1916-04-25

DEATH OF PRIVATE D. CURRY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Inquiry was
made in the House on the 18th instant with regard to the case of Private Dougall Curry, who died at St. Joseph's Hospital, Glace Bay. The following telegram was sent to the General Officer Commanding, Military District No. 6, Halifax, N.S.:
Reference late Private Dougall Curry who died at St. Joseph's Hospital, Glace Bay, and your telegram dated 21st instant: what was cause of delay in notifying Captain Calder of admission of Private Curry to hospital? Give name of person responsible for Captain Calder not being notified promptly. Urgent.
(Sgd.) Adjutant-General.
The reply was as follows:
Reference death of Private Dougall Curry, St. Joseph's Hospital, Glace Bay. Patient first complained eight p.m., Aprii 2 ; was kept in bed and seen daily by Captain Munro, battalion medical officer. Felt himself improving until April 5, when within a few hours he became worse. At five p.m. was sent from Broughton by special train to St. Joseph's Hospital, Glace Bay, in charge of an orderly who had a note from Captain Munro asking for patient's admission to hospital. Patient arrived in hospital 7 p.m., April 5. Captain Calder, who attends military patients in hospitals, Glace Bay, was not notified until noon next day of patient's arrival in hospital. Captain Calder states that the delay in seeing Dougall Curry in St. Joseph's Hospital had nothing to do with patient's death as it was a case of tubercular meningitis. Medical Board also reports that case was tubercular meningitis.
A medical board was also assembled in this case, and its findings were as follows :
This board, in view of the above, is of the opinion that Private D. Curry died. of tuberculous meningitis.
(Sgd.) W. E. Hodgins, Major General,
Acting Adjutant-General.



ENLISTMENT UNDER AGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CARVELL:: I desire to ask the Premier, as the Acting Minister of Militia, if
any policy has been adopted regarding boys who have enlisted who are under age or who are very much under the age of eighteen years. I have here a letter, which I will send over to my Tight hon. friend, from a lady living in the county of Victoria, who lays a very serious complaint against the recruiting officer at Andover. She claims that her boy was inveigled into joining the army at fifteen years of age, and that when the recruiting officer was told over the telephone that the boy was only fifteen years of age, he stated that the boy had told him he was eighteen and that he had as good a right to believe,the boy as to believe his mother. The boy was signed on, and now he wants his discharge, and his mother is anxious to have him discharged. I do not want to mention names. I believe this matter has already been brought up by the hon. member for Two 'Mountains (Mr. Ethier), and I do not know exactly what decision has been reached. If any policy has been adopted, I would like to know what it is, and I would like if the Prime Minister would reply in regard to the letter, either publicly or confidentially, as he sees fit.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not had my attention directed to the subject recently, but I have always understood that the policy is not to enlist boys under eighteen years of age. If that is not the policy, it ought to be the policy. I will take up the case to which my hon. friend has drawn my attention and see that steps are taken that the boy who is of the age of fifteen years or under eighteen shall be discharged and returned to his parents.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is very satisfactory. I did not want to read the letter and make it public; but the Prime Minister, when he reads it, will understand the reasons why I brought the matter up.



REBUILDING OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROGERS:: May I once again direct the attention of the House to the rebuilding of the Parliament Buildings? Good progress is being made with the preparation of the plans, and we are now ready to give more detailed consideration to the carrying out of the work, and it has been suggested that the committee to be appointed should be increased to four from each side of the

House. I have no objection to the suggestion, and if it is agreeable to the Prime Minister and to the right hon. leader of the Opposition, I shall be very glad to have the names of four from each side of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already intimated to the Minister of Public Works the names of three of my colleagues. I told him, when m.y attention was drawn to the matter about a week ago, that I would name a fourth, and I did so. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we are ready to confer with the Minister of Public Works. If my right hon. friend would name four gentlemen from the other side of the House, the work could be taken up at once; and it seems to me, in view of the hope, somewhat remote, that we may have the buildings ready for next session, that no time should be lost.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I will send the names to the Minister of Public Works this very day.



CENSORED MAIL MATTER FROM THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I desire again to call
the attention of the Postmaster General through the Premier to the present status of the censoring of correspondence coming from foreign countries into Canada. There is at present experienced in this country an enormous amount of difficulty in transacting business, which I think every member of this House must have observed if he has talked with his constituents during the holidays. I find that it takes usually about a week to get an ordinary business letter from Boston to the province of New Brunswick, when it ought to take about a day and a night. I saw it stated in some newspapers during the recess that the censorship was to be discontinued after Wednesday of last week, and I know of one letter passing between Canada and the United States which was not censored, but I have found others which have been censored sinc'e then. If the Government claim that they are compelled to carry out this work of censorship, I suppose the public have nothing to do but submit; but I would like to have a pronouncement from the Premier upon the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: We are not compelled to carry it out, because it is a mat-[.Mr. Rogers.]
ter which the Government of this country has the right to determine. Secret documents of an important character were sent-to us by the Imperial Government. If I am not mistaken, my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has been made acquainted with the terms of that communication. We felt, under the circumstances, that if it was reasonably possible we should comply with the request that was made. There has been an earnest endeavour on the part of the Postmaster General and his officials to have it carried out in an effective way and with the least possible disturbance and delay. The magnitude of the task, I understand, has been very great, it having been undertaken without the assistance of any additional officials. If I am not mistaken at certain of the offices to which mail for the United States must be sent for censorship-technically called exchange offices, I believe -it has been necessary to deal with some 250,000 letters a day. Considering the enormous number of letters which have thus to be dealt with, the number of complaints that have come to the Government have not' been very great. Undoubtedly mistakes have been made, and sometimes they have been made the second time even after they have been pointed out and the instructions made more emphatic.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Prime Minister
will permit me-would not he tell the House at what points in Canada this censoring takes place? Does it take place in every little country post office?


Robert Laird Borden: No. There
are these exchange offices to which I have referred. Mail for the United States originating within a certain district is sent to Toronto, originating within a different district is sent to Montreal, and so on with other places. All the work of the censorship takes place at these exchange offices and not at the office of origin. In the same way letters from the United. States addressed to any point within a certain district go to Montreal, and others to other exchange offices, from which, after being censored, they are sent to their destination. It is at these exchange offices, which have been called upon to handle such an enormous number of letters, that the errors and delays have taken place.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thank the Prime Minister for the information he has given the House. I am sure it will relieve a great-

deal of anxiety that has been felt all over Canada because of the fear that letters may have been opened by practically any country postmaster. While I am on this subject, I would like to suggest that some mark be put upon a censored letter to show that it has been opened by an official of the department. As things are now, the letter is simply slit open and then a piece of paper market " censored " is pasted on the envelope. Any body could go to a newspaper office and get thousands of such slips printed. So any country postmaster, or any one having access to postal matter, could open correspondence and having done so mark it " censored," and there would be no means of knowing by whom it was done. If our correspondence must be censored, means should be taken to give us assurance that the censoring is done by officials of the department. I can understand, after the Prime Minister's explanation, that, as letters have to go to central clearing offices, there might easily be delay. Before I sit down I would like to point out that it is almost impossible to conceive of the necessity for censoring letters of members of Parliament and well-known business concerns carrying on their ordinary business. But, if there be a good reason for it, I think the Government should tell us what it is.


Robert Laird Borden: For the purpose of identification, every person employed in the work of censorship has a number. When he censors a letter and puts on the slip, he must put on his number, which indicates to the department that he has censored the letter. I am not sure that this system has prevailed from the first; but in consequence of the errors that were made it was found necessary to adopt means that would show who was' responsible for errors, and this is the plan adopted, as I am informed by the Postmaster General. The Deputy Postmaster General has informed me that the procedure followed in censorship in this country is -the same as that followed in Great Britain.



PUNISHMENT OF PRIVATE SOLDIERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister, who is the Acting Minister of Militia to a matter of importance. We have in Moosejaw the 128th Battalion. There is a generally-accepted belief that the following incident occurred in that battalion. It is
reported on such authority that I believe it to be true; but it is not impossible that it is only a rumour: that a short time ago the officer commanding inflicted a punishment upon a private who came under his displeasure by suspending him by the arms for an hour or so until the boy fainted; and that a similar mode of punishment has been adopted by the same officer in other cases. I have looked into the matter as carefully as I can, though, of course, anything occurring in military circles is closely walled about. It looked so serious that it seemed to me to be my duty, the boy having no other recourse, to call the attention of the Government to the matter. Different public bodies in Moosejaw have taken it up, but have failed to get the light on the subject that would easily be afforded in any matter non-military. If the facts be as reported, the barbarous bully who would inflict such punishment should be removed; and if the report be not true, it should be contradicted at once, so that a rumour so prejudicial to recruiting may be set at rest.
. I would ask the Prime Minister to take the matter up, by telegraph if that course commends itself to him, and have it settled one way or the other.


Robert Laird Borden: I can hardly believe it possible that any such incident could have taken place. But it will be my duty, of course, to make inquiries. If the hon. member for Moosejaw will send me a memorandum, giving me the name of the commanding officer, and of the private who is said to have been punished in this way, it will facilitate the investigation.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Prince Edward Island railway-bridges, etc., $613,100.
Mr. CARVELL. I wish to direct my hon. friend's attention to the present status of the negotiations with the Government of New Brunswick regarding the St. John and Quebec Railway. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, in the absence of the Acting Minister of Railways, gave us a great deal of information on this matter-information so valuable that it has created quite a stir in the province of New Brunswick. I do not want to be uncomplimentary, but I sometimes have a little doubt whether we could get as much information from the minister himself; I think possibly he would have been a little more reserved. Now that we have got that information from the Min-
[Stage Direction]
ister of Public Works, would my hon. friend tell me whether there has been any change in the status of the 'arrangements between the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick concerning the construction and operation of that railway? Before he answers I may tell him that, as X understand the information given by the Minister of Public Works something like a month ago, the Government has gone back on its pledge to operate that road and pay 40 per cent of the gross earnings to the province of New Brunswick. That may be putting it very bluntly, hut no other language would express it as well as * these words. On different occasions from 1911 to 1914 legislation was passed in this House agreeing that if the province of New Brunswick would construct a railway from Grand Falls to St. John the Federal Government would take it over and operate it as part of the Intercolonial, paying to the province 40 per cent of the gross earnings. We were told by the Minister of Public Works that the Federal Government would not carry out that legislation, on the ground that it was hardly a fair arrangement so far as the Dominion of Canada was concerned. We were told also that, under an agreement between the two Governments, the Government of New Brunswick was not to construct the road from Centreville to Andover. It seems to be admitted all round that the branch at Grand Falls was abandoned long ago. It was agreed also that the Government of Nbw Brunswick was not to construct bridges across the St. John river at the Mistake, or across the Kennebecasis *river; that it was to build the road along the west side of the Tiver, possibly to Westfield or to Welsford; and that it was to build a branch to Vanceboro from some point on the railway north of Fredericton, the exact point not being given-the only place named by the Minister of Public Works was MeduQtic. I do not think that could be the intention of the Government; it would be utterly nonsensical to build a branch to Meductic.
["The hon. gentleman does not always think so in regard to Senate Bills.\n' Mr. SCHAFFNER: I think so in this case."]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Meductic Falls ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, to the village of Meductic, some ten or twelve miles above the Falls. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows the place.


George Eulas Foster: The Grosvenor place.
	*


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the place. Of course, a road could be built from there, but the difficulty is that we should be 'Compelled to build 25 or 30 miles on American territory in order to strike the Maine Central, so I think that idea will have to be abandoned. I have stated to the acting minister the substance of the information given us by the Minister of Public Works on a former occasion, and I would be much obliged if he would tell the committee the actual status of the negotiations and agreements at the present time.
. Mr. REID: I yras sorry that I could not be present when the matter was brought to the attention of the House by the Minister of Public Works. I had made arrangements to be away that day, and unfortunately could not be here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I find no fault whatever with the acting minister.


Mr. REID:: I expect to bring in some legislation in regard to this railway in the course of a day or two, and a discussion of the matter might perhaps take place at that time, if that would be satisfactory to the hon. member. I can explain to him, however, in a few words, the situation so far as I understand it without the papers being before me. The hon. gentleman will remember that the original intention was to build this railway from Grand Falls to, I think, Rothesay on the Intercolonial, and then into St. John. At that time bridges were to be built over the rivers, the cost of which was estimated at about $1,000,090. Afterwards it was represented to the Government that these bridges would cost some $3,000,000. The hon. gentleman will remember that a Bill was introduced and passed by which the Government agreed to build these bridges.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I remember that very well.


John Dowsley Reid: Since that time there have been changes in the railway situation in New Brunswick. At that time the Grand Trunk Pacific was to operate the Transcontinental through to Moncton, and the St. John Valley railway was to make connection .between the Grand Trunk Pacific line and the city of St. John. For that reason the line was to be built to Grand Falls. When the Government took over the Transcontinental, so far as St. John was concerned it was not necessary to _ build between Andover and Grand Falls, as this would be parallelling the Canadian Pacific

railway, and as the Intercolonial had connection with the Transcontinental at Mc-Givney Junction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then I understand that the branch from Andover to Grand Fails has been absolutely abandoned.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say that; that would be for the New Brunswick Government to take up and determine. So far as we are concerned, any negotiations had up to the present are in respect of the line to Andover, but there is no reason why the matter should not be taken up at some future time if it should be thought advisable. What I mean is that, so far as the connection between St. John and the Transcontinental is concerned, we have it by running over the Gibson road, I think they call it, and connecting at MoGivney Junction. As I understand the situation, a passenger can connect with the Transcontinental by going over the St. John Valley road to Andover, and then over the Canadian Pacific railroad, to the Transcontinental.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is almost correct. At the present time there is no connection between the Canadian Pacific railroad and the Transcontinental. Of course, one may be effected.


John Dowsley Reid: The situation up to the present, so far as the St. John Valley road is concerned, is this: the road has been under construction for some time, and the Department of Railways and Canals, as I understand it, have taken over each portion as it was completed and operated it pending the completion of the connection into St. John.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But they are not paying the 40 per cent.


John Dowsley Reid: I refer to the portion from Centreville to Gagetown. The understanding at the time, if my memory serves me rightly, was that they were to pay the 40 per cent and the 60 per cent for a certain time. That arrangement remained in effect until about the beginning of this year, when the Minister of Railways and Canals took the matter up again with the New Brunswick Government, and made an arrangement that the Intercolonial authorities were to operate that section pending any new arrangement that might be made with the New Brunswick Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think my hon. friend is in error. As I understood him, he stated that when those different sections were completed they were operated up to the beginning of the present year under the original arrangement providing for the payment of 40 per cent to the Government of New Brunswick. That is not correct; I have a statement to the contrary. A special arrangement was made by the Government of New Brunswick with the Intercolonial authorities about the beginning of 1915, by which the latter were to operate, and I do not know what percentage of profits, if any, were to go to the Government of New Brunswick. But, if any loss was incurred, the Government of New Brunswick was to pay one-half of it, which is certainly not carrying out the original arrangement. That is one of the things of which we in the province of New Brunswick complain so bitterly.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps I am in error, so far as 1915 was concerned, as I had nothing to do with the negotiations, and perhaps I had better let that part of the matter stand until I get fuller information. But, commencing on January 1, 1916, the arrangement, as I understand,' it, was that the Intercolonial was to operate the sections when completed, and that whatever arrangement was made it would be retroactive, commencing on the 1st of January, 1916. I have been myself conducting negotiations with some members of the New Brunswick Government, with reference to this matter, and the information was given by the Minister of Public Works. The correspondence is in Hansard, so that it is not necessary for me to go into that any further, except to say that, when I bring down this measure, it will show that we will take over the road and pay 40 per cent and 60 per cent from the 1st of January, 1916. We will operate the section between Centreville and Gagetown after it is completed, and other parts, as completed, will be taken over on that basis, until the road is finished to Westfield. When the Andover section is completed we will take it over on the same basis.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What about the branch connecting the St. John Valley road and the American system at Vanceboro?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member says Vanceboro.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will change that to any point on the Maine Central.


John Dowsley Reid: If we were to connect with the Maine Central at Vancebo.ro there is a bridge that cou1' be crossed. That is at

3064	COMMONS
the terminus of the Maine Central in the United. States. Of course, the Canadian Pacific railway, runs to Vanceboro. If we connected at Vanceboro we would have to build about forty-five miles of railway in Canada. We have had a proposition to connect with the Maine Central at another point, Meductic, which would mean that only twenty-five miles of railway would require	to be built
in Canada, while the Maine Central would have to build about 15 miles on the American side. Negotiations have been going on to have a connection in that way, which would probably serve 'the purposes of the Transcontinental better than a connection at Vanceboro. I do not know what the final conclusion of the negotiations will be, but there is a possibility that the connection may be made, not at Vanceboro, but at some other point. The portion from Cen-treville to St. John will be completed this fall,- I understand.
Mr. 'CARVELL: This fall?
Mr; REID:	Between now and January.
At all events, the date is set in the agreement, and it strikes me that it is within the next eight or. tee. months that they are to be at Westfield. There are a good many reasons for changing the original arrangement. It would probably take two or three years to build those bridges, and the cost would be a least $3j000,000.
' Mr. CARVELL:	Mr. Maxwell puts it at

.Mr.: REID:	The hon. member will agree
with me that our experience in this House has been that very few public works aTe completed, within the estimate of the engineers; at least that has been my experience.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It may toe the minister's experience.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has been
here a good many years, and I think it has been his experience also. At any rate, that is the situation so far as I know it. When the matter .comes before the House again, I will see that the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., has an opportunity to discuss it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is quite satisfactory.


Mr. GRAHAM:: These Estimates amount to $19,000,000. .The acting minister has told us .that he, intends to introduce legislation in regard to the St, John Valley railway. Would not this ,be an opportune time for the acting minister to tell the committee
	-	:
frankly what other legislation, besides that dealing with the St. John Valley railway proposal, he or any other member of' the Government intends to introduce during the present session? It is persistently rumored in the press that the Government is going to bring down measures providing for aid to two railways. and more than aid to a third one. In the Estimates here, we have a peculiar item providing for a subsidy, not brought down in the usual subsidy bill but brought down in the Estimates. That, to my mind, is done to cover up the retreat of the Government, so that they may be able to tell various people who have applied for subsidies that the Government are not bringing down any subsidy Bill, the same object is achieved as would be under such a Bill. What I think the Government ought to do new, before the Railway Estimates go into the House, is to tell the House frankly what further amounts they propose to give to any company or companies, or what am.ounts they have promised to give during the present session? The acting minister will readily see that if this estimate for capital expenditure were $40,000,000 instead of $19,000,000 it would make a difference in the Estimates going through. Unless the Government tell us this, we might pass the Estimates, and then they would be in a position to say to the House:	"We Jiavo
got the ordinary estimates of $19,000,000 through, and now we propose, in another measure, to obligate, the country to a very much further amount." Do not the Government think that it would be wise and fair that they should tell the committee exactly what legislation they propose to bring in, and what the whole amount of; any further obligation of the country to these railway companies would be? I read this morning in the press that aid would be given to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern, and the Quebec & Saguenay. If the press knows about it, and it seems to, is it fair for the Government to ask this House to plod along in the dark and vote $20,000,000 of Railway Estimates here, while at the same time the minister keeps up his sleeve three other Bills that perhaps will impose an obligation upon the country of more than $19,000,000. Let us have it all at oned so that, while discussing these .Estimates, we may know what further amount the Government is. going to ask the House to, provide for during the present session..


