1924-04-08

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present
petitions from members of St. Andrew's church, Lancaster, and Knox church, Lancaster, opposing the enactment of legislation to incorporate the United Church of Canada.



REARRANGEMENTS AND TRANSFERS OF DUTIES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, to amend the Act to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties in the public service.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to add a section to the statute passed in 1918, an act to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties in the public service. The section provides that the powers, duties and functions assigned to the minister and officers of the branch from which the transfer is made shall automatically be vested in the minister and the officers of the department to which the transfer is made. A similar provision exists in statutes with respect to particular departments, and it is the suggestion of the commissioners having to do with the revision of the statutes that this section should be made general to secure clearness and uniformity.
Mr. HOCKEN:: Does this mean a reduction in the number of departments and of cabinet ministers?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Acting Postmaster General) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act by providing that the Postmaster General may prescribe and enforce such regulations as to letters directed to be registered, as to him seem necessary, in respect to the registration of letters and other matter passing by mail, and to the charge to be made for the same, and to compensation for loss not to exceed one hundred dollars in any one case.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the
[Stage Direction]
Lausanne Treaty
subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.
IMMIGRATION-QUEBEC	RESTAUR-
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HENRI E. LAYIGUEUR (Quebec County): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I notice in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) is reported as stating that the canteen and restaurants in connection with the immigration buildings at the port of Quebec will be taken over by the government. The article quotes the minister assaying:
Canada will welcome immigrants at her gates with good food at prices based on the actual cost of the service. . . A feature of the service will be lunch boxes which can be bought over the counter and which contain supplies especially selected for use on the trains.
And so forth. The article goes on to say that Mr. P. W. Dugal has been engaged by the department to take over this work. I should like to know from the minister whether this report is correct.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration) :: I have not read the article in the press referred to by my hon. friend, but for his information and for the information of the House I may say that the department have engaged Mr. Dugal, who had charge of the restaurant of the Quebec legislative assembly for a number of years. We have engaged him to take charge of the restaurant which will be available to immigrants at the port of Quebec.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: May I ask the minister if the contract has been signed, and when Mr. Dugal is to take over the work?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member will have to put a question on the order paper. This is not a question of privilege.



LAUSANNE TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: According to despatches from London it would seem that there is considerable misunderstanding over the Lausanne treaty and Canada's obligations thereunder. There are one or two points, it seems to me that ought to be definitely cleared up by the government at this time. According to the statement made the other day by the Prime Minister in Hansard, page 946:
We deemed it of the utmost importance that there should be no misunderstanding as to our position with respect to Canada's obligations in this and kindred
matters and we stated that in our opinion parliament *would desire, as respected the treaty with Turkey and any other instrument arising out of the Lausanne Conference, to reserve to itself the right to decide, on the merits of the ease, what action on the part of the people of Canada was right and proper.
If I understand that clause aright, the statement there given, according to the Prime Minister's own wording, was that this parliament should decide what action should be taken. The Prime Minister the other day emphasized the importance of procedure, that Canada was not invited to be present at the making of the Lausanne treaty, but I take it there is something more in it than that, and that is our present attitude and our present relationship under that treaty.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman knows the rule. No argument can take place at the present moment. Only a question can be put to the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sorry to
have had to preface my question with this statement, but it seemed almost necessary. I feel that in the first place we ought to have the attitude of the government more definitely brought before us and the matter cleared up.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We should know
distinctly what is the attitude of the government in this regard.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think I made clear when speaking the other day what the attitude of the government is. My remarks are on Hansard, and were I to repeat what I said at that time I would simply be answering my hon. friend's question at the moment. I might say to him, however, that I think the British Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, has under consideration bringing down the despatches that have passed between the British government and the self-governing dominions. We have expressed the hope that he will do so. I feel sure if that request is met it will answer any doubts of my hon. friend.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): That brings to my mind a question that I would like to ask the Prime Minister. According to this morning's press the Prime Minister of Great Britain is reported as stating that he was prepared to bring down the correspondence, but that he was awaiting reply to an inquiry which he had made of the Dominions for permission to lay it on the Table, and he suggests that no response has been
Lausanne Treaty

made to his request. I would ask the Prime Minister if that has any reference to Canada or only to some other parts of the Empire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the statement my hon. friend has quoted can possibly refer to Canada, inasmuch as when I received from Mr. MacDonald a communication asking as to whether we would be agreeable to having the correspondence brought down, I answered within an hour that we would be very pleased to have this done. Probably the other Dominions have not replied.
INQUIRY CONCERNING RETURN On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.): May I call the attention of the Minister of Railways to Paper No. 130 in answer to question No. 37? The letter, dated 11th April, 1922, refers to a letter of 1st April from Major G. A. Bell, which letter is not included in the file. Furthermore, a letter dated 10th April, 1923, is signed "J. D. Reid, President." My purpose in rising is to call attention to this omission, and also to ask whether J. D. Reid was president of the Canadian National Railway Board on the tenth of April, 1923.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways):	I hardly understand my hon.
friend's question. J. D. Reid was never president of the Canadian National Railway; he was Minister of Railways. I will call the attention of the department to the matter.
TREATY WITH TURKEY-LAUSANNE CONFERENCE On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I would ask the Prime Minister when he intends to allow parliament to deal with the treaty with Turkey and with the Lausanne Conference matters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Parliament may have that privilege just as soon as the budget has been brought down and we resume after the budget discussion of general matters.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Minister of Customs):: Mr. Speaker, I find on reading
the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday that after reporting certain resolutions of the 
Minister of the Interior it winds up by saying "Report to be received and Committee of Supply to sit again at the next sitting of the House." Now, after the resolutions of the Minister of the Interior were taken up, Customs estimates were taken up and a resolution was called, but there is nothing in the Votes and Proceedings to show that any Customs resolution was called. There also was a motion made which was carried, which does not appear in the Votes and Proceedings. I do not know whether Hansard is to be the record of the votes and proceedings of the House, or whether the Votes and Proceedings, signed by yourself, Mr. Speaker, or in your absence by jour deputy, is to be the record. If the Votes and Proceedings is to be the record, I would ask that it be amended, and that what took place after the consideration of the various resolutions of the Department of the Interior be inserted therein as part thereof.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGFIEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
very well agree to the rule operating one way only. Frequently I have called attention to insertions in the Votes and Proceedings, on two occasions at least, of items of which there was no record in Hansard at all; but I was answered, "The Votes and Proceedings are the record of parliament." If they are, they must remain the record, and they cannot be added to by a subsequent reference to Hansard.


Jacques Bureau: Now is the time to have the evidence when the witnesses ore here. My hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was leading the opposition last night in the absence of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), and I would ask him or the members of the Progressive party if what I state is not a fact. There was a motion made to correct an error in the Customs resolution that was called by the Chairman.


Hewitt Bostock: I was not in the House
yesterday when this incident took place, but I am guided by the scroll of the Clerk of the House, and the Votes and Proceedings are based upon that scroll.


Jacques Bureau: May I remark that the
evidence of all the members of the House who were present when this took place ought to supersede the scroll, whatever it is. The Deputy Speaker is here, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is here, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) is here, and they were here last night when the

Business of the House
motion was made and declared carried by the Deputy Speaker. To confirm the explanation given by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, I afterwards asked that the item stand, and that the committee rise. Now there is nothing to indicate this in the Votes and Proceedings. But suppose I want to go into supply on Thursday, where is the evidence that my estimates have been taken up before? Is the scroll part and parcel of the Votes and Proceedings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You have just said, Mr. Speaker, that in these matters you are guided by the scroll. I happen to have the scroll in my hand, and it is in accord with what the Minister of Customs has just stated.


Jacques Bureau: Does it say my motion was carried?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Let us clear this thing up. Mr. Speaker, can the House know what the scroll is, where it is to be found when we want it as evidence of our proceedings, and by whom it is certified.


Hewitt Bostock: I will ask the Assistant
Clerk of the House to read the scroll in order to satisfy the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Beauchesne thereupon read the scroll as follows:
April 7.
House in Committee of the Whole on Supply.-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Resolution 250. Carried.
Resolution 251. Moved by Sir Henry Drayton that this resolution be reduced by $69,450.
Lost on vote of 45 to 53.
Resolution carried.
252	Carried
253	Carried
289	Carried
288 Carried
290	Committee decides to take up each item separately.
Item $506,380 Carried
Item $210,000 Carried
364 Stand (not read by chairman).
13 Amendment moved by Mr. Murdock that this vote include salary of Mr. Ide, Superintendent of staff. Progress. Resolutions passed to be reported.
A. Beauchesne,
Clerk of Committee of Supply.


Jacques Bureau: The question I should like to have answered is, how members can get at this scroll to find out what has taken place the night before?


Hewitt Bostock: The scroll is kept in the Clerk's office. It is under the care of the Clerk of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I simply want to put myself clearly on record in this matter. The House should decide whether it wishes the Votes and Proceedings to be regarded as the official record or not and should abide by that decision. I never heard before of the scroll being regarded as an official record. On a previous occasion when the Votes and Proceedings contained something that did not appear in Hansard we were told "Hansard is not the official record. That is your misfortune; you will have to abide by it". Now we have this situation that although the Votes and Proceedings is regarded as the official record it does not agree with Hansard; the latter has something which the former fails to record. Let us have a decision in this matter. Let us observe one rule or the other.


Hewitt Bostock: The Votes and Proceedings, as I stated a moment ago, are based on the scroll. The latter records what took place in the House and such of the committee's proceedings as are reported to the Speaker by the Chairman. The Votes and Proceedings are the evidence of what has taken place in the House and are based on the scroll.


Jacques Bureau: The point I have in mind is this: Suppose I desire to go into committee of supply on Thursday, and the leader of the opposition says that before I can do so I must observe a certain rule. I claim that I have obeyed that rule. Now, where is the source to which I can go to establish my claim? I ought to be able to do that by quoting from a public document which is in the possession of hon. members. I do not see why I should be compelled to refer to some document in the exclusive possession of the Clerk as to what happened in the House the day before.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the statement in
question in Hansard?


Jacques Bureau: It is in Hansard, but Hansard is not the official record.


Ernest Lapointe: The Votes and Proceedings record all that takes place in the House, but not all that happens in committee. That has always been the custom.


Mr. McMASTER:: This discussion merely shows how wise and proper are the calls from more distant parts of the chamber for an audible discussion by those sitting on the treasury benches, or who lead other parties in the House.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of steel at Mile 24 on the Melfort Northeasterly line of the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Railway to Mile 41 near Nip-awin, in the province of Saskatchewan; mileage already graded, 6 miles; estimated mileage including existing grading, 17 miles; estimated cost, $360,000.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I suppose the
'Minister of Railways proposes to take advantage of this opportunity to read the necessary parts from a letter of the president of the National Railway System.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I would not think that
would be necessary as the construction of this line was supported by my hon. friend. We are just adding a little to it. My hon. friend must have had all of that information last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should think
my hon .friend would like to have a proper record.


George Perry Graham: I should be delighted to
give the information but it will not be from a letter of the president. The information I have on the subject is as follows:
Melfort N.E., Mile 24-41	Cost
Grade now ahead of track, 6 miles Proposed in 1924, 11 miles grade;
17 miles track	$360,000
It is proposed in 1924 to add 11 miles of grading to the existing 6 miles ahead of the track and lay the steel on this 17 miles, taking the line to near the town of Nipawin, at an estimated cost of $360,000. When this work is completed, it is proposed to leave the track there for some years.
The first work done on this line in 1919, when the grading was started, 30 miles of which was completed by' the end of the season 1920, the track being laid on 23.7 miles in 1921, and 1922 the ballasting, etc., being finished that far.
The line runs through a particularly good agricultural area, admirably suited for grain growing and the proposed extension would take the branch into the heart of a large settlement very well developed. The grain off this line is its justification, it being figured that 612,000 bushels annually might be expected, besides which 140 cars of freight inbound and outbond, consisting of live stock, coal lumber, merchandise and wood, would be furnished the line. Practically all of these commodities, and particularly the grain and live stock, give a long haul to the

railway, thus supplying other lines of the system with considerable business.
It is estimated that the average saving in distance for road haul to the farmers for their grain would be 12 miles, and if this is taken to be worth | cents per bushel per mile hauled, on the estimated quantity of 612,000 bushels this would make a saving annually to the farmers of $55,080 on the grain alone.
This is one of the lines in which the grading was done on the branch line arrangement, I think, of 1919.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it this
year's programme will complete the railway to Nipawin.


George Perry Graham: That is about it-near the town of Nipawin.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In this particular case I think a large amount of money has already been spent on the line. This line if built, when built, will be a very great advantage to a very good agricultural part of the country, and it seems to me the system is absolutely committed to its construction. Further than that I believe the construction is a good one. It is one which of itself ought to go on.	'


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I would like to refer in a general way to the question of these Canadian National branch lines, and, to bring the matter within the purview of the House, and in order to let the House know where I stand in this matter, I propose to read from the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway for 1923, presented to the shareholders in March last in the city of Montreal. This report is signed by the president of the Company, E. W. Beatty, and the president takes his stand in regard to railway expansion for his system. I am in favour of the National railway being also given every fair facility to expand where the requirements of the country call for it, and I intend to keep to a like position for the expansion of the Canadian National. I was one of those who favoured the acquirement of the Canadian National Railways and I advocated it in days gone by. Now that we have the Canadian National railways, this House is bound, in every fair way, if the proper extension is a proper one, to vote the money for it, and I think if the extensions are reasonable they should be made. In order to show the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway on this question, I will read from the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway for the fiscal year ending 31st December, 1923, dated Montreal, March, 1924. Section 5 reads:

C.N.R.-Branch Lilies
Owing to the magnitude of your system, continuous expenditures on capital account will always be necessary, if it is to keep pace with the growing transportation requirements of the country but your directors have adhered to the policy of restricting the issuance of securities to the lowest amount, consistent with the maintenance of the property. During the year under review the fixed charges were increased only by the modest sum of $121,747, and dividends payable on preference stock by the sum of $447,732.
Then he goes on to name the roads which he is in favour of, and he names those which are practical for immediate construction, or construction as soon as possible. He mentions the following:
Leader southerly branch, mileage 50 to 75.
Lomond northwesterly extension of the Suffield southwesterly branch, mileage 30 to 40.
An extension of the Archive-Wymark branch to Coderre, 12 miles.
An extension of the Moose Jaw southwesterly branch from Consul easterly, mileage 60 to mileage 97. Amulet-Dunkirk branch 25 miles.
The requisite applications to parliament are being made for the necessary statutory authority to construct such of the above lines, the charter authorities for which have expired or are expiring.
Arrangements have been made for the construction of an extension of the Tuffnell-Prince Albert branch of the Manitoba and North Western Railway from mileage 50 to mileage 129. The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company has statutory authority to issue bonds not exceeding $40,000 per mile in respect of this branch, which bonds will in the usual course be acquired by this company with the proceeds of the sale of consolidated debenture stock to be issued for the purpose.
That means that the Canadian Pacific Railway at its directors' meeting announced that they intended to continue their policy of extension of their lines, and the great magnitude of the system was their justification. Does that argument not also apply to the Canadian National Railways? I say that when the Canadian Pacific Railway is embarking on these various propositions the Canadian National Railways should not be held back. Here we have the Canadian Pacific Railway proposing this policy of extension; the announcement is made at the annual meeting of the directors, and the shareholders approved of it. This same argument applies still more to the Canadian National system, which is a larger road, a consolidation of a great many other roads, and is now coming to be the great National Railway of Canada.
Since this discussion opened we have heard rather queer things in connection with the Canadian National Railways. I am going to refer to the speech made in this House by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). Less than twelve days ago he made a speech in which he dealt
with this question of the extension of the Canadian National, and he told us a rather doleful tale. First of all, he made a calculation, and placed it before the House, as to what the commitments of Canada in connection with all our National Railways were, and at page 896 of Hansard hon. members will find a summary of those commitments as he gives them, amounting to two billion dollars. He said they would be even more than that. Now if the amount of the commitments of Canada on account of the Canadian Nationals is to be quoted in this House, it is high time this House settled in some way what the commitments are and what would be a fair interest on them. So,
I am going to make a suggestion. The prime minister of England made a suggestion of this kind not so long ago which was accepted. Let us admit that the statement of the hon. member is correct, and that we have this debt of two billion dollars on account of the National Railways; let us fix the amount of interest, and then we will know what the annual charge is to be. It would not be a bad calculation for us to call it a billion and a half for these commitments, and allow three per cent on that. That means that the Canadian National will have to make sixty million dollars a year above its working expenses in order to pay its way. Let us put the amount at a million dollars a week. Let us therefore take this amount for a starting point in this House and the country-that we are committed to at least a million dollars a week out of the earnings of the National Railway to pay the commitments after the overhead has been paid. I think this would be a very fair proposal, because all that money did not actually go into the building on the various roads-the old Intercolonial, the old Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and a dozen other roads that have disappeared into the consolidation. These roads are all in this consolidation and all are in this estimate of the member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It is an absurd estimate to place the figure at two billion dollars, though the hon. member said it was more than that. Let us put it at a billion and a half, and count that practically a million dollars a week should be set aside out of the earning expenses to pay the interest on this investment. When we have that, we have something to go on, and I challenge the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and the Minister of Railways, to
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

come to an understanding in this House, in order to settle once and for all the amount to be recognized as the interest charges of the National Railways, as against its earnings, after the cost of running the road has been paid.
The hon. member (Mr. Marler) at page 898 of Hansard, madte this remarkable statement :
In conclusion as regards the remarks which I have been making I want to say this-and it has reference to a fact which, I think, is not fully understood or fully grasped-we have in this country at present two great railway systems, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific.
I grant that.
I think every member in this House, I think everybody in this country, should wish well for both these lines, they are both great national undertakings.
I dispute that. The Canadian National Railway system is the only national undertaking in this country. It is owned by the Canadian people, the Canadian Pacific is owned by a private company under a charter granted by parliament a good many years ago, it is capitalized at over a billion dollars, and has a great earning capacity. Nobody knows who may be the next owners of the Canadian Pacific. I have some reasons for suspecting that certain American railways have tried to acquire the Canadian Pacific-perhaps they could acquire it to-morrow. Either the Pennsylvania Railway or the New York Central Railway might acquire the Canadian Pacific to-morrow, and the ownership would pass out of the hands of-I was going to say Canadians, but there are other stockholders in Europe. On the other hand, the Canadian people own the Canadian National Railways and intend to keep them forever. Therefore, I dispute the hon. member's statement that the Canadian Pacific is a national railway on a parity with the Canadian National. It is not. The only hold that we have to-day on the Canadian Pacific is through a most peculiar clause in the charter creating the Company, a clause which I do not think was ever incorporated in any other railway legislation. This clause is to the effect that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is to maintain the railway in the interests of the people of Canada for ever. That is why the American roads to-day have not secured the Canadian Pacific railway. They do not like to undertake the responsibility of maintaining the road in the interests of the Canadian people for ever.
The hon. member also made this surprising statement:
Now to have competition between these two lines is senseless in the extreme. If traffic arrangements can be made with one line to help out another line, I 
think those arrangements should be made. To build lines unnecessarily when there is not enough traffic to satisfy both these systems is not putting this House, is not putting this country, in a position to get lower freight rates in the very slightest degree.
The hon. member proposes co-operation between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National with respect to branch lines. Does it not follow that some day the two systems will be consolidated? I know many people in the W est say it is a good thing for the country that we have railway competition. Perhaps it is, but it may entail very heavy and needless expense. Therefore, I believe that when the people realize what their commitments are for these two great systems, they will come to see that there is something in the argument advanced by the hon. member and that through the elimination of competition great economies may be effected. I think this is the first time that anyone has heard-shall I say?-a "cry from Macedonia," -a suggestion from Montreal, in favour of co-operation between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. Perhaps somebody is getting frightened about the future. Undoubtedly, the progress of the Canadian National is the surprise of the world to-day, and its position is a credit to the Conservative party that consolidated its component roads into one great system.
As one who has done something in that direction, I am going to support any reasonable proposal for branch line development of the Canadian National Railways after this declaration by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Beatty, endorsed by his shareholders, in favour of a similar development of their system to look after the transportation needs of the Dominion. I agree with the leader of the opposition that there should be a careful scrutiny of the proposals that come before this House for building branch lines as feeders for our great national railway system, but I would sooner retire from this House than acquiesce in the proposal that the Canadian Pacific shall be allowed to expand but that the Canadian National must expand no further. We have a right to proceed with a programme of expansion, even if we have to go in debt to finance it, for there is no doubt that the position of the road is absolutely sound.
I have always had complete confidence in Sir Henry Thornton. That confidence does not extend to his co-directors,-but he did not appoint them. I am still a believer in the management of our National system by a board of directors such as was authorized and established by the Conservative party.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
This House has always maintained control of the National system in its review of any proposals which may come from the management. Therefore, until I hear some real objection to these branch lines I am going to give reasonable support to the proposals and that we at least keep faith with our people by extending the system wherever extension may be needed. I would give especial preference to the West in this respect. I think all these branch lines will eventually pay their way.
But here is the great difference between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National system. The Canadian Pacific is a privately owned line, committed to the payment of dividends to its stockholders. I hope that the ambition of the men who administer the Canadian National Railways is to give service at the lowest possible rates irrespective of dividends. That is a rather rabid doctrine, perhaps it may be termed Red or Bolshevik, but it seems to me that the people desire a national system of railways so operated as to render a service at minimum rates instead of piling up big dividends for shareholders. Therefore, I repeat that I disagree with the statement of the hon. member for St. Lawrence St. George that the two roads are of the same "breed of dog." They are absolutely different. One is the people's road;	the other
is owned and controlled outside of Canada-by whom, we do not know. The Canadian Pacific Railway could be acquired in New York or in London to-morrow, and that is a significant fact which the Canadian people have to consider. Therefore, to ask me to refrain from endorsing any reasonable proposal for the expansion of the Canadian National Railways while the Canadian Pacific is allowed to go on is something to which I cannot agree. So I say that if the Canadian Pacific Railway is going ahead we should keep pace mile for mile, if that can be justified, as I hope it will.
There is another public owner of railways in this Dominion and that is my own province of Ontario. That province has built a splendid road in the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, which is opening up new mining country. That road has been paid for, by the people of Ontario, and it is believed pretty generally that the Canadian National Railways to-morrow would take it over, assuming all the liabilities in connection with it and giving all the extensions which the people require in northern Ontario. Doing that, of course, they would also no doubt afford similar extensions in the province of Quebec.
The railways in Canada are operated at present on a most primitive basis; their locomotion depends upon the generation of steam in individual engines. This is not the most satisfactory way of operating railways. So far as I can gather, the best railway experts to-day are to be found in England, and it is their opinion that as the railways in that country cannot be driven by hydro energy, then the electrical power can be generated by great batteries in connection with boilers situated right at the mouth of the coal pit. Electricity generated in that way could drive all the railways in England at a lower cost than they can be operated to-day; and I have no doubt that this is what will be done with the five systems of railways in England. In England the best engineers are working out the problem of the electrification of the railways upon the bases of high tension and long distance transmission. Electrical energy can be transmitted almost a thousand miles now without any great waste. In this country we could electrify our railways and provide energy for all our industries, and I think that steps ought to be taken to bring this about. We have in Canada, from British Columbia, right through the western provinces, through Ontario and Quebec, a number of rivers which could provide electrical energy to drive every mile of railway in the Dominion, and drive it at a much lower cost than the railways are being driven at the present time. Already, I believe, the two great systems in Canada have given some consideration to this question; but no private concern could undertake a work of this character in the way that a nation could. In any event, it would be well if the two railways could get together and co-operate in this direction; and for the first time we have heard some suggestion from Montreal which would seem to indicate that the Canadian Pacific Railway is not averse to action of this kind. This of course is only what some people might call a "gesture"; but at any rate it seems to me to convey some significance. At least I should like to see some co-operation between the province of Ontario and the Canadian National Railways, because there is no reason why the construction of rival lines should continue. In my opinion there ought to be some consolidation of railway service in the mining districts in Quebec and Ontario. The Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway and the Canadian National Railways, from North Bay, through Sudbury and in that direction, might with advantage be consolidated. If the Canadian Pacific Railway were willing to co-operate, so much the better; but at any rate it would be well, I think, to have such a consolidation of the roads in the prov-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
ince of Ontario as I have indicated. There is a great demand for economy to-day, and I am glad to have heard from my hon. friend (Mr. Marler) that he is prepared to support a policy of co-operation.
As to the future of the Canadian National Railways, let me say that the principle of public ownership has been adopted in this country as a permanent institution. The people of Canada own the National Railways now and are determined to make them a success. To do this they are going to patronize the national roads before any other railway. In Ontario, apart from the public ownership of railways, we have a publicly owned hydro electric system which has been exceedingly successful. It has paid all its commitments and is meeting its interest charges in the way of amortization and so forth. Some years ago, I might remark here, a company was organized to build a- railway and power service in Brazil. Millions of dollars were put into that concern and stock was sold in Canada, although there was never any very great return from it. Three gentlemen in Ontario have now undertaken the revival of this Brazilian road and the first step they have taken in the matter, is, to me, the greatest compliment, on the part of a private concern, to public ownership. Mr. Couzens, who was formerly general manager of the Toronto Transportation Company, a publicly-owned street railway, and who was also general manager of the HydroElectric System of Ontario, was offered and accepted a position with these parties who are now developing the Brazilian road. Mr. Couzens was bred to public ownership in England, and in this country he was a strong advocate of the principle. He is the ablest technical man in railways in America to-day, and these people offered him a considerable inducement in the way of salary to join them. I do not blame him for going; he is a man who is getting up in years and pro-
4 p.m. bably in five years' time he will be in easy circumstances. I do not know whether the city of Toronto had the opportunity of retaining Mr. Couzens, but I believe that they would give three times what they are now paying out to have kept him. It was rather significant that so soon as he went out of office-and no one knew that he was going until his resignation was submitted-the city of Toronto secured two young men, trained in the University of Toronto, our own boys, to take charge of the public transportation system and of the power distribution system as well. We are bringing up these men by the score in our universities and they are all ardent advocates of public ownership. They would rather see the public

