1927-02-14

NATURAL RESOURCES OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Ad-dington):: I have the honour to present
petitions signed by some 370 electors in British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario, asking for the transfer to the prairie provinces of their natural 'resources without restrictions; also other petitions signed by 2,700 electors of Alberta and by some 3,000 from Saskatchewan.



CROWN PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In conformity with
the request of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) last Tuesday, I lay on the table correspondence respecting payments made to the Crown Paving and Construction Company, Limited, in connection with the construction of the government grain elevator at Edmonton, and orders in council in relation thereto.



SALVATION ARMY IMMIGRATION WORK

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: I am prompted by what I read in
the newspapers to ask the Minister of Immigration what is his attitude towards the Salvation Army with regard to its immigration work.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration) :: That is a rather difficult question to answer. My attitude towards the Salvation Army with regard to its immigration work is the same as the attitude of the Immigration department towards all other organizations engaged in t'he same class of work.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. EVANS:: 1.	In regard to public purchasing and allotment of public contracts under federal government, what is the amount in dollars of purchases and contracts allotted: (a) total for year 1925-26, (b) total allotted under open competition, (c) total allotted departmentally, (d) total allotted under authority of the government contracts supervision committee ?
2.	In regard to the government contracts supervision committee, what is the present si-
Questions

tuation as to: (al extent of establishment, (b) cost of establishment, (c) nature of duties performed ?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I would
like to point out to Your Honour that although this question stands under Mr. Evans' name on the order paper, it is really the resolution which should stand under my name, Mr. Evans' question having been dropped. There is, I think, a mistake in the printing.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This morning I directed the attention of one of the officers of the House to what appeared to be a mistake. Mr. Evans' question was dropped altogether and should be reinstated. I understand he intends to reinstate it. The name of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken should appear against the question next on the order paper.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will question No. 1 be called?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will appear on the order paper to-morrow.


Edward Joseph Garland: But question No. 1 was declared to be dropped by the Speaker. Might I suggest it would be proper to call question No. 1 giving the name of Mr. Garland (Bow River)?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It would be better to
let it stand under the name of t'he hon. member for Bow River.


Hewitt Bostock: A similar question under the name of Mr. Garland (Bow River) was passed as an order for return last Thursday. Shall I still allow the question to stand?


Edward Joseph Garland: No. That is quite satisfactory.


Hewitt Bostock: Well, it is dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: I must explain to the
hon. gentleman that it is dropped as a question on the order paper but it stands as an order for return. This means business.


Edward Joseph Garland: Quite so.
I fully appreciate that the question is not dropped but stands as an order for return.


Hewitt Bostock: Exactly.


CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
Mr. CHEVRIER:: Did the Department of Justice pronounce upon the legality of a ruling of the Treasury board, dated the 17th December, 1926, reference No. T 118914 B, relating to the Civil Service superannuation of 1924, which provides for the confiscation of contributions in certain cases ?
	* ;


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: No. The question of legality does not arise. The power conferred by section 10, subsection 3, is discretionary and Treasury board is competent to determine under what circumstances its power to recommend shall be exercised.


PILOTAGE FEES
Mr. DICKIE:: 1.	Wli at are the pilotage fees paid by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessels operating into California ports?
2.	What are the pilotage fees paid by the United States coasting vessels operating into British Columbia ports?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	According to information in the Department of Marine and Fisheries the maximum pilotage rate at San Francisco is $2 per foot draught and 2 cents per registered ton-both inwards and outwards.
2.	The rate at New Westminster, B.C., is $1 per foot draught and one cent per registered ton-inwards and outwards.
Pilotage is not compulsory at the other ports in British Columbia where any fees charged for pilotage are determined by agreement between vessel owners and persons acting as pilots.


HASTINGS COUNTY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Mr. TUMMON:: 1.	When was the last geological survey made in Ontario covering the central part of Hastings county?
2.	Has the report of the above mentioned survey ever been published?
3.	If so, when?
4.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	An investigation of the fluorspar and talc deposits of Hastings county was commenced by the Geological Survey in 1920 and completed in 1925.
2.	Yes.
3.	A report - on the fluorspar deposits of this district was published in the Geological Survey summary report, 1920, part D. The talc deposits of Hastings county are dealt with in the report on the "Talc Deposits of Canada" (No. 2 Economic Geology Series) published in 1926. A map and report on the general geology of the region are now being prepared.


CANADIAN MINISTER AT WASHINGTON
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government decided to open a separate Canadian embassy at Washington, separate from the British embassy, and when

Questions
and at what estimated cost per annum for: (a) salaries; (b) maintenance; (c) capital or rent commitments ?
2.	What staff will be employed in this embassy ?	_
3.	Who is the ambassador appointed, for
what term and salary and allowances and what is his title?	_
4.	Will the embassy be opened before parliament has passed: (a) on the principle of such separate representation, or (b) funds voted in committee of supply for said office, and when will parliament have an opportunity of dealing with the matter?	_
5.	What functions and duties will be performed by the said embassy and the British embassy re Canada?
6.	Will the government lay on the table of the House all correspondence with the British and United States governments in the matter, or with other persons?
7.	To what other foreign countries will ambassadors be appointed?
8.	Will one be appointed to China to take care of Canadians and their property there in view of the trouble in the Far East?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	His Majesty has appointed a minister at Washington, with the special object of representing in the United States of America the interests of the Dominion of Canada. The minister will present his credentials to the President of the United States on February 18. Provision for the expenses of the legation was made in the estimates of 1926-27, and further provision will be included in the estimates for 1927-28, which will shortly be laid before parliament.
2.	The staff will probably consist of two first secretaries, a commercial secretary, a private secretary, and four clerks and stenographers.
3.	Hon. Yincent Massey has been appointed as minister, during His Majesty's pleasure. His salary will be $12,000 a year; house and representation allowance has not yet been definitely set. His title is "His Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington to represent the interests of the Dominion of Canada," or briefly, "the Canadian minister to the United States."
4.	No. Parliament has repeatedly considered the principle of special Canadian representation in the United States. On May 10, 1920, the Acting Prime Minister, Sir George Foster, announced in the House of Commons that "as a result of recent discussion an arrangement has been concluded between the British and Canadian governments to provide more complete representation of Canadian interests than has hitherto existed." On April 21, 1921, in committee of supply, during a discussion of an appropriation for Canadian representation in the
United States, Sir Robert Borden gave a comprehensive survey of the development of opinion and policy on this question from 1870 to 1921. Provision for the expenses of such Canadian representation has been included in the estimates each year since and including 1919-20, and approved in all ,cases by parliament.
5.	The minister will be charged with the duty of advancing the interests of Canada in the United States and will serve as the ordinary channel of communication with the United States government.
6.	A notice of motion has already been given calling for a return of certain documents and correspondence in connection with the appointment of the minister.
7.	No other appointments of ministers are under consideration at the present time.
8.	Answered under No. 7.


LONDON RADIO INSPECTOR
Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint a radio inspector for London, Ontario, and vicinity?
2.	If so, when is the appointment likely to be made?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes. For London and district.
2.	In the immediate future.


ADVANCES TO CANADIAN BANKS
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Does the Finance minister make advances on securities to the Canadian banks at the present time as was the practice under the supplement to the Finance Act of 1914?
2.	If so, is it to be understood that the section of the Finance Act of 1914 which made provision for giving advances on securities to the banks, is still acted upon?


James Alexander Robb: Advances are now made under the Finance Act, 1923.


STANLEY BARRACKS FIRE
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Has the government been informed of a fire which occurred in the stables of Stanley barracks, in the present month?
2.	Has any investigation been made as to the cause of the fire in which horses and equipment were lost?
3.	What was the total loss by fire, (a) to the government; (b) to others?
4.	To what extent, if any, is the loss covered by insurance?
5.	What was the cause of the fire?


Hon. Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A court of inquiry is proceeding with the investigation.
Questions

3.	Not yet established.
4.	Nil.
5.	Not yet established.


JUBILEE CELEBRATION OF CONFEDERATION
Mr. KAISER:: 1.	Does the government intend to appoint a committee to look after arrangements in connection with the jubilee celebration to be held in Ottawa during the coning summer?
2.	If so, when will same be appointed and what will be its scope?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I
might give a verbal answer to this question. The government has thought it advisable to follow with respect to the celebration of the diamond jubilee of confederation the plan that was adopted with respect to the Canadian patriotic fund, namely, to ask parliament to appoint a committee and to give that committee entire power to make all arrangements that are necessary in connection with the celebration. I have to-day given to the Clerk notice of a bill which will be presented to the House by resolution which will appear in to-day's Votes and Proceedings.


CANADIAN MINISTER AT WASHINGTON
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St.
George) moved for:
1.	A copy of the royal commission and instructions, if any, issued by His Majesty the King to Honourable Vincent Massey as Minister Plenipotentiary to represent the interests of Canada in the United States;
2.	A copy of each and every order in council passed by His Majesty the King in Council or by the Privy Council of Canada, requesting, authorizing or approving of the said appointment of the Honourable Vincent Massey as such Minister Plenipotentiary;
3.	A copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada or any minister of the government of Canada, with the Prime Minister of Great Britain or any minister or department of the government of Great Britain relating to the said appointment of the Honourable Vincent Massey as such Minister Plenipotentiary;
4.	A copy of any instructions issued by the government of Canada to the said Minister Plenipotentiary.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I can see
no objection to the motion carrying provided it is understood that wherever reference is made either to His Majesty the King in Council or to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, or the minister of any department of the government of Great Britain, the consent
IMr. Ralston.]
of either His Majesty in Council or of the minister concerned will be had in the first instance.


Mr. CAHAN:: That is quite satisfactory,
Mr. Speaker, if in the meantime, in order to assist us in our subsequent discussions when we come to take up the report of the Imperial conference, we might have such documents produced as are within the possession and at the disposal of the government of the Prime Minister of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be very pleased to see that my hon. friend's wishes in that particular are met. I think so far as our government is concerned, we can bring down immediately all the papers and I shall try and have them placed on the table tomorrow.
I might mention that I doubt very much if there is any order in council passed by His Majesty in Council, and I doubt if there has been any correspondence with the ministers in Great Britain, so I presume the return asked for will be virtually complete when we bring down our return.
I might mention, too, if my hon. friend will allow me, as he has asked for a copy of the royal commission and instructions, if any, issued by His Majesty the King, that in the case of an appointment of a minister His Majesty issues letters of credence, in this case the letter of credence is from His Majesty to the President of the United States, Mr. Coolidge. There is no commission. With my hon. friend's consent I will bring down a copy of the letter of credence that has been issued.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. II. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved for:
1.	A copy of the royal commission and instructions issued by His Majesty the King to His Excellency Lord Willingdon, as Governor General of Canada;
2.	A copy of each and every order in council passed by His Majesty in Council or by the Privy Council of Canada requesting, authorizing or approving the said appointment of His Excellency Lord Willingdon as Governor General of Canada and the issue of said commission and said instructions.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I should say
to my hon. friend what I said with respect to the previous motion. This motion refers to a copy of the orders in council passed by His Majesty in Council. The consent of the British government to the

Peace River Railway
production of any such would have to be obtained. I will see that inquiry is made at once.
I should add that inasmuch as this motion relates to a commission issued to His Excellency the present Governor General, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that, as a matter of courtesy, we might obtain His Excellency's consent as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved for:
A copy of all correspondence between the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister, and His Excellency the Governor General, Lord Byng, during the months of May and June last, relating directly or indirectly to dissolution of parliament on the advice of the said Prime Minister who then held office, the refusal of His Excellency the Governor General to grant such dissolution on the advice of said Prime Minister, and the subsequent resignations of said Prime Minister and the members of his ministry from the offices held by them respectively.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when this
matter was mentioned the other day by the hon. leader of the opposition, I pointed out that I would not wish to lay the correspondence on the table without the consent of Lord Byng. I immediately cabled to Lord Byng, and I have Lord Byng's consent in the matter of taking full liberty of action with respect to the correspondence. I just wish to repeat what I previously said when the correspondence was asked for by the leader of the opposition. I have no desire personally, nor has the government any diesire, to reopen an incident which has been closed, we think very satisfactorily, but which may be reopened in a discussion of this correspondence. If it is laid on the table of the House, as I am prepared to do immediately, it is being laid on the table because the opposition desire that this should be done. I consent to the order being oarried, Mr. Speaker, and beg leave to table the correspondence immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and correspondence tabled.

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for the commencement forthwith and the completion in the near future of a direct railway outlet from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast.
He said:	It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to detain the House at any great length on the subject matter of this motion, because it has been before the House, though not in this particular form, for the last four or five years.
The Peace river country lies in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, just east of the Rockies, and from four to seven hundred miles north of the international boundary. There is settled in that district approximately two million acres of land-two million acres of land as easily developed as any part of the prairie provinces, and with just as great possibilities as any other portion of like acreage anywhere within those provinces. It has been said that a great deal of this land is covered with bush. While there is a large part of the country covered with light brush, that is not true of the two million acres that is already settled. Approximately eighty per cent of this is simply covered with light bluffs and they are not in any sense a real detriment to the development of the country. That country is chiefly a farming country so far. We have, of course, the fishing industry. In Lesser Slave lake they have taken out as much as 1,200,000 pounds per annum. That quantity was reduced some years ago to one-half of that amount, because it was felt that 1,200,000 pounds annually was a little too heavy for the production of the lake. We have the lumbering industry, and there is a tremendous amount of timber. It has been estimated that in some districts not very far from Grande Prairie the amount of timber runs up into the billions of feet. It has been remarked by visitors who came into the country in 1910, when the rush of settlement started in that district, and by those who came in in later years after the war, that there was more permanent development in the Peace river country during that period than possibly in any other section of the prairie provinces in the same length of time. This is partly accounted for by the fact that there is timber in the country and it provides cheap material -to build homes. It is also accounted for by the fact that a country where the land is rich and where there is a reasonable number of trees tends to encourage people to develop homes, rather -than to make them merely speculators who prove up, then sell their lands and go elsewhere.
It has been said by a large number of people who have studied immigration and the settlement of the country that there are always three classes of settlers, first, the homesteader, then the man who buys from the homesteader and develops the land and lastly, the farmer.
Peace River Railway

So far as the Peace river country is concerned that is not so. After the war, of course, we had deflation. In the years 1922 and 1924 we had dry seasons. These two factors made for U3 possibly as difficult times as any part of the country ever had, and a large number-of people left the country, but in only very few cases did the original pioneers leave. They are practically all there stall. It is not surprising, possibly, in view of the fact that most of them went into the country over a trail three hundred miles long, which was jokingly referred to once by an Irishman as a " mud canal ". We think most of the settlers who would have proved inefficient as actual settlers did not get to the country at all. We have a population there to-day of approximately 20,000. The main industry, of course, is farming. We are located an average distance of about 1,600 miles from the head of the lakes. We are located geographically within 800 miles of the Pacific ports, but an order -to get to the Pacific ports we have to travel by railway a distance of 1,200 or 1,300 miles. There has been a rather intensive agitation for a direct connection with the Pacific coast during the last five years. That agitation has had some effect. We have received a great deal of support from the newspapers, and may I say that we have received very excellent support from the Southam press last year, Mr. Southam and some of his editors took a trip up through the Peace river country and gave us some veiy excellent publicity.
The country is served by the Edmonton, Dun vegan and British Columbia railway, which runs northwest for a distance of 300 or 400 miles into t'he Peace river country. Up until November 1926 the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia was operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway. In November 1926 it was taken over by the provincial government and is now operated by the provincial government through its Department of Railways and in close association or affiliation with the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National is the railway which can give us proper connection with the Pacific coast, because they can give us the direct connection that we ask for by the construction of approximately 168 miles up to 200 miles. I know that is the minimum mileage. But the country is well served to-day, or would be, with the construction of say another 400 miles of construction by branch railways. That is the settled portion of it, and if we had in addition to that a direct connection with the coast we would have a loop or semicircle formed by the road running northwest from Edmonton and that running southwest

to the British Columbia coast. I have said that this agitation has 'been carried on for four or five years and we have heard declarations made by public men in the west regarding this Peace river outlet. It has been the chief plank in the platform of both Liberal and Conservative candidates in the Peace river constituency in the last two elections. We have had statements regarding the Peace river railway from the Prime Minister in the city of Edmonton, as well as from Mr. Meighen when he was leader of the opposition. I have here the statement made by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King in Edmonton and reported in the Edmonton Bulletin on November 11th, 1924, and I quote the following:
King pledges self to the Peace river cause.
These are merely headings.
Premier promises outlet to Pacific;
Just as soon as humanly possible.
Railway will be built, declares Prime Minister, at mass meeting here.
Government has but minority in Commons; says times are now difficult and everybody must have a little patience, but Liberal party is not falling down on any of its pledges.
Here is the direct quotation:
"It is the policy of the government of which I have the honour to be the head to introduce a vigorous policy of immigration which will people the vast areas of undeveloped country in the great west," declared the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Premier of Canada, when addressing mass meeting of citizens in the First Presbyterian church last night.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is the date?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: October 11th, 1924, at
the First Presbyterian church in Edmonton. The quotation continues:
There is to the north of this city a great tract of land that is crying out for development. The Peace river country is amongst the richest in Canada, but before the proper development of that country can take place an outlet to the Pacific coast is an absolute necessity. I pledge myself that as soon as it is humanly possible the great Peace river country will be given that measure of railway relief that will bring to the pioneers of that country the outlet they have been so long denied and will open up the country for prospective settlers. I must, however, sound the same note to you here as I did to the citizens of Saskatoon. The times that we are passing through are very difficult, and I would ask you to have a little patience and in as short a time as possible a railway outlet will be provided for Peace river and northern Alberta districts that will open up an era of prosperity for that country which will not be equalled by any other province in Canada.
A "little patience" in 1924 and the railway would be built "as soon as humanly possible". That is a very sweeping statement and I think I am safe in saying thait the terms of my