John Dowsley Reid: As far .ps the St. John, Valley road is concerned, the 'bringing in of this Bill will save the country an expenditure of some $3,000,000. The intention was, as I explained to the hon. member for Carle-ton ('Mr. Carvel-1), that when the last arrangement was made to build the bridges across the Kennebecasis river. Under this new arrangement we do not have to build the bridges and we save their cost. As far as the subsidy to the Edmonton, Dun-vegan and British Columbia railway is concerned, the hon. member will recollect that last year there was great pressure to have this railway extended through a portion of Alberta. There was a lot of grain to be moved, and in order to assist that section it was agreed to give them this subsidy for a number of miles. As I understand, there was an enormous quantity of wheat raised in that district, and the advantage has been very great. It was put in there for the reason that if no other subsidies were brought down, this subsidy would have to go in this way, unless we brought down a special subsidy Act. As far as any further legislation is concerned, I may say that I have not heard of any more being discussed or being brought down at the present time.


George Perry Graham: How far does the present extend ?
CMr. REID: It extends up to this. time.


George Perry Graham: Or to the end of the session ?


John Dowsley Reid: Up to this time. As to something having been published in a newspaper with regard to this matter, all I have to say is that you cannot always believe what the newspapers say; at least I do not always believe it. But, so far as these Estimates are concerned, even if we pass them, there is no possibility of their getting through without the hon. memoer knowing whether any further legislation will be brought down. The hon. member knows as well as the rest of us that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern have had a great deal of difficulty in carrying on their great enterprises. 'The war has put them into a very serious position; but whether there will be any other legislation I cannot say, for the reason that it has not been taken up yet and dealt with by the Government.


Mr. NESBITT:: I am surprised to hear the hon. gentleman say that you cannot believe everything you read in the news-
1931	1
papers. But, when the hon. member says he does not know whether there is any further legislation to be brought down in reference to these railways, I think he is asking us to draw on our imaginations considerably, because it is generally understood not only in the newspapers, but outside of the newspapers, that there will be further legislation on behalf of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. I thoroughly endorse what my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) says, that if there is going to be further legislation in reference to railways, this is the time to let us know. In the first place, we are anxious to wind up the session, and, in the next place, it is necessary for us to know at some time and we might as well know now as at any other time and be prepared for it. 'If the rumour that we will be asked to vote more money to the Canadian Northern or the Grand Trunk Pacific is correct, it would be well to take that into consideration at the same time as the other estimates. We have an item here of $3,000,000 for the Hudson Bay railway. If we are going to be asked large amounts of money for some other purposes, surely we can do without certain amounts in the items that we are asked to vote here, because we have actually to limit the amount of money that we vote this, year for various purposes. These things may be required and they may not be required. Personally speaking, I do not think the Hudson bay item is required, but I am afraid that the majority of members on both sides of the House do not agree with me in that respect. At the same -time we have to cut our coat according to our cloth to a certain extent. No business man would consider the expenses of part, of his business without considering the whole. If he did he would not be long in business. Why the Government should not adopt the same policy, and why they should not give us their confidence as to what they expect us to vote, is more than I can understand. The acting minister must know if there is to be any further legislation brought in, and, if so, I cannot understand why he does not let us know now-because we hope this session is not going to last all summer-just what assistance to railways he will expect us to vote. We could then consider all -these items at the same time, and probably get the minister to curtail some of the items he is asking us to vote now.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Did I understand the minister to guarantee that if we dut through this subsidy for the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway, no further railway aid legislation would be brought down this session?


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I am concerned, I have no other subsidies under consideration at the present time.


George Perry Graham: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


John Gillanders Turriff: The minister knows very well that he has not answered my question. He knows that the Government had expected this session would be closed by this time or shortly after, and he knows perfectly well whether or not any further subsidies are to be asked for, and what railway legislation it is proposed to bring down this session.	.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think they know that.


John Gillanders Turriff: If they do not know that, they should not be there.


William Erskine Knowles: They have to fix the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) first.
Some hon. MRMBERS: Carried.


John Gillanders Turriff: They all say "carried" to fixing the hon. member for Calgary. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is a very sensible one. Before we pase that $19,-OQO.OOO item, I think we should know exactly what railway 'assistance the Government proposes to give this session-what they propose to do with regard to .the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern railway, and the Quebec and Saguenay railway. Until 'we have that information I think we should be amply justified in postponing consideration of these items, and J would suggest that some other minister go on with his Estimates until my hon. friend or some other member of the Government is in a position to come down and say: "We propose to give such and such assistance to such and such a railway;" and if no assistance is to be given, the House should be given that 'assurance. But, with no information before us as to what the Government intend to do in the matter of railway legislation between now and the end of the; session, which we all hope will be in the near future, it is asking a great deal to ask the .members of this House to vote 
this $19,000,000, and I would suggest that we postpone consideration of the matter until the Government is in a position to give the House the information we have asked for.


John Dowsley Reid: It was the intention to take up the Estimates of some other department this afternoon, and it was in order to accommodate certain hon. gentlemen who could not be present at another time that I took up my Estimates to-day. If there is any objection to passing any of these items, I am willing to let them stand; but, as there are many that hon. members wish to discuss I see no reason why we should not go on and discuss them now. If we do not do that, some hon. members might not have an opportunity later on of discussing them. With regard to future legislation, the answer I gave the hon. member just now explains the position at present.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest that what has	been said by my
colleague the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals might be taken into account. It seems that hon. gentlemen do not want all the Estimates to go through until they have been given certain information they desire, but I see no reason why some of these items should not be taken up and discussed and perhaps passed. There is no particular objection to holding an item or two for a general discussion and for eliciting any information that is desired; but at this time of the session, when we want to get all the business done as rapidly as possible, I think there is some force in the suggestion of my colleague that we should go on with some of these items.


George Perry Graham: Ordinarily that would
be the part of wisdom. The difficulty is that to these items, which are all large, there will probably be added other items, in the way of Bills, either providing for the expenditure of large amounts of money or increasing the obligations of the country to railway enterprises of more or less significance. If this were an ordinary
4 p.m. case I should have no objection at all to getting rid of some of these small items; but the point is this. The press tells us that these items will be augmented very materially, and, until we know what these further items are to be, I do not think we should be asked to vote these large amounts. I would suggest that the acting minister tell the House now
ft

what other railway legislation is to be brought down which will further obligate the country. That information may bear on the discussion of the items before us, many of which are large, such as the Hudson Bay railway, the National Transcontinental, and the Welland canal. If we are to undertake other large expenditures in addition to these, it is only fair that the House should know what they aTe going to be. We are a little dubious as to what may happen. The Government has seen fit to slip in a subsidy amongst the ordinary Estimates, which is establishing a precedent. Hon. gentlemen know that subsidies are invariably brought down in what is know as a Subsidy Bill-separate altogether from the Estimates. Each item is discussed on its merits, if the House sees fit, and a separate Act is passed. A year ago the Government assured a lot of applicants that no Subsidy Bill would be brought down; but here, in the Estimates, not in a Subsidy Bill, they are providing for the payment of a subsidy of $384,000. ' If this practice is to be followed, a dozen subsidies could be placed in the Estimates. Under the circumstances, then, I think it would be wise for the Government to put their cards on the table and tell us what they propose to do in the way of aid to railways. We shall then be prepared to discuss intelligently the items before us, and perhaps we may have to cut some of them down if the other expenditures are to be large. I repeat that this is not an ordinary case of taking up the items one by one, and allowing one or two to stand/ on which all the information can be given. If we pass all the other items, the information as to these subsidies will not help us out of the difficulty,


George Eulas Foster: There is force in some parts of what my hon. .friend says, while in other parts there is not quite so much force, if he will allow me to- say so.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: There is a great deal of force.


George Eulas Foster: Item 110 introduces a new principle, that is, voting a subsidy as a 'Supplementary Estimate.


George Perry Graham: That was not my point. My point was that the Government may bring in half a dozen subsidies as Supplementary Estimates.


George Eulas Foster: If they do they cannot surprise you with them, as they will be brought down in the regular way.


George Perry Graham: In an irregular way.


George Eulas Foster: There are, however, a number of items, which, whether others are brought in or not, have, to put it mildly, to be passed, because the work must go on. For instance, with reference to the Prince Edward Island railway, there are items for strengthening bridges, original construction, surveys and inspections, increase of accommodation and facilities, also a small amount to provide for the car ferry. That is an old matter, and this vote is to carry to completion and to operate what has already been agreed upon by both sides of the House. Then there is an item to bring the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway line up to Intercolonial railway branch line standard.


George Perry Graham: We passed that the other night.


George Eulas Foster: Then there is the item to bring the International line up to the Intercolonial branch line standard.


George Perry Graham: We have already passed a number of the items which my hon. friend has mentioned. These are yet to be passed: numbers 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 118, 120, 123.


George Eulas Foster: The different items in item 103 are all ordinary items for carrying out a policy which has already been agreed upon in reference to the car ferry. Item No. 106, the Hudson Bay railway, is also an old subject. That item is to carry out what has been under progress for a considerable length of time, and the work must be proceeded with, I suppose, unless the House comes, to the conclusion that we are to stop operations on that road. The same is true of item No. 107, National Transcontinental railway.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend, it he keeps on, will make out too strong a case.


William Pugsley: I thought the Transcontinental was completed a long time ago.


George Eulas Foster: Unless my hon. friend, wishes to push the matter as far as not to allow anything to pass, because he is afraid that something else may be put in the Supplementary Estimates-which is not very brave .of my hon. friend-I think we should make some progress with these items.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is not putting the matter quite rightly. I did not say " for fear that

something may be put in the Supplementary Estimates." I said that that could be done. There are yet to come before the House three railway measures asking for aid.


Robert Rogers: Are you sure of that?


George Perry Graham: The Government press will have to be muzzled if that is not true.


George Eulas Foster: That will be a hard operation.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: That announcement by the Minister of Public Works will send the stocks down to-morrow.


George Perry Graham: In the hope and full confidence that that additional legislation, will be introduced, several things are taking place every day. The chief point that I raised was this: we shall be here only a short time, we all hope. We ought, therefore, to know now what the railway legislation is to be, particularly that part of it which will put the country under further obligation. If it were early in the session that these Estimates were up, it would be a different matter, but there carmot be more than a few days between the passage of these items and the introduction of that railway legislation. The Government, therefore,
[DOT] ought to give us an idea of their programme in reference to railway legislation so that the members will know what they are asked to vote for railway purposes including the Estimates. I would suggest that we discuss this Prince Edward Island railway item for a little while, and then perhaps the Government will be in a position to give us their programme in regard to railway legislation.


William Erskine Knowles: Last fall it was announced that the Government had made a rate of six cents per bushel, or ten cents per cwt. on grain shipped all-rail from Armstrong to the East. So far as I know, no statement has yet been made in regard to that, just as no statement has yet been made in regard to the commandeering of wheat, anxiously as we have been looking for it. We would be pleased to have a statement from the minister as to the policy and how it worked out.


John Dowsley Reid: I explained that matter the other evening in the hon. member's absence, but I will do so again. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) made a rate of six cents from Armstrong to Montreal and Quebec during' the season while

navigation was closed, and so far as the Transcontinental is concerned that rate is still being kept in force between Armstrong and Quebec. A quantity of grain has been carried over the Transcontinental during the season between the closing of navigation and the opening.


William Erskine Knowles: What was the reason for giving that special rate?


John Dowsley Reid: It was in order to relieve
the congestion in the West by taking the grain East. There was a very large crop, and the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur were filled.


William Pugsley: Did it relieve the situation?	.


John Dowsley Reid: Eight million bushels were
carried over the Transcontinental.


William Pugsley: That is a mere bagatelle.


John Dowsley Reid: I think it was quite a help
tc take out 8,000,000 bushels. I do not know whether the member from the West will agree with my hon. friend.


William Erskine Knowles: Where did the grain
go to?


John Dowsley Reid: To Quebec, St. John, Halifax and Montreal. Some was shipped through to St. John for export.


William Erskine Knowles: Via Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.	[DOT]


William Erskine Knowles: How much?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot tell off-hand.


William Erskine Knowles: Approximately? That
is a very important matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I can get the figures. I
know there was grain shipped to the elevator at Quebec for 'Storage until the opening of navigation.


William Erskine Knowles: What is its storage
capacity?


John Dowsley Reid: One million five hundred
thousand bushels. Some went to Halifax for export, and of course a lot went to Montreal for export.


William Erskine Knowles: What went to Montreal does not concern us, because it would not go by the Government road.


John Dowsley Reid: All the ports were congested.


William Erskine Knowles: How much grain went to Halifax and how much to St. John for

305P
-export? What route did it go by, and what was the rate from Winnipeg to the shipping point?
Did six cents carry it to the seaport? If not, how much did it cost to carry the wheat from Winnipeg to the seaport? Can the minister state now what that rate was?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not these rates before me. But six cents is the summer Tate to Montreal, and that rate would be added to if the grain had to be sent to Portland, St. John, or Halifax. But the six-cent rate must have been quite a help, I should think, because it mean that they got the summer rate from the closing to the opening of navigation. The rate from Winnipeg to Armstrong is similar to that from Winnipeg to Fort William.


William Erskine Knowles: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman will see that this was equalizing the rate between Winnipeg and Montreal. The six-cent rate would be practically the same as that *by rail to Port Arthur and thence by vessel to Montreal, and thus it should have been a great advantage to those who were able to ship during the winter season.


William Pugsley: Is it not true that there is really no elevator system to speak of in [DOT]connection with the Government system of railways? The elevator at St. John was burned down two years ago, and not a step has been taken to rebuild it. St. John formerly had good elevator accommodation. There is no elevator accommodation whatever in connection with the Transcontinental. So, while the rate was given to Quebec, there was no encouragement to shippers, no facilities were provided for handling the grain at the seaport. The result is that little advantage was taken *of the rate. The minister speaks of eight million bushels as though it were a large quantity. With proper elevator accommodation and train service the Transcontinental ought to have carried ten times as much. Why, there is over ten million bushels of wheat, on the Goose Lake Branch of the Canadian Northern alone, hung up during the season to the very great loss of the farmers. Yet, 'the minister talks about eight millions [DOT]as a large quantity to be carried over the Transcontinental, one of the finest railways in the world-at least it is one of the finest so far as it was carried out under ithe auspices of the late Government. If
the Government had got to work at the proper time, had rebuilt the St. John elevator, and had enlarged the elevator accommodation at Halifax and Quebec, the Transcontinental might have been made a real factor in the transportation situation. Surely, before these Estimates pass, the Government ought to give an explanation of their want of activity, their want of foresight, their want of attention to the necessities of the case. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is one that ought to be acted upon. The Minister of Railways coming before this Parliament is like a board of directors coming to consult the shareholders-we representatives of the people are here on behalf of those who have to bear the burdens. The minister tells us: I want you to vote $19,000,000 for various woTks to be carried on. The people, through their representatives in this Parliament, say to the Government: When you are asking for these vast amounts of money you ought to show your hand, you ought to lay your cards upon the table, and let us know what further obligations you are going to ask us during the present session to bear. The hon. member for South Renfrew says that the rumour is widespread and the statements made are specific and positive. And to enforce what he said, I saw the statement to-day in the Toronto News. If there is a newspaper in Canada that is close to this 'Government, that finds a resting place in the very bosom of many prominent members, it is the Toronto News. I believe the editor of that newspaper enjoys with reference to this Government a stronger position than Colonel Allison enjoyed with the Minister of Militia. The editor of the News is the guide, philosopher, friend and adviser of this Government.
Sir 'GEORGE FOSTER: And biographer?


William Pugsley: He wrote biography in the days before sin had spread scf widely over this country and before,many good men had been led astray, the editor of the Toronto News among them.


John Dowsley Reid: What about yourself?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend knows all sides.


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon.
friend something about that. I was once a Conservative; but it was a long time ago. My hon. friend knows that there was then the same inactivity with regard to transportation, the same want of attention to

the maritime ports as there is unfortunately to-day; so that many good Conservatives fell away from my hon. friend. Much as they like him personally, yet politically they could not quite stand him, because he did not seem to have that regard for the interests of the country that he should have had. It was about that time too that I took to reading my Bible very carefully. I found that in the old biblical times there were two parties', there was the Liberal party and the party that stood in the place of the Tories of the present day. They were called churls at that time. And I found that the Liberals, even in those old days, had a reputation and enjoyed a popularity for their virtue which has remained with them even down to the present time. I am sorry to see that the party of my hon. friend, the party opposed to the Liberals are not given a very good, character in the Bible. I have great faith in the good book. I recommend my hon. friend to read it. If he likes, I will call his attention to passages which he will find particularly interesting.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman might quote, just as a test of his knowledge.


William Pugsley: I would ask the Acting Minister of Railways why it is that although the Government elevator at St. John was burned down at least two years ago, no steps have been taken to rebuild it. To my mind, it appears inexplicable, especially in view of the fact that, immediately on the outbreak of the war, the Government urged upon the farmers of the West the need of increased production, and, to that end, the planting of more land in grain. Of course, that implied an undertaking on the part of the Government that, so far as it was concerned, it would do everything possible to have the grain sent forward as cheaply and expeditiously as possible and would afford every facility foT transportation.
It strikes me as very inexcusable that the Government should allow that important plant in 'Connection with the Government railway system to remain unbuilt. I should like to know, also, why the Government took no steps to provide elevator accommodation in connection with the Transcontinental railway. The other day the acting minister stated that the Transcontinental was completed away back in September, 1914, even though it was only partially completed. By some peculiar process of
[Mr. Pugslev.l
reasoning the minister seems to think that a railway-or house, I suppose, or Store- might be completed when it was only partially completed. However, that was the view the Government took, and from that time to the present they have provided no elevator accommodation in connection with the Transcontinental railway. I think the minister ought to explain that. In view of the fact that the minister is unable to deny the rumours that are being circulated in the press that Parliament will be called upon to assume further obligations on behalf of the people, he ought, as would be the.act of a prudent minister, to say to us: We will not ask you to pass these items just now. We will wait until we can lay before you all the obligations which you shall be called upon to assume on behalf of the people, and we will ask you to consider with us whether we shall have the means, through direct and' indirect taxes and other sources of revenue, to provide for these other burdens, as well as all the amounts which are included in these Estimates; we will consider the whole matter carefully and in the best interests of the people. Does the minister not see what madness it would be for us to vote $19,000,000 if next week we shall be called upon to assume on behalf of the people obligations amounting to $20,000,000, or $30,000,000, or $40,000,000 in respect to other railway companies? It seems to me that the suggestion of the hon. member for South Renfrew- the suggestion of a prudent member of Parliament, who represents some of the people who. arS to bear these burdens-is reasonable and should be adopted. I should be glad if the minister will explain why the elevator accommodation has not been replaced upon the Intercolonial, and why it has not been enlarged in view of the necessity of providing for increased transportation of grain; also, why no elevator has been provided in connection with the Transcontinental?