utilities improved than that these things should be operated for the purpose of creating earnings for shareholders of over-capitalized corporations. We have a good start in public ownership in Ontario and are making considerable headway with the Toronto transportation system. Hon. gentlemen have only to consider the success that has attended the Hydro system, and to look at the success which the Canadian National Railways are meeting, to be convinced of the benefits of public ownership. The success of the Canadian National Railways is a surprise to the world. Is it not reasonable, then, to suppose that the United States, in view of this fact, and seeing what a revolution has swept over not only this country but England and other places as well, will follow suit? Let us hold w'hat we have, I say, and keep pace with the Canadian Pacific Railway.
My hon. friend (Mr. Marler) made a doleful but very able speech; I read it in a sick bed some days ago, and I was pleased to read it. I give my hon. friend credit for it, but it was a brief for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Apparently the brief was cut in two, because the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) afterwards got up and endorsed every word that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said. Then he went on. "I wish further to say," and apparently read the completed portion of the brief. So we had in his discussion eight days ago what was the hand of Esau if it was not the voice of Jacob. Anyway, who is Esau? Ask the member for St. Lawrence-St. George. Or ask the member for Joliette; perhaps he knows. So, that after all the struggles of the past, after all the stones that have been thrown at the government for consolidating these roads, we have them now and we are at least going to keep step with the Canadian Pacific. I do not know whether the minister has had an opportunity of reading the annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but there is his justification.


George Perry Graham: I have a copy of it.


William Findlay Maclean: I suggest that
hon. members get their copy of this annual report and read it. It may be said that we have not the money to do these things, but if the Canadian Pacific can afford it the people of Canada can afford it; that is my answer to that argument. The Canadian Pacific is a great railway. It has enormous resources, it has good management and a splendid board of directors. But the Canadian National as it is to-day has seventy per cent of the strategical advantage of the transcontinental railways of this country.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
They have it at Montreal, acquired by the Grand Trunk, sixty or seventy years ago. They have it in the St. Lawrence district, at Toronto, in the Niagara river district. Their advantage in those sections is so great that the New York Central had to duplicate their lines right through. The Grand Trunk crossed the Detroit river and carried that strategical advantage right to Chicago, and the greatest earning railway in Canada to-day is the old Grand Trunk between Chicago and the St. Lawrence and New England ports. We also have a lot of the strategical advantage of the West. We have it in the mining country of northern Ontario, in the ownership of either the Dominion or the province. We have the advantage also in the Rocky mountains. Our pass is the best pass through the Rockies, and we would share it on terms with the Canadian Pacific if they should feel like approaching us. We hear a lot of talk about the harbour of Vancouver, but there is another harbour called Prince Rupert, and it is going to be one of the great ports of the Pacific, so we have the strategical advantage there too. It is true we have to cross the Canadian Pacific tracks to get to Vancouver, but some day that may be adjusted. The National Railways are surprising the world to-day by their success and by the excellence of their administration. I would like to point out also that it might be conceived that if the Canadian Pacific Board became dissatisfied with this country they might undertake to sell their road on the New York or London market. Of course they say it is the last thing they would do, that they are actuated by national reasons in maintaining the line as it is. But the temptation is always there to take the money for it, to cash in and distribute the proceeds among the shareholders. They would make that distribution to-morrow but for the wise provision made by Sir John A. Macdonald. Nobody knows why he did it, but for all time the condition is imposed on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to maintain that road for the service of the people of Canada. Whether or not in a court of law they could be made to deliver the goods I do not know, but it certainly is the one thing that keeps the Americans from buying out the Canadian Pacific.	.
I say to the Minister of Railways, go on with your extensions wherever they can be justified, wherever the president can give a substantial reason for the expansion of the system. I believe that the Canadian people, including a great many Conservatives, will support him in a policy of that kind.


Mr. KNOX:: I want to compliment the
hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) upon the manner in which he has faithfully and, if I may say so, tenaciously, stuck to his belief in public ownership. If any man in this House deserves the title of father of public ownership of railways, I think it is the hon. member for South York.
The district through which this branch line goes, forms part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and cannot I feel sure, be surpassed in productiveness in any part of the West. The people went in there some fifteen or twenty years ago and settled forty-five miles, or even further than that, from the nearest railway. They did so, of course, in the belief that the railway would ultimately go through, but during all these years they have been hauling their grain long distances. In 1921 this twenty-four miles of line was built from Melfort to Ridgedale. Even before the steel was laid, elevators were going up, but no sooner did the steel get through than elevators sprang up at the three stations on that piece of line, almost over night-sprang up like mushrooms. I am sure that they have been a paying proposition ever since. It is now intended to extend this line out to Nipawin, a distance of another seventeen miles, six of which are already graded. I know the district very well, and have no hesitation in saying that this extension will be a paying proposition. There is just one thing that occurs to me: There is a district out further east which is likely to be left without transportation service. A delegation came down here last year to make representations in the matter and I had hopes that some provision would be made for service there. This line going up to Nipawin will still be a considerable distance from the district further east to which I refer. We do not want our railway lines to parallel each other. The Canadian Pacific has a charter through this country and I think we should keep in mind that the lines should be as far apart as possible so that some one of them will give a service to the people to the east. That country to the east is very thickly settled and very productive, but a great many of the people still have to haul their grain a considerable distance. I shall not speak at any further length except to say that there can be no doubt whatever as to the advisability of getting a line through this district.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40,

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line to Mile 41 of the Mel-fort Branch near Nipawin, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PEBBLES, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) 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 for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Peebles on the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Railway, southerly to a point in or near township 10, range 8, west of the 2nd meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan; mileage already graded, 20 miles; estimated mileage including existing grading, 22 miles; estimated cost $300,000.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: I will put on Hansard
the memorandum in connection with this line:
.	Cost
Peebles South, Mile 0-22.
Grade now ahead of track-20 miles.
Proposed in 1924-2 miles grade; 22 miles track. $300,000
It is proposed during the year 1924 to add two miles to the existing 20 miles of grade and to lay the track on this 22 miles and ballast and otherwise complete the line, at an estimated cost of $300,000. When this is done, it would not be the intention to extend this line any further for at least some years.
The grade on this line started in 1919 and was completed by the end of the season of 1920, and during that year the greater .portion - of the track material was delivered. Since 1920 no work has been done on this line.
This branch runs through a good agricultural area mostly grain growing, but at the south end has some mixed farming. This territory produces good crops when rainfall is sufficient, but is subject to dry seasons which make short crops. The land is practically all taken and mostly settled except south of Mile 20.0 where there is some unoccupied land. The crop in 1923 in this district was very good.
The justification for building this line is that approximately $216,000 has already been spent towards its completion, which is now earning nothing, and it is estimated that when the line is completed as far as proposed there will be an annual business of 660,000 bushels of grain furnished to it, a great deal of which now	goes to	our competitor,	and in	addition to the grain there	would be about	150 cars	of inand out bound freight, consisting of live stock, coal, lumber and merchandise. It is computed that the farmers would	save an	average of about	16 miles haulon the 660,000	bushels	of grain referred	to per	year,
and if this is taken as worth 3 cents per bushel per mile hauled, it would mean an annual saving to them of $79,200. The freight from this line would be all of a long haul character, thus feeding other lines of the system.


William Findlay Maclean: Who signs that?


George Perry Graham: It is a memorandum given to me by the Canadian National Company, for which Sir Henry Thornton is responsible.


William Findlay Maclean: I am glad that fact has been given out. I had not heard it before.


Mr. GOULD:: I think this is the fifth session in which I have pleaded for the construction of this road, and I am very pleased to see the matter in the state of progress it is in at the present time. The statement given by the minister is absolutely correct. If there is any error in it, it is that the memorandum is a trifle too conservative. I have been well acquainted with this particular district for twenty-three or twenty-four years, so I should know whereof I speak. I am rather regretful that the government or the management of the railways did not consider it advisable to continue this road to its objective, that is to the coal fields to the south. True, as the minister has said, I believe that all the benefits he enumerated will accrue to the people in that district, and more perhaps, but there is still quite a large area further south which, as the memorandum states, is not completely settled. This area would be better settled if the road was continued. Settlement has taken place in that country largely because of the prospect of a railroad going in there. It is the child of a former administration, and at one time we had the ties and steel sufficient to lay eleven miles of the grade along that railway. But that was removed for some cause or another, although a promise had been distinctly made to us that the material would not be removed. The people in that part of the country were keenly disappointed likewise the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Morrison) and myself, that this material was removed. To-day we have a vote of 1300,000 to supply the material that was taken from us; so really this is a revote. I shall ask the minister, when we get into committee on the bill, what the prospects are for the continuance of this road southerly to the coal fields. I also wish to point out that while it is true that considerable revenue will accrue to this road if constructed only to the point at present indicated, the latter part of the road-there is only six or seven miles of it in my district- yvill be the greatest revenue producing part of the 'line, and if the road were continued farther south, it would produce revenue proportionately. I do not expect there will be any criticism of this resolution. If criticism develops later on we shall have to meet it when the bill itself is brought down. I would recommend to the consideration of the minister and of the House the extension of this road to the coalfields.


Mr. MILLAR:: Although this branch line
is in the constituency I have the honour to

C.NJI.-Branch Lines
represent-with the exception of a very few miles that extend into the riding of my hon. friend who has just spoken-I should not make any remarks on the proposal at the present time were it not for the fact that the unexpected happened last year when the branch line bill met with sudden death in the Senate. For that reason I think it desirable to supplement the explanation of the minister and of the member for Assini-boia (Mr. Gould) by a few statements of my own.
Let me state first of all that I know this district quite well. As the minister has stated it is well settled. It lies in the territory between two Canadian Pacific branch lines, which are about forty miles apart and run almost parallel east and west. The intention is to cut that territory north and south by this proposed Canadian National branch line. Hon. gentlemen can readily see that if that territory now lies between two branch lines of the Canadian Pacific, practically all the freight goes to that company. This may not be of great importance and yet it is a traffic that is well worth having if we wish to build up our government railways. For the information of hon. members I should like to place on Hansard extracts from two or three letters received from residents of the district. The first is from a communica.-tion sent to me on behalf of the People's Committee, and it reads as follows:
We have had 14 miles of grade since 1919. This has been made ready for track laying twice, even to the extent of staking. The steel and ties have been lying at Peebles since February, 1921.
Regarding the returns-
You will see now that the minister's statement is quite conservative.
-with this 14 miles completed a committee got together and made the following estimate. Grain alone, even in these poor years, amounts to 500 cars of 1,000 bushels and years like '15 up to 900 cars, saying nothing of coal and cattle, besides other cars that would come in. The returns on the grain and cattle would not be for the 14 miles alone but would be figured freight to Port Arthur, as all this is now shipped by C.P.R., by Areola, Stoughton and Reston-Wolseley lines.
Now another paragraph:
The people are so in earnest regarding this work, that, failing to get a favourable decision from the railway authorities, they are going to ask they be allowed to do this work themselves, the railway to furnish only a work-train and supervisor and to overcome the difficulty of funds will ask for an arrangement to have the expense charged up against freight from this line. This is just the outline of the plan at present.
That shows the anxiety of the people to have this branch line built. I am not saying that their plan is at all feasible, but it shows 73i
the anxiety they feel in the matter. Let me now read an extract from a letter written by Mr. Fred Baldwin:
I would ask you to put before the minister the fact that on an ordinary year there is at least 500 cars of grain that find their way to other railways, to say nothing of thousands of heads of stock that are raised in the Moose mountains and adjoining districts and all other trade that naturally comes in its trail. Also an item worth mentioning, the line would tap a district where there seems to be a splendid supply of good gravel, which is also a great asset for ballast and should not be lost sight of.
I shall now give a short extract from another letter received from Mr. Arthur J. Boyer, of Montmartre, Sask. which says:	.
The construction of the Lampman-Peebles branch is very necessary as it will serve a large district, practically all under cultivation and from which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company now draw all revenue from outgoing grain and incoming freights of coal, lumber and other merchandise.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it might not seem necessary to spend much time on these branch lines if it were not for the remarkable arguments that have been presented by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Mar-ler), the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis), and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). I imagine that if these hon. members had an opportunity of spending even one week in the middle of winter among the farmers of that district they would alter their opinions as to the necessity for this branch line. If they saw those farmers hauling their grain for a distance otf sixteen, seventeen and eighteen miles in cold weather, making a total journey altogether of thirty-two, thirty-three, or thirty-five miles, I have a high enough opinion of the hon. members in question to believe that they would change their attitude very quickly. It is very easy for a person who lives within a few minutes' walk of a railway station, and who is not compelled to undergo such hardships as do the farmers I have referred to, to say "We cannot afford money for this purpose. Times are too hard, money is too scarce. We will support only those branch lines that are absolutely necessary". "Absolutely necessary" is such an indefinite term that I imagine it can be twisted into a reason for opposing any of these branch lines.
Now, just a word in reply to the hon. member for Joliette. I deplore the frequency with which comparisons are made between the East and the West, between one province and another. The tendency is to cause friction between such provinces, between the East and the West. But sometimes we are compelled to take notice of some statements that are made. For example the hon. member
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

read a statement going to show a greater mileage of railways in the western provinces than in eastern Canada in proportion to population. I think that may be taken for granted. You cannot have the same mileage in a sparsely settled country just being opened up for settlement as in older and more densely populated sections containing populous cities like Montreal and Toronto. It would be like expecting to find on the head of a child as many gray hairs as there are on the head of an old man. Now, as to the amount of money that is spent in the West let me give an explanation which is not intended for the benefit of the majority of members but for the information of a few who seem to have a wrong impression. On March 27, I asked these questions:
What is the amount of money exepended for rural mail delivery in the three prairie provinces?
What amount of money is expended in the postal
districts of the province of Ontario?
For the benefit of the member for Joliette who is not in his place, let me say that the amount that is expended in Ontario for this purpose, was given as $1,602,595, whereas the expenditure in the three prairie provinces was $190,000.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Has my hon. friend got the postal revenue derived in those provinces?


John Millar: I have not all those figures but I will give certain other figures. Some reference was made to the amount of freight. Let me tell hon. gentlemen that in the busy season, in the fall of the year, a train containing forty carloads of wheat passes through Winnipeg eastward every thirty minutes, or a little better than that, night and day. I think that statement should be an answer to what hon. gentlemen opposite have said in regard to the question of freight. And I think it will answer the statement of my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), and prove that all the freight in the country does not originate in an acre of stone quarry.
Mr. MARLER I do not know I am sure what urged the hon. member who has just spoken to direct certain remarks against me.
I am not opposed to all the branch lines. If he had taken the trouble to read the few remarks I made the other day he would have seen that I stated then, as I state now, that each branch line should be looked into on its merits. My hon. friend need not get palpitation of the heart thinking that I am going to oppose this particular line. It will probably relieve him very much now when I say that I believe this branch line is one of those that
fMr. Millar.]
are necessary, and I have taken the trouble, as far as my capabilities will permit, to look into this particular line, and I am quite ready to approve of it, either on this resolution or on the bill itself. But the statement which I made quite clearly in this House the other day, and which I make quite clearly again, is that I will oppose any branch line that does not appear as meritorious as this one. Why should the hon. member take exception to my remarks on that account? I have not sat still, as most of the members of the group directly opposite have done, and refrained from raising my voice against particular lines. Those hon. members opposite have been exceedingly quiet, and they have not raised their voices against any branch lines in the programme brought down. They have not opposed anything. They have swallowed holus bolus every single line up to the present time. And why? Because they were afraid if they did not keep quiet they would not get their own branch lines. That is the attitude they have taken, and it is all very well for the hon. leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke) to point to me, as he did the other day. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been very careful to talk about economy, but they are not quite so careful to preach economy when considering lines that are not necessary, and which, I believe they know are not necessary, in other parts of the country. The only reason is that they are afraid if the first resolutions do not go through, those in the middle of the programme will not go through, and they want to get their own branch lines.
I have explained my attitude clearly and distinctly, and that is my answer to the statements of the Progressives in this House. I will oppose every branch line that I think is not necessary or economical. I believe that this branch line is a meritorious one.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Notwithstanding some of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of this resolution, I am still of my original opinion, which is the same as it was last year, that this is a meritorious line and ought to be built, and the only pity is that it was not considered on its merits last year and put through.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Peebles southerly in the province of Saskatchewan.


