1923-06-25

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McMASTER (Brome) moved concurrence of the House in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh reports of the committee charged with the investigation into agricultural conditions.
He said: These reports have been on tun Table of the House for some days, and it is my desire now, with the unanimous consent of the House, if I may obtain it, merely to move formally their adoption, and to defer any remarks I may have to make until I see whether there is any criticism offered in connection with these reports.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon.
member to postpone until to-morrow what he wishes to say in regard to these reports. Notice can be given for to-morrow.


Mr. McMASTER:: I bow to the ruling. I give notice that to-morrow I will move the adoption of and concurrence in these reports.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN-CATTLE EMBARGO

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MEIGHEN:: I have not observed that the order is yet down which called for the correspondence respecting the cattle embargo. I would think that all the objections the minister could have to bringing down the correspondence would be over to-day about five o'clock. Perhaps, we could expect it then.


Mr. FIELDING:: Seven o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps we can expert it this evening.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I was not aware
there was any objection to bringing it down. We have been busy getting the files ready. They required a good deal of sorting. I think they are all ready and some of them .are now in my office in this building and I will be ready to submit them to my hon. friend this afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: When the file comes down we will see how much it is that requires the government four months to sort out.



UNITED STATES LIQUOR LAWS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I call attention of the government to a despatch from Washington which, no doubt, all hon. members have read, to the effect that a communication has passed from this government to the United States intimating an unwillingness to complv with a request that had been made for cooperation in the prevention of shipments of liquor against the law into the United States. Would the government intimate what correspondence has been sent from Washington to this government and from this government to Washington on the subject?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am obliged to my right hon. friend for bringing up the matter, because, having read the despatches to which he refers, I think they are calculated to create an entirely erroneous impression. It is true, the government has received from Washington a communication asking if it would be possible for the Canadian government to assist in promoting the observance of certain liquor laws of the United States. The communication relates to mattens particularly appertaining to the export of liquor. When the communication was received it was referred to the departments of government concerned. The reply sent to Washington related exclusively to a statement of the law as it stands and the position of the Canadian authorities in meeting the request that has been made. There has been nothing sent forward to Washington with respect to the government's policy in the matter of endeavouring to co-operate with American authorities in securing observance of their laws. So far as' the government's policy in that matter is concerned, I would say that we have every desire to co-operate with the American authorities in helping	them to secure	the
observance of their laws in precisely the same manner as we would hope to have the American authorities co-operate with us in
securing the observance__of our laws. Such
action as has been taken up to the present has been entirely of a departmental character. The government is sending a communication to Washington intimating that, as soon as the present session is over, we will be pleased to receive at Ottawa	an	officer	from	theAmerican government	to	discuss	with	ourofficials possible ways	and	means	ot neipmg
to meet the situation to which they have referred. Our attitude in this matter is entirely a friendly one, in an endeavour to fur-

The Union Bank

ther, so far as it may be possible for us so to do, the best of relations with our American neighbours.


Arthur Meighen: When did the request
come? And, was there not time to receive the American delegate so that the government's policy might get beyond the bounds of desire and into legislation? I noted that the Prime Minister stated that they had taken care that the delegate would not come until the session was through, when it is impossible to put any more legislation on the statute books for another year. When was the request received and why was action not taken before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The request
was received some little time ago. When it was received, it was referred to the departments of government concerned, and I think such delay as has taken place has arisen out of the circumstance that legal opinion had to be given by the law officers as to the position of the law, and the extent to which it would be possible to go under the law as it stands in meeting the situation as presented to us. My impression is that it was about three months ago, the request was received. There was no intention of delay in the matter. It was dealt with entirely departmentally. As regards the larger question, that of policy, the government would like to be able to view all sides of the situation before taking final action.



THE UNION BANK

Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave, under rule 39, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the House to certain statements appearing in the press, apparently of an authentic nature, regarding the financial position of the Union Bank of Canada; and the necessity of safe-guarding the public interest in every possible way.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to move the adjournment?
And leave having been granted:


Hewitt Bostock: Might I remind hon.
members of rule 39, paragraph (c) which reads:
The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
I merely wish to call the attention of hon. members who might desire to speak on the motion, that they must speak strictly to the the motion. fMr. Mackenzie King.]


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to keep to the motion as closely as I possibly can, although I realize that it will, perhaps, be a little difficult to deal with this matter without in some way alluding to what has been taking place in this House and in different committees for some time past. The House has only passed the third reading of the Bank Act renewing the charters for another ten years, and now the affairs of one of our large chartered banks has been made public, and the people are made aware that the bank has suffered some losses, so that, perhaps, it is in the public interest that this question should be discussed to some extent at the present time.
A statement has been made by the president and directors of the Union Bank of Canada. I may say that for some time back there have been persistent rumours in the country that all has not been well with some of our banks. We have heard this in the corridors of the House, and I have heard it mentioned in other places. We are assured by an examination of the bank's affairs by auditors, president, directors, and an independent high official of the Bank of Montreal, that the Union Bank is in a fundamentally sound position. It seems strange, though this may be only a coincidence, that just immediately after the third reading of the Bank Act had passed this House, the statement was made public. This may have been only a coincidence, and just happened; but on the face of the matter, it seems rather strange that this should have taken place. I have no wish by word or act of mine to do anything that will in any way throw doubts or cause uneasiness in regard to the position of the Union Bank of Canada at this particular time. I want, however, to call the attention of the House to a statement issued by the Union Bank of Canada on November 30, 1922. The statement in part is as follows:
Capital	 $8,000,000
Net profits for the year after all bad debts and. doubtful liabilities to the bank
are eliminated	 1,131,060
Paid in dividends	up	to	date	
800,000Balance of profits carried	forward	
483,000Rest account	
6,000,000
I am sure everyone must have considered that to be a most reassuring statement. The bank was prosperous, everything was going well, and no one had any reason to believe, even as late as November last, that anything was wrong. We have another statement issued just the other day. The capital remains the same, 88,000,000; the rest account has now shrunk to $1,750,000, and the

The Union Bank
profit and loss account is only 8159,360. What has happened? A sum of 84,250,000 has disappeared from the rest account of the bank. We are told that this has been withdrawn from the rest account, and placed in the contingency reserve account, presumably to cover up losses that have occurred in the bank's business during those months. The business of the bank has suffered losses from high officials of the bank. The president's statement is that this was through unauthorized transactions in sterling exchange. That is the explanation we get. I isaid previously that this all becomes public after the bill renewing bank charters for ten years had passed its third reading in this House.
Another question might be asked. There have been persistent rumours, as I have already stated, and the condition spoken of must have been in existence for months. Had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), cr the Department of Finance, any knowledge of the condition of things during the time the Bank Act was before the committee on Banking? It might be worth while to inquire how the losses have been incurred. Have they been incurred by granting loans at branch banks where loans have been made by managers of branch banks at from 8 to 10 per cent interest? We have often heard it stated that a high rate of interest has to be charged in the prairie provinces because the risks there were much greater than in other parts of the Dominion, and 8 per cent and 10 per cent have been named as the rates of interest that had to be charged in order to carry on the bank's business successfully. What is the fact? The losses that have been incurred are not made in the branches, but through loans made at the headquarters of the bank. We know that branch managers are not allowed to make any loans over $500 without applying to headquarters for authority to do so. The facts of the case seem to be that the really serious loans made by banks are made at headquarters and by the general managers. We might say that this is due to rather reckless financing on the part of some of the managers at headquarters; witness the case of the Merchants Bank and the loss at this time incurred by the Union Bank. The thought of many people may be: Have we just escaped another merger? A concentration of one or two banks in one of the financial centres would be a misfortune, something that the Progressive party has been fighting very strenuously against. The Union Bank is the only large bank with headquarters in the West. No one wants to see it disappear; no one wants the control of 274i
credit to fall into the hands of a few privileged individuals or corporations, and I believe that this is true of the majority of our people irrespective of their views on banks and banking.
Now, let us for a moment examine some of the occurrences of recent date in banking circles. We will take the case of two banks, the Merchants Bank and the Union Bank cf Canada. The Merchants Bank suffered losses through bad loans much in the same way, I think, as the Union Bank of Canada has no doubt suffered. Still its capital was intact and it had a rest account of $1,500,000. After certain negotiations, however, it capitulated shall I say?-to the Bank of Montreal in which it was swallowed up. This, of course, resulted in a loss to its shareholders, and inconvenience and hardship to many individuals. And now, there remains of that institution no more than a name,-a name, I might say, "to point a moral or adorn a tale." The Union Bank of Canada, the one more immediately under discussion, like the Merchants Bank of Canada, has its capital stock still unimpaired, with a rest account of Sl,-750,000. These are almost parallel cases you may say, and you naturally ask the question, why so different a conclusion? To the ordinary layman outside, there does not seem to be very much difference between the respective positions of the two banks, and one naturally wonders why the ending is not the same in the one case as it was in the other. Well, the Union Bank has shown courage in the situation in which it finds itself. I think it may be commended on its courageous facing of the facts and its taking the people into its confidence. It has set its house in order, having learned from experience that the policy it has adopted is the best under the circumstances.
Now, we are told in the statement made public that there is to be a policy of economy in operating and overhead expenses. I believe I heard that same statement made not very long ago when it was declared that all the banks in Canada were running at a minimum of expense. It was stated that no reduction could be made in the matter of operating and overhead expenses, the banks apparently, as one would infer, being already run as economically as possible. Yet here we find a bank to-day making the public announcement that it will inaugurate improvements in this direction. It must be perfectly evident to a great many persons, I should think, that the operating and overhead expenses of banks to-day are much too extrava-
The Union Bank

gant in the present condition in which the country is struggling. There have been some dismissals, and perhaps this is well. I want to pay a tribute to some of the directors who are still on the board of the Union Bank. Personally I am acquainted with some of these gentlemen; they are men of probity, courage and honesty, whose names, I think, ought to be a tower of strength in restoring confidence in the stability and the fundamental soundness of the Union Bank of Canada. I have no desire for a moment to cast any shadow of doubt on the soundness of this bank. True mistakes have been made, but the right course has been adopted, and the bank deserves the support and confidence of the public in view of the courage with which it has faced the situation. But what assurance have we that the same thing may not occur again? I anticipate the probable reply, that you cannot prevent men from taking chances and doing foolish things, that you cannot make men honest by any preventive measures; honest,-shall I say?-with other people's money. Well, that does not make for stability or public confidence and I claim that something ought certainly to be done to ensure the public against any disastrous happenings in connection with the banks, at least, with the authority of any directors. In the light of experience, and in view of the facts that are now made public, parliament, by extending the bank charters for ten years has given the O.K. to things just as they are. Some hon. members may be excused for thinking that it might have been the part of wisdom for this House to have thought carefully over our whole banking system in relation to commerce and agriculture, and in relation to the needs of the common people, before partly committing itself for ten years.
Taking up the newspaper to-day I saw a short report of a speech that had been delivered by President Harding during the course of a tour through the United States. I would direct the attention of the House to some remarks he made on that occasion. He said:
For the first time in the history of agriculture in any country adequate investment and working capital will be furnished farmers on terms as favourable as those accorded to commerce and industry. The farmer is receiving nothing more than is coming to him, nothing more than he needed, nothing more than was good for him, and nothing that was not also good for all our national interests.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just a word in conclusion. I do not want to cast any reflections upon any bank or banking system at this particular time, but I do not think that the mo-
ment is opportune when something should be done to meet the situation that exists in Canada to-day. We have not yet reached a solution of the banking question; it is still open; and it would have been in the best interest of every one concerned if a little more consideration could have been given to this public question in the light of some of the revelations that have come to our knowledge in the last few days. I have just read some of the remarks of President Harding, and T realize that in this House there is a very different attitude towards the trouble of agriculture from that which was evident long ago: it is true we get a good deal of sympathy. But sometimes it is thought that those who represent the agricultural interests are sectional in their outlook on things and do not take a wide enough view of conditions as they generally prevail throughout the country. Here is President Harding making the statement that in the United States agriculture is of national importance and that anything that helps the industry must be for the general welfare. How much more is this true of a country like Canada whose great basic industry is this same agriculture? I repeat, therefore, that all our banking and our commercial interests should be viewed in their relation to the interests of agriculture in this Dominion. I do not desire to detain the House any longer, but I hope that nothing will be said to-day that will be regarded as casting any doubts on the fundamental soundness of the Union Bank. Its managers have taken the proper step, but mistakes having been made in the past, I think something should be done to obviate a recurrence of them.


William Stevens Fielding: If I am to keep within the compass of the ruling laid down by you, Mr. Speaker, as to the nature of the present discussion, I am afraid that I cannot follow my hon. friend (Mr. Forke) in the consideration of the recent address of President Harding. President Harding's notions of what is good to help agriculture do not happen always to be in harmony with our own. For example, he thinks that one way to help agriculture is to put an enormously high tariff against the Canadian west, and so I am not disposed to regard him as a high authority on matters of that sort. I am unable to see the connection, if there is any, between the Bank Act and the present affairs of the Union Bank of Canada. If all that we know about the affairs of the Union Bank had been before us from the beginning of the session, I fail to see what bearing it would have upon the amendments to the Bank

The Union Bank
Act. I would welcome, even at this eleventh hour, any useful suggestions that might be offered by way of amendment to that act; and the act, let me inform my hon. friend, is not yet absolutely through parliament. At this moment, it is before another branch of parliament, and if hon. gentlemen feel interested in any question touching the Union Bank trouble, if they will frame some reasonable amendment dealing with the matter, I am sure that even to-day hon. gentlemen of the Senate would be willing to consider it.
My hon. friend asks two questions. First, he wants to know whether the information concerning the Union Bank was in the possession of the Minister of Finance before the Bank Act passed. Yes; and under what circumstances I will tell him. He also asks the question, what assurance have we that this thing may not be repeated? I can tell him that we have no assurance, and so long as human nature is as it is we cannot have any assurance, that misfortunes may not occur to any bank. We cannot guarantee the banking skill nor the moral character of any banking officials. Do not let us run away with the idea that we can make men moral, in the matter of banking, by act of parliament. Men will always receive positions of trust, and if they betray that trust or display bad management in the execution of it, we can only regret the weakness of poor humanity. My hon. friend, however, asks a more important question: Did we know anything of this trouble of the Union Bank when the Bank Act was still before the committee? I personally knew about it, yes; and I will tell my hon. friend the circumstances. About a month ago the president of the Union Bank, Mr. Allan, sent a special messenger to me from Winnipeg. He brought a return of the last month's operations of the bank. He filed that return in accordance with the law, and the messenger, speaking for Mr. Allan, said, "While the president files this return, and while it is in accordance with the statements in the books' of the company and is correct in that respect, he feels anxious. He is not himself satisfied with the return. He finds a condition has arisen which calls for investigation. He is not prepared to make a definite statement now, but he believes the bank has suffered losses which need to be accounted for in a different manner from that indicated in the return." He was kind enough to ask my judgment and advice as to what should be done. I told him the only advice I could presume to give, although probably it was not necessary, was for him to have a thorough investigation into the affairs of the bank to ascertain the exact condition; that
if losses had been incurred, his proper course was to ascertain them as absolutely and definitely as possible, and then come before the public and make a frank statement of the whole situation. Mr. Read, the auditor, who brought the message to me, intimated that that was exactly what was in the mind of the president and directors of the bank. He told me their officials were making an inquiry into the bank's affairs and intended to call in the expert of another bank to confirm, if necessary, their judgment.
They reached a conclusion and in due course a statement was made to the public. The only communication I received at that time is the one which I shall now read. As I said, Sir, the message came to me by special messenger from Winnipeg, President Allan did not come himself but sent the auditor, Mr. Read. On June 5 I received the following letter from Mr. Allan:
Dear Sir,
As you will remember a verbal statement was made to you on my instructions by Mr. E. S. Read, the auditor of the Union Bank of Canada at the time of the filing of our April statement with your department to the effect that while the statement was correct according to the books of the bank, I had reason to fear the existence of losses the extent of which I was unaware of: that as a consequence I had instituted a revaluation of the Bank's assets, the result of which was not then known but which it was feared might necessitate the deduction of a considerable sum from the Rest Account, and that our April statement was filed in your department subject to the outcome of that revaluation. Its completion has been delayed beyond the date anticipated but I expect that within ten days or two weeks I shall be able to intimate the result to you and that our statement for May will be prepared in accordance therewith.
I am, Sir,
Yours sincerely,
W. R. Allan,
President.
Now, I have every reason to believe that the action of the president and directors of the Union Bank of Canada was' in accordance with the advice that I ventured to give them-indeed, my advice was not necessary, they had already undertaken to do this. The statement has been issued to the public and the House is familiar with it. I commend the action of the president and directors in the course they took. When they discovered there were losses- beyond those for which they had made provision, they had courage to face the music, to make an investigation, to ascertain the exact extent of the losses, to make reasonable provision for those losses by writing down their assets, and then to come before the country with a full, frank statement. In that way, I believe, they have deserved and have won the confidence of the country. I have no reason to doubt that the Union Bank is in a sound and strong position, and
Questions

again I congratulate the president and directors upon the courage they have evinced.
Beyond this I do not know that I have anything to say regarding the Union Bank of Canada. This is the whole story.
Motion (Mr. Forke) withdrawn.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 221 (from the Senate) respecting The Calgary and Femie Railway Company.- Mr. Hudson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 223 (from the Senate) for the relief of Jessie Anne Epstein.-Mr. Duff.

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

Mr. McKILLOP:: 1.	If dockages are all b:nned together and terminal elevators clean that which belongs to them, how do they deliver to the purchaser the quality which they themselves (the elevators) receive?
2.	Is it possible to obtain sample from the inspection department representing quality of dockage used by inspectors when grading dockage shipped and as shown by inspector''s test as provided for in the tariff?
3.	Who determines the standards by which inspectors inspect and grade dockage for which no standard has been set by the Standards board?
4.	What provision is made for the inspection of spelts and mixed grain?
5.	In case of dispute can survey be held on spelts and mixed grain?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Terminal elevators are required to deliver all screenings free from domestic grain other than broken wheat, and to deliver to the owner of said screenings what would be considered a fair average of original screenings after separation of domestic grain is made.
2.	No. It is not possible to obtain sample from the Inspection department that would represent quality of dockage, as the Inspection department do not grade dockage; but it is possible to obtain sample from the Inspection department representing quality of dockage covering any particiilar shipment after same is loaded.
3.	There are no standards set by the Standards board covering dockage. The only standard which the inspectors use is that defined by the Seed Commissioner for "Standard Re-cleaned Screenings."
4.	No provision is made for the classification of spelts, but dockage would be assessed if not reasonably free from weed seeds. No

provision is made in the Canada Grain Act for the classification of mixed grain. The following general rules for classification were adopted by the Inspection department for the guidance of inspectors, in Septemher, 1919, and have been in use ever since.
Mixed grain No. 1 shall consist of a mixture of wheat and oats, with wheat predominating.
Mixed grain No. 2 shall consist of a mixture of oats and wheat, oats predominating.
Mixed grain No. 3 shall consist of a mixture of wheat and barley, or barley and wheat.
Mixed grain No. 4 shall consist of a mixture of oats and barley, or barley and oats.
Other mixtures of grain, such as wheat" and rye, or rye and wheat, are classified as such.
5.	A survey could not be held on spelts as there is no provision for classification. A survey could be held on mixed grain.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILtyAYS-LEGISLATION


Mr. HUMPHREY:: 1.	Does the government propose to introduce legislation to amend section fourteen of chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1919, "An Act to incorporate Canadian National Railways Company and respecting National Railways," which provides that the provisions of The Railway Act respecting the operation of a railway (as distinguished from the provisions of such Act respecting the construction or maintenance of a railway) shall apply to such Canadian Government Railways as would but for the passing of this act be subject to the Government Railways Act, during such time as the operation and management thereof is entrusted to the company?
2.	Why are the construction and maintenance thus excluded ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce a measure to amend the said section with a view to removing such exception?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The government does not intend to introduce any further railway legislation this session.


GRADE THREE POST OFFICES
Mr. WHITE:: 1. What revenue must a post office have to become a semi-staff office or a grade No. 3 post office?
2. What post offices in Ontario have such revenue?
3. What post offices in Ontario having such revenue are semi-staff offices and what grades?
4.	What post offices in Ontario having such revenue are not semi-staff offices or are low Grade No. 3?
5.	If any, why are they not so graded or classified?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	(a) Semi-staff offices discontinued on April 1, 1918.
(b) Grade 3. Change from Grade 1 and 2, (that is, Revenue Offices), to Grade 3 and up (City Offices) is not decided entirely upon revenue. Population and local conditions are also most important factors. Under present

Questions
conditions population 12,000, revenue $25,000 are working guides, but final decision is a question of adequate public service.
2.	The offices in Ontario with a revenue of $25,000 and over are: Barrie, Belleville, Brantford, 'Brockville, Chatham, Cornwall, Fort William, Galt, Guelph, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, Lindsay, London, Niagara Falls, North Bay, Orillia, Ottawa, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Pembroke, Perth, Peterborough, Port Arthur, Renfrew, St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Sarnia, Sault Ste. Marie, Smiths Falls, Stratford, Sudbury, Toronto, Waterloo, Welland, Windsor, Woodstock.
3.	None of the above mentioned offices are semi-staff offices. The grades of the various offices are as follows:
Office	Grade
Barrie	 2
Belleville	 4
Brantford	 6
Brockville	 4
Chatham	 5
Cornwall	 3
Fort William	 5
Galt	 2
Guelph	 5
Hamilton	 8
Kingston	 6
Kitchener	 5
Lindsay	4
London	 8
Niagara Falls	 5
North Bay	 3
Orillia	 2
Oshawa	 2
Ottawa	 9
Owen Sound	 4
Pembroke	 2
Perth	 2
Peterborough	 6
Port Arthur	 5
Renfrew	 2
St. Catharines	 5
St. Thomas	 5
Sarnia	 &
Sault Ste. Marie	 5
Smiths Falls'	 3
Stratford	 2
Sudbury	 2
Toronto	H
Waterloo	 2
Office	Grade
Welland	 2
Windsor	 7
Woodstock	 4
4.	Offices with revenue of $25,000 or over which are" lower than Grade 3 are the following: Barrie, Galt, Orillia, Oshawa, Pembroke, Perth, Stratford, Renfrew, Sudbury, Waterloo, Welland.
5.	The reasons the offices mentioned in Question 4 are not graded higher than 2 are:
Barrie-Population not sufficient.	(Letter
earner delivery already given).
Galt-Preliminary	arrangements	already
made for change in status. (Letter carrier delivery in operation).
Orillia-Office under review.
Oshawa-Arrangements already' made for change. (Letter carrier delivery already established.
Pembroke-Letter carrier delivery already established. Change of status under review.
Perth-Not sufficient population.
Stratford-Preliminary arrangements already made for change in status. (Letter carrier delivery already established).
Renfrew-Not sufficient population.
Sudbury-Not sufficient population.
Waterloo-Not sufficient population.
Welland-Not sufficient population.


TRENT VALLEY CANAL
Mr. McBRIDE:: 1.	What is the total amount which the Trent Valley canal has cost the Dominion of Canada to the most recent date convenient to the department?
2.	What are the amounts of this total cost chargeable to:-(a) Construction; (b) Interest during construction and since; (c) Maintenance and repairs; (d) Operation?
3.	What is the amount and kind of traffic which has passed through the Trent Valley canal in the last ten years respectively?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$23,367,848.22.
2.	(a) Construction, $19,027,762.21; (b) Interest during construction and since (no interest has been charged on the cost of construction) ; (c) Maintenance and repairs, $3,203,099.81; (d) Operation, $1,136,986.20. total, $23,367,848.22.
3.	The following is the traffic statement:
Questions


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS, TRANSP ORTATION BRANCH, OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Traffic on Trent Canal
-	1913	1914	1915	1916	1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922Number of Vessels	
Vessel Tonnage	
Number of Passengers	
Freight Barley	3,666 217,081 99,162 Tons 11	3,647 174,647 85,218 Tons	3,433 172,780 82,391 Tons	3,495 165,486 104,736 Tons	2,969 142,979 93,599 Tons	3,549 172,133 98,437 Tons 152	13,594 55,895 101,561 Tons 32	5,568 160,721 97,849 Tons 12 6	5,222 153,115 100,049 Tons	*3,687 145,635 80,574 TonsBuckwheat	50	Corn	4	Oats	98	24	2 25	4 42	109 6	13	80	16Rye	48	39	Flax	Peas	15 1,128 116 207 180 3 82 156	6 369 80 88 133 4 91 271	14 1,026 22	30 1,401 45 71 21 30 26 229	1 2,011 33 34 124 12 38 165	5 1,656 17 8 38 56 88 150	53 1,192 13 11 23 6 36 126	1,119 11 23 24 31 1 67Wheat	
Flour	
Hay	1,764 34 23 104 16 22 243	2,552 23	Other Mill Products	
Fruits and Vegetables . . Potatoes	
Live Stock	
Poultry, Game and Fish	87 31 27 215	43 21 17 169	Dressed Meats	3	2	2 2	12 16	3	1 1	Other Packing House Products	Hides and Leather	2	Wool	1 31 38 59 45 10 2 30 11 2 2 2,075 18,346 4,926 253 65 35,777 134 891	Animal Products (all other)	
Agricultural Implements	
Cement and Bricks, Lime... Household Goods and Furniture..., Iron-Pig and Bloom	
Iron and Steel (all other)	
Petroleum and other Oils	
Sugar	
Salt	
Wines, Liquors and Beers	
Merchandise-Not Enumerated	
Pulp wood	
Sawed Lumber	
Squared Timber	
Shingles	
Other Woods	
Hard Coal	
Soft Coal	
Coke	137 50 739 81 10 13 44 17 33 16 1,411 29,639 2,202 1,144 129 17,698 129 238 2	63 29 430 145 9 88 15 2 14 2,311 21,966 2,760 237 86 37,424 78 285	52 19 170 54 5 83 42 2 2,376 14,868 1,571 419 131 27,586 116 136	55 20 696 172 12 4 54 24 6 10 1,778 13.777 1,556 201 184 23,123 81 117	51 38 224 146 7 3 13 11 1 1,941 13,764 1,806 277 80 28,883 114 105	21 35 514 127 2 1 62 7 2 23 1,724 15,553 5,404 7,974 182 19,966 45 77	26 86 73 66 10 30 1 5 19 1,646 7,460 9,397 4,117 48 28,444 64 88	39 23 299 113 24 60 74 1 3 1,600 15,802 3,467 3,028 230 17,328 94 100	2 21 634 19 6 72 7 1 5 1,462 5,556 6,173 1,011 70 22,770 56 119Copper Ore	4	2	15	1	2Iron Ore	Other Ore	67	37	Sand, etc	701	128	100	57	739	32	372	3,'752Grand Total	55,800	67,715	49,904	45,009	48,924	64,893	52,953	53,660	44,247	43,038
Number of pleasure craft through locks in 1922-2,533. Pleasure craft included in 1921 and previous years

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Was Mr. W. R. Little, Chief Inspector of the Department of Immigration at Quebec, last year, at the time of the mysterious escape of Little George who was sentenced to be deported?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: No.


FRANCOIS D'AMOURS
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Was the mail contract held by Francois d'Amours, of Trois Pistoles, Quebec, cancelled? If so, why?
2.	Were tenders called for a continuation of the mail carriage service at Trois Pistoles, Quebec?

3.	If so, how many tenders were received by the department, by whom were tenders submitted, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 and 2. Representations having been made that a better service could be given at a lower cost if public tenders were invited, steps were taken to invite tenders with a view to ascertaining the cost of a new contract for the Trois Pistoles Rural Route No. 1.
3. The following tenders were received: Joseph Therriault, Trois Pistoles, $445; Thomas

C.N.R.-Com truction
D'Amours, Trois Pistoles, $450; Joseph Ther-riault, Trois Pistoles, $550; Chs. Eugene La-rocque, Trois Pistoles, $625; Xavier Gagnon, Trois Pistoles, $650; Elizee Rioux, Trois Pistoles, $696; Jean Leblond, Trois Pistoles, $700.
4.	As the contract held by Mr. Francois D'Amours involved payment at the rate of $665 per annum, the Postmaster General acted upon the provisions contained in the contract authorizing him to annul the agreement on three months' written notice to the contractor whenever, in his opinion, the public interest shall require it, and awarded a new contract to Mr. Joseph Therriault, the lowest tenderer, at the rate of $445 per annum.


