August 29, 1917

LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

What portion is required for the bridge this year?

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

About $350,000.

5088 COMMONS

-_____________________ *

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

That is only a tenth of the vote.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

That does not matter. We do not need to spend it, even if we pass it.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

The answer which is continually given the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, when a reduction of expenditure is suggested, is that the Government do not need to spend the money simply because it is voted. If they do not need to spend the money, they do not need to vote it. That seems to be a very ready answer to that argument. When the Minister of Finance talks to the people of this country about economy in their personal expenditure, one sits aghast when he observes the reckless manner in which the country is rushing into debt and extravagant expenditure, and into taxation which will become of a most serious character day by day, on account of the necessary obligations incurred in the conduct of the war. In view of the manner in which my hon. friend has dealt with these matters, he cannot expect the people to listen to his appeals for the exercise of economy. We are asked by the Government to vote a total estimated expenditure of $254,014,238.29, of which the statutory expenditure amounts to $74,000,000, in round figures. The item for interest on public debt amounts to $57,720,000. The country has been asked to respond to the special impositions made upon them, on the ground, forsooth, they are necessary for the war. Instead of coming to Parliament and saying: Give us this money; if we do not need to expend it, we do not have to, my hon. friend himself should give the people a lead by practising economy. In his public financing my hon. friend disregards the very first essentials of economy. For instance, take the ridiculous votes for the Quebec and Saguenay for the purpose of carrying out private arrangements with private parties; the unnecessary expenditures for the extension of railways, which hon. gentlemen know cannot possibly be made use of until the war is over; votes for telephone expenditures in British Columbia intended for election purposes. When hon. gentlemen talk about patriotism and economy and at the same time practise the very reverse, they can hardly expect the people of the country to take them seriously. The matter to which the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) referred is an illustration. Even if the Hudson Bayrailway were completed to-morrow, it would

be absolutely impossible to get a single vessel to go to Hudson bay for years to come. The transportation services of the country have been so impaired that ordinary products cannot be transported across the ocean; in the Maritime Provinces we cannot get coal from Boston: Gentlemen who live in the centre of Canada, who have the advantage of transportation by rail, have no idea of the conditions that prevail in connection with marine and transportation, particularly in the Maritime Provinces. The expenditure referred to by the member for St. John would, therefore, be absolutely nugatory for years to come, even if the Hudson Bay railway were soon completed to Port Nelson.

The people submit willingly to taxation ti'.aL is necessary for the purpose of maintaining our part in the war, but they object to giving out of their incomes and out of their profits money that is diverted by the Government to unnecessary works that could well be postponed until these larger problems are settled. I pointed out the other day, when dealing with this question, the debt which rests upon Canada- a debt- which is the result of the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to railway and other problems. That debt now amounts to $2,000,000,000, with another quarter of a billion in addition, upon which interest has to be paid. Is there to be no end to this riot of expenditure and extravagance? When the wrar is over, is our financial condition to be such that no man will venture to come to this land of hope and promise because of the tremendous burden placed upon the country by the reckless mismanagement of this Government during the last five years? If the men who come to Canada must pay an impost greater than that which he would have to pay in almost every other country, greater than which he would have to pay in any other part of North

4 p.m. America, what is the use of hon.

gentlemen prattling about the flow of immigration to Canada? If present conditions continue, we cannot look forward with any degree of confidence to Canada's re-establishing herself when the war is over. When the Government are asked why they do not implement their promises to the people, they say: Oh, we do not want to spend the money; yet when they are given the right to spend money, they do spend it. The Government should say to the country: we will not ask a single dollar from the people; we will not ask Parliament to vote a single cent, unless the

money is absolutely essential for the carrying on of the affairs of the country. The moment they go beyond that, the moment they take upon themselves the power to use money that is not absolutely necessary for the carrying on of the country's affairs, that moment they become extravagant; that moment they become criminally responsible for the financial position which is rapidly coming upon Canada. To-day there is only one financial market in the world to which Canada can go for financial aid. To that country the Finance Minister has gone for money and has been compelled to make a loan at a rate of interest and subject to charges greater than ever before. We are making a daily expenditure of $850,000 on the war, and when the Minister of Finance goes to the United States for another loan the bankers to whom he submits his claim for credit will not be insensible of the financial position of this country and of the record of the Finance Minister in respect of expenditures both ordinary and special. He will not be able to get another loan on the terms upon which he got the last one; he will have to pay more interest, more commission, more deductions than those which obtained in respect of the last one.

