1924-04-01

PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That Messrs. Anderson, Bancroft, Gordon, Logan, Papineau, Rinfret, Vien, Wallace and Wilson be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned and to act as members of the joint committee on both Houses on the restaurant.
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States regarding the carrying out of the joint international report relating to the St. Lawrence waterways.-Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.
Copy of correspondence, telegrams, etc., exchanged between the government of Canada, or any of its members, or with any corporations or individuals, since the 1st January, 1922, relating to the St. Lawrence waterway route and the construction of dams on the St. Lawrence for the development of certain waterpowers.- Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.
Copy of an order in council respecting the revision of the salary of civil servants.-Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.

Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: I beg to present a petition from Rev. Donald T. L.
McKenoll, Rev. Thos. Wardlaw Taylor, Professor Albert T. Laing, Messrs. James Scott, and James Andrew Milne, Rev. James Wilson, and Messrs. Thos. McMillan and Stewart C. Parker of the city of Toronto in opposition to the bill to incorporate the United Church of Canada.



EXPORT OF PULPWOOD

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: On Friday of last week I called the attention of the government to an error in the answer to a question, which question asked the statutory authority for the order in council exempting existing contracts for the exportation of pulpwood for ten years.
I asked the government to look into the matter and provide a correct answer. Has the government the answer yet?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I gave my right hon. friend an answer.


Arthur Meighen: There was no answer
given. If the leader of the government will look up his remarks he will find that he gave no answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I gave no answer I do not know how I shall be able to find my remarks.


Arthur Meighen: The leader of the government expressed some words but they did not constitute an answer.



EXPORTATION OF ELECTRIC POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. L. DESLAURIERS (St. Mary) (Translation):: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House to an editorial which appeared in the Gazette of the 31st March, regarding a proposal to form a company, to be known as "Super-Power Development ": the following is the extract:
First news of this super-power project was revealed in Wall Street to-day, when it was learned that a banking syndicate headed by Harris, Forbes and Company and Bonbright and Company is negotiating to underwrite about $50,000,000 of the cost.
The editorial ends with:
The system will be large enough to supply power and .lighting to towns and industries for miles on either side of the main line, which will have a probable capacity of 220,000 volts.
The final difficulty, which is now being worked out, is contained in the Canadian laws. They provide that any franchise granted for the exportation of power from the country may be terminated upon one year's notice. It is expected that a method of modifying the obstacle will be found shortly.
It is stated that the development plans have been carried near to completion, because the bankers and officials feel certain of definite assurance from Canada
Pacific Halibut Fishery

that the laws will be changed to eliminate any interference with the project. The company will, it is expected, ask for a perpetual franchise.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would like to ask the hon. member to kindly put his question to the government as briefly as possible.


Hermas Deslauriers: I
wish to inquire if the government has the intention of amending the present act regarding the exportation of electricity to other countries and if there is any truth in this rumour.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and* Canals): In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) I may say the matter of in any way modifying the statute in reference to the export of power has not been considered by the government.



WHEAT BOARD-SURPLUS FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: With reference to the amount advanced to the western provinces some years ago for relief in the matter of seed grain, and against which the government is holding the money that is in their hands, the surplus from the Wheat Board, can the minister tell me how much, if any, of those sums advanced are properly chargeable against Manitoba?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: I just happened to have under my
hand and was reading at the moment-I did not know my hon. friend was going to ask the question-a memorandum from the Department of Finance, dated February 14, 1924, which reads-
Seed grain in relief account, principal outstanding on March 31st, 1923-
This is including interest.
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
I have left out the odd cents



PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill 21, to amend the Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Protection Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Nationals or inhabitants of Canada or United States and ships registered therein or belonging to them, liable to seizure.
[Mr. Deslauriers.j
Mr. STEVENS:: I hope the minister will
give us a complete explanation of the reason for and the need for this legislation.


Mr. CARDIN:: As I have already explained, the amendments relate to section 6 of the act, which was passed last year. We desire to amend section 6 by adding after the words "in prohibited waters" the words "during the close season". As the section was enacted last year it might be argued that fishing for halibut was prohibited all the year. The words "during the close season" were omitted. This is the amendment we intend to make in section 6. The other amendment is in section 9. We intend to repeal this section, because it is a mere repetition of section 5.


Arthur Meighen: The bill is just one
instalment of corrections of the government's errors of last session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I really have not had time to consider it fully. There is a reference regarding vessels seized by Canadian customs officers. The last section that the minister mentions referred to section 9 of the act. What was the reason for the repealing of that clause?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This clause reads as follows:
Every ship, vessel or boat which is foreign or not navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Canada may be seized.
If my hon. friend will refer to section 5 he will find that it says:
Every ship, vessel, or boat, including all furniture, apparel, appliances, gear, tackle and rigging thereof, which is in any manner operated or used for the purpose of committing an offence against the act or for aiding or facilitating the commission of any such offence may be seized.
So that my hon. friend will see that clause 9 is almost a repetition of what is said in clause 5; and in addition to that I may add that clause 9 may be taken as stating that only foreign vessels are liable to be seized according to the law, because it says that "every ship, vessel or boat which is foreign may be seized."


Arthur Meighen: I understand that the
minister says that clause 9 as it stands is virtually a repetition of clause 5, but he says that clause 9 contains in addition the words "which is foreign." Then clause 5 does not contain these words I presume?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Arthur Meighen: It is intended to apply
to every ship, foreign and domestic. That is so described in this clause. Does clause 5 contain the words "which is foreign?"


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Arthur Meighen: In respect to clause 6
what in the world has the government been doing all this past year? The way the act reads up to now, any ship that did what is stated here either in close season or open season would be liable to seizure. So that,
I presume, all this year while the act was in force no ship operated at all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The act is not in force.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I understand. This
still awaits the action of the Senate of the United States?	.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is fortunate the
United States Senate provided the government with time to repair its error.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is always time to
repair errors.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. CARDIN moved the third reading of the bill.
Arthur Meighen: I do not think the practice should become a habit, of putting bills through the second reading and the third reading on the same day. I do not think this is an important bill at all, but there is no need of rushing it.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.



JUDGES' ACT AMENDMENT-YUKON

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) (for the Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25 to amend the Judges' Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-salary of judge of Territorial Court of Yukon Territory increased.
Mr. HANSON:: What is the present salary of the judge of the Yukon Territorial Court? Who is the present incumbent and how long has he occupied the position?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I presume my hon. friend was absent from the House when all the explanations were given on the resolution. The present salary is $7,000. It is proposed to increase it to $9,000, which is the salary received by all the other high court judges in Canada. As was explained the other day, the judge of the Yukon Territorial Court is receiving a living allowance of $5,000. This will be reduced by $2,000 so that really this will not mean any increase in expenditure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It means an increase in retiring allowance.


Ernest Lapointe: By $1,000.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the third reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might explain to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that the government's only object in seeking the third readings of these bills is to get legislation across to the Senate which is now sitting. If the third reading is deferred there will be another day's delay in sending the bill to the Senate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



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:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Kingsclear, a point on the Saint John and Quebec Railway in the province of New Brunswick, in a generally southwesterly direction, to a point on the St. Croix river, opposite Vanceboro, in the state of Maine; estimated mileage including existing grading, 41 miles; estimated cost, $2,123,000.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether I am at liberty to discuss the details of the bill that will be based upon this resolution, but I think some at least, of the objections raised last session to the form in which this legislation was introduced, will be explained in the bill. I would prefer to defer that explanation until we have the resolutions in the form of various bills. I might point out that this resolution is for the purpose of the Canadian National Railways having a connection with an American line for traffic between the Maritime provinces and the United
C. N. R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
States, particularly the New England states. At the present time that connection is somewhat faulty. This resolution asks for a line, forty-one miles in length. As a matter of fact, possibly that may be obviated by an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, by which arrangement the construction will be but fourteen miles in length. The resolution asks for power to construct the forty-one miles, if necessary. The estimated cost is $2,123,000. If it is found necessary to construct the whole forty-one miles, it is proposed to grade the distance in 1924 and to lay the track in 1925.
Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Law-rence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, there are certain observations that I would like to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House, relevant to the various resolutions now standing in the name of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). These resolutions to be brought down by the minister in question contemplate the construction of twenty-six lines of railway aggregating in the neighbourhood of 1,000 miles, and costing approximately or slightly over $28,000,000. It, therefore, seems to me to go without saying that the matter is one of great moment to the country, one that should not be allowed to pass this House without the most careful scrutiny and without our taking into consideration all the facts relating to these proposals which are to be brought before this legislative body.
It is not my intention, in the course of these remarks, to direct any particular motive towards any particular branch line. I desire to discuss the question of branch lines to be brought down in these resolutions in a more or less general manner; but I wish to point out to the House the large amount involved in these undertakings, and also to say that any undertaking which is not absolutely essential for the welfare of the country generally, or actually and vitally necessary for any particular part of our population, should certainly in every respect be eliminated. The government should have in mind in proposing these various resolutions one consideration only, namely, the vital necessity to the country of any expenditures involved, before a single dollar is expended' on these undertakings. As I have stated, these proposals entail an expenditure of $28,000,000, and for any of us in this House to say that we can spend twenty-eight million dollars, or even twenty-eight million cents, with a free hand in view of the condition of our finances

at the present time is the height of absurdity. As a matter of fact, unless we get down to the lowest possible expenditure in Canada it will be utterly impossible for us to reduce the taxation which is so heavily weighing upon the people to-day; and unless that taxation is reduced to a very considerable extent it will also be impossible for any business, whether it be agricultural or otherwise, to succeed in the future. I think, Sir, that we ought to realize what an exceedingly difficult position we are in to-day in Canada. We are living beside the richest, one of the most populous, and one of the most progressive people in the wide world. In some respect in this country we are not free agents. As regards the question of wages and salaries, and in relation to other matters of that kind, we are controlled, not by our own desires but by the rates of wages and salaries that obtain in the United States; we are governed very largely by what the nation to the south of us may do in these directions. In other words, what the richest nation in the world may do we in Canada are bound also to do, so far as wages and other questions of that kind are concerned.
We have also to take into consideration this fact., that if direct taxation in the United States is lower than direct taxation in this country, then it simply means that our population will drift to the south. Some weeks ago, speaking in the House on other subjects, I directed the attention of the government to the exodus which was then taking place and which had been going on for a number of years. I do not think that we can say at this moment that that exodus has entirely ceased; in fact, I believe it is still in progress. And I do not think that the government or ourselves should be lulled into any false sense of security, or into any ungrounded satisfaction, in the suggestion that those people who leave Canada to go to the United States will surely return; because there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that many of our people, and some of the very best of them, who go to the United States never return but stay there. I say therefore that any expenditure, which the government considers necessary, should be made only from the standpoint of urgent and vital necessity; and such expenditure must be brought down to the very lowest possible figure, either if we expect to have our taxation on a par with the taxation that is levied in the United States- and I am speaking just now of direct taxation -or if we desire to retain our population. It

C. N. R.-Branch Lines
goes without saying, of course, that if taxation in the United States is lower than taxation here, most inevitably the drift of the population must continue to the southern country. Now, I do not wish it to be understood that I am saying in this House that we should not undertake any capital expenditures at all;
I believe that in a new country which is progressing as we are, and in a more or less constructive period, it would be exceedingly stupid for any man to say that we should refrain from capital expenditures. On the other hand, if we do decide upon capital expenditure of any description, as for instance in connection with these branch lines, we should look forward very carefully to make sure that that capital expenditure will be productive of a commensurate advantage. We must not act merely upon conjecture; we must be quite certain that it will be worth while and that it will serve some vital need of the people before we vote any such expenditure. So that, with all due respect to my hon. friends on this side of the House, and without the slightest desire to court unpopularity, I say, in the most decided and distinct terms, that I will support these various resolutions only in so far as I am convinced by the most ample explanations and the most adequate information on the part of the minister that the lines are necessary and that the money expended on them is essential in every particular in order to serve a vital need without which we cannot do. I wish to make myself abundantly clear in that respect, so that in the course of the various resolutions and the subsequent bills which may come up, if any information is asked for, the government and the minister in particular will know precisely the stand I take in this House and before the country in reference to this matter.
I do not think that we in this House and in the country as a whole can shut our eyes to the actual railway situation as it now exists. I offer no comment at all on the question as to how that railway situation was brought about, for I do not think that we are particular!}' concerned at the moment as to how it all happened. We are however vitally con-erned with what is actually happening and what may happen in the future. This we must take into consideration at every step; but I doubt very much whether the nation at large or, if I may say so, every hon. member in this House, quite realizes the vast amount of money which we have expended on these undertakings. Possibly many people think that when the estimates are brought down, or when an operating deficit or a profit, as the case may be, is indicated, there is no need any
longer to worry about the railways. They do not realize that in the ordinary debt of the country there is a huge burden, an indebtedness on which we are paying interest all the time, and in relation to the railways themselves; because the indebtedness in that respect is part of our national debt. In other words, we cannot build or buy railways and think that the money will simply be segregated in a certain account and that we shall not have to pay any interest on it. Money has to come from somewhere, and if it does the cost of it has actually to be paid in one account or another. We have expended vast sums in these railways; there are vast sums locked up in the public accounts and in various other accounts; and there are a number of accounts which I think it will interest hon. members and the country as well to know. I think the people would like to know just what is the liability of the Dominion of Canada in connection with our railways. I do not like wearying the House, and it is with great reluctance that I venture to read statements of figures and accounts. But there is no other method open to me of getting these figures on Hansard, and as I think they are of sufficient importance to hon. members and to the country at large I shall ask the indulgence of the House while I submit them. First of all, there is the actual cash which has been invested in these various lines. That cash invested in these lines, as at December 31, 1923, amounted to the vast sum of $1,138,600,430.


Mr. McMASTER:: These are the lines now incorporated in the Canadian National Railways system?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, they are now operated as the Canadian National Railways system. I will give my hon. friend the division of that particular amount in a moment. It may interest him to have this information. First I will give the main headings. We have expended on these railways, by way of so-called advances, large sums of money on which the interest has not entirely been paid. Then come certain securities which the Dominion guaranteed, the interest on which has to be paid, and eventually the principal also. Then there is a class of securities, so-called guaranteed as to interest only. I think that is a misnomer, for as a matter of fact if interest be guaranteed the capital also is guaranteed, because the obligation to pay interest cannot be of any value unless the capital is eventually paid off. So it virtually means that both capital and interest on those securities are guaranteed by the Dominion After those again we have a mass of so-
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

called unguaranteed securities. In those are included many millions of underlying liens, some guaranteed by various provinces, others not guaranteed at all, but all secured on the various roads of the system forming part of the National lines at the present time, and although not actually assumed-using the word in its very strictest sense-nevertheless they are virtually assumed by the Dominion, as owners of the property for the reason that if any particular block of securities became due and the interest was not paid, it would simply mean that a certain section of the line would be taken by the bond holders. Therefore as a matter of fact we have assumed those securities also, though they are not directly guaranteed.
Here is the statement to which I have reference, and if hon. members will bear with me for a moment I will read certain figures. I spoke a moment ago of the actual total amounting to $1,138,600,430.
This amount is divisible as follows:
What is now Canadian National since it was operated as such from about February,
1923	$	16,172,847
Canadian Northern 354,212,554 Grand Trunk Pacific 138,743,070 Grand Trunk.. .. 134,583,607 Canadian Govt.. . 494,888,352

In addition to this there is:
. Interest accrued on loans to December 31, 1923, but not paid:
Canadian National
present system______	428,217
Canadian Northern. 69,589,575 Grand Trunk Pacific 27,562,616
Grand Trunk	 13,858,120

 111,438,538
Then there are net balances of unmatured securities outstanding guaranteed by the Dominion:
Canadian National present system.. .. 22,500,000 Canadian Northern. 144,702,913 Grand Trunk Pacific 43,432,848
Grand Trunk	 49,743,000

 260,378,761
And after that securities guaranteed as to interest which really means guaranteed as to principal also-Capital value of Grand Trunk stocks	 216,207,141

There are also the outstanding obligations in the hands of the public secured on the whole or on parts of the system as the case may be-not actually guaranteed by the Dominion but assumed by it as virtual owner and on which interest has to be paid:
Canadian Northern-
Equipment Notes.. 32,519,000 Securities guaranteed by various
provinces	 79,767,554
Unguaranteed securities	 92,816,805

 205,103,359
Grand Trunk Railway-
Securities and those of affiliated
companies	 44,622,128
Equipment notes ..	13,482,700

 58,104,828
Grand Trunk Pacific-
Securities with provincial guarantees.. 13,457,826 Guaranteed by Grand Trunk.. .. 62,581,253

 76,039,079
Total cash expenditure, interest accrued on advances, securities guaranteed by Dominion either as to principal or interest or both and. obligations secured on the various roads.. $2,065,872,128
Now, this is a very pretty bill, Mr. Speaker, on which we have to pay interest. We can do it. No one need be afraid of the credit of the country or its ample ability to meet all its obligations and more in full. These figures are not given for the purpose of creating a panic. There is no reason to lose courage, because I am confident we can carry the load. This statement is given however as an ample warning that we have an enormous sum in these roads and as the most apparent evidence that we must not spend more except what is absolutely essential.
Now it is true that for the year 1924 the government is asking for $56,000,000 by way of loans to the National Railways.


Arthur Meighen: In order that there may be no misapprehension, I am presuming that the hon. member has included in the grand total the cost of the Transcontinental, the Intercolonial, the Prince Edward Island and

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
other railways that have been built, with accumulated interest upon the cost, and that he ' has also included many obligations, aggregating quite a total in respect of which no interest is being paid, and for which interest we are' not liable?


Herbert Meredith Marler: 
Arthur Meighen: I think they are. I refer, for example, to the Grand Trunk Pacific bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk, and, as well, to the Canadian Northern income convertibles guaranteed conditionally. No interest is being paid on them, and we are not liable for such interest.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific guaranteed by the Grand Trunk are included in the statement.


Arthur Meighen: And the income convertibles?