Peace River Railway
motion are strictly within the terms of this pledge given by the right hon. Prime Minister at Edmonton in 1924.
Mr. Meighen made a trip west and he also said something regarding the Peace river outlet. This quotation is from Mr. Meighen's speech delivered at Edmonton October 1, 1925, and is taken from the literature of the Conservative candidate, in 1925, Mr. Collins:
X have always urged that the north country should have railway relief. I cannot be accused of making futile promises such as the Hon. Mackenzie King promised in the speech from the throne at the opening of the last session of parliament when he stated that he was going to give railway relief to the north country, and nothing has been done. This great question has been sidetracked by Senate reform, which subject has been discussed for forty years.
I may say that on the strength of that statement Mr. Collins, promised, not one outlet but two-one east of the mountains and one west. The Liberal candidate in 1926 -and I am sure the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will recognize his picture- said this:
Pacific Coast Outlet: I consider this is the only solution for the financial difficulties of the people of the northern part of this riding, and I will do my utmost to get some definite action on it if elected. . . . For years the Peace river country has suffered the iniquity of oppressive freight rates and lack of transportation facilities. For years the northern people have valiantly tolerated these conditions and have fought with great tenacity for their removal. In a measure they have been successful, but much yet remains to be done. The coast connection alone stands between the Peace river people and wholesale prosperity.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you do
yourself?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: (continuing reading):
At this election your vote will decide whether that measure of prosperity will accrue to you now or never in this generation. Weigh these bald facts, Mr. Voter. Do not lose sight of the fact that if we secure a coast connection it will be the Canadian National that will furnish it. Do not lose sight of the fact that Mackenzie King appointed Sir Henry Thornton, and that the Liberal government's courageous policy of national ownership has revealed a most astounding success.
What about myself, the hon. member asks. Neither in 1925 nor in 1926 did I promise more than I am doing at the present time. I stated that I was quite satisfied with the Right Hon. Mackenzie King's declaration of 1924, and would do my best to see that he lived up to it. That is my purpose in bringing forward this resolution.
It is fair, I think, to state that the federal government settled the Peace river country. A lot of people have asked why we were
foolish enough to go back three hundred miles from a railway. Well, at that time the lands were thrown open by the Dominion government, that is, in 1910, 1911 and 1912. Both Liberal and Conservative governments helped to settle that country. The ministers of the interior under those respective governments were the Hon. Frank Oliver and the Hon. Robert Rogers. There was a survey made of the Canadian Northern railway that ran northwest from Edmonton and right through Grande Prairie, across the mountains and out somewhere to the Pacific coast. I myself saw men in 1912 buying right-of-way in Grande Prairie, and they said three years was the limit we would have to wait for a railway.
So far as I am aware the entire expenditures of the federal government towards supplying that country with railway facilities is a grant of $5,000 a mile in connection with the line running from Spirit river down to Grande Prairie, a distance of some 50 or 60 miles, representing approximately $300,000. The provincial government has spent in the neighbourhood of $19,000,000 in providing railway facilities for that country. The federal government saddled the province with the responsibility, and I think it is up to the federal government to assume some further obligation with regard to the continued development of the Peace river district. The railways in the province of Alberta run northwest almost to the boundary of the province, and the only railway facilities the settlers have on the British Columbia side is the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway. The Alberta government cannot be expected to build railways through British Columbia. In addition to the grant of $300,000 that I have mentioned-that is not the exact sum, but it is approximately correct -the federal government voted $50,000 in 1923 for a survey of the various routes from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast, and in 1924 it voted an additional $75,000.
In 1925 we had tabled in this House the joint report of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific engineers who were sent out to make a survey of the country in order to ascertain what would be the most economical route to build and operate, particularly with the view of avoiding duplication. That joint report is somewhat canny and careful in its recommendations, but its authors go so far as to admit that the railway is justified. Unquestionably there is enough territory there to justify these transportation "facilities. There is a rich territory to be served, and it will be a revenue producer to the Canadian National Railway system. Indeed I do not know of
Peace River Railway

any better revenue producing territory for the Canadian National main line running from Edmonton to Prince Rupert than the Peace river country. In 1914 the first car of wheat was shipped from the north side of the Peace river. The wheat was grown in my own district. In 1921 about two and a half million bushels of grain were shipped out; in 1923 about three and a half million bushels; in 1926 it is estimated that about six million bushels have been hauled out. In addition to that the wheat is generally of very high quality. If there was ever any doubt at all about the possibilities of Peace River, it was surely dissipated last year, because Herman Trelle at Wembley near the present terminus of the Edinontonr-Dunvegan railway, captured the sweepstakes at Chicago m both wheat and oats, this being the first occasion on which one farmer has ever done that in the history of that grain show. This is the second time that Pence River has secured the sweepstakes in wheat, the first occasion being m 1883 when wheat from a district north of Peace Raver won .the first prize at a fair in Philadelphia.
There is an interesting report by Mr. Macoun, published in Ottawa on December 15, 1903, illustrating how pessimistic people can be sometimes regarding the future possibilities of a country. This gentleman was sent to make a survey of the Peace river district, and the impression he conveys in this article is shared, I think, :by many people throughout Canada even to-day. Many people still have the same feeling regarding the Peace river country. It is so far away, so near the north pole that there -must be something wrong with it. This report was not distributed. I believe it was suppressed by the minister of that day, and it was well that it was because it nas been shown to be entirely wrong. This is what he said:
While the country that has been described should, m the opinion of the writer, not be settled by either the rancher or the grower of wheat until there is more satisfactory evidence that it is suited for either of these pursuits, it may be safely prophesied that after railways have been built there will be only a very small part of it that will not afford homes for hardy northern people, who never having had much will be satisfied with little. It is emphatically a poor man's country, a country where any hard-working man may, in a few years, gather around him a few head of stock-horses, cattle and hogs-where he will be able to grow vegetables and in most years barley and oats and sometimes even wheat. But it will be many years before anything can be grown for export, even with good transport facilities. The building of the railway will lead to the development of the mines in northern British Columbia, and these mines will afford a market for beef and pork at least; but until there is some such mar-
ket, cash will be very scarce. During the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, there will of course be a ready market for any produce grown near the route it will follow, but such a market cannot last more than a year or two and the demand for food products will cease when the road is completed.
I have often thought of that statement when reading the engineers' report, and I will refer to it a little later. I have already said that we have 2,000,000 acres of settled land in the Peace river country, of which 150,000 acres are under cultivation. This year we have produced about 6,000,000 bushels of grain for export. The province of Alberta has about 29,000,000 acres settled, and in 1924 there were about ten or eleven million acres under cultivation, from which the province produced something like 131,000,000 bushels of gram, about half of that being wheat. I have said before that the 2,000,000 acres settled in the Peace river country can be developed just as easily as the 29,000,000 acres settled in Alberta, if not more easily, and with a reasonable and steady price for wheat, if the wheat pool lasts, you will see a wonderful development in that part of the Dominion.
The engineers' report goes on to state that we should wait until there is sufficient tonnage in the Peace river country to justify the railway. Well, there never would have been a railway built in Canada-at least, few would have been built-if we had always taken that attitude towards railway construction. Certainly the Canadian Pacific was not built under any such restriction, nor was the Grand Trunk Pacific nor the Canadian Northern. The fact is that settlement and railway development must proceed together if we are to have a healthy and reasonable development of the country. It has often been said that a large program of railway construction has led us into great difficulties. It was not the railway construction but the wrong location of the railways, and extravagance in connection with the building of them. I do not think there is a mile too much of railway in Canada to-day. The railways, are located in a great many instances in the wrong places.
There are three routes recommended by the engineers' report. One route is by Obed, running south from the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, east of the mountains. It would use the Edmonton-Dunvegan section of the railway running up through Grande Prairie and the Central Canada railway, which is a branch of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, as the branch line system for the present. That route is about 200 miles shorter to Pacific ports than the present route. The route that has been surveyed through Monk-

Peace River Railway
man pass, and which does not call for a larger expenditure than the completed Obed route, would bring the whole Peace river country within about 800 to 890 miles of the Pacific coast and is nearly 400 miles shorter than the present route. I do not think it is an economical proposition for the country to haul freight 1,200 miles when the freight can be landed at Pacific ports, where a great deal of it goes anyway, by hauling it a distance of 800 miles.
We are doing a lot of work for nothing. That may be a good policy for people who believe that the great thing in the world is work, but most of us believe that the best thing is to get things done with as little labour as possible. I am not going to argue for any specific route, but I say to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) that in my opinion he could very well examine more closely the Monkman and the Pine pass routes. The survey to-day is merely a temporary one, and I think the mileage obtainable both to Peace River and to Prince Rupert justifies that survey. It means a difference, from one or two of the main points in Peace River, of 400 miles to Prince Rupert as compared with the present route.
With regard to the question of immigration there is a good deal of propaganda in Canada to-day. The suggestion is that we should have more immigrants. If you will go back to the time when we were getting a -lot of immigrants, from 1900 to 1913 and 1914, you will find that we had a very strenuous record in the matter of railway construction. In 1900 we had 17,000 miles of railway and to this was added in 1901, 483 miles; and we kept on increasing our annual program of railway construction until 1914 when nearly 5,000 miles were constructed. You will find that during the years when construction was heavy immigration also was heavy. From 1914 to 1918 we had the war and practically no immigration or railway construction, but since then, in 1920, 1921, 1920 and 1923, we have constructed two hundred or three hundred miles of railway annually, and it seems to me that that is a wrong policy with a railway program. Just because we went to extremes in the years previous to 1914, if indeed that is our conclusion, is no reason why we should swing back and say we will not do anything in future, or that we will do as little as possible. If it is worth while to settle the country with new immigrants, and the vast majority of them will go where they can get free land, free land in the Peace river district is possibly more attractive to-day than anywhere on the North American continent, and it will be much more attractive when
this Pacific coast outlet is constructed. I think it reasonable to say that the construction of the railway and the settlement of the country must go on together; we will not get the country settled as fast as we would like, without the railway.
We are asking to-day what is the matter with the steel industry; a report has been made to this House stating that bounties and tariff's may be necessary to save our steel industry. If you look at the railway mileage constructed in each of the years from 1919 to 1924, there can be no question that we have there at least one explanation of the difficulties of the steel industry in Canada to-day, and that is another illustration of the fact that you cannot halt a certain line of activity without the result reaching back to other industries as well. If we are going to do anything to help industry in this country it should be along the line of a reasonable development of our natural resources, because I believe that, trade is better than tariffs, and business is better than bounties.
With regard to the Peace river outlet there can be no question of development; the country is there, the business will be there, and I think the project is justified from every angle.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations to make, but I assumed that some others of those supporting the resolution desired to speak before I made any statement in regard to it. If that is not the case I am prepared to go on now for a few moments, by way of information.
I think possibly exception might be taken to the resolution itself as being of doubtful order, inasmuch as its language would commit the House to an immediate and considerable expenditure of money. I do not propose to raise that question, which might be debatable; I do not assert that it is definitely out of order, but the point is at least questionable. The reason I do not desire to raise the point of order is that I think it desirable that an hon. member elected from a constituency so peculiarly situated as is the constituency of Peace River, should have full opportunity to place before his colleagues in parliament the situation of his people with respect to railway transportation.
My hon. friend quoted at some length the statements of various political leaders with regard to the question of an outlet westward for the people of Peace river. The question as I understand it is not so much one of bringing railway facilities nearer to settlers, but is rather a question of securing access to the Pacific coast on a shorter mileage than
Peace River Railway

now exists on the railroad already in existence. It is not by any means the ordinary branch line question; that is usually a question of getting railway facilities of some kind within reasonable reach of the people in the district concerned. This problem, I repeat, is one of giving access to the western coast of this country to people who are in a large measure now served by railroad facilities, but which run, so far as they are concerned, in the wrong direction.
My hon. friend referred to certain statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister in 1924, and I think in fairness he might have gone on to say that subsequently in 1924, or early in 1925, a conference was held in the office of my predecessor, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, at which were present not only representatives from the district in question but also Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways; Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the then Prime Minister of Alberta, a gentleman of the same political faith as my hon. friend. The purpose of the conference was to determine the best way of intelligently attacking this problem of a western outlet for the Peace river country, and I think I am correct in saying that the conference agreed upon the examination of the question by a joint body of engineers responsible both to the Canadian National Railways and to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway was due to the fact that at that time they were the lessees of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, which is owned by the province of Alberta and which serves the people to whom my hon. friend has been referring. As a result of that conference a detailed examination by engineers took place, and I have here their report, which was tabled in the House last session and was available to all members. It contains a good deal of interesting information with respect to the problem now under discussion, and I know that my hon. friend was surprised at some of the facts which were developed.
Sir Henry Thornton is very enthusiastic about the future possibilities of the Peace river country. I believe in its agricultural possibilities myself; I think it will develop into one of Canada's richest agricultural areas. Its possibilities from the standpoint of quality were well set out by my hon. friend when he pointed out to the House that the winner of the world's prize for wheat and oats at Chicago in 1926 was a farmer of the Peace river area, in his own riding. The agricultural possibilities of the area are

undoubtedly proven, but I think my hon. friend will also agree with me when I say that the problem is not in the main one of branch line construction to serve settlers now farming there. Only a Relatively limited number of the farmers are now a long distance from existing lines of transportation, and the problem is really one of providing a more economical way to the markets of the world for those situated within reasonable distance of those existing lines of transportation. I want to qualify that by saying that, as the engineers' report demonstrates, there is undoubtedly need for some further branch line construction on the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia system in order to enable the country to fully develop, in order to assist in its settlement and encourage immigrants, but in the main the problem is one of providing a more economical outlet to the people already there and within a reasonable distance of the existing lines of railway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. gentleman
give us the number of that return in order that we may identify it for further study?


Mr. DUNNING:: I am sorry that the copy I have is not numbered, but I will see that my hon. friend is supplied with a copy. I spoke of Sir Henry Thornton's enthusiasm in regard to the district in question. This is an extract from a letter which he wrote me under date of December 20, 1926, regarding this matter:
You are aware that a couple of years ago I made a trip through the Peace river country and came back much enthused with respect to its productivity and the desirability of providing a more suitable outlet. After some discussion the engineers of the Canadian Pacific and our own railway made a joint report, dated February 26, 1925, and this report is on file in the archives of the department. The conclusions were disappointing, at least to me, as the amount of money involved far exceeded that which the traffic would justify.
Under the present arrangement, as you know the province of Alberta is operating the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway in conformity with the traffic arrangement with the Canadian National railways. I think that for the time being this provides all of the transportation facilities which may be required, and you will note that such reductions in freight rates have been made as would seem to serve the immediate necessities of the Peace river country. In view of the large amount of money involved, I think we should allow the present arrangement to run for three years and see how it works out.
I do not want to weary the House with details in regard to the engineers' report on the project, but in reviewing it we should bear in mind what the motive of the people now living along the line of the Edmonton, Dunvegan

Peace River Railway
and British Columbia railway is. Why do they want a western outlet? My hon. friend says that they want a western outlet because it would be some 400 miles shorter. That is, I think, correct. By at least one of the routes proposed some 400 miles are apparently saved in the distance to the Pacific coast as compared with the distance via Edmonton. The hope of every one concerned undoubtedly was that this saving of 400 miles in distance would result in an economy to the people now farming, now doing business in the area referred to. To put the matter briefly, they want the western outlet because they think they could thereby get products to market more cheaply than they can at the present time. They do not want it for any other reason. I think my hon. friend will agree with me in that. The report of the engineers in that regard is somewhat disquieting. I quote now from the engineers' report on page 23, not desiring to weary the House with details, but rather to give conclusions. Summarizing, the engineers say:
The studies show conclusively that for a long time to come the most economical route is, not by a western outlet, but via Edmonton over existing lines of railway This statement cannot be questioned for the reason that the excess interest charges on the initial investment in the most economical of the proposed routes is over ten times the extra cost of hauling the assumed initial traffic via Edmonton. In the case of the Obed route and the Edmonton and Canadian National railways to Vancouver, the figures are:
Extra interest charges, $548,200 per annum.
Extra cost of operation, $40,683 per annum.
I know my hon. friend will say that if the western outlet were built, the Peace river country would rapidly fill up and therefore would develop a greater density of traffic and a greater economy in operation. But I may say that the engineers, in calculating their initial assumed traffic, take a much larger volume of traffic than has hitherto come off the lands in question. Am I wrong?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The report says that but it is wrong.
M!r. DUNNING: I am merely quoting from the report. Taking the quotation to which I have just referred, namely:
That for a long time to come the most economical route is, not by a western outlet, but via Edmonton over existing lines of railway

That is, to the Pacific coast.
This statement cannot be questioned for the reason that the excess interest charges on the initial investment in the most economical of the proposed routes is over ten times the extra cost of hauling the assumed initial traffic via Edmonton.
32649-17	[DOT]


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. gentleman
explain that statement, make it a little more intelligible to us?


Charles Avery Dunning: Does it not speak for
itself? I gave the figures. The extra interest charges involved in the cheapest of the routes discussed are $548,200. The extra cost of hauling the assumed initial traffic via Edmonton is only $40,683 per annum. That is the statement of the engineers contained in their very complete examination of the question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does that amount of $40,-
683 per annum refer to the cost of carrying out the farm products from the Peace river valley at the present time, or does it represent the assumed cost over the shorter route if built?


Charles Avery Dunning: It represents the extra cost of operation involved in hauling via Edmonton over the existing route as compared with the cost of operation alone over the most economical of the proposed alternative routes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand now.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to the question generally, one could go into a great deal of further detail on the basis of the engineers' report. The men responsible for it were reputable men. Mr. Sullivan was consulting engineer for the Canadian Pacific in connection with the matter. Mr. Gzow-ski, chief engineer of the construction department of the Canadian National also signs the report. The others are Mr. Fairbairn, chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific, Mr. James, assistant chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific, and Mr. Hill who was the exploration and locating engineer of the Canadian National.


Mr. CLARK:: Did all of these gentlemen or any of them personally visit and go over these proposed routes?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say that they
all personally went over the proposed routes. I know Mr. Hill did. He did the exploration work. Perhaps the hon. member for Peace River could help me on that question. It is my impression that all of the gentlemen concerned were up there.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, they were.


Mr. STEVENS:: They all signed the report?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I think the report would repay study by any member of the House interested in transportation problems. It may be said that the engineers are

Peace River Railway

wrong, but I must say that after an examination and testing of the figures which they give in their report and asking the permanent officers of the department and officers of the railway for criticism of various phases of them, I find that those figures have so far been proven up to the hilt. I have had no criticism of the accuracy of the engineers' report. In that connection may I say that it was tabled in this House last March or April. I just forget the month, and no question has ever been raised so far as I am aware as to the accuracy of the engineers' conclusions in that regard?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would it not be advisable
to have a report such as that circulated or distributed? At times reports laid on the table of the House do not attract much attention, but certainly the development of the Peace river country has attracted the attention of the whole Dominion, and it is well that we should be accurately informed with respect to the several proposals.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know to what
extent the newspapers took advantage of the opportunity to print the conclusions of this report. The report is available, of course, in the same manner as any other document. Personally I would favour the printing of this report for distribution in the area affected, for the reason that the Peace river people would not foe any 'better off with a western outlet unless it saved them money in freight rates.


Mr. BROWN:: Would the minister deal
with that question just a little more in detail, comparing the rates they pay now with what they would pay over the proposed new route. I understand that there was some arrangement made whereby they got some benefit.


Charles Avery Dunning: They have now the
prairie standard of rates. The reduction took place, I think, two years ago. My hon. friend from Peace River well knows the time at which it occurred; I am not so accurately informed as to that, and I do not know that I could in a moment find in the report the detailed information which my hon. friend from Lisgar desires, but I can give what is really the crux of the matter, and that is the cost of constructing any erf these outlets. It is the capital cost of construction which involves the increased interest charge, and that would involve an increased cost at the present time on the volume of traffic available.


John Livingstone Brown: H my understanding is
correct, there was an arrangement whereby the settlers, instead of paying on a mileage 
basis, were given some reduction in rates as compared with the rates that would be necessary over the longer haul. I had the impression that there was some such arrangement as that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, there is. I have not the details of it before me, but I shall be glad to get them.


Robert Forke: I think they are allowed a rate that would be about the same as if they had the shorter haul; that is to say, as if it had been reduced four hundred miles. They had about the same rate via Edmonton as they would have over the shorter haul.
Mr. BiLATCHFiORD: I think you will find that the Peace river farmers were paying freight rates on the Rocky mountain scale until two years ago, When the prairie scale came into effect.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right, but when
my hon. friend from Lisgar asks me just how many cents a hundred the difference was, I regret that I have not that information at hand, but the hon. member for Peace River well knows the nature of the reduction, and after all, is not the question one of principle? If the report of the engineers is correct, that the people now living in the Peace river country, along the line of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, would not get lower freight rates by reason of a western outlet being built, then they would certainly not be realizing their expectations, because they want the western outlet in the hope that it would mean reduced freight rates for them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What was the estimated
capital cost of the construction of this new western outlet?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will pass to that
immediately.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Does not that involve
an entirely new principle in the fixing of freight rates?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not get the question.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The railway commission fix rates partly on a mileage basis, and if, when you build a new railway from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast you are going to saddle the local traffic with the capital cost of that railway, I say you are introducing an entirely new principle in the fixing of freight rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not setting up any principle, but it is my duty as Minister of Railways to point out that if these people get

Peace River Railway
lower freight rates as the result of the building of a western outlet, it will be at the expense of this country as a whole, because the western outlet, as proposed, could not on the present volume of traffic begin to earn the interest on the capital cost in addition to the cost of operation.


John Arthur Clark: Has not that been the result, for a period of time, at least, in the case of each new piece of railway that has been built in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: It .may be true with respect to certain new pieces of railway that have been built in Canada, but it must be remembered that this is a special problem, entirely distinct in its nature from the ordinary branch line problem. The country is now mainly served. The question is the building of ia westward link through a portion of country which will be mainly unproductive, according to the engineers' report, and again I must fall back on that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister permit a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: I really cannot deal with a complicated subject like this and take every interruption. However, as my hon. friend is so courteous and has not questioned me before, I shall be glad to allow a question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Go ahead. I will speak in a minute.


Charles Avery Dunning: Come on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, go ahead.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If my 'hon. friend from
Vancouver Centre is not going to take advantage of this opportunity, do I understand that by the building of this new line to the coast we would then have three lines of railway going to the coast from that district? We have now the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National; is there another one to go through?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not necessarily, and even if there were, I would like to assure my hon. friend that there is an awful lot of room out in that country. The question at issue between myself and the hon. member for Peace River is not whether or not this line should be built, but his resolution declares that it should be built immediately, forthwith, right away quick. That is my difficulty. If it were in order for every member who desires branch line railway construction to come into this House and move a resolution that a certain line of railway should be built forthwith, I can well imagine that this House would spend a very great deal of its time
debating such resolutions, and I am afraid we would not be able to work out the destinies of the Canadian National along business lines if that were done.
The whole question is one of the time at which this work should be done. On the basis of this report, which is the only authentic information of a responsible character in existence regarding the whole matter, I cannot as Minister of Railways say to the House that we ought to agree to proceed immediately with the building of this route. Now what will it cost, according to the engineers?
For the route via Sturgeon lake and Obed, new construction of 204 miles would be required for the assumed minimum traffic. The capital investment would be $13,336,000, or to Prince Rupert $13,356,000.
For the route via Monkman pass, the new construction required, assuming the line goes to Prince Rupert, would be 188 miles for the assumed minimum traffic. Assuming the line goes to Vancouver, the construction required would be 198 miles, and assuming it goes via the Pacific and Great Eastern, which is British Columbia's railway, 310 miles of new construction would be required.
The capital investment on the Monkman pass route, taking Prince Rupert as the destination, the shortest route, would be $16,092,000. The capital investment on the Peace pass route would be $21,472,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many miles?


