1916-05-03

CANADIAN NORTHERN AND GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAYS.


Hon.   S@: In connection with the proposed loan -to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which appears in the -Supplementary Estimates laid upon the table of the House yesterday, I desire now to lay upon 'the table the following documents :
A letter dated December 10, 1915, addressed to the Prime Minister by Mr. Alfred W. Smithers, chairman of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
A statement showing the outstanding bonds, debentures, loans and notes of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company, as of January 1, 1916.
A statement showing the interest payments for each month during the year 1915 upon securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company, together with an estimate of the deficit in operation for the present calendar year.
A statement of expenses for betterments and miscellaneous purposes for the same year.
A statement showing bonds authorized, issued and outstanding, and the net proceeds therefrom ; also interest payable for the years 1916 and 1917 of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway - Company and Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Compay.
A statement of advances which have been made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company aB of February 29, 1916, to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, to the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company, to the Grand Trunk Pacific Saskatchewan Railway Company, and to the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company, Limited, and the security held by the Grand Trunk Railway Company therefor.
A memorandum prepared by the Department of Finance showing the amount of the proceeds of the sales and pledges of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's securities guaranteed by the Dominion Government under the legislation of 1914, together with details of payments made to the Railway Company from such proceeds, accompanied by certified copies of the Orders in Council under which authority the payments were made from time to time.
In connection with the proposed loan of $15,000,000 to the Canadian Northern Railway, which aleo appears in the Supplementary Estimates, I desire to lay upon the Table the following:
Statement of all securities of the Canadian Northern Railway System outstanding as of April 15, 1916, showing the total securities guaranteed by the Dominion Government and the amounts issued, the total securities guaranteed by Provincial Governments and the amounts issued, and the total amount of unguaranteed authorized and issued securities, and the maturities of all Issues.
A statement showing the amount expected to be realized from securities which were available as of December 1913, the depreciation as of December, 1915.
An audited statement of loans and liabilities.
A memorandum respecting the funded debt and fixed charges.
A memorandum respecting contractors' accounts.
A memorandum of interest payable by the Dominion and by Provincial Governments under existing legislation.
I desire also to lay upon the Table a statement showing the proceeds of the sales and pledges of the $45,000,000 Canadian Northern Railway securities guaranteed by the Government of Canada under the legislation, of 1914, together with an estimate showing what would have been realized for such securities upon the basis of prices existing before the war; also particulars of the various certificates which have been issued by officials of the Department of Railways and Canale, certifying that payments might be made out of the proceeds of the securities, and showing the balance of proceeds on hand as of May 1, 1916. These statements are accompanied by copies of the certificates given by Major Graham Bell, of the Department of Railways and Canals, who audited the accounts. In connection with the certificates given by Major Graham Bell I also desire to lay upon the Table a letter which he has addressed to me respecting the audit he has made of the books and accounts of the company.	;


Mr. GRAHAM:: I suppose that is all the correspondence there is in connection with the two proposed loans?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Yes.


George Perry Graham: I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he have these printed as quickly as possible and distributed amongst the members, because he can readily understand we cannot discuss the matter intelligently with only one copy between us.


William Thomas White: I thought my hon. friend might desire that either himself or some other hon. member should look over and select from the statements that have been laid upon the Table those it was thought desirable to have printed, as was done in 1914. I quite agree with my hon. friend that the statements I have presented should be printed as they have a direct bearing on the subjects referred to, and I therefore beg to move that rule No. 74 be suspended for the purpose of enabling me to move that the documents I have laid upon the Table be printed forthwith.


Mr. NESBITT:: Is there any statement showing the bonds that have priority over those guaranteed by the Government?


William Thomas White: All the bond issues of the system are shown in the statement I have presented.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The proposition in the Estimates is to pay the interest on bonds that have priority over the Government guaranteed bonds.


William Thomas White: I think all the other issues of the Canadian Northern Railway system have priority over the $45,000,000 mortgage which was executed in 1914. That, of course, was subject to underlying mortgages securing the bond issues of the -system. I think the (Statement il have laid upon the Table will give my hon. friend full information, but if anything further is desired I shall be pleased to bring it down if I can procure it.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Are -any copies of the trust -deeds that weTe executed at the time of the guarantee of 1914 available?


William Thomas White: Yes, 1 shall lay on the Table a few copies of the two trust deeds executed by the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific in 1914. It will not be necessary to print any more of those.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Yesterday the Prime
Minister said, in answer to a question by the leader of the Opposition, that he presumed there would be considerable correspondence in connection with the applications for these loans, and I think he said it would be laid upon the Table.

Might I ask that that be done? Amongst the papers that have been laid upon the Table there is no correspondence at all in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway, and only one letter, from Mr. Smither-s, in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I call my hon. friend's attention to that, and I think my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition -supposed that the correspondence also would be laid upon the Table.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I understand
that all the correspondence has been brought down.


William Pugsley: These are only financial statements.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a letter from the chairman of the Grand Trunk.


William Pugsley: But nothing from the
Canadian Northern?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


William Thomas White: There is no written application from the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The letter from the chairman of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is an important communication which sets out the position of the Grand Trunk and of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there included in this statement anything that would show the expenditure in paying interest so far as securities are concerned? According to the item in the Supplementary Estimates a certain sum of money is asked to be voted for the purpose of providing for expenditures made or to meet indebtedness incurred in paying interest upon securities having priority over the guaranteed securities authorized by chapter 20, Statutes 1914, and also for expenditures on construction and on equipment. Does the statement which my hon. friend has brought down contain anything in detail that would show who made those expenditures and when they were made? Apparently the appropriation is to recoup some corporation for having made those expenditures. If money has been spent on construction, or equipment, or interest since June, 1914, the statement ought to be made in concise form so that the House will know exactly what are the facts. If there have been any sales by the Canadian Northern since June, 1914, of securities which were in existence at that time or which may have come into existence since, the statement ought to show

clearly that those securities have been sold and what has been done with the proceeds.


William Thomas White: The statements
which I have presented give full information as to the two latter points referred to by my hon. friend. The statement shows the sales and pledges of securities and their proceeds. It also shows all payments made out of the proceeds, together with the certificates upon which they were paid out. There is also a statement showing, in addition to the funded debt, the short date maturities and the temporary indebtedness of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. That shows, with details, the amount of advances upon interest and construction accounts, and it gives I think, full information as to the current obligations of the company. In other words, the statement which I have filed shows the permanent and the current obligations of the company.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Exclusive of bonded indebtedness and of debenture securities, what I would like to have made clear is this: the wording of the item seems to indicate that the money is asked to be voted to repay money spent for indebtedness incurred in paying interest. Is the information furnished sufficient to make that clear?


William Thomas White: I think so. The company borrows money from time to time for its purposes. Its borrowings as they stand at present are shown, I think, in sufficient detail, in the statement which I have laid upon the Table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid upon the table of the House on the 28th ult., respecting an increase of salary to Mr. Alfred Carter, Accountant of the Library, was concurred in.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved:: That the following Orders in Council, laid on the table of the House on Tuesday, the 25th day of January last, be approved:
1.	Orders in Council published in the Canada Gazette and in the British Columbia Gazette, between the 12th of January, 1915, and the 31st of December, 1915, in accordance with sub-section D of section 38 of the regulations for the survey, administration, disposal and management of Dominion lands within the Forty-mile railway belt in the province of British Columbia.
2.	Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between the 12th of January, 1915, and the 31st of December, 1915, in accordance with Section 77, Chapter 20, 7-8 Edward VII, the Dominion Lands Act.
3.	Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between the 16th of January, 1915, and the 31st December, 1915, in accordance with Section 19 of Chapter 10, 1-2 George V, the Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
4.	Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between the 12th of January, 1915, and the '31st December, 1915, in accordance with Chapter 5 of Chapter 21, 7-8 Edward VII, the Dominion Lands Survey Act.
5.	Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between the 12th of January, 1915, and the 31st December, 1915, in acordance with Chapter 47, 2 George V, the Railway Belt Water Act.
6.	Orders in Council passed under Section 18 of Chapter 63, Revised Statutes of Canada, an Act to provide for the Government of the Yukon territory.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: This resolution to confirm certain Orders in Council is the result of a position taken by the present Premier when leader of the Opposition, who insisted persistently on having this procedure followed, namely, that all Orders in Council passed by the Government should be submitted to Parliament for its approval. I do not know that any great purpose is to be served by this procedure beyond the fact that the presentation of the Orders gives an opportunity of informing the House in regard to their purport and, if necessary, of raising discussion regarding them. It is hardly to be expected that the House would under any circumstances reverse any Order in Council that had been passed, because such reversal would lead to great complications, An Order having taken effect from the time of its being passed, for the House to declare that it was invalid or to refuse to sanction it would, of course, create confusion that would be contrary to the public interest.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the question was quite one of reversal. As I remember the legislation, it is to the effect that the Orders in Council shall be in force until the last day of the next succeeding session of Parliament, but not longer, so that, unless during that session they are approved by the House, they would simply cease to have effect. It is pretty much the same thing.


Frank Oliver: The effect would be practically the same, that an action that had

been taken by the Government would be rendered invalid by the inaction of the House. Further,, in discussing the merits of the procedure, if information is the purpose of it, I think that there is always the possibility of the House becoming informed on consideration of the Estimates of the department concerned, without the necessity of this formality being observed. The statute, however, calls for it and the min- ister has followed the statute, and the Orders in Council have been referred to me by the right hon.-leader of the Opposition for consideration. While I would not presume for a moment to undertake to discuss the vast mass of material that is contained in these many Orders, having gone through them somewhat carefully, I may take the liberty of drawing the attention of the House and of the Government to certain points as being of more or less public interest.
Order No. 1938 grants an irrigation right in the railway Belt of British Columbia to one Layton. The terms are: $5 an acre, with $2 deduction on account of irrigation work. But Order No. 2378 grants to F. W. Anderson a tract in the same railway belt at one dollar an acre with a requirement of only 35 per cent of land to be irrigated. It seems to me there is no good reason for the difference in the treatment accorded these two enterprises under what appear, so far as the Orders in Council are concerned, to be exactly parallel conditions.
A small matter to which I may draw the minister's attention is dealt with by Order in Council of 27th February. This order provides for the destruction of predatory animals and birds in the Dominion parks, but it does not specify what animals or birds are considered " predatory." Therefore, the tourist who undertakes to exercise what he supposes is his right under this Order in Council is liable to get into trouble with the authorities just the same. I would suggest to the minister that when he permits the killing of animals within the park, contrary to the general principle of protecting animal life there, he should specify exactly what animals or birds may be killed.
An Order dated 15th June, 1915, deals with the question of motor vehicles in the parks, and provides that they may be used on roads from which they have hitherto been excluded. For a long time it was considered inadvisable that motors should be, used in the mountain parks, for the obvious reason that the use of motors on the same roads as carriages might result
[Mr. Oliver.3
in very serious accidents where horses were not used to the motors. Now that motors have been permitted in the parks on certain roads, now that the necessities of the case require that the privilege be extended to those who use motors, may I take the opportunity of making a suggestion to the minister. That suggestion is, that provision should be made to test the horses employed in the park, to find out whether they will or will not shy at motor vehicles. This is an important matter to those who are interested. We desire to have these parks patronized by all classes of people, we desire to have them used by motorists and also by those who drive horses. But until the horse becomes used to the motor there is the greatest possible danger to life in the use of the two vehicles on the same road. I should think it very unfortunate to restrict the use of motors. But if motors are to be used, horses should not be used unless they have, so to speak, passed an examination in meeting motors on the road.
I observe a general tendency throughout the regulations to relax conditions that were imposed in previous years. This, I think, is a very proper attitude to be taken by the department. A few years ago, when values of all kinds were rising, when speculation was rife, it was necessary that there should be restrictive regulations to prevent the public property from falling into the hands of speculators to be used for speculative purposes purely. But under the benign rule of our friends opposite the values of property in the West have declined to such an extent-and are still on the down grade-that there is no such thing as speculation now either in land, timber, coal, petroleum, or any other natural resource of which I have knowledge. Therefore, there is no necessity for the maintenance of rigid requirements in order to secure ownership that were absolutely necessary a few years ago. I do not wish to approve of an unfair administration of the law or regulations as showing favouritism, but I decidedly approve of a readjustment of the regulations according to existing conditions, which is what I find in those orders that I have noted.
There is an Order dated 17th April which rescinds a prohibition enacted by a previous order with regard to mining of coal under the right of way of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. The former Order was passed during the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, on the application of the railway company, for the safety of the road as it was building. I notice that that

Order is rescinded on the ground that, now that the railroad has been built, it does not matter whether the mining operations are carried on or not. May I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the purpose of the original order was to assure that the ground under the railroad track should not be undermined. But if it is undermined after the railroad is constructed, the result is just the same as though it had been undermined when the railroad was under construction. Coal seams are very close to the surface in many cases, and if the railroad has no protection in the matter it is quite possible for a man to acquire a coal right, and, by working that coal right, to absolutely wreck the railroad grade it crosses. It may be that such a case would only occur very exceptionally. But to prevent that condition was the purpose of the first order; and I must say, I do not think the minister is well advised in rescinding that order. There is no serious reason why it should be rescinded, and it seems to me there is good reason why it, should be maintained.
I notice in an Order passed May 27, 1915, that the boundaries of gas leases, which, under a former Order, were required to, conform to a certain base line, are. now not required so to conform, the reason given being that as the lessees now do not acquire the surface, there is no reason why the boundary lines should be regular. I submit that it does not make any difference whether the right is acquired on the surface or not, it is just as necessary that the right which is acquired be-low the surface should be ascertainable with as little difficulty as if it were acquired, on the surface. The original regulation that required the boundary lines of gas properties to conform to a certain well understood requirement is just as necessary in the public interest when -the right relates only to, the gas itself as it is if it relates to the surface-indeed, I think inore so, because if it relates to the surface there can easily be surface marks to show where the boundaries are. When it is not related to the surface it is all the more important that every one should know where and in what direction the boundary lines are drawn.
I notice a number of grants to cemetery companies. It has been the custom to make grants of cemetery grounds to churches and municipalities, but I notice that the minister has introduced a system, or practice, of making free grants of land for cemetery purposes to companies. So long as the
property is for the purpose of a cemetery it does not make any serious difference whether it is granted without charge or to whom it may be granted. But it is obvious that if a free grant is made to a company that company may later change its character and the purpose that was in the mind of the Government in granting the cemetery property may toe defeated. It is perfectly right that cemetery property should be granted, and should toe granted free, but I think that it should be granted free only to municipalities or churches which have a corporate existence aside from the business of running a cemetery, and which can be held to an agreement to maintain the property for the purposes for which it was intended. In one case here I notice that a part of a school section has been sold to a cemetery company. That it seems to me, is not an unreasonable proposal. If a cemetery company wishes to acquire land from the Government, it should pay for it at the price that the land is worth and should be subject to all the considerations appertaining to any other company that is doing business with the Government; it should not be on the same footing as a church or a municipality or any other public body or organization.
I notice an Order in Council of August 12, 1915, by which J. A. Fraser, of Portage la Prairie, is granted a hay lease on a quarter section of land at 25 cents an acre. I am not acquainted with the circumstances of the case, but I draw attention to it from the fact that it seems strange that an Order-in Council should be required to enable Mr. Fraser to secure exclusive rights on a certain quarter section. It would seem that if one man has an opportunity to acquire grazing rights or hay rights on, this quarter section, any other man should have equal opportunity. Either there should be general regulations governing the matter of hay leases or no special grant should be made to a special person. I know nothing about the circumstances of the case, but I suggest to the minister that the finding of such instances in this mass of regulations would indicate that there had been favouritism in the matter rather than a regard for the general interest.
I notice a very remarkable Order of September 17, 1915, and if it would not be out of order, Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to have the minister's explanation later of the purposes of the Order. Under this

Order the Churchill Basin, Fish and Traction Company, Limited, are given exclusive rights of occupation of a right of way for a distance of 225 miles. The purpose, as it appears to me, would be to reach some fishing grounds of this company in the north. I am unable by reading the Order to understand what purpose is to be achieved by it, and I hope the minister will be good enough to give us an explanation of its purpose.
I note again an Order dated November 6, 1915, which provides for the auction sale of one school section and of a five-acre piece of another school section, the section to be at the upset price of $7 an acre and the fraction to be at the upset price of $30 an acre. No reason is given in the Order in Council for this special sale being made. It is generally the custom not to sell school lands except in areas; that is to say, the School Lands Branch come to the conclusion that the land in a certain area of townships has reached a good value and they list and put on sale by auction all the school sections within that area. The fact that a large number of sections are on sale attracts buyers and makes the sale important and tends to general success. There may be cases where there is necessity for the disposal of a small parcel of school land. It can only be disposed of by public auction, but I think it is only right that when it is considered necessary to make such disposition the reasons should be stated. No reasons are stated in this Order in Council for dealing with these two pieces of school land in this particular way, and if the minister would be good enough to take note of the matter, I should be glad to have his explanation later on that point.
I notice an Order dated December 9, 1915, the purpose of which is to give protection to the homestead entries made by enlisted men after their enlistment. There are a number of Orders in this bundle of papers making provision for the protection of homesteaders and miners and others holding rights on the public domain who have enlisted in the military forces. These orders are for their protection during the period of their enlistment, and in most cases to give them credit for the work they do for the country or the Empire, as if it were done on their homesteads. Everybody will agree that that is right and proper. This order of which I speak is in a somewhat different class. The former Orders, of which I spoke, gave protection to men who have already enlisted and made their plans of life to occupy either land
[Mr. Oliver. 1
or mining property, and who have given up those plans and prospects for the purpose of serving their country. This order provides, that the man who has enlisted can, after his enlistment, go and make an entry for the land and be protected, and have the benefit of that land as though he had occupied it before his enlistment. That is to say, this Order in Council gives a bonus of a quarter-section of land to the man who enlists. I am not discussing the merits of 'the case; it may be that that is a desirable policy to pursue, but it is well that we should understand that that is what we are doing, that we are giving the man who enlists now a bonus of a homestead for enlisting without residence or practically duties, as I understand it.
It would be impossible, of course, to deal thoroughly with the vast mass of departmental work that is contained in this file. The file having been brought down, I thought it was only proper that I should draw the minister's attention and the attention of the House, to such points as I happened to be able to notice in an examination of the documents. There are many other matters that might 'be dealt with, but I do not think that at this stage of the session it would toe wise to take up the time of 'the House at any greater length. But I would be glad if the minister would explain to the House the points to which I have drawn his attention. I shall toe very glad to agree to the passing of the resolution.


William James Roche: Believing that these Orders in Council would be disposed of in the manner that they have been disposed of every year when submitted to Parliament, and formally approved of, I have not been able to get the information necessary to give an explanation in detail other than is contained in the Orders in Council. I cannot therefore enter into as minute an explanation as otherwise I would have liked to make, but I will refer to a few of the points which have been raised, trusting that my personal knowledge will enable me to reply to the hon. gentleman. The only explanation I can give as to the difference between the prices charged in connection with lands for irrigation purposes in the railway belt is that there was a time when the lands in the railway belt were sold for $3 an acre with a rebate of $2 per acre on the completion of the irrigation works. But these regulations were changed so that we now sell the lands at $5 an acre

instead of $3 as heretofore. That pretty-well explains the difference between the two eases, although I am not at all sure as to the dates. There -might have been some special considerations in connection with these cases which I will have looked up, and I will afford the hon. gentleman the explanation later on. I -quite 'agree with his suggestion as to specifying the predatory animals and birds in the Orders in Council. Of course, it may necessitate frequent Orders in Council, or frequent amendments in Orders in Council, but that is not a great hardship, and we can easily conform to that.
In regard to the suggestion about examining the horses that are driven in the parks to test them -so as to determine whether or not they will shy at motor vehicles, I do not know whether that would be practicable or not. I doubt whether we have jurisdiction over all those horses. No doubt we have jurisdiction to a certain extent over the horses that are allowed in the parks, but I am aifruid it would be rather a large order if all the horses were to be examined to see if they were afraid of motor vehicles.
In regard to the grants for cemeteries, we have been granting sites for cemeteries where it was an organized company, a municipality, or a church, that applied, but we make the express stipulation that they are not to be utilized for any other purpose, so that that will bind them down specifically to the purposes of a cemetery site.


Frank Oliver: I note that one of these Orders in Council refers simply to the people of Centre View, Rev. John Prior, without any suggestion that a company is being organized.


Mr ROCHE:: No doubt that was in connection with a church. Very likely they have a church, and have applied for a cemetery site in connection with it. I quite agree that the school lands stand on a different footing from Dominion lands, inasmuch as school lands are held as a trust, and it is only right that we should not grant them free. They are usually disposed of by public auction or at a valuation. In connection with the hay lease to one Fraser, I have a dim recollection of that case, and I think the explanation is that these were not ordinary Dominion lands but lands surrounding lake Manitoba, most of which were under water. But Mr. Fraser was a stock man with a large number of stock, and not having sufficient land on which to
run this stock, he applied for a lease of some of the lands that had been revested in the Dominion from the province. I think that is the explanation of the lease in this case. I do not know that there was any conflicting application, and therefore there would not be any desire to show partiality to Mr. Fraser. With regard to the Churchill Basin Fish and Traction Company's right of way, I understand that that is a road that has a provincial charter, and we dealt with this charter just the same as we do with applications from other railways. An official of the department in a memorandum submitted to me said he saw no reason why he should discriminate against those having provincial charters, and only grant the right of way to those holding Dominion charters. I believe it is a road which joins with the Hudson Bay road on the way to Churchill and therefore it has a provincial charter.'


Frank Oliver: Is it suggested that this
is to be a railway?


William James Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The reason that I drew
attention to it was that I understood that it was intended to be a wagon or trail road, and I wanted to know particularly if the rights granted to the Company would prevent other people from using it.


William James Roche: It is a railway right of
way. As to the sale of the school section and of five acres of another section, a municipality may ask to have a particular section put up for sale, for something in connection with municipal purposes, and it may desire to have a sale before the general sales take place because the general sales only take place once every two or three years. Our policy in regard to putting up the school lands for sale is that before the land is offered, we secure the consent of the provincial government and we submit a statement of the lands that are going to be offered for sale and of the places where the sales are going to be held. We have done that in connection with the sales which are to be held this coming summer.
With regard to the protection of the homesteading rights of those who have enlisted, I think the hon. gentleman has probably misinterpreted the Order in Council. He states that we are giving practically the same protection to the soldier who has made his homestead entry after enlistment as we are giving to the man who was the owner of a homestead prior to enlistment.

But there is a difference in our treatment of these two men. The man who had a homestead prior to enlistment has not only protection in so far as not allowing cancellation proceedings to be instituted, but he is also allowed to count as time of residence on his homestead the time that he is serving his country at the front. In the case of the volunteer who makes a homestead* entry after enlistment, he is not allowed to count his time but he is protected from cancellation. I will draw the attention of the officers of the department to the suggestions which have been made by my hon. friend in regard to the manner in which some Orders in Council might be improved, and also to the other suggestions which he has made in order that they may have every consideration.



THE BILINGUAL QUESTION.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) laid on the Table copies of the Orders in Council and reports of the Minister of Justice in reference to the Ontario Statute passed at the last session of the Legislature, the reports dealing more particularly with certain petitions for the disallowance of the Act 45 Vic. chapter 45 of that year, And certain correspondence with the Department of Justice.
3 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. COPP:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to change the location of the Intercolonial railway, or building a new line of railway as a part of the Government system, to and from any points on the said Intercolonial railway, between the city of Moncton and the town of Truro, for the purpose of avoiding the heavy grades now existing between said points?
2.	If so, between what points on said Intercolonial railway will the diversion be made?
3.	Have any proposed routes for such diversion been surveyed? If so, how many?
4.	Have any reports of such surveys or recommendations respecting same been made to the Government? If so, by whom?
5.	What has been the total cost to date of such surveys?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Some surveys have been made.
4.	No.
5.	537,012.52, for double track and grade revision surveys between Moncton and at or near Truro.


PRINCE RUPERT MILITIA QUARTERS.
Mr. PARDEE:: Is the Department of Militia and Defence renting any quarters from J. E. Merryfield at Prince Rupert, B.C. ? If so, what are the premises, and what rental is being paid?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: No.


LEVIS. QUARANTINE PROPERTY.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	How much did the work done on the Quarantine property at LSvis, by J. B. Clouthier during the year 1915-16, cost?
2.	What was the cost of materials used, of the work done, as personal expenses and percentages for the said J. B. Clouthier, and all outlay of any other kind?
3.	What is the character of the work done?


