I do not think so, because the amount of work which would be put before a body of men who had not had the initiation of the expenditures before them, in other words, had not in any way the atmosphere of the various departments, would leave them like travellers in an unknown country. They would have to understand its layout before they could get at the bottom of the information which would really be necessary for them to have in their examination if they were to come to any useful conclusion. And if you put that work off still later, until the Estimates are laid on the table of the House, then they would have all the less time to do this. I do not believe we are going to get the desired improvement by a committee of that kind. But that there is an imperative need for some different methods, and different methods from those we have followed in the past, I believe is absolutely certain, and in some way or other I hope that the Government and the House will be able to get down to an examination of the matter with a view to finding those inproved (methods.

Now, there are some means of accomplishing that purpose, and in two or three minutes I will give the view which I have in reference *to it. I think one of the weak points in the administration and control of our finances is that every team drives its own way-each department sees its peculiar needs and gets its Estimates fashioned on the basis of those needs, and those are their Estimates. Those Estimates have to come before the Minister of Finance and later before the Cabinet. And why? In order that there may be correlation of all the expenses in regard to the amount which it is useful to expend as a whole, and consequently the relationship between the expenditures of the different department must be taken into account. One thing that happens is this: After those Estimates are reviewed and appropriations are made every department drives on for the rest of the year entirely by itself; there is no financial supervision as a whole. But there ought to be. To my mind the Minister of Finance, who is to see that proper Estimates are made, must by some method or other follow the expenditures in every department by the year, so that when the time comes for him to use his judgment as to the relative amounts of these expen-

ditures he may have the atmosphere of the different departments and experience of their workings. So that some way or other we ought to have financial control over the expenditures of all the departments. I do not mean despotic control although sometimes it might be despotic.

What I mean is the control of consultation and advice:-how are you getting along with this expenditure-is it possible to retrench in this respect or the other?- as you find it now, is it necessary that such an expenditure should be carried to its fulfilment? The idea would be to have some permanently constituted body, always on the watch, always supervising, always storing up the experience of the year to be applied in the consideration of proposed expenditures in each of the departments during the succeeding year. That correlating supervisory power is something which I think we need, and I am sure no one feels the need of it more than the Finance Minister himself. No individual person can do that by himself. He, the minister, must have the machinery with which it may be carried on, himself as the controlling power.

I agree with my hon. friend the Finance Minister (Sir Henry Drayton) that while we make a great deal of fuss about what our auditor does, about the Auditor General's report and things like that, our audit falls down because it is not a preaudit. After the whole thing has been completed, after advances or expenditures have been made, the matter comes before the Auditor General. You cannot have the needed amount of caution and of care on the part of an expending officer if he feels that he can get the expenditure through before the Auditor General gets his hands upon it. The audit ought to be there before the amount is paid out, and it is quite possible to do that. It will require some work, some organization, some help, but it can be done; and there, I believe, is one of the very best checks we can possibly have -a sound and thorough pre-audit system.

The next bit of machinery for the keeping down of expenses and the production of economy is the Committee of the Whole House in Supply. As all who have studied the question know, the last body in the world to take hold of the finances of the country is a House of Commons divided on party lines, sweating out the later days of its sessional existence, over millions upon millions of expenditure, an insight into which the members cannot possibly have.

Any man can take up a particular item, work it out and become master of it, but it is a different matter to get a grasp of the whole expenditure, a knowledge of how one item of expenditure relates to the other and how it all works out in the aggregate. Our fifty-odd years of experience in parliamentary life has proved to us that that cannot be done in Committee of Supply.

Now, I have added to the difficulties and have not done much in the way of throwing light on the subject. I do not want to take up the time of the House at any greater length. What my hon. friend has in view is absolutely a correct thing to have in view, though he will scarcely attain his object through the means of the suggested committee. There are methods, I believe, which we could arrive at if we could settle ourselves down to calm investigation- maybe it would be the method of a committee of some kind-with a view to establishing what is needed now more than ever before, the very Closest supervision, first upon the estimating itself,-then upon the revision of the Estimates, then continuously upon the expenditures even after Parliament has given vitality to the Estimates and made them effective. My hon. friend will not feel that I am opposing his view. I am in entire accord with the views that have been expressed in this committee today. I feel that what little we have said about it this afternoon has accomplished already a good purpose and will have fruit in the future, but I am scarcely of the opinion that the committee which my hon. friend has proposed would in the end be productive of very much good.

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate; I regret that it was not possible for me to be in the House during most of the discussion. But it seems to me that my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) has just presented a strong argument for the motion which is before the House. If I gather rightly, his introductory remark was that a committee of this kind would not have the atmosphere, so to speak, of the different departments which would be essential to its becoming acquainted with their various needs, and that it might therefore, be difficult for the committee to decide what was necessary. But admitting that to be the .case, is it not still more difficult for the House of Commons as a body to get the atmosphere to which my right hon. friend has referred? A small committee could

bring before it the deputy heads and other officers of the different departments and question them in regard to the various items going to make up the Estimates. The required atmosphere would very much more quickly be obtained in this way and the committee would be in a position to say what items should be allowed to pass without consideration and what items had better be reserved for the consideration of the House later.

My right hon. friend in his concluding remarks made an assertion with which we all agree: that nothing could be worse in connection with the consideration of the country's finances than the exhibition we have in this House at the end of the session when millions of dollars are voted in the early morning hours, nobody being in a position to give to the Estimates thus passed that careful thought, attention, supervision and scrutiny which should be applied to the proposed expenditures. It is precisely to meet and to avoid a situation of that kind that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) suggests in his motion that a joint committee composed of members on both sides should have an opportunity during the session to go over all the Estimates carefully, ascertain what items are non-contentious, allow these to be put to one side, and reserve for the consideration of the House only such items as are likely to be debatable or subject to question. If we admit that when we have the Estimates as a whole placed before us it is difficult for Parliament to deal with them intelligently, we must concede that if a committee acting as suggested should have supervision over the Estimates, there would be, in the end, a closer scrutiny and more effective supervision of the public expenditures. This is what my hon. friend has in mind, I think, in his motion, and as his suggestion would seem to lead to economy of the time of the House and consequently of expenditure, the motion would seem to have everything to commend it. Of course I recognize that this discussion is more for the purpose of bringing out the merits of the different suggestions than anything else, and I would not like to urge that the resolution be pressed to a division. But I do think that the remarks made this afternoon have shown the necessity of transferring, if possible, to some smaller body the consideration of the Estimates as a whole with a view to the eliminating of non-contentious items and the reserving for consideration of the House of such items as are likely to give rise to serious discussion.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. SPEAKER:

