled out to the Pacific coast on a trip of observation, going out by way of the Canadian National! lines and returning by the Canadian Pacific, and I returned more convinced than ever that our railway situation is an impossible one. For that reason, as I say, I think the government would be well advised to carefully consider this situation. It would at once relieve them of two or three very difficult questions that are looming up to-day. One is the reduction of ocean freight rates by means of the Petersen contract. If the Canadian Pacific were taken over immediately, its fleet of 59 ocean and coastal ships would be available and ^ in conjunction with our own merchant marine boats we should be well equipped to control ocean rates. Another difficult question is the equalization of railway rates, which could also be settled in that way. Thus, they could save the country from fifty million to one hundred million dollars a year-fifty million is the lowest and one hundred million the highest estimate I have heard mentioned. I tell the government that the people will not long stand for a continuance of two great railway systems once they realize that by amalgamation huge savings can be made annually.
I wish the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to understand that my concluding suggestion is not to be taken as a joke. I believe $200,000 is to be spent upon the Hudson Bay railway this coming year. I think a portion of that money should be used to equip one of our merchant marine boats for the northern waters, and that we should send it up there to find out by prac-

tical demonstration whether or not that route is feasible. I think this is the only way by which this House andi the country will be convinced of the commercial practicability of the route. I would also suggest that one or two members from each of the parties in the House might 'be put on board that ship, and if they ever came back they could speak with authority as to the feasibility of the scheme.


George Perry Graham: Who would make the selection?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,500,000.
Mr. JELLIFF:: How much of the vote of
last year was spent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: $1,468. This vote is for the maintenance and repairs of Dominion steamers and icebreakers. It is to provide for the maintenance and operation of vessels employed in the icebreaking service in the St. Lawrence and the gulf, and provides for the supplying and maintenance of lighthouses, buoys, beacons and similar aids to navigation. We have, all told, twenty-seven vessels engaged in this service, nineteen on the Atlantic and the St. Lawrence; four on inland waters, and four on the Pacific coast. No change has been made in the service, and the appropriation is the same as that of last year.


Arthur Meighen: How is that celebrated
icebreaker, the Mikula, getting on now?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Mikula has been rendering very good service and has been of very great help in doing away with the ice in the lower St. Lawrence, so that navigation on that account has, I think, been opened a little earlier. A most important work done by these icebreakers is the preventing of floods along the shores of the St. Lawrence. This year we received many requests from residents in those districts asking that icebreakers be put into service as early as possible to prevent floods and consequent damage along the shore.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent on [DOT] repairs to the Mikula last year? '


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last fiscal year, $9,188.


Arthur Meighen: How much the year before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I have not
that information. It was given when the estimates were before the committee last year.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Arthur Meighen: How much has been spent on the boat for repairs since it was secured?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately we have not the information, but if the right hon. gentleman desires it we will get it and furnish it in detail.


Arthur Meighen: I would like to get the
repairs year by year. The boat would be pretty much under repair all this time, would it mot?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think so.


Arthur Meighen: How many days did it
operate this last fiscal year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The boat has been in commission since the 21st November last.


Arthur Meighen: What is meant by that,
"in commission"?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In operation.


Arthur Meighen: Was it cutting ice
through the winter?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, all winter, in the
lower St. Lawrence.


Arthur Meighen: It has not been under
repair since November?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Arthur Meighen: There is a surprising
dearth of information about this vote. What repairs were made to this boat this year prior to November? The information I get about it is that it is tied u;p under repairs most of the time, especially when it is needed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid the information is not quite accurate. I can give a list of the amounts which have been paid to the workers. They are as follows:
Machinists	$ 198
Bodlenmakers	 1,310
Carpenters	 276
Joiners	 197
Caulkers	 3,020
Painters	   658
We have also paid for grate repairs to the boilers, $1,416. The total is $9,188.


Arthur Meighen: What was the cost of
operation last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was $157,000.


Arthur Meighen: Of the one boat?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. I can give the details.


Arthur Meighen: That is the cost of operating the one ice-breaker for a year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is some figure!


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is some figure indeed.
We paid out in wages, $40,000; board $15,000; fuel, $50,000, deck, engine and steward supplies, $13,500; uniforms for the men, $3,000; hull and engine repairs, $36,000, making a total of $157,000 for the maintenance of this vessel for the whole year.


Arthur Meighen: How does it come that
all these amounts for wages, board, engine repairs, and so forth, are in round figures' Is it by contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The figures I gave are not the exact figures, but round numbers.


Arthur Meighen: How many icebreakers
have we.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Three.


Arthur Meighen: What is the cost of the others in operation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The cost of operation of
the Lady Grey is $88,100.


Arthur Meighen: How much for repairs?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Repairs, $18,000. It must be remembered that these vessels are doing very hard work; they need to be specially constructed for this work, and they are in need of repairs much more than any other class of vessel which is navigating the St. Lawrence.


Arthur Meighen: What is the cost of operation of the other boat?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The cost of operation of
the Montcalm is $152,000 and the amount spent for repairs, $27,000. This boat is older than the others.


Arthur Meighen: Are those three all we
have?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have just these three
ice breakers.


Arthur Meighen: The total of these figures is only between $400,000 and $500,000. What is the rest of the money spent on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have several other boats upon which we are making expenditures. We have in all, I said before, 27 vessels, but I think it is 26. A certain number are operating on the Atlantic and on the St. Lawrence, four are operating on inland waters, and four on the Pacific coast. These vessels are being used to carry the necessary supplies to the lighthouses, for the maintenance of the buoy service and for other aids to navigation.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Are any of them operating in Hudson straits?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not yet.


Mr. LUCAS:: Where are these three icebreakers operating?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Two of them are operating in the St. Lawrence, and one is kept at Sydney, during the winter months, breaking ice in the maritime ports and in the gulf.


John W. Carruthers: Are there any on
lake Superior?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Mr. GOULD:: What system of inspection
has the department over the repairs that are charged up to these boats?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have a staff of inspectors who inspect, in detail, the repairs that are made on all these vessels.


Oliver Robert Gould: Do the salaries of these men come out of the first item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not those of the inspectors. This work is done by contract awarded after tender.