WATERHEN LAKE DRAINAGE
Mr. KNOX:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Waterhen lake drainage project up to the present time?
2.	How much of this was expended on survey work?
3.	What is tlhe estimated amount yet required to complete the scheme?
4.	How many acres of unproductive land, not including wild hay land, will be rendered arable?
5.	Have any experiments been carried out to determine what the soil is best suited for to produce?
6.	What disposition will be made of these lands?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Total cost of Waterhen Lake drainage project to 31st March, 1923, $164,887.62.
2.	Expended on survey work, $16,716.86.
3.	Estimated amount required to complete scheme, $30,000.
4.	Approximately 11,000 acres.
5.	The analysis of soil samples taken from the bed of the lake shows that the soil is very rich in plant food and suitable for the production of farm crops.
6.	To be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Reclamation Act.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What was Uhe value of the coal purchased from the United States by the Canadian National Railways including all routes or systems embraced in its operation, in the following fiscal years: 1920-1921, 19211922 and 1922-1923?
2.	How was the amount distributed among the various units of the Canadian National system?


George Perry Graham: Passed as an order for return.


Arthur Meighen: There is no reason in the world why this question should be passed as an order for return, and I ask the government to reconsider the matter. The answer to the first question can be given in three amounts; the answer to the second question would not be half an inch long. To have, it, pass as an order for return simply means that the government is shifting it past this session.


George Perry Graham: The difficulty is that we have not at headquarters the information asked for. We shall have to get it from all the different entities that go to make up the whole system.


Arthur Meighen: Well, one present member of the government two years ago stated what the expenditure had been the year before - pledged his fidelity, pledged his word of honour; so he must have known it then. I do not see what difficulty there would be in getting information as to the amount purchased. It cannot affect the management now; it is all past and gone.


George Perry Graham: The difficulty is the time :t would take to get it. However, I am willing to let it stand as a question, and we will see what we can do with it.
Question stands.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams, and other correspondence relating to the closing of soldiers' hospitals Euclid Avenue Hall Toronto, and Brant House, Burlington, by the government.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- CONSTRUCTION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 234, respecting the construction of Canadian National Railway Lines.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, this bill
has very recently come down and I have not had an opportunity of studying it in detail. As to the construction of the lines contemplated by the legislation I do not wish at the moment to raise any objection. But I do not want the second reading to pass without a protest against one feature of the legislation, a protest which I can carry into committee, but which I want to enter now because in my judgment it does affect in some degree the principle of the measure.
C.N.R.-Construction

In this bill, as I read it, the Governor in Council will be able to guarantee bonds of the Canadian National Railway, thus pledging the credit of Canada to such bonds as may be issued. By following this procedure the government will not come before parliament and ask for an appropriation in the estimates in the regular way, either for the provision of money direct or by way of guarantee. Hitherto the plan followed has been to include in the estimates the amounts representing the credit of the country, so far as it goes, extending to the road. This is only right: the nation should know, by one complete and clear statement, what the annual commitments are. We have been accustomed to getting that information from the estimates, and I am opposed to any scheme to submerge our commitments in some separate bill, thereby making impossible a fair comparison of the estimates of a given year with those of previous years. As I have suggested, I do not rise to object at all to such construction as may be deemed to be necessary; I rise to protest against the plan of the measure as introduced, enabling the administration to appear to be diminishing or contracting estimates when in fact they are not doing so. Why is clause 5 in the bill? Why does the government not have the matter dealt with in the regular way so that comparisons can be made and the country can know, from the production of the estimates for each year, what it faces in the way of expenditure and commitments for the next year? On a previous occasion, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will remember, I urged that the estimates should show separately and distinctly what was intended to be provided in cash and what by way of guarantee, and the Minister of Finance approved of the suggestion and promised to endeavour to work it out. I think that rule should apply to the estimates. Hitherto the entire vote, whether by guarantee or by express appropriation in cash, has been included in one'item or two or three different items, the guarantee and the cash not being distinguished. Nevertheless, we knew what the country's entire commitment was. On the other hand, if this bill passes, a large portion of the country's obligation for the year to come will be hidden away under the covers of this legislation and will not be disclosed in the estimates for the year.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, the
provision of money for public undertakings by legislation rather than by yearly estimate is not at all uncommon; I think I could refer

to several statutes of the s?me kind. One of the difficulties in this:	Amounts passed
each year in the estimates get through, say, in June; no money is available for work until after the session, and in the ensuing autumn very little can be accomplished. The bill states the entire estimated cost for three years, and when any of the railway estimates are up in the House, anything done or left undone in connection with this legislation can be discussed. Take the good roads movement: a certain bulk amount was voted for a number of years, but that did not deter the House from discussing in detail the


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Was the amount not provided for it in the estimates each year?


George Perry Graham: The amount was not in the estimates; the discussion this year took place on the salaries of the officials. Under the statute the appropriation of that money was spread over a definite term of years; so it is in this case, except that we are dealing with railways, not highways. The purpose of the bill is not to hide anything or to keep anything from parliament; it is merely to enable the practical working out of the projects without delay. By this legislation the House says to the Canadian National Railway Board: Proceed for three years, up to a certain limit, in the construction of railway lines. As to the other point which my hon. friend had in mind, and concerning which his remarks were perfectly true, a portion of this expenditure would be by guarantee and a portion by direct vote through legislation, but by section 3 I think it is any lines of railway connecting with the government railways can be delivered by order in council to be government railways and be constructed out of the consolidated revenue. So there will be a distinct cleavage through the orders in council between those to be guaranteed and those to be paid out of consolidated revenue. I can assure the House that it is merely for the sake of expediting the construction that the legislation is brought down in this way. There will be no effort to hide any amount, only it is an amount for a three-year period instead of one year.


William Stevens Fielding: My experience is that railway subsidies, which are almost akin to this appropriation, are always voted separate from the estimates, so I think there is nothing unusual in this.
Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albc"*' T

C.N.R.-Construction
would like some explanation from the minister of this vote for providing money. I know that provincial governments when they guarantee the bonds of railway companies have always had this difficulty, that the bonds brought and always have brought a lower price even though with a government guarantee than they would if they were the direct issue of the government itself. That must obtain here, and I fail to see why something should be lost on the sale of the bonds when, after all, it is the credit of Canada that is at stake. The country must pay it, and I do not see why we should sell in a lower market when we can sell in a higher by making the bonds a direct obligation on the country'. That is all I want to say regarding that.
Despite some criticism I have seen in my province I think that the proposition, if it is carried out, of practically crossing New Brunswick with a railway will ultimately be a good thing, not for the southern portion of New Brunswick, but for the extreme eastern and central portions, and looking at it from the provincial standpoint I regard it as an excellent thing. I cannot understand, however, why it is not accompanied by the taking over of the St. John and Quebec railway and the completion of that line, which would give the government a network of railways over the province and relieve the province of a national undertaking which was imposed upon it because this parliament had cut the Transcontinental railway across New Brunswick in a place where it would be useful to no one, never has been useful and never will be useful, and a fertile section of the province was left without railway connection which is absolutely necessary. The province has to-day a very heavy load, a quarter of a million dollars a year, and it would be easy in a programme such as this for the government to take over that road and make it function along with the others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that this being a three-year programme for the railways, it is all we are to expect for a three-year period. In the first place, I think that the government ought to let us know what this year's programme is going to be and give us some idea how many of these things are going to be dangled in front of certain constituencies and not going to be gone on with. Let us know what railway construction is going to be done. This bill, as I see it, is a very convenient bill for my hon. friends from more than one standpoint. In the first place it gives them
a larger bunch of carrots to wave than they otherwise would have, and they like that.
In the next place, when we get down to an entirely different system of book-keeping in connection with the railways, it is going to be difficult for the House to institute any methods of comparison one way or the other. Indeed, apart from any matter of comparison, it is going to be difficult for the House even to keep track of what is going on. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways did point out that there were two distinct classo; of credit that would be used by the railways, there is the consolidated fund, and there is borrowing. So far as consolidated fund payments are concerned they would have to stand in a different position, he said, and I presume he meant they would have to be voted just as they arc now. But if the House is to have the satisfaction of getting some part of the definite particulars in connection with the annual vote, I would have thought it would have been better that the House should get them all.
Then again-I suppose we can deal with this when we are in committee-it looks i,o me as if the bill was drawn in such a way that irrespective of votes the treasury in some way or other was to be opened to the railways under this bill merely
4 p.m. looking to a subsequent repayment out of other loans. I do not know whether that is a point that has been considered by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, but I do not believe if he h;,s considered it that he is going to agree with it.
Speaking to the principle of the bill, this being a three-year programme I would like to know if it means that the government have closed their eyes for a period of three years to other requests for railway construction work. Is this the government's programme for three years? I would just like to point out one thing in this connection and that is that the government as the owner of the railways, in addition to the position it occupies as such owner, having regard to the necessary construction to be done in order to enable the business of the country to be carried on, is also obligated contractually to certain construction. It is obligated in certain sections of this country, not by contractual relations I admit, but by work already done and by statements already made it is practically obligated to construction. Some of the items in to-day's bill of fare are obligated in that manner. I mean obligated by partial construction, by representations, and by people going into the district on the faith of the work that has been done and on these
C.N.R.-Construction

representations. They are mixed up with a three-year programme, and I think that the government ought to let us know whether these works that have already been started and on the faith of which people have gone into the country are going to be given the right of way in this three-year schedule.
Again, I point to the other class of construction, the class of construction that the government is bound to do as a matter of contract. I am going to mention in the first instance, and it is quite enough for my purpose, the viaduct in Toronto. There is not a single word of that in this three-year programme-not a word. I want to remind my hon. friends of this, Mr. Speaker. Speaking from recollection it is now something like eleven years, ten years at any rate, since the contract was signed to build a viaduct at Toronto, but so far the city has been unable to get anything whatever from the government. Last year a deputation waited upon the government, which very courteously promised serious consideration. Well they have got nothing yet, except that "serious consideration." I did not know this matter was coming up to-day. I am again speaking from memoiy and subject to correction, but my recollection is that on the faith of that agreement the city of Toronto has spent upwards of $26,000,000. The minister will correct me if I am wrong. I have no doubt these reports were made to him.


William Stevens Fielding: By whom was the
agreement signed?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was signed,
Mr. Speaker, by the only people who could at that time sign it.


William Stevens Fielding: Not the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was signed
by the officials of the Grand Trunk and the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In so signing that agreement the officials of the Grand Trunk, as well as the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway, bound their shareholders, whose shareholders are this government to-day. The government is absolutely bound, just as much as any other shareholder, by the signature of the executive. The signature is there and has never been repudiated. Do I understand my hon. friend's question to mean that the government to-day desire to repudiate that obligation?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend should
state who made the contract. That was all I asked.
rSir Henry Drayton.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not the slightest objection. I do not think there can be any doubt, as to what the real position is.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member implied that the government made that contract. They never made any such contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no, all I
said was that there were certain commitments, that the government, as a matter of contractural obligation-*


William Stevens Fielding: Grand Trunk commitments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is the
Grand Trunk to-day?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a debatable
question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not very much
debate about it. Who is running the Grand Trunk to-day? My hon. friend's appointee and his board. He is paying the shot and getting the receipts, and I am glad to see the receipts are increasing.


Mr. BUREAU:: Did my hon. friend's
appointees not run the Grand Trunk previously?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We had started. However, I do not know that we gain anything by running up side lanes. On the strength of this agreement the city of Toronto has spent, again speaking from memory the tremendous sum of $26,000,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What amount of money does the hon. member think the government of this country should spend at this time, to match the expenditure of Toronto?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not going to ask this government to match coppers with my friend, or the city of Toronto, or any one else. I am only going to ask the government whether it considers its obligation as a "scrap of paper" or not, and whether the government can turn around and allow -no, not allow but be a party to, as it was all done as the result of the agreement-this $26,000,000 of other people's money being invested in this way? I do not suppose it is any worse because it happens to be Toronto's money; it would be all the same if it were the money of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). Can the government allow this $26,000,000 to be invested on the strength of their contract and then pay no attention to it? I do not think the government want to take that position.

C.N.R.-Construction


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it the idea of the
hon. member that the government, having taken over the Grand Trunk in the manner in which it took it over, is bound by ail the obligations of the Grand Trunk no matter what they amounted to?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if
my hon. friend could give me any other obligation they disavow. But be that as it may. Here the Grand Trunk is working and operating in Toronto under a certain agreement. It is being operated to-day for the benefit of the government and of the country. Is the hon. member serious in thinking that an agreement dealing with the manner in which the right of way is to be looked after, and the protection given and the like, is to be disregarded and no attention paid to it? The thing seems to be entirely preposterous. I am not talking for Toronto only. What is the matter, practically, with the whole of that large part of rural Ontario served by Toronto? Has my hon. friend ever been so unfortunate as to go into the Union Station and have to risk his life on the low levels?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he like
it?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was not unduly
alarmed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has always had a good nerve, and he had it with him then. But, speaking seriously, the railways have built a first-class station: it is not being used, and cannot be used until this problem is settled. And my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) has done something; here he is with his three-year programme. And of course, we had a beautiful photograph of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the last election in Toronto, and we had a statement in the advertisement for election purposes as to what would happen in connection with the viaduct and other Toronto works. But let that go; let us assume for a minute that there is some possible justification for the attitude that Toronto can get nothing. But what about the safety of the people generally? What about maintaining the frightful mantrap the minister is operating in Toronto to-day? Everybody knows that something ought to be done. Is the government not going to make any move in this matter at all? Do they want the people to be driven into a long and tedious lawsuit? Or what do they want? Surely they are not satisfied with
the mess things are in in that city. Surely, they do not suggest that, after spending $26,000,000 in order to get a decent waterfront, Toronto ought to pay any more money. Or are we to understand that that would be their idea? Surely, before this bill goes into committee, including as it does a three-year programme, it ought to include the essential improvement I am speaking of.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I do not quite agree with the interpretation placed upon this matter by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), that this constitutes the government's railway programme for three years, because if such were the case, I think a great many sections of the country would be disappointed. I am not familiar with the position of the viaduct matter in Toronto. I am sorry that the hon. member has not given us more particulars as to what has been done in regard to that proposition during the last ten years. If he had done so we might have been better able to judge of the position of matters. But in allowing this motion to carry I am not by any means binding myself to the proposition that this present measure constitutes the government's whole railway policy for the next three years, because other sections of the country require attention. Only a few days ago I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the situation down in the Gaspe Peninsula. I understand that an official of ihe government railways is now investigating that state of affairs, which has existed for more than twenty years. I hope that when he has reported progress, after a full investigation, means will be found not to build a new railway because the road is already built, but to provide the service which the public have been clamouring for for many years. I want to give notice that I do not consider that this measure is closing the matter in regard to railway works for the next three years to come.
Mr. J. FRED. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) : I had intended to postpone my few remarks on this measure until we got into committee, but on account of what the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) have just said, I think probably this is the right place. I, too, would not want to think this was the government's proposal for a three-year period as regards the construction of branch lines in my province. The minister will know there are in Saskatchewan, certain surveys that are not touched upon in the schedule as to have it in this bill.
C.N.R.-Construction

I wish to refer particularly to a branch line that has been surveyed from Watrous to Swift Current, a branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific. This survey was put through in 1914, and it touches districts that are first class for wheat production, but unfortunately are a considerable distance from existing lines of railways. The minister knows enough about railways and about western Canada to realize that you cannot expect people to go into these districts and to settle there for a great period of time without transportation facilities. A few weeks ago when the minister was named as Minister of Railways, there was great rejoicing in that part of the country. They look upon him as the godfather, at least, of the Grand Trunk Pacific out in the West, and they thought that now he had been made minister, this branch line would be constructed, and that surely he would not leave himself open to the charge of not giving sufficient nourishment to his own child. The minister knows very well that trunk lines are useless without branch lines, and we in western Canada are proud that our branch lines of railway pay. I want to put up this plea on behalf of people in that district.
There is a branch of the Canadian National frcfm Dunblane to a point on the line of the old Canadian Northern near Aylesbury. That line has been surveyed for some time and no mention has been made of it. There is also the branch line from Yorkton, 25 miles of which have been built to a point named Wil-lowbrook. Neither of these has been touched upon in the bill. Like the hon. member Jbr Bonaventure, I hope this is not the railway board's programme, covering a period of three years.
In making these remarks, and my plea to the minister, I do so in the hope that he will bring pressure to bear upon the president and the board of directors that these lines be gone ahead with. If he will look about his office, he will find petitions there with thousands of signatures, petitions that I have had sent to me from settlers in those districts. Those petitions, as the minister knows, entail a great deal of work. They are not made for play; they are made because there is a great need, and I hope the minister will look into the matter and before another session he will be able to bring down a bill that will give* to these people in those districts the railway facilities that they need.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa):: With the consent of the House, I beg to move that the following bills from the Senate be now read a first and second time, and be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills:
Bill No. 239 (from the Senate) for the relief of Herbert Hugh Keller-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 240 (from the Senate), for the relief of Nellie May DeBlaquire-Mr. Rankin.


Hewitt Bostock: By rule 115, such a motion may be allowed if the case is considered to be one of urgent and pressing necessity, in order to facilitate the business of the House before prorogation takes place.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: If the rule was observed, it would carry these bills over the meetings of the Private Bills Committee, and in that event they would not come up for consideration at this session. This has been done every previous session in my experience in cases of this kind. If they are read a first and a second time now, they will be referred to the committee and considered by the committee in the usual way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 239 (from the Senate), for the relief of Herbert Hugh Keller.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 240 (from the Senate), for the relief of Nellie May DeBlaquire.-Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George P. Graham (Minister of Railways) the House went into committee on Bill No. 234, respecting the construction of Canadian National railway lines, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
On Section 2-Power to construct and complete lines described in schedule.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Would the minister prefer to discuss the details of the schedules at this stage, or later on?


George Perry Graham: That is immaterial, so long as we do not discuss them in both places.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to ask the minister where the junction point will be between the Hanna-Warden branch and Lovema-Warden branch? Will they both run directly into Warden, or will the Hanna-Warden branch touch the Loverna line at some point south of Warden?

C .N.R.-C onstruction


George Perry Graham: The junction point between these two lines will be approximately twenty miles from Warden.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the reason for building the line from Hanna to Warden? Perhaps I should explain to the minister my reason for asking this question. Under the old survey, the line was to run from Loverna to Big Valley, which is at present a divisional point with all necessary water facilities, coal supplies and mines ready at hand. Besides, there are the round-house and the engine shed, and every proper equipment for a divisional point. For some purpose or other the survey has been changed and is now to run to Warden. I want to know the reason.


George Perry Graham: It is mainly to shorten
the haul of coal to Hanna and points east.


Edward Joseph Garland: Ls it the
intention of the railway directors now to change the divisional point from Big Valley to Warden?


George Perry Graham: It is difficult to say
just now. We shall need to operate the line first. It may be better to leave it as it is, or it may be deemed wise to make the change. It is a matter of operation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to
protest, basing my protest on my knowledge of the conditions there, against the change of the divisional point from Big Valley to Warden. There is every facility at Big Valley for a divisional point, whereas at Warden there are none of thes'e facilities. You will have to construct everything, drill new wells, build an engine house and a round-house and altogether you will experience considerable difficulty.


Mr. HANSON:: I want information with
respect to one of the branches' which it is proposed to build under this legislation, as it happens to lie wholly within the constituency I have the honour to represent. I am referring to Meductic, New Brunswick, westerly to the international boundary. The Minister, of course, is aware that the government to-day does not own the railway extending up and down the St. John Valley, of which this would be a branch, but operates it under a contract with the St. John and Quebec Railway Company, the stock of which is owned by the provincial government. This, as no doubt the minister is also aware, is not by any means a new scheme, but was originated when the government railways were being operated by Mr. Gutelius; and it was intended to give the railway lines in New Brunswick an independent outlet to the United States, making them
independent of the Canadian Pacific Railwa3-to which company all the traffic originating on the government lines' in the province of New Brunswick and destined for New England points is at the present time handed over. The arrangement has been commended by railway men of experience who have looked into it. But I want to point out that there are certain considerations which the government, in providing the money for the construction of the line, and the management of the Canadian National Railways in putting their seal of approbation on the project, should bear very positively in mind. The first consideration to which I allude is this, that this line should not be built until it is determined with definiteness, and after the very greatest possible care has been exercised, as to who is to build the extension to the boundary line between New Brunswick and the Maine Central railway. And one question I desire to ask now is, with what connection is this branch line to be yoked up? What railway company, what body of men, are building from the boundary to the Maine Central connection, which I understand is to be some miles west of Vanceboro? If it is to be the company known as the Eastern Maine Railway Company I want to ask the minister to have a care before making any arrangement or entering into any contract with that company. While I would be the last one to do any injury to any promotion of that character in the state of Maine, I have very considerable doubt as to the ability of that company actually to build its lines. I do not think that this branch line should be undertaken until the Canadian National Railway directorate is assured not only of the bona fides but of the financial ability of the parties to build the connecting link that will be necessary. I have heard it rumoured within the last few weeks that the government itself is to build the part that is to lie within the state of Maine. I cannot credit that rumour because no provision has been made here for such work, and in fact I do not think it would be a very good policy. But there are a few other considerations to which I would call the attention of the minister. If the Canadian National Railways are to build the connecting link on this side-and I believe that in the end it will be good business-there are two other things that should be taken into account. First, they should extend the St. John and Quebec Railway to Grand Falls on the Transcontinental as originally contemplated, in order that it may get the business originating in northern New Brunswick; and, in the second place, it should rebuild the railway
C.N.R.-Cons true tion

bridge of Fredericton which was built by the late Senator Temple, the promoter and owner of the Canada Eastern Railway now part of the government railway system and which is wholly inadequate to bear the traffic of modern locomotives. These two things seem desirable. Another question which I wish to ask the minister is of much importance. Is it contemplated that the work shall be started this year, or is it to be held over until the eve of the next general election? I am very much interested in that question personally, as the minister can very well understand. I will tell him now that it will not get him any votes to hold the matter over another year, while it might get him votes if he started it now. I want him to be sure alsp that the Maine connection is a bona fide one.


George Perry Graham: The last question in regard to the election is important.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is important to me personally.


George Perry Graham: The government has no
desire, nor has the Canadian National board, ;o use any of the lines at the time of construction for political purposes. There is nothing of the kind in my mind, because if I were undertaking any of this work for political purposes I would build lines in other places before I would do anything in some of these districts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the Hudson Bay?


George Perry Graham: It is not contemplated to do much work this year. We shall do the surveys and twenty-five miles of grading.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Only the surveys this year?


George Perry Graham: That is about all you can do this year the season being far gone already. With regard to the question of my hon. friend concerning the connecting up of the railway with the United States, this branch on the Canadian side is to be constructed only on the distinct undertaking that the line on the other side will be built to meet it, and I think I can tell my hon. friend that the work will not be begun until such time as the Canadian National board has assurance that those who take up the work will be financially in a position to carry it through.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister information as to who is to build the American end of this line, or is there any definite proposition before the management with regard to it?


George Perry Graham: Not at the present time.


Mr. MANION:: The building of No. 6,
the I.ong Lake branch, shortens the distance between Toronto and Winnipeg quite materially, and I have no doubt that freight from the Grand Trunk Pacific can be sent down this branch instead of coming via the head of the lakes, thus lessening operating cost. I have no criticism to offer in this regard. At the same time, there would be perhaps an inclination on the part of the management to switch along this loop the daily passenger train running over the Canadian National via Port Arthur, Fort William, Fort Frances, Rainy River and other points. The section of the Canadian National line to which I refer serves at least one hundred thousands people, and I would urge that very serious consideration should be given before diverting this passenger train and so inconveniencing the people along the present route. If the utilization of the Long Lake branch would improve the passenger service and cut down operating expenses, I do not know that the people at the head of the lakes and the rest of the district would object, but personally I doubt very much a there would be really any saving to the system by diverting this passenger train from its present route. I would suggest to the government that before any change is made they should thoroughly investigate the operating costs and the traffic returns of the train which serves more than a hundred thousand people, because it would be both injurious to that section of the country and to the railroad itself from the financial standpoint if a change of route were decided upon.


Mr. MacLAREN:: It is disappointing on looking over the schedule not to find included the extension of the St. John and Quebec railway to Grand Falls. If the minister holds the view that this is to be practically the list of construction for the next three years, I trust that he will draw to the attention of the directors of the National Railways the importance of this extension, for it involves only a few miles of construction and would accomplish more than any similar length of railway that might be built in the near future. Another matter I would draw the minister's attention to is the lack of station accommodation at St. John. Beyond the site there is practically nothing there in the way of a station, and passengers are unprotected from the weather. The people have been very patient regarding this condition of affairs, wishing that perhaps even more urgent works should be undertaken first, but at last they feel that something should be done and that to allow the present condition to continue

C.N.R.-Construction
is a discredit to the country. The third matte" is in reference to conveyor and freight shed accommodation. Such accommodation is required on the west side, and the attention of the government was drawn to this not very long ago. Trade is restricted through insufficient facilities. I would ask the minister to give his attention to these matters.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: With regard to No. 10, " Thunderhill line, northwesterly to Prince Albert branch," will the minister indicate which branch is termed the Prince Albert branch, and what point is to be the terminus?


Murray MacLaren: Before replying to my hon. friend, perhaps the minister might give some information on the points I have raised before they escape his memory?


George Perry Graham: I venture to say that my hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) will not let them escape my memory. The extension of the terminals at St. John is being considered by the Railway department in connection with the Public Works department, it being essential from the railway point of view that certain things be done at the harbour, which will make it easier to determine just what ought to be done in the way of railroad terminals. As to the Quebec and St. John railway, it belongs to a private company, and this year the charter was renewed for another term.


Murray MacLaren: The line is leased to the government. The completion of these few miles would connect the railway with the Transcontinental. The Transcontinental could build the connection.


George Perry Graham: This railway may be leased to the government, but it is not a government railway.


Mr.   ITANSON@: But you are building a branch from the St. John and Quebec railway to the Maine border, and this branch does not touch the government end of the railway at all, nor the leased line.


George Perry Graham: That is true, but my
hon. friend will not object to that. In fact, it looked so good to the people down there that I got a hint from a very prominent man the other day that if that branch were built it was probable that the New Brunswick government would not care to give up the St. John Valley Railway.


Murray MacLaren: I think there is a
stronger argument for the completion of the St. John and Quebec Railway so that it will connect with the Transcontinental. Has the
minister anything to say in reference to increased accommodation-warehouses and so on-for tiie railway business?