Mr. HA ZEN:: 1.	$8,216.80.
2.
Cost of material used	$2,778 56
Cost of work done	 2,984 67
15 per cent on $4,244.52, made up as
follows:
Material	$1,259 85
Work done	 2,984 67
Other outlay .. .		 636 	 373	68 49
Under contract	dated 30th June,	
1915	
1,195	60Plus extras.. ..	
247	80

3. Roadmaking and draining.
Note.-All the above dealings were with the firm of Clouthier & Trudel, of the village of St. Romuald, P.Q. The department had no dealings with J. B. Clouthier.


MAGDALEN ISLANDS SERVICE.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What steamer is making the service between Pictou, Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen this year?
2.	Under what terms is the steamer running as per subsidy contract?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The steamship Amelia.
2.	A subsidy contract has been entered into for one year. The amount of the subsidy is $18,000.


BRITISH COLUMBIA LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries chartered a steamer during the present season for lighthouse service in British Colum-bie?
2.	If so, what is her name, dimensions, tonnage, both gross and net, date of construction, name and post office address of present owner and rate per day?
[Mr. Roche. 1

3.	Is any part of the vessel's running expenses chargeable to the department? If so, what Dart?
4.	Were tenders Invited? If so, what are the names and addresses of the tenderers, and amount of each tender?


Mr. HAZEN:: * 1. Yes .
2.	Leebro. Length, 123.5 feet; breadth, 28.8 feet; depth, 11.1 feet; gross tonnage, 323; registered tonnage, 198; built 1908; name and address of owners, Crescent Shipping Company, Ltd., Victoria, B.C.; rate per day, $125. This vessel has been chartered by the department from time to time since 1908 as the exigencies of the service required.
3.	No.
4.	No.


WENTWORTH MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail contractor between Wentworth station and Lower Wentworth, Cumberland county ?
2.	Were tenders called for the performance of this contract in 1915? If so, who were the tenderers, what was the amount of each tender, and to whom was it awarded?
3.	What was the amount paid to the previous contractor?


Mr. CASGEAIN:: 1.	W. M. Brown.
2.	Yes: W. M. Brown, $350; Arthur Mills, $400; Lannis F. Crawford, $400. The contract was awarded to W. M. Brown at the rate of his tender.
3.	$339 per annum.


FRED. S. WILSON.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Was Mr. Wilson, Belmont, N.S., appointed as buyer of hay for Colchester?
2.	If so, what amount is paid per month to
him as salary ?
3.	Is any commission paid to him?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Mr. Fred. S. Wilson, Belmont, N.S., was appointed as organizer to secure hay for War Office account in connection with the compressing plant at Windsor, N.S.
2.	He is paid $5 per day, plus $1.50 living expenses, plus $1.50 per day when he uses a horse.
3.	No.


EAST GORB-KENNETCOOK MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the mail carrier between East Gore and Kennetcook Corner, Hants county?
2.	What is the amount paid him yearly?
3.	Were tenders called for the performance of the present contract?


Mr. CASGEAIN:: 1.	J. S. Blois.
2.	$300.
3.	It was the intention of the department, on the establishment of rural delivery in the district, to discontinue this service, but it was subsequently decided to. continue it, and a temporary arrangement was made.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOE PAPEES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, bills, vouchers and memoranda in connection with the repairs to the wharf at Shad Bay, Halifax county, N.S., in 1915.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, bills, vouchers and memoranda in connection with the repairs to the wharf at Upper Propect, Halifax county, N.S., in 1915.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 94, to provide for the payment of bounties, on zinc produced from zinc ores mined in Canada, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Eeid (Acting Ministers of Eailways and Canals), the House went into committee, Mr. Ehodes in the Chair, to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide as follows :
1.	That the Governor in Council may grant a subsidy to the Saint John and Quebec Railway Company of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of Railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated) which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized; and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway, not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile or fifty per cent on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as is in excess of $15,000 per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile, namely :
(a)	A railway from Andover, In the county of Victoria, to Centreville, in the county of Carleton, not exceeding 26 miles;
(b)	a railway from Centreville to Gagetown, in the county of Queens, not exceeding 120 miles;
(c)	a railway from a point at or near Gage-town to a point on the Canadian Pacific railway at or near Westfield, in the county of Kings, not exceeding 45 miles.
2.	That the Governor in Council may authorize and empower the Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada to enter into an agreement with the Government of the province of New Brunswick and the Saint John and Quebec Railway Company, subject to the necessary legislation to that end being passed by the
[Stage Direction]
Legislature of New Brunswick, whereby the company shall construct up to a standard for safe operation the line of railway from Gage-town, or from a point near Gagetown, to a point on the Canadian Pacific railway at or near Westfield; on or before the first day of February, 1917, and shall complete the construction and equipment of the said line of railway in all resipects up to and according to the specfica-tions and requirements prescribed, on or before the first day of August, 1917, and shall complete the construction and equipment of the line from Centrevile to Andover up to and according to the said specifications and requirements on or before the thirty-first day of December, 1918 ; and upon the said agreement becoming effective between the parties thereto, the Dominion shall enter into an interim lease of, as and from the first day of April, 1915, and operate, the line of railway from Centreville to Gagetown until the completion within the times hereinbefore specified of all the lines to be leased to the Dominion under the agreement, upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon; and that upon the completion of the line from Gagetown to Westfield, the Dominion will enter into a lease thereof and operate the same pending the completion of the remaining line to Andover, all in accordance with terms and conditions to be agreed upon in each case, including the forty and sixty per cent division of gross earnings hereinafter referred to; and the Dominion undertakes and agrees that as soon as the lines of railway from Centreville to Gagetown, and from Gagetown, or from a point near Gagetown to a point on the Canadian Pacific railway at or near Westfield, and from Centreville to Andover, all shall have been constructed and equipped to the satisfaction and approval of the engineer or engineers appointed by the minister, the Dominion will enter into a lease of the said lines of railway and operate the same upon the terms and conditions agreed upon and to be embodied in the said lease, for the term of ninety-nine years, it being understood and agreed that the Dominion will provide the necessary, suitable and sufficient rolling stock for the operation of the said lines of railway, and will maintain, repair and upkeep the same at its own expense during the whole term of the lease; and when the said lines of railway shall have been fully constructed and equipped as aforesaid, and the Dominion has entered into a lease of all said several lines of railway, the Dominion shall pay semi-annually to the province forty per cent of the gross earnings of the said railways under lease, including forty per cent of the gross earnings received from the operation over the line of railway of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and over the bridge and railway of the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company from Westfield to and into the city of Saint John, in case such running rights are acquired by the Company; and after maturity and payment of all debenture stock and bonds guaranteed by the province, and all bonds and other securities of the province in' respect of the construction of the said railways or any of them, all rental as aforesaid shall be paid semiannually to the company. The Dominion shall have the right to, and may withhold and apply towards the payment of rental due to the Canadian Pacific railway under any lease acquired by the Saint John and Quebec Railway Company, and also towards the payment of rental due to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company 
and to the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company, under any lease or leases cf running rights acquired by the Saint John and Quebec Railway Company, from any moneys that may from time to time be due and payable under said agreement from the Dominion to the province or company, as the case may be, and may make such payment of rentals from time to time to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and to the said Bridge Company accordingly, and any such withholding of moneys and payment of the same for rentals to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or to the said Bridge Company as hereinbefore provided shall be deemed payments under the agreement to the province or the company, as the case may be, in as full and complete satisfaction as if otherwise made under the agreement. Upon failure or neglect on the part of the company to acquire and secure running rights from Westfield to and into the city of Saint John as in the agreement provided, the Dominion may acquire such running rights by lease or leases in its own and sole right and pay rentals therefor, or may construct a line of railway from Westfield to and into the city of Saint John; and in such case Or cases neither the province nor the company shall have any right or interest in the said lease or leases, or such constructed line of railway, or be entitled to any revenue acquired through running rights under any lease or through operation over such constructed line, and afl revenue in such case or cases1 shall accrue solely to the Dominion. It is understood and agreed that any expenditure made. by the Dominion during the currency of the leases or any of them hereinbefore referred to, as is usually carried to the debit of Capital Account by English Railway Companies, including expenditures for additional tracks, sidings, yards, buildings, alignment and grade revisions, and other facilities required for the economical and efficient handling of traffic, shall be rapid to the Dominion by the Company out of the said forty per cent of the gross earnings payable to the company under the agreement, or by debentures secured by mortgage on the said railways bearing four per cent interest, at the option of the company.
3.	The Government Railways Act and the Acts heretofore and hereafter passed amending the same shall extend and apply to any line or lines of railway leased or operated by His Majesty under the provisions of the said agreement.
Any expenditure made under the provisions of the Act to be based upon these resolutions and of the said agreement, shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
5.	Any portion of the line of railway of the company that may be constructed upon lands acquired by purchase or lease from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or from His Majesty, in or near the city of Fredericton, may be included for purposes of the subsidy hereby authorized as a part of the total length of the company's line.
William Pugsley: Will the minister kindly explain this?
Mr. RETD; After the resolution is passed I propose to introduce a Bill repealing Chapter 49 of the Statutes of 1912, entitled the St. John and Quebec Railway Act, and Chapter 52 of the Statutes of 1915, entitled An Act to amend the St. John and Quebec

Railway Act. The Act of 1912 provides that under certain conditions the Dominion Government shall assume a liability of $1,000,000 for bridges that were to be erected over the St. John river. This Act was amended in 1914, to increase the liability from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000. We now propose to repeal these Acts for the reason that under the new arrangement the bridges will not be necessary, as the road will follow a different route.


William Pugsley: Where does the Act of 1914 speak of $3,000,000?


Mr. REID:: I have not the Act before
me, but that was the estimate at the time.


William Pugsley: The Government assumes the liability even if the bridges' cost more?


John Dowsley Reid: The Act of 1914 increased the liability from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000, and we now propose to repeal the Acts of 1912 and 1914, for the reason that under the new arrangement it will not be necessary to construct the bridges. The Bill that I intend to introduce will provide that the route of this railway will be from Centreville to Gagetown, thence to a point called Westfield, where it meets the Canadian Pacific railway. Running rights will be obtained over the Canadian Pacific railway, and, until some other arrangement is made by which the line will be extended to iSt. John, the Canadian Pacific railway will be used from Gagetown to St. John. In addition, a line is to be constructed from Andover to Centreville. The original line was to be from Grand iPalls, on the Transcontinental, to Gagetown, thence to Rothesay, crossing the Tiver on the Intercolonial. Since the original work was undertaken, the Transcontinental has been taken over by the Government, and, as the Intercolonial has now connection with the Transcontinental at McGivney junction, it will not be necessary for the present to build that section between Andover and Grand Falls, as we shall have direct connection with St. John by running over the road now owned) by the Government between Fredericton and McGivney junction. This changing of the route makes it necessary for us to withdraw the original resolutions, so as to provide for a subsidy on the line between Gagetown and Westfield. We discussed with the New Brunswick Government the advisability of having this road connect with the Maine Central, so that there would be connection between the Eastern States and St. John and the lower
provinces. Owing to financial conditions caused by the war, and the necessity of getting our surveys ready, we are dropping that portion of the line between Andover and Grand Falls, but with this exception the arrangement as originally proposed will be carried out. Instead of going to Rothesay, we are going to St. John via Westfield, and in this change there are a number of advantages. I discussed with the New Brunswick Government the advisability of getting into St. John at the earliest possible moment. Engineers who understand the work have told me that it would probably take two or three years before we could get the bridges completed.


William Pugsley: The bridges would take two or three years to build ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. It would take two or three years to put in the foundations and have the bridges ready for operation. There is not only the question of time to be considered, but never in the history of our country have the materials entering into the construction of bridges been so expensive as at present. Iron is very dear and almost impossible to buy; cement, which is required in the foundations, is also high, and so are the other materials; labour is scarce. Altogether, we felt that it would be better to save the extra amount that we should have to pay, under present conditions, for the construction of these bridges. When this road is completed in February next-and it may be ready for operation before that time-I believe it will be of great advantage, not only to the city of St. John, but to the whole district through which it runs, and of that it will be of great assistance to the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental in getting our freight and passengers into the city of St. John. Feeling that this road was likely to give us an entrance into the city of St. John in the near future, I have been able to induce the Minister of Finance to place an amount in the Estimates for an elevator at St. John, the construction of which will be commenced at once; in fact I intend urging its completion as soon as possible in order that we may have the advantage of it next winter. This will be of benefit not only to the railway but to the people of St. John. As hon. members know, we have not had an elevator in that city since two years ago, when the elevator was destroyed by fire. At present, we intend taking running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Pugsley: Is there any power in
the Railway Act to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to grant running rights, or must the matter be one of voluntary agreement?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether the
Railway Act would compel them to grant running rights.	.


William Pugsley: Does the minister propose to take power in this Bill to compel them?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I am satified there will be no difficulty about it.


William Pugsley: On what ground does the minister base that statement?


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Reciprocity.


William Pugsley: This	Government is
opposed to reciprocity.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that we already have agreements by which running rights on the Government railway are granted to the Canadian Pacific railway and vice versa.


William Pugsley: When Mr. Blair was minister, the Government refused to give the Canadian Pacific Railway Company running rights over the Intercolonial between St. John and Halifax, and I believe they have never yet been able to get those running rights. If it is a matter of reciprocity, they may make a deal.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not anticipate any trouble in regard to those running rights. If there is any trouble, I can assure the hen. gentleman we will get into St. John at an early date.


William Pugsley: By an independent line.


John Dowsley Reid: The advantage we shall have by running in from Westfield is that we immediately get into the west side. In addition to that, we run right over to the east side where the Intercolonial terminals are. The Intercolonial railway had a great deal of difficulty in taking over their tracks, grain or other freight consigned to West 'St. John. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company charged such heavy shunting charges between West St. John and the Intercolonial terminals that our freight charges were considerably cut into. By this proposal we can run right into West St. John and over to the Intercolonial terminal.


William Pugsley: If it is so easy to get running rights over the Canadian Pacific

railway, why does the Intercolonial not get running rights from the east side to the west side, instead of paying those shunting charges?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows quite well that I am speaking of the terminals. When we run over the eleven miles, we run right through their terminal and on to the Intercolonial; we can leave our freight cars in their own yards or at the wharf. There is no trouible about that. Taking the whole situation as I have explained it, I think it is much better that the road should be completed into St. John at the earliest possible date. It is a much better arrangement than the previous one for all concerned, and I hope, therefore, that the resolution will pass.


William Pugsley: I regret very much
that I am not able to agree with the Acting Minister of Railways in regard to this resolution, nor am I able to congratulate him or the Government on the conclusion which has been finally arrived at. It was a sorry ending to what seemed to be a great undertaking, one which was intended to make the city of St. John the chief Atlantic terminus of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and the new Transcontinental line which the company was to operate. I also am sorry that I have to charge this Government with having, from the very commencement of the undertaking since this Government came into power, acted, to all appearances, almost designedly, in cooperation with the Government of New Brunswick, to defeat the object originally in view. That is a pretty strong statement to make, but I think this legislation, and the facts, will justify it. Much as I regret to be obliged to make the statement, I feel it is my duty to do so.
What are the facts? When the late Government was in power, we conceived the idea that it would be a very important thing for the Transcontinental railway and also for Canada, that there should be direct connection between the Transcontinental line and the port of St. John. St. John, at that time, had attained such importance as a national port by reason of the accommodation which had already been provided there by the people of that city at a very large expenditure of money, that we believed that its success in that direction had been so marked that it would be desirable in the interest of Canada to have a direct connection between the port of St. John

and the Transcontinental railway, and Grand Falls seemed to be the point where the connection could best be' made. We also felt that it would be of very great benefit to the valley of the St. John river which is a most fertile district, one of the best agricultural sections of the whole Dominion, a district which has been settled for upwards of one hundred years, but which for the most part has been without railway facilities. We thought that if the Valley railway could be constructed all the way from St. John to Grand Falls and be operated as a part of the Transcontinental system, it would be of immense national importance and would give very much needed accommodation locally to a most important section of Canada. At that time, I think in the year 1910, owing to a strong desire upon the part of the people of a large portion of New Brunswick that the Valley railroad should be built, a delegation came to Ottawa and interviewed the then Liberal Government; and after hearing the representations that were made, we arrived at the conclusion that the project was so important that it would be desirable that the Dominion Government should make exceptionally favourable arrangements for the construction of that road.
The proposition which was made to us, and to which the late Government cheerfully acceded, was that the railroad should be constructed from St. John, or from a point on the Government Tailway, to Grand Falls, and that the Government 'should enter into a lease for the operation of the completed Toad for a period of ninety-nine years, agreeing to keep the road in repair, and provide the rolling stock, and to pay to the province of New Brunswick, or to the railway company which should construct the line, forty per cent of the gross earnings. That forty per cent was to be applied towards recouping the province for the interest on the bonds which it proposed to guarantee, amounting, if I remember rightly, to $35,000 a mile. In 1910, the late Government was in office, there was passed by Parliament at the instance of the Government an act giving a subsidy for the line all the way from St. John to Grand Falls. That subsidy was in the ordinary form- $3,200 a mile, but with provision for an increase to $6,400 a mile, in case the cost of construction reached something over $21,000 a mile. It was also agreed that the Government should enter into a lease for the operation of the line in sections as completed. That was the condition of affairs when this Government came into office. Now, what is the first instance of departure from that contract, and of breach of faith on the part of this Government in conjunction with the then Government of New Brunswick, led toy the Hon. Mr. Fleming? And here I may say that at the time it was rumoured in New Brunswick that Premier Flemming had given assurances- assurances which were quite publicly stated by those connected with the Canadian Pacific railway-that, although it was provided by statute that the line should run to Grand Falls, yet it was never intended to run a line parallel to the Canadian Pacific, but that the line would really stop at Andover. It was also looked forward to that at the southern end it should run to Westfield. So, instead of a line Tunning to Grand Falls, to be operated as part of the Transcontinental, this would be a line beginning at a point on the Canadian Pacific at Andover and running to a point on the Canadian Pacific to Westfield, some fourteen miles from the city of St. John. In 1912, the subsidy from ISt. John to Grand Falls was renewed in the following words:
For a line of railway from St. John to Grand Falls, New Brunswick, exclusive of a railway brid.ge across the Kennebecasis river, at or near Perry .point, and two railway bridges across the St. John river, one at or near Mistake, and one at or near Andover; in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 51 of 1910, section 1, item 12; not exceeding 228 miles.
This is in the very wording of the statute of 1910, which was passed when the late Government was in power. While that subsidy was renewed to prevent it lapsing, in the following year we find the hand of Mr. Flemming, then Premier of New Brunswick, showing in the legislation, and carrying out what it was alleged was the assurance that had been given to the Canadian Pacific railway that the line should not be built to Grand Falls but should stop at Andover. The Subsidy Act of the previous year was repealed and the following substituted instead, as the minister will find in [DOT] chapter 46 of the statutes of 1913:
To the St. John and Quebec Railway Company, for a line of railway from Andover to St. John, New Brunswick, exclusive of a railway bridge across the St. John river, at or near Mistake, and a railway bridge across the Kennebecasis river at or near Perry point; in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 4:8 of 1912, section 2, item 2; not exceeding 200 miles.
There we find the first instance of the fact that this Government and the Government of New Brunswick, the latter then led by Mr. Flemming, had decided to abandon that line of the railway which was to extend



from Andover to Grand Falls. That was the first instance of the breach of faith which we find to have taken place. In the year, 1912, the Government, of course, was confronted by the fact that the bridges had to be built and that the railway company could not build them without Dominion aid. It- was provided that a bridge company should be formed and that the Government of Canada should guarantee the bonds of that company for a certain period, and also pay the interest upon the bridge bonds for a period of fifteen years. As further evidence of the fact that there was never any bona fide intention, as it appears to me and as the records show, to build these bridges or to build the line from St. John to Grand Falls, in addition to the evidence I have given to the committee we have the further fact that, during all these years and up to the present time, not a blow has been struck upon the railway north of Andover, nor has there been a blow struck upon the railway south of Gagetown. Some surveys were made of the St. John river and the Kennebecasis river, and surveyors' stakes were driven, but not one blow was ever struck south of Gagetown although it is six years since the late Government made the agreement to which I have referred, and there has since been plenty of time to build the whole railway and the bridges as well. Not a dollar has been expended in construction either north of Andover and north of Centreville in Carle-ton county, nor has any money been spent on construction south of Gagetown. I suppose that this Government and the provincial Government were keeping the matter open until the people of New Brunswick should be wearied with waiting and should be ready to submit to what, I believe, these two Governments have all along intended to do-to make the termini Andover on the north and Westfield on the south. This is what, after all these years of waiting, they are asking the people of New Brunswick to accept as being the final and fixed policy they have arrived at. Better would it have been had they announced this when they came into office years ago, instead of leading the people to believe, as [DOT] they led them to believe in the elections of 1912, that they intended to build this line as part of the Transcontinental system from the port of St. John to a connection with the Transcontinental at Grand Falls. It is true that the Government did intro' duco and have passed in this House in 1914 a Bill to give further aid to the construction of the bridges. The minister 
says that this aid was to be to the extent of $3,000,000. No amount is mentioned in the Act, but it was declared to be the policy of this Government to build the bridges and to pay the interest upon the cost of construction for the period of some fifteen years. The minister says that these bridges would have cost some $3,000,000. Well, they would not have cost any more than they would cost now; I doubt whether they would cost very much more now than they would have cost then. Although provision was made in 1913, and in 1914 for the building of these bridges, no steps were taken to that end; no appropriation was asked for from Parliament for that purpose; the matter has remained in a dormant condition. No work has been commenced upon any of the bridges or upon any portion of the line south of Gagetown.
What was the reason why the Government in 1910 entered upon this large undertaking? We realized that the country was going to the expense of building a great transcontinental railway which was to open up a wonderful country, a country richer in resources than that portion of western Canada which is traversed by the Canadian Pacific railway. Wonderful as is that country, we realized that the new district which was being opened by the Transcontinental railway would soon be settled by thousands, nay, by millions of people, and that over that road would be carried untold quantities of our products for shipment to the markets of the old world, in the way of grain and cattle, which can be produced so satisfactorily upon our western prairies. We talked the matter over with Mr. Hays, late President of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I well remember that there were gentlemen at that time who thought they might be able to convince Mr. Hays that it would be better to bring the line down the western side of the St. John river and utilize the Canadian Pacific railway terminals upon the western side of the harbour. To all these statements Mr. Hays replied:	"You talk about our using
terminals jointly with another transcontinental line. Look at Fort William, where we are establishing ' terminals in connection with our transcontinental system, where we have twenty-seven miles of water frontage, where we have elevator capacity of upwards of 30,000,000 bushels. If St. John is to be the freight terminus for our winter business we shall require terminals almost, if not quite, as comprehensive as those which we are constructing at Fort William." He looked over 'Courtenay bay,

and decided that at that place there was an ideal opportunity for developing a port such as the new transcontinental railway would require. Under the Bill which was passed through Parliament in 1910 we provided that the road should go- into St. John upon the eastern side of the St. John river -that it should tap the Intercolonial at Rothesay, run into the city of St. John, and have direct and easy connection with the terminals at Cburtenay bay. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had prepared a plan of their terminals upon a most comprehensive scale. They thought that they would require for very many years some fifteen or twenty docks, and ample provision was made in the plans to meet these requirements. The plans showed a very large grain elevator, a large immigration building-indeed, all those requirements and facilities which are necessary in connection with the terminals of a transcontinental railway system. I remember that the plans showed trackage extending along the Intercolonial for some three or four miles. They had in contemplation the building of machine shops and a large roundhouse; everything was designed on the most comprehensive scale. This plan is completely destroyed by the arrangement which has been arrived at to-day, and what is the excuse? The minister says that the Transcontinental line has been taken ovier by the Government, and that that is the reason for the change. Well, Sir, we have the statement of my right hon,. friend the Prime Minister that the Transcontinental has not been taken over by the Government. As members of this House know, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company contend that they are not bound to enter upon a lease, because the contract provides that the lease shall begin when the road has been completed, and the road has not yet been completed, as the Government is compelled to admit. All that the Prime Minister has said is that pending the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company entering upon operation of the road the Government is temporarily engaged upon the operation of the Transcontinental system between Winnipeg and Moncton. That is the statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to a question which I put to him at the request of the people of St. John, who have recently ibeen considering the question of the construction of the St. John Valley railway and whether it should be built into St. John on the east or the west side of the river. As 212i
a matter of law, not until the Transcontinental has been completed can this Government legally call upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to enter upon the lease. When it should be completed the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company' wlil be in a position to demand of this Government that they enter upon the lease, which is to be for fifty years from the time of the completion of the Transcontinental-system. Is -it not absurd for the minister to come forward with the reason that he has for the destruction of the agreement which this Government made with the people of New Brunswick? I charge breach o!f faith on the part of this Government- that, by their legislation, by their agreement, by their telling the people that they were going to carry out the arrangements that the old Government had made, they have induced the people of New Brunswick to take upon their shoulders an enormous burden amounting to some $35,000 a mile for the construction of that portion o'f the railway which has been constructed. This portion of the railway could have been built at very much less cost if it were to be used merely as a local road connecting two points on the Canadian Pacific railway. The people of New Brunswick have taken upon themselves this burden, amounting to something like $6,000,000, which is an enormous obligation for a small province with a population of only some 350,000.
My hon. friend says that it would take two or three years to build these bridges. Let me ask him, why did this Government not begin to build the bridges after the legislation of 1912, conjointly with the Provincial Government, when provision was made for them? Why did they not begin to build -them when the legislation was changed in 1914? Why, having placed the legislation on the statute book, did they take no steps to carry out the pledge which they made to the people of New Brunswick that they would construct this valey road on the plans which had been originally agreed upon, and that they would build the bridges? If they had begun, the bridges would have been built by this time. Two years have passed since,the legislation of 1914, four years -since the legislation of 1912 providing for the construction of the bridges; yet the minister tells this committee and the people of New Brunswick that it would take three years to build these bridges; that this would delay the entrance of the Valley road into the city of St. John; that the Government deems it better to

build simply to Westfield and to get running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway. [The minister holds out the hope that there js going to be a connection between McGivney Junction and the Valley road at Fredericton. That connection will be some 34 miles in length. Will he tell me what the grades of that road are, that is, between McGivney Junction and Fredericton, what l,he weight of the rails is, and what is the character of the roadbed.