Hon. gentlemen are not honest with the people of this country when, after imposing taxation for the purposes of the war, they divert the money to building unnecessary works like the Hudson Bay Railway, or give it to Sir Rodolphe Forget in connection with the Quebec and Saguenay Railway, or spend it on some of these other items in the Estimates which are of a very extravagant and unnecessary character. If the House agrees to the proposal submitted by the Minister of Railways and votes $3,667,745 for the Quebec and Saguenay Railway, will the Minister of Finance deny that every dollar of that amount was taken from the pockets of the people of this country under the guise of taxation which was necessary to carry on the war? What possible right has this or any other government to divert money obtained from the people for war purposes, to an unnecessary work such as the one I have mentioned, or the one to which my hon. friend from St. John referred? Of what use is it to appeal to the patriotism of our people when they see that the money that has been taken from them under the guise of being necessary for war purposes is being absolutely diverted without any justification whatever to these various items involving expenditures which are absolutely unnecessary, and which in a great many cases show a reckless disregard of conditions in this country at the present time. Is there any limit to hypocrisy in this country?

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

What do my ^ hon. friends mean by saying "hear, hear"?

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

You will find out in a few minutes.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

The minister smiles, but I defy him to deny that the money he is giving to Sir Rodolphe Forget was obtained from the people of this country under the guise of war taxation.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

The reason hon. gentlemen on this side of the House said "hear, hear," was because we agreed with the hon. member that there was no limit to hypocrisy.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

The statement I have just made in connection with the Quebec and Saguenay railway-

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The motion before the Chair is that a resolution of Friday, July 13, shall be concurred in. That resolution contains no reference to the Quebec and Saguenay railway, and therefore it is not in order for the hon. member to discuss that matter.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

I am sure, Sir, that on reflection you will not say that I have not the right to present reasons why it is not in the interests of this- country that this motion should be concurred in, in view of the present financial condition of the country and the demands which have been made upon the treasury in connection with the Quebec and Saguenay railway and other matters.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is, of course, competent for the hon, member to refer to the Quebec and Saguenay railway by way of illustration, but he should not enter into a discussion on it.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

I have not done so. I was simply referring to it in connection with other items in the Estimates, to show that the Government were improperly diverting money that had been obtained under the guise of war taxation, and I said they had no right to do that. That is why I asked, is there a limit to hypocrisy? Hon. gentlemen opposite who talk about winning the war and bearing the burdens of it, raise money from the people of this country os-

tcnsibly to carry on the war, and then hand it out to political favourites. [DOT] Day by day the people of this country are realizing more clearly that the money that was obtained from them for war purposes is being diverted to works which could very well wait until after the war. My hon.. friend will tell us that certain works must be carried on during the war. The Minister of Railways says that he has made a contract for building a bridge, and the Minister of Finance and other hon. ministers will have equally specious reasons why the other items should be concurred in. Look, for instance, at the items for the Public Works Department on pages 15 and 16 of the Supplementary Estimates. Does the Minister of Finance mean to say that it will help win the war if those items are voted9 Does he mean to say that this Government have any right to divert to these items the money that was obtained for war purposes? My hon. friend knows the financial condition of this country at the present time. He has complained pub-blicly of the .burden that has been placed upon him, as Minister of Finance, in dealing with these questions. We all know that his task is a serious one. It may be that my hon. friend does not sit tightly enough upon the treasury of this country. He is perhaps too ready to yield to the solicitations and other methods adopted by his colleagues when they desire expenditures to be made. I think my hon. friend's serious appreciation of the financial condition of this country-and he must have a serious appreciation of it because he knows the facts-is sometimes weakened by the importunities of the hon. gentlemen who are associated with him. But if that is so, it is no excuse or justification whatever for the minister. There should be no expenditures in this country whatever except upon works that are absolutely essential. Not a dollar should be spent on works involving commitments for the future. As my hon. friend beside me has pointed out, the contract for the bridge referred to by the Minister of Railways was let last year, during war time, with a full knowledge of our financial conditions.