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

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) 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 for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of steel at Mile 109 on the Gravelbourg Extension of the Canadian Northern Railway to Mile 120 at Neidpath, in the province of Saskatchewan: mileage already graded, 11 miles; estimated mileage including existing grading, 11 miles; estimated cost, $144,000.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: The memorandum I have with reference to this line reads as follows:
Cost
Gravelbourg Extension, Mile 109-120.
Grade now ahead of track-11 miles.
Proposed in 1924-11 miles track	$144,000
It is proposed in 1924 to lay the track on the 11 miles of grade now completed ahead of the end of steel, thus completing the line to the town of Neidpath, and there to leave it for the time being, at least.	v
In 1920, the grading was finished as far as Neidpath, (Mile 120.0), but the track was oniy laid as far as Mile 109.6. In 1922 the line was practically finished, including the buildings, fencing, etc., as far as Mile 109.0, with the exception of about 30,000 yards of ballasting, which remains to be done to this point.
This branch runs through an undulating country well suited for grain growing, and a large portion of the land is under cultivation, giving a good production of wheat and other grain.
The justification for building this line to Neidpath is that already one-third of the money necessary to complete it has been expended and is now earning nothing. Besides this it is estimated that when complete this line will ship 480.000 bushels of grain each year, in addition to about 70 cars of in and outbound freight, composed of live stock, coal, lumber and merchandise. About 8 miles on the average will be saved in road haul to the farmers for this 480,000 bushels of grain, which if computed as worth three-quarters of a cent per bushel per mile hauled, would make an annual saving to the farmers of $28,800 for grain alone. The portion of this line already built has always been a large and consistent shipper of grain, which is of a long haul character, and thus would add materially to the business of other lines of the system.	*


Mr. LEWIS:: I do not rise with the intention of opposing this line at all. It runs through the district I represent, and I would like to say, before going any further, in answer to a question that was addressed to this part of the House, that I at least did raise my voice in regard to one branch line that went through this committtee. It was a line of which I made a fairly complete study, and I think I placed my views on Hansard. It is almost impossible for a person to make an intensive study of eveiy branch line that comes up for discussion in this House, and for that reason ' it is up to other members to do a little work and to reveal a little of the conditions that
they think are detrimental to the welfare of the country. In regard to this individual line, possibly hon. members will recall that this line has been proposed for a number of years.
It is running through a rich, arable country.
I do not like to eulogize the country, as some of our hon. friends from Nova Scotia have done when they have likened their country to the garden of Eden.
Referring to the garden of Eden, I remember it had no branch lines; the only part of the story that was interesting to me was that telling of the people that were in it, and I would not like to tell the members of this parliament that we have people of that description, because someone might want to bring in a bill banning that territoiy. I say it is a good country, and it grows a splendid amount of grain. But I want to show the members of this House what has been said in regard to this branch line, and for that reason I would like to place on Hansard what was said in 1921 by the then representative of Swift Current. Mr. Argue said:
I understand that in 1918 this line was promised to +He r^eo^le of the district, end they wrer t.nld that, it would be completed by 1920; that is to say, it would ultimately reach Swift Current; but on account of the war and for various other reasons construction has been delayed.
Not only did Mr. Reid and Mr. Hanna sanction this line, but also the late Mr. Kennedy. When I spoke to him about the matter -and I think his statement will be found in Hansard-he said that the line would be completed as far as Swift Current. I might quote further from Hansard of May 6, 1921:
Mr. Argue: I would like to have a more definite statement from the minister with reference to the branch line in Saskatchewan to run from Gravelbourg to Swift Current, on the Canadian Northern. In 1918 we were promised by the president of the company that the railway would be in Swift Current in 1920, and we have been very patient so far in waiting for the road to be built. Now the grade is up to Neidpath-
-which the minister mentioned a moment ago.
__and steel is laid to within ten miles of that point.
The farmers of that district have made arrangements, and laid all their plans, to build an elevator at Neidpath, but they were advised that it would be better to wait until they could get some more definite assurance with regard to laying the rails on that branch. What I would like to know is whether the rails would be laid on the branch in time for these people to get out their wheat this fall. There is something like 40,000 acres of grain which will be marketed in Neidpath providing the elevator can be built so as to store the grain until it can be got out. I would like the minister to give me that assurance so that the farmers can go ahead with the arrangements for building the elevator with the certainty of being able to take out the grain this fall.
Mr. Reid: In speaking to Mr. Hanna about the matter he mentioned that they would lay this ten miles this year for the reason that an elevator would
CN.R.-Branch Lines

be built, and it was for that purpose the rails would be laid. I am quite satisfied that it is the intention of the Canadian National Railway management to lay the ten miles in question and I feel satisfied from the way Mr. Hanna mentioned it to me that there is no doubt it will be done. Unless something unforeseen should happen it is the intention anyway to lay the rails before that time. The 50,000 tons of new rails which were purchased are now being rolled and sent on to the main line. The rails thus released will go on to the branch lines and the branch in question is one of those that will be taken up first.
So hon. members will see that the people had been promised this line for several years. Now there is a prospect of its being completed. When introducing this resolution the Minister of Railways stated that this line would be completed this year, but that the branch line programme is to extend over three years. I would ask him, does this preclude the possibility of any further extension of the line for the next three years?


George Perry Graham: Of course, every session
parliament can do as it pleases. It depends on the programme approved by parliament and on the recommendation made by the Canadian National Railway Board as to the necessity of the line.


Arthur John Lewis: That, of course, is the crux of the whole question. The minister spoke of the psychological effect that a three year programme would have upon people in the vicinity of the projected line when they became aware that railway construction would proceed for the next three years. I wonder what the psychological effect will be when the people find that the line may not be completed during the next three years. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of proceeding with the construction as rapidly as possible. I shall submit various reasons in support of my request, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will back me up.
In the first place, if to-day the people affected wish to bring in coal or fruit from the West they must haul it 265 miles. That is to say, it must be hauled from Swift Current to Moose Jaw, then round by Gravelbourg and up to Neidpath, a distance of 265 miles; whereas if this gap were constructed, the haul would be only twenty-four miles. This is not good business, and undoubtedly great economy would be effected if the gap were spanned. It is very difficult for us to get fruit on the prairies. On the Gravelbourg extension line we have a tri-weekly service, and by the time perishable goods have been hauled the 265 miles they are in such bad condition that the people are discouraged and do not attempt to ship in fruit which they require. I honestly believe that if this 
line were completed it would pay for itself in one year lay reason of the increased freight business that would necessarily follow. At the present time we are advocating the shipment of grain via Vancouver. The country tributary to this line grows, as the hon. minister has already stated, 480,000 bushels of wheat every year. Under present conditions if we wish to send our grain to Vancouver we would have to pay freight rate on an extra 265 miles. I believe the time is coming when the people in the district will send their grain westward to Vancouver, and there is no reason why they should not have the opportunity of doing so by the spanning of this gap. Furthermore, this territory is naturally tributary to Swift Current. Swift Current is the logical distributing centre, but owing to the noncompletion of this branch line the farmers in the neighbourhood have to rely on Moose Jaw, which means a longer haul of 265 miles. I might cite many other reasons in support of my request, but I do not wish to weary the committee. I think the minister knows that the gap should be bridged at as early a date as possible, and I hope that in the very near future he will see to it that the necessary construction is proceeded with. I hope also that the Minister of Agriculture, who knows the district well and has often had delegations wait upon him about the completion of this line, will also back me up in this request.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, the recital by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) of the necessity for the completion of this branch line is, I think, substantially correct. It was a bitter disappointment a year ago to the people along the prospective route to find that, notwithstanding that a construction crew with full equipment and material was already on the ground, the whole thing had to be called off. The result was that the people had to wait a year longer, and I am sure that it is generally hoped that there will not be a recurrence of what one might regard as almost a catastrophe to people who have been waiting so many years for a much needed railway service. As regards the suggested extension to Swift Current, that gap of course should be bridged as soon as possible. But as the board could not exceed the mileage of last year the question with them, as I presume it must be with all of us, was, how best to expend the money, primarily to the advantage of the farmers themselves. I do not like to make any comparisons as between the various interests of the farmers and the cities, but I

CJV.R.-Branch Lines
think hon. gentlemen will agree that the primary object in the building of many of the branch lines was to place the farmers sufficiently near their markets to make it possible for them to grow grain at a profit and without spending all their earnings in wagon and sleigh haulage. I am afraid, notwithstanding the claims made in regard to this extension, that there are some . outstanding rural districts that have even stronger claims.
I may refer to one or two in Saskatchewan west of Shell Brook. The hon. member for Prince Albert is not in his seat, but some other hon. gentlemen who are present know what a vast extent of territory lies west of Shell Brook, into the Mistawasis district, past Shell river and into Norquay, a distance of some 50 miles. The whole of this district has been settled and there is not a railway within 40 or 50 miles of these people. There is another line west of Turtleford that requires to be extended; there should be an extension through the Paradise Hill country in the province of Alberta, and something should be done in that case at an early date. The question is, which of these various claims is the most urgent? It is important, I think, that the gap between Neid-path and the city of Swift Current should be bridged, because it would save a tremendous haul for grain, coal and lumber coming from the West; and the people of Swift Current would themselves appreciate the speedy building of this road, for it would mean a very great deal to them. As' to what next year will bring forth, that of course is something that must depend upon the results of this year's work and the speed with which the present programme is carried out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The attitude
we take towards this line is precisely the attitude we took in connection with some of the other branch lines:	it is one that should
have been built last year, and could have been built if the government had taken the matter up as a question of business. The delay is to be attributed in part to the Minister >
of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) as a member of the cabinet, and all the pretence and sham about the three-j'ear period is extremely obvious in this case. We have no objection to this proposal.


Mr. McTAGGART:: This line does not
run through my constituency but I am familiar with the territory which it is intended to serve. I understand that the line was projected originally to extend as far west as Swift Current. The line has been completed with the exception of a gap of
24 miles, and, as has been explained by the hon. member for Swift Current, this gap necessitates a tremendous haul, of from 200 to 250 miles, of coal and lumber coming from British Columbia. My impression is that until the gap is bridged the line of railway as it stands at present will not pay. Has th'e board made any recommendation that the line not so far built be completed at an early date?


George Perry Graham: All recommendations
made will be found in the branch lines programme.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line extending the Gravel-bourg branch to Neidpath, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STB. ROSE DU LAC-RORKETON

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) 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 for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of steel at Mile 15 on the Ste. Rose du Lac Extension of the Canadian Northern Railway to Mile 37 at Rorketon, in the province of Manitoba; mileage already graded 22 miles; estimated mileage including existing grading, 22 miles; estimated cost, $378,000.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: I shall put on record
in Hansard the memorandum in connection with this line. I will not say anything in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) because I am much more anxious to get the resolutions through than to start a debate. But here is one line that seems to have been stopped in 1920 and which might have been constructed. The memorandum follows:
Cost
St. Rose du Lac. Mile 15-37.
Grade now ahead of track-22 miles.
Proposed in 1924-22 miles track	$378,000
Proposed in 1925-nil	
Proposed in 1926-nil.. .. '

It is proposed during 1924 to lay 22 miles of track on the grading already done on this line, at an estimated cost of $378,000, it then being intended to allow the track to remain at this point for a few years before further extending this line.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Prior to 1919 the line was in operation to the station of Ste. Hose du Lac, Mile 11.3 with the track laid further to Mile 14.9, and the grade to Mile 18.1. In 1919, a grading contract for 18.9 miles was let. This contract was completed in the year 1920, the grade then reaching Mile 37.0. This left 22 miles of grade on which no track has been laid. A location survey has been made	for	about	22 miles beyond the	endof grade, with	the	eventual idea of tying the	line
into the town of Winnipegosis.
This branch runs generally north through a scrub timber country which has plenty of precipitation each year. There is	considerable	grain grown in this	district but it is	best	suited	for mixed farming.	The
land is practically all taken up and has very considerable settlement on it.
The justification for building this line is that about $110,000 has already been invested in the grading now done, which is earning no money, and it is estimated that 396,000 bushels of grain per year will be hauled off the line when completed. An average of about 16 milefe road haul on grain will be saved to the farmers adjacent to this line, and this, computed as worth | cents per bushel per mile hauled, would effect an annual saving to the farmers of $47,520 on grain alone. Besides the grain business it is estimated that 190 cars of in and out-bound freight would be handled each year, consisting of live stock, lumber, wood and merchandise. The freight obtained from this line will be practically all of a long haul character, thus furnishing the rest of the system with considerable traffic.
Wagon road construction in this district is difficult and expensive on account of the sections of low wet ground. The railway would supply the main artery for this district, permitting the expenditures to be confined to lateral roads, and the provincial government has been appropriating money and building these lateral roads to the proposed sidings.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not quite get the point of what my hon. friend said in opening; I did not know there was anything to debate. Is there any issue at all on the question as to what happened to these branch line proposals last year? The only reason I raised the matter was because the hon. minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) brought it up and sought to take an unfair and improper advantage of it. If my hon. friend wants to debate the question there is just one thing for him to debate and that is the truth of what was brought out last year and the force of the objection then raised, namely, that the three-year period applied to work to be done within one year. If my hon. friend wants to debate what would have to be ridiculous, I am content to debate it with him, because I shall have to say very little. In connection with this line we say exactly the same thing that we say in connection with the rest of them. It is a line that ought to be built: It is a line that ought to have been built last year.


George Perry Graham: And the j^ear before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, the year
before, if that had been possible. It was not built last year because the proposal could not get a fair consideration on its merits. We have no objection to this line.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham f thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line extending the Ste. Rose du Lac branch to Rorketon in the province of Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HANNA-WARDEN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) 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 for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Hanna to Warden in the province of Alberta; estimated mileage including existing grading, 57 miles; estimated cost, $1,445,000.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: The following is the statement with respect to this branch line:
In 1924 it is proposed to grade 57 miles of this at a cost of $504,500, and in 1925 to lay track on this 57 miles of grade, and ballast 30 miles at a cost of $792,000. In 1926 it is proposed to ballast 27 miles at a cost of $148,500 thus completing the branch.
Construction of this line will serve a double purpose, as it will open up the agricultural district through which it will run and will also make a shorter route for railway and other coal to Hanna and points east, as well as shortening the route from points on the Goose Lake line to points northwest.
The country through which this line runs is a good agricultural area, principally grain raising, and there is considerable settlement and development throughout.	.	,
The justification for the construction of this line is that about $42,000 per year will be saved in routing coal, and that there will be 1,710,000 bushels of grain marketed on this line, besides 370 cars of in and out bound freight consisting of live stock, coal, lumber and merchandise. It is figured that on the average, 12 miles of road haul will be saved to the farmers, and this applied to the 1,710,000 bushels of grain and taken as being worth l cents per bushel per mile hauled, will mean an annual saving to the farmers of $153,900 in road haul on grain alone. The class of freight produced from this line, being all of a long haul character, will contribute business to other lines of the system.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I am not rising to
oppose this line, part of it lying through the country I happen to represent, but I do wish to present one or two facts in connection with it to the committee, and for the consideration of the minister.
As far as cheapening of operating costs in transporting coal is concerned, I am not competent to discuss it from that point of view.
I know, however, that the saving will be considerable. A large part of the coal loaded at the Brazeau collieries will be routed that way, I think. When you consider that about 16,000 cars were loaded at Brazeau in 1923

CJVJf.-Branch Lines
you can see the possibilities in that direction. The comments which I wish to make, however, are in regard to the location of the line as it affects the farming territory to be served, and while I am not in any way attempting to set my opinion against the opinion of the engineers who laid out this line I would suggest from my knowledge of the country there that they take into consideration these facts.
The line proposed runs from Hanna to Warden. If the line proposed ran from Hanna to Big Valley, about 16 miles south of Warden, and be taken in connection with the proposed line in the next resolution, from Loverna westward, which will ultimately connect up with the Hanna-Warden or Hanna-Big Valley branch, the distance would be shortened and I believe the country served would be a more fertile country and would produce a larger amount of freight. In connection with that may I make one suggestion? I have, of course, as have all other hon. members, received a great many requests for branch lines, and I have always asked the farmers when they made such a request that they accompany it with a map showing all the farms located within a ten-mile radius on either side of the line, together with the amount of produce of various kinds available for shipment that they have produced in the last two or three years.


Mr. MARLER:: The hon. member speaks
of combining this line with the other line. Would it take the same distance, 107 miles, if they were combined, or would it shorten the distance?


Alfred Speakman: As far as the distance
is concerned, if the two lines were combined, the distance would be shorter in every case if the terminus of the present branch were at Big Valley instead of Warden.


Herbert Meredith Marler: And serve as good a
country?


Alfred Speakman: And serve a more
fertile and a more thickly settled country, as the part of the country chosen for the proposed route is more or less of a lake country, and is partly used for cattle grazing. I am speaking now of the point with which I am acquainted, that is the farming country to be served and the farm produce to be expected as freight. I am not referring to the shorter routing of coal, which, of course, is an argument on the other side, and if there is a distinct advantage to be derived by the railways in that respect and from other sources it would, of course, overweigh the service rendered to the farmer. But I am
speaking from the point of view of the farmers to be served, in order that these facts may be given consideration in arriving at a conclusion. I am not prepared at the moment, the map being a very extensive one, to give definite data of the amount of produce to be expected. The data is not complete, and I have not a full map showing that. I am merely throwing out as a suggestion that this procedure might well be adopted when any lines are projected, that a township map be prepared showing the farmers resident on each quarter section within that ten-mile radius, and the amount of produce raised and shipped over the railway in the past two or three years. It would involve very little expense to the railway company or to the government. I have found in my own experience that farmers in the vicinity are only too willing to co-operate and give this information at their own expense if necessary.
It would help the committee to form an intelligent conclusion as to the class of territory to be served and the amount of traffic which the road might expect to receive.
There is another point that I think is well worthy of consideration. I am not aware as to how far this projected development will alter the present terminal point. I do not know whether that point will come into consideration at all, but if it does I would like to point out this fact: Big Valley is at present the terminal point; it was constructed as the terminal point. The National Railways have there about a $300,000 development in terminal equipment. The town itself being built largely to house Canadian National Railway employees has provided facilities, educational and otherwise, for those employees. The employees themselves have property which they have purchased, their own homes, amounting to pretty close to $200,000. All of these things I think must be taken into consideration if it is proposed by this short routing to eliminate the divisional point. I have no objection to make if it is in the best interests of the railway that the terminal point should be moved, because I am not here to speak for the interests of one town as opposed to the interests of the system. But again I say, if it is proposed to move the terminal point, to abandon the one already in , existence in favour of another, these facts must be taken into consideration-the amount of loss involved in salvaging the existing equipment, and the amount of compensation which must rightly be paid to the employees if they are removed from their present situation. I think all of these things should be taken cognizance of by the minister, and I hope to have his assurance that these points
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

have been well considered. If they have been well considered, and if it is found that it is more profitable for the railway, because of the shorter routing, to build the line as now projected, I for one have no objections to make. Warden is in my own constituency, just as is Big Valley, so it is nothing to me personally which point is chosen, but I do wish to see the greatest amount of service rendered to the country through which this line will run, and the greatest amount of benefit derived by the line running through that territory.
May I be permitted, in conclusion, to say that there are three things that must be taken into consideration in' building branch lines. The first one, in which we will all agree, is that through bettering, cheapening, shortening existing routes for freight a saving would be made which will pay the interest and sinking fund upon the amount invested by that shortening, cheapening and bettering of existing routes. Second, is the immediate increase of tonnage to be expected from new construction? We are all agreed on that, of course. Then there is the possible increase in tonnage in the future, and when I speak of increased tonnage I do not mean only as applied to branch lines. I have heard many men speak of branch lines as though they should be self-supporting, as though a branch line should be able to show a profit throughout its short length; but to my mind that is not the important point at all. We have to consider every additional ton which can come over a short line and be transferred to the trunk line. We have to consider what that will mean not to the short line, but in its contribution to the trunk lines east and west. To my mind that is a very important point, and a point which some members and some people in the country overlook when they suggest that branch lines should be able to show a profit on their own operation.


Mr. MANION:: Does not most of the traffic get on to the main line anyway?


Alfred Speakman: I have already stated that the justification would be the immediate increase of tonnage, or the increase of tonnage in the future by the development of .the country. I am speaking of increase of tonnage which will find its way to the main line, not to a diversion of tonnage from one branch line to another.
There is another point that must be taken into consideration by this parliament, and that is where this railway differs from the Canadian Pacific or any other privately owned railway. We must take into consideration not only the indirect benefit to be derived by the 
railways but the direct benefit to be derived by the country by the retention of population and an increase in our national prosperity, brought about to some extent at least by more adequate transportation. A privately owned line does not need to take that into consideration, but I believe it is well for us in voting the money of the taxpayers to keep all these points in view. I believe this line will be a profitable line, for I know the country fairly well and the amount of freight that can be expected, but it is for the minister to consider, after taking all these facts into consideration, whether the treminus suggested is the best terminus under all the circumstances.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has
touched on two or three points that are of interest. The people in the vicinity of Big Valley made strong representations along the line that my hon. friend presents. I discussed it at some length with the chairman and with the engineer of construction, Mr. Czowski, and they adhered firmly to this as the best route from the railway standpoint, largely on account of the short hauling of coal. I have no information concerning the suggestion of moving the terminal. That would be a matter for the Canadian National Railway Board, and has not yet been discussed with me. If it has not been repealed, an act was passed by parliament some years ago providing for protection, in a measure, of those railway employees who might be moved from one terminal to another from loss of their property, and so forth. I imagine that law is on the statute book yet, I have had no occasion recently to look it up. Howr-ever, I think the question of terminals was not discussed by the president of the board with me.	,


Herbert Meredith Marler: Has the minister had
the cost of this line confirmed? It seems very low to me.


George Perry Graham: It is the cost given by
the Canadian National Railway Board, and it is based on the report of their engineers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend will give us a rough analysis of this proposition. It is an entirely new proposition. We should know how much is to be spent for right of way, how much for bridges, how much for fills, and how much for rails? If the matter has been at all properly gone into that information has reached the minister's hands.


George Perry Graham: That detailed information has not been given to me, nor have I

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
attempted to give it to the House in the case of any of these bills. I have never in my life heard it given in detail in relation to any railway construction bill in this House, nor have I ever read of it being given in'any other legislative body.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If such has not been the practice, it is time we started to get down to business.


George Perry Graham: The memorandum I have here says:
In 1924 it is proposed to grade 57 miles of this at a cost of $504,500 and in 1925 to lay, track on this 57 miles of grade, and ballast 30 miles at a cost of $792,000. In 1926 it is proposed to ballast 27 miles at a cost of $148,500 thus completing the branch.


Alfred Speakman: In reply to the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Marler) as to cost of construction being low, I can give information on that point. I know the territory well and the ground is very level and very solid. Construction can therefore be carried on at a comparatively low cost.