Herbert Meredith Marler: As to the income convertibles, I am not prepared to answer my right hon. friend at the moment. I could do so if I delayed to look up the figures here, but I presume the matter is not of sufficient importance at the moment for me to do so. Now, Mr. Speaker, the government is asking for a vote of $56,000,000 for the ordinary railway loans. In that sum there is, not included, of course, this additional $28,000,000. Last year we were asked for something like $74,550,000, or about $18,000,000 more than this year. This represents the gain in operating earnings of the Canadian National Railways, and possibly it may be said that in view of this gain we are justified in branching out and spending more money on our railway system, but I do not think there is any justification for this view. It would seem to me very absurd and most unreasonable that after spending something like $390,000,000 on these roads during the last three years alone there should not have been a very distinct improvement in the railway earnings, and for that reason I do not think we should be exuberant in praise or too generous in our attitude with regard to the



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
spending of money on the building of branch lines, except, as I have stated, where they are absolutely essential.
In these operating deficits or in the operating surpluses, as the case may be, the actual interest payable to the government of Canada is not included or taken into consideration, to say nothing about the interest on the capital amounts which has been paid and which has been placed in the system. These fixed charges are continuing and are increasing materially every year. For example, in 1920 the fixed charges due the Dominion were $13,000,000. In 1921 they had increased to $19,000,000; in 1922 they were $24,000,000 and in 1923 they were $29,000,000. In other words, the amount of money payable on loans made and on indebtedness to the Dominion of Canada, not including operating deficits or earnings, was $29,000,000 on the 31st of December last.
There is another point that I think we should take into consideration: we are wont in this House to say, "Let us keep the railways out of politics;" or, "The board of directors say we should do this or should do that." I do not think we can hide behind statements of that kind. We have to accept our own responsibility in this House for the money we spend on branch lines or on any other part of the railway system. So far as I am concerned, I am not going to hide behind the cry that the railways should be kept out of politics or that the board of directors say this or say that. I want to know myself what the expenditure is to be before I share any responsibility in the matter.
In addition to that, we shall probably be told that the budget will balance this year. I am not uttering criticisms, Mr. Speaker, in this respect; I am simply stating cold facts. Twenty-eight millions is a huge sum of money and should not, either in whole or in part, be voted in this House until we know precisely what we are doing. It may be argued that on account of the budget being balanced we should branch out still more, but in my opinion that is no reason at all. I am glad to know that the budget is likely to balance, but if it does it will be because we have too great war taxes on the country, the surpluses from which are being used for other purposes, not war at all. If there is a surplus of war taxes-and I know there is -then those war taxes should be remitted, cancelled or reduced.
We are very likely to be told as regards these branch lines that in view of the reduction in the estimates we should proceed with

[Stage Direction]
8&8
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
the proposed construction. I know there has been a very considerable reduction in the estimates and I commend the government for it. That reduction, exclusive of railway expenditure, amounts to 127,000,000, of which probably $10,000,000 is due to the slackening off of war services. In other words it is due to the fact that those war services have slackened off in the ordinary course of events and have not been specially diminished in any way-services which are paid, Mr. Speaker, with war taxes. That means that there is a reduction in the estimates this year of $17,000,000, and that reduction will be not as great when the supplementaries come down. Therefore I submit that the fact that there is a reduction in the estimates is no reason at all why we should build branch lines and more railways.
These resolutions are brought down at this time of the session, and before the budget, no doubt for certain very good reasons. They are brought down, I suppose, at this particular season of the year in order that the engineers may get to work on their estimates, get their plant on the ground and start the construction, in accordance with any vote passed by this House and by the other House, in ample time during the coming summer. That is sense, there is no doubt about that; it is a good season for the measures being brought down at this time. But notwithstanding that, it seems to me that we are entitled to know exactly how our budget is going to stand for the next year before we vote $28,000,000. Business at present is not satisfied, particularly in view of the heavy taxes that are being paid. Many say that business is prosperous, but I am of the opinion that it is not as prosperous as many seem to think. Business wants to know how we are going to stand for the next fiscal year before undertaking a measure of this kind.
It was indicated by certain proposals of the government that there might be changes in the tariff, and cities in particular have been very much disturbed as to what those changes might be. I do not know what the actual proposals are; nobody knows what they are; but business is very distinctly disturbed in that connection, and I venture to say that if proposals are brought down which will injure business interests or will not improve business interests, -which without doubt need improvement at the present time, certain parts of this country will not agree to the building of any of these lines. We want to know before expending money exactly where we stand, and I think we are entitled to

know before voting this large sum precisely what is the fiscal policy of the government.
Without discussing any particular branch lines, I wish to say that I have taken the opportunity^ of studying, by the 4 p.m. map and by such information as I have been able to procure, the various lines which are projected. Some of these lines, it is alleged, should be built because certain grading has already been done. It is urged, not by the minister but by others, that for this reason we should put rails on these gradings and complete them into railways. But in my opinion the fact that these gradings exist is no reason whatever for taking that course. If we have spent money on the grading of these lines and if it has been unwise to proceed further, the mere fact-I repeat, the mere fact; I do not want hon. members to misunderstand me- that these lines are graded and that money has been spent op the grading is no reason why millions more should be spent in turning them into profitless branch line railways.
In addition to that, so far as I can see, pome of these lines are too near other existing lines and therefore are not essential. In other cases there is too little population to serve and there is not likely to be any additional population in these particular localities for some considerable time. In other cases I believe traffic arrangements could be made with other railway companies which would obviate the building of additional lines. In other cases I can find no reason whatever why the projected lines should be built, and I doubt if any railway engineer could find any. In that connection, Sir, I may point out that we have millions of acres near railways which we can use without spending enormous sums for the building of lines into sparsely populated territory.
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 think every member of this House, I think everybody in this country, should wish well for both these lines, they are both great national undertakings. But to say that the Canadian National system should progress because of unfair competition with the Canadian Pacific line is senseless in the extreme. The Canadian Pacific is just as great a national asset as the Canadian National line. In addition to that, the Canadian Pacific is known

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
all over the world by reason of its stability in management and in finance and is, as a matter of fact, all hon. members will admit, a source of pride to this country. The Canadian Pacific is financed by its own efforts on its own credit and on its own ability, whereas all the Canadian National railway line has to do is to to come to this House and get money, and it usually gets the money it requires. 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. What we need in this country and what we must all try to get is lower transportation costs. That is what we want. Building branch railway lines may yield pleasure but that is not going to give us lower transportation costs if other railway lines are there to serve the particular purpose which the proposed new lines are intended to serve. I wish to make that point abundantly and absolutely clear in every respect, and I particularly wish to repeat- that where it is possible to make traffic arrangements with another railway these branch lines, as suggested, should not be constructed simply for the purpose of building them. In addition there is a great deal of duplication of services in this country between these two railways. I believe traffic arrangements could be made between the two systems that would be most satisfactory. Why should not such traffic arrangements be made, why should not such duplication be avoided? Why should not such duplication be remedied with a view to bringing the operating costs of both systems down to a minimum and making their operating and general profits greater?

so that in course of time we shall be prepared to demand lower transportation costs. That is what we must have in mind in connection with these proposals brought down by the minister. The object should be not to build further railways, not to spend money unnecessarily, but to get lower transportation costs and see that both these great railway companies shall survive and prosper.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat merely adding these few words. When these bills are brought down I shall expect the fullest information from the minister- and and this no doubt he will give in his usual admirable manner. I shall want to know how the expenditures are to be met and what
reasons there are for building these different branch lines before I will support the proposals.
Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: 
Mr. CARROLL:: Has the hon. member
taken into consideration the St. Lawrence river improvements upon which this country is expending millions of dollars a year?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am quite ready
to admit that my hon. friend's argument has its
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

value but at present Lam dealing with railways. Now this resolution and the bill which will follow proposes that 965 miles of railway should be built at an expenditure of $28,311,300. Out of the 965 miles now being proposed Quebec will have 31 miles, with an expenditure of $1,462,000.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is the hon. gentleman aware of the benefits the province of Quebec receives through its shipping ports from the extra branch lines and railroads in the western provinces?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am aware of all that, but this is another question altogether. I could not answer offhand a question like that. If I were to answer the question of my hon. friend I should have to go into details as to the cost of the railways and the improvements made in the St. Lawrence, and so forth, and this is a matter which is outside of the question I have been discussing. I shall be quite willing to hear my hon. friend discuss the question as to why further railways should be built in the West.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It would be very much better if my hon. friend had made a comparison of the railways constructed in the West as compared with those constructed in Quebec.


Jean-Joseph Denis: 
Mr. GARDINER:: Has the hon. membei taken into consideration the fact that in Quebec last year there was expended for transportation	'purposes-harbours,	rivers
and so forth-the sum of $1,137,650.50, as against an expenditure in Saskatchewan and Alberta of $34,000?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes, I take that into consideration, and if you take into consideration the fact that the province of Quebec is paying for the railroads of the West-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This is a fact
which will be proven on investigation, and there is no question about it. In answer to my hon. friend I say that this million and a half is just one drop in the bucket compared to what we are paying for railroads in the West. We have deficits of hundreds of millions of dollars on these railways that have

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
been built where they should not have been built.
Now let us make another comparison. In the United States they have one mile of railway for every four hundred inhabitants, in Canada we have one mile of railway for every two hundred inhabitants; and in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia they have one mile of railway for every one hundred inhabitants. These lines by the very nature of things must come out of the moneys of the country, and must increase the deficits, and the province of Quebec is paying for this.


Robert Gardiner: Is the hon. gentleman
not aware that the western lines produce the paying tonnage and the eastern lines do not?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will be ready
to listen to my hon. friend when he undertakes to prove that the western lines are paying for themselves. My knowledge is that they do not pay for themselves, and until the proof is furnished I maintain they do not. He advances the proposition that they are the railways that pay. It will be for him to prove that, but that is another argument altogether. I was answering my hon. friend when he stated that there was expended in Quebec for wharves and harbours and improvements of the St. Lawrence, one million and a half last year. This is an insignificant sum compared to what these railways are costing us.


An hon. MEMBER:: We pay that every
year.


Jean-Joseph Denis: But the railways are piling up an enormous defiicit every year. Coming back to my subject more definitely, I say there are in the province of Quebec many localities where railways are just as badly needed as they are in the West. I will give you one example. I do not want to be parochial, but I would refer to Joliette and Berthier which are my county and the adjoining county where there are communities with populations of 7,000, and they are sixty miles from a railway. Those communities have been in existence for over thirty years, and there is a great deal of traffic through that part of the country. If a railway were built there, it could develop that traffic and the country could develop, but the country cannot at present develop because it is too far ffom a railway. When requests are made for railways, the answer comes necessarily:	"We have no money to
build them." I am ready to admit that money is scarce; but we cannot on the one hand
say that there is no money to build a railway in Quebec, and on the other say that there is money to build railways in the West.
I have every consideration for my hon. friends from the West and the other provinces, but I have shown now that Quebec is very far behind any of the other provinces of this Dominion as regards the building of railways.
What is this confederation? It is an agglomeration of nine provinces, in which the* interests, in many instances, are absolutely different, if not opposed one to another. What means has a province to advance its own interests? Its influence, and the influence in this case comes through the population. The province that is most populous is most important in this confederation-I mean in point of activity and influence-by the very nature of things. The province that has the least population has the least influence. It is reasonable for any citizen of any province to claim that his province should have the railways which it deserves, because railways bring population and population means importance and influence in this Dominion. For all these reasons, while I am not prepared to say that I shall be opposed to every one of these resolutions, 1 want to reserve my right to examine each and every one of them, and I feel convinced, unless I should change my opinion in the meantime-and that is not likely-that the greater part of these resolutions =hould be discarded.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say only a few words, because I am aware that on this side of the House there may be members who are able to speak with better knowledge than I regarding some of these branch lines. I want, however, to reply to some of the remarks made by the two previous speakers. I think it goes without saying that in this House we are all standing for economy, only our ideas as to what economy means may differ a little, sometimes on account of the particular point of view from which we view the question of economy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: If hon, gentlemen to my right will wait until I begin to express my views, perhaps they will know what I intend to speak about. It is rather surprising to find so much interest taken, before one begins to speak, as regards what one is going to say.
We hear continually about the drift of population to the south and the causes of that drift of people from Canada to the
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

United States. I think I mentioned before that there will always be a certain number drifting over the line to the large population to the south of us. At the same time, I think we will all admit that present circumstances with us are not such as they might be to conduce to keep our people at home. I am willing to admit that hon. members in all parts of this House are quite as sincere as I am in their endeavours to better conditions, and to see that this Canada of ours shall be as prosperous as it can possibly be made.
I have no intention to discuss this matter ifrom the standpoint of any particular province. .1 realise, as the last speaker has said, that there are difficulties in governing this country owing to its geographical and physical conditions. I believe all of u? ought to consider from a national point of view the various items that come before us for our consideration. It is quite human that most of us will be influenced by the locality from which we come and the environment by which we are surrounded in that locality; but I think it is possible to divest ourselves of that state of feeling and to judge things with some degree of fairness to all parties concerned.
As regards the branch lines in the West,
I think Manitoba has only one small branch line. Quite a number, however, of branch lines are in the western prairie provinces. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George- (Mr. Marler) was very particular to inform the House that he was not going to support any of those lines unless they were absolutely needed.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I was referring to no
particular lines in any province whatsoever.


Robert Forke: I quite agree with that. I
was rather unfortunate in the way I made the remark. I meant all branch lines.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I did not say that I would not support any particular branch line. I stated that no branch line should be built except where necessary and essential. I think my hon. friend will very likely agree with me in that.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend has put the
matter better than I could put it. That was exactly what I was going to say. I quite agree with the hon. member, and I will support no line unless it is absolutely necessary and a paying proposition to build. That is the position which I would take as regards any line that is proposed at the present time. I will say a few words about that later on. ,
The statement was made that we must keep our railways out of politics. I could not

help thinking that the hon. member was putting up a straw man simply to knock him down, because we all know that when the question is one of voting money for the Canadian National Railways, that question must come before this parliament, so when we speak about keeping the National Railways out of politics, we do not mean it in that way. If money is required for capital expenditure on the Canadian National Railways, it will have to be voted by this parliament.
Another remark was made regarding business, and I paid particular attention to that remark, because it was bracketed with the tariff. It seems to me that no address can be made in this House unless the tariff appears in it. The hon. member referred to the fact that there were certain rumours in regard to the tariff. I cannot quote his exact words, but I think I caught the meaning that business was so alarmed, in such a precarious position, that it would be very difficult to get money to build branch lines as long as business was in that particular frame of mind.
I think I have the idea fairly that if business were put into a safe position through the tariff being stable, or put into the position that business would want, possibly we could go on and build branch lines. I do not know whether I drew the inference correctly, but that is the inference which I draw from the remarks ffiade at that particular time.


Herbert Meredith Marler: There was no suggestion
on my part that money could not be obtained to build branch lines having respect to the tariff. What I intended to convey was this, that business was not at the present time certain what the tariff proposals of the government might be, and I thought it better that the fiscal policy should be definitely known before we expended a large amount of money on branch lines or anything else.


Robert Forke: I accept the hon. member's
statement. It is pretty much along the line of what I tried to convey myself. He probably has a better command of language and 1 can put the question more clearly than I can. As regards the situation in business,
I am quite in sympathy with having industry prosper and I wish to see it prosper. When the question of taxation is referred to it is always spoken of as being something that presses heavily upon business. Well, let me say that taxation presses heavily upon all the people.	,


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is precisely what I said in my opening remarks; I pointed out that taxation pressed heavily upon both agriculture and business.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Robert Forke: That being the case, I do not see why I should be making this speech, because the hon. member has already apparently stated everything that I have to say. He also made reference to the rivalry between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. No one in this House harbours any antipathy at all to the Canadian Pacific Railway or regards it in an attitude of antagonism. It is one of the greatest institutions the world has ever known, and we as Canadians are proud of the fact that we have the Canadian Pacific Railway in this country. So that we can, I think, dismiss from our minds any idea of hostility to that great corporation. At the same time, however, we want to look after our own interests as far as we can just as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are doing from their own point of view. With the Canadian National Railways the position is somewhat different. We are interested not only in the efficient operation of the roads but, as well, in the financial success of the whole concern, because the success of these railways is a matter that affects not only our national pride but our national pocket as well, and we must see to it that they are made prosperous. I do not like to speak in a particularly optimistic tone in regard to the future of the railways, but I believe that at no very distant time hence a great many of our difficulties in connection with the Canadian National system will disappear with a growing population and growing business, and that the great burden that at present weighs down upon us will have been partly lifted from our shoulders.
A remark was made by an hon. member regarding the mileage of railways that were being built in the different provinces. I do not know that this is the happiest way of approaching the consideration of this subject. I think that the needs of the various provinces would constitute a better basis upon which to discuss the matter. Population per mile is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory standpoint from which to examine the railway situation in any province; rather, I think that the earning power per capita of the population for producing traffic for the railways would be a much fairer way of arriving at the true mileage which the, people in any particular locality should have. On this basis I claim that in the three prairie provinces the people produce more tonnage per mile than is produced in any other province in the Dominion. I dislike mentioning personal affairs, but if I may be pardoned I may say that I have shipped as many as thirteen and
fourteen cars of wheat in one year, which is a very large amount of tonnage for one individual to produce. This of course may not be typical of the entire prairie country, but I consider that the population of these provinces produces a larger tonnage of freight for the railways than any other province in Canada.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Or any other place in the world.


Robert Forke: It is a well known fact that the paying mileage of the railways is in the West. Hon. members from the East are continually asserting the fact that the great burden of the railways is put upon the shoulders of the people, and that the country is building western lines.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not everyone says that.


Robert Forke: Well, a good many people do. But they seem to forget that had the railway mileage stopped at Fort William, there would never have been such large dividends as ha,ve been earned by the prairie lines that were constructed from Fort William, west. Never in the history of railways have larger dividends been paid than on the western lines, but these dividends would not have been possible had the mileage stopped at Fort William. I have no hostility to the province of Quebec; indeed, I like that province and its people. But I want them to bear in mind the fact I have just stated. I do not like to see any question discussed in this House purely from a provincial point of view. It is absolutely necessary, of course, when members of parliament come here to represent certain sections of the country, that they shall look after the interests of those particular localities. But, while this must be done, I hope it will aways be done in the proper spirit and with a view to cultivating that broad national outlook which I am sure we all trust will be characteristic of the Canadian people before long.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not propose delaying the House long with the observations that I have to make, but I feel that an expression of gratitude should be tendered the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), for the very able manner in which he has dealt with this matter. I believe that it is of vital importance, in considering this large number of railway bills that we should have always before us the financial condition of the country. To say whether one was in favour of branch lines or not would be as ridiculous as to say whether a man liked vegetables or not; there
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

would be some which he would like and others which he would not like. I do not think that we can consider these branch lines in a lump; each one will have to be taken up and examined carefully, and, in my opinion, the light in which we should view this question is the light of this principle- that we in this country cannot afford to spend money upon anything except vital necessities.


Mr. EULER:: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MeMASTER:	It would be well, I
think, if we could all look at this question in a purely judicial and impartial frame of mind-. The information which I suggest the minister should be prepared to lay before parliament is this: First, what extent of territory will be served by the proposed line: second, what number of persons will be so served; third, how far are such persons distant now from the nearest railway facilities?


