Mr. CHURCH (resuming) :
Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening I was referring to the Good Roads question. In the session of 1913 legislation was introduced in the Dominion Parliament providing for an appropriation of $20,000,000 for good roads. Canada has been away behind the times in the matter
of a Good Roads policy, although in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario rapid strides have been made in dealing with this important matter. In the interest of the solution of the transportation question, and many other problems which vitally concern the country, the Good Roads question is one of tremendous importance and one which especially concerns a country of vast distances such as Canada. The subject is one in which there should be coordination and co-operation between the federal government and the several provincial and municipal authorities. I was somewhat impressed with the legislation in the Senate and Congress at Washington some years ago making provision for good roads, under which the federal authorities were empowered to loan money by a guarantee of bonds to the state governments for this purpose. This plan in the carrying out of which there has been cordial co-operation between the federal, state and municipal authorities has been productive of the happiest results. The Good Roads question is still but in its infancy in Canada, but I hope that the present Government will, sooner or later, take it up and deal with it in a broad and comprehensive manner.
I wish for a few minutes to deal with the transportation question which was referred to the other day by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean). In my opinion there is room in Canada for the activities of both private ownership and public ownership. There is no use in those who support public ownership being unfair or unjust to private ownership. Private ownership has done a great deal for Canada; let us not forget that fact when we are discussing this question. The pioneers in electrical development in Toronto were a privately-owned company, and they bore the heat and burden of the day for many years, and gave a good service as beginners. But another era came, a new day dawned. The era of public ownership set in; and now for years in the province of Ontario many of the municipalities have been operating their own water-powers and light, heat, power and gas plants and telephone systems. Public ownership has for a long time been in operation in other countries but Canada was a slow beginner and was away behind the times in this respect. When we refer to Switzerland, and many other countries in Europe we find evidences of the fact that this country has been somewhat lacking. I repeat that I
The Add) ess
do not wish to be unfair to private ownership; I should be the last one to say anything unjust with respect to its activities. We owe to private ownership a great debt of gratitude for the way in which it has developed the country in many respects. In my own city of Toronto, when the question of electric light installation was before us, we had a pretty capable city corporation counsel who was a great assistance to us in many ways. That gentleman was afterwards appointed to the Board of Railway Commissioners and made the best chairman that board ever had; I refer to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). This capable gentleman was acting for the city of Toronto when we took this matter up and tried to avoid the evils of duplication. The Toronto Electric Light Company, the pioneer company in that city, had done a great deal of good in the early stages of its operation. We tried to buy the concern out in order to avoid duplication. We offered the company 125 for their common stock, but they could not see their way clear to accept. We were advised by our experts in Montreal and other cities that the stock was only worth 105, but the city of Toronto was willing to pay them 125 to buy them out. While the city was anxious to avoid duplication we did not want to interfere with the company's bonds or other securities; we wanted to be absolutely fair to private ownership. However the Board of Directors did not see fit to accept the city's offer with the result that we immediately began the construction of the Hydro Electric-the people's own system-and there was duplication.
For the installation of that system at heavy cost the taxpayers of Toronto deserve the credit. I may say that duplication after all did not prove a bad thing, because we have got a better service. Both companies had to keep faith with the public. There was a race to see who would give the best service, with the result that the public got the benefit of cut rates for commercial and domestic lighting. I have the report here of the commissioners for this year and it shows that $22,000,000 has been saved in commercial and domestic lighting to the consumers in the city of Toronto. Toronto's venture in public ownership power plant has already cost $12,000,000. We have to-day taken over the street railways, but an arbitration is pending as a result of which we will probably have to pay several millions. Since the first of September we have spent $12,000,000 on betterments. The roadbed of the street
railway has been rebuilt, the road has had many other improvements and we had built 200 new cars. Other right of way improvements of various kinds have been carried out. Having been in existence for so many years the system was badly run down, but as soon as we are able to carry out our plans Toronto will be given a better service and cheaper fares than ever it enjoyed under private ownership. I mention these facts to show that the city from which I come has not been unfair to private ownership.
In my opinion Canada has the most insane railway policy of any country in the civilized world. Where a railway company like the Canadian Pacific proves a success it immediately adds to its services ocean, oil land, land, and lake services and hotels, with the result that it achieves greater success than ever, but it is retained by private ownership. We are all proud of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and its success. I would be the last man in the world to say anything unfair about the men who compose that company and who have done so much for Canada and for the Empire. While I may have something to offer by way of criticism, nevertheless I wish to pay a tribute to them for what they have done for this country, and for the Empire as well, in the operation of their most efficient railway and ocean services, especially during the war. Where a road is a success in Canada it is retained by private ownership; where a road has been a failure and its managers cannot even raise sufficient revenue to meet the fixed charges the enterprise is handed back to the people of Canada. I wish to be absolutely fair to the pioneers of the Canadian Northern Railway also. Both Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann are good men, and had it not been for the war they would probably have succeeded to a far greater degree in their railway enterprises. I do not wish to say anything unfair against the Grand Trunk Company either. Some of the English shareholders in the three companies I have named are also shareholders in loan companies in Western Canada. How do they deal with their debtors? If a man is behind in the payment of his instalment do they renew his mortgage and give him time to make good the arrears? I think not, even if he is a returned soldier they foreclose and force him from his farm. But Canada does not measure out this treatment to railways that are bankrupt, but gives them more
money and longer time to pay. I give the Conservative party the credit for the introduction of public ownership in the province of Ontario. It was the late Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck who started the Hydro Electric Light and Power movement in that province which has saved $22,000,000 to the people of Toronto since 1911. There has been no politics in the HydroElectric movement. They have good Conservatives and good Liberals in that enterprise, but it was the Conservative party that deserved the credit for creating that great people's enterprise of cheap light and power. The Conservative party, whom the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) characterizes as not a respectable party, deserves the credit for the nationalization of railways in Canada. I want to say, in reference to the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that future generations will owe a debt of gratitude to that brilliant statesman for all he has done for public ownership of railways and all he has done to redeem Canada from the deplorable state of railway affairs which has existed in this country.
But we must not worry about the past, as far as the transportation question goes. There is no use crying over spilt milk. They have spent eight or nine hundred million dollars on direct and indirect aid to railways, and the country does not own anything except a lot of bankrupt railways. I think if you went out on the streets of Ottawa, or Winnipeg, or any western city, and put your hands on the first five men you met and said: " Come to Ottawa and we will make you director of the old privately-owned Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific," any of those five men you might select could not have made a worse mess of thing's than the directors ' of the Grand Trunk Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern made in the administration of those privately-owned roads. I say that with all due respect to the old directors of those systems. If it had been public-ownership that had fallen down in the transportation sense in the way the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific roads have, which were fed on all kinds of hand-outs, we would have heard severe criticism of them. Not satisfied with federal grants they come also to the doors of the provinces and ask for provincial aid and grants and bonuses. The people's own hydro-radials have never
asked for a subsidy or hand-out from any government, but the publicly-owned roads lived on it. If these bankrupt roads had been owned and operated by public ownership instead of by private corporations, oh, my, what a row they would have raised about the evils and the failure of public ownership in this country! I may say that in the session of 1917 matters had reached such an acute state that in Ontario the Hydro-Electric organization composed of over 300 municipalities, came to Ottawa, headed by Sir Adam Beck, the head of the delegation, that great statesman and patriot who has done so much for the people of Ontario.