John Dowsley Reid: The character of the roadbed is first-class; at all events, it will be made first-class. Tihe rails are first-class and equal to any on the Transcontinental. We intend to make the connection between McGivney Junction and St. John equal to any other part of the Transcontinental, that is, a first-class road. That is the intention. It is not the intention to make it a side road. We intend to make the road to St. John, so far as the carrying of freight is concerned, a first-class road.


William Pugsley: I am glad to hear the
minister say that. He has got to give assurances and do a great amount of work in order to recompense the people of New Brunswick, particularly the people of St. John and the St. John Valley, for the great outrage that has been done to them by the breach of faith of which this Government and the Provincial Government have been guilty. I am glad to hear him give strong assurance as to what he is going to do; but he has not told me what are the grades of the railway between McGivney Junction and Fredericton. I am told that they are very heavy, and I am also told that the roadbed is not first-class, but only second-class. The Canada Eastern is a branch line. It was bought for about $8,000 a mile, and it is in very poor condition to be used as part of the Transcontinental system.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend can hardly
expect me to know all about the grades of every part of the road; but if my memory serves me rightly, the information I received was that the grades are probably a little heavy on that road, but that they are in the right direction; that is to say, that, so far as the freight going to St. John for export is concerned, the grades are in the right direction. Coming from St. John they will probably not be so good as they are going the other way. We all know that the roadbed and probably the rails on this road were not of the best when we purchased it, but we have purchased
fMr. Pugsley.l
other branch lines on which the roadbed was not as good as the roadbed of the Intercolonial or of the Transcontinental. We are now trying to make this connection between McGivney Junction and St. John, and we will make it a first-class road in every way, shape and form, so that we can run our freight over the Transcontinental into St. John on a roadbed and on rails as good ae are to be found on the Transcontinental!. The hon. member criticises this Government for what it has done for St. John.


William Pugsley: For what it has not
done.


John Dowsley Reid: Since this Government came into power, it has, through the influence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, done more for St. John than the hon. member did during the whole time he was a minister in the late Government. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has looked after St. John, and this Government has done everything possible to improve the facilities and assist in the upbuilding of the port of St. John. The Government has been doing that ever since it came into power, and it intends to continue that policy. Evidence of it is that we are now starting to build an elevator and that we are trying to get a connection with St. John. The hon. member is one of those who object to the paralleling of railways, but to-day he advocates the building of another road side by side with the Canadian Pacific railway between Andover and Grand Falls. Can any one say why we should parallel that road, or why we should have another road running to Grand Falls when we can just as well do the work over the road from McGivney Junction, and so save the people of New Brunswick, whom my hon. friend claims to represent, from spending more money? The hon. member tries to lead the people of New Brunswick to believe that this road between McGivney Junction and St. John-


William Pugsley: It does not run to St.
John.


John Dowsley Reid: It does, just the same as
any other road over which we have running rights. If we have running rights over that portion of the Canadian Pacific railway to St.' John, the connection is completed, and we can run through our Transcontinental trains. But if there should be' any difficulty, as soon as we can build a line between Westfield and St. John wo

will do so.	The connection we are
making with	St.	John will be of
the very best in the interests of the Transcontinental and of the whole Government railway system, and will be with the view of up-ibuilding our terminals and elevators and carrying out the improvements that have been contemplated. I do not think it is fair for the hon. gentleman to try to give the people of New Brunswick any other impression when, sitting in this House, he has seen that that has been the po.lioy of the Government right through and the policy that is being carried out at the present time.


William Pugsley: I am very much surprised to see the unusual heat displayed by the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not in any heat.


William Pugsley: The minister has not told me what -the grades are on the railway between McGivney junction and Fredericton. -He does not know much about that country, because he speaks of that connection as one between McGivney junction and -St. John. It is between McGivney junction and- Fredericton.


John Dowsley Reid: And from Fredericton to St. John.


William Pugsley: This is a branch line which this Government bought for $8,000 a mile, and it is not a first-class road. It is only a branch line running now between Newcastle and Fredericton, and that is owing to the construction of another piece of road. The 'Government took 14 or 15 miles of the Canada Eastern which had been accommodating the people there, because it did not think it was worth while operating, apparently. I would like to have something to say with reference to that great outrage by and by; but what I want to know now is what is the grade of the portion of the Canada Eastern between McGivney junction and Fredericton. I say that it is to-day not only a second-class road but a third-class road. I say that the total cost of that railroad which the Government bought was only $8,000 per mile, which shows that it could not have been in very great condition. The rails are light, and -it is not suited to be operated as a part of the Transcontinental. The minister says he is not supposed to keep the grades in his head; but when he comes to us and asks us to undo what this Parliament did six years ago-, when he asks us to justify breaking faith with the people
of New Brunswick, surely he ought to know whether this piece of road can be operated with advantage as a connection between the Valley line and the Transcontinental. Does the minister not think so? Does he not think that he ought to allow this discussion to stand over until he can give some information on these grades? I am not speaking here merely for myself; I am speaking as the representative of a very important section of this country. Before I can express my satisfaction, and before this committee can express its satisfaction, with the very extraordinary departure which is being -made from what -haa been the settled policy of the Government, durin-g all these years, we ought to know what is the condition of this line that it is. proposed to operate as part of the Transcontinental railway.
My hon. friend the Acting -Minister of Railways and Canals says that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) has done more for the port of St. John sin-ce he has been in office than I ever did. Well, I am not disposed to detract one iota from what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has done for the port of St. John. All I desire to say is that the port of St. John deserves everything which the Minister of Marine has done, or can possibly do, for it, because St. John stands to-day in the position of having put its hand into its pocket and -spent a very vast sum of money in order to put Canada on the ri-ght track as far as having its business done through Canadian ports and Canadian channels is concerned. St. John stands to-day before this country as the only city in Canada that has made sacrifices for the purpose of demonstrating and carrying out a great national ideal. Therefore the Minister of Marine deserves credit-I will grant that-for doing what he has done for St. John; but I do not propose to-day to -be drawn into a discussion as to what the Minister of Marine has been able to do. The Acting Minister of Railways and Canals will not lead me away from the present question for the purpose of getting me into a discussion as to general improvements which have been made at St. John. No matter how much has been done by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the port of St. John, that affords no justification for the wilful and deliberate breach of faith between this Government and the (people of that community.
The minister says that he has no doubt that he will be able to get into St. John and have a much better connection than

the one which I have suggested, and that they 'will get in quickly instead of having to wait. If the Government had done its duty and started to build-the bridges after the legislation of 1912, these bridges would have been built already-in fact, they would have been built within two years- and the whole line might have been operated into the city of St. John and Courtenay Bay. But now the minister says that if they do not make satisfactory arrangements for running rights
. 4 p.m. over the Canadian Pacific they will build into St. John-or is it they may build into St. John. Will they build in? I would like to ask the ininister if they will build into fit. John.


John Dowsley Reid: I said to the hon. member that we would endeavour to secure-and I havie no doubt that we will succeed-running rights from Westfield into St. John, and if we cannot we will build from Westfield to St. John and make our connection with the Intercolonial railway system. The railway will run from McGivney Junction via Fredericton to the terminals of the Intercolonial railway.


William Pugsley: I am glad that the minister says " will."


John Dowsley Reid: I am also considering, with reference to grades-, and such information as my hon. friend wants I shall be glad to get for him and have here before we go on with the Bill. The only object I have today is to- get the resolution through, so that I can introduce the Bill. Then we shall have the matter in committee again, and I will be able to give all the information at that time.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad if the minister will bring the information. One thing I want to find out particularly about this Canada Eastern line from McGivney Junction to Fredericton is with reference to the grades; I am told that the grades are quite heavy. Of course, it is quite true that the minister says it is down hill and in the right direction.


John Dowsley Reid: That is. what I understand.


William Pugsley: I suppose they can go up the hill with a pusher engine, or extra locomotive power. It will be an interesting change for the people after the long journey on a dead level over the Transcontinental railway, when they come to McGivney Junction and find that they can slide down hill without using any motive power. They
[Mr. Pugsley.J
will be able to speak of that as an interesting feature when travelling down to the Maritime Provinces. Has the minister estimated at all what it will cost to get into east St. John if the Government had to build instead of getting running rights over the Canadian Pacific and from the St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company? Remember, it will mean a new bridge across the St. John river, a new track parallel with the track of the St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company, the acquiring of land through the city, and getting connection with Courtenay Bay. Has the minister any estimate of what that will cost?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the information
to-day' that the hon. member asks for, but I will try and have it when the Bill comes in. My whole object in taking this matter up was this. We have a railway started from Centreville to Gagetown, and I have been anxious that we should get into St. John at the earliest possible moment. The hon. gentleman said that we should have gone on with these bridges. I was not referring to the bridges originally intended to be built. It was the bridge company that was to build1 those bridges, not we.
Mr. PUGSLEY'; But this Government guaranteed the bonds.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The hon. gentleman
asked why, having guaranteed the bonds in 1912, we did not proceed with the bridges at once. We were only to guarantee tne bonds, and the Bridge Company could have let the contract and gone on with them at once, but it did not do so. We were not to blame for the bridges not being proceeded with as originally intended, if I understand the Act aright.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is right as to the Act of 1912; but this is the curious thing: I am charging both the Provincial Government and this Government with conniving-conniving is a strong word, but when you have the evidence before you-


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think you would be accused of that.


William Pugsley: I do not know; I would be sorry to be. The minister is so pleasant and genial that one would hardly believe that he would be a party to such an outrage 'as that which has been perpetrated against the province of New Brunswick in connection with this railway. There is no question about it that after years of humbug, after years of deceit-I do not charge individual

deceit-that would be unparliamentary-but collective deceit-after years of collective deceit they come back and try to put us just where the Canadian Pacific said they had Mr. Fleming in 1912. It would simply be a branch road of the Canadian Pacific, beginning at their station at Andover and terminating at their station at Westfield.
There is another difficulty. How is the minister going to utilize the Courtenay Bay terminals coming in from the west side? All the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific say that it would be very objectionable. My hon. friend will see that if the road were built crossing the Kennebecasis river, coming to Rothesay, and in by the Intercolonial railway, the approach to Courtenay Bay terminals would be the most natural and easy. In coming from the west side, and coming through the city, you would have to run on past and have a switchback to bring the trains and cars around the docks at Courtenay Bay. It would involve an enormous expense to approach the docks coming from the western side. That is what the engineers say. Only the other day Mr. Bouillon, the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, expressed that opinion, and I know that Mf. Hays expressed that opinion in the very strongest way possible. Has the minister given any thought to that?


John Dowsley Reid: I have taken that matter up and have been discussing it.


William Pugsley: The minister will be
able to tell us about that to-morrow. Now, when the minister asks me as to whether it would not be foolish to build a line from Andover to Grand Falls and parallel the Canadian Pacific, I say to him that the Canadian Pacific was there in 1910 and 1912 just as it is to-day. You knew the road to Grand Falls would toe paralleling the Canadian Pacific in 1912, when you (put through the Subsidy Act in the very terms in which it had been passed when the late Government was in power.


John Dowsley Reid: We are operating the Transcontinental and have our connection at McGivney Junction.


William Pugsley: I am speaking of paralleling the line between Andover and Grand Falls.


John Dowsley Reid: It is not necessary to parallel that line now, because we have our connection at McGivney Junction.


William Pugsley: Does the minister know what will be the cost of the bridge across the mouth of the Nerepis river?


John Dowsley Reid: I shall have that information to-morrow.


William Pugsley: The information is very important, for the reason that the Provincial Government has guaranteed the bonds to the extent of $35,000 a mile, and will have to look after that bridge as well. There is another thing as to which there is some slight doubt in the minds of the people, and that is as to the getting of running rights. That is provided for, but I think the. Bill is defective in not providing that these running rights shall toe subject to the approval of the Government of the province of New Brunswick, as well as of the Dominion Government. Of think the Provincial! Government ought to toe a iparty to the terms under which running rights will be granted.


John Dowsley Reid: fhere would be no objection to that.


William Pugsley: The province guarantees the bonds; therefore it ought to be a party to the terms under which the running rights are granted.
It is stated in the resolution that the company may add to the capital expenditure the cost of additional tracks, buildings, yards, etc., on which the Provincial Government would have to guarantee the interest, and some question has been raised as to whether that would apply to any extension -for instance, the extension from Westfield to St. John, in case the Government should go on with that. My own view is that it is intended to apply to sidings only.


John Dowsley Reid: That is all.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the minister
might make that clear. I have felt it my duty to make these observations, and if it ie any satisfaction to the Alinister of Railways, I might say that he has the people of St. John and of the St. John Valley and of the whole province in a bad predicament, by the way in which they have been treated during all these years. Now at last the minister comes to us and says: "We have not done anything about the bridges; it would take two or three years to build them; so if you want connection with St. John right away, you must adopt this arrangement." Of course it would be no good for me, as one member from the province of New Brunswick, or indeed for all the members from New Brunswick on this side of the House, to fight this proposition. The Provincial Government has already passed legislation confirming the ar-


T364 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
rangement that has been made; so it is a case of take this or get nothing; that is the way the matter stands to-day. All the old agreements have .been done Away with by the Provincial Legislature, and we are called upon now to consider what shall be done. Feeling, as I do, very strongly opposed to- the change in policy which has been decided upon, I have felt it my duty to express as briefly as I could the view which I hold. Having done that, I have nothing more to say upon the subject. I shall be very glad, however, to make suggestions to the minister if he is willing to receive them. One suggestion I would make is with regard to the clause about running rights. I am not quite sure but what it would be well, in an important measure like this, to put in some express provision that the company shall be entitled to running rights over that portion of the Canadian Pacific railway which lies between Westfield and St. John, upon terms to be approved, not by this Government, but by the Board of Railway Commissioners. I think that would be reasonable, because my hon. friend must see that if it is this Government's intention to stop at Westfield, and the traffic is then to be taken charge of by the Canadian Pacific railway locomotives and Canadian Pacific railway men, it will add very greatly to the cost of getting the freight to the city of St. John. And I would not limit that to the one company, because when you get to Fairville, you are confronted with another company, the St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company.
John Douglas Hazen: chat has been acquired by the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Pugsley: Only the stock has
been acquired. The road is operated entirely separately from the Canadian Pacific railway. If my hon. friend will look at the annual statements of the Canadian Pacific railway he will see that the earnings of the St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company are kept entirely separate from the earnings of the Canadian Pacific railway, and form a distinct source of revenue from the ordinary lines of the Canadian Pacific. Therefore running rights would have to be acquired from both companies, and as this is a matter of a public character, as the Government of Canada is. going to operate this line, I would suggest that it be provided that the Government shall be entitled to running rights over that portion of the Canadian Pacific railway be-

tween Westfield and St. John, and over the line of the St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company, upon terms to be mutually agreed upon, and, upon failure to agree, the terms to be agreed upon by the Board of Railway Commissioners. I think my hon. friend will agree .in view of the importance of the measure, that it would be very much better to have that provision inserted.


Mr. BURNHAM:: It may be in order for me to say a word or two complimentary to the Government upon the masterful manner in which they are gradually developing the system of national highways. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that in 1904 the issue in this country was between the Borden policy of a national railway from ocean to ocean and the narrow sectional Laurier policy which persisted and insisted upon building a portion, and the worst portion, of the National Transcontinental, and leaving the control of the whole road in private hands. It is very extraordinary to-day to hear members saying from their place in this House that they have now some of that national idea, when those very members were parties to the persecution and destruction of that idea in 1904. A great deal of credit is due this Government that, notwithstanding the rebuff they met with in 1904, they have taken up the same idea again and have developed it, presenting it to the people of this country so that it can be understood and appreciated; and beyond all doubt it will be adopted. We have in the Supplementary Estimates an item of $150,000, small it is true, but perhaps sufficient, to find out upon what basis probably two huge railways may be taken over and nationalized. That is the one ray of light in the whole situation. Year by year we have been led along, one might almost say through the Lake of the Dismal Swamp, with regard to these two undertakings.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: Since 1911.


John Hampden Burnham: This Lake of tne Dismal Swamp was created before 1911, and we have been trying to get through it and out of it ever since, and we are yow about to do so. The idea to which I am referring is the acquisition by Canada and the control by Canada of those two huge companies on the principle that national highways, or national transportation systems, or national means of communication or national utilities should be national in their char-

acter and under national control. That is the genius and the spirit of the administration of the Conservative party in Canada. They are not actuated by any a priori ideas, by any principle which they have evolved from their inner consciousness, which is not worth a cent on either side. We want the scientific principle of investigating the facts and adapting ourselves to them. That is the only modern scientific system to adopt. We do not want any more inspirations; we want treatment of facts in a reasonable and proper manner, and it is this fact, that the present Government is now coming round to; this national system that is attracting the admiration of the people and comforting them. Beaten in 1904, it arises again in 1916, notwithstanding the tremendous burden of the war, and this it is that reconciles us all to the unenviable situation in regard to those railways, that in a year or two when the first possible opportunity arises, the Conservative Government will take over and make them what they ought to be, the national instruments of the general prosperity of this Dominion.


John Douglas Hazen: I would like to say
a few words with regard to the resolution of the Minister of Railways which is now before the House and upon which, when adopted, a Bill will be introduced. The matter has been already discussed in this House on a resolution for papers moved by my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell). I was not present on that occasion, having had to go to Washington on public business, and I was therefore unable to take any part in the discussion. As I may not be here when the Bill comes up, I would like to say a few words to-day upon the question-not speaking at all from a controversial standpoint, because I do not feel like engaging in controversy at the present moment.
The proposition made to the House by the Minister of Railways with regard to the building of this road has already been submitted to the legislature of New Brunswick. Of the '48 members who constitute that legislature, 24 represent constituencies in the valley of the river St. John, extending from the harbour of St. John at the mouth of the river, up to Madawaska. There are at present in the Legislative Assembly 23 members representing those constituencies, one seat being vacant. Concurrent legislation has been introduced in the
New Brunswick Legislature, and without one dissentient voice the provincial assembly has approved the action of the Minister of Railways and the agreement which has been brought down to this House, and which was entered into after discussion between the representative of the Government of New Brunswick and Dr. Reid, Acting Minister of Railways. Of those 24 members, 3 represent the city of St. John (in which there is a vacant seat at the present time), and two represent the county of St. John, and those five members have all approved the agreement believing that the action that has been taken is in the interest of the city of St. John, just as the other members of the House without a dissentient voice have expressed the opinion that the agreement is in the interest of the province of New Brunswick. Those gentlemen have the interest of St. John and of the province of New Brunswick at heart quite as much as my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) has or as I have.


William Pugsley: Are not all those gentlemen who supported the Bill supporters of the Government which introduced the Bill?


John Douglas Hazen: Whether they are supporters or opponents of the Government, I say that they have the interest of St. John and of the province of New Brunswick at heart quite as much as my hon. friend has or as I have. If anything was being done that they believed would be against the interest of St. John or of the province of New Brunswick, I have too high a regard for their patriotism to believe that they would allow party considerations or affiliations to prevent them from doing their full duty and acting in the public interest. Had they not approved the agreement, all of the members of the assembly would not have voted in favour of it and most certainly the members for St. John would not have done so. Of course, in the city of St. John, the press which opposes the Government naturally opposes the proposal and the press which supports the Government endorses the proposal, but on the other hand, that part of the press of St. John that is of a more independent character endorses the proposal made by the Minister of Railways which is unanimously supported by the legislature. In view of all the circumstances, I do not think it can be justly said that a step is being taken which is injurious to the constituency which I represent, or to the province of New Brunswick. I am satisfied that this proposal appeals to the good sense of the people of that con-

stituency and of the province, and I have heard few, if any, complaints made against it from the time the announcement on the subject was made by the Minister of Railways.
It has always seemed to me that it made very little difference to St. John or to the province, whether the railway traversed the east or the west side provided that it made a connection with the harbour that is being created at Courtenay Bay. My hon. friend tells us the opinion of the late Mr. Hays, and no doubt he tells it correctly. At that time it was believed that the Grand Trunk Pacific would operate this road and therefore the opinions of those who represented the Grand Trunk Pacific and who would be responsible for its management ought to have had very great weight with the Government of the day. It was believed that the Grand Trunk Pacific would operate that road, and over that road from McGivney Junction to St. John there was then no connection as there is under conditions that exist now. Therefore there was necessity to have a connection at Grand Falls. That necessity apparently does not exist at the present time, when, no matter what may be said, it is perfectly clear that the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme has practically broken down and that the burden and responsibility of operating and maintaining the Grand Trunk Pacific as part of the Government railways will come upon the shoulders of the Administration. If, however, it is Tound in the future that there is necessity for such a connection, all that will have to be done will be to get running rights from Andover to Grand Falls, a distance of twenty miles, over the Canadian Pacific railway; running rights which I have no doubt could be easily acquired, because, while the Railway Commission may have no power to give those running rights today, yet governments are more powerful than railway commissions, and if in the interest of the country those running rights should be desirable, they could easily be obtained, which would save the necessity of building another line of railway paralleling the Canadian Pacific from AndoveT to Grand Falls.
The Grand Trunk Pacific runs through the centre of New Brunswick from Edmundston via Grand Falls to Moncton. At McGivney Junction it crosses the Canada Eastern railway now owned and operated by the Government of Canada. From McGivney Junction over the Canada Eastern, a distance of about thirty miles, it runs into Fredericton where it makes connection again
[Mr. Hazen.l
with the Canadian Pacific and the St. John Valley railway, and so to the city of St. John. So, at McGivney Junction, there is the connection between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Intercolonial! railway, and at Fredericton, between the Intercolonial railway and the St. John Valley railway, the line of railway which will be operated by the Government on the forty and sixty per cent basis, thus furnishing as good a connection with the city of St. John as if the connection had been made at Grand Falls. My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) has suggested that the Canada Eastern branch of the Intercolonial is not up to the standard of a trunk line railway. That may be true. I do not see, however, how }he grades could be very bad going from the west to the east, for the line runs down the valley of the Nashwaak river, the fall being toward the city of Fredericton, so that the grades if that should be necessary, and trains which would cross the St. John river at Fredericton, there connecting with the St. John Valley railway. But it would be a comparatively easy matter to improve the grades if that should be needed, and also to place heavier rails upon the road, such as are necessary for a trunk line. These aie matters which will be attended to, and lio doubt they have received the attention of the technical officers responsible for the management of the Canadian Government railways in the province of New Brunswick. Now, instead of crossing the St. John river by a bridge which will cost some $2,800,000, and also crossing the Kennebecasis over another bridge, then to run over the Intercolonial to St. John, it is proposed to save the expense of the two bridges and to build the road from Gage-town down the valley of the river St. John to a point in the neighbourhood of West-field-'and I may say that survey parties are at present at work to ascertain where the best and least expensive line can be located so as to obtain running rights over the line of the Canadian Pacific railway, into the city of St. John and West St. John. As I have said, it cannot make much difference to the city of St. John whether the road follows the east or the west side of the river, so long as connection is afforded with the new harbour at Courtenay Bay. That is what this line is intended to do. It is intended to build, if necessar5r, a new line from Westfield to St. John, also a bridge across the river, and a tunnel under a portion of the city of St. John to reach the present St. John station,