Mr. CANNON:: Most of them are still in
Europe.
Mr. MeMASTER: Well, I did not intend to give an international aspect to the matter;
I should be content to consider merely the number of people in Canada who are distant from the nearest railway facilities. Then I think we should have some computation, rough though it might be, of the-amount of tonnage that might be carried on the proposed branch lines, as well as the estimated earnings. The estimated profit to be obtained in the immediate, and the more distant future should also be considered. I can well understand that it might be good business to build a line even although for a year or so it might be a liability rather than an asset, if there were a very strong assurance that 
within two or three years that liability would be turned into an asset. I do not wish to detain the House much .longer, but it seems to me that it is in the light of this principle, and with the information which I seek, that we should bring our minds to a consideration of the different branch lines proposed.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended detaining the House with any remarks at this moment, but I deem it necessary to again make clear the position which we take upon this question. My hon. friend the leader of the group to my left (Mr. Forke) pointed out that everything in connection with railways, capital expenditure and the like, had to come before the House, and my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) also pointed out that there was a probability of the budget being balanced. Well, both these gentlemen are to a certain extent right, and yet they are wrong. The real reason why we are having all this discussion to-'day, and no branch lines were built last year, is that the ordinary rule of showing railway capital expenditures as a matter of railway vote year by year was departed from. It is quite easy, of course, to show a favourable balance when you change your method of book-keeping, but I think my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George is quite right in saying that the balance should not be taken too seriously in connection with this matter. He might have gone further and said that with respect to that balance we wilt have to consider the wonderful legislation of last year along with the loans of $50,000,000, and $22,500,000 guaranteed by the government. Of course, it makes all the difference whether you do or do not consider in your balance $72,500,000.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Were those loans considered in previous years?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
will correct me if I am wrong, but I think there was never a loan which was not brought down to this House and duly voted. However that may be, we have got further admissions at the present time from my hon. friend himself, and I care not, and this House cannot-very well distinguish, what he does one way or the other with the money in the light of his own admission that we already have many more millions of dollars invested in this property than it is worth.


Herbert Meredith Marler: A year or so ago my hon. friend stated that we had to spend money on these properties.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Henry Lumley Drayton: I fail to see the significance of having had to spend it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Well, the significance is
here. The money had to be spent, my hon. friend said, because trains were running off the tracks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh yes, my hon. friend is perfectly correct, but he is referring to something that I am not addressing myself to at the moment. It is quite correct to say that in the past money had absolutely to be spent in order to provide a proper vehicle of transportation, and the capital so spent in betterments and reconstruction is to be found in the deficits voted by this House. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the only reason for the delay last year was that a new method might be adopted and the old basis of comparison confused, with the resultant loss of time. There was something said to the effect that the money for these branch lines cannot be got quick enough by vote. Well, sir, we have already voted one-sixth of the estimates without a word of discussion. In connection with these branch lines there is no reason in the world why the estimates could not have been brought down at the very commencement of the session and the votes dealt with. That is not the reason. The reason is that it is thought to be a good thing to get a change of basis.
I do not want to delay consideration of these bills. I think that probably most of the branch lines will not at all measure up to the standard claimed by my hon. friends who have spoken, that on the contrary they will fall very far short of the standard required, for instance, by the leader of the Progressive party. But some of these branch lines I think do measure up to the standard, and we do not want to delay their proper consideration. We do however, want to get the fullest and completest information with respect to all these projects, and surely that is something which the House is entitled to. Last session we had a great deal of difficulty in getting any information at all. I recall correspondence with my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) complaining of lack of information, and it will be remembered that last session we protested against these matters being dealt with without proper information being furnished to the House. Now, I hope that will not again occur. I would ask the minister to bring down not only the information which the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has already pointed out should be furnished, but also appropriate maps in order that members will know just exactly where this construction is and its relation to other lines,
so that they will be able to appreciate the effect on the railway situation generally. I think we should also have-and I know that my hon. friend can get it if these matters have been properly considered-the regular traffic report from the traffic officers of the company. And over above all that, I think this House has the right to ask from the gentleman to whom we are all looking for the real operation of these lines-Sir Henry Thornton-a declaration that he requires them and believes that their construction is in the public interest. We do not want to have it said later on, as it very likely may be said in view of the location of some of the lines in this list, that the House rendered it absolutely impossible for the National system to make a proper showing. Therefore, we have a right to such a declaration and to be assured that the proposed construction will not constitute an obstacle to the successful operation of the system in future. I would ask my hon. friend to bring down this information.
I would also like it to be understood that while we yield not our position that railway costs should be shown in the railway estimates, and that the whole matter be properly and fully considered when the bills are in committee, we reserve to ourselves the right to discuss any matter of principle which may arise.


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I only rise to say that I fully endorse the remarks made by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) regarding the resolution now before the House. He has made such a forceful speech and has so well covered the ground that I will not weary hon. members with further arguments in support of his attitude. Like him I only wish to make my position clear, and I will do so in two words. On another occasion I stated that it was very difficult to convince some of our constituents that the construction of very important and urgent public works must be deferred at the present moment on account of the economy that we have to practise in our public expenditures. If we are to make expenditures in railway construction which are not absolutely necessary and urgent it will be impossible to convince our constituents of the necessity for delay in other works. Therefore I will await the information which the Minister of Railways will undoubtedly bring down when the resolutions come before the Committee of the Whole House for consideration. I am sure that he will be able to convince us that these projected lines are necessary and urgent at this time. If he does not,
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

I am sorry to say that I shall have to vote against the resolution.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the construction of railways in this country is always one in which the representatives in the House of Commons take a deep interest. This afternoon we have listened to a discussion led largely by hon. gentlemen residing in the city of Montreal or in districts within close and ready access to it. We do know that for some years in that city a rivalry has existed between the two great national railway systems of Canada. From the point of view of the districts represented by my hon. friends I presume we have not very much fault to find with their attitude. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, Montreal (Mr. Mar-ler) has no constituents who reside very far from railways.


Herbert Meredith Marler: He has constituents who have to pay for them, though.


George William Kyte: Well, the whole people of Canada contribute their proportion. When my hon. friend's constituents desire to leave the city and travel to remoter districts they are not obliged to drive by buggy or automobile a very considerable distance in order to get to the nearest railway. The same is true with regard to my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), he not only has two railways in his riding, but he is advocating very strongly and with great eloquence the building of a bridge to connect his constituency with the city of Montreal.


Joseph Archambault: Very necessary indeed.


George William Kyte: I quite agree that that bridge is very necessary from the point of view of the interests of my hon. friend's constituents, but he should also concede that necessary railway accommodation should be extended to rural districts.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Never said a word against it.


George William Kyte: I myself live in a constituency that has not the railway accommodation that it ought to have and that the importance of that part of the country calls for. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) gave a statement in the course of his speech as to the population served by each mile of railway throughout the different provinces.
I shall not recapitulate his figures, but he pointed out that in British Columbia there (Mr. Archambault.]
was a mile of railway for each 102 of the population; in Ontario, a mile for 5 p.m. each 266, and in Quebec, a mile for each 460. In Nova Scotia there is a population of 326 to each mile of railway. In the island of Cape Breton, which ought to be and has always been regarded as a section of Nova Scotia standing by itself, we have one mile of railway to each 600 of the population. In the United States there is a mile of railway to every 400 of the population. So that from the figures quoted by the hon. member for Joliette and from those I have just given it will be seen that in the important section of Nova Scotia from which I come we have a smaller mileage of railway in proportion to the population than in any other part of Canada.
During the last two years that I have occupied a seat in this House I have not pressed unduly the demands of the people of that part of the country in reference to necessary railway accommodation. I regret very much that in this very generous bill of fare as regards the supplying of branch railways for the different provinces, the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has not been able to include the construction of a railway line from the town of St. Peters to the city of Sydney and the town of Louis-burg. Nova Scotia is rich in natural resources; I do not think that in any part of Canada there is greater natural wealth than is to be found in that province. In the island of Cape Breton, which I more particularly represent in this House, there is a still larger amount of wealth in natural resources. We have there all the important coal mines of the Maritime provinces. We have there a great steel plant which gives employment to a larger number of men than probably any other industrial concern in Canada. From the town of St. Peters to the city of Sydney is a distance of sixty miles, and along that line there are valuable coal mines, deposits of ore, and settlements, the people of which make a prosperous living in the pursuit of the fisheries. These people are obliged to haul the products of their industry twenty or thirty miles to a railway. Important lumbering resources which are still undeveloped are also to be found in that section. Recently some important mineral deposits were discovered about thirty miles from the railway. A large and wealthy industrial concern in New York spent some $60,000 or $70,000 prospecting this area. They found the mineral deposits were there, but owing to their being such a long distance from a railway the project had to be aban-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
doned. The company lost the money they had spent on it, and the mine still remains undeveloped. What was done in Ontario when large mineral deposits were found in that northern country? The moment it was known that it was wealthy in respect of mineral resources, a railway was built to tap that section of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: By the province.


George William Kyte: By the province; it was a
Liberal government that was in office at the time.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: If my hon. friend
will permit a question, does he not recall that the Liberal government in power at that time refused to grant the usual subsidy for the building of that road?


George William Kyte: Well, I am not sure as to
that; at all events the Liberal government in Ontario built the railway and it has been a great advantage to that country. I do not propose, however, to be drawn away from the particular matter I have in my mind. I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of constructing the railway line to which I refer, and while I give enthusiastic support to every proposal calculated to improve the conditions of people living in the rural districts and facilitating the transport to market of the products of their industry, I desire equal consideration for every part of the Dominion of Canada.
In the proposals of the Minister of Railways provision is made for one branch railway for the province of New Brunswick, two for Nova Scotia, three for Quebec, two for Manitoba, ten for Saskatchewan, five for Alberta, and three for British Columbia, making twenty-six branches in all. It was argued by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) that owing to the sparse population in these provinces there was no justification for constructing these branch lines of railway. Mr. Speaker, one of the chief justifications for such expenditure is that the building of these railways will increase the population, and will bring more people into the country to assist in developing our resources. What is the situation that exists to-day? It is that population is moving from the rural districts to the urban centres. It is stated from time to time, unfortunately with great truth, that we have to a very large degree lost population from the rural sections. Large numbers of our people, it is alleged, have gone to the United States, and many others have moved from the rural sections to our cities. Why have they done that? Because the conditions of life in the
country are not as favourable or as pleasant as they are in the cities. How can we expect the people to take up farms in sections thirty and forty miles from a railway, how can we expect them to engage in farming and help to develop our natural resources, if there are no railway facilities in the rural sections by which their products can be transported to market. The conditions that exist in western Canada are not peculiar to that part of the country; the conditions existing in the older settled portions of the Maritime provinces call just as loudly for the provision of railway accommodation as do those in the West. It is probably too late now to ask the Minister of Railways to include in his rather comprehensive scheme for the building of branch lines the railway that I have in mind, but I trust that when the House is called upon to consider railway construction at a future session the importance of the line whose construction I advocate will not be overlooked.


Joseph Archambault: Is my hon.
friend referring to a railway line in his own constituency? '


George William Kyte: The claims of my constituency present themselves to my mind before those of any other riding in Canada. In that respect I resemble my hon. friend.
I am here to speak for my own constituency, and I should be surprised if the hon. gentleman himself admitted that he thought of any other constituency before urging the claims of his own.


Mr. MICHAUD:: My hon. friend has
been urging the construction of a bridge in his own constituency. * >


George William Kyte: That is possible. Most
assuredly I am thinking of the railway situation in the riding I represent. I believe no greater necessity for improved railway facilities exists anywhere than is to be found in that constituency. While I heartily support the proposal of the Minister of Railways, because I believe that every community should enjoy the advantages that I desire to see provided for my own constituency, nevertheless I shall feel that the minister has not done his full duty in meeting the need for further railways until he has turned his attention to the section of Canada which I represent and whose claims I am urging with all the force I can.


Donald Sutherland: I have a very vivid recollection of the debate which took place a year ago in connection with the proposals for the construe-
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

tion of branch lines, and I must congratulate hon. members opposite, and the country as well, on the fact that there was evidently an insurrection at the ministerial caucus held this morning, if not a riot. We on this side of the House are convinced of that by what we have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend's imagination is running away with him entirely.


Donald Sutherland: The remarks of some hon. gentlemen opposite justify to the very letter the attitude which we on this side took a year ago with regard to the construction of these branch lines. They prove beyond all fear of contradiction that our position at that time was absolutely sound. I hope the hon. members in question will pursue their present stand until the end.
The other night I argued, in connection with a very large item that was before the Committee of Supply, that the minister was not bringing down the information to which we were entitled. The protest made had its effect. It involved some delay,, but finally we obtained the desired information. I desire to express the hope now, that the Minister of Railways will not follow the course pursued by his colleague the Minister of Public Works on the occasion referred to.
Mention has been made during the discussion of the need for branch lines in various provinces, and the hon. member who spoke a minute or two ago (Mr. Kyte) referred to what was done in Ontario with respect to a railway a number of years ago. Hon. gentlemen will observe that Ontario is not mentioned in connectidn with the branch lines now before parliament. It must not be argued from this omission that branch lines are not needed or are not necessary in Ontario. It is very important and urgent that branch lines should be constructed in that province, particularly in the mining districts of the north. The present government of the province inherited a legacy of debt from the previous administration that makes it absolutely impossible for them to proceed in the manner they would desire with the development of the northern districts which are so urgently in need of branch lines: In regard to the particular railway to which my hon. friend referred I have a very distinct recollection of what took place in connection with this railway. It is true the enterprise was initiated when a Liberal government was in power in the province. It is equally true that the administration of that day made application to a Liberal government in Ottawa for 
the usual subsidy of $3,200 a mile. Even that assistance was refused, and it was not until a change of government took place at Ottawa and Toronto that the subsidy desired, and to which they were entitled, was granted to the province of Ontario. But the assistance from the Dominion treasury which that enterprise involved was a mere bagatelle compared with what is contemplated under the present proposals, and which make the Dominion government responsible for the entire cost of building branch lines in Canada.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) tried to make it appear that the bulk of the tonnage carried by the railways of the Dominion is being created in western Canada. The hon. member referred to his own farming experience under which he shipped thirteen or fourteen cars of wheat grown by him. May I point out to my hon. friend that in the constituency that I represent 2,000 car loads of freight have been shipped from one acre alone.


Mr. MILLAR:: What was the nature of the commodity?


Donald Sutherland: It was quarried lime stone.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Sutherland: I might also point out that while we had a market in the United States for much of this product the Fordney-McCumber tariff imposed a duty of a dollar a ton on our stone as a result of which we have lost that market. Futhermore immense quantities of stone are being shipped by the United States into this country, and yet this government refuses to raise a hand to protect Canadian industries. Speaking about the matter of tonnage the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) the other night argued about the advantage it would be if we shipped wheat from western Canada to the markets of Great Britain, and in return brought back the products of Great Britain instead of using products of home manufacture. The hon. gentleman also pointed out that it would be, in a sense, an advantage if Russia were to supply Great Britain with her live stock and meat products, and similar commodities because Russia could meet the demand to better advantage than we can in Canada And yet at the same time the hon. gentleman argued that the soil of western Canada was becoming so depleted by reason of the system of farming they are carrying on there that something would have to be done to remedy the condition pertaining in that part of Canada. I agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Marler) in his

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
question: Is it so absolutely important that we should go on and deplete the virgin soil of western Canada by constructing branch lines through that part of the Dominion rather than that we should develop the resources which we have at present, and which are accessible to our present railways? As far as the province of Ontario is concerned, we are discriminated against all along the line. I see that the Minister of Agriculture is in his seat.	The estimate for the experimental
farms went through the other night, pnd Ontario got no further consideration than usual. We in Ontario have to carry on most of our experimental farms and pay for them ourselves. At the same time 48 per cent of the customs revenue of the Dominion is paid by the province of Ontario.
I would not have made any remarks this afternoon if it had not been for the statements of the chief whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Kyte). I hope that in the future some recognition will be shown northern Ontario, that fine district, the richest and most promising mineral area in the world. Prospectors have gone 'in there and spent their money, and all that is necessary now to develop that district is railways. Yet we are not receiving one particle of encouragement from the government, and there is no suggestion that they are going to assist us in this matter. Ontario is held up to the rest of the Dominion, as an example of a province that does things for herself. Well if that is to be the method in Ontario, and if Ontario has to pay for all these things herself, why not apply the same principle to the other provinces as well? I am not accustomed to arguing along this line. I do not believe in provincialism or localizing our efforts, and I think every hon. member of this House should take a broad general view of the questions which come before parliament, and should not be actuated by the requirements of his own particular constituency. I have not taken that view in the past, and I hope I will not have to do so in the future.
In conclusion, I desire to emphasize the propaganda which was carried on since the last session of parliament by hon. gentlemen opposite, who endeavoured to place the blame upon the party sitting on the opposition benches to-day, for their attitude with regard to branch lines. Our position has been justified this afternoon by the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite much more effectively than could have been done by any arguments we could advance.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix and Montmorency) (Translation): I had no intention, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this
debate, but I cannot allow such an occasion to slip by without drawing the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to certain facts. Last year, on a similar occasion, as well as when in the opposition I represented the county of Charlevoix and Montmorency-I had requested the hon. Minister of Railways to include if possible, in the estimates for the next year, certain amounts for the construction and operation of two branch lines extending respectively from Bay St Paul and St Urbain, and from Murray Bay to Nairn's Falls. The distance between St Paul and St Urbain is nine miles and the branch line would cost about $200,000. An important mine is located in that region which is operated by the Titanium Ore Company, and, during the war, the General Electric Company of the United States, worked with profit a neighbouring mine. I feel certain that, if a branch line was constructed to ensure the necessary service, the present shareholders of the Titanium Ore Company who all belong to the province of Quebec, might carry out very useful work in that region. St Urbain has a national park which the Department of the Interior has specially reserved for fishing and shooting. There also exists, in this locality, a great number of clubs subject to the regulations of the provincial government. I feel convinced that the building of this branch line would have for effect to increase the traffic and attract more capital and more people. This district is also a great farming district from which is exported butter, cheese and other commodities to the various parts of the province of Quebec.
. As to the other branch line, between Murray Bay and Nairn's Falls, its construction dates back eleven years, before the building of the main line of the Saguenay railway. The government has not officially, up to this date, taken it over. This branch line is rented for a nominal sum, to a pulpwood company. I am told that it would take about $100,000 to put it in good working condition. A great quantity of cheese and butter is produced in this region and lumber operations are also pursued on a large scale, so that the railway has a great deal of merchandise to transport.
The hon. Minister of Railways gave me as an answer, last year, that the construction and operation by the state of these branch lines were not possible, that the money which he had at his disposal could not be spent in that part f the province because other parts of the country need railways more than the county which I have the honour to represent.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Since the last session of parliament, I have been in tou-h with the Department of Railways, with the management of the National Railways and among others, with Sir Henry Thornton, president of the railway. I submitted a plan by which, in my opinion, it was possible to operate that railway line, of eight to nine miles in length, in such a way as to allow the population back of Murray Bay to communicate more easily with the village of Pointe-a-Pic. I do not know what may result of this project, but I trust that the Minister of Railways and the board of management of the National Railways may find it possible to acquiesce in the just claims that I stated last year and the previous years and that I again state this year.
There is also the completion of the Quebec and Saguenay railway between Chicoutimi and Murray Bay, for a distance of about fifty-five miles which will have to be undertaken in the near future, if we wish to see the operation of the main line become profitable. I think it is necessary to extend the construction of railways, not only in such a way as to open up new territories, but so as to develop also small localities which are 10, 15 or 20 miles distant from a main railway. The county that I represent was for a number of years completely isolated from the district of Quebec, it could only communicate by boat or schooner with that district during the summer season. The railway which now extends to Murray Bay has only been operating since the last few years. The two great political parties of this country contributed to the construction of this railway. It is the Conservative party which voted certain subsidies and had the railway constructed, but the first grants had been made by a Liberal government, and without these said grants those who were at the head of this undertaking could not have started the work and completed it.
Should I again have this year a little tiff with the Minister of Railways, and be unable to take a favourable view of his leaving out of the estimates the amount requisite for the construction of the two little branch lines that I request for my county and which are very necessary, it is not an excuse for me to oppose the resolutions which he may introduce in this House. I think the hon. minister has been well advised to move a separate resolution for each proposed branch line, so that all these resolutions may be discussed and considered separately, and so also that the House may judge them on their merits and adopt the resolutions relative to

the most necessary branch lines, so that they may be built immediately.
When I was elected a member of this House, as the chief liberal whip expressed it a short while ago, I was elected to represent the interests of my county and electors, but I was also elected to represent, not only the interests of my county, of my district and of my province, but in order to have a broader view of things and thus enable me to better judge of the interests of all the provinces, the East, the centre, or the West, in fact the interests of the whole of Canada. And when the Railway Department and the Board of Management of the National Railways state that the construction of these lines is necessary, either in the East or West, I think it is the duty of all the members to support the minister and vote the items for the immediate construction of these railway lines. If some members of this House have in any way expressed personal views inspired by certain reasons which are of special interests to their electors, I think that when it comes to giving their vote, after the explanations given by the Minister of Railways, there will not be one member who sits, Sir, on your right who will vote against the resolutions and bills introduced by the hon. minister.