I venture to say that Sir John Macdonald was the greatest constructive statesman this country ever had. He did wonders in the negotiations for Confederation, in the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, and the farming of the national policy. He was a Conservative, and I may say that constructive work of his has lasted, and will last for all time. The next greatest constructive statesman, I think, is Sir Adam Beck. Some of my friends opposite will also say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did a great deal for Canada, but I wish to remind hon. members that all the good is not in one party. Sir Adam Beck was sufficiently in advance of public opinion not only in regard to public ownership, but in regard to cheap light, power and transportation, as to have been the standard-bearer on these questions and has accomplished a great deal. The United States will run out of coal a hundred years from now. That fact is shown by the report made to Congress by the Conservation Commission of the United States. The result will be that that country, as well as Canada, will have to depend on cheap water-powers more than in the past. Just consider what Sir Adam Beck has done in the Niagara district and what he proposes to do in the St. Lawrence. Future generations will bear tribute to him as one of Canada's greatest statesmen, and he will rank with Sir John Macdonald in the years that are to come as a constructive statesman. He is working for the building up of the Dominion. A deputation from 37B cities, towns and incorporated villages came down from the province of Ontario to oppose any further land grants or subsidies to the bankrupt railways, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. That deputation was received by Sir Robert
Borden and his cabinet, who announced that they proposed to deal in the House with that question later on in the session. And they did deal with it by appointing a royal commission to make a survey of all the railway systems of this country. There was a great deal of difficulty in getting men to serve on the commission, but they chose three very excellent men. The then chairman of. the Railway Commission, Sir Henry Drayton, now the member for West York, was one of the commission. Mr. A. H. Smith, President of the New York Central, which is one of the largest, best-equipped and most modern roads in the world to-day, with large affiliations, was the second commissioner. Then they chose a British expert, who did not act, and subsequently they selected Mr. Acworth, an engineer of the Old Country. These gentlemen set to work. The war was on and the country was spending money and the commission started to make an inquiry along certain lines. A survey was made from a public standpoint and the report, which I have before me, is one of the most valuable reports we have ever received in Canada. It is quoted constantly before the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. I have the records and proceedings of that commission at home. I was reading the reports of the meetings of the Federal Commission appointed by the United States' Government investigating all the electric railways of the United States. They were bankrupt and wanted a different arrangement. I was struck in reading the reports of that commission to see some references to this Dray ton-Acworth report. This report recommended the various things defined in the Speech from the Throne, which the Globe says is the most advanced programme of legislation we have had in this country for many years passed. What do I find in the summing up? The report says:
To summarize our conclusion, we find in Canada 40,000 miles of single track in a country with a population of seven and a half million the year before last. We have as much railway mileage as Germany with a population of 67,000,000 or as much as France with a population of 46,000,000 the United Kingdom with a population of 47,000,000 people.
Canada with a population of seven and a half million people has 40,000 miles of single track, with useless duplication and waste, three transcontinental railways running across Canada where one with a double track would have done for many years with lateral branch lines built off the main line.
Between Toronto and Belleville we have the Grand Trunk double track main line. Then they come along and build the Canadian Pacific, another high-priced track. Then the Canadian Northern is built. So we have the Grand Trunk station at Cobourg, a Canadian Pacific Station, and a Canadian Northern station, all at that and other towns, when there was not more than enough business for one road- useless duplication, useless waste of public funds and capital. This government report found a similar duplication of waste in the Western provinces, and I do not wonder at the movement which has been started amongst the farmers of the West owing to such a railway policy. I am not a supporter of the official U.F.O. Drury-Raney administration. I do not believe they are representative of the farmers of the province of Ontario. They have had two years to make good but have not made good.
I see a lot of young men from the West in this House and I hope they will not make the mistakes of the U.F.O. in Ontario, as we all want to endeavour to do something to make this a better country to live in for the farmer and for the toiler in the city. And to this end I think the farmer, the farm labourer and the city toiler should work hand in hand. As they have a common interest in this country let them work to make it a better country, a more contented and happier country to live in. Now what does this official government report recommend about the co-ordination and consolidation of these publicly owned railways?
For one thing, they say:
11. We recommend that the control both of the Grand Trunk and of the Grand Trunk Pacific be assumed by the people of Canada on terms hereafter set out.
They also say:
25. We have discussed and rejected the following suggestions :-Transfer of all three railways to the Canadian Pacific. Transfer of the Canadian Northern or a portion of it to the Canadian Pacific.
I asked the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) the other day why it took so long for Parliament to consolidate the roads as recommended by this report. He said he could consolidate them in a day. This is what the report says:
30. We recommend that the whole of the Dominion Railways be operated by the trustees as one united system on a commercial basis, under their own politically undisturbed management, on account of, and for the benefit of, the people of Canada.
That is the recommendation of this commission which brought the most eminent railway engineers the world over to investigate this matter. They came from England; they came from all over the United States and New York. Mr. A. H. Smith, President of the New York Central Lines, brought all his traffic experts, commercial experts, tariff experts, right-of-way experts, car accountants, engineers, and all that kind of prominent experts to Canada to give recommendations to the commission. Why have those recommendations not been carried out? This Government have not been in power very long and I do not wish to hurry them on this question; I believe in being fair to the Government, and I think the Government will find that I shall be fair to them. I have known the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) practically all my life-he is an old Toronto boy and moved to Windsor, where he did very well. I congratulate him on being sworn in as Minister of Railways. I would give him all the time he likes, to see what he can do with Canada's railway problem. The recommendations, however, which the minister requires, are to be found right in the aforesaid government report; he does not need to travel throughout Canada to find out what should be done. The train on which the commission used to travel throughout this country was like a caravan or a circus, but the moneys spent by the commission were well spent. The then chairman of the Railway Board (Sir Henry Drayton) loaded down as he was by problems created by the war, gave up his time without stint, and he worked practically twenty-four hours a day for nearly eighteen months on this survey to assist in reaching a solution of the problem. The Minister of Railways
I do not wish to criticise him-has been travelling throughout Canada over our railway system, and he came into the Union Station at Toronto. I think Sir Joseph Flavelle had a private car attached to that train too, representing the Grand Trunk Railway. I do not know how many private cars there were; but the more the better, if the railway problem is solved as a result of these trips. If, however, the Minister of Railways will sit down in this House and study this report and the report of the experts, he will have all the advice and knowledge he requires to enable him to decide what to do with the state railway system so as to effect a remedy for the disease into which the railway business has fallen in this country.
In looking over the transportation question, I find that Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific railway, agrees with this report. One night after his appointment as president of the Canadian Pacific railway, a banquet was held in the town of Thorold in which he was born, in his honour by the Board of Trade of that place. I was invited to attend, and I spoke at that banquet. People of both political parties were present; there were private ownership men and public ownership men there. This is what Mr. Beatty says about this question. He is in favour of co-ordinating and consolidating; he welcomes and favours competition; he says that competition is going to be a good thing for the Canadian Pacific railway. He claims that the time has gone by in business in the history of the world when two men quarrel as competitors. Two men, each running a retail store or a hotel, need not quarrel because, as a result of competition, there will be business for both of them. I will read, without any comment, his very words on the railway situation; and it is amazing to me to see the different position taken by the president of the Canadian Pacific railway now from that taken formerly by him and also the remarkable stand taken by the former president, Lord Shaughnessy. The Drayton-Acworth report was a Conn servative Government report; it was made before the Union Government was formed.
I was never a believer in the Union Government; I am a Tory of the old school and I intend to continue to be one even though the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) says that it may not be a respectable party. The Conservative party was in office at that time. As the hon. member for South York pointed out the other day, the railways have always been in politics. True it is that the president of the Canadian Pacific railway in the late election said that the Canadian Pacific was not in politics; but the Canadian Pacific has been in politics as long as it has been a road, since away back in the early seventies. The greatest politicians that this country has ever produced have never sat in the legislatures at all; they have been general managers and presidents of railways, and they have been managing legislatures and things pretty well for themselves. As some one has said, Ottawa never knows what the rest of the country is thinking, but these railway presidents manage things pretty well as they want to. My understanding is that the Canadian Pacific
have always changed their politics with the party in power; they are friendly to every administration. If the Farmers' party came into power, they would now support the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Had it not been for the unpopularity of the Drury Government, they did not carry out their pledges to the Progressives; if they had done what their U.F.O. officers said they would do for the hon. member for Marquette, he would today be occupying the Treasury benches. That should be a lesson to the Progressive party from the West to stand by their principles and not join the Government here. Had the hon. member for Marquette succeeded in forming a government, the Canadian Pacific would have wished themselves on him whether he liked it or not. When a man becomes a railway man, he knows no politics; the railway business is his politics. Some of the railway magnates in the past have been very successful in managing various legislatures of the country; they have been most successful in their management of the United Farmers government at Queen's Park. Mr. Beatty goes on to say, speaking at the Thorold banquet:
On the occasion of our last banquet, the railway sitaution was somewhat different than it is to-day. It has now advanced another step in what some regard as being the logical consequence of the first step, and we are met with the rather unique situation of the existence of two strong railway systems in Canada, both backed by adequate credit and both desirous of fulfilling to the best of their ability their share in supplying the transportation requirements of the country.