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: In reference to the question asked by the member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), may I ask the minister how the Government came to undertake to secure this low rate for carrying wheat? Were they requested to do so by any set of men or bv any association? T would ask also if they have carried all or nearly all the grain that has been offered in connection with this low rate to Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: The arrangement to v\hich the hon. gentleman refers was made by the

hon. Mi lister of Railways himself. As I understand it, it was repres'ented to him that there was such a large crop that the Fort William and Port Arthur elevators would not be able to hold all the grain that the railways could carry to them. It was shown to him that the lake-and-rail rate from Port Arthur to Montreal was about 6 cents a bushel, and he was asked if he could not put that rate in force, say from Armstrong, which would be practically the same point as Port Arthur or Fort William, during the winter season, and thus relieve the congestion in the West as much as possible. He put that rate in force, and relieved the situation to the extent of about
8,000,000 bushels of grain that were carried. More grain might have been carried if we had had fuller equipment. Taking the rail-way^over on the 1st of July without any equipment whatever-no engines, no cars, nothing at all to operate the railway-we were forced to take some seventy-five engines off the Intercolonial and as many cars as we could spare in order to operate the line between Winnipeg and the Bast. With the small facilities that we had, we could not do any more than we have done. There is no doubt that many requests came from the West for operation of the Transcontinental to as great an extent as possible, in order that the grain might be carried over that line, thus relieving the situation in the West.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has any effort been made to get the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific railway to give similar rates?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say that. The Minister of Railways made the arrangements. I will find that out, though, and let the hon. member know at the next sitting. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) asked a question regarding the elevator at St. John. The elevator that we had there was burned down. We all realize, of course, that that elevator was not of a sufficient capacity for the Government railway system at that port.


William Pugsley: Was it not of the same capacity as the elevator at Halifax?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but I mean for the
future.


William Pugsley: The capacity was about
750,000	bushels.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand it is the intention to have a very much larger elevator located on Courtenay bay. Of course, that
is in connection with the Public Works Department, and I do not know exactly what the conditions are.


William Pugsley: I should like to correct the minister, if he will allow me. Mr. Gute-lius, General Manager of the Intercolonial railway, has said that the elevator will be built, not upon Courtenay bay but in the vicinity of the sugar refinery.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the elevator is to be built near the sugar refinery out on the point.


William Pugsley: That is not on Courtenay bay.


John Dowsley Reid: The trackage that is necessary in connection with Courtenay bay is really a part of the elevator scheme. I realize that it is absolutely necessary to have an elevator there. It is necessary to have an elevator in the western section, near Winnipeg or Transcona. This fire, however, occurred since the war started, and we have had a great deal of difficulty so far as finances are concerned. At any rate, expenditures are so large that if we have been able to hold off anything for a short time we have tried to do so. The hon. member for St. John has been complaining very seriously about expenditures that we are making-expenditures that we cannot stop; at St. John he wishes us to make a very large expenditure.


William Pugsley: That elevator was burned down before the war began.


John Dowsley Reid: I think it was after the outbreak of war. It may have been just about that time. I have urged strongly that the elevator at St. John be constructed as soon as possible. We also require an elevator in the neighbourhood of Transcona, so that the grain can be weighed and inspected at that point instead of being taken during the winter months to Fort William and Port Arthur before being passed on to Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax. These elevators must be built. We must have elevators at St. John and Halifax with very large capacities in order to meet the demands during the winter months.


William Pugsley: That is what the people there have been thinking for the last two years.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot understand why the hon. member for St. John should object to work being done at any other point. He wants it all done at St. John. He will vote

for millions to 'be expended bn Courtenay bay or in the building of elevators at St. John, but objects to one dollar being spent in Montreal or at any other place.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must take that back. The statement he has made is absolutely wrong, and absolutely untrue. I do not say that it was deliberate; the Acting Minister of Railways would never be guilty of a deliberate untruth. But the trouble with him is the extraordinary forgetfulness from which he suffers. Does he not Temember that at the last session of Parliament I almost took my political life in my hands, so far as St. John was concerned, when I stated that I would favour cutting the appropriations in half. The cutting down was done all round, and when the Minister of Public Works asked me if I would consent to the appropriations for St. John being cut in half, I said that I would, and I was attacked most bitterly by the Conservative newspapers in St. John for my statement at that time. I have never hesitated to vote for all needed appropriations for other parts of the country, and while I am not afraid to stand up for my own constituency and demand justice, I have always tried to be fair. I would not regard the grain elevator at St. John as a new work at all. The old elevator was part of the equipment or plant connected with the Government system of railways. It was a necessary adjunct of the railway, and a necessary part of its plant. That elevator was burned *down upwards of two years ago, I think; I am quite sure it was before the war broke out. But a new elevator would not be a new work in the sense in which we speak <of hundreds of new works provided for in these Estimates. It would be a case of merely restoring a portion of the plant of the Government railway system which had been destroyed by fire. Tne rebuilding of that elevator is just as necessary in the interests oj: western Canada as it is in the interests of the port of St. John. There are elevators in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway at the port of St. John which are not entirely in the interests of, or for the benefit of, St. John. If we did not have elevators there, either the grain from the West would not be shipped at all, or it would be shipped in the winter season wholly from American ports. I am sorry to say that a vast deal of the western grain is being shipped at the present time from American ports, but, if it were not for the

elevators of the Canadian Pacific railway, it would likely all go that way. The acting minister said that I ask for millions and millions of dollars for St. John. I have never done so. I remember that when the minister came to St. John, shortly after he took office, he tried to make the people believe that I had been very sparing in making appropriations for St. John, that I was not treating St. John well at all. At a banquet which was given to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Public Works, my hon. friend will remember he was called upon to make a speech, and he said that he had had an opportunity of visiting Courtenay bay, that he was much impressed with the wonderful possibilities of a great harbour there. He said:	" Pugsley has provided, so far as I
can see, for only eighteen or twenty docks; now, gentlemen, I want you to understand that if you are of opinion that he has not provided docks on a sufficiently large scale, all you have to do is to come to me. as Minister of Customs, and I will enlarge this undertaking, and you can rely upon getting millions upon millions of dollars provided out of the overflowing revenues of the country." I merely wish to put my hon. friend right. I am sure he will be the first to apologize for the very unfair remarks which he made with reference to me.


Mr. BURNHAM:: It seems to me that
there is some sort of an arrangement by which the motive originally underlying this discussion should be lost sight of. We had first of all a reference which I did not quite understand by the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). He suggested that the cards be put on the table. What kind of game is he proposing to play? Then we had hardly got through with that very doubtful suggestion when another hon. gentleman suggested that the Liberal party was speaking from the loins of Judas Iscariot, or made some such Scriptural reference as that. These things, howeveT, did not suffice to obscure the illusion which both the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made, namely, that they did not wish to express their opinion on this $19,000,000 item because they wished to keep it fresh for the $20,000,000, $30,000,000, or $40,000,000 subsidies that they believe are to be brought down later on. That is, they must be quite willing to grant some of the subsidies which they pretend to object to, because they do not want to impair

the present item in the event of their being brought down; otherwise, there is no sense in their references at all. They would give the impression to the country that they are strongly opposed to any money being paid to any of those other undertakings. They back up into position, giving the people the impression that they are facing one way when as a matter of fact they are going another way. But I go further, I strongly object to giving those roads another dollar. I have objected all along, and I object now; and I know that the people object.	As for the Conservative journals, especially the Toronto News, it is diametrically opposed to giving any of those roads another cent, let alone another dollar. I think it should be well understood that this is the opinion of the country. But I thins: the situation is dangerous, and therefore I have ventured to protest. I think it extremely dangerous that the hen. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) should say that in the event of this $.19,006,900 item being reserved, he wound be ready and willing to undertake the consideration of a $20,000,000, $30,000,000 ot $40,000,000 subsidy. There is something wrong somewhere.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for
St. John did not happen to say that.


John Hampden Burnham: I think the hon.
gentleman will find that he did say so; otherwise why did he mention $20,000,000, $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 at all?


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend
want an answer?


John Hampden Burnham: Yes.


William Pugsley: What I said was this:
if the Government intends to come down with a proposition to impose upon the people an obligation of $20,000,000, $30,000,000 or $40,000,000, this item should stand so that the whole matter can be considered, having reference to the resources of the people and their ability to pay.


John Hampden Burnham: Precisely so. What I say is that this matter should not be considered at all. The hon. gentleman is prepared to consider it. That is exactly the statement I am making: I am not prepared to consider it. The farmers whom I represent-and I am partly a farmer myself-[DOT] are not so green as not to see through this veiled reference, this pretendjing to take a stand and then backing up into position so. that the hon. gentlemen will be ready
to be convinced at the last moment and be overawed by the Government majority, after they have put up-and I say it without disrespect-a fake opposition. I am opposed to it.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend says that he is opposed, to any further assistance to either of these railways; but if the Government comes down and proposes to give them assistance my hon. friend will back it up just as every other 'hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will.


John Hampden Burnham: I did not do so before;
I walked out.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend was talking about backing up to a position, He backs out of a position altogether. I cannot see that he is half as courageous as his colleagues. His colleagues stay in the House and support the Government that they were elected to support, right or wrong, but my hon. friend) gets out of the difficulty by walking out of the House.


John Hampden Burnham: If he gets out of the difficulty what is the matter with that?


John Gillanders Turriff: What I rose for was to ask the minister if the rate of 6 cents a bushel that the Transcontinental railway gives from Armstrong to Montreal or Quebec is going to be continued in force during the summer as well as during the winter? I would also like to know whether theTe was a profit or loss to the railway in carrying wheat at 6 cents a bushel from Armstrong to Montreal or Quebec. I have always understood that that rate would give a very handsome profit on a road constructed like the National Transcontinental railway, with good grades, upon which one engine could take sixty cars loaded with 1,100 bushels each, or about 65,000 bushels, and haul them from Armstrong down to Quebec. I would like to know if the railway made a profit or a loss for the Government.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the hon. gentleman know what the distance is from Armstrong to Quebec?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes; about 950 miles.


John Dowsley Reid: There was no profit in it; in fact, there was a loss when the wheat was taken to Montreal, for the reason that there were three railways that had to get a portion of the six cents; there was the Transcontinental, the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario, and the Grand Trunk

from North Bay to Montreal. You can see that if you have to divide that rate up, it makes a very small portion for each railway. We can carry grain from Armstrong to Quebec at a profit, but we cannot do so when the grain has to be hauled over three railways. I think we probably made a little out of taking the grain to Quebec.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am very glad to hear that grain, at 6 cents a bushel, can be carried from Armstrong to Quebec at a profit. I would expect that to be the case, because the,object for which the railway was built was to carry grain out of the western country. What was the through rate during the winter from Armstrong to tidewater .at St. John or Halifax? My understanding is that although the Government gave a rate of 6 cents a bushel from Armstrong to Quebec or Montreal, the through rate over the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to St. John was exactly equal to the old Canadian Pacific rate from Winnipeg to St. John, and that, instead of there being a lower rate, instead of it being something good for the people of the West and of Canada, it was nothing more or less than a fake rate arrived at by charging lees on one portion of the Government road and charging more on the balance of the Government road.


William Erskine Knowles: You mean that it was a gold brick?


John Gillanders Turriff: It was a gold brick, nothing more or less, and it gave no outlet for the wheat. The only advantage that there might be in it was the storage that might be secured in Montreal or Quebec. It was generally understood that when the Government gave this rate they were giving something that would be of advantage to the people of Canada. But when they fixed a rate of 6 cents a bushel for 950 or 1,000 miles, and then added to the rate for the balance of the journey so as to bring it up to the old Canadian Pacific rate and so that there should be no competition whatever, how much good were they doing to the people of Canada? That is the information I have, and I believe it is correct.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the hon. member to give me his authority for that statement. There is a through summer rate on the Canadian Pacific, lake and rail, from Winnipeg to St. John. It goes by Port Arthur or Fort William, then by water and rail to St. John.


John Gillanders Turriff: What is that summer rate?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot give the exact rate. The rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur and Fort William is the same as the Tate from Winnipeg to Armstrong. Then, from Armstrong to Montreal and Quebec the rate is 6 cents, the same as the summer lake-and-rail rate. When the grain reaches Armstrong on the Transcontinental, it takes the 6-cent rate and goes to Quebec and then on to St. John at the same rate as they carry over the Canadian Pacific in the summer time, that is, the summer rate from Winnipeg to St. John, lake and rail.


John Gillanders Turriff: I understand that perfectly well. If the Government, on the Transcontinental, can carry grain from Armstrong to Quebec for six cents a bushel at a profit, why cannot they carry it at the same proportionate rate from Quebec to St. John? That seems to be reasonable. That is the only advantage that the people of Canada can obtain. There is no object in cutting down the rate on 1,000 miles of the road and doubling it up on the remaining portion. If you can carry grain at a profit, with a rate of 6 cents a bushel, for the distance between Armstrong and Quebec, surely you ought to make a better profit if you carry it down to St. John at the same proportionate rate per mile, *because you will not have the stoppages' and all the loss incidental to stoppages. My hon. friend said a moment ago that the equipment allowed them to handle only
8,000,000 bushels, and he spoke as if 8,000,000 was a very considerable amount of wheat. In some ways it is, but it is only one-fortieth part, or 2J per cent of last year's crop. What was this road built for? What has the Government been doing when, after four years when the grain is there and cannot be taken out in any other way, when the business is offering and the Government road could carry it at a profit, as the minister says-what has the Government been doing in those four years that their equipment is only capable of handling 8,000,000 bushels during the winter season? My hon. friend has a great deal of explanation ahead of him to convince the people of Canada that the Government has been dealing fairly with the National Transcontinental. Here was the business offering, here was the wheat in danger of being lost-and a great deal of it has been lost for lack of storage capacity in the West-and here was the National Transcontinental, a first-class road,

built at large expense;. here was tide-water at St. John and Halifax; and, according to the minister, the grain could be carried at a profit by the railway. But the grain has not been carried; the farmers have not been relieved; they have lost tens of thousands of bushels of grain; and the Government comes forward and says they are able to carry only 8,000,000 bushels. Surely the minister has some better explanation than that, because that is no explanation at all. Let me draw my hon. friend's attention and the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to another thing-something that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might have done when he commandeered the
16,000,000 bushels of wheat. Some time towards the end of last October I was out West in the town of Estevan, in my constituency. The men on the market there were quoting 93 or 94 cents, I forget which, for wheat on the track; that is, a farmer could get 93 or 94 cents if he was able to get a car and loaded it up. If he could not get a car and could not get the wheat on the track, he could only get 83 or 84 cents a bushel, or exactly 10 cents a bushel less than what the wheat brought on the track. The wheat buyer is not to blame for this. If he buys wheat toward the end of October and is unable to get a car, he puts the grain in his elevator, and has to figure on storage, insurance of the wheat, and interest on the cost until the following May. That means that he, is going to pay just that much less for his wheat. I say that the Transcontinental could have 5 p.m. taken the wheat from Estevan or any other point along the line at the rate of 6 cents a bushel that the minister has spoken of as being the rate from Armstrong to Montreal or Quebec-roughly speaking, a distance of 1,000 miles-and could have carried it at that rate to St. John. It could certainly carry it at a cheaper rate than the Canadian Pacific railway by lake and rail; therefore, there is no reason why the farmer in the West should be soaked 10 cents a bushel towards the close of navigation, simply because he is not sure of being able to get his wheat out. If the Government had had the necessary equipment and facilities for carrying the grain to St. John and Halifax, the farmers would have got 10 cents a bushel more for their wheat. After all this amount has been put into the railway, apparently hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem anxious to give the railway a fair show. If the Government had been desirous of doing
the right thing by the Transcontinental they would have provided the necessary equipment, the rolling stock, and the necessary facilities at tide-water, so that the grain could have been taken at any time of the [DOT]year down to St. John or Halifax at the rate the minister gave last winter for the
1,000	miles. The wheat could have been loaded into the ships there and the farmers would have saved a large amount on the price of their wheat. It would have added easily 10 per cent to the price they got. Every body from the West knows that towards the close of navigation the price of wheat goes down to cover the expense of keeping it during the winter. Here was a road built for the purpose of relieving matters, and well suited for the work; and if it had had the necessary equipment and technical facilities it could have handled the wheat to the advantage of the whole country, not only giving the farmers a much better price for their wheat, but enabling the road to earn interest on its cost.
With regard to the wheat that was commandeered I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce could have bought wheat after the close of navigation at considerably less than the Fort William price. The wheat could have been hauled over the Transcontinental to tide-water, and shipped to whatever point it was destined for; and in that way, either the purchasers would have got the wheat for a lower price or the farmers in the West would have got a higher price; and the railway, built by the country at a large expense, would have had an opportunity of doing the very thing for which it was built, and of earning interest on the money that had been put into it.


William Erskine Knowles: Is the minister going to tell the House how this rate ef six cents a bushel, from Armstrong to Montreal or Quebec, or ten cents a hundred, which is the same thing, was going to relieve the situation so much? We are all very much in the dark how it could relieve it. The point is that the rate to the seaboard from Quebec, which in winter is of course ice-bound, was more than as much again as the rate from Armstrong, although the distance was not half as much as the distance from Armstrong to Quebec. The Government owns two sets of rails-the new Transcontinental and the old Intercolonial-and has every facility for giving a cheaper rate. If they were sipcere-and I am not saying they were not-in their desire to get this wheat to a place of export, the minister should

tell us why they did not put in a cheap rate for export purposes. This rate to Quebec was a joke so far as export purposes were concerned.


John Dowsley Reid: I explained that a few minutes ago. In the summer season the Grand Trunk" and the 'Canadian Pacific railway companies have a certain rate between Winnipeg and St. John and Halifax. The lowest rate of the whole year is the rate during the summer season.. What was done by the Minister of Railways and Canals was this: he estimated the rate between Winnipeg and Armstrong, which is at a point equal to Port Arthur or Fort William. Then between Armstrong and Montreal he put into force a six-cent rate, so that the farmers in the West would have during the winter season the advantage of the lowest rate they could get on any railway for ,lake-and-rail transportation during the summer season.


William Erskine Knowles: Where did the grain go in, the winter time?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that the terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway is St. John, and that during the winter time the Canadian Pacific Railway Company charges a much higher rate from Winnipeg to St. John than it does in the summer. The reason for that is that there is lake-and-rail transportation during the summer.


William Erskine Knowles: There is no rate to St. John in the summer?


John Dowsley Reid: There is to Montreal, and there is a rate to St. John in the winter. The farmers of the West had the advantage of the summer rate between Winnipeg and Montreal, and from Montreal to St. John they had the Canadian Pacific railway rate.


William Erskine Knowles: What advantage did they have by using this combination, rate over what they had by using the Canadian Pacific rate 'before .your rate went into effect?


John Dowsley Reid: When the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William were filled the farmers of the West had to leave their grain either in their storehouses, or in the fields, or ship it over the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern railway from Winnipeg to St. John, or to Portland, and if they shipped it over the Canadian Pacific railway they had to pay the winter rate. By shipping the grain over the Grand

Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental they had the advantage of the summer rate between Winnipeg and Montreal.


William Erskine Knowles: What advantage did they receive by sending it to Montreal?