Charles Avery Dunning: New construction via
the Canadian National to Prince Rupert would require 502 miles. New construction via Canadian National to Vancouver would require 512 miles, new construction via Pacific and Great Eastern to Vancouver 542 miles, and new construction via the Fraser river to Vancouver 850 miles. That is via the Peace pass. The Pine pass is dismissed in favour of the Monkman route by the engineers.
Then another interesting alternative is discussed on page 10, the route to Stewart on the Portland canal. Instead of going to either Prince Rupert or Vancouver, the possibility of going to Stewart on the Portland canal, via the Findlay Forks is dealt with, and the minimum construction for assumed initial traffic in that case would be 611 miles, and the capital invested $30,370,000, or including the connecting line to Prince George, $37,750,000.


John Arthur Clark: Which is the Brule cutoff?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the one which is described in the report of the Obed route. It is the cheapest of the three and would involve a capital cost of $13,336,000.
Peace River Railway


John Arthur Clark: Are the grades good on that route?
Mr.	DUNNING:	The	gradient	against
outbound traffic would be 0.5 per cent.


John Arthur Clark: It is a very low grade.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, a very low grade.


Mr. TOLMIE:: The lowest grade is on
the Monkman route.
Mr.	DUNNING:	The	gradient	against
outbound traffic to Prince Rupert is 0.5 per cent.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is there any choice between the different routes as regards the fertility of the land?


Charles Avery Dunning: What is known as the
cutoff	via Brule would not	give us	an outlet to	the ports of	British	Columbia. It is
almost due south of the existing end of steel on the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia line.


John Arthur Clark: Could it not be extended
into it?	,


Charles Avery Dunning: That is always a possibility. As to the relative merits of the various routes, I think the only difference of opinion to-day would be as between the Obed route, known as the Brule cutoff and the Monkman pass route. I think my hon. friend will agree that they are possibly the only two alternatives that should be considered, the one involving a gradient of 0.5 per cent and the other a gradient of 0.75 per cent to Vancouver via Canadian National. The Monkman pass route would involve a one per cent grade if the Pacific and Great Eastern and the Canadian Pacific railway were used.
I give this information not with a view of demonstrating that such a cutoff should never be built, but with a view of demonstrating on the basis of the report which we have, that it should not be immediately proceeded with, as my hon. friend's resolution calls for. I hope that in presenting proposals for capital expenditure on new lines of railway I will always have the support of the recommendation of the president and the officers of the Canadian National Railways. It has been the practice in the past, I think before my time, when branch railway bills are brought into the House, that they are referred to the committee of the House dealing with railways and canals, in order that officers of the railway may be called before that committee and justify on economic grounds the proposals for construction which they make. That plan I hope the House will

follow this year with respect to a new three-year program of construction for Canadian National lines.
I hope my hon. friend will not press this resolution to a vote of the House. In any event it ought to be carefully examined, in the same manner as ordinary branch lines proposals are examined because it involves a tremendous expenditure.
May I suggest also that there is no more enthusiastic individual so far as the future of the Canadian National Railways in the Peace river country is concerned, than the president of the Canadian National Railways. I am sure that when Sir Henry Thornton deems it an economic possibility, a practical thing, to build this connecting line westbound rather than to haul the traffic round by Edmonton to get to the Pacific coast, he will recommend to the Minister of Railways that the work be proceeded with. The best evidence of his good will and the good will of the government in that regard is the fact that such a careful examination was ordered as resulted in the report which I have been discussing and to which my hon. friend referred. If my hon. friend divides the Plouse on the resolution it will be with very great reluctance that I will vote against it. I shall have to do so however, because it calls for an immediate start to be made, an immediate commitment of this House to an expenditure of 113,000,000 odd as a minimum on the basis of a proposal which, on the best advice we have been able to get, will not bring the relief in lower freight rates that the people affected expect to get as a result of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not intended to say anything in regard to this motion, but some of the arguments of my hon. friend the minister lead me to say a few words. I think the House ought, to notice this rather significant fact, that practically every argument advanced by the minister, as well as by the engineers in the report which he quoted, is based upon the words " initial traffic That is the traffic that is there now. Every comparison that is made as regards loss or gain one way or the other is based upon figures of present traffic. I want to point that out at this stage because I think it very vitally affects the whole question.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am hardly fair to the
report in not stating to the House that the report goes on and assumes traffic development, and deals with what the situation would be in the event of further development taking place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am rather sorry, because that was the question I tried to ask the min-

Peace River Railway
[DOT]ister when he said he did not like to be interrupted when expounding an interesting question. My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) is asking the House to declare that the time has arrived for the commencement forthwith and the completion in the near future of a direct railway outlet from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast. The minister complains bitterly about the word " forthwith


Charles Avery Dunning: Not bitterly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, but strenuously.


Charles Avery Dunning: He does not complain at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He emphasized that more vigorously than I think he should have done.
I should like to remind the minister and the government that this very word was attached to their estimate for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway-" forthwith ". I should like also to remind the minister in particular and his colleagues generally from the prairie provinces that they won their election in Saskatchewan very largely on that word " forthwith " attached to the estimates for the Hudson Bay railway.
Furthermore, they pledged themselves to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway forthwith without all this engineering investigation. Having pledged themselves forthwith to complete that railway they are now sending air corps to three points on the Hudson straits, and they are also bringing from England an engineer to make investigations to ascertain whether it is wise to go on with the railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend's statement is entirely incorrect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to point out wherein I am misinforming the House.


Charles Avery Dunning: No investigation is being conducted by the government into the advisability of completing the Hudson Bay railway, not the slightest.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister, I notice, is
very fond of interrupting. I have just mentioned this in a casual way; let me make it a little clearer for his benefit. I want my hon. friends from Saskatchewan to pay attention to this. Next summer the government are establishing three aerial posts on the Hudson straits with the purpose for one year, from next August over until August of 1928, of carrying on investigations by aircraft as to the navigability of the straits. They are also bringing out from England an engineer to determine whether Fort Churchill or Port Nelson
is the better place as the terminus of the line. Now the minister tells us that that has nothing to do with the forthwith completion of the Hudson Bay railway. It does not matter whether the straits are navigable or not, it does not matter whether the engineer, from England reports in favour of Fort Churchill or Port Nelson, they are going to finish the road forthwith.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, in all good humour I must again protest against my hon. friend's statements regarding the government's intentions. They are entirely wrong. No announcement such as that quoted by my hon. friend has ever been made by the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister tell
this House that there has not been considered by the government the establishment of three aerial posts on Hudson straits, and that no orders have been given to that effect?


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall not make any
denial.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the minister cannot,
because those orders have been given.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend
permit me? There will of course be a proper time to discuss the Hudson Bay railway and the Hudson Bay route, but I submit that it is not on this resolution, which deals directly with the Peace River and an outlet to the Pacific coast. A great many miles lie between the two points. But I might point out to my hon. friend that what the government has in contemplation on the Hudson straits has not anything at all to do with the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. The Hudson Bay railway will be completed anyway.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister a moment
ago sought to lead the House to believe that I was not telling the truth when I said these posts were being established.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now he admits they are.
He dare not deny it-nor does any other minister dare deny it.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I must ask hon.
gentlemen to confine their remarks to the Peace River.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, you have
very properly drawn our attention to the subject matter of this discussion. But I should like you, Sir, who are a master in debate, to appreciate this point: I am using the ministerial word "forthwith" to illustrate that there cannot be much credence placed in the minister's argument to-day and his objection to that word.
Peace River Railway


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
hon. member is not only drawing an analogy between the two railways; he is travelling too far on the Hudson Bay railway whilst the resolution has reference only to the Peace River railway.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly, Mr. Speaker, and I am fortunate in having such a judge of my words and my intentions. My hon. friend, however, sought to make this a sort of contest between the movement of grain eastward and westward. I regret that, because after all it is a controversial question, and I submit, Sir, that it is not a question that should be debated on that ground, as I hope to show before I conclude.
The whole question is that Canada some fifteen years ago opened up the Peace river country; it invited settlers to come into that country; it offered to the prospective settlers excellent prospects of transportation to the seaboard for their products. A large number of men responded and, as my hon. friend says some 20,000 settled in that district. It is admitted by all who know the district to be one of the finest agricultural areas in Canada. It is often referred to as an empire within an empire. It is recognized that those 20,000 settlors form but a nucleus of the population that may be placed there if a proper outlet is given for their products. Up until two years ago so high was the cost of transportation of moving those products out via Port William to the markets of the world that many settlers left the country, while others frequently kept their grain and fed it to stock. Those are facts.
It is very easy for the minister to say, as he does say, that comparatively few of the settlers are remote from existing transportation. To anyone not understanding the existing transportation situation that might be a very satisfactory statement; but that is mighty poor comfort to the settler, because undoubtedly that great settlement in the Peace river country was brought about by the expectation of the settlers that they would get facilities fo-r taking out their products to make it possible for them to live and prosper. To simply say to those people, "Oh, you are now within measurable distance of existing transportation)," is, I repeat, cold comfort indeed. The minister also said-again I am using his own words-that the district was now well served with railways. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the district is not well served with railways. In support of this I direct the attention of the House to a statement made by Sir Henry Thornton, which was read a moment ago by the minister, namely, that a
[Mr. Stevens. 1
more suitable outlet ought to be found. The district is not well served with railways. A certain section of the district, it is true, has railway contact, but to say that it is well served with railways is misleading.


Charles Avery Dunning: That statement by the
way, Mr. Speaker, I did not make. My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) was looking at me when I made the statement that there were certain branch line requirements in addition to the western outlet, but not very many.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend used those very words. He conceded that certain branch lines were needed.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And he pointed out that
a v ery limited number of settlers were remote from existing transportation.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me take the argument the minister advances and upon which he lays great emphasis. He said that the increased interest cost would exceed the initial saving on the present volume of traffic, to use his own words. That is an utterly unfair comparison to make. Through the discouragement of ten or fifteen years of excessive cost for the bringing out of their produce, many settlers are producing only to a very limited extent as compared with the quantity they could turn out. Many of them are living there in the hope of future development through an outlet to the Pacific, so that they may get their produce satisfactorily marketed. If this can be brought about they will produce in larger quantities. Others are taking advantage of the comparatively high price of grain-and when I say that I mean compared to what was received years ago-running about $1.38 at Winnipeg to-day, or at any rate over $1.25 a bushel. They are able to ship their grain out, even paying the excessive cost of transportation to the head of the lakes, and notwithstanding that cost they can make a small margin of profit. But if grain goes down to a dollar a bushel, even those who are located near the best transportation facilities will find it difficult indeed to send their grain out and secure any return. So that the comparison which the minister makes, based upon the report, and which I am really surprised that engineers of such standing should submit in regard to the saving between the increased interest charges on capital investment and the calculation based upon the present volume of traffic, is wholly false. The only reason in the world

Peace River Railway
why we would ask for the completion of the road lies in the hope of'having an increased traffic. No one in his senses would suggest building the road in there at a cost of thirteen million dollars to serve the present volume of traffic, for that is an absurd position to take. I say it is absurd for these engineers to take that position.


Charles Avery Dunning: They do not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the way the minister presented the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The words used
by the engineers are "assumed initial traffic." If my hon. friend will permit me I will give him the engineers' words; I will tell him what the engineers take as their basis for the term "assumed initial traffic."


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is exactly what I am
saying-the assumed initial traffic. I will take my hon. friend's own words.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the hon. member will let me inform him he will not fall into error.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend would
not allow me to interrupt him, or even to ask him a question.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I owe the hon. member an apology I offer it now. I know, however, that he wants his statement to be fair to the engineers. The engineers say:
We have therefore for our studies assumed an initial outgoing traffic to the Pacific seaboard about five times as large as that indicated in the previous table, showing shipments during five years ending with the crop of 1923.
That is to say, in dealing with the assumed initial traffic they are taking a tonnage five times larger than the average of the five years ending in 1923. I merely want my hon. friend to have correct information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says that
the assumed initial traffic is based upon a tonnage five times greater than the average of the five years up to 1923.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what the report says.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, that is what the minister bases his argument upon. Now, if I am not greatly mistaken-I have not had time to look into the question-more wheat went out in 1926 than in the preceding years. In 1926, six million bushels were shipped out whereas the amount that went out in the previous years was very much less.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is true.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I still submit that the
basis of the minister's argument is absurd. Notwithstanding all the handicaps of the last ten or fifteen years-not of the last two years, because they have been less serious in that time-20,000 settlers have stuck to their guns. They have tried to make things go, to increase production, and tens of thousands more are ready to go into that country if it is given such transportation facilities as nature affords it. That is the point I make, and to base the whole argument of a report, which is supposed to be accurate, upon an assumption of a tonnage five times greater than the average of five years that were very much leaner than the present, is absurd.
It appeals to me that the proposition narrows itself down to this: you have a magnificent country ready for settlement, a country that is well developed, and known to the world, known I think all over the globe as the choicest section of the North American continent, where good land can be had cheaply from one of the last remaining large areas. And in that section there is already a settlement of 20,000 people. All that is required to make that area accessible to the markets of the world is the construction of a few hundred miles of railway at a cost of $13,000,000. That construction would accomplish two things: it would give to these 20,000 settlers, who went there on guarantees of the service, something to which they are entitled, namely, access to the markets of the world. And ,in the second place, it would do something greater for Canada, for it would open up a virgin territory which is exceedingly attractive and which offers opportunities for great returns.
Now I urge the minister and the government to give this matter their consideration. I am not going to compare this section with others, nor am I going to draw any comparison between this suggested work and work which is authorized, or which may be authorized, elsewhere. I do say, however, that I know of no area in Canada to-day that offers greater possibilities than, the Peace river country. I know of no territory that would be more readily settled by immigrants than that country, if this question were solved. I know of no territory of similar extent that can be so cheaply brought into active productivity.
I want to give one or two figures. The minister suggested to the committee that with present rates the farmers could move their products to the markets of the world as cheaply as if they had connection with the Pacific coast. This, surely, cannot be sound.

Peace River Railway
The mileage from Grande Prairie, the centre of the district, to Fort William is 1,600 miles, while the mileage to the Pacific coast, if this new connection were made, would be 800 miles, or one-half the distance. The maximum grade to the Pacific coast is one-half of one per cent, according to this report of the engineers. In other words it is really a water grade to the Pacific, being practically level. On the other hand, there are adverse grades on the prairies, going to Fort William, which are much higher. So that the question of grade does not enter into the discussion at all. The grade is Al; nothing better could be wished for; and the distance is one-half that to Fort William. Now, if you are going to haul grain 1,600 miles to Fort William-I do not care what rate you get-when you could haul it 800 miles to the other point, some one is going to pay the difference in cost between these mileages. The cost will be made up from some source. In other words, assuming that the inference drawn by the minister is correct-and, by the way, I dispute it-if these people can send their grain to Fort William as cheaply as they can to the Pacific coast, then they are getting a rate far below that given anyone else on the prairies.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is misquoting me entirely. I never discussed the question of shipping grain to Fort William but to the Pacific coast via Edmonton. I made no comparisons based on shipments to Fort William.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To the Pacific coast via Edmonton, then. The mileage to the Pacific coast via Edmonton is 1,200 and the minister says that they will haul grain from the Peace river country 1,200 miles as cheaply as they would be able to get it out if this connection were miade giving a haul of 800 miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that either.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am narrowing the
minister down to this fact, which he should have stated, that there would be a distinct saving to these settlers if they had this cutoff. The minister sought to leave the impression with the House that there would be no saving; I leave it to the House if that is not so. He did not say it in so many words, but when I rose to put the straight question he would not let me speak, saying that he was making an intricate argument and did not wish to be interrupted. I say now that there would be a distinct saving to the settlers of the Peace river country if this connection were made, and there would also be such an 
impetus given immigration that it would mark an epoch in this country.
Now I am going to make a suggestion to the House and to the mover of this resolution, which I urge the minister to receive kindly. I make this suggestion on my own responsibility; I have not consulted my leader, whom perhaps I should have asked, but nevertheless this is my view. It is a simple suggestion, which I hope will be found acceptable. We have a committee of this House which is appointed year by year to deal with the problems of the Canadian National railways; to this committee are usually referred the railway estimates and other similar matters. I consider this matter to be of such great importance and to affect the lives of thousands of people so seriously, as well as to offer such magnificent opportunities, that it should be directly referred to this committee with instructions to inquire carefully into it and ito examine the reports Which have been presented, as well as the engineers themselves if necessary. Then the committee could bring into this House some recommendation dealing with the question. I think this is a reasonable suggestion, -and one which should be accepted. A moment ago the minister stated that if this came to a vote he would have to vote 'against it, and of course in saying that he asked all his supporters to do the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not want to see the House reject this motion; I would not like to see it voted down, because in a sense it would be a repudiation of a suggestion which I think merits more consideration than that. By sending this matter to a committee, which I .think should be called together very soon, an opportunity would be given those interested to present their case, and at least that degree of consideration would be given.
Mr. JAMES C. BRADY (Skeena): Before I deal with the subject under discussion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to dissociate from it the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). I believe he has given us not his own opinion but what information he has obtained from a report made to him.
Having done this, I would like to enumerate the various reasons advanced from the report, why the development of the Peace river district should not be commenced immediately.
I think these reasons were very well emphasized, and are thoroughly understood even by those not directly interested. It was said that the president and engineers of the Canadian National Railways did not deem it an economic possibility; that it would not lower

Peace River Railway
the present rates; that it would cost about $13,000,000, and that the present volume of traffic does not -permit the development of this district. I would like to -ask the House if any one of these reasons has sufficient weight to prevent this necessary development of the greatest agricultural area in Canada. Without going into figures, M-r. Speaker, I think I could give four or five reasons which would make the government consider the necessity of immediately dealing with this question,.
The Peace River development is not a local matter; it has a national importance, because it would almost double the present area under grain in Canada. Then it would also assist the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) in overcoming the many handicaps in the way of an up to date immigration scheme, which is practically essential. This development is necessary to the interests of the Canadian National Railways, as well, -because, it would add to the present volume of trade running -over this road to the Pacific coast, and is a sufficient warranty for this work. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) said something with which I quite agree and which I think everyone appreciated, when he asked, "Should we start with immigration first, put the people on the land and wait till they make good, or should we at the same time give those people opportunities to develop their land more quickly an-d -bring returns to the railways?"
I do not intend to speak further on this matter, Mr. Speaker, -but there is one other reason which I think the government should consider -carefully. In Prince Rupert we have an elevator which in the last four months has handled a little over 2,750,000 bushels of grain from Alberta; now that the elevator is there it must stay -there, and it is the duty of the government to see that this elevator is able to continue to function.
It is the imperative task and duty of the government to develop the western part of the Peace river district which, by every proof that can be and has been advanced, has been shown to be the most productive agricultural area in Canada. I have therefore great pleasure in supporting the resolution of the hon. member for Peace River, and I do so, not merely on behalf of the incoming immigrants, not merely because of an extra six .million bushels of wheat that may come, but on behalf of the development of Canada and the natural resources which are there ready for the settler if he be given but a chance. In the development of the Peace river country
we have an opportunity of great moment. If we make an investment of $13,000,000, in a few years we shall be rewarded beyond our most sanguine expectations. This is not a party question but it is a question that strikes deep at the root of the future development, growth and prosperity of Canada as a whole.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much disappointed at the report that these eminent engineers have given in relation to the railway problem of developing the Peace river country. I also notice that very little attention has been paid to a certain project that we have in British Columbia, namely, the Pacific Great Eastern railway. Mention has been made of the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway, but very little has been said of the Pacific 'Great Eastern railway. Let me remind the House that when these two railways were undertaken, the Pacific Great Eastern by the province of British Columbia and the Edmonton and Dunvegan by the province of Alberta, they were to connect at the boundary between these two provinces, forming a continuous line of transportation from the Peace river country to the Pacific as well as from the Peace river country to Edmonton. Both of these projects unfortunately have fallen short of their destination and they both remain at the present time up in the air.
I might say a word or two in regard to the early history of that part of the country. The province of British Columbia was opened up in the first place by way of the Peace river pass, the very pass to which all these railroads are pointing at the present time. The elevation of the Peace river pass is 2,500 feet, not a very great elevation, in fact the lowest point there is in the Rocky mountains on the North American continent. It seems to me surprising that these eminent engineers, with only that elevation to overcome, have not directed the attention of the people of Canada to the Peace river pass. The Peace river passes through the Rocky mountains at Hudson Hope. That is the eastern breaking of the Peace river canyon. You go up the Peace river and then you follow up the Parsnip river until you come to Summit lake. From that point you have only seven miles of a portage in order to reach the Fraser river. The elevation at that point is 2,500 feet. With all deference to the eminent engineers I believe the Peace river country should properly be opened up by the easiest natural route, which is the Peace river and the Fraser river, the following of each of those water courses from the coast to the Peace river country
Peace River Railway

The Peace river country is an immense country, probably 400 miles long on each side [DOT] of the river by 100 miles in width, and it is capable of vast development. Indeed, as has been pointed out here to-day, it is easily conceivable that it might double the production of grain in the Dominion of Canada. That being so, surely the idea of spending $13,000,000 is not going to stop the development of a country of that kind. What is the matter with the people of the Dominion of Canada? What is the matter with this government of the Dominion? Is that the spirit in which the Canadian Pacific undertook to open up the prairies of the west. We have a question of spending only $13,000,000 to complete this project and still the government says: Oh, it is too much.
On the other hand what do we find? The other day we were asked to vote $12,000,000 for the port of Montreal and in another case we were asked to vote $14,000,000 for work on the Welland canal. It is conceded as a matter of fact that the opening of the Welland canal is not going to cheapen the transportation of grain to the port of Montreal by a fraction of a cent per bushel. Still we are spending $15,000,000 a year and we have already spent some $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 on it. But when we have a question of opening up an outlet for this great empire in the western part of the country we cannot do anything with it. With all deference to everyone's opinion I believe there is no question that the Peace river development not only in Alberta, but also the development that will follow in British Columbia, will more than warrant any expenditure that is necessary to complete a project of that kind.
The Peace river development is not a very new matter so far as I am concerned.. In the year 1891 I went to the town of Quesnel which is on the Fraser river some ninety miles south of Prince George. I went into commercial business in that town, and in the course of my business there at that date, before the completion of the Calgary and Edmonton railway, I sold goods, I loaded goods on scows in the town of Quesnel and had them transported into the Peace river country in order to provide that country with necessaries of life. They would go in in the fall and come out again the following spring with furs in return for the goods which they had brought in. Does that not point to the fact that the Fraser river and Peace rivet route affords a natural access to the Peace river country?
I might say a good deal more in connection with this matter, but the principal thing I

have to say is to express my disappointment not only with the action ;of the government, but also with the report of the engineers. My own personal opinion is that that report is not of very much value, and that the subject has not been studied from as many angles as possible. For instance, I understood from the Minister of Railways that the Pine river pass route had been thrown to one side entirely, discarded as impossible and impracticable. If I am not fight, the minister will correct me.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is scarcely a correct quotation from the engineers' report. They discarded that route because of the manifest advantages, comparatively speaking, of the Monkman pass route.