Some people have regarded the railway situation as highly controversial, and it was to the extent that the adherents of the two systems of administration, privately and publicly owned, have been insistent on the correctness of their respective views, and expressly apprehensive of the results of any other system than that which they advocated. To my mind, to regard it as controversial is now unnecessary and unwise, and the chief consideration of all of us is as to what will be the result to the country as a whole in the matter of railway service, and to ourselves in particular as one bf those engaged in supplying a large part of that service.
The Canadian Pacific has been built up over a long period of years into an organization of which we may all be conceivably and properly proud, and an organization, the usefulness of which in public service is probably now more important than at any other period of its history. It is a company which can only continue to succeed by being administered with strict integrity and in accordance with the highest business ethics. Upon its success in service depends its rewards.
There has always been competition and there always will be competition and the character of business competition does not alter in any of
its essential details as the years pass on. Our competitor is and will be a very extensive system, which will probably increase in magnitude. We all hope it will be a success, and we do not need to be altruists in order to harbor that hope.
I think I can say to you with perfect candor that no man in Canada has more reason to hope for its success than I have, for two reasons, first, because its success as a railway undertaking means a gradual release of the burden on the taxpayer, and the Canadian Pacific is a fairly heavy taxpayer, and secondly because the factors which contribute to its success will ensure the further and continued success of the Canadian Pacific. If the traffic development of the country is such as to support the National system, it will undoubtedly be sufficient to add to the support of the Canadian Pacific. You will, therefore, appreciate that on national and selfish grounds the success of the National railways is something that every Canadian Pacific official should desire.
It involves competition of course-keen competition. Competition which is both keen and honest cannot help but redound to the advantage of the competitors, to the improvement in the character of the service they render, and to the resultant advantage of the people and communities served. Personally I would have no fear of the competition adversely affecting this company or its interests, and the reason why I think I have a right to that confidence is to be found in the organization itself and the character of the officers and men who comprise it-officers and men who, I think, can be relied on to play the game of transportation competition as it was meant to be played-adroitly, persistently, aggressively and fairly.
Depreciation of Roads
In years gone by it was considered an act of proper aggressiveness for one competitor to decry the methods and wares of his rival. This is not the case to-day. It is foolish to depreciate your competitors outwardly or otherwise- foolish for two reasons: first, because they probably do not deserve your depreciation of them, and secondly, because it is bad business.
Now that is what Mr. Beatty says in regard to the question of duplication and competition- and in support of his theory of a public-owned system. The officials of the Canadian Pacific railway are very fond of talking about what that railway has done in the interests of the country. What, on the other hand, has Canada done for the Canadian Pacific Railway? I think they should consider that question on the other side of the account. Lord Shaughnessy declares for co-ordination too, and government ownership with Canadian Pacific railway operation and I think he has expressed the belief that his policy is approved by some gentlemen in the House. He says that coordination is both logical and economical. Well, of course, it is-for the Canadian Pacific railway. If Lord Shaugnessy could have his way he would have everything in Canada, and the heavens above, and the earth beneath and the waters under
the earth, all placed under the control of the Canadian Pacific railway, and would lord it over all the inhabitants of the earth. His predecessor, Abraham Lincoln, said with regard to public-ownership, " This country and all that is within it belongs to the people who inhabit it." Lord Shaugh-nessy would go him one better and declare that this country and all who inhabit it belong to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Others have expressed themselves on public ownership. Let me quote what some have said:
Every measure must be tested by this question only: Is it just? Is it for the benefit of the average man, without influence or privilege? Does it embody the highest conception of social justice, without respect to person or class or particular interest?-Woodrow Wilson.
Real public ownership is the essence of democracy. Instead of dividing men into masters and mastered, it brings men together in a union of interest, and affords the conditions necessary for the highest traits of conscience and character.-Prof. Frank Parsons of the Boston Daw School in "The City for the People."
In its search for truth the commission had to overcome many obstacles, such as the burning of books, letters, and documents and the obstinacy of witnesses who declined to testify until criminal proceedings were begun for their refusal to answer questions. The New Haven Railroad system has more than 300 subsidiary corporations in a web of entangling alliances with each other, many of which are seemingly planned, created, and manipulated by lawyers expressly retained for the purpose of concealment of deception.-From the Inquiry of the Interstate Commerce Commission, July 11, 1914, into the New Haven and other Railroads.
If public ownership had been in such a condition as was revealed by the Interstate Commerce Commission as aforesaid, I wonder what private ownership advocates would have had to say? What would Lord Shaughnessy and Mr. Beatty say? I asked the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) the other day why it should take so much time to co-ordinate and consolidate these roads, in view of the recommendation made by the commission appointed by this Parliament four years ago. Take the New York Central lines in the United States as an example of the expedition with which consolidation can be achieved when an effort is made toward this end. That system co-ordinated many branch lines in Ohio, the Lake Shore passing through Geneva, Cleveland and other centres down to Toledo. How long do you imagine it took the New York Central to co-ordinate that system? About forty-eight hours. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) the other day referred to the subject of arbitration of the Grand Trunk. It is true that a delay was exper-
ienced in connection with that arbitration, but it was entirely unavoidable. The right hon. gentleman was compelled to visit the Old Country on an important mission, in regard to which, as we all know, he acquitted himself so admirably, reflecting the greatest credit on this country. When he returned last fall he announced an election, and as head of the government of that time he felt he could not deal with the important question of co-ordination of the publicly owned roads until the country had expressed its opinion on his policy of linking up the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The election came, and nothing has been done since. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) has been taking a trip, and now that he is back in the House I trust it will not be long before he can make up his mind as to what it is best to do. What they have done in the United States in connection with their railways should spur the Government of this country to activity. Mr. McAdoo, the Director-General of Railways, under Mr. Woodrow Wilson, soon after he was appointed to the position, took over, on the 28th of December, 1917, all the railways in the United States in twenty-four hours and co-ordinated and consolidated them. True, it was not striclty government ownership but government operation. This taking over of the railways was a war measure that had to be carried out. Many of the roads were bankrupt and could not carry on; they could not, in the state in which they were without certain betterments and improvements which had to be made by the director-general, carry munitions and troops to the seaboard. The Director-General of Railways, however, was able in twenty-four hours to co-ordinate something like, I think, 200 or 800 companies. These roads were taken over for the duration of the war and a period of eighten months thereafter, when, it was agreed, the government would hand them back to private ownership. During the time that they were under the control of the government they were put into a state of repair. The government had undertaken to pay to private ownership 51 per cent, or the average dividends secured each year for the 5 years prior to 1917-during government operation. That, of course, I do not call public ownership. There are several ways of operating a railway. There is, for instance, private ownership practically without any government regulation, such as we see in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is also private ownership with some degree
of government regulation. Then there is private ownership and management with strict government regulation, and private ownership with exclusive government operation. There is also government ownership with private operation, such as Lord Shaughnessy wants. And there is what I want-government ownership and government operation. I mean such proper and adequate government ownership and operation as will make the publicly owned roads a success. A few days ago the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) referred to the deplorable condition of the steam roads in the United States, due to over capitalization and lack of rolling stock and equipment, which, coupled with a long period of depression in business and post-war stagnation, had reduced most of the railway companies to financial trouble. A shortage of rolling stock and equipment has rendered it impossible for the railways to efficiently handle even the limited amount of freight that has been tendered to them, and as a result the automobile manufacturers in the Central States have been forced to drive over 80,000 of their cars to New York city under their own power rather than trust to the very unsatisfactory transportation services of the railways. To illustrate the condition of affairs I will quote some of the evidence given before the Inter-State Commerce Commission regarding the difficulties which confronted the Railroad Adiministrator of the United States in the winter 1917-18, when he assumed control of the American railway systems. .