John Dowsley Reid: They could send it on to St. John or any other winter port at the summer rate. Suppose a farmer had a thousand bushels of wheat to ship from Winnipeg If he shipped it over the Canadian Pacific railway to St. John or to Portland, he would pay a high rate, because the Canadian Pacific rate is higher in the winter than in the summer. If he shipped it over the Government railways, he would get the advantage of the summer rate between Armstrong and Montreal; and the rate over the Canadian Pacific railway or the Government railway between Montreal and St. John is the same. The Transcontinental relieved the congestion in the West to the extent of
8,000,000 bushels. Hon. members complain that we did not ship out more. They say that we should have been ready to transport millions upon millions of bushels from the West. I have explained several times that we took over this road on the 1st of July; the Grand Trunk Pacific operated it for a month or two until we could get some engines and cars from the Intercolonial, but we robbed the Intercolonial of cars and engines in order to operate the Transcontinental as well as we did during the past winter. Hon. members know that it is an absolute impossibility to have engines and cars manufactured in a few days; they know that it takes several months to get equipment. We are trying to get it as quickly as possible, but a large number of cars and engines are necessary to operate a thousand miles of railway between Winni-[DOT] peg and Moncton. This winter I was very sorry that we had to take seventy-five engines and a thousand cars from the Intercolonial in order to operate the Transcontinental; because if we had had those engines and cars on the Intercolonial, we would have moved a very much larger quantity of freight between Montreal and St. John, and Halifax during the winter.


George Perry Graham: You leased a number of engines?


John Dowsley Reid: We leased twelve or thirteen engines from the Canadian Pacific railway and one or two from the Bangor and Aroostook railway. We did everything possible to get more engines. We had no equipment of any kind to start with, and I. think we did very well with the equipment

that we were able to put on the Transcontinental.
I do not say that there is very much profit in the eix-cent rate between Armstrong and Quebec, but it pays with a trainload such as I have stated. The Transcontinental has to be operated during the whole year, and in the summer months not very much freight is carried over this railway owing to the 'lake-and-rail transportation. When I say that the eix-cent rate paid, I mean that it paid a small amount over the operation of the train.
During this year we are going to buy more engines and cars, .so that when, the crop is harvested, we shall be able to carry a very much larger quantity of grain than we did last year. It is only along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific that we can assist in relieving congestion, because there is enough grain along that line to keep us busy.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: The minister has admitted that about a thousand ears and seventy-five engines have been taken from the Intercolonial to operate the Transcontinental. What steps does he propose taking to restore that equipment to the Intercolonial? A great many complaints have been received at Moncton of the inefficient service rendered by the Intercolonial during the past year. Lumbermen, cattlemen, stock dealers, and mining corporations have been complaining that they could not get cars. The passenger . service during the past eight months or so has been almost disgraceful, the engines being wheezy, broken-down affairs, worse than the horses sold in Kings county to the Militia Department; in fact, those horses were Arabian steeds compared with the engines on the Intercolonial. There has been scarcely a passenger train that has not been two or three or four hours late, and the general complaint through the Maritime Provinces is that the service has been very bad. The reason was not apparent then, but it is apparent now: The Intercolonial was robbed in order that the Transcontinental might be operated. I do not think that is fair. The people of the Maritime Provinces have a right to receive as good treatment as they have been accustomed to receive in years gone by. The Intercolonial is a Government road and the service should not be impaired in the manner it has been. The minister must have known, when he was taking over the Grand Trunk Pacific, that he would require cars and engines, and it is altogether nonsense to say that it is impossible to procure cars and engines. Had he taken the precaution he would have had no difficulty in getting them; there are many car-building establishments in the country who would have been only too glad to be employed at any time within the last two or three [DOT]years. I would like to ask if he has taken any steps to restore the efficiency of the Intercolonial-which was none too good before?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think it would be better that the question that has already been referred to, the reduction of rate from Armstrong to Montreal, should be more fully dealt with before we go into other matters. I do not know whether the minister can say now what the rate was from Armstrong to Montreal before the reduction was made. As I understand the situation, we are paying the same rate exactly from Winnipeg to Armstrong that we paid before, that is, six cents a bushel; and, as I understand further, we are paying the same rate from Montreal to St. John that we paid before. I am not trying to support the Government in not making a greater reduction, but I wish to be fair, as no doubt they wish to be fair. If the rate from Winnipeg to Armstrong is the same as it was before, and if the rate from Montreal to St. John is the same as it was before, and if the rate between Armstrong and Montreal has been very much reduced, then certainly there must have been a reduction on the whole.


William Erskine Knowles: No, for this reason: The freight rate to St. John is not made up by the addition of these three rates, but it is a through export rate.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has the through rate from Montreal to St. John been added to? Is it more than it was before the Government undertook to make this reduction?


William Erskine Knowles: It will cost a person
more now to the seaboard if he uses these rates over parts of the route, and also uses the local rate from Armstrong to Quebec.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understood that
the rate ^vas the same as it had been from Winnipeg to Armstrong and the rate was the same as it had been from Montreal to St. John. If, then, the Government made a reduction over a thousand miles of rail haul, there must have been a benefit to the farmers Of the West.


John Dowsley Reid: Undoubtedly, there was a large reduction. There is a through rate between Winnipeg and! Montreal, which obtains now in the summer season. In the winter time the grain has to go over the railway right through to Portland, St. John, or Halifax, and on that there is a through rate. But the rate on the Canadian Pacific was higher than it was on the Transcontinental and Government railways through to St. John or,-if it went over the Grand Trunk-to Portland.


William Pugsley: Would the minister give us the rate?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot give it offhand.


William Pugsley: Does the minister have
this in mind-that owing to there being no elevator accommodation at St. John, there was no way by which the grain could be shipped from that port unless it came from the east side of the Intercolonial terminus, across to the docks on the west side? Does not he know that that would have to be added to the freight on grain coming over the Transcontinental to St. John? It would be very interesting to know what rate was actually paid from Winnipeg to West St. John by Transcontinental and the Intercolonial. I think he will find that the rate is the same as the rate by the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Erskine Knowles: The same to a cent.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister is in
error. The rate was lowered for a stretch in the middle of the haul. But to seek to take advantage of tfiat would yield no advantage to the shipper. If an exporter had 10,000 bushels of grain, and decided that he would take advantage of that low rate from Armstrong to Montreal or Quebec, and then were to pay the local rate from Winnipeg to Armstrong and the local rate from Quebec to salt water, he would be out several cents a bushel.


John Dowsley Reid: As compared with the rate
between Winnipeg and iSt. John on the Canadian Pacific?


William Erskine Knowles: As contrasted with the
through rate to St. John, either by the Canadian Pacific or by the Grand Trunk. If the minister were to go into the shipping office of the Government railway in Winnipeg and then were to visit the shipping office of the Canadian Pacific, he would be

quoted the same figures to a cent and even a decimal of a cent. The rate is 33| cents per hundred or 201 cents a bushel. Unfortunately, the minister does not know the figures, nor have I the figures by me; but the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and I have gone into this carefully, and we ascertained clearly that if a shipper were to try to take advantage of 'this lower rate he would be money out of pocket on the haul over the whole route. This is the one thing that the minister's department pretended to do for the farmers-and I do not use the word "pretended" offensively. Now, when we try to ascertain what it really means, a remarkable thing is that neither the acting minister nor the bevy of officers attending him on the floor, can tell us the through rate. One would have thought that this would be the one thing that they would have been able to state. Of course, I am not here to criticise the officers; it may not be reasonable to expect them to have this information or they would have had it.


John Dowsley Reid: I will get it.


William Erskine Knowles: And I hope the minister will find out how much grain went to St. John from the West and how much to Halifax, and what he paid. And would he ascertain whether the amount so paid was arrived at by taking account of the rate of six cents a bushel from Armstrong to Quebec, or was a through export rate obtained from Winnipeg, or from whatever point the wheat started from, to salt water? I am sure that not one of the minister's officials will tell him that the through rate from the prairies to salt water was one cent a bushel less over his railway than over the Canadian Pacific The minister talks about the summer rate to Quebec or Montreal. But what is the good of that on wheat that is going through in the middle of winter?-you might as (well tell the shipper that his bill of lading is of a pretty colour. The story we get from the Government is that the Allies want our wheat, and we are anxious that they should get it. But the Government do not in fact promote this trade. We have Government internal storage elevators that we cannot get filled. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has the wisdom not to get into this discussion though the matter relates in part to his department. When the announcement was made that this benign Government-and I think a great deal of the Government in some respects-would make this concession for the

benefit of the farmers, naturally the farmers were greatly pleased. But when they came to bake advantage of it, they found that they had been acting under a misapprehension and that the change would not benefit them by a single cent; the figure is the same by the two railways, and there is absolutely no reduction.


William Pugsley: A gold brick.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not say that,
though I confess the word was in my mind; but I do not wish to talk party politics in this matter. It was a gold brick that did not do anybody any harm. But, on the other hand, it did not do them any good, because it was soon found out. But there is this criticism that we have to make-if they can carry the wheat from Armstrong to Quebec at six cents a bushel and make money, or even pay expenses, it is a crime for them to charge eight and a fraction cents per bushel from Quebec to salt water. Because in doing this they are charging about one-third more for a haul of only half the distance. There is a nigger in the fence somewhere.
They either did not want thie farmer to get the good price, or they did not want to make this new railway a success. They are no 'fools in the Railway Department. They knew when they put that rate on that the stuff would not go to' the salt water; they did not want to see it go through and ma/ke a booming business over that railway. Why did they not establish just as good a rate on the Intercolonial, instead of maintaining a rate that is more than double? If they can afford to carry grain at that rate through that new country in Northern Ontario and Quebec there is no excuse for charging a rate doubly as high from. Quebec to St. John ' and Halifax. These are points that I would like the minister to look into and to inform himself upon.


George Eulas Foster: Hon. gentlemen on the other aid!: are difficult to please. I suppose the Minister of Railways had not the least idea that he would be called upon to operate the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, which was not taken over, I understand, until the first of July of last year. That road was built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and was supposed to be operated by them; yet hon. gentlemen on the other side have been calling the Minister of Railways to book because four years ago he did not start to provide rolling stock for the Grand Trunk 194
Pacific railway. Is that quite a fair thing to do? 'Surely not. Again, when the Minister of Railways tried to alleviate the situation-and my hon. friends from the West know it to have been serious-in the interests of the Western farmer, by taking from the Intercolonial railway what the Intercolonial could ill spare, a number of engines and a large number of cars, and sent them to do that Western duty for the Western farmer, then came forward a member from Nova Scotia declaring that it was a crime against nature and the Maritime Provinces that seventy-five engines, or any number of engines and cars, should be taken from the Intercolonial railway, which, to the infinite disgust and discontent and) confusion of Maritime Province dwellers, was left with only wheezy consumptives. He had not the heart to allow the Western farmer to get a single bit of solace or comfort; he and his own home must be looked after, no matter what became of the farmer's wheat. That shows the infinite difficulty of pleasing everybody. I am sure my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways will take a little comfort from the fact that he has steered the right course. The member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) contends that no good has been done to the western farmer by the moving of 8,000,000 bushels of wheat out by this line during a portion of the winter. I think that this has been bene-ncial to the western farmer.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not say that it had not been beneficial; I said that the western farmer did not get the grain to the salt water any cheaper.


George Eulas Foster: Throughout the country west of Winnipeg and west of Saskatoon there was insufficient storage for the farmers' grain, and quantities of it were lying in a more or less exposed condition, and therefore liable to injury. The elevators became' filled with grain, and storage could not be' extended. This
8,000,000 bushels of grain was so much extracted from the storage capacity of the West, which left a vacancy for 8,000,000 bushels to be salved and put into that storage. My hon. friend says that that did no good to the western farmer unless he got his grain into the consumer's hands; getting it down to Quebec and Montreal was of no use to the farmer of the West and did not make his position any better. I think my hon. friend is wrong in that. The grain got down at a summer rate to the elevators



of Quebec and Montreal. No greater storage charge was paid in those elevators than would have been paid, I imagine, in the western storage position. The western farmer got this 8,000,000 bushels down at a summer rail rate, partly into storage and partly perhaps into ships. This grain was taken to eastern ports and placed in storage, thus relieving the storage capacity in the West and allowing grain which other- ' wise would not have had storage to get storage there, and it was a relief to ^ the situation to that extent. My hon. friend stated that this road should have been thoroughly equipped, and should have begun to draw the grain out immediately after the crop had been gathered in the West. Well, little of it would go out by that route until the season of lake navigation was at an end. When the lake seaison is at an end and that line of outrgo is closed, then the railways take hold of it and carry it as best they can. If my hon. friend had got out 8,000,000 or 18,000,000 or 30,000,000 bushels by the last of October, or the middle of November at the latest, not one bushel of it -would have got any the quicker into the hands of the European consumer, simply because there was not the ocean tonnage to carry it. I think we ought to take that into consideration. Every bushel of wheat that was necessary and called for to fill the tonnage which it was possible to bring to the Atlantic ports, whether in Canada or not, was answerable to that call. That more did not go, that more co-uld not go, was due to the fact that there was not the tonnage to take -it away. The commandeered grain has been passing out through the Atlantic ports from the middle and later port of December until the present time, and there never was a moment when more grain was not waiting for the transports than there were transports to take it. What is true of that grain is true of grain generally, and would have been true of all grain that might have been brought out by that route or by any other route to Atlantic ports, whether Canadian or more southern Atlantic ports. Even if equipment had been available and the grain had been carried, it would not have passed into the hands of the ultimate purchaser and consumer in European countries any quicker. Whatever* was carried did get the advantage of being close to the seaboard and of having got there at a summer rate; moreover, it will be ready when navigation opens in the summer, and further tonnage comes to take it away.

Taking all these things into consideration I think that the congestion in the West was materially alleviated by bringing out these 8,000,000 bushels of grain, thus giving place to grain which would otherwise be dfeprived of storage.


William Pugsley: I do not object at all to my hon. friend trying to defend the Government for its want of foresight, for its failure to equip the Transcontinental road. He and his colleagues have to make the best case possible, and I am quite content to leave their action or inaction to be judged -by the public. But I do complain of the reference which my hon. friend made to the remarks of the hon. member for Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm). I think he rather twisted that hon. gentleman's remarks and gave them a meaning which they did not bear. What that hon. gentleman meant, as I understood him, was that instead of waiting until they had to get rolling stock for the Transcontinental and robbing the Intercolonial railway of its proper equipment, the -Government should have taken time by the forelock and provided a proper equipment for the Transcontinental. That is what I understood the hon. member for Antigonish to say. Was that not reasonable? This Government, under the Act for the building of the Transcontinental railway, is given the power to operate various sections of the road pending its completion, and pending the time when the -Grand Trunk Pacific would be required to enter into the 50-year lease for that portion of the road. This Government ought, I think, to have done one of two things when they came into office nearly five years ago. It should have made up its mind whether it was going to operate the road pending its entire completion, or whether it should enter into an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate it. I have already called the attention of my hon, friend, but with very little effect apparently, to a statement which was made two, or perhaps three, years ago to the Minister of Railways in this House that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had offered to take over the road as the various sections were completed, pending the completion of the entire line; that they had offered to thoroughly equip the road with rolling stock to the satisfaction of this Government, and to operate it under the direction of the Government, and subject to examination by the accountants of the Government. They offered to hand over any profits

of operation to the treasury of the country, and all they stipulated for was that, if there should be any loss in the operation of the road, that loss should be added to the cost of the Transcontinental upon which they would be called upon to pay interest at the rate of three per cent.
I want the committee to remember that the Minister of Railways promised distinctly and positively to take the matter up with the present president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and that he stated that he would inform this House of the result. But' from that day to this, so far as appears from the statement of the acting Minister of Railways, this Government has made no effort whatever in that direction. Therefore, what was the obligation resting upon it? The obligation was that it should provide the equipment and get ready for the operation of this line of railway. That was their duty to the great producers of the West, and their duty to the people o'f the whole Dominion in whose interests this great undertaking was entered upon. But this Government does nothing, although, as I have said, it has been in power now for nearly five years. Having apparently made up its mind that it was going to operate the road; having done everything it could do to prevent the Grand Trunk Pacific from entering upon its operation, a,tid having disregarded the contract and the specifications, thus rendering it not only possible but reasonable for the Grand Trunk Pacific to delay entering upon its operation, the obligation was on this Government. Did they not know what the railway was built for? My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke as if he thought it was a great thing, as if the Government was entitled to infinite credit, because
8,000,000 bushels of wheat had been carried over the Transcontinental. What was the road built for but to carry grain and all kinds of products? It seems to me that far from being entitled to any credit for carrying such a small amount of grain, for the small equipment it had, and for the poor facilities it provided, it should be condemned because it did not make the necessary arrangements and get the necessary equipment. Did the Government not know that one of the grand ideas which was put forward in connection with the Transcontinental was that it was to give a cheap rate in the winter, so that wheat and other products could be carried in winter as well as in summer, and in summer as well as in winter. That was the object in getting 194}	8
the low grades; that was the object in building a splendid roadbed; that was the object in going to very large expense to build the road to a very high standard instead of building it to a secondary standard. Yet we find that though this Government had apparently for a long time made up its mind that it was going to operate this road, it was absolutely without equipment, absolutely unprepared to transport the products of the West to the markets of the old world.
My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that there was as much wheat carried as could be carried, because vessels' were not available. Here again, we find a want of foresight. Ought not this Government to have foreseen, when the war broke out, that there would be transportation difficulties? Should it not have thought that vessels would be needed? Should it not have given some attention to the question of providing a Canadian merchant marine to meet the deficiency in vessels which has taken place. Hot one step did it take to meet the transportation difficulty, and to-day, after twenty months of war, with the ships of the Empire disappearing from the ocean in too great numbers for the comfort of the people of Canada and of the Empire generally, we are in the same state of lethargy; at least, this' Govern ment is as before. Not a thing has been done; not a thing is being done to provide proper transportation, and the only excuse the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes for hauling a paltry quantity of 8,000,000 bushels of grain over the Transcontinental railway, is that, even if more had been hauled, it could not have been transported to the markets of the old world. That is the excuse for not building the elevator at St. John to replace the one that was burned; that is the excuse for not enlarging the elevator at Halifax; that is the excuse for not providing any elevator accommodation at the port of Quebec. Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce know that at the port of Buffalo there is elevator accommodation for 50,000,000 bushels of grain? The grain of the West is brought there and stored preparatory to being sent over the American railroads to Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia and transported to the markets of the old world. In this country, we have spent millions upon millions of dollars on this great transportation system, and yet the only elevator accommodation we have in Eastern Canada is that provided by the small elevator at the port of Halifax, with a capacity of

750,000	bushels. After being in office for nearby five years, that is all this Government has to show: our ships declining, no effort at shipbuilding, our elevators burned down, and no steps taken to rebuild them. The elevators which were burned down having demonstrated that they were not sufficient even for the traffic of the Intercolonial, and still less for the traffic over this great Transcontinental system, no effort has been made to enlarge them, and no effort has been made to give adequate elevator accommodation at Quebec, St. John, Halifax or any other port on the Atlantic coast. The pitiable excuse that the Minister of Trade and Commerce gives is that, while it is true that we brought but a little grain, we brought little because we did not have the equipment in the way of locomotives and cars, that even if we had brought more we had no elevator accommodation, that if we had brought it to the sea coast we had no ships to transport it; so that altogether, we have been obliged to allow millions upon millions of bushels of grain to remain rotting on the prairies of the West and we have hundreds and thousands of our farmers reduced to a state almost of poverty with thousands of bushels of grain, gathered after laborious toil, for which they can get no return. That is the condition in which our western country has been left. The minister has made his apology but I do not think it is an apology which will satisfy this House or the people of the country.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would like to ask the acting Minister of Railways and Canals a question. Grain can be hauled from Armstrong to Quebec, a distance of 932 miles, at a profit for 6 cents a bushel. The mileage from Winnipeg to Armstrong and from Quebec to St. John is 961 miles. Thus, two end pieces between Winnipeg and St. John have a mileage of 961 miles and the centre piece, from Armstrong to Quebec, a mileage of 932 miles, so that these portions are practically equal. Naturally, with a long haul, without breaking bulk, you can give a little cheaper rate. Will the Government, in order to help both the railway and the farmers of the West, be willing in future to give a rate of 12 cents a bushel in the winter from Winnipeg to St. John and put up the necessary handling facilities at St. John? If you could do something like that you would do away with the great big squeeze that is made on the farmers after navigation closes. I suppose 
this is more or less a question of policy and if the minister is not able to give an answer right offhand, I will not be surprised, but I would ask the minister if he would find out and give an answer on another day.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been taking up the
question of providing increased elevator facilities at St. John and at a point near Winnipeg-Transcona, or some place in that locality. We require an elevatoir there so that when the grain is passing through it can be inspected and graded. I understand that those interested in the grain can raise money on the bills of lading but the grain has to be inspected first. We require an elevator there and one at St. John. We. can get along fairly well with the one now at Halifax until the terminals are completed there. I have been taking that question up with the view of seeing if we cannot bring in an item in the Supplementary Estimates to cover these two points that my hon. friend has referred to. That, of course, will have to be taken up and discussed when the time comes. With reference to the question that the hon. member for Assiniboia, (Mr. Turriff) has asked me about the rate,
I may say that the 'Transcontinental was taken over by the Government in July and that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and .Canals took up with his officials the question of rates and put this six cent rate in force. He has been working along in the best way he could in order to get rates established along the Transcontinental railway that would be proper and workable in the future. I think the hon. .member would haTdly expect me to answer fully as to the policy of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals in regard to r,ates, management and operation of the Transcontinental railway. My hon. friend the minister has been very ill; he has not been able to be here-	.