I must draw the attention of the House to the circumstance that when the mover of the resolution makes his reply the debate will be closed.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Mr. Speaker, I am

very grateful to members on both sides for their kind attention and for their collaboration in an effort to bring down the public expenditure by such method as may be deemed advisable to the attainment of that worthy object. When I have such figures as those I will quote, before me, I cannot help impressing on both sides of the House the necessity of finding a means of practising real economy. Here are three or four startling figures which should arrest the attention of the House. Look at the serious situation in which the country finds itself to-day. In 1914, the expenditure per head of population was $24.11; in 1920 it was $75.01. In 1914, the gross debt of Canada per head was $71.75, whilst in 1920 it has reached the colossal figure of $334.90. In 1914, the net debt per head was $43.49, whereas it has now reached the enormous figure of $215. Therefore, it is not with any party bias,-I need not repeat this-that I brought forward this motion this afternoon. I wish, after twenty-five years of service in Parliament, to do something for my country, at this particular juncture, and if possible, relieve, even in the least possible way, the burden that is now borne by the taxpayers. I am told by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie) and, I believe, by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) that if my motion was adopted, the principle of ministerial responsibility would be affected. I stated a moment ago that the committee presided over by an ex-minister in Great Britain, the Hon. Sir Herbert Samuel, contemplated that objection and answered it. In England, where we have a matter-of-fact electorate, where there is a sense of government ingrained in the representatives of the people, the parliamentary institutions of the land have been, to use the words of Tennyson "broadening down from precedent to precedent." Many things which were found objectionable a century or two centuries ago have come to pass, and to-day they are accepted as a matter of course. Sir Herbert Samuel in his report said: Why should we consider as a vote of want of confidence a motion made to reduce any expenditure after a report has been made by an independent committee of members

of the House who have scrutinized and investigated all the Estimates. He added: If it were understood that it would not be considered as a want of confidence motion, it would become a matter of course. It would not affect the policy of the Government, because the committee would not look after the policy of the Government, but would simply make suggestions towards economy.

This is a change which must take place. It has been suggested in England where the principle of ministerial responsibility has been recognized from time immemorial. Why? Because the hour has come to make the break between the past and the future. They want to seize their golden opportunity of ploughing new furrows, because this is a period of reconstruction after the greatest of all wars and because expenditure has been so enormous that it threatens the very life of the nation. We also have to strike new ground; we also have to face stupendous difficulties, and though it may look revolutionary, yet we must adapt ourselves to such drastic procedure as will help the very function of Government. I have much sympathy with the Government. Any Government is, under present circumstances, deserving of the sympathy of Parliament and of the people, because Canada for the next twenty-five years will have very serious financial difficulties to contend with. I wish in all sincerity to help the Government of to-day as well as the Government of to-morrow, the ministers of to-day as well as the ministers of to-morrow in their arduous task. The more checks you have against ill-advised or hasty expenditure, the better will it be for the country.

In the United States they have taken heed of the advice of that committee of British statesmen. Mr. Taft not long ago used these words:

We want economy and efficiency, we want saving, and saving for a purpose. We want to save money to enable the Government to go into some of the beneficial projects which we are debarred from taking up because we cannot increase our expenditures.

And further:

Instead of seeking to control administration through depriving it of the exercise of discretion in the transaction of public business, the recommendation of the Commission is that Congress shall definitely assign the duties which come properly within the scope of administrative responsibility and then shall prescribe such conditions and require such an accounting as will disclose promptly and accurately the results of the exercise of the executive's discretion or indiscretion. By so doing not only will the executive have brought home to him the need

for giving careful attention to every act as a matter of self-protection, but also every member of Congress and every agency of publicity may become a potent factor in bringing the service up to a high state of efficiency.

This was said by Mr. Taft after the first committee was appointed in England in 1912. But what has happened since? Uncle Sam has watched closely and has borrowed quietly from Great Britain this new system of controlling national expenditure. I find that, after the thirteen reports were filed by Sir Herbert Samuel's Committee on Estimates in England: Congressman Medill McCormick introduced in the House of Representatives in March, 1918, a series of Bills and resolutions providing for a budget system of finance, a single Budget Committee to be set up which shall report the Estimates, with proposals for revenue legislation, to the House in the form of a single Bill, a single committee to examine the departmental accounts, and an Auditor General to work in conjunction. Commenting on this new mode of American procedure in Congress Mr. Davenport said:

If America can improve its financial system in time of war it is not for Great Britain to lag behind in the period of reconstruction.

And I may add that it is not for Canada either to lag behind. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said a moment ago that last year, because of the enlightenment of public opinion in Great Britain, a public opinion which we should emulate in Canada, the Mother Country reduced her expenditure by $2,000,000,000. When I was in England last year three or four byelections were held and the candidates ran on the "anti-waste" programme. There is real public opinion in England. I am sorry to say that in this country we have not the same keenness as regards national expenditure, because the public, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said a moment ago, is kept in the dark; it does not know the highways and byways leading to the Treasury, the Auditor General's office, the principal officials in the departments, and the public which seldom reads a blue book is suddenly seized with' the Budget, with enormous figures to face.

This committee, Sir, in the judgment of the most experienced men in the British Parliament is a necessary institution. It would be, I grant, somewhat of a peaceful revolution to introduce into our system here, but if it has been done in England during the war, if it is a British institution to stay, why not adopt it in Canada. Let

us realize that we are placed in an especially difficult situation, and that a drastic reform is needed. I shall not take up more of the time of the House except to thank hon. members on both sides for their contributions to the debate, and to express the hope that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will accept, if not my advice, at least that of the right hon. gentleman who is the Nestor of this House, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), and put as many checks as possible on the ill-advised and hasty expenditures which even officials in departments are quite able to favour at times.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the considerable development of Montreal and the south shore opposite Montreal, and of the evident insufficiency of the Victoria Bridge a new bridge should immediately be constructed connecting Montreal with the south shore.

Mr. Speaker, rising to speak in support of this resolution regarding the necessity for the construction of a new bridge between Montreal and the south shore, I realize, particularly after the discussion that has just taken place this afternoon in reference to the enormous expenditure in Canada, that all the arguments I may put forward and any sympathy I may win from hon. members will be met by the plea of the necessity for strict economy at the present moment. Nevertheless, I think I shall be able to convince the Government and the House of the absolute necessity for the construction of such a bridge. Furthermore, I think I shall be able to convince the House that I am asking, not for an ordinary expenditure, but rather an investment by the Government that will yield a return for the benefit of the people. Mr. Speaker, there exists such a thing as false economy, unbusinesslike and detrimental economy, which makes a person poorer. There are cases where a business man, although hard pressed and bound to curtail expenses, feels that even if he has to borrow the necessary money, he must make a certain expenditure which will bring him a profit in the end. I am confident that the building of a second bridge between Montreal and the south shore is an investment in that category.

First, let us examine the question of the absolute necessity for the construction of such a bridge. There exists at the present time between the city of Montreal and the south shore only one bridge, which is called the Victoria Jubilee bridge. The Hon. John Young first had the idea, in 1847, of building such a bridge. In 1852 Sir John Young succeeded in convincing some English capitalists, and in 1853 two engineers, Messrs. A. M. Ross and Robert Stephenson, came to Canada to construct the bridge.