George Perry Graham: The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) made a suggestion in which I am glad to acquiesce. These resolutions can all be discussed with more intelligence after they are placed in the form of a bill; and if I might be allowed to get some of them through, introduce the bill, and have it read the first time, they will then be allowed to stand until we get them all through and I will try to have all the information possible. Much of the discussion this afternoon has been on matters not at all connected with the railways, and I imagine some things have been said to which I could have replied, but I was debarred from doing that because we were not in committee.


Arthur Meighen: I might point out that my hon. friend has made a substantive motion, and he has the right to reply if there is anything he can reply to.


George Perry Graham: There is nothing of my
right hon. friend's to reply to. He did not object much.


Arthur Meighen: I did not speak.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


George Perry Graham: I meant to add, while I was on my feet, that the bills have to go

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
through the routine just the same as these resolutions, and there will be ample opportunity to discuss all phases of them.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to have the minister make a very full statement as to what investigation has been made by the president and general manager of the system into this project in New Brunswick, and if, first of all, the president and general manager on his own responsibility recommends this project. If so, upon what does he base his recommendation? What is the anticipated earning power of this project? Does he affirm to the government, and is the affirmation in writing-if not, it ought to be, in my judgment-that this road is essential to the system; that he expects it to pay; that from the standpoint of the National system, which it is his business to run and operate, this road ought to be built? In this connection, I want to lay down what, I think, is a principle, that in respect of the management of this enterprise, the directorate should make no recommendation-when I say the directorate. I mean the general manager, because I do not think any of us are disposed to take very seriously a recommendation of the present directorate-on account of considerations that do not bear on the railway corporation itself; that is to say, any recommendation that, say the Canadian Pacific or any other equally well managed concern would not, from the railway standpoint, make. In a word, it is no business of the directorate or the general manager to take into account any consideration save railway consideration. If the government, if parliament, wants to grant a subsidy or any other assistance to any colonization road or anything of that kind, that is the business of parliament; but in the management of the railway those things cannot be taken into account, and I am pretty sure the minister will agree with that principle. On that principle, has the president and general manager recommended this railway, and if so, has he given the government the basis of his recommendation?


George Perry Graham: I might say that in this list there is not a railway that has not been given to us by the Canadian National board. From the discussion I had over this particular line, I might say that the president is strongly in favour of the construction of either one of these lines for purely business reasons.


George Perry Graham: This resolution takes
authority to construct forty-one miles of railway, but if arrangements can be made with the Canadian Pacific, it will be necessary to construct only fourteen miles. This is to facilitate traffic, and the recommendation of the president is altogether from a railway standpoint. Information concerning the traffic is in a measure problematical. What traffic has been done has been done^ in connection with the Canadian Pacific. What they wish to have now is a connection of their own, so that they can ship directly to the New England states even if they make running rights with the Canadian Pacific Railway. They will have a good many difficulties which are details of operation unless they have a way of getting into the New England states with their own line.


Arthur Meighen: I have heard in connection with this enterprise, as in connection with some others that are in the estimates, that there are some people who would like it because of the spending of money, but I have never yet heard anyone suggest that from a railway standpoint or an earning power standpoint, this could be justified. I notice the minister referred to the directorate. I hope he understands that I am speaking of the president. Has the minister in writing and is he ready to put on the Table the president's recommendation in regard to this road and the reasons therefor? I think the House is entitled to that in every instance. Parliament has the sole responsibility _ as to what moneys are voted for capital investment, and I have emphasized this principle in the House very frequently. The minister will remember that I sought to emphasize it with all the power I possess in connection with the Scribe hotel. The whole constitutional basis of the National Railways reserves to parliament full initiatory control in respect of capital investment. The responsibility is directly ours and we cannot hide behind the president or anyone else. We want his recommendation, but we equally want his reason for it. I think we are entitled to have it, not by indirect narration, but under his own signature and a copy of . it laid on the Table of the House. I would especially like to have it in connection with this resolution, and there are others in regard to which it will be equally necessary.


George Perry Graham: There has been no request or recommendation in writing. The fact that this list of lines was recommended to the


Arthur Meighen: Either one of them?
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

government and explanations prepared with not only the knowledge but the direct acquiescence of the Canadian National Railway board, would, to my mind, form a sufficient reason why we should accept them as his recommendations. There is no question about this line being one of the ones which I discussed at quite some length with the president himself, and both he and the entire staff who are responsible for the management of the road seem to think that this line is necessary for the development of the trade they have in mind between the Maritime provinces and the New England states. A serious difficulty which they have had in shipping pulpwood is in getting their own cars back. One of the chief troubles we have had in the East is .that the railways ship out pulpwood and somebody keeps the cars. They are not all kept outside of Canada either. The result is that men who have many cords of pulpwood to ship are wiring to the head office in Montreal; and wiring to me: "We have no cars; the cars are all gone," at a time too, when we are using many cars in the West.


Arthur Meighen: If a car gets out as it does now, why cannot it get back?


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
has not studied the railway situation very much. They are supposed to head the car for home after it is unloaded, using it, as they usually do, for return freight. But there is no return freight to compare with the outgoing freight of pulpwood. Consequently our cars loiter along the road, and even when they get into Canada, under present conditions, they loiter a long while before they get back to the Canadian National. Sir Henry Thornton and Mr. Gzowski represented very strongly to me that this was one point they had in view, besides others. They believe that the traffic could be improved, to the benefit not only of the railways but of the whole country, if this line or a similar one were constructed.


Mr. MANION:: Does the minister say
that he has no recommendation in writing for this line from the president?


George Perry Graham: These recommendations
are not made specifically in writing. The president and the board of directors get together and discuss various propositions to be submitted to the Minister of Railways for presentation to parliament. They presented me with a list, and there were several other lines discussed not included therein. But

they made no formal written request; they simply submit a list and the Minister of Railways proceeds to get the necessary legislation through. There is not a line here that is not on the list given us by the president of the railway and the board of management.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Do I understand that
one of the reasons given for the building of this branch is the belief that it will facilitate getting the cars back into the country?


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the minister to say that.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that it was solely for the purpose of getting the cars back into the country.


Murray MacLaren: I presume you would
want to get them back.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to be
misunderstood. There is more than one railway in Canada. Now, a railway that is crowded for cars and which is a little short of rolling stock may keep another railway's cars upon payment of a small sum per day. This line would facilitate the Canadian National Railways in using its own cars to a far greater extent than it can under present conditions.


Murray MacLaren: It is proposed to expend on this line the sum of $2,123,000. That I think is paying pretty well to get the cars back.


George Perry Graham: Getting the cars back,
as I have explained, is not the sole reason for building the line.


Murray MacLaren: I do not say it is the sole reason, nor would I for a moment misinterpret the remarks of the minister. But that, as I understand from him, is a factor in the building of the line, and it is one that has impressed me, because I cannot see why we should build this line for t'he reason, among others, that it will enable us to get the cars back. Is the minister aware that there is strong objection even in New Brunswick to the building of this line, and that it is considered by many people in the province that it will be disadvantageous in that it will dislocate the routes of traffic and accentuate transportation north and south rather than east and west as we desire? Perhaps the minister does not know that it is not considered essential at the present time from the point of view of the people

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
of New Brunswick. And besides that, there are objections being taken to the construction of this branch under any circumstances, the view being held that if the government wishes to make a useful extension in that province it should complete the Valley railway^ to Grand Falls, there connecting with the Transcontinental and encouraging a direct traffic east and west.


George Perry Graham: A great deal of the
traffic does not go very far west. This line does not touch the question of the use of Canadian ports in preference to American ports, and the object in building it is to allow the people of New Brunswick in the vicinity concerned to get their products as quickly as possible to the New England markets.


Murray MacLaren: If the minister will
consult a map he will see that a good many lines exist now that help the people of New Brunswick to get their products across the border. I understand that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter later, and in the meantime I would ask the House to look most carefully into this particular proposal and to watch the criticisms that appear in the papers. If it does so it will find that the line proposed is not considered so important by the people on the ground.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I am somewhat surprised to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Mac-Laren) suggest that this line is not considered important by the people of New Brunswick. This is not a new project; it has been before the House on several occasions since I have been a member of parliament, and even previous to the time I came here. I have never heard anyone in New Brunswick oppose it, nor am I aware that there has been opposition anywhere else. While the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) seems doubtful that anyone has recommended it, I can quote one man who was strongly in favour of it and in whom perhaps he will take more stock than the president of the Canadian National Railways. In the year 1920 when the branch lines question was before the House I brought to the attention of the then Minister of Railways the advisability of building this connecting link. I may say before I go further that this is not a branch line; it is in the nature of a funnel that serves as an outlet for the whole traffic of the Canadian National lines in the Maritime provinces, and it would draw more traffic than any other section of road in that part of the 58
country. Speaking in the House in 1920 Hon. J. D. Reid made the following statement:
I am familiar with the proposal to which my hon. friend (Mr. Caldwell) refers. About four years ago it was suggested that the government should build that connecting line; it was shown that its construction would result in a great saving in the matter of traffic originating in the lower province and destined to the eastern states. On account of the financial situation action was delayed. There is no doubt that the construction of this 'line should be carried out.
This was the view that was held by the Minister of Railways in the government of which the leader of the opposition was a member at that time. Further down Hon. Mr. Reid is reported as follows:
I have no doubt at all that when we get back to normal conditions the government will take up a scheme such as the one suggested and deal with these matters in the way that it is practically understood by the department and the railway officials that they should be carried out.
At that time I urged upon the Minister of Railways the advisability of building this line, and in 1922 I moved a resolution in this House that this should be done as soon as the finances of the country would permit. In reply, the Minister of Railways of that day, Hon. Mr. Kennedy, spoke as follows:
As my hon. friends have said, this matter has been before the House on two former occasions. I am informed by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways that they have investigated this project, and while they are willing to admit that from the standpoint of interchange of traffic there is much that might be said in favour of further construction, yet they do not feel that the time is opportune to go on with it at the present time.
There was never any doubt in the minds of either of the ministers of railways of that time as to the advisability and the necessity of undertaking the building of this line. With regard to the other point that has been brought up, namely, the return of cars to the Canadian National Railways, I may say that by reason of the fact that at present the Canadian Pacific railway is the connecting link between the Canadian National railways and the Maine Central, the traffic must all go over the Canadian Pacific route from Fredericton to Vanceboro, from St. John to Vanceboro, and from Woodstock to Vanceboro. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways in New Brunswick are competing lines and in some sections of the province they are not far removed from each other. I have in mind something that happened less than three years ago in connection with the return of cars. A certain lumberman was shipping from his sawmill a considerable quantity of lumber to the United States under a contract which required delivery within a certain time. Although the Canadian

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

National line runs within twenty rods of his mill, and the Canadian Pacific is about nine miles away, he could not get any cars on the Canadian National. That meant that in order to carry out his contract he had to haul his lumber overland to the Canadian Pacific siding. This almost ruined him for he had to pay more than his profit to get his lumber to the railway. The importance of returning cars to where they are needed on competing lines cannot be over-estimated, and if this connecting link had been in operation at that time this man would have been able to load his lumber at his door practically. I know farmers who have had to haul their potatoes and other produce long distances to the Canadian Pacific line. That is one of the reasons why there is such a deficit on the St. John railway-the Canadian Pacific railway has been able to starve it by withholding cars. This, I suppose, is only a matter of good business on the part of the Canadian Pacific, because as a result the traffic has gone to its line. As there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter later, I will not now detain the committee at further length.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, I think some of the facts I have are not at variance with those of my hon. friend. This connection would connect the St. John road with an American line. The St. John road is not owned by the Dominion government but by the government of New Brunswick, and the receipts go sixty per cent to the National system as lessees for operating and forty per cent to the government of New Brunswick as owners. The traffic is such that the sixty per cent of the receipts does not pay the cost of operation, nor does the forty per cent cover the overhead charges. In fact I think there is an annual deficit of $200,000 which the province has to make up. It is now suggested that the Dominion government ought to pay for the construction of a connecting line with an American road from a line which they do not own, and certainly ought not to own having regard to its earnings. I take it there is no dispute at all between my hon. friend and myself, at any rate down to this point. Then, I think it is also perfectly clear that there has been an agitation in the province for the building of the line, but the project has alwaye been turned down by the provinicial authorities. When Mr. 'Gutelius was operating the Intercolonial system he made recommendations which looked to a very much shorter construction and easier junction than is now proposed. Later on when the system was managed by the Canadian National Railways the management took the pos-

ition that as the construction was in connection with the St. John line, its owners should build it and not the Dominion government. I think my hon. friend will find my recollection is entirely right in these particulars. So what my hon. friend is to-day doing is reversing the position taken by the former management-perhaps he will tell us on what grounds. The former management took the position that the property being owned by the St. John company and not by the Dominion government, any addition to it should be made by the owner, not by the lessee, who would get but little out of it and would not improve his own property except during the period of operation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend is not quite correct. The railway is not owned by the St. John company, but by the government of the province.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very well, it is not owned by the Dominion government. The former management also took the ground that they could see no immediate operating benefits resulting from the connection that would justify the expense of construction. I would ask my hon. friend whether or not the project formerly considered was not very much smaller than the present one. Take, for example, the line that the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) has been talking about. It was a line of twenty-two miles and he asked only $1,000,000 for it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Our share of that connection was twenty-two miles, but we had to get an agreement with another company to build about twenty-odd miles in the state of Maine, over which we would have to get running rights.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am pretty sure the line was to be twenty-two miles, and I believe the estimated cost of construction was $1,000,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: YThen this twenty-two
miles was built we were still twenty-odd miles from the Maine Central line. Another company which had been formed in Maine proposed to build that additional mileage, over which the government would get running rights to the Maine Central. Two roads would be involved, instead of one as is proposed in this bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, we come back to where we started. The only project the former Minister of Railways, Hon, Mr. Reid, was talking about was a line of twenty-two miles in length. While he said some nice things about that project, he would not en-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
dorse it. So perhaps my hon. friend will show just on what grounds we have this change of decision by the management. I dare say when he gets a report from the president he will be kind enough to have these grounds set out.
When we were dealing with this matter before we went into committee, I suggested that instead of discussing all the resolutions at great length we should reserve our criticisms, not only on detail but also on principle, until the different bills were brought down and we had full information. My hon. friend nodded his head at that time, but Hansard does not get the nod.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, I nodded
my head while my hon. friend was in the House, and I expressed my thoughts in language when he was out. It is all on Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: Before we rise at six
I want to submit to hon. members for their consideration my view that in respect of one or two of these ventures, these new enterprises involving the country in so much expenditure, the committee is entitled to see the direct recommendation, with the reasons for it. of the one man to whom the House looks. Others may look to the directorate; if so, they are entitled to do it. Eor myself I do not look to the directorate at all, and I do not think the people of this country look to the directorate, but they do look to the president. Now, the minister says in effect: "He came to me, or the directorate sent to me"-I do not know whether they did it directly or not; they may have done it through an intermediary-"presented these proposals to me; we discussed them together and I know they favour them." I do not think that is good enough for parliament. Suppose, a year or two years from now, it turns out that this is a total failure, that it does not work out at all, how are we going to hold the president responsible? How do we know that we have precisely his position, precisely what he expects and the conditions of it? He would likely at that time be able to say, "Oh, but I had other things in mind that the government did not carry out;" he would have some way of escaping it. The committee is entitled to the recommendation of the president of the railway in writing, accompanied by his reasons, his expectations, in a word, the basis of his business judgment that this money ought to be spent.


Mr GRAHAM:: I think there would be no trouble in the world about getting that. My right hon. friend seems dubious; he does
58i
not appear to take anybody's word at all in this House.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I did not say that.


George Perry Graham: I told him distinctly that the president himself had recommended these lines; that he had been in my office at Ottawa with, I think, three or four members of the directorate. The list of lines was produced there and discussed for a couple of days. They gave me a memorandum on every line and why it should be built.


Arthur Meighen: That is what we want. My hon. friend says, "they"; I would rather it were the president himself instead of the directorate. As long as the president's signature is to it-


George Perry Graham: There is no signature to anything.


Arthur Meighen: Then what good is the memorandum? There is no question here of the minister's veracity in stating what the president wants; that is not the point. In the course of a long conversation between the president and the minister there may have been conditions laid down and other terms mentioned that could not be accurately transmitted to this House. We are entitled to something that we can hold the president to, something that represents precisely what he says, and, in what he says there should be embraced, not only his recommendation, but, as I expressed it before, the business basis for his judgment, so that later on no one will be able to say, "Well, the president's plans were not carried through; the president relied on this and relied on that, consequently he is not to blame for what occurred." That is quite possible if we continue as we are going now. But get the president's views in writing, his recommendation and his reasons, and his expectations, and we are proceeding as we ought to proceed.	.


George Perry Graham: Did my right hon. friend always do that?


Arthur Meighen: Well, when we came before parliament we certainly put the written data on the table, and we did not refuse anything hon. members asked.


George Perry Graham: There is not going to be anything refused. I am just asking the question.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I ask in this case. I do not mind if the information applies to all the lines; one statement can be given applicable to all and setting forth the details as to each so that we will know
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

just what the president wants and why he wants it in respect of each of these ventures.
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



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 22, to amend An Act to incorporate the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 23, respecting the Commercial Travellers Mutual Insurance Society.-Mr. Ryckman.