John Anderson Fraser: It is the Pine pass route
I am speaking of.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was not discarded
because it was quite impracticable. According to the engineers, the Monkman route is so much superior, and so nearby, that it was not necessary to go into detail in the report on the Pine pass route.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister was speaking
of the Monkman pass route, and be gave us no estimate of the Pine pass route at all. Might I ask if there is an estimate of the cost of that route in the report?


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be very glad to
read What the report says in regard to the matter. It says:
The only advantage which the Pine pass route has over the Peace pass route is that it would be shorter for traffic originating south of the Peace river. There is no feasible crossing of the Peace river between Peace river crossing and the Canyon at Hudson Hope.


John Anderson Fraser: That is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: It continues:
-and on account of the high country between the latter point and the Pine pass, the line would have to return east for a considerable distance on the south side of the river before the ground becomes low enough between it and the Pine river to allow of a feasible line south to the Pine river valley. The recently discovered Monkman pass is in turn more advantageous than the Pine pass for this traffic on account of its lesser gradients and distance. Pine pass is approximately 175 miles from, and nearly due west of Spirit river, and approximately 155 miles nearly due north of Prince George.
They do not give any estimated costs of the Pine pass route, for the reasons there stated, but the Peace pass is fully dealt with and I can give my hon. friend the figures if he desires them.

Peace River Railway


John Anderson Fraser: They considered that it
would 'be a great deal more expensive than the Monkman pass route.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, $21,000,000 for the
initial development as against $13,000,000.


John Anderson Fraser: Noth withstanding the comparatively larger cost, when you consider this question from the point of view of the province of British Columbia, and British Columbia must be taken into consideration as well, because you come very close to a section of British Columbia which is very highly mineralized-let me interject just here the prophecy that if the proper railway development is given to that part of the country you may see in the Omineca district another development such as we have in Trail today; that is quite within the realms of possibility; indeed, it is very probable-I say that that section of the country Should be connected up with the Pacific coast. I know perfectly well from travelling through the Peace river country both in Alberta and British Columbia that that is the objective of every person in the Peace river country. They say that they went in there with the promise of a railway outlet in a very short time.


Mr. MILLAR:: Which route do the majority of the settlers now in the Peace river country favour?


John Anderson Fraser: So far as the settlers in
any part of the Peace river country are concerned, they favour no particular route. What they want is connection with the Pacific coast, and they leave to the proper authorities the selection of the most feasible route..
Again, take the railway which was started by the province of British Columbia, the Pacific and Great Eastern. Some people call it British Columbia's white elephant; in fact, that is what our own government out there calls it, but let me tell the people here that so far as I am concerned the Pacific and Great Eastern is no white elephant at all. What is troubling British Columbia at the present time is the white elephant of a government that we have there, and if we could only get rid of our white elephant government we might have reasonable railway development.
I have had much pleasure in listening to the debate on this question this afternoon. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is a very good one. I know perfectly well that so far as I am concerned this is a question that has not been examined as thoroughly as it should have been, and it has not .received the consideration to which it is entitled, nor have the people of the Peace river country received the consideration to which they are entitled. I therefore think that the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is a very reasonable one, that this question should be referred to the special railway committee. In conclusion, I must say that I have very much pleasure in supporting the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) in any effort he may make for the opening up of that territory by means of a railway outlet, which has been promised so many times.


John Arthur Clark: In rising to say a few words on this resolution, I may say at the outset that if the matter comes to a vote, I am prepared to support the resolution as it stands. Failing that I will support the proposal made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).
I am prepared to support the resolution as it stands because the report of the engineers from which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has quoted shows conclusively that a line of railway can be built through this territory by one or more alternative routes and at a moderate cost. Take, for instance, the Sturgeon lake and Obed route, which the minister states is approximately 200 miles, and the cost of which is approximately $13 000,000. That line can therefore be built at a cost of approximately $65,000 per mile or $35,000 per mile less than the country paid for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific-approximately the same amount as the Canadian Northern paid for the construction of their line of railway through the province of British Columbia.
I support the resolution secondly for the reason that a railway outlet would, in the words of the Prime Minister, open up for development an empire. I note that the hon. member for Peace River, speaking before an audience in Edmonton, stated that the Prime Minister said:
The Peace river is among the richest in Canada, but before the proper development of that country can take place an outlet to the Pacific coast is an absolute necessity.
I am in entire agreement with the statement of the Prime Minister, and for these two reasons I am prepared to support the motion of the hon. member for Peace River that this railway be built now.
It may be asked, how can you favour this course in view of the engineers' report and in view of the statements made by the. hon. Minister of Railways. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying
Peace River Railway

that this report from which the Minister of Railways has quoted is absolutely misleading. Rather I would put it this way: that this report is of no value from a commercial point of view. Perhaps the Minister of Railways will correct me if I am wrong in the deductions I make from the report. I observe that the report states that the average tonnage available for la period of five years, ending 1923-


Charles Avery Dunning: What page?


John Arthur Clark: I am quoting from the typewritten copy, page 13. It may correspond with the report the minister has. It states that the average tonnage available is 48,934 tons, or a total of 2,043,000 bushels of grain. Now then, the minister stated that the engineers had allowed five times that amount as the initial traffic which would be available. I notice that they place the tonnage at 35,000 tons-that is at page 25-and they multiply that by five, making a total of 175,000 tons available. On page 13 the report States that the average tonnage over the period of five years up to 1923 was 48,934, or 13,934 tons greater than that allowed by the engineers. As a matter of fact, on the figures quoted by the member for Peace river, the number of bushels taken out of the Peace river in the year 1926 amounted to 6,000,000, or three times the tonnage that was available on the average of the five years quoted. That would make a tonnage of grain alone for the year 1926 of 146,000, which is almost equal to the amount which the engineers report to this House as being five times that presently available. In other words, the tonnage for this year of grain alone almost equals that which these engineers state to be five times the amount presently available.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend must bear in mind that this report was made in February of 1925.


John Arthur Clark: I appreciate that; I am giving the year and trying to show that there, has been that development since.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the point.


John Arthur Clark: Which shows that the report is of little practical value to us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They should make it five times that this year.


John Arthur Clark: Exactly what I am coming to. There is another respect in which this report fails-and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, because I have not had an opportunity of making a careful analysis and study of it.
 .


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend was not wrong.


John Arthur Clark: I am right so far, and I have the concurrence of the minister. My next point is that I think it a well-recognized principle that there would be available approximately three hundred per cent more tonnage on all commodities carried than would be carried in grain alone.


Charles Avery Dunning: Three hundred per cent?


John Arthur Clark: Yes, three times. In other words, if the railway carried a tonnage of grain of 150,000 tons, which they would carry this year, they would carry of all commodities in and out approximately 450,000 tons. I think my hon. friend from Peace River will have figures to show that that was approximately the percentage of increase carried by the railway company in all commodities.
If I am right in that respect, I want to carry my argument one step further. The figures supplied by the railway engineers allow that country a production of approximately two million bushels of grain. This year, two years after the report wias made, we find an increase of three hundred per cent, despite the tremendous disadvantage that country is suffering from-three hundred per cent in two years' time. I think the House will agree with me-and in fact I think it is admitted by the Prime Minister and in all the reports- that Peace River is one of the richest grain countries in the world, and if there are over two million acres presently available for cultivation if properly tapped by the railways, that the production of wheat and other grain in that district would be not less than fifty million bushels, or twenty-five times the average tonnage estimated by these engineers two years ago in grain alone. In addition of course this government must take hold of the situation and undertake a colonization scheme, because conditions in that country warrant a colonization scheme if it is warranted in any part of Canada. I ask this government, where to-day in Canada are there lands that equal in quality the lands in the Peace river district available for colonization? Where to-day are there lands that are available at as cheap a price as the lands in that district? Where to-day has the Dominion government an area of land under its own jurisdiction which can be used for immigrants? Where else can such land be found? I think, Mr. Speaker, we can safely state that there is no other part of Canada that presents such a fertile field for immigration as does the Peace river country, and it is dependent entirely, as the Prime Minister himself said in addressing

Peace River Railway
an audience in Edmonton, on an outlet to the Pacific coast, which he stated at that time was an absolute necessity.
We have this afternoon emphasized the resources of that country for grain alone, but we all know that it has immense mineral wealth and immense timber wealth, either of which might justify the building of a railway. These two subjects have not been touched upon, but they are resources which would provide a tremendous increase in the tonnage. Without, however, allowing a single ton for minerals and timber, we will find that colonized for agricultural purposes alone the country will provide a tonnage twenty-five to thirty times greater than that upon which the engineers based their estimate. That being the case there should be, when that country is colonized, a tonnage in agricultural products alone and those necessarily handled m conjunction therewith, in excess of thirteen million. In this report the engineers admit that when the tonnage equals 1,400,000 tons it will be economically unsound to haul via Edmonton over the Edmonton and Dunvegan route.
Now, it is very clear that if this country is colonized and developed to anything like its capacity there will be, based on agriculture alone, a total tonnage in the not far distant future, ten times greater than that referred to by the engineers as being sufficient to justify the building of this outlet. Just visualize, Mr. Speaker, what that railway would mean not only to the people who are there to-day, but to the development of Canada generally and to the Canadian National Railway. It is well known that no railway in this country has prospered which did not have feeders or branch lines. On the Canadian National Railway we have one stretch in excess of 700 miles which has no feeder or branch line. We come here now asking for a branch line leading into one of the richest parts of the Dominion, and the minister stands in his place and calmly says that for three years at least, based upon this report, we should not consider the building of this railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, again my
hon. friend is misquoting me. I read Sir Henry Thornton's opinion that the existing arrangement with the Alberta government operating its own railway might very well work for the next three years. I did not express an opinion of that kind myself.


John Arthur Clark: I thought the minister was
really basing his conclusions upon this report. I have not the letter of Sir Henry Thornton before me, but I feel convinced he must be basing his opinion upon this report.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


John Arthur Clark: Then that is good enough. It is perfectly clear, I think, to anyone who has made even a cursory study of the report that it is' not worth the paper it is written on for the purpose of arriving at a sound conclusion as to whether or not this railway should be built. There is information in it of inestimable value, but from the point of view of whether the railway would be an economically sound project or not I feel the report is of no great value to this House.
There are several other aspects of this report that I might touch upon, but I have dealt with what I consider the fundamental feature of it. If there is any portion of Canada where additional railway construction is justified and requires immediate investigation it is in this particular part of the country. I repeat, the Prime Minister considered that to be the case three years ago when he pledged himself that as soon as it was humanly possible the great Peace river country would be given that measure of railway relief that would bring to the pioneers of that country an outlet'that they had been so long denied and would open up the country for prospective settlers. What stronger pronouncement could we have? Am I to infer that the Minister of Railways disagrees with the policy announced by the Prime Minister on that occasion? It would appear so. It might be very interesting indeed to have a vote upon this resolution to see who on that side of the House are following the Prime Minister and who are following the Minister of Railways, because I do not think there could be any declarations of policy so diametrically opposed to each other than that announced by the Prime Minister at Edmonton and that which we have heard this afternoon from the Minister of Railways.
I urge upon this House, Mr. Speaker, the immediate and favourable consideration of this resolution. Failing that, I urge an immediate investigation before a committee as suggested by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I confess that
before hon. gentlemen had spoken I did not think there was any need for a further investigation, but the more statements I hear about the Peace river country and the proposed railways there the more I am in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) because I think there is a great deal of misinformation abroad in this House in relation to the subject.
Peace River Railway

Let me say at once that I am extremely interested in an outlet to the coast from the Peace river country. On various occasions I have pressed this matter upon the attention of my colleagues, and1 I do not believe the Peace river country will ever come into its own until there is such an outlet. But the suggestion of building the outlet by Obed or a connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway east of the Rocky mountains is not the solution of the question. Anyone who knows the country will say so immediately. So what is the use of discussing a $13,000,000 project which gets us nowhere? That is Why I say we need more information. As for the Monkman pass, practically the same thing can be said. It touches only the southwest comer of the Grande Prairie district, and would entail expensive railway building from the north side of the river, which is a huge agricultural territory that still needs railway construction. Going westward, it is admitted by everyone that you cannot cross the Peace river until you get in the vicinity of Hudson Hope. Therefore you are figuring not on 119 miles but on 150 miles more. I agree with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) that the only feasible route, irrespective of what it costs, is by the Peace river pass. No one can deny that who knows the topography of the country and the direction in which the rivers run.
Surely the Alberta government has had experience enough in crossing the Peace river. When the estimate for the construction of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway was before the Alberta legislature it stood at $7,000,000. Well, hon. gentlemen from that province know that up to date it has cost almost three times what the engineers estimated at the outset. I am not interested in any engineers' figures because they are no guarantee of what the ultimate cost may be. I am not familiar with British Columbia, but I have been greatly impressed by the reports of what may be accomplished by going ahead and opening up the coal mining area in the Portland canal district and the mining territory between the head of the Parsnip river and the Portland canal in a direct route from the coast to the Peace river country.
May I say that the building of the line merely from the boundary of British Columbia to the coast is not the solution of the problem? A great deal has been said about the possibility of putting new settlers in that country if you complete that piece of construction. If the logical route is chosen you would have to connect the two lines at Hudson Hope and build one hundred miles north of the Peace river. There is no very desirable territory 
to be opened up over that whole hundred miles, but there is territory in British Columbia favourable for settlement that the line would render accessible. That is, in addition to building the line from the boundary of British Columbia to the coast, no matter what route you choose-and I am all for the Peace river -you would have to build additional lines into Alberta before you could put new settlers on crown lands. So I say all these things need investigation. If you were to build a line from Peace river crossing tfl Fort Vermilion you would open up an immense territory of some 300 miles of virgin land1 which could be devoted to cultivation. But it requires a railway to open up that land. After the experience we have had with the Peace river country, however, I am not one of those to encourage new settlers to take up homesteads in such territories in the hope of having railways built to them. There should be some more definite assurance than the settlers got in the Peace river country before people are induced to take a chance and wait years for railway development to enable them to ship their produce. We know that grain can be grown in the Peace river district. The Lawrences have been established for years and have been growing and milling grain, selling it to newcomers, in a district 300 miles north of Peace river. But these territories would all have to be opened up by rail.
I welcome the suggestion that a thorough investigation of the whole matter should be made before we plunge into an expenditure of thirty or forty million dollars, for it would mean that much; although, let me add, the district is worth that expenditure. When the railway is built there will be a period of years during which it will be neither more nor less than a colonization line, and will not pay interest on the bonded indebtedness. My hon. friend has pointed to the two existing railways. The Edmonton-Dunvegan, I would remind the House, is a heavy burden on the people of Alberta who have to carry the bonded indebtedness of this line, because it has done little so far besides paying operating and maintenance expenses. The Canadian Pacific, when the new lease was suggested, offered fifty or sixty thousand dollars towards the carrying charges of the bonded indebtedness, and inasmuch as they operated the line for five years they should have been in a favourable position to estimate what the road would be worth. The line to Obed, in my opinion, will be no solution, for the reason that it simply taps one corner of the Grande Prairie countiy and lines would have to be built across the Peace river to connect the north country with it. More than that, it