Arthur Meighen: There is this feature of
this line that makes it not quite so imperative as the four lines that have preceded: There is nothing at all done yet, this is an entirely new project. I am convinced from what inquiry I have made-I have not been over the territory, but I have been to within a very few miles of it and learned something about it-that the line should be built, and that it will bring sufficient revenue to justify its construction from the purely railway standpoint. However, I do not think it is as urgent as the four roads covered by the resolutions which have just passed the committee. I have also been urged very strongly with reference to the change in the route from that which I understand was originally contemplated. The reasons have been presented by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), and I do not intend to rehearse them. If, however, there is to be a change involving the transfer of a terminal point or a reduction in the number of divisional points, it is going to be a matter of considerable cost to make good the losses of those who have invested their money in Big Valley, and I see no provision for that in the estimates before the House. It seems to me that it is not something that has to be rushed, and very careful review should be made again as to the wisdom of this change, also on the whole question of the extension. While I am convinced that ordinarily this line should be built and built immediately, these are extraordinary times
and if there is one road in the list that could stand I think this is the one. I urge that consideration upon the minister, but certainly I am convinced the road is a good one and should be built.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The last
speaker, perhaps, is as conversant as we are with the fact that in this district there is a large settlement of returned men. Probably throughout that portion of my constituency there have been more returned men placed on the land than in' any other single block. These men are having a tremendously hard time to make things go.


Arthur Meighen: Where are they located?


Edward Joseph Garland: East of
Rowley. If they cannot get reasonable railway facilities within the district within a short time it is questionable whether any one of them can stay. I have in my possession at this time answers to a large number of questionnaires and they indicate that one of the most serious causes of the present state of these men is the lack of railway transportation. I join with the last speaker in his very mild criticism of the transfer of the terminal point from Big Valley to Warden. Frankly I would urge that reconsideration be given to that decision. I do not want to place my judgment above that of the engineers in this matter, but I am under the impression that the Canadian National Railway management are guided in this matter by the desire to have a point to which they can have the shortest possible coal haul, leaving aside the possible economies that may be effected by allowing the terminal to remain where it is at Big Valley and where it is giving the best service.
Now, for a moment, allow me to consider the question of the situation of the people of Big Valley themselves. Injustice will unquestionably be done to them by the transference of the terminal point, and therefore the divisional point, from Big Valley to Warden. Last year I asked the minister some questions on this matter but he disclaimed responsibility for it. He pointed out that this was a question of railway policy he did not care to interfere with and he indicated just what the railway company was going to do. I had a discussion subsequently with some of the members of the board of management and they informed me that there was no intention at present to do anything with the divisional point at Big Valley. However, when I got back to Big Valley not much more than a month later, I found the place practically deserted, whilst a feeling of gloom had descended upon everybody there. About 148

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Canadian National Railway employees own their homes and lots in the town, and the total assessment on these lands and improvements amounted to $182,100. A number of Canadian National Railway employees who came there in 1922, instead of purchasing lots and building residences lived in box cars, rented rooms, and did other things which were not in the interest of Big Valley on the strength of a rumour that the divisional point was to be removed. So serious a situation arose in consequence, that the town authorities wrote to Mr. A. E. Warren, General Manager, Canadian National Railways, Winnipeg and asked him if this rumour was true. They pointed out that it was essential to meet the liabilities of the school district, which at that time amounted to $31,700, that these men should take up residence in the town and become taxpayers. Mr. Warren replied under date of September 19, 1922, as follows:
Mr. Fred C. Stokes,
Big Valley, Alta.
Dear Sir,
Referring to your letter of August 21, addressed to the Canadian Northern Town Properties Company, Limited, Winnipeg, which was referred to me by* Mr. Field, Land Commissioner, there is no intention of moving the terminal away from Big Valley, so that the rumour referred to cannot be used as a pretext for the employees not buying lots.
As a result of that letter a number of these men then purchased lands and proceeded to erect homes thereon. Not much more than two years later we find they are compelled to abandon their homes and take up jobs somewhere else. That is a serious injustice, and as an hon. gentleman said, no provision has been made to meet that unquestionable liability upon this government. I would ask the minister to take this question into consideration and to see to it that as close a scrutiny be made of this line and its terminal as is possible before the work is proceeded with. I think it is essential in the interests of the country that the work should be proceeded with and the line built. It is needed, but I think the terminal should be Big Valley and not Warden.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
minister's idea in regard to coal at this point was the coal from Brazeau. If I am wrong in that I would like to be put right. Surely it cannot be the Drumheller coal. It cannot be anything else but the Brazeau coal. Is that right?


George Perry Graham: I am taking no exception to the statement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am asking as to the coal which is said to be one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for the building of the line. Is it the Brazeau coal?


George Perry Graham: I think there is no doubt about(it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What tonnage of that Brazeau coal moves to that point in the eastern direction?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: The Brazeau collieries supply all the requirements of the Canadian National as far east as the first division.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it is a large tonnage and I want to find out what it is.


George Perry Graham: I have not the figures, but I think I can get them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One of the big questions in the handling of the western railway problem is that as to the distance from existing lines that new lines shall be built. I am not referring now to lines of different systems but to our own lines. I do not know that there is any real reason why the same consideration should not apply to other lines. What policy is being laid down by the directors as to the minimum distance for the construction of new lines for the purpose of giving the farmers service?


George Perry Graham: In every memorandum I have read to-day in regard to stations the saving that would be made by the construction of the line in mile haulage has been given. In some cases it is twelve miles, in some cases less and in some cases considerably more. The conditions of the locality would have something to do surely with the length of haulage that would be considered a proper haulage, which would not deprive the producer of all profit that the property could make on account of the expense in hauling. I could not give my hon. friend the absolute data as to what ought to be the mileage because I do not know. In some districts where there were good roads the mileage could be longer and still be more profitable than in sections where the roads were bad, where there was a shorter haulage. I pointed out that in all the statements made to-day where grain growing and the question of haulage was being dealt with, the mileage from the producer to the railway was given, and the saving that would be effected by the building of the line under consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the hon. minister is quite right in that statement. I do not know what is meant by the figures he gives. They just show the haul to the station-


George Perry Graham: The statement shows the saving.

CJf.R.-Branch Lines


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. In one
sense it does, and in another it does not. It shows the distance at the present time and the distance if the new line were built. But I was asking a different question. I was asking him what, in the opinion of the board, was the minimum distance for the construction of new lines for the purpose of giving the farmers service. We have to get down to some basic principle in this matter unless we are going to have political lines built here and there without any idea of anything except political profit. I would like to know the economic minimum distance in an agricultural district that railways can afford to be placed the one from the other. This is a matter which is absolutely at the foundation of any proper construction of prairie lines. Surely my hon. friend will have some idea on that question of policy.


George Perry Graham: I will reiterate to a
large extent what I have said. What would be a proper haulage with an idea of profit in one section would be altogether wrong in another section. For example, I might refer to some of the trails over which I have travelled in the West, and which were absolutely good roads. Fifty miles from there a man might have a 12 or 15 mile haul over a bad road. My judgment is based . on inherent knowledge, the same as my hon. friend's judgment. Perhaps fifty miles from that same locality, where the roads are almost impassable, the haulage will have to :be shortened, to be comparable with the haulage in the other districts. I do not pretend to be an expert on this, but I should say when a farmer has to haul his grain more than 10 miles to the railway he is at a disadvantage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is always at a disadvantage unless he is located very close to the line. Does the hon. minister think that Sir Henry Thornton and his board can possibly arrange their scheme of prairie branch lines on the basis of a ten mile haul that would give anything like fair play to the country as a whole? Does he know how many branch lines that would mean at the present time? We know these lines are urgently needed in places where people have to haul twenty and thirty miles.


George Perry Graham: I think it would take very many years for us to complete railway accommodation that would reduce the haul to ten or twelve miles.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
spoke of ten miles a moment ago.


George Perry Graham: Call it ten. My hon.
friend can call it whatever he likes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
said ten.


George Perry Graham: I said ten miles and I will adhere to that. Unless construction is begun to reduce the distance of haulage the producers will never reach what is even approximately a fair haul. If we said we were not prepared to do anything because we could not give everybody a ten mile haul and left them all with a fifty mile haul, it would not be good for the country or the railways. We never can make the Canadian National Railways a success, leaving the producers out of consideration altogether, unless we are prepared to build branch lines as rapidly as we can, in order to converge the traffic to the main line of the Canadian National or to some of its lines. It cannot be all done at once. The present state of our development was not reached in a few years. It is many years ago since the Grand Trunk was built; it had its difficulties, and continued to have them. Then the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed, but at that time there Was not much discussion as to the length of haulage and the amount of traffic. Now we all know that its construction was one of the saviours of Canada. My idea is that while ideals are worth striving for, yet if we are to be pinned down to details as to what the ideal situation should be we will never make a start because such ideals, never can be attained. It will take many years and a much more numerous population than we have to-day to bring about a state of affairs where the haul from the producer to the railway track will approximate the mileage that I have named. However, in many parts of the Dominion that desirable state of affairs does already exist, and I suppose that in the older part of Ontario the haul is hot over ten or twelve miles. I feel that we ought to be generous, if we are to benefit by the experience of our forefathers. They worked hard in order that we -might reach our present state of development. We have fairly good railway facilities in this province, and until the whole Dominion is equally well served', not only will there be -few settlers-for they will not come unless we encourage them-but many of those already here will be likely to move out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
very much interested and amused but not enlightened by my hon. friend's argument. In effect, he says that if we make ten miles the standard we will do nothing at all. I would think that looking back at our railway history -which m.ust be extremely familiar to my hon. friend-the railway mess made in Ontario
C .N .R .-Branch Lines

under his government would convince him that it was worth while before undertaking further railway construction, to determine what the economic distance between line and line ought to be. It is true that we have many miles of lines in Ontario

lines that we will be paying for for many years to come-where we do not need them, and where, at the present time, the Canadian National Railway Board is taking up rails and disposing of right of way which cost this country millions of dollars. And why? Just because that simple little question, what is the economic necessity, was not first considered. But apparently a bad habit is very hard to eradicate.
Now, I have found when discussing this question with farmers throughout the West- and if my hon. friend does not know anything about it I am going to tell him my own experience-that they recognise-whether my hon. friend does or does not-that it is practically impossible to lay out railways on the basis of a maximum ten mile haul; and, further, that if it were done, in the great majority of cases you would have the whole country gridironed with railways, none of which could possibly pay. I found the farmer of the Northwest possessed quite enough sense to appreciate what would be the probable result. I have also found in most places- and when I was on the railway board I took evidence time and again as to these costs- in an endeavour to co-operate with the local people, because after all the cost ultimately falls on the farmer, I found pretty general agreement with the view that if we could arrange to build our branch railways so that the maximum haul would not exceed fifteen miles it would be all right. Many farmers have told me that mileage has to be considered having regard to. each particular district, but that after all what really counted was whether you could draw your produce to the railway and get back again the same day; this they found they could always do if the haul did not exceed fifteen miles.
If my hon. friend really is sincere in wanting these branches constructed, why does he not furnish us with real business information? Why should there be any difficulty whatever if the board in dealing with it as a matter of business said: "There are just so many land sections between railways built at a given distance apart. In our view the closest distance is so-and-so, and we ought to try and give the people the best service possible, bearing in mind that limitation." Is that an unreasonable suggestion? Is it not something which in the first instance goes directly to the 
consideration of th. whole subject? I would think so.
I would point out to my hon. friend that the next line proposed opens up the same territory. I think the committee ought to have information as to what is to be done with these two lines. There is an extension within a few townships into this section. Is the Lovema line to be carried through to the main line? If so, to what point on the main line? And if it is carried through, what justification is there for the construction of the other line?


Mr. CAHILL:: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member for Pontiac says "carried." On what ground does he suggest that it is carried? Perhaps he would like to assist the committee. The minister himself has suggested that we call it six o'clock and that the committee rise, because he has not the information at present. Perhaps the hon. member for Pontiac has that information and is aching to unburden himself.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend has himself already given all the information which any hon. gentleman might want.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 36, respecting The Northern Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 37, to change the name of Imperial Underwriters Corporation of Canada to " Imperial Insurance Office."-Mr. Chew.


[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on the fol-lbwing proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Hanna to Warden in the province of Alberta: estimated mileage including existing grading, 57 miles: estimated cost, $1,445,000.
Sir HENR\ DRAYTON: We were trying to find out whether any general plan had been adopted as to the economical point at which further railways could be constructed, to see whether the board had considered economies at all in connection with their

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
proposals. If they did look at the matter from that point of view, what do they regard as duplication, what as paralleling, and what the reverse?
George Perry Graham: I think when my hon.
friend was chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners he stated that as a matter of general policy there should be fifteen miles between railway lines.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Thirty milesa fifteen mile haul.


George Perry Graham: Well, I think my hon.
friend is wrong about that, speaking offhand, but we can discuss that on any railway bill. With the lines thirty miles apart, to have a fifteen mile haul would mean that there would be a station opposite every farm, otherwise the farmer would have to haul east or west several miles in addition to his haul towards the railway line. If the lines were fifteen miles apart the average haul, I should think, would be ten or twelve miles. I am inclined to think my hon. friend did not put it at thirty miles, because that might mean , more than a thirty mile haul, according to the territory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon.
friend is quite right. You can always find places where it will be a little more or a little less. It is not very hard to get stations-


Edward Joseph Garland: Try the
Railway Commission and see if it is easy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course, it
costs a great deal more to look after stations and railways than it did. I am speaking of a time when conditions were perhaps some-.what different to those at present prevailing. I do not know exactly what it is like now, but I do know that the general underlying idea was-and of course stations had to be taken into account in that idea-if you have two lines only ten miles apart and no station within ten miles of either side somebody has to haul grain fifteen miles. When you talk about a maximum fifteen mile haul you are not talking about facts. Apart from refinements, and it is not necessary to do very much refining when apparently nothing is done at all, I wonder if any hon. gentleman in this chamber really thinks it is safe to go on building right and left without the slightest idea of what you are going to do with the line when it is built. Do not hon. members think that there should be some determining policy? You have to have stations here and there, but do you not think there should be some determining principle
which would say that lines are not going to be built any more in Canada just for the fun of building them? We expect now that lines shall be built in such a way that they will return a revenue. The prairie country is pretty similar as a rule; the prairie country is pretty extensive, and it needs branch line accommodation more than any part of Canada that I know of. It lends itself more to railway construction than any other part of Canada I know of at the present time, but when you say all that, you have not said an awful lot. You are just recognizing the fact, and you have your limitations. You have your first limitation as to moneys available for railroads; your second limitation as to returns from railroads. I do not suppose anybody in this House wants lines built in the Northwest to-day that are not going to pay. If there are any there ought not to be. I do not suppose there is any gentleman in this House who wants one set of settlers to have lines within ten miles of each other, costing a tremendous lot of money, when other settlers, unless conditions have changed very much since I was on the Railway Commission, because I have been over the ground, are not fifteen miles but thirty or forty miles from the railway. Surely what ought to be done is to try and do justice to everybody to the full extent possible and in order to do that we have to arrive at some reasonable policy.


George Perry Graham: I agree largely.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 44, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line between Hanna and Warden, in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LOVERNA EXTENSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) 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 for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Loverna, in a generally westerly direction, to a point in township 32 or 33, range 9, west of the 4th meridian, in the province of Alberta; estimated mileage including existing grading, 50 miles; estimated cost, $1,192,000.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
memorandum on that?
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


George Perry Graham: It is as follows:
Loverna Extension, Mile 0-50	Cost
Proposed in 1924-20 miles grade	$ 146,800
Proposed in 1925-30 miles grade; 50 miles
track; 30 miles ballast	 935,200
Proposed in 1926-20 miles ballast	 110,000

In 1924 it is proposed to grade 20 miles at a cost of $146,800, and in 1925 to add 30 more miles of grade and to lay track on 50 miles, and ballast 30 miles at a cost of $935,200 for that year. And, in 1926, to finish the line by ballasting 20 miles at a cost of $110,000.
The line runs through a good district susceptible of wheat raising and mixed farming, and there is already considerable settlement and development in this area.
The justification for the construction of this line is that it is estimated that 1,500,000 bushels of grain will be produced off it annually, besides 305 cars of in and outbound freight, consisting of live stock, coal, lumber and merchandise. On the average, 16 miles road haul will be saved to the farmers, and this taken at f cents per bushel per mile hauled, on the 1,500,000 bushels estimated to be produced, would be a saving to them of $180,000 per year on grain haul alone.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How do you get at that saving on the farmers' haul of sixteen miles? I would be very interested to learn how that conclusion is arrived at.


George Perry Graham: That is the statement
given me by the engineers of the road. They figure it at | cents per bushel. I imagine in some cases it would be much more than that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do the engineers always take the maximum distance and apply that as the average?


Charles A. Stewart: That would not apply in this case because this line runs directly between the Canadian Pacific railway and the Goose Lake line of the Canadian National. It is an extension of the Grand Trunk Pacific line from Biggar, which ends at Loverna on the boundary line between Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is a projection between the two lines approximately twenty miles from either.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the minister sure it is twenty miles from both?


Charles A. Stewart: Approximately. I know the settlement very well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would have
thought it would have been a good deal nearer than that. At any rate I think the minister is right, that what they have done is to take the maximum in arriving at their average, and he defends that course because the line is put down the centre. That may be right. It may be a good reason. It may be based on good engineering but it is certainly a novel one. It is proper to ask

how many more transactions of the same kind have happened? I will ask another question. We have had the amount of grain to be hauled. I want to know how much of that is new grain, and how much is grain already produced and handled on the line?


Charles A. Stewart: They have been growing grain in that locality for the past fifteen years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know it.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not a
nice piece of country to haul over because it is cut up by creeks. Many farmers have left the locality notwithstanding the fact that they have raised very large crops. The estimate of three-quarters of a cent per bushel for haulage is a very low estimate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
has not answered the question I asked.


Charles A. Stewart: What was
the question?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought it
was pretty plain. Is the quantity of grain , under consideration here the quantity that is now produced or does it merely cover the amount that will be produced? That is all I asked.


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly, when the railway goes in the amount of grain produced will be doubled. I may tell my hon. friend that the district has been settled for the past fifteen years. Furthermore, settlement went into the locality because of the stakes that were there, as it has gone into many other localities, and the people have patiently waited all these years for railway construction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not got an answer to the question yet.


Charles A. Stewart: Grain is
grown there. It has been grown for more than fifteen years. Is that the information my hon. friend wanted?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. We have
had an amount of grain stated. Is that the amount which will be produced?


Charles A. Stewart: One million bushels? I should say four or five million bushels. Let me say to my hon. friend that one station in a territory where grain is being grown will produce one million bushels itself.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then that statement is entirely incorrect.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Charles A. Stewart: I think it
is very conservative.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I say to the minister that I believe the estimate with regard to the number of bushels that will be produced in this territory is entirely too low.
I know the remarks of the Minister of the Interior are prompted by a knowledge of the conditions out there, a knowledge which I think the ex-Minister of Finance lacks. For example in my constituency one place, the town of Gleichen, shipped this year a million bushels. The town of Vulcan shipped two million bushels, and there are many points, especially in this portion of the province from which that amount was shipped. That production could undoubtedly be doubled if conditions were created that would keep the farmers in that part of the country. The want of population is largely attributable to lack of transportation facilities. That want will continue until the lack is supplied. The resolution provides for the construction of a line running from Loverna in a generally westerly direction. Would the minister have any objection to informing the committee just where the destination of the line is to be?


Charles A. Stewart: The original destination of this line, as my hon. friend knows, was Calgary and the original idea was that it should be a Grand Trunk Pacific branch line. Since the amalgamation of these roads, Hanna would be the terminus of this project.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is what I was afraid of. I register as powerful a protest as I am capable of against Hanna being used as the terminus for this branch line. There is an enormous territory north of Hanna which is suffering for want of transportation, I mean the country round Dowling lake, Long lake and so on. It is well settled, the land is excellent for agricultural purposes. The settlement went in there under the promise and expectation that this line would be built, and built long before now. If this line runs down to Hanna, and you have the other side of the triangle running from Hanna to Warden, you will have an enormous triangular area south of the Canadian Pacific the centre part of which will be 25 miles or more from the railway itself. That can be entirely eliminated by continuing the line westerly and meeting the Hanna and Warden line, at a point 20 miles south of Warden, or if the engineers considered it advisable running into Big Valley. I am sorry there is no 74
map on an adequate scale in the chamber so that I could point out the situation to members of the committee. However if they look at one carefully they will realize the practicability of the scheme as I am outlining it. I understood last year from the management of the Canadian National Railways that it was their intention to run this line from Loverna to a point about 20 miles southeast of Warden. That is all right. If it is decided to go to Warden that is the logical end of the line. But to run the line to Hanna would be perfectly absurd. It would leave the greater part of that territory still unsupplied with transportation facilities, and I protest against any such action.