Mr. COOTE:: Has the department bought any new boats this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What is the idea of
breaking the ice on the St. Lawrence, is it to open navigation earlier, or to prevent floods?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are two objects in
view. One is to open navigation earlier on the St. Lawrence, and the other, and I think the more important, is to prevent the flooding of lands adjoining the river. The ice used to jam not very far from the Quebec bridge, and when this happened the St. Lawrence rose to such an extent as to flood the banks of the river and cause damage to property. Very serious damages have been caused by floods that have originated in this way. I think the experience of the department has vindicated the practice of employing these icebreakers. Since it was inaugurated no serious damage has been caused, whereas formerly much damage was wrought by floods.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: How much earlier do you open navigation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About two or three weeks.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What duty would
the boats be doing in the months of November and December?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Arthur Edward Ross: At what date does navigation close in Montreal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About December 4.


Mr. POWER:: In view of the enormous
cost of fuel has the department ever considered the advisability of converting some of these icebreakers into oil burning vessels?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The matter has not been
considered. This, I think, is due to the . opinion that oil would be a more expensive fuel than coal.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Are these vessels equipped with the wireless?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


James Arthurs: The vessels of the department that go out on the Great Lakes are not so equipped. A couple of years ago I called the attention of the then minister to that fact, and last fall we had a disaster to one of the boats belonging to the department which was wrecked on the Georgian bay after all other navigation had closed. These vessels have to be out, long after all the other vessels are necessarily off the lakes in order to take in the buoys. I pointed out to the minister that it was absolutely essential-whether they replaced or refitted the Grenville that was lost on the occasion referred to-that it would be absolutely necessary for the vessel to be equipped with the wireless.
Mr .CARDIN:	That is a question which
is being considered in the department. We shall probably equip all these vessels, that do not now possess it, with the wireless. A certain number already have the wireless system, and it will likely be extended to the others.


James Arthurs: The minister promised
that two years ago, and I tried to impress upon him the absolute necessity of fitting out each of these boats with wireless on account of the dangerous work in which they are engaged both before and after the navigation season.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can assure my hon.
friend it will be done.


Arthur Meighen: When?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This year.
Mr. GlOULD:	The total amount stated
by the minister as having been voted last year and spent was $1,500,000.

Supply-Murine and Fisheries


Arthur Meighen: The minister said $1,468,-
000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That was 1923-24.


Arthur Meighen: What abou-t last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I have not
the figures up to the end of the fiscal year, but up to March 1 last we had spent $1,215,268.


Oliver Robert Gould: By the amount of the vote
this year you anticipate the expenditure will be about the same?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Practically the same. For
a long time past that is practically what the expenditure has been each year.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent on repairs to the Mikula in 1923-24?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I gave the total for all
the steamers. I have not the figures which my right hon. friend wishes for the Mikula in particular, but I think I could get them for him later on in the evening.


Arthur Meighen: I should like that information right back to the time of the acquirement of the Mikula.


Mr. McMASTER (Translation):: I must,
Sir, congratulate the minister on his courtesy. He addresses the House in such gentle tones that the Conservatives try to follow suit and are not heard, and even the most exacting Progressive speaks so politely that it is almost impossible to hear him in this part of the House. I respectfully request, while congratulating the minister on his control over the House, that all speak louder, so that the members who take an interest in the proceedings and are seated in the remotest parts of the House, may listen, hear and follow intelligently the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. JACOBS:: Would the hon. member
mind repeating that in French?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not
know if it is because I am familiar with the French language, however, I have no difficulty whatever in hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster).


Mr. STEVENS:: I should like to ask the minister-I think it would come, quite properly under this heading-regarding the disaster, an account of which we read in the papers, in which some nine lives were lost. I understand there was no adequate life saving apparatus at hand, although there is some obsolete equipment in the neighbourhood, and I should
189i
like to have a statement from the minister if he has made any investigation of the case to his satisfaction in order to account for both the disaster and the degree to which .assistance was rendered or failed to be rendered. It is unfortunate that we should have to look into an accident of this kind after it happens, but it has happened, and every effort should be made to (prevent a recurrence of such a thing. Furthermore I think parliament ought to take notice of this sad occurrence when these nine fives, I think that was the number, were lost under most tragic circumstances. I know the efficiency of the department, and I have no doubt the minister has made some investigation, but I think it is due to parliament that some statement should be made respecting this case.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The observations of the hon. gentleman might properly come under another item, because there is a vote further on which deals with the life saving service. However,
I have no objection at all to state that we are making inquiry in order to get all the necessary information in regard to the accident to which my hon. friend has referred. Our information is not complete, so that I am not in a position now to make any statement in regard to it. As soon as we have obtained all the information, I shall be only too pleased to make a complete explanation of the situation to the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite appreciate that, and I suggest that this item, 216, "life saving service", including rewards for saving life, should stand until that information is to hand. Would the minister be good enough to make particular inquiries into the matter of the lifeboat or so-called lifeboat. I understand it was an old-fashioned rowboat, and not a power boat, and some nine men had been employed to manage it. I am speaking entirely subject to correction, but I think a very careful investigation should be made of that particular phase of the case, and when the item comes up, and this matter can be properly discussed, the minister will have this information at hand.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite agree that that item shall stand.


George Gibson Coote: How many months in the year would these ice-breakers be in operation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have been in operation since November last, up to the opening of navigation.


George Gibson Coote: The reason I ask that question is that I understood the minister to say that the fuel bill for one of the boats was

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
$50,000, and I was wondering if he would give the committee some explanation of the item, because I suppose the boat would only be in operation for a few months, and it seems to me that is a very excessive amount to pay for fuel.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Lady Grey and the
Montcalm are in operation the year round.


George Gibson Coote: This $50,000 was for the Mikula.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but this vessel is a very powerful boat and it requires a large amount of money to supply the coal for it. When the season of ice-breaking is closed, this boat is still kept under steam. It is used as a help to navigation when assistance is required in the case of wrecks or other emergencies.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister tell us
where the coal is bought, and what price per ton is paid for it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is bought in the city of Quebec, and the price is $6.90 per ton.


George Gibson Coote: Would that be Nova Scotia coal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, Nova Scotia coal. Item agreed to.
Investigation into wrecks, $6,000.