Peace River Railway
would result in a cut-up that would absolutely kill the usefulness of 300 miles of the Ed-monton-Dunvegan railway, and that is not to be desired by the people of Alberta.
I think a great deal more information is required if We are to come to a wise decision on this question. I am not one of those who are prepared to stand up and say that it will cost a small sum to open up the Peace river country. I do not think it will be inexpensive. I believe that at the earliest possible moment at which there is reasonable hope of providing an outlet the road should be built, but I am not ready to suggest that it should be this year. In fairness to the House we ought to recognize that the question involves far more than the mere construction of a line from the Peace river country to the coast. It is true we have an elevator at Prince Rupert, and I am pleased to learn that such a large volume of grain has passed through it. It has warranted its construction and the whole northern portion of Alberta is now producing well and will increase in production in the future by leaps and bounds, so that all these elevators on the coast will have been justified. I would point out to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), that during the past two or three years little or no grain has passed through any portion of northern Alberta to Fort William. It is practically all routed to the coast, and will continue to be so shipped unless an embargo is put on to prevent the shipment of grain through the elevator at Prince Rupert.
No matter how much relief we are able to give the settlers in Peace river in the transportation of their grain by way of Edmonton they will always be under a handicap until an outlet is provided, for it is not possible to obviate that 400 miles of haulage, and the settlers will always suffer disabilities in that respect. I say, therefore, that if we are to undertake this project we should do so with our eyes open, fully realizing what it will cost. Even if it takes $40,000,000, the expenditure ultimately will be warranted, but it is idle to suggest that $30,000,000 will suffice. That is entirely out of the question. And further, if we are to place any considerable number of settlers on the land there it will mean additions to already existing branch lines.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health and Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this
very important resolution, and first I would like to commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) for having brought it before the House. He seemed to base his remarks on statements made at public meetings by the right hon. Prime Minister and the late Prime Minister, Mr. Meighen, when they suggested that the construction of a railway into the Peace river country, giving an outlet to the Pacific coast, should be undertaken forthwith. I do not think we should take exception to the remarks of either of these gentlemen, because we know they were aware of the importance of this matter not only to the people of the Peace river district but to those in Alberta, and British Columbia, and its indirect importance tQ the people of Canada as a whole. Believing that, I think they were well within their province when they stated that as leaders of great parties they were prepared to do what was in their power to bring about the early construction of this railway.
I think we must also take into consideration the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning); he was able in his address to lay before the House information secured from what might be considered the best channels available. In other words, at the conference already mentioned there were present the executives of the different railway companies, under the chairmanship of the then Minister of Railways, Right Hon. George P. Graham. In addition to Mr. Graham there were present Hon. Charles Stewart, Hon. J. H. King, Hon. John Oliver, Premier of British Columbia; Hon. H. Greenfield, Premier of Alberta; Hon. V. W. Smith, Minister of Railways and Telephones for Alberta; Sir Henry Thornton, President of the Canadian National Railways; S. J. Hungerford, Vice-President of the Canadian National Railways; C. J. Smith, executive assistant to the president of the Canadian National Railways; G. A. Bell, Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals; E. W. Beatty, President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Grant Hall, Vice President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; D. M. Kennedy, M.P. and W. F. Maclean, M.P. The meeting was held at 2.30 o'clock on January 9, 1925, and was called at the instigation of the government then in power. It was the desire of the government at that time to try, through the medium of these railway executives, to devise a plan whereby this great section of hinterland could be served by proper railway construction, it being the hope of the government that these men, with their vast experience, could bring forth some
Peace River Railway

such plan. So far as railway construction in Canada is concerned we have arrived at the stage to-day where the executives of the two great railways must take their responsibilities in advising the government on questions of importance.
At that conference it was decided that the presidents of the railways mentioned would place their engineering staffs on a basis of mutual co-operation to solve this problem. The Minister of Railways gave the House this afternoon, briefly but concisely, the information obtained in this way, which would indicate that it is not an expenditure of $13,000,000 or $20,000,000 which will solve this problem. An expenditure of $13,000,000 would give access by one route to the main line of the Canadian National railways, what is known as the old Grand Trunk Pacific, while an expenditure of $20,000,000 would give connection down through the Peace river pass to the Canadian National railways leading to Prince Rupert and Vancouver. But as I see the situation, Mr. Speaker, that merely gives an outlet to the territory which is at present adjacent to the lines of a railway already constructed, and does not deal with the larger question of a development of the Peace river country. Instead of an expenditure of $13,000,000 or $20,000,000 I am informed by that report that to develop that great country will require an expenditure of probably $50,000,000 or $60,000,000, if the lines suggested this afternoon were followed out. Such an expenditure should not give anyone any concern if it is shown that the construction will lead to the development of that great country, because we are informed that the area there is capable of a development which will pay veiy handsomely for such an expenditure.
In the few moments I have at my disposal I would also like to call to the attention of the House the efforts which have been made by the people of British Columbia and Alberta, through their governments, to solve this question. We find that there has been an expenditure of some $50,000,000 by those two provincial governments representing the people of those provinces. I wish to make this suggestion to the parliament of Canada and to the railway executives of this country, that in the solution of this question, that is, of providing proper transportation facilities to that country, the efforts and the expenditures that have been made by those provincial governments with the object of bringing about what we are to-day considering, should not be lost sight of, and that if it is possible to conserve those investments to the advantage

of the Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway, whichever may undertake to develop that country, such conservation should be made.
I do not think the parliament of Canada should lightly brush aside expenditures made by those provinces in connection with the object which we are now considering. There is undoubtedly a great country to be served, a country which when opened up can be served advantageously by connection with the Pacific coast ports, and the people who are so fortunate as to go into that country and receive that service will, I believe, be probably better placed than some of those who may live and reside to-day in central Canada. I know there is a tendency in other portions of the northwest and of the prairie provinces to confine our settlement operations to areas already served by rail transportation; that as, that there may be a more concentrated centering of the population in those provinces. But I am satisfied that within the very near future, with conditions improving as they are in Canada, there will be a demand, and a proper demand, made for the earliest development of this great portion of Canada known as the Peace river country.
It is not for me to discuss the pass or channel which should be chosen in order that the outlet may be had. I was pleased to hear my colleague the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) this afternoon confirm the suggestion made by the hon. member for Caa-iboo (Mr. Fraser) that in his opinion-which dhould be worth. something to members of thus House because he has had large experience in the province of Alberta; probably no member has a larger knowledge than he has of that great country in the north-the Peace River pass, even though it may cost $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 more than the pass first mentioned, is undoubtedly one that should be considered in the development of that district. He also threw out the suggestion that it might be eventually found advisable to extend the line, not to the south, but directly west to the Portland canal or what is known as the Stewart terminus. That is a matter that should certainly receive our consideration and be thoroughly canvassed before parliament makes up its mind as to what developments should take place in that country. With the consent of my confrere the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), I am .going to suggest that we follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and rather than place this resolution to the view of the House at the present time, refer the matter to the committee on railways. Was that the one?

Peace River Railway


Charles Avery Dunning: The suggestion was the
special committee. I would prefer the standing committee on railways and canals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister says he would prefer the standing committee on railways and oanals. That would meet with my approval, and I hope the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) will see the wisdom of that suggestion, because it will enable hon. members to secure further information on the subject; and it will be possible for them to call before the committee the various railway authorities and enable us to develop to a greater degree the knowledge that we have in regard to this important question.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the discussion upon this important question has proceeded in this chamber to-day, it is evident that the government is now inclined to appreciate the seriousness of the subject far more than it was at the outset of the debate. I remember that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) concluded his remarks this afternoon by stating that if this matter were pressed to a division he would be compelled reluctantly to vote against it. I a,m glad to congratulate the government that they have now had! new light upon the subject. The speeches this afternoon of members of this House coming from the district more particularly affected by th:s motion have been to my mind most convincing. I confess that I am not as familiar with the geography of the Peace river district as some hon. members are, but at the same time I have a fair idea of it. After hearing the statements as presented in this chamber this afternoon I am convinced that we have before us a very important question which should be settled in the near future.
The Minister of Health (Mr. King) commenced1 his remarks by saying that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) must have received some inspiration from speeches made in regard to this proposed development by the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and from speeches made by the former Prime Minister of Canada during the election contest. I gathered that both of those right hon. gentlemen in those pre-election utterances committed themselves in regard to these various projects. The Minister of Health seems to draw a sharp distinction between a commitment made by the Prime Minister of this country in an election proceeding and a commitment made at any other 'time. A commitment made by a Prime Minister in the course of an election is of the most sacred 32649-18
character. If the present Prime Minister promised during the last or the preceding election to go ahead with the construction of this railway, the government is morally bound to proceed with it, and this House will not accept an explanation by the Minister of Railways, or the Minister of the Interior, or the Minister of Health, because they cannot explain away what was a clear commitment on the part of the head of the government of this country Had the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen been returned to power the promise would have been made good.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: But when we speak of a promise mlade by a Prime Minister on the other side of the House, his colleagues laugh; they treat it as a joke. One of the most serious criticisms that can be levelled against this government for the last six years is that they have always been inclined to treat their promises somewhat lightly, and this is just another evidence of their weakness in that respect- This report, I am told, came ouit immediately before the last election campaign. I do not know whether it was made prominent diming the campaign or not, but this I 'do know, that the Minister of Railways and his colleagues this afternoon have pointed out that this railway construction into this wonderful portion of the Dominion of Canada which awaits development would cost the country approximately $13,000,000. That is one aspect of it only. That would give that country a railway connection with the present Canadian National system. Go a step further, and the expenditure of $20,000,000 would take the traffic through the Peace river pass, connect up with the Canadian National, and on to Prince Rupert and the Pacific ocean. My hon. friend the Minister of Health (Mr. King) goes further than that. He looks upon the completion of this great work as something that will ultimately have to be undertaken. If we go ahead with the project at all, it may in the end cost forty or fifty or sixty million dollars-that is, for a completed railway system through the Peace river district to the -coast.


Charles Avery Dunning: Eighty-one million
dollars.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the maximum of expenditure. That is not a matter to be undertaken at a single jump. It will have to be undertaken as occasion requires, but the start should be made now, and a very substantial start; and very substantial relief may be given by the expenditure either of $13,000,000 or of $20,000,000. We do not seem to

Peace River Railway

have any very great difficulty in financing railway projects in other parts of Canada. We seem to be able to get three or four or five million dollars to build hotels for our railway system either in Paris or at Vancouver or some other point in Canada. It seems to give us no trouble whatever to do that. If we want eight or ten or twelve million dollars to improve our transportation facilities by way of developing harbours and building canals, we have no trouble whatever in getting the money. Now, what does this particular project, putting it at $20,000,000 as a maximum for the present, involve? It involves a loan of $20,000,000. Assuming the rate of interest to be five per cent, that is $1,000,000 a year. That is the total burden to this Dominion in respect of this development, and if the stories we have heard this afternoon and on other occasions of the wonderful possibilities of the Peace river district are true only to the extent of twenty-five per cent of the statements made, then the investment is a justifiable investment, one which the government should undertake in the interests of Canada and undertake at the present session, on account of the pledge of the Prime Minister of this country that it would be done.
I am glad, however, that the ministers have seen some new light during the course of the afternoon. They do not want this question to come to a vote now. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways is reluctant to condemn this project by a vote now. The government seem to think perhaps they can shelve the matter better by allowing it to come before a select or a special committee of this House. I am not opposing the suggestion.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend
understands that the suggestion came from his own colleague.


Hugh Guthrie: I know where it came
from; most good suggestions do come from this side of the House. I am not opposed to the suggestion, but I think the duty of the government and the duty of the Minister of Railways in this instance is to come to parliament and say:	Yes, the Prime Minister of
Canada did pledge the construction of this railway prior to the last election, and we are here to carry out that pledge.
These are the only remarks I have to make, Mr. Speaker, upon the subject. I think when the matter comes to the committee such a case will be made that the government will not be able to resist this construction that is demanded in the interests of the whole country-a work that should be proceeded with, with as little delay as possible.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Lest I forget, let me say at once that I agree with the suggestion that this matter be referred to the railway committee. I am inclined to that view because of the fact that there is a mass of evidence even in this report itself, a lot of which I cannot agree with, and which I should like to thresh out with the engineers as well as some others.
I am exceedingly gratified by the reception of this motion this afternoon. There are, however, a few things I wish to deal with, and I shall be as brief as possible because of the fact that we seem to be agreed on sending it to the committee.
The present Peace river country, the producing part of the country, consists of Grande Prairie, Pouce Coupe, the Spirit river settlement north of the Peace, and the High Prairie settlement. The Grande Prairie settlement needs approximately another fifty miles of railway to give it a branch line service. North of the Peace, where I live, another fifteen miles of branch railway is required, and I submit that if this mileage is built, with an additional fifteen or twenty miles into the Pouce Coupe district, which is a thickly settled farming area, you would have sufficient territory to feed the main line running to the Pacific coast and also the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway. The constituency of my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) is not any bigger than the Grande Prairie district alone, and it is less than half of the district to which I have referred. It is not any richer in soil, and does not get any more moisture, and yet it has produced in one year 15,000,000 bushels of wheat.
I think this report of the engineers is unfair because of the fact that they have taken possibly the worst five years in the history of Canada, when the Peace river country was developing, from 1919 to 1924. That was just before the Peace river country got into its stride so far as development is concerned. They have calculated that in these five years the average export tonnage would be approximately 35,000 tons. But they also say that the only thing to consider in estimating the cost of a road to the Pacific coast would be farm produce, for various reasons. Now the total tonnage of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway in that year, and three-quarters of that is accounted for by Peace river, actually comes very close to 175,000 tons, whereas the engineers figured that the maximum tonnage at that time would average only around 35,000 tons.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, 48,000 tons.

Peace River Railway


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They credited 35,000
tons to the Peace river country.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is on page 13 of the
report.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Page 25 says, "Present,
35,000 tons; initial, 175,000 tons." The total amount of grain handled over the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway from 1919 onward, and three-quarters of that was from the Peace river country, was as follows:
Year	Tons
1919		 41,000
1920		 49,000
1921		 45,000
1922		 68.000
1923		 60,000
1924		 96,000
1925		 89,000
1926	(11 months)	 91,000
Those are the figures of the Bureau of Statistics. The grain tonnage handled by the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway-and this is chiefly tonnage from the Peace river district-ran from 41,000 tons in the year 1919 to 91,000 in 1926. The total revenue tonnage was 155,000 and in eleven months of 1926 it ran to 237,000. That is the basis of my contention that this report is not doing the Peace river country justice, and I do not think the engineers will contend that their prophecy so far as the Peace river country is concerned was optimistic enough. These engineers were sent up to find out the best route for the development of the Peace river country. They have said that the Obed route is the best route of all. The Minister of the Interior this afternoon said that the Stewart route was the proper route; therefore, we require further investigation, and when that investigation is completed, why, $50,000,000 or $70,000,000 will not be too great an expenditure for the development of Peace River. It is all very well to want facts, but surely we have already some facts on which to proceed. I do not want to see this thing go on as the Hudson Bay railway has been going-as a negro said, "Vestigate, and vestigate and neveT do anything." I think to-day we have a report on which action might be taken. I doubt very much if the Stewart route is superior to the Monkman route, because the Monkman route, depending on which point you take, cuts off from one hundred to six hundred miles between the central points of the various zones of the Peace river country and Prince Rupert and Vancouver as compared with the present route. The straight line mileage from any point you like in the Peace river country to Stewart is just about seventy-five miles
shorter than the straight line to Prince Rupert, and unless there is something in British Columbia to call for the extra mileage, a new line north of the present Canadian National, I doubt very much whether there would be any justification for building another line there at the present time, moreover, I think it would mean an indefinitely long delay.
So far as the Obed route is concerned, there is a little difficulty in connection with the report. The report says that if you build the line from Aggie on the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway it will cost $13,000,000, but to complete that route another sixty mile branch from Grande Prairie across the Smoky river, is required, and that will run the cost of the 250 or 260 miles up as high -as the 168 miles of the line through the Monkman pass to whatever point in British Columbia the line touches the Grand Trunk. This estimate is $16,000,000.
Regarding the north side of the Peace, there will have to be another railway built someday, just as the Edmonton-Dunvegan had to be built from McLennan, in two sections, one serving Spirit river and Grande Prairie, and the other going up to Peace River and Whitelaw. Any railway from the west will also require two branches from Hudson Hope eastward, one running north of the Peace river and one south.
I am willing that this resolution should be referred, with the evidence we -have in the matter, to the standing committee on railways and canals, and of course we hope that the matter will be taken up by the House when the committee reports and that we will get somewhere with the matter then. If -the motion is not referred to the committee, my purpose is of course to press the matter to a vote.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
gentleman consents to the reference to the standing committee on railways and canals.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman cannot amend his own motion, so that the hon. member fo.r Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) or some other member will have to move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), that the following words be added at the end of the resolution:
And that the matter be referred to the select standing committee on railways and canals.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is that a proper motion
to be placed at the end of a main motion?
Peace River Railway


Edward Joseph Garland: Would it
not be proper for the hon. Minister of Railways to move the amendment himself?


Hewitt Bostock: He has already spoken.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am. willing to do it but I cannot.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could we
not get the support of one member of the government?


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing to
move it.
-Mr. SPEAKER:	The motion is:
'That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for the commencement forthwith and the completion in the near future of a direct railway outlet from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast and that this matter be referred to the select standing committee od railways and canals.
Instead of the word "and" we might substitute the word "but"-but that this matter be referred to the committee on railways and canals.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I understand the
language the House would be committed nevertheless to the comencement forthwith of the work, and I certainly do not want to be committed to the commencement forthwith of this work. I cannot see my way clear, as Minister of Railways, to recommend it to the House just now.


Hewitt Bostock: My understanding of the
motion as altered by the amendment is that the House is not committed, but that the whole question is referred to the standing committee on railways and canals.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: I for one am absolutely against this resolution if it means that the House is to be committed to the terms of the resolution. With all due respect for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, unless your ruling stands in the place of the resolution itself I cannot support it. If the House passes this resolution now it puts itself on record as in favour of the terms of it. The amendment has only the effect of adding to the resolution. The resolution remains for the time being and the committee will proceed immediately to examine it. When it goes to the committee, the committee will deal with a resolution which has already been agreed to by the House. As I understand it, that is not what the Minister of Railways wants; therefore, I object to the resolution as drafted.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand Your Honour gave a ruling a moment ago that this resolution itself was being sent

to the committee for their consideration, not necessarily with the approval of the House but in order that the committee might have something to work on.


Hewitt Bostock: This motion expresses
only a pious wish. With the amendment, the House now directs that nothing shall be done in connection with the motion until the select standing committee on railways and canals has studied it and reported thereon.


Ernest Lapointe: Still, Mr. Speaker, even a pious wish may be more than what the House intended. Would it not be better to put it in this form?
That in the opinion of this House the select standing committee on railways and canals should consider whether the time has arrived, and so forth, and that this resolution be referred to it.


Hewitt Bostock: Will the hon. minister
kindly draft his motion?


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Speaker, I can remember several occasions when resolutions of this nature have been referred to select standing committees or to special committees in terms identical with those of the amendment now before the House. The question has never been raised heretofore that the House was thereupon committed to the principle of the resolution. I think we shall be adopting the usual procedure if we alow the resolution as amended to pass.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give to a committee the right to state that it has more judgment than the whole House. It may be that it has; I am not quite sure that numbers .make for quality. 1 understand that the motion, if amended as proposed, would simply mean that the committee would study the whole question and report to the House, leaving it to the House to decide on the merits. I for one am prepared to use what little judgment I have, but I am not prepared to give a power of attorney to fifteen or twenty other gentlemen to decide what my judgment should be.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, so long as everyone considers that this is not committing the House to the principle of the resolution I do not see any objection to the motion as amended.


Hewitt Bostock: No resolution can commit the House of Commons to any expenditure except through the instrumentality of the crown. As I said before, it is simply a pious wish. The resolution has been discussed by the House and is now merely referred to the select standing committee on railways and

Dissolution of Parliament
canals, whose duty it will be to report to the House after having carefully examined the subject matter of the resolution. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, no government should have the right to ask for a dissolution of parliament prior to completing the five-year term as provided in the British North America Act except when authorized to do so by a majority vote of the House.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, we have had a very
pleasant and profitable trip through the Peace river country, viewing the scenery and considering the possibilities of that section of the Dominion. The purpose of this resolution is to bring us back into this chamber to consider some of our proceedings here.
The resolution as worded would seem to be quite orthodox in some respects. That is, it asks for the opinion of this House; it also hints that something should be done by means of a majority vote. There is, of course, a feature of the resolution that might be looked upon by some as altogether unorthodox, in that it brings before us for consideration a certain point of procedure that has not been practised hitherto. But I am not so sure that that should cause any consternation among hon. gentlemen. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is not so very long since this House adopted a procedure at variance with a long-established custom in this House. At the very opening of this present session the Bouse agreed to violate an established tradition in selecting its Speaker, that it has observed since confederation. It has been the well-established custom in choosing the Speaker of this House to alternate between representatives of the two dominant races in this country, the English and the French. None of us felt very badly over the breaking of that old established custom; indeed we were all quite satisfied to have Your Honour occupy the position for the third consecutive parliament. So that if we violate an old established tradition by adopting this resolution it may cause no more consternation than our departure from precedent at the opening of this parliament.
I purpose considering this resolution in the light of the practice followed in the mother parliament as well as in this parliament. As
hon. members are aware, there is a marked similarity between the Canadian and the British form of government; in fact, they are so nearly akin that one may be said to have been copied almost entirely from the other. In Great Britain parliament is composed of the crown, represented by the King or Queen, and by the two houses of parliament, the Commons and the Lords. Our parliament is much along the same lines, the crown being represented by the governor general and the two houses of parliament by the Commons and the Senate. In the Imperial parliament we have what might be termed two arms, the executive and the legislative, the executive arm being represented by the crown on the one hand through the king in council, and the legislative by parliament. Similarly, we have the two arms of government, the executive represented by the crown through the governor in council, and the legislative by parliament.
Looking first at the British form of government, it is what is known as a limited monarchy. It was not always so. Let me go back a few hundred years in order to establish the fact in our minds that there has been a gradual and noticeable change in the power and prerogatives of the British sovereign. Going back to the time of William the Conqueror, starting with the year 1085, we find that the crown at that time was almost absolute. In fact, the sovereign of that day had assumed the role of practically an absolute monarch in his ruling powers. Then, proceeding for a period of about one hundred and thirty years, up to the time of King John, the crown continued to exercise a very considerable power. But we know that in the year 1215 the people, as represented in what might be termed parliament, made demands upon King John and secured from an unwilling sovereign certain rights embodied in what we know as the Magna Charta. These rights may be said to have formed the foundation of British parliamentary government in Britain. Following that period, up to about 1485, the crown was more or less arbitrary in the exercise of its power. It seemed to assert itself and to predominate over the rights of the people as represented in parliament. Under the house of Tudor,, from 1485 until the year 1603, the crown continued to hold great power. As a matter of fact, in Henry VIII we find an almost absolute monarch of the type of William the Con- queror. Under the Stuarts, however, from 1603 to 1688 parliament made great constitutional progress. In the latter year the people, through their representatives in par-
Dissolution oj Parliament