Arthur Meighen: As far as this line goes I think it ought to be built. I must say that I base my conclusion more on facts within my own knowledge, than on any facts supplied by the minister from the directorate. Indeed I am convinced from the whole material presented by the minister from the directorate that the latter know very little about any of these lines, and I think hon. members who are supporting them are doing so more on the basis of their own knowledge than on any information supplied them in this way. It is said that 1,500,000 bushels of grain will be produced and delivered to this line. Well, it is obvious that there ought to be three or four times that amount -five times possibly and four times anyway -produced. I have not the least doubt there would be. But 1,500,000 bushels is the amount given us in this information. Then the statement goes on to say that the hauling of this grain, estimated at three-quarters of a cent per bushel, would save on the average of sixteen miles of road haul, therefore saving the farmers $180,000. You really could not have greater humbug than that. As to the haulage the average man would save, sixteen miles would be the maximum saving for anyone. A few might save a little more but it is obvious, by looking at the map, that there would be ten per cent save sixteen miles, and the other ninety per cent would save anywhere from sixteen miles down to one mile. How anyone can suggest that the average farmer would save a sixteen mile haul and state it seriously, is something I cannot understand. As represented to me, not by one but by many, because of the far greater amount of grain that will be produced than is stated here, the average saving in the hauling applied to all that grain, say of eight or nine miles, would represent the amount stated here. I

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

only call attention to this matter to show how utterly unreliable this data is. This has been supplied, I suppose, by some engineer, certainly not by any practical man.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly not a practical man for deciding how much grain is going to be delivered to a railway, and how -much is going to be saved in delivering it. If the National Railway is dependent on this kind of data to decide what to do I think parliament will have to apply its own intelligence and apply it very closely. My judgment is that this whole programme is not really based on the opinion of the National Railway directors at all. It is based on representations that h#ve been made to the government from the district, and I venture to say mostly representations by members of parliament. They have taken it up with the directors, and after the whole thing is through the directors have come to a compromise with them, and so it goes. Consequently, we are really called upon, in respect of every single line, to bring to bear our own information and local knowledge, and without that we would be pretty much in the dark. I hope that later on some means can be taken to lay more directly before each and every member who has not the advantage of local knowledge some statement of the situation, because as we stand to-day it really is not fair to hon. members to call upon them to support this proposition. The facts are not before them.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to raise
any controversy at the present time over the general practice in regard to information given by the government when asking for a grant of money to build branch lines. I submit this statement, however, with unqualified confidence: that a greater amount of information has been given on each one of these lines than was given in regard to the branch lines project in 1920.


Arthur Meighen: The minister was not in the House.


George Perry Graham: This is one of the times when, fortunately, Hansard talks, but I do not want to raise the question now because I want to get the resolutions through and build these lines.


Arthur Meighen: My point is that the
information given is not dependable.


George Perry Graham: Then my hon. friend
would say that no information at all would be better.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, rather than this
information.


George Perry Graham: That would be the only defence they could have for the procedure in 1920 because they gave no information whatever.


Arthur Meighen: They gave all that was asked.


George Perry Graham: I will show it to my hon. friend. Here is the branch line programme. It was in the estimates but not so stated. I mean that the lines were not in the general estimates, if my information is correct. There was a great deal of discussion. I was not present, but at page 4232 of Hansard of June 25th, 1920, there is considerable discussion about the branch lines. One hon. member says he is only going to discuss the Hudson Bay railway, and another hon. member wants some information as to the Humboldt-Melfort branch, and the reply of the minister, Mr. Reid, was:
I can give a list of the lines I have here. The Humboldt-Melfort has a grade of 5.4 and a 32 track.
Then Mr. Campbell asks:
Will that complete the line between Humboldt and Melfort entirely?
And the minister replies:
I understand it will.
Then the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) asks this question:
I think that if the minister would give us the details of the whole of these lines it would be more instructive to hon. members. The statement could appear on Hansard.
Then follows the information with a list of the lines:
Line	Work to be done 1920
Line now under construction _ Grade Track
Then we find a statement of the different lines and the grade and track. There may be some information somewhere else. I have not been able to find it. The statement of the minister here gives the amount of grading to be done and the amount of track. As far as I can find out, it does not give the terminus or the starting point, but that will be in some particular some place else. The cost of some of these lines is not in this list at all. This list just gives the mileage and there is absolutely no information in it.


Arthur Meighen: The practice was to lay on the Table detailed data which did not appear in Hansard, because it was laid on the Table, but it was available for every member. Information was never denied. It will be re-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
called also that in those cases the money was voted separately in the estimates, and debates took place as well.


George Perry Graham: This is when the estimates were up.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


George Perry Graham: No resolution, because they were in the estimates.


Mr. CLARK:: A great many of us who are in the House to-day were not here in 1920, and if the opposition of that day did not see fit to get the proper information they simply were not doing their duty by the country.


George Perry Graham: Was the government doing their duty by not furnishing the information?


John Arthur Clark: I am relying on the statement of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who says the data was laid on the Table. Apparently it was not inspected by the opposition of that day. The opposition did not deem it necessary in the country's interest to make a study of the data, and consequently the Branch Lines Bills, I suppose, went through without any particular study by the then opposition. But to-day we have a different opposition, and so far as this particular member of the opposition is concerned, I propose at least to oppose these branch lines until we get data which is reliable and accurate. All any hon. member has to do is to go to the Table and look at the map and he will see that an absolute misrepresentation has been made by the engineer. I do not connect the minister with it, because he is simply reading the report of the engineer; but any engineer who cannot make measurements on a map to scale should not be in the employ of the Canadian National. As far as I can see, you cannot find any point along the line of that railway, if the railway is fifty miles long, where the distance would be fifteen miles from the railway, and yet the engineer says that the average distance that any farmer will save in haul will be sixteen miles. The thing is absolutely ridiculous, and I am astonished that an engineer should think he could put it over in that way.


Mr. JACOBS:: That may mean eight miles coming and eight miles going.


John Arthur Clark: Even taking it in that way, coming and going it would be impossible.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think the engineer had anything of that kind in his head, but undoubtedly he had in mind what is a fact, that the people to-day are hauling more than fifteen, sixteen and eighteen miles.
743.


John Arthur Clark: On an average?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Across the locality where the line is projected. He is not speaking of what will happen if the line is built.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, he says so. He
does not say they are hauling that distance; he has no doubt they are hauling more, but he says on an average sixteen miles road haul will be saved.
Mr. STEWART	(Argenteuil): Yes, of
course. Why would not sixteen miles be saved if they are hauling eighteen and twenty miles now? Of course, it will be saved.


Arthur Meighen: On an average?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I know the locality very well.


Arthur Meighen: Is the road going to
everybody's doorstep?


Charles A. Stewart: No, that
is not the intention at all. It is not the intention to go near anybody's doorstep. It is going along the projected fine that was surveyed years ago. I see no change in the map. I informed the House that a great many settlers went in there under the promise that that line would be built the next year. Now to the south of that is a creek, and a veiy mean crossing to go to the Goose lake line of the Canadian National, and as a matter of fact the farmers for ten or twelve years have been hauling twenty miles to the Canadian Pacific railway to the north.


Arthur Meighen: More than that.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
be well within the mark.


Arthur Meighen: What would be the
average haul if the road were built?


Charles A. Stewart: Probably
not more than eight miles.


Arthur Meighen: So that the average haul before that must have been twenty-four miles.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in some cases.


Arthur Meighen: But was the average
twenty-four miles before?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: I should say not. How
could the difference be sixteen on an average?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is very picayune about averages.


Arthur Meighen: No.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Charles A. Stewart: I assert
that what the engineer stated is an absolute fact.


Arthur Meighen: It cannot be.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course
it is. My hon. friend talks about averages- I say that for fifteen years men have been hauling their grain anywhere from fifteen to twenty miles to the Canadian Pacific line.


Mr. BRISTOL:: When was the road first
promised, and by what government?


Charles A. Stewart: When the
road was projected from Biggar to Loverna.


Edmund James Bristol: By our old friend Sir
Wilfrid Laurier?


Charles A. Stewart: There
were a lot of promises made but not by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was followed by Sir Robert Borden, who made many promises from the tail-end of a railway train.


Edmund James Bristol: That is a very unnecessary statement. I simply asked by whom the road was promised.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend invited the answer; he has got it.


Edmund James Bristol: No, I asked by whom
was this road promised.


Charles A. Stewart: It has been promised for fifteen years.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, may I finish my remarks?


Mr. McCONICA:: Mr. Chairman, I am
quite familiar-


John Arthur Clark: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


John Arthur Clark: I was speaking when the
Minister of the Interior interrupted me with a question, and I have not had a chance since to conclude my remarks.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member
gave way to the Minister of the Interior.


John Arthur Clark: To allow him to make a
remark.


George Newcombe Gordon: That is not a point
of order. The hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) has the floor.


Thomas Henry McConica: Mr. Chairman, I am
quite familiar with the country through which this railroad would be constructed. There seems to be some controversy as to how far men are hauling their wheat there to-day. 
A glance at the map will show that we do not have stations at every crossroads in that country. After a man strikes the railroad1 he has to go down five miles to the nearest station to unload his wheat. His haul is from his home to the nearest elevator, and as the elevators are ten miles apart his haul cannot be estimated by figuring it from a certain point to the nearest railroad. I know that people went into that country fifteen years ago expecting this railroad to be built. It is an excellent farming country, and not only will this road be called upon to haul out wheat but to bring in coal from the Drum-heller district to supply the country from Loverna to Biggar. That coal now comes by a roundabout route. This line will put Us eventually in direct connection with the coal fields, and the freight will be an exceedingly important source of income. Certainly, the road should be built. It seems to me that it is good sensible economy to build it now, because otherwise the people cannot stay there much longer. Many have already gone out, but they will come back if railway facilities are' provided. The country is capable of producing far more wheat than is shown by the estimate, and will furnish an abundance of traffic. I think the road should be built, and built now.


Arthur Meighen: I want to try to make
clear to the minister-I really think it is clear to everybody else-what I was arguing before. He allowed his anger to get the better of him, and his arithmetic retrogressed as his anger increased. First of all, I would explain that I am not opposing the road.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: That is better.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon.
member say?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is better. It is
not what we understood when he started.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry. I know the hon. member understands English very well, and I have said that three times before.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The hon. gentleman
has such a peculiar way of surrounding everything he says that we do not know on what foot he stands.


Arthur Meighen: I do not catch my hon.
friend's remark, but he evidently would like to escape this question of addition. What the engineer says, and bases his whole calculation on, is that the average road haul will, after this road is built, be sixteen miles less than it was before. Now, I stated that patently that was nonsense. The minister does not seem to see that the saving in the

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
average road haul must be the difference between the average road haul before and what it will be after the railway is built. He put the latter road haul at eight miles. I do not think he is very far out, but if anything, he is low. So the average road haul before must have been twenty-four miles. But admittedly twenty-four miles is the maximum. Therefore, his figures are simply foolish; that is all. I do not say that the estimates will not be borne out, but that is merely because he made as big an error one way in being too low as he made the other way in being too high. The other error is that the estimate of the grain to be grown is far too low. I venture to say there is more grain grown now. I hope I have made clear to the minister that whoever this engineer is he has disclosed such errore that we cannot depend on his calculations at all. He may have meant something different from what he said; but if he did mean what he said, he did not know what he was talking about.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
going to quarrel with my hon. friend about averages.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, continuing the protest I made to the minister-to which he has paid no attention whatever-may I read to him from the memorandum of an association that was organized in the winter of 1921 throughout all the municipalities east of Big Valley, a territory which is entirely ignored, according to the Minister of the Interior, in the completion of this line? The association so organized became active in 1922 for the following purposes:
To draw the attention of the government to the fact:
1.	That the settlers within this area have waited over twelve years since the first survey was made.
2.	That the area described is well and extremely productive as shown by the last census returns.
3.	That this extension would assist in the development of two coal fields of exceptional promise.
The association advised the farmers to assist the government in building the road, and I simply wish to quote their figures to indicate to the House their deadly earnestness. They made the suggestion, and bound themselves by agreement, to offer to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, if the company would only permit them to build the road, a bonus on a sliding scale as follows:
Each man who lived from one to two miles distant from the railroad would pay $60 per quarter section, from two to three miles distant, $50 per quarter section; from three to four miles distant, $40 per quarter section; from four to five miles distant, $30 per quarter section; from five to six miles distant, $20 per quarter section, and from six to seven miles distant, $10 per quarter section.
This shows how far these men were willing to go in helping to build the line and how anxious they were to see it undertaken. That offer was rejected; why, I do not understand. But may I say to hon. members that the financial ability of those men to-day to renew that promise is gone, but the spirit which then animated them is still there. But they will not and cannot stay in that territory if the line to Big Valley is not put through. Therefore, I should like an assurance from the minister that he will take up the matter earnestly with the management and have the line completed.


Mr. GR  AHAM@: I apologise to the hon.
member for neglecting him, but only one speaker can have the floor at a time, and I have not had a chance, this question of averages having got away beyond me. I am glad to get back to the railway. I understand that the point at which the line suggested is to join the other line has not yet been determined, which allows full opportunity for representations to be made to the board. Formerly, these were competing lines. To-day, the management is trying to co-ordinate and use all the lines to the fullest advantage and so secure as direct a route as possible. I will certainly bring to the attention of the board what my hon. friend has said, and I think I may safqly tell him that up to date it has not been decided at what point on that line the connection will be made.


Edward Joseph Garland: I was simply going on the suggestion of the Minister of Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) that he thought that Hanna was to be the terminal point.


Charles A. Stewart: That assertion is based on the fact that the line is following identically the old survey. I know the situation as outlined by my hon. friend and undoubtedly the settlement of Dowling Lake is important.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Minister of the Interior knows enough about the situation to be able to endorse everything that I have said. I see he nods his head, and I am glad to have his approval. It is quite true that the original survey did run to Hanna but since that time there have been three other surveys, one north of Drumheller between Rowley and Morrin, another running into Big Valley, and now, as I understand, a fourth running into Warden. It is clear therefore that there are contemplated a number of surveys, and I sincerely trust that Hanna will not be the one that will be followed.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Mr. GARDINER:: I can support all that
has 'been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Garland, Bow River). I think the Minister of the Interior will remember that when he was Premier of the province of Alberta I headed a deputation requesting his government to allow the people to tax themselves for the purpose of assisting this particular branch line when it was under the jurisdiction of the Grand Trunk Railway. The area to be served is very well populated and has been considerably developed. I took a trip through the district last fall and I am sorry to say that I discovered that many of the settlers had left because they had no railway communication at hand. In discussing this matter with the people in that particular district I was informed by many of them that during the fall they had to make trips to the Canadian Pacific Railway on the north at a cost of from $8 to $16 a trip to carry a load of grain.


George Perry Graham: How many bushels?


Robert Gardiner: About 120. You can
understand that under these circumstances it is impossible for these people to remain in that locality very much longer unless they get this branch line, and get it at the earliest opportunity. These people have been very patient and have made many pilgrimages to Winnipeg to induce the officials to build this branch line; and knowing the district as I do I am satisfied that this particular piece of railway will be a very profitable one. There is available annually a quantity from four to six million bushels of wheat throughout this [DOT]territory, and naturally there would also be other freight in addition to grain. As regards the terminus of this particular branch, I suggest very respectfully to the minister that in discussing the matter with the board he decide not to run into Hanna. In my opinion the line should be kept further north in order to afford the people in that part of the country the accommodation which they so badly require.


John Arthur Clark: When does the minister
expect to have the detailed information regarding this line and others as well?


George Perry Graham: I think I can safely say that the information which I have been giving to the House in connection with these resolutions is somewhat more detailed than I can recollect having been given to parliament before. Of course, I need not say that I want to give to hon. members all the information that is available; there is nothing to hide but rather everything to gain in so doing. I might suggest that the information I am giv-
ing is rather modest in that the grain that will be available in these districts, it is suggested, is about three times as much as the railways have estimated.


John Arthur Clark: I think it has been clearly indicated that the information which the minister has given us is so inaccurate as not to be accepted.


George Perry Graham: Not at all; on what point is it inaccurate?
Mr. CLx\RK:	On the question of average
distances.


George Perry Graham: Let me answer that
point.


John Arthur Clark: If I may resume afterwards.


George Perry Graham: Certainly. Some hon. members who have not listened carefully to the statements that I have made have jumped at the conclusion that the engineers reported that the saving in the distance would be so many miles. That is not what the engineers have said, nor is it what I have read. If one is figuring a rate, say, on coal from Alberta some provision must be made for getting the empty cars back. So that the rates are based not altogether on what it takes to move a certain quantity from one point to another; if that were all, then the provisions for traffic would run out in a short time. The vehicles have to be brought back to the point of shipment and therefore allowance must be made therefor. Some hon. gentlemen laughed when one hon. member said that the men with the teams had to drive back eight miles; and what I am pointing out to the committee is that if there were nothing for the farmer to take back the cost of the haulage of his grain must include the trip going as well as coming.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In some of the other cases it certainly was not figured on any such basis. Will the minister tell the committee that in some of the other cases we have dealt with the engineers were taking into account the haul both going and coming?
I am not referring to cost; my hon. friend's reference to that question is entirely beside the mark and he knows it. What I am referring to is the length of the road haul upon which the engineer is basing his calculations; and I want the minister to state on his responsibility what is meant in the reports when the road haul is mentioned. Is it to the station and back, or simply to the station?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say what was in the engineer's mind.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know you cannot.


George Perry Graham: If I were figuring the cost of hauling I would figure both ways, including the empty conveyance going as well as the full load. And any sane man would do the same.


John Arthur Clark: Does the estimate of three quarters of a cent per bushel per mile apply to the 8 miles or the 16 miles? In other words, is it going or coming, or both?


George Perry Graham: I have stated the case as clearly as I can. The ex-Minister
9.	p.m. of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) said that it had nothing to do with the question of cost, while my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) says that it has.


John Arthur Clark: I am not saying anything.


George Perry Graham: I stated a moment ago exactly what the case was, no matter what the engineers may have had in mind; and that is, that the cost of haulage would include going as well as coming.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We might as well try to be fair with each other in this matter. There is a question of cost which is based on length of haul. There is cost coming and going, there is no dispute about that, and when you come to count your cost coming and going you would have a right to some allowance at both ends, unless, as the Minister of Interior, I think, said, you are getting something back in a return haul. But that has to do only with distance. It may be that the hon. gentleman is quite right if he wants to double costs for the haul. But I want to see whether as a matter of fact we can rely upon anything in connection with these estimates. When it is said that the haul to the railway is a given number of miles, does that mean distance or does it mean return journey? Which way are we to read these reports? Surely my hon. friend understands that. Surely that is something we ought to know. The ordinary acceptance of the term is that distance is distance and does not cover return mileage. Unless we know how to read these reports we cannot give any intelligent consideration to the matter. Are we to have a different reaffing for every single report, according to the exigencies of the case?


John Arthur Clark: I want to read the statement the minister made with regard to the road haul. Whether there has been an attempt to do it or not, I think the members are confused as to just what the saving will be. I have examined the map which is on the table and so far as I can judge the maximum haul
would be about seventeen miles, and the average would be very much less-not more, I should think, than six or seven miles. Now, this is what the statement says that the minister read to the committee:
On the average, sixteen miles road haul will be saved to the farmers,-
That might be taken the way the minister interprets it, if it stopped there; it might be both ways, eight miles going and eight miles coming. But taken with what follows I say his interpretation is an impossible one. What follows is this:
-and this taken at |c per bushel per mile hauled-
So that it reads as follows:
On the average, sixteen miles road haul will be saved to the farmers, and this taken at |c per bushel per mile hauled-
That means the number of miles you haul the number of bushels you have on your wagon; it cannot mean anything else. Any other interpretation, I contend, is simply ridiculous.


Mr. KELLNER:: Do you think you do not have to haul the wagon back?


John Arthur Clark: Absolutely, but you do not
haul the grain both ways, and that is what this statement says. The reference is to the bushels that are being hauled, not to the return of the empty wagon. It is as clear as the English language can make it. If the committee is to be properly informed about these branch lines we must have before us those* who know something about the matter. I would like to know whether the minister has seen the profiles or the plans for these railways.


George Perry Graham: Why should he see them?
1 do not build railways. I am not a railway builder.


John Arthur Clark: There you are. I would
like to see the plans and profiles. I would like to see what the grades are like, for instance. If I could see the profiles and had a report on the surrounding country I would have some idea, ignorant though I am on railway building, whether it was feasible to put a railway into this country. It is true that it is easy to build railways in the prairie country, but we have other country besides prairie country. I know of areas on the prairie into which I think even hon. gentlemen on my left would not be enthusiastic about building a railway. We have all seen country on the prairies where none of us would want to put a railway if it were not for the fact that we have to go through it.	[DOT]

C.iV.i?.-Branch Lines


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Will the hon. member
explain what is meant in railroading by "ton car mile"?


John Arthur Clark: I cannot hear my hon. friend, but from what I make of his question I do not think it has anything to do with what I am discussing. If my hon. friend wants a discussion on that perhaps he can get some of his fellow members to go outside and talk about it. I am trying to stick to the question now before the committee, which has reference to these particular branch lines. As I say, I think the only feasible and sensible thing to do is to bring down the plans and profiles and have these engineers appear before a committee-these engineers who so obviously, to my mind, make incorrect statements, as shown by the map the minister has placed on the Table. If we could get into committee with the plans and profiles before us, with decent maps, with witnesses who know the country and who can tell us whether these things are necessary, it might be plain sailing, and perhaps we could support all these proposals. As it stands now I cannot see how I can support any of them unless I happen to know personally the country that the particular line goes through, and I think if members are honest with themselves they must come to the same conclusion. I do not see how they can support a proposal to expend millions of dollars for a line of railway they know nothing about.


Charles A. Stewart: It is rather amusing to hear the hon. gentleman talking the way he does, after our sitting with our hands folded the other evening and listening to the statements made from that side about the wonderful country through which the proposed railway lines were to run in British Columbia. We took the word of hon. gentlemen opposite-


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: I intend to keep the floor.


John Arthur Clark: If my hon. friend will permit me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: We took the word of hon. gentlemen opposite on that occasion-


John Arthur Clark: I would like to say-


Charles A. Stewart: And for the benefit of my hon. friend I will say that I am prepared to take his word again about his own country.


John Arthur Clark: I did not speak on that occasion, if you will remember.


Charles A. Stewart: I noticed
that you did not speak; that was very evident. There was not very much information asked for, so far as I observed. I have known this locality for about twenty years; I had the honour of representing it for four or five years. The residents in this locality went to the local government and pleaded that they be permitted to build the line themselves in order to prevent the people from leaving that country. Surely if my hon. friend is looking for evidence he has it at first hand from responsible representatives of the locality which the railroad passes through.