What is the condition to-day in this country? The munition workers are being laid off. One of the greatest sources of revenue that the Minister of Finance has, namely, the customs, is being struck off because of the lessened demand for the raw materials and machines necessary in the production of munitions, and on which duty would have to be paid to the treasury. The plain

people of this country, who have this source of income stopped, are nevertheless compelled to submit to the various forms of taxation imposed upon them by hon. gentlemen opposite. Does my hon. friend mean to say that under those circumstances the money of the people should be used for any other purpose except to maintain ordinary conditions in this country? My hon. friend must get down to that basis, for that is the only proper basis in these times. To say that, notwithstanding the financial condition of the country, we should vote large sums of money to hon. gentlemen and leave them to decide whether the money shall be spent or not, is absolutely improper. If an item in the Estimates cannot be absolutely justified as being necessary at the moment, it should not be voted by Parliament, but should be struck out.

Mr. I

We undeistand that construction work on the Hudson Bay line has been suspended. We think that the work should not in any case be recommenced till more urgent needs have been met and money is more easily procurable. And if work on the line is begun again, we think it should be done in the most economical manner possible, and only up to the standard of a local line, bearing in mind that it cannot be expected for many years to come to be self-supporting. Considering the small advantage in rail mileage from the grain-growing areas, which the Hudson Bay possesses over the existing routes to Port Arthur, and that from many districts it possesses no advantage at all; considering further the short and uncertain period of navigation in the bay, and that grain consigned to Port Nelson will consequently always be liable to be detained there for nine months till navigation is again opened; considering that

higher ocean freights may be expected to absorb, if not more than absorb, any possible' saving in rail rates, we cannot believe that this route will ever secure any serious share in the export trade. Still less can we think that it wiil handle an important business. Unless considerable mineral wealth should be discovered in the territory which this line will open up, it must, we fear, continue to be almost indefinitely a burden upon the people of Canada. And everything that can be done should be done to make this burden as small as possible.

At the -end of their recommendations, 1 find the following words:

We recommend that future expenditures on the Hudson Bay Railway be reduced to the lowest possible amount.

I am surprised to find in the Estimates such a large item as $3,000,000 for the railway terminals and elevator at Hudson bay.

I know the answer of the Minister of Finance will be that the railway was started under the regime which preceded his, but that is not an answer; it is a poor excuse. We must not forget that we are at war, and that the bulk of the expenditures are voted, or should be voted, for war purposes. When I see such a large item as $3,000,000 for an enterprise which is looked upon by the royal commission appointed by the Government as a burden on which but a minimum should be expended, I consider the Government is reckless and should not be given an opportunity of spending the money in this way, when it is so much needed elsewhere. When war wa3 declared, the right hon. leader of the Opposition uttered some words of wisdom which should have been of benefit to the Government. Speaking in the House of Commons, he said:

I submit with all deference to the judgment of the free people that economy and retrenchment, not more taxation and more expenditure, is the proper policy under present conditions.

One has only to look at the bulky Estimates which have been laid on the table of the House session after session to come to the conclusion that the Government is absolutely money-blind, so far as concerns the question of expenditure. The words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he sat in Opposition, are still ringing in our ears. In those days, when Mr. Fielding, our very able Minister of Finance under the Laurier Government, would come with Supplementary Estimates ranging from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000, there was a storm of protest from the Opposition benches, led by my hon. friend (Sir George Foster). This year, when we have been bled white by all kinds of taxation measures

in order to meet the war contingencies, the Government comes first with Estimates far above those which have been heretofore presented to the House, and then, during the last days of the session, they come with Supplementary Estimates of more than $50,000,000. I say it is scandalous conduct on the part of the Minister of Finance; he has no regard for the taxpayers of this country.