Lament, drew up a declaration of rights which may be said to have inaugurated the prerogative of parliament and to have asserted the rights of that body over the crown.
The constitution of Britain now is not only that of a limited monarchy; it is largely an unwritten constitution. Now, this is quite in contrast with the situation that exists, for example, in the country to the south of us where we find a written constitution. When we speak of the British constitution being unwritten we mean that certain traditions are followed and certain practices established apart from any direct written authority. These traditions and precedents have come down to us and we have heard them referred to in this chamber quite often as established practices followed by the mother of parliaments.
In the British government the power is vested nominally in the crown, but that power is delegated practically to the cabinet. The power of the crown virtually rests in the cabinet, which is a committee of the legislative body. The cabinet is nominated by the crown. That is to say, the prime minister is nominated by the king and the cabinet by the prime minister in conjunction with the crown. It is safe, therefore, to say that the cabinet is nominated by the crown although dependent for its support upon parliament. In Britain the cabinet has the power of advising the dissolution of the assembly which it represents. The prime minister is, of course, the spokesman for the cabinet. There is a fine point here as to whether the prime minister has the absolute right to go to the crown and ask for a dissolution of parliament regardless of the wishes of his cabinet. It may be conceded that he has that right; I am not prepared to argue the point. Whether he has it or not, however, is a question that does not relate to this resolution now before the House. But it is a recognized fact that the prime minister has no legal primacy over the members of the cabinet. In fact it is only a matter of less than fifty years ago since the term "prime minister" was first used in any European document. In 1878 the term was first recognized in Britain, and it is only about twenty-two years now since the official precedence of the prime minister was first established in Britain.
As regards the power of the cabinet in the advising of a dissolution I purpose tracing in short form what has actually happened in Britain in the last twenty years. Let us take the history of the British parliament since the year 1906 up to the present date. We find that on February 13, 1906, parliament met,

dissolving on January 10, 1910, after an existence of three years, eleven months and twenty-four days, notwithstanding that the statutes of Great Britain call for a parliament of five years as a maximum. The next parliament assembled on February IS, 1910, was dissolved on November 28, 1910, having lasted nine months and thirteen days. The next one was called on January 31, 1911, and lasted until November 25, 1918, having been in existence for a period of seven years, nine months and twenty-five days. That was of course the war parliament, and that accounts for its having extended its life beyond the five year period. The next parliament was called on February 4, 1919, and was dissolved on October 26, 1922, so that it lasted for a period of three years, eight months and twenty-two days. The next one was called on November 20, 1922, and dissolved on November 16, 1923, after having sat for eleven months and twenty-seven days. The next parliament met on January 8, 1924; on October 9, 1924, it was dissolved, so that its life had not been more than nine months and one day. And the present parliament was called on December 2, 1924.
So that in a period of twenty years in Great Britain there have been seven parliaments, although the Parliament Act of 1911 stipulated that parliament should last for a period of five years. If we deduct the length of the parliament that carried on during the war, which existed altogether for seven years, almost eight years, we find that there have been six parliaments in the old land within a period of about twelve years, with an average life of two years each. One of these parliaments lasted only nine months and one day, while three of them existed for less than a year. This demonstrates the fact that, because of the power resting in the cabinet to dissolve parliament, the life of the legislative body is precarious indeed, and may be terminated at any time. In the old country, as we see, there have been a number of parliaments of very short duration.
I have not inquired into the cause of dissolution of each individual parliament, with a view to ascertaining whether in any case it was necessary or not; I was not particularly concerned with that point. What I wished to show was that under the British constitution parliaments have been rather short, three of them having been exceptionally so. This is a matter which might be regarded by some people as of little consequence, but when we consider the expenses inseparable from, a general election in a country like Great Britain we are bound to concede, I think, that it is of considerable moment. The expense of general elections, holding them every two

Dissolution of Parliament
yeans rather than every five years, is quite a strain, on the countiy. Under the British constitution the sovereign can dissolve parliament at his will, and no parliament can be assembled, prorogued, or dissolved without his express command. This resolution does not propose to invade that territory at all; the sovereign has that prerogative and so far as this resolution goes he has a perfect right to keep it.
Now let us look at our Canadian constitution for a short time. Without going into Canadian history too deeply, we should remind ourselves that here has been a struggle in Canada for constitutional reform and liberty and responsible government almost on a par with that in the old country. If we take the period of Canadian history from its earliest time up to the present we see that there has been quite a continuous struggle for responsible, representative government. In our early days we had a period of military government, almost a despotic government similar to the early days of British history, gradually the parliamentary institutions gained under such measures as the Quebec Act of 1774 and the Constitutional Act of 1791, but even these measures did not bring to the people all they wished. As a result in 1837 we had quite a decided uprising in both Upper and Lower Canada in favour of responsible government. The Act of Union of 1840 brought us a little further on the way, and then in 1867 the British North America Act was passed, of which I am sure we have all heard many times.
The British North America Act is supposed to be the great act upon which our constitution is based, and we are continually referred to that act as embodying certain rights and certain privileges which we hold and cherish very dearly. In section 50 of that act we have these wrords:
Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor general), and no longer.
That is one part of the British North America Act which we wish to consider more particularly. Provision is made that parliament shall last for a period of five years, unless sooner dissolved by the Governor General. You will notice that the act does not say "Governor General in Council"; it is the crown. That is, in Canada as in Great Britain, the crown has the right to dissolve parliament. I believe that is what was intended at the Imperial conference of 1926, since on page 14 of the proceedings we find these words:	(
In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, that the Governor General of a dominion is the representative of the crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain-[DOT]
Therefore it would appear to be the sense of the Imperial conference that the Governor General is the representative of the crown, and a^such he has the prerogative of dissolving the House. This resolution does not aim at taking away any such powers from the Governor General of Canada; there is no hint that that should be done. This resolution states that no government should have the right to ask for dissolution; in other words, the House of Commons should be supreme in these matters.
If we look at our Dominion parliaments since confederation we find quite a variation in their duration. From July 1, 1867, up to and including this present parliament, a period of sixty years, we have had sixteen instead of twelve parliaments, and during that time at least one of our parliaments extended over the five year period, while a great many did not last that long. I have a list here showing the duration of the different parliaments; they vary from ten months to six years, two months and seven days. I will not take time to read the list, but I will insert it in Hansard as I have it. It is as follows:
Dominion Parliaments since 1867
Years Months Days
1. From	July 1, 1867, to	July 8, 1872	.... 5	72.	to	Jan. 2, 1874	.... 1	5	253.	to	Aug. 9, 1878	.... 4	7	74.	to	May 18, 1882	.... 3	8	95.	to	Jan. 15, 1887	.. .. 4	7	286.	to	Feb. 3, 1891	.... 4	197.	to	April 24, 1896	.... 5	o	21s.	to	Oct. 9, 1900	.... 4	5	159.	to	Sept. 29, 1904	11	2010.	to	Sept. 17, 1908	.. .. 3	11	1911.	to	July 29, 1911	.... 2	10	1212.	(War) to	Oct. 6, 1917	.. .. 6	2	713.	' to	Oct. 4, 1921	.. .. 3	11	2814.	to	Sept. 5, 1925	.... 3	11	115.	to	July 2, 1926	months)
16. Present parliament.
2S0
Dissolution of Parliament

I would point out, however, that the last parliament began on September 5, 1925, and lasted until July, 1926, a period of about ten months. I do not propose to go into the whys and wherefores of the dissolutions of our Canadian parliaments; some hon. members might consider a dissolution justifiable, while others might think to the contrary. I simply point out the actual situation, that our parliament is dissolved prior to the completion of the term provided for in the act which is the foundation of our constitution.
It must be remembered also that dissolution takes place because a committee of this House decides that it should be done. It may bo that the Prime Minister of himself has that prerogative; I am not prepared to argue thar, but I hardly think the present Prime Minister has ever asked for dissolution without consulting his colleagues in the government. If he has done so he has done with his colleagues what he has not generally done in this House; for 'he has usually consulted the members of this House to ascertain the best procedure. Last session, of course, found us in a very unusual situation. We had a governing body without a majority in the House, and perhaps that has given rise to what might be termed a need for such a provision as that provided by this resolution. That is, where there is a government without a majority in the House it is an altogether different situation from a government with a strong following. I am prepared to grant that if the government had a following of two-thirds of the House, this resolution would not have so much force or effect, because such a government could easily carry a resolution to dissolve parliament. But when we have, as we had last session, a group carrying on which is less than one-half of the total membership of the House, the situation is quite different. Their legislation is brought in ordinarily with a sort of club held over their own following, and indeed in the last parliament held over some of the independent members, in that if legislation were not accepted, the government would dissolve the House and go to the country. That is rather an unfortunate situation.
Many hon. members, at least the independent members in this House, are more concerned about legislation than about dissolution or general elections, although none of us is so very anxious for a dissolution right away. We have had to run enough elections in the recent past to last us for a few years to come. We are more concerned about legislation, and we would like to consider legislation on its merits. When a legislative program is brought in or when a particular legislative proposal is made before the House,

we do not like to have that club held over us-you have to support the government or you will defeat the government, and if you defeat the government, that means another general election. That was the situation in the last parliament and I am not so sure that we are very far removed from it in this parliament. Oh, yes, we have a large number of members sitting on the other side of the chamber, but there is a ribbonlike row extending along there with a double row of defence ahead of them and a double row of defence behind them, and I am not so sure that row is one hundred per cent affiliated with the Liberal party. In fact, if we are to take at face value a statement that was made in this House in the early part of the session, the group to which I refer, strung along in that ribbonlike fashion, is organized as a separate entity with a chairman and a secretary and does not meet with the Liberal party in caucus. That situation has a very serious aspect. It means that the Liberal party has not a majority in the House, notwithstanding the fact that the press of this country has tried to lead us to believe that we now have stable government. I am not so sure that it is any more stable than it was in the last parliament, except that there are a few more to tend toward stability, but not enough to make it stable. That being the case, it is easy to conceive that during this very session of parliament legislation may be brought forward which will make it very unprofitable for some of that ribbonlike row in the centre of the group opposite us.


An hon. MEMBER:: The thin red line.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The thin red line, somebody says. For instance, we might mention the maritime report. If that should be implemented by legislation embodying all the recommendations contained therein, I am not so sure that some hon. members across the way will not have to think two or three times as to what they should do. That is, if the government prepares to implement one hundred per cent of the maritimes report, the question will be:	Must I take it
all or stand for the defeat of my government? That is not a very satisfactory situation for an independent member. It is an excellent thing for the party man, the man who thinks of party ahead of legislation, or ahead of the country he represents; but it is not the ideal situation, and as independent members in this House we are prepared to protest against such a situation. We claim that legislation should be brought in, of course on the initiative of the government;

Dissolution of Parliament
that each legislative proposal should be considered on its merits, should stand on its own feet, should be voted on as to whether it is wise or not, and that the question of dissolution should be considered by itself.
I am going to try to curtail my remarks so that I shall not transgress the proposed recommendations in connection with the rules of the House. I am watching the clock and I intend to try to stay within the proposed rule of not speaking too long. This resolution leaves the five-year term as it is in the British North America Act and the expiration of that five year term brings about dissolution. The Governor General, if I understand the statute correctly, may order dissolution at any time. This resolution does not change that provision.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Upon advice of the government, of course.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I understand that
the Governor General may order dissolution without the advice of the government.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is fifty years old.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not going to
go into that or argue it, but my understanding of the British practice and the British North America Act, as outlined in section 50, is as I have stated.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In letter but not in
spirit.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The House is subject to be dissolved by the Governor General, not by the Governor General in council. The crown in Britain has that right to dissolve parliament at its will, and we are not arguing that the crown in Canada has not also that right. I am prepared to grant that that right exists and perhaps should exist. I am not prepared to argue the matter. The resolution also provides that a majority of this House may dissolve parliament. Thus we have three very feasible ways of bringing about dissolution.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is it not a fact that in 1914 or 1915, I am not sure which, the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba dissolved the legislature against the wishes of the government, against the wishes of the legislature?


Archibald M. Carmichael: That might be true. I would not dispute it. Not being a resident of Manitoba I cannot grant that it is correct, but I am prepared to admit that such power rests in the hands of a lieutenant governor as well as in the hands of a governor general.


Mr. WARD:: What the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) says about the
situation in Manitoba is correct. The Lieutenant Governor did dissolve the legislature against the wishes of the government then in power.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am thankful for
the help of the thin red line across the way. Another reason why it seems very necessary that some such provision as this should be made against dissolution is the fact that whatever party is in power, I care not whether it is the Liberal party or the Conservative party, there is a tendency on the part of such party to bring about dissolution at a very opportune time for that party, and the legislative program is shaped largely with that thought in view. Now we are going to go to the country and we must get a program that will appeal to the people. I am not going to say that that was what done last year. I do not know whether it was or not. I know the program was very appealing, but I am not going to say that that program was provided especially for going to the country on, but it does often happen that a government brings in a program that is especially appealing, and without any particular desire to get that program enacted into statutory legislation, they hie themselves to the country at their own sweet will and pleasure and bring on a general election, knowing that such a program will work in their own best interests. Mr. Speaker, such is not in the best interests of this country or of any other country. The expenses of a general election are no inconsiderable sum. The country is put to a great deal of expense, and individual members are put to a great deal of expense; business conditions are disrupted from one end of the country to the other, and on the whole a general election has a disturbing effect on the whole country.
I commend this resolution to this Chamber. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons should be supreme in the matter of dissolution. No Prime Minister, and no cabinet, which is simply a body representing this chamber, should have the prerogative of going to His Excellency prior to the completion of the necessary five year term and saying: We must dissolve parliament. The cabinet is but a committee of this House, and, if you please, I would like to consider them as the servants of this House. That may not be a very dignified term to apply to them, but this House itself is but the servant of the nine million people of the Dominion of Canada. The electors in general of Canada send 245 members to this House to do their business as their servants. We in this House look to our cabinet of some eighteen or more members to be
2S2
Dissolution oj Parliament

our servants to carry on the business of legislation, and it seems to me that it is not very appropriate for those who are the servants of the House to decide in their own councils [DOT] that they are going to carry out a certain line of procedure in regard to dissolution. Such procedure should be referred to the full membership of this House, and the question should be decided by the House. If the government is strong and has a large number of followers in the House, their will can easily be carried at any time they wish. But the situation that existed in the last parliament, and exists in this so far as membership and groups are concerned, is altogether different from the condition that prevailed some years ago, and one that is going to exist for a few years to come. We are not going to get rid of the independent groups in this House just because some party men would like to get rid of them; they are here to-day and will be here for some time. In fact, if we compare the membership of the independent groups this year with last, counting the thin red line as being an independent group, we have more members in the independent ranks this year than last. There has been quite a gain. I believe last year we had something like twenty-six, while this year we have thirty-one or thirty-two members altogether in the independent groups. So the independent groups are not dying out and that has given rise to a situation altogether different from what we had in this countiy sixty or a hundred years ago. The need, therefore, is apparent for considering the present situation.
I commend this resolution to the House. I am quite sure that if adopted it will not disturb our equilibrium in this chamber any more than the breaking of the old tradition of electing our Speaker. I am quite sure, too, that the adoption of this resolution will not disturb business conditions throughout the country or impede the wheels of industry one whit. On the other hand, I am sure that it will work to considerable advantage in the future.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution is indeed a very important one, and1 I am pleased to congratulate my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) on the way he has dealt with it. He has made a very interesting speech. I am sorry, however, to be compelled to confess that he has not convinced me that the British system in this matter is wrong. Under the British constitution, and this point my hon. friend has not touched at all, the underlying principle is that the country and parliament must be in harmony; they should not be at

variance. It sometimes happens-it has happened in the past both in Great Britain and in Canadh

that some parliament is elected in a ,period of patriotic exaltation or some other feeling, and a year or two afterwards it is perceived that it does not represent the majority of the people who voted' for it at the previous general election. It is necessary that at such a time a government should not be bound by a fixed rule compelling them to wait three or four more years before appealing to the people and allowing them to elect representatives who would more fairly represent the opinions and views of the majority of the people at that time.
True, as my hon. friend says, if his resolution were adopted a majority of parliament would be required before dissolution could be obtained, but that is just where the objection comes in; that is the obstacle. A House of Commons elected at a certain period would have a majority in the House to oppose dissolution later on at a time when the government considered dissolution necessary under the British constitutional system.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask just how my hon. friend proposes to get himself out of that extraordinary situation? Supposing a government is elected with a strong majority over all, and suppose, for the sake of his argument, that that government within two years becomes, as he says, distasteful to the people. May I ask him to proceed from that point, and let us know the next step. How are you going to get out of that situation?


Ernest Lapointe: It has happened in the past, and I am going to quote instances. It is easy to perceive when a parliament is no longer in harmony with the people who elected them. You can see that especially when a series of by-elections goes against the government. That happened in England during Mr. Gladstone's time, in 1873 and 1875, and Mr. Gladstone went to the country two yeans before the expiration of his term of office just for that very reason. I quoted some words of his in a previous debate in the parliament that expired in 1921. Mr. Gladstone went to the country because all the by-elections were going against his government. He dissolved parliament, and in the general election that followed, he was defeated by an overwhelming majority, showing that he used good judgment in advising the crown to dissolve parliament. He was blamed for doing so at the following session. One of his previous supporters moved a resolution of censure against his course in dissolving parliament before the expiration of the term,
2S3

Dissolution oj Parliament
and in reply Mr. Gladstone said-British Parliamentary Debates, 1874, page 80:
My hon. friend seems to think that there is but one important element in the position of a government, and that is the numerical amount of its majority. Now, upon that -point I join issue with my hon. friend. I think he fundamentally misunderstands the constitution of this country if he supposes that the actual majority that a government may possess in an existing House of Commons is sufficient to give it more moral and political strength for the discharge of its arduous duties, after it has become apparent or when it is becoming clear that the possession of that majority is not agreeable to the sense and the convictions of the country. Now, Sir, there is the whole difference between my hon. friend and myself.
And he adds:
Because in this country we watch the signs and currents of public opinion. We recognize the general title of the country to be governed in conformity with its wishes and its intelligence; and the mere possession of a parliamentary majority, satisfactory as it is when it is a true indication of the actual current of feeling and opinion of the country, is no adequate support and no adequate warrant for the continuance of a government in office if it has become clear, or when there is reasonable ground for supposing, that the desires of the country are in an opposite direction.
In 1900 hon. gentlemen will remember that there was a khaki election. That was following the South African war, and two or three years after that election the government then in power met the same fate that the Gladstone government suffered in 1873. All the by-elections went against the government and then the opposition of that time moved that there should be a dissolution of parliament, because the majority in parliament did not any longer represent the sentiment of the country, and here is what Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman said at page 71 of the British Hansard of 1905:
It is common for us to say, and it is true constitutionally, that the minister of the crown in this country is selected and appointed "because he is the man who commands a majority in the House of Commons. But what does that mean? It means that the command of the majority of the House represents the feeling of the country. The moment the House of Commons gets out of touch and harmony with the country, then that plea for retaining office dissolves; and the right hon. gentleman has no right to entrench himself behind the confidence and support of his friends here after it is known to all mankind and to himself, as well as to any of them, that he has lost the confidence of the country. When I say it is known to himself, it is obviously so, because, if he was not aware he had lost the confidence of the country, why should he show any reluctance to appeal to the country and immensely strengthen his position by securing a favourable verdict from it.
That position was also taken by Sir Edward Grey, now Viscount Grey, and it is the position also advocated by the various authors on the constitution of England, especially Anson, Dicey and Green, who are here quoted. My hon. friend says that governments should not ask for a dissolution because it is contrary to the supremacy of parliament, iand his words to that effect were applauded. I believe in the supremacy of parliament, but I believe that the supremacy of the people must be above that of parliament when parliament no longer represents the majority of the views of the country. In such a case I think parliament should disappear and a new parliament should replace lit which would be a mirror of the conditions of the country as they exist at the time.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Does the minister argue that a group in this House which has less than half of the members has a better chance of rightly interpreting the opinion of nine million people than the whole membership of the House?


Ernest Lapointe: I believe the group in this House which can command the support of the majority of the members should carry on the government, but subject to the condition that the people are willing to have that group carry on. If the people show in an unmistakable way that this government or any other government does not any longer command the confidence of the majority of the people, I think this is a good time for a dissolution of parliament, and that we should not wait, as they do under the other system, until there has been a certain lapse of time. I do not think the American system is better than our own in that regard, and of course it is not based on the same principle. The President of the United States is elected by the direct vote of the people for a certain period of time. He is a ruler in the real sense of the word, not only in name but in fact, and it may very well happen, as it has happened in the past, that after elections, which occur in the United States every year for a certain part either of the senate or the congress, that the president does not command a majority in one or other of the houses, but the president has to carry on for the whole time for which he has been elected. Our system is quite different from that, and I do not believe it is inferior to it. I think there is a great advantage in keeping parliament and the country in harmony.