George Perry Graham: How is he?


John Dowsley Reid: He is a little better, but he will not be able to be here during the present session, I am afraid.
With reference to the .equipment, if I Temember the arrangement, money was advanced for the purpose and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company were to provide proper equipment for the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental railway. They were to have a sufficient amount of equipment when the road was to be taken over.


William Pugsley: When it was completed.


John Dowsley Reid: When it was completed.


George Perry Graham: There were bonds set
apart for that purpose.


John Dowsley Reid: Exactly. If the Grand Trunk were to take the road over, naturally you would expect that they would have provided all the equipment that would be necessary for its operation. But, when we started operation, the Grand Trunk Pacific were not able to let us have any equipment at all.


William Pugsley: They would not get the equipment until the road was about completed.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was finding fault because we had not proper equipment. In a matter of this kind arrangements must be made for a considerable time ahead. Every one knew that the road was about completed.


William Pugsley: No, it is not completed yet.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, that is the opinion of myself as Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, and that must have been the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and. Canals when, he notified them as he,did. But they had not any equipment at all. We could not get any equipment from them. They required it all, and in the discussions which have taken place in this House from time to time, and in which members from the West have taken part, it hale been stated that they did not have sufficient equipment for the Western 'business.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think anybody ever said that.


John Dowsley Reid: It may be that I am wrong in that. That may have been said of some otheT railway.


William Erskine Knowles: Just lately the Railway Commission ordered the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry a great deal of the Canadian Northern traffic.


John Dowsley Reid: That Bill we put through had the effect of relieving the situation in thie Goose lake district.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: That is the road in which this Government is a partner.


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern took the grain to Saskatoon.


William Pugsley: The Canadian Northern has a Goose lake branch.


John Dowsley Reid: I know, but I say that the Canadian Northern carried the grain to Saskatoon, and, under the Bill that we put through, the Railway Commission compelled the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry the grain from Saskatoon to the Transcontinental railway and thie Transcontinental railway carried it through. The Railway Commission, operating under that Bill, were able to relieve the situation in the Goose lake district by having the grain hauled out and carried through.


William Pugsley: That shows thiat the Grand Trunk Pacific had the equipment then.


John Dowsley Reid: I was going to add that my information is that the Grand Trunk Pacific bad not enough equipment to give the cars that they were asked for at Saskatoon; otherwise we would have carried quite a lot more grain from Saskatoon east. That is my information. We could have hauled several hundred cars more, if the Grand Trunk Pacific could have let us have them, taking away the grain from the elevators.


William Erskine Knowles: They supplied some as auxiliaries to the Canadian Northern.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The Railway Commission made the Canadian Northern put, I think, 1,200 cars on the Goose Lake division, and the Grand Trunk Pacific a number of care between Saskatoon and Winnipeg, so as to relieve the situation as the Canadian Northern brought the grain in to Saskatoon. These companies did this willingly. If these instructions of the Railway Commission had not been given not so much grain would have been taken out of the Goose Lake district.


William Pugsley: If .the Railway Commission thought it reasonable to tell the Grand Trunk Pacific to put 1,200 of their cars at the disposal of the Canadian Northern, does not that show that the Grand Trunk Pacific was pretty well equipped? It shows that the Railway Commission thought they were much better equipped than the Canadian Northern, notwithstanding that this Government is junior partner in the latter company, and ought therefore to be a little bit responsible for its proper equipment.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is not putting the matter fairly. The Grand Trunk


William Pugsley: Does not that show that in the opinion of the Board of Railway Commissioners the Grand Trunk Pacific had not only enough cars and locomotives to handle the traffic originating on their own line, but 1,200 more cars to be devoted to traffic originating on the Canadian Northern?
Mr. REID. All I have to say is that I took the matter up with the Railway Commission and urged them to get out all the grain they could. They urged the Grand Trunk Pacific to get all the cars they could and use them on their own line. With regard to the hon. member's suggestion that the Grand Trunk Pacific had a surplus of cars, all I can say is that we did our best to get some equipment from them and we did not get any.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 89, respecting the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. W. M. Martin.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 32, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.
George Perry Graham: What is the amendment?


John Dowsley Reid: There is just one change in section 3 of the Bill, which reads:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section two of this Act or of the agreement hereby ratified, the powers of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada as to the routing of traffic shall not be deemed to be thereby impaired or restricted.
The word "two" is changed to "one." That means that section 3 refers to section 1; it was evidently a mistake to make it refer to section 2.
Amendment concurred in.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCHAFFNER moved the second reading of Bill No. 88, to incorporate the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Bible Society.
George Perry Graham: Does this society conflict in any way with the Canadian Bible Society?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Absolutely not. This Bill was passed by the Senate, and therefore it is likely all right.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman does not always think so in regard to Senate Bills.
' Mr. SCHAFFNER: I think so in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Robert Charles Vondrau.-Mr. Scott.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Percy Lynn Woods.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island railway, $613,100.
Mr. OLIVER:: In the discussion that has taken place in regard to the railway rates over the Transcontinental which were put in force some time last winter, no reason has yet been given why there was a difference in the rate per mile between that section of the line from Armstrong to Quebec and that section from Quebec to St. John.
The conclusion to which we are driven is that the rate was left as it was left so that it should not be, in fact, a competitive rate to an open winter port. The rate to St. John over the Transcontinental was identical with the rate over the Canadian Pacific, and the difference in the rates for the intermediate sections of the line only made the difference (mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster): It gave the benefit of storage capacity at eastern points instead of the capacity that would be needed to keep that grain stored in the West. Not to discuss these points at any greater

length, let me place before the committee the question in its general aspect. It appears to me to be of very much greater general importance than those who have spoken, on the Government side at any rate, seemed willing to accord it. If there is one thing upon which the future *welfare-the immediate as well as the distant future welfare-of Canada depends more than upon any other, it is the increase of Western production. That, I think, goes without argument. We are today faced with the statement, made on good authority, that, instead of production in the prairie country being likely to increase during the season upon which we are now entering, the area of production will be decreased as compared with last year. Some estimates are as high as twenty per cent decrease, some only fifteen per cent; but I have not seen any estimate less than fifteen per cent. That, at a time when the country and the Empire and the world may reasonably be expected to need increased production on the part of our western prairies, is a most serious consideration. It is not for lack of industry, nor is it for lack of enterprise, nor lack of opportunity, that the productive area is in prospect of decreasing this season as compared with last. We had, last year, besides a maximum area of production, a phen-omental crop. The result was an abundant return such as we have never seen before and such as," I am afraid, we need not expect again at any short interval. Had it been possible for the producers to realize upon that crop promptly and at the value that the demand in the world's market gave it, it would beyond any doubt have produced a condition of prosperity amongst the men actually engaged in production in the West and would have put them in a position to increase their production during the coming .season. I am aware that there are difficulties in the way of increasing production this year that did not exist last year. But the great thing that stands in the way is that many of those who were successful beyond their expectations in pro- [DOT] ducing last year have not been able to realize upon that production in time to put them in funds to go on with their enterprise this year. If I spent my money and my credit in producing an enormous crop last year, and have not been able to pay the debts I incurred in that production, I am not in a position to make extra exertions to produce a similar abundance during this coming year. It is not a question of whether I have the will or not, I have not the ability; I cannot do it, no matter how much I may want to do it. And I need not say to the House that, if I have been disappointed, as thousands of our people have been, in not being able to dispose of my crop under satisfactory conditions, I 'have not the heart, evpn if I have the ability to go on and make those exertions during the current year that must be made if the great results that we hoped for and that we need are to be achieved.
Until this present year, after the close of navigation on the lakes, it was not possible-or it was not reckoned to be possible-to bring grain forward to the seaboard. The western market was bottled up for a period of five months and was subject to such fluctuations of world prices and world conditions as might occur in the meantime. The result of that was, as was explained by my hon. friend from Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff), that every fall between the date of the harvesting of the crop and the date of the closing of navigation on the lakes-unless the crop was a partial failure-there was what was called a grain blockade, a condition of congestion caused by the farmer's desire to get hi,s grain out before the close of navigation, thereby saving the cost of storage and the extra cost of hauling during the winter months. Obviously, the grain that did not go forward before the close of navigation had to be held until navigation opened in the spring, at the cost of storage, interest, insurance, and possible unfavourable market fluctuations. The consequence was that there was a premium on grain that could be got forward and a discount on grain that could not be got forward. As I have said, this occurred yeaT after year; it was a necessary result of the conditions of the country whenever there was a large crop. Each year that condition of congestion meant tremendous loss to a large proportion of the producers of the West. I had the honour of drawing the attention of the Government of the day to that condition in 1911-a condition which resulted in tremendous losses during that year. It was believed that the construction of the Transcontinental railway over the shortest possible route, with the lowest possible grades and with the best possible construction, would not only increase the possibilities of traffic throughout the Dominion of Canada, but also eliminate-wipe off the slate absolutely-this condition of recurring

congestion or grain blockade. It was believed that this could be accomplished by creating a condition under which grain could be sent forward from the prairies to ocean ports all the year round at a favourable rate of freight. That was the purpose of the building of the Transcontinental railway; it was thought wise and prudent and economical to spend millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions, in the construction of that line in order to achieve that result. As the country increased in production, there was a corresponding increase from year to year in the disabilities resulting from the stoppage of the eastward flow of grain on the close of navigation. The time came when that road was completed. The last rail was laid in December, I think, of 1913, and in the session of over a year ago the Minister of Railways declared that the road was completed. It was stated-and the matter has been discussed since in the House-that there was a difference of opinion between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Government as to whether the road was completed or not, the railway company holding that it was not completed, and that, therefore, they were not required to take it over; the Government holding that it was completed and that the railway company were defaulting when they did not take it over. Briefly, that was the condition a year ago; the last rail had been laid in the winter of 1913 and the Government in the session of 1915 declared that the road was absolutely com, pleted and was entitled to carry traffic to the full, and that the railway company that refused to take it over was actually in default. Following on the heels of that condition of over a year ago came the greatest crop that our country ever saw; oame the greatest prices for that crop in the market of ultimate consumption that we have seen in a lifetime; came the greatest demand for the crop that our country had ever seen. We had the crop; we had the railroad; we had the demand, and we had the pressing and urgent necessity. This railroad is under the management of the Government itself, withi all the resources of the Dominion of Canada at its disposal. Yet, under all the conditions that I have sketched, the Government tells us that they have moved 8,000,000 bushels of grain, over that line to relieve the condition that existed, to establish the fact that a grain blockade, or a grain congestion, should not and need not occur in the prairie west as long as that line is in exist-
ence. This was'not meeting the case as the welfare of the country and the needs of the people demanded. We are asked to believe that the Government has done its full duty, has done everything that it is possible for a government to do, when it has moved 8,000,000 bushels out of a crop of something like 250,000,000 bushels. With
50,000,000 bushels of grain to-day at the elevators at the head of the lakes, this railroad is said to have moved 8,000,000 bushels. I do not wish to speak,harshly; I do not wish to take up time, but these are the conditions. When we find that the Government, in fixing the rate that was to prevail in the case of grain carried over that road, actually fixed a rate absolutely the same as that which had prevailed in previous years, before the railroad was constructed at all, we cannot reach the conclusion that there was an earnest desire on the part of the Government to meet the case as it actually existed. Had thiat road been operated from the beginning of the season; bad it carried all the grain that was available to be carried, and that must be carried, or this country will suffer stupendous losses within the current year -because we must turn that grain into money in some way-had that been done there would have been a distribution oi money in the western country that would have been largely to the benefit of that country directly and of the eastern country in the ordinary course of business, and there would have resulted a further increase of the acreage of production during the season that we are now entering upon if the men or the means to put that crop in could be secured. Whereas ordinarily every man would have used every exertion of which he was capable in order to increase his acreage, under the discouragement that he bias suffered he will not use the same exertion even if he have the ability-and he will not have the ability to the same degree.
We have in this country three great Transcontinental railway systems. Two of thiose railway systems are supposed to be lame ducks. There are people in our country who hold that these two railway systems-I speak of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific-are in advance of the needs of the country; that they are institutions not that lift thle country along, but that have to be lifted along by the country; that they are a burden rather than a benefit to the nation as a whole. Whatever the condition may be at
APRIL aa, iaiti
the present time, no man who has a proper idea of the extent and value of the Dominion of Canada can do other than believe that at some time in the future there will be every need for these two railroads. What I want to point out is that, if it is a fact that these two roads, or one of them, is not earning interest on its bonds, is not paying its way, is not carrying itself along, it is not because the traffic is not there, it is not because there is no demand for the products. Surely we cannot say that the Grand Trunk Pacific is a failure because there is no business for it, or because it was built ahead of time, when there is in our elevators at the head of the Lakes to-day
50.000.	000 bushels of grain seeking an outlet, and in the elevators behind that, another
50.000.	000 bushels of grain seeking an outlet, all of which grain, given rolling stock and management, is available for shipment to the seaboard at the same rates as would be charged on the Lakes during the season of open navigation. It is not because we have to wait for the business. The business is there; the grain is there in the West, and it is wanted across the water. We want to get it there, but it has been lying in the West while we had the rails on which to haul it to the eastern coast.


John Hampden Burnham: What about ocean tonnage?


Frank Oliver: I do not know anything about ocean tonnage.


John Hampden Burnham: Would it not be as well to know something about it?


Frank Oliver: What difference does it make when the grain has to get to the seaboard?


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: There are no elevators at the seaboard.


Frank Oliver: If it cannot get to the seaboard, it cannot be turned into money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no storage at the seaboard, and no tonnage.


Frank Oliver: Is my hon. friend going to tell us that the grain lying in the elevators at Port William and further west has no value? Unless there is tonnage, it will have no value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be done in a day, or in a month. The grain will be just as safe in the storage elevators at Fort William as if it were lying on ears at Halifax and St. John. There are no storage elevators there, and there is no tonnage.
It is only a question of when the grain can
be moved.


Frank Oliver: So long as the grain is in the elevators at Fort William and further west, it is practically of no cash value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, it is, 80 cents on the dollar.


Frank Oliver: Precisely; it is of value
because the people who pay for it believe that it can get tonnage. It ought to have the tonnage.


Mr. MORPHY:: Stop the war.


Frank Oliver: Does the war keep the
grain in the elevators?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Eighty-two ships have been sent to the bottom within the last ten days.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend cannot have it both ways; either that grain can he taken across the ocean, or it cannot be taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be taken all at once.


Frank Oliver: Then, if it cannot be taken across the ocean, it has no value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will ultimately be
taken across the ocean, not all at once.


Frank Oliver: If it can be taken across the ocean, it might just as well have been rolled on wheels during the past winter as kept lying at Fort William; and the railroads could have been earning money instead of losing money during that period. There is no other way for it. The grain has to be brought forward. It does not have to lie at Fort William until the shipping trust of the Great Lakes can get their fingers on it. There is no necessity for that; it could have been rolled over the railroad tracks to the ocean ports during the winter at the very rates which the Government put in force, so far as Quebec was concerned, but which they refused to put in force between Quebec and St. John,


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to add to the congestion at the terminals by loading up cars with grain, thereby congesting all the traffic to and from Halifax and St. John. He knows that there is limited storage accommodation at Halifax and St. John, and I am sure that he does not mean that cars should be loaded up with grain at these ports, thereby congesting the traffic and preventing other traffic from being handled.


Frank Oliver: I mean this, that the
grain lying	at Fort William has	to be	gotforward, or	it has not.	It has	to be	gotforward if you are going to turn it into money. I say that we have the railroads to carry it.	We have to	get it	across	theocean some	time, and it	has to	get to	the
seaboard some time, and it might just as well have been going to the seaboard during the winter as have the railway companies which might have hauled it go bankrupt because it is said they have no business to do. It goes throughout the world that Canada has built railroads for which she has [DOT]no traffic. The traffic is there, and the country is suffering because it has not gone forward. That is the puzzle which. this 'Government has to solve. That is their business, and I desire to place the responsibility for that condition exactly where it [DOT]belongs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend
should blame the empires of Europe.
IMr. OLIVER:	The empires of Europe
want wheat. My hon. friend says that there are no facilities for storage at the seaboard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for large quantities.


Frank Oliver: Why are there not facilities? Is it not elementary that there must be storage facilities at the seaports if grain .is to be transported?


John Dowsley Reid: Why did you not build elevatoTS when you were building the Transcontinental?


Frank Oliver: We did not need them
.until the Transcontinental was finished.


John Dowsley Reid: It takes years to build them.