The corner-stone of the first pier was placed'on July 22,1854, by Sir C. P. Roney, first secretary of the Grand Trunk Railway, accompanied by Benjamin Holmes, first vice-president, James Hodge, contractor, and A. M. Ross. The contractors had hopes of terminating their contract in the specified time, but they encountered many difficulties, such as an accident resulting in the death of twelve men, but the most disastrous one was when the ice flood that winter carried away the whole construction. Nevertheless, the bridge was completed after six years, instead of five, and on December 24, 1859, the first train crossed the bridge with Vice-President Holmes, Sir George Etienne Cartier, Messrs. James Hodge, A. M. Ross, W. Shanly, McPherson, Forsythe and others. The last stone and the last bolt were placed by the young Prince of Wales, later His Majesty King Edward VII. A banquet was given to commemorate the event, at which the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Newcastle were the guests of honour. A gold medal was offered to His Majesty and bronze ones to the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway. The bridge had a length of 9,184 feet, twenty-three spans of 242 feet each, the centre one being 330 feet long. The construction of that bridge was the cause of a great boom in the development of Montreal and the south shore, to such an extent, that soon new constructions had to be made, and the dark passage was replaced by the present frame work. A double track was built, as well as a roadway for vehicles and pedestrians. This new work was ready for * the traffic on September 13, 1898. It had been constructed under the supervision of Mr. Joseph Hobson. The weight of the new bridge was 20,000 tons, the old one being 9,044 tons. The width was extended from 160 to 166 feet, and the height from 18 to 60 feet. No other work has been done since then to enlarge the bridge, and keep it abreast with the tremendous expansion and development of Montreal; on the contrary, [Mr. Lemieux.l

the bridge traffic facilities were considerably reduced when, in 1909, the former roadway on the north for pedestrians and vehicles was utilized for electric tramway purposes.

I have thought fit to outline briefly the history of the present bridge from notes I have taken from Dr. Atherton's book on the history of Montreal, in order to impress on your mind, Mr. Speaker, and on the minds of the Government, that this bridge which, as I have said, was built seventy years ago, and repaired twenty years ago, and which, instead of being enlarged in 1909 had its traffic facilities for pedestrians and vehicles curtailed, has not kept pace with the tremendous development of the city of Montreal. It would be idle for me to take up much time of the House in an attempt to show that the Victoria bridge is n ow entirely inadequate for the purpose for which it was built. This bridge is the main artery -in fact, it is the only artery-between the south shore and the city of Montreal, and all of the traffic, coming not only from the United States and across from the south shore, but also from the Maritime Provinces, has to cross the St. Lawrence over it. The American railways do not risk sending their heavier locomotives across this bridge because they suspect its strength. The Victoria bridge, Mr. Speaker, is the only roadway to Montreal for vehicles, and the accommodation for such at present consists of a narrow path of about thirteen and a quarter feet wide, a source of inconvenience and grave danger. I am told that, on an average, between seven hundred and twelve hundred vehicles cross this bridge every day on that narrow roadway. The district in the vicinity of the Bridge, comprising the counties of St. John, Chambly, Vercheres, Laprairie, Napierville, and even Richelieu, is a very fertile one, and the farmers, who produce a great deal, have to cross that bridge to take their produce to market in Montreal; while the merchants in the city have to make use of this narrow roadway to deliver their goods to residents of the south shore. There is a very large population on the south shore who work in Montreal and have to cross the bridge twice a day, and I wish some member of this House had an opportunity to cross on that narrow roadway in a motor car. If" he perchance met a truck or a load of hay on the way, he would soon appreciate the situation. I have had occasion to cross the bridge quite often, because

the south shore opposite Montreal is in the constituency I represent, and every time I have made the trip I have met either a truck, a load of hay, or some other traffic, and have had to practically stop to avoid collision. In daylight it is possible to cross, but at night one can do so only at the risk of great danger. Under existing conditions the bridge is a menace to human life.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

That is true.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

To prove this assertion I need only state that last year, during a period of ten months, two fatal accidents occurred. On both occasions a farmer coming back from Montreal after having sold his produce had the misfortune to meet a motor car, which struck his rig hurling him -over the railing of the bridge, and he was drowned. And as I said before, the utmost care is necessary in crossing the bridge if one is to avoid accident. Furthermore, if a mishap should happen, such as a fire, to render the bridge impassable, Montreal would be completely isolated from the south shore.

It is true we have a ferry plying from Montreal to the south shore, but during at least three months of the year that ferry cannot cross. The same may be said of the ice bridge in the winter. So that this bridge is the only means of communication between the south shore and Montreal. We had a disastrous fire in August last year which made impassable one-third of the roadway on the bridge. The tramway and railway tracks were untouched, but the roadway was damaged; and to show what damage this small fire did to the city of Montreal, I might say that on August 21 there was a string of a mile and a quarter of automobiles which had to wait fourteen hours to get over to the metropolis. The farmers of the south shore could not get over with their produce, or go back to their farms, and prices rose from fifty to one hundred and fifty per cent on these three days when the Victoria bridge was closed to the traffic. It is doubtful whether a similar condition exists anywhere else in the world in connection with a city fronting on a river as the city of Montreal does. The inadequacy of this bridge has been a hindrance to the development not only of Montreal but of the south shore. If you have observed, Mr. Speaker, in connection with practically all the large cities in the world that front on rivers-I need mention only Brooklyn,

opposite New York, Cambridge opposite Boston, Minneapolis opposite St. Paul, the city of East St. Louis opposite St. Louis, and, in England, the city of Birkenhead, across the Mersey from Liverpool-the development of the cities opposite the larger centres has always been due to communication between the two by means of bridges.

I said at the outset that this matter was one not only of local but of national interest-I probably would not have brought this matter before the House, had it been only a matter of local interest. But there is the important tourist traffic to be considered. That traffic, on account of the development in motor vehicles, has recently increased by leaps and bounds and has brought millions of dollars every year not only to the district of Montreal but to the country at large. The tourist traffic coming from the United States to the city of Montreal, owing to the good roads policy inaugurated by the Provincial Government, and particularly because of the fact that the King Edward route, which runs directly from the United States border, passes right in front of the city, is increasing every summer. If a new bridge were built which could take care of the farmers' traffic and that of the residents of the south shore, and also the tourist traffic coming from the United States, it would be a great boon to that particular district and to the country as a whole.

At Six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (resuming) :

Mr. Speaker, before recess I was endeavouring to demonstrate to the House and to the Government that the construction of a bridge between the city of Montreal and the south shore is not only of local but of national interest, and I had pointed out the large amount of money that the increased American traffic would bring to the city of Montreal and neighbourhood and to the country at large. But I wish to state that this construction has also another national aspect. With the tremendous task confronting us of putting the Government-owned railways on a paying basis it is the duty of hon. members to try and find every means that will contribute to that end. While discussion was going on in the Montreal papers at the time of the accident to which I referred-the Victoria Bridge fire

of last summer-many suggestions were made, and one struck me as being eminently practical and worthy of adoption. It was made by a well known engineer, Mr. Ernest Drinkwater, engineer of St. Lambert. He argued that the new bridge could be the means of connecting the two parts of the Canadian National railways-the Intercolonial on the south shore and the Canadian Northern on the Montreal side. He said:

The Canadian Northern section from Mount Royal tunnel can pass over this new bridge and join up with the Intercolonial system, also the Grand Trunk-Portland line, the Central Vermont, and the Delaware and Hudson, would reach the business section of the City of Montreal and save a distance of from five to seven miles. What a wonderful economic saving of time to the thousands who use these trains, and what a wonderful saving in rolling stock and track maintenance.

The same gentleman also said:

That further economic saving would occur, resulting immediately in lowering delivery charges for produce to the city of Montreal, because it would cut off half the distance to the Bonsecours market. On the new bridge there would be two or three double vehicular tracks with sidewalks and sufficient railway accommodation. Among the engineering possibilities is the elimination of all the level crossings on the Grand Trunk from St. Henri to the Bonaventure station by paralleling the Canadian Pacific rail-wa/ and establishing a union terminal station in the McGill, Notre Dame and Hay-market district, connecting with the overhead right of way from the Mount Royal tunnel. This latter means a tremendous saving to the Canadian Government railways with a through line across the river. The National Transcontinental and Canadian Northern would therefore have access to the United States without having to go to the Quebec bridge and come back to St. Hya-cinthe some 250 miles, and I have no doubt that the saving to the Governmentt railways alone would go a long way towards payment of the cost of the bridge.