Mr. SPENCER:: The hon. member for
Kindersley is not advocating the American system, but simply advocating that the will of parliament be supreme.
Dissolution oj Parliament


Ernest Lapointe: He is not advocating it, but he says that parliament will continue for five years unless the majority in parliament decide to the contrary. I have seen occasions when something of the kind has occurred in the other country. I do not want to refer to it in Canada because those times are still too close to the present to make reference to it. But we have had the same condition here, and surely you cannot expect that the majority in parliament under those conditions would vote themselves out of parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: Where has the hon. member proved anything.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not thank the hon. member for the compliment.


Edward Joseph Garland: Far be it from me to do anything but pay the most kindly compliments to a gentleman I so deeply respect, but I wish to have this cleared up. I do not wish him to leave the House under any misapprehension. He has given us the two cases, the Campbell-Bannerman and the Gladstone cases, in which two prime ministers took the initiative and invited dissolution, although they had a majority in the House. The speaker has not yet proved that they would not have had to ask for dissolution if they had sought the opinion of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: But they had a majority.


Edward Joseph Garland: The majority could dissolve the House. Is the minister going to impugn the motives of the British House of Commons?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows that the majority in those circumstances would not vote itself out of parliament.


Mr. BIRD:: I wonder if my hon. friend considered that by-elections were an unmistakable evidence that the government itself was unpopular?


Ernest Lapointe: When a government loses by-elections consistently in various parts of the country. I think it points that way.


Thomas William Bird: From 1874 to 1878 various
by-elections went in favour of the government, and relying on this Disraeli went to the country, but he got licked.


Ernest Lapointe: But the fact that he
was licked shows that the country was opposed to him.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I ask the minister another question?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Unless this crossexamination is discontinued I shall have to dissolve the House.


Ernest Lapointe: May I mention other
circumstances in which I believe the present system is best? For instance, when a very important measure involving a radical change in the national policy is submitted to parliament it is important for the government of the day to have this power of appealing direct to the electorate. Take the case of the Home Rule bill introduced by Gladstone and rejected by the British parliament; was it not essential that his government should have the right to appeal from the verdict of parliament to the verdict of the people? I quote that case because Gladstone was defeated when he went to the country on it, and it shows how essential it is that a government should consult the electorate on an issue first raised in parliament and on which the electorate have not had an opportunity to pronounce judgment.
Then again, take the case of Mr. Bonar Law. My friend referred to the fact that there had been three elections in Great Britain within three years, which he thought a calamity. Why? Mr. Bonar Law appealed to the electors on a policy of preference within the Empire. He had not been elected on such a program, and he thought he could not force through the House of Commons an issue on which the electorate had not been consulted. I think he took the only stand which a constitutional leader in a democratic country should take-not only to consult his own followers in parliament on a question which had not been debated and decided by the electorate, but also to dissolve parliament and go to the country. I think my view of the matter is at least as democratic as that of my friend. I think it is really the people whom I want to consult in such a case, and who under the British constitutional system of government are consulted. Mr. Bonar Law was defeated, but his action shows that he had a proper respect for the will of the electors. As a result of that election three parties were returned in almost equal proportions. Naturally it made government very difficult for some time. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who had the largest group, carried on for a year, but finally he was defeated in the House of Commons. Surely then it was to the advantage of the United Kingdom that the electors should be given an opportunity to decide on what party should be returned to power They did decide. I do not know whether I was greatly pleased because a Conservative government was elected there, but they

Dissolution of Parliament
secured a fair working majority, and since that time they seem to have had a reasonable degree of peace in England.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Strange!


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps. Conditions
differ. May I mention one or two other circumstances where it is important that the government have the prerogative of dissolution? This has happened in Canada and in other countries. Under special circumstances, during a war for instance, a government goes to the country and is returned with a special mandate. When that mandate is fulfilled is it not better that the people should have the-opportunity of electing a new parliament on whatever issues may then be before the country? In countries where the franchise has been extended gradually from time to time, when the electorate is considerably enlarged or modified, is not that also a good reason for appealing to the new electors and giving them an opportunity to exercise the franchise?
I believe that the present system is the really democratic one and that there is no reason for changing it. My friend said that it is a tradition or a custom, and that we ourselves this session have broken a custom by electing you, Mr. Speaker, to the chair for a third consecutive term. But the subject we are discussing is more than a custom, a practice, a tradition. I submit, Sir, that it is the very basic principle on which our constitution is founded, and which makes it different from the American system of government. I am glad that this subject has come up for discussion. I know that many people think the change suggested by my hon. friend would be a good one. I repeat that I do not agree with that view, and that I think we should retain the system which is in force today.
May I conclude by reminding my hon. friend who has referred to the fact that this government is not any more stable than that which carried on last session, that I think it is more stable because we have a Forke in the present government!


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the hon. minister before he resumes his seat? He has based his argument in defence of the present practice on his respect for the people as being above parliament. Would he consider that a prime minister had a proper respect for the will of the people if at any time he should use his right to dissolve parliament as a club over the heads of hon. members?


Ernest Lapointe: That power could be
used as a club only if the prime minister has
a secure majority in the country. A prime minister who is weak, who cannot carry his elections, who does not feel that he is backed up and supported by a majority of the people would not use that club; the club would be used against him.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) must be congratulated upon having brought this subject before the House. No doubt for many years past, but especially during the last two or three years, an increasing number of people in the country have been asking themselves whether everything is right with our parliamentary system of government, and particularly whether the power of dissolution is always exercised in the best interests of the Dominion. It seems to me that instead of looking through books to find precedents and to discover what was done in this or that year in Great Britain or in this or that other country, we should devote ourselves more to this question: What is the system best suited to the needs of Canada now and in the near future? Of course, there is a good deal that may safely be borrowed from outside. I would be the last one to advise my compatriots and the members of this parliament to disregard all British precedents. But if I understand my British history, and with the little knowledge I have of the British parliamentary system of government, I am bound to say this, that precedent after precedent has -been established to meet at particular times the needs of the people of the British Isles, now Great Britain. And if we are so concerned about imitating the British people in -the operation of their system, we should do what they are doing and apply ourselves to find out in what respects their system -corresponds to our needs and to our situation -generally, and in what directions we should make changes as they are needed. I -have never considered- it necessary to show our admiration for the British people and their -constitution by making ourselves monkey-like British subjects and copying everything done in Great Britain simply because it is done in Great Britain. For example, I have never been -able -to bring myself to the point of turning up the bottom of my trouser legs simply because it is raining in London. The conditions in Canada, -geographical, political and economic, are i-n many -respects different from those in Great Britain. In -many respects -they are -certainly -much more similar to the -conditions that prevail in -the United States. So t-hat before we declare outright that -the Americans are all
Dissolution of Parliament

wrong in their method of dealing with political problems, and go on following mechanically what is done in Great Britain, we should consider conditions in their 'bearing on the various aspects of the question.
The first thing to be considered is, in my opinion, the question of the relations that exist or that should exist between the executive and the legislative power. This has been a great subject of dispute and the occasion for many precedents that have displaced each other in Great Britain from * time immemorial. Indeed, the makers of the American constitution decided upon a separation between the executive and the legislative powers in the United States precisely because of their deep knowledge of British history and because they wanted to avoid, in the operation of political powers in the United States, such difficulties as had arisen in Great Britain and had from time to time brought into conflict the king and the lords, the lords and the commons, or the king and parliament at large. And it is precisely because, on the one hand, they wanted to strengthen the hand of the executive power in. the management of the general affairs of the country, and on the other, to reserve to the legislative body that full independence derived from the mandate given by the people, that they decided to make the executive absolutely independent for the four years during which it should be in power, and at the same time guarantee to the legislative power complete independence in relation .to the legislative measures it adopted as well as in the votes which it might give on the budget of the country. On the whole, I do not think it has worked so badly; and before discarding altogether that American precedent, which is nothing else than the result of many centuries of British precedents, or the putting into .concrete form of the thought, or the maturation of thought of many British legislators and British jurists, we should question seriously the wisdom of copying what was done by Lord Beaconsfield or Mr. Gladstone in this year or that year. Rather, we should ask ourselves whether, our conditions being more like those that obtain in the United States, we should not to a certain extent combine in our own system of government something of British precedent and something of American practice.
As to the rights of the people and their supremacy, and the rights of democracy, all that of course sounds very well. All parties, all leaders, all representatives of the people pay a tremendous amount of respect to the

voters so long as they think they can win their votes.. And in our own history, as well as in the history of Great Britain, it has been proved that once entrenched in power governments have all more or less respected the will of the people. This applies even to that great statesman, Disraeli, who after having fought the popular will, both on the Corn Law and in connection with the Reform laws, discovering that he was likely to lose in the end, risked the support of the landed gentry on his Tory policy, turned his coat, and adopted a more radical policy than that of the Liberal party, which he had previously opposed. This he explained by saying that his party had educated their masters.
The point, is not whether public opinion as expressed by the votes of the people will be supreme in the long run. That is admitted. The question is, what is the most practical means by which an elected parliament will carry on the government of the country for the normal period for which it has been returned, and keep a proper balance between the democratic principle and the maintenance of a government which will respect itself, respect the House and respect the people. I quite admit with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that if a great unforeseen question arises during the lifetime of a parliament, if the government, faced with the necessity of taking a stand on such a question, finds either through the House or from outside expressions of opinion that it cannot exercise its responsibilities and pass legislation on that question, it should ask for a dissolution in order to obtain a fresh mandate from the people on that particular matter. Such questions do arise once in a while, but they are rather infrequent. The other aspect of the question raised by several gentlemen on the opposite side presents itself at almost every session. The government brings down legislation which may be in the interests of the people, but which is imposed upon them by certain groups or large interests. If a portion of the majority is unwilling to accept such legislation by conviction, the ministers turn to those members and say, " Well, we are bound to bring it down, and if you do not accept it we will dissolve parliament." This is another aspect, a smaller one I admit but one which must not be disregarded; because, after all, the public life of a country, the standard of public morality and the public spirit are not to be measured by the attitude of parliament or of the people upon great or rare occasions, but by the daily life of the countiy and parliament; and everything which makes for the greater independence of parliament makes for the greater liberty of the people.

Dissolution oj Parliament
On the other hand I must say that I was quite shocked to hear the hon. gentleman asking this House to say that the majority shall decide whether or not dissolution could be granted. If this resolution were voted in this form it would simply strengthen the hands of a powerful and unscrupulous government to enforce upon the weak and timeserving majority that very dangerous power against which we are both protesting. The stronger and more unscrupulous the government, the more time-serving will be the majority at the back of that government, and if this resolution is voted where is the remedy?


Archibald M. Carmichael: Does the hon. member mean that if the government have a strong following in the House they would be sustained and would not be granted a dissolution?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My argument is that
under the holy rule of democracy the more unscrupulous the government, the stronger it is with the people and with parliament. I must say that I have not much faith in democracy, in spite of all the millions we have spent to make it reign all over the world. Let us leave that for a moment, however, and turn back to something else. You have a government with a large number of followers interested individually in not going to the people, in not running the risk of an election. If the legislation proposed is unpopular and against the interests of the people but must be swallowed up for certain considerations, it is generally brought in at the beginning of a parliament. I have sat in this House in the olden times; I have studied the records of this parliament, and the more shameful a policy, the more detrimental it is to the interests of the people, the more generally it has been brought in by a strong government with a strong majority at the beginning of parliament. That has happened with all parties and if some of the followers said, "We cannot swallow that", the government replied, "Well, my good fellows, if you do not swallow it you will have to go to the people; if you do not stand by the government, will you stand by the opposition which you have fought? We have supplied you with electoral funds; where else will you get your moral help to convince the consciences of the people?" The result is that the stronger the government and the larger its majority, the greater is the tendency to impose any kind of legislation under threat of dissolution. Therefore I quite agree with the Minister of Justice, and I am quite sure my hon. friends opposite do not desire to bring this new-born democracy, with its feeble conscience, to the state of political morality which existed at the time of Disraeli and the
remnants of the pocket boroughs. If we want to have some kind of practical administration we must prepare something similar to what the Americans have done; give to the people the absolute right to decide on certain occasion who their representatives will be, and then stand by the consequences for the time being. It is far better to have elections at a fixed date than have dissolution upon any pretence; and I would further say that neither the Governor General, the Lieutenant Governor nor any other single gentleman, at Rideau Hall or elsewhere, a man not representative of the people, should have that right; I will never stand for that. I would say that power should be reserved to the executive chosen by the majority of the House, and possessing the confidence of the House.
On any trivial matter, any measure which ma3r be brought in by this or that minister, the House should be free to accept or refuse it, and let the government abide by the decision of the House. The people do not ask to be consulted in a general election upon any trifling bill which may be brought in by the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Railways or anyone else; the people are more reasonable than they are sometimes represented. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has well said, they want to be consulted upon great measures of unforeseen consequences. For example, I know the people in my province felt indignant when this parliament, which had been elected on certain matters of administration, decided by an understanding reached between the two parties that we should go to war in Europe. That feeling of indignation spread all over the country, when the constitution of this country was violated to permit Liberals and Conservatives to sit for one year more than they had been elected for, in order to impose conscription on the people. Yes, the people feel indignant at these violations not only of British precedents, but of the most elementary rights of justice and common sense.
But if a minister proposes that a grant of money be made to build the Peace river railway or any other railway; if a minister brings in a measure for the administration of his department, let the House decide whether or not such a measure shall be supported or such a grant of money be voted. It is not necessary to disturb the business of the country and dissolve parliament for that. If the minister concerned considers that he is no longer able to fill his position in the cabinet, let him resign, something which is done frequently not only in France and other countries, but in Great Britain as well. I have not the precedents in mind at the
Dissolution of Parliament


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My hon. friend will find out in a few years whether Ramsay MacDonald is killed or not. That is the game of party, as we all understand. In every country that brand of politics is to be found. They are no better or worse in Great Britain than we are here; we should not be either proud or ashamed of the difference. There is just about the same human nature everywhere. But evidently they discovered and they now know that the thinking and working democracy of Great Britain is tired of being appealed to from morth to month by time-serving politicians.
Likewise, the people of Canada, do not care to have such frequent elections. The people who realty consider and value their citizenship do not care to be called upon every six months or every year to pass through the turmoil of general elections. What they care about is that the men andi parties that appeal to 'them, once elected and in parliament, should give them at least twenty-five per cent of their promises. The people are beginning to be more concerned about the results; and for that reason we should come to the point of combining the best part of the old traditional spirit of British government.,-which was not democratic, which was entirely and thoroughly aristocratic, which was based upon contempt for the people, which meant simply the selection of a few individuals by a somewhat larger

Dissolution of Parliament
number of individuals,-and the best part of the American system of government, which has its dangers, which threatens not only the American people but the world1 at large with the domination of plutocracy taking the place of the old landed! gentry which governed England, but which nevertheless offers some examples that we might make use of.
Gan we not have faith in ourselves, I will not say in our genius, but simply in our common sense, to try to adapt to our conditions such measures or systems of government which may or may not exist elsewhere, without asking ourselves: Has that been borne and brought up under the British flag? Does this bear the English or the French stamp? Let us endeavour to build something by ourselves out of our own comlmon sense, taking advantage of course of what is good and what has produced good elsewhere, endeavouring also to avoid the dangers and the clap-traps into which other countries have fallen. If we do that, it will be quite possible to devise a system which will not prevent any majority from declaring that the government has lost its confidence and should go to the people. I would! keep that part of the British precedent, because that, instead of being a club in the hands of ten men against two hundred, would be a club in the hands of two hundred men against ten. It would be far more effective. I quite admit that it will take a long time before a truly party majority will make use of that cliub aigaimst its own government; but nevertheless, leave in the hands of a majority of the House to cteclare that tihe government has lost its confidence, and therefore that an appeal should be m&de to the people. I think this would meet the object of the motion of the hon. gentleman, as well as the object of the motion standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. 'Garland). Unless there is a decided vote given by the majority of the House to defeat the government and send it to the people, I claim that we should follow the American system and declare that the House shall not be dissolved until the expiration of the five years for which it is elected.
As regards the prerogatives of the Governor General, I hope that nobody and no group iu this House will stand up and ask us to go back on a principle which now stands unchallenged in every country where floats the British flag. I am not apt to wave the British flag, but I hope that gentlemen in this House who are prepared to wave it upon all occasions and sing "God Save the King" on every street corner, will be prepared to stand up here and say that in the House of Commons of Canada
we are not prepared to go one hundred and fifty years back of the people of Great Britain, back of the people of Australia, of New Zealand, and of every other country which acknowledges the British king as its sovereign. There is not a teacher of law, there is not a statesman, there is not a public man under the British flag in any other country but Canada, who would claim to-day that the king, or in any part of the king's dominions, the representative of the king, has the right to dissolve parliament unless it is by the advice of his legal counsellors.
I hope hon. gentlemen will forgive me a little heat upon that point. Of course, it is in the blood; but I 'hope also that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will realize that if I have taken a somewhat unexpected share in this debate it is because I earnestly hope that all men of goodwill will join hands to see that in the functioning of our representative institutions there shall be a growth, a development which will both satisfy the need which has been well presented by the hon. gentleman, and as to which a great many people in the country feel as he does and desire a remedy for that situation, and at the same time keep in view the principles which the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has laid down. It seems to me that this is a subject which might usefully occupy the minds of a few hon. gentlemen in some committee of the House. It would certainly be as useful and as timely a subject to engage their attention as the amendment of the rules of the House, which subject is to be brought before this body within a few days. There is no doubt that the people in the country feel uneasy at the uncertainty of government and of legislation. They feel that at times too much legislation is forced upon a weak government by some group holding in its hands the power to maintain or overthrow that government. They also feel that very often weak representatives of the people let a strong or daring government impose upon them legislation against their conscience and against the interests of the people they represent. We must have more freedom, we must have more order, and we must also have a little more businesslike spirit in the working of our institutions.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, I wish to add only a very few sentences to this very interesting and, to my mind, very important debate. I was not surprised that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) defended the present system, I have, as has been said by other members of this group, a very great respect

Dissolution of Parliament

for the Minister of Justice, but the people who benefit from a certain system are almost always found in the ranks of its defenders. .
If I understand the speech of the Minister of Justice the leading point in it was that the cabinet knew better than the members of the House of Commons what the people of the country wanted. As a matter of fact, I think they know much less about what the people want than do the members of the House of Commons, and for a very good reason; they have not the chance to know. I have said that before. When ministers go to their own constituencies there is such a terrific pow-wow made about them that they never happen to hear what the people are really thinking. They are welcomed everywhere with respect and a great show of elation and so they do not get to know, as we common individuals do, what are the people's thoughts on specific questions. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and I am amazed at the modesty of the Minister of Justice that he should stand up here and say that he and his colleagues in the cabinet know more about what the people in nine provinces want than do the representatives from the 245 constituencies. I think we must all admit, I think even the most partisan, even the most blind, must admit that a gradual but continuing change is coming over our form of government. Responsible government once meant being responsible to the crown. However, gradually a change has come about until responsible government to-day does not mean responsibility to the crown; it means responsibility to the people, and so the House of Commons, being the chamber in which the representatives of the people sit, is the most important part of the government of Canada or of Great Britain. If it is not, at least it ought to be, and to my mind it will not be so very long before the cabinet is what I once heard the Minister of Finance say in a previous parliament that it was-ra committee of the House of Commons. It is, of course, not that, but it ought to be, and I think as we become seized of the fact that responsible government does mean government responsible to the people, we will also come to know that a cabinet should be a committee that is responsible to the House of Commons; and if they are not responsible to the House of Commons, they are not useful, and there should be some way in which we can get rid of them.
I think everyone who has sat in this House knows that very many times government supporters are forced-I think that word is not too strong-into supporting measures for
IMiss Macphail.]
which they have no use at all, simply to avoid having their leader, the Prime Minister of the country, go and ask for a dissolution of parliament, and thereby bring upon our heads that which members of parliament dislike most, a general election. I recall, and I am sure you do, too, Mr. Speaker, the time when Mr. Andrew McMaster, then member for Brome, introduced a resolution that cabinet ministers should not hold directorships in great companies. I yet recall the sullen faces of the Liberal members when they were forced-I use that word advisedly -to vote against that resolution which they themselves, a very few months before had, almost all, if not all, supported.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Their masters had
educated them.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Yes. I remember some of them were so angry that we did not,see them in the chamber for some days afterwards. That sort of thing is bad for the character-yes, it is bad for their disposition, as my seatmate says, but it is bad for the character, and if they stay in the House of Commons and are continually put in a position where they must vote against their honest convictions, I am afraid they will cease-well, one hates to say it-to have honest convictions. The system of government that brings about a condition like that is a very bad system.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It has been argued tonight by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, who spoke so eloquently and held us with such interest, that where a party had a majority in the House, if they voted together, they could at any time by a vote of the Commons bring about a dissolution. But we must admit-and I know that some members will do it with very great reluctance -that in Canada we are not as much wedded to the two-party system of government as we used to be, and that there are growing up in Canada economic groups-you can call them class groups if you like, because that is what they are-which are the result of an organization in the country. These groups come here to speak with the voice of a particular industry. I am one such. There are many of us in this corner of the House. We have no particular interest in party government. We do not care which party is the government. We care very much.what kind of legislation they offer us, but the name of the party itself is of no personal concern to us, and so it seems to me, as this thing con-

Dissolution oj Parliament
tinues-and I think there is no doubt it is going to continue-that some new way of carrying on government in this House must be found, and that a time will come-and surely this resolution is one step towards it- when members will be liberated and able to express their honest convictions. Of course it sounds revolutionary, but I do not think it is so dangerous. The time will come when members can vote on issues as they arise, whether they are government measures or not., and when they, the members of the House of Commons, believe that it is in the best interests of all the people to bring about a general election, my faith in the members of the House of Commons is sufficient to believe that they will bring about a general election, and are more likely to bring it about at a time when it is in the general interest and for the welfare of the general public than are a few men who are known as the members of the cabinet.
I do not intend to continue my speech, which is not really a speech. I entreat hon. members-I was going to say hon gentlemen; it- would be all right for me to say that, because so many of you say hon. gentlemen, but hon. members is a better expression-I entreat hon. members not to close their eyes to the fact that changes are taking place in Canada, first in the organization in the constituency. The old bluff stuff, even with lots of money behind it, does not work as it used to do. There is an organized electorate which has a collective intelligence and they are exercising it, and so we had better get rid of the old system, as the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) said, and use our own common sense in the creation of a system that suits our own conditions. We can do it if we forget all the precedents that ever were.