Mr. BAXTER:: Can the minister tell me
in this connection if the board which occasionally meets and holds investigations into accidents has power to deal with a certificate of a master granted by the British Board of Trade? I know of one case where the board has professed to suspend such a certificate, and I was rather of the opinion thait it was not within the competence of the board to make such a dismissal. I have not fully investigated the subject and would like to know the opinion of the department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have always exercised
these powers and we were under the impression that we had the right to do so in so far as they relate to steamships navigated in Canadian waters.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I know the case I refer
to, and I thought it was a very painful one. It occurred justt outside St. John harbour. I may say that the ship, the master of which was suspended, was held responsible in damages in the Admiralty Court; so that the fault was imputed in law to that ship. At the same time it was a South American vessel, owned

or operated on behalf of the government of Peru, if I am not mistaken. The captain was an Englishman and held a certificate of the British Board of Trade, and the circumstances were such that I did not think the decision was a correct one. However, that was in the judgment of the tribunal. But I doubt the legal power of a Canadian tribunal to deal with a certificate of the British Board of Trade. I assume it would be quite competent to pass the information to the British Board of Trade and request their action. In order to prevent any possible mistakes in the future, would the minister obtain the opinion of the Department of Justice, and have this tribunal instructed as to what their powers are in regard to such matters? I think that would avoid some misconception and perhaps some injustice.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This question has never
been raised before, but I will be only too glad to follow the suggestion of the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navigation schools, $7,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: These schools are being
conducted in Canada now. Will the minister tell me how much is being paid in connection with each school?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have seven schools;
one at each of the following places, Halifax, Yarmouth, North Sydney, St. John, Quebec, Collingwood, Vancouver and Kingston.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is the cost of each
school?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amounts paid are as
follows:
Halifax	 $1,860
Yarmouth	 1,500
North Sydney	 360
Kingston, grant to navigation school in Queen's University	 500
In Collingwood Captain Coles is paid as examiner; he is not receiving any salary as teacher. The same applies to Vancouver. We have an equipment comprising stationery, charts, books, nautical instruments and so on, amounting to $620.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How many certificates have been granted at each of the schools in the cast year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There were granted at
Halifax, 22; at Yarmouth, 3; at St. John, 30; at Quebec, 5; at Kingston, 9, or 69 in all. The attendance was 166.


Mr. DUFF:: I want to make a plea for
Captain O'Hara, the man in charge of the school at Halifax. While he does not live

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
in my constituency, my constituents go to him to study in preparation for their examinations. He is an old master mariner, who gives splendid satisfaction. He is a most capable teacher and he receives from the government a salary of only $155 per month. He gave up the sea four or five years ago. During the war he thought he could do something for his country by teaching young men navigation and since then he has been endeavouring to Obtain an increase in salary. I can understand that the government is short of money, but I do think that a man like Captain O'Hara, who could earn anywhere from $200 to $300 a month at sea, deserves more than $155 a month at the hands of the government in his capacity as teacher of navigation. I would ask the minister to take his case into careful consideration with a view to increasing his salary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the temporary relief of distressed seamen, $5,000.
Lincoln Henry Jelliff: How much was spent last
year for relief purposes and how many were relieved?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We paid out $336.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: That was out of the appropriation of $5,000 last year. What did you do with the balance?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It went back into the treasury.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Do you need the same amount this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We never know how much will be needed because we do not know what number of seamen will be in distress.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: How many oases did you relieve?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not that information just now.


Oliver Robert Gould: Does this apply to the seamen on government boats alone?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It applies to all seamen.


Oliver Robert Gould: What is the nature of the temporary relief given, and who were the recipients of the $336?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We provide the means of enabling seamen who are in distress in foreign countries to return to Canada.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does that apply to foreign
seamen stranded in Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. Every country has its own arrangement.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think that under the Merchant Shipping Act, wherever it is possible the money is recovered. There are cases however, where the vessel is lost and the owners cannot be got at, where seamen in distress would be in a pitiable condition if it were not for some fund of this kind.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I notice in the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31 that there was $2,302 for printing. What is the necessity for so much printing in connection with this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know of any expenses that were incurred in connection with printing; probably there is an error somewhere.


Donald Sutherland: In the Auditor General's statement with regard to the temporary relief of distressed seamen there appears the sum of $2,988.35, and of this $2,302.51 was for public printing and stationery.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This money was used to
provide seamen with what are known as continuous discharge books. Probably it should come under another item, but it is the explanation of the item which my hon. friend finds in the Auditor General's report.


Donald Sutherland: Does that appear
from year to year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These books can be used
for a number of years.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Do I understand that
several thousand dollars are used for the printing of forms in connection with the relief of distressed seamen?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What are the forms that
come under this item?


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, the books that the minister has referred to are supplied to sailors by shipping masters, and after the trip the master writes in the books that the seamen are properly discharged. I presume these books are used all over Canada, and perhaps if the department had several years' supply printed it would cost this amount of money. These books are a very necessary protection for our seamen.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There can be no question, Mr. Chairman, of the necessity of the books which the hon. member for Lunenburg speaks of. But those books have no connection with the temporary relief of distressed seamen.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


William Duff: No, they do not come under
that item.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: At page 0-26 of the Auditor General's report for 1923-24, under "Temporary relief of distressed seamen" I find the following item:
Public Printing and Stationery department, Ottawa: printing, $2,138.19; accounts under $100, miscellaneous, $164.32-total, $2,302.51.
I could understand the $164.32 being paid for these books, but what in the world $2,138.19 would be paid for printing in connection with the temporary relief of distressed seamen I cannot see. No doubt it would be quite proper to furnish the books my hon. friend speaks of, but they should be under some other heading in the accounts.


William Duff: That is quite right. The cost of these books has no connection at all with the moneys which are paid to distressed seamen. It is quite evident that they are placed in the wrong vote, or were paid for out of money remaining over from the vote.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not suggesting any special iniquity in connection with this, but, on the other hand, I do not think that the matter, though so small as a couple of thousand dollars, is entirely devoid of some seriousness. If a matter of this kind is not discovered in the routine of the Auditor General's department, and is only picked up by a member of the House looking over the report at night, it seems to me the appointment of a new Auditor General has not as yet set everything right in that department. I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is relieved of responsibility, but it passes over to the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and we may fairly request him to investigate the Auditor General's department to see why things should be in this condition. It is a very small item compared with the total payments by the Dominion, but one is led to suspect that a similar blunder may just as well occur in regard to the entering of a surplus in some of the other accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $5,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How much of this was
spent for printing?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We spent $2,607 last year for the removal of wrecks.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Were those
wrecks in salt water, fresh water or where? Were there any around Point Pelee?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There were eleven removals of obstructions from the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia coast, Charlottetown, the Richelieu river, Port Credit, and the west side of Amherst island, Ontario.