Sir, the construction of this bridge is not a new idea; it has been talked of for the past forty years. The Hon. Mr. Prefon-taine, a member of the Laurier administration, was an enthusiastic supporter of the project. A man of unusual initiative, a patriot, he saw a great future in the development of the district of Montreal, especially by the construction of this bridge. Unfortunately Mr. Prefontaine died suddenly. After his death the project was favourably entertained by the Laurier administration, and if I am not mistaken my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), who was at that time a member of the Harbour Commission of Montreal, was also in favour of its construction. Another government came into power in 1911, and my information is that my predecessor in the representation of

Chambly-Vercheres, Mr. Rainville, was also a supporter of the project, and that he succeeded in inducing the Government to take it up. I understand that afterwards plans for a bridge were prepared by Mr. J. W. Cowie, engineer of the Montreal Harbour Commission, and that these plans are still in the possession of the Department of Public Works here. Orders were given to the Harbour Commissioners to go ahead, but the war intervened and of course the project had to be abandoned. Since I have had the honour of representing the county of Cbambly and Vercheres in this House I have been incessantly asking the successive Ministers of Public Works to again bring this matter before the Cabinet with a view to the construction of the bridge.

I had several interviews with Hon. Mr. Carvell, with the date Right Hon. Mr. Sifton, and I have also seen the present Minister of Public Works (Mr' McCurdy), the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) and the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne), but all my interviews were fruitless.

On January 13, 1919, the municipalities of the south shore held a largely attended convention at the Longueuil city hall under the chairmanship of Mr. Alexander Thur-ber, mayor of Longueuil, an untiring and devoted supporter of the project for years. That convention unanimously passed a resolution praying the Government to go on with the project not only because it would be in the interest of the south shore and the country at large, but also because it would provide work for many returned soldiers and former munition workers. In Montreal the project has been endorsed by the city of Montreal, th.e Montreal Board of Trade, the city of Outremont, the Union of Municipalities, the Chambre de Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the South Shore Board of Trade and the Automobile Club of Canada. It has also the endorsation of all the prominent business men in Montreal.

A committee was formed of representative bodies, and they first interviewed the Harbour Commissioners. At that meeting were present Mr. W. G. Ross, of the Harbour Commission; Farquhar Robertson, Brigadier-General A. E. Labelle, M. P. Fennell and F. W. Cowie. Other representatives were Mr. W. B. Ramsay, George Sumner, President of the Board of Trade; Joseph Quintal, for the Chambre de Commerce; F. A. Covert, J. Douglas, J. P. Hudson, Norman Dawes, Mayor Jos. Beaubien, of Outremont, and Mayor Gordon of St. Lambert. They then interviewed the chairman of the administrative commission in Montreal, Mr. APRIL 18, 1921

E. R. Decary, who gave his entire support to the project. Finally they had an interview with the Premier of Quebec. On that occasion the delegation was composed of Lord Shaughnessy, Mr. W. B. Ramsay, Sir Charles Gordon, Sir Lamer Gouin, Hon. George Simard, Colonel Hutchison, A. M. Irvine, Hon. Achille Bergevin, E. R. Decary, R. A. Ross and Mr. W. G. Ross. I may be allowed to read what Lord Shaughnessy said in presenting the delegation:

"We are a group of citizens of Montreal who have been impressed with the vital necessity of securing better communication between the city of Montreal and the shore on the south of the St. Lawrence. At present the only way of crossing the St. Lawrence, as far as vehicular traffic is concerned, is the narrow roadway on Victoria bridge, which is a source of great inconvenience and even danger. It is so narrow that accidents have occurred, and there is always ground for apprehension of further accidents. Then, too, on th-is island of Montreal we are rapidly approaching the time when we will have a population of one million people, who will have no means of getting to the other side except from the one end of the island. Then on the other side of the river are farmers who bring their products to the city in increasing quantities every year. Beyond that, and of wider importance is the important fact that with the advent of the motor car, there is room for a tremendous interchange of travel between this part of Canada and the counties to the south, the province generally, and more particularly with the United States.

"We all know," continued Lord Shaughnessy, "what that tourist travel means. We have had experience of it, and Sir Lomer Gouin knows what it is in Quebec. I recollect the time when the receipts at the St. Louis hotel at Quebec did not exceed one hundred or 128,000 dollars a year, and my recollection is that the Chateau Frontenac has received in one year something in the vicinity of two million dollars, and an infinitely larger sum has been spent in the oity of Quebec with the citizens there.

"We have no one plan or project to place before you at this moment," added Lord Shaughnessy. "I do not know that any studies of any engineering character have yet -been made, or that the element of location, cost or the character of the structure have been considered. But in our opinion it should be a bridge, and from every standpoint it is important to have a bridge that would not only carry vehicular traffic, but the tramways as well."

Mr. Decary also spoke. Sir Lomer Gouin emphasized the fact that the bridge was not only of civic and provincial but of international importance as a very important link between Canada and the United States, and that the matter therefore "directly affected the federal Parliament". The Premier of Quebec expressed his sympathy with the project and promised that the proposal would be fully considered by the Government. This is the promise usually made by ministers, but I understand that the Premier of Quebec is in

entire sympathy with the project and has decided to co-operated with the federal Government and with the different municipalities interested in any action taken.

I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that at a meeting held at St. Lambert about a year and a half ago the present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) delivered an address in which he expressed sympathy for the project and appreciation of the fact that it would be of tremendous advantage to the population in the district of Montreal and vicinity. He pointed out that the expenditures incurred in connection with the war were too great to admit of any action at that time but expressed the hope that at some future time the federal Government would be able to come to the aid of the municipalities and the district of Montreal in connection with the project.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that the support of the Government to this enterprise would be more in the nature of a productive investment than of an ordinary expenditure. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the construction of the bridge would bring millions of dollars of tourist money into Canada and also greatly benefit the Canadian National railways and lessen unemployment* you will notice that my resolution does not ask for the expenditure of any money; I am simply asking Parliament to state that in its opinion such a bridge should be built. What I am pleading for is the support of the Government to the project. There is a plan, admitted to be the best, that the bridge be built by the Harbour Commission with funds secured through the Government, provision to be made for such tolls as would enable the Commission to meet the cost of upkeep, interest and sinking fund requirements, aside from such direct assistance as the Dominion and provincial governments, the city of Montreal and other municipalities may afford. I simply wish the House to express its approval of the project. I will refrain, Mr. Speaker, from mentioning any items in the Estimates now before us for consideration which in my opinion are not as necessary expenditures as the financial assistance which would be involved in the construction of such a bridge.

Another-reason-and it will be my last, because I have taken enough of the time of the House on this subject-is this: everyone is aware that many returned soldiers and other deserving citizens are at present without employment. There is what I may

call a labour crisis and in order to provide work for the unemployed I can think of no better enterprise than the construction of the bridge. Therefore, on account of the absolute necessity for the construction of this bridge, the large development that has taken place in the city of Montreal and its neighbourhood, requiring better facilities for communication between the south shore and the city, the increased tourist's money that improved means of communication between Montreal and the south shore will bring, not only to the metropolis but to the people of Canada at large, the work that this project will provide for the unemployed, as well as On account of the dangerous situation resulting from the present condition of the Victoria bridge and the threatened isolation of the city should another accident happen, I sincerely hope that the Government will accept my resolution.

Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napierville):

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend of Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) on having placed in the Orders of the Day, a resolution which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the considerable development of Montreal and the south shore opposite Montreal, anj of the evident insufficiency of the Victoria bridge, a new bridge should immediately be constructed connecting Montreal with the south shore.

When the Victoria bridge was rebuilt in 1899, the Grand Trunk railway had provided two roads for vehicles, one on the north side and the other on the south side. Everything went on smoothly till 1911. In 1911, the United Counties Electric Railway took the north side, and from then on, there was but one road on the south side opened to vehicles. I am at a loss to understand why the Grand Trunk Railway, which had made arrangements with St. Lambert and all that part of the south shore, having given a side of the road for the electric tramways, did not endeavour to replace the road which they had taken from us, and if possible, build two on the south side. There is only one road left open for our enormous traffic which has developed, especially since the building of the King-Edward VII boulevard.

It is my opinion that the traffic is now twenty times greater than it was when the tramways took possession of the road on the north side.

You must be aware Mr. Speaker, that the county which I have the honour to represent in the House, has certainly been

the most unfortunate one since there is only one side of the road left for vehicles. Allow me to draw jour attention to a few accidents and deaths within the last ten months:

Emile Rousseau, together with Alphonse Marcile of St. Michel Archange de Napier-ville, were precipitated into the St. Lawrence river on December 22, 1919. This happened towards six o'clock in the evening. These young men were on their way back from Montreal where they had gone and sold their farm products, when along came joy-riding automobiles at a speed of some 50 miles an hour, the drivers of which were probably a little the worse for drinks, and the two unfortunate victims were thrown into the St. Lawrence. When a death occurs in a household, it is a misfortune, a hardship, for the family; but in this instance, when the families had to wait weeks and months before the bodies could be recovered, you will admit Mr. Speaker, that these families were to be pitied indeed. A

Now, even should the construction of a new bridge be decided upon by the House, it would be a long while before it could be built. In the meantime, the Government who are now or will soon be in possession of the Grand Trunk, should without delay see to it that the part of the road for the vehicles be broadened if possible, so as to do away with accidents. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, when in the past we had two roads for vehicles there were no accidents, no loss of life. I repeat that it is most important that we be given two roads. If ever the Government can be justified in spending a few hundred thousand dollars, it surely must be whep this is done to avoid accidents and to protect the lives of the people. This is not a matter of public works in view of elections, but its object is of preventing further accidents and further loss of life.

This question is not a new one. I remember that during an election in Chateau-guay in 1913, the then Minister of Public Works, the hon. Robert Rogers, had promised the electors that he would see to it that a road for vehicles be provided on the bridge between Caughnawaga and Lachine. The plan for this road extension was published in all the Government papers of the day. I am of the opinion that this was somewhat with a view to securing the election of the Government candidate, at any rate nothing has been heard of the matter since. The Chateauguay farmers thought themselves the richer by some

hundred thousands of dollars for that promise. They must have felt some disappointment in hearing nothing further of the matter.

It would also be very easy to build a bridge in my county at St. Catherine's hill (which is not far from Verdun) over Heron's Island, for the river is shallow at this point. According to the boatmen of St. Catherine, there is rock every where and there is but three to five feet of water in the channel which is 500 feet wide. There is hardly any navigation at this point, which is about twelve miles from the Victoria bridge. This would greatly benefit the counties of Ohateauguay, Huntingdon, La-prairie and Beauharnois, and all that part of the south shore. Beside, as early as next fall, the macadamized Dundee road will be finished, and this road will surely turn away three-quarters of the traffic which now comes from the state of New York by King-Edward VII boulevard, and the traffic could utilize this bridge to Montreal. In a few years, when this bridge is built, Verdun, Lachine, and indeed the whole city of Montreal, which will have grown to fhat point by that time, will give this bridge as much traffic as there is now over the Victoria bridge.

I only casually mention this, for I am almost sure that the present Government will not build my bridge any more than that of the hon. member for Cbambly-Vercheres; but before very long the present Government shall have made room for another Government, I have all reasons to believe. As I am constantly preaching economy, the Government papers may tomorrow hold be up for asking for the building of a bridge. I know better; I am not asking for such a bridge. I only say that when the finances are in a better shape the Government might perhaps help us. As to the project of the hon. member for Chambly-Vecheres, I do not oppose it. He is not asking the Government for money, he just stated so.

It is the duty of the Government to determine whether or not that is a paying venture. I have no objection to there being a bridge erected at that place, if the country were to benefit by it. As for mine, I do not ask for it now. I am simply making a survey. When in power, we shall build a bridge; the treasury will perhaps be in a better condition then, and I shall ask for the erection of a bridge. I need not say any more; like my hon. friend from Chambly-Vercheres, I accept the Government's answer.

Hon. F. B. McCURDY (Minister of Public Works) :

As the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault) has correctly pointed out, the proposal for a bridge, in addition to the Victoria bridge, to connect the city of Montreal with the south shore is not a new one. It is certainly more than half as old as either he or I.

All who have listened to the two speakers who have championed the provision of a bridge in this location will doubtless admit the necessity for additional means of communication between Montreal and the south shore, whether it be another bridge as called for in the resolution of my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) or the increasing of the carrying capacity of the Victoria bridge as suggested by my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot).

But, admitting the necessity for such construction, I would suggest that the attention of the parties who are desirous of having these improvements carried out should really be directed towards the competent authorities, who should assume the expenditure. The building of the Victoria bridge, which bridge has done such excellent service in accommodating the traffic that is now apparently crowding it to overflowing, was shouldered by the Grand Trunk railway. As members of the House doubtless know, that bridge was erected in the first instance, at a very . large cost, at the expense of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, although subsequently, some twenty years ago, aid was given through the medium of railway subsidies voted by this Parliament to the extent of half a million dollars. For some considerable time past there has existed an agitation for the building of a second bridge, and, not unnaturally, this agitation has in part been directed towards Ottawa. Thirty odd years ago a company was incorporated for the purpose of building a tunnel to connect the island of Montreal with the south shore; some ten years later another company was incorporated to build a bridge. From that time on, as was natural, the agitation flourished, and it was not surprising that Mr. J. H. Rainville, the predecessor of the present member for Chambly and Vercheres, brought the matter to the attention of the government of the day with the result that, in 1912, two well known engineers, Messrs. Henry Holgate and Arthur Surveyer, were appointed as ' a committee to investigate the respective merits of these two schemes and to report

their finding. Their report states that either scheme is feasible and, by inference, that both simultaneously constructed would not be commercially practicable. The engineers found, however, that the plans of both these companies were not sufficiently concrete to warrant an absolute finding.

The matter therefore went along until 1919, when the Montreal Central Terminal Company again urged very strongly that aid should be given that company towards the execution of their plan. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but I find, on referring to the records of the Public Works Department, that the minister of that department in 1919 called a conference of all parties interested in the prospective construction of additional transportation facilities connecting Montreal with the south shore. This conference, comprised some twenty men, including the presidents of all transportation companies affected, the mayor of Montreal, and others were invited to attend. The report of that conference states that the consensus of opinion of those present at the hearing was practically in favour of a surface crossing instead of a tunnel. Mr. Verville, representing the city of Montreal, so the report narrates, stated that his instructions were to oppose the application, and urged that a careful study, embracing all questions respecting transportation, terminals, and railway connections, relating to the city of Montreal, should be made before granting approval to any tunnel project.