It was the worst winter in the history of railroading.
I happened to be in the Southern States at the time and had personal experience of the severe winter weather then prevailing.
They were up against:-
War demands-army of millions of men to be transported to the cantonments, seaboard, and back.
Plague of influenza, playing havoc with workmen, 18,000 employees sick at one time in New England alone. 1
Greatest burden of both freight and passenger traffic in railroad history.
Alarming coal shortage, (248 mines idle because of lack of cars).
Terrible freight congestion (180,000 loaded freight cars on the eastern lines alone; many freight embargoes).
Putting in and training inexperienced men.
Drafting of thousands of employees.
Chaos in railroad management, poor handling of cars, locomotives etc.
Great amount of overtime pay necessary to get repair work done. Had also but six months of increased rates to meet 12 months of increased pay.
Inability to get new cars and locomotives because of need of them for war purposes and our shortage of men owing to the draft.
No serviceable locomotives in reserve (at beginning of this winter, however, 1,000 in reserve. )
More or less opposition on the part of railway executives to successful government control ftir fear it would become permanent.
Necessity of handling freight and making repairs at any cost.
No complete valuation of the railroads on which to compute freight rate, and make a budget.
As the hon. member for South York pointed out, if you look over the history of the privately owned railroads of the United States, you must admit that private ownership has not been a success. I shall not labour that point to-day.
The press has devoted considerable attention to our railway affairs, and I wish to direct your attention to an article which recently apeared in one of our leading Ontario papers, written by its Ottawa representative. It reads:
While no sound comes from the hermetically sealed room in which the Gouin Government holds secret counsel as to its railway policy, the stock "ticker-the same prophet that for a whole year foretold the coming of the Great War- keeps chattering. "Something doing in C.P.R.: something doing in C.P.R."
Something doing in Canadian Pacific! We have the declaration of the hon. leader of the Government that he intends to give public ownership a chance, and we have the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Crerar) declaring themselves in favor of public ownership and operation of our railways. But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been most active regarding the transportation situation, and when you see the stock ticker chattering you know there is going to be something doing in respect to our railway problem. Continuing the article says:
Last week C.P.R. stock' advanced in price about eight points. In the same time U.P. stock, which pays the same 10 per cent dividend, advanced only three points. And everybody started looking for the reason. Some Yankee financial papers hinted at "Government ownership," and there is something more than a possibility that they have scored a bull's-eye.
That the railroads were the issue in the recent elections is now common knowledge; that the railroad interests won that election is beyond a peradventure. That the latter are about to take action of some kind is evidenced by the stock market. But what is the action to be taken? That is the question for which politicians and financiers alike are trying to find the answer.
Again, the article proceeds:
On more than one occasion the C.P.R. made proposals to the late government. They were always along the same line. They always provided for government-ownership of all railroads, with the exception of the old G.T.R., which was to be handed back to its shareholders, but included the C.P.R. And they always provided that the C.P.R. should have the management of the whole government system.
But. naturally, every care was to be taken of the C.P.R. shareholders. They are paid, as said before, 10 per cent on this stock.
And again the article says:
Sacred Cause is Safe
One hundred per cent of the Liberals are for private-ownership. Ninety-five per cent of the Conservatives are in the same frame of mind. Eighty per cent of the Ontario U.P.O. members are as pro-C.P.R. as the Drury Government, and the western Progressives would be, too, if they were not afraid of their constituents.
This gives the sacred cause of vested rights an overwhelming majority in the House. It gives the Gouin ring their long-looked for opportunity to put over any kind of a deal that is even slightly camouflaged.
To put it briefly, the stage is all set for the final division of those accumulated C.P.R. profits. The right kind of Parliament is there. The Cabinet has been especially selected for the purpose. The C.P.R. has prepared its deal.. And the stock-ticker fairly shrieks that it is on the way.
The Conservative party has been a believer in public ownership and favourable to the hydro-electric and hydro-radial movements in the province of Ontario, and the Conservative party gave the province the benefits of public ownership of our hydro-electric development. Eighty per cent of the Progressive party in Ontario, or of the U.F.O. are said to be as proCanadian Pacific Railway as the Drury Government. It is said that the western Progressives would be pro-Canadian Pacific too if they were not afraid of their constituents. I should think that some of my Progressive friends are too young in their parliamentary experience to be afraid of their constituents^ so early in their public career.
The hon. Prime Minister said in the course of his speech on Monday, " Give the railways a chance." I hope he will give them a chance, but what does he mean by that word? The Drayton-Acworth Commission recommended that a free hand be given to a board of directors to consolidate all the government-owned roads. When we appointed a transportation commission to take over the Toronto Street railway, on which they spent $11,000,000 on betterments in the last four months of 1921, and will spend another $11,000,000 in
betterments this year, the citizens carried by a large majority the proposal to take ' over the light, power and transportation systems within the city, with a commission to administer them. When we were considering the powers and scope of the transportation commission, I took a very strong stand to give the commission an absolutely free hand and full control over the entire system and also rates and fares, and insisted that the commission should be free of any and all interference from the city council and should have full power to fix rates and operate the street railway system to the best of their ability, and make it pay and administer it solely from the commercial aspect.
That principle was adopted by the city council and the legislature and was embodied in our act. It would prove a success in its application to our publicly-owned federal railway systems. That is the only kind of management that can be successfully applied to our national railway system; without it we might as well have no public ownership at all. What has been the secret of the success of the Hydro-Electric in Ontario? First, the absence of politics in its administration; second, efficient management and operation,-and without these things public ownership cannot succeed. I hope that if the railways are handed over to a commission, there will be a stop to the passing of legislation as to receipts and expenditures and the financing of the road, or affecting hours and conditions of labour; matters of that kind should be left to the commission. Labour has everything to hope for from public ownership; it has very little to expect from private ownership. Public ownership will always deal justly and fairly with the workingman so far as working conditions and hours of labour are concerned. Under public ownership the same rates of wages and hours of labour apply as in the case of private ownership because they are established on a similar basis or on a higher and better plane than under private ownership.
I hope that the state-owned railways will be given a proper chance, but when the Minister of Railways addresses the House with regard to this matter I would like him to tell us what he means when he says that state-owned roads will be given a "chance." The Drayton-Acworth report indicates how they can be made a success. Let the Government carry out the recommendations of that report and thus follow
the basic principle which has brought such splendid success to the Hydro-Electric movement in Ontario. If Progressive members from the western part of Ontario- and I know eight or ten of them from that district-want to see at first hand an exemplification of the success of public ownership as applied to railways in our province, let them go over Adam Beck's railway, the London and Port Stanley, owned by the city of London, which was formerly owned by the Pere Marquette and subsequently the Grand Trunk, and finally taken over by the city of London and electrified. Passenger rates have been reduced enormously; freight rates have been brought down to a minimum, and improved facilities afforded in the way of lake services-London and St. Thomas have been placed thus on lake Erie-with lake services to Cleveland, Erie, Pa., and other points on lake Erie. I repeat that that road has been made a splendid success, because it has been administered by Sir Adam Beck on the basis of no politics and entirely from the business point of view. Operate a road in that way; secure an efficient operation equipment and management, and you will have what the Drayton-Acworth report recommends. But if you are to have the doctors of the Canadian Pacific giving advice, then good-bye to public ownership of railways in this country. If that condition is to prevail it would be far better if the railways had not been taken over.