Mr. BOYS:: Has the minister any record
of money spent for the removal of a sunken vessel from the wharf at Big Bay point, lake Simcoe? I think I mentioned this two years ago. So far as I know the wreck is still there. H nothing has been done towards its removal, I would ask the minister to make a note of it. The wreck is certainly a menace to safety, and has been there for some time. I am not sure who the owner was. I think he was asked to attend to it, but did not. It seems to me to be the duty of the department to see that that vessel is removed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be only too glad to inquire into the matter and to act in accordance with my hon. friend's suggestion.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It will be seen from the
Auditor General's report that $365.20 was paid for advertising in various papers, which would be quite correct, in connection with the removal of wrecks. But the Public Fruiting and Stationery department comes in for $238,29, with an additional amount for stationery of $167.86. There are not many wrecks to be removed, and I am not aware that it is necessary to fill in forms when a wreck has occurred. But there is something stranger still. There is an item which reads as follows:
Detailed nature:	Construction of lights, $178.82;
Maintenance of lights, New Brunswick, $100.42; Prince Edward Island, $212.13.
These amounts are not considerable in themselves, but we seem to have hit to-night upon a practice which is not to be commended, that is, the including under a particular vote of expenditures which do not properly belong to it. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with the payments themselves, but there is something wrong with a system which permits construction of lights "and maintenance of lights" to be charged up to the removal of obstructions in navigable waters.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These lights are placed
on the wrecks immediately after the wreck has occurred in order to protect navigators. In regard to printing, we have to supply forms in connection with claims, and so on, but these expenditures do not occur every year.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not think the minister can be fully satisfied with his own explanation. I am aware that it is necessary where practicable to indicate the position of a wreck

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
by attaching lights to it, but that is a very different thing from the construction of lights. This simply means that some bit of a lighthouse has been fixed up, or a wharf light or something of that kind, and because there was not enough money in the proper appropriation to pay for it, the expenditure is put under this head. I suggest that the minister, instead of trying to pass the matter by with an explanation that he himself must feel to be of doubtful quality, should rather admit that the thing is wrong and determine to give instructions to his department that expenditures shall be charged to the proper accounts.


William Duff: If my hon. friend is serious
he must realize, coming from a maritime constituency, that it is necessary to do more than hang a lantern on a wreck. Somebody must be hired to look after the light, especially at night.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Can my hon. friend by
any strategy make "construction of light" out of that?


William Duff: Precisely, you must construct
something on the wreck, perhaps forty feet in the air, so that mariners coming along on other vessels will be able to see the light and keep clear of the wreck. The amount would cover, no doubt, the remuneration of the man who constructs the light as well as of the man who attends it continuously until the wreck is removed.


Donald Sutherland: Can the minister
inform the committee whether there was any expense in connection with the removal of wrecks at Belle River last year?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection of live stock shipments, $4,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: In 1922-23 the vote for
this purpose was $3,000; in 1923-24, $3,500; in 1924-25, $4,000, and this year it is the same. It is well understood that live stock shipping has considerably fallen off, so that there would hardly seem to be occasion for additional inspection. Will the minister give some details of this item, and also let us know whether printing, either by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery or outside of it, figures to any considerable extent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We make no inspection of
the animals themselves; we inspect only the fittings on the boats. In 1923-24, the shipments of live stock from Montreal were 29,963; in 1924-25, 44,174; from St. John, 1923-24, 6,521, and in 1924-25, 10,953.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How many inspectors are
there, and what were they paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: At Montreal, two: Mr. Delorme, $1,380; Mr. O'Grady, $1,380. At St.John, Mr. J. M. Martin, who is a steamboat inspector, received an additional amount of $300 for his inspection work. At Quebec, the work of inspection was done by the port warden who last year received $40 in fees.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants-Quebec and British Columbia, $35,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will the minister tell us
what services were performed last year, giving us the names of the vessels that required assistance, and the amount that was paid?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The British Columbia
company receives the sum of $10,000, and the Quebec plant $25,000. We have contracts with these companies. The Quebec plant gave its services to the following steamers:	The
British steamers Comishman and Caledonian, Canadian passenger steamer Saguenay, Canadian Government Merchant Marine steamer Canadian Ranger, British steamers Linkmoor and Cairmona, Canadian passenger steamer Cape Diamond, British steamer Clearpool, Greek steamer Kate and British steamer Maresfield. The Pacific Salvage Company, Limited, was engaged in salvage operations with the following boats; Tatjona, Admiral Rodman, Admiral Peary, Rochelie, Lady Kindersley, Martha Hamsoth, Qualium, Areata, Ravelli and Cascade.


William Duff: It is good value for the money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unforeseen expenses, $5,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Whait was the amount
spent last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to the 1st of March
last, $2,929.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How much of that was
for printing?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The expenditure last year
for printing the Canadian Port and Harbour Directory was $3,725.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I thought the total expenditure was given as $2,929. I would like the minister to investigate this branch of the vote. In the previous year out of a total expenditure of a little less than $5,000, $388.17 was spent for printing. This year nearly the whole of the unforeseen expenses were for printing. Now is it quite reasonable for any man to say that the printing of the department is an unforeseen expense? I have always thought that an unforeseen expense was

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
something that could not reasonably be apprehended or provided for, something that arose in the nature of an emergency.
Mr. ARCHAMBAUJ/f:	That is force
majeure.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to have to think of the printing department in those terms. I thought it was a very substantial block of buildings, well equipped and ready for work, and not by any means unforeseen. Really we ought to have a little better way of dealing with the matter than this. I say again it is not a question of the misapplication of public money, but it certainly is a question of a misconception of the idea of a vote. The responsibility of parliament, and particularly of the minister, is behind the principle that money must be definitely spent for the purposes which parliament has sanctioned, and to call ordinary printing "unforeseen expenses" is really a misuse of the term. I have personally, if not politically, a very great deal of confidence in the minister, and I trust that he will devote his energies to reforming this abuse of the public accounts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am quite free to admit
there is much to be said in favour of the contention of the hon. gentleman, but we are simply following certain practices which have been in vogue in the department for a long time, and we are not always in a position to make all the changes we want.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But we have a new Auditor General to start these reforms.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I can assure my hon. friend I will do the best I can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydro-graphic steamers, $340,000.
William Alves Boys: What was expended last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to the 1st March we spent $238,685.34.


William Alves Boys: How has that expenditure been distributed1?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of the fact that our figures only cover the period up to the 1st Mardh last I could not state what the actual amount under the different headings was. This vote covers salaries, stores, repairs to the boats that are used, and sundries. We operate several boats in this service.