[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Kingsclear, a point on the Saint John and Quebec Railway in the province of New Brunswick, in a generally southwesterly direction, to a point on the St. Croix river, opposite Vanceboro, in the state of Maine; estimated mileage including existing grading, 41 miles; estimated cost, $2,123,000.
Murray MacLaren: During the recess I had an opportunity of looking up an editorial that appeared in the St. John Globe of 23rd February last, bearing on the proposal contained in the resolution, and I think it would be of some service if I read it. The editorial is headed "It is not wanted" and then proceeds :
One of the railroad proposals included in the branch line measures presented to parliament last spring and defeated by the Senate, called for construction of a road from a point in New Brunswick to a point on the Maine border, there to establish a connection between the C.N.R. and American railroads. If the proposal, in the same or some other form, comes before parliament during the coming session, it should arouse vigorous St. John opposition. If there were no other reasons for opposition to this measure, it should be sufficient to say that the need for economy makes expenditure of the millions involved an impossibility of the present. But there are other reasons for opposing this railroad construction. The province is already so well gridironed that further railroad construction, except such as is necessary to link up the Canadian National with the Valley road' and provide a direct connection with the port terminals, can be left until development justifies their needs. The Dominion government railroad system has connections through St. John and through northern New Brunswick with railroad systems in the United States. To build another line and cut out the traffic that comes through St. John would entail an enormous expenditure without compensating benefits. In its own interests and in the interests of those economies which all recognize as 
obligatory at this time, St. John should study carefully any railroad proposals so menacing as the construction of another line to the international boundary.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I should like to point out to one of the leaders of the Conservative party that he has fallen into the same error as the other leaders of the same party and speaks in an almost inaudible voice.


Murray MacLaren: I thought the leader of the party was not speaking.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I said "one of the leaders."


Murray MacLaren: I should like the hon. member to hear what I have been reading.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is what I want to do.


Murray MacLaren: I shall take the necessary means to inform my hon. friend as to what I have been reading. It is an editorial from the St. John Globe and it refers to the proposal now under consideration. The heading is "It is not wanted," and that expresses the view of the paper, and those it represents, regarding the needs of this railroad at the present time. I shall not read the article again but will give a summary that can be more perfectly heard. It is the opinion of the Globe that this railroad is not necessary at the present time, partly on account of the necessity of observing economy and partly because no pressing reason exists for its construction. Another reason given is that there are railroads now running throughout the province extensively, and that routes exist for reaching the United States through other railroads. The editorial also regards it as a disadvantage to dislocate the routes of trade that are now being followed. For these reasons the opinion is expressed that it is undesirable, unnecessary, and extravagant to construct the proposed road at the present time.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Can the hon. member state who wrote that?


Murray MacLaren: I am not aware who the actual writer is. If there is any disadvantage attaching to the article it is possibly that it emanates from a Liberal paper.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is relying on it for his argument.


Arthur Meighen: And my hon. friend seems to think it is the Canadian Pacific Railway.
. Mr. MacLAREN: I have not stated how much I rely on it. I am stating what the view of a prominent paper in the province is.
I might also state that I myself independently coincide and agree with that view.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that an editorial in that paper or is it a contribution by 6ome outside person?


Murray MacLaren: It is an editorial. It was found in the Globe of the 23rd March. Now to finish this matter of the Globe, I shall take the opportunity of reading a second editorial of the 26th March on the same subject in the same paper, which says:
Something more than two millions of the twenty-eight millions of dollars which the Minister of Railways plans to spend on twenty-six branch line railways are for the construction of a road in New Brunswick from Kingsclear, a few miles above Fredericton, to a point on the St. Croix river opposite Vanceboro. A glance at a railway map of New Brunswick will show how this line will sidetrack St. John. At Kingsclear the branch will run from the St. John and Quebec Railway to the international border, forty-two miles away, there to link up with the Maine Central. The purpose of a connection between the Maine Central at Vanceboro and the Quebec and St. John at Kingsclear is to give the Canadian National a more direct American connection than the present St. John and Bangor route. From Kingsclear it is a shorter and more direct run via the National Transcontinental and the Central across country to Moncton and the North Shore than via St. John. The forty-two miles of railway therefore aims to divert from St. John all the east and westbound traffic which now finds its way through this city en route to and from United States points. It will lessen through traffic on the Canadian National Moncton-St. John line. It will lessen through traffic on the Canadian Pacific St. John-Vanceboro line. It will cut both railroad and terminal workers out of much employment without serving any particular traffic necessity. It is the Harvey-Salisbury Railway proposition in an amended form. St. John vigorously opposed that proposition in the long ago, and St. John should vigorously oppose this new effort to sidetrack this city and port by a large public expenditure, unnecessary at any time and absolutely indefensible at this time.
There is one further observation I wish to make at this moment, and that is that there is a good deal to show that the road that is proposed to be built is a competitive road to the Canadian Pacific. I am not advocating the Canadian Pacific interests, nor am I interested in any way in doing so, but I take it that it is the opinion of the House that at the present time our wishes and our views should be that each railroad should now be allowed to carry on its business, and that it is unnecessary and it is extravagant to build further lines of one system-that is to say of the Canadian National system- so that it may compete with the Canadian Pacific; in other words it is not an essential at the present moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to ask the
minister why there has been a change in the routing of this proposed line? He will recall that in the bill a year ago it was proposed to divert this traffic to New England from a point about 50 miles above Fredericton, and
then in a short direct line to the state of Maine, a distance of about 20 miles. Now it is proposed to run up on the St. John and Quebec railway about 16 miles above Fredericton, and go directly south to the Canadian Pacific railway, and then to have running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway from Harvey to Vanceboro, or else to build an independent line, if that cannot be arranged.
I would like to know what considerations have moved the management and the government-because I take it their interests are identical-in making the proposed change which is a very important one from the standpoint of expense. I think I know that country as well as any man in the House in fact I think I know it a great deal better -and I have no doubt that the cost of the proposed branch line under this bill is a great deal more than the cost under the bill of last year. At. the same time I quite appreciate the fact that if the railway is able to make a proper arrangement with the Canadian Pacific from Harvey westward it will be a considerable saving over the proposal of last year.


George Perry Graham: All I know is that the
president and board of directors give me a memorandum which says that it has been practically concluded that this is the best route for the Canadian National railway to take.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that from the standpoint of grade?


George Perry Graham: The memorandum does
not say. I suppose it is from the standpoint of grade and maybe traffic as well.
In reply to the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. MacLaren): When I was a young man running a newspaper in the village of Mor-risburg, I was strong for Morrisburg, and wrote articles almost as learned as this, protesting against the Canadian Pacific railway running east and west in the northern part of the county. According to the argument my hon. friend used, it would take traffic away from the town where I lived, but as a matter of fact I think that the Canadian National management is in duty bound to do what it thinks is best for the Canadian National system, coupled with the service to the people. If the committee is going to take the ground that anywhere the Canadian National proposes to go where it can make a dollar, everything being equal, it must not go there, if there is going to be any competition, but that it is perfectly right to go elsewhere then
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

the road will lose money. Parliament is holding Sir Henry Thornton and his board responsible for endeavouring to make the Canadian National a success, and shortening hauls, as some branch lines in the West propose to do, will not meet with the approval of towns, and perhaps cities and communities that might be served better locally if this was not done. I will not admit that St. John -will be injured a bit, but the Canadian National has a duty to perform to the Dominion of Canada and to itself, and if as my hon. friend says, a short direct route can be made to connect with the United States railways, and an interchange of traffic made which will enable the people of New Brunswick outside of the city of St. John as well as in it to get their products to their markets more quickly and more cheaply, then I think that is the chief concern for the committee to have in mind.


Murray MacLaren: I think perhaps the
hon. minister is not aware that the main point in both these articles was that at this time, when economy was said to be the ruling motive, there was no urgency justifying the construction of that road for the reason given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This branch line is viewed in New Brunswick, or, at least, in that portion over which the Canadian National Railways dominates the traffic, as a business proposition, and it is from that point alone that I wish to approach this subject to-night. If you will look at the map of New Brunswick and visualise the traffic there, you will observe that the Canadian Pacific Railway holds sway in a comparatively small portion of the province, namely in the southeastern corner and along _the western boundary, and that the balance of the country for the most part is served entirely by Canadian National lines. Ever since the mileage of the Intercolonial was increased by the absorption of the Canada Eastern railway, by the building of the St. John and Quebec railway, and by the absorption of the branch lines of the Intercolonial railway in New Brunswick, that system has gathered in each and every year a very considerable quantity of traffic which has been destined for New England points. During all this period of time, that system has been obliged to hand over the traffic thus originating on its lines, either to the Canadian Pacific railway at the city of St. John, or at the city of Fredericton or at Woodstock in the county of Carleton, or to the Bangor and Aroostook railway at Van Buren, Maine. As long ago as 1912, Mr. F. P. Gutelius, then general manager of the Canadian Government Railways-and I ven-IMr. Graham.]
ture to say he is the best man who ever handled the Canadian Government Railways, at least, in my part of the country-conceived the idea of this independent outlet to the New England states for traffic originating on his own lines. I have no doubt, had the war not come, and had Mr. Gutelius continued as general manager of those railways, this independent funnel, so to speak, would have been built long ago.
Let me say, in passing, that as regards the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House, this question is not a local transportation question at all. It will serve little or no local purpose, and in any event I do not wish to approach the question from that standpoint. I do not, however, believe even the best friend of the project will claim for it that it is for the purpose of serving local traffic conditions. I must confess to the opponents of this project that, viewed from that standpoint, the proposition has no merit; but I say with all sincerity -and I do not care what government brings it forward-that from the standpoint of the management of the Canadian National Railways, this is a business proposition, and while this may not be the time to build it-and about this I can well understand there may be a great diversity of opinion, and I have no quarrel with anybody who takes the view that this is not an opportune time to build it- yet I say that if you were in the position of the management of the Canadian National Railways at this or at any time during the past ten years and had to see your traffic originating on your lines handed over to your keenest competitor in that whole territory, you would sympathise with them in their desire to have an independent outlet for this traffic which has been carried on for more than fifty years into the New England states. I am personally going to ask the committee, aside altogether from the two considerations which I have mentioned, namely the question of local conditions and the question of economic conditions, to view this matter on its merits alone. I believe, if the question is studied, if due regard is given to the problems that confront the management-and I sympathise with them as regards the problems with which I know they have been confronted in the past- this project will receive at least sympathetic consideration at the hands of this House.
I wish we had more information from the minister. I wish the management of the Canadian National Railways had taken us into their confidence and told us the extent of that traffic. I know it is large; I know it must be very large at certain seasons of the

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
year, and I know there has been trouble for years in connection with the traffic to and from New England lines on account of the question of empties which was referred to this afternoon by the minister. At times, there are embargoes on Canadian cars leaving this country from Canadian railways, and it is possible to make shipments, especially of our forest and agricultural products, only in American cars. We have no direct contact with the Boston and Maine system which comprises the Maine Central system as well. Those cars are shipped down to the management of the Canadian National Railways as empties and they are grabbed up by their competitors, with the result that forest products and agricultural products in great volume cannot be moved because of the competitor having taken those empties which were destined for points on the Canadian National lines and which did not reach them. That has been a source of tribulation to the management of the Canadian National Railways for years past, and during certain seasons of the year the trouble has been very much accentuated. Of course, this is immensely more important to the shippers than it is even to the management of the railway, although they have to be the buffer between the two.
I regret very much that the original project has been abandoned. Perhaps, I can supply to the minister the reason, and I think the reason was this, that in the early days of this project and prior to last year, it was proposed to have this independent connection with New England, not with the existing railways in the Maine territory, but with a proposed new railway which would be built from the Maine boundary west to some New England point, such as Bangor. That project, I understand, unfortunately has fallen through. The promoters of that railway are not able to get their charter renewed. They have been delayed because of the delay on this side of the boundary, and within twelve months they have been denied a renewal of the franchise which they had heretofore. I think it is an unfortunate thing, from the standpoints of economy and of expenditure, that that should have occurred, and I imagine the officials of the Canadian National Railway system have been confronted with a new situation. I hope this matter will be approached from the standpoint of pure business, and if the line is not built this year, I venture to prophesy that it will be built within the near future unless some equitable arrangement can be made with the Canadian Pacific Railway.
While I am on my feet, let me say that we might as well be honest about the matter
and admit that from the standpoint of business, the weakness of the proposition is that, to a certain extent at all events, it is a duplication. But I sympathize from the bot-ton of my heart with the management of the Canadian National Railways, because of the difficulties which they have encountered on account of a line already existing which, in part at all events, gets this traffic. I cannot say anything more than I have said at this stage unless I know something more from the minister as to the routing and probable cost. I doubt very much if this road, from what I know of the first twelve miles at any rate, from St. John river south where it has to climb a very heavy watershed, can be built for $51,SOO a mile. I have not very much faith in the government railways being able to build economically, especially after the experience we had in New Brunswick with the Transcontinental railway before the war, that railway having cost, I am informed, as much as $110,000 a mile. However, I hope that the present management will not be quite as prodigal as the commissioners of the Transcontinental railway were in New Brunswick during the years from 1904 to 1910. In any case, 1 doubt very much whether the line can be built for the figure named in the resolution.
I want to point out to the minister that there are no expensive bridges to be considered, unless he duplicates or parallels that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway line between Harvey and Vanceboro. If he does so he will find at least two very expensive bridges to build which will add materially to the cost.
I have endeavoured to be as sympathetic as possible to this proposition, but I should like to know whether it is really the intention of the management to begin operations this year. I can hardly believe it is, and I will tell the minister why, in advance. Up to last night the preliminary survey had not reached McAdam. I came by there last night and I knew that the engineers had been out for several weeks; but I was informed that the preliminary survey was still seven miles short of the westerly terminus, and it occurred to me that if the management were really serious in the intention to go on this year they had delayed that survey altogether too long. It is only fair to say, however, that the men are on the ground and are working towards their objective. I have no doubt, from the nature of the country, that the preliminary survey
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

can be put through in the course of a week at most, by which time it might be hoped that the bill would go through. Once again, I would ask the minister whether it is the bona fide intention of the management to start this line this year, provided of course the bill goes through.


George Perry Graham: The management informed me in their programme that they would grade this year and lay the track next year.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: 
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I was very glad to hear the statement made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that this project is a purely business proposition. I am sure that if the committee were familiar with the geographical position of the Maritime provinces and the railway situation in relation to the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific systems as it affects our trade with the United States, they would agree with my hon. friend that this branch line is not only sound from the business
standpoint, but is absolutely essential if Sir Henry Thornton is to operate the Canadian National railway in the Maritime provinces with any degree of success.
In the province of New Brunswick we have the Canadian National railway skirting the eastern shores of the province and continuing through my own province, being the only avenue by which Nova Scotia has connection with the transportation systems of the country. There is another line of the Canadian National running from Moncton westerly to St. John. Then another line starting from Newcastle runs to the city of Fredericton, whence my hon. friend from York-Sunbury comes.	But the freight of eastern New
Brunswick and of the whole province of Nova Scotia which is carried by rail to the United States is tributary to the Canadian Pacific railway.	It is all turned over
by the Canadian National to the Canadian Pacific at St. John or at Fredericton Junction, and all the efforts on the part of the managers of the Canadian National S3rs-tem to build up their freight business simply enure to the benefit of the Canadian Pacific railway. One can readily see the handicap that is being placed upon the fishermen, lumbermen and farmers of the Maritime provinces through having to pay freight charges not only to the Canadian National but also to the Canadian Pacific and the Boston and Maine.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there not the usual pro-rating of the through rate?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is an expert on freight rates; I am not.
. Mr. GRAHAM: There is probably a shunting charge.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, where connections would be made, say at Fredericton Junction. As my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) has well said, the fishing products of the Maritime provinces find their principal market in Boston, both winter and summer, that being the great fish distributing centre of the United States. Then again, owing to the building boom in eastern United States during the past two years, the main market for all our lumber has been there; and so in regard to all our other products.
Now, the proposition which is recommended by the management of the Canadian National system is to build the line mentioned in the resolution so that they will have an independent entrance to the United States in connection with the Boston and Maine at
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Vanceboro, and so cease being tributary to the Canadian Pacific railway with respect to freight originating on the National lines. To my mind there can be no question about the correctness of the statement made by my hon. friend from York-Sunbury that this is a business proposition. I am sure that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. MacLaren), or rather his newspaper, is taking entirely too local a view of the situation, for I am sure that the great mass of the people in New Brunswick realize the facts to be as I have stated them, and I am confident they will say that if Sir Henry Thornton is to be held responsible for the successful management of the Canadian National railway system, he cannot, so far as our part of the country at least is concerned, be expected to continue to hand over all his traffic to an intermediate road and his greatest competitor.


Mr. DOUCET:: I do not think this proposed branch line is as necessary as the arguments advanced by the last two speakers would seem to indicate. We already have outlets for New Brunswick and Maritime province products to the New England states. There is the Canadian Pacific from St. John to Vanceboro, also the lines along the St. John river to Fredericton and Woodstock and between Woodstock and McAdam junction. The project under consideration might be a fairly good proposition if economic conditions would warrant it, but in view of the present circumstances are we justified in making an initial expenditure of 82,123,000 for the construction of a small branch line between Kingsclear and a point on the St. Croix river opposite Vanceboro? If you do construct from Kingsclear to Vanceboro you cannot handle what traffic may come from the other parts of the Maritime provinces, with the exception of the northern section of New Brunswick.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is to prevent the traffic that centres at Moncton going over the Transcontinental to Fredericton and from there down?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: That could be done, Mr. Chairman, but it would be going somewhat out of the ordinary route, because the Transcontinental between St. John and Moncton and Fredericton has not been made much use of. But there are many sections of New Brunswick which need railway facilities much more than the part of the country dealt with in this resolution. For instance, we have a section in the northern part of the province to which reference has been made on various occasions in this House. Referring last year

to the question of acquiring the Kent Northern railway, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) said:
As to the county of Kent, New Brunswick, the Kent Northern railway is twenty-seven miles long, and I quite appreciate the fact that it might just as well have been twenty-seven inches long so far as its operation has been of any practical value. The question has been discussed as to how these people can best be served in that section of the. country, because they are not served now. An effort was made by the previous government to take over the Kent Northern, and large petitions have come in from the county of Kent asking that the Moncton-Buctouche line be extended 18 miles to serve a greater number of people outside of the town of Richibucto, or Rexton, I believe, through which it passes. These matters are under consideration, and I have asked the management of the Canadian National Railways, as soon as they can possibly do so, to make a thorough investigation of the situation in the county of Kent, because my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Leger) has made my life miserable for the past three months over the question and will continue to do so, I am afraid, if I do not do something.
That road was built forty-one years ago and during the last few years it has been in the hands of a trust company. This company does not appear to be anxious to make any great capital expenditure. Last year the road was closed down for practically two months and this year it has again been unable to give the required service. I speak on behalf of the country immediately served by that road, representing the large and flourishing parishes of Richibucto, Welsford, St. Louis, St. Ignace, St. Charles and Carleton, with a total population of about 12,000. The conditions which induced my predecessor to impress upon the Minister of Railways the importance of doing something in this connection still exist, and I submit that before spending over two millions of the public money for the building of branch lines in a part of the province which is already well provided with railway facilities it would be much more advisable and much more in keeping with the giving of equal rights to all that something should be done in the matter of that branch line of 27 miles from Kent junction into Richibucto. It is true that some steps have been taken toward getting a line from Buctouche into Richibucto, a distance of 18 miles. Survey parties have been over that route and as a matter of fact that branch railway was promised no later than last December. Be that as it may, I do not intend to insist that that branch line be built if present conditions do not warrant it, but I do insist that on account of the Kent Northern railway from Kent Junc-9 p.m. tion into Richibucto being one of the only two independent branch lines in the Maritime provinces not taken over and made part of the National Railways in 1919, steps should be taken to acquire that

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
road either by purchase or by lease, with a view to giving service to the public. The people in that part of the country have been told that economy would have to be practised in connection with the railways. For twenty-eight years the people along the line of the Moncton and Buctouche railway, a distance of 32 miles, had a daily mail service, but since the first of January of this year the Wednesday trip has been cancelled so that to-day there is no connection between Moncton and Buctouche on Wednesday of each week, and therefore no mail distributed on that day. That condition did not prevail in the past except in cases of very stormy weather. The people in that section are entitled to better service. I submit that the vote placed in the estimates in 1919 and again passed as a revote in 1920, but which was unfortunately dropped because the company would not accept the offer made by the government at that time, should again be placed in the estimates this year with a view of acquiring the Kent Northern railway and improving the service in that part of the country, the people of which have been denied their just rights, as was represented to the committee a moment ago by the member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), and also to provide a daily service on the Moncton and Buctouche branch line. And further more we are willing to practise economy, if that is necessary, but it is a very poor consolation to the people in that section of the country to hear so much about economy and then to see branch lines built in sections where those branches will parallel or duplicate existing lines.