George Perry Graham: That has all been considered by the board. The government would not care to make an announcement concerning these things, as to what ought to be done and when it ought to be done, except on recommendation of the board.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I would like to say a few words in regard to item No. 3 in the schedule, to which reference has been made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. member for St. Johu (Mr. MacLaren). I am a little disappointed to hear the minister say there is no agreement with the Eastern Maine or any other railway to build their share of the connecting link between the Eastern Maine Railway and the St. John and Quebec Railway. As long ago as 1920 I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways of that day and arranged a meeting between him and representatives of the Eastern Maine Railway and the St. John and Quebec Railway. The then Minister of Railways was very much impressed with the plans that were under consideration. I believe that preliminary surveys had been made and an estimate prepared some years ago of the cost, and the railway men who had it under review regarded the project very favourably indeed. The then Minister of Railways asked the representatives of the Eastern Maine Railway what guarantee we would have that they would build their section of the road in Maine if we built ours. I am speaking from memory now, but I think my recollection is correct. The representatives of the Eastern Maine Railway said: "We will give you better than a guarantee; if you will agree to build your portion of the line in 1921 we will build our portion of it this year; that is, we will do our work one year ahead of yours." So I think that the Minister of Railways or the general manager of the Government Railways should have no difficulty in making an arrangement under which the Maine portion of the road would be built; in fact, I understand that the offer still holds good. As to the completion of the St. John and Quebec Railway to Grand Falls there can be no difference of opinion as to the advisability of taking that step. In fact, that should be the logical outcome of the building of the connecting link mentioned in this schedule, because otherwise you will have to bring the traffic from northern New Brunswick and eastern Quebec over the

C.N.R.-C onstruction

Transcontinental to McGivney Junction around by Fredericton-a very roundabout route indeed. The portion of country north of Centreville through which the St. John and Quebec Railway has been projected is without railway facilities, though it is a very fertile and productive farming district, to say nothing of the through traffic that originates on the Transcontinental in northern New Brunswick and Quebec. Another point that has not been touched on is the necessity for the construction of a ten mile section between St. John and Westfield. If we build this necessary connecting link from Meductic westerly to the international bounary to give an outlet to the United States-for that is the object of it-it will be necessary also to build that ten mile section between St. John and Westfield. At present we are paying for running rights over that section of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have endeavoured time and again, without success, to get particulars as to the agreement under which those running rights are granted; I understand that the charge is fairly heavy, and that is one of the reasons why the deficit on the St. John and Quebec Railway has been so large. I pointed out to the minister a few days ago when his estimates were up that owing to lack of siding facilities, freight which originates on the St. John and Quebec Railway and arrives at West St. John has to go across the reversible falls to East St. John and back. A toll of one and a half cents per hundred pounds each way has to be paid on this freight. Then I believe we pay the Canadian Pacific Railway a switching charge of three cents per hundred pounds, whereas if we had proper facilities on the west side of the river we could do the switching there ourselves. I believe we own the tracks and the docks at West St. John, yet we have to pay the Canadian Pacific to do the switching for us. The member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) tells me we do not own the tracks. Well, that is worse still-we certainly should own them. This situation is most unheard of, and it surely should be remedied in the near future. The connecting link which is now to be built is a project which I have urged on the department very strongly every year I have been here, and I am pleased to see that the work is at last to be undertaken. However, I would strongly urge upon the minister that he consider very seriously the taking over of the St. John and Quebec Railway from the government of New Brunswick. It is the only railway in the Maritime provinces that has not been taken over; it is at 
present operated under lease by the Dominion government. This road is needed to round out the system of National railwa}^ in the Maritimes, especially in view of the building of the connecting link mentioned in this schedule.


Mr. PREVOST (Translation):: With your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks relative to item No. 4 of the schedule appended to this bill. In this measure brought down by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), it is proposed to add 995 miles to our National railway system. Of these 995 miles, 856 will be built in the West; this fact has afforded an opportunity to one of our hon. colleagues representing the city of Toronto, to say with a good deal of truth to our western friends, that they would be wrong to doubt our good intentions and generosity towards them, since we are ready to vote them, without any hesitation, a sum of $21,000,000 for railways in which they are specially concerned. Out of the 139 miles in which the East is interested, the province of Quebec is given for its share 14 miles of new railway. I do not rise as a protest against this small proportion allowed to my province, but on the contrary, to rejoice in the fact that the 14 miles in question are all to be found in my home district. Indeed, I have the advantage of living at the entrance of the Laurentian hills, that chain of mountains whose wealth and beauty are, each day, becoming better known. The surest way to get returns from this capital which that mountainous country, rightly called a second Switzerland, represents to us, is to build good roads, construct railways that will facilitate reaching this landscape of indescribable beauty and penetrate into this paradise of tourists. The Canadian Pacific Railway has, for a number of years, traversed the Laurentian hills. The Canadian National previously known as the Great 'Northern Railway, reaches it also at St. Jerome and extends as far as Huberdeau. However, there has never existed up to now a direct line from Montreal to these beautiful mountains. Notwithstanding that this part of the Laurentides is at least as delightful as the one which the Canadian Pacific Railway crosses, the former contains numerous lakes, magnificent forests and most picturesque mountains. Some of these local places have become famous, namely, the Lake of the Sixteen Islands, comparing favourably with the most beautiful Laurentian lakes; Arundel, Huberdeau, through which the Rouge flows and called " the Garden of the Laurentides," by Cure Labelle, the first pioneer of this beau-

C.N.R.-C onstruction
tiful region. The wealth and prosperity of a province contribute to the wealth and prosperity of the whole country; that is why, sir, I consider, that the Laurentides are a national asset for Canada. This part of the country, to-day, is beginning to be better appreciated; the influential press recognizes, describes and praises the charms of the Lauren tian hills. For the last twenty-five years, in my own humble sphere, I have praised their most picturesque attractions, highly commended the advantages of the sports to those wishing to settle there, and proclaiming as well their natural wealth, the farming and industrial development of tviia remarkable region situated to the north of Montreal. The Laur-entian mountains have been advertised first, by means of the railway', then the motor car and finally by the building of good roads, and all have contributed in drawing an ever-increasing flow of tourists. The Montreal and Mont Laurier highway started by the provincial government and subsidized by the Dominion Government, is being completed. In a few months, we shall be able to travel from Montreal to Ste. Agathe on an almost perfect road. The latter will, before long, be further extended to Mont Laurier. It is also said that another road will be built in the county of Argenteuil, from Lachute to Arundel, and will join the road connecting Mont Laurier, Ste. Agathe and Montreal with the Canadian Pacific trains already packed with travellers; and the Canadian National, once connected to Montreal, Mil also have numerous tourists, these together with the improvement of roads, will lead to twice even thrice the number of tourists directing themselves towards the Laurentian hills.
Without ever losing sight that farming, colonization, industry and the development of the ore fields will greatly benefit from the easier and more rapid transportation facilities in a region which contains in its natural state vast wealth and numerous hopes, I wish to especially point out the great benefit that the country may derive from the Laurentides in the way of sport, summer resorts and touring trips, should access to our mountains and lakes be made easier to the lovers of beautiful vistas. It would be a great pity to leave unknown and untouched scenery like that which abounds in the Laurentian hills, to the north of the Metropolis of Canada. We would be displaying an ignorance of the true nature of things if we allowed any further our tourists to transfer to other lands, especially to the United States, millions of dollars each year, owing to our not making easy the means of access to the mountains which are in no way inferior to those of our neighbours to the
275i
south in regard to beauty of landscape and abundance of game. With railways and good roads, not only shall we keep in our province Canadians that leave it during the summer season, but we shall draw here hundreds of American tourists anxious to visit our mountains. The mountainous regions in Europe, as well as those of the United States, have become prosperous owing to the influx of tourists that railways and good roads attract to these places. Take as an instance Switzerland; the Adirondacks, the White mountains, in the United States, and many others. What has been done in Switzerland, in France, in the United States, Canada must and shall accomplish. The Government has thrown the foundation of this project; they must persevere, carry it out without delay, and that is what they are doing. Then only will they be in a position to offer to the curiosity and admiration of travellers in this enchanted country, a scenery nowhere else equalled. Indeed, I again state, no country offers a more picturesque concourse of mountains, lakes, cascades and forests filled with game, the whole enclosed in an immense territory offering the most pleasing variety of views, to which the traveller may find easy access, providing railways and good roads are placed at his disposal. There may be found in other parts more lofty mountains, deeper ravines, thicker forests but nowhere will there be found a country more filled with thrills, more serene landscapes, sports easier of enjoyment and a more agreeable sojourn than in these mountains. Along this Laurentian route which stretches from Montreal to Ste. Agathe, by way of the Canadian Pacific, and which, before long, will reach from Montreal to the Lake of the Sixteen Islands and Huberdeau, by way of the Canadian National, along this Laurentian route, I say, which is opening up on stretches of hundreds and hundreds of miles, at times parallel to the river Du Nord, at times skirting sky-coloured lakes, and still at other times winding along a mountain or traversing refreshing forests, one may choose among the most picturesque sites which doft i.t here and there throughout its length, those that are conspicuous either for their ru.Tie beauty or for their special features more in harmony with each one's taste. A tent is put up, a bungalow or a sumptuous villa is built according to one's inclinations and here is the ideal spot already found to rest and live in peace, far from the worries of strenuous life and close to one's place of business; conditionally, of course, on there being a good road or railway to reach the spot.
By building the 12 miles which appear in the schedule submitted, that is to say, from
C.N.R.-C (instruction

Grande-Freniere to Rinfret Junction, in other words, from St. Eustache to St. Jerome, the Government ensures a direct communication between Montreal and these parts which I have just mentioned, a region that is not only one of the most beautiful as regards variety of scenery but which is equally one of the richest in natural resources. In fact, this territory contains immense possibilities in farming, the same may be said of its industry and mining. Lumber of the best quality is to be found there, the dairy industry is highly developed, a number of carloads of cheese are weekly exported via the Canadian National Railway; mfeca, graphite and other minerals have lately been discovered in that part of the country. In a word, this portion of the Laurentides which is in the county of Argenteuil, is no less beautiful and rich than are the regions which the Canadian Pacific traverses and better known because the trains of that railway reach it directly from Montreal. It is most astonishing that the Canadian National which traverses this enchanted part of the Laurentian hills is not yet directly connected with Montreal. Travellers are forced to travel by the Canadian Pacific, to a junction called Montfort, near St. Jerome, where they change trains to take the Canadian National. It is a serious drawback for tourists. So far as traffic is concerned-and it is considerable-both freight and express trains must pass through Joliette to reach Montreal, that is to say, a distance of 74 miles from St. Jerome. When the projected line from Grand-Freniere to Rinfret Junction, about 12 miles, shall be built, the distance from St. Jerome to ' Montreal will only be 30 miles. One may imagine the inestimable advantages that will result from this line both for tourists and traffic, as St. Jerome is the centre through which passes all the traffic coming from the north of the counties of Argenteuil and La-belle, served by the Canadian National railway. Moreover, St. Jerome has a population of 7,000 inhabitants and its trade is considerable. The transportation of products and goods from Montreal to the north or vice versa, at present controlled by the Canadian National, is effected by a 74-mile route instead of 30 which it will be when the branch line in question appearing at No. 4 of this schedule is constructed. The Canadian National is, however, one of the Government railways concerning which we deplore those enormous deficits. Well, I have no hesitation in saying that through the operation of this new line, which will directly connect the north with Montreal, the Canadian National will realize profits that will contribute to diminish, in a
'Mr. Prevost.]
small way perhaps, but nevertheless in an appreciable ratio, the deficits that we are bound, though regretfully, to admit. When the Canadian National reaches the Laurentides, by way of the branch line in question, when this link between the Metropolis and the Laurentian hills has been established, this line will give as much return as does the Canadian Pacific Railway in the north. It is more than 30 years since the Canadian Pacific inaugurated its line in the Laurentides. It proved a success from the start. It is ever so long that this branch line has been considered as one of those that give the best returns to that company. The same will be said of the Canadian National, when direct communication between Montreal and the Laurentides has been established.
Mr. Chairman, whoever has at heart the general interest of the country will be pleased to approve of this project which will, at last, connect by a state railway the northern parts of Montreal to the Metropolis. One last word, I hope that all the branch lines appearing in the schedule submitted to us may be as useful and timely as this one.


George Perry Graham: I might say in two or three words that I appreciate the beautiful description of the fine country to which my hon. friend refers. I have been there, and found it a little difficult to get in as rapidly as I wanted to, and difficult to get out rapidly at the particular time I wished to. I think, perhaps, it was late in the evening. Any person who has looked over that section of country will see the disadvantage of the Canadian National Railway in not having a direct connection with Montreal; and while the building of this section to which my hon. friend so eloquently referred would be a good thing for that portion of the country, I am sufficiently hard-hearted to say that I think :t will pay real money to the Canadian National Railways over and above all cost of operation.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: I wonder if the minister could give me any assurance that the work on the Okanagan branch-No. 27 on the schedule-will be carried forward this year? This branch has now been something like eleven years under construction. I th:nk if ever there was a people who had a right to invoke the proposition that hope deferred maketh the heart sick it is the residents of that district. In conversation with the president and some of the officials of the National Board this year, they very cordially agreed with me when I made the statement that in Canada there would not be a better feeder

C .N.R-C onstruction
for the Canadian National Railway than the Kamloops-Okanagan branch. It embraces one of the most beautiful as well as one of the most fertile parts of Canada; and if the war had not intervened I have no doubt its completion would have been a matter of history several years ago. It must be remembered rhat, as a revenue producer, a line running through a horticultural section has many advantages over a line traversing a grain-growing portion of the country. Although it may take from thirty to fifty acres to produce a carload of grain, perhaps two acres or less of horticultural land will fill a car with fruit or vegetables. The member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) could speak better than I can from personal knowledge of the easterly end of this section. But coming down a little further towards my own home, we pass through the Falkland and Salmon river district, both of which are capable of great development. In Falkland there is the largest shipment on the continent probably awaiting transportation facilities. In the Salmon river district they have large lime deposits and great timber resources; and the district from that point to Armstrong is a very fertile agricultural district indeed. From Vernon the branch spur runs 16 miles to Lumby, one of the most progressive districts in our country, and the hinterland of that section contains untold wealth in the way of timber and minerals. Down the Okanagan lake to Kelowna it runs through a section that produces about two-thirds of the 5,000 cars of freight which are sent out in the season. It can easily be seen that this will be a great feeder to the Canadian National, once it is in operation. I would like to be able, if possible, to convey to the residents of this district the assurance that they will not have to wait another year before it is completed.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to go that far. The hon. member asks the question, and expects me to answer, I suppose. The closing words of my hon. friend's remarks were very succinct. He asks that he be given the assurance that the road will be completed this year. I think he scarcely meant that. The work is going to proceed, but owing to the fact that the season is very far advanced, although there are many miles already graded on that line, it would be hardly possible to finish it this year.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Could the assurance be given-and I think it might reasonably be done-that before another fruit crop is ready :o ship, the line will be completed?


George Perry Graham: I think that is the hope of the board.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Just a word in connection with this line. I do not think the Canadian National line will have a feeder, west of Edmonton, anything like the Kamloops-Kelowna line when it is completed. In my opinion that line, within a year after completion, will not only be paying interest and operation expenses, but it will furnish a good revenue to the Canadian National Railways. There has been some opposition to this road, but no person who has the best interest of the Canadian National Railways at heart has anything to say against this line. Indeed, I think that it is the people who are interested in the Canadian Pacific Railway who are circulating this propaganda that it would be money wasted. The Canadian Pacific Railway and its officials know the amount of freight that road will take from their railway. Not only will it be a benefit to the Canadian National in getting freight, but it will be a benefit to the farmers in the prairies in that it will give them direct connection with the Okanagan. The railway will be able to take grain from the prairies down to the coast, and the same cars can be loaded with fruit on the return trip. It will work both ways, and I would like to see that line completed with the least possible delay.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I wonder if I could recall the minister's mind to the question I asked a little time ago. Perhaps while he is travelling between the Atlantic and Pacific he could rest half-way and give me an answer.


George Perry Graham: What was the question?


Charles Wallace Stewart: Regarding the Thunderhill branch, which runs northwesterly to a point on the Prince Albert line. I asked him, what branch is termed the Prince Albert branch, and what is the terminus of the Thunderhill branch?


George Perry Graham: Largely the location of the line depends on the possibility of two things, the traffic and the engineering difficulties. This is the information that is given to me. There are four miles of the line graded. We propose to grade 17 miles in 1923 and to lay 21 miles of track. In 1925, it is proposed to lay track on the line for 23 miles at an estimated cost of $368,000, thus completing the line to tie into our Prince Albert main line near Tisdale.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Thai, then, is not the survey that was originally made, and that it had been expected would be fol-
C.N.R.-Construction

lowed in connecting up with the Humboldt-Melfort line?


George Perry Graham: No, it is not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister give
the general route of the Thunderhill branch?


George Perry Graham: The route of that line
has not been finally determined.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the intention?


George Perry Graham: I have given it as nearly as possible. The line must have been surveyed, because four miles of that particular line have been graded.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has his engineers in front of him, and he might inform the committee what, in general, is the route proposed to be traversed by this line between the two termini.


George Perry Graham: From the present terminus, generally speaking, it takes a northerly direction to Tisdale.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What points does it touch?


George Perry Graham: I do not know that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the minister get
that information?


George Perry Graham: We could get the information approximately, but it might not touch those points at all when the final survey is made. It may be impossible to touch the points I might name.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I have no
objection whatever to the branch that the minister proposes to run in a northwesterly direction from Kelvington to Tisdale, I believe would be the point. I would like, however, to call his attention to the fact that although that branch is needed there, I do not know why it should be called the Thunderhill branch. I am not sure when the Thunderhill branch was first surveyed. There have been a number of surveys since 1908, and the district between the end of the steel at Kelvington and the point north of Humboldt where it was anticipated that would meet another branch of the Canadian National railways, has been settled, some of it, at least, for fifteen or sixteen years in anticipation that that road would come through. This would seem as if the Thunderhill branch had been abandoned and a new branch has been named the Thunderhill branch. There are two soldier settlements that can well be served by the branch proposed by the minister, and I would not suggest that it should not be built. But I wish to voice a most emphatic objection to the abandoning of the 
old route which has been surveyed. I do not know the definite route, but it runs generally in a westerly direction from Kelvington to Lake Lenore, or possibly Wakaw.


William Richard Motherwell: I think I am fairly familiar with that country, and while what my hon. friend has said with regard to the western extension of the Thunderhill line is quite true, its construction has been delayed so long that several railways have been built ahead of it. I refer more particularly to the Grand Trunk north to Prince Albert, upon which Wakaw is situated. Then there is the Humboldt-Melfort line, and I think the Canadian Pacific has also a line in there somewhere. Therefore, there was no necessity for extending this line through the original route, for the reasons I have indicated. Accordingly, they have swung north and tied up with the Prince Albert line near Tisdale, connecting up those large soldier settlements The change was unavoidable on account ol those developments. [DOT]


Mr. LUCAS:: Was the minister able to give any consideration to the request I made a few days ago when this matter was under discussion on the resolution, in regard to the reinstatement of the Bruederheim line in this schedule?


George Perry Graham: I thought I answered that pretty fully the other day. I pointed out that there were many lines on a tentative list, but there were altogether too many to be undertaken at one time. The Canadian National board was asked to revise its list, and the line to which my hon. friend refers, in not in the latest list. Some hon. gentleman has asked me if this means that nothing is to be done during the next three years except the lines mentioned in the schedule. Parliament is supreme every session to do as it pleases, and each case has to be dealt with on its merits. But the government thought it a wise thing, and I think the House and the country will agree, that the lines the board think the most pressing to be constructed, should be proceeded with under a three-year programme. That does not, of course, tie the hands of parliament at any time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister think that remark would apply to No. 2, the Sunny Brae-Guysborough branch, a line of 67 miles of railway proposed to cost $3,500,000, a line that has been promised more by political candidates in Nova Scotia than any other line of railway that I have ever heard of. What is the justification for spending $3,500.-

C.N.R.-Construction
000 in building a line from Sunny Brae to Guysborough? The minister must know, if he knows anything, and his officials must know, if they know anything, that that branch line could not pay on such a large capitalization. All the lumber produced in the Guysborough district is freighted by water. There is a good harbour there, and the people who own the large limits there would never consider freighting the lumber out by rail when they can get it out by water. Water navigation is available all the year round. What is the justification for this branch line, and is it ' proposed to let a contract for it next year?


George Perry Graham: Tenders were asked for the construction of that line many years ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It never got further.


George Perry Graham: It never got further, because another line that had no greater justification was constructed right away in the same district.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What branch would that be?


Mr. KYTE:: Halifax-Musquodoboit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not in the same place.


George Perry Graham: No, but it was in the district of my good friend the then Prime Minister. It was constructed. I did not, however, suggest this line. The board suggested this line to me without any suggestion on my part directly or indirectly, as all the lines were recommended to me. I think they must know what they are about. The purpose of this line is to open up the local territory for the lumber industry and to provide better facilities for agricultural products, as well as to give direct communication to Guysborough for its fishing' and allied products. On part of the route there is considerable agricultural development and quite extensive hardwood forests which the railway will make it possible to develop. I might say that originally the line was intended to be so constituted as to become the main line. Under this construction, it will not be so extensive, but it can eventually become the main line. The other line has some grades that would have to be eliminated for heavy traffic.


Mr. McISAAC:: To hon. members of this
House who have been in the last two or three parliaments, the Guysborough railway question is a very familiar one; but as there are many hon. members present who were not in the last parliaments, perhaps I should take up a few moments in explaining the question.
I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) is one of those in the present House who should receive some information in connection with the matter. In the session of 1910, this resolution was passed in this House by both of the then parties, Conservatives and Liberals:
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived in the commercial and industrial development of the province of Nova Scotia, when the Intercolonial Railway of Canada should be extended into the nonrailway counties of the eastern section of the province.
I am of course interested in this matter and probably it will be considered that anything I say in behalf of the interests of Guysborough must be more or less exaggerated. But I can tell the House that the county of Guysborough has never had any railway except the service of a few miles in the extreme northeastern section of that large county. This is one of the largest counties of the province, extending along the sea coast from Halifax county down to the strait of Canso a hundred and fifty miles, all consisting of the best fishing grounds that are to be found in the whole Dominion. The fishing business is undeveloped because there are no facilities; and the timber limits in the county are quite extensive. These resources would contribute traffic to a railway for very many years to come, and in addition the agricultural districts of the county are second to none while the undeveloped mineral resources of Guysborough have great possibilities.. But apart from all these, I would mention particularly the fact that Country Harbour in this county is one of the best harbours in the world. I see my hon. friend from York laughing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not laughing.


Colin Francis McIsaac: Well, the hon. member
was smiling at any rate. But I do not want him to take my word on that point. I will read from Hansard a speech delivered by Sir Robert Borden in the session of 1910 with reference to this very subject. At page 1182 of Hansard of that year Sir Robert Borden is reported as follows:
I passed along the shore of the county of Halifax to the county of Guysboro last summer. I travelled altogether about 500 miles through districts not served by railways at all, and where railway development would mean a great deal to the people and lead to considerable development in that little province. I can tell the Minister of Railways-
C.N.R.-C (instruction

The present Minister of Railways, (Mr. Graham) was minister then too.
-a great many things I saw, I could speak of a great many districts where railway facilities might mean a great deal to the people, and might lead to very great progress and advancement in that little province. I saw, in the county of Guysboro,-
I would ask the hon. member for York (Mr. Hanson) to note that.
-just across the line from the county of Halifax, one of the most splendid harbours that can be found anywhere in the world-Country Haibour. This harbour stretches back 10 miles from its mouth, with water close up to the shore everywhere from forty-five to sixty feet in depth, landlocked twice, and with a splendid roadstead outside where, in almost any weather, ships can ride in safety-and have ridden in safety-without going inside. And in what condition did I find the place? Not more than a dozen families are living around that harbour. There was no railway development, no opportunity for commerce, and the fishermen had gone to the adjoining Isaac's Harbour or Fisherman's Harbour, for the reason that these smaller harbours would subserve their purposes better than this magnificent Country Harbour of which I have spoken. All along that shore are opportunities of development. The people of Hailfax county, and those of other counties in the province of Nova Scotia to which allusion has been made, have, it seems to me, fairly good reason to complain that their interests in respect of railway development, have not been properly attended to in the past.
He concluded:
This is no time for hesitation and vaccilation. Make up your mind-and I hope you have made it up in the direction I have indicated then give to the Intercolonial railway the branches, feeders, extensions which would be given, if it were owned by any of the great railway corporations.
That is what Sir Robert Borden had to say on this subject in 1910. The House unanimously passed the resolution and in the year 1911 the government called for tenders for this very road covering a distance of 67 miles. At the same time, they called for tenders for another road in the county of Halifax extending from Dartmouth eastwards to Musquodoboit. These tenders were called for at the time of the election of 1911) but unfortunately for the government, and for the county of Guysborough, and Canada as well, the Liberals went out of power and the Conservatives came in. What happened0 The government of Sir Robert Borden cancelled the proposed contract for this particular railway in the county of Guysborough and proceeded with a railway in that gentleman's own county. Well, I suppose he was perfectly right in going on with a railway in his constituency, but I say that it was unfair to cancel the contract for this railway, simply because a Liberal was returned to represent the county of Guysborough. That was in 1911 and nothing has been done since in connection with this matter. The question was brought up year fMr. Mclsaac.]
after year by the representative of that constituency, Mr. Sinclair, while the Conservative party was in power. When Hon. Frank Cochrane was Minister of Railways, he returned the same answer to Mr. Sinclair ou every occasion, that the government was looking into the matter, and hoped to build the Guysborough railway at an early date. The work however, was never undertaken and I have every reason therefore at this time to congratulate the present Minister of Railwavs, on the step he is about to take. I brought the matter to the attention of the late Minister of Railways, Mr. Kennedy, the first time I saw him on his only official tour of the province of Nova Scotia. I represented to him the rank injustice that had been done the county of Guysborough in ignoring for so many years its undoubted claim to a railway. That honourable gentleman promised consideration of the claim of Guysborough, but unfortunately he did not live long enough to bring the matter before the House. So that I am more than pleased to congratulate the present minister on his dicision to carry out the recommendation of the board to give to that county a railway to which it is entitled and of which it has been deprived for so long.
This line will be a splendid feeder to the Intercolonial railway. In 1911 before tenders were called for, another branch line known as the Sunny Brae branch from Ferrona to Sunny Brae a distance of 12 miles, a completed road, was purchased by the government of that day from a private company. The sum of $100,000 was paid by the then government for this branch, and in addition to that they spent between 885,000 and 8100,000 in surveys. This was all done in 1911 for the purpose of extending the road from Sunny Brae to Guysborough to connect up with Country Harbour, which as Sir Robert Borden himself stated is one of the best harbours in the world. It is open the year round, and if this branca line is extended to connect up with it the result will be a shortening of the distance to European ports. I have heard hon. gentlemen on the Progressive side speak of the advantage of the Transcontinental railway down in Quebec, because it shortens the distance by about 200 miles in the shipment of freight from the West to the seaport. This would shorten the distance still further by about 50 or 75 miles. No branch of the Intercolonial railway was ever built that would prove of greater benefit not only to the county it will serve, but also to the railway general Iv, for this railway besides providing much-needed facilities for Guysborough would also be a great

C.N.R.-Construction
feeder to the Canadian National Railway, so that it would be advantageous all round. Th; Minister of Railways is now going to see that justice, long deferred, is done to Guysborough, and I congratulate him.


George William Kyte: Mr. Chairman, the programme which the minister has brought down for the construction of branch railways interests me considerably. For many years certain sections of Nova Scotia, in addition to that portion which is so worthily represented by my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Mclsaac), have been in need of further railway advantages. In 1901 a company undertook the construction of a railway to the southern shore of the island of Cape Breton from the strait of Canso to the historic town of Louisburg. Thirty miles was constructed from Point Tup-per to St. Peter's, and was operated as a branch railway until 1919, when I think the late government purchased it from the owners and it has since been operated in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways. I desire to point out to the minister what it was my privilege to bring to his attention years ago when he held his present portfolio, and that is the necessity for constructing the line from St. Peter's to Louisburg. As is well known, Louisburg is the only open winter port on the southern shore of Cape Breton through which Newfoundland traffic passes. Unfortunately during the winter months the harbour of Sydney is usually blocked with ice floes so that passenger and freight traffic from Newfoundland has to be diverted to Louisburg. But on disembarking at Louisburg passengers have no railway accommodation except a coal train running to Sydney, where it connects with the Canadian National Railways. Of course, it is well known that the historic town of Louisburg was a very important military post during the French regime. It is now an important fishing centre.
We are suffering very much in eastern Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia, under prevailing conditions. When I heard my good friends from the West speaking of the hard times in their constituencies, I was inclined to make comparisons between western and eastern conditions. Without wishing to minimize in the slightest degree the conditions described by them, I beg to assure my hon, friends from the West that conditions in Nova Scotia today call for as favourable treatment as is required in any other part of the Dominion. I shall not go into the reasons in detail and so delay the progress of this bill. I have listened with very much interest to the minister's answer to the question put to him by several hon. members opposite as to whether or not
this programme constituted all the railway construction during the next three years. Neither last session nor this have I pressed for the construction of this railway, because I had reason to believe that the financial conditions were not such as to justify any new construction. But the magnificent and varied programme of railway construction in western Canada satisfies me that the government has overcome its greatest difficulties with regard to finances and finds itself in a position to undertake further railway construction. Therefore I would remind the minister that my constituency is very much in need of this branch line.
I serve notice upon him now that at an early date in the next session I shall renew this request in the expectation that provision will be made for the construction of this railway in the Supplementary, if not in the Main Estimates next year.