No action has been taken by the present Government, and I might say that while I followed the argument of the member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) and did not dissent from his conclusion as to the necessity for additional transportation facilities, I expected him to enlarge his argument, to the conclusion that the Federal Government would be responsible for works of this character. I must admit, in the absence of such argument, and knowing my hon. friend to be a good constitutional lawyer, that the only natural conclusion is that constitutional liability does not exist.

This, after all, is a matter of great but of local importance, a matter primarily-

I will not say wholly, but primarily-for the municipalities closely affected, the districts that would profit largely from the additional traffic that would ensue. I noted that my hon. friend referred to the increasing traffic coming from our neighbours to the south over the Victoria bridge to Montreal, bringing, as is alleged, large ,

financial gain to Montreal and the communities immediately affected. If the municipalities concerned are not capable of dealing wholly with the matter, I would respectfully suggest that the next body whose attention should be directed to the undertaking is the provincial government at Quebec. My hon. friend knows that, under the provisions of the British North America Act, the transportation facilities that form a liability of the Dominion Government are those that connect one province with another, or a point or points in Canada with a point or noints in a foreign country.

Both ends of this proposed bridge rest within one province, and I would therefore respectfully suggest that if the municipalities find the burden too great the Provincial Government is the next body to which appeal should be made, and if the undertaking is, as my hon. friend states, ' and I have no doubt correctly, one that will be revenue producing, the province of Quebec can borrow just as cheaply as can the Federal Government. The reason for that is not far to seek. Up to the time of the war the Provincial Governments had their responsibilities, and more or less fixed revenues; the war carried with it responsibility for its prosecution, and that responsibility fell on the Federal Government. The Federal Government had to go into the markets of the world and effect huge borrowings, and the result was that both during and after the war there was a surfeit of Dominion Government securities on the markets of the world. The Pro-vinical Governments, including the Quebec Provincial Government, were not in that position. They were called on to bear no additional expenditure; the financial burden on them was relatively light. The result is that several of the provinces, particularly, I know, the province of Quebec and the province of Nova Scotia, were in a superior technical position in the money markets of the world, on account of their comparatively small emission of securities to borrow on favourable terms. So if this undertaking is a money-making one, as the evidence of my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) would seem to indicate, it is quite open to the province of Quebec to go into the market and borrow the funds it requires to assist in the construction of this bridge in the way it deems best, and I am sure our friends in the Quebec Government will not be slow to take advantage of a good business opening, for the people of that province have a deservedly high

reputation for taking advantage of opportunities of increasing the provincial revenue, and of making the most of opportunities that are passing. I shall not elaborate this point further.

I would simply suggest to my hon. friends who have spoken so earnestly in support of this project, and in so doing they were carrying out the traditions of their predecessors in this Parliament, that they approach the municipal authorities first, and the provincial authorities next, and if these will indicate to what extent they are prepared to support the plan of constructing an additional bridge and to bear a share of the expenditure involved, notwithstanding the fact that this Government has large liabilities, liabilities that it will not shirk, it will take ths matter under consideration and will not hesitate to take whatever appropriate action its liabilities in this connection should indicate.

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

Do I understand my hon. friend to state that the Federal Government is refusing altogether financial assistance to the project?

Mr. McCURDY:

No, undoubtedly, I did not say so. I was simply pointing out to my hon. friend, who I am sure will be the first to concede the point, that local improvements although important are primarily matters of local concern, and that a liability that cannot be shouldered by the local municipalities might properly be brought before the provincial authorities. When these -two have considered their liabilities, and determined what part they will take, I am sure this Government will be glad to hear from them, and to take under careful consideration what its liability in the matter may be, and what assistance it may be prepared to render in connection with this project, the necessity for which, I think, is generally conceded.

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :

Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add. I was very glad ideed to hear the Minister of Public Works state that he was convinced, as I am myself, of the necessity for the construction of this bridge. I was very glad also to have the support of my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanc-tot). There was one point in the speech of my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville, however, to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The hon. member stated that it would be possible to enlarge the Victoria bridge in order to make

room for two roadways. Now I am informed that this suggestion has teen submitted to competent engineers, who have stated that it is an absolute impossibility, that the bridge as it is built now would not permit another roadway on the north or on the south side. I pointed out in speaking to the resolution that the heavy locomotives of the large American railways do not dare to go over that bridge on account of their tremendous weight and the relative weakness of the bridge.

The Minister of Public Works has said that this is more in the nature of a local undertaking. I though I had sufficiently elaborated that point when speaking to the resolution, by showing that the amount of money that would be brought not only to Montrea!l but to the country at large by the increased tourist traffic that would come with better communication makes the project a national one, because this money would benefit the whole country. I think I showed that the project was not one of local interest only, by also pointed out that it would be a tremendous aid to the railways in connecting the two lines of the Canadian National railways, that is, the Canadian Northern on the Island of Montreal, and the Intercolonial railway on the South Shore. So the project may be said to be of national interest. At the same time, in the plan I have suggested, under which the money would be borrowed partly from the Federal Government, partly from the Provincial Government, and partly from the municipality, the tolls collected on the bridge would serve to pay the interest and provide for the requirements of a sinking fund.

I believe that the acceptance of my resolution on this project would carry out the idea of the Minister of Public Works. I asked the minister if he was stating that the Government had definitely decided not to give financial aid towards the construction of this bridge. His answer was that the Government had not so decided, but that if the municipalities and the Provincial Government, after looking into the matter, came here with a certain plan the Federal Government might give help in the last resort. Therefore I submit the minister should accept my resolution. When the minister made his statement it seemed to me that he was rather disappointed at my attitude. He stated that he expected that I would enlarge the scope of my argument and would finally ask for a grant from the Government. I am not making any

request of the kind. I am only 9 p.m. asking for the support of the Government for the project. My resolution simply asks that the Government declare itself favourable to it. I again make a plea to the Minister of Public Works and ask him to read the resolution carefully. He will then find that outside of invoking the general support of the Government in the interest of the project the Government is not committed to any future expenditure for this purpose. At the same time I shall be very glad

to have even the Government's moral support toward the construction of this bridge. It might enable the municipalities and the Provincial Government to elaborate a suitable plan and then with the Federal Government's support behind it the people would accord the project better support. Of course if the Government does not accept the resolution I shall have to withdraw it. I did not introduce the resolution in order to force a vote upon it but simply to arouse discussion and obtain the opinion of the House. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the motion.

Resolution withdrawn.

Mr. J. E. PREVOST (Terrebonne) (Translation) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the public interest to allow the public to obtain official information on the work of the Parliament of Canada and to be acquainted with the ministerial declarations, the answers made to questions and interpellations of members and the speeches made in the House, as well as in the Senate.

That the easiest way to put such information within thp reach of the people is to keep a French and an English copy of Hansard in conspicuous places in all the post offices of the country where they could be consulted at any time during office hours.

He said: Mr Speaker, this motion speaks for itself, so it seems that I could dispense with making any comments on the matter.

However in order that I may abide by the prevailing practice in this House, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to offer a few remarks. This motion suggests an effective way of more thoroughly informing the public on the labours of the Canadian Parliament, of deriving the most benefit from the Hansard, which is undoubtedly useful, but the high cost, which is not wholly justified by the services it renders, while it could do so much more for the public.