Pius Michaud: I wish to say a few
words in reference to this branch line proposed to be built in the province of New Brunswick, and I desire to express myself very clearly on the question. In the first place I am opposed to building any branch lines which will be of no benefit to our general railway system. We want to improve our railway system, as far as we can, and make it more productive, and if branch lines are necessary to bring that about by all means let us have them. If the construction of branch lines will not make our railways more profitable then it is useless to spend money for the purpose. With regard to this particular branch line let me tell you that from two-thirds to three-fourths of our lumber products will be shipped over it to the American market, either to Boston or New York. At the present time we are shipping lumber-especially deals, boards and pulpwood-partly over American lines. When this new line has been built it will be
available for the shipment of farm products, as well as forest products and fish, and we shall derive some profit from the haul. With respect to the proposal to buy out branch lines of railways I may say that last fall I had the opportunity of travelling over the Kent Northern railway. I sympathize with my hon. friend (Mr. Doucet) in what he has said, but if the government system has not taken over the Kent Northern it is the fault of some people in the county of Kent. The transaction was about to be completed when the shareholders of the Kent Northern railway were advised by some of the hon. gentleman's friends not to give up the railway for a certain amount of money but to wait for a while and it would result in the purchase price being increased.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: What justification has the hon. gentleman for making such a statement as that? Can he advance the slightest proof to substantiate it?


Pius Michaud: I received the information from the late hon. member for Kent.
I do not wish to prolong the debate by any remarks of mine. I am convinced the House will see the necessity for building this new branch railway. For the reasons I have given I shall support the resolution.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Before the resolution
carries I should like to say one or two things apropos of this particular line. The point which has been raised by the minister, and by others who have spoken, as I understand it, is that the traffic is now routed over the Canadian Pacific railway which arrives at more or less the same destination. Now, as far as I can see, we have not sufficient information before us just at the moment to judge as to what saving there would be in favour of this traffic going over the National line instead of being routed over the Canadian Pacific, or in other words what amount of gain the National line would derive. I wonder if the minister is in a position to give us that information. The point I should like to stress is this: We expect to spend over $2,000,000 on this line. In addition to that there will be an operating expenditure, or deficit, as the case may be. Will the expenditure be justified by the result in giving this line to the National system instead of using the Canadian Pacific railway, temporarily at least.


George Perry Graham: As I understand it the
position is this-hon. members with local
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

knowledge will correct me if I am wrong. If my hon. friend were doing a large business himself scattered through several towns, would he regard it as good business to be the "gathering instrument" as it is called, and hand over the business to some person else after he has gathered it all up?


Herbert Meredith Marler: That all depends.


George Perry Graham: The Canadian National
Railway is the gathering system. It gathers the traffic and hands it over to another line. Now, it is altogether in the realm of possibility that everything desired can be accomplished by the construction of fourteen or fifteen miles of railway to Harvey, provided proper running rights can be obtained over the Canadian Pacific.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Precisely.


George Perry Graham: The management have
informed me, and from what I know I believe it to be true, that it is purely a business transaction on the part of the Canadian National Railways.


Arthur Meighen: If this committee is going to pass resolutions involving the expenditure of millions of dollars merely on the verbal assurance of the railway directorate that it is a business transaction, we might at least surrender our indemnities. In all fairness to the people of Canada we ought to know something about the transaction. If we are to vote the money we should know, and the country should know, something about the circumstances. We have to answer for the resolution. I have quite a little sympathy, let me say frankly, with the argument presented a moment ago by the hon. member (Mr. Mar-ler). In so far as parliament is concerned-not the railway directorate, although the railway directorate certainly want to look after the business returns from the railway-we should look primarily to service. If the service is being rendered now by the Canadian Pacific railway the question arises should we, in order to divert that business to the National Railway system, build another line at a cost of over two millions. The point just raised by the hon. member is this: We should certainly know first that there is to be an economic advantage instead of an economic loss. I mean to say that on the whole, taking into consideration both roads, there will be an economic advantage and a big one. Because the interest on the cost of construction itself is going to be $140,000 a year. Now, would anybody suggest for a minute that we have sufficient data before this committee showing there is going 
to be a profit, over and above an expenditure of $140,000 a year in interest on the construction of this road, even to the National railway system itself? We must keep in mind that our object should be to provide service for the people of Canada at the lowest capital outlay, so that the interest charges on the whole investment will be minimized to the greatest possible extent, and secondly so that the Railway Commission will be able to keep rates to their lowest possible level. That is the principle we should follow. We are told that we shall get some traffic from the Canadian Pacific Railway.


George Perry Graham: I did not say anything of the kind, I said we would keep our own traffic.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. The Canadian Pacific is doing the work now and we are to do that instead. That is what I understand. If that is any difference I do not know.


George Perry Graham: It is quite a difference.


Arthur Meighen: Maybe it is. How it
affects the vote I am at a loss to understand. If the people are getting the service, and the main object of a railway is service


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend and the House will bear that in mind in future debates on the bills. He says that service to the people is paramount to profits on the railway. I would like him not to forget that.


Arthur Meighen: I said a little more than that.


George Perry Graham: The right hon. gentleman said that. He could not have had his ears open when the member for Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) was pointing out that the people were not getting the service because the Canadian National did not have a line of its own. He pointed out that, for lack of cars that were not returned to the Canadian National, he knew of an instance where a man had drawn his produce nine miles to the Canadian Pacific railway, and put his goods into Canadian Pacific cars while the Canadian National was a few rods from that man's door. But in the case of the Canadian National he could not get his cars back. The people were deprived of the service on that account and the Canadian National was deprived of the traffic.


Arthur Meighen: There are lots of cases
of that kind, no matter how many railways you have.

C.N.R-Branch Lines


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend can put
it any way he likes, both from the point of view of the service to the people and the point of view of the management of the railway.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I had hoped that this
resolution would pass and that the discussion on the general merits would occur on the presentation of the bill to the House.


George Perry Graham: That was proposed and
I accepted it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is one point I
wish to stress in regard to this particular road and it is this. At the present time the St. John and Quebec railway is owned by the provincial government of New Brunswick, and is operated foy the Dominion government under a lease. The Dominion government turn over 40 per cent o>f the gross earnings as rental, the management of the railway retaining the other 60 per cent to pay operating costs. Due to the fact that this road is only a gatherer and turns the traffic over to the Canadian Pacific Railway at a point where it would begin to make a profit on the hauling of it, there has been a deficit of somewhere around half a million dollars a year, and that deficit will continue so long as we continue our present policy of turning the traffic over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think that 40 per cent turned over to the provincial government on an average lacked $220,000 or $225,000 of paying the interest on the cost of construction of the road. If my memory serves me correctly, the other 60 per cent was about $230,000 a year short of paying the operating cost, simply because we are loading the freight, maintaining the sidings and the service to gather the freight, and turning that freight over to the Canadian Pacific. In former debates in the House I think it was conclusively proven to the House and to the management of the Canadian National Railways who are operating the St. John and Quebec railway that if this outlet is furnished and the Canadian National is allowed to handle the traffic as my hon. friend from Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) would say, and have the long haul, instead of gathering it and hauling it five or six miles and turning it over to the Canadian Pacific or the Bangor and Aroostook to have the longer haul, in place of having a deficit on the St. John and Quebec railway, that road will become a revenue producer, because I have no hesitation in saying it will be one of the best paying roads in Canada. It will be the funnel for the pouring out of this whole traffic gathered on the 2,600 miles of railway in the Maritime provinces and in Quebec. That is the feature that appeals to me.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I would like to know how much is to accrue to the Canadian National Railways by reason of building this line.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no doubt the minister will be able to give us this information. They will certainly have a record of the amount of freight turned over to the Bangor and Aroostook at Van Buren and at Fort Kent. I think some of it goes over to Fort Kent, hauled across in the winter on the ice when the crossing is good. There will be a record of the traffic turned over at Fredericton, Woodstock and St. John. I imagine these records will be available. I hope they will, and I am convinced they will show a volume of .traffic that will assure the success of the road, not only on this length of line it is proposed to build, but the whole of the St. John and Quebec railway that is now starving for empties to handle the traffic. It is not able to get the traffic because its own cars are not returned. I do not know who is to blame for the agreement, but there was an international agreement between the United States authorities and our own railway authorities that cars could be retained for a rental of one dollar a day. I thought it was a very poor arrangement. It has been said in this House that it is as fair for our roads as for the United States roads. Well it would be if there were as many American cars coming into Canada as there are Canadian cars going into the United States. But fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, there is a very small amount of traffic coming into Canada in American cars. Our exports to the United States in that section of Canada are much greater than our imports from that country. Therefore the cars that are sent out loaded do not always come back full. Like the Dutchman's hens, they come back with their heads and tails off and sometimes missing. Our cars come back in all these conditions, especially our potato cars. This condition is especially hard on the potato shippers. Our potato shippers in New Brunswick have to re-line their cars, and they provide a lining that' costs in the neighbourhood of $59 lor |$60 to make them fit to transport potatoes. They furnish their own stoves and firemen. The fireman is always returned, but the cars that cross the line are not returned. They are taken to other roads that are competing with us, and our farmers are unable to get their produce to market when the market is good. We do not get the service we would get if we had immediate
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

connection with, the American roads that are interested in handling our goods, and we do not get the traffic in return that we should.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think my hon. friend is quite clear as to what he was told by my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), nor do I think there is much roam for debate as to how we should all look upon this subject. I really think we would get along more quickly if we did not have any misunderstandings or misrepresentations, no matter how harmless they are. In the first place I think we should agree-and perhaps it would be just as well if we got this into our heads and thought about it and applied it in connection with the bills-that it ought to be the business of the directors to recommend a remunerative liije. In the second place, it ought to be the business, I take it, of this House to see that necessary public service is given to the people, when it can be given, with a reasonable return to the system; in other words the directors are immediately interested in results. We are interested in service, plus results. The minister says that it is the desire of this House to have railways built only where they will not pay and not where they will pay.


George Perry Graham: I did not put it that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was the
effect.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member says he does not want any misunderstanding. Go right along and do not have any.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is why I want to straighten it out. If he did not say that, what was the object of his reference?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not
nearly so stupid as he is pretending to be. He has got a pretty good head at times. What I said was that if parliament was going to take the ground that you must not build railways where they were going to pay because some person might be a little pinched, and that we were only going to allow the Canadian National to build roads where it would be a matter of service without paying, then it could not make a success of the project.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is just
what I was saying.


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He said if par-iament was going to-


George Perry Graham: The hon. member put it that I said that parliament was going to do so and so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If parliament
was going to do it. You have got the "if" in there all right. You have got the "if" in strong. At any rate that was the idea. That was rather the challenge of my hon. friend in connection with the opposition to these lines. It has not been opposition to bills that has brought the railway situation where it is to-day. It has been acquiescence in railway construction without any proper railway business reason. What we are after to-day is to endeavour ,to make' sure that those lines will pay, and that is all. I think we are also just a little bit concerned in the question of service and the necessities of the public. I do not know how many millions my hon. friends think they can raise in connection with railway construction. They have not yet told us how they are going to raise this money, or what they think it will cost them, or when they are going into the market. But I know this-and I think they will agree with this-that they can spend only a limited amount of money at the present time. As regards the question of service, I am sure that my hon. friend, upon reflection, will agree that if that $2,000,000 can be placed in some part of this country which has no lines at all, but plenty of traffic for railway lines, which has scores of settlers that have no facilities of any kind whatever, it might well be the better thing to see that that $2,000,000 is put where it will do the most good and at the same time yield a return.
So far, we have had two specific reasons given to us as the necessity of this link. If the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), who supports this resolution, is correct, this project is not necessary for local purposes. He frankly says that it is not. We have not heard anything very much in that connection except what we have heard from the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), but two concrete reasons have been given for the construction of this line. The first one, which was adopted by the minister, was that somebody had to haUl his stuff nine miles to the Canadian Pacific because the Canadian National had not a car to receive the load. I wonder if one could imagine a much more ridiculous argument in behalf of an expenditure of $2,000,000, namely, that the Canadian National Railways so run their car distribution that upon some particular day they had no car ready, and somebody had to haul his stuff nine miles to the Canadian

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Pacific who look after their car distribution. That is all there is in that.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend thinks so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows very well that that is all there is in it.


George Perry Graham: Rubbish.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says: "Rubbish". I would like to ask him why, and perhaps we will get on.


George Perry Graham: You cannot	distribute
.cars if you do not have them, if they are not returned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And you are
not going to have cars unless you look after them properly. It is the management that looks after its cars properly that has them.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows
better than that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I	think	myhon. friend knows better or he ought to know better, because he has had some indirect railway experience, and he ought ta know something of the difficulties, and alsc of the safeguards that have to be and that are taken by railway managements in order to get cars. This	argument,	however,	is
seriously put forward in this day of wonderful economy, that because a car was missing and a nine-mile drive had to be taken, this line is to be built. I wonder how many gentlemen in the West would think they were being put in a marvellous position if they could get all their stuff to a railway simply by a nine-mile drive.


George Perry Graham: And leave a railway a
hundred yards from their door.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if
they would not like to get that. Another thing that is put forward seriously is the question of handing over traffic to the Canadian Pacific. That traffic handed over to the Canadian Pacific, as my hon. friend knows quite well, ought to be routed on through billing at a through rate. There ought to be no difference whatever as regards the shipper, unless there is an excess mileage. If there is an excess mileage, that is another matter- and we have not been told that there is an excess mileage-but that would be one of the reasons for going carefully into that aspect of the question. My hon. friend also knows that the Board of Railway Commissioners, in ordering a through railway billing, as they have the right to do and as they do scores of times, if there is
any difference between the systems on the question of rating, can order a pro-rating. My hon. friend also will know very well that in ordering that pro-rate, the system that originates the traffic is given what one might call the weighty end of the pro-rate. It may be that, notwithstanding these things, my hon. friends can show such a shortening of mileage, such a saving of business, that great economies can be effected. Perhaps my hon. friend could shorten this whole discussion very much by reading the memorandum that, he says, the directors have given him. It might cover the whole thing.


George Perry Graham: I think I read it once
this afternoon, but I will read it again for my hon. friend's benefit. Seeing that my experience has been only indirect in railways and that I do not know much, and that his has been direct and that he knows a great deal, I will read the memorandum again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Thank you.


George Perry Graham: This is the memorandum:
This is a proposed forty-one miles of grade in 1924 and forty-one miles of track in 1925.
It has been practically concluded that the best location for a direct connection of the lines in New Brunswick with rails in the United States, can be made by a line from Kingsclear to Vanceboro, by a line constructed between these points a distance of forty-one miles, at an estimated cost of $2,123,000. As an alternative the line would be built from Kingsclear over about the same route but only as far as Harvey, 14.5 miles and to connect with the Canadian Pacific railway. Then running rights would be obtained over the Canadian Pacific from Harvey to Vanceboro for use of our trains. Either proposal gives us a direct connection with the Maine Central railway at Vanceboro. This has the advantage over other proposals for a direct link to American lines, in that it will leave our proportions of present rates undisturbed and obviates other railways sharing in the receipts before reaching the Maine Central railway. The new line woufd be in Canadian territory all the way to the junction with the Maine Central railway. As no arrangements have been concluded with the Canadian Pacific railway for using part of their line, the estimate of cost of construction of the whole distance is included.
The purpose and justification of this line is that it will give a direct interchange between the Canadian National lines and the lines in the United States, without transferring through the Canadian Pacific railway as at present. The main advantage derived from such an arrangement will be in connection with the return of Canadian National cars from American lines as well as the more prompt handling of traffic to and from points in the New England states.
This is subject to a final arrangement being made with the Maine Central railway or some other American railway for interchange of traffic, and the establishment of suitable facilities.
Hon. gentlemen will notice these words:
Then running rights would be obtained over the Canadian Pacific from Harvey to Vanceboro for use of our trains.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
It makes all the difference in the world to the Canadian National railways, whether they hand their traffic over to another railway to handle, or whether they get running rights and can give through service with their own trains. The same thing occurred between the Canadian Pacific and the Intercolonial in reference to Halifax. For a time the Canadian Pacific had running rights with its own trains through to Halifax. I do not know whether that is the case now or not.


Mr. COPP:: They have that now.


George Perry Graham: A strong effort was made before the Transcontinental was to make a connection with the- Intercolonial, that those rights should be established. I never agreed with my friend, the late Baron Shaughnessy, on that point, believing that we should keep it for our government lines at that time. There is a great difference for the Canadian National getting running rights, handling their own traffic upon a mileage basis from handing traffic over to another railway. I cannot for the life of me see that it is anything but the purest kind of business proposition. If it were a private concern there would not be five minutes discussion on the part of the board of directors as to whether it should be done. It would simply be done. A demand has been made that we should have something in writing from the president. Well, I intend to get that. But will my hon. friend tell us now whether he ever got anything in writing from the president of the Canadian National Railways in regard to matters of this kind? Let him look back over the debates and tell the committee whether his government ever gave more information, when lines were to be built, than I am attempting to give. Was the traffic manager ever called on to make a long estimate of traffic returns? I want to be fair with my hon. friend but he is not fair with me. To-day he charged me with not replying to his correspondence. I repudiate that charge emphatically, for if there is a man in this House who is scrupulous about answering his correspondence that man is the Minister of Railways. It may take me a day or two sometimes to have it done but I always reply to letters addressed to me. My hon. friend however asked me for something that never was given by a minister in this House to any other member, and no other member but himself has ever asked for information of the kind he desires to get. He asked me last year to hand over to him a copy of my private estimates containing personal explanations and notations, and he seemed injured because I did not give it.