Mr. KNOX:: In regard to Nos. 11 and 12, both short branch lines, I should like to have the minister's assurance that these will be completed this year. The Paddockwood line is practically all graded, the other line, the Melford branch, is partially graded, and the people to be served by these branches are very anxious to have some assurance that steel will be laid this year. The Paddockwood line runs through a district which was largely settled by soldiers, and was mentioned in the report brought down by the Pensions board last year.


George Perry Graham: It would be foolish for the minister to give assurances of what can be done this year. However, there will be some work done on these lines. I hope they will be completed, but I cannot bind the board or the construction company. The best that can be done will be done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is really meant? On the one hand we are told that the work and financing will be spread over a three-year period; then on the other hand we hear that it is not anything of the kind.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend's memory is short; I did not say that it was not anything of the kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, other members say so and you say nothing.


George Perry Graham: Silence is golden sometimes. I did say a few moments ago that parliament is supreme, that while this is a three-year programme parliament can do anything.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the real intention?


George Perry Graham: We hope to have this
programme completed three years. I can
C.N.R.-C onstruction

readily see some reason for my hon. friend's statement, because in looking over this carefully I see nothing to confine the programme to three years. I propose to move an amendment to insert in the second line of section 2 certain words which I have handed to the Chairman, to make it clear that it is- a chree-year programme.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that that helps us very much. We are trying to find out what is the real intention of the government. Of course Darliament can turn the government out-very likely it would if it were at all wise.


George Perry Graham: That would be a bad
thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the government now declare that this programme represents their railway construction for the next three years?


George Perry Graham: I did not say that at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am trying to find out what the fact is.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps my hon. friend
will listen carefully this time. I said that parliament can do anything it likes'-


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have that
already.


George Perry Graham: -and that the government can introduce anything it likes. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, if it is thought wise to have the Canadian National Board select the most pressing cas-es out of several hundred and give us a three-year construction programme, that does not mean that there will be no other work undertaken during that three years. Nobody is bound by this three-year programme being absolutely definite.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I take it that it is a three-year programme which you may depart from as much as you like.


George Perry Graham: As much as parliament
likes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will have to leave it at that. What are the business reasons for the Sunny Brae branch? We have had the political ones from various politicians interested as well as their advice.
I ask for the engineering and traffic reports on this proposed line.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not suppose that in the case of any projected railway a report could be produced showing it is going to pay right away. Every enterprise of this character

has to depend for its justification either upon an expectation of early succes-s or upon the prospect of opening up and developing country. We do not always insist that a railway enterprise should pay immediately, even that there should be an assurance of early profitable operation. As the hon. member for Anti-gonish and Guysborough (Mr. Mclsaac) has pointed out, here is an old settled country. I et us be reasonable in this matter. When the people in old settled districts in the Maritime provinces who for generations have not had the advantage of railway communication find that large enterprises are being undertaken in the construction of new lines in the West, it is natural that they feel that some consideration should be had for the development of that eastern country. We find no fault with the West for its ambition; we are glad to encourage the building of roads there. But if you are going to do anything to check the unrest in the eastern parts of the country you must help the construction of roads in old settled districts where for ages there has been a lack of communication That must be done if the country is to develop. This line from Sunny Brae into Guysborough county will develop an excellent agricultural district and a fine lumber district, and will touch the valuable fisheries. I think it has ultimately as fair a prospect if success as most new lines, but whether it is going to pay or not, I say it is one of the enterprises which will help to develop the Maritime provinces and I ask the committee not to be too critical as to the prospect of its paying at once.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend means that this railway is going to be built not becau.se it will serve a useful purpose, but because it is going to please a few people.


William Stevens Fielding: That is one reason.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is probably the chief reason; otherwise some better business reasons would be offered. The usual thing in connection with the building of railways is to have a report from an engineer on its possibilities, and I do not know why we should not have that information in this case. It rather looks to me as if the Minister of Finance was afraid of the information. What is wrong with it? It may be of course, that this board, being, apart from the president and the official connected with him, entirely a political board, do not think it necessary to have these ordinary reports. But surely it is reasonable to

C.N.R.-Construction
ask that the minister should read to the House the engineer's report as to the traffic possibilities in this case.


George Perry Graham: I did that a few moments ago; perhaps my hon. friend was not in. I read the reasons given by the board why they believed a railway line should be constructed through this territory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I heard that. But I was asking for the report of the engineer which the board, unless, as I have said, it is purely a political board-


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is altogether too suspicious.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was asking for the report which would be a justification for their recommendation.


George Perry Graham: I suppose my hon. friend is making an exception of this line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps with some excuse. I am going to read all that the board states in the matter; it is what their engineers, of course, have said. This memorandum reads:
The purpose of the line is to open up the local territory for lumber industry and provide better facilities for agricultural products as well as give direct communication to Guysborough for its fishing and allied products. On part of the route there is considerable agricultural development and quite extensive hardwood forests which the railway will make it possible to develop.
The original intention of the surveys for this line had in view a low grade line with the idea of making it the main line. The results of the surveys indicated that to obtain this character of line it would be very costly, and on account of the fact that the present main line could not be abandoned, and would have to be maintained and operated, it could not be shown that such a line, with its excessive cost of construction, would be justified. The present intention is to construct a line to open up the local territory and build it to cheaper standards of construction but keep in view the eventual use of it for an alternative main line or at any time this would be warranted, Therefore the line will be located so that eventually a low grade could be obtained, but employ steeper grades for the immediate construction.
It has been estimated that there are 250 million feet of hardwood and 200 million feet of softwood available to the line, and also some possibilities in gold and iron mining which have not been developed, possibly due to lack of transportation facilities.
The justification for this line is that it will serve a section of the country that has been in long need of railway communication in order to give it a real chance for development and to put the town of Guysborough in direct rail communication with the Canadian National system.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, that does give us some information. It says we have in sight a traffic from 250 million feet of one
kind of wood and 200 million feet of another kind. How much of that wood is being taken out now and carried by water?


George Perry Graham: I have no idea.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was stated by the member for York-Sunbury-


George William Kyte: Who does not know anything about it.
Mr.GRAHAM: I am told he was altogether mistaken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the engineer say that lumber operations are now carried on in that district?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that the lumber operations are not being carried on now in the district through which this road is to run.


George William Kyte: Lumber operations are carried on now at the mouth of the St. Mary river below Sherbrooke. It is carried from there by water, but it does not touch the territory in question.


Mr. GARDINER:: In regard to the Hanna-Medicine Hat branch in the province of Alberta, I may say that the grade south of the Red Deer river has been built for some time, but no steel has yet been laid. I see nothing in this schedule which indicates that any work is contemplated on that line. What is the board going to do with this particular piece of grade?


George Perry Graham: I can only give the same answer that I have already given to another hon. member: Out of the great number of projects submitted to the board and investigated by them, a few were selected-many were called but few were chosen. A certain number were designated as active lines; these are being proceeded with under the present programme. Others are known as inactive lines; these are projected to the extent of 584 miles at different points in the West. I could not make any promises, but I suppose there will come a time when these will have to be transferred to the active lists. At present, however, no immediate action is to be taken with regard to them. The Hanna-Medicine Hat line is in this category.


Robert Gardiner: The grade south of Red Deer has been built for over three years and it is deteriorating all the time. There is just the possibility that when they do come to place steel on it they will have to do some more grading in order to bring the road-bed up to the required standard. It will be un-
C.N.R.-C onstruction

fortunate if steel is not laid this year, because the grade is going back all the time. Besides, a great deal of money would be saved if the work was proceeded with at the earliest possible moment.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The minister has sent across to me a map which shows the proposed location of the branch line to which I referred a short time ago. As I said before, I have no objection to the branch line running in the direction indicated by this map but I do want to object emphatically to the abandonment of the original route if the building of this new branch means that it will be abandoned. The Minister of Agriculture came to the defence of the new branch by stating he thought that the district was being served by a line built at right angles to the proposed line and some one hundred miles farther west. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that the building of a line at right angles to the proposed line and at such a great distance from the end of the steel could possibly serve the people in through that whole area.
There is another objection I have to make to the proposed line as shown in this schedule, and it is that it parallels and at no point appears from the survey to be seven miles away from the Canadian Pacific Railway line which is being constructed this year. It seems to me that it is not the policy that should be followed. The Canadian Pacific apparently intend to get that line through. They are building it at the present time and I can see no good service that will be done by paralleling it with the National line when there are territories which by travelling in a westerly instead of a northerly direction could be served by this lino. It is advisable perhaps to swing north for a short distance to serve the Soldier Settlement areas that I mentioned when speaking before, but it should not in my estimation go north paralleling the Canadian Pacific till it strikes the Prince Albert branch. It should turn westerly after reaching the soldier settlement areas, and then traverse the section that was originally laid out for it, and which was settled as far back as fifteen or sixteen _ years ago and has had settlers in there farming in anticipation of this line through all these years.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the
construction work on the Hanna-Warden line to commence this year, and is Hanna to continue to be a divisional point?


George Perry Graham: Surely hon. gentlemen do
not expect me to say where the sectional or
fMr. Gardiner.]
divisional points are going to be. That is for those in charge of the operation of the road. I might as well say who the trackmen are going to be. I cannot go into that. I have to bring before the committee certain branch lines that the Canadian National Railway Board have unanimously recommended for construction. Further than that I cannot go. The season is so far advanced that one cannot say what can be done this year. It will depend upon the conditions. Autumn will be coming soon and the men will be in the harvest fields. If we had had our appropriations through the House by early spring it would have been different, but we had not and I fear there will not be a great deal done this year.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 2-Power to construct and complete lines described in schedules.


George Perry Graham: I have an amendment to move to this section.


The CHAIRMAN:: It has been moved in amendment that in section 2, after the word "completion" in the second line, the following words be inserted "-
-prior to the 31st day of August 1926.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister be good enough to give me the rate per mile which is adopted for the railways having regard to road construction as apart from the special cost? Of course he does not know where he is going to put his stations? I suppose he knows whether he has' bridging to do or not.


George Perry Graham: Some of these lines have bridges. One of them has a bridge that will cost a million and a half. You cannot compare that to any other line, because no other line might have a bridge of that kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not the point but I am glad the minister has the information as to the bridges. Perhaps he will give it.


George Perry Graham: I have given one bridge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is that?


George Perry Graham: Dunblane branch to
Mawer, Saskatchewan.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 'That is the bridge over the Saskatchewan?

C.N.R.-Construction


George Perry Graham: Yes. With reference to some of the lines, the surveys are not definitely made, and the lines not definitely located. You cannot give the actual cost in a case of that kind. The engineers made a general estimate. My hon. friend asked me for the stations-


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I stated that you could not tell where the stations were going to be.


George Perry Graham: Then take a short line with four stations as an example. You could give an estimate for four stations, but what is the good of asking for estimates and advertising what it is going to cost? Engineers never give out their own private data as to what things ought to cost. The engineers make an estimate, but they do not publish it. They might as well throw up their hands when they ask for tenders, if they are going to announce what they think the work ought to cost.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Taking the very first one, Slot),000, is that an estimate of what it ought to cost?


George Perry Graham: Yes that is everything complete on the line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everything is covered in the $150,000 in connection with the first item.


George Perry Graham: That includes everything.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose we take them all, so as to save time; do these figures include the cost necessary in order to have these lines built and ready for operation?


George Perry Graham: Yes, so far as it is humanly possible to estimate what the cost will be. This is to complete the line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that all the work is covered. Whose estimates of cost are these ?


George Perry Graham: They are prepared by the engineers in the locality, and passed on to the chief engineer at the head office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And checked by the chief engineer?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. SPENCER:: I would like to ask the
minister some questions in regard to what is generally known as the Oliver-St. Paul railway. That is the railway running from Edmonton to North Battleford. It is completed as far as St. Paul. It runs from the east as far as St. Walburg, leaving a gap of about eighty
miles. This railway has been promised the people in that vicinity for some fourteen years. The country is well settled. It is a very good country, but it is particularly handicapped, because to the south runs the Saskatchewan river, across which there are no bridges in the particular part to which I am referring, and they have to use ferries. At the present time the railway has a double haul on all produce being taken to St. Paul, which would bring the extra distance to about 300 miles, taking the run to Edmonton and back again via Vermilion. It seems to me it would be in the best interests of the country if that gap were completed. I see in the schedule under item 25 it is only proposed to build the railway to a point twenty-one miles east of St. Paul. As this is a three-year programme, would the minister kindly give me the reason why the plans were not made to carry it further than mile 21? I will have more questions to ask later.


George Perry Graham: This is for hon. members whose lines are not taken in the programme but not so much for those whose lines are partially taken in. The same answer is applicable to all the requests of members in whose constituency no extensions are being made. This is all the Canadian National Board thought it wise at present to include in the programme. Every one will realize that the financial condition of the country will not allow us to launch out into what might be useful enterprises. We have to go along very slowly, to show our good intentions, but hope the conditions will continue to improve until all our hopes are realized in the development of the country and the development of the railways as well.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I appreciate very much
what is being done, but if there is no guarantee of some sort that work is going to be continued for probably several years to complete the line from St. Paul to St. Walburg, we will not be able to keep the settlers in that country. The settlers have been there for a good many years. They are hauling in some instances upwards of 100 miles and if they have not some sort of guarantee that the gap will be completed, I am very much afraid we will lose a great many of- them. I would ask the minister if we can look for the completion of that line within the three-year limit?


Mr. DAVIES:: I should like to corroborate what the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) has said regarding this line. I do not intend to add to what he said, in order to save the time of the committee. Is it the
C.N.R.-C tinstruction

intention of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways to change the location of the line, the construction of which is necessary to fill that gap? I understand a more northerly route has been surveyed?


George Perry Graham: 
Claudius Charles Davies: Would that appertain to
the northern route or the southern route?


George Perry Graham: The southern route is the expensive one. Another and bill investigation is going to be made of the proposed route or routes before a final decision is reached During the winter a very strong deputation waited on me with all the information. They impressed me, but I do not know anything about the practical construction. The question, however, will be fully considered, and what is thought best in the interest of the whole country will be decided upon.


Mr. CARROLL:: I wish to refer the Minister of Railways to certain evidence which was brought out during the present session before the committee on Mines and Minerals. This evidence showed the grave necessity, if we wish to develop our coal industry, of extending and building certain lines of railways. I understand my colleague from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte) this afternoon directed the attention of the minister to the necessity of extending the Point Tupper-St. Peters road into the town of Louis-burg.


George Perry Graham: How many miles?


William F. Carroll: Sixty miles. According to the evidence which was brought out before our committee, that proposition would develop a very large number of mines in the vicinity. Then there should be the extension, if the government takes over the road, of the Inverness and Richmond railway, which now runs from Port Ilawkesbury to Point Tupper, to the town of Inverness. In the committee there was also a proposition for a railway in the Peace river district to connect with the Grand Trunk railway. This line would develop

a trade between that country and the Pacific coast. I am not interested locally in that matter, but I think the minister might find it worth his time to read over the evidence given by western gentlemen before that committee in connection with that line. He might also find it worth his while to read the evidence of eastern gentlemen before that committee as to the necessity of extending and building those eastern lines. We in this country, I hope, are attempting to arouse me people, governments, coal operators, transportation agencies, to the necessity of having a national fuel supply for Canada. Those gentlemen have come to Ottawa and have developed those ideas which I am suggesting to the minister, and I do not think I could make the cases any stronger for those roais than did those witnesses who under oath gave evidence in connection with those matters. While this year I am not asking for the extension or building of these lines, the reason why I personally am not doing so, is because I understood the government was not going into new operations of this kind. If I had so understood, I would have been after the minister day and night in connection with the matter. I do not think I can make the case any stronger for those three roads, than the gentlemen who gave evidence.


George Perry Graham: What are the three roads?


William F. Carroll: The extension of the line from St. Peters to Louisburg; the extension of the Richmond-Inverness road to Inverness, a distance of 18 or 20 miles, which would develop and open up one of the great resources of coal in this country. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) probably would mention the road in the western country, concerning which road much evidence was given before our fuel committee. Those are the three roads. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that when he has some spare time, he might, perhaps, read over the evidence given in connection with those roads. This evidence given before the committee on Mines and Minerals will be laid on the Table to-morrow or the day after. If he does,
I am sure next year, without any exhortation on the part of any one in this House, he will be glad to bring down legislation for the construction and the extension of the lines I have mentioned.


Mr. GOULD:: I realize the limitations that are placed upon the government in regard to the matter of spending money to provide the many branch lines of railways which have been asked for, but I think my case has precedence over a goodly number. I have thought

C.AT.R.-Construction
that the last government attempted to do penance, in that the road had been promised a long time ago, and they had even had graded some 16 or 18 miles. The farmers living along that grade did most of the work in their anxiety to have the road built. I speak of No. 9, the road from Peebles to Lampman. In my humble opinion, the road was commenced at the wrong end, simply because, had it started from the town of Lampman, it would have connected with the branch line to Bienfait and the coal fields north of the town of Lampman about 9 miles. That is a very urgent question in our part of the country, in that we are deprived of an adequate supply of fuel. The road likewise would have terminated on our own lines of railway, and this would have given an opportunity to cur farmers to get their grain out. At the present time, all the grain in that territory is drawn to the lines of the Canadian Pacific. The road starts at Peebles in the district of Qu'-Appelle, represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Millar), and it comes into the district of Assiniboia about 6 miles, coming down the west side of the Moose mountains. There is a very high, mountainous country to the east of the road. If the road had been continued another 7 or 8 miles, even while it would not have tapped the coal fields, it would have facilitated the getting of grain to this railway much better than at the present time.	.
A further thing I wish to say in connection with this matter, is that materials, ties and steel, had been brought along the graded road in quantities sufficient, I think, to grade 11 miles, and last year the larger part of that material was removed. I cite this as an argument why we should have more consideration, if further consideration is to be given. I know the people living south of the present line of road will feel quite keenly disappointed,, in that the survey had been through there for a number of years to the town of Lampman, and provision is not made in the bill to carry the road further than Mile 22. I think that under this programme it should really go another 7 or 8 miles, or a total of 30 miles, to Lampman. In that way it would give direct access from our own line of railways to the coal fields. I am not urging this on the minister, and I am thankful that provision is made for the 22 miles. But if opportunity offers in the very near future, to extend this line further, I trust due consideration will be given to the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has not said what he is going to do for us in
Toronto, in connection with the tremendous deadlock that we have at the union station there. We had a long and eloquent speech which I enjoyed very much, but I should have appreciated it to a greater extent had I been able to understand completely why emphasis should be laid upon the construction of more railways in Quebec in preference to the carrying out of work in other parts of the country. As I understood the hon. gentleman, he wanted more work done in Quebec, and he pointed out in very beautiful language the advantages of the country through which the railways would run. He showed how much more important it was to have done what he was advocating than it was to do the little work in Toronto to which I referred this afternoon. He declared that little was done for the province of Quebec. I do not ask that anything be done especially for one part of the country as against another; I do not think that we have any right to consider at all whether any work is to be carried out in Ontario, in Quebec, in Manitoba, or anywhere else. The whole question should be whether it is right that such work be gone on with. The statement was made that it was very much more important to look after this new line of railway in Quebec than to right what is a flagrant wrong which has been going on for some time and is getting worse all the time. If we are to discuss this question of the relative importance of various works in different parts of the country, I would point out to the committee that the system that is making money down in this section of the Dominion, the Grand Trunk system, earned in Ontario $26,000,000 largely through that very terminal business in Toronto, as against the sum of slightly over $5,000,000 in the province of Quebec. It is utterly idle for people to try to make these comparisons: As I say, the whole question in regard to expenditures that are to be made anywhere should be as to whether or not those expenditures are justifiable. Surely my hon. friend should indicate to the committee where we shall land if we neglect the matter to which I referred this afternoon and of which I am speaking now. Surely he does not want the municipality to spend more money. It is out $26,000,000 now, and I cannot believe that the hon. gentleman would want to subject it to further inconvenience and harass it any longer. The people of Toronto have been menaced too long now. Thousands, yes sometimes eighty thousand, ninety thousand, and even a hundred thousand people using the crossings have been held up in one day, often in imminent peril. Does the hon. gentleman want that condition of affairs to continue and to be aggravated? I am sure
C.N.R.-Construction

that the board must have some policy by this time in connection with this matter, and the serious complaint of central Toronto demands by way of answer more than mere silence on the part of the minister.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend was not here this afternoon. The reason I have said nothing on this question is due to the fact that an arrangement exists between the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) and myself that Wednesday next be set apart for the discussion of the matter. I realize, however, that my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) is as much entitled as any other hon. member to raise the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not know about the arrangement to which the minister refers; I was not here when it was made.


George Perry Graham: I suppose, though, that this would be an opportune time to discuss the whole situation, even though the hon. member for North Toronto is not present. He can make his representations when he is ready in any event.
_ Sir HENRY DRAYTON: If my hon. friend is going to take the matter up on Wednesday I do not want to put him to the trouble of dealing with it twice. All we want is a fair opportunity to discuss the subject on Wednesday, if that day is understood to be set apart for the purpose.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for North Toronto wrote to me asking whether Wednesday would be convenient and I replied that it would.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the meantime I have a question to ask the minister. He has given us the report of the engineers in regard to the construction of line No. 2.
I am familiar with the prairie provinces, about whose necessities I have some knowledge. I am fairly acquainted too with the reports in connection with that part of the country. But I am not at all so conversant with the first proposed line in the list. Would the ministel be good enough to give us the gist of the report of the engineers recommending the first line?


George Perry Graham: The town of Lockeport is four miles from the station of Lockeport and has no direct communication. The spur line is intended to connect the town and the intermediate country with the station of Lockeport. The situation is somewhat similar to that in the case of the town of Cardinal in the county of Grenville where there is a two-mile spur.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How long has the present station been where it is?


George Perry Graham: It has been in its present situation a good many years, I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is one of the original stations?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the report in regard to line No. 4-Grande Fre-niere, Quebec, to Rinfret Junction?


George Perry Graham: An hon. member discussed that line this afternoon.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not No. 4.


George Perry Graham: Yes. He referred to the Laurentian mountains when discussing this particular line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think he discussed it only partially.


George Perry Graham: The purpose of this line is to shorten the route into Montreal. The right of way has already been secured. It is intended to make direct communication between Montreal and the Laurentian mountains, and it would pay to make that connection direct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What about No. 5-Long Lac to Nakina, Ontario?


George Perry Graham: The China Clay branch line is to provide direct communication with St. Remi d'Amherst.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the population of that place?


George Perry Graham: I do not know.


Mr. BOYS:: The minister says that the
question in regard to Toronto will be discussed on Wednesday at the request of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). Will that discussion come up under some item, or is it the intention of the minister to leave the bill in committee stage for the purpose?
I want to support to some extent what has been said by my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) in connection with the union station. If the subject is to be taken up on Wednesday I do not want to delay the committee by discussing it now, but I should like to get some information. H the discussion is to be allowed on the third reading I do not think it would be very satisfactory.


George Perry Graham: It was not intended that the discussion should take place particularly in connection with the bill. The hon. member for North Toronto simply wished to present Toronto's case to the House.

C.N.R.-C (instruction


William Alves Boys: But how would he do it?


George Perry Graham: The Prime Minister gave him the assurance that he would be able to raise the question on going into supply or on the Orders of the Day. The hon. member wrote me a letter to that effect to which I agreed.


William Alves Boys: Has the question of the completion of the Union station been considered by the government?


George Perry Graham: Parliament will have to provide in some way eventually for the Canadian National Railways' share of the cost, but the government has not yet considered the question. I agree with everything that my hon. friend can say as to the Toronto union station and I am in hopes that some arrangement can be made between the companies and the Toronto Terminal Company, which is really composed of those concerns, to find some way out of the difficulty.


Oliver Robert Gould: What is the explanation of the extraordinary difference in the cost per mile of these lines? I find that in Alberta the estimated cost per mile is $26,502; in Saskatchewan, $25,944; in Manitoba, $19,174; in Quebec, $30,142; in New Brunswick, $50,400; in Nova Scotia, $51,563.


George Perry Graham: The cost per mile varies according to the nature of the country through which the line is built. My hon. friend gave the reason when, he pointed out that the mileage in his own vicinity has been graded, in which case of course the cost is that much less than where the grading has not yet been done. For instance, we have already spent $5,000,000 on the Okanagan valley line.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Do these
proposed branch lines have to be approved by the Railway Commission?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think perhaps I can help my hon. friend. Under the general law the route map is approved by the Minister of Railways, and afterwards the Railway Board approve the line within deviation limits of one mile.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Railway Commission could not change the route more than a mile from that laid down on the route map?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Railway
Commission decide on the best route within deviation limits of one mile of the route 'laid down on the route map.


George Perry Graham: I am not quite certain
whether the Canadian National Railway Act of 1919 changed that.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-lines to part of Canadian Government Railways and constructed by
company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the idea of this section? I thought our National Railways were all under one system? Are they still being kept separate?


George Perry Graham: Parliament does in a measure build 'lines that are really government-owned lines-something like the practice under the old Branch Lines Act.


Arthur Meighen: I see, the real distinction is this: The government owns the property of the government lines, but it does not own the property of the National lines; the company owns the property and the government owns the stock.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The distinction, I presume, is necessary. But why is it necessary when new branch lines are being built? Might they not just as well be built by the National Railways and made a part of the National system even though they do connect, say, with the Intercolonial railway?


George Perry Graham: It is thought that that would not be the better way to do it. We take the whole government-owned system through the Maritime provinces, say, and treat the branch lines as part of that system. I think it would be a little difficult to work out in detail if the Canadian National Railways started to build a little line here and another there. It seems to me that it will be better, for the present at any rate, to keep all the government-owned lines together.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that there is any real distinction, unless the idea is that it is just as well to keep the government-owned railways separate from the National lines. I would have thought it would be easier if the tail went with the hide-if everything went into the pot. The government controls the whole thing either as owner or shareholder; and, further, the government is building both sets of branch lines. I think it would be easier for the officers if they had the one set of capital books. Is this distinction going to be carried out in connection with everything, so that we are to nave two sets of accounts, and so forth?

C.N .R.-C (instruction


George Perry Graham: It will have to continue until parliament decides to issue securities against the government-owned railways. Personally, I do not think that would be a good idea to-day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does it not really turn on whether you think it is a good idea to work these absolutely into one property or not? If we are to have two sets of accounts -and apparently we are-it is costing just so much more money. Is it not a good deal better for the government to show what the property is charged so the net debt will not look any worse than it really is? I cannot see anything in the objection. Of course if the idea is that the whole system is to be kept so that it can be unscrambled at any time, and in the meantime we are to have merely temporary joint management instead of one hundred per cent co-ordination with one hundred per cent economy, it is all right.


George Perry Graham: I would not think that. There is a strong feeling against bringing the old government-owned lines under a mortgage which they have never yet carried. I think separate accounts will have to be kept. The capital account of the government railways is simple, but I admit there is difficulty'in keeping the accounts separate as between the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, a difficulty which we are trying to eliminate. It costs a lot of money, it is true, but in this respect I think it is not expensive.


Arthur Meighen: Apparently there is nothing but a sentimental objection to having the mortgage that we really owe cover our own lines. All the government need do is simply to convey the government-owned lines to the Canadian National Railway system. This would be merely a conveyance of the fee simple. Once this is done, instead of continuing about five different systems of book-keeping one should be sufficient. I do not doubt at all that it would save the country-well, close to a million dollars a year.


George Perry Graham: I still think that for the
present at least the better way is to leave it as it is. It does not cost a considerable amount to keep the separate accounts. For example, the accounts of the Grand Trunk and the Grank Trunk Pacific have to be kept separate because the interest on the Grand Trunk Pacific guaranteed debenture stock is payable contingent upon the earnings of the old Grand Trunk, and you have to keep the accounts of the Grand Trunk separate for that purpose. We are trying to unscramble

it, as my hon. friend says, but it is not so easy.