Mr. HANSON:: In what waters were these' surveys carried on last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the Pacific coast, on the Atlantic coast, and on the St. Lawrence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is very general. I did not suppose you had gone to the Arctic although you may yet go. I should like to know what new waters were charted last year. Is it necessary that these surveys should be kept uip year after year? Surely all the coasts of this country have been charted by this time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On the Pacific coast the work of this branch of the survey was carried out with the Canadian government steamer, Lillooet, and the houseboat Somass, the Canadian government steamer Restless not being placed in commission.
The early part of the season was occupied in the sweeping of First narrows, Vancouver, after which surveys of the following ten bays, inlets, and harbours were completed:-San Mateo bay, Port Neville, Barnard harbour, Tucker bay, Surf inlet, Laredo channel, Caamano sound, Meyers passage, Cumshewa inlet and Porlier pass. In addition tidal observations were obtained at Porlier pass, Meyers passage and Sandspit, and current observations to determine ^lack water in Meyers passage were taken during ninety nine days.
On the Atlantic coast the Canadian government steamer Acadia not being placed in commission, the survey operations on the southeast coast of Nova Scotia were carried out with a shore-party. During the summer a survey of Lockeport harbour and approaches was completed, the latter part of the season being occupied in making a survey of Lunenburg harbour and approaches.
For the work of this branch of the survey on the lower St. Lawrence the steamer Cartier was again commissioned, and operations were continued eastward of the southwest part of Anticosti island and along the south shore of the north channel where navigation has much increased since lights were placed on the island. A camp-party carried out operations at Mingan islands from launches.
On the Magdalen islands, the steamer Bayfield not being in commission, the survey work commenced last season was continued with a shore-party. This consisted chiefly in sounding off the west coast of the island, the latter part of the season being occupied in the Restigouche with a view to completing a chart of the locality.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I ask if the Cartier
is employed in the winter season?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: She is usually employed in the winter season.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Mr. BAXTER,:	The captain and crew are
paid full time are they not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The captain is, but the
crew is not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have had a
good deal of discussion on these surveys more than once, and there has been a pretty general expression of opinion that we ought to economize in connection with new survey work, except, of course, in places where it is absolutely necessary. This vote is not coming down at all. Apparently we are doing just as much new survey work in this connection as we ever did. Now suppose we set to work and practise economy in this respect, unless it would be too much to ask my hon. friends opposite to attempt to practise some of the principles they preach.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
trouble?


William Duff: Speak for yourself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen do not seem to like the prescriptions which they give on the platform. Supposing we consider the government's statements seriously -and I suppose I am doing them too much honour in suggesting that-and try to make a reduction in some direction. We are keeping this vote up just as it was. This is a matter of new work and I submit that unless it is shown to be essential it should not go on. Just because this work has been going on all this time is no reason why it Should continue. We have had nothing to show any special necessity here for continuing. Perhaps the minister could tell me, for example, how much was spent in 1920 on this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I couild not say at present what amount was spent in 1920. If I remember rightly, however, we reduced this vote last year by a very substantial amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I am afraid these estimates are wrongly printed because they do not show any reduction. The item is exactly the same.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Last year we made a very substantial reduction as compared with the vote of the previous year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was it in 1920?


Mr. NEILL:: The trouble with this vote is that it is not big enough. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen who have had their requirements attended to in the past to say that we ought to restrict the vote, but it is
urgently needed and it should be bigger than it is, especially on the west coast of Vancouver Island and on the west coast of the mainland of British Columbia where there are large areas that are practically uncharted It may be said that Captain Vancouver did chart those waters in a rough way, but you can imagine the conditions at that time, and while the survey work carried out then was more or less accurate it was done on such a broad scale, so to speak, that it does not in the case of many bays or harbours show the obstructions in them, soundings only being taken 'at points far apart. And yet tihere may be to-day pinnacle rocks, and so on, that would be extremely destructive to shipping. 1 do not know whether the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) or the ex-Minister oif Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) know it or not, but on the west coast of the Pacific, particularly on the west coast of Vancouver island, industries are developing very rapidly. Sawmills, canneries, saiteries and so on are being established. I recall one instance where there wajs a dry salt herring saltery in operation and they chartered a foreign boat to come in and load there. When the captain name in and looked at this old chart prepared by Captain Vancouver he said "This is not good enough for me, I will not take the risk." So he moved his boat for some miles to where there w>as a charted harbour. The consequence was the whole cargo had to be lightered over to that harbour, which was a tremendous disadvantage for the owners, and resulted in an added cost of something like $2,000 on that one shipment alone. Another reason why the vote should be increased or at least not reduced-and I could multiply instances-they have this boat called the Lillooet, which is suitable to go out in comparatively rough water. A case may arise in a. harbour where a smaller boat can accomplish the work efficiently, but they have no such boat in commission and this big boat has to be brought down at considerable expense and delay a long distance, when a small boat could have done it more cheaply, without interfering with what might be called the main work of the survey boat. I can assure members I am not speaking with any desire to spend money in the district because these men who are employed are departmental men, but it is very urgent and pressing that these waters should be charted when occasion requires. There are two places in my district at this moment urgently requiring the attention of the department, and when I go to the department and make the request, I am told the boat has sufficient

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
work ahead to keep it going for eighteen months.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I fully agree with the remarks of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and, speaking from practical experience, I know it is very essential to the welfare of the shipping on the Pacific coast to have this work carried on. Less than two years ago I was going up Jervis inlet. The boat was supposed to be running in thirty fathoms of water and all of a sudden it struck a rock. This place was not charted. When we came back the captain reported it and every chart issued since that time has this rock marked on it. These places must be charted if shipping is to be carried on. Of course it may be all right on the Atlantic, but the Pacific is a new place and they have not done enough of this government work.


William Alves Boys: In 1923-1924 the item was $360,000, and in 1924-1925 it was reduced to $210,000, and it is increased this year and I suppose in connection with that increase some new work must be under contemplation. Could the minister indicate what the work that warrant's that increase is?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that in the first instance we had the two items relating practically to the same thing. We had the tidal surveys under a separate item, and this year we have combined the two items under one heading.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting to learn that there is some reason for the vote. The members from British Columbia give us: at least some argument for voting away this money. I wonder if we could get a little bit further and obtain information as to what particular work will be done and where the places are. Perhaps the hon. members from British Columbia will be kind) enough tO1 give us the names of the places were they want this work done, what it will cost, and when it will be gone on with. We have a large vote. We have had some assistance given to the minister, and I would like to see that assistance put in such a way that it will mean something and that it will not be made simply an excuse for this vote passing. I have no doubt the hon. members are referring to something specific. I have no doubt they can give us the names of the harbours which require to be helped. I know the west coast pretty well, and I do know there is dangerous navigation on the west coast in lots of places, but I know that we do not want to have money spent on new surveys unless there is
[Mr. Neill.)
some real public necessity for it at these points.