This is something that was never asked for of a minister and never was expected before. The hon. gentleman asked for it, however, expecting to be refused and then he pretended to have a grievance at not having his demand complied with.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wish my hon. friend's memory were quite as good as his faculty for joking. However, no one can take him seriously and so no one feels a bit put out by what he says.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Be careful.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At any rate, I have not so far been-perturbed by my hon. friend. What did I want last year? I thinlc the minister has the information that I desired; and if he will look into the matter he will find that I wrote him this year asking to be informed in certain respects. To that letter I never got any answer.


George Perry Graham: Evidently my hon. friend has not been to the post office to-day or he would have got his reply. He wrote a letter and then went away without waiting for the answer. I addressed a letter to him and no doubt it is in his post office box now.
_ Sir HENRY DRAYTON: This is all very interesting no doubt, but it really has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. The minister wants to know whether we ever got signed statements. W'e did. I was not content to take any one's haphazard statement and therefore I did get things signed. As to whether they were brought to the House or not I do not know, but they would have been if they had been asked for at the proper time. I do know that I used to get traffic reports and I had my officials convert them into black and white and sometimes they would be at it a week before the matter was discussed at all. But there is no credit for doing that; that is only a matter of ordinary business precaution. The minister says that this is the sort of thing business people would put through in five minutes. Well, the first thing a business man would ascertain in this case would be how much money would be saved by what it is proposed to have done. We have not got that statement yet, and until we get it we are in the dark.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the bills are submitted in connection with these various resolutions will the minister obtain from the officers of the Canadian National Railways a concrete statement of the advantages which they believe will accrue to the system in the Maritime provinces if this small connecting

C.N.R. Branch Lines
link is built? I am satisfied that with the knowledge I have I could tabulate those advantages in a very succinct, concrete and convincing statement. The minister might also obtain from the officials an estimate of the actual saving in money which they believe will be derived. I am satisfied that a fairly approximate estimate in dollars and cents could be given which would go a long way towards a complete understanding of this matter. I am sincere about this; I am anxious to see the management lifted out of the position in which they find themselves, not altogether as gatherers but the reverse of that.
I know some of the difficulties they have been labouring under. May I say to the members of this committee that for ten years I had the honour to be the solicitor for the Canadian Government Railways in New Brunswick and I was intimately connected with the management so that I have some knowledge of the difficulties they had in connection with this matter. I think the minister will probably smooth his own way if he will get the information in regard to some of these things.


George Perry Graham: I have no desire to withhold any information whatever. I am the mouthpiece in parliament of the Canadian National Railways and I myself am anxious to get all the information I can. I do not see how my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) got information when he was not Minister of Railways.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We used to finance the railways then.


George Perry Graham: There were things in the railways that my hon. friend did not finance. However, that is merely an aside. Now, if hon. gentlemen will let the resolution pass I shall get all the information possible when the bill is under consideration. I am precluded from discussing the bill until it is in the hands of the committee. I have asked my staff to make a note of the discussion so far as it is relevant and we shall bring down all the information possible so that hon. members will see what we propose to do, and the reasons therefor. I am asking them, however, to omit any reference to the tariff.


Murray MacLaren: Will the minister make a note of this request, that an explanation be given as to how the building of 41 miles of railway will enable the Canadian National Railways to get its empty cars returned to Canada from the American railroads?


George Perry Graham: I think I could answer that myself, but I have made a note of the question.


Robert James Manion: The memorandum which the minister read a few moments ago suggested an alternative route of fourteen miles which could be built to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway, running rights being given over the latter road. So far as I remember, the memorandum did not give the cost of that 14 miles.


George Perry Graham: If the line is about the same as the territory covered by the 41 miles, that is to say, in its physical aspects, the cost I should think would be proportionate to the cost of the 41 miles.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be less because there would be no expensive bridges. On the other end of the line you will have to bridge two large rivers, the St. Croix, across to Vance-boro, and the Magaguadavic.


Robert James Manion: The reason I mention it is that according to the remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. minister the fourteen miles under those circumstances would cost something like half a million dollars, possibly $600,000, in contradistinction to the $2,123,000 given as the estimated figure for this line. The minister himself advocated strongly the advantages of getting running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway, if we can. At least, I so understood him. If we can build fourteen miles over the same kind of territory at a cost of $500,000 or $600,000, and obtain running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway which would give us control over our own trains, I hardly see why we should build forty-one miles for thfe same purpose and at an extra cost of $1,500,000. In regard to the loss of cars to the Canadian Pacific mentioned by the minister, of course we have no figures as to the number of cars which get lost, strayed or stolen through the year. I think the minister might make a note of this also and let us have some idea of the actual number involved.


George Perry Graham: One time last year the United States railways had 20,000 cars in excess of the cars we had belonging to them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Sometimes they have had more than that.


Robert James Manion: But that has very little reference to this case. The hon. minister this afternoon referred to the tardiness of the Canadian Pacific in returning cars to the Canadian National.

C.N.R. Branch Lines


George Perry Graham: I was not blaming the Canadian Pacific.


Robert James Manion: I know that, and I cannot say that I do. I presume the Canadian National does the same to the Canadian Pacific, it being a case of tit for tat I suppose. The 20,000 Canadian cars which the hon. minister mentions the United States railroads held at one time last year brings up a point I wish to make. Every session since I became a member of this House seven years ago I have heard that same argument advanced, that we are short of cars because the United States railways have failed to return them. I have no doubt that the statement is absolutely correct. But that fact does not seem to me quite sufficient to justify our spending nearly $2,500,000 on this project. And it may cost a good deal more. I notice that the average estimated cost per mile of these lines is about $30,000, and I venture to say that these estimates are based on pre-war prices, so that [DOT]this particular branch line instead of costing $2,123,000 will probably cost considerably more, and if we get off with $3,000,000 we may consider ourselves quite happy. So if it is possible to arrange to build this fourteen miles of road, I think it should be done instead of building the forty-one miles.
Another reason for my objecting to the expenditure is that I have noticed all government departments are very prone to spend money. Indeed, departments of private corporations have the same weakness, but they are much more closely checked up by their directors. I have in earlier years had a little experience in municipal government-


George Perry Graham: And in the federal government.	'


Robert James Manion: It was very slight,


George Perry Graham: Before an election, though.


Robert James Manion: It is very difficult to check up expenditure at such a time. But my hon. friends are doing everything they can to prevent an election in the near future, so they have not that argument available. But, Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that in municipal departments as in Dominion departments the officials are prone to spend. Indeed, we are aware that the Minister of Finance is always trying to keep down the expenditure of the various departments of government. No doubt the railway management would have more pride in possessing a complete system regarding which they could say, "This is our line, and over it will go our cars." But that is not the policy of the fMr. Manion.J
committee, because it should be our object not to encourage large expenditures and so increase our deficits; and I am sure that is the object of the minister himself. Therefore I am certain that he will reach the conclusion that so far as we in this corner of the House are concerned, we are simply trying to help him to cut down expenditure. For that reason I think he should hold this resolution up until he has brought forward all the information which we have asked for to-day. Then if we find such information does not really give sufficient reason for the building of this line we should cut it down to fourteen miles, or if this construction is not justified we should cut it out altogether.


George Perry Graham: I agree with my hon.
friend that if the same object can be attained by the construction of only fourteen miles of branch line, it will be the better policy to pursue. As to holding up the resolution, my hon. friend will have full opportunity to discuss this and other features in the bill, when all the particulars will be before him. I am not at liberty to discuss the bill until it is in the hands of hon. members, but it will have to go through first and second readings, committee stage and third reading, and there will be full opportunity for discussion. The passing of this resolution would not prevent any discussion which could possibly take place on the bill.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I would point out to the minister that the rules are framed with a definite object in view. The rule which requires a minister to bring a proposal of this kind before the House by way of resolution is for the express purpose of giving us the fullest information and enabling us to discuss it without restriction. When the Speaker is in the chair we know that a member can rise in his place and speak only once. But the framers of the rules in their judgment believed that when certain proposals were made in the House they should be introduced in such a way that the members could speak as often as they desired and make such inquiries as they saw fit for the purpose of obtaining full information upon which to form an intelligent judgment on the proposal before the bill itself is introduced. I think the minister need not hesitate in giving us the fullest information at the present time if we desire it. If he has it before him, surely he can give it and not wait until the bill is under discussion. I have sat here now for two or three hours listening with very great interest to the discussion, and I must say, speaking of course only for myself, that in regard to this particular resolution I am not convinced that

C.N.R. Branch Lines
there is any urgency for the construction of the line, I am not convinced that the present is the proper time to undertake it, and 1 am not convinced that any great hardship is being suffered in the particular locality where it is proposed to build this branch line.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What evidence would my hon. friend like to have on that point?


Hugh Guthrie: The evidence which has
struck me very forcibly is an editorial which was read to the House from the St. John Globe, a newspaper which openly supports this government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend did not catch my point. He wanted evidence as to the necessity of this branch line. The same argument, I suppose, would apply to each and every one of these resolutions. Therefore it might be well for my hon. friend to intimate what kind of evidence he would want on this point. In regard to the article from the St. John newspaper, it is purely a reflection of local sentiment, because the people are afraid St. John will be cut out by reason of the construction of the proposed branch line; it has nothing to do with the merits.


Hugh Guthrie: I will go over the evidence I desire to have if my hon. friend will patiently hear me Let me first deal with the points which to my mind are serious, whether they so impress my hon. friend or not. My information, which has been gathered almost entirely from the discussion, is that there is a section of territory in New Brunswick which is already served by one or two railways. The people of that particular section at the present moment have railway service by way of the Canadian Pacific railway and, in part, by way of the Canadian National. It is stated that that service may be improved by the construction of a new line of 41 miles at a cost of over $2,000,000. There is a railroad service there, and as yet nobody has pointed out any great inconvenience to the public. I do not overlook the case mentioned by the hon. gentleman from New Brunswick wTho spoke of somebody who had to drive nine miles to deliver his freight, but that is the merest kind of incident. Nobody has yet made it clear to me that any great loss or any great inconvenience is being suffered at this time in that section of New Brunswick. It is true we might give greater facilities; it is true we might shorten up the haul a little bit. But we must look over the length and breadth of Canada
and see what is requisite in the way of railway construction in other parts of the country. We have on the order paper to-day twenty-six separate resolutions, and I assume they will all be supported by requisitions by the president and directors of the Canadian National Railway system. It is possible that all or nearly all are more or less desirable, but that is not the point which influences my judgment at the present moment. The question is not, are they desirable, but are they necessary at this time? If one fact has been impressed on "the minds of the people during the last ten or fifteen years more than any other it is that in railway construction we have gone on in Canada rather ahead of our requirements. We have been guilty, I think, of some over construction in the matter of railways, and we have been guilty at the same time of a large amount of duplication. These conditions exist; they are matters of history now, and we have to face them and their consequences. Now. here is a proposal which looks to me just like another case of duplication. It may be that the service at the point in question is not everything the people of that section would desire or everything we would wish to give them, but under the circumstances which exist in other parts of Canada, does it seem reasonable now to expend over $2,000,000 for what will be another duplication?
My right hon. leader pointed out that the interest on this expenditure would be not less than $140,000 a year, counting the interest on the money during the period of construction. Will there be a saving to the people of Canada or to the National Railways of anything like that amount if this railway is built? Would it be worth, in the convenience to the people of that neighbourhood, anything like $140,000 a year over and above the conveniences or service at present enjoyed in that section? I doubt it very much.
We started out this session in all quarters of the House with very loud protestations with regard to economy. We were going to examine expenditures very critically; the government were going to set us
10 p.m. a good example in that respect.
After sitting here a month and after passing estimates for $600,000 for a tower and a million and a half for a building in London, perhaps an amount of over two millions for a branch line railway in New Brunswick looks rather trivial. But it is a very serious outlay, and it is only part of a very large aggregate expenditure which the government now proposes. This money cannot be taken out of the treasury of the com-
59i
C.N.R. Branch Lines

pany and applied to these purposes, because the money is not in the treasury, so I assume it will be got in the only place in which we can get money in these sums, that is, on the market, by borrowing. Por all the convenience, all the service that this 41 miles is going to afford to the people of New Brunswick, should we go ahead with the expenditure at this time? I am sorry to disagree with my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) on this point. As I read over these resolutions it looks to me as if a good many of them could well be postponed until our financial circumstances are a little better. I have no interest, direct or indirect, in the proposal, but viewing the matter simply as it applies to the whole of Canada, this being only one of twenty-six railway proposals, I am not convinced that the expenditure is warranted at the present time. Very weighty reasons why we should not proceed were given in the article quoted from the St. John Globe. It matters not to me whether St. John expects to be sidetracked or cut off if this line be built; the reasons are given and .they are weighty. The writer of that article points out that there is a railway service in that very neighbourhood and that additional services are not at present required. He points out that there is a gridiron of railways at that point in New Brunswick and he asks us to call a halt^ When the Minister of Railways says that as a young man he used to write articles for a village newspaper in Ontario protesting against the Canadian Pacific Railway going east and west, I think that is hardly an answer to the weighty reasons urged by the editorial writer in the St. John newspaper. I do not want to commit myself absolutely at the moment; I want to leave myself open in case additional information should come down or additional reasons be given why this road should now be constructed. But as I view the matter I am not convinced of the merits of the proposal; I am not convinced that we should make the expenditure at this time. I do not condemn the proposal out and out; I do not know enough about it to condemn it, but it does seem to me that it might wait for a year or two or three years until we are better able to finance the undertaking.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I understand the proposal as put forward by those supporting it very strongly, one of the reasons is that it is desirable that the Canadian National Railways shall have their own outlet to the boundary between New Brunswick and the state of Maine, connecting up with the railway in Maine. Am I right in that?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says that is correct-the desire being that they want to escape carrying their traffic over the Canadian Pacific in New Brunswick to that point; is that right?


George Perry Graham: That is one of the incidents in the argument in favour of the new line.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When they get to that
point on the boundary the railway they connect with in the state of Maine is operated and controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, so what advantage do you gain?


George Perry Graham: No, it is the Boston and Maine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is the Maine Central, owned by the Boston and Maine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the information I desired to get. I was informed that this line connected in Maine with the Canadian Pacific.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is an
American owned railway, not the Canadian Pacific.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite true; all
these branches of Canadian railways in the United States are American lines.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend
has been misinformed as to the situation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not operated by the Canadian Pacific?


George Perry Graham: No.


Robert James Manion: I noticed when I drew
the attention of the minister to the fact that in the memorandum a fourteen mile alternative branch line was suggested in place of the forty-one mile branch line proposed, that the minister rather thought the proposed suggestion was worthy of consideration-in fact I understood' him to say that he had thought of the same thing himself. In view of this I should like to propose to the minister-I do it on my own initiative entirely as a private member-that this bill be held up temporarily until the minister makes inquiry of his own officials, and of the president and directors, or whatever officials there are to make inquiry of, and see if perhaps in the interest of economy, in the interest of the saving possibly of a million and a half of dollars, he cannot bring in a bill for the building of these fourteen miles instead of the forty-one

C.N.R. Branch Lines
miles as proposed. I say this in all sincerity.
I think the minister would! be well advised if he would reconsider the whole proposition, discuss it with his officials, and see if that suggestion could not be worked out. It would certainly be to the interest of the country whether it would be to the interest of the railway or not I do not know, but I am inclined to think it would, judging from the quotations in the memorandum given to the minister by his own officials, where they give the fourteen mile proposition as an alternative, although they do not give details.
I advance the suggestion and I think 'it well worthy of serious consideration that the minister should move to report progress and consult with his officials in -regard to the proposition as to whether it would not be in the best interest of the country as a whole to build a fourteen mile stretch of line at a cost of half a million dollars, instead of constructing a' stretch of forty-one miles involving an exoenditure of $2,000,000.


Mr. GOULD:: I should like to ask the
minister whether the present resolution provides for our share of the cost of constructing the international bridge across the St. Croix river?


George Perry Graham: I will make inquiries
but I understand it covers all the necessary expenditures. My hon. friend (Mr. Manion) made a very interesting suggestion, but when it is a case of doing railway business with railway officials that would be going at the matter in the wrong way to get results.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I just say for the
information of the hon. member (Mr. Manion) that the fourteen miles referred to is part and parcel of the proposed forty-one miles of construction, and it is not an alternative route at all.


Robert James Manion: All the same the proposal to limit the construction to fourteen miles may be a very good alternative. I did not quite understand the force of the remark of the -minister in regard to not accomplishing much in dealing as proposed with the members of his department. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that it may be very advisable for the minister to reconsider this project with a view to bringing in a bill for the construction of the fourteen miles simply. I say it for this reason:	From the
discussion I have listened to here to-day- and I have listened to it most fairly because until a few minutes ago I said nothing-I have drawn the conclusion that this road is
very little wanted. Only two metnbers of the House have really had anything to say in favour of the project-the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) and both of them are directly interested. I presume that if I were affected I would adopt ex^tly the same attitude as they have 'adopted. The railway runs through the constituency of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and just along the border of the constituency of the hon. member for Carleton.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It will not touch any
point of my constituency.


Robert James Manion: I understood it ran close
to my hon. friend's constituency. At any rate the only two hon. members I have heard speak in favour of the project are these two gentlemen. If the bill as it stands at the present moment is gone on with I think there is a very great likelihood of the minister, after due consideration, withdrawing it -and introducing a modified bill to construct fourteen miles instead of the forty-one now proposed. I repeat the minister would be well advised if he -moved to report progress and later brought in a bill for the construction of fourteen miles, which is really an alternative to what he is suggesting at the present time.


Mr. ANDERSON:: I should like to know
how far these two proposed lines-the fourteen mile stretch and the forty-one mile stretch-are going to parallel each other.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for
York-Sunbury can explain that, he knows the local conditions better than I do.


Mr. SPENCE:: In view of the financial condition of this country there is no justification for constructing a line of railway at such a cost in a district where there is very little business to be done. It may be justified in order to meet the convenience of the people in that part of -the country but it cannot be made a paying proposition. There would be more justification for constructing a fourteen mile line from Kingsclear to Harvey than to build the stretch of forty-one miles from Kingsclear to Yanceboro. It would be an absolute waste of money to construct the latter when the former would serve just as well. I cannoit see on what grounds the minister makes any such recommendation. It certainly is not justified by financial conditions at the present time. The thing is an absurdity and should not be tolerated.
C.N.R. Branch hines


Henry Lumley Drayton: I seriously ask my hon. friend to consider having particular regard to the railway duplication at this particular point, whether we have not already sufficient duplication of railway lines in Canada, and whether the situation would not be met by obtaining running powers over the Canadian Pacific railway. In the casrf of business originating at St. John on the lines of the Canadian National system for New England points, is it proposed to. convey that over the St. John valley line out of St. John to the point of connection?