Arthur Meighen: That is true; you have
to keep the accounts separate in order to be able to determine whether the Grand Trunk has sufficient earnings to meet the interest on all these Grand Trunk Pacific debentures, and the same applies to the Canadian Northern income convertible bonds. Well, I suggest that at the earliest possible day the government make some sort of settlement with both. I think it would pay if the settlement were arrived at in a proper way and on a very modest basis to get rid of all this necessity for separate systems and separate book-keeping. But I hope the [DOT] government will have the matter fully discussed here before they do that; I do not like to trust them to make any outside deal. Perhaps, while I am on my feet, I might ask how that syndicate is getting along in New York. Have the names got to the surface yet? Are they still on Fifth avenue?


George Perry Graham: I have not seen the names yet.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister yet able to produce that lawyer's letter guaranteeing the legality of the transaction? I would like, I think, to suggest that a reward be offered for the production of that letter.


George Perry Graham: How high?


Arthur Meighen: Pretty high. I have
struggled with this government to get the verbal opinions verbally boasted of, but I have not UDearthed one yet; I have not found a crowbar strong enough to dig one up. As the subject is sure to come up again, I here and now challenge the minister to get any lawyer in the employ of the Canadian National Railway Company, to recite what this company has done in connection with that hotel and say it is legal.


William Alves Boys: Is it intended that the lines
of railway mentioned in the schedule shall form part of the Canadian Government Railways?


George Perry Graham: Oh, no.


William Alves Boys: I thought not, because section 3 says:
Any of the said lines of railway connecting with the Canadian Government Railways may be declared by the Governor in Council to form part of the Canadian Government Railways.
What is to determine whether or not they shall? I see lower down that the title to the necessary lands or interests in lands is to>
be acquired in the name of His Majesty.


George Perry Graham: Canadian National Railways are not of necessity government railways; they are owned by a company. Take No. 1 branch line, for instance, which is four miles long, and which will be constructed in connection with the Halifax and Southwestern; that may or may not be called a government railway. My idea is that every branch line that connects with and becomes a part of the Canadian Government Railways, strictly speaking, might well be called a branch of the government railways.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Advances for government railway lines.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What machinery does the government propose to adopt in order to give effect to this section?


William Stevens Fielding: It simply provides that
in the event of the issue of securities the government may advance the money out of the public treasury.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
m3' hon. friend quite grasps the effect of the whole of this clause. The minister may advance the money, but the money must come from somewhere. It may come from the consolidated revenue fund, but moneys advanced from that fund are usually applied to a certain specific object, and it is usually thought best that they should be applied only to that object-that they should not be switched from one object to another. I admit we have departed from that rule in connection with the Hotel Scribe. Is it to be the same thing here, or does my hon. friend intend to put an amount in the estimates each year to provide for sums of money *which are to be made subject to the call of the railways and are to be replaced afterwards by moneys raised by loan?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: The difficulty
would not arise if my hon. friend had surpluses unappropriated by parliament. But the position is that the whole of his moneys are appropriated by parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: It is only a permissive
authority, ans^way; I am not anticipating we shall desire to use it very often. But I will give attention to my hon. friend's suggestion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice that the minister is bringing down , a bill in connection with audit, which may cover this point as well as others.


William Stevens Fielding: It will cover authority
to inquire into these matters.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Still, it would
provide a check.


William Stevens Fielding: The resolution is now
on the order paper.


William Alves Boys: The total estimated cost of
the construction of the lines mentioned in the schedule is not given, but apparently it will be about $30,000,000. Is it the intention that any portion of that amount should come out of vote No. 139, the amount of which is $73,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: That vote is for the ordinary working expenses of the road.


William Alves Boys: Item 139 of the estimates,
page 32, says:
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time, in the discretion of the Governor in Council. ... by way of loans in cash, or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other.
One would imagine that the amount necessary for these branch fines could come out of this vote, having regard to the langpage used. What I want to know is whether it is the intention that that will be done, or is this $30,000,000 odd to be in addition to the $73,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: The latter amount certainly does not cover these capital expenditures.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what
I take objection to. The minister says that the $73,000,000 that we have already voted, and which either may be expended in cash or may take the form of a government guarantee, does not include any of this money; that all this is extra, the $73,000,000 being simply the ordinary expenditure of the road. I submit to the minister that in other years the money voted in the estimates covered everything-covered fines that were ex-
4330
C.N.R.-Construction

tended, lines where the rails were laid-all these extensions in western and eastern Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: New construction?


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly, new construction, in western and eastern Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely for new construction the new lines would have to be specified?


Arthur Meighen: What the money was
applied to was embraced in a statement that was laid on the Table.


William Stevens Fielding: It would not only have to be laid on the Table; it would have to be in the statute itself.


Arthur Meighen: It would not have to be in the statute at all. As long as the House was informed as to what the money was for, that was all that was necessary.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not enough.


Arthur Meighen: Of course it is enough; the minister will find it is plenty if he will think the matter over. Take the case of tfie Merchant Marine. We did not specify the boats in the statute; we passed a vote to enable them to be built and then laid before parliament all the facts connected with their construction. This is money voted for the railways for such purposes as parliament has intimation of in a statement submitted to parliament. Where was the bill before about extensions? I have no recollection of it. Can the minister tell me? These were covered in the regular vote. Now then what the government is seeking to do, and I warn the House in time, is to be able to show a difference through this vote between the total estimate for the year and the previous year, and at the same time be spending the money under cover of another bill without its appearing in the Estimates. That is the effect of it all. In the past the votes have appeared. The country has known when the budget for the year was presented to the nation what it was going to be committed to for the ensuing year. But if this policy i3 followed it is not going to know. It is true that in a case like the agricultural education grant where a certain definite amount and n / more was granted each year for a certain period, ten years I think, towards agricultural education, that was a statutory vote and so much per year was paid out, but there was no previous system of doing it otherwise in that case as there has been for this. Furthermore the country knew each year from the statutes what its commitment was, but he*e

we do not know what our commitment is for any year. This government is simpij' asking for a blank cheque to be spent at any hour of any day within the next three years and avoiding putting an amount in the Estimates any year. Now that is something new. In fact, there is scarcely ever a statute this government submits to parliament that has not concealed in it an attempt to draw more power all the time into the administration-more of this order in council authority. This is definitely and irrefutably an attempt of that kind.
Now what I ask the government to do is this: If you want to go ahead with a special act, all right, but put in that special act the usual clause that the money for the purpose shall be voted by the Commons of this country. Then we shall know just exactly what we are doing and what the money is going to be applied to. I raised this point on the main motion and I intend to press it now. The government should not ask for a blank cheque covering three years when the country does not know how much is going to be spent in any year at all. It should not ask for power to spend this money at any time and at whatever time it suits the governmeit best, whatever time it suits the exigencies best. Let the government add a clause here that the Appropriation Act that covered it in the past shall cover it in the future.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. He is assuming that in the past-all expenditures have been set forth in the Estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I did not state that.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has repeatedly said so.


Arthur Meighen: I said there was an exception in the case where there was a definite amount per year, but not in the case of railway appropriations.


George Perry Graham: What about railway subsidies?


Arthur Meighen: I have not looked up subsidies, but if subsidies have been, go ahead and do it the same way but do not take something that was in the Estimates before and jerk it out of the Estimates and put it under cover of a separate bill in order to mislead the country as to the actual commitments year by year. The country should know what it is going to spend.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. There is no blank cheque in this particular transaction. There is a list

C.N.R.-Construction
of proposed railways and the amount appropriated for each is set forth. How does my hon. friend get the notion of a blank cheque? Here is a distinct appropriation of ever}' amount set forth and it is to be voted by parliament. That is what we are doing now. So why does my hon. friend talk of a blank cheque? I emphasize the fact that railway subsidies running into the millions were always voted in a separate and distinct bill. I cannot recall a case when it was not so under both governments. Surely my hon. friend knows that his whole argument is wrong. Subsidies have always been voted distinct and separate from the Estimates. We are making no departure here. We are just following the usual practice. We are not voting railway subsidies here but railway appropriations under precisely the same method.


Arthur Meighen: In previous years these have been in the Estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, but they have. Does any hon. member of the ministry say to me: We have not in the past since the National Railway Act came in made extensions in western Canada? And where is the special act calling for it? We advanced the money under the authority of the Appropriation Act to the National Railway Board. Now then the government is changing what has always been the practice in that regard in order to mislead the country. There may have been some excuse in the case of railway subsidies. There certainly was in the
9 p.m. case of the agricultural education grant. I have not looked up subsidies and I am not going to say yes or no whether it was done in that case or not. But in any case the government had nothing to say about it once it passed the act. If the railway went on they got the subsidy, and if it did not, they did not.


William Stevens Fielding: The government had
nothing to say about it?


Arthur Meighen: No. They had of course to pass the order in council, but the railway was entitled to the subsidy if it went ahead, and it could wait ten or fifteen years. There was reason in that case. But here the government knows, or should know, because we own the stock, what they are going on with and what they are are not going on with, and there is no reason why they should not show in the Estimates just what they are going to spend. Why is this done? What is going to be spent? What is the reason for taking
it out of the Estimates? The reason is clear to my mind. The government wants to be able to draw an unfair and unjust comparison of its Estimates this year and in future years with those of previous years.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will be
here to see that that is not permitted, and I know he will do it well; he always does.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right, but
when the minister gets before the country he will hold up the Estimates, and I cannot follow him through the country or even through the papers.


George Perry Graham: I will take him with me
next time, and as for my paper it has been mighty decent to him at a time when he needed it. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has explained fully to the committee why this is necessary. He spoke of subsidies. Now the reason why that method might have been necessary was because the government did not know how many miles would be constructed in any year, and that is the answer here to a large extent. The Canadian National Railway Board is going to construct these lines. This season they cannot construct much, but next year on account of this act, through not having to wait for construction to begin until after the estimates are through, construction can begin early in the season and be continued right along. The board know what they can do and how much they can construct, but if they have to wait year after year until the Estimates are through before they can start construction, experience shows that that is impracticable. The construction of these railways ought to be rushed wherever they are being constructed at times when labour can be secured between busy seasons. If we have to wait every year until the estimates are through construction will be held off for three months. The financial year ends March 31 and there would be no more money to go on with construction until the last estimates were through the House. Hon. gentlemen know that the men who would wish to get on this construction work during the summer would probably be needed on the farms later on in the year for harvesting. It is very difficult to get labour at such times.
There is no endeavour to hide anything here. It is simply to place a three years' programme and vote the money so that we shall not have to wait every year until the estimates are through before we can start construction. If this work were all going to be completed this year, it would be a different
C.N.R.-Construction

matter. We could say we are going to need this much, and clean it up, but we do not pretend that all this construction will be completed this year. The programme is for three years, and there is no attempt whatever at deception. Under the old estimates there were certain small extensions and so on, and my hon. friend will appreciate the difficulties under that method. He graded 372 miles, yes, 500 miles, in the West and then stopped. Now under a three years' programme at least some of these lines would have been completed in the three years, but as it was they were not. Many of these lines have rails on them; they are graded now, but the grade in some places is partially destroyed, I suppose. To my mind it is merely a matter of horse sense to proceed by this method. Let the company know for three years what they can depend on. Here are the amounts and it is no trouble to keep track of them. Parliament will have full opportunity to discuss them. I think this is the absolute business way to carry on this project.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has cleared up the situation rather well. He has put it so we can understand it, at any rate. It is a change, just as my hon. leader said. It is a complete change from what was done before. It makes a complete change in the basis of the estimate. He points out that of course this was not done before. We had it from the Minister of Finance that it was done before-no change at all. Of course there is a change and of course all this capital construction was controlled and voted by the House. There is no doubt about it and the minister makes it clear. Now, he says there is an objection to that and that is that you cannot spend all your money in the one year. If it is a good objection that you cannot spend all your money in the one year, there is no reason why parliament should ever look after the estimates at all. There is hardly an estimate of any size in which there is not that item of revote. Every department has its revote. Is that any reason why some irresponsible commission should have the right of looking after the whole thing without coming back to parliament? Is that any reason why the departmental estimates should not still be submitted? But there is the whole thing: You do not know how much you are going to spend, and, therefore, you should not do it by way of estimates! You do not know how much you are going to add this year or next. The whole truth is that there is just one thing that is of any importance here, and I have not been able to get it. If we can have definite estimates of such a character

laid on the Table that we know that the whole work is going to be done under the one vote, without coming back again, it will be a good thing. I could not get anything definite today-not a thing. There is absolutely no guarantee to the House in connection with it.


George Perry Graham: Was there ever in connection with any public work?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am saying that is the only thing that is of any use, if you can get it in connection with the three-year lease, so that you will not have the officials coming back time after time with the larger votes. We have not anything more definite here than we have in connection with the building of a $500 post office. We have practically no details at all in connection with the $28,000,000 programme. My hon. friend says we have rights of way and dumps and all that sort of thing and that we did not go on with them. That did not make a bit of difference as to any three years' business-not the slightest. It was the inescapable condition that we and the country were in. That was all and nothing else. The mere fact of a bill would not have produced any money, and the mere fact of this bill will not produce any money. The country might just as well understand that this is a complete change from the former method of accounting under which, in connection with the railway estimates each year, the country knew just exactly what their railways were costing for everything. But the whole commitment, whether on capital account, construction account, guarantee or deficit, was all there. Now the country wants to know about it. There is nothing in the bill to say the return is to be made from the commencement, showing how many miles have been constructed, and where, and showing how much money has been expended. Has the minister taken any precaution in connection with these votes to prevent switching of public funds from one purpose to another? What guarantee have we, for example, that when we vote $3,000,000 for the purpose of a railway that the money is going to be spent there and not somewhere else-that the money, perhaps, is not going to be spent in Germany next time, instead of in France, as the other vote was spent?


George Perry Graham: I think the auditors should be depended on to look after that. They are more competent to deal with that phase than I am. As to everything being in the Estimates, I can point out to my hon. friend that refunding of the Canadian Northern was provided for under the statute and not under the Estimates.

C.N.R.-Construction


Arthur Meighen: Of what?


George Perry Graham: Of Canadian. Northern
securities.


Arthur Meighen: A refunding does not involve any further liability. That is simply changing the loan from one person to another person.


George Perry Graham: Sometimes it had to go in the estimates of other railways and refunding might be very important.


Arthur Meighen: It is important, but it does not add or subtract from the country's liabilities.


George Perry Graham: If a certain amount were in one estimate under a bill refunding, and allowed for that amount, it would change your method of book-keeping altogether, and the Estimates would not be comparable for the two years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid that is going a long way. It is a poor excuse.


Mr. MARTELL:: I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the Canadian National Railways have taken in the Canadian Northern, along with the Halifax and Southwestern road, and I would like to ask whether or not the present government has considered the advisability of constructing a railway from Windsor in Hants county to a point at or near Chester in the county of Lunenburg? This has been a political question for years and has been made a poli-cal foptball by every party in this country. A railway from Windsor in Hants county to a point at or near Chester in the county of Lunenburg would pass through Martock, Windsor Forks, Leminster or Chester Road, a magnificent lumbering country, and would supply a great deal of wood for shipment over the Halifax and Southwestern which is now owned by the government. I am not going to enter into a discussion of the merits of the question, but I would like an assurance from the minister that he will have Sir Henry Thornton look into the advisability of proceeding with this branch, because it would be a very valuable line for the people in that section of the country. It is particularly necessary to have the question looked into, now that the government owns the Halifax and Southwestern, and I would like to have a promise from the minister.


George Perry Graham: I shall note the remarks my hon. friend has made and place them before Sir Henry Thornton.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have more confidence in the minister than in Sir Henry Thornton.


Mr. LEWIS:: I do not know whether there can be said to be any political advantage in providing for a bill of this description. If, as we understand, the Canadian National Railways are outside of politics, then I understand that the schedule has been presented by the National Railway to parliament to vote this amount of money, and if parliament votes this amount of money for three years, it seems to me that no party will be able to go out in the ridings and claim any political advantage. If I understood the minister aright as to how this sum is voted, there is only one way in which it can be spent, and that is on the particular lines which have been indicated in the bill.
I wish to say a few words in regard to item No. 19-Dunblane branch. I had an opportunity of speaking to the minister and those in charge before recess, and I have the arguments in regard to the matter. Yet, at the same time I have received a great many telegrams from county councillors and also farmers in the vicinity, against the expenditure of this money in the particular way in which it is proposed to spend it. There is one thing to be considered as regards this branch line that proceeds from Moose Jaw to Riverhuret. It was generally understood by the people in that vicinity that at some time or another the line to River-hurst would be extended beyond the river to link up with some of the other National lines. With that result in view, Riverhurst has become an important town. In 1921, a large sum of money was spent near Riverhurst in providing for a dam for a splendid water supply for the town and for the railway to Moose Jaw. Furthermore, Riverhurst is a divisional point. If this proposed railway is constructed, Riverhurst will become simply a dead end so far as we are able to understand the matter. I do not think there is any agitation at present from the people in the vicinity for the line to take the route which it is proposed it should take. As regards the railway situation, I know the whole country like a book, and the two railways, the Canadian Pacific to Elbow and the Grand Trunk to Riverhurst practically run parallel. There is no place where they are 20 miles apart. On the Canadian Pacific side for the last 15 to 20 miles, the country is simply sand hills, and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) a short time ago brought down a bill whereby the people in that district had the right to relinquish their lands, to give them back to
C.N.R.-C <-instruction

the government and to receive lands in territory where they might be able to farm. After this railway proceeds a few miles north of Lawson and then in a northwesterly direction to Elbow, I do not think for 15 miles it will pass a single inhabited house. A person taking an automobile ride from, say, Lawson, north to Elbow, where this railway is about to run, after proceeding 6 miles north, would for the next 10 miles, hardly see a dwelling house for the simple reason that the northwesterly winds sweeping over the sand hills have covered even the good lands with sand, with the result that the people have gone to more fertile fields to farm. I understand from the engineers' report that this line is taking this particular direction, on account of the easier grade. It will be an easier grade for the railway, and it will be able to link up with the system across the river. The line, however, will not be any shorter. It will certainly mean, at last, building a line 30 miles longer than they would have to build if they continued the present line. The people south of the railway line have always expected that this line some day would be completed and would cross the river at Lucky lake and be linked up with that system. I can readily understand, if the railway which is contemplated in the bill ever is constructed, the government will never see fit to build another railway bridge, at least 20 miles south, with the result that the people on the fertile land south of the Grand Trunk will have to depend simply on a tri-weekly service, where on the other hand, if it is linked up to Dunblane with a line across the Saskatchewan river, they will have the advantage of the good service; but there will be no service for the railway to perform so far as that particular stretch of line is concerned.
I understand from the report that no part of this line will be built this year; that it will be proceeded with next year. I do not wish to stop this expenditure, nor to make any protest as to this item going through; but if the money must be spent in the particular way in which the minister states, it would be wise to hold the matter over until an investigation is made. Surely the engineers who built the railway in the first place from Moose Jaw to Riverhurst never intended that River-hurst should become a dead end. They had something in view, or they would never have built 80 miles of line, made a divisional point at the far end, and then built a splendid dam costing thousands of dollars, with the intention of that town becoming a dead end. They intended to cross the river somewhere in the 
vicinity of Riverhurst, and to link it up with the line across the river. This proposed line will run through a territory that is not even calling for the line west and north to Elbow, and it crosses the same Saskatchewan river. It is true on the east side of the Saskatchewan river there is no great bank difficulty to overcome; but when you come to the other side, in order to reach Dunblane, you have to have a bridge that will be high enough to surmount the hill which is hundreds of feet high, and at the same time the line must pass through a very sandy territory to get there. It seems to me the pledge to the people living in the good territory who are producing wheat and making the railway pay, should be carried out, and they should have an opportunity of seeing the line extended across the river into the same kind of territory where the same service will be rendered to the same people, and where the line at the same time will cost a good deal less. I understand there is a report on the situation, and before I can speak definitely and intelligently on it, I should like to hear the minister's report as regards this particular line. I hope he will again look into the matter, and although I do not think we have any right to interfere with the policy of the National Railways, yet due consideration should be given to the people who are living in that territory and to the pledges that were made to them some years ago when they went into that territory and also formed a town.


George Perry Graham: According to my hon.
friend the farm furthest from the stub, end would be only 12 miles?


Arthur John Lewis: Yes.


George Perry Graham: That would be the furthest farmer away at that end. I do not blame my hon. friend for putting in a strong plea for those people. They are pretty well served now. But in order to make a through connection between the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific, to get a through line with good grades from Regina to Moose Jaw, the engineers say that it is necessary to build this other line in the manner proposed. It is through traffic they are after with the best grades possible. The best grade it is possible to get on the line proposed by my hon. friend is a full one per cent. In the other case, they can easily get a grade of one-half of one per cent. This makes a great difference in the load that can be hauled on through traffic and on the cost of transportation. If it be true, as it is, that the lower the grade, the cheaper the transportation,

C.N.R.-Construction
surely it is in the interest of the farmers themselves, who are not too far away from the railway as none of them are, that they should have the best standard of railway that can be constructed for the through traffic. In addition to that, the cost of those 42 miles to the bridge, I am told, will be little if any more than the cost of the 12 miles with the bridge at the point where that road would cross the river.


Arthur John Lewis: As regards the question where the bridge is going to be placed, I should like to make a suggestion. So far as I know at present, there is no possible way of getting across the Saskatchewan river. This government owns the resources of the province of Saskatchewan. I understand the rivers are also under federal jurisdiction, so at present the only way in which the people have a chance of getting across the Saskatchewan river, which is a very deadly river, is by a ferry. I hope when such a bridge is contemplated, not only will they contemplate a bridge for trains, but they will consider an additional expense whereby a traffic bridge can be built. At the present time one would have to go right to Saskatoon, one hundred miles north, before one could find a bridge for traffic to cross the river.
I do not wish to say anything derogatory about the engineers, but let us consider just for a moment the methods of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That line starts from Moose Jaw and goes up to Elbow, in identically the same locality the government intends to run its railway. At Elbow on the Saskatchewan river the Canadian Pacific Railway decided that the crossing was not a good one and so it goes immediately north about thirty miles before it crosses the Saskatchewan river. Now if the Canadian Pacific Railway thinks rhat Elbow is not a convenient place at which to cross and its engineers find it necessary to go straight north thirty miles to Outlook before crossing the Saskatchewan river, it does seem rather strange that another set of engineers should come along a little time afterwards and decide that the crossing which the Canadian Pacific engineers considered undesirable is good enough for the Canadian National Railways. I say it does strike me at least as somewhat peculiar. But wherever the bridge is built I trust that traffic accommodation will be provided and that the people will have the fullest opportunity of crossing the river.


George Perry Graham: That will be a question between the railway company and the provincial authorities.


Arthur John Lewis: I hope it will be taken into serious consideration.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I wish to call the minister's attention to a very serious situation that exists in the city of Toronto, a city of some account.


George Perry Graham: Evidently my hon. friend does not know that the Prime Minister by arrangement with the hon. member for North Toronto has agreed that this matter shall be brought up on Wednesday.


William Findlay Maclean: I may have
something about the matter then, but I want to refer to it now.


George Perry Graham: It has nothing really to do with the matter before the chair.


William Findlay Maclean: I think it has, and I want to point out that the most serious railway situation in Canada to-day exists in the city of Toronto, which I repeat is a city of some account, with a large business. The question there simply must be solved. It turns on the existence of two of the worst grades in Canada, that is, the Grand Trunk grade at Scarboro and the Canadian Pacific Railway grade through North Toronto. There is joint ownership of both lines on the north of the city. Between these two grades, of the Canadian Pacific of one per cent, and the Grand Trunk of one per cent, not three miles from either line there is a grade of one-half of one per cent; and there is a huge station at this place that is of no use. Besides this, there is a demand on the people of Toronto for the construction of an elevated esplanade at a very great cost, running into millions. I see that in item 26 in this schedule provision is made for a joint construction between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railway, but there is no solution suggested in reference to the Toronto situation, except by way of co-operation or joint action between the two roads.


Mr. JACOBS:: I understand that the item under consideration has reference to branch lines. My hon. friend is dealing with a situation in Toronto which I think is irrelevant. I submit that he is out of order.


William Findlay Maclean: And I contend that I am not.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then I will ask for the Chairman's ruling.


Charles Marcil: Does the hon. member desire to speak to the point o' order?
C.N.R.-C onstruc tion


William Findlay Maclean: I say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not out of order inasmuch as we are voting moneys for the construction of railways and the matter to which I am referring has direct relation to the subject of railways.


George Perry Graham: We are dealing with branch lines.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is my hon. friend discussing branch lines?


William Findlay Maclean: I am referring
to the improvement of an existing line. I do not intend to' take up much time discussing the question to-night, but I certainly want to bring to the attention of the minister the urgency of the situation in Toronto.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would ask for the ruling of the Chairman.


Charles Marcil: The committee is discussing section 4 with reference to a certain schedule at the end of the bill. I rule therefore that any discussion beyond that is out of order.


William Findlay Maclean: There is a provision in the bill, in item 26 of the schedule, for a joint line with the Canadian Pacific railway between certain points, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am in order in directing the attention of the committee to the situation to which I have referred. If the question is to come up again on a day set apart for the purpose I shall deal with it then, but I take the opportunity now of calling the attention of the minister to the serious state of affairs in Toronto at the present time in regard to which there is no proposal either in this bill or elsewhere looking to a solution. When the vote is under consideration I am going to ask the minister if he has any scheme in contemplation to deal with the question.


George Perry Graham: The Chairman has ruled this discussion out of order, but I might inform my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who brought up the same question earlier in the evening, when informed that the Prime Minister had arranged with another hon. member to deal with the subject on a subsequent occasion, readily agreed to postpone his remarks until then. The discussion, so far as my hon. friend's remarks are concerned, is really out of order, but I do not wish to press my objection to his proceeding; I simply want to ask him to do as his colleague has done.


William Findlay Maclean: I certainly will do that, but I do not think I am out of order. Hon. gentlemen from other parts of the coun-
[The Chairman.]
try are bringing up questions and grievances touching their constituencies, and I submit that I am perfectly in order in presenting the case of Toronto to the committee. However, I shall allow any further remarks I have on the subject to stand over until Wednesday.


George Perry Graham: Thank you.


Mr. MILLAR:: I was alarmed a few minutes ago when I heard the minister state that in connection with branch lines not much could be done this year. I do not know whether I understood him rightly or not, but that is what I gathered at any rate. And the more am I alarmed when I realize how near we are to the first of July and how short a part of the season is left. Is it the intention of the government to do very little on the branch lines this year? If so, and very little can be done because of the shortness of the season, why could this matter not have been brought down several weeks ago? We have been passing estimates now for nearly two months and I do not see why this matter could not have been attended to before now. I can assure the minister that there will be the most bitter disappointment in the country with regard to item No. 9 if the proposed line is not dealt with this year. This is a district that is well settled. It has been settled now for fifteen or twenty years and the people are obliged to haul their produce seventeen, eighteen and nineteen miles over roads that are not like the Ontario roads by any means. Can the minister imagine what it must mean to haul grain that distance over mud roads? Not only that, but most of the grain is now going to the Canadian Pacific Railway, whereas if this branch line were built it would go by the Canadian National. I am sure that the people of this district will be very grateful to the government for undertaking to build this line even in the next three years, but at the same time they will resent the injustice of postponing it even beyond this year. The road has been graded for some time and the ties are waiting to be laid down; and very little more expenditure would have been necessary to complete the work, so that the settlers could have taken their grain out this fall. I shall be sorry if anything is done to delay the work and prevent this line being built until next year.


Mr GRAHAM:: My hon. friend can
realize the difficulty in this matter. Every hon. gentleman feels that his particular case is the most urgent and there are about ten times as many interested parties outside who have to be heard. All this must be considered and sifted and resifted and it is not easy

C.N.R.-Construction
to select from so many when there is such a diversity of representation. The company hopes to conclude the line to which my hon. friend refers this year.


William Findlay Maclean: I would draw
the minister's attention to item 26, which is a joint section with the Canadian Pacific Railway. There are millions of dollars to be voted for the expansion of our railway system in competition with the Canadian Pacific. We are entering on a period of rival construction between the two great systems. Probably a question of absorbing interest to the people to-day is whether there is to be a policy of rival construction between the two roads with the resultant waste of money and lack of efficiency of service which co-operation and co-ordination would avoid. It is time that we scrutinized all these votes to see whether they are for lines to compete with existing lines, in whcb case the money might better be devoted to provide railway facilities in those portions of the country which require them. I would ask the minister if a policy has been decided upon between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway so that instead of blind competition in the building of roads where they are not needed there will be co-operation to serve the best interests of the people at large. We should not conclude this session without making a declaration in regard to this matter. It is not only up to the government but up to the administration of the National Railways and the Canadian Pacific to say whether they intend to embark on a policy of rival construction. We want efficient construction in this country, not mad rivalry. I should like to hear from the minister on this point.