and on to Courtenay Bay where the new terminals are being constructed. Hon. members familiar with St. John know that there are two harbours; that on the west of the peninsula, and that on the east, known as Courtenay Bay, which is now being developed. The business to-day is being done largely over the lines of the Canadian Pacific irailway to the harbour and wharves on the western side. It seems to me there is an enormous advantage in having these harbours linked together by a railway bridge owned by the Government, and by having a line of railway which will go from the western side of the river and will afford access to the docks on Courtenay Bay, making it possible for the trains of the Intercolonial, which come in on the east side, to have access to the wharves on the west side. Thus, instead1 of having two separate harbours, the two would be linked up by a bridge and a railway. That can do no harm whatever so [far ae the development of the harbour of Courtenay bay is concerned, and it may be a great advantage for the business of iSt. John harbour, which is increasing by leaps and bounds and will continue to develop in the future. I trust this advantage will accrue in the not very distant future, though it may be impossible to make the expenditures required for the purpose-those expenditures will be considerable-before this dreadful war is. over and normal conditions are restored.
Speaking as a citizen of St. John, and as one having some interest in the community, and not as a politician, that is the view I t-jike of this question. I have no idea of entering into a discussion as to whether or not my bon. friend and colleague from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has been able to do more as a minister of the Crown than I have. I have endeavoured to do my best for the constituency; no doubt my hon. friend did the same white he was representative of the province, and whether we may have failed or may not have failed, I think we will continue to do that in the future no matter what may happen.
This question of the St. John Valley railway has been an important one in the province of New Brunswick for many years past. At Confederation, when it was clear that one of the terms of the Union would be the building of a line of railway connecting the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, it was believed that the line of railway would follow the valley of
the St. John river, a well-settled country that would afford a good deal of local business. This was, probably, the best .route from an engineering standpoint by which the railroad could be carried through the province to the city of St. John. For reasons which it is not necessary for me to discuss, that route was not followed, but the route by the north shore and the St. Lawrence was adopted, and the St. John valley was left without railway communication. From Confederation down to a few years ago, railways built in different parts of the province, some of them feeders to the Intercolonial, ran in other directions, and still the St. John valley, one of the oldest and most fertile portions of New Brunswick, was left without railroad communication. Our people looked forward with hope to the time when another transcontinental railway was to be built, that it would take what seemed the natural way for a .railway from the west, along the river to the city of St. John. But when the National Transcontinental was built, their hopes were not fulfilled, for, instead of going by the valley of the St. John by the short route to tidewater, the road was built through the centre of the province, through what was a wilderness, down to Moncton where there is no seaport, though the mileage constructed would have been sufficient to carry it down the valley of the St. John. The hopes of the people of .the St. John valley were dashed to the ground by the action of the Government of that day. In 1908 or 1909, when I was Prime Minister of the province, a large delegation came to Fredericton and asked that steps should be taken to give railway facilities to the people along the valley.
Previous Governments had voted subsidies to lines of railway along the river, but these inducements were never sufficient to cause any one to build the road from a point above Woodstock down along the valley through the counties of York, .Sunbury and Queens, and Kings, to the city of St. John. When my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) was a member of the Government he suggested after the Intercolonial Railway had acquired the 'Canada Eastern Railway that it would be well for the Dominion Government to build a branch of that road from Fredericton to Woodstock and from Fredericton to Gagetown. I think at the same session my hon. friend introduced a Bill looking towards the building of a road along the valley of the river St. John running from Centreville to Westfield, the idea being what had been in the minds of everybody

up to that time; that the Toad should be built to serve the people of the valley on both sides of the river. The idea of crossing the river had never occurred up to that time. My hon. friend has in his mind, I think, the idea that Mackenzie and Mann might undertake the construction of such a line in connection with their railway system. However, they did not do so. In 1908 or 1909, I am not sure which year, when this delegation came to Fredericton, I told them that the work could not be undertaken by the province with its limited resources unless we had some certainty as to the division of profits after the road was completed, but that if the Government of Canada would undertake to lease that road after it was completed on a basis of 40 per cent to 60 per cent, paying to the province 40 per cent of the gross earnings, I would be willing to ask the legislature to guarantee to the extent of $25,000 a mile the bonds of the company that would undertake to construct the road. The delegates proceeded from Fredericton to Ottawa and had an interview with the Government of the day, of which my hon. friend was a member, and the result was the inception of the present undertaking known as the St. John Valley Railway. No crossing of the river had been contemplated until the matter was taken up by the Grand Trunk Railway people; it was at their instance and at the instance of Mr. Hays that the idea of crossing the river was entertained.	.
This matter was very fully discussed in the House of Assembly in New Brunswick and I would like to read a few extracts from the speech of the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Murray, when he introduced this Bill. Although this is not the chief objection to building bridges across the St. John river, the cost of building them at the present time would be a great objection because of the abnormal state of affairs that exists in Canada and the enormous burdens we shall all have to bear in connection with the war, and which I feel in a short time we shall have to bear in connection with two other lines of railway which I need not refer, to at the present moment. Mr. Murray said in the House of Assembly:
The features in favour of the Westfield route
&1'l' More economical and efficient handling of traffic both to shipper and Intercolonial railway.	.
2.	Less capital expenditure and provincial liability on guarantees.
3.	Better opportunities to develop local traffic,
4.	Completed probably twelve months earlier.

In discussing the matter Mr. Murray made reference to the difficulties that existed in connection with the building of a bridge at what is known as the Mistake. I may say that strong protests against the building of a bridge at that point were made by the lumber interests on the St. John river. I think I have somewhere in my possession a memorial that was presented some years ago by Mr. J. Fraser Gregory as president of, I think, the St. John River Lumbermen's Association, protesting that the building of a bridge at that point would interfere very much with lumber operations on the river. That is an objection, however, that could possibly have been overcome. In connection with the. difficulty of securing satisfactory foundations), Mr. Murray, after referring to Maxwell's estimate of the cost, says:
The borings on Maxwell crossing at the centre of the channel give the following results: Water, 60 feet; soft clay, 92 feet; cemented sand, gravel, 16 feet; a depth from the surface of water to rock of 168 feet, or more than 68 feet below limit for establishing a foundation by pneumatic process, and an estimate of cost of any other process is only a wild guess.
The different borings made on this crossing have established the fact that a rock foundation is not available within practicable depths except a short distance from the eastern shore; the deposit of slit and sand in many places is over one hundred feet deep, which in other places is replaced by soft clay, most unstable material on which to establish foundation for a heavy bridge and the load it would have to carry, together with the extraordinary wind and ice pressure if would no doubt at times be subject to.
The soundings on the alternative crossings are equally unsatisfactory.
The obstruction to navigation at crossing proposed by Maxwell would be so serious, it is not unlikely that the Federal Department of Public Works would refuse to approve of the location of a bridge at that point.
Continuing Mr. Murray said that he had been at considerable pains to ascertain the deepest soundings that had been made for bridges that had proved satisfactory, and it appeared that a bridge at Omaha had piers of a depth of 114 feet, and that, he believed, held the world's record at the present time, yet, he said, the Government is asked to build a bridge the depth of piers of which could not be less than 168 feet, and with that the engineers would not guarantee it to stand when built.
He then referred to Mr. Monsarrat's reports, as follows:
Mr. Monsarrat's plan allowed 500 feet opening. The location of a bridge at Gondola Bluff would be a serious interference to shipping; with a strong wind from Belleisle or Tennant Cove it would be impossible to get rafts turned to run the channel with a bridge at that point. This disadvantage would not apply to a bridge at Dunham's wharf, the location suggested by Mr. Monsarrat.
Mr. Monsarrat on the authority of Mr. J. H.

Duggan, general manager of the Dominion Bridge Company, stated recently that the steel superstructure could not be supplied at prices quoted by Mr, Maxwell and Mr. Monsarrat had to increase his own estimate by a hundred thousand dollars to meet present cost of bridge material. Foundations proposed by Mr. Maxwell were adversely criticised by Mr. Monsarrat on the ground that the depth to which his main piers would have to go were below a point possible to be reached by pneumatic process, and in material impossible to estimate what the cost would be, altogether presenting conditions unique in bridge construction. The pier foundations suggested for the other piers were condemned as unstable and insufficient.
This statement which I have briefly quoted from the speech made by Mr. Murray in the House oi Assembly, based on the reports of Engineers Maxwell and Monsarrat, shows the very great difficulties that would have to be encountered and the very great uncertainty that exists in connection with the building of a bridge the piers of which would be 168 feet below the surface of the water. Mr. Murray says that so far as he can ascertain the deepest piere to be found in any part of the world are those of a bridge in Omaha, which have a depth of 114 feet.


William Pugsley: They have piers on the Quebec bridge deeper than that.


John Douglas Hazen: Not more than 168 feet.


William Pugsley: Much more than 114 feet; nearer 200, I think.


John Douglas Hazen: of the Intercolonial railway, and of the engineers of the Government railway service that the interests of the country, the interests of New Brunswick, the interests of St. John, and the interests of the Government railways will be much better served by having the railway on the west side into St. John as set forth in the legislation now suggested by the Acting Minister of Railways. Having discussed this matter fully with those gentlemen, having endeavoured to view it entirely from the standpoint of the public interest, of the province, and of the city which I represent, I have come to the same conclusion, and I feel that it is my duty to state here that I heartily concur in the conclusion to which they have come. A little later, I think we will see, as has been indicated by the general manager of the Government railways, a railway connection between this railway and the systems of the United States; that the Government of Canada will build a road from a point somewhere between Fredericton and Andover connecting with the Maine Central railway so that the products of the Intercolonial and of the government railways in Northern and central New Brunswick may have an independent outlet to the United States. This I believe w'ill be of tremendous advantage to the Intercolonial and to the government railway systems, particularly so far as the lumber business of the country is concerned. The general manager of the Intercolonial does not hesitate to express the opinion that a line of railway running from the St. John Valley railway and connecting in the State of Maine with the American system of railways will be a mokt profitable piece of railway to all the government railways in the northern and central parts of New Brunswick, and an advantage to St. John. An independent connection with the railway systems of the United States, in addition to the connection which it has now, will, I think, be one of the great advantages that will flow from the legislation which is now proposed by the Acting Minister of Railways. I say once more, Mr. Chairman, and I am speaking to-day because I may not be here when the Bill comes up, and I do not wish my absence to be misunderstood in any way, that the measure before the House has my full concurrence. I think it is very much in the interests of the province from which I come.


Mr. COPP:: It is not my intention to discuss this question because it relates to a part of the province in which I am not specially interested, and does not relate to my own particular constituency. But I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he has any information as to the cost of the road, if it is built from Westfield to St, John, and as to how it will compare with the cost of the connection originally proposed on the east side of the river.


John Douglas Hazen: Mile for mile, I think it
would cost about the same to build the railway on the east side as on the west side. But on the east side there was a tunnel after the railway left the bridge across the river that would have been a very expensive piece of work. I believe that the cost of construction of the road- it has been well constructed, being laid with heavy rails-has been, about $37,000 per mile as against about $72,000 per mile in the case of the Transcontinental through the province of New Brunswick. From Westfield into the city of St. John I presume that the cost, mile for mile, will be pretty much the same as from Woodstock to Fredericton and from Fredericton to Gagetown.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would ask the Minister of Railways if this part of the road is built from Westfield to St. John and on to Courtenay Bay, is it the intention that it should be built toy this Government or by the Provincial Government or toy the iSt. John and Quebec Railway Company under the bond guarantee?	.


John Dowsley Reid: The arrangement we are entering into is an arrangement between the New Brunswick Government and the Dominion Government, so far as the railway to Westfield is concerned only. If at any future time the matter is taken up, the Dominion Government will build if the New Brunswick Government still desires; but if the New Brunswick Government thinks it is of any advantage to continue this road, we have no objection.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand the minister to say that if the road is built from a point at or near Westfield it will be by the St. John and Quebec railway under the bond guarantee by the Provincial Government, to connect with the Canadian Pacific railway.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that, if this
Government undertakes to get running rights over the Canadian Pacific into St. John, but if they fail to get running rights, he has guaranteed this committee that they are going to build a line from Westfield into St. John. Is that a guarantee coming from this Government to build that road, or will there be further responsibility put upon the shoulders of the people of New Brunswick?


John Dowsley Reid: This Bill provides that this
railway company shall acquire running rights between Westfield and St. John. If they cannot do so, this Government will acquire running rights over the Canadian Pacific into St. John and to the terminals. This agreement is only to Westfield. From that on, if it is necessary, or if we cannot get running rights that are satisfactory, the Dominion Government will build a road from Westfield into St. John.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I have listened with
close attention to the discussion of this resolution. I am not so much interested in the terminus at St. John as I am in the towns of Andover and Grand Falls. These two towns are situated in my constituency and on behalf of the people of the St. John valley, I feel very much disappointed with the proposal which is now before this committee. I read in this resolution:
That upon the completion of the line from Gagetown to Westfield the Dominion will enter into a lease thereof and operate the same pending the completion of the remaining line to Andover, all in accordance with terms and conditions to be agreed upon in each case, including the 40 and 60 per cent division of gross earnings hereinafter referred to.
I understand that under this resolution, the railway will only be built as far as Andover. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) said that there is no necessity for the present to build a line from Andover to Grand Falls. I see by this resolution that there is an estimate for the building of a line from Andover to Centreville, a distance of 26 miles, and I see also by the resolution that this part of the railway will not be built for some time. I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Railways if it is the intention to build that line from Centreville to Andover this year, or next year?


John Dowsley Reid: I may say for the information of the hon. member (Mr. Michaud) that this Bill will provide that we shall take over each part of the road as it is completed under a temporary lease, which
will continue until the whole road is completed, when we will take a 99 year lease of the whole system. 'They have now completed the road, as I understand, from Centreville to Gagetown. We are operating that under a temporary lease. When they get to Westfield we will take a 99-year lease, or another temporary lease, until they build to Andover. The Bill gives the railway company a certain length of time to build the road between Centreville and Andover, as it does between Gagetown and Westfield. We cannot force them to start, or -complete, the road until that time has lapsed. We have urged and insisted that the railway company shall get connection between Westfield and Gagetown at once, or within -the next few months, in order that we can operate this line between St. John and the west by connection with the Transcontinental railway. The other road, between Centreville and AndoveT, we would like to see built as soon as the company can do so, but that is a matter that *rests with the company. They must build the road as soon as they can, or at least within the time we have given them under this agreement. The hon. gentleman has spoken about the connection between Grand Falls and Andover. I feel myself that it is not necessary to construct 5 p.m. that -road now in so far as the Government railway system is concerned-. The operating of two railways side by side for 25 miles would mean an extra expense, to say nothing of the extra cost of building the line. People can, get from St. John to Grand Falls, if they so desire, by simply transferring at Andover to the Canadian Pacific. As has been stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen), now is the time to get running rights between Andover and Grand Falls, and thus save the expense of paralleling that line. We do not desire to do any injustice to- that section of the country. I would not favour the building of a line between Andover and Grand Falls, knowing that they already have a -railway from Andover to Grand Falls, and that this would simply be paralleling the existing line for that distance. We all believe that the time has come when we should not parallel any more railways than we can absolutely help. We can perform this service by getting running rights over the - existing railway.


Pius Michaud: I am sorry to hear from the Acting Minister of Railways that he does not see his way clear to build the railway from Andover to Grand Falls. I

am afraid the railway will never be built from Centreville to Andover. It was understood a few years ago that a railway was to built from Andover to Grand Falls, but from what I can gather from the remarks of my hon. friend, we are not going to h?ve that part of the line built. It was the policy of the Provincial Government to build that road from St. John to Centreville, and from there to branch out in the other direction instead of going by Grand Falls. From the observations of my hon. friend, we have reason to believe that this will be done. The people of Grand Falls have been promised by the Premier of our province that this line, in order to be completed, had to be constructed from St. John all through the St. John valley and as far up as Grand Falls. The town of Grand Falls supplies such an amount of freight each year as in the long run would make profitable a railway from Centreville to that point. I was rather amazed at the remarks of my hon. friend when he spoke about that branch from McGivney junction to Fredericton. He says that there is quite a grade and that they can haul a pretty big load because the grade is from Me-Givney junction down to Fredericton. In that connection he speaks of securing the right to rum trains over the Canadian Pacific from Grand Falls to Andover and then from Westfield to St. John. From his remarks I gather that this St. John Valley railway will not, after all, be much of a railway. They aie to secure running rights over a part of the Canadian Pacific, Tunning rights over a part of the Intercolonial, and then running rights over the Canadian Pacific from Westfield to St. John, and this road will only toe built from one point to another in order to suit people in certain parts of New Brunswick. I am soiry to have to make that statement. In 1912 it was contemplated that this road should be built as a through line from Grand Falls to St. John. Every local member along the 'St. John river advocated that policy. The provincial election has been carried on that policy, and we know the result. Now, we are told1 that they are not going to build the line, but that they are going to get a right of way for the St. John Valley Railway Company over the Canadian Pacific and the Intercolonial. We will have a kind of line that will be very unsatisfactory to the people of New Brunswick.
The Acting Minister of Railways has told us that the proposed arrangement of a terminus at Westfield, with running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway, was very fMr. Michaud.]
satisfactory to the people of St. John. I can tell him that the people of St. John are not so eas'ly satisfied. Not so very long ago the Premier of New Brunswick had a little trouble over this very line of railway, and his supporters had to whitewash his connection with the construction of this line. The people are far from satisfied with this arrangement, but they have to consent to it because they cannot get a better one under the circumstances.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 98, to aid in the construction of certain lines of Tailway of the Saint John and Quebec Railway Company, and to confirm an agreement 'between the company and the Governments of Canada and New Brunswick.


William Pugsley: I would suggest to the minister that a very good way of getting over the difficulty with regard to running rights would be to declare this work to be to the general advantage of Canada. It would then come under the Railway Act that was passed this session, and the Board of Railway Commissioners would have authority to grant the running rights. All that would be needed to bring the Bill under the Act would be to insert the words that the work was for the general advantage of Canada. Otherwise there might be some difficulty, because the company was incorporated by the Provincial Legislature and not by this Parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad of the suggestion, and will take it into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon, J. D. REID (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 95, respecting rentals payable to the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company, Limited.
Mr. MARCIL:: What stage is the work
in at the present time?


John Dowsley Reid: I can hardly state the exact position. I understand that the main part of it is completed, and the intention is to have the whole completed at an early date. This Bill is necessary to enable the com-, pany to make their financial arrangements.


Charles Marcil: Is there any hope that
the trains will be running during the present year?


John Dowsley Reid: If this Bill enabling the
company to make their financial arrangements passes we hope the trains will be running hefore winter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ehodes in the Ohair.
On section 1-whole of rents, sums reserved or payable under lease, chargeable to whole property of lessees:
William Pugsley: Would the minister
kindly explain this Bill?


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: As this is purely a legal matter perhaps I might venture to give a very short explanation. Under the Railway Act, the earnings of a company are to be applied towards certain objects in a definite order. The first application of the earnings is, I believe, towards fines, and the second, towards the payment of operating expenses.


Charles Marcil: Is this company a subsidiary of the Canadian Northern railway?
- Mr. MEIGHEN: Strictly speaking, it is, I think, a constituent company. While it is one of the companies that is part of the Canadian Northern Railway system, inasmuch as to a small extent it operates a line, it is a constituent company. The second application of the earnings of a company is towards operating expenses. After that, the applications are towards interest upon bond issues, and thereafter, towards payments of dividends on stock. The Mount Royal Tunnel and 'Terminal Company is a constituent company of the Canadian Northern Railway system. It.was constituted for the purpose of building the tunnel through Mount Royal, and 'for constructing the terminals at Montreal. In order to facilitate the financing-indeed, in order to make the financing possible-a separate company was formed, and its own bonds were issued. Consequently, they hope to he able to finance on those bonds, they being a first charge on the property of the company, and the property upon which they are a charge not being previously encumbered by all the charges against the Canadian Northern Railway itself. The rentals of the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company come from the Canadian Northern railway, from the Canadian Northern Ontario, and from the Canadian 213
Northern Quebec. In fact, all the properties of the company were to be utilized by these three companies-the parent company, the Canadian Northern Ontario, and the Canadian Northern Quebec. They paid the rentals for these properties in proportion to the use they obtained, and the revenues that were constituted by these rentals were to be the entire revenues of the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company. A bond issue was arranged for sufficient to provide for the building, and the rentals were fixed at a figure sufficient to meet the interest and the sinking fund upon the bond issue. However, in order to make the rentals certain, they were fixed . by the original Act of 1914 providing for the issue of these bonds and were made a charge against operation. Rentals are a charge against operation under the law generally, unless they go for the use of a line of railway, and inasmuch as the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company operated a short line, constituting, I believe, about 5 per cent of the enterprise, a special provision in the Act was necessary in order to make those rentals a charge against operation. Had they not operated any line at all the rentals would have been a charge against operation anyway. Consequently in this Act which this Parliament put through in 1914-1 do not refer to the main Act, chapter 20, statutes of 1914, but to the 'Tunnel Act, a private Act, that went through in that session-a clause was inserted providing that those rentals paid by these three companies, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Northern Ontario, and the Canadian Northern Quebec, should constitute a charge against the operation of the three companies respectively. That made the security a very ample one and made it quite a relatively easy matter to finance the issue of bonds, and it was out of the issue of bonds that the whole institution secured its funds for prosecuting the work.
'Then a legal point arose later on, a point upon which there was difference of opinion. In fact, I think, at all events in numbers, the preponderance of opinion was that the Act, as it stood, had the effect that it is now desired to give to it by this legislation, but the solicitors for the bondholders took the ground, that owing to this Act of 1914 being in the nature of a private Act, it was not in its terms strong enough to overcome the general provision of the Railway Act, and that, although the section making those rentals a charge on operation had the effect of making them such as against any future



bond issue of those roads, it had not the effect of making them a charge as against prior bond issues of those roads. It was undoubtedly the intention of the statute that it should make them a charge on operating expenses against all bond issues.


George Perry Graham: That original section is in the schedule here.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, this is the section. In this connection it would be eleaT if P read the section:
The whole of the rents or sums reserved or made payable under the said agreement or lease shall for all purposes he deemed to be, and are hereby declared to form part of the working expenditure, as defined and provided for in the Bailway Act, of the lessees parties to the said agreement or lease.
The contention was that the statute, namely, chapter 28 of the statutes of 1914, being in the nature of a private Act, the effect of this clause, which was in the statute, was not sufficient to make those rentals a charge against operating expenses as against prior bond issues of those three railways. It undoubtedly was the intention that they should be. It was contended, on the other hand, that the Act was not a private one at all; that although it was printed along with the private Acts, the Interpretation Act stated that no Act was a private Act unless it was stated to be a private Act, and that consequently this was not a private Act. However, the fact that the solicitors for the bond holders held to the contrary made the objection of a very practical character, and made it impossible to complete the sale of bonds. This legislation is for the purpose of making it clear that the section in the Act of 1914 was intended to have the effect of making those rentals a charge against the operating expenses of the three railways, even as against prior bondholders. Of course, it must be clear that no one's interests are interfered with by the legislation, because there has been no issue, and there will be no issue unless it is a charge. Consequently there are no prior rights interfered .with as yet. It is to make it clear that there never can be that this legislation is necessary.


William Pugsley: Is it not a question of our interfering with the prior rights of bondholders of the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Northern Ontario? It would not be the bondholders of the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company?


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Pugsley: I have Tead the Bill over, and the only doubt that I have had -and it is not a very strong one undeT the circumstances-is as to whether we ought to pass legislation which might possibly interfere with the rights of third parties without their having an opportunity of being heard before the legislation is passed. If the Solicitor General is of the opinion that this does not in effect alter their rights, that, of course, would put it in a very different position. Then there is this to be borne in mind, that without the terminals at Montreal, the securities of the bondholders upon the Canadian Northern system would be very much impaired. No doubt it greatly improves the value of their security to have those terminals, and for those reasons I would be disposed to disregard what I thought at first would be a pretty strong objection to the legislation.
I am very strongly of the opinion that we should be very careful to safeguard any private rights and not interfere with them without hearing their side of the case.


George Perry Graham: I remember the discussion that arose on this very point. The legal point is too fine for me to discuss, because I would get 'all tangled up in the technicalities if I tried to do so. As I understand it, however, this legislation is to make clear the intention of the Act of 1914. The question raised by my hon. friend from St. John is a very important one, and I presume that the Solicitor General has fully considered it. Leaving out the legal side of the case, I think it is very important that nothing at the present time should stand in the way of the company being able to dispose of its bonds for the carrying on of this work. As has been well said, the system is now incomplete and its earning power is retarded very much by the fact that the terminals at Montreal are not completed. Once they are completed, the earning power of the road will be very materially increased. To. those who are not conversant with the situation at Montreal, the necessity for the early completion of those terminals will be less apparent than they are to me, as I have been on the ground and have seen the slowness of the work. As I remember it, the intention of Parliament was to do. what this new legislation proposes now to make clear.