I was somewhat surprised yesterday upon hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan)-and I am glad to see him back in the House, because he is a good friend of mine. He made a very good speech so far as the Maritime provinces are concerned; he knows a great deal about the transportation question. But he did not tell the House all he knows. I say I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the stand he took; I do not think his attitude is altogether just and fair in some respects. British Columbia has an equal right to take that stand, and so have the other western provinces. I do not know whether or not it is correct, but some years ago I saw a return which stated that Ontario had contributed about 52 per cent of all taxes of Canada since Confederation. At any rate, Ontario is a very heavily taxed province, and 58 or 60 per cent of all taxes in Ontario are paid by Toronto and the district of Toronto. I saw a return the other day in this connection, relating to the British North America Act
and the bringing of British Columbia, the Western provinces and the Maritime provinces into Confederation. Having regard to the British North America Act there may be something in what the member for Cumberland says, but when the Maritime provinces set up the contention which he makes, it should be remembered that the West, British Columbia in particular, can reasonably do the same. But I hope that they will never make that contention; I hope they will not ask the old provinces of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, to pay for what they are asking in regard to reduced freight and passenger rates, because the old provinces have borne the heat of the day for quite a long time and are already loaded up with a heavy burden of freight rates.
You cannot have faithful and efficient administration of the railways of this country unless solely administered from the commercial aspect, along the line of the Hydro-Electric movement and the Drayton-Acworth report. The railways must be run for the benefit of the whole of Canada; they must be operated on a purely business basis or not at all. The sentiment of the East and of the West, or of the East as against the West, cannot be considered. And in this connection, Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the Western provinces have a good deal to complain of 4 p.m. from the standpoint of government regulation. Government regulation in this country is not what it should be. It is not here what it is in the United States. I am free to say that good work was done by the Railway Commission through Mr. Blair and Mr. Justice Mabee and Sir Henry Drayton. They were strong administrators of the railways so far as their jurisdiction went and they had the confidence of the people of Canada. But in later days the Railway Commission has not been fulfilling the functions for which it was appointed. There have been four increases in rates-freight, passenger, telephone and express. The municipality of Toronto had to fight practically alone against these increases. We spent nearly $30,000 in the services of experts to fight the freight increase and the passenger increase; we spent $30,000 on two fights over telephone and express rate increases. The Railway Commission heard these corporations, and notwithstanding the fact that the war had long been over, and prices were beginning to recede, in the summer of 1920 they allowed these companies an increase of
40 per cent in freight and passenger rates. I have figured that the total of these increases -I speak subject to correction; I have seen the figures as given by the head of the Hydro-Electric Radial Asociation, Mr. J. W. Lyon, of Guelph, who is an expert in these matters-the total freight increases granted by Hon. Mr. Carvell and his colleagues in the Railway Board have amounted to $300,000,000 a year in the last few years. Fancy all these taxes put on the farmers and working classes without the consent-of Parliament! A railway commission which does not represent the people is appointed to impose taxes amounting to a million dollars a day for every working day in the year, without the consent of the people's representatives in Parliament. I say it is not fair; it is not just; legislation of that kind is not equitable; it is not responsible government. I hope I shall have the support of the Progressives in seeing that something is done to amend such legislation -I know I shall have the support of the Opposition - to bring about a change in this state of affairs. There is something in the Speech from the Throne about freight rates, and I think the hon. Prime Minister says that if there is dissatisfaction with what the commission does, he is willing to let Parliament take some stand in the matter. But if I had my way I would go back to the old method of doing things; I would not have any of these rate handouts by the Railway Commission without the authority of Parliament. It was a particularly retrogressive step for Canada when we placed the telephone and express rates under the control of the Railway Commission, and it is fortunate indeed that Parliament did not place under their jurisdiction also the matter of tolls and rates for water-borne traffic and the control of lake rates. These increases to which I have referred were granted without proper or adequate inquiry, research or investigation; the chairman of the board took the figures submitted by the experts of the Canadian Pacific as to receipts re the freight and passenger increase, etc. The result was he granted a forty per cent increase, notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian Pacific had a surplus of nearly $492,000,000, I think it was, as active and inactive assets.
Then the people of Canada taught the railways and the Railway Commission a lesson, because with a forty per cent increase in the passenger rates they would not travel on the railways; accordingly
the companies had to go back to some of the old rates. The people taught the railway people a lesson with respect to freight rates also. In the district from which I come the largest retail stores, when dealing with customers located on the Toronto and Hamilton highway, transported theii. goods in motor cars. So the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk railways lost heavily in some localities by reason of that increase in rates.
Then the Telephone Company came along. It wanted an increase and nothing would do but they should come to Ottawa and ask the Board of Railway Commissioners for an increase. They preferred their request and they got the desired increase. And this, although the Bell Telephone Company is a rich corporation, with a large surplus, and it was so hard up that it paid eight per cent in dividends for thirty-two years. That company came down to Ottawa, applied to the Railway Commissioners and got a raise in their rates for the asking. This telephone rate increase took a million dollars out of the taxpayers of Toronto and was unjust, unfair, inequitable and not according to the provisions of the Company or the Railway Act. I am satisfied that the latest increase asked for by the Bell Company would have been granted had an election not been pending. Some of the commissioners probably thought they had better look out for their positions on the board, and not grant the increase, for if a new government came in they might be relieved of their judicial duties. So the board divided itsblf 3 to 2 on this second telephone application and it was refused. I hope the present Government will bring in legislation in the interest of the public, and not allow any further increase without the consent of Parliament, a,nd so take some of the taxes from the shoulders of the working classes as well as of the farmers in this country. Perhaps it would be a good thing for this country if provision were made also for a reorganization, root and branch, of the whole board and let us have a living regulation of these powerful public service corporations.
I will tell you what the increase of freight rates has done for the farmers. It has added $5 to the price of every ton of coal which the farmers in the county of York buy. I was one of the directors of the Consumers' Gas Company in Toronto representing the city on the board, and that company pays out a million and
a half in freight rates alone. It took all the money coming in over the counter to meet the added charges of freight rates, labour, exchange, and increased cost of coal. The price of gas in the city of Toronto was very low at the time, but you can see what was involved when the price of coal went up from $3.20 to $10, $12, $13, $14 a ton. The exchange rate represented an additional charge of $250,000, and the freight rates a million and a half dollars. The price of gas had to be twice raised and it was hard on the working classes.
I would like to consider how these freight rates affect the farmer in another way. I have here a statement issued by a bank that loans the federal Government of Canada, as well as the provincial governments and municipalities, a lot of money -I refer to the National City Bank of New York. It is one of the largest financial corporations not only in America but in the world. This corporation isues a sketch every month describing the economic conditions in Canada and in the United States. In the statement referred to they discuss the high prices of building materials and how the excessive freight rates are keeping building operations back. Reference is made to the iron industry, and it is stated that the difficulty of getting steel for building purposes is very largely due to the present high freight rates and high prices of coal. The coal question, as any coal dealer can tell you, is very largely a transportation question; solve the trans. portation question and you can overcome the high price of coal. Many of the mines in the coal mining regions closed down during the war and after it because of the scarcity of cars and the difficulty of getting coal transported to the consuming ' centres. Now, this is what this bank statement has to say as to how the freight rates affect the building trades and the farmers:
As the liquidation process throughout the industry was extended, the wholly disproportionate margin of cost assumed by the freight factor under prevailing rates was thrown in bolder relief. A typical study has shown that whereas on January 1, 1913, the assembling cost for a ton of basic pig iron in the Mahoning Valley was approximately 27 per cent of the selling price, it is now approximately 58 per cent. The estimated assembling charges in the two periods are $4.80 and $10.55 and the prices $16.45 and $18.25 respectively. With labour costs cut down 40 to 50 per cent from the peak, operating efficiency largely restored and other economics forced, the factor of freight cost obviously occupies a commanding position in its bearing upon future prices.
The statement goes on to say:
Nothing will save the farming industry but a deep cut in freight rates. We are all merely producing tonnage for the railroads, who merely collect from the unorganized workers and turn it over to the organized workers. The latter punish when the politicians fail to do their bidding; we farmers don't.