TMr. Archam'bau'lt.]

I need not insist, Mr. Speaker, that the doings and utterances of the members of parliament are of keen interest to the electors. Moreover, is it not a duty for every elector, every citizen, anxious to see his country well governed, and properly represented in the Commons, to acquaint himself with the questions debated in the House of Parliament, to know what opinions were expressed on any important matter by the members of the Government, what position was taken by the political parties on such and such an occasion? Now, there is but one official and sure source of information on the doings and sayings of the minsters, of the Senators, of the Members of the House, it is to read Hansard. There the speeches and the proceedings in Parliament are faithfully reported. But how to render this reading possible for the mass of the people and even for the educated men of each locality? There is an easy way to do so and it should, to my mind, be adopted by the Government. Why should not a French and an English copy of the Hansard be sent to every postmaster with instruction to place it within reach of all those wishing to consult it? The post office is the nation's house, open to everyone. Let the report of sessional debates be deposited there, so that the speeches and the votes of the legislators may be made officially known to those who have a right and the duty to become acquainted with them.

It would be a reflection on our character to spread the belief that we feared publicity and preferred to keep our doings in the dark. No, I am sure, on the contrary, that all the members of this House would be happy to put within the reach of the public and especially of their constituents the full text of their speeches. The unfavourable press is generally clever enough to publish only that which suits its purpose. I believe it is supremely important to make it possible for the public to be reliably informed as to the sayings and doings of the members. How many times have we not seen false notions spread among the public, give rise to discussions, bring about erroneous opinions which could have easily been rectified if the text of the parliamentary debates had been available. Whatever he said of Hansard', I think that in this country as well as in all others, it is necessary to have an official report of the parliamentary debates where exact information may be looked for. Is not Hansard the only official publication where are to be found registered the ministerial statements,

the words and the votes of our legislators?

I admit that it is costly. All the more reason for making of it an instrument of useful and popular public information, and for making it as efficient as possible. Generally speaking, the Government should without delay take the necessary measures to spread among the Canadian public, the political education Which it lacks. There exist innumerable official documents which are of absolutely no utility for the people who even know nothing of their existence. That is the thought which induced one of our former Governors General, Lord Grey, to suggest that the people should be made familiar with the blue books. He was quite right, but it is more practical and more easy to spread the sheets of Hansard than the cumbersome departmental reports.

Hansard, we must remember, costs us about $150,000 a year, and yet it remains a dead letter for the people. It is hardly used by any one but the members who read over their utterances, and the daily papers which publish from it such extracts as they wish or can, and which besides, are not a source of official information offering sufficient guarantee or impartiality.

Far be it from me the thought of criticizing and much less disparaging the difficult and important profession of journalism, to which I have the honour to belong; but it will be admitted that a piece of information given by a newspaper, however serious and independent it may be, may always be disputed by anyone displeased with it, while the Report of the Debates is an authentic and un disputable document.

A few copies of Hansard are sent to some libraries, to universities, to several colleges and to a restricted number of clubs, but that costly record remains unknown to the public. There are at most 200 subscrib-. ers. It is proper to render it more popular,. more accessible to all, especially to country folks, who for a large part get only weekly newspapers wherein parliamentary reports are necessarily most incomplete.

It would be a boon for the country folks to have a place where they would be sure to find parliamentary publications. In a large number of parishes it is entirely impossible to-day to obtain reports of the House, unless you go to the residences of professional men-and even then! -You have to make a trip or write in order to obtain information concerning public matters.

In several countries, particularly in France, the official parliamentary report is

circulated among the public and handed out at the doors of churches.

The proposal which I put before the House to-night has already been submitted by me a few years ago, and the press strongly supported it at that time. It is . open to alterations, of course, as far as the details of its application are concerned, but its underlying principle is worthy of the approval of this House. Hansard is now very costly without benefiting the public. Is it not legitimate to spend a few thousand dollars more, if need be, to make that diary of parliamentary debates a record of public usefulness which everybody could consult? There are 12,000 postoffices in Canada. The heavy outlays for Hansard cover the cost of shorthand-writing and type-setting. Those expenses are already incurred. The spending of four or five thousand dollars more, if necessary, could not be an extravagance, in order to popularize this official record, which is costing $150,000 a year without any immediate and real advantage to the people.

Mr. Speaker, the official information contained in Hansard should not be kept within the precinct of parliament, nor be only dealt out to the newspapers, but should be disseminated everywhere so that the citizens would be truly enlightened and the people would acquire the taste and habit of following political events with an open mind.

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) :

Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in seconding the motion of my hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost). He has stated in French his arguments in support of the merits of his proposal, and I shall content myself by expressing in English my endorsement of his arguments. In fact, it would not be necessary for me to supplement the case he has so well made out for the adoption of his motion were it not that the language spoken by him is perhaps not understood by every hon. member.

The resolution recommends:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the public interest to allow the public to obtain official information on the work of the Parliament of Canada and to be acquainted with the ministerial declarations, the answers made to questions and interpellations of members and the speeches made in the House, as well as in the Senate.

That the easiest way to put such information within the reach of the people is to keep a French and an English copy of Hansard in conspicuous places in all the post offices of the country where they could be consulted at any time during office hours.

Now, Sir, this resolution is so clearly expressed that there can be no difficulty in at once grasping its idea, which is to put directly before the people what is said and done in this House. At the present time the public is informed of all our proceedings through the medium of the newspapers, but we all know that it is absolutely impossible for their reports to be so complete as to be absolutely accurate; and excellent as are those reports and impartial as it is possible for them to be, we frequently hear hon. members protesting on the floor of this chamber that they have not been correctly reported. The resolution of my hon. friend proposes to give the public a new medium through which they can be informed of our proceedings, and that is through Hansard itself. We have the advantage of having the debates of the House published in French and in English and placed before the members of the House, before the Senate and before a very limited number of persons. The object of this resolution is the placing of Hansard before the public generally. It is just and necessary, and it is also in the interests of the public, of Parliament and the Government, that the debates of the House should be placed before the public in a straightforward way; that is, in such a way that they cannot be questioned. It is necessary to the public, because they pay the cost of the publication of Hansard and they should be entitled to know what their representatives in the House are doing. It is in the interests of Parliament, because those who address the House should have the privilege of having their speeches in their original form and in their entirety placed before the public and particularly before their electors. It is necessary, too, for the Government, because the attitude taken by them from day to day on public questions would be submitted to the public in their entirety and in correct form.

The resolution proposes that one copy in French and one copy in English be deposited in each post office in Canada. The proposal, I understand, can be modified if necessary in the details of its application. Some might say that a copy of French might not be necessary in some centres; others might argue that a copy of English would not be necessary in others. It might be asserted also that a single copy would not be sufficient in large post offices, and other objections might be offered to the motion as presented. The idea in presenting the resolution is not to submit in concrete form a method by which Hansard may

be given to the public, but to give the House an opportunity of pronouncing itself on the principle embodied in the resolution, namely, the - desirability of placing the official debates of this House before the public.

The idea of placing the debates of the House before the public is in line with the necessities of the times. Up to recently there were in this country only two political parties, the Liberal party and the Conservative party. Their policies were expounded before Parliament through their most eminent members; thes.e were published in the press and given out in fairly accurate form. To-day we have three parties; tomorrow we may have four or more. With each new party in Parliament, with each new idea or new design, a new policy may be developed. New doctrines and new thoughts may be introduced and be placed before the public. It is more important, therefore, than it was in the past that the public should have a full and immediate knowledge of what is going on in this House.