Charles Marcil: I do not rise to deal with the legal phase of this matter. The hope has been expressed not only by the travel-

ling public but by residents that the railways on the island of Montreal will be electrified and the smoke nuisance thus done away with, so far as the railways are concerned. I have read statements in the' press that when the Canadian Northern introduces this system in the tunnel, the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk will have to follow that example with their trains generally on the island of Montreal. As the minister knows, the city of Montreal has extended very widely and at present the smoke nuisance is simply intolerable during the summer season. I *would like to know whether there is any possibility or probability of the railways being electrified in the near future. Or, is that a matter that rests entirely with the Railway Board? Would this Parliament have nothing to say in the matter?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that this Parliament can pass a law to do anything within its jurisdiction. But Parliament has given power to the Railway'Com-mission to adjust such matters as that referred to. In addition, there are the provincial laws governing the smoke nuisance. This is the first time the subject has been drawn to my attention and, of course, I could not give the hon. member an answer offhand. But there will be other discussion of railway matters when, perhaps, I may be able to give the hon. member some information.


Charles Marcil: I would like, if I am in
order, to call attention also to the nuisance caused by the whistling^ of boats on the Lachine canal which passes through the city of Montreal.


John Dowsley Reid: As soon as this Bill is passed, we will go into Committee of Supply and take up the Railway Estimates. I shall be glad then to hear the hon. member's remarks on the subject and, if possible, to give him an answer.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in. Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Railways ancl Canals-chargeable to capital -Hudson Bay railway-construction of railway terminals and elevators, $3,000,000.
Charles Marcil: I was asking the attention of the minister to the nuisance caused in Montreal by the whistling of steamers using the Lachine canal. The canal goes
213J
through the city. It is crossed by many bridges. Many boats come down laden with grain or other cargo and the system is to give three long whistles on approaching a bridge-at least that seems to be the system so far as one can figure it out who lies long enough awake to hear what goes on. If he is not wakeful enough to follow the system, he will certainly be awak-. ened by some passing boat. This nuisance has become almost intolerable and some means should be found to put an end to it.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the first complaint on this subject that has come to my notice. Of course, I can understand that with so many boats using the canal the use of their whistles might become a nuisance. I will take thi6 matter up with the superintending engineer of the canal, Mr. Marceau, and inquire as to the facts and as to whether it is not possible to have the practice stopped, or, at least, made as little annoying as possible to residents. I suppose that a vessel approaching a bridge must blow a whistle as a signal.


Charles Marcil: It has been suggested that the signal should be given by means of a flashlight.


John Dowsley Reid: I am informed by the chief engineer that that has been considered, but the whistle is deemed the better signal in the interest of safety.


Charles Marcil: It is an awful nuisance to residents. A man, no matter how tired he may be at night, is kept awake by these long whistlings.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the difficulty is that a vessel coming round a curve cannot signal by flashlight which would be seen by the man at the lock or at the bridge. A vessel coming down the canal with the wind after her might find the bridge closed or the lock gates in the wrong position to receive her if she did not whistle.


Mr. TURRIFF:: The same argument was used some years ago when an attempt was made to prevent the whistling of locomotives in cities. Eventually this was stopped, and the railways have no difficulty in carrying on their business just as well without disturbing the whole city at night with their screeching whistles. Flash lights or signal lights could undoubtedly be used to notify the bridge keepers of the approach of vessels. This matter is well worthy of consideration by the department.


Charles Marcil: The bridge keepers could be notified by telephone that such and such a boat is on the way down; anything is better than the present system.


John Dowsley Reid: While it would be a good
thing for those living along the canal if this difficulty were removed, the main part of the city of Montreal is just east of the end of the canal, and the whistling of boats in the harbour would continue.


Charles Marcil: There is the difference
between the river and the canal that the river is a wide expanse of water and steamers are not numerous upon it. This canal is almost in the nature of a street, and the long shrills that are repeated by the vessels at every bridge are a standing nuisance.


George Perry Graham: When the minister takes this matter up he will have to deal with the Marine Association as well as with the Railway Department. The Marine Association, of course, has its own well defined rules and signals, and if vessels neglect to comply with them they are liable for any damages that may occur. Subject to that, I am of opinion that a good deal of the noise could be done away with on the canals.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What money has already been spent on this Hudson Bay railway?


John Dowsley Reid: The expenditures on the
Hudson Bay railway to February 29, 1916, were as follows:
Location	
$	508,157 18Eug'neering (other than	location)	720,191	46Rails and fastenings	
2,045,890	16Bridges, trestles and culverts	..	707,423	34Track	
1,154,959	46Grading	
4,738,009	75Other expenses	
529,550	91Total	$10,404,182 26On the port Nelson terminals the expenditures up to February 29, 1916, were as follows:	_
Land plant materials and supplies.! 892,915 98
Floating plant	
859,458	57Port Nelson pay rolls	
1,550,382	29Steamships	
1,148,019	82Miscellaneous	
411,002	03Total	$4,861,77 69
The grand total is $15,265,960.95.


John Gillanders Turriff: Would the minister explain further that item of $720,000 for engineering other than location? That seems to be a most outrageous charge for engineer-[Mr. Turriff.)
ing since the locating of the road was done.


William Pugsley: With the permission of the member for Assiniboia, I wish to put a question to the minister before he goes into the details of that. Before the late Government went out of office legislation was passed providing for the sale of what were called purchased homesteads, with a view to providing the money necessary, for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Could the minister tell me what have been the total receipts by the Government from these purchased homesteads?


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry I have not that information. It is with the Interior Department.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. minister get it? It is important.


John Dowsley Reid: I will ask the Interior Department for that information and send it to the hon. member.


George Perry Graham: I do not object to the
minister's sending it to the member for St. John, but I think the House ought to have it. It is a very important item in reference to the whole subject. Some people criticise the Hudson Bay railway as being very expensive and unnecessary; the western people reply that homestead lands were sold in order to build this railway and that the Dominion Government has the money. I would like to know how much money they have got.


John Dowsley Reid: I will make a note of these questions and when we take up the Estimates again I will give the answers and have them go on Hansard.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I assume it is the policy of the present Government to apply the homestead receipts towards the construction of the Hudson Bay railway?


John Dowsley Reid: You are getting into rather
deep water, so far as I am concerned. The matter is connected with the Interior Department, and I have not gone into it. However, that is another question that I will answer the next time we take up the Estimates.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend will not get into deep water at Port Nelson.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh yes, we will. The hon.
member for Assiniboia asked me about the engineering expenses other than location. The details are as follows:

General	$118,066	15Pas terminals	
12,110	50Pas Thicket Portage	
312,279	39Thicket Portage-Split	lake.. ..	119,851	72Split Lake, Port Nelson	
157,883	70Total	$720,191 46
The chief engineer tells me that all these railway systems figure 7 per cent as a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost of engineering services during construction. The hon. member will see that this amount even a lower percentage.


John Gillanders Turriff: That country is very
level, and once the railway is constructed, I understand that the iGovernment will have engineers on it for inspection purposes, to see that the work is carried out according to contract. There are a certain number of engineers necessary for sections. Perhaps the minister can give us the number of engineers that have been employed there. My information is that many more have been sent out than were necessary, and that when the Government wanted to give a man a job, or wanted to take a man from another job they sent him there.


John Dowsley Reid: I differ with the hon. gentleman. The chief engineer tells me that they have no more engineers on the staff than are actually necessary.


John Gillanders Turriff: How many are on the
staff?


John Dowsley Reid: They are all along the line, and at Port Nelson.


George Perry Graham: Does this include the
Port Nelson staff?


John Dowsley Reid: No. I cannot give the exact number of engineers at present. The hon. gentleman will see that we have spent on the railway, so far, $10,000,000; I have sufficient confidence in the chief engineer to believe that he would not put on more men than are necessary, and I have the same confidence in the Minister of Railways. He has tried to keep the staff down as low as possible.


John Gillanders Turriff: With poor success.


George Perry Graham: Who is the engineer in charge?


John Dowsley Reid: There is a man named Porter in charge of the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. He is in Winnipeg. At Port Nelson there is a man named McLachlan. Mr. Porter has an assistant named Gordon.
Mr, GRAHAM: Is this the Mr. McLachlan who was formerly on the Trent canal?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the man.


Charles Marcil: Is any portion of the road being operated yet?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the contractor operates it until it is taken over by tfie Government. He is operating it in a certain way.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the whole road contracted for?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, right through to Port Nelson. .	<


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What will be the total cost of the road?


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. member mean the cost under the contractor's estimate?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a contract with J.
D. McArthur to do all the work. He does the grading, but does not furnish the rails which are furnished by the Government. The estimated cost of the line completed is $16,000,000, and the estimated cost of the terminals $10,000,000 making $26,000,000 as the estimated total cost of the road right through to Port Nelson and including the terminals at Port Nelson.


George Perry Graham: Does that include an _ elevator?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Charles Marcil: What is the length of the road?


John Dowsley Reid: 425 miles.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does that estimate, include the rails?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I stated that that was the estimated cost of the road completed and of the terminals. In other words, the road should be completed without any further expense except that of building an elevator or elevators.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That estimate does not include the dredging of the channel. I am told you will have to dredge around the port.


John Dowsley Reid: We will have some dredging to do near the docks, but, I am informed, it will not he necessary to do any dredging out into Hudson 'bay. The dredging that will be necessary at the docks is included in the Estimate which I have given.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend has not answered my question as to the number of engineers on that route. If he cannot give me the information at present, I would be glad if he would let me know later.


John Dowsley Reid: I will 'be glad to get that information.


George Perry Graham: I was under the impression that the original estimate of $26,000,000 included the cost of an elevator. There were two estimates, one, if I remember the figures correctly, of $19,000,000, and the other of $26,000,000. It struck me that the estimate of $26,000,000 included an elevator, but I may be wrong.


John Dowsley Reid: The chief engineer informs
me that at the time that estimate was made -Mr. Butler was in charge then-it did include the cost of an elevator.


George Perry Graham: That was my recollection.
I


John Dowsley Reid: At that time there was only a rough estimate of the cost of the railway.


George Perry Graham: I think it was based on a report from Armstrong.


John Dowsley Reid: Probably. Now that they
have got the work pretty well under way, the estimate of the engineer to-day is as I have stated, and it will be necessary to build an elevator at a cost over and above that amount.


George Perry Graham: The minister will see
that all these things go over the estimate.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no doubt about
that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understand from people who have been up there that dredging will be required out from the wharves into the bay itself and that the parts dredged will fill up again. I understood from one party who had been there that such a lot of silt comes down from the river that it will be impossible to keep the channel open without constant dredging, and that it will be like shuffling snow because as soon as one part is dredged it fills up again. Does the minister know anything about that? I got the information from a very responsible man who is not a partisan and who had been there and should have a knowledge of what is going on.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Mr.   MARCIE@: What is the tide theTe?


John Dowsley Reid: Sixteen feet is the ordinary spring tide. The only place necessary to dredge is out at the entrance. A channel from half a mile to fifteen miles wide, and with the depth I have stated, I think, should be satisfactory.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister expect to take large grain ships up a channel which has only twenty feet of water?


John Dowsley Reid: That is all the SL John harbour had until 1908.


John Howard Sinclair: But they have a very high tide at St. John.


John Dowsley Reid: This has a 16 feet tide and 19 and 16 would make 35 feet. That is the minimum, but that would be ample for Port Nelson.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the length of the channel from the dock to the bay?


John Dowsley Reid: About fifteen miles.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will they go up the river fifteen miles?


John Dowsley Reid: The distance up the estuary from Hudson bay is fifteen miles.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is a strong opinion in the minds of people down here that the channel from Port Nelson out to deep water in Hudson bay is rather narrow and crooked, that the silt brought down in the spring, and also after storms, changes the channel, and that if it is going to be navigable it will have to be continually dredged. One man who has been up there says that a vessel loaded with lumber for the department got stuck ten miles out from the harbour. I would like the minister to give us a pretty full explanation of the condition affecting this channel. I am not unduly criticising this project, because as a western man I want the route to be a success, but thousands of people in the East believe that the channel will be a very unsatisfactory one. I was glad to hear the minister state that the chief engineer says that there shall be a good wide channel. I would like to know if the channel can be depended upon year after year, or whether, if it has been dredged out one year it will fill up by next year.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the'hon. member care to take this map, showing the channel, and study it?


John Gillanders Turriff: I have seen the map.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Gillanders Turriff: I should like an answer to the questions I asked before six o'clock.


John Dowsley Reid: I have discussed the matter with the chief engineer and he tells me that the channel is quite safe, with a depth, of never less than 19 feet, and he assures me that my hon. friend need have no apprehension as to the sides falling in. The channel widens out from half a mile to 15 miles at the mouth, and there is a rise of 16 feet with the tide. I have here -the chart prepared, I think, by the officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department. These charts, of course, are never printed until a thorough examination has been made of the waters. The engineers engaged on this work prepare charts of the waters all over the Dominion; the charts are made with great care, and are very reliable. The hon. gentleman spoke of a vessel that was wrecked at the commencement of the work. As a matter of fact, two vessels were wrecked, one of which went ashore 14 miles out from the bay. At that time we did not have the aids to navigation we have now, but apart altogether from that, there was great carelessness on the part of those in charge of the vessel. Another vessel broke away after she had got safely into the harbour, and went ashore; but her cargo was saved. With the exception of these two accidents, which we attribute to carelessness, vessels have been navigating these .waters continually since the work commenced, in perfect safety. The three steamers which the Government purchased have been operated each year between the lower provinces and Port Nelson, carrying as cargo the material required in the carrying on of the work. Several vessels have also been chartered, and since the commencement of the work, with the exception of the two cases I have mentioned, there have been no mishaps, or practically none. I think my hon. friend, after seeing the chart, which I will now lay on the Table, will agree that the channel is safe, and feel justified in contradicting any rumours to the contrary he may hear in the future.


Frank Oliver: The minister has said that the estimated cost of the harbour improvements will be $10,000,000. Has the depart-xnent a plan, showing what these harbour
improvements are, their nature and extent, and what purpose they are to serve? If the harbour as it stands to-day is a good harbour, $10,000,000 seems a lot of money to spend on it.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the hon. member for Assiniboia to have a look at this chart.


Frank Oliver: In case of a storm on the bay vessels could net reach the harbour for safetv


John Dowsley Reid: Where the 30 feet of water is, there are mud flats on each side, and these would be a protection if the tide were out.


Frank Oliver: If 'a storm arose and if the tide was out, the vessel would have to ride out the storm the best way she could.


John Dowsley Reid: Not if she got in between the mud flats, where she would have thirty feet of water. Tin greatest wave is three feet over the mud Hats, so that she would be pretty safe from tny storm. The channel is very wide; as you go out it extends to fifteen miles wide; that is, with the depth of water that I have stated.


Frank Oliver: If the channel is fifteen miles wide and there is no shelter, there is certainly room to raise a tremendous sea.


John Dowsley Reid: The channel starts at about half a mile wide, and as you go out, it extends to about fifteen miles wide; but you can get in close to the mud flats on each side, and the chief engineer says that three feet is the highest wave they have had with the great storms up in that section; so that a vessel drawing not more than nineteen feet of water can get far enough up the river to be out of any great danger in a storm.


Frank Oliver: My knowledge of navigation is not sufficient to enable me to argue the point. What I have ini mind in discussing the matter is, that the port of Churchill is a shelter harbour, a harbour to which vessels may safely go in .storms. There is deep water there, and there is not the enormous expenditure required in order to make the handling of traffic possible. What I am interested in is: What is the advantage claimed for the use of this port of Nelson, which has certain disadvantages, as against the port of Churchill which has certain obvious and unquestioned advantages? I know there is a difference in the train haul, that it is somewhat further to Churchill than to Nelson; but it

appears to me that the difference in the train haul does not anything like compensate for the difference in the advantage of having a deep water shelter harbour as at Churchill, as compared with a very questionable proposition such as exists at Nelson, because no vessel owner is going to risk his vessel on a route where the harbour accommodation is at all questionable. Every one knows that when a vessel gets near land, the shipmaster becomes afraid, and when the port is not of such a character as to lend itself to the safety and advantage of shipping, the shipping keeps away from it. That is a handicap that Nelson will necessarily have to overcome. I want to know why Nelson was chosen in place of Churchill.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose the Minister of
Railways and Canals would probably be better able to answer that than I; but so far as Nelson and Churchill are concerned, there is eighty miles difference in the length of railway which would mean that, if Churchill were chosen, you would have to haul a train 160 miles further each return journey. That, of course, means a large expense in connection with a railway system; it means one division more, and that would be a good reason for choosing Port Nelson, everything else being equal.
I understand that while Churchill is a good harbour, there is not the same anchorage for vessels as there is a Port Nelson, that is for a large traffic. The terminal question has been' already discussed. The Minister of Railways sent an engineer to look over the situation in order to see whether Churchill or vNelson would be the more suitable, and the reports received by him were that Port Nelson had certain advantages, one of which I have mentioned, that it was a good harbour, and that the channel and so on were quite satisfactory. In addition to that, the minister himself made a trip to Port Nelson and also to Churchill to look after the situation; other officials of the department also examined the different places, and it was after giving the matter every consideration that Port Nelson was finally decided upon. However, rightly or wrongly, the matter has been definitely decided upon and the work has gone on to such an extent that we could not change the port now, and I do not know that there is much use in going further into the matter on that account.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not very clear as to what the minister means in regard to the shelter for ships. From the map, I 
would think that it is an exposed harbour and that a gale blowing from the northeast or somewhat in that direction would blow right into that harbour. So far as I can see, the fact of a mud bank being on each side of the channel would not be of any assistance. A breakwater would be of value and I believe that before the minister gets through with this harbour, he will have to build one. I suppose he is aware that when a ship comes in from a long voyage, it is usual to let the steam go down and to fix up the grates and get her ready for the next voyage; but ships lying in an exposed place like that would require to keep steam up in order to be safe in case a gale came up suddenly; otherwise, they might be driven on the flats. The harbour itself does not look as if there were much shelter. I am not clear as to the fact of its being narrow. Is there any bend in the river or any protection from the wind that gives the ships any shelter at that point?


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman will
look at the chart, he will see that there are mud flats on each side. If a northeast gale came right up the channel, the waves on each side of the channel would still be very small, because it is so shallow, and there would not be such a storm in the channel as there would be out in the ocean. The hon. member knows that the tide rises and falls twice a day and it would be only a very short time before a vessel could get right on to the pier that we are building; she would hot have to lie out in the channel for any length of time in an exposed position even if a storm arose.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there good shelter
at the pier?


John Dowsley Reid: Right at the pier she would be out of the storm altogether, because the land is on each side. I take it for granted that the hon. member is speaking about eight or nine miles from the pier that we are constructing for the vessels to tie up at.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt that this Hudson Bay route is viewed with a measure of suspicion by a large proportion of the people of Canada. They have doubts as to the wisdom of the expenditure of money on the railroad because they have no faith in the navigation of the bay. There is no doubt that, looked at from a railroad point of view, the port of Nelson is the better port, tout looked at from the point of view of the navigator or shipowner, unless it is an advantageous port, then all

the expenditure that is being made is thrown away and the project is discredited. It is a matter of supreme importance that the port shall be of such a character as will attract shipping and not tend to drive it elsewhere. Having beyond any question such a port at Churchill, although the rail haul would be eighty miles further, the cost of construction, at the same rate as the road is now costing, of that eighty miles, would be less than $3,000,000, whereas the improvements at the port of Nelson are going to cost $10,000,000 and may cost a great deal more than that. The point I want to make is that all this expenditure is not properly chargeable to the Hudson Bay railway and Hudson Bay route proposition. $18,000,000 would carry the railroad to Churchill and a moderate expenditure at the port of Churchill would give the necessary facilities for handling traffic at that port. There would be no question then in the minds of shipowners as to the advantage of the route, and once traffic had been established by that route, then, if business increased, you would have the time and occasion to develop the port of Nelson; but at the present time, as it appears to me, we are risking the expenditure we are making and the prospect turning out to be a success, in the effort to create a port where no port now exists. I have taken the liberty of putting this view of the case before the Minister of Railways on previous occasions, and until we are shown, by plans and specifications laid on the table of the House, a well conceived proposal for the development of an adequate and satisfactory port at Nelson, I feel that I am compelled to keep before the public the idea that the Hudson Bay route is not getting a fair chance when Nelson is being used instead of Churchill. It may be that the Government will spend enough money on Nelson to make it a suitable port, but the success of t'he route depends upon the possibility of port Nelson being made satisfactory to the shipping interests. It may easily be that while that can be done, it may cost too much money to do it, and unless it is done, the route is necessarily discredited. My hon. friend has said that there is no use in discussing the relative merits of Churchill and Nelson with a view to abandoning Nelson and adopting Churchill. Possibly that is true, but my effort is to impress upon the Government that, having selected Nelson to be the terminus of the railroad, they have taken upon themselves the responsibility of seeing that
project through and seeing that Nelson is made a port satisfactory to the shipping interests, and that the Government which chose the port of Nelson instead of the port of Churchill must take the full responsibility for that choice, for whatever expenditure is necessary and for whatever success or failure is attained. They must not lay the burden upon the Hudson project or route, they must take the burden upon their own shoulders. If they succeed, we will certainly all give them credit and we will all be glad; but if they do not succeed, the blame must rest upon themselves and not upon the project of a Hudson bay railway and route.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is absolutely correct when he states thdt the harbour and entrances must be made suitable for shipowners. Any government would have to make them satisfactory to the shipowners, and that is being done up to the present time. Every shipowner who has sent his vessel to Nelson has been well satisfied with the charts that we have at the present time. Up to the present the expenditure made at Port Nelson would be the same as would have to be made at Churchill, because it covers, in a very large measure, the plant that we would have to have for Churchill. Previous to the Minister of Railways taking charge of the department, the whole Hudson bay project was investigated and decided upon by the late Administration, and it ^ras a project that was put forward with the consent of both parties, in the interest of the West. Even if Port Nelson were to cost more money at the present time and be as suitable as Fort Churchill, I claim that it would be much better to spend that money at Port Nelson than at Fort Churchill for the reason that if we had chosen Fort Churchill which the hon. member is now advocating, we would have to haul each trainload of wheat produced in the Northwest eighty miles further to put into a vessel, and we would have to haul that train back the same eighty miles. It costs money to do that and who is going to pay for the 160 miles haulage of that train? Surely the hon. member knows that the additional cost of operation would have to be borne by the farmers in the West in the form of an increased freight rate. Does not the hon. member agree with me that if we can get a port where we can save that 160 miles haulage for all time to come, the amount that would be saved in a few years would pay probably twice as much as the whole cost of the terminus? I do not think there can be any difference of opinion on that.

The hon. member is under the impression that the Minister of Railways and Canals, from information given by his officials and any evidence that he could get, thought that development of Port Nelson would cost a great deal more than would Churchill; and the hon. member for Edmonton is of the same opinion. The Minister of Railways and Canals was to decide which of the two harbours would be of most advantage to the farmers of the Northwest, and which would cost the least money. The opinion that he had up to that time was that to build a railway to Churchill would mean an additional haul of 80 miles each way; that was one thing against it. The information that the Minister of Railways and Canals had before him at that time as to the cost of the work necessary to put the harbour at Churchill in satisfactory condition was as follows: harbour work, piers, dredging, exclusive of lighthouse and buoying, $6,675,000. The cost of the same work at. Port Nelson, covering exactly the same items, was estimated at $5,065,000. I do not know whether it was the opinion of the hon. member for South Renfrew himself; at all events it was the opinion of the officials, that Port Nelson was a safe and a good harbour; that the selection of that port would save a haul of 80 miles which would have been a charge on the farmers of the Northwest for all time to come had the other port been selected. Every farmer who had grain to send could save half a cent a bushel on the carriage of that grain if it went through Port Nelson instead of Churchill, and, besides, the difference in the cost of the works at the respective harbours would be $1,600,000.


Mr. HUGHES:: Who made that report? [DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: .I was just reading from a report on the Hudson Bay railway, made by Mr. Armstrong in 1909, and revised by Mr. Butler. In connection with cost over and above the amount mentioned, it should be remembered that all the plant is now a charge on these terminals. The officials of the department, from the deputy minister down to every man who was sent there, did their best to get the most accurate figures. From the information I have I believe that Mr. Butler, the deputy minister at the time; Mr. Armstrong, the engineer in charge, and all his officials, came to the conclusion, from the information they could get, that Port Nelson was the right place. Mr. Cochrane sent another man there, and his report was exactly the

same. Then Mr. Cochrane himself went there and examined the place, and he came to the same conclusion. Under the circumstances I do not see that any fault can be found with the decision that has been arrived at. The captains who have navigated ships there believe that Port Nelson is the right place.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister said that ship owners who sent ships there were quite satisfied with Port Nelson. For what purposes were these ships sent there?


John Dowsley Reid: We have 'been running our own vessels with supplies, but prior to our obtaining these we had to charter vessels.