I know one thing: if the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) had his own will, had his own say, in this matter he would cut out this $3,000,000 for the Hudson Bay Tailway and this other item of $3,000,000 for the Quebec and Saguenay railway. We know the hon. gentleman. We all admit, Mr. Speaker, that he has given a fair administration of the Intercolonial railway to the people of Canada. He has been able to resist his own friends on the other side of the House in their attempts to raid the treasury. But, Sir, the Minister of Finance has been dabbling in millions and millions. He belongs to the Toronto school, the school of Sir Byron Walker, of Sir Joseph Flavelle, and others. They are accustomed to dabble in millions and millions, and while my hon. friend has transferred his activities to the Dominion, he continues their methods. He is money blind. He does not seem to know the value of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars are to him what a few dollars are to humble mortals like you, Mr. Speaker, and myself. Let us remember the words of his leader, who was then in opposition. In 1911, when the hon. gentleman joined the merry-go-round of the Tory party, his leader, speaking in Toronto, used the following words:

The increase in what is known as ordinary controllable expenditure of from $36,000,000 in 1896 to $79,000,000 in 1910 is proof of extravagance beyond any possible defence and establishes a prima facie case of corruption.

This was published in the manifesto of the leader of the Opposition in 1911. The increase referred to by the then leader of the Opposition was at the rate of $4,000,000 a year. What, then, is there to be said of an increase of from $98,000,000, in 1911-12, to $135,000,000 in 1914-15, or at the rate of over $12,000,000 a year? If there was corruption with an increase in expenditure of $4,000,000 a year, surely there is extra corruption in an expenditure which has increased at the rate of $12,000,000 a year. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who was very vitriolic in his denunciations of the Liberal

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER:

Mr. Chairman, while I am quite ready to agree with a great deal that has been said by my hoe. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Lemieux), and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House, {here are certain facts in connection with this Hudson Bay enterprise that, although they have already been discussed, it is necessary to repeat on this occasion so that there shall not he any misunderstanding with regard to the project. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, this particular Hudson Bay enterprise stands in a somewhat different position from a number of other projects that have been compared to it. There is no relation whatever between the Hudson Bay enterprise and the Quebec and Saguenay purchase. The Hudson Bay railway enterprise was inaugurated as a practical matter,

I think, in 1910-that is more that seven years aigo-and it has heen in process of being carried forward ever since as a matter of Government policy to which both parties

. were committed. As far as I know, it has not heen made the subject of adverse public criticism in its administration or execution up to the present time. That is not the position at all with regard to the Quebec and Saguenay enterprise, which I am not discussing at the moment but which had its inception before the House a year ago. One great difference between these two eases is that the Hudson Bay railway enterprise was 'started and was well under way before war conditions occurred. The Quebec and Saguenay enterprise was entered upon long after war conditions had occurred. Therefore, the two matters are not at all in the same class. I recall some criticism of the Hudson Bay enterprise, made, I think, by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). One of his criticisms was* that owing to the shortage of shipping it would not be possible to make effective use ,of the Hudson Bay Railway terminal as it was not possible to adequately supply the present ports of Canada with shipping.

There is another feature of this case, however, that I think is worthy of some attention. Canada has practically only two ocean ports. It has three ocean ports, but for the purpose of my argument the two winter ports are as one. It is possible to blockade the ports of Canada as they stand at present with a minimum of difficulty.- There is no other country in the world which depends for its. ocean outlet on only one port, and that port under such conditions as to line of travel, as Canada in the case of the port of Montreal. The smallest possible naval effort could blockade Canada's trade during the summer months, and only a little greater expenditure of naval effort could blockade Canada's winter trade from the ports of Halifax and St. John. I submit that under those circumstances it is important to this Dominion of Canada, especially in time of war, that we should have another Atlantic port so situated as not to be subject to blockade by the naval forces that could blockade our present Atlantic ports. There is no doubt that -the sea route from the Hudson Bay port is so different and is under such different conditions from the ports of Montreal and Halifax that it offers, in some measure, a means of safety for the traffic of Canada in time of war during the period that the route i-s open. That is well worthy the consideration of the Government of Canada and well worthy of expemdi-ti:re in- order to make the route available for trade.