John Arthur Clark: They generally tell us what is politically expedient.


Charles A. Stewart: That may fit in the other direction just as aptly as it fits here. We have been in the habit of accepting the word of hon. gentlemen in this House in respect to matters affecting their own localities, and I think we may continue to do so. My hon. friend is seeking to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. He has had the assurance that this is a good locality from half a dozen members who know it intimately. There are areas in every part of the country where the land is inferior in quality, but this land is not of that type. It has been settled during alii that period and I know of my own knowledge of at least six who left that territory and abandoned a section five years ago because they were unable to make a livelihood on account of the long haul which they had to make of their produce to market. To quibble over whether there is an average haul of so many miles or whether this line is warranted-well, I think we have long passed that stage with reference to this particular line.


John Arthur Clark: I am astonished at the statement made by the Minister of the Interior.
I did not say that the country through which this line runs was not a good country. It may be the best in the world. What I am objecting to, and what I still maintain just as strongly as I maintained it before, is that the information put before this House not only with respect to this particular line but with respect to them all is inaccurate, and

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
incomplete. As for the insinuation that I have cast a reflection or a doubt upon the word of any member of this House, that is beneath the hon. minister. He does not believe it, and I am surprised to hear him make such a statement. I cast no doubt on the word of any hon. member.


Charles A. Stewart: I made no
such insinuation. If my hon. friend will allow me-


John Arthur Clark: I permitted the minister to
interrupt me once before, but he did not reciprocate when I wanted to interrupt him.
' Sir HENRY DRAYTON:	Ruled out of
order.


George Newcombe Gordon: No one was ruled out
of order. There was no point of order raised.


John Arthur Clark: I think I have stated what
I wished to say to the minister and to this House. I cast no reflection on the word of any hon. member. The hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) to my mind gave me more information than both the ministers opposite, despite the fact that these gentlemen are supposed to come to this House armed with all the facts and are supposed to give to hon. members representing the constituencies through which these lines will run, as well as to the rest of the committee, all the information that is required. But we find the ministers know nothing about it; they give us information which is wrong, as is shown by the map, and they have to be corrected by members over here; then they ask us to accept the explanation given by the members for the constituencies concerned. I say that is most unsatisfactory. The only way we can get down to business and get the facts is by bringing the engineers, and if necessary the president of the road, and his directors if they know anything about it, which I doubt very much, before the committee so that we can find out whether the information the minister is giving us is correct or whether the information given by the members representing the constituencies through which these lines run is correct.


Edward Joseph Garland: Possibly I
can assist, my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) with regard to this rate per bushel business. The custom in that country when a man is hired to haul grain is not to ask him how much he will haul it for per mile, but to ask him how much he wants to haul the grain say seven miles, and the man who is undertaking to haul the grain always takes into consideration the two-way haul, not simply the oneway haul. I am afraid my hon. friend has not lived in that part of the country long enough to understand either the conditions there or the practice in connection with contracts for grain hauling.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think perhaps we have asked for all the information that is worth while asking for. We have certainly not got the information we have asked for.
I suppose in closing it is due the House that we should thank the hon. Minister of the Interior for his quiet, kindly and temperate remarks, and for that great grip of the business side of railroads that he has displayed.
I am quite sure that everybody who is at all interested in the question of returns from the National roads will feel a tremendous relief when he learns that simply because the hon. member for Burrard is charged with making a speech in one part of the country which he did not make, this line is a perfectly good line to build.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 45, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Lovema westerly in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LLOYD MINSTER EXTENSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) 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 for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Lloydminster in the province of Saskatchewan, in a generally northwesterly direction, to a point in or near Township 53 or 54, Range 6, west of 4th Meridian, in the province of Alberta; estimated mileage including existing grading, 45 miles; estimated cost, $1,170,000.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: If my memoiy serves me this is the line in respect to which certain suggestions have been made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's solicitor for an agreement with respect to joint operation or running rights. I may say that the matter was discussed with myself by a solictor, a representative of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I think it is now being discussed between the two lines. I think if an agreement were reached there would be no difficulty in amending this proposed legislation
C .N .R.-Branch Lines

when ifc comes before the House in bill form. I want to make it clear that by passing this resolution I am not at all trying to slam the door in the face of any negotiations that may take place.


William Findlay Maclean: Have there been other instances of similar negotiations and joint agreements between competitive companies?


George Perry Graham: Yes. In one case I think the Canadian Pacific had a bill and a clause was inserted-as the result of an agreement or action by the committee or by the House- providing for joint operation, if I remember *correctly, between the two companies.


Mr. HANSON:: That was with respect to this particular line was it not?


George Perry Graham: I think so. Now here is
what is proposed:
Lloydminster Mile 0-45-	Cost
Proposed	in	1924-20	miles grade	 $262,500
Proposed in 1925-25 miles grade; 20 miles
track	 385,000
Proposed in 1926-25 miles track; 45 miles ballast	 522,500

It is proposed in 1924 to grade 20 miles at a cost estimated to be $262,500. In 1925, to add 25 more miles of grade and lay 20 miles of track, at an estimated cost of $385,000, and in 1926, finish the line to Mile 45.0 by laying the remaining 25 miles of track and 45 miles of ballasting, at a cost of $522,500.
The aim will be to eventually reach Bruederheim. The distance between Lloydminster and Bruederheim is about 140 miles. The line runs through a good agricultural country suitable for mixed farming and grain growing, and there is considerable settlement throughout.
The justification for this line is that with the very considerable development now being made in this country, the haul to railway markets is quite excessive. It is estimated that the portion of the line contemplated, when completed, will produce 1,350,000 bushels of grain annually, and that the saving to the farmers in road haul would average 20 miles. This, figured at fc per bushel per mile, would save the farmers $202,500 per year on grain haul alone. Besides grain it is estimated that 460 cars of in and outbound freight -would be hauled, consisting of live stock, coal, lumber and merchandise. As all the freight from this line would be of a long haul character, it would contribute largely to the business of other lines of the system.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister can certainly give us now the estimated profits as the result of the building of this line. He has stated the amount of grain to be carried, but what will the rate on that grain be?


George Perry Graham: The difficulty is that the Hoard of R&ilway Commissioners do not control the railway rates wholly. However the rate will be one which is approved by the railway board.
fMr. Graham.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister can not be quite serious. He must know that the railway rates have been taken out of the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners for the whole of that territory, and that there are statutory rates. Surely he can tell us what these statutory rates are. He knows the Board of Railway Commissioners had nothing to do with the matter, it has been taken out of their control by the government.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to enter into any argument on the matter. This government did not take anything from the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. SPENCER:: I wish to support what the minister has said as to the country through which the suggested line will pass. It is an exceedingly good farming country but very badly in need of railway transportation. It is one of those districts where you can go for ninety miles north of Lloydminster and find settlement without any railway facilities. This is a railway that will help that country considerably. The people located there have been very patient for many years, waiting for transportation to be provided. I sincerely hope that not only will they get this line, but railway facilities south of the present Canadian National railway as well. There is quite a large area of country, on each side of the present line running from Lloydminster westward, and it is most essential that these districts be given transportation facilities; otherwise we are faced with the prospect of losing quite a percentage of the settlers, and when we lose the old settlers it is useless to put new men in their places.
I simply wanted to make the statement that I know the country very well, and I hope there will be no delay at all in connection with the building of this railway.
bir HENRY DRAYTON:	Now, perhaps,
I can get an answer to my question as to what the estimated revenue from this line is. _ We have got the estimated volume of freight but what is the estimated revenue? Cannot my hon. friend give me that?


George Perry Graham: If I could hunt up the
rate, and had the assurance that it would never be changed, I could give an estimate. But my hon. friend's long experience ought to teach him how difficult it is to estimate what the freight will be in the respective areas affected, including the local rate, the long haul, and everything else. My hon. friend could not state that himself and he has been chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The general statement is more than has ever been made to the House

C.NJt.-Branch Lines
under like circumstances. We have to consider not only the local traffic carried, but the traffic to be handed to the main line to swell the return on the long haul, and that is where the profit is made in transportation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The profit to be made, as my hon. friend knows, is a matter of estimating. Let us forget all about politics and take this as an ordinary matter of business.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is introducing
politics?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend is interested in delaying the business of the House he can be accommodated, I have no doubt, without very much difficulty.
I have suggested that we should forget politics. If that is objectionable all right. I very well recall the remark that came from hon. gentlemen opposite when, on another resolution, we were discussing the possibilities of the Okanagan district. I very well recollect the sneering remark from hon. gentlemen opposite that that was a good Conservative constituency. I did not hear any sneers when we were consenting to the building of lines on the prairies last year, nor did I hear any sneers when we were consenting to building the Huberdeau branch line out of Montreal. Suppose we get down to business and treat this proposition as a business matter. We are invited to spend a given number of millions. Is it unreasonable to have from your executive which recommends you to spend a great number of millions of "dollars an estimate of what they think that expenditure will return?


Frank S. Cahill: Could the hon. gentleman
give an instance in his whole experience of any railroad company, private or public, the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other giving, a similar estimate?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite
confident that not a single line of Canadian Pacific track has ever been built without that information.


Frank S. Cahill: If my hon. friend can
show that information, I will tell him that the Minister of Railways will give him all the information there is in the department. I will make that undertaking on behalf of the hon. minister. The hon. member knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway never did anything of the kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman is a splendid speaker, but there is only room for one at a time. I am going to tell my hon. friend that if in the past we
had exercised a little more care, and had had more information brought down, this country would not be in the position it is in to-day in regard to the railway systems. The simple fact that we have been crazy in the past is no reason why we should be insane in the future.


Mr. MARTELL:: From 1911 to 1921.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The county of Hants is heard from, and I do not know but what the member from the county of Hants wants to speak.


Lewis Herbert Martell: No, you can go on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I appreciate
that my hon. friend has not got this information. I do not want to hold him up, but I think he should produce that information for consideration 'by the House at a future period.


Mr. STEVENS:: I want to ask the minister for some information to which the committee is entitled, and which I am sure he will give, if it is in his possession. I remember when this line was built five years ago, and I have the statute under my hand. There was considerable discussion between the two railway companies. At that time there was an application by the Canadian Northern before the Railway committee, and it was contested by the Canadian Pacific Railway; both companies were represented before the Railway committee, and there was a battle royal which I recall very well. In the statute of 1919, Chapter 79, 9-10 George V. the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, 1919, authority is given to the Canadian Pacific to build over this territory. The result of the discussion before the Railway committee was the insertion of the proviso in subsection (g) of section 2, which reads:
Provided that for the purpose of avoiding duplication-
I want to direct the minister's attention to the wording of this statute:
Provided that for the purpose of avoiding duplication of construction of that portion of the line west of Lloydminster, the approval of the route map may be made subject to joint construction or operation with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, on terms to be agreed upon by the companies or settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
I think the minister made a slight reference to that in his opening remarks, if I caught him correctly. Will the minister be good enough to explain to the committee how much of this Canadian Pacific line has been constructed as authorized by this statute, between Edmonton and Lloydmin-
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

ster? I agree with the hon. member for Rattleford (Mr. McConica) that the territory through which this line is projected is certainly good producing territory; and furthermore I would! judge, both from a study of the map before me and also from my recollection of the discussion in the Railway committee room five years ago, that it is a very desirable thing that that territory should be served, but I want to point out that it is wholly undesirable that there shall be a duplication of roads through that district.
Now a moment's reflection will bring to the attention of the House that there is a paralleling of lines from Saskatoon west. There is perhaps a couple of hundred miles at least where two and sometimes three lines are running almost within sight of one another-a most deplorable situation. There is no reason in the world why, under the present conditions of stringency and desire for economy, the Canadian National Railways should enter into an undertaking which may result in serious duplication, or should undertake the construction of a road through a territory which is being served partially, and perhaps as time proceeds, more rapidly by the other system than the government can serve it by the system which they propose to put in. I know the usual answer to an argument of this kind is that the member is looking after the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is not the case. '


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." He may take what pleasure he likes out of it; but we are brought down to this point, that hon. members might take seriously the fact that the time has passed when we in Canada can go on duplicating the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway; and it is not going to deter me one iota in making these assertions or pointing out the facts, if some hon. member says "hear, hear," to the suggestion that an hon. member is speaking for the Canadian Pacific Railway when he is uttering these sentiments. Certainly it is in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway, if you like, that the other railway shall not be allowed to duplicate it, but it is infinitely more in the interests of the country, that we shall not duplicate these lines any longer. Furthermore, any proposition that has in contemplation the construction of a line through a territory occupied by another railway is improvident and unwise at this time.
I desire to say to the minister in connection practically with all the fines at this time-it has been in my mind to say it during all these 
discussions-that the minister comes before parliament with twenty-six railway bills. We are told that the railways are divorced from politics, and that the desire of the minister and the government is that the National Railways shall be kept as distinct and apart from political interference as possible. Let us give the minister full credit for that statement, and for the best intentions in that regard. Then why cannot this corporate body, the National Railway Company-for it is a corporate body- come before parliament and the committee, just the same as any corporate body does? Is there any objection to that?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member might permit me to answer that question now because I might forget it. The other companies to which he refers supply their own money. Parliament has to supply the money in this case; consequently at this stage parliament has to be approached directly. As a matter of fact we have yet to go through the bill stage with every one of these lines.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister will then send it to committee.


George Perry Graham: I have not said it but I do say it will be impossible to send the resolutions to committee. I say it is impossible; but, of course, parliament can do anything. Practically, it would be absolutely impossible to send parliamentary resolutions to the committee. Of course when bills are introduced it is a different thing; we can send them to committee. The suggestion is worthy of consideration. However under our parliamentary practice we could not send the resolutions to committee, and we require to have resolutions to provide for money before the provision can be embodied in a bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. minister has not made a very satisfactory case. He argues in one breath that this National Railway must come to parliament for its money, and, therefore, it should come before parliament for its bill. Ijn the next breath he tells us it is quite possibLe he will send these bills direct to the Railway committee.


George Perry Graham: I did not quite say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not quite but very near. Will the minister give us his assurance that they will be sen-t to committee?


Frank S. Cahill: What would they be sent to committee for?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) excuse me? I know the hon. member was very near being Minister of Railways, but not quite.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Frank S. Cahill: What would they be sent
there for? Will you answer that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister state
that he will send them to the Railway committee-


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is insatiable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He may find me a little
less satiable than I have been if his answers are not satisfactory.


George Perry Graham: We will not get excited.
I said the time to consider this would be when we got into the bill stage. I think my hon. friend is crowding me hard in asking me to pledge parliament and the Canadian National Railway Board that these bills will be sent to the Railway committee. It is a matter for consideration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot see any difficulty. If it is a matter of policy to put these bills through this committee and not through the Railway committee, surely it is not difficult for the minister to say so. It is a question whether the minister would allow it, not a question to be conned over by the House. I am very glad the minister answered as he did, for it lays bare the danger of the whole business. The minister says that parliament is the only place to which this railway can come for money. But we are training the directorate to think that they can dip into the treasury whenever they like. Taking at 100 per cent what the minister and the government have been protesting for the past two and a half years, that they want to divorce the National Railway system from politics, I say to them, let the Canadian National Railway Board be treated just the same as the Canadian Pacific Railway Board are treated-let them come before the Railway committee with their bills, and before the Board of Railway Commissioners with their plans and profiles and make their applications. Then there may be some opportunity of checking these things properly. We can judge the policy of the government by the utterances of the ministers. What did the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) say a moment ago? Let me bring it to his attention. When we were discussing the other bill, the minister upbraided my colleague from Burrard (Mr. Clark) because he refused to take the word of certain hon. members. "Oh," he said, "should not we take-"


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from
Bow River finds a lot of amusement very easily. The minister said, "Oh, should we not take the word of hon. gentlemen opposite about this? We had the evidence"-this is his expression-"of three or four hon. gentlemen regarding this territory." Now I ask the government, is that the attitude they are going to take? I am expressing nothing derogatory of my hon. friends to the left if I say that it is surely not going to be the policy of this House to accept as evidence of need of railway facilities merely the request of the member of parliament representing the constituency affected. Is that to be the basis upon which this House is going to grant millions of dollars for expenditure on branch lines? Have we no right to ask for explanations from the government? Are such expenditures not to be subject to scrutiny?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But my hon. friend implied it.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I beg
my hon. friend's pardon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He upbraided my hon.
friend from Burrard.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my
hon. friend's pardon. I never implied any such thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend certainly
made the statement that the evidence of hon. gentlemen in this House ought to be sufficient.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I object again. I did not make any such statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hansard will show what
the minister said.


Charles A. Stewart: I said that statements by hon. gentlemen who knew the situation ought to carry considerable weight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly. That is tantamount to the same thing.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
propose to allow my hon. friend to put words of that kind into my1 mouth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where are we drifting
to? Hon. gentlemen come to the House and say that there is need for a certain railway; and the directors of the National system sit back-many of them political appointees, as I will show in a moment-and say, "We want a railway in Antigonish, we
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

want a railway in Guysborough, we want a railway in New Brunswick, we want a railway here, we want a railway there."
An. hon. MEMBER: And in New Brunswick.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and in New Brunswick. And all this committee can do in functioning at all is to utter a pious "Amen" to these demands, provided certain members stand in their places and say, "Everything is all right." That is the situation with which we are faced to-day. I protest that the National Railway management should get into the habit of simply relying on the treasury to supply funds for any project that comes into their minds, unless we have an opportunity of scrutinizing their proposals with the care which we in this quarter of the House exercise with the meagre information at our disposal, and also have an opportunity of examining the officials before the Railway committee.
Let me draw attention to the difference in procedure. The minister apparently is not favourable to going before the Railway committee. Now, if we had, for instance, Mr. Ruel-one of the most able railway lawyers in Canada and thoroughly acquainted with all this business, one of the best railway representatives that I have seen before the Railway committee in the last ten or twelve years-if we had him before the committee and the engineers we would be able to find out from them by examination the real merits of these lines, and in case of threatened duplication we could have before us representatives of the Canadian Pacific to find out from them to what extent duplication would be precipitated. We cannot do that to-night. There is no possibility of getting this information. In my estimation every one of these bills ought to go before the Railway committee to be scrutinized. Furthermore, if the minister is going to insist on this system of financing the National Railways, that is, by bringing bills before parliament year after year in this fashion, then the National Railway system ought to be made subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners in so far as duplication and similar matters are concerned, just the same as any other railway is subject to their authority. If this railway system is to be divorced from politics, if it is to be free from the interference and influence of members of parliament, then let it be treated in the same way as the other great railway , system, and there will be more confidence on the part of the people in voting money for this purpose.

I am tempted to make a brief rev.Jw of the Board of Directors of the National Railways in order that we may test the value of the reports that have been brought before the House. I question, and advisedly so, whether Sir Henry Thornton-a gentleman who has won a very high position in the estimation of the public in the short time during which he has been head of the system -I question very much if he to-day would give his approval of many of these branch lines. I am quite certain that he is not nearly so well acquainted with them as perhaps most hon. members imagine him to be.
It is just as well for us shareholders to look our directors over now and again. The minister has described this House as a shareholders' meeting. Well, let me contrast the present directorate with the directorate which was deposed. I am not going to say anything regarding Sir Henry Thornton as compared with Mr. D. B. Hanna. The change has been made, and we are desirous of giving Sir Henry Thornton every conceivable support and assistance in his efforts to make a success of these roads. Mr. Mitchell was removed and Mr. Ruel put in his place. I have no complaints respecting Mr. Ruel. He is one of the best railway lawyers in Canada. That is what he is, a technical, legal adviser; so we can eliminate him from consideration. And Major Graham Bell is a representative of the minister, an old civil servant of standing. But what does Major Bell know about these railways? He was over in France most of the year trying to straighten out the Scribe hotel tangle, and therefore he does not enter into consideration. Mr. Robert Hobson of Hamilton, -who is a gentleman of very high standing, was replaced by Mr. Gough of Home Bank fame, of the city of Toronto. Mr. Gough sat on the board of directors for perhaps a year or more and he has passed out. I do not suppose it will be a happy recollection for the minister that he ever appointed Mr. Gough to the position. However, he has replaced that gentleman with Mr. Macdougall of Brockville.


George Perry Graham: No, Toronto.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A stockbroker, of Toronto.


George Perry Graham: A very able man.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A very able man? Well, let us say rather a very loyal partisan; for if he has any public virtue it consists in his loyalty.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He is a very able man
indeed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, no doubt the Godt-bless-you of the hon. member for St. Law-



S, 1924

[Stage Direction]
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
renoe-St. George is of some value. Then Mr. E.	R. Wood, one of the ablest financiers in Canada, was removed, but I do not know who replaced him. I do not suppose his successor has been appointed. I might observe in passing that Mr. Wood, who was always a Liberal, was appointed by the previous government; and Mr. R. T. Riley, an equally strong Liberal, was also an appointee of that administration. Mr. Riley was removed am} in his stead we have Mr. Dawson, of Prince Rupert.
Lewis Herbert Martell: Was Mr. Riley appointed prior to 1917 or not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now that the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) has projected himself into the debate, I suggest that perhaps we might have a new directorate comprising, among others, the hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy), the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Ham-mell), with a few others sprinkled in. With such a directorate, including 'Mr. Duncan Marshall and Mr. W. T. R. Preston, we should have a splendid political organization. But, to continue, we have, as I say, Mr. Dawson of Prince Rupert, and it is no wonder that the minister turns his back to me when I mention that gentleman's name, because there is absolutely nothing in Mr. Dawson's private or public record to warrant his appointment as a director of the railways. I say this in a spirit of the utmost kindness towards Mr. Dawson. We have also Mr. Talbot of Quebec, a noted partisan; certainly he is noted for nothing else but his partisanship. And then there is our dear old colleague of many years' standing Mr. Sinclair of Guysborough, the mention of whose name brings to our recollection the pitiful wails which we heard for years with reference to the famous Guysborough railway. So soon as Mr. Sinclair has left the House and got upon the railway board, however, we have a political railway- a political football for twenty years-advocated by this gentleman who for so many years had so much to say in regard to matters of this kind.