Alan Webster Neill: 
William Alves Boys: I take it for granted that the
work contemplated by the vote is all itemized, and I presume the minister can tell us exactly where it is to be performed. No doubt what has just been said is correct, but possibly the places which have been mentioned are not included in the estimates this year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In regard to the Pacific
coast work, the steamer Lillooet will continue operations off the British Columbia coast, but whether it will be in continuation of last season's operations has not been decided, I am informed.


William Alves Boys: At what estimated cost will
that work be performed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The cost will be $103,000.
The steamer Restless will not be used as a survey boat, but her survey party will operate

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
from the shore in sheltered localities, surveying some of the many harbours that require to be charted.


William Alves Boys: Is that on the Pacific coast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. On the Atlantic coast the steamer Acadia will not be used as a survey boat but -her survey party will continue to operate from the shore on the southeast coast of Nova Scotia. On the gulf of St. Lawrence the steamer Bayfield will continue out of commission, and her party will operate from the shore in and around Magdalen islands.


William Alves Boys: Will the minister give the
estimated cost of the work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In regard to the work on
tlhe Atlantic coast, the estimated cost is $28,000 and in the gulf of St. Lawrence, $28,500. In the lower St. Lawrence the steamer Cartier with the aid of an auxiliary shore party will continue her survey work north of Anticosti island and off Gaspe coast, at an approximate cost of $80,000. In reference to the automatic gauges their operation will be continued as heretofore; as to engraving, printing, and so forth, the work of the division will be continued, but on a somewhat enlarged scale necessitated by the increased work. That is the total work proposed to be performed.


William Alves Boys: I am not sufficiently familiar
with this work to know whether or not any of the ibeims the minister referred to would properly come under the heading of Tidal and Current Surveys. I understood the minister to say these two items were combined in the -estimates this year, although separated last year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What I have enumerated
makes a total of $310,000 for the hydrographic survey.


William Alves Boys: The minister means all combined?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the total service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With reference to the
surveys at Lunenburg and Lockeport; how long since the ports on the south shore of Nova Scotia were charted previously? That is an old settled part of the country and I have no doubt that the harbour has been charted on more than one occasion, and very well charted. What is the necessity of a resurvey of these two particular harbours?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The surveys were made =) long time ago in these harbours and it has been found that they were not altogether
reliable, several complaints having been received.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister cannot tell us when the surveys were made. Were they made because there is so much dredging done all the time to make a harbour out of it? Surely with the number of ships sailing in and out of Lunenburg, the harbour must have been well charted. The answer given by the minister is not convincing.


William Duff: The money spent in this connection was paid to people from Ottawa; it did not go to anyone in Lunenburg. My hon. friend need not worry that any of my friends are on the job, if that is what is bothering him. If he has read anything about marine matters-because he has no practical experience-he will have found that it is necessary to re-survey harbours every four or five years, for Ithe reason that with the currents moving continually the bottom of the harbour shifts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And dredging.


William Duff: Yes, Cour-tenay bay, for instance. If my hon. friend will read enough on the subject he will find that in the Old Country they spend millions of dollars in surveying around the coast, and this must be done practically every year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman is unduly sensitive; I was not suggesting anything


William Duff: I am not sensitive.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Usually he does not claim any credit for being over-sensitive. I was not making any reference to money spent in his constituency in particular. I did ask for certain information from the minister which I have failed to get so far. If the minister can tell us when the last survey of Lunenburg harbour was made we shall be able to see whether another survey is needed.


William Duff: You must think the minister is an old man.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the hon. member will give the minister time to collect himself we shall no doubt get the information.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These charts are very old.
In 1882 an agitation developed for a proper survey of the Canadian shores of the Great Lakes and for an up-to-date chart to replace the one then in use, which had been in existence for some fifty years. I suppose the same thing is largely true of the Maritime provinces. However, I regret that I have no specific information regarding this particular harbour, although, from the information we have, I
29S0

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
think the survey must have been made fifty years or so ago.


William Duff: I have lived there a very long time and this is the first survey I remember anything about.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To complete the answer
to my hon. friend (Mr. Boys) I shall read the following statement in regard to tidal and current surveys:
The functions of the tidal and current survey is to investigate and determine ocean currents, to record changes and fluctuations in volocity, brought into relation with the tides: the observation of tides, to determine the rise and fall and the exact time thereof; the correlation of tidal streams with the time of the tide, for the determination of slack waters, of mean sea level, of low water datum, of tide levels, and of high water levels. Like the hydrographic survey, this is a distinctly marine service. Its particular function is to insure, as far as possible, the safety of navigation, and in this respect is inseperably connected with other marine activities. Also, like the hydrographic survey, and for the same reasons, its importance can hardly be overestimated.
We propose to spend $30,000 in the surveys.


William Alves Boys: That information is instructive but it is not quite what I wanted to know. I understood from the minister that the two items were consolidated and that there was a saving in consequence. If I rightly apprehend the information given, the minister expects- to spend $330,000 of the $340,000 of item 217, and he has intimated that he expects to spend about $30,000 in connection with tidal and current surveys. If that is so, and this is to be added to the consolidation, there would be a total of $360,000 instead of $340,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; the amount to be spent in regard to hydrographic surveys is $310,000.


William Alves Boys: I thought the minister in giving the list a moment ago concluded with the statement that the total was to be $330,000 apart from $30,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, $310,000. In this connection I desire to state that our department has suffered quite a serious loss lately through the death of Mr. W. J. Stewart, whose funeral took place this afternoon. Mr. Stewart was in charge of this very important branch of the service. He was a man of high qualifications who devoted himself entirely to the service of the country, and I think that his memory deserves some consideration on our part. I think it only proper that I should take this opportunity to extend to his widow and family my most heartfelt condolence. I feel that the department, through his death, has lost one of its best officials; indeed, not only the department but the entire service of Canada will I Mr. Cardin.]
suffer, for he was a man whose efficient services it will be difficult to replace.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio service, and to provide for the construction and maintenance of wireless stations and the general administration of radio throughout the Dominion $500,000.
William Alves Boys: I observe that last year there
was an increase of $67,510. Does the minister think that the whole of the present vote is warranted?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vote is a very large
one, but we must remember that the service is of considerable importance and is developing every day. The radio is becoming more and more essential, particularly in connection with navigation. We spent, up to March 1st past, $347,044. We have a certain amount with which we are going to pay expenses that have been incurred up to the present time. Perhaps it would be well to state in a few words what we propose to do. This proposed appropriation is to provide for the maintenance and repair, throughout the year, of-fifty-two government radio-telegraph stations, direction finding stations, and radio beacon stations on the east coast, Great Lakes and Pacific coast of the Dominion, and for the general administration of radio telegraphy, including the licensing and inspection of ship stations, private and commercial land stations, receiving stations, radiotelephone broadcasting stations, the administration of broadcasting and the examination of commercial operators for -radio certificates. It also provides for the construction and for the maintenance after construction of three additional stations. The discoveries in radio are very frequent, and we have to follow the progress in order to have the system up to date, and so benefit by these discoveries.