Thomas William Bird: Unlike the
hon. lady from Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail), I was somewhat surprised at the stand the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) took against this proposed improvement in our methods of doing business in this House. I had usually associated the hon. member with a certain fine elasticity of mind and with a spirit that was attuned to democracy, but somehow or other the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Kennedy) must have caught the blind spot in his eye to-night. I was so much impressed with the speech of the hon. member that I thought it was worthy of at least my support. I am glad there are not many voices in this House-they seem to be a diminishing quantity-that are prepared to speak out on behalf of widening the elbow room in this chamber for Canadian democracy.
This power of cabinets to dissolve parliament is one of those vestigial things that come down to us not from times when men climbed trees but when certain classes of men found themselves up trees and sought an easy way to climb down. It is a curious thing that in the growth of our British constitution that power was wrested from the hands of autocracy and handed down to the people in very short stages. When they took this power from the monarch they did not place it immediately into the hands of the people, but placed it in the hands of the oligarchy, and there it has remained ever since to the detriment of democracy.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That was Cromwell's
work.


Thomas William Bird: Like all things of this character that have outlived their usefulness, that time has caused to seem uncouth, it has become a kind of incubator of disease in the body politic. I feel sure myself that this power, remaining beyond its time, outgrowing its usefulness and purpose, has had a pernicious influence upon our government. It has provided a means whereby governments, oligarchies, small cliques of men, have been able to club popular assemblies into insensibility towards the wishes of the people. It is a sad thing, the influence that popular assemblies, so-called, have upon the members who from time to time are sent to them. It does not require very much to take the edge off those fine sentiments with which men first make their appearance in these assemblies. It does not take much, it seems, to dilute those high principles which animate our breast when first we make our entry into these places. One of the things that is most responsible for killing these enthusiasms, for destroying these attachments to high principles is the influence of the party whip. What is it that gives to the party whip his power, his torpedo-like effect upon the followers of a government? When he draws out the black snake and cracks it over the heads of his party's followers, then enthusiasms decay and evaporate. Why is it? Simply because we have allowed to survive into our age of democracy this vestige of times gone by when it may have had some use to buttress autocracy, but never to strengthen democracy.
I am sure that this out-of-date practice also fosters what I may call opportunism in government. This does not need very much fostering, because in times gone by it has been the very spirit of the politician. But here is something that deliberately fosters opportunism in government. It allows governments to lengthen their term of office-I am arguing
Dissolution of Parliament

contrary to the Minister of Justice; it is just as legitimate one way or the other-I say it permits governments to prolong their life until they think it is opportune to consult the people. Here we are in parliament supposed to be transacting the people's business, but from election to election we sit gazing out of the window wondering what kind of political weather it is going to be instead of transacting the people's business. We have our eye upon the political barometer. My hon. friend says that governments keep their eyes on by-elections, and that as the mercury rises or falls, it determines the length of life of governments. I may have made a mistake in checking up my hon. friend on the dates he mentions, but I remember that in 1874 when Gladstone went to the country because he felt that the political barometer was falling his government was succeeded by the Disraeli government, one of the most inept, retrograde, shallow and inefficient governments that ever held office in England. Throughout their term of office they scanned the political horizon and when they thought the barometer was rising-several by-elections went in their favour-they appealed to the country. What happened? They were severely beaten. The political barometer failed them, why should not it fail at any other time? In our own experience we know there has been such a failure. The political barometer proved to be misleading as recently as last session. What was it then that impelled the government of the day to go to the country but their sizing up of the political situation? You know, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do that not ten per cent of the people were wanting an election last year; they were wanting legislation, as the member for Southeast Grey said. Nevertheless they got an election, and they got it because of this outworn practice that we have saddled upon us in this democratic age. Here we have political parties watching the clouds. As the Scripture says, when you watch the clouds you do not sow. That is one reason why parliaments are so sterile in legislation-most of the time is spent between looking back to. the last election and forward to the next.
I think this custom is out of keeping with present-day parliamentary conditions. As the member for Southeast Grey said, the members of the older groups in this House have always deliberately refused to recognize the emergence of the third party. We are in the age of the multi-group system; groups have come to stay. The fact that the group I represent in this parliament sits partly on one side of the House and partly on the other does not, I think, make much difference. Person-

ally I feel sorry in a sense to see my colleagues sitting over on the other side of the chamber, but perhaps it is due from me to say to the House that it might be as well for those who do not understand the situation not to try to derive too much comfort from seeing some of my colleagues on the benches opposite. I think my colleagues there will agree with me that in the last five years, in Manitoba at any rate, there has been no fundamental change in the opinion of the people; they are not one whit more attached to the bi-party system to-day than they were in 1921. I say to my friends of both parties that if I were in their position I would not presume too much from the fact, regrettable enough to me, that some of my colleagues are sitting where they are to-night.
I want to say that it is an insult to the democratic spirit that has manifested itself throughout the country in the last six years to make almost deliberate attempts to disintegrate the third party both in this House and in the country. It cannot be done. There is such a momentum behind the movement that all this petty obstruction can have only a momentary effect. I would have been proud, indeed gratified, if the Minister of Justice speaking, as he presumably does, for the government, had assumed a more generous attitude towards this measure of reform that has been put before us to-night. I do not say that it is sufficient. I think possibly it has a serious defect.
I could not see very much difference between the position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) and that of the member for Ivindersley, except perhaps that one was a little more stringent than the other. After all, these things are but details in a wider system of renovation which is overdue in our Canadian parliament. Anyone who knows parliament, who has had experience of it, knows that out of all its turmoil, out of all its labours, there comes forth precious little in the way of advanced legislation for the benefit of the people. And why is that? Is it not reasonable to assume that it is because of the antiquated system to which we are clinging? From my own observation I am sure it is. Parliament is not functioning as it should function in a democratic country; the voice of the people is stifled the moment it tries to find expression in this House. The moment the will of the people tries to express itself, it is cribbed, cabined and confined in this very place which traditionally is supposed to stand for the rights of all. Why should any Liberal quarrel with a new and rising democracy? When this new spirit of democracy, this clamant call of the people
[DOT]293

Dissolution oj Parliament
for better representation, makes itself felt here, why should it be restrained? Why should it not be given every reasonable encouragement? Is not this the home of democratic institutions? This is the place that has been reared through generations to welcome the voice and the spirit of the people. We cannot therefore take this resolution lightly to-night. While it may be very inadequate, yet it points to something that is eating at the very vitals of our public life.
A few days ago I received from one of our outstanding newspapers a pamphlet aimed at converting me to the system of Mussolini in Italy. Why should an intelligently conducted journal try to foist that system on Canada? Because evidently it sees its opportunity; it sees some vital debility in the present system. But are we believers in British constitutional development going to listen to the wild, thoughtless, wrecking advice of a capitalistic newspaper and overturn the traditions of our beloved country simply because, being subsidized, that newspaper is able to pamphleteer us? Let us act like reasonable men and try to keep our constitutional development along the sound lines that have been laid down by our British statesmen in days gone by. Those men were not perfect; they shapd their policies to fit in ' with the needs and the state of devlopment in the time in which they lived. But their vision was far-reaching nevertheless.
I do not think we can take the speech of the Minister of Justice very seriously because, in my opinion at any rate, it represents no fundamental philosophy in his own mind. I would much rather believe that he is on the side of the angels with respect to these things; if he is not, he should be. In looking up a reference a short while ago, explaining why Gladstone became disheartened, went to the country, and finally retired from the leadership of his party, I found a very interesting passage. Mr. Chamberlain, who at that time was the strongest radical in British politics, was himself dragging Mr. Gladstone, Napoleon-like, into his Elba. Chamberlain advised the Liberals at that time to vote against the government of their party until they should learn the Liberal alphabet sufficiently well to be able to spell the first words of the Liberal cause. He repeated that throughout the length and breadth of England, with the result that the Liberal government was turned out of power. They had to learn the alphabet of liberalism. I do not think we heard the alphabet of liberalism to-night from the lips of the Minister of Justice. We heard a strange language, a foreign accent,-


Ernest Lapointe: I am not responsible
for that.


Thomas William Bird: I was referring to the hon.
gentleman's mental accent.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I see.


Thomas William Bird: I was talking in the realm
of mental and moral things. And I say it sincerely, and not at all in any captious; spirit, because I am thoroughly convinced that what the minister said to-night was not inspired by anything he can find in the story of Liberalism. He will search in vain the lives of Liberal statesmen, he will read Liberal textbooks as much as he likes, he will find nothing at all in keeping with the spirit of the little address he gave us to-night.


William Irvine: I do not propose at this late hour to go fully into this question, important though it is. I believe however that it is of sufficient importance to merit greater consideration than the House will be able to give it to-night. Unlike the previous speaker (Mr. Bird), I was rather impressed with the argument of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), although not with the whole of it. Certainly I think he presented the constitutional principle at its very best, and there is something well worth safeguarding in that principle. On the other hand, I should hope tha-t the Minister of Justice would be willing to admit that the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) is trying to remove from the practice of parliament something that is a real grievance and hindrance, both to democracy and to the best interests of the House. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has presented both sides of the question clearly to us. Judging from the remarks of the Minister of Justice it would be surprising to me if this resolution were to pass. I think his very utterance, under the present practice of parliament, draws to his support every member on the other side of the House who belongs to his party, and that being so the resolution will of course be lost. I believe, on the other hand, that if a committee were appointed to study the question, or if one of the standing committees were delegated to take it into consideration and discuss it, something might possibly develop which could be adopted. It is obvious to everyone that the chief thing we are trying to get away from in the resolution is the power which a prime minister wields in parliament by his continual threat to dissolve parliament if certain legislation is not passed. That is the most important point implied in the resolution. Therefore, in view of the importance of the resolution, and also in the
Dissolution of Parliament

hope that with greater or more mature consideration some means will be found whereby the principle set forth by the Minister of Justice, and the one emphasized by the hon. member for Kindersley, may be embodied in one practice, I move seconded by Mr. Spencer, that the resolution be amended by adding the words, "That this resolution be referred to the committee on rules of the House."


John Wesley Edwards: It is so seldom that I have an
opportunity of agreeing with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that even at this late hour I am not going to let the opportunity pass of saying that I do agree with him in the stand that he takes in regard to this resolution. The Minister of Justice stated that the will of the people was above even the will of parliament, and if that is so I would like to say that in the last election the party on this side of the House, of which 1 am a humble member, polled more of the popular vote than did the parties represented by the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). Therefore, in so far as public opinion is concerned, I may find myself at variance with the minister.
I do not intend to take many minutes at this late hour to discuss this question. We have listened to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who has certainly a very extensive vocabulary and who does not, intend that any part of that vocabulary shall grow rusty through disuse. I will readily admit that he is a fluent and interesting speaker at all times; perhaps more interesting when you hear him first than when you hear him later on because of his frequent repetitions and all-embracing generalities which come up in almost every speech. If the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle had any meaning at all they meant in one part that we should adopt the cast iron, iron clad system of the United States. But apparently that did not suit him, nor did the motion of the hon. member for Kindersley please him. That is not unnatural with the hon. member for Labelle; in fact that is playing true to form, When has any person known the hon. member to agree with any person, any party, or any individual except the hon. member for Labelle?
I can easily understand the attitude of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) and the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), in their desire to hang on to their seats for five years, no matter what the circumstances are. When a person will cut short a trip across the Atlantic in order to try to keep in power a party which that

person has already denounced as unfit to hold the reigns of office; when a person will "inadvertently" cast his vote to keep that party in power, I can well understand the attitude of those hon. members this evening in saying that parliament should extend over the full term of five years no matter what the circumstances may be, in order that they may hold the seats which they now represent.
The hon. member for Labelle frequently pays tributes, in that tone of voice and attitude which generally characterize all his utterances, to the British constitution and British institutions, but he generally endeavours to find something with which he endeavours to discredit them afterwards. So he said, with that flourish not of trumpets but of arms, with that acrobatic performance which nearly always goes with his speeches in this House, "We must not accept British precedents and British practices because they are British." All I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and I say it to the hon. member for Labelle and need say it to no others in this House, that neither do we have to discard British practices and British precedents because they are British. I think we are on pretty safe ground in following the practice of the mother of parliaments in regard to this matter, as we might very well follow them in regard to many other matters, and as most ' of the civilized countries in the world have followed them also. I believe that our course here is far more democratic and more in conformity with the will of the people than is the practice across the line in the United States of America.
It was said by one of the speakers, if not by the hon. member for Labelle, that the government might use its power of dissolution as a threat or club over hon. members to force them into submission. That is not a practice which I will endorse or which should be endorsed, but I venture to submit that it is no worse for the government to do that, having on their shoulders the responsibility of carrying On government, than it was for the hon. member for Labelle to rise in his place in this House last session and convey to the government the threat that unless they changed certain legislation 'he would tell something that took place in a secret conference in 1905. Who was holding a club in that case? I do not think it any worse for the government to exercise its right of dissolution than it was for certain hon. gentlemen from the city of Winnipeg to exercise their power and authority in this House last session and say to the government, "Give us this legislation or give us that, or out you go." It may be that the government may see

Dissolution of Parliament
fit to dissolve parliament, but it seems to me that according to human nature as exemplified by this government, they are not very apt to dissolve parliament short of the legal term.
I think we can take it for granted that they will hang on as long as they possibly can, at least I am convinced that I have seen evidences to that effect on several occasions. But I can conceive that it may be possible for circumstances to arise in the country whereby a certain matter may come up which will agitate Canada from one end to the other, and where the government must take a firm stand.
I want to say here that I do not agree with the hon. member for Southeast Grey when she says that the ordinary member of parliament is in a better position to get public opinion than are members of the cabinet. I disagree with that absolutely, because it is the business of the cabinet, selected from all parts of the country, to make themselves familiar with public opinion on all great questions. If the government of the country take a stand on a question; they are a number of men bound together and acting together, and if certain other men take the opposite side on a question which is agitating the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, then I say it is right for the government to tell the others. "We believe we are right; we may be in the minority in the House, but we believe the people of the country are with us, and believing that we will submit this question to the people." In that case they should not be dictated to by a few individuals in this House representing any class or group who think they hold the upper hand and can force the government to do what they will.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, taking into consideration all these matters I am inclined to agree with the position taken by the Minister of Justice. I listened of course with attention and interest to the remarks made by hon. gentlemen and the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) in the southeast comer of the House, the Progressives. If democracy has been smashed to splinters in the opinion of those hon. members, if the liberties of the people are being violated and all that sort of thing, why do they not use their great influence in Manitoba and Alberta, where they have Progressive governments, and get. them to institute such a system out there? Have they done that? Not that I have heard.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: When?
They have not produced any results. They will produce no more results if they try it
out there than they will produce here. They have not invaded the field out there; they have not used their perfervid eloquence in taking up this question with the Progressive governments of Manitoba and Alberta, telling them where they were wrong and how they were trampling on the liberties of the people and infringing the sacred rights of democracy. No, hon. gentlemen will leave all that, come down to this parliament, and tell us that we are all going to the political bow-wows because we do not see just as the political group in that corner sees on this question.
I repeat what I said in the beginning. Having regard to the situation in the old country, to the development of democratic institutions there under the British system, because that is what he have had, the recognition of the rights of the people in that land where for centuries they have developed their institutions, and having regard at all times to the will of the people, I say that that is a very good and safe course for us to follow, and I for one believe that to depart from that course and to take away from the government of this country, whatever government it may be, the right to be guided according to what it believes to be the will of the people and, in any great crisis arising, to dissolve parliament and ascertain tfre will of the people, will be a retrograde step. I close by using again the sentence which I uttered in the beginning, namely, that I am glad on this occasion to take a few minutes in order to place myself in accord with the hon. gentleman for whom I have a great respect so far as his personality is concerned, but for whose politics I have very little use.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am bound to return the compliment to the hon. member for Frontenac-Adldington (Mr. Edwards) and I am really pleased to see that for once we are in agreement. I believe that I am right notwithstanding.


John Wesley Edwards: That was
the very point that bothered me.


Ernest Lapointe: I was pleased that one of his arguments at least was an answer to the hon. member for Southeast Grey, whose suggestion that my stand in the matter might be influenced by the benefits I received from the present system was not altogether fair. As the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington said, I think any benefit there would be from the present system in having a secure government and a safe position in the council would be as great as it would be if the motion of the hon. member were adopted.
Dissolution oj Parliament


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is the hon. member
assuming that the cabinet knows better than members of the House of Commons what the people want?


Ernest Lapointe: That is another question entirely, but I may assure my hon. friend that I am discussing this on a matter of principle and not of self-interest. That is not my way in the public life of Canada.
Miss .MACPHAIL:	I was not attaching
any blame or trying to say that the Minister of Justice was personally benefiting any more than any one else under the system, but it is quite a secure position for the cabinet when the very last word comes out of their own mouths.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, the words were
unfortunate. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) did not attach any self-interest to me in the matter, but he rather inferred that he was sorry for my Liberalism. Really I think that when I am keeping company with Gladstone, Asquith, Sir Edward Grey and Campbell Bannerman, I am with fairly good Liberals.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And the hon. member
for Frontenac-Addington.


Ernest Lapointe: I have said already that I am right notwithstanding. I think I may fairly repeat that the British system is the truly democratic system. Reference has been made to-night to those practices in the past in England when they had an aristrocratic government and corrupt boroughs. There was such a time in England and it took perhaps centuries for the people to get all their liberties, one after the other. They fought for those liberties; but there is no other system in the world

and I am proud to proclaim this to-night-which is as truly a popular and democratic system as the British one at present.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is the British system
finished?


Ernest Lapointe: It is not finished; but
we must not go back; we must improve. I may remind my hon. friend that a change is not always a reform. There are changes which are retrograde and this would not be a reform. As regards the amendment, surely it cannot be expected that we should send a motion of this kind to a committee to amend or change the rules of the House. This is not a question of precedent; it is a question of principle, and personally I am not going to entrust any committee of my fellow members to decide my principles for me.


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: I may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I was in my seat when the vote on the amendment was being taken, and I wish to record my vote for the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: I will ask the clerk to state whether or not he recorded the vote cast by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn).


The CLERK:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I think it should be recorded, because first of all, he was in his seat when the question was put, and Bourinot says at page 381:
If a member who has heard the question put does not vote, and the attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact, the latter will call upon him to declare on which side he votes: and his name will be recorded accordingly.
In the present instance, the hon. member was, as he says, in the House when the question was put. He had not made up his mind whether or not 'he would support the amendment when the vote on it was being taken, but later on, when the vote against the amendment was being taken, he made up his mind and stated that he wished to support the amendment. Under these circumstances I am justified in saying that his vote should be recorded. The question is now on the main motion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think there are very good grounds indeed, Mr. Speaker, why a resolution of this kind should not be referred to
the committee on the rules and practices of this House, but I think the subject, if there is time and an opportunity offers, is worthy of further consideration by this House, and as the hour is now l-ate, I would move the adjournment of the debate on the main motion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe, the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
Tuesday, February 15, 1927