Lewis Herbert Martell: You cannot say anything against him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is a charming gentleman but so far as his fitness for a position on the directorate of the railways goes, no one who knows him thoroughly would for a moment suggest that he was qualified to offer advice on any question appertaining to railway construction. Now here we have a very excellent political board; and as an equally
excellent corollary to that we have the right of the board at discretion to dip into the treasury and take whatever money they want for the construction of any line. And further than that, we have the opinion of the minister that we should not send these bills to the Railway committee because, forsooth, the money supplied for the railways comes out of the treasury and is not furnished by private parties. If the government is in any sense sincere in its desire to divorce these railways, to which we are giving consideration, from politics, let these bills be sent to the Railway committee and let them stand or fall on their merits before that committee. Personally I have been wholly in favour of many of these lines and I am prepared to support them either in any bill or before the committee. But there are other lines, and this is one of them, that cannot be supported by logic, by reason, in equity, or upon any principles of economy.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend seems to have a short memory. It was either in 1918 or 1919 that the government of which he was a distinguished member, in the dying days of its career, passed through this House a bill which deprived the Railway committee of all discretion in the matter of branch lines in connection with the Canadian National Railways. That government, if I remember rightly, passed through the House by closure a bill covering 44 branch lines, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will no doubt recall the circumstance. When we on this side of the House were then sitting opposite we insisted on having the branch lines go before the Railway committee to decide whether they should be granted extensions of time if necessary, and to decide other related questions. My hon. friend points out that the Canadian Pacific Railway asked for a branch line similar to the one now under consideration. I remember that too; but the hon. gentleman must also remember that at that time the Liberal opposition were fighting in this House to have the branch lines submitted to the
10	p.m. Railway committee, and the government of that day opposed the proposal. My hon. friend was then sitting about where I am now, and he among others opposed the submission of the branch lines bills to the Railway committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This branch line was before the Railway committee at the same time as the Canadian Pacific Railway branch line.


Frank S. Cahill: Every branch line included in this undertaking was before the
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Railway committee. But instead of sending them back for renewal from year to year, or every second year, my hon. friend's party of that date, then in power, objected, and his leader (Mr. Meighen) who is now sitting in front of him, no doubt remembers the situation. Making a speech, my hon. friend used exactly the same argument as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) is using tonight, that the money had to come from parliament and that therefore these questions would be reviewed in parliament, so that there was no necessity for sending them to the Railway committee.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member had better have reference to Hansard. I did not have charge of the Branch Lines Bill, and I have no recollection of the debate in question.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend was general utilities man at the time; he had charge of Canadian Northern affairs.


Arthur Meighen: I did not have charge of the Branch Lines Bill and had practically nothing to do with it directly.


Frank S. Cahill: If the hon. gentleman will refer to Hansard of that day he will find that he came to the rescue of the Minister of Railways, Dr. Reid, on almost every occasion. When Dr. Reid was asked for information, the stock answer was, not in the public interest; and when we asked for further information my hon. friend usually came to his colleague's assistance. I must say of course that he did so in a very able manner, but he was one of the men who used the argument that it was not necessary to send the matter to the Railway committee. Well, it does not appear to be necessary to send it to the committee at this stage. The purpose of the Railway committee is to grant charters to companies to extend lines into certain territories, and once charters are granted there is nothing further to come before the Railway committee unless you want to do what the opposition of that day advocated, and what the leader of the opposition to-day will not advocate, namely, bring the officials of the railwaj' before members of parliament and question them on all these matters. My hon. friend objected to this course at that time and he has objected to it in this debate in the last few days. But that is the only means of obtaining information at first hand, if that is what we want. The Minister of Railways has furnished the committee with the information that he has obtained from the department. If hon. gentlemen want further information 
and if the leader of the opposition will move for it, I am satisfied that the government will be glad to grant it, because that is the thing we advocated in opposition and the very thing my hon. friends opposite opposed most strongly. Here is a sample of what the then Minister of Railways gave us when he was building branch lines in 1920. I put this question:
I think that if the minister would give us the details of the whole of these lines it would be more instructive to hon. members. The statement could appear on Hansard.
The minister said, "Perhaps I can give the list"; then he goes on; "Alsask, S.E. 16 miles," and so on down the list, covering 312 miles of railway. Not one detail was given as regards expenditure on each of the proposed branch lines. The whole sum was lumped, $48,000,000, and that was all the information the House had at that time. Later on a question was asked of the minister as follows:	\
What work has been done on the Kamloops line up to date?
And here is the answer:
I will try and get that information before we go on with the supplementary estimates.
That was the kind of information we got at that time. With regard to the particular line under discussion at the moment, I remember that the -Canadian Pacific asked for running rights or for co-operation in the construction of the line that the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was speaking about. The Canadian Pacific to this day have not asked that their plans be approved. They have not spent a dollar on the line. The people in that country are looking for the construction now just as they were five years ago, and unless the Canadian National build it they will still be in the hopeless position of being unable to get the railway facilities that they need. The provision is there in the Statutes of 1919 for cooperation or running rights, and that applies as well to-day as it did then. But are these people to be asked to wait forever for the Canadian Pacific to build, or are they to get the accommodation which will justify their deciding to remain in the country? That is the question that is before this committee. When my hon. friend says he is not speaking for or against the Canadian Pacific Railway I want to say I do not believe there is a member in this House who does not fully realize that the success of the Canadian Pacific is just as essential for the welfare of Canada as the success of the Canadian National. The failure of the Canadian Pacific would mean more to us than the failure of the

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Canadian National. We have already grappled with that question, and we know that the failure of the Canadian Pacific would be a calamity to this country. There is no hon. member who wants that to happen. There is no hon. member who wants to stand in the way of the Canadian Pacific Railway getting every branch line which it is able to build within what might reasonably be called its own territory, any more than there are hon. members who do not want to see the Canadian National build branch' lines in what is regarded as Canadian National territory. My hon. friend talks about keeping the Canadian Pacific out. Before he opposes this branch line he should go to the people in that district who have been labouring under the hardship of hauling their grain long distances during the years that they have been waiting for railway accommodation.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am very glad to know
that the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) realizes the necessity of railway transportation in this part of the country. He is anxious that we shall have no duplication; I am just as anxious. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as the last speaker mentioned, have not built any of the railway through country covered by this resolution. The line does not touch Lloydminster but is twenty miles south of that town. I mentioned a few moments ago that there is a large country that needs these facilities, not only north of the present Canadian N'aJ-tional line, running northwest from Lloydminster, but also a large territory to the south of that line. I understand it is the present intention of the Canadian Pacifiic Railway Company to go north to Lloydminster, then in a northwesterly direction to Whitford lake, then south to Vegreville. If we do not want to have any duplication we can easily serve the whole of that country with railway transportation by leaving to the Canadian National the territory from Llodyminster through to Whitford lake and letting the other railway, the Canadian Pacific, go west instead of north from where they are. It would serve a country badly in need of railway facilities, at present not served by the Canadian National, and the Canadian Pacific line would go to its terminus at Vegreville. Both railways would thus have a territory to themselves; there would be no duplication, and the people who are so badly in need of railway facilities would get the necessary service. If these two lines were operated, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that that country would develop by leaps and bounds and that thousands of people who are 75
at present undecided what to do would make up their minds to stay in that country. There is quite a good country between Vermilion and Wainwright which this southern line would go through, should the Canadian Pacific see fit to go westward instead of northward to Llodyminster.
The hon. member for Centre Vancouver said he did not believe that Sir Henry Thornton himself was in favour of some of the branch lines dealt with in the resolutions which the minister is bringing down. I can only say that the hon. member must have been out of the House the other day when the Minister of Railways read a long letter written by Sir Henry Thornton and addressed to himself, advocating very strongly every railway proposal that was being put forward in these resolutions.


Thomas Henry McConica: I am somewhat interested in this line, as it goes out of my constituency at Llodyminster. As to the controversy between the government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, I want to say this: The Canadian Pacific are building from the east westward. Up to last year their line stopped at Cut Knife. Two years ago they got an extension of their charter to build from Cut Knife to Lloydminster, and it is suggested that they go on west by a joint arrangement with the national road. They built under that extension forty miles last year from Cut Knife to the Battle river south of Lloydminster, a little more than forty miles, and they advise me that they are now at work extending their line on into Lloydminster, which they expect to reach this summer. Then they propose to go on to the northwest, under the joint arrangement with the national road. An agreement in this connection is incorporated in the statute. It is suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Spencer) that they go south and miss Lloydminster. Now, that would disappoint my people very much. The people at Lloydminster are exceedingly anxious to have these railway facilities,'of which they stand very much in need. I was there last season with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They have five elevators draining a territory thirty miles in diameter and at that time every elevator was full. The men came in there from the northwest country, some from points thirty-five miles distant, and in some cases their wagons were standing along the street-they could not unload. It is a very fertile country, and they are very much in need of this railway.
As to the extension south from the Battle river through to Wainwright or Vermilion, they will not make it, and that is ail there is to it. The Canadian Pacific will not build

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

through that country, because it is not a very good country. The north country is a very good country, and they are ready to go ahead in co-operation with the National line and make an arrangement for running rights over the road. It seems to me under the circumstances that that is the proper thing to do. I am not here as the advocate of the Canadian Pacific interests, but I am here in favour of fair play. This arrangement was made and embodied in a statute, and under that arrangement they have gone on and built their line from Cut Knife to Battle river and they are still building, and they insist that they should have the right to go over the road they originally laid out, and which was sanctioned by parliament. They will not build on the south as suggested by the hon. member for Battle River. They are ready to build through Lloydminster, and Lloydminster wants the Canadian Pacific very badly.


Robert James Manion: I have been listening to this discussion for some time, though I was not here during the early part of it. One of the curses in this country, it seems to me, has been the duplication of railways. I was looking at a map of this proposed branch line, and also at a map of the proposed Canadian Pacific line, and if both were built it would be an absolute duplication throughout. I am very much in sympathy with the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. McConica), because the duplication of lines is an economic waste. I believe the principle which should be upheld by the government and by the people of Canada in connection with our National Railway, and by the Canadian Pacific as well, is that where it is possible to give running rights to the other road over a section where duplication could be avoided in that way that should be done. It would result in a large monetary saving to the country. Take, for example, my own section of the country. From the head of the lakes down through that north country, where traffic is light, there are three railways, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Certainly two of these would have been amply sufficient, and possibly only one, if it was double-tracked, could handle all the traffic if running rights had been given to the other road. I believe such a policy should be upheld by this government, by the Canadian National and by the Canadian Pacific. In fact, I think it should! be forced on the two railways so far as possible where there is a thinly populated section; one should be permitted to build, or even be forced to build, and the other should be given running rights 
over that piece of road. I think fhat would result in a great economic saving to the country.
With regard to these railways being before the committee, I was on the Railway committee when the two railways were before us and arguments were made for the building of this very line, and as read by the -hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and as I rememberr myself, the Canadian Pacific was compelled when being given the right to build to give running rights to the Canadian National. If that was a compulsory rule put upon them it seems to me that if now the Canadian National is being given the right to build here, the same rule should be reversed and the Canadian Pacific be given running rights over the Canadian National line if built.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it not reciprocal?


Robert James Manion: I do not understand that it is. I understood from the remarks of some hon. members that it was not. I would ask the minister if it is reciprocal.


George Perry Graham: I think the question which my hon. friend is discussing is set out in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's bill. I pointed out before my hon. friend came in that the Canadian Pacific was now asking that a similar clause be inserted in the bill being granted to the Canadian National, and I further pointed out that it would be perfectly in order to have full consideration of that proposition when we get into committee on the bill, but that it could not very well- be done on the resolution.


Robert James Manion: I am not attempting to delay the minister in getting into the bill stage, but these thoughts have come to my mind and I thought I would present them now because I might not be here when we are in committee on the bill. I think it is exactly as the hon. minister has explained it, and as was read by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and confirmed by the remarks of other speakers, that a clause was put into the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's bill compelling them to give running rights to the Canadian National. I think the arrangement should be reciprocal. Now that the Canadian National are being given rights, and if, as the hon. member for Battleford says, the Canadian Pacific have built in the past year some forty miles of this line, I think there is justice coming to the Canadian Pacific and that they should be given the same privilege.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The Canadian Pacific have not built forty miles from Lloydminster west, but are now twenty miles south of that town.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Robert James Manion: But the hon. member for Battleford said that the intention was to build to Lloydminster and that the people of Lloydminster wanted the Canadian Pacific very badly. Under these circumstances I think it should be the policy of this government and of parliament to make running rights reciprocal wherever possible, in order to save the economic waste which is so rampant in this country through the duplication of lines all over Canada. We have running from here to Montreal three different lines; from Montreal to Toronto three different lines; through my section of the country three different lines. You can look out of the car window and see another line of railway only about a hundred yards away almost wherever you go. We have this unnecessary duplication all over the country, and I just wish to put myself on record as saying that if the Canadian Pacific are being forced in their bill to give running rights, the Canadian National should also be forced to give reciprocal rights to the Canadian Pacific.


Mr. WARNER:: I feel that I am well
acquainted with that part of the country. I know it better than I do the city of Ottawa. I have been all through it from Bruederheim to Lloydminster. There are some features of this case that have not been pointed out to the committee properly; perhaps they have been overlooked. That district is as good as any that can be found in Alberta, and that means as good as any in Canada in my opinion. It looks perhaps as if it was not too far between the Canadian National and the St. Paul branch, but the country is a little different from the ordinary. These people who are most anxious to get this road are living south of the Saskatchewan river, which is in a deep valley and it is very hard to cross the river with a heavy load. They could not cross that river economically and get to the railroad on the north, so consequently they have to go south to the Canadian National, which is from thirty to forty miles, and, I think in some cases, more. It is an easy place to build a railway. I have been out over the grade and I know that forty-five miles of the road have been graded. There is, as I say, no better country in Canada, but we want these people to be prosperous. It is not a question of a seven or eight mile haul; it is a question of whether we are going to do what is necessary to allow these people to make a living and make their own homes in that part of the country and become prosperous, and that is what we want to do. On account of the river being on the north, and there being such a deep canyon, they have to go south, and that 75i
makes it farther for them to reach the railroad than it would ordinarily be if the country was level all the way between the two railways. I do not care to take up the time of the House in discussing this, but I wanted to point this out because I know this country well.
There are no branch lines of railways being built in my constituency, and I am sorry because of that fact. There are districts where they are needed but perhaps branch lines will be built later. However, I wanted to give my evidence as to the need of this particular railway, and to express my belief that its construction will be amply justified. I know that the settlers throughout the district are a good class of people, and if you are going to build branch railways you could not put one in a better place. As conditions now are the people there cannot go to the north to get to the other line. Consequently they have to go much farther than they would if the contour of the country were of a different character. For the reasons stated I wished to advocate the construction of this line.
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil)^:	I simply
want to say that very frequently when a member of the government addresses the committee and gives his viewpoint on a particular subject it is looked upon as imparting to the question a political aspect. We have had a lecture addressed to us to-night on the political aspect of the make up of the Canadian National Railway Board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: I am glad that my hon. friend has awakened to a realization of the situation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think everybody knows it.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not intend to defend the board, but I think in fairness to hon. members who represent various constituencies their statements should have some value when they are given in all honour and all candour to this House. Personally, I have always been prepared to accept such statements at their proper value, and I think most hon. members have the same idea. There can be no political aspect to a question such as this. We want'to make the Canadian National Railways a success. It is regrettable in the extreme that the question of politics has been introduced at all. The question involved here is whether or not the particular lines under discussion are required, and many hon. gentlemen have declared that they know these lines are necessary. So far as this particular line is concerned, it has been under
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

consideration for years. Part of the line was built from the village of Bruederheim many years ago. It circles to the north following the contour of the Saskatchewan river. The intention at first was to build the road to join the parent line at Vermilion. Since that time it has been extended to Lloydminster. Let me say that I agree heartily with what my hon. friends have said about the desirability of preventing duplication, of which we have had entirely too much in the past. I think in fairness to the National line, and that has been stated on many occasions, it would be well if an arrangement could be made between the two companies,-that is to say between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific,- by which each should confine its activities to its own territory. We all know that the Canadian Pacific are desirous of reaching the city of Edmonton, and that is a laudable desire on their part. But the territory over which, my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) points out, they secured a charter to build, is Canadian National territory, there can be no denying that fact, and if running rights are to be given the logical thing to do would be to give the preference in construction to the Canadian National line and grant the running rights to the Canadian Pacific. I think that would be a thoroughly sensible solution of the matter. My hon. friend will realize at once that the Canadian National then would have a priority right in the picking up of local freight. Let me say too that from my knowledge of the locality and of the line it is not for the branch line they require running rights but for the existing line. There would be a greater mileage by diverting the contour of this line than is the case under the line proposed to be built. I most heartily support the idea of preventing duplication and, where necessary, running rights should be had over either one of these systems by any company desirous of reaching the city of Edmonton, and that city is the objective of the Canadian Pacific. I merely rose to make this statement. I would most heartily support the Canadian Pacific in getting running rights to Edmonton which, I think, is their objective.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Suppose we pass this
legislation without any great objection or scrutiny. The Canadian National Railway then go ahead with this line, but the Canadian Pacific are already constructing in that district.


Charles A. Stewart: No, not in
that district.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Their line through Cut
Knife and Lloydminster to Edmonton is contained in their charter.
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.J


Charles A. Stewart: They have
not built one foot of line in the province of Alberta up to date as far as my knowledge goes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I am pointing out
is this: The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National fought this out before the Railway committee in 1919. At that time the Canadian Pacific secured the right to construct north-westward from Cut Knife, through Lloydminster, north of the existing Canadian National line, between that and the Saskatchewan river to Edmonton. I remember very well that contour maps and other data were brought before the committee and it was demonstrated, just as was said a while ago, that the canyon of the Saskatchewan river made traffic northward and southward impossible, so the settlers along the south bank of that river had to drive farther to the south and could not get directly across to the railway which was on the north side, or some distance away to the north. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have that charter, and they are now constructing that road northward from where the river has to be crossed. Suppose we go ahead and calmly grant this right to the Canadian National Railway. Then there is nothing to prevent the two of them from constructing other roads through that territory.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it
should be prevented.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly it should.
Furthermore, in 1919 the decision reached by the committee was that the company to go into that country first and construct should be the one that should go through, and running rights should be given to the other.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will recollect that 45 miles of Canadian National line have been constructed from Bruederheim.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister refers to
that short distance from Edmonton northeastward?


Charles A. Stewart: From
Bruederheim on the Canadian National railway running in a north easterly direction, taking in a loop of the river, the idea at first being to join the main line again at Vermilion. But since that time the line has been extended in order to reach Lloydminster and give the settlers who are thirty miles from the main line a service.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is at the Edmonton end?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But we are speaking of
the construction northwestward from Lloyd-minster.


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt if
the line spoken of by my hon. friend is within thirty miles of Lloydminster at the moment. It will have to be built to Lloydminster and then construction must be commenced in Alberta where this line we are now considering is to commence and of which 45 miles have been built.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What we are asked to do is to authorize the construction of this line.
I am looking at the resolution before the committee. It does not refer to the south end of it at all.


Charles A. Stewart: It refers to
45 miles.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It refers to a "Canadian
National Railway line from Lloydminster to the province of Saskatchewan in a generally northwesterly direction to a point in or near Torwship 53 or 54, Range 6, west of 4th, Meridian, in the province of Alberta." Now that is simply a short distance from Lloydminster, northwest of it, and has nothing to do with the other end of the line at all. What I am getting at is this: We ought to be mighty sure that the Canadian Pacific Railway are not actually going in there this year before we recklessly grant what is proposed here. Suppose the Oanadian Pacific Railway are actually constructing from where they left off on the Battle river crossing, what they call the Cut Knife to Melfort branch.


Charles A. Stewart: It would
be westward from Cut Knife.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If they are actually constructing and intending to continue this year-


Charles A. Stewart: They are.


Henry Herbert Stevens: - then there is no need for the National Railways to step into the same territory and start construction. Let me again point out that in 1919, when we discussed this question for several days before the committee, the general decision of the committee was that we would safeguard in the Canadian Pacific Railway bill the rights of the Canadian National Railways which we did, and it is in the statute which I read this evening, but that the railway that would get in and
construct a line first and give the service to the settlers, should have the right to construct. That is the decision we arrived at. I remember the discussion quite distinctly. I say if the Canadian Pacific Railway are actually going to do it-and we ought to know that for a certainty-they should be permitted to go ahead and construct this line, and this resolution should not be passed.