I have said before, and I am quite willing to agree now, that if, since the outbreak of the war, it had been the policy of Canada to restrict all public works expenditures with a view of concentrating her financial strength in carrying the burden of the war, it would have been quite proper, and I do not think there is a man in Western Canada who would not have agreed that all work on the Hudson Bay railway, although even at that time a very considerable expenditure had been made and considerable progress had occurred, should be abandoned. But that was not the policy of the Government of that day and it was not the policy of Parliament; expenditures on an enormous scale were going on in various parts of the country, and the Hudson Bay railroad was dealt with as were other enterprises, and progress, while it may have been slackened, was not stopped. We must all take some measure of the responsibility foT that condition. We can all agree now that it was unfortunate in the interests of the country that that attitude was preserved by the country. But it was preserved and progress has continued on that work as it has on other great works then in hand, with the result that to-day the Hudson Bay road of 425 miles is completed with the exception of 90 miles, and on that 90 miles, I understand, the grading has been done. I submit that under those circumstances it would be a misfortune if, after having completed nearly 350 miles of this railroad, including the two great bridges across the Nelson river which are very costly, and having completed the grading to Hudson bay, and having also spent $5,000,000 in port development, we should now stop work for the sake of the cost of laying the Tails on that 90 miles of already graded track. I understand that the rails are already purchased. Therefore there seems to me to be no possible Teason why the work should not be continued to completion until the rails reach the bay, at which time the expenditures made on the port will be available for use.

I shall, of course, have to 'agree that under present conditions 'and with the shortage of shipping even to meet the needs of the present Atlantic ports, we cannot expect that the completion of the railway to Port Nelson will give us the traffic by way of Hudson bay that we expected when we entered upon the enterprise and what we would have if shipping conditions were normal, as we hope they will be some day in the future. To that

322i

extent jthe arguments of my hon. friends are good. But let me deal with this other phase of the matter. There are 90 miles of track to be laid in order to bring the waters of Hudson bay into close touch with the prairie West. There is no question that there are possibilities of development in Hudson bay, in the matter of fisheries and of mineral development along the shores of the bay, so great that it would be in my mind a crime against Canada if, being within a step of the possibility of realizing on those resources at this particular time, we should fail to take that step which is merely, ae I understand it, laying the rails on' the 90 miles of graded track. This is a feature of the case of which I think everybody should take cognizance. We could not afford to build 425 miles of railway for the purpose of reaching the resources of the Hudson bay. It would never do to build that road as a local road. But, being within 90 milee of completion,, we would be falling very short of our duty if we did not complete it so as to have the advantage of those local resources; the advantage of the road as a local road. But, further than that, not until the rails reach the bay can the practicability, the advantages and the disadvantages of the ocean route be absolutely demonstrated. When we are within a step of being in a position to demonstrate these advantages, I think it would be a great crime not to take that step and secure the completion of the road to the bay.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
CON

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORPHY:

Has the hon. gentleman any faith in the practical utility of the road as an outlet for the products of the prairie West, apart altogether from the resources of Hudson Bay?

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER:

That is hardly a practical question before the House at the present time. The Parliament of Canada decided years ago that it was, or would be, a practical outlet for the products of the prairie West. Both sides of the House agreed to that. I maintain that, having agreed to that policy, and having carried construction as far as we have carried it, it is not worth while arguing on that point. We came to a certain conclusion, and acted on it, and being within a short distance of the bay now, it will pay us to complete that small portion of the road as a local developer. It is not really to the point to argue back again on the merits of the original scheme; but, to answer my hon. friend directly, I say that ever since I

studied the question-and I may say I studied it very many years ago and always kept in touch with it-I have always had the greatest possible faith in the advantage of the opening of the Hudson Bay route, to bring the products of the West in closer and cheaper touch with the markets of the world. At the present time, as in past years, anywhere from one-third to one-half of the great wheat product of the prairie West finds its outlet to the European market by way of United States routes and ports. That proportion has been increasing rather than decreasing in recent years. Port Nelson is as close to the centre of the wheat fields, and to everything that lies west of that centre as is Port Arthur, and Port Nelson is as close to Liverpool as is Montreal. These being the facts, surely it is the business of every patriotic Canadian to try to secure for our own country the traffic in our own products. If there were no other reason for the development of the Hudson Bay route, a reason would be found in the fact that our present transportation and port facilities in Canada are not able to hold for us the transportation control of our own products. Under present conditions half of the products of the West find their way to the European markets through the United States.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Because of insufficient elevator accommodation at certain places.

Topic:   COAL SUPPLY IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE.
Permalink

August 29, 1917