Frank Oliver: The Government of the
day knew when the Transcontinental railroad was to be completed, and they completed. it. This Government declared that *the road was completed a year ago, and surely it knew that elevators were needed to store and handle grain at the seaboard. I did not wish to bring this into the argument, but if it comes to that, there is no .argument about it; that is where the responsibility rests. What I want to emphasize is that we have the produce, and we *have the traffic for transportation; and if the roads that are available for carrying ;that traffic are not utilized, it is not the fault of the country, and it is not the fault of the roads; nor is it the fault of those who conceived and carried out the idea <5f having
.
such railroads and of having such an outlet to the seaboard all the year round for the producers of the West.


George Eulas Foster: I have listened
with a good deal of interest to the speech of my hon. friend. Though I am sorry to take up any time, it strikes me that a proposition, put just as my hon. friend has put it, for consumption in this country, and particularly in the West, ought to be analysed at about the same time that it comes from the lips of the hon. member. I am afraid that, whether he wished to put it in an unfair way or not, either he has not got to the bottom of the whole question and does not understand fully all the conditions, or, if he does, he has not taken the trouble to place them in their proper perspective. I want quietly to make two-or three remarks in reference to some of the things that my hon. friend has discussed. He has declared that there has been a year of unrivalled production in the West, a year, probably, such as will not be seen again for a long period; a big crop has been realized; and when he puts these two propositions, a great productive year and a big crop, my hon. friend lays the foundation for the argument which follows.
. But the first part of his argument commences with an " if." It is not laying down an absolute premise; it is not stating an actual fact; it is a supposition from the very start. He says if there could have been a quick realization on the heavy crop in the West at real world values at that time, such and such would have been the result, the people would have had their money, and they would have had heart then to go into production for the succeeding season. But does not my hon, friend know, a reading and thinking man as he is, that the supposition with which he started the argument was an absolute impossibility? That "if" never could have bien got out of the conditions at that time. If there could have been a quick realization at the then present world values, certain things would have taken place! Now, what I want to say is that that supposition could not have been turned into fact. World conditions made it impossible to do so. Suppose there had been a quick and sudden rush in order to bring about that realization, into the markets of the world of 200,000,000 bushels of wheat from the Northwest, in the short period of which he speaks, I would like to ask him to think what the result would have been upon the world prices. There was more wheat in

the world than was raised in our Northwest. There was all through the world a humper crop, one of the largest crops the world has ever garnered. .More Wheat was raised hy the world last year than was necessary for the world's existence, taking into account all the waste and all the consumption outside of the waste; and, if the Northwest, by some magic power, could have landed 150,000,000 or 200,000,000 bushels of its wheat crop in the European capitals and markets within sijc weeks of the time at which it was reaped, what would have been the position, what would have been the price, what would have been the realization? The problem for .solving ultimately in reference to the Northwest is the problem *of storage and o.f equable, reasonable, moderate selling, and until that problem is [DOT]solved the best conditions cannot be obtained for the West. So much in reference to that.
My hon. friend then leads up to a conclusion that he wants the West, the House, and the people of this country to take, and it is that, although this has been a problem insolvable up to a certain time, the Grand Trunk Pacific was to make it solvable, and that when that road had been laid down and put into order for carriage such a condition would no longer exist, for the road would take the place of the lake carriage when the ice had seized the waters, and would bear out that surplus from the west in a continuous stream and a stream large enough to quickly exhaust the source at the other end. My hon. friend knows that that could not take place. Suppose we take his own calculation that there were 120,000,000 or 150,000,000 bushels of grain in the Northwest, in storage and in the farmers' hands, at the time that the lake waters were closed by the ice and you had the Grand Trunk Pacific with the best Toadbed, the heaviest rails and the best *equipment; would that have solved the difficulty for the people of the Northwest and enabled them to come to that quick realization of world values which would have set them up? My hon. friend has simply to take his leadpeneil and a piece of white paper and calculate what it means to draw
150,000,000 bushels of wheat, together with *other grain, over the track of a railway. Suppose you take out 500 cars per day in the winter season. It is a good road and a good bit of haulage if every train will take out fifty loaded cars. If every train took out fifty loaded cars, and each car *carried 1,000 bushels, 500,000 bushels would
be taken out by 500 cars, running every day through the winter season, which would be an achievement worthy of any great carrying road. But with 500 cars daily, with their half million of bushels, it would have taken 300 days to have carried out the 150,000,000 bushels, and there are not 300 days in the four winter months which intervene between the last of December and the opening of navigation upon the Great Lakes in April.
Another point which my hon. friend must see, which his practical knowledge must make him thoroughly aware of, is this: You have not only your commodity to sell, but you must have at the other end some man who is willing to buy that commodity from you, and there must be a means of getting that commodity from the hand of the seller to the hand of the purchaser, or else you have a very difficult problem intervening. I am going to make this statement, and I would like my hon. friend and the members of the committee to think it over: if it had been possible to have transported that grain out of the West-that one hundred and fifty extra millions of bushels-by means of this road within three months time, you would not have had, comparatively speaking, one single bushel more of that wheat in the European markets than you have to-day, because every bushel that has been asked for to fill the tonnage that was possible to be obtained has been at the call of the tonnage and more waiting on every railway and in every port on the Atlantic seaboard. If you had shipped 100,000,000 or 120,000,000, or 150.000,000 bushels, and sent it down to the Atlantic seaboard, where would it have found its resting place? It would have caused a congestion and embargo in this whole country which would have tied up the available rolling stock of the railways and would have prevented them from carrying the merchandise products and goods which were absolutely necessary to be carried. Where would he have put that 150,000,000 bushels of grain if he had brought it down to the Atlantic seaboard in the months of January and February? No storage room for it in Montreal; that would have been soon filled. No storage room for it in Quebec; the storage capacity there is . limited, and would have been soon filled. No storage capacity in St. John or Halifax beyond a comparatively small and trifling amount. No storage at Portland, at New York, -at Boston or at Baltimore, to have

received a single bushel of that grain, for the storage facilities at these ports are not large, and were more than taken up by the United States grain, which, from Buffalo to the extreme West, crowded down on the railroads, causing embargoes and blockings and congestion, until it was backed up, and backed up clear out to the Western prairies. When you take these things into consideration, what way on earth was there for my hon. friend's view to be realized? If this road had done its duty, as he says, and had taken out that 150,000,000 bushels of grain in January and February it would not have realized to the people of the West one single dollar more than it did realize resting in its resting places, and foT two reasons: first, because the purchaser was not there to buy, and secondly, because there was not transport between the producer and the purchaser sufficient to have carried the grain to him if he had been disposed to buy it, ae in many cases he was. Neither was there any storage room in the ports of Great Britain, even if ocean tonnage could have been got to take it across the ocean. All the wheat and flour that has been necessary for the food of civilians and the food of the armies has been sent there for those purposes. These things can be turned into actual money only in proportion to the consumptive demand, and the world is not able to eat up in three months the resources that are to do it through the whole year. Consequently, the producer, the purchaser, and transport have all to be taken into consideration as factors before that ideal thing which my hon. friend said would have produced such a change in the West can be brought about in practice. I say these things simply that the people in the West may have alongside the statement of my hon. friend some of these restraining, restricting and counteracting statements which I think will enable them to understand the position better. I do not know that I have any more to say on that; that is all I intended to say at the start; that is all that I will say.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to prolong the argument, but I am afraid my hon. friend hardly appreciates the importance of the argument he has made. According to the statement of the Trade and Commerce Department, we had 50,000,000 bushels in the elevators at the head of the lakes on the 7th of April. I fancy that there is further west, 'behind those elevators, not

less than another 50,000,000, or perhaps
100,000,000 bushels.


George Eulas Foster: Probably 100;000-
000.


Frank Oliver: We are putting in our
crop now, and shall be harvesting it in September, in about five months. Are we to believe that we shall not be able to dispose of that 150,000,000 bushels between now and next harvest? That is the conclusion we are bound to draw from what the minister has said. He speaks, no doubt, from information, and if his conclusion is correct the condition is much more serious than I had contemplated. We cannot have it both ways; we cannot have increased production and increased wealth, and, at the same time, a decreased market. If we cannot get the market, we cannot sell the stuff, and we need not' produce it. I quite bow to the minister's argument and to his information, but to my mind he has proved too much. I cannot accept his argument for the reason that I do not want to. I say frankly that I cannot bring myself to believe that that is our position, namely, that we have grain on hand that we cannot get rid of between now and next harvest. If this our position it is very serious. However well entrenched my hon, friend may be, I am going to take the contrary position and maintain that we have not yet overstocked the world, and that there are means, or we ought to find means, to bring to market the produce that we have available.


George Eulas Foster: 1 If my hon. friend is in that position and feels badly about it, I had better administer a little solace to lighten his mind, and not allow him to go up against the dead conclusion that I did not come to, and do
9 p.m. not wish him to come to, that there is no hope for the coming crop because the intervening surplus cannot be got rid of in the meantime. My whole argument has been directed to what my hon. friend started out with, namely, the realization within two or three months of the value at world rates of that 150,000,000 bushels which is now in the West, so that the blood current could come back and vivify the veins of the West, find start them in to the work of the present season. I say-and I maintain it because I believe it to be actually true-that as much wheat has been carried as could possibly have been carried if there had been 2o0,000,Uoa bushels more waiting at sea-board during

that intervening time. Now there are certain conditions which lighten the matter. In the scarcity oif tonnage, the distance that a boat travels is of importance, and if it is possible for a boat by travelling a shorter distance to make two or three voyages where otherwise she should make only one, and carry exactly the same cargo, that is so much in favour of the nearer country which has produce to sell. In that respect Canada has a great advantage;, it lies on the main tracks of ocean commerce and trade, where the vast majority of the world's vessels are going to and fro, and its distance from European centres is 2,500,
3,000	or 3,500 miles. In that respect Canada and the United States, in comparison with the Argentine, another large producer, and especially in comparison with Australia, which has been a very large producer this year, have the advantage of the shorter distance. Now, tonnage is growing scarcer every day. Do not let us deceive ourselves. Tonage is scarcer to-day than it was yesterday, and will be scarcer to-morrow; it will be scarcer next month than it is this month; it wili be scarcer day after day and month after month till this war ceases. It is impossible, however much you may desire or pray or objurgate, to get Tid of that condition of things. Now, Sir, what happened? The Australian Government undertook by Governmental intervention to procure all the surplus wheat of Australia, and became the sole charterer of vessels to take that surplus to Great Britain. She made advances to the farmers upon their grain with that idea.
But what has become of it? Where you have to make an 8,000-mile voyage to Australia for a cargo of grain the difficulties become greater than where you have to make but a 3,000-mile voyage across the ocean in order to get an equal cargo of grain'. To-day the tonnage is not going to Australia, and the necessities of the wheat market in the old country will be met, first of all, by those countries that are closest to it and that have the reservoirs of wheat.
Another advantage that Canada has over the United States is this, that the Canadian wheat of last season was, on the average, infinitely better in quality than the American wheat, and whilst some of the American wheat, by virtue of its poorer quality and lower price, is going in certain directions, those who want the best wheat are coming to Canada for it, and are finding it in Canada. Therefore, in the next few months, when the supply has to be largely
kept up , there is an opportunity for Canada to dispose of her surplus and to get her shelves cleared before they are filled again by the coming crop.


Frank Oliver: Canada was, during the past winter, in exactly the same position in which she will be during the coming summer.


William Pugsley: I am not quite able to follow my hion. friend. In the first speech with which he favoured the committee he said that if you take the full capacity of the railroad, running ten trains a day, it can take out only 500,000 bushels per day, and it is going to take 300 days to transport the wheat o.f whichl my hon. friend speaks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not going to, 'but would take.


William Pugsley: That is the same thing. A thing that will take is going to take.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now we have water carriage.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) rebuked the Minister of Trade and Commerce for presenting such a dark picture, saying that it was very discouraging for the farmers of the West if they would still have last year's crop on their hands when the crop of this year was harvested. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce said: "Oh, in the next two months the farmers will be able to get last year's crop cleaned up." The two statements strike me as exceedingly inconsistent. What is the use of speaking about the enormous advantage Canada possesses by reason of the better quality of her grain, by reason of her nearness to the markets of the Old Country, if this Government does not take steps to provide requisite transportation facilities, both on land and on the sea, and also the requisite storage facilities? You may have all the advantages of a fertile soil and of excellent grain; but unless the farmers can get the grain properly taken care of and cheaply transported to the markets of the-world, all the natural advantages will be of no avail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you suggest that the Government should go into the shipbuilding industry?


William Pugsley: I do indeed. It almost makes one shudder to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us to-night: "Ocean tonnage is scarce torday; it will be

scarcer next month; it will be still scarcer the -month after; it has been growing scarcer since the war began." Yet up to this, I think the twenty-first month of the war, this Government has taken no steps whatever to increase the ocean tonnage of Canada. Is not that fact enough to make one shudder?


George Eulas Foster: Do not shudder.


William Pugsley: I cannot help it. My hon. friend may think it is a light matter-


George Eulas Foster: You do not.


William Pugsley: It is a serious matter for the people of this country; it is a serious matter for the -farmer out on the Western prairie, who works there day after day from sunrise to sundown putting in his crop-


George Eulas Foster: That is not the time he works; he works before sunrise and after sundown.


William Pugsley: -suffering all the hardships of the lonely life on the prairie, to find, after he has harvested his great cron, that, owing to his not being able to g*t his grain to the market, it is rotting in the fields and he is losing thousands upon thousands of dollars. That is not an exceptional case. There are hundreds of pc pie who are in exactly that position. The minister speaks of ten trains a day. Let me tell him that he will find many railnads on the continent of America which are hauling twenty trainloads a day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With a double track.


William Pugsley: No, with a single track. It is the easiest thing in the world for a railroad to run twenty trains a day on- a single track. There would be no difficulty at all for a railroad with a track like that of the Transcontinental to run twenty trains a day, and, instead of 500,000 bushels, a million bushels could be taken out a day. With the three great railroads in the western provinces, properly equipped, you could take out 3,000,000 bushels a day, so that in sixty days you could take out
180,000,000 bushels of grain. What did this Government do? According to the showing of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they hauled out during the past winter what with ten trains a day could be hauled out in sixteen days. That is the extent of the wonderful assistance which the Government have been trying to make the people believe they were giving the farmers of the West.

Unless we have transportation on the ocean, the Government can get all the-grain to the seaboard and yet have accomplished only half its purpose; if the Government does not have proper storage facilities in its elevators, it can only half assist in the-proper development of the West; and I do not see how any one can disagree with me when I say that the Government in respect of these matters has wholly fallen down. What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce say to the fact that, at the great port of St. John, which was the first port to take-a forward step to divert the traffic from Portland in the state of Maine to Canadian seaports and through Canadian channels, and which has developed the winter-port trade very rapidly during the past twenty years, although the elevator connected with the Government railway system was burned down over two years ago, this Government, has not yet replaced it? What does he say to the fact that the only storage in connection with the Government system of railways, including the Transcontinental, is the one small grain elevator at Halifax, with a capacity of 750,000 bushels? What does he say to the fact that 80 per cent, of the grain of the Canadian West has gone this year through American ports? What does he say to the fact that at least 60 per cent of that grain is housed in the elevators at Buffalo, if my information is correct?


Robert Rogers: It is not correct.


William Pugsley: What percentage has gone through there?


Robert Rogers: A little over 50 per cent- nearly 60 per cent all told.


William Pugsley: That, is getting pretty close to 60 per cent.


Robert Rogers: You said 80 per cent.


William Pugsley: The attention of this
Government has been called to the absolute necessity of having storage facilities east of the Great Lakes and on the Atlantic coast. Sir William Van Horne, over and over again, spoke of the necessity of carrying out this policy. Yet, as I have said, notwithstanding that these facts were brought to the notice of the Government, no step whatever has been taken to increase the elevator capacity in the East. If the Transcontinental had been properly equipped with rolling stock, or if the Government had handed that road over to the Grand Trunk Pacific on the 'terms on which it had been arranged by the late Government that they should take it over in sections as completed,

it would have 'been able to haul, not eight million bushels but forty or fifty million bushels, and that without the slightest difficulty. Then if the Government had provided storage capacity, grain could have been stored at Quebec, Montreal, St. John and Halifax, and, as the ships were available from time to time, it could have been sent forward to the markets of the world. If the Government had taken the steps that I think they ought to have taken, and that I beg them to take even at this late date, to send our grain forward to the markets of the world, the problem will ibe nearer to a solution than it is. The situation to-day is not by any means a satisfactory one. The Government ought to give thought to the question, instead of treating it lightly, and laughing and jeering at the suggestions made for improvement and development. Even though the thoughts I express may not be of the loftiest character, they might bring their great minds down to the practical, and endeavour to settle this question, to the very great advantage of the people of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has asked me three questions, and I am quite willing to answer them. It may be that then he will not shudder so frequently and so obviously as he has been doing when reciting this terible condition of things. The statement is made that there is not	sufficient	storage at	St. John,Halifax and Quebec. I just want to say	this-and the	hon.	gentleman
knows that what I have to say is true -that, as far as relieving the situation this year is concerned, any additional storage which could reasonably have been provided in St. John,' Halifax and Quebec, would not have made one iota of difference as regards the quantity of grain actually delivered in Europe from Canada-not one iota. In this Dominion of Canada, there is elevator storage for about 150,000,000 to
165,000,000 bushels of grain. It is not a good argument, it is not reasonable, to say that you must have all this storage, or indeed a majority of this storage, at the seaports themselves. The all-year seaports on our Atlantic coast are not the places where the big storage capacity is provided, or where it is best to provide it. These ports are for transfer (purposes, not for storage purposes. In order to transfer quickly and well you .must have a certain storage capacity in proportion to the vessels that come there seeking
for loads. But you do not need more storage capacity than this, and it is better to have your grain stored in the interior than at the ports themselves, it is less costly and less burdensome to the port itself and in every way better for the distribution of the grain. Now, it will not be pretended that for transfer purposes it would have been necessary to provide at St. John additional storage for more than
2,000,000 to 3,000,000 bushels. If you had had that all these months since the close of navigation, you would not have shipped one bushel more out of St. John than actually has been shipped, because there never has been a time when a vessel came for a cargo of grain and the grain was not there for it. The reason why more was not shipped is that it was not possible to get tonnage for it. The commandeered grain that has been passing out from this country since the last of December and up to the-present time, and which will not all be out probably until the middle of May, has been carried under transport conditions-directed by the Governments of Great Britain, Italy and France. And Great Britain, Italy and France, those powerful Governments, have not been able to provide more ships for that commandeered grain than there was commandeered grain at the seaports ready to put into the vessel.


William Pugsley: Was the commandeered' grain going to Italy or to England?


George Eulas Foster: To Italy mainly, a portion of it to France, and a portion to-Great Britain.


William Pugsley: But the bulk of it to-Italy?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, and when that is cleared out of the way, the bulk of it will go somewhere else unless Italy wants more, a-s she probably will. You are up against certain conditions, and it is foolish, it is no argument at all, to say that any particular individual or any particular government is responsible for these conditions. The greatest problem these nations have to solve to-day is the problem of tonnage for the supply of the army and of the people, but particularly for the supply of the army. You are up against a condition which neither the 'Canadian 'Government, nor any other government in the world, is able to cope with successfully. We have simply to live out these conditions and make the best we possibly can of them; and it is assertion and only assertion, for

my hon. friend to say that the Government is responsible for an insufficiency of tonnage at these ports to carry the grain of the Northwest. The Government is not responsible for it, and no government, however powerful it might have been, could have made better headway than this Government has made against the conditions which have existed for the last twelve months.