George Perry Graham: That is largely something to be worked out between the railways. I think the day for mad rivalry is over in the interests of economy. As an object lesson, there are a couple of items in this schedule where two railways are running over the same track for a certain distance.
trouble we had was in getting money to go on with. The government comes every year and asks for interim appropriations, and if there is money needed these appropriations take care of the need. As a matter of fact, as everyone knows, we usually end the year without the money being spent. I repeat, we have never had any difficulty at all because of the restrictions the estimates contain, namely, that the votes must be spent in that year. There is no earthly reason why we should vote money for three years instead of one. We may just as well give up the whole system of presenting estimates to parliament for each year if we pass this bill and are not to know how much is to be spent in any single year and what work is to be undertaken. In other words, parliament is to know nothing; the government can do just what it likes with this enterprise. We give the government carte blanche now, and the minister persuades hon. members that it is all right. Further, under a subsequent section of this bill the minister can drive a coach and four all through the divisions that are set out in the schedule. He can take the money voted for one road and apply it to another, because section 7 simply wipes out all limitations and puts the minister in supreme command. I therefore propose to let hon. members take responsibility for the vote now by moving.
That there be added to section 4 by way of amendment the following proviso:
Provided that money for this purpose shall first be voted by parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend would
accomplish nothing by such an amendment. This money will be appropriated by parliament if the resolution passes. Therefore why say this is subject to an appropriation made by parliament? Parliament is at this moment appropriating it. I really cannot see any force in my hon. friend's contention.


Arthur Meighen: Parliament should only
authorize the works to go on. All other works are subject to appropriation by parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Again I ask, are we going to discontinue the practice of including in the estimates our railway commitments? Some members think it is not a serious matter, but I venture to say that those who have given expression to this thought will be coming to parliament in future sessions complaining of conduct that is possible just because of this legislation. We never had any trouble-and I think I should know-in going ahead with any work because of delay in voting the money in the House; the only


William Stevens Fielding: But we are appropriating the money now.


Arthur Meighen: I know, but we should
not.


William Stevens Fielding: But we are appropriating it.


Arthur Meighen: But attach this proviso
and we will not be. We will simply authorize the work to go on, but parliament will know every year what money is being spent. '

C.N.R.-C construction


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot understand my hon. friend's objection. I think there are many cases in which it is absolutely desirable that a department shall not be tied up from year to year, but shall be able to carry on without delay. I think the resolution itself is effective, but the general proviso he prefixes would interfere with construction of public works and cause delay when urgency is necessary.


Arthur Meighen: The minister might be
good enough to make that clear to the House. We vote money for every single thing every year.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh no, not for every
single thing.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, I might mention railway subsidies.


William Stevens Fielding: Those cover many millions.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but in a railway
subsidy you have no means of knowing what year it applies to. Here we have a way of telling, for we are absolutely in charge of the whole situation just the same as we are of the completion of this building. I say again, adopt this three-year method and you will so blur the estimates that the country will not know what is going to be spent every year. In a word, it is equivalent to simply destroying the estimate system in toto. Consequently it seems to me that hon. gentlemen will later have to give good reasons why they vote for the vesting of such a power in the government.


Robert Forke: If I understand this matter rightly, the right hon. leader of the Opposition would have the money to be spent each year placed in the Estimates for that year and the same each subsequent year until the expenditure is completed. When I heard the explanation made by the minister I really was inclined to favour his view, but upon hearing the arguments afterwards advanced I cannot see that much harm would be done by adopting the method advocated by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. The House w'll likely meet in December or January, at anv rate sufficiently early to enable the voting of the sum required for the ensuing year. I can also see the force of the objection advanced that this is a separate bill and tha'; the money will not appear in the Estimates, the result being somewhat misleading. I would not count so much on that, however; but I do not know that the principle is a very good one of voting a lump sum for three years. It would be all right to have it

stated that the estimated cost of these lines would be so much in three years, but I would rather see the amount for each year voted as required. I make this statement with a good deal of hesitation, because the subjeit is new to me. I am not acquainted with th; rules and methods of procedure in voting money, and if any members behind me think differently it will not make any difference. In fact, I have not had enough experiem; in the matter to enable me to express wh it might be called a definite opinion, but that is my present view of it and I take it that I will vote that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not only are the present rules and the ordinary procedure being departed from, but the minister is not yet sure of his own bill, not yet sure of his own moneys; he wants to be able to turn his funds here, lengthen his mileage there, or contract :t in the other direction. He takes complete control unto himself. We have a section here which ordinarily would bind the minister and bind parliament to vote the sums of money required. But I invite the attention of hon. gentlemen to this section so that they will know what they are doing:
The mileage of the said lines of railway-
And remember, your $40,000 is to be fixed on that mileage.
-and the cost of construction thereof, as mentioned or referred to in the schedule of this act, are merely estimated distances and costs for the information of parliament, and shall not be taken to restrict the minister in the issuance of such certificates nor the company in the performancee of the work of construction and completion nor in the issue of its securities.
The truth is that someone is determined that the whole of this matter is to be left up in the. air for somebody to handle just in the way somebody wants to handle it. When the minister gets an omnibus power like this, how is he going to see that the public funds are not switched from one purpose to another? I indicate to him whal happened in the case of the Hotel Scribe, and he says the auditors can look after it. Well, the point is the auditors did not. look after it in that case; the transfer of funds was made; the illegal arrangement was entered into. And here we are enabling this thing to be done on a large scale; the control of parliament is removed.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is makiur a mountain out of a molehill. In the case of subsidies for which he has voted, payments have been based on the reports of engineers as to the progress estimates. These subsidies were given to private companies, and the

C.N.R.-Construction
powers were the same as those for which the Canadian National, the people's company, are now asking. Suppose a line for which provision is made as to a specific distance and so on has to be constructed a half mile or a mile longer in order to get a better entry into a town, or to escape a big bridge, or for some other good reason. If this power is not given that extra mile or half mile could not be built unless we first came to parliament and got the authority to build it. Does parliament want that? Quite often a circuitous route is followed in order to get into a town or municipality in the most desirable way, and unless the minister be given some such power as this you might have to stop your line a mile out of town. The power asked for is no more than parliament has voted time and again to private companies. It is simply a case of our own company now asking the same latitude in the construction of its own lines.
Amendment (Mr. Meighen) negatived: Yeas, 15; Nays, 45.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Guarantee of securities of other lines up to $40,000 per mile.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I propose to move a similar amendment to clause 5. I am quite certain the committee will vote to give the government power to commit the country to as much one year as it wishes, to as much the next year as it wishes, and so on, without any return to the country at all. But I will put myself on record; I will put all hon. members on record if I can. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys) that there be added to this clause the following words:
Provided ithat the amount so to be guaranteed shall first be included in the estimates and voted by parliament for that purpose.
Amendment (Mr. Meighen) negatived: Yeas, 14; Nays, 51.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Nature and form of securities to be approved by Governor in Council, and signed by Minister of Finance.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We are now coming to the sections which put in concrete form just what we have been saying. We have on the one hand the guarantees to be given under this act, and on the other hand the guarantees given under the vote already made by this House. Now I ask my hon. friend what portion of the main vote is for a similar purpose to what we have here.


George Perry Graham: I can inform my hon. friend that there is nothing in the $73,000,000 vote passed this year except for betterments and co-ordination between the various lines. There was nothing for building.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If it is, it is different to any other vote we have had. It may have been prepared with that end in view. I would go further and say that if there is no construction whatever contemplated in the vote this year of $73,000,000 it is a bigger vote than we had last year. I asked my hon. friend for full particulars as to that vote. I did get a subdivision from him, and the day I got it I wrote to him pointing out that it was not at all full and did not give definite details as to what we were voting. I wonder if he has any objection to giving now the information asked for, or whether the information is to be withheld from parliament.


George Perry Graham: We prepared what we understood my hon. friend wanted and we gave that to him. Further details are being prepared, but it will take some little time to get that done. My hon. friend knows that in the operation and management of any big railway system the estimates presented to the board of railway directors are not inflexible in their application, because the directors could not meet any exigency if they were unable to make any change from their first plans. I think my hon. friend will find if he looks into the operation and management and even the betterments of any of the great railway systems that while generally they have to proceed along certain lines, exigencies might arise which might make a difference altogether in the original plans, and if the appropriation were inflexible the management would be practically precluded from operating successfully. I do not mean that they should be wide open but there must be a certain amount of flexibility, particularly in the operation and management and even in the betterments of a railway.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend knows perfectly well what I want. How the situation looks to me at present, and I indicated it at a previous sitting of ths House; is this: We have got a vote within $4,000,000 of the whole vote of last year. We had a deficit running into several million dollars, and now according to the statement my hon. friend made to the House, and I suppose the statement is true, and I want to continue thinking the statement is true, he showed that instead of that deficit he had a surplus of $4,000,000; but notwithstanding that
C.N.R.-Construction

surplus of $4,000,000 and notwithstanding the fact that the estimates this year, as we have been told, do not include five cents for construction there is only a difference of $4,000,000 between the vote this year and last. My hon. friend talks about elasticity. I think there has been a great deal too much elasticity. I believe if there had not been such a lot of elasticity the amount used could not have been used. My hon. friend asks me what was done. I know that we have had pages and pages of details giving us information as to the estimates to be voted before they were brought down to the House, and my hon. friend must have those details. If the work is being carried on in the way it used to be, the minister and the department is given full information as to the commitments here, there and everywhere. Why, it is a matter of hours going through those details, and if the proper details have been given my hon. friend for the purposes of this vote there is no difficulty in him giving that information to the House. He can table the information now in two minutes because he has it.


George Perry Graham: Would -my hon. friend
table all the details of notes he had from his
department?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly I would give the details.


George Perry Graham: He never did, and that information was never asked for before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would certainly detail every bit of information I had leading to an estimate. My hon. friend has those details and he has not given me the information. Now we might just as well know where we are about it. The department have the details and there is only one reason for not giving them, and that reason is that moneys that are voted for this purpose can be applied to that. That is just what my hon. friend calls elasticity, and that is just what is absolutely wrong.


George Perry Graham: There is not one iota of change this year from last year or any other year. My hon. friend from his own intimate knowledge knows that there are a lot of things he never gave to the House and a lot of things that nobody ever asks for in the House. I say quite candidly I would have notes. He did himself many a time have notes from his subordinates, but he would not lay them on the Table. They are notes of particular information for the minister. My hon. friend has asked me questions by the score to-day that never were asked before in this House

by any other member. In his time he never pretended to give any such information to the House. I have been a member of the House as long as he has, and I have put through some railway estimates in my time, more than he ever did, and never in my time were the details that were given to the minister in his book in order to answer questions, placed on the Table of the House or asked 10 p.m. to be placed on the Table of the House. There are many things in that book that are not public property. There are many things in it for the information of the minister alone, and my hon. friend knows that.
Now as to showing a surplus, that was not to glorify the present government or the National Railway Board, because that was the result of the work of my hon. friend's board except from the month of October. If we had wished to minimize what they had done we could have made it appear very bad last year and make it look good this year, but we gave an honest statement of what had occurred, and it was to the credit of the board headed by Mr. Hanna. The credit was not taken for this by the government or the government's board. I tried to get every possible bit of information. I said we were endeavouring to make another statement. We sent my hon. friend one. I thought, and my deputy thought, it covered everything. Now he asks that we place on the Table of the House private information,-I say semi-private information-some of it absolutely public, given to the minister in order to answer every question, right or wrong, incidental or otherwise that might be asked, and he asks that that be placed on the Table of the House-something never heard of in the world before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
knows very well that the answer is not at all in line with the argument I made. I made no complaint whatever about the surplus being discussed.
Mr. GRAHAM; If he intimated anything, he hoped it was true-an intimation that we have falsified the books.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
George Perry Graham: 



Of $3,000,000.

Henry Lumley Drayton: Very well, take $3,000,000. It wa? four in the statement

C.N.R.-C (instruction
according to my memory, and in my hon. friend's statement too, if I am wrong I wish to be corrected.


George Perry Graham: For the calendar year,
approximately three million.


Arthur Meighen: The minister corrected
me when I made it three million in my remarks immediately following his speech, and he said it was four.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps we both got a
little muddled as between the calendar year and the fiscal year.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


George Perry Graham: The railway books are
closed at the end of the calendar year, we discussed these matters in the House up to March 31, and I gave a lot of details in the statement I presented to the House of the material bought in this calendar year of 1923 that did not apply to last year at all; but I gave the statement up to March 31.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Whether it be four or three, there is a difference on the one hand of twenty million and on the other hand of nineteen million. I am not quarrelling with that statement, I am accepting it and hoping it is true, irrespective of what my hon. friend says when he puts in his estimate this year. If the operation of the railway has improved as much as the auditors show it has what on earth is the reason for showing such an amount in charges against the estimates of last year, unless every single thing that could possibly be included, whether it is for this or that purpose, be applied irrespective of how it is voted? That is what I am talking about. I think the House has a right to know the particular thing we are voting money for, and to know whether it has been applied for that purpose or not. My hon. friend says that information was never laid on the table.


George Perry Graham: Not in my time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
whether it was asked for or not. I know that no information in connection with my estimates asked for was refused by me, and I know I had it for the purpose of making up my mind what would go through, as far as the Department of Finance was concerned. What is it that is confidential in this? What item is confidential in connection with the estimates? My hon. friend knows there is none. That has not anything to do with the amount of the contract, the details of management and the like. There is no use getting these things mixed up with the estimates.
They are entirely different, and I ask, when did we refuse to give any information asked for, having regard to an estimate before the House?


George Perry Graham: I have never said my
hon. friend did. I have said it was absolutely contrary to practice to ask the minister to place his book of information given to him on various matters on the Table of the House. It never was done in my time, and never asked for till to-day. An information asked for by hon. members concerning my estimates when they were going through was given just as my hon. friend states was done in the case of his estimates. Now he asks me to place on the Table of the House the book prepared for me, with all the side lines and everything else, concerning the information I had in my possession as to my estimates. I am prepared to give any information with regard to my estimates, if I can get it. But this information he asks for never was placed on the Table of the House. He would not think of such a thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only reason I suggested it was because the minister said he had the information. He said it would take a long time to make the statement. I wanted to get it before the House adjourned. If he does not want to table his estimate, then let him prepare the statement. But I never had an estimate which I was interested in that I would have objected to produce, nor would I have been ashamed to-table the fullest information that I had in connection with it. I again say-and I challenge my hon. friend to deny it-that no such information was refused at any time. Now the minister does not want to put the book on the Table. I only suggested that,, so as to make it a little easier for him. It is not necessary to make a long statement, but there is far more in the book than there would be in the statement. I still think parliament is entitled to have the particulars of the money voted. My hon. friend was going to give me a statement. I wrote to him over a week ago, pointing out where the details were not given. I have not heard from him since. He tells me the statement is in course of preparation. I hope he will let us have it before the House adjourns.


George Perry Graham: I will try to.


Mr. STEVENS:: I wish to ask the minister a question. I know that this point has been discussed to-night on a previous section, but I think my question is pertinent and ought to be clearly answered, particularly
C.N.R.-Construction

in face of the corhments made a moment ago by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). Section 8 which is now before the committee empowers the issue of certain securities in a manner which shall be determined by the Governor in Council from time to time, and then it goes on to provide that these securities may be secured by a mortgage or deed of trust, and so forth. From that it would appear that this particular expenditure of some twenty or twenty-five million dollars is to be made in an issue of new securities distinct from those provided for in the issue. What I want to ask the minister is this: Why is it necessary, in connection. with this work set forth in the schedule to this bill, to authorize this issue of new securities when, in the estimates we provide for the sum of $73,000,000 in connection with which I read this in subsection (e), of the description:
Construction and betterments: guarantee of securities.
And then it says:
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may De of the principal and interest of the notes and obligations or securities of one or more such companies specified by the Governor in Council.
And so forth.
In other words, in the estimates out of the $73,000,000 we are providing for the issue and guarantee of securities for construction, for extension, principal and interest of maturing and matured loans, and so forth. Yet for this particular schedule of branch lines we are making a separate issue of securities which will not appear in the ordinary statements of the government next year, or as an increase, for instance, in the public debt. It will not appear in any definite form. In the past

that is last year and the year before-we had these votes and the public were told that the National Railways had a deficit of a certain amount. Then this amount was segregated into losses on operation, refunding and so forth. These particular works provided for in this bill are not distinct and separate from works being carried on under the Main Estimates. I am quite aware that the minister may reply that this is capital expenditure; as a matter of fact, we have provided in the $73,000,000 item for what is just as clearly capital expenditure as is this item in this bill. I do not wish to weary the committee by asking for information that, perhaps, has been given already. Yet I have failed to see the need of this being done in this particular form, especially since the minister has refused to make provision in the estimates. I would have no particular ob-

jection to this bill, if the actual expenditure of the money to provide for the work were contained in the estimates from year to year, but that has been decided in clauses 4 and 7. The minister has refused to include those in the estimates, and he makes the provision in this form. I do not wish the minister to answer if he has already done so; but I do not think this has been answered. I should like the minister to explain why we have capital expenditures in the main Estimates, and this item appearing in a different form in the bill.


George Perry Graham: I imagine it would not be satisfactory to parliament if, under the appropriation that we have, we launched out on a great construction scheme such as this.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


George Perry Graham: Any work that was done under the powers of a guarantee, or issuing of securities, or estimates is work in connection with co-ordination, minor work, betterments and all that kind of thing, no large construction of the dimensions of this. For practical purposes it is thought better to take this special construction in this way, and I believe parliament will find this the better way. As regards information, the Minister of Railways in the annual statement that he makes before coming to parliament with his ordinary estimates, will be compelled to give in _ detail what has been done during the year in this connection, and the public accounts committee will have an opportunity of going into the matter. This railway system amounting to 22,600 miles is a new thing, and we have to do these big things in a somewhat different way from what we did when we had just the Intercolonial. This system is many thousands of miles longer than it was a year ago. This method is only for practicability, there is nothing whatever to be hidden, and I do not think my hon. friend believes that anything is to be hidden. Everything possible will be given in the minister's statement, which, I believe, will be the proper place in which to give the information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These items in the estimates to which I have referred, will all appear in the public accounts, and will be placed before parliament at the end of the year. These items in the bill will not necessarily be included in the public accounts unless in some form, possibly as a supplement. That might be done, but so far as I can see, under the law, it is not necessary to include them in the public accounts.


George Perry Graham: I am informed that it is, that any expenditure of public money must

C .N.R.-C onstruction
go into the public accounts, and surely expenditure on these lines will get into the public accounts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think the minister is any more sure about that than I am, and I am very suspicious about it.


George Perry Graham: I am informed by my deputy, who knows something about the routine, that these accounts must go into the public accounts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then why cannnot the minister bring down an estimate, just as has been done in the case of the other items? Let me give another example. There is in the Main Estimates, an item for principal and interest for maturing and matured loans, secured or unsecured. In other words, you provide in the Main Estimates for paying off principal, because that is what this amounts to. In this other case, we are incurring a principal charge. Why could that not be covered in the estimates, as well as the matter of paying off a principal charge? There is no difference in the principle of the thing. That is the point I want to make. This has already been suggested and turned down; but I would still suggest that this bill should pass as a general authority to do these works and then a special estimate, not necessarily included in the Main Estimates, but a special item in the Supplementary Estimates should be brought in for this year for, say $10,000,000. I wish the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) would listen to me, if he would be good enough, on this point. Every year that I have been in this House we pass ordinary Public Works estimates covering contracts which are already let for amounts away in excess of the amount voted. For instance, we let a contract for a million dollars for some public work. All we vote during the year is, perhaps, $500,000, knowing that during the year we shall require only that amount of money on the contract. The contract is let; the country is committed to the work; but the amount required for the year is estimated, and the amount inserted in the estimate. That is exactly what we are asking should be done in this case. Grant the authority to the railway company to go on with the capital expenditures, and then bring in a supplementary estimate covering the amount you want to spend this year. In my estimation, there is no difference in principle in providing the amounts in the Main Estimates in a proper and ordinary parliamentary fashion, and that called for in this bill in a special and extraordinary manner.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to delay my bill, but I have tried to point out the practicability of the matter. If my hon. friend has had any experience in public works, he will see one of the difficulties. This happens time and time again, and it should not happen with railway construction, particularly in the position in which the country is as regards labour. Construction should not be held up. What happens is that contractors are allowed to go on after an appropriation has run out; they finance themselves, and the cost of that public work is the cost plus the interest on the money which they advance. The counry in this way loses money. If the United States were to build the Welland Canal, 'they would pass a lump sum, and they would have to give an account each year. Until, however, the appropriation was exhausted, they would not have to come back to Congress for a further appropriation.


Mr STEVENS:: My hon. friend is not answering my argument at all. He is condemning the whole system of our estimates. I am not discussing that at all. That is the regular sysem, and I question the minister's expression of opinion as to its not being as good as that of the United States.


George Perry Graham: For large works, I am free to say that, I believe it is not. I have given my hon. friend one reason; I will give him another. Under the United States system, where a lump sum is voted, the work can go on without cessation and contractors can take advantage of every situation. With us, the work is sometimes halted for reasons pointed out by my hon. friend. With large works, our system is not the best for this reason: For a *work that will co^t, say $200,000, an amount of, perhaps, only $10,000 is voted. Unless some person reads Hansard with the explanation, he will believe that the work is going to cost only $10,000. Then, perhaps, he looks up Hansard the next year, and he finds there is $25,000 or $50,000 more. I believe the safe way in the public interest, is to put down at once the estimate for the entire amount, and to account each year to parliament. That is really what this is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend evidently thinks all these payments are to be shown in the public accounts. Do the payments made by the Canadian National Railways appear in the public accounts?


George Perry Graham: The amounts we advance them certainly do appear in the accounts.

C.N.R.-Construction


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but my hon. friend knows that is quibbling.


George Perry Graham: Not at all. I object to the use of that word "quibbling". As in the case of the Merchant Marine which was under discussion the other day and in regard to which the Auditor General's report for the past three or four years was turned up, the advances that we make are really loans and they appear in the public accounts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the payments as such on the National Railways do not appear in the public accounts, what appear in the public accounts are the payments which we make to the system. Of course, the deputy may say "sure," but we do not want that; we want to get the exact facts as to where the money goes. What the public accounts show is that so much money under such a vote is given to the railways. That is all, we do not get anything else. But that is not what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was asking for, nor is it what my hon. friend says. I know that the minister replied in absolute good faith to 5he hon. member that these advances appear m the public accounts, but they do not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Advances pending issue of guaranteed securities.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister can tell us how the money will be raised, how the accounts are to be charged, what appropriations will be necessary in order to enable the work to be done, whether the funds will be raised by overdraft, or in what other way.


George Perry Graham: It might not, say, this week be an opportune time to issue securities for the work. This section gives the Minister of Finance power to advance a loan temporarily to the company for immediate needs, the amount to be reimbursed the moment the securities are sold; and it is in the interests of the company that the best possible price shall be received. The sale of securities will be altogether controlled by the Minister of Finance and the Canadian National Railways, and this section gives to the Minister of Finance the power to go to the bank and borrow for the work to be done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose that this is what the Minister of Finance will have to do in any case. The section simply gives him the power to go to the bank and borrow money.


George Perry Graham: I should think he would have to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Dairy Industry Act, 1914, by providing:
1.	That a minimum standard of fat in butter be established;
2.	That the Governor in Council be empowered by proclamation to permit the importation, manufacture and sale of renovated butter in Canada;
3.	That the manufacture, importation, selling, offering or having in possession for sale of milk or cream which contains any fat or oil other than that of milk be prohibited;
4.	That regulations may be made respecting (a) records being kept by manufacturers and dealers in butter, renovated butter and cheese, and for the examination of such records by inspectors; (b) the importation, manufacture, inspection, marking, advertising and sale of renovated butter; (c) the registration of all cheese factories and creameries in Canada and the compulsory use of an assigned number on the product of each factory or on the packages containing said product;
5.	That penalties for violation of the regulations be increased, and methods established for proving the guilt of persons charged with infractions of the act as amended, and for the procedure to be followed in all such cases.
William Richard Motherwell: When this resolution was last before the committee there seemed to be rather general objection on all sides of the House to the second paragraph. I move therefore that section 2 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Does section; 3 cover
"filled" milk?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. In line 2 of section 4-now section 3,-the words "renovated butter" must be struck out, as also paragraph (b) with regard to the importation, manufacture, inspection, marking, advertising and sale of renovated butter. I move that the new section 3 be amended accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 241 to amend the Dairy Industry Act, 1914.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Export Act-Pulpwood

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:	,
That it is expedient to amend section seven of the Export Act, chapter fifty of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as enacted by chapter thirty of the statutes of 1914, by providing that the Governor in Council may by regulation prohibit the exportation from Canada of pulpwood of the variety, kind, place of origin or having the particulars of identification or ownership or production described in the regulation.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, I am a good deal in sympathy with the general principle of the resolution, but I should like my hon. friend to inform us whether he has made up his mind at all as to the regulations to be made respecting ownership and the like.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid the resolution can hardly be explained better than in its own words. It is to give the government power to make regulations having in view the prohibition of export of pulpwood. It might be a general prohibitory regulation without any qualification, or a regulation prohibiting export under certain conditions. For example, it has been suggested that it would he wise and expedient to exempt farmers who have pulpwood to clear off their land. We have not any plan in detail. If a plan is evolved we might put it in operation in a general way or subject to qualification; this would be a matter for further inquiry. The wording of the resolution implies that it may be desirable to distinguish respecting quality and character of wood.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that this matter will receive the government's immediate attention and will not be tied up by the commission that was referred to at an earlier date.


William Stevens Fielding: Under the terms of this resolution we would not be restricted, but much can be said in favour of having the report of a commission before acting.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rose to express the hope that my hon. friend would really go on with the prohibition. I do not think he will gain any further information from a commission. The questions of ownership and so on would be just as real

if there is any real difficulty about them-after as before the report. I know my hon. friend is conversant with the whole matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon.
friend that there are two sides to the question. Sometimes a commission has a good effect in educating the public in a matter which is not generally understood. I think there is more than one side to the question, and I do not wish to commit myself beyond that at the present stage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend will go a little further and say that if there is to be a commission it will proceed with all speed and submit an early report.


William Stevens Fielding: It is desirable. More than that I could not say.


Charles Marcil: The prohibition of the export of pulpwood from farms owned by settlers would be very serious in the province of Quebec, especially in my own constituency. When new land is taken up by a settler he must clear it and dispose of the wood in some way or another. If his export to the United States is forbidden, he is at the mercy of the local dealer, if there is one, otherwise he has no market at all. The legislature of Quebec has refused to go that far; it prohibits the export of wood from Crown lands only. I presume the Dominion government will be guided very largely in this matter by the feeling in my province as expressed by the legislature. I certainly would view with alarm any action taken by this government to prevent the farmer or the settler from exporting his wood to the United States or anywhere else, because this is his only source of revenue until he has a crop to sell. Therefore I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will give us an assurance that these settlers will be exempt from any such prohibition.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Mr. Speaker, there is
not a county in all the Dominion where there are so many new settlers who have gone into the wilderness in the last ten years and established new homes as in my constituency. Along the National Railway about five hundred families have settled recently and cleared their holdings, and now they are looking to the American market to export their pulpwood. They are getting a better price across the line than they are getting on the Canadian side. These people expect that the law will remain as it is, and I hope that when the Minister of Finance gets the report of the commission that is to be appointed, he will take the requests of these people into consideration. I speak not only on behalf [DOT] of the new settlers, but on behalf also of farmers in my constituency who own land
Export Act-Pulpwood

and what might be called lots in second, third and fourth tiers and which are being retained for the purpose of cutting the wood thereon. They make a business out of it; they export these woods to the very best market. I know that many pulp mills in Canada own their own land, but they also buy from the farmers. I ask that these new settlers as well as the longer established farmers be protected by the minister in this respect.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should think that the minister could look after both interests without trouble. The mill owners who are given certain rights in connection with these great national resources have some obligation to the state, I do'not know why the regulations should not go further than they do, and I do not know why the farmers and others should not be assured of a market for their pulpwood. After all, it is in the interests of the pulp people to preserve the forests; in many cases they have not much as it is. The pulpwood rates in the States are always low. The railway haul from Canadian points to American points is always expensive. It would be no very great hardship on the paper companies of this province if they had to buy the settlers' wood at a price which would equal the American price less the freights that the farmer would otherwise be out. The farmer would lose nothing and the country would be able to conserve its resources.