George Perry Graham: I think it is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend think for a minute that is a business proposition? I ask him in all seriousness.


George Perry Graham: Why not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend possibly think of such a thing?


George Perry Graham: I was asking, why not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sure my hon. friend has not thought of it seriously. What is the operating ratio down in New Brunswick at the present moment? I think my hon. friend will find that it is pretty heavy.


George Perry Graham: Surely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend will find the operating ratio is so heavy that he will get nothing through the movement of traffic down at that point. If I am wrong in that conclusion I would like to be set right. We are taking plain, straight business. It is not good business if it now costs $1.10 and you are going to make it cost $1.30 I point out that accepting your own statement, it means that you start a movement from St. John and run it from St. John down to the junction point on the American boundary-


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend wants to
be fair, perhaps. He knows the movement from St. John is not the movement of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. He is confining himself to whatever traffic may originate through St. John. He is not taking New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not ask
where everything was coming from.


George Perry Graham: Be fair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am trying to be fair.


George Perry Graham: I do not think the hon.
gentleman is trying to be fair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked my
hon. friend whether the object of this undertaking was to take traffic from St. John to the junction shown on the map laid on the table.


George Perry Graham: I answered that. My hon. friend again intimates that the object of this railway is for the sole purpose of taking traffic that originates in St. John. It is not anything of the kind. It is to make a short route for the traffic from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to the New England market.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: A small fraction will
go through St. John.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know. Perhaps there is some other reason for it but the farther this goes on the worse I think it is, simply because my hon. friend is saying that I say something which I do not say at all. He tells me frankly one of the reasons for the work is to boost St. John.


George Perry Graham: I did not say anything
of the kind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we will have to get our information right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I asked the minister a
question, and I do not think he gave me a very frank answer. I pointed out that this proposed line referred to in the resolution connected at the boundary of the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick at a point called Vanceboro with a proposed American line. I pointed out that that American line

the Boston and Maine-


George Perry Graham: The Maine Central.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -was indicated on the
map to be the Canadian Pacific railway. I have a map published by my hon. friend's own government showing that. Further than that, I am informed-and I think, this is perfectly correct-that the Canadian Pacific Railway actually own the majority of stock of the American line. It being an American corporation all our lines operating in the States must operate under American charters. By the construction of the fourteen miles repeatedly referred to by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) to the point at Harvey, you can deliver the Canadian National traffic to exactly the same railway, the same operators and save to the country the construction of the difference between 14 and 41 miles.

C.N.R. Branch Lines


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The basis
of my hon. friend's argument is that the Canadian Pacific control the Boston and Maine railway. I would like to know what authority he has for that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Maine
Central.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is
controlled by the Boston and Maine, and the Boston and Maine is a national enterprise in which the state has a share. All the Canadian Pacific has to do with it is that it runs from Vanceboro to a point at which its own line diverges north.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that. It
amounts to the same thing. They operate in Maine and in the province of New Brunswick. The Canadian Pacific Railway operate their own trains. The traffic is not turned^ over to the American corporation, and the Canadian Pacific control a substantial portion of the stock of that railway, or the bulk of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Can the
hon. gentleman give us any evidence of that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not carry it around
in my pocket.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is
no evidence of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I contend there is. As a
matter of fact, I think it is shown in the last annual statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not have it under my hand;
I expect to have it in a very few moments, but the map I am referring to shows quite clearly the Canadian Pacific railway in the state of Maine. It is the main thoroughfare of the Canadian Pacific Railway at that point coming into the province of New Brunswick.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend argues
that because the Canadian Pacific Railway is marked on the map to run over the Maine Central, that consequently it controls the Maine Central. Will he say that the fact that the New York car that leaves here on the Canadian National runs over the Boston and Maine for part of the trip to New York constitutes control of the Boston and Maine?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I did not say that.
The hon. gentleman is not quoting me correctly at all, but I do say that the Canadian National could deliver their traffic to the Canadian Pacific railway at a point called Harvey, which would require the construction of only 14 miles of railway in New Brunswick instead of 41 miles; in other words, it would save to this country nearly a million and
a half dollars, and would accomplish the same result. If we were preventing the accomplishment of the object of this resolution, my hon. friend the minister might be able to present some argument, but we are not preventing that at all. The only thing we are asking is that the minister and the railway company shall not impose upon the country another duplication of about 30 miles of railway where it is absolutely unnecessary. We are not asking the government to forego this proposition altogether. We are not suggesting that a certain service shall not be rendered, but we do suggest that we shall not waste a million and a half dollars in giving identically the same service as could be provided by the construction of the 14 miles. I do not think there is the slightest question of this. It does not follow that because the part operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway is in the state of Maine and is under an American charter with a different name, that it is not controlled by the Canadian Pacific Radway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nor does it follow that it is controlled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact I am informed by the best authority that it is controlled by the Canadian Pacific. I would be justified in asking the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who is rather crossexamining me on evidence, what evidence he has that it is not controlled.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I come from that part of the country, and I have travelled over the railway long before the Canadian Pacific railway ever used to run from Matawamkeag to Megantic. I know from my connection with that part of the country that the Maine Central runs from Vanceboro where it joins the Boston and Maine, and is controlled by the Boston and Maine Railway, and nobody in my part of the country ever suggested, that the Canadian Pacific Railway owned any part of it.	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the hon. minister does not suggest that that is evidence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is a fact.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not as good evidence as I have in my hand. I produce a map published by the government of which the hon. minister is a member, and I think I have the " edge " on him. As far as reason and logic are concerned, I think my hon. friend is virtually out of court.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member is very adroit.
C.N.R. Branch Lines


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister cannot escape this fact: That by the construction of 14 miles of railway for $600,000 he can give just as good service, and overcome the present handicap, granting there is a handicap, and accomplish just as much as he will obtain by spending $2,123,000 and building 41 miles of railway. My argument is that if we can save a million here or a million there and give adequate and reasonable service, then by all means we ought to save that million and a quarter.
Let me say, at the outset, to my hon. friends to my left that I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the branch line projects on the prairies. I know that some of those lines will pay. I believe many of those lines are necessary, and I am prepared when we come to them, I will not say to support every one of them, but as we get the proper information and examine < them, to support those which are really essential. I do not think there should be any proposition of bargaining on these railway bills. That is, my hon. friends have no need to fear on our part that a certain line in the prairies will not be supported if they do not support a certain line in another section of the country. Let these lines stand on their own merits and let us examine them on their merits. If there is real merit in them, let us support them. The very thing that killed1 the Branch Lines bill last year, the omnibus bill that was brought in covering all those lines, was the government thinking that by putting into the bill in certain lines that were necessary, that were desirable and certain lines that were perhaps warranted, those lines would carry the heavy load of unwarranted and unnecessary lines in other parts of the country. That is the situation. My desire is that we should examine each one of these resolutions, each one of these bills on its merits. I want to say to the minister that there is no reflection on him if, in the examination of these things, there is a marked difference of opinion about certain portions of some of these lines. He should not take this as a personal affront, as a life-and-death matter for the government, as if the government must go out of business and all that sort of stuff, if we do not pass this resolution. Surely we can come into this House and examine these things on their merits. Let me repeat to the minister my request, because I seem to see in his countenance a little softening. That hard look that was there a few minutes ago is passing away.
I know my hon. friend, who has had a hard day, was almost losing his temper.


George Perry Graham: The only thing that makes an Irishman get a little cross is for some one to accuse him either of being an informer or of not being frank. My hon. friend accused me of not being frank when I gave him an answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think my hon. friend was quite frank with me.


George Perry Graham: Then he has a right to get his fur up again.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me in all seriousness again bring this point to the minister's attention. It does not matter particularly whether the Canadian Pacific actually own that railway or not. The question is that from a point in Maine distant from the boundary, this line is operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway. If we can save $1,500,000 by constructing only the fourteen miles of railway to Harvey instead of the forty-one to Vance-boro, I submit to the committee that we ought to construct only the fourteen miles and save the $1,500,000.


Robert James Manion: I wish once again to
emphasize what I started with and what the hon.. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has supported. The reason I do so is because the more I have listened to the discussion of various members of the House, the more I am convinced, and I believe the more the minister is convinced also, that the fourteen-mile proposition is a good one. If you look at any of the railways of this country, you will find what we have all said again and again exists. We have to-day throughout the country too many parallel lines running side by side. Since I made my remarks a few minutes ago, I have looked at a map of the proposed line, and I find that the fourteen-mile line would bring the Canadian National line down to the Canadian Pacific. The forty-one mile line would bring it down on a bias, so that it would gradually get closer to the Canadian Pacific, and at the end1 of the forty-one miles it would join up with the same American line as that with which the Canadian Pacific joins up. What is the difference between having the 'Canadian National run fourteen miles and then join with the Canadian Pacific, and run forty-one miles and join with an American line, even supposing the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is wrong and the Boston and Maine railway is not controlled by the Canadian Pacific? I think it would be better to construct the fourteen-

C.N.R. Branch Lines
mile line and connect with the Canadian Pacific. In other words, the memorandum says that we would get running rights over the Canadian Pacific and we would have exactly the same rights. I remember in my own city, the old Grand Trunk Pacific line ran a passenger train into Fort William over the Canadian Pacific. In other words, they had running rights, and there was no more opportunity for them to lose cars with those running rights than if they had their own lines. They ran into the Canadian Pacific station, the same station.
There appears to be a certain amount of false pride that makes whoever is advocating this forty-one mile line advocate it, where a fourteen-mile line would bring about the same results. The minister would be well advised to report progress and to come back to-morrow with a bill, whichever one he wants to bring in. If he gives the question serious thought and does what I think he will do, he will decide that it is in the best interest of the country to bring in a bill for the construction of the fourteen-mile line. Every corporation, every municipality in this country to-day, which finds itself overburdened with capital debt, is cutting down capital expenditure. My own city-and I ask the pardon of the House for mentioning personal things, but I know more about my own city than about others-found a few years ago that its capital debt and taxes were pretty high and that it was spending too much money. It immediately did what I think was the wisest thing in its history. About ten years ago, about the time of the breaking out of the war, it began to cut down capital expenditure, and' it has been cutting out capital expenditure as far as possible with very excellent results. That is what every sane business organization is doing; but we have to-day the Canadian National Railways, which has a bigger deficit than any other corporation in the country, coming forward with a proposal to'build branch lines at an estimated cost of about $30,000,000, which, I think, will cost in the neighbourhood of $60,000,000 before they are completed.


William Richard Motherwell: Make it a hundred
million dollars like last year.


Robert James Manion: If the Minister of Agriculture had the handling of the matter, I am sure he would make it a hundred million dollars, if we are to judge by the past record of his department since he began to handle it. I repeat what I was saying, that the
Canadian National Railways should certainly cut down its capital expenditure, the same as other corporations, municipalities, and business organizations in this country are doing. The minister should, I think, report progress, take back his bill and give it further consideration. I am sure if he does, he will bring in a bill for the construction of the fourteen-mile line, and I would not be surprised, if he gives the matter serious consideration, if he does not bring in a bill at all.


Mr. McCONICA:: I have listened to this
discussion with a good deal of interest. Needless for me to say, my constituency is not particularly interested, but the proposition, as I understand it, now is: Shall we build forty-one miles or fourteen miles of railway?


Robert James Manion: And get the same results.


Thomas Henry McConica: And get the same results? That is a thing that we cannot determine. What we want is the result. Supposing we pass a bill to build fourteen miles of railway and our Canadian Pacific friends say: "No, gentlemen, we do not want anything to do with you," and they will make no arrangement, what happens? We have nothing. That is the fact of the matter. If we pass this bill for the forty-one miles of railway, then you are in a position to talk to the Canadian Pacific about a running arrangement over their road. If you do not do that, you will get no running arrangement unless they get the long end of the deal. As this matter appears to me, we have 2,600 miles of railway gathering freight throughout all that eastern country, and they can haul it down to within forty-one miles of the place to which it is to be delivered. There they turn it over to another railroad, and that railroad takes it to its destination. Is it good business to control that freight to its destination? It seems to me that it is and that it is a business proposition. It has been said that we do not receive enough information in this House. Is it anybody's hope that we shall be able to come to a conclusion, each one from first-hand knowledge and from what he knows himself? I do not think so. We must take the judgment of the men who have all the facts, and the experience to weigh those facts.


Robert James Manion: Did my hon. friend not hear the minister read a memorandum from the officers of the railways in which it is stated that they would get running rights?


Thomas Henry McConica: They will if they can.


Robert James Manion: No; they say that they will.

C.N.R. Branch Lines


Thomas Henry McConica: Well, they will before they build the 14 miles; I know that. But they cannot know whether they can get a running arrangement until they are in a position to do business. If they are authorized to build the 41 miles I would suggest that they stand a very much better chance of getting an arrangement in connection with the 14 miles. When that is done then they will be in a position to approach the Canadian Pacific Railway on equal terms. Personally, I cannot hope to be able in this House to come to an intelligent conclusion, from firsthand knowledge and from my experience with railway building, as to whether any of these lines should be built or not. We must depend upon those men who have the experience and know the facts. They are the officers of the Canadian National Railways and we all know that they have recommended that the line be built. It seems to me a sensible thing to make the connection between these two points and I certainly think we have spent enough time discussing this proposition. I hope the resolution will carry.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it the legal opinion of the government that running rights can be obtained for this line through the Board of Railway Commissioners?


George Perry Graham: I do not know that I am in a position to give a legal opinion on the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An argument is based upon it.


George Perry Graham: I said, a legal opinion. The Board of Railway Commissioners can give running rights upon terms to be decided by them; but, as has been explained by the hon. member who has taken his seat, if certain conditions are in existence much better terms can be made for running rights between the points under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: I presume the minister
will admit that in the interval between last session and the present time he has dropped some 200 miles of contemplated railways.


George Perry Graham: There have been some new lines included while some have been dropped. Some of the lines in the West have been dropped for the reason that, the bill having been thrown out, the territory which the projected Canadian National branch lines would have occupied is now otherwise in use. Consequently those particular lines have had to be abandoned.


Arthur Meighen: Where does that
apply?


George Perry Graham: I cannot recall just
where; there were two or three western lines. I believe there was one route dropped between Kelvington and Tisdale.


Arthur Meighen: What mileage is accounted for by that?


William Richard Motherwell: Sixty-nine.-


Arthur Meighen: Sixty-nine, which the
Canadian Pacific Railway has filled in the meantime. What accounts for the balance of some 130 or 137?


George Perry Graham: I did not make a
memorandum of the mileage that was dropped but I will submit a statement showing that.


Mr. BAXTER:: I want to make just a few remarks before the resolution is carried. Some years ago a scheme similar to this was projected by Mr. Gutelius when he was manager of the Intercolonial railway, but this one seems to be in a different location. There seems also to be some question as to whether a shorter or a longer line is necessary or advisable. There is no question as to the power of the Railway Commission in this matter, and in practice there has been no question in regard to the making of arrangements between the two railways. As a matter of fact one exists to-day in relation to a- piece of road from Westfield, IS miles from the city of St. John, over which running rights have been given to what is commonly known as the Valley railway and technically known as the St. John and Quebec Railway. There was no difficulty in making an arrangement in this regard, and the power of the Railway Commission was not invoked. The railways came together, and the Valley railway, which is operated by the Canadian National railways, runs over 15 miles of the Canadian Pacific railway line. Had the Canadian Pacific Railway refused to come to terms the Railway Commission would have done justice in the matter.	.
I want to emphasize the railway situation as it exists in New Brunswick. Years ago the National Transcontinental line was built with the very best object in view, but it was carried diagonally across the province, and it has not to any practical extent benefited what it was intended to benefit, the port of Halifax in the province of Nova Scotia. Nor has it benefited to any extent the port of St. John in New Brunswick. Because of the location which was selected by the government of that day, it was thought by the people of New Brunswick to be necessary

C.N.R. Branch Lines
to build a route to serve exactly the portion of the province which the National Transcontinental failed to serve, and the province proceeded to build the St. John and Quebec railway. As all other enterprises were overtaken by stringent financial necessity caused by the war, so was this one, and the result is that the end near St. John is uncompleted so tjjat the road runs over the Canadian Pacific railway rails for 15 miles. The northern portion is also incomplete, and this road which was intended to have tapped the National Transcontinental at Grand Falls has never reached that point; it stops at a place called Centre. I wonder whether the Minister of Railways has been made aware that the amount of money which he projects for this line to reach the state of Maine would carry the St. John and Quebec railway from the present northern terminus to Grand Falls and connect with the National Transcontinental there. The arrangement which could be made, and which I think in the interests of the country ought to be made, would be to get the Canadian Pacific Railway to accept running rights over the railway which then would be owned partly by the province of New Brunswick and partly by the Dominion of Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway, instead of running its line through	the state of
Maine, would get better grades, with a slightly longer route, and would run entirely in the Maritime provinces within Canadian territory. The amount of money that would build	this	switchline would complete	this other	road,
and the province of New Brunswick, which to-day is carrying a deficit because the road is leased to the Dominion government on a forty per cent arrangement, has to take from its limited revenues $260,000 in order to square the accounts of the railway. It had in the previous year to make up a deficit of $250,000. This will go on, there is no relief in prospect, and yet by the expenditure of the sum that is proposed in the bill to-night the province might be relieved of that obligation and the Canadian National Railway would function as it ought to have functioned from the first in that province-by following the Valley railroad route instead of running diagonally across the province and conferring no benefit upon New Brunswick and practically none upon Nova Scotia. In other words, we are invited to build a line that will be of some service for a certain purpose, but I think only a limited service. If the country has so much money to spare, why does it not spend it in
New Brunswick where it would do the most good? If it wants to assist the people of the county of Carleton and Victoria, why does it not do so by carrying the Valley railway to the place it ought to reach? It would do infinitely more good to that section of the country than by building it where the government now proposes. I am sorry we have not to-day a statement from the responsible head of the Canadian National Railways system that the construction of this line is vital to the conduct of the business of the National road. When this is forthcoming I shall not oppose the project, for I would not put my railway opinion against the considered railway opinion of the head of the road. But I want to know very definitely that that is the view of a practical railway man, and that the vote is for railway purposes, not merely a portion of the pork barrA for my own province. I am not going to vote for the expenditure of money in my own province unless I am satisfied of the useful results that will probably flow from it. I am prepared, and have suggested to the government, a mode of spending the money which will indubitably produce useful results and will relieve the province of a very serious burden. The government must take the responsibility of spending this money in which direction they choose;
I have made my position as clear as it is possible for me to state it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26 respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Ivinigsclear and the St Croix river in the province of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. GRAHAM moved the adjournment of the House.



MR. SPEAKER-EXPLANATION

Hewitt Bostock: Before the House adjourns I feel in duty bound to give an explanation of the statement I made last night to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), a3 I think it might be misconstrued against him. When I said, "His explanation will serve him with his electors." I meant that his explanation would serve its purpose. I would be sorry if anyone should think that I did not treat the hon. gentleman with courtesy.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Questions

Wednesday, April 2, 1924