William Alves Boys: I understand the money is
for stations now existing, with the exception of three; if that be so, will the minister say where the three new stations are to be located?


Mr. STORK:: While that information is
being looked up, Mr. Chairman, I have something to bring to the minister's attention. I trust that a portion of the $500,000 will be used in the construction of a wireless station at Stewart, at the end of the Portland canal. On various occasions I have received most insistent demands from the locality for a wireless service, which demands I endorse with all the energy I possess, for this reason: at the present time Stewart is served by land

Supply-Miarine and Fisheries
wire, and, due to the excessive snowfalls, amounting at times to eighteen and twenty feet, that wire is down sometimes for weeks at a stretch. The Portland district is one of the greatest mining districts in all British Columbia, many valuable and important mines being in operation in the locality, and when the land wire is down the people are compelled to go over to Hyder, an Alaskan town near the international boundary, close to Stewart, and utilize the wireless from there to Seattle. They feel they are entitled to a much better service than they are now getting.
I trust therefore that some provision will be made for the installation of an up to date wireless station, and I hope the minister will give the matter consideration in connection with this item.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Replying to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) the new stations will be at Vancouver, Belle Isle and Mary island in British Columbia.


William Alves Boys: I was correct in my assumption that the other expenditure was for existing stations, and that only three new stations are to be constructed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many stations are
there on the Atlantic coast, and where are they located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We 'have fifty-one stations, twenty-eight on the east coast, fourteen on the west coast, eight on the Great Lakes and one at Hudson bay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government own the wireless station at Newcastle, New Brunswick?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
we had a discussion, I forget whether it was last session or the session before, as to the advisability of substituting a radio sendee for some more of the overland telegraph lines that were very expensive to maintain and bringing in no revenue at all. Is that being gone on with at all in connection with this vote, or is it in some other department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is in the Interior department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend can tell me whether the Interior department has a radio service of its own?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: These stations are operated by the Interior department and the Department of National Defence. There are three of them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that to take
the place of the former land line, or is it a new venture?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps it is
not fair to ask my hon. friend that. Has the minister thought at all about the consolidation of wireless and radio? We now have services of this kind under the Interior department, Naval Service, Defence, and Railways.


George Perry Graham: You cannot consolidate
those.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The railways?
Well, the others are on a commercial basis, but as the railway radio is almost entirely for ornamental or amusement purposes, with sometimes a little bit of glorification or advertising thrown in, perhaps it would not be fair to suggest that this radio be tied up with the others.


An hon. MEMBER:: Clever.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose they
could run together just as well as telegraph companies, the consolidation of which we have found' to be a good thing. Perhaps my hon. friend thinks they should be still further split UP- I understand that these stations now under discussion take commercial messages as well as carry on the work of the department; why could they not look after the business of the other departments as well? Why could we not have less overhead and less cost by having the one set of activities?


George Perry Graham: The Radio department
proper was detached from the Department of National Defence two years ago and handed to the Marine department, with the exception of what was required for the purposes of defence, or, perhaps I should say, the purposes of training, particularly in connection with the air service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For the purpose, really, of teaching radio, I suppose.


George Perry Graham: I would not go so far as
to say that. It has to do not only with the training of the men in flying, but with

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
the work of protecting the forests, and so on. We discussed the matter quite fully when we were handling the Radio branch over to the Marine department and it was thought by the officials that that part of it should be retained for that purpose by the Department of Defence.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I may add that
these instruments used by the Defence department are portable instruments; they are small, compact sets used for training purposes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood
from what the minister said that we had three regular stations.


George Perry Graham: The Interior department
engaged the radio experts of the Defence department to establish these stations, there having been gome question as to who should do it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it comes
down to this:	The Defence department have
portable instruments of their own, which would not come under this head at all; and then in addition to the stations we have under this vote, we also have three regular stations which the Defence department have erected for the Department of the Interior. Now, if that is the case, we might have all these stationary things under the one management.


George Perry Graham: I am not arguing that;
I was simply making an explanation in the absence of the Minister of Defence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite appreciate my hon. friend's point in that respect.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to
lend my support to the petition of the town of Stewart for some wireless connection. This is a very nice little town away up on the Portland canal, but it is entirely cut off from the rest of the Dominion, being connected only by telegraph line. But the trouble is that the telegraph operators quit work at five or six o'clock and then they have no connection with the outside world, but must depend upon the radio or wireless from Hyder. Close to the town of Stewart there is the big mine known as the Premier, the biggest mine in the world, I believe. These people think it would only be a very little thing for the government to give them connection by wireless, and when I was there this summer they begged me to say a word in their behalf. It is a pitiful position to be in, to have your postal service cut off during a great part of the year, and with only limited telegraph facilities, depending largely on a neighbouring city for outside communication. While I was there I saw message after message 
brought over from Hyder to Stewart. I do not think they should have to depend on that kind of service. I am sure it is no exaggeration to say that that area will, within a few years, be inhabited by millions of people, and I think the least we can do is to give them a wireless service. Canada is getting all the benefit from that area. The Premier mine has turned out about $7,000,000 in dividends in three years, yet Canada is not even building a road to that area. All the road building has been done by the United States, which has not derived one cent of benefit so far, but which is hoping, of course, to get a share in the future. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of doing something for this area.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I may be allowed to offer an explanation of the situation, as I discussed1 it several times with those interested. The Public Works department has the land line, and it is not generally considered satisfactory. Requests have been made for an exchange of the land line for wireless. I may say that the Public Works department and the Marine department are now considering the advisability of making that change, and it is hoped they will be able to come to some arrangement.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the minister will allow me a suggestion, I would not advise the cutting off of the land line because in the mountain area the wireless may fail at some time. I would think you would require the two of them, and I think that your returns in a very few years, in the next ten years say, will justify anything we can do. The land line fails quite often, and the wireless on account of some effect the mountains have would not always be 100 per cent efficient, so I would iadvise retaining both.