William Pugsley: If to do nothing is to make progress, then the Government has been exceedingly successful; for it has done -and I defy contradiction-absolutely nothing since this war broke out for the encouragement of shipbuilding in Canada, or the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine. It has done nothing in any direction whatever. The minister says that tonnage has become scarcer month by month-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman seriously suggest that vessels could have been built since the war began?


William Pugsley: With proper encouragement we could have had some steel ships completed. We could also have had-I am told on good authority, at leasi^-two hundred wooden vessels built, each with a capacity of from four to five thousand tons, and equipped with auxiliary motive power so that it could make a trip across the Atlantic in about double the time occupied by an ordinary tramp steamer. These vessels would have been of enormous benefit. In the United States they are being built and used with very great success. It is hardly necessary to say that this would have relieved the stringency of the situation enormously. In a conversation that I had with him, Mr. McNdchol, for a long time general manager of the Canadian Pacific railway, spoke of the very great necessity of having large storage capacity east of the Great Lakes. In Buffalo, as I have said, they have a storage capacity of about 50,000,000 bushels. What would be the difference between the desirability of storage at Buffalo or east of the Great Lakes and that of having it at ports on the St. Lawrence, or the Atlantic? The idea that elevators upon the seacoast are intended for transfer purposes proceeds upon the assumption that vessels would be constantly coming to take away the grain as it arrived by train. Would it not, therefore, be just as desirable to have large storage capacity at the seacoast as it is to have it east of the Great Lakes?


Frank Oliver: I could! not follow the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he suggested that within the next few months the position in regard to ocean transport was going to improve. Canada is to-day geographically situated where it was a year ago; whatever advantage we ever will have we have had during the past winter. If it is a fact-and there . is no doubt thlat it is-that tonnage is getting scarcer from day to day, our position will be that much worse during the months to come than it was during the months that have passed. I see no relief for the situation that confronts us. through the facts placed before us by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. With regard to elevator capacity, the hon. minister says that it is not necessary to have elevators at ocean ports. Well, our greatest ocean port is Montreal, and we have a very large elevator there.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend must not put it in a manner more extreme than I did. I did not say that it was not necessary to have storage facilities at ocean ports. What I meant to say was that ocean ports are chiefly for transfer purposes, but that a reasonable amount of storage is absolutely a safety and an assurance even at transfer stations.


Frank Oliver: I would think it is absolutely a fact that there is a necessity for elevator capacity, even storage capacity, in some degree, at an ocean port. In fact; the Government is building an elevator at Vancouver, having that point in view. The Government, therefore, is stripped of any justification for not having adequate elevator facilities at St. John, Halifax and Quebec. Since this Government has been in power it has built three very fine interior elevators in the Prairie West which until the present time have found no serious usefulness. It would have been just as competent for them to have built at the ocean ports the elevators that they put up at Moosejaw, Saskatoon and Calgary. With all due respect, I think they would have served a more useful purpose at these ocean ports.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think
that.	.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend knows
that until the last two or three months these elevators had not served any purpose at all.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why did the farmers not use these elevators more?


Frank Oliver: Because they were not
needed.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why not?


Frank Oliver: Because they were not;
that is all. Why should a man pay for hauling grain to an interior elevator and have it remain there if he could <ret the grain forwarded to the ocean port?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I thought they could get their money, or a large part of it. if they got their grain to these interior elevators?


Frank Oliver: If they could forward to
an ocean or lake port just as well, certainly they were going to do it. The only possible usefulness of these interior elevators would be in the case of an unfavourable season, when it would be necessary to have the grain dried - in this . case their drying plants would be useful-and where there was a prospective congestion or blockade at the closb of navigation, in which case the railroads would have a short haul to the interior elevator instead of going down to Fort William. But with an open road all the year round to the Atlantic ports, that condition did not and should not arise-as a matter of fact, would not arise if the lines to the Atlantic ports were operated as it was intended that they should be operated. There could not be any fall congestion, because the conditions in the fall would not give rise to it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then it was not a
good policy to build these elevators?


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt that
until within the last two or three months the money spent upon these elevators was thrown away, for they were not used. Conditions might arise through unfavourable seasons which might cause the elevators to be very useful. They are being used now, but the reason they are being used is because the grain is not being carried forward to the ocean ports. We have the trackage facilities, but apparently we have not the rolling stock, or we have not the intent or desire to send the grain forward. The hon. minister contends that if we got it forward we could not ship it. Well, if we had it forward we would have that much of the work done, and be in that much better position to ship it when the opportunity arrives. However, the serious point is this:
if circumstances were such during the past six months as absolutely to prevent our grain from goipg forward across the ocean, unless conditions-if conditions are blam-able-do not become very much more favourable than they have been in the past we are not going to be able to get rid of what we have before our next harvest comes on. That is a very unfortunate condition, and again I say that I decline to accept the position of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on that point.


John Dowsley Reid: I think we all agree that
at the ocean ports we should have quite a lot of elevator capacity. Of course, we 'must have, and will require as soon as we can arrange it, larger storage capacity at St. John and Halifax, but the fact of our having such a large storage capacity in Montreal, which, no doubt will be increased from time to time, assists us so far as the ports of St. John and Halifax in the winter are concerned, because we can store large quantities of grain at Montreal, and then in the winter move it to St. John and Halifax. I shall be in a position at another sitting to give more information with reference to the rate question that we discussed this afternoon.. I stated that I did not know what the arrangements were when this rate was made by the minister himself, but I have made some inquiries since the matter was brbught up. To-morrow I shall take it up with the general freight agent of the Intercolonial and be able to give more details. As I understand it, the advantage of that arrangement was this:
In the summer, the rate is 6 cents per bushel from Fort William to Montreal. In the winter time, over the Canadian Pacific Railway and, I presume over the Canadian Northern railway [DOT] too, the rate is 12 cents per bushel from Fort William to Montreal. The rate say from Winnipeg to Fort William is 10 cents per 100 pounds. The advantage was this: any farmer shipping, say, from Fort William to Montreal over the Canadian Pacific railway would pay 12 cents per bushel in the winter time, and 6 cents from Winnipeg, say, to Fort William. That would be 18 cents. Over the Trans-' continental he would pay 6 cents per bushel to Armstrong and 6 cents per bushel to Montreal or Quebec, so that the farmer shipping from the West on the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern at their regular winter rates would pay 18 cents per bushel from Winnipeg to Montreal or Quebec while over the Transconti-



nental he would pay 12 cents, thus saving 6 cents per bushel.


William Pugsley: What is the rate from
Montreal to St. John by the Intercolonial, compared with the rate from Montreal to St. John by the Canadian Pacific railway?


John Dowsley Reid: The rates we are talking
about are through rates.


William Pugsley: Is it not true that while the Government has lowered the rate on a portion of the line, the total through rate on the Government system of railways from Winnipeg to St. John is not less than the rate on the Canadian Pacific railway.


John Dowsley Reid: The rate is, as I have said, lower by 6 cents per bushel.


William Pugsley: For what distance?
Mr: REID:	I have just explained that
the through rate on the other roads to St. John would be 6 cents per bushel more.


William Pugsley: Let us have this matter understood. Does the minister state positively that the rate on the Government system of railways from Winnipeg to St. John is 6 cents per bushel less than the rate on the Canadian Pacific railway?


John Dowsley Reid: What I said was-


William Pugsley: That is what the minister said.


John Dowsley Reid: Let me answer the question in my own way.


William Pugsley: We want to have this
cleared up. 'We say that the Government has simply made a pretense of lowering the rate for a short distance. What I ask the minister is-it is a plain question, if he will pardon me-will he state that the rate on grain during the past winter from Winnipeg to St. John over the Government system of railways was 6 cents per bushel less than the rate on the Canadian Pacific railway.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member will allow me, I will answer that question, in my own way. In the first place, I said that if he would wait until to-morrow, until I could get the information, I would be able to answer.


William Pugsley: That is better, but the minister pretended to answer.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not give any definite answer, so far ae that was concerned. I said that grain that was shipped on the Transcontinental to Montreal and Quebec for export-some of it is in store in Mon-
treal and Quebec, and some went to Portland, the Grand Trunk having taken it to their terminal-that grain shipped for export to Quebec, Montreal, or Portland over the Transcontinental road was carried at a rate which was 6 cents per bushel less than , would have been charged if it had been carried over the Canadian Pacific railway to Montreal or Quebec for export.


William Pugsley: The Canadian Pacific
Railway has no line to Portland.


John Dowsley Reid: We are talking about grain for export, and that is the information I have at the present time, that the rate over the Transcontinental is 6 cents per bushel less than the rate on the other roads. There was not any grain shipped to St. John because we have no way of storing it there. We could not take it over the Transcontinental and deliver it without putting it into the Canadian Pacific Railway elevator, there, and the hon. member knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators at St. John were taxed to their utmost capacity this year by the grain which that company hauled over its own railway system.


William Pugsley: I understood my hon. friend to say that some went to St. John and Halifax. He says now that none went to Halifax or St. John, but that al'l went to Portland.


John Dowsley Reid: Some 400,000 bushels of the
8,000,000 bushels went to Halifax. There are one and three quarter million bushels stored at Quebec, and there is a large quantity in store for export at Montreal waiting for the opening of navigation. But a large portion went to Portland; I cannot give the quantities.


William Pugsley: The minister must see the importance of it. There must be a through rate on the Government system of railways from Winnipeg to St. John and Halifax, because St. John and Halifax are two large exporting ports. Will the minister say that the through rate on grain for export during the past winter was 6 cents per bushel less on the Government system of railways to Canadian Atlantic ports than bn the Canadian Pacific Railway?


John Dowsley Reid: I must admit again that I am not fully seized of the facts this evening, but I will get the hon. member that information. He could not expect me to have that information this evening.


William Pugsley: I thought the minister would have it. He is making a great handle of the reduction of 6 cents on a part of the line between Armstrong and Quebec. In the winter season the great question is, what is the through rate for export to the Atlantic ports, and that is why I should have thought that the minister would have the information.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is it not the fact that the Government decided to fix that 6 cent rate from Armstrong to Montreal after consultation with the other companies, and was it not practically understood that the other roads, the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway, would give practically the same rates?


John Dowsley Reid: My information is that there was no consultation, that the other roads did not give that rate, and that it was in operation only on the Transcontinental. The Minister of Railways took the responsibility of making that rate himself for this reason: we had in Montreal a very large storage capacity, and he thought that if we could fill the elevators there-I do not know the exact capacity, it may be anything from 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 bushels-that if, also, we could fill the elevator at Quebec, which has a capacity of
1,500,000	bushels, the farmers of the West would get the advantage if they paid the same rate that they would have to pay in the summer by shipping it to Port Arthur, lake and rail. They would not ship their grain in the winter time if they could possibly avoid it, because it would cost them the winter rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern, which would be 6 cents more than if it were carried on the Transcontinental. As I understand it, that was the reason which actuated the Minister of Railways. He said, we have the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur filled, and we have in Montreal a considerable storage capacity. If we can carry the grain over the Transcontinental, and put it in the elevators at Montreal and Quebec, where there is a capacity of one and three-quarter million bushels, and the farmers can get it carried there at the same rate as they would pay in the summer time, it will be of great assistance to the people in the West.
The only reason why we could not handle more was that we had not the equipment. We took the road over on the first of July with the expectation that wre would get our proportion of equipment that the Grand Trunk Pacific was supposed to have on
195J
hand for the Transcontinental, but, on the contrary, we got none. We took that road over without a particle of rolling stock. We did the best we could bytaking rolling stock from the Government railway system. We have ordered rolling stock, but it will be eight or ten months before it is delivered-. You cannot get cars for months and months after the order is given on account of the scarcity of raw material. During the last year or two the policy of railway companies has been to 'build steel, instead of wooden, cars, and it is difficult to get the material. However, the minister did order cars-, we are ordering more, and we are doing our best to get sufficient equipment to meet all the necessities of the road. Taking the condition as we found it, it does strike me that it is not bad work that has been done by the Minister of Railways since the road was taken over. We hope we will get the road as well equipped as the Intercolonial was- at the time we took the Transcontinental over, and that we will have it 'in- such shape that we can move the grain in larger quantities and avoid the trouble we had with grain being exposed last winter. If we can get the necessary equipment, with the great storage capacity we have at the head of the lakes, at Montreal, in the West, where three elevators were built last year, at Quebec and -in Ontario, where the elevator capacity has been increased very materially within the last few years, and with, the elevator capacity that we must -have at St. John and Halifax, I think we will be able to handle the -crop fairly well. This is a big question and one which requires a great deal of consideration, and will call for considerable expenditure. At St. John, where the elevator is supposed to be built out on the point near the sugar refinery, tracks will have to be laid and other work done. I admit that there has been quite a delay in the building of that elevator.


William Pugsley: Quite an inexcusable delay.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman in so far as that is concerned.
I agree that it is necessary to have the elevator there, and as soon as possible. But war cpnditions have been such that many works o.f great importance, such as the one mentioned, has had to wait.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Finance said that all necessary works that could not be called new would be carried through to completion.


John Dowsley Reid: I have had this matter up and I am in hopes that it will only be a short time until we have an elevator in St. John.


John Hampden Burnham: I should like some one to put in a word for the building up of Canadian industries. I have heard of nothing but wheat. We cannot eat wheat, nobody -can eat wheat, but we all eat flour. We could reduce our elevator capacity, and the facilities for moving wheat, by half, by turning the wheat into flour. But, we allow the industry, flourmaking, in Great Britain and elsewhere to be built up at our expense while we are trying to get our rajw product transported across the ocCan and carried elsewhere. Why is it that some method cannot be devised, why is not the impulse to manufacture strong enough in this country, why do we not repress this tendency to freedom of trade, which is so absurd, and why is it that we never think of developing our own country? Let us bend all our energies towards turning our wheat into first-class flour, and then try to send that elsewhere, and not keep calling for enormous storage capacities half of which, as a matter of fact, would not be required, if we had our ideas properly developed in regard to our own industries, and in regard to giving the people of this country something to do, and we would be saved that expense, which in itself is tremendous.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid that my hon. friend is wrong. He often is right, but I think he will have to go a step further. We do not eat flour; we eat bread and biscuits, and he will have to carry his argument down to the manufacture of the flour into bread and biscuits if he is going to carry his idea out to its logical conclusion. I was glad to notice that the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, answerer! the Minister of Trade and Commerce so effectively. I was almost going to say that he had done it more effectively than it was done on this side of the House. The Minister of Trade and Commerce argued that the proper place for the wheat just now is in the elevators and elsewhere m the West. The Acting Minister of Railways and Canals rather discounted that by arguing that the Government had done a great deal by transferring a lot of it to Montreal and Quebec. I think the Acting Minister of Railways was right in saying that that was a good idea; but I am not so sure that he was quite right in saying 
that they had carried that idea into practical effect. The minister's figures must surely be wrong. I cannot conceive of a statement that only 400,000 bushels, out of
8,000,000 bushels, went to a Canadian port.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I did not say "went to a Canadian port."


An hon. MEMBER:: To Halifax.


George Perry Graham: I should have added in winter. I should have added to a winter port. You said that 400,000 went to Halifax and none to St. John.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


George Perry Graham: A great deal of it went to Portland. I cannot see how my hon. friend, having a Government line from the West, did not even fill the elevator at Halifax once. He tells us that we ought to have more storage capacity at Halifax; yet, out of the 8,000,000 bushels, he did not ship
750,000	to Halifax. That rather bears out something that was said in the discussion the other night, and which was that the way the railway has been managed has made it practically imperative that a large portion of our western wheat should be carried to an American port. The road has been operated in a practical way to Cochrane, but east of that as a side line, a local road, and not with any regularity. An excuse was given why proper operation has not taken place. The result has been, just what the minister has said to-night, that a large proportion of the 8,000,000 bushels that came from the West over that road has been handed: to the Grand Trunk at Cochrane. The Grand Trunk has brought it out over the Toronto and Northern Ontario to North Bay, from there over its own line to Scotia Junction, then east to Montreal, and from Montreal to Portland. Now, until the Government takes hold of this line east of Cochrane, and gives it a service at least approximating the services west of Cochrane, the result cannot be otherwise than that' in winter a large proportion of our western wheat will go to American ports. That is altogether subversive of the policy behind the construction of this line. The Grand Trunk cannot begin to haul as big a load over its line from North Bay to Montreal as can the Transcontinental from Cochrane to Moncton; there is no question about that. I am safe in saying that the Government railway from Cochrane to Moncton, with no more than two short pusher grades, can haul in one train twice as heavy a load as can be hauled over the Grand Trunk from Scotia

Junction east. If the Grand Trunk can afford to take that traffic from Cochrane to North Bay, and from there to Scotia Junction, thence to Montreal, and from Montreal to Portland, over a comparatively inferior line, surely the Government line with its magnificent roadbed ought to be able to haul the grain to our Canadian ports at a cheaper rate. I am suprised that only
400.000	bushels got to Halifax. If there was no tonnage to be had, the Government should at least have filled up the Halifax elevator out of that 8,000,000 bushels.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows from many discussions we have had in this House that the Intercolonial has been taxed to its utmost capacity from the close of navigation up to the present time, carrying troops and waT supplies, and there have been complaints throughout the whole system because we could not furnish cars for local traffic. The Intercolonial could not have done more than it did during the last season. The grain was stored in the elevators, at Montreal and Quebec, and how could we take it to St. John or Halifax when we had not the power or the cars?


George Perry Graham: It struck me that as
400.000	'bushels had been taken to Halifax, the elevator there might have been filled. It would have taken only about 350,000 bushels more to fill it.


John Dowsley Reid: It was not stored there; it only went through the elevator.


George Perry Graham: There was no tonnage
there. '


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, there was tonnage, but not a very great deal. I say the Intercolonial was taxed to its utmost capacity, and could not have hauled that 8,000,000 bushels. But give the Government a chance to get equipment for both roads, and then the grain will be moved over the Government railways to the elevators at Montreal and Quebec, and to the ocean ports. Grain has to have some outlet. The
10 p.m. Canadian Pacific railway was taxed to its utmost capacity at St. John, and as the grain had to be shipped to England we could not help it going through American ports.


Frank Oliver: Is this item of $1,500,000 for equipment for the Transcontinental?


John Dowsley Reid: No. I have a memorandum here showing that the $1,500,000 is made up as follows:
Filling wooden trestles, $350,000; fencing, etc., etc., $100,000; unsettled grading contracts, $500,000; right of way and Quebec terminals, $500,000; boilers and power house equipment, Leonard shops, $50,000.	There are three
trestles on the line just west of Superior Junction, (that is, the 10 miles of line constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and subsequently acquired by the Transcontinental Commission) that it may be advisable to fill this coming summer.	They were constructed in 1908, and must now be either renewed or filled. There are other wooden trestles between Graham and Winnipeg that were constructed in 1907 and 1908, that it .may be advisable to at least partially fill up this coming summer. It costs considerable money to organize equipment for trestle filling, and it is a question, when once organized and at work, whether it is not more profitable to complete the job at once. I am of opinion that $360,000 will be sufficient for this class oif work between Superior Junction and Winnipeg for the season of 1916. As all trestles on the line east of Superior Junction are of more recent date than those west of that point, they should not be filled for some years to come.
Considerable fencing will be required between Hervey Junction and La Tuque, a distance of 50 miles, as the country is settleing up. The same applies to the country east and west of Cochrane and the country adjacent to the Wabi-goon river west of Graham, but it is possible that the above-mentioned amount will not be expended, as this will depend largely on whether the anticipated amount of settlement takes place or not.
The unsetted grading contracts amount to: Grand Trunk Railway Company, $1,500,000 ; unsettled contractors' claims, $203,000. The above is a matter of adjustment, and it is impassible to state definitely what the final result will be.
Many of these right-of-way questions in Quebec and vicinity are now in the Exchequer Court for adjustment. In other cases, they may be settled without having recourse to the courts. I am of opinion that the sum of $500,000 will be sufficient for the adjustment that will be affected within the fiscal year.