The farmers did, in Canada. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) referred to what has been done in the United States in the matter of electrifying railways. In this connection the New York Central railway has effected great economies in the saving of coal; also the London and Port Stanley railway in Ontario and the Milwaukee, Chicago and St. Paul operating in the Western states. I do not agree with my hon. friend from York that in Ontario we have a million horse power at present available. The power available from the development of the Chippewa has been contracted for, but with half our industries closed down and the other half only running part time difficulty has been experienced already in getting sufficient power.
If the St. Lawrence power scheme were carried out sufficient energy would be available to electrify our railways from Quebec to Fort William. President Harding of the United States has come out very strongly in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway and the electrification of railways in. the United States. Addressing the national agricultural conference at Washington on February 20 last, he spoke as follows:
To this time railroad construction, financing and operation have been unscientific and devoid of proper consideration for the wider concerns of the community. To say this is simply to admit a fact which applies to practically every railroad system in the world. It is as true regarding the railroads of Canada and Great Britain as it is in reference to those of the United States.
In America we have too long neglected our waterways. We need a practical development of water resources for both transportation and power. A large share of railway tonnage is coal for railroad fuel. The experience of railway electrification demonstrates the possibilty of reducing this waste and increasing efficiency.
We may well begin very soon to consider plans to electrify our railroads. If such a suggestion seems to involve inordinate demands upon our financial and industrial power, it may be replied that three generations ago the suggestion of building 260,000 miles of railways in this country would have been scouted as a financial and industrial impossibility."
The waterway improvement represents not only the possibility of expanding our transportation system, but also of producing hydro-electric power for its operation and for the activities of widely diffused industry.
I have spoken of the advantage which Europe enjoys because of its easy access to the sea, the cheapest and surest transportation facilities. In our own country is presented one of the world's most attractive opportunities for extension of the seaways many hundred miles inland. The heart of the continent with its vast resources in both agriculture and industry would be brought in communication with all the ocean routes by the execution of the St. Lawrence waterway project. The feasibility of the project is unquestioned and its cost, compared with some other great engineering works, would be small.
There you have the declaration of the President of the United States regarding the electrification of railways and the need of stimulating and developing water-borne traffic, on inland rivers and waterways of United States and Canada, in order to properly, adequately, efficiently and economically solve the transportation problems of his and our country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South York (Mr. MacLean) referred to motor trucks as a factor in transportation. I cannot go as far as the hon. member in that connection, because, taking the other side of the case, I have the finding of the electrical commission in the United States, who investigated all the electric systems in that country and they found that the motor truck would not be a factor in transportation for two or three reasons: first, on account of the high price of gasoline, second, on account of the high price of tires, and third owing to difficulties of loading and unloading and trans-shipment. As I see it they will only be a factor to act as a feeder to the electric railways, and the electric railways and radials will be feeders for the steam roads. That was proven in the railway administration of the United States, and that is what happened on the New York and Pennsylvania lines and the Michigan Central lines. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman from South York when he said they would be a factor, although at the time of the 40 per cent increase in rates they were a factor, but between inter-urban municipalities I do not believe they will ever be a factor in Canada, especially on account of the climate that we have here for five months in the year. But there is another matter which enters into it. I believe the greatest factor in transportation in Canada in the future is the electrification of railways and hydro-radials and radials as a whole. I regret to see the stand taken by the Drury U.F.O. government in the Ontario Legislature in this regard. I think the radials in
Ontario are not a luxury, they are a social, economic and commercial necessity.
I desire to pay tribute to the pioneer, work done by Sir Adam Beck in Ontario. It is a revelation to visitors from all over the world.
I refer to the development in the Niagara river, and to-morrow it will be in the St. Lawrence, and in the West also. Sooner or later we will have a network of electrical lines between rural municipalities and urban centres. We have to look to United States to see what a factor electrical railways and radials and interurban lines of communication are. Take the state of Michigan. A few years ago the city of Detroit only had a population of 425,000. To-day, owing to the network of radials in that great city, the population of Detroit is over a million people. The Ford industry also helped in that development. I was at the Deep Waterways convention at Detroit at which sixteen states were represented and nine state governors were present to discuss the St. Lawrence canal. These states were linked up together as far as they could be on the waterways problem, and one of the main things discussed at that convention was the elfect the radials had in the solution of the transportation problem in that great land, and especially the Western states. Look at what radials have done for Ohio-they solved there the unemployment and transportation question-and were feeders to the steam roads. They have radials from Cleveland all the way; tc Buffalo. Every mile and a half or so, all the way down you see spread out little villages, built up by interurban lines of communications between the cities and towns of that great state and the lake Erie ports. This is the state of Ohio, whence came the present President as well as the defeated candidate for president-Governor Cox. The population of Ohio is as large as that of Canada, namely, 9,000,000. I pay tribute to what President Harding has said as to the electrification of railways and the development of waterways and interurban traffic. That is borne out in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana, and in that state of Woodrow Wilson's, New Jersey. In Ontario 200 municipalities have carried Hydro Radial by-laws. It was not Sir Adam Beck nor the commission that first asked for a survey for these lines of railways, but the 200 municipalities themselves-the Hydro Radial policy is not to duplicate the steam roads. The policy is to
take over some of the unused sections of the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk and electrify them. I believe the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) in this House, will be a faithful friend of Sir Adam Beck and of the Hydro municipalities, and will do what he can for the Hydro Radials.
I believe he will bring down a policy in this connection to give the Hydro an option on what federal sections of our publicly-owned railways the Hydro wants- unlike the Canadian Northern Railway the Hydro Radials ask no subsidies. When they are operating through the country they will give a service to the farmers, so that the farmer of Ontario will have a fair chance to market his crop to his home market at cost. Sir Adam Beck's report when presented recommended a radial system for Ontario. The farmers are very strong for it, and the reason is this; that the steam roads have absolutely fallen down in the province of Ontario. In the Hamilton district, the Toronto district and the London district we have no steam suburban service. Montreal has a steam suburban service; on the national lines they have about six trains a day out and back. The Canadian Pacific has, I think, about 12 trains running out and back the same day; from the Island of Montreal the Grand Trunk has far more than that. In all they have some 30 or 40 suburban trains a day out of Montreal-the Toronto district has not a single suburban train on the steam road, except one to Oakville on the Canadian Pacific. There is an absence of any semblance of any steam suburban service.
In the territory back of Toronto, for a distance of thirty miles, there is a population of 800,000, over a third of the population of the entire province. That great district is without a steam suburban service. What is the result to the farmer? He cannot get his crops to market. If you go to the Niagara district in August or September, you will find they have a difficulty in getting out the fruit crop. If you go to Hamilton you will see the same. Go to Mr. Drury's own constituency of Halton. and see the same and you will also see that the farmers in Halton are very much dissatisfied on account of the stand the government has taken on the hydro radials. They are a unit in Halton in that respect. The absence of this service is the cause of the high cost of living in the cities and towns and of underproduction. The municipalities were forced to ask the Hydro Electric Power Commission to investigate the radials because-of the way the steam
roads fell down-these radials have done so much for the farmers and the towns and cities across the border. Sir Adam's report, was prepared and then the municipalities voted on and carried the various Hydro Radial by-laws.
It is not an Ontario government radial scheme, it is the municipalities' own scheme. The government of Ontario never lost a dollar in it or on the Hydro Light and Power scheme. Every municipality has a surplus from Hydro, except one or two not yet beyond construction. I may say that is the reason the radials were brought into existence. Now, because of the lack of transportation in Ontario we have rural depopulation in this province. In the period from 1904 to 1914, 500,000 people left the farms of Ontario and went to cities and towns in the West and to cities and towns in Ontario and the United .States. Why? Some of my hon. friends opposite and some hon. members on the Progressive side of the House claim that that was due to the trade policy of the country. I say: No, it is not due to any question of protection or free trade. Some of it may be due to free trade in other countries, because rural depopulation is a world wide problem; but rural depopulation in Ontario was not due to protection, it is not a local, but a world problem; it has been brought about largely by the war. What is the reason and cause of this rural depopulation in Ontario from 1904 to 1914 of, I think, half a million people? It is because of lack of transportation facilities on the farms, because of lack of the very joy of living on the farms, without conveniences such as good roads, hydro-telephones, hydro-telegraphs and hydro-radials. Prior to a few years ago, there was no rural mail delivery, no goods delivery and only a flag station railway service from the steam roads throughout the province. I believe, however, that the hydro-radials will bring about a remedy of those conditions.