James Joseph Hughes: I thought the minister meant ships that sent there for commercial purposes. The men that the department sent there would be satisfied because they were getting a high price for the use of their vessels. Has any report -been received from men engaged in the transportation business in Hudson bay?


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask hon. gentlemen in this House if, since this Hudson Bay railway project was commenced, anyone could do more than has been done by the present minister and his two predecessors?


James Joseph Hughes: It was all done by railway men.


John Dowsley Reid: It was all done by officials of the department, and they got the best evidence they, could. Vessels of the Marine Department have been going there, and many vessels have been chartered and sent to Port Nelson with full cargoes of supplies.


James Joseph Hughes: How many of them have been lost?


John Dowsley Reid: One was lost 14 miles away from the channel; she had got altogether out of her course. The other vessel that was lost got into port, -but through carelessness she was allowed to drift from her anchorage to the shore. Afterwards they supposed that she had been set fire to. The minister in. deciding which shall be the terminal port can only take the -best evidence that he can get. He sends his engineers to look the ports over; they examine them to the best of their ability; he gets what information he can from vessels that have been in the locality. When a minister comes to a decision under these circumstances, taking the advice of hie

deputy minister, his engineers, and considering all available information, even if it should turn out afterwards to be wrong, I claim that he has done his duty. I believe that all available information was exhausted by the present minister's predecessors in determining what port would he the best, having regard to the interests of the people of the Northwest, and I believe that the same has been the case with the present minister. The port has been decided upon, and I sincerely hope that the anticipations of everyone who has had anything to do with this decision will turn out to be wgll founded. We hope also that the Tailway will be a success. I stated in this House a few days ago that at first, many years ago, I was under the impression that this railroad would not 'be the success it is now expected to he, but I have changed my opinion, and I think many other would, if they had the same opportunity as I have had of discussing this matter with, the officers who know the whole situation, with those who have been up there, with captains who have navigated the bay, and of hearing from the Minister of Railways and Canals his opinion of what can be done. I believe now that when we get that road in operation, the Northwest will receive benefits which some of us at the present time can hardly conceive.


Mr. TURGEON:: The minister knows that I have always favoured the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, but I must say that I had always expected that Fort Churchill would be the terminus of that road. That idea is in conformity with the information which we in the Maritime Provinces gather from old seamen who have navigated Hudson bay, and from the owners of vessels who had traded there. They always expected that when the railload was constructed, Fort Churchill would be the natural port, beeause there you have a natural harbour, and the conditions are safer. They looked upon Port Nelson as a problem which might never be solved. The minister said that it would have been necessary to construct .some 80 miles of railway additional, if Fort Churchill had been selected as the terminus, hut I am not sure that a line further west might not have been .selected which could have reached Fort Churchill without necessitating the construction of the extra 80 miles of road. If the conditions are more favourable at Fort Churchill, as is stated by the old seamen who have navigated Hudson
bay, that extra expense would have been compensated for by the better navigation facilities, 'by lower insurance rates, and so on. At any ralte, the opinion of these men is that Fort Churchill would have been more advantageous than Port Nelson. Meanwhile, the minister tells us that it is too late to think of Fort Churchill. I do noit blame ithe minister. He must have taken the best advice he could get, and no doubt it was given to him honestly, but it does not agree with the general opinion of the seamen in the Maritime Provinces. If the decision is irrevocable, I would urge upon the minister the necessity of improving the harbour at Port Nelson at any cost, so that it will render the services for which the Hudson Bay railway is being constructed. I have not unlimited faith in the period of navigation. It is limited to a period of three months in the year, but three months in the year for the West, with the development which we may expect, would be of great advantage to the grain shippers and to those engaged in cattle raising. It would give a new impetus to development in the Northwest, and enable the farmers to ship at a greater advantage than they can with the long haul to our eastern seaboard. I would strongly urge upon the minister the necessity of improving that harbour. But the decision arrived at by the department is altogether contrary to the opinion expressed by men from St. John's, Newfoundland, and by other men who have navigated Hudson bay, and who have no political interest in the matter at all. I wish to impress the minister with that fact.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What became of the
dredge that was shipped up there? It was said that it had been broken up and was useless. I think it was shipped from Toronto. Is it in use now? While I am on my feet, might I ask if there are any reports from the men engaged in constructing the railway as to the prospect of western freight, as well as eastern freight, along the railway, or adjacent to it.


John Dowsley Reid: The dredge referred to worked for about nine weeks last year, and it has been working since with perfect satisfaction.


George Perry Graham: Something went wrong
with it when it first went up there. .


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it was damaged when
it was beached for the winter,' but it has

been repaired. It gave good satisfaction for nine weeks, and will do good work during the coming season. With regard to freight going west, that is a hard matter to decide. We all have our own opinions as to that. I am under the impression that there will be cargoes from the Hudson Bay. There will be cargoes of grain going direct to foreign countries-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That would be eastbound freight. Is there any prospect of westbound freight?


John Dowsley Reid: There are coal, steel rails, and other products that will go West, and there is the possibility of freights from Montreal and the lower provinces.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not mean that; I mean local freight along the length of the railway, between Hudson bay and the Pas.


John Dowsley Reid: Along the railway there is timber, and fish, and minerals. I noticed that they were getting minerals along that line, and I am informed that there is good agricultural country. The information I have is that there is a. great quantity of timber and minerals, and of course there are fish.


John Howard Sinclair: The timber is not worth very much according to the report.


John Dowsley Reid: For local consumption it is.


John Howard Sinclair: In the topographical
survey report for 1916, a good deal of the timber is described as pretty scrubby, and a good deal of the land is described as muskeg. There is said to be some clay land fit for cultivation, but a great deal of it is swampy. The report says there are some whitefish and trout in the locality and that only a small amount of tillable land is found in the district covered by forest. Fishing and mining are likely to prove, the report states, most important industries. There is also a paragraph in the report which says that frost occurs every month of the year, excepting perhaps July, and that at the beginning of May, 1914, there were two feet of snow, *which had not entirely disappeared before the middle of June, and the frosty nights began on August 20. So that it is a pretty rigorous climate in which to expect any agricultural settlement. According to this report, there are strips of timber on the banks of the rivers, and some clay land, but a good deal of it is swampy, and apparently the climate is very cold.


John Gillanders Turriff: As far as frost is concerned, last summer we had the largest and best crop we have ever had in the West, in Saskatchewan at all events, and there was frost in every month during the year 1915 without a single exception. It does not necessarily follow that because there may be some frost during each month it will not be a good agricultural country. As my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) says, they raise very fine vegetables in the Yukon. There is a large tract of good clay land for agricultural purposes in the Burnt river country. Irrespective of the merits of the road as a through route, it will be a good colonization road and there will be a considerable amount of settlement going in! on a part of the line at all events. No doubt for mixed farming it will be found suitable.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: I wish to say a word or two with regard to that question of temperature. I have made a considerable study of the Hudson bay route and I have got the best information I could upon the subject. I do not think it is necessary for me to go back over the ground to-day. I do not wish to accuse the East of any prejudice but if the people in this part of the country will just look' squarely at the conditions in the West there will not be one word of opposition to the building of the Hudson Bay route or of doubt with respect to the navigability of Hudson bay and Hudson straits. What I rose to reply to was the question to which my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) referred about there being frost in every month of the year except one. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has answered that. In the three provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba there was not one month last year in which we did not have frost. Further than that, in a year when we had one of the best crops that we ever had, we had seven or eight inches of snow on the 12th June and another snowstorm on the 15th September. That. is such a wonderful country that all these little obstacles do not interfere with us having good crops, nor will they interfere with transportation out of that country by way of Hudson bay and Hudson strait. It is not necessary at this late day to give proof of the great necessity there is for an outlet from the West such as that road will afford. I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two points. One has reference to the matter of growing wheat. Some people tell us that we can grow apples and fruit in the West. I have an experience since 1882

and my opinion is that while we may grow fruit, the staple articles that the farmer will grow in that country for many years, will he grain and stock. Wheat has commanded a very good price, and at the price that wheat sells for to-day we can afford, perhaps, to send our wheat over this long 'haul to Montreal and make it pay. I may *be too pessimistic about this
9 p.m. matter, but when you consider the tremendous amount of wheat and other grain that has to be handled you will see how important the transportation question becomes. When you consider that we have at least 126,000,000 acres that can produce grain, that today we only have about 20,000,000 under cultivation, and that this year we grew some 600,000,000 bushels of grain, it gives you some idea of what that country is going to produce. When our production increases and when that of all the other grain-growing countries in the world, now. producing enormous quantities, increases, wheat will not naturally be at the price at which it sells to-day. Then we in this Parliament- and I do not care which Government is in control-will have to do our utmost to lighten the cost of transportation, whether by the railways or by the Hudson bay route. I do not need to point out to the committee the great difference there is between the cost of transportation by water and by land. It is much cheaper by water. I do not need to tell you that while in Manitoba we may get along, if you have to provide for t'he production of Alberta and the Peace river district, which everybody says will grow any amount of grain, the problem becomes still more pressing. I am going to give the figures to the committee to show the difference in the cost of getting wheat out by way of Hudson bay and bringing it down to Montreal. This is not the first railway that 'has met with opposition. This is not the first time that we have heard about a frozen up country. I will guarantee that when my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) went out to that country he got his life insured for fear 'he would be killed by Indians, or that he would freeze to death and never reach civilization again. I know that to be a fact.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: Not as to the details.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is the way they talk about this country. There is no question to-day as to the navigability of Hudson bay and Hudson strait. My 'hon. friend from Guysboro (Mr. Sinclair), who comes from near Halifax, talks about the temperature, but let me tell him that the average from the Ilth July until October is 62i degrees. That mean average temperature for these four months is better than that of ten of the principal stations extending from Halifax, N.S., to Fort 'Simpson, on the Mackenzie river.


John Dowsley Reid: He does not live near Halifax.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes, he lives pretty near Halifax. About two-thirds of the southern part of Hudson bay may be considered to have had that temperature. The United States went through this same thing. They felt just the same as some of our eastern friends feel now-if they do feel that way-and I am afraid, from the little private conversations I have had outside, that some of the eastern people think that this is going to interfere with their business. I have every assurance in so far as I am personally concerned, and I am not an engineer, but I am just as good an engineer as many hon. gentlemen on the other side who talk about this route, that Hudson bay and Hudson strait are navigable for five months in the year. It is a very peculiar fact that no iceberg ever appears in Hudson bay, and no iceberg ever appears in the first 400 miles of Hudson strait. The only icebergs we have in that country come from near my hon. friend's country; they form off the Newfoundland coast, come up the Hudson strait about 100 miles, until the current sets in the other way and they are carried out to sea. It is a fact that there never was an iceberg found in Hudson bay or Hudson strait for the first 400 miles. There was similar opposition and criticism in the United States when the port of Galveston was opened; it was said that the Eastern States would be ruined. But what was the result? Instead of ruining the Eastern States, the opening of that port has been of great advantage to them, because it has given it has given them a tremendous market for their manufactured products.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not think anybody " here ds afraid that eastern Canada will be hurt.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why is there always so much opposition then? But I do not wish to dwell on that. Western Canada must have a road to Hudson Bay. With proper aids to

navigation I believe that Hudson Bay will be navigable but if not, it will be a serious thing for western Canada. I should like to give the House a few figures showing the comparative distances from Liverpool, and I think they will be somewhat of a surprise to a great many members. From Fort Churchill to Liverpool is 3,000 miles; from Montreal to Liverpool is 3,220. I am dealing with Fort Churchill because I have always been and still am of the opinion-I am always open to conviction-that Fort Churchill was the place to choose. I am not an engineer, and the engineers may have been able to prove that Port Nelson was more advantageous. But I have to agree occasionally with the hon. member for Edmonton.


Frank Oliver: It hurts, eh?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If Fort Churchill is the better port, and engineers say it is, then to my mind the difference of 80 miles of railway is not a strong argument for changing from Fort Churchill to Port Nelson. I am rather of the impression that hon. member for South Renfrew talked of making this change when the late Government was in power. I may be wrong, but I think my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) was in favour of Port Nelson rather than Fort Churchill. From Montreal to Liverpool is 220 miles more than from Fort Churchill to Liverpool. The distance from New York to Liverpool is 3,057 miles. From St. Paul to Liverpool via New York 4,440 miles; from St. Paul to Liverpool via Hudson bay 4,096 miles. From Duluth via New York to Liverpool, 4,201 miles; from Duluth via Hudson bay to Liverpool, 3,728 miles. From Vancouver to Liverpool via Canadian Pacific railway is 5,868 miles; from Vancouver to Liverpool via Hudson bay 4,568 miles. The Hudson bay route means a saving between Vancouver and Liverpool of 1,300 miles, which ought to mean something. Now let us take the land distances. From Brandon to Montreal the distance is 1,555 miles; from Brandon to Churchill 940 miles; from Medicine Hat to Montreal 2,082 miles; from Medicine Hat to Churchill 1,0716 miles; from Calgary to Churchill is 1,256 miles; from Calgary to Montreal 2,262 miles; from Winnipeg to Montreal 1,422 miles; and from Winnipeg to Churchill 945 miles.


John Howard Sinclair: By what route?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: By any route, Canadian Northern railway or Canadian Pacific railway. From Prince Albert to Montreal the distance is 1,958 miles; from Prince Albert to Churchill 717 miles. From Battle-
[Mr. Schaffner.J
ford to Montreal 1,094 miles; from Battle-ford to ChuTchill 876 miles. From Saskatoon to Montreal 1924 miles; from Saskatoon to Churchill 806 miles. From Edmonton to Montreal 2,247 miles; and from Edmonton to Churchill 1,129 miles. These figures have all been verified and can be taken as correct. They show conclusively how much shorter a land haul the Hudson Bay route means without entailing any greater distance by water. I am not going into this question to-night as fully as I have done in the past. I am personally convinced that the Lord placed Hudson bay where it is, to help out that great western country, and we do' not want His followers in the East to try and obstruct Him. I believe that route will be a God-send to the people of the West. We have only to turn to history to see how every enterprise has been opposed. Everybody knows what was said about the Canadian Pacific railway; but no enterprise under the sun has proved a greater success. People talked the same way about the Panama Canal.


George Perry Graham: The Transcontinental will turn out the same.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I believe it will some years hence; and since the hon. gentleman has brought up that point I will state my position. There is plenty of work for the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Canadian Pacific railway across the three Prairie Provinces. I do not think we should have had three roads built from Port Arthur east, at all events further east than Sudbury or North Bay. I am also of the opinion that there is not at the present time business for three roads west of Edmonton. But I have every confidence in my country, and I believe the time will come when those roads will all be in successful operation. This country is going to grow, and will have plenty of work for the three roads, and plenty of work for the Hudson Bay road also. I have figures for the last fifty years showing for how many months in the year the bay and straits are navigable. Without giving the figures for each year, the average time during which the bay and straits are navigable is from June 19 to November 8. I have no doubt that when we have all possible aids to navigation, the bay and straits will be navigable for from four to five months; and if we get four months during which the bay and straits are navigable it will be of the utmost

benefit to the country. I am not a prophet, but I should like my words here to-night to be remembered: It will not be very many years, perhaps within ten, when whoever is lucky enough to have a seat in this House will be wondering how any one ever had the courage to stand up in the face of Nature and say a single word against the building of the HudSon Bay railway and the navigability of Hudson bay and straits.


Mr. EOBB:: The last remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Schaffner), it seems to me, prove that as a grain-carrying route the Hudson Bay route will be good for only about one month in the year. He has. told us that the experience of some thirty years showed that the .season was from 19th June to 8th November. Now, I would submit this question to the judgment of the hon. gentleman: Who is going to send grain to Hudson bay after the 8th of November and run the risk of carrying that grain until June, at a time when the crops from the , southern countries are coming into the markets of the world, and when, as everybody in the business knows, grain begins to get a little cheaper? The only profitable carrying month for grain by the Hudson Bay route will be from the time when the grain starts to move-and it does not begin to move until about October-until the 8th of November. I am not going to debate the advantages and disadvantages of the Hudson Bay route, but it does seem to me that, at this time, when Canada has such great need of money, the Hudson Bay route could well wait for a little while. Let it wait until we have demonstrated that the .West can produce year after year such crops as it produced last year. It must be remembered that last year's was a phenomenal crop. For many years- before that we had but a limited crop. There is one feature of this argument that appears as a perennial problem to me. For about half the session our western friends put up the argument in favour of opening the markets of the United States, and for the other half they say they want the grain to go North for export. I want to know which is right. Who is going to send grain for storage at Hudson bay, pay freight and banking charges, insurance and storage, from November until June, keeping it there until the wheat of next year's crop begins to come in?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I thought I made that very clear. We can afford to sell our wheat a great deal cheaper when we send it by
the Hudson Bay route than when we send it by Montreal, because it will not cost us nearly so much to get it to market.


George Perry Graham: It may be expected that I should say a word or two upon the subject. I am not sure of the correctness of those distances given by the minister. Is the minister sure that from Pas Mission to Nelson is 425 miles?


John Dowsley Reid: That is in the printed report.


George Perry Graham: My recollection is that
the distance is 410 miles, but I may be wrong.


John Dowsley Reid: I read it from the printed
report, but I have it in the memorandum given me by the deputy minister. I may just read the information it contains.
Mileage.	Miles.
Le Pas	to	Ticket	Portage	 185.5
Ticket Portage to Split Lake Junction	 68.00
Split Lake	Junction	to	Port Nelson... 170.5
Total	 424.00
Miles.
Total miles of steel laid, main line..	..	241Total miles of steel laid, sidings	....	24
Total miles of steel laid, temporary
track	 33
Grading completed (with exception of
a few depressed grades)	 378
Track surfaced	 225


George Perry Graham: These, then, are the revised figures. I had it in mind also that it was not so far from Port Nelson to Churchill as my hon. friend stated, 80 miles.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the official figure.


George Perry Graham: My memory must be at fault. Of course, I disagree with a lot of people, but still I am in favour of the Hudson Bay road.


John Dowsley Reid: So am I.


George Perry Graham: I did not, as a member of the late Government, plunge into that project without a good deal of consideration. There are a good many drawbacks to the project; but then we are advancing in dealing with these several difficulties that arise in transportation both by rail and by water, and so I hope that some of these difficulties will be made to disappear as the years go by. It is not very long since we would have laughed at a person who would try to open navigation on the St. Lawrence a few weeks before the ice moved out in the spring-in fact they did laugh at that project at first. If any person

had told us a few years ago. that one of the great European governments would send to Canada for a modern ice-breaker or two to show them how to carry on winter navigation, that person would have been laughed at. But we are advancing, and I have strong hopes that the navigation of Hudson straits will be extended for a longer term than that indicated in the reports heretofore made. The straits are not frozen up, as some people seem to imagine, the difficulty is with floating ice coming down through the straits. With our wireless telegraphy, our new methods of signalling and other improvements, it seems to me, a channel can be kept open through the straits for a longer time than formerly, even though that channel may be a little devious. But suppose the season to be short, we must remember that there is going, to be a large export from the West outside of wheat. I speak particularly of stock. Those who are acquainted with the northern part of Alberta have been greatly impressed with its possibilities in dairy products. The condition in which the product is taken to market is sometimes almost as important as the freight rate or the speed. Then, those who ship live stock find that one of their great difficulties is to get the stock to the ocean port in the best condition. If the weather be warm, there is a great reduction in the value of the stock before it reaches the point of ocean shipment. But stock to be shipped from the West can be taken from a great many central points to the Hudson Bay port, being kept only about two nights and one day in the car. The nights are cool, even if the day be warm, -so that the stock should be placed aboard the ship at Hudson bay in practically as good a condition as that in which it left the point of production. I believe that that will develop stock raising in portions of the West where, probably, it will prove the most profitable product they have. The same applies to dairy products; these can be sent by the Hudson Bay route retaining their original quality. I have not varied for a moment in my belief that the Hudson Bay project will be a success notwithstanding the difficulties that have arisen.
Hon. members must bear in mind that a great many things said against the Hudson Bay route have not been said, in my opinion, accidentally. That western country became a part of Canada after some

struggle and some negotiation with a great company; and-I have said it before and I say it again-it is part of the policy of the Hudson's Bay Company to discourage as far as possible the opening up of a new route in that direction. I will not go into details, but that concern was a monopolist for many years and has not yet got over the habit. It has, I think, used every effort, quietly, ip. literature and otherwise, to discourage the opening of the Hudson Bay route.
Let me say a word about the possibilities along that railway; and in this connection let me explain to my hon. friends from the West that the people of the East are not antagonistic to the Hudson Bay scheme as a scheme; nor is there any idea in the minds of the people of the East that this route will affect their business unfavourably. For my part, I have faith in the western country to believe that it will be large enough and productive enough to give business for all the routes in the years to come. We shall have to develop a return traffic. And these things generally right themselves when we get the streams of commerce flowing. It may not be a matter of theory, but it is a .matter of practice that where you sell profitably you will buy to advantage, and so you will get commerce established. So the people of the East do not object to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and its harbour facilities. Let me instance the case of a railway in the province of Ontario. A few years ago it was decided by the Ontario Government that they would build a railway since known as the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario railway There was not more than one man in fifty, I believe, but down in his heart thought it was going to be. a great failure. That country was looked upon as a land from which the pine had been taken and that all that was left was a few lakes with some poplars, jackpine, and other pulp-wood. But what has been the result of the construction of that line? It has opened up a -beautiful tourist paradise into which many people go every summer and which, but for the building of that line, would never have been known. It has made known the fact that in Northern Ontario there are many millions of acres of as good land as is to be found anywhere in the world. But, further than that, the opening of this line, to the surprise of the entire world, has been the means of developing the greatest silver deposits ever known. Had not there been some cour-

age, some energy, some optimism., that road would not have been constructed, and the world would not have known of the rich possessions we have. Along the Hudson Bay railway, I am told, although a portion of it is low-'lying land, muskeg, nevertheless there is some timber of more or less value. I am told that not far from the line there is some very good land. And my information during the past two weeks is that gold has been discovered within a very few miles of the railway. I am not speaking at random, for I was told of it by a man who was there and who has brought samples with him on which he has had good reports. And, no matter what may be said, I believe there is .an opening for the development of a profitable fish industry in Hudson bay. So, with the outlook we have, I believe it would pay us to build that railway even if we have no export by Hudson bay. We have done that in other parts of the country that were not any more promising than this. But, when you add to all this the possibility of opening a new route of transportation to the old land, I think we are iiot too optimistic when we believe that it will be a success.
As to the possibility of steamers coming and going, I may say that when I was Minister of Railways I had an offer made to me of a line of railway to run there regularly under certain conditions. That never was developed because, unfortunately for the country the Government changed. But I just mentioned the point to show that there are people, engaged in shipping who are willing to make arrangements to run to Hudson bay and to take a considerable chance of trade developing.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They would want a large subsidy.


George Perry Graham: I said they offered to
run " under certain conditions," but the subsidy might not be any greater than that for running to an old established port. There has been drawbacks. I understand that a great part of the work done by the minister one year was carried away by the spring freshets The minister has had a hard experience, but though he lost most of a year's work, if I am correctly informed, and though a bridge did go wrong on the construction of the railway, I do not think we ought to be discouraged
As to the two ports-and perhaps I should not have detained the committee at all had it not been for this question coming up-I
did not, as Minister of Railways, come to a decision as between the two ports. Frankly, all the reports I had from the officials were in favour of Nelson, so far as I can remember. I sent one man with a staff and he remained all winter, and his report must be on file. From the investigation he made both winter and summer, his report pointed to Nelson as the best place for a permanent harbour if any great amount of trade were to be developed. I speak from memory and subject to correction. Possibly, if small trade were expected, Churchill might be the best harbour, but it was to a large extent incapable of being developed into a harbour for the large trade. I think that possibly, if I had been left in the department, I should have acted on that information-it was the only method I had of getting information. The only contract given by the late Government through myself extended from Pas Mission to Split lake. This left it open for the Government to decide finally either for Nelson or Churchill, as the railway from that point could be delivered to either. My successor seems to have made full investigation and to have decided in favour of Nelson. I am not in a position to quarrel with Nelson being the port, for the information I had led in the same direction. An official of the Marine Department has made a report -I think it was a report-in which the choice of this harbour is rather deprecated, and it may be that, the whole route is not enthusiastically encouraged in that report. I do not know whether the Department of Railways has taken into consideration the report of the officers of the Marine Department in coming to its final conclusion. However, the Department of Railways must take the responsibility for the selection of the harbour. I know that it has had its difficulties. I would like the minister to tell us about these difficulties and about the work in the harbour that was carried away. I am told that the difficulty which brought about that disaster has been done away with and that the work has now been so constructed that a similar accident will not occur again. It is my opinion that the Hudson bay project is one that is well worth entering upon. Notwithstanding all the criticism and objections that have been made, I believe that in the years to come it will prove a valuable addition to our transportation facilities, and that it will be an aid to the West not only in getting out their products, but in bringing in goods in return for those products. No matter what we may say about the Railway Commission, the



public understands most thoroughly that the greatest regulator of freight rates is a water route, even if the amount of grain carried does not assume the proportions anticipated by some people this route will have a salutary effect on the rates by rail to and from the West.


