Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):

I desire to ask a question, and to make it intelligible I shall read a single sentence of a resolution passed unanimously by the British Columbia legislature on the 29th of February last. Divested of whereases, it reads:

Be it resolved that this legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia, now in session, believes it would be in the interest of the Dominion of Canada to grant and pay a subsidy to the railroad for the carrying of coal from each province, on a graduated scale to

Transportation of Coal

be regulated by the railroad commission, as per the distance of each province from the markets of Ontario and Quebec.

That was passed unanimously. Saturday's press contained an announcement that the Minister of the Interior had issued an order in council to the effect that a rate of $6.75 per ton for carrying coal from Alberta to Ontario has been established, with the understanding that any difference between that and a fair profit rate to the railways would be paid by the Dominion government. In view of that statement I would ask him a question, or more properly two questions; or as that is not allowed, I will dividte my question into two sections. The first section is: in the order in council has the minister made provision for extending the arrangement to the coal fields of British Columbia, with of course a pro rata increase according to the extra distance ; secondly, as a number of the most important coal fields of British Columbia are located on Vancouver island, where there are no ready means of shipping in trainloads, but very conveniently situated wharves, will the minister undertake to see that the same arrangement is made as regards ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, so that we can ship our coal at a proportionately low rate and possibly-I say possibly-compete in the central1 provinces, markets on the same basis and the like terms, and be accorded the same measure of assistance as that chimed by Alberta?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question is fairly long and I think the Minister of the Interior ought to be given until to-morrow to submit an answer.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the easiest way to answer the question will be to file the order in council.

Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):

I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior a question based on an article that appeared in Saturady's Citizen with respect to an order in council authorizing a special rate for the transportation of Alberta coal to Ontario. My question is this: Presuming that article to be

correct, will the province of Nova Scotia be accorded like treatment for the transportation of coal to the province of Quebec during the winter months-not the summer months.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of

the Interior: The movement of Nova Scotia coal is now under consideration, chiefly by 56103-93

the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), as it is a railway matter.

Mr. HANSON:

How about New Brunswick coal?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I Should

have said coal from the maritime .provinces.

Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he has yet received a report from the Exchequer Court regarding the claims of Home Bank depositors?

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):

No.

Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Department of National Defence has sent an aeroplane to Maine to help in the search for Captain Hinchcliffe. In view of the unsuccessful but heroic attempts at aerial flights westward from Europe, may I ask if the government has considered the advisability of co-operating in such attempts? I know the fliers may be regarded as foolhardy, but I think Canada would benefit by a successful flight from Great Britain, and I should like to see governmental co-operation with the British authorities.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, where cooperation is asked for or suggested it is readily given, and we have repeatedly co-operated where there may have been failure or prospective failure to complete these trans-atlantic flights. We have made no special arrangements with the Imperial authorities, nor has our co-operation been sought.

Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, before you declare the motion carried, I crave the indulgence of the house to place on record the opposition of the government of the province of Ontario to this bill, and also the opposition of the Niagara Falls Park Commission. The commission

1452 COMMONS

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

controls the 2,000 acres of park system from one end of the river to the other. It also controls the river bank and the land under the river up to the international boundary.

To me, Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the government should allow a bill of this kind to pass in face of the opposition of the provincial authorities. Of course, I shall be told that this is a private bill, but when it first appeared on the order paper it contained no declaration that the proposed bridge was a work for the general advantage of Canada, and the government having been instrumental in amending the bill in this respect, must take responsibility for it as a government measure. I say again, it is very strange to me that the government should fly in the face of the provincial government, which controls all the highways up to the bridges on the Niagara river, and, in effect, tell the government of Ontario that a charter is to be granted to this private company to erect a bridge over the river and on the park commission's land.

The opposition of the province of Ontario is not a factious opposition, but is based on sound grounds. The main reason for opposing the charter is that the bridge is not needed, and, further, that it will mar the scenic beauties of both the gorge and the falls. At the present time within a distance of six miles there are four bridges, one for railway traffic and the other three for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, there is a vehicular and pedestrian bridge at Buffalo, as well as a second railway bridge.

The engineer of the Niagara Falls Park Commission appeared before the private bills committee and gave evidence that the present bridges are capable of carrying 100 per cent more traffic; but the promoters did not call an engineer in support of their project.