The only objection, if I see one, would be the question of cost-in other words, the increased cost of publishing Hansard. In producing Hansard there is a certain basic cost which remains the same no matter how many copies are printed. I have not the exact figures, but I think my hon. friend from Terrebonne is about right when he says that Hansard is costing the country something like $150,000 a year. Perhaps it costs a little more than that, but let us take his figure; if it costs the country $150,000 to publish Hansard and distribute it among a very limited number of persons -leaving aside for the moment from the consideration that Hansard is printed as a work of record-it should be worth while .spending another $50,000 a year, even more if necessary, in order to provide Hansard to the community at large.

Our people are getting more interested year after year-month after month, I might say-in politics. To-day the political questions which are submitted to this House and to the country are of the highest importance. This is a condition which prevails not only in Canada; it is common throughout the world. In all countries parliaments are confronted with matters of the highest importance, and problems difficult to solve. For all these reasons the public have taken a keener interest in politics of late than they ever did before, and that being the case we should give the public an opportunity of having before them the official record of everything that takes place

222a,

in this House. There are in Canada about twelve thousand post offices. If this suggestion were adopted, these post offices, so far as debates of the House are concerned, would be little libraries in themselves in which every member of the community could inform himself upon the various questions which come before this House. Of course, the people would not be able to go all through Hansard; they could not read everything printed in it. But when a question interesting a particular class of the community came up, the members of that class of the community would have the advantage of consulting Hansard and finding out what was said for and against any proposal in which they were interested.

As I have said, my hon. friend from Terrebonne dealt with this subject much better than I can; I had not prepared any remarks with regard to it. But it seems to me that the suggestion is deserving of the sympathy of the House, and I therefore commend the hon. member for bringing it forward. I shall be glad to support the l'esolution.

Mr. H. B. MORPHY (Perth North) :

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain that the mover and the seconder are particularly serious about their advocacy of this radical departure from what is customary at the present time. The first thought that came to me while they were speaking is that, not only is this a radical departure, but it is turning the post offices of the country into what I might call reading rooms which would probably require the setting apart of a room in various public buildings in the nature of a library, and that, in itself, would involve considerable expense. Another idea that came to me was that, for the population and area of Canada, it is very doubtful if there is in the world another country that has to-day a finer press to disseminate the news not only of this Parliament, but of the world, than Canada.

I deprecate the resolution myself when I know that members on this side and, I believe, members on the other side also have been turned down by this Government in nearly everything it has been asked for by way of improvements for the public service and the building of necessary public works. They have been met by refusals on the part of the Government to give what in ordinary times could have been had almost without asking, because of the necessity of such works and improvements. As I view the conduct of this Government to-day it looks as though the Estimates have been slashed and cut down to the bare bone, and this seems to me to be a very inopportune time for hon. gentlemen opposite on the one hand to want to build an expensive bridge to satisfy one section of a community and on the other to crave for the posting up of Hansard in every post office throughout the country, meaning not only the Hansard of this House, but the Hansard of the Senate, and if I understood the mover aright, the journals of the House and other information. The resolution does not set this out, but if I did not mistake what the mover said-and I stand subject to correction-I think he asked for that. In these days, when Canada is burdened with an almost unthinkable debt, when hon. gentlemen opposite, in dealing with the Estimates, are themselves complaining almost unanimously of improper expenditures of money and of the extravagance of this Government, without, I submit, any real justification, it seems rather strange that hon. gentlemen can stand up for something that would satisfy their own whim or fancy and ask the Government to go into riotous expenditures in connection with topics in this House which are served to them daily by their local press, by the metropolitan press, and served in a much more lucid manner than they would ever reach the individual reader through the medium of Hansard.

If I do not mistake the public mind a large number of the people of Canada would like to see Hansard abolished altogether. There is in this country a large and growing feeling that the tremendous expense of the sessions in this House and in the Senate is largely caused by the publication of Hansard. I have heard the suggestion put forward-and it appeals to me very much-that if Hansard cannot be abolished altogether, it could be abolished as regards the proceedings of committees. Then if you added to that some sort of general regulation that, on ordinary subjects, speeches, except by leaders of the House, should be limited to twenty or twenty-five minutes, that is, I think, the line of thought that we should go on. I do not know anything that contributes to the length of the session so much as the unlimited right to speak as long as you like in this House. I believe that if Hansard were curtailed so that probably, instead of three copies being given to each member, the number were limited to two or even one, expense would be saved.

I feel that the subject is introduced at an inopportune time, and it might have been allowed to stand until this country had got

beyond the burden of debt that Canada has now to face. The watchword should be to curtail and curtail and curtail expenses instead of adding to them for a purpose of this kind. Once more I say that the press of this country, the small paper as well as the large, gives a short resume of what goes on in this House, and if there is in the country any individual who wants to get a better resume, the member for the constituency is available with his Hansard on file and two extra copies, which can be handed to the individual who seeks information that cannot be obtained in the daily press.

Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton):

Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset, to express my gratitude that this debate has not taken the proportions that debates on previous occasions have taken when the question of the French language has been brought before this House. It is gratifying that in the last two years matters of this sort have been brought before the House and discussed intelligently without having raised questions which become personal both as to the individual and certain communities. The resolution before the House, I believe, is brought forward sincerely and not in order to satisfy whims and fancies, as has been stated by the hon member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). It is true that the country is getting reports which are perhaps not accurate or at all events which are coloured by the various political papers which disseminate news in their respective jurisdictions. The proposition, however, which is before the House at the present time is that the Government should go to the expense in the long run of establishing what are actually to be archives to be kept in post offices or other public places where the public may resort. That, I believe, is an impossibility as a Government undertaking, both because of the expense it would entail and because of the question as to the advisability of establishing such archives throughout the country.

The dissemination of news in an accurate way, however, is a question which deserves a great deal of consideration and without intending to move any amendment, I think the mover of the resolution would be well advised if he asked this Government to undertake ithe expense of giving the country that information which he has suggested to all those who may so desire it, their names to be tabulated in a list previously to the opening of the session each year. In that way those who are not now receiving Hansard and those papers which they desire

to have for the purpose of informing themselves about particular problems, may have them at a small cost. Let me call your attention, Sir, to the fact also that there is a danger perhaps in acquiescing without some reserve to the resolution which is now before the House in that I find, for instance, that in the year 1707-08 we had before the House a petition praying that railway and other public companies be required to use the French language as well as the English language in their dealings with the public. I find also that in 1909 there was an order of the House for all correspondence and so forth respecting the use of the French language in services of public utility, and that there was also in the same year a petition respecting the printing in both languages of the time of arrival and departure of the trains. These requests are being made to the House of Commons repeatedly by various members, undoubtedly from proper motives and with the best of intentions, but they complicate the subject, and speaking for myself, I would rather support the resolution before the House than the petitions which have been placed before us on previous occasions, because the motive in the present instance is purely that of giving news and accurate information to the public. However, for the reasons I have given, I do not think the resolution will receive the sympathy of the House. Therefore, I think hon. members should rather busy themselves to find out how many of their constituents would require Hansard and to make provision with the Government in order that these people may get it and secure the accurate information they desire.