George Perry Graham: Surely the acting minister can see now what he has done. He has read some detailed items of construction, which show that the filling of trestles, fencing, etc., has not been comnleted Under the original contract the Grand Trunk Pacific was to be fenced. The minister admits the whole case about the road not being completed. However, we can discuss that on the Transcontinental item. Can the minister say how much of this
8,000,000 bushels went into the Quebec and Montreal elevators respectively?


John Dowsley Reid: I am informed that 6,250,000 bushels went to Montreal, and 1,750,000 bushels to Quebec. A portion of the grain that went to Montreal elevators has been shipped out to Portland, but we shall not know the exact quantity till spring.


William Pugsley: I have always understood that steamships are very glad to get grain to use in place of ballast, and I know that some years ago vessels going to New York would carry grain just for the sake of having it as ballast. I should think that the ships coming to our Canadian ports in winter would be glad to get grain to store in the hold.


George Eulas Foster: They got all the grain they wanted to carry.


John Dowsley Reid: The quantity of war supplies that had to be shipped was so great that nearly all the vessels had cargoes of that nature.
But they got all the grain that they wanted to make up their cargo, not as 'ballast but at very high rates. For years the rates for ballast have been very low; but, of course, owing to the scarcity of tonnage, there was such a congestion of freight that they could get nearly all the freight they wanted.


William Pugsley: Is the Government taking steps to secure tonnage?


John Dowsley Reid: The question of securing tonnage does not come under the Railway Department. It comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the next time that the Estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are before the House, perhaps the minister will be able to reply to that question.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: The minister has given us a great deal of information, but there is one point on which he has not thrown very much light. He has admitted that the scarcity of rolling stock on both the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental is a serious matter, and I know that the business people of the country are anxious about it. Would the minister be kind enough to take us into his confidence and tell us what he has done in regard to providing cars and engines?


John Dowsley Reid: There are quite a number of engines and cars under order. I gave instructions some time ago to have the specifications ready, and I expect within a few days that tenders will be called for for a very large .quantity of cars and engines and other equipment necessary. In order to help us out, we purchased the equipment of one of the contractors.


George Perry Graham: What contractor was
that?


John Dowsley Reid: O'Brien and McDougall. We purchased from them 25 engines, 400 cars,

and a quantity of other material-all the plant necessady for construction and keeping the railroad in repair.


George Perry Graham: It was pretty well worn out.


John Dowsley Reid: I am informed that it was in good condition. The 25 engines and 400 cars have come in very useful. We expect, however, to have under order within the next few weeks all the cars and engines that we can get made in this country between now and next fall.


George Perry Graham: Ordinary wooden cars or steel under-frames?


John Dowsley Reid: What we intended making was the steel cars, but we had in view the building of say 500 wooden cars to keep Us going, as we can get those much quicker than the steel cars.


George Perry Graham: Steel under-frame?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The reaeon that there was a shortage of rolling stock on the Intercolonial was, as I stated this afternoon, on account of our taking a quantity of equipment to put on the Transcontinental.


George Perry Graham: Would the minister mind bringing down a report showing what he purchased from O'Brien & MoDougall and what he paid? *


John Dowsley Reid: I will send my hon. friend a copy of the detailed account.


John Howard Sinclair: I hope the minister will not delay very much longer in getting his specifications out and calling for tenders, because it is slow work building steel cars. Every one knows that a sample car has to be .built, that the stock has to be procured ahead, and that it takes months to get started on a contract of that kind, because some of the large car plants in the country are busy on war material. I regret that the minister has let the whole winter pass without having his contracts entered into. If he really intends to get anything done that will serve us for the coming season, he should not be so far behind .as at the present time to be only calling for tenders.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been pressing this matter with those who .have to get the specifications out, and they tell me that within the next few days we shall be able to call for tenders, and we expect to get the first 500 cars in July.


George Perry Graham: Do you build any cars at Moncton?


John Dowsley Reid: We only do repairing work there.


George Perry Graham: You build some engines there?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but we have a contract for nearly all those outside. We do a little of that -work at Moncton.


William Pugsley: Is there not sufficient capacity at Moncton, in those magnificent shops, 'which are well equipped and where you have the very best machinery? It was understood, when those shops were erected, that care would be built there.


John Dowsley Reid: As I stated a minute ago, those shops are being run to their fullest *capacity with repairs and so on. When the men are not employed on work of that kind they work at the building of oars. My information is that the shops at Moncton, owing to heavy repair work during the last year, are working to their fullest capacity. They are not holding off any work; all the work that can be done there is being done *at the present time, but it takes the whole plant to keep the equipment in order.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Is the minister quite certain that it is the scarcity of oars that has placed the Intercolonial in such a position that it is not able to take care of the traffic? It is inconveniencing the people very much.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the reason-because we had to take equipment from the Intercolonial to put on the Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Quebec, as at the start we had no ears at all on the Transcontinental. Had we not had to do that we would have been in a much, better position on the Intercolonial.


James Joseph Hughes: It is the opinion of some people in the Maritime Provinces who have some knowledge of the matter that it is not entirely the scarcity of cars that is bringing about- this unfavourable condition, but that it is to some extent due to the management. To illustrate this point, in Halifax [DOT]on Saturday last a wholesale merchant informed me that on the 8th of April a loaded car for him left Montreal and on the 23rd of April he could not find any trace of it.


John Dowsley Reid: That is easily explained. There have been cases on the Intercolonial, as well as on other roads, of local freight having had to be put on a siding or in the yards and kept there for days in order to allow the through traffic for the war to go
forward. Ammunition and supplies foT war purposes had to have the right of way.
There is another reason that just strikes me as to why there was a little shortage. The hon. member who comes from Prin'ce Edward Island will remember that there was some trouble because goods could not be shipped to Newfoundland. We had 300 cars at Sydney, where they were held for months because the steamers running from Sydney to Newfoundland could not take the freight. We had to place an embargo on freight for Newfoundland because the steamers could not take it across. We had to send a Government steamer, the Durley Chune, to carry two cargoes, in an effort to relieve the situation. We chartered another steamer also. All that time there were cars held up. But there were other places where we had to let cars wait. This has been an exceptional time-we all admit that. We had to use many engines in moving the troops. A troop train, being very heavy, would require two engines, and the hon. gentleman knows how many troops have been moved. That has meant taking power from the moving of freight. Besides *all this, we have had to take over the Transcontinental, making it very hard to meet all requirements. I think the management has done everything possible under the circumstances.


James Joseph Hughes: Here was this car leaving Montreal on the 8th of April, routed for Halifax, and loaded with stuff that the people were waiting for, inquiring about, [DOT] and ready to unload, but they could not even get information as to where it was. My information is that under the management of Mr. Pottinger the local men were able to give a good deal of information with regard to matters of that kind, but under the management of Mr. Gutelius nearly everything is done in Moncton. The statement is made that when you write to Moncton jiou do not even get an answer in any reasonable time. I know the conditions in Prince Edward Island. Under the former management tlqe local superintendent- had a great deal of responsibility and could give the information to the public, but now everything is transferred to Moncton and you might almost as well write to China as to Moncton, so far as getting an answer is concerned. The matter is referred from one official to another. The present management may be better in some respects that we cannot see. but it does not give the

same satisfaction to local patrons. The case to which I have referred is one that the former management would not have permitted to remain unsettled. I quite understand that a car may go astray on the railway, but surely it can be traced; at all events, a letter might be answered. A wholesale merchant in Halifax told me that this case was not an isolated one. but that similar cases often happen. There is a belief that the management is not trying to give the local people the service they have the right to expect.


John Dowsley Reid: Our general freight agent,
Mr. Hayes, is a man in whom I have a [DOT] great deal of confidence, and I am surprised to hear it said that there is such a feeling as the hon. gentleman speaks of.
I think it is on account of the trouble we have had this winter. But the Intercolonial is not the only road on which there have been delays. A case was brought to my attention of a complaint made of eight or ten cars that had been en route on a large system for three months and that they had not been able to locate-they had got run on to some siding, no doubt, and other freight had accumulated. Of course, even under normal conditions, cars will go astray. But from what I have known of the working of the Intercolonial during the present winter-and I have had a good deal to do with it because of the minister being away-I believe it has not been any worse in regard to delays than any other system.


William Chisholm: Whatever
the reason, one thing is certain, and that is that there is general criticism of the management of the Intercolonial. That criticism is not confined to the officials and the employees. The minister, no doubt, knows the attitude of the employees towards the management at Moncton, he knows that ever since the change a few years ago there has been nothing of the spirit of cooperation and good will that prevailed among the employees. He knows that even newspapers supporting the Government criticise the management'. I refer particularly to a newspaper in Truro, in the constituency represented by the chief whip of the Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield), which, in season and out of season, criticises the Intercolonial management. Why it is I am not in a position to say. But we do know that there is a large staff, and the Lord knows they get good salaries, and the cost of running the service is altogether out of proportion to the cost of the 
service when Mr. Pottinger ran the road. Complaints are not confined to the operations of last winter, but have been general for a number of years past. There seems to be indifference on the part of the officials at Moncton to the requirements of the local trade. They seem to think they are the lords of creation and can do about as they like, and if they reply to a complaint they seem to think it an act of condescension on their part. The people along the line in Quebec and the Maritime Provinces complain bitterly about the lack of sympathy shown by the officials at Moncton. We regret that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) has been prevented by illness from giving the attention to the service that he would have liked to have given.
Whether it is due to the fact that there are too many new men on the job, that the offices go from one man to another, and that the work is done in a perfunctory manner, I cannot say. The feeling prevails that there is very little sympathy on the part of the management, even on the part of the minister, with the railway and the people of the Maritime Provinces. Another matter that I wish to call attention to is the delay that occurs in dealing with small claims against the Intercolonial. When a small claim for a horse injured or sheep killed is sent into the department at Moncton, investigation after investigation is held; the matter goes from one man to another; the operations are even more mysterious than the Militia Department was beiore the war broke out. You call attention time after time to these little claims; after some time probably you get a reply, but the thing hangs fire. The delay in the Chancery case that Dickens describes-I cannot recollect the name of it-


John Hampden Burnham: Jarndyce and Jarndyce.


William Chisholm: The delay in connection with that case was nothing compared with the tardiness of the Intercolonial Railway in dealing with these little claims. The minister ought to prod them up a little and see that these claims are promptly dealt with. It is all very well to say that the claimants may go to court about it, but the minister knows that in connection with these little claims running from $10 to $100 the claimants do not feel like running a risk of lawsuit with a powerful defendant like the Intercolonial Railway. I submit that in all fairness these claims should be promptly dealt with; that advantage should not be taken of technicalities. More time

and money is wasted in running these things from pillar to post than would be involved in settling the claims promptly.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not heard any complaints such as the hon. member mentions. We have a solicitor at Moncton who looks after these claims, and there is no reason why they should not be disposed of with reasonable promptness. I will draw attention to the statements the hon. member has made, and see that there is as little delay as possible in dealing with claims that may arise in the future.


James Joseph Hughes: There is a pretty general feeling that the officials who came from the Canadian Pacific railway, particularly those who were loaned, are not in sympathy with the Intercolonial. I do not know whether or not that iis correct, but if it is correct it is a serious state of affairs.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think that is a
fact.


James Joseph Hughes: There is room for suspicion there. The system has been changed since the new management took hold. Under the management of David Pottinger, who received a small salary, comparatively speaking, there were two tariffs in each year-I think this applied to the Prince Edward Island railway as well as the Intercolonial railway-a summer tariff and a winter tariff. When the tariff went into operation in the spring, every one concerned knew what the tariff would be until the fall. Now the tariff is changed quite frequently, and nobody knows how often it is going to be changed. I have spoken to station agents along the line of the railway and they do not seem to know clearly what the tariff is. Many circulars are sent out in connection with these changes. A circular will go out referring, perhaps, to section 10 of circular 82, subsection g ox something like that, and it keeps a man reading pretty nearly all the time in order to be well posted with regard to the changes. The result is that a man frequently charges too much in order to uc safe. The idea is that the Intercolonial is tailing along after the Canadian Pacific railway. This session of Parliament a committee has given its attention to the matter of introducing the fish business into west-Canada. Mr. Archibald, superintendent of the dining car service on the Intercolonial railway, who appeared before that committee, was asked upon what principle they charged as much in the dining cars for fish that cost five cents a pound or less as for
turkey that cost from 20 to 25 cents a pound. The Government railway system could be made a good advertising agency.


John Dowsley Reid: Did he explain the reason?


James Joseph Hughes: He said he knew of no
reason unless it was that they wanted to copy the Canadian Pacific railway. There does not appear to be any originality or any responsibility in connection with this Toad; the only desire seems to be to copy the Canadian Pacific railway I understand that on the railway systems in the Southern States they make a specialty of putting fruit in the dining car at a very low rate in order to advertise the fruit districts. On the Hill system they make a specialty of certain kinds of potatoes that are grown in Oregon and in some of the Pacific coast states. It would be an excellent advertisement for our fish if the Government railway system should put fish on the menu card at as low a rate as possible. There is no doubt about the fact that the dining car service is good, but few men who are accustomed to eating fish will take fish if they can get turkey at the same price. I was coming up the other day on the Intercolonial and to my surprise I found that turkey could be obtained even at this season of the year as cheap as haddock. I took the haddock, which I found to be excellent. We are spending money in an effort to advertise the fish business and to introduce it into western Canada; why should the Intercolonial Railway not advertise it on theiT own tables? The only reason that is offered seems to be that they want to follow the lead of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


John Dowsley Reid: You have the Prince Edward Island oysters, I believe, on the bill of fare?


James Joseph Hughes: No, it is not the oyster
season.


John Dowsley Reid: I mean during the season.


James Joseph Hughes: I suppose they have them.


John Dowsley Reid: They are good, too, the very best in the world.


James Joseph Hughes: I think so. I see an item here for original construction on the Prince Edward Island railway. Surely that must be a misprint. If I understand the words " original construction," this item should surely be $8,000 or $18,000.


John Dowsley Reid: No; that is an item to cover any claims. The explanation of it is this: it is a revote of amount of unexpended bal-

a aces from the [DOT] 1915-16 appropriation. In 1915-16 we had a vote of $800; it remains the same. Each year there are Land damages and claims that have not been presented, or that have been overlooked, and, having a small appropriation, a settlement can easily be made at a reduced figure. There was not anything spent last year, and there is nothing in view, but it is just as well to have this small item in the Estimates in case anything should turn up.


James Joseph Hughes: Some years ago the Government built a piece of railway extending from a place called Cardigan to Montague, and the intention was to continue that line and connect with what is known as the Murray Harbour branch. That line has never been completed, and it ought to have been finished. The intention was to finish it, but, for some reason or another, it 'has not been completed. Now the war is on, and I suppose that will be another reason for not going on with it. The line between Cardigan and Montague was completed by the late Government, and the intention was to extend it so as to connect with the other branch and make it more useful than it is now.


John Dowsley Reid: These Estimates were prepared by the Minister of Railways himself, and he does not appear to have an item for that railway. I do not understand the situation or the conditions, but there is nothing in the Estimates, and, therefore, there would seem to be no intention of going on with that work this year.


James Joseph Hughes: There is an item of $1,000 for surveys and inspection. That has been in, the Estimates for a year or two, but it does not seem to have .been used.


John Dowsley Reid: During the past year the night of way surveys have been made on the island, under the vote for this purpose, to obtain records of the profile, right of way, bridges and so forth. The records will be completed this year, but it is necessary to revote the balance to complete the plans and records.


James Joseph Hughes: For two years the Minister of Railways told me that he intended to survey a proposed line of railway between Bridgetown and the main line, connecting probably at St. Peter, and passing through or near the settlement called Strathcona, but no survey has been made. Is it the intention to have (anything done this year?	.
[Mr. J. D. Reid.l


John Dowsley Reid: During the war we are not going on with any more new work than we can possibly help. There is no vote for that work.
iMr. HUGHES: There were surveys made last summer, were there not?


John Dowsley Reid: No, those were for the purpose of obtaining the records of profile, right of way, bridges, and so forth, on the island.


James Joseph Hughes: I saw a number of men making surveys there every time I travelled on the railway. They called themselves engineers, and they carried tripods and surveying instruments of various' kinds. I think they were having a pretty good holiday. They seemed to be young men from college, and a good many worked bareheaded, with their sleeves rolled up, and with their boots over their trousers, and there was a considerable quantify of mud on their boots. There was a local election coming on.


George Perry Graham: That accounts for it.


James Joseph Hughes: It was reported that the [DOT] survey was for the purpose of having the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway widened.


John Dowsley Reid: That was probably right.


James Joseph Hughes: If that is correct, is it the intention of the Government to proceed at once with the widening of the gauge?


John Dowsley Reid: There is nothing in the Estimates for that purpose.


James Joseph Hughes: That is why I thought it strange that they should be making surveys last summer, if there was no intention to go on with the work.


John Dowsley Reid: The surveys have to be made ahead.


James Joseph Hughes: That may be so, but the opinion is that the coming election had something to do with it.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so.


James Joseph Hughes: It will be hard to get that idea out of the minds of the people down there, particularly when the surveys are not to be followed up by any work. If there had been an item in the Estimates showing that the survey was to be taken advantage of, and that the work was to go on, I might have thought that it was all right, but I must say I am somewhat skeptical. I am afraid that that

survey will have to be done all over again. A local election was held last summer, .and there was a .possibility of a Dominion election as well, and perhaps it was thought that the survey would do for both. It is one way of spending money, and of giving a holiday to young men who are sons or relatives; of men friendly to the Administration. It is not a desirable way of spending money, particularly when we ought to be practising economy. It is adopting the method which was suggested some sessions 'ago, that the Government should dash away and spend the money.


George Perry Graham: Will the minister get some information about this car ferry and give it to the committee, when the Estimates next come up? He might tell us how far we have got oni with it, and all about it. I would suggest that we let the Prince Edward Island item through.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the minister say when the car ferry will be ready for operation, or when the piers will be ready?


John Dowsley Reid: I discussed that matter with the officials a few days, ago, and I understand that the car ferry will be ready this coming fall.


George Perry Graham: Would it not be better for the minister to give us the information definitely?


John Dowsley Reid: I will get that information. We have had a very interesting and useful discussion to-day, and if the committee is willing to let this item go through; I would suggest that we rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion oif Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.60 p.m.
Wednesday, April 26, 1916,