Mr. POWER:: Is it the hon. gentleman's
suggestion that the government should fix a maximum price or a minimum price for the purchase of pulpwood?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, there is
a market price; the matter of regulation would always be in the hands of the government. If they thought the farmers were being unfairly treated, they could act accordingly.


Charles Gavan Power: Who fixes the market
price?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The public demand in the States is fixing it every day.


Charles Gavan Power: It varies from county to
county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It varies, but on what? Not on what affects the main price, but on the freight rates in that particular county and also on the man who is making the contracts in that particular county.


Charles Gavan Power: It varies with the man wh >
s making the contracts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course the
government cannot look after all that, but there is a general scale in the market that is now being talked about, that is, the American market. It costs just so much to get into that market, and it should be no hardship to the Canadian manufacturer to take that pulpwood without the cost of the freight.


Mr. EVANS:: What is the real purpose of prohibiting the export of pulpwood?


William Stevens Fielding: It is argued that the
forests are becoming destroyed, that we need to put on some general restrictions, and particularly that this is a Very valuable article that we need at home. There is much to be said on both sides of the question, but generally speaking the argument is that we should use it at home instead of exporting it. I am giving the current view on the subject; just how far we may act on this resolution is a question that remains to be con. sidered.


John Evans: There are two sides to the question. One is that we are asked to prohibit the exportation of pulpwood in order to preserve our forests.


William Stevens Fielding: Anything which diminishes the cut.


Mr EVANS:: 
Murray MacLaren: I notice that the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) holds the view that should an embargo be placed upon the export of pulpwood the opportunity of the sale of that wood would be lost to many of our farmers; and I suppose that applied more particularly to the county of Gaspq. The hon. member must disregard the market that is now available in Canada. I cannot quite see how he entertains the view that the placing of an embargo on the export of pulpwood would result in substantially the elimination of the market. I do not think that is the case.


Charles Marcil: If you bar out the American purchaser our farmers will be at the mercy of the Canadian paper makers, who will pay any price they like. Gaspe is far removed from Toronto and other places where they have mills, and our railway accommodation is very poor. The result of any such embargo as is proposed might cause those engaged in this industry to flock into the cities or go to the United States, as they are doing even now.


Murray MacLaren: I must confess I do nut-share that outlook. First of all, if the embargo is put on there will still be the market as it exists to-day; there will be an increased market, as I believe. The paper mills will increase their output for sale in this country rather than for export and manufacture into paper across the line. The hon. member for Bonaventure says there will be a lack of competition and therefore a low price for the pulpwood. I think there are too many pulp mills in Canada to-day to admit of any fixed price. The putting on of an embargo will increase the number of our pulp factories; it will prevent the establishing of any set pri :e, and -will lead to competition as it does in any other industry. At the present time I presume that the hon. member for Bonaventure would not suggest that there is a combine among the pulp mills in Canada. Still less is it likely to be the case in the future wt-there will be an increase in the number of pulp factories.


Mr. LEGER:: I would draw the attention of the minister to the situation in our part of the country. In the county which I represent most of the land is Crown land. The farmers have wood on their land and almost
every year cut a certain number of cords of pulpwood which they offer for sale in the best market. For the last few years we have had to ship our pulpwood to the United States. In the latter part of last summer right in the little town where I live there were over two thousand cords shipped to the United States by water. These people are poor and have to work hard and I do not think we should deprive them of this chance to sell a few cords of pulpwood in the best market and if the market is not sufficient in our part of the country they should be allowed the chance to export to the United States. I would therefore ask the minister to reconsider the situation and not to do anything that will place at a disadvantage these poor people who have to work very hard for their living and who are making only a few dollars a year in this way. This measure is certain to cut their living, and I think that it should not be made applicable to pulpwood on Crown lands.


Mr. FORTIER:: I want to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr, Marcil). The settlers in the constituency which I represent will certainly suffer if this measure goes into effect. There is probably a remark that should be made as to the different kinds of pulpwood that can be cut. It has been said by a previous speaker that the mills in Canada would buy all the pulpwood of our forests. For spruce and balsam there is a good local market I am told, but for poplar and basswood there is no market in this country or a veiy restricted market, and if this prohibition of export goes into effect the settlers will certainly suffer and not be in a position to sell all the pulpwood on their farms. Consequently I trust that the resolution will not be carried into effect.


Robert James Manion: I should like to say a
few words in support of the resolution because I believe that generally speaking it is worth trying. It is quite possible that the point made by my hon. friend from Saskatoon may have to be taken into consideration later, and that is one of the reasons why I believe the matter is better left in the hands of the Governor in Council, because if it was found that the farmer was really suffering because of this restriction on the export of pulpwood he should get consideration. I think that would be the desire of everybody. But we must not forget that the real market for pulp and paper is in the United States. Last year our exports of pulp, paper and forest products to the United States amounted to something like
Export Act-Pulpwood

$200,000,000, and the competition for pulp-wood will go on even though the export of pulpwood is discontinued. I made it my
business recently because my part of the country is very much interested' in this matter-we have many pulp and paper mills there, and the farmers are cutting and selling pulpwood from their land just as they are in the county of Bonaventure and other sections of the country that have been spoken of-I made it my business to make certain inquiries among those in a position to know and the general opinion was that if the export of pulpwood is prohibited the price will not decrease, because the internal competition among the mills is sufficient to keep prices to about the same level as at present. Yet if it were found that that was not the case and that the farmers were being injured by the fact that export was prohibited it would be a wise precaution on the part of the government to protect the farmer to that extent. But I am influenced more by the articles of Mr. Frank Barnjum. I have had the privilege of reading many of his articles for a long period now, and he knows the pulp and paper business I believe from the bottom up. I believe that he is absolutely sincere in making a stand at his own expense in the interests of the forests of this country. He has not only told us in his writings but. I have had the pleasure of having him tell me personally on a number of occasions that one of the greatest cures for the depletion of our forests is this very action that the minister proposes to take. I did not know that the minister was going to bring in this resolution. I had not seen any notice to that effect, and I had intended putting a resolution on the order paper next year along similar lines myself for the good of the country. I repeat, if we find that the farmers are suffering because of an order of this kind I believe that the prohibition of export should be taken off, but in the meantime I think that the minister is bringing forward legislation which should be supported by this House and be given a fair trial.


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to oppose this resolution. I may say at the outset that I am somewhat interested in that should the resolution pass my somewhat attenuated pocket-book will be still further attenuated. I may say also in order to be perfectly frank with the House that- if they consider that my judgment is not altogether disinterested they may at any rate give me credit for some knowledge of the question that is being discussed.

In the province of Quebec and in the province of Ontario at the present time the exportation of pulpwood from Crown lands is prohibited. This' measure will have for effect the prohibition of the exportation of pulpwood cut from off private lands, that is, 11 p.m. lands held in fee simple, lands the entire property of which is vested in the owner. As the House is aware under the laws of Ontario, and I think notably in the province of Quebec certain very large tracts of timber lands are held under what is called license. The license amounts to a lease for which a yearly rental is paid, and this lease is practicallj'- everlasting provided the lessee fulfils his obligations and pays his rent. But what this measure aims at is to take control of the timber belonging to the owner of the land. It is just as if the government were to say to some of my Progressive friends from the West: Every bushel of wheat which you grow on your farms must be sold in Canada to the Canadian millers. I ask the government to tell us why there should be a discrimination between the farmer and the holder of timber lands. Take a farmer on one lot and alongside of him a man who owns a timber lot. The farmer may export to the four corners of the globe. The owner of the timber may only sell to five, six, ten or fifteen paper companies, most of whom have timber limits1 extending over an area of many miles and if the price does not suit them they can cut their own timber. Should this legislation go into force I foresee that the price of pulpwood in Quebec, at any rate, and I should imagine in Ontario, will hardl}1 pay for the cost of taking it out of the bush. It has been said I think that arrangements are to be made to exempt the farmer from this prohibition. How these regulations are to be made has not been explained to me, nor do I quite conceive of any means to be taken by the government to make such regulations. For instance, they say that a man who owns 100 acres of timber land is a farmer, and the man who owns 1,000 acres is not a farmer.
We have in Quebec seigneurial lands, some of them held since the early days of the French colonies, granted by the Kings of France. In 1S54, it is true, a great many of the feudal rights of these seigneurs were taken away, but even at that time compensation was given, and it was not thought proper to destroy the rights of ownership in the holdings of the seigneurs. These lands are held in some cases by the same family; in other cases they have been transferred from one to another for two or three centuries, and they will be affected by this regulation. In some

Export Act-Pulpwood
cases these seigneurs are farming their own lands, but they may have so many acres of timber lands held in fee simple. They may be farmers. Are the government going to say that because a man has more than 200 acres he shall not be treated as a farmer? Are they going to take away from these men rights which have been held for generations? To give an example of the manner in which some of these seigneurs have carried on their business, I quote the Seigneur of Lotbiniere, in the county of my hon. friend from Lotbiniere. The De Lotbiniere family have been there for a number of generations. The late governor, I think, of British Columbia, Sir Henry Joly de Lotbiniere, took a great interest in reforestation and forestry questions. He set to [DOT] work many years ago, and planted trees all over the estate, brought experts over from Germany and other countries in Europe; so that to-day he has a very fine estate, and the land is worth a great deal of money. Is it fair or just for this government t.o simply, by a stroke of the pen, say to the present owner of this estate, "You may not export this timber" and thus diminish the value of the seigneury by about one-fourth? I submit it practically means confiscation. It is neither fair, just nor right.
It has been said we are taking this step to preserve our forests, yet, if I understand the meaning of the minister aright, we are to allow the settlers to continue to ship the pulpwood which they cut to the United States but we are to prevent the seigneurs and other freeholders from doing so. Without having the figures before me I will venture to suggest to the government that at least 60 per cent of the pulpwood which is now being exported to the United States is being exported from the settlers' land. In a great majority of cases large companies or other people who own freehold lands have been very careful about getting rid of them because they have a considerable value owing to the very fact that pulpwood can be exported and with very few exceptions they have been carrying on reforestation and endeavouring, as it were, to farm their holdings. In view of the fact that within the last two or three weeks the eastern provinces have been devastated by vast conflagrations, and in view of the fact that the timber which was affected thereby must be cut next winter, otherwise it will have to rot in the bush, we will find in the spring of 1924 large quantities of pulpwood on the market. If I would be allowed to make a suggestion to the provincial governments of Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick, I would say that, instead of prohibiting the exportation, they should permit the exportation of pulpwood to the United States, at least for two or three years, in order to stabilize the pulpwood market; so that this timber which has been destroyed, or partially so, by fire and which will be eventually destroyed unless it is cut within one year may be exported to the United States and that the price will be, at least, sufficient to cover the cost of cutting down and taking it to the railways.
There is another phase of the situation. We have in this House, and particularly on this side of the House, been talking about and arguing at great length for freer trade, and for doing away with the barriers of trade, asking that we be given a chance to go into the American market. Here we are putting up, not a tariff but a Chinese wall, which prevents us selling to the American market. I submit wo are inconsistent, and that we are not carrying out our programme, our platform and our promises. Should such legislation be passed, we will be denying the very principles on which we are supposed to stand and we will be going back on everything the Liberal party holds sacred.
There is another phase of the situation. During the war and shortly afterwards I remember the chamber in the Victoria Museum building ringing with vehement utterances in which we decried government by order in council. Is there any more striking example of government by order in council than this resolution which is being brought down?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles Gavan Power: We have a blanket resolution which tells us nothing, and simply says that regulations will be made regarding pulpwood. I have every confidence in the government but I am sorry to say it must have been badly advised when it brought down this resolution. I have no doubt the time has come when a commission should be appointed to study the question. I have no objection to a commission, I think it would be a good thing. The people of this country have much to learn with regard to pulpwood and its exportation. Let us appoint a commission and let them make a full study of the question.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member know of any potential commissioners who are still at large?


Charles Gavan Power: No, but if the hon. member will give me the names of any I may recommend them. If the government announces its intention of naming a commission, there will be no difficulty in finding the com-
Export Act-Pulpwood

missioners. Let the government make a full and complete study of the question and if, after a study of the question, the commission brings in a report that the exportation of pulpwood shall be prohibited, I think the majority of the people will be willing to back up that statement, but until such time as the government has fuller information than it has, and until such time as this House has full information, I submit we should not enter hastily into any such legislation as that now before us.


Mr. BAXTER:: This subject requires I think and will obtain the most careful consideration of this committee. I want to say something from the standpoint of the province of New Brunswick. I do not pretend to know the whole lumber or pulpwood situation in New Brunswick; but I can say to members of the House that, as in Quebec, there are the government lands which have unfortunately been most disastrously ravaged, first by the bud worm and in the last two weeks by fire. Our resources in that respect are considerably affected, and the government of that province must be seriously concerned with the question of what policy it shall adopt. We have also privately owned lands. For some reason the policy of New Brunswick has been to prohibit the export of pulpwood cut from government limits; but that prohibition has not been and, perhaps, could not be applied to privately owned lands, on all production of privately owned lands where there is not enough to support one pulp mill, because to impose a prohibition of exportation in absolute terms, would be really to throw people into the hands of local buyers. The government of New Brunswick has not compelled that course to be taken. Where an owner of freehold lands has also been a leaseholder from the province, the government has permitted him to export from Crown lands a quantity equal to that which he might have taken off his privately-owned lands, but so that t-he total quantity would not be greater than that which he sent out of the province. It was necessary to pursue a course of that kind. The policy I speak of is the one which was first adopted by New Brunswick. Then a succeeding government prohibited the exportation absolutely, and they had to come back to the original proposition because of the extreme difficulty of adjusting the pulpwood business.
Under these circumstances, I think legislation by order in council or directly requires the very closest co-operation and concurrence of the provincial governments. This, I think I may say, is a matter of vital importance to 
__
the government of New Brunswick as regards revenue. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will say to me that his government will take all these things into consider-atiton. But may I ask: When will they do this? Between now possibly and the next session of parliament. But is it to be expected that any regulations in the nature of absolute prohibition would be brought into effect so quickly as that? Would not a period of time be given to allow the very serious readjustment which must take place of people's business? I would say that an anticipatory note of at least a year would only be fair, and yet I want to see every bit of forest value preserved for the people of this country. So far as the legislation is in that direction, it has my sympathy and it should have my support; but I want it to be brought into operation in such a way as to cause just as little dislocation of industry as possible. Therefore, I think I am right in assuming, and I think the minister will be one of the first in the House to concede that a change of the character ought not to be brought into effect instantaneously or with a notice of only two or three months. If that is conceded, I accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), which I think has great merit, that there should be a commission. I understand the minister is favourable to that. As regards naming commissioners, I do not think that there will be the slightest difficulty in obtaining them without resort to the ranks of party supporters on any of the three sides of this triangular House. One name, that of Mr. Frank Barnjum, stands out pre-eminently. He is a man who has spent a great deal of his money and who has devoted his energy to the work of endeavouring to preserve to the people of Canada that heritage which they possess in standing timber. A man of that character with another similar to him, associated with him, could give a report that would be of value, and it would come in quite time enough if we had it at the next session of parliament. I am not going to inveigh any more strongly than my hon. friend (Mr. Power) has just donq, against government by order in council. It is sufficient that the emergency of war has passed, and I think all parties agree that there should be as little government by order in council as there may be. Very much of the administration of the government of the country must be conducted by order in council; but when we come to a matter of such great importance as this, to a complete change of policy, I do not thint-it would be out of the way to ask that a

Export Act-Pulpwood
definite measure should be laid before and receive the sanction of parliament. Reading this resolution, how do I know, how does any other hon. member know whether this is a move-and it might be a right and proper move-on the part of the Minister of Finance in the direction of bargaining with the United States? It may be simply intended to force them to better terms with regard to their tariff. I would not reprobate it if it were for that purpose. Perhaps the minister cannot state that very publicly, and I would possibly vote for it if that element were in it. On the other hand, how do I know that with the comparatively limited view of the subject that must be taken in government circles, immense injury might not be done, not only to private interests, but to public interests in the provinces which would be principally affected? Therefore I say, before anything is done, there ought to be first a proper investigation. If that investigation is made by competent men and if the recommendation seems at all suitable to the conditions which they find, those recommendations ought, if possible, to be accepted by this House. But even before that, there ought to be an opportunity for discussion, for proper representation, for consideration, before we enter upon this thing which, however praiseworthy it may be in itself, may very easily lead to an absolute dislocation of a very important branch of industry, may stop employment, may drive people to the wall, and may seriously impair in the province from which I come the very funds upon which the government must rely in order to carry on the everyday business of that province. Therefore I join the hon. member for Quebec South in pressing, so far as I may do so, upon the minister the advisability of proceeding now by commission and letting the result of that commission come before the next session of parliament. Then let us have a government policy which will be clear and distinct, which we can debate here and to which, if we see any objection, we can suggest amendments, and perhaps suggest to the government some better course which will do good to all and harm to none.


Mr. LOVETT:: I must congratulate the
government on the resolution now before the committee dealing with the question of an embargo on pulpwood.
In the recent budget debate, I spoke at some length on the subject of forest conservation; but I wish again to urge on hon. members of this House the great necessity of immediate and drastic steps being taken to conserve our forest wealth, and as a means to this end, to support this resolution which
empowers the government to take prompt action.
No element of consideration for what is considered individual rights of the estimated two per cent of Canadian farmers who wish to export pulpwood from Canada should be allowed to blur our vision or influence the hon. members of this House on whom rests the grave responsibility of safeguarding our national interests. This is not a matter of the moment; it is not a matter of respecting minority rights; it is a matter which makes for the weal or woe of Canada in the future. And in the light of clarified vision which will surely come in the future on this question, the parliament of 1923 will either in the future appear as the protector and preserver of Canada's great forest wealth or it will be blackened by its failure to act decisively and promptly in what must be considered a serious situation. We have often heard the argument advanced that the restriction of pulpwood export is a violation of individual rights and liberties.. In answer to this argument let me say that all laws for the benefit of a country as a whole must infringe on personal liberty. Where would this or any other country be if individual liberty of action were not controlled by laws when that action was detrimental to the general good? As well might one say that we should not control the personal liberty of our fishermen by establishing fishing seasons, or of our huntsmen by defining hunting seasons, as well as to say that we should allow pulpwood to be cut from fee lands at the owner's will regardless of the loss to the country as a whole. All are natural resources and as such can never be wholly individually controlled. An embargo on the exporting of pulpwood cut on fee land might apparently work hardships on a small percentage of the estimated farmers who wish to export it but ultimately it would result in public good by forcing pulp and paper companies to locate in Canada, thus increasing the home market for their products, both forest and agricultural and increasing the chances of employment for their children, capitalized industries sharing the weight of taxation under which Canadians labour to-day and will labour for some time to come.
Other countries, notably Norway, Sweden and Finland, the very countries which our Canadians meet as competitors for the world's trade in pulp and paper products have not hesitated to prohibit the export of pulpwood, and these great industrial countries are looking upon Canada with amazement that for a few petty obstacles she is acting the spendthrift with her forest wealth
Export Act-Pulpwood

The United States' capitalists whose business acumen is undoubted will accept this embargo as an evidence of ordinary business sense and already they are preparing for it by buying large tracts of available pulp lands; and the}' will locate plants here for the manufacture of raw material unless they are still allowed to get it out of the country to be manufactured into the finished article by their own workmen. It is estimated that the United States have only enough timber of their own to supply their mills for five or at most ten years. Are our Canadian forests to be depleted as under present conditions they surely will be by the United States while that country's supply is conserved? These are facts. Let me recite some of them. The original virgin forests of the United States amounted to 830,000,000 acres; at the present	time they have only
130.000.	000 acres. Their annual deforested	areas from	all causes total	26,-
000,000 acres. The United States depends on Canada for 50 per cent of its newsprint and 30 per cent of its pulp. Canada exports yearly of pulpwood 5,000,000 cords. Forest fires in Canada last year totalled 5,000 while the ravages of the bud worm destroyed 150,000,000 cords. The capital invested in Canada in pulp and paper industries approximates
8380.000.	000, with a yearly productive value of $200,000,000, providing employment for 30,000 people, with wages amounting to $28,000,000. The industry uses 644,805 horsepower or nearly one-third of the developed hydraulic resources of Canada. It is estimated that some of our large pulp and paper plants in Canada have barely five years' supply of wood in sight. In 1920, of Canada's cut of pulpwood, 31 per cent was exported to the value of $16,000,000. If exported as manufactured pulp instead of raw wood, the value would have been $84,000,000 and exported as paper, it would have been $105,000,000. If the collected data of indisputable facts can not convince us of the seriousness of the situation we must admit that as in olden times the Heavens have displayed signs of warning. The dense pall of smoke that has hung over Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific during the past few weeks, pervading even this building, is indubitable evidence of the wiping o it of our forests, and their approaching extermination if every possible method is not applied, and quickly applied, to stem this devastation. We must recognize these facts. Our commercial and agricultural prosperity will largely vanish with our forests; our hydraulic powers will be diminished; our fanning country will be left bare and arid; our

pulp and paper industries forced out of existence by lack of raw material, while Canadian money invested in these industries will be lost.. More than that, the exodus of our population in search of employment will b' greater. Our game and fur-bearing animals, a source of great wealth to Canada, will be homeless and will disappear, and Canada, the-land of primeval forests with their priceless value will be a tragic monument to the blunders of its legislators. This is not a party problem and we should not so consider it. It is far above the realm of partv. It reaches down to the very foundation of Canada's national existence, and the way in which we solve it means our continuance as a prosperous people or our speedy retrogression into national bankruptcy. It has been truly said that a dying forest means a dying nation. Let me urge hon. members of all parties in this House to disregard any local situation that may influence their action and support this resolution which authorizes immediate and effective action for the preservation of our forests.


Thomas George McBride: I am fully in sympathy with the resolution. If the people of Canada do not look after their own interests and protect their forests, who will? Last fall I was up in the Cariboo country and I saw a lot of men working in the timber. I went over and found about two hundred Japs cutting our forest down. They were towing the logs down to Vancouver and putting them aboard Japanese ships for Japan. What was Canada receiving from her forests? Absolutely nothing.


Charles Gavan Power: Was this in the form of logs?


Thomas George McBride: I said logs.


Charles Gavan Power: This resolution covers pulpwood only.


Thomas George McBride: Well, what is pulpwood but logs cut into small portions? I have seen in British Columbia the finest logs ever taken out for pulpwood. You do not grow the class of timber down here that we grow in British Columbia. Some years ago I noticed that on every dollar's worth of manufactured goods shipped out of the United States 85 per cent represented labour, while for every dollar's worth shipped out of Canada only 10 per cent represented labour. It is about time that we manufactured our natural resources and got the utmost out of them. If this pulpwood exportation is stopped it will only be a few years before the American concerns will be establishing factories on the Canadian side

Export Act-Pulpwood
of the line and giving employment to our people; and that is what we want.


Mr. DICKIE:: I endorse the remarks of
the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride).
I think it is time we also drew the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to the exportation of raw material from British Columbia in the form of logs. Ruthless destruction of our forests is proceeding and in another generation the forests of Vancouver island will pretty well have disappeared. I have seen one of the grandest forest areas of America wiped out in one generation,-the forest area of the state of Michigan is now a farming country. We do not want our potentialities to be wasted without getting some proper return. I do not think we fully realize what we lose by the exportation of pulpwood. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken quoted some figures. I have other figures which I think will prove conclusively that it is time we did something.
In 1920, 31 per cent of our pulpwood was exported for which we received in round numbers, $16,000,000. We exported 28 per cent as pulp with a value of $76,000,000; 25 per cent as paper worth $87,000,000. Had the $16,000,000 worth of pulpwood exported-been converted into pulp, it would have had a value of $84,000,000; if into paper, $105,000,000,- making a loss to labour, to capital and to Canada of from $68,000,000 to $89,000,000 in one year.
Surely, Sir, this exportation of raw material is the acme of economic folly. In 1921 we produced 2,180,578 cords of pulpwood which were converted into pulp and paper worth $108,677,520. We exported 1,902,533 cords of pulpwood to the United States for which we received only $14,617,610. "And so the play goes on." The folly of it must be apparent to all honourable members.
In Canada we have invested in pulp and paper plants $380,000,000 and an army of men are employed. Why not keep all raw material at home and with it another capable army of men that is leaving for the United States following our raw products to engage in their manufacture. They are following our raw products just as they are following our $172,000,000 which constitute our adverse trade balance with our American neighbours. We are being bled white by our neighbours. Certainly no company would conduct business along these lines, and no country can persist in doing so and not precipitate national disaster. The cry of the world is for lumber and paper. Let us take full advantage of our splendid opportunities and aim for maximum results. Despite
substitutes, the demand for lumber is continually increasing. Yet, Sir, we of British Columbia sit idly by while immense booms of our saw logs are being towed across the line to the state of Washington and our men are following to work in the mills of that state.
It is time we awoke to the necessity of doing something. It is said that if we prohibit the export of pulpwood the Americans might retaliate by placing an embargo on anthracite.
I think if we got our house in order this is the best thing that could happen. In Alberta vve have immense areas of coal which even at present prices would make it good policy for Ontario to buy in preference to looking to Pennsylvania for her fuel requirements. In British Columbia we also have immense coal areas, but it is out of the question to ship our coal so far east as Ontario. In Nova Scotia there are also immense supplies of coal available which could be placed on the market in Ontario at a price just as cheap as that charged for American coal. Why not bum Canadian coal and so s-ave the many millions of dollars that we pay the Americans every year?
We send our pulpwood over to the American side and our men follow to engage in the work of manufacturing it into paper, which is worth many times more than the raw material. We are simply throwing ourselves into the arms of those people who say, "We do not want a pound of your butter unless you pay an import tax of eight cents a pound." At the same time we allow their butter to come into Canada on payment of a duty of only four cents a pound. Why turn our cheek to these people? For every cord of pulpwood that goes over there we may say that six dollars is lost in labour for every dollar that comes into this- country. When we consider that we are losing from $70,000,000 to $90,000,000 by the exportation of pulpwood, is it not time that we quit temporizing and took a bold stand even if somebody has to suffer? And somebody must suffer, but we can easily recompense the five hundred farmers or so who may be hurt by the prohibition of the export of pulpwood. I would impress on the minister the urgent necessity of looking into the exportation of saw-logs from British Columbia. There, by adroit legislation, we have what amounts to an export tax on all timber cut in the country on privately-owned land, but if the wood is worked up in sawmills the tax is remitted. I think the tax runs to about $1.50 per thousand, but that is not sufficient to repay the national loss. We have many American companies operating in British Columbia, and I know one institution that
Export Act-Pulpwood

has spent over a million dollars on a logging railroad. Every log from that camp is sent across to the American side and our men are following the logs to work in the American mills.
How can we expect to succeed unless we take a bold step? Let us use our own coal and manufacture our own forest wealth, and see if we cannot set an example to the world of a country that does not have to tell its people: We cannot pay our way year by year.


Auguste Théophile Léger: In my part of the country
the people cut most of their wood in the month of June, and therefore if this prohibition of export went into effect at once it would mean a great loss to them. As they are dependent on the returns from their wood to pay their taxes and expenses, I trust the government will defer putting this proposed legislation into effect for this season, so that the people I have referred to may have sufficient time to become acquainted with the regulations and act in accordance therewith.