John Dowsley Reid: With regard to the damage at Port Nelson, I understand from the officials that the ice coming out in the spring did some very little damage to a temporary wharf. So far as the work at Port Nelson; is concerned, a memorandum which I have shows that. In general, all development work at Port Nelson is completed; and also the camp, including buildings, shops, municipal works, such as drainage, water supply, sanitary works, light, etc. The trackage and wharves necessary for the conduct of the work and for the reception and distribution of materials and supplies have been completed and a dry dock completed for the repair of the floating plant. The large plant essential to the carrying out of such an undertaking and which, owing to transportation difficulties, had to be shipped knocked down, has been assembled or built out of raw materials at Port Nelson. A breakwater has b'een constructed which serves to protect the temporary wharves and other shore works during the open season from damage by storms and to protect the large construction fleet which of necessity is laid up on the beach during the winter from damage by ice. The jetty pier leading to the site of the deep water wharves, which is part of the permanent harbour development, has been carried out about half a mile from shore, and a small amount of dredging in the main channel has been done.


George Perry Graham: It would facilitate a more thorough understanding of what has been done there if the Chief Engineer could put a plan on the Table showing the locality of the docks, breakwater, etc.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall lay on the Table a
plan which will show exactly what the hon. member is asking for.


George Perry Graham: When does the minister expect the railway to be completed and the harbour works put in condition for the transaction of business?


John Dowsley Reid: We expect to get rails in to Port Nelson in the fall of 1917.


George Perry Graham: Will the road be ready for traffic then?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not enough in these Estimates to enable us to have it completed and ready for traffic, but we will have the rails in, and we will complete it as fast as we can get the money.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister spend the $3,000,000 this year?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: When is it expected to have the terminals, the harbour, and the bridge completed?


John Dowsley Reid: About 1918 we expect the road to be doing business.


George Perry Graham: What is the weight of the rail?


John Dowsley Reid: Eighty pounds.


George Perry Graham: What is the ruling
grade?


John Dowsley Reid: The grade is -4.


Frank Oliver: Both ways?


John Dowsley Reid: It is -6 westbound.


Frank Oliver: Are the rails laid to the second bridge yet; if not, how soon?


John Dowsley Reid: They crossed the first bridge last week, and we have ninety miles of grading ready for rail up to the next bridge.


Frank Oliver: When is it expected to have these rails laid?


John Dowsley Reid: They will be up to the next bridge this summer.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I wish to call the attention of the minister to the case of a poor man named Thomas Maloney, who belongs to Newfoundland, and who was injured at Port Nelson last summer. He was burned on board a steamer at Port Nelson and lost the use of his hands. I had a photograph of him, and expected to be able to show it to the minister, but it was destroyed in the fire at the Parliament buildings. He was a cook on board one of the Government steamers at Port Nelson, and, by some accident, a fire broke out in the place where he was cooking, and in frying to put out the fire he was burned so badly that his hands will never be of any use to him again. He called at my office, having heard, I suppose, that I was a member of Parliament, and I found that his finger joints were all gone and that the skin that had grown on his hands was so tender that I do not think he will ever be able to do any work. I had a letter from him to-day from Newfoundland. I lost his address in the fire, and did not know where to write to him, but I have received a letter dated 23rd April in which

he complains that he is absolutely unable to do anything and has to go around looking for charity. He asks me to bring the matter to the notice of the department. He gave me the name of the doctor who attended him, and all the particulars of the case, but, as I have said, I lost them in the fire, and I am only able to give what he states in this letter. I see that in the Supplementary Estimates the Government is providing compassionate allowances for people who have met with accidents of this kind, and I trust that the minister will make inquiry as to the condition of this man. Personally, I 'have no doubt at all as to his condition, but as to how the accident happened I have only his word, which I have no reason to question. Both hands and arms, up to the elbows, are badly burned. He is crippled for life because he attempted to save the ship, for he might have run away from the fire and escaped injury. In fact, he nearly lost his life, and only saved himself by jumping into the water. I do not wish to name any figure, but in a case of this kind I think that something like $2,000 would be fair compensation. He is a man of about 50 years of age; he is out of business for all time, and he told me he is the father of a family of seven or eight children. I bring the case to the notice of the House and of the minister, and trust that something will be done for this poor man.


John Dowsley Reid: The matter has not been brought to my attention until now, but my officials tell me that the accident was not in any way connected with the work of the department. He was an employee on the vessel, a cook, but according to the information of the department the facts are not as represented! by the hon. member. However, at this stage, when all the Estimates are down, there is nothing more that I could do this session. The compassionate allowances referred to by my hon. friend are for the families of persons who lost their lives in the fire at the Parliament Buildings and the amounts are not very large. I understand that no compassionate allowance has been made to this man for the reason that for some time after the accident his wages, hospital expenses, and board were paid. However, I will bring the remarks of the hon. member to the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals on his return to the department. Of course, the hon. member will realize that even if the minister did decide to make an allowance it could not be made this session without a special vote and there will be, no more
214i
Supplementary Estimates during the present session, so far as I know.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would urge upon the minister to make full inquiry into the case because I believe the man was telling me the truth. I would like to have the records fully before the department, so that something may be done for him even though it should be next session.


John Dowsley Reid: I will get the papers together and the minister can look into them if he so desires; but the information I have is that the case has already been looked into and that the department is in no way liable. It was no fault of the department that the man was injured. I understand he has a brother at Port Nelson employed by the department, and that a good deal has been done for the injured man. I will look into the case personally and get it into shape so that I may thoroughly understand it, and then I will hand it over to the minister on his return. The hon. member will have an opportunity of getting the information, and the case can be brought up again.


James Joseph Hughes: When the Estimates were under consideration a few days ago, the minister said that he would have prepared some information in regard to the Prince Edward Island car ferry terminus.


John Dowsley Reid: I have a memorandum and I would like to see if the information which I have answers the hon. gentleman's question :
Car Ferry Northumberland Strait.
The Car Ferry " P.E.I. " which is a very fine ice breaking vessel has been delivered by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth Company. The docking pier at Cape Tormentine is about completed. There remains some dredging to be done and additional stone must be added to the breakwater. At Carleton Point the approach pier is nearly completed. The concrete cribs for the docking pier are partly in position and partly at Shediac ready to be towed across and placed in positon as soon as the ice will permit. Further stone work is required on the breakwater, and dredging is also required in the turning basin. Work is proceeding at the bridge shops upon the steel works for the transfer bridges required to connect the piers with the deck of the car ferry. While some dredging may remain uncompleted at the end of the season, we shall be in position this fall to institute the regular car ferry service.


James Joseph Hughes: What does "this fall" mean-October ?


John Dowsley Reid: I have figured on about the first of October; it may be a little later.


George Perry Graham: Better call it early winter.


James Joseph Hughes: The information which I have received from people living there is to the effect that the contractors- Messrs. Miller-is it?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, Roger Miller & Sons, I think, is the name of the firm.


James Joseph Hughes: I am informed they are getting along very slowly with the work.


John Dowsley Reid: I know Mr. Miller and I knew him when he was working on the St. Lawrence canals.


James Joseph Hughes: Perhaps he was faster then.


John Dowsley Reid: He was always considered one of the best contractors in Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: So he is.


John Dowsley Reid: Roger Miller of Toronto. Does the hon. gentleman know him?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You bet I do.


John Dowsley Reid: I would consider him one of the best contractors in Canada and if he ha3 got along slowly I cannot understand how it would be any fault of his. He is a very hard-working man and I never heard anything to the effect that Roger Miller would delay work or not do it properly.


James Joseph Hughes: What work is the hon. gentleman discussing?


John Dowsley Reid: The work at Carleton Point.


James Joseph Hughes: A gentleman in the other chahiber from Prince Edward Island was speaking on this subject the
10 p.m. other day and supporting the Government and I thought he had some inside information. He said he did no! think the car ferry would be in operation this winter. I would be very pleased to hear that he was mistaken.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, I cannot change his opinion but at the same time the opinion of the officials of the department, who are carrying on that work, is as I have given it to the hon. member. I feel justified in accepting the opinion of my officials.


James Joseph Hughes: The acting minister,
during last session, was very confident that it would be in operation last August.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Well the war has been on.


James Joseph Hughes: The war did not prevent or delay the construction of the pier. However, I suppose the department will hurry

the matter along and do the best it can.
I	see there is an item in the Supplementary Estimates for the purchase of the steamer Northumberland by the Railway Department hut there is no item for the operation of the steamer. Will that be necessary or how will it be operated?


John Dowsley Reid: The Northumberland will be a part of the railway service. We give a through rate across the straits to Prince Edward Island and the freight across on the steamer Northumberland is absorbed an the through rate. The operating expenses of the Northumberland will be part of the operating expenses of the Intercolonial system.


George Perry Graham: You will divide it between that and the Prince Edward Island railway?


John Dowsley Reid: Yee.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the Stanley perform the service between Pictou and Charlottetown?


John Dowsley Reid: The Government have purchased the .steamer Northumberland and are putting her on the route between Point dru Ghene and iSummerside. The Stanley is running -between Pictou and Charlottetown. But the Stanley could not do the freight business between these two points, and we are leaving the car ferry on that route.


James Joseph Hughes: For the summer?


John Dowsley Reid: For the summer time to carry the freight backwards and forward between Pictou and Charlottetown. We intend to leave the Stanley and the car ferry to look after the Pictou-Charlottetown service.


James Joseph Hughes: Both steamers?


John Dowsley Reid: Both. I do not know how they will run them, I have not the details, but they are both to be left on that route and the Northumberland will be put on the Point du Chene service.


James Joseph Hughes: And they will be operated out of the same vote?


John Dowsley Reid: Operated exactly in the same way.


Charles Marcil: Are you going to carry the Intercolonial cars across to the Island ?


John Dowsley Reid: Not this summer.
Mr. MARCH.: But after you put the car ferry in operation?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the intention is to carry the cars over to Prince Edward Island eventually and to widen the tracks there so that the cars can go right on.


Charles Marcil: No start has been made on the widening of the gauge? ,


John Dowsley Reid: No, that will not be commenced until the car ferry is in operation.
Mr.. COPP: I understand from the minister that he has a report in regard to the progress which is being made at the Cape Tormentine terminal.


John Dowsley Reid: I have just read it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When was that report made?


John Dowsley Reid: It was made by the chief engineer for me to give to the House.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He did not say where he got the information?


John Dowsley Reid: He has his officials there, they have wired him the information; and, in fact, information comes daily to him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am surprised to learn that the minister has that report from Cape Tormentine.


John Dowsley Reid: He was there. himself personally not very long ago.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have been there very many times myself, and I have watched the progress of the work. I have been in consultation, both professionally and otherwise, with some of the contractors who are engaged in the work. I can assure the minister that he need not bother his head about making any preparations to operate the oar-ferry service between Cape Tormentine and the Island this coming fall, irrespective of what he has reported. I want to ask the minister a question with regard to the item in relation to work that is proposed to be done on the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway. I was.not present when the item passed a few days ago. I would like to ask what work he proposes to do on that railway for which a vote of $129,060 has been taken.


John Dowsley Reid: This is to bring the line up to the Intercolonial railway branch line started.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I wanted to know if the minister had any statemnet as to what it, is proposed to do.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the information
here, but I will have it put on Hansard at the next sitting of the House. .


Mr. LOGGIE:: Unfortunately I was
absent on Monday last when the Railway Estimates were up, but I understand that the minister allowed us the privilege of a general discussion on any one item. I wish to refer for a moment to the result of the present method of operating trains into Chatham, because' of the taking up of the rails from Blackville to Chatham Junction. I should like first of all to read what the minister said in the House in May, 1913 (Hansard, Vol. VI, 1912-13, p. 10855) :
Mr. Loggie:	How much will it cost to make
the improved facilities at Derby Junction? It would be necesasry, I fancy, to have a station on the south side of the river at the bridge.
Mr. Cochrane : That is all included in the $128,000.
Mr. Loggie:	But you will still have to have
two station agents.
Mr. Cochrane : No, we would move the junction down, and would not have the extra agent.
Mr. Loggie:	You will have to have a station agent on the south side of the river.
Mr. Cochrane:	I know, but we would move
Chatham Junction down to it.
Mr. Loggie:	You are going to move that to
Derby Junction, are you not?
Mr. Cochrane: No, down to where the branch line would strike.
The matter was again brought to the minister's attention in the following year, when he is reported in Hansard (Vol. V, 1914, p. 4877), as follows:
Mr. Loggie :	There is a rumour afloat that
the work was let in two contracts and that one of them was cancelled. May I ask the minister if any changes are proposed other than those suggested by the minister last year, namely, that the freight from the main line for Chatham would be transferred at Derby Junction? The minister said last year that the station at Chatham Junction could be moved out to Derby Junction, and there the freight would be transferred for Chatham.
Mr. Reid : There has been no change, the policy as laid down by the minister will be adhered to.
That policy waj that the train was to leave Fredericton and go into Chatham via Derby Junction, and that the freight was to be transferred from the main line trains at Derby Junction, and be carried by the branch trains into Chatham from Derby Junction, instead of from Chatham Junction as formerly. In 1914 I asked the Acting Minister of Railways whether it was proposed to make any change in the contract that had been given for the construction work at Derby Junction, and on the south side of the river, and the answer I got was:
There has been no change; the policy as laid down by the minister will he adhered to.

Now, at that time the plans were for improvements at Derby Junction, and the contract had been entered into; it provided for the construction of a " Y," and of a warehouse to be used in transferring the freight. Notwithstanding that the contract had been entered into, and notwithstanding the further fact that the minister on the floor of the House had said that there would be no change in the policy as laid down, that portion of the contract was cancelled and the " Y " was never constructed. The trains that had been operating between Fredericton at one end and Loggieville at the other had forsooth to have a different destination because this promise was-what shall I say?-broken. The contract was cancelled and it was no longer possible to run the trains into Chatham unless they were pulled in with the engine reversed, that is, with the tender ahead; so that it became practically impossible to get into Chatham via Derby Junction, as we had previously been able to do via Old Chatham Junction. The result is a most unsatisfactory service for about one-haJf of the people of Northumberland county. I have before me a letter from a very prominent merchant of the town of Chatham, protesting on behalf of the people of the town against the service that is being given that portion of the county at tl?e present time. I have also before me a copy of an alleged petition, signed by twenty-seven passengers, who on the 3rd of March arrived at Newcastle at the regular hour of 11.30. As the minister knows, the distance between Chatham and Newcastle is only about 5 miles on a straight line, but the circuitous route that we haye to take by rail brings it to about 13 miles. These twenty-seven passengers arrived at Newcastle at 11.30; the Maritime, from the south,, arrived at 12.35; and it was 2.25 in the morning before the 27 passengers reached Chatham. In other words, it took them almost three hours to get from Newcastle to Chatham. This is not an unusual thing. One paragraph of a letter I have here, referriing to this train service, says:
The express agent there said that this was a most usual occurrence, and that the Chatham train was held up on any excuse possible.
I might as well givie you another instance which is taken from the Tri-weekly Press, in the town of Chatham:
The delegates returning from Fredericton Wednesday evening had a sample of train ser-
[Mr. Loggie.l
vice that will do them for some time. They arrived in Newcastle at 11.30 and waited until the Maritime came in a little late, or at 12.30. Then they still waited hopefully for the branch to get under way. even after it had been in Newcastle over an hour, but for some reason or another it did not pull out of Newcastle until two o'clock and the tired delegates arrived here shortly before three. They certainly deserved the kindly reception that their efforts met with in Fredericton for their trip in the town's interests was made at considerable personal inconvenience.
I have deemed it my duty to draw the attention of the minister to this matter. The service into Chatham, Loggieville, and Nelson serves nearly half of the citizens of the county, some 15,000 persons. Up to the time that t'his diversion was made they had a service by which such passengers would have gone on directly into Chatham, instead of having to go to Newcastle, as they have now, and then be brought back some 3t miles before they reach Derby Junction, so that without necessity they are traversing about seven miles. So far as I can see there is no good reason why those passengers can not be sent direct into Chatham. The passengers for Newcastle either could be transferred, to the local between Chatham and Newcastle, or they could get off at Nelson, where there is now a new concrete and iron bridge, so that they would be within reach of home if the train continued down to Chatham, as it did in former, years. I cannot see any good reason for this change, and it was a very unexpected one. When I had this matter up before the acting minister two years ago I took him at his word that there was no change in the policy to run the trains into Loggieville from Fredericton as usual; that the contract for the Y would be completed, and that the work was, as J supposed, going on, although there were rumours abroad that the plans were changed, and that the road was to end at Newcastle instead of at Chatham. The minister will see that the distance between Derby Junction and Newcastle is 3-7 miles. A passenger travelling south must traverse that 3-7 miles going north, and he must traverse it coming back, so that every passenger travels 7-4 miles more than he did formerly and more than I can see any occasion for. Further than that, every ton of freight that comes from the south into the lower portion of the county has to travel 3 7 miles into Newcastle and 3-7 miles back to Derby Junction.	,


Mr. BRODER:: Why do they not leave the passengers at the Junction until they come back?


William Stewart Loggie: That is exactly what we are asking them to do. We want them to leave the passengers at Derby Junction, but that is what they refuse to do. They take them past to Newcastle, 3-7 miles distant, and then bring them back.


John Dowsley Reid: They give them that much of a free ride.


William Stewart Loggie: I am afraid there is not much of a free ride, but if there is, that is a loss to the Government. That is one way of doing business-. Just a short time ago the minister brought up the question of hauling a train eighty miles more to Churchill and eighty miles- back and he said that the additional cos't of operation would have to be added to the freight rate. How does he harmonize that statement with the one he has just made? The minister will see that, according to the timetable, there are five trains daily, but one of them has recently been changing its passengers at Derby Junction, so that four trains still keep on to Newcastle and change their passengers there. If we have four trains each way daily, that would represent eight trains a day. 3-7 miles travelled by eight trains would mean 29-6 miles daily by one train. Taking 313 days, that would give 9,265 miles; or in other words, you carry one train 9,265 miles-shall I say, without any revenue? The insinuation of the minister is that it is without any revenue. I do not believe that; I think some conciliatory offer was made that there would be no extra fare between Chatham and Newcastle for furtherance, as it were, on the main line, instead of between Chatham and Derby Junction, but how long that condition will exist I do not know. You have, however, this extra -mileage, taking both passengers and freight 3-7 miles north and then bringing them back 3-7 miles. If you have on each train one express oar, two passenger cars and, say, ten cars of freight, or in round numbers, say 150 tons of freight carried over 9,265 miles, at one-half cent per ton per train mile, the cost of operation would be $6,948.75. Somebody must pay that. Either the Government is paying it or the consumer or dealer who is bringing the goods in is paying it. It seems to me that that is unfair, and it surely can be remedied. Surely thoese people are not to lie under this burden forever; and if it has been promised that a Y shall be constructed, is there any good reason why it should not
be done? If the minister can give -me any good reason for it, I shall be glad to convey it to my constituents. The whole matter is very unsatisfactory. There is a grievance on the south side of the river because the rails have been taken up and there is a grievance that the service on the south side of the river into Nelson, Chatham and Log-gieville does not compare favourably with the service that we had when the trains ran direct from Fredericton into Loggieville. There is no good reason why they cannot continue running from Fredericton into Loggieville, especially because the new bridge will allow passengers for Newcastle to get off and go to their destination. But passengers, as I have pointed out, remain three hours in order to cover a distance of . thirteen miles by rail, but five miles in a straight line. The minister must expect that kind of service to breed discontent. The Department of Railways and Canals is, to all intents- and purposes, a public carrier, a public servant. The Canadian Pacific Railway would not allow this sort of thing to exist but would endeavour to meet the views of their customers. These passengers are clients of the Crown, and the Crown should try to give them satisfactory service. I hold that there is no difficulty in the way of meeting their views except the construction of the Y at Derby Junction. Thai construction was actually contracted for, but for some unaccountable reason the contract was cancelled and we were left in the deplorable condition that the passengers must lose three hours to cover five miles. Besides, is there any reason why, if the trains are on time, the Crown, in this case a public carrier, should ask me to lose about an hour extra of time if I want to travel to Moncton or St. John? They haul me four miles north and then they haul me four miles south, instead of allowing me to avoid this loss of time by getting on a train at Derby Junction. There must be some way to overcome a difficulty like that. The public should not be put under such a handicap unless there is great necessity. And I say that the difficulty would be overcome by putting in the Y at Derby Junction and sending part of the train from Fredericton to Loggieville as they used to do, and as it was their policy to do, as I have shown by the references I have made.


John Dowsley Reid: Let me first refer to the delay that occurred ,on a certain day in March. Of course, I have not the details before me to-night. But I know that in

the month of March last-and the hon. member can hardly have forgotten it- throughout the whole of that part of Canada trains were delayed on account of the snowstorms. Fort twenty-six years we have never had on the Intercolonial such difficult conditions to face on account of storms. In addition, there is the special work that the Intercolonial had to do last winter because of the war. In the case referred [DOT]to, the delay was caused, as stated by the hon. member, by this train waiting for the Maritime through express.


William Stewart Loggie: Only about forty minutes.


John Dowsley Reid: There was a delay of the
Maritime express on the line running from Fredericton to Loggieville.


William Stewart Loggie: I desire to make that
clar. If the line were running from Fredericton to Loggieville, the delay in the Maritime express would not have affected the situation.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that in years gone by there was a train service between Fredericton and Loggieville direct, there was a service on each side of the river. The service from Fredericton to Loggieville never went to Newcastle. The rails were taken up between Nelson and Blackville, and therefore the service could only be carried on on one side of the river.


William Stewart Loggie: The through train service was only carried on on one side of the river. If the Maritime train were late the passengers for the main line would be delayed at Old Chatham Junction. But now if trains from Fredericton would go on to Loggieville passengers for Newcastle could get off at Nelson and get home over the new bridge.


John Dowsley Reid: If the train service is carried on between Fredericton and Chatham, or Loggieville direct, you avoid going to Newcastle.


William Stewart Loggie: But the Newcastle passengers can get off at Nelson and go over the new Morrisey bridge to Newcastle.


John Dowsley Reid: But they are three miles
away.	,


William Stewart Loggie: No.


John Dowsley Reid: They have to change at
Derby Junction.


William Stewart Loggie: No. They get off at
Nelson which is near the bridge, and they are at their homes.
fMr. J. D. Reid.]


John Dowsley Reid: What I want to explain to the hon. member is, we have a train service between Fredericton and Loggieville or Chatham-via Newcastle-


William Stewart Loggie: Bpt it takes three hours
to get from Newcastle to Chatham.


John Dowsley Reid: Not if the connections are on time.


William Stewart Loggie: If the train is on time it takes an hour and a half.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman said it
took three hours.


William Stewart Loggie: And so it did.


John Dowsley Reid: Only in this one case. I
remember a ease that occurred in the month of March in this very city. A member of this House took his train at the station here at eleven o'clock at night, but woke at six o'clock to, find that the train had started and had come back, and he did not reach Toronto until six o'clock the following night. The whole service must not be judged by a delay through a snow blockade. The hon. gentleman has sent me a time table which states that between Newcastle and Loggieville, a distance of eighteen miles, the train leaves Newcastle at 12.05 and arrives at 12.55-so that it takes fifty minutes. And we have four or five trains during the day. Yet the hon. member tries to make the Committee believe that it takes three hours for the train between Newcastle and Loggieville.


William Stewart Loggie: I said it took three hours on this occasion, but in the regular way it takes an hour and a half. The train is due at Newcastle from Fredericton at 11.30, and according to the time table it is due at Chatham at 12.55. In other words, it takes an hour and twenty-five minutes to go .a distance which is five miles in a straight line and 13 miles by the railway.


John Dowsley Reid: With regard to the inquiry
of the hon. member for Westmorland as to the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway, the information that I have with reference to the expenditure of $129,600 is as follows:
Upon completion of the Prince Edward Island ferry terminals at Cape Tormentine, N.B., and Carleton Point, P.E.I., the hulk of the traffic between the Intercolonial railway and Prince Edward Island railway will be handled over the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railway.
In order to handle this increased traffic and the larger locomotives which will be required for same it is necessary that the bridges be strengthened. It is, therefore, proposed to re-

place five of them with pile trestles and three with wooden stringers, and the bridge at Baie Verte with steel spans on concrete piers and abutments, which is estimated to cost $56,500.
It is also necessary to replace old 56 pound rail with 80 pound branch line rail at an estimated cost of $69,000. Ballast is also required at points which are not now ballasted, at a cost of $3,100.
In order properly to operate this additional traffic it is necessary to have a telegraph line, estimated to cost $1,000. The total amount re-qnored for 1916-17 is $129,600.