Charles A. Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend, I say that in 1919 this forty-five miles of railway was completed up to-Bruederheim. I have lived in that country for the last fifteen years, and I never heard, of any other location for that line than from. Bruederheim around, taking the circle, and coming back to the main line at Vermilion. Afterwards that was changed, as I pointed out, and it was arranged to run further east and join the main line at Lloydminster. I desire to repeat now that I think it would be well to confine these roads to their own territory. At the moment the1 National Railway is pulling every pound of freight out of that territory, because the National Railway is north of the Saskatchewan river. Every pound of freight that originates in that territory is freight belonging to the National Railways, and I cannot very well understand why a committee of parliament as late as 1919 should have been willing to hand over that territory to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Frankly,
I do not understand it. I would be glad to support a proposition to give running rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway into the city of Edmonton, either over the main line track, or if preferable over the branch line; but I think that the Canadian National line is entitled to that freight, and to the ownership of that line; and, by the ownership of it, entitled to the freight that is gathered from station to station along the line. I would not in the slighest degree put anything in the way of the Canadian Pacific Railway getting into Edmonton, which is the objective point, and would be quite willing to insist on the National Railways giving them running rights, in order to carry on their business. They are entitled to that; and in that case there would be no duplication. I know the country very well and I say I am more than friendly to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think they are a great institution, and I think they are entitled to get a fair show in every territory in which it is logical and right for them to be operating, and which is contiguous to their main line; but I do think that, in all fairness, this territory rightfully belongs to the National Railways. I hope I have made myself clear.	.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Henry Herbert Stevens: The . minister is giving
utterance to some positive statements. If the government will say, "No, so far as our control is concerned, the Canadian Pacific Railway shall not go into that territory," then the Canadian Pacific will understand what they mean. But, in spite of the fact that the minister does not understand why it was done I tell him that in 1919 it was done by an act of this parliament, after mature consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: The committee must have known that there was an agreement in existence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, they had all
the information before the committee. The matter was thereshed out in detail after hearing both sides. But the point was-and I remember distinctly-that the Canadian National Railways were not in a position to declare that they would construct that line, and that was the difficulty. I remember very clearly that we declared that the settlers of that district were entitled to service. It was clearly pointed out to the committee that the peculiar conformation of the country, caused by the Saskatchewan river valley, made it not only desirable but absolutely necessary that the settlers should have service, and that was the reason the committee decided to admit of a competition, if you like, as to who should get in first.
In reply to what the minister has said, let me come back to the point again: If it is shown that the Canadian Pacific are prepared to build in there now, I say they ought to be permitted to build for two reasons, first, in order that we may keep faith with the Canadian Pacific Railway in relation to the arrangement discussed in 1919; and, secondly that this government and country do not require to look for places to spend money. If we can possibly avoid expenditures we ought to do so. As to the ownership of territory, I do not think it is applicable to this case, because it was threshed out and decided five years ago.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
feel like giving way to my hon. friend's argument, except in so far as it is applicable. If the Canadian National Railways as he stated-and I want to quote him correctly-[DOT] were not prepared to build, then I can understand why the committee were induced to grant that charter but my hon. friend said on one or two occasions that there was a dispute about it and that the first man on the ground was going to get the right to build. If that is the case, I can hardly understand the attitude of the Canadian National Railways 
with respect to that matter, and I hardly understand why on the other end of the loop, the forty-five miles upon which money has been spent, should be abandoned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Pardon me, they are not
abandoning it. They switch off there at

I cannot see the name on the map.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bruederheim.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, that is the point
my hon. friend refers to.


Charles A. Stewart: That was
the starting point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It runs from Edmonton
to Bruederheim, and swings down to Lloyd-minster. There is no loose end there. It does not matter one iota what they started out to do; they may have started out to make a larger map; I have no doubt they did, but there is no loose end there, or turning southward to Lloydminster. So that there is no need for the Canadian National, so far as that is concerned.


Daniel Webster Warner: I might say that the
Canadian Pacific railway is not built from Edmonton to Bruederheim, nor does this old Canadian Northern grade start from Edmonton. It begins at Bruederheim running east from there towards Lloydminster. The Canadian Pacific proposed road is coming in from the east by Whitford lake, then, I presume, crosses the Canadian Nation'al line near Bruederheim running into Edmonton on the south side of the river where the Canadian National main line crosses the Saskatchewan river at Eork Saskatchewan.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of the
Interior made a remark which might be misinterpreted. I was on the committee he refers to. He said he did not understand why the committee should have given the rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway at that time, because it was really Canadian National Railway territory. I remember some of the discussion before the committee, and my recollection of it is that the Canadian Pacific came forward and asked for rights to build into that territory. They were opposed by the Canadian Northern Railway. For some reason we had all these questions before the committee. Mr. Hanna was here on behalf of the Canadian Northern and Mr. Coleman appeared for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Mr. Ruel the counsel was here; the Canadian Pacific solicitors were also present and they fought it out. If I recollect correctly, it was stated that the Canadian Northern Railway

C .N.R.-Branch Lines
was not ready financially to go ahead, with the proposition, and the Canadian Pacific was. I do not know whether the Canadian Northern had their charter then or not.


Charles A. Stewart: That was
the time they got it.


Robert James Manion: However that was the
ground that was taken. It was a very hard fight because the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway fought the matter very hard. It was the opinion of the committee and of parliament that the Canadian Pacific Railway had the right to build. Parliament gave the Canadian Pacific Railway a charter to build. They have not done so except in the southern part. But in the charter we inserted a clause compelling the Canadian Pacific Railway to give running rights to the Canadian Northern, which at that time, I think, was a perfectly fair and legitimate proposition to both railways. I do not remember, but I doubt very much if the Canadian Pacific was agreeable to the insertion of this clause. To-day, if we are going to take away from the Canadian Pacific the right of building in that country,-certainly one railway is quite sufficient there-and permit the Canadian National to build, it is only right that a reciprocal arrangement should be provided for and the Canadian Pacific treated in the same way as the old Canadian Northern was formerly treated. The minister nods his head, and I assume he agrees with me. I think a whole lot of time might be saved if he would accept the suggestion which has come from practically all over the House, that before this bill comes down he will ascertain the attitude of the two railways and see if running rights cannot be arranged which will be satisfactory for this particular line and will also probably be satisfactory throughout the whole district. Lloydminster would be satisfied according to what my hon. friend from Battleford (Mr. McConica) says. It seems to me that would be a fair proposition.


Charles A. Stewart: I have only this to say. It would be absolutely useless to give running rights over this line to the Canadian National railways. Why should they have to make a detour for all their through business and haul it over a greater mileage than on their main line? The case is absolutely the reverse with the Canadian Pacific. If the latter go in there they take territory which is now all Canadian National and they would control that territory and gather the freight. Running rights would merely be for through traffic from one end of the line to
the other which would be of no value to the Canadian National whatever because they would not be permitted to do logical business if the Canadian Pacific built the line. I am not arguing against the Canadian Pacific for a moment I am simply pointing out what is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the territory.


Robert James Manion: Does the minister say it
would be no use to give running rights to the Canadian Pacific.?


Charles A. Stewart: No; it would be no use to give running rights to the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: I am saying the proposition is to give the Canadian National the right to build the road and to give the Canadian Pacific running rights over it.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
different.


George Perry Graham: I have already asked the heads of the two railways to get together on this matter. The time for consideration of this will be when the legislation is in bill form.


Robert James Manion: You should have told us
that an hour ago.


George Perry Graham: Yes an hour and a half
ago.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I
am somewhat surprised at the lack of information supplied regarding many of these lines. It is a slow process to obtain information. I could not help admiring the earnestness with which the Minister of the Interior tried to impress upon the committee the fact that when a member declared that a road in his constituency was desirable, the declaration in itself should be pretty hear sufficient to justify construction. I am confident that every member could find strong arguments to justify railway construction in his constituency. The Canadian National system is owned by the people and any expenditure must be met by them. The great difficulty seems to be to arrive at a clear understanding as to whether a line is justifiable or not. In the old days there was keen competition between the railways for traffic, although there was no competition as to rates. To-day it is very important that we safeguard ourselves against undue railway duplication. I think there are many lines in operation to-day that might be properly closed and the traffic carried over one road. It does not matter whether it is a privately-owned or a government-owned railway, we must have lower railway rates or we cannot prosper. But we cannot have lower
C.NH.-Branch Lines

rates if we build unnecessary railway mileage. This country is not in a position to build roads that are not absolutely essential. When I hear hon. members from the West arguing that because they are eight or ten miles from a railway it is desirable that there should be a further construction undertaken, I can assure the committee that there are many sections in the old provinces where the people have not as good railway facilities as those enjoyed in the West.
I protest against this lack of information. It is evident that if we are to make a success of the Canadian National Railways some different method must be adopted in regard to the building of branch lines than that which is now being followed. There is no closing our eyes to the fact that the board of directors have been largely appointed for political reasons rather than for any especial qualifications or railway knowledge. That being the case, there is suspicion among the people that something of a political nature is attached to these proposals. It is well known that there were negotiations between representative men of western Canada and the government before parliament assembled; in fact, it has been said that a bargain was made between them. Well, I think we have good evidence of it in the docile manner in which hon. members to my left stultify themselves and vote contrary to what they openly profess in this House. They have done that repeatedly during this session. Their actions would indicate that they are very anxious to secure more branch lines in western Canada. One hon. member even had the hardihood to compare expenditure in rural mail delivery in some of the old provinces with that in western Canada, but he did not take the precaution, or was not fair enough, to give the revenues in these old provinces compared with similar revenues in western Canada. In some sections of northern Ontario which have been recently opened up, and where rich mineral deposits have been uncovered, there is possibly more need of railway facilities than in those districts to which reference has been made. Yet we are absolutely handicapped and cannot proceed because the province of Ontario has undertaken to build development roads, and therefore is not in a position to give the railway facilities which the people there are entitled to. This simply means that the province will have to dispose of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway to the federal government in order to have feeders built, because that great section tributary to the railway must have railway facilities if it is to go ahead.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it not a fact that through lines have been built right across Ontario, both by the Canadian Pacific and by the government of Canada? The Canadian National, the old Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific were built directly across northern Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: But there are no branch lines.


Charles A. Stewart: Have branch lines ever been asked for?


John Arthur Clark: Is that all you have to do?
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think there is any joke about it. If there was necessity for branch lines, surely some representations would have been made to the company. I merely asked the question.


Donald Sutherland: If there is a political representative on the board that may account for it.


Charles A. Stewart: (Argenteuil):	I do not
know that any member of the board particularly asked for any of these lines. But let me ask my hon. friend:	What is the
political affiliation of Mr. James Stewart of Winnipeg? I have never heard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He very seldom attends the board.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know whether he attends the board or not, but my hon. friend has been active in denouncing the political affiliations of members of the board and perhaps he can tell me to which side this gentleman leans.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is a gentleman who
unfortunately seldom attends the board. If these men were more regular in their attendance we should be able to get the advantage of their knowledge and skill; but the trouble is that the board is in the hands of half a dozen pseudo politicians.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has answered his own question, I think. ~ He has practically said that the members do not attend the board and he is content with Sir Henry Thornton.


Donald Sutherland: The minister admits that there are no branch lines in northern Ontario and from his remarks I would infer that there is no necessity for them.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
say so, sir. I do not know the situation.


Donald Sutherland: I have been endeavouring to emphasize the fact that there

C.N.It.-Branch Lines
are points in (that mineral belt that are very much in need of railway accommodation which they are not receiving. There is not one mile of railway to be built in Ontario so far as can be seen at present.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
simply been asking for information. My hon. friend remarked that nothing had been done for Ontario and I pointed out that certain lines crossed northern Ontario. Although there may be no branch lines, surely my hon. friend will admit that a line circling the Lake of the Woods to the south is serving a large area of country. And that line belongs to the Canadian National Railways. Surely he will agree that the Grand Trunk Pacific, crossing right through the heart of the north country, is of some value to the people up there.


Donald Sutherland: The territory to
which I am referring is the mineral belt between Cochrane and Englehart to which the Canadian National is not tributary, and that is the section of the country that is now so much in need of railway facilities. It is true that a branch line of the Canadian National Railways could be built down into that locality, but a better service would be rendered if a line were built from the road that is now owned and which was built by the province of Ontario. For that reason I state that if this policy is to continue there is nothing to be done but for the government to assume that road that has been constructed by the province. The Canadian National Railways have running rights over that road and the interests of that country demand that something be done to enable development to proceed. The wealth of the country there would indicate that such development is possible if railway facilities are provided.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) is not here, but the Minister of Railways will no doubt be able to answer the question which I am about to ask and which I intended to direct to the hon. member. What year was it that the bill was introduced to provide for branch lines construction which the hon. member for Pontiac stated that the government then in power refused to refer to the Railway committee?


George Perry Graham: I suggest that my hon.
friend wait until the hon. member for Pontiac returns. I did not refer to any bill that was introduced for the construction of branch lines. Certain branch lines were to be taken over under the Appropriation Act
of 1920 for which 848,000,000 was appropriated, and my contention was that no information was given to the House, as far as I could recollect, concerning these branch lines as to cost and territory, to the extent that I am affording the committee now.


Arthur Meighen: Did the minister say,
in 1920?


George Perry Graham: I think it was in 1920; I had Hansard a moment ago. But my argument was not directed to anything that had happened in the committee, nor did it refer to the question whether any bill should be sent to the committee or not. I was simply contending that we were giving loads of information now that had not been given heretofore.


Arthur Meighen: I see the hon. member
for Pontiac is back now, and perhaps he will answer the question I asked a moment ago. What year was it that the bill was introduced by the late government to provide for the construction of branch lines, which bill was refused to be submitted to the Railway committee?


Frank S. Cahill: I think it was in 1919, in either the first or the second session.


Arthur Meighen: There was no such bill introduced at all; the hon. member was talking without the book.


Mr. CANNON:: In the Grand Trunk bill there was a section providing for the construction of 44 branch lines.


Arthur Meighen: What Grand Trunk bill?


Lucien Cannon: The Grand Trunk bill;
there was provision for the purchase of 44 branch lines in the West. We asked that these 44 lines be considered in detail, and that request was not only refused but the section was passed under closure.


George Perry Graham: That is my recollection.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend says that his recollection is that in the Grand Trunk bill there was power to acquire 44 branch lines in western Canada. The suggestion is so absurd that I would insult the House if I denied it. In 1920 there was provision in the estimates for branch lines, and we plead with this government to do what we did then. All that the government need do is follow our example and we shall be satisfied.


George Perry Graham: Will you take the information that you then gave?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I shall be content with such information.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


George Perry Graham: Which was nothing.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member must have had a bad dream. I do not know what hon. gentlemen behind the minister have in their heads at all, but there was no such clause in the Grand Trunk acquisition legislation. That legislation was merely to provide for the acquirement of the Grand Trunk Railway. There was a previous bill for the acquirement of branch lines, but that was long before 1920, and 'it was for the acquirement of certain lines, that were constructed, which of course is a different thing. Now, as respects the minister's allegation that no information was given, and the specific allegation just now that no information was given as to estimated cost and as to territory, I will undertake to provide the minister with that information and to show that it was given. I know that no such information was refused; I know that it was given at some stage of the bill, although I cannot say at what precise juncture. I stand here to say that hon. members will have difficulty-indeed I do not think they will find it possible -to produce an instance in which specific information asked for was not given in respect of the legislation referred to by the minister. I can well recall these
11	p.m occasions, because I know how active the member for Pontiac was; and I have read some of his speeches. I would ask the House to go back over these days and read the debates; do not let hon. gentlemen refer to one little stage of the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the bill.


Arthur Meighen: That is the wrong bill.


Mr. CARROLL:: The hon. member has got wrong information this time.


Arthur Meighen: I get wrong information from hon. gentlemen opposite.


Frank S. Cahill: No, from gentlemen behind you.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; I get right information there, but this is not the bill mentioned by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). The Canadian National Railways Act of 1919 is not the act for the acquirement of the Grand Trunk. There is a schedule the purport of which I do not know at the moment, but it may be that to which the hon. gentleman refers. There could be no such legislation in the Grand Trunk Acquisition Act. I will look over the schedule to the Canadian National Railway Act and speak to it a minute later; of course I cannot do it while I am on my feet.


Mr. LUCAS:: I understand that a good
deal of the opposition to this branch line is due to the fact that the Canadian Pacific has a charter in this connection, secured in 1919. The member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) suggested that the charter was granted to the Canadian Pacific at that time on account of the Canadian National being unprepared to proceed with the construction. The fact that the Canadian Pacific have not done anything with that road shows that they were not any more prepared to start with the construction than were the Canadian National. I think the time has come when any railway company applying for a charter should be prepared to put up a guarantee or bond that they are going to start construction, and that should be done before any charter is granted by this House. I would like to confirm what the Minister of the Interior said in regard to this territory belonging to the Canadian National. The present Canadian National line parallels the Saskatchewan river and all the territory north of that line runs to the river, which has very deep banks. All the business coming from that- territory comes now to the Canadian National, and if the Canadian Pacific secured a charter through there it would simply spoil the whole business for the Canadian National. The Canadian Pacific built last year from Cut Knife, I believe, a distance of about thirty miles, and they are still a considerable distance from Lloyd-minster. I presume this year's construction will take them into Lloydminster and then they will be able to secure running rights over the Canadian National from there to Edmonton, so they will not be inconvenienced, I am glad the construction of this branch line is proposed this year, because the settlers of that district have been looking for it since 1909. Farmers there have told me that they were prepared to go out and give their labour free if they could only get this road started. I am glad, I say, that the board have seen fit to recommend the starting of construction on this line during the present season, and I hope it will be pushed to an early completion.


Lucien Cannon: Referring to the statutes
of Canada, 1919, Chapter 13, the clause I was alluding to is clause 20, which reads as follows:
The times for the commencement and completion of the construction of the lines of railway specified in the second schedule to this act, which certain of the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern system were authorized to construct, are hereby extended for two years and five years respectively after the passing of this act.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
If my right hon. friend will read the second schedule he will see that a full list of the railways is there given. When we asked for information, and asked an opportunity to study each or any special branch line in particular, by a committee or otherwise, we were refused, and the clause was passed under closure.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I am delighted
that the hon. member has found the clause. This Canadian National Railway Act was not the act, first of all, by which the Grand Trunk was acquired; that was done under the Grand Trunk Acquisition Act. However, that is merely a matter of name. The Canadian National Railway Act was the act by which we consolidated all the roads at that time owned by the state-that is, roads that were acquired by stock interest. They were all made into one system, and provision was made for the appointment of a directorate and their operation as one. Consequently such roads as the various constituent companies had, already the property of the state, became consolidated in the possession of one company of which the state held the ownership. Then the clause to which my hon. friend refers provided that the times for the commencement and completion of lines already authorized and specified in the second schedule-
-which certain of the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern system were authorized to construct, are hereby extended for two years and five years respectively after the passing of this act.
The various companies, when private companies, had the right to construct those roads mentioned in the schedule. The private companies are now owned by the state, and the state when consolidating these companies, extends the time within which that construction may go on. The state does not come to parliament and ask for a dollar to go on, or bind itself to go on, or express any intention of going on.


Lucien Cannon: I never contended that
either.


Arthur Meighen: It merely extends for its own benefit the right to construct which the original companies obtained. What in the world would be the sense in such a case of going to a committee? Now the hon. member has revealed just about the character of the obstruction we were subjected to. The House was kept day and night over a clause that merely reserved to the state the right to go on if parliament authorized it to do so and voted the money to do so later on. This was merely a keeping alive of charter rights that had already been accorded to a private
company. That is what they forced closure on in this House. Could anything better illustrate the character of the opposition we had? We would have had to come back to parliament to get the money before we could build a line, and in every case we came in the constitutional way and had the money voted in estimates. Now, I wonder what is to be thought of an opposition that held parliament by the throat, talked against time all day and all night, forcing closure in order that a clause of that sort might be got through?


George Perry Graham: If these had remained
private companies, had they not been taken over by the government and had they wished to have their time extended as was done under this act, would they not have been compelled to come before the Railway committee?


Arthur Meighen: Very good. But we
would have had to come to parliament later for the money anyway, but a private company would not have had to come to parliament for the money. The private company would vote the money itself and go on; that is exactly the point. What on earth was the common sense of sending that clause to a committee, a clause that merely reserved the right to go on, merely kept the charters alive for the benefit of the state, when as a matter of fact, if we should decide later to go on with even a single branch we would have had to come back to parliament for every cent of the money?
Mr, CANNON: J am not discussing the question whether it should have been referred to a committee. But the right hon. gentleman asked that one instance be pointed out where his government refused information,, and I have quoted one. We asked for information and we were refused it; that is the point.


Arthur Meighen: What was the information asked for there?


Lucien Cannon: As to the revival of forty charters. I think parliament was entitled to some information as to where the railways were to be built, and so on.


Arthur Meighen: What was the information asked for?


Lucien Cannon: The information asked
was as to where the railways were to be built, the merits of each of the charters, the expenditures that we might be called upon to make in the future, and so on. With respect to every one of the questions put by the opposition at that time the government refused to give any enlightenment. That is the point before the committee.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Arthur Meighen: This is getting better all the time. I rose first to answer the statement that we had refused to allow bills similar to these, providing for new construction, to go to a committee. This was given as the instance. I do not need now to review the argument; hon. gentlemen opposite are simply exposed. Now the hon. member says, " Oh, you refused to give information then, refused to tell us where the lines were going, what was to be the cost, and so on." Well, I have no recollection of the refusal, but we will assume it was done, if that will help the argument any. What on earth would that information have to do with the wisdom of maintaining the charters alive, when we owned the charters? That is the character of information that was asked. That was the character of information in respect of which parliament was held up, the time of the people wasted, the time of members wasted, whole nights consumed-just in order to make a demonstration, to try to create the impression that information was not given. That character of information had not the slightest thing on earth to do with the wisdom of passing the clause. The clause was manifestly wise in the first place. Nobody could get any benefit from it except the state. If it was providing money with which to go ahead as this bill is, certainly we should have given that information. When we asked for money and expressed any intention of going on at all we came on later and gave the information.


Lucien Cannon: It is only fair that before buying charters we should know what we are taking over. When my right hon. friend was Prime Minister he was buying all kinds of things without knowing what he was purchasing, but we want to know what we ire buying when we are paying out public noney.


Arthur Meighen: We were not giving anything for the charters. We already owned them, and were merely by legislation keeping them alive. They are all set out here and everything about them is given. I am prepared to leave the matter with the committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 46, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Lloydminister, in the province of Saskatchewan, northwesterly forty-five miles.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

Wednesday, April 9, 1924