Arthur Meighen: I am entirely in accord with any effective steps that may be taken to preserve our timber supply,and I think something along the lines of this resolution is necessary as one of those effective steps. But I do not think it will get us very far alone, it must be part of a much more comprehensive policy. In the matter of principle I associate myself very earnestly with the views expressed by my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). Indeed, I believe that the law and the prophets is pretty much in his words. I am of course compelled to* admit that his sentiments, while good horse business sense for this Dominion, are sadly out of harmony with those idealistic principles of free trade which we once heard so frequently from hon. gentlemen opposite, but which wa now hear no more. I had some sympathy with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when he displayed an abhorrence of broken pledges and principles and showed that in its every feature this was a violation of those things for which his party was professing, and had in the past very emphatically professed, to stand, and which it yet proclaims as some beautiful ideal that it loves but is sorry that it cannot reach much sooner; all the while it is moving directly the other way. I know they have to fly in the face of every profession to pass this legislation. There is only this to be said: They must always do this if we are ever to get any sensible legislation. We must either do without the government or do without the sensible legislation. But 
my objection to this resolution is mainly another urged by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). It is not legislation at all. It does not even foreshadow legislation; it is simply a proclamation of the government to the House of inability to frame legislation. They say: We cannot bring any legislation before you; we cannot work it out; we have not any policy, but if you will give us the summer we will try to frame something, and we want authority now from the House to make it legislation. In other words, they say: We who almost destroyed our vocal organs for years denouncing order in council government come here and ask for power to pass any orders on earth respecting this new form of policy. Nor is this bill different from any other bill. The hon. member for Quebec South thought this perhaps the most audacious yet offered to get order in council powers, but it is not a particle worse than the last bill. In the worst days of the war- and war times are very different from peace times-powers of this kind were not asked for save on matters directly concerning the prosecution of the war.


Charles Gavan Power: What about the Grand Trunk?


Arthur Meighen: As to the Grand Trunk, we came down with all the conditions, all the principles affecting the legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: By order in council.


Arthur Meighen: No, in the bill. Look at the act. Look at the Canadian National Railway Act; look at the Grand Trunk Acquirement Act.


Charles Gavan Power: Was not the acquisition accomplished by order in council?


Arthur Meighen: No, not at all. Why, the Grand Trunk Pacific was laid at our door, pitched at us by the management. They wrote us a letter on the third of May and told us that on the tenth of May they would be out of business.


Charles Gavan Power: The right hon. gentleman is right.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly I am right. In acquiring the Grand Trunk we asked parliament for all the powers and stated the terms upon which the road would be acquired. Had we proceeded as I will describe in a moment, we would have followed the course adopted here now. Had we brought in a resolution which read as follows: The Governor in Council may acquire the Grand Trunk railway upon such terms and conditions and at such price as may be fixed and according to such regula-

Board of Audit
tions as may be passed by the Governor in Council,-that is the resolution we would have introduced had we followed the course this government is following in introducing this resolution; nor would it have been a bit more audacious. Look at the Grand Trunk Acquirement Act and compare it with this. There is nothing left to regulation except the merest detail. The whole principle of acquirement, the terms of acquirement-everything is there. That is what the government ought to have here. That is legislation; this is not legislation at all. It is merely a flouting of parliament, by those who -were supposed to be rescuing the country from the evils of order in council government, by those who were going to bring back the days of control by legislation. What control is parliament going to have here? The government may do something or it may not. If it does anything, it may do it on whatever terms it likes. It may exempt whomever it likes; it may bring within the circle of the legislation whomever it likes. It may bring one province in and let another province out; there is nothing it may not do if legislation following this resolution passes. Again I say this is not foreshadowing legislation; it is merely asking for a blank cheque from the House of Commons that the government may pass what legislation it may deem wise or expedient for itself later on. It is to be expected that those who talk the loudest about the return to control by parliament are those who act the most defiantly in the very face of parliament when they are in power. I protest against that feature of the resolution and I ask the government to come down with a bill stating upon what terms they propose to prevent the exportation of pulpwood. If the terms are reasonable, I will support them. I am in favour of the principle. I know there are some who will be injured by it, but the individual interest, subject perhaps to proper compensation, must needs bow to the general good. I say I am in favour of the principle, but I ask for legislation. I do not like being asked day after day, sometimes half-a-dozen times a day, simply to sign a parliamentary cheque to an administration which hopes at some later time to be able actually to evolve a bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 242, to amend the Export Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BOARD OF AUDIT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide:
1. That the Governor in Council may appoint a Board of Audit to hold office until the first day of July, 1925, and to be composed of four members, one of whom shall be the Auditor General, one the Deputy Minister of Finance, and the remaining two members shall be public accountants of high standing;
2.	That the public accountants, members of the said board, may be paid for their services such reasonable sums, not exceeding $3,000 each, in any one year as the Treasury Board, may allow; and that the Treasury Board may allow the payment, out of any available appropriation, of necessary amounts for skilled assistants engaged by the Board;
3.	That the said board shall have the following duties and powers:
(a)	to inquire into and report upon the present system of audit of the public revenue and expenditure of Canada and to make recommendations for the more effective control of the same;
(b)	to inquire into the systems of accounting employed by the Canadian National Railway Company and its constituent companies and any commission or other public body whose operations are carried on by appropriations from the treasury, and such other undertakings or services belonging to or receiving aid from the government of Canada as the Minister of Finance may direct, and to make recommendations with respect thereto;
4.	That the members of the board shall for the purposes of these resolutions have the same power as is given to the Auditor General of Canada with respect to the various departments of the Dominion government.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On clause 1.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose that in the absence of the Auditor General the Acting Auditor General would be on the board or would there be no representative from the Audit office?


William Stevens Fielding: I anticipate that the
appointment of an Auditor General will be made very shortly and the real Auditor General will be the chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2.
William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure that we have been very generous in the allowance for this matter. The men to be appointed while they will not give their whole time it is true would have to be gentlemen of high professional standing, and I suggest that it is possible we may find it necessary at a later session to ask for some extension of this amount.
Board of Audit


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would suggest that my friend put it in now if he thinks it is necessary. We want to get results.


William Stevens Fielding: We could not change it without a special resolution, but I am glad to have the assent of my hon. friend. If we find it necessary we will feel free to enlarge the sum and come to parliament for a supplementary vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I am
anxious for is that we should get real efficiency here. It is something much overdue, and I would like to help my friend in getting a really effective instrument.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the failure to give a larger sum will prevent organization at the start, but I quite agree that we have not been too generous in the sum we have named.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3.
Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to me it would be better if they were to have the absolute right of inquiring into these systems, but I suppose the line as to the minister's direction is merely intended to apply to other undertakings or services belonging to or receiving aid from the government.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In other words they must inquire into the system of accounting by the Canadian National Railway Company and its constituent companies and any other commissions or public bodies for which we provide appropriations.


William Stevens Fielding: That is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And if my hon. friend wants them to do anything else they are to do it.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 243, to constitute a Board of Audit.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 4-Auditor General Chairman.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to ask the minister whether he thinks that should be put in the act or whether it should not be left to him? A great deal would depend, of course, on what he intends to do 
in connection with the office. I am perfectly free to confess in view of past performances that unless he is intending to bring in new blood I would hesitate to say that the Auditor General should be the chairman of the Board of Audit.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend may be satisfied that there will be nothing wrong in that respect. I am sorry to say that a slight amendment of a purely formal character which I intended to move seems
12 m. to have been mislaid. I cannot find it among my papers, and I shall be glad to let the bill remain in committee for that purpose. It is of a purely formal character regarding moneys out of appropriations voted. After having passed the various clauses perhaps the chairman will be good enough to hold the bill in committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend thinks it will be quite all right in connection with the chairmanship. I want to emphasize that we are really looking for changes and improvements and I do not think we Could get them under the chairmanship of somebody whose experience is confined to that office as it now is.


William Stevens Fielding: While I have very great respect for the Acting Auditor General who has rendered most admirable service, still I think probably he is not at the time of life when it would be desirable to appoint him Auditor General. Frankly I do not contemplate his appointment. I desire to speak in the highest terms of his services and I may at a later stage request that he receive some recognition.
On section 16-Act not to impair authority of Auditor General.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The effect of
section 16 is to make the board advisory?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps it is
just as well to leave it that way, but it means that we get nothing done for this year.


William Stevens Fielding: They may report from
time to time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is nothing that would give the minister the right to change the authority given by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think any
changes will be necessary which will require legislative authority. I should think tlmy would be within our executive authority.

Industrial Disputes


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not contemplated
they should only be employed for a certain time and then replaced by others?


William Stevens Fielding: No, this is a temporary organization and in a period of two years they should review the whole business, and advise such changes as may be necessary. They are not to audit any particular accounts but to review the audit system. It applies to the whole system generally, and I think it can be done in two years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the real underlying principle is that we want to have a real audit,, rather than to have a mere audit of disbursements. We want a commercial audit of our business, something that will give effect to the pre-audit system, which is the audit system of all properly conducted establishments.


William Stevens Fielding: We want them to inquire into and report on the very things my hon. friend has mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 117 to amend the Insurance Act.
William Stevens Fielding: Tins bill was practically disposed of in committee, except that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) offered a suggestion by way of amendment which we thought we should consider. The matter has received consideration, the Superintendent of Insurance has conferred with the hon. member for St. John, and an amendment has been suggested in which I entirely concur, 1 now ask the committee to receive it.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment submitted by the hon. member for St. John appears on the last page of the bill. It will be section 6, and reads as follows:
In any case where there has been imperfect compliance with a statutory condition as to the proof of law to be given by the insured, or as to any matter or thing to be done or omitted by the insured after the maturity of the contract, and a consequent forfeiture or avoidance of the insurance in whole or in part, and the court deems it inequitable that the insurance should be forfeited or avoided on that ground, the court may relieve against the forfeiture or avoidance on such term as it may deem just.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 7.
George Newcombe Gordon: Section 7 will read
as follows:
No such company shall issue in Canada a valued policy of automobile insurance.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 84, an Act to amend The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
Hon. Mr. MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House disagrees to their amendments to Bill No. 84, an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, for reasons that the said amendments defeat the objects aimed at in the bill and would complicate rather than simplify procedure.
He said: This bill as originally introduced into the House of Commons had as its object the amendment of sections 15, 27 and 58. No new features were proposed, the amendments seeking simply to convey more clearly the intent of those sections as they had been generally understood; also in the case of section 58 a specific penalty was provided for an offence with regard to which in the statute as it had stood a penalty was implied but not stated. The principal amendment was that whereby in section 57 it is provided that where employer or workmen intend or desire to make a change in wages or hours "it shall be unlawful for the employer to make effective a proposed change in wages or hours or for the employees to go on strike until the dispute has been finally dealt with by a board and a copy of its report has been delivered through the registrar to both the parties affected." This proposed amendment in no way varies the intent of the clause but makes its meaning indisputable. In the amending bill this same section 57 is further amended by requiring that "the application for the appointment of a board shall be made by the employers or employees proposing the change in wages or hours." Whilst it has seemed clearly the intent of the statute that an application for the establishment of a board should proceed from the party proposing any such change as contemplated, yet this is not expressly stated, and, in the case of the several hundred boards which have been established in the past sixteen or seventeen years, the applications from the employers have been few in number, not, in fact, exceeding more than two or three per cent, a situation which has worked serious in-
Industrial Disputes

justice to the workmen and has naturally aroused their resentment. Under the amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour when the employer proposed a change it would be his duty to make application for a conciliation board.
The amending bill passed the House of Commons without change. As the bill has been returned to this House, its object with respect to clarification of section 57 is entirely defeated, whilst an additional clause affecting the appointment of the chairman of a board has been added to the bill, which, if accepted, would tend seriously to delay and embarrass those administering the statute. The bill as it is now before parliament leaves section 57 without the clarifying additions proposed in the amending statute, but with a clause added which is quite inconsistent with and contrary in its effect _to the main clause, for whereas clause 57 as it now stands provides quite clearly that a change with regard to wages and hours cannot be made effective until any dispute arising has been "dealt with by a board and a copy of its report has been delivered through the registrar to both the parties affected;" yet the proposed amendment of the upper House apparently seeks to have the proposed change effective as soon as the application for a board has been made.
The effect of this portion of the proposed addition to section 57 is therefore to render the whole section contradictory and confusing as between its different paragraphs. The remainder of the clause proposed as supplementary to section 57 adds to the confusion . by introducing a reference to the retroactive character of the findings of a board. The reference in question does not actually add to the authority which a conciliation board has always been free to exercise, and, with regard to the declaration contained in the last sentence of the supplementary clause that "on the failure of either party to abide by the decision of the board, the other party may have recourse to a strike or lockout as the case may be," this also in no way increases or extends the rights or powers of the parties to a dispute beyond those which they would in any case possess under the statute. The amendment of the upper House with respect to section 57 would, therefore, have the effect of confusing, complicating and delaying procedure, without bringing compensating benefit of any kind.
The amendment proposed by the upper House with regard to section 8 respecting the appointment of a chairman introduces a new feature. The statute as it stands provides for
(Mr. Murdock.]
the selection of a chairman by joint agreement when possible of the other two members of a conciliation board, and requires that, where no agreement is reached, the minister shall make the necessary appointment. In about one-half of several hundred boards which have been established a chairman has been secured by agreement. It had become a general though not invariable practice for the Minister of Labour, when called upon to appoint a chairman, to select a judge, but this practice ceased when two or three years ago the Judges' Act was so amended as to prohibit the acceptance by a judge of the fees ordinarily payable to a chairman or member of a conciliation board. It is true that the Minister of Labour is not under the Judges' Act, as it has been amended, prohibited from asking a judge to act as a chairman, nor is a judge apparently prohibited from accepting a chairmanship; but since fees are no longer payable in such circumstances to a judge, it has not been thought reasonable as a rule to request a judge to undertake the duties involved in a chairmanship; such duties, it will be understood, are frequently of a severe and arduous nature and in nearly all cases are of the highest moment to employers and to large numbers of workmen, as well as frequently to the public. In two cases since the amendment of the Judges' Act, judges have been, however, appointed, once by the Minister of Labour of the late administration and once by the present Minister of Labour, but in the latter case the appointment was made on the joint recommendation of the other board members. In both cases the judges concerned accepted from a sense of public duty; no fees were of course paid them. It may be said that there is every advantage in a chairman being secured by joint agreement and the Minister of Labour appoints a chairman with reluctance. Inquiry shows that this has been the case with most previous ministers. The chances of an agreement are manifestly increased when a chairman is secured by joint request of other board members. The method or system, however, under which different Ministers of Labour have made appointments has not been the subject of any known criticism, and certainly the files contain no communications requesting or suggesting a change in the present practice. The objections to the system laid down in the Senate amendment are obvious. In the first place, the appointment of a chairman by a chief justice, whether the Chief Justice of a province or of the Supreme Court of Canada, would entail inevitable delay. Such delays would be particularly unfortunate since,

Industrial Disputes
despite every effort under present procedure, one side or other of the disputing parties is sometimes disposed to object to the time necessarily occupied in procedure. In the second place, a chief justice or other judge cannot possibly be as intimately seized of the nature of the dispute involved and of the particular type therefore of man wanted for the chairmanship as would be the Minister of Labour, who has established the board and has been in touch with details of procedure from its inception. It would be impossible to convey to a judge at a distant point by correspondence, which would of necessity be us a rule by telegraph with consequent expenditure and some danger of inaccuracy, all the particulars which should be properly at hand to enable the judge to reach a correit conclusion as to the type of person apparently best suited for the important duties involved. The judge would exericse his best judgment and the appointment might or might not prove to be a good one. In any case the minister who is charged with the administration of the statute would be freed from responsibility on this most vital aspect of administration and the judges would become involved in the technicalities of departmental procedure. Since a considerable proportion of the disputes dealt with under the statute extend tj two or more provinces, the task of naming the chairman of conciliation boards would under the proposed Senate amendment fall most frequently to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who from the nature of his functions may be presumed to be furthest removed from contact with industrial disputes and necessarily therefore the more dependent on the advice of others as to the type of person best suited for a chairman. Despite the high legal and other attainments which a chief justice would undoubtedly possess, it is submitted that, in addition to the complication and delays in procedure which the proposed system of appointing chairmen would entail, the suggested change would be highly detrimental to the successful administration of the statute. I would, therefore, move that the amendments of the Senate be not concurred in.


Arthur Meighen: I was not in at the moment the minister started. Would he tell the committee what he was reading from?


James Murdock: A carefully prepared
statement indicating the views on the amendments that have been made to Bill No. 84 since it left this House.


Arthur Meighen: Indicating whose views?


James Murdock: The reader's views.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to that. I did not know the minister was reading his speech. I thought he was fortifying his position from some real authority. In fact, I rather commend the intiative the minister has shown to-night in being very careful to read his speech.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the right hon. gentleman not consider the Minister of Labour a real authority on labour matters?


Arthur Meighen: There are certain things he is not a real authority on as I am compelled to admit reluctantly.


Samuel William Jacobs: In the matter of labour legislation, the right hon. gentleman will admit that the Minister of Labour is a good authority.


Arthur Meighen: As regards legislation he may be a very good workman, I have no doubt. If there is to be a difference between the Senate and the House of Commons in this matter I think I can offer a solution. In general I have no objection to the minister naming the third arbitrator in cases where it is essential that an outside party be named to act in that capacity. I think I may say it has been very general up to a certain time, as set out in the memorandum read by the minister and prepared by himself-* well, I do not know that I can say that it was prepared by himself-that the person appointed was a judge. But as the memorandum states, since the time when by statute of this parliament, the judges were forbidden to accept outside remuneration, there has been some difficulty apparently in having judges act in such cases. I want to say very frankly that I do not think there should be any difficulty in having judges act in these matters, and in my opinion the statute should be amended so as to provide that the taking on of work of this kind shall be obligatory on the judge. I believe that the judges of this country to-day receive ample remuneration for the work they do, particularly the county court judges, who formerly did act under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. There are county court judges in this province who have not enough work to keep them-I almost said warm-at the present time, and why they should not be willing to serve the country by officiating as arbitrators under the Industrial Disputes Act I do not know. At the time the bill was passed which

i
Industrial Disputes

prevented their taking extra remuneration for commission work, the judges' salaries were very substantially raised, and if they decline to act in such an appropriate capacity as that of arbitrator under the Industrial Disputes Act then, I ask, why does not the government bring in a measure to make this work a part of the duties of county court judges, or, for that matter, of other judges?


William Stevens Fielding: Can we define their
duties?
Mr.	MEIGHEN:	Of	course,Mr.	FIELDING:	Are	you sure?Mr.	MEIGHEN:	We	have done	so.Mr.	FIELDING:	The	constitution	of the
courts is within provincial jurisdiction.


Arthur Meighen: The constitution of the
courts is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, of course; but we can add to the duties of the judges. As a matter of fact we have done so. For example, we make the duties of judges obligatory under our Elections Act.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The constitution and
procedure of the courts comes within the jurisdiction of the	provinces. The only
matter that appertains to federal authority is the appointment of the judges. Does not my hon. friend think that it would be ultra vires for the federal authority to impose extra burdens on any judge?


Arthur Meighen: The first proposition of
my hon. friend is right, that the constitution and the procedure of the court are matters of provincial jurisdiction. But as to what a judge shall do is not a matter of procedure nor does it relate to the constitution of the court. Under our Dominion Elections Act and under our Controverted Elections Act, for instance, we assigned duties to judges.


Jacques Bureau: Within the province.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, within the province. And we assign duties to the judges under the Criminal Code. In fact, there are statutes galore of this House assigning duties to judges.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend is a
clever lawyer. We should like him to explain that point.


Arthur Meighen: I thought I was explaining it. I say that in our Criminal Code we assign duties to the judges.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The Criminal Code
is federal in its constitution.
	,


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, and so is this a matter of federal jurisdiction or we should not be passing it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does that assign duties to judges?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. The regular judges are assigned duties under these various federal statutes, for the purposes designated, and this has been the practice for a great many years. It is immaterial whether or not they are assigned the duties in their function as judges; so long as they are assigned those duties it becomes obligatory on the judges to perform them; and why they should not perform these particular duties, which are pre-eminently of a judicial character, I cannot see. They are the proper persons to perform those duties. If the judges are made eligible I do not object to the minister being given the power to name the third arbitrator. I apprehend that what those who object to the bill in the form in which it passed this House have in mind is that the minister, not being able to appoint judges, will appoint some person whom he wishes to favour or who in his opinion will give a judgment suitable to himself. It is that fear that has no doubt animated the amendments, and we could remove it by making it compulsory on judges to accept this work. I cannot speak for the other House, of course, but it seems to me that it might well be agreed that if this work is made the compulsory duty of judges, the objections which the Senate entertained to the bill as it passed the House of Commons would be removed.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does not my hon. friend think it would be advisable in the case of any dispute in a province to let the Governor in Council of the province name the arbitrator, seeing that they would be more familiar with the conditions?


Arthur Meighen: I do not like the principle of this House passing legislation to enable another government to appoint anyone.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I was not suggesting that; I was merely asking my hon. friend for his opinion.


Arthur Meighen: Well, my opinion is in the negative, and I will argue the matter more in detail when a bill of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) comes up. To my mind the right thing to do is to assign these duties to the judges. That done, it seems to me that the basic objection to the legislation would be removed.

Industrial Disputes
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING fPrime Minister): I gather from what my right hon. friend says that he assumes that the Senate had in mind in its recommendation that the minister might make a partisan appointment or appoint someone for personal reasons. I think my hon. friend is mistaken in any view that the minister has done anything of the kind, or that the records of the past will show any such thing. If one looks over the list of those appointed as chairmen of boards of arbitration, one will be struck with the circumstance that for the most part the chairmen have been remarkably free from partisan bias.


Arthur Meighen: That would not apply to Alex. Smith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Alex. Smith is an able lawyer and his part as arbitrator went to show that his selection was a remarkably good one. We can only judge of the worth of appointees by the nature of the service they render, and my hon. friend will find that the chairmen of practically all boards have really given remarkable satisfaction in the generality of cases so far as the discharge of their duties is concerned. It is not for us, I think, to assume what the motives were, but one realizes that in the other Chamber they are inclined to look to the courts for many matters to which we in this House would look to ministers responsible to the House and through the House to the public; end it would be a mistake to get away from that responsibility which ministers of the Crown have to parliament for appointments that are made. There is a large field to draw from apart from the courts. There are many business men of wide experience such, for example, as college professors, and men of the legal and other professions, and there is a very large body of public-spirited persons who take interest in social and economic questions. That whole field is open from which to select chairmen for boards of arbitration. I agree with my right hon. friend that the judges have in many cases made excellent, chairmen. In the case of county court judges I think it ought to be made possible to have them selected in any event as chairmen of boards of arbitration; but I certainly would be strongly opposed to giving to the chief justice of a province the naming of the third arbitrator. I think the appointment should remain where it is at present, in the hands of the minister.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion speaks again he will close the debate.


Arthur Meighen: He simply read a memorandum.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. minister, I understand, takes a different position to that taken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. If any other hon. member desires to speak on the motion he should do so now before the debate is dosed.


Samuel William Jacobs: I heartily concur in the remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), and submit that the amendments made by the Senate ought not to be accepted. The right hon. leader of the Opposition stated that in some provinces county court judges should act as third arbitrators.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say in some provinces, I said everywhere.


Samuel William Jacobs: In the province of Quebec we have no county court judge system; our judiciary are either judges of the superior court or of the circuit court. From my province frequent demands are made on the Department of Justich and the government for the appointment of new judges, our present judges not being able to cope with the work. But the question before the House is whether a judge of the Supreme Court-or as with us in the province of Quebec, a judge of the superior court'-should have the appointment of third arbitrator after one has been named by each of the contending parties. I submit that this has a tendency to drag the whole judicial system more or less into the political arena. When we have strife between employers and employees there is always a good deal of tension, and it seems to me that is just the time when the Minister of Labour, a responsible member of the government, should appoint the third arbitrator.
I look with certain misgivings upon the Senate interfering in labour matters to the extent they have done in this particular cas'e. The Senate, as we know, cannot deal with money matters, these being peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the Commons. Now, it seems to me that labour matters are something in which labour is particularly concerned, and consequently I think that an irresponsible body like the Senate ought to have enough wisdom to refrain from interfering.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
tell us what the Senate should deal with?

Industrial Disputes


Samuel William Jacobs: I submit that they ought to be a kind of rubber stamp to concur in the legislation sent up by the Commons in labour matters.


Jacques Bureau: Order.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not speaking generally, but I think labour matters ought to be peculiarly for the Commons alone to deal with and not an irresponsible body like the Senate. The Minister of Labour in the past has been making these appointments, and there has been no complaint whatever. If any appointment does not meet with the approval of the people, the minister is responsible and, indirectly, the government of which he is a member. Surely that ought to be satisfactory to this House and to the Senate, and I must protest most vigorously against the Senate interfering in labour legislation affecting, as it does, the people.
We have under our constitution three divisions of government-the legislative, the judicial and the administrative. Now, our judges pass upon cases submitted to them, they address juries, they sift evidence, and they give their judgment in accordance with the facts. But when you have a judge mixed up in disputes1 between capital and labour, where the decision is bound to react upon the judiciary, I say-


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend as a
lawyer of many years' standing must know that the law is for the judge while the facts are always for the jury to find.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think we can pass that
remark off with a laugh. It does not deserve anything better.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend does not know the difference.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. gentleman probably wished to sidetrack me, and to that extent I think he has succeeded. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am most vigorously opposed to the amendments to this legislation, and would suggest that they be sent back in order that that august body may have another opportunity of pondering the legislation and passing it in the form in which it was first sent up by this House.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not rising for the purpose of absolutely contradicting my friend, but I have every respect for the gentlemen who constitute the upper Chamber and deprecate their being reflected upon in any way. There was a time in my short life when I was wont to oppose the second Cham-

ber, but my experience as law clerk in the legislative council of Nova Scotia has led me to believe that an upper chamber is absolutely essential. It is the good old English system and I think it is good enough for Canada. All I ask in regard to this particular piece of legislation is this: I am thoroughly in accord with the principle that the judges should have the right to deal with all things that come before them, and if it is necessary to appoint a judge to act as arbitrator in a particular matter, the minister should have that right. The minister should retain the right to appoint an arbitrator where there is a difference of opinion between the employer and employee. The Senate has said that in such cases the tasks should be undertaken by the chief justice in the province concerned. In many cases the chief justice does not know the facts of the case. The minister has an opportunity of knowing all the circumstances. He gets the representations of the employees as well as of the employer, and he is in a position to name a man who should act. I believe that the judges should not have to deal with any controversial matter which may be of political significance. They are appointed to administer justice as between plaintiff and defendant in a civil matter and as between the King and his subjects in a criminal matter, and they should not be called upon to adjudicate in anything of a controversial character. I repeat that the upper chamber is what may be called a sober second thought in the matter of legislation and when they undertake to relieve the adjudicators of this land from dealing with matters which may be of a controversial political character, they are doing the right thing.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):: I do not wish to make any extended remarks on this amendment, but I desire to oppose it, not merely because the Senate has offered the amendment, lor because I think the judges are opposed to labour when they act as arbitrators in matters of labour disputes, but because I think the Labour department, as representing at least to some extent the voters of the country, is surely in a better position to act in this matter than the judges would be. The bill as drawn meets with the approval of organized labour; therefore I oppot'e the amendment made in this regard and hope the bill will be sent back to the Senate as originally drafted.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, just one
word.

Agricultural Conditions


George Newcombe Gordon: I may inform
hon. members that when the Minister of Labour speaks he will close the debate.


James Murdock: The department would
be glad indeed if it were possible to utilize the services of judges as heretofore. I was rather surprised to hear my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition suggest that we might go back to that desirable system, because it was in 1921 when he led the government that provision was made under which it became impossible thereafter to utilize the services of judges in such cases1. We have found that judges are like other working men, like ordinary labourers-no pay, no overtime. In other words, with their regular duties and responsibilities before them and a specific salary for the performance of those duties, they are not willing-and I am not criticising them-to take on additional responsibilities without the additional compensation that is given to a private person who undertakes such extra work. But the amendments made by the upper House to section 57 are the most important, because their effect would be to make section 57 confused and complicated and to delay the procedure connected with the handling of boards of investigation, to say nothing of delay in getting results under the provisions of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARTELL
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns I wish to rise to a question of privilege. It has been stated in the daily press that a unanimous report has1 been presented from the Civil Service Committee. I want to say that I never signed that report. So far as the Civil Service of Canada is concerned I am in favour of going back to the Civil Service Act as from 190S.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.48 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, June 26, 1923.