William Stewart Loggie: I hope the minister will
promise that some change will be made to remedy the serious state of affairs to which I have called his attention.


John Dowsley Reid: I will take this matter up
with the minister and with the management with a. view to seeing if the grievance stated by the hon member is one that would justify a change in the present train service, whether anything can be done to remedy the conditions.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to say a word or two with reference to the unsatisfactory train arrangements to Which the member . for Northumberland has called attention, and to the carrying on of the Intercolonial business in the Maritime provinces at the present time. A few evenings ago the member for Northumberland drew attention to the way his county had been used in the matter of railway accommodation. At the mere whim or fancy of the general manager of the Intercolonial railway, the railway accommodation which these people had enjoyed for upw'ards of 30 years was taken from them; the railway 1 was torn up and the people left without proper railway accommodation. The efforts of the acting minister to-night have been in the nature of his acting as apologist for the Minister of Railways and the general manager of the Intercolonial Railway, and in that respect I sympathize with him very much indeed. The acting minister told the hon. member for Northumberland that these 15 or 20 miles of railway had been torn up and taken away because upon examination and investigation it was found that that portion of the Intercolonial did not pay. That is a very poor excuse indeed. If that same argument were used in reference tb other portions of the Intercolonial railway or in reference to other railways throughout Canada, many miles of railway would he dismantled and torn up, and the people would be deprived of proper railway accommodation. During the last fiscal year there was a deficit on the portion of the National Transcontinental Railway that the Government has been operating of
$86,313.70, aside from the consideration that in the operation of the road by the Government certain equipment, cars, and engines of the Intercolonial railway were used. Although my hon. friend says that it is all right to subject the country to the loss of $86,000 in connection with the operation of that part of the Transcontinental Railway, it was entirely irregular and out of reason that the railway in the county of Northumberland, proving not to be profitable, should continue in operation. It must be torn up because, forsooth, it did not pay a proper dividend upon the investment made by the Government in that portion of the railway. If we take the St. John and Quebec railway, which the Government have been operating during the past year, we find that in the operation of that road also there was a deficit of $5,955. Yet my hon. friend to-day asked this House to pass a resolution in favour of giving more aid to that railway, although he has torn up the road in the county of Northumberland, whicn my hon. friend has the honour to represent. The same thing is true with regard to the International Railway, which has recently been purchased by the Government as a feeder of the Intercolonial. In connection with its operation last year there was a deficit of $1,237. According to the argument of my hon. friend the acting minister, instead of purchasing the International Railway they should have stopped operation, torn up the tracks and junked the whole road. The Government paid $270,000 for the road that I have just inquired about, the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway. They immediately expended upon it about $25,000, and in the estimates that were passed the oither day a further amount of $129,000 was provided for this same road. During 8 months of last year there was a deficit in the operation of this road of $18,522.72. Under these circumstances I do not think that the minister has made a satisfactory answer to the complaint of the member for Northumberland with regard to the dismantling of the road in his constituency. When that road was torn up the people of the locality were promised that bridges would be built across the river so that the farmers would be able to get some railway accommodation by getting access to the railway on the other side of said river.
Yet this Government, in spite of the fact that the manager of the Intercolonial went there and destroyed that railway, has never given the slightest evidence of trying to

carry out the promise made in regard to building bridges across the river to give those people who have suffered the loss of accommodation some compensation. I sincerely trust that the Acting Minister of Railways will try to impress upon the Minister of Railways, the desirability of trying to persuade the general . manager to do something for the benefit of that locality.
I wish to refer for a few moments to the general operation of the Intercolonial railway. My hon. friend the acting minister said to-night that it was because of a heavy snowstorm in March that the trains were late and that our friends from the county of Northumberland had the experience which has been related. I regret very much that the acting minister has not had an opportunity of visiting the Maritime Provinces and of looking into the railway situation there, for, let me tell him, and I am sure that every hon. member from the Maritime Provinces, whether he supports this Government or sits on this side of the House, will agree with me, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway in the Maritime Provinces. There are several reasons for that dissatisfaction. During the past few years, and I am bound to say that the complaints have not been confined to the period during which the present Government has held office, the head of the Department of Railways has endeavoured to unload a certain amount of responsibility for the operation of the Intercolonial railway on the general manager or on the board of management. I do not propose to-night to go into any lengthy argument as to what claims the Maritime Provinces can well make in regard to the operation of that railway. That has been threshed out in this House many times, and on every public platform in the Maritime Provinces, but I do say that the Minister of Railways, I care not to what Government he belongs, cannot rid himself of the responsibility for the operation of the Intercolonial railway. You may import general managers from where you like, or you may have boards of management, or ' what you will, but the responsibility for the operation of that road still rests upon the Government represented by the Minister of Railways. The present management of the Intercolonial is most unsatisfactory in -many respects. I would suggest to the Acting Minister of Railways, if he intends to remain in charge of that department for some time, to go down

to the Maritime Provinces, not on a flying trip and not with the view of letting the papers say how quickly the trains can rush along, but on a visit that will enable him to personally look into the railway situation and realize, as I believe he would realize, the most unsatisfactory condition which prevails in regard to the operation of that railway. I do not believe that it was ever the intention or the expectation of any Government that the Intercolonial railway should yield a surplus to be paid into the consolidated revenues of this country. It is all very well for the minister to tell us that last year itAproduced a surplus of $2,000,000. Is that correct?


John Dowsley Reid: I said that there was a surplus, but I want to add this: The hon. member understands that if at any time the Intercolonial railway had a surplus, not only during the regime of the present Government, but throughout the 16 years when the Liberal party were in power, it went back to the Intercolonial railway; it never went into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. There was never a dollar of profit from the Intercolonial railway that went into Consolidated revenue. If -there was a surplus, the Intercolonial got the benefit of it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I quite understand that. I was going to say that it is very easy to show a surplus or a deficit in connection with the Intercolonial railway or any other public institution; it is merely a matter of bookkeeping. But if there was a surplus, no credit is due to the Government, or to the general manager, or to the officials of that -road, because the surplus comes fro-m the pockets of the people who pay the freight charges. The freight rates on the Intercolonial railway have increased very materially during the past few years. I cannot say exactly what the percentage of increase has been, but the rates have been increased from time to time, and that increase is the result of the expensive management of that railway. We all know in the Maritime Provinces, as every member of this House knows, the late manager of the Intercolonial railway, Mr. Pottinger. He was general manager for many years, and, if my memory serves me rightly, he never received more than $7,000 a year. I grant that for a time the railway did not go so far as Montreal, but, for some years after the railway was extended to . Montreal, that gentleman managed the Intercolonial railway at a salary of $7,000 a year, and; every-

i
body seemed perfectly satisfied. Eventually a change was made, and the railway was placed under the control of a Board of Management, Mr. Pottinger being one of the members of that board; and after the change of Government the board was dissolved, and Mr. Gutelius was appointed manager at a salary of $20,000 a year. I do not know whether the report is true that his salary has been increased to $25,000, but I do know that he was paid $20,000 a year after his appointment. I know also that he has brought to the Intercolonial railway a very large number of high-salaried officials from other railways. Under those conditions, it seems to me that the people of the Maritime Provinces have some reason to find fault, or, at least, to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways the condition of affairs in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee in discussing the question of whether the appointment of Mr. Gutelius was made in consideration of the services which he rendered to this Government in connection with the investigation of the Transcotinental railway, but I desire to draw the attention of the minister, and particularly the attention of the members from the Maritime Provinces to the fact, which is without question, that the present manager of the Intercolonial railways has adopted a policy of 'bringing from other railways men with whom, I suppose, he had been associated for some years in the operation of other railways, and placing them in responsible positions on the Intercolonial railway.
I maintain-and I want to put it in the strongest manner possible-that these positions should go to those who are trained on the Intercolonial railway and who are just as capable, just as willing and would make just as good a record for the Intercolonial as importations brought from the outside *by the present manager. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee in discussing the Transcontinental railway as that matter will come up upon another vote. My hqn- friend claims, that the traffic on the Intercolonial last winter was very heavy and that is put forward as an excuse for the failure of the Intercolonial to carry the freight which was offered to it at Montreal and other points. The principal reason for this failure to handle the traffic, it seems to me, was due to the fact that upon undertaking the operation of the Transcontinental railway from Moncton west, the minister took the rolling
stock and equipment from the Intercolonial and placed it upon the Transcontinental railway thus sacrificing the interests of the people of the Maritime Provinces. The freight that should have gone over the Intercolonial day after day and week after week was held up for weeks and months- I know that it was held up for over a month at least-and business men, manufacturers and people generally in the Maritime Provinces were unable to get their shipments of merchandise and other articles through to the great detriment of the business interests of the Maritime Provinces. While the department were serving the people in the western section .of the country, the people of the Maritime Provinces were suffering because this rolling stock was being used for the purposes of the Transcontinental railway. I desire to show the conditions that existed in the Maritime Provinces as a result of freight being held up at different points. I have in my hand a letter written by a very prominent manufacturer in Amherst. He is not a political friend of mine, but I know him very well and I know my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) would realize that a letter from him would mean a great deal and should have consideration. I do not propose to read the whole or it, but the writer says:
The following letter by Mr. William Knight in regard to the continual bungling and inefficiency which is characterizing the management of the Canadian Government railways appeared in a recent issue of the Moncton Transcript. It will be of special interest in Amherst not only because Mr. Knight is a prominent citizen of the town but also because he points out some of the harm which is being done Amherst industries and people by the bungling. The letter is as follows:
We hear a great deal these days about loyalty to the Empire as well as to Canadian institutions. ' This condition is very laudable. In fact, any other stand by the individual is quite inexcusable. But I have been wondering why this spirit of loyalty does not equally apply as well to Canadian Government railways and their management.	,
It is understood that munitions and allied freight have the right of way, which, of course, is quite correct. But is no attention to be paid to commercial freight at all? Is no effort to be made to relieve the apparent congestion? Or are Canadian industries to be allowed to go to the dogs?
The Amherst Foundry Company is now closed down for lack of coke supply. A car of coke for this industry crossed the line into Canada on February 16th. Since that date nothing has been heard from it. I have tried every conceivable means to get information as to where this car has been side-tracked and why, and when we may expect to receive it in Amherst, but no information is forthcoming. Evidently

the railway management does not consider Canadian industries worth its notice, let alone the ordinary courteous treatment due to a business inquiry. Other industries are in somewhat the same condition, I understand, through similar causes.
That is a portion of a letter written by a gentleman in Amherst, and making complaint as to the condition of affairs on the Intercolonial railway because freight was being held up. The acting minister may make the same answer that he gave to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie), and say that it was a hard winter. But this appeared on February 16, and at that time the weather conditions were not unfavourable to getting freight through. But when you come to realize that seventy-five engines were taken off the Intercolonial railway and placed upon the Transcontinental you will readily understand why freight became congested and was held up at junction points along the line of the Intercolonial. What was true in Amherst was true in Moncton. I was in Moncton during the Easter holidays, and I was talking to a very prominent business man there, a builder and contractor, who told me that his business was entirely held up because some lumber that he was bringing from British Columbia was delayed at Montreal. He had to discharge his hands, and the work was shut down waiting for this freight to be brought forward. These are matters that should occupy the attention of the Acting Minister of Railways and the Government in the interest of that portion of the country which is served1 by the Intercolonial. I do not know whether the same complaints have come to other hon. members of this House; I have not only had personal complaints, but I have had numbers of letters, and I have seen complaints in the newspapers published in that portion of the country in regard to this matter. I contend, as a representative from the Maritime Provinces, that the Intercolonial to-day, as it has been ever since the present general manager has had charge of it, is rum more in the interest of the Canadian Pacific than in the interest of the Government or people of Canada, or the patrons of the road. They have changed the methods and management of the road to conform to the system of operation of the Canadian Pacific. They have adopted the standard rules, as the Canadian Pacific have, and they have changed the system in dining car service, as was sworn to before a committee of this House of which I have the honour to be a
	.
member. The superintendent of the dining car service, when put on the stand recently, stated that they had changed the system of the dining car service so that it would be conducted in the same way that other railways conducted their dining car service. What is true of that is true of nearly everything in connection with the road. They have increased the freight rates to compare with those of the Canadian Pacific. The Intercolonial railway was built particularly in the interests of the people of the Maritime Provinces at the time of Confederation. When I say that I do not mean to argue that freight should be carried free. The Intercolonial should be operated so as to maintain, as nearly as possible, an equilibrium between expenditure and revenue. I believe, and so do a great majority of the people in the Maritime Provinces, that at the present time the Intercolonial is being operated just to suit the convenience of the Canadian Pacific railwav. and practically at their dictation.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the wages paid to the ordinary labourer on the Government railway system. Speaking on this point in the House the other day, the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne said i	[DOT]
Mr. . F. B. McCurdy (Shelburne and Queens) :	Drew attention of the Minister of
Railways to a matter affecting a large number of employees on the Intercolonial railway. I understand that the scale of pay allowed to trackmen, ash-pit men, and that class of labour, has been $1.60 per day. In these days of much travel, when the railway is busy, and also in view of the conditions which prevail in the outside labour market, I would ask the Acting Minister of Railways If he cannot see his way clear to make a revision upward of that scale of pay?
Hon. J. D. Reid (Acting Minister of Railways) ; With reference to the question of labour on the Intercolonial and rates of pay, I may say that this matter was taken up by the Minister of Railways and Canals with the general manager as far back as February last, and my information is that last month the wages of trackmen were increased to $1.75 a day, on country sections, and to $1.85 a day in cities. It has also been decided, commencing on the 1st of April last, to pay the coal shovel! lers, ash-pit men, etc., referred to by my hon. friend, at the rate of $1.70 per day. These advances have been made voluntarily by the minister and the general manager.
I suppose the minister thought that he was acting very magnanimously when he increased the wages of the ashpit men and common labourers from $1.60 to $1.70 a day, and the men on the country sections from $1.60 to $1.75 and the men in the city sections from $1.60 to $1.85 a day ! Let us see whether this is a

fair rate of wages to be paid to the ordinary labourer in this country.


Mr. MORPHY:: The hon. member quoted the minister as saying that a voluntary increase had been made in the men's wages. Have any requests come from the men themselves for an increase of pay?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I could not say whether there has been any special request, but we all know there have been any number of requests through their unions.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understood this increase was a voluntary one on the part of the minister.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was reading from the minister's speech. I am not one to find fault with the salaries that are paid Government officials, unless they are very very extravagant, such as the salary paid to the General Manager of the Intercolonial and some of his officers-$12,000 for instance, to one man, and $10,000 to another. I am not going to find fault with the salaries that are paid the men in the offices at Moncton. But I do wish to draw the attention of the Government to the wage the ordinary labourer on the Intercolonial railway is being paid. I maintain that he is not being paid a wage sufficient to enable him and his family to live decently and honestly in the city of Moncton or any other city in the Maritime Provinces. It is all very well to say that the man on the farm gets only $1.50 or $1.75 a day, but it must be remembered that the great majority of that class of labour own a small house, and have a few acres of land, a cow, and a few hens. They raise some of their own meat, and with all these advantages can live decently on that wage. But a man with a family, living in the city of Moncton, or any other city, who has to pay rent and taxes, educate his family, and meet the hundred and one demands that are made, upon him, will any hon. gentleman say that a man can do this on $1.75 a day? I have read some parts of the report made by the Cost of Living Commission, laid upon the table of the House early in the session. Among other interesting things in that report, which was made by a commission appointed by this Government, I find a table compiled, no doubt, from evidence adduced before the commission, which gives the average cost of living for a period of five years. The commission estimated i that in the year 1913 it would cost a man $9.63 a week to keep himself and a family of five; that is, I suppose,
living like an ordinary, decent man should live.	.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the'heading of that table?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I just copied out the details, but I can let my hon. friend know to-morrow. According to this table it will cost a man with a family of five a little over $500 a year to live. Now, if the [DOT] $1.70 per day man, whose wages the minister has so magnanimously raised from $1.60 to$1.70, works 300 days a year- if he works every working day in the year, he can only earn $530. The $500 that the commission estimates it would cost him to keep himself and his family does not allow one cent for rent, for clothing, for education, for church and charitable purposes, or for medical attendance and things of that kind. He earns, then, $530 at the outside, and his bare living expenses, according to this table, amount to a little over $500. I have no doubt there may be some errors here and there; I do not know the gentleman who made up the statement, but if it is worth anything, it must mean that this man is going to be some two or three or four hundred dollars behind at the end of the year if he lives as an ordinary, decent, intelligent man should live. Under those conditions, if the minister is not in a position to do so himself, he should have someone work out a reasonable table and evolve a minimum wage for the ordinary labourer which will enable him to make a decent living. In the city of Moncton the working man who goes down into the ashpit in the early morning and works there for ten hours gets $1.70 a day, whereas the general manager of the Intercolonial gets his $20,000 a year with free house rent and everything else in connection with it absolutely free. Compare the condition of that labourer's child with, the condition of Mr. Gutelius' child. I am not so unreasonable as to say that the general manager of the Intercolonial should not receive a [DOT] larger salary than the ordinary labourer who does the inferior work on that railway, but the latter should be placed in such a position that his child can go to school decently clad and mingle with the children of the other officials of the Intercolonial or other citizens. I make that claim, whether it be right or wrong, On behalf of the labouring men on the Intercolonial. As long as I have an opportunity to raise my voice in defence of the ordinary people of this country, I will say that this matter should be taken up by this Govern-

ment in order to see that a reasonably fair deal is meted out to them. I do not propose to labour that question further; I simply want to bring it to the attention of the acting Minister of Railways. If the Government cannot see their way clear to increase the wage of the common labourer, then they should cut off something from the salary of the high officials and add it to the wages of those who are receiving a mere pittance and doing the hard part of the work.
I also want to call attention to a matter which is working havoc and causing loss to the Intercolonial, that is, the policy that has been followed by the Intercolonial of withdrawing the Ocean Limited train during the winter months. My hon. friend may say that it does not pay to run the Ocean Limited from Halifax to Montreal during the winter months. I do not see how you can figure out whether the running of a certain train pays or does not pay. An engineer who understands the working of a railway and the running of trains may he able to say what it costs per mile to operate a certain train from Halifax to Montreal. Many business men, however, might make up their accounts at the end of a week or at the end of a month and find that they had not made any money, but is that any reason why they should go out of business? They should rather put more energy into their business and make the next week or month make up for what they have lost, and pay a good dividend. The Ocean Limited has been running for the past few years and is looked upon practically as a tourist train and as a great advertisement for the Maritime iProvinces. The Matapedia Valley is considered to be one of the most beautiful spots in the whole Dominion, and coming through there on the train at daylight the passengers have an opportunity of seeing that section of country that we all admire, and we feel that the operating of that train has been of great service. The Canadian Pacific and the Ocean Limited come from Halifax to Moncton as one train; at Moncton one section knowm as the Ocean Limited goes on over the Intercolonial to Montreal; the jther section known as the Canadian Pacific goes on down to St. John and then through the state of Maine and on to Montreal. Just as soon as passenger traffic commences to drop off in the winter, the Ocean Limited is taken off and the whole traffic handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. What is the result? We are all creatures of habit. It is as natural for us to travel always over a certain road as it is for us

to eat. If one acquires the habit of going to a certain hotel, it is the most natural thing in the world to continue going to that hotel. How then can the manager of the Intercolonial railway or the Minister of Railways, who is head of the department and who has charge of the operation of that road, expect to build up a traffic for the Ocean Limited over the Intercolonial railway, when every few months of the year that train is taken off and that traffic is handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway? The people living along the Intercolonial are absolutely dependent upon the Maritime Express and those of us who go down to the Maritime Provinces know that it is a miracle if she is not from two to five hours late in the winter season. I think I am voicing the sentiments of every member in the Maritime Provinces when I say that when we go down there in the winter season we travel by the Canadian Pacific and pay the fare of $6 through the state of Maine rather than go by the Maritime Express, and what is true of ourselves is true of the travelling public; they will not travel by the Maritime Express unless they are compelled to and want to get up into the northern part of New Brunswick. We are advertising extensively and endeavouring to make the Intercolonial part of a great system, and when we realise that the Government have of their own volition taken over the Transcotinental railway and are going to make that a part of the Gov. ernment system, it is a sin and a shame-
I was going to say it was a disgrace-that they are operating the Intercolonial railway as a branch line, as an adjunct of the Canadian Pacific railway. I ask the minister to consider Whether or not in future that cannot be changed and a better system evolved by which the people of the Maritime Provinces will receive better treatment and will have the Ocean Limited running throughout the whole year. If they lost a little money this year, that is no reason why the train should be withdrawn and, on the plea that there is only room for one, hand over the ' whole traffic to one, that one being the Canadian Pacific.
I have spoken in no fault-finding spirit. From the newspaper reports, not only in Liberal but in Conservative journals, the hon. gentleman will find that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. I trust that if the acting minister continues at the head of the department, I, as one member from the Maritime Provinces, extend, to him the strongest invitation to come down to the Maritime Provinces and see for himself the operation of the Intercolonial. Let him

coine and stay a few weeks. One cannot get a grasp of the management of the Intercolonial by rushing over as ministers of railways usually do. If we are to have an Ontario man for all time as Minister of Railways, he should come to the Maritime Provinces and get some insight into affairs, some knowledge of that portion of the country. Then the people who are served fey the Intercolonial may hope to have a fairer deal than they have been given under the present general manager, who has been brought from another competitive railway and put at the head of the Intercolonial, and who is operating the system to the great dissatisfaction of the people of the Maritime Provinces and in a way that I believe must redound to the discredit of the present Administration and to the minister in charge of the department.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp). I regret that there are only four of his colleagues on that side of the House who have thought it worth while to be present to listen to his statements. For he has made a very strong impression upon my mind. We at the other end of the country have been taught that the Government, in the Intercolonial, was a spendthrift, throwing away the people's money in useless and- extravagant works- branch lines and others. The hon. gentleman has paid to the Government, not designedly, I think, a compliment in accusing them of stinginess in dealing with this road. It is pleasant to me to be disillusioned. I myself had begun to think, from the charges which had been made, that the Government were frittering away the public money on this road. But the hon. gentleman has absolutely convinced me that such a suggestion has no foundation and that, if anything, the Government have been too stingy in running' the road and in affording the accommodation which the hon. gentleman thinks the people should have. It settles my doubts on the question when I was inclined to think the other way.


George Perry Graham: But I do not recall that the hon. member for North Perth (Mr Morphy) made any such charge against the Government.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I say I was in doubt, in fearful doubt. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Copp) has dispelled my doubts. I congratulate the Government on their careful,
prudent, economical administration of the road.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does that refer to the wages?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am coming to that. I was with the hon. gentleman; I thought he made a very good point there. I understand that under the wise administration of this Government a surplus is at last in sight on this great railroad instead of the usual deficit. I do not think it is altogether fair for the Government to claim that surplus if it was gained at the expense of the working-man. I am inclined to agree with the hon. gentleman. In these times when everything a man has to use in daily life is higher in price, and especially now, that the road is on a better basis through the unfortunate circumstance of the war, resulting in increased traffic, it might be a time for the Government to repeat its generosity to the men. I am not saying that they have been too generous. I think the Government -are to be commended inasmuch as they made that advance to the men, apparently, without any request being made for it. That, it seems to me, shows an advance in sentiment on this subject for which the Government is to be commended instead of condemned. If the road through the connections made, and also through the fact of these seventy-five engines having been taken to swell the traffic of the road which otherwise would not have been received, these matters should be considered. I do not think the hon. gentleman made a strong .point when he instanced the case of one car of lumber-a purely isolated case. Perhaps the man did not give the right address and the car is now lying in Toronto.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It may be collared. They will be lucky if they get it out of Ontario.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have heard it said that when a man goes around declaring that he is extremely honest, it is better to watch him. I do not think the reflection comes with good grace from my hon. friend when he assumes that a oar going into Ontario will be " collared." I believe that the people of Ontario are as honest, or nearly so, as those of other parts of the country. As to this question of running the train, I am not in a position to discuss it, but I thought the hon. gentleman's argument weak. The Government out the train off because past experience showed that it did not pay, and to cut off the train meant to save money for the people. And the hon.

gentleman had the Canadian Pacific railway to fall back upon, so he did not suffer, anything.	v


John Dowsley Reid: He had to pay $6 extra.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Members of Parliament, so far as that is concerned, may well be asked to make a little sacrifice for the country. The Government might consider the personal loss to the hon. gentleman, but that question and the question of the labouring men are the only points on which I could agree with him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is hardly fair for the hon. gentleman to say that I referred to the case for any personal reason. I used it only for an illustration.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I had no intention of using that argument.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not think any hon. member would take that view of it.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.39 p.m.
Thursday, May 4, 1916.