Before I conclude, I desire to say a few words about the St. Lawrence waterway. The people of Ontario and, I believe, also the people of the Western provinces are vitally interested in this waterway. In the first place, there is no coal in Ontario; we have to depend on the Maritime provinces or the United States for our coal supply. In about a hundred years the United States' coal supply will be exhausted; we are thus at the mercy of a foreign country. The province contains an abundant supply of water-power, in all
6.000. 000 h.p., of which approximately
over 800,000 h.p. has been developed. I have in my hand some notes of the evidence which I gave before the International Waterways Commission in October, 1920. As I am placing on the Order Paper a resolution in regard to the St. Lawrence river, I will not go into this matter at any length to-day except to say that the Western provinces especially, Ontario, and indeed, Canada as a whole, should be vitally interested in this proposition.
Nature provided the St. Lawrence for two reasons: (1) For a great waterway to the sea; (2) for a great power plant to develop trade, commerce and agriculture. The development of this river will bring untold relief to Canadians and Americans. Power will be developed; industry and agriculture made more secure; freight rates cheapened; several million tons of coal will be saved annually. Fourteen western states have come out in favour of this project, and I think all Canada, with the exception of some conscientious objectors in the city of Montreal, are in favour of it.
I was speaking to a member of the Montreal Harbour Commission yesterday and they are not opposing this proposition. In the United States they are having a little family spat between the cautious conservative big interests in the East and the more progressive interests in the West over this project; but the West is going to win. The younger generation in Canada will live to see the day when ocean-going ships will come from the Old Country, go up the St. Lawrence and up the Upper lakes with their cargo. The fact that this scheme is feasible from a commercial and business standpoint is strengthened by what happened in 1911 when the big interests were willing to canalize the St. Lawrence in return for the power privileges. They made a sharp fight before the Rivers and Harbours Committee at Washington. They said they would build a canal if they were given the power to build it. Every year
4.000. 000 h.p. of electrical energy, the equivalent of $800,000,000 worth of coal, is going to waste in the St. Lawrence, and the finest system of inland waterways in the world has been lying idle all these years because of lack of development, as deep draught vessels cannot sail up the St. Lawrence 46 miles on their way to the Upper lakes. The St. Lawrence ranks with the Suez and Panama canals in its magnitude and importance. The cost of this project may reach $250,000,000 or more, no one yet knows the cost, but there
will be no great difficulty in financing the work. Private capital stands ready to develop the deep waterway in exchange for the power privileges. The great bulk of the developed power will belong to Canada. Some say that Canada wants to take it all, but that is not so; they can dispose of the power in other ways and sell some abroad. A large part of the power will belong to the province of Quebec. Abundant evidence will be found in the report of the International Joint Commission that this project will be a success. Sir Adam Beck, of the Hydro-Electric Commission, who investigated this project on behalf of the Ontario Government, has made his report.
1. The report sets out clearly the position of the province in relation to the improvements. It pointed out that in all discussion and consideration of the work the important facts of navigation and power could not be separated; that in all consideration and in all determination as to the future of the river, the fact that navigation and power were so intimately connected that one could not be sacrificed to the advantage of the other.
2. This report stated that there could be developed at conservative estimate power equivalent to 20,000,000 tons of coaf-per year -more than the total importation of Canada now. It advocated the construction of the proposed improvements to the St. Lawrence, which it said was the most important economic question before the people of Canada.
3. The final aim of the policy of the HydroElectric Commission is, first the complete development of the available power at Niagara, and following that the joint development with the aid of the federal governments of Canada and the United States of the great international water powers on the St. Lawrence River.
The Hydro served 344 municipalities, every one of whom had a big surplus. If the St. Lawrence scheme materializes, as it must, large industries will inevitably move into Canada and the United States to take advantage of the cheap and abundant power thus made available, and no more ideal location for the exploitation of these enormous industrial activities can be imagined than that portion of Ontario and New York lying adjacent to the shores of the St. Lawrence River. With nearly two million horse power available and with deep draft navigation to tide water the industrial future of this territory would be assured. The canalization of the St. Lawrence is the most important matter to come before the people of Canada since Confederation and the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. I propose to discuss this further when my motion comes up on the Order Paper.
The Hydro from the Niagara district exported from Canada 90,000 horse power. Each horse power represents from six to twenty tons of coal according to the character of the industrial plant which is supplied. I have attended as a Toronto Harbour Commissioner the convention of the Port Authorities and heard the arguments for the St. Lawrence scheme. Those against it were all founded on a fallacy. To sum up in a few words the advantages of +he St. Lawrence route:
1. It is one of the great natural waterways of the world.
2. The cost of improvement is less than that of other routes. Moreover, it would be divided between the two nations sharing its benefits.
3. It is a high-speed highway avoiding long passages by canals.
4. It would accommodate the large vessels of commerce, opening the Great Lakes to ocean freighters and avoiding the cost of rehandling goods.
5. The improvement would develop vast water power, more than any other project-develop it where wanted.
6. It would be jointly owned and used by Canada and the United States, and such joint ownership and use would cement the friendship of these two great peoples.
7. If, failing to join with the States, we insist on an all-Canadian route, then we may expect an American route as well; we should then have two costly waterways paralleling the way to the sea, where one less costly and more efficient than either would suffice. It is a practical and sensible plan.
We believe there is a distinct advantage in joining hands with our sister nation to the south, the United States.
Millions of horse power are available, that, while incidental would more than repay the entire cost of the improvement.
This development would represent a saving of coal running into tens of millions of tons annually. Coal miners may strike, but the St. Lawrence never goes on strike. Yet this great development is but a by-product incidental to the greater object to be achieved.
Nature has done so much to afford the Great Lakes a flowing road to the sea that it seems to me utter folly that we should neglect to improve the short stretches that bar the modern freighter from the Canadian lake ports.
Without a deeper St. Lawrence our whole harbour expenditure rebuilding the Port of Toronto of over twenty-six millions will be in jeopardy and founded on a wrong foundation.
The St. Lawrence is Nature's highway to the sea. Give us a great water highway, a flowing road down which the products of the west may float from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic.
In seeking a better water route to the Atlantic, we must have the best highway that can be obtained.
It is a national duty-a Canadian duty-an International duty-to develop water power wherever possible. Give us this mighty colaborer with coal in keeping the wheels of industry revolving and you will put the country beyond the power of any man or group of men
to cripple and imperil as the country is crippled and imperiled to-day.-Pamphlet T. L. Church on St. Lawrence.
We have engineering and commercial assurance of these three facts:
1. It can be done ; it's practical.
2. The cost will be less than other routes proposed.
3. There would be developed water power running into millions of tons of coal per annum and millions of horse power available for trade and commerce and industrial development.
The people of Ontario believe that one joint route for Canada and the United States is better than two rival routes. We believe that such a route can be accomplished more cheaply, that it provides a more direct way to the markets of Europe, that it is more practicable, more serviceable, better than any other plan yet offered.
We believe that this improved St. Lawrence will bring great commercial development to our own country and corresponding benefit to the peoples of the world with whom we shall trade.
The St. Lawrence route has long appealed to my interest. I am hopeful that we are going to get a report which will give us in concrete form the cost and the possibilities that will grow out of this great international waterway.
The water has been running to waste through all the ages, and at a time when this country is suffering for want of fuel for producing and short of power for our industries and our railways.-T. L. Church Pamphlet.