Roy Theodore Graham: That is worth while considering in the negotiations.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to ask the minister a question or two as to the supervision which the department exercises over wireless broadcasting stations. Does the department supervise the broadcasting stations, fix the wave lengths which the stations shall use, and also control the number of nights per week on which any station shall broadcast in order to see that there shall not be too much interference? I confess I know very little about radio myself, but I have had complaints made to me by quite a number of people in the city of Ottawa who have receiving sets, and who say there is no proper control being exercised over the broadcasting stations in Ottawa particularly, and I suppose possibly

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
conditions here are the same as in any other city. The people seem to feel that each broadcasting station should be restricted to certain nights, and that the department should exercise a little more control over these stations to see that the wave length of one station does not conflict with that of another. Even on very good sets, on four-tube sets, it is impossible almost to receive the programmes from the big broadcasting stations in the United States and other parts of Canada when CNRO is broadcasting, because it practically shuts these programmes out. There seems to be an impression, whether it is correct or not, that the wave lengths or the power which is being used here at Ottawa is not regulated properly, and that there is too much interference with outside stations. I wish the minister would tell us in a few words just what control his department exercises over these broadcasting stations.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are exercising all the
supervision we cam., so far as means for supervision have been discovered. In Ottawa we have only one station broadcasting at any one time. We license each broadcasting station, and we state in the license the day and hour when that station can broadcast. Unfortunately we have to admit that it is absolutely impossible to control ail the interference. Radio is a new invention, and1 certainly it has not reached perfection yet, but science is applying itself to .radio problems, and in the meantime we are doing everything we can to .prevent interference. In Ottawa, I might gay that we have no dual broadcasting at all, there being only one station broadcasting at any one time.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us whalt nights the CNRO is allowed to broadcast, and whether there are any nights in the week in which some Ottawa station is not allowed tio broadcast?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: CNRO is allowed to broadcast any night, except Sunday and Friday.


George Gibson Coote: Are any of the other stations in Ottawa allowed to broadcast on Sunday and Friday?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Then every night in the week may be taken up by a local station?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: If that is done, a person even with a four-tube sat would not be able to get any station outside of Ottawa.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It depends on how near he is to the local station. If he is- very near, he
cannot get an outside station, but if he is far enough away, he cam.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to suggest to the minister, and I think I am only voicing the opinion which has been expressed in many letters which have been written by local radio fans to ithe newspapers, that at least one night a week the local stations might be asked' mot to broadcast. There are sometimes some very excellent programmes put on by outside stations which Ottawa people would like ito hetar, but it would seeim' that if the local stations wish to t|ake advantage of the privileges they have from the department it will be impossible for the iloeal fane to hear any outside stations unless they have .a very expensive set. I would ask the minister to look into this matter. I think he would be meeting the wishes of the majority of the people in Ottawa who have receiving sets if one or two nights a week were kept free so that they could hear outside stations. I wouLd like the minister's opinion on that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am free to say that the
suggestion of the hon. member is worth considering, and I have no objection at all to looking into it. We are doing the best we can, but if Monday evening, say, could be set aside so that the radio fans in Ottawa could hear outside stations, there would no doubt be a certain number of people who would prefer Tuesday or some other evening in the week when they could hear a different programme, and it might be difficult to meet the wishes of the public in regard to that. But the suggestion is worth considering.


George Gibson Coote: I admit that, but I would
like to impress on the minister that he should arrange for at least, one, and I would think preferably two nights a week on which the local stations would not broadcast.
Can the minister tell us whether it is necessary for the owner of a receiving set to have a license, and if he does not take out a license, is he subject to any penalty? Also how many radio licenses have been issued for receiving sets?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is necessary for every
owner of a receiving set to take out a license. If he fails to do so, his set can be confiscated and he is liable also to a penalty. We have already taken proceedings against certain individuals refusing to take out a license. Altogether 98,000 licenses have been issued.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Does the hon.
member wish to have the names?


George Gibson Coote: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to have the names, but I would like to

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
ask the minister if he has taken any steps to inform the public that they must take out a license, because some people have told me that they did not know such a license was required.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have advertisements
in the newspapers and there are notices in all the post offices. We also broadcast the information.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: What revenue do you get
out of it?
Mr. CARlDIN:	We received from all
sources last year the sum of $147,000.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If I may make a suggestion it seems to me that this regulation business is running just a little ibit too far. I have always had the idea that it was well to leave people uncontrolled and uninterfered with by legislation so far as it is possible to do so. In other words to leave something to the free agency of human beings. Now, the ground is being trenched upon daily and almost hourly by legislation.


George Perry Graham: The air too.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Now with regard to the
licensing of mere receiving sets what possible excuse can there be for it except the building up of some more bureaucratic organizations. I grant you that in war-time a receiving set may be a cause of mischief to the country. But in war-time the superior authority steps in and you can then license, you can then control-you can destroy if necessary. But in peace time why torment the ordinary citizen who has a radio set? I would not have one within a mile of the house if I could keep it away; but why torment the ordinary citizen, and compel him to go to some official and get a slip of paper and pay some kind of a fee?


Joseph Archambault: They are not paying any license fee now.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Do they not have to pay any?


Joseph Archambault: Not at the present moment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But they have got to get
a license.


Joseph Archambault: We are receiving
something from the air.
iMr. BAXTER:	I would like to find out
what is back of this. What is the idea of requiring the public to do anything of the kind? I would also plead-I hear some hon.

members around me talking about that aspect-for a little free use of free air in this country. If you cannot keep the Canadian National out of people's ears I am afraid the Minister of Railways has entirely lost his grip over that institution. Peaceful citizens are complaining that they cannot hear something they want to hear because there is this rather expensive thing that nobody in Canada wants outside of ithe railway management forced into their ears. I would suggest that the Minister of Railways might take a grip of the matter, if it has not got beyond him, and give some sort of peace on all the nights in the week to the people of Canada. Let those broadcast who want to broadcast, but let the country keep out of this broadcasting business-it is only a waste after all. We are talking about the cutting down of duplication. That is a thing I have advocated since almost the first day I entered the House; but it is no use talking about cutting down the duplication of trains if we are going to have money squandered in something that does not attract any passengers, that is absolutely unnecessary, and that is not earned on by railways that have had a great deal more experience in management than have the board of the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship channel-maintenance and operating dredging fleet $1,663,000.
Arthur Meighen: We are not going to sit
any more to-night.


George Perry Graham: That is you would rather not.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.48 p,m.
Friday, May 8, 1925