Water-borne traffic is going to be a very important factor in solving the transportation question in Canada, and I hope the Minister of Railways will bring down some scheme in that connection, especially as we have the findings of President Harding of the United States and the findings of the International Joint Comission. I understand some interests in Montreal are opposed to this scheme. The Premier of Quebec, Hon. Mr. Taschereau, is opposed to the St. Lawrence canal for some reasons; but I think his objections can be met by agreement with the United States, for his arguments are based principally on antiAmerican prejudice. He claims that the navigation feature of the project is but a cloak for an attempt by our neighbours to grab the power; that the Americans expect to get international control of about 2,700,000 h.p. of energy. But there will be the same amount or a little more belonging to Canada, and Quebec will have its share. He goes on to refer to the position of the high-level dam which, he- says, will be located in the United States. That location has not yet been fixed; it is a matter for agreement with the United States Government. The broad fact for Mr. Taschereau to answer is that 4,000,000 h.p. of electrical energy is going to waste every year, and he has no suggestion
to give for making it available. This is the equivalent of 48,000,000 tons of coal having a value of $240,000,000, and it is allowed to slip away every year without being used.
I wish to say a few words regarding trade with Germany. In many centres of our population there are complaints that certain localities are being flooded with German goods. I have had many complaints in this connection from constituents of mine and from other people in the Toronto district. They point out to me that as a result of the war, many industries had been started up by Canadians to supply minor goods which Germany had formerly supplied to Canada. In this way, plants had been established for making such things as toys and small-wares of all kinds. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb), no doubt has not yet had time to look into this problem, but I hope he will do so, and that he will be able to lay down a policy for the House and the country. So far as I am concerned I am in favour of protection to these small local manufacturers. I do not believe we should have any trade relations with Germany at all.
Something has been said about Senate reform. In 1896, the Liberal party's platform declared strongly for Senate reform, but, as has been well said, platforms are generally made to get in on and not to stand on, and it was so in this case. Workingmen can sit in the British Parliament, but no workingman can sit in the United States or the Canadian Senate. So far as I can see when the Liberal party attempted to implement their platform of 1896 and reform the Senate, they simply made the Senate "ten times more reform" by appointing Liberals. I would suggest that the British North America Act be amended, after a vote of the people at the next election, on a Senate reform referendum, with a view to abolishing the Senate altogether, because I feel that its usefulness has gone. I do not know how the Progressive party feel on this subject, but in their platform they advocate strict economy and the saving of taxes, and this would an excellent way of economizing, besides ensuring better legislation and to some extent abolishing privilege in this country. The moment a man is appointed to the Senate he thinks that he is absolutely independent. It is all very well when men are trying to get into the Senate: they are then in favour of the policy of the existing government. But in a recent debate in the
other House an hon. gentleman in that Chamber assumed an attitude of independence and disregard of the government of the day. They say some of them: We are judicial officers as senators and can oppose bills as we please.
Mention has also been made of Civil Service reform. I am in favour of the patronage system. I believe that you can get better results under the patronage system than under the Civil Service Commission. I am a Conservative, but let me say that I have been sent to Parliament to express a liberty of speech on what is good for the people and to exercise an independence of thought and action for the people; and while I am glad to call myself a Conservative, at the same time I am an independent Conservative. I noticed that the Liberal newspapers at one time condemned the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) for suggesting that all vacant judgeships, at the time he spoke, " should be filled with good Tories." Well, it is a credit to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he did not so commit himself. But he has raised no objection to this principle applied the other way, for I see that he has been himself doing the same thing, as can be seen in the appointment of such good Grit lawyers as Judge Fisher, of London, and Mr. Duncan Ross, the ex-member for West Middlesex as judge for Elgin, Judge Mulligan of Carleton, Senators Pardee and Boyer, and others. The Civil Service Act, it seems to me, applies only to the spade and shovel men and not to those higher up on the civil pay rolls, like senators, judges, lieutenant-governors and others of that class for whom there is no sort of examination, a la Civil Service Commission.
With regard to Canada's wonderful banking system, I have been looking over the Bank Act from cover to cover, and I may have something to say in this connection later on.
The Prime Minister the other day, referring to the Conservative party, seemed to rejoice in the fact that it had been wiped off the map in six provinces. Well, I can sympathize with him, for he also was wiped off the map in about three provinces -in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba -in which he obtained two seats out of forty-one. So he is in the same boat as those on this side in three provinces as to being wiped out. It is true he carried Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Quebec, but in some other provinces he did
not do so well, and I think he knows what it is to be wiped off the map. He ran second to the Tories in Ontario and British Columbia, and we divided fifty-fifty with him in New Brunswick.
I do not see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) in the House, but during the campaign in the Toronto district he evinced a keen interest in the cost of living, the question of trusts and combines, and other allied subjects. This question of combines has been made a football of by the Government of Canada and those of the provinces for many years, and I trust we shall hear the end of it and that the Government of Canada will take a leaf out of the book of the Attorney General of the United States, who prosecuted 285 combines in one year and broke them up. As a start the Government might take action against the tobacco trust. I have had several letters from soldiers and others, strongly urging that something should be done to break up this combine. The prices of a good many of the tobacco commodities of life are on the down grade and it seems an outrage that the working classes should be obliged to pay 15 cents for a plug of tobacco, while tobacco is lying in the fields not cut. Steps should be taken at once to regulate all trusts of this nature.
Before I conclude I want to protest against any action or any speech calculated to loosen the ties that bind this country to the Motherland. I think that this declaration is timely, because there is an agitation on foot in certain localities-and among certain classes that would tend to loosen that connection. I do not think that anyone did more than our King during the war to forward our interests, or was more concerned in the welfare of the Empire. Our Governor General, too, a brilliant soldier, was an inspiration to all fighting Canadians, and, I say, long may that office continue. Another office that is of use in the affairs of the country is that of Lieutenant-Governor. I do not agree with those who advocate the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council; this, I think, would be one way of loosening the ties that bind the Mother Country and Canada together. In regard to the question of Canada's representation abroad, it is my opinion that there is no necessity for an ambassador at Washington; nor do I believe that we need a High Commissioner in London. If we can do without an ambassador in Washington, why cannot we dispense, without great inconvenience, with a representative in London? I wish it distinctly understood, of course, that I have absolutely nothing to say against the appointment that ha? been recently made by the Government to fill this office. The appointee is a good business man, a gentleman who is admirable in more senses than one. I sat with him on the Toronto General Hospital Board in Toronto for a number of years, and from my knowledge of and association with him I have formed a high estimate of his ability and his character Nevertheless, I do not think that the office to which he has been appointed is very necessary. I may say, in passing, that as a friend of Mr. Larkin, I wish him good luck. I think he should answer those papers that criticise his income tax payments. In Toronto some time ago he paid taxes on an income of $50,000. But the next year-1921-when he was assessed on a similar income, he appealed to the Court of Revision and made a declaration to the effect that his income was only $25,000. The Court of Revision, without taking any evidence on the subject, reduced the assessment to that amount. Sir John Willison, the Canadian representative of the London Times, wrote an article which appeared in the London papers stating that Mr. Larkin's income was $500,000, and some of the London papers are commenting on it and on his assessments. Now, while undoubtedly Mr. Larkin will make an excellent High Commissioner, I think it would have been better, both for him and the country, had he followed in the footsteps of the First Commoner, yourself, Mr. Speaker, when you announced in such modest terms that from the moment of your election to your high office you ceased to be a party man. It would be better for all concerned if Mr. Larkin refrained from attending party dinners. I say it would be in his own interests, and I am speaking as a friend of his; for, I repeat, I found him an honourable business man, having sat with him on the Board in the building of the Toronto General Hospital, a $5,000,000 hospital. I can say that he has done a wonderful service as a citizen. As his friend, I say that he should make it clear just what his income is on which he has to pay local and federal taxes and answer his critics. I have every confidence in his integrity.
In conclusion, I desire to thank you, Sir, and the members of this House, for the way they have listened to me, and on my own behalf I thank you for your patience.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY