1930-05-05

Mr. N. M. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast) moved:: That the petition of the Calgary and Ferine Railway Company, of Calgary, Alta., praying for the passing of an act to extend the time within which to commence and complete the construction of their line of railway, which was presented to the house on the 9th ultimo, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.
He said:	This matter is before the Senate
in the form of Bill L-2. The company is now in a position to go ahead with its work and desires to have this bill passed at the earliest possible moment. I do not believe the matter is contentious, but at this season of the year a delay of two weeks would be rather injurious to their operations. I have before me the consent of both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Calgary and Fcrnie Railway

Mr. J. GORDON ROSS (Moose Jaw) moved:: That the petition of Wilfrid Nathaniel Bickle, praying for the passing of an act to grant a divorce, and to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner, which was presented to the house on the 2nd instant, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, he referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin) moved:: That the petition of Clara Delilah Latehford, praying for the passing of an act to grant a divorce and to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner, which was presented to the house on the eighth April, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, he referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1931, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), and read by the Deputy Speaker to the house.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That the message of His Excellency the Governor General and the estimates governing same he referred to the special committee on railways and shipping.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated
on previous occasions, the reference of these estimates to this special committee will have to be without prejudice to our right to discuss the general principles which may be involved in the estimates themselves.


Mr. DUNNING:: As on previous occasions, the discussion in this house will be in no way prejudiced by the reference of these estimates to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. ADSHEAD:: As the government gave a cost rate on coal from Alberta to Ontario, will they also consider giving to the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan a cost rate from Alberta?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) :: An application from the western bituminous operators has been received. This request as well as others of a similar character is receiving the careful consideration of the government.


RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS-TERMINAL DUTY TIME
Mr. WHITE (London):: Are railway mail clerks given any time allowance for what is known as "waiting time at terminals" away from home between the arrival and departure of their runs?


Mr. VENIOT:: Railway mail clerks are allowed suitable terminal duty time after arrival at and before departure from an outside terminal according to the work to be performed.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT-CONVICTIONS
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	What number of convictions were secured for infractions of the Customs and Excise Acts, respectively, in the province of Prince Edward Island during the year 1929?
2.	Have all such convictions been enforced?
3.	If not, for what reason, and upon whose recommendation were commitments withheld?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Sixty-three.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	How many employees are attached to the tariff board?
2.	What is the name, home address, and salary of each such employee?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents between the federal government or any of its departments and the Nova Scotia government or any of its departments, or the Nova Scotia Power Commission, regarding the provision of fishways in dams which have been constructed or are being constructed in Nova Scotia for the development of hydroelectric power.	.
[Mr. Dunning.!


GASPE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Reverend Mr. Narcisse Rioux and the Department of Public Works, concerning the construction of certain works at Petit Cap, Grande-Anse, and Anse a Valleau, county of Gaspe, Quebec.


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Reverend Mr. L. Ph. L'ltalien and the Department of Public Works, concerning the construction of a wharf at Mont-Louis, county of Gaspe, Quebec.


JOHN GALLANT
Hon. J. A. MACDONALD (Kings) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and other documents in the possession of the government in connection with the release of John Gallant, of Summerside, Prince Edward Island, on ticket of leave from Dorchester penitentiary.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish to say on behalf of the
Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), who is not in the house at present, that this motion will of course be subject to the condition that confidential documents and those which it is not in the public interest to publish, will not be tabled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Boys:
For a copy of all conveyances, deeds, agreements, correspondence and other papers or documents, in any way relating to the acquisition of land in the vicinity of Trenton, Ontario, for the establishment of an air port, or in any way connected with or relating to the removal of Camp Borden.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: As the hon. member who placed this motion on the order paper is not in his seat, I would like it to stand until tomorrow.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Stand.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee on Bill No. 44, respecting a certain patent of Edgar D. Crump-Mr. Blatchford.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When this bill was last before the committee, section 1 was adopted. There is a new section 2 reading as follows:

Divorce Bills
In the event of the commissioner making an order restoring and reviving the patent designated in the preamble, if between the date on which such patent expired for non-payment of fees and the twelfth day of October, 1929, any person has commenced lawfully to construct, manufacture, use or sell in Canada the invention covered by such patent, such person may continue to construct, manufacture, use or sell such invention in as full and ample a manner as if said patent had not been restored and revived.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


THE PREMIER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 46, to incorporate the Premier Life Insurance Company as amended and recommending that the title be changed to "An Act to incorporate Consolidated Life Insurance Company of Canada."-Mr. Mercier (Laurier-Outremont)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Frederick Johnston: This section has been
amended in committee by striking out the words "The Premier Life Insurance Company" in the fourteenth and fifteenth lines, and substituting therefor the words "Consolidated Life Insurance Company of Canada."
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
merchants' and employers' insurance


COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 52, to incorporate the Merchants' and Employers' Insurance Company, and recommending that the title be changed to " An Act to incorporate the Consolidated Fire and Casualty Insurance Company."-Mr. Mercier (Laurier-Outremont) -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Frederick Johnston: This has been amended in committee by striking out the words " The Merchants' and Employers' Insurance Company " in the eighteenth and nineteenth lines, and substituting therefor the words "Consolidated Fire and Casualty Insurance Company."
Section as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


ALBERT DAVIS BLAGRAVE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 91, for the relief of Albert Davis Blagrave-Mr. Mac-Laren-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It had been my
intention to take the same course with these bills as I did the other day and move an amendment which would give us the opportunity of discussing the bill, but a number of members on both sides of the house have assured me that there would be no disposition to block the taking of the vote on the divorce bill for Ontario when it comes up to-morrow.
I know that I cannot seek a formal assurance from the house to that effect, but I feel that that is the general disposition, and as no good purpose would be served by putting these bills over, I shall not move an amendment, but I would like each bill taken up separately so that if there is objection to any particular bill it can be stated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Nora Kathleen Eayrs.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Percy Victor Hobbes.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Constance Bertrand Murray.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Herbert Vincent Crisp.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Elsie May Scott-Peer.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Archibald Charles Henry Morris.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Lillian Caroline Maud	Wood.-Mr.	Edwards (Waterloo
South).
Bill No. 74, for the relief of George Henry Symons.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Myrtle Mar-garette Hilton.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Mary Helen Burgess.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Cyril Douglas Gordon Stuart Ackerman.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Wilfred Gordon Ure.-Mr. Allan.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Herman Michael Coleman.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Gertrude Ann Elizabeth Griffiths.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of William Francis Addison.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Ella Daisy Griffith.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Thomas Edmund Appleyard.-Mr. Anderson (Halton).
Divorce Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	88,	for	the	relief	of	Alexander
Robb Kennedy.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill	No.	89,	for	the	relief	of	Constance
Mary Wright.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill	No.	90,	for	the	relief	of	Charlotte
Gertrude Brown.-Mr. Smoke.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Maud Alice Whipps.-Mr. Kay.
Bill	No.	93,	for	the	relief	of	May Mc-
Farlane.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Thomas Brown. -Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Irene Adele Maria Gregory.-Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of George Collier Draper.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Dorothy Keen Rupert.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Carrie Jane Vardon Coffin.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Effie Laberta Corrigan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 103, for the relief of John Tremblay.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Cornelius Taylor Spencer.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Ada Emily Harris.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Charles Gordon Stanley.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Otto Vernon Riepert.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Mary Ritchie. -Mr. Cahan.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Amy Lucinda Jenkins.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Mabel Robb Blaiklock.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
John Frederick Johnston: If it is satisfactory to the house, one motion for third reading will suffice for all these bills; they are in the same category.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. MacLAREN moved that bills No. 91 to No. 118 be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the third time and passed.


SECOND READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 78, for the .relief of Louis Battaino. -Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Edith May Smith.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Eva Verona McColeman.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Henry Cutler. -Mr. Gray.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the protocol for the revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 14th September, 1929, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: The protocol being submitted for approval of this house was signed for the Dominion of Canada by Senator Dandurand at Geneva on the 14th September, 1929, and is subject to ratification. In the ten years that have elapsed since the creation of the permanent court, the experience of its actual working arrangements has indicated that certain improvements in its organization were necessary. The French delegates were voicing a very general feeling when, at the ninth assembly, they proposed that the statute of the court be examined with a view to the introduction of such amendments as may be judged desirable. In accordance with this resolution which was unanimously adopted, the council appointed a committee of jurists which undertook the work of revision. Their report was submitted by the council of the league to a conference of states, parties to the statute of the permanent court which met at Geneva in September, 1929, for the purpose of examining the amendments of the statute recommended by the committee of jurists. This conference, in which Sir George Foster represented the Dominion of Canada, adopted a draft protocol of amendments which was aproved by the tenth assembly on the 14th September. It is not necessaiy at this point to examine in detail the changes embodied in the protocol whose ratification we have under consideration. They represent, for the most part, modifications in the structure and procedure of the court which its decade of experience has suggested as necessary. Inasmuch as the entire court is to be reelected this year it has seemed desirable that the recommended changes be put into practice as speedily as possible.
The motion is largely of a formal nature and I think I have given the house all the information in regard thereto which will be necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not been ratified as yet
by other countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I understand it has by many of them.
MAY'S, 1930	1765
Permanent Court-Revision oj Statute


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree largely with the
statement of the Prime Minister that this motion is mainly of a formal character. Nevertheless, it involves a responsibility which, if discharged, would do much towards making it impossible to have recourse to war for the settlement of differences 'between nations. I understand that most of the nations concerned have accepted thi3 revised statute dealing with the international court. I notice the next resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister deals with the acceptance of the reservations made by the United States. It will be remembered that Mr. Root is largely responsible for preparing the reservations under which the United States is willing to accept the revised statute with respect to the world court. My memory is not clear as to whether or not the revised statute has been formally accepted with reservations by the United States. The only reason I asked the question was that in the event of its not being accepted it might be that this protocol would be again amended or that a condition would be imposed upon it before the senate of the United States would accept it. I asked the question for the purpose of clearing it up in my own mind.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the Prime Minister tell me if there is a code of laws drawn up for the guidance of the international court of justice? If there is such a document I should like to have a copy of it. If such a code does not exist for their guidance I would like to know how they proceed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One of the purposes of this present protocol is to bring about something in the nature of a code under which the court will hereafter proceed. I presume the court of International Justice at the Hague follows the general practice of any court dealing with international affairs, and makes use of existing international law which in its opinion has a bearing on the question before it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the Prime Minister will not mind if I say that a committee has been set up to endeavour to codify certain outstanding views and customs with respect to international law, and when that is done obviously this court will apply such a code to disputes. The reason this court is being set up is because there is no other body in the world able to apply the principles of international law, which are more or less nebulous, to differences between nations.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When this code of laws is set up, will each of the nations have to approve of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not necessarily.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to the question my hon. friend asked a moment ago, I may say that for the purposes of the present protocol the United States of America shall be in the position of a state which has ratified the protocol of December 16, 1920.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite the question I had in mind, and I am bound to say I intended to look it up, because the Prime Minister cannot be expected to carry all these things in his mind. He will perhaps recall that the United States was unwilling to accept the revised protocol, and informed the nations of the world that they proposed to add reservations. Mr. Root was chairman of a small committee which drafted reservations assumed to be acceptable to the United States, and my memory is that the Senate of the United States has not yet ratified the conclusions at which that committee arrived, as expressed by the reservations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only reason I am raising the point is because it does occur to me that our accession to it, as it now stands, may have to be modified more or less if it is the sense of the nations of the world that the . reservations which may be imposed hereafter by the United States, should have to come back for reaffirmation or ratification by the nations concerned before they are finally approved. I think that has been done in several instances, but just where we stand with respect to it now I am not quite sure. I am not quite in order; I am only speaking with the permission of the house, but I fancy we all agree that it is highly desirable that the American republic should be a party to this protocol. The United States was not a party to the original protocol. The revision to which I have referred was one by which it was hoped the United States would become a party to that protocol.


Ernest Lapointe: It was done for other purposes as well. I believe it was originated by France.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but I say it is the sense of all nations of the world that if this court is to be a great international tribunal the 120,000,000 people of the United States must be represented. That is why the present Chief Justice of the United States became a member of that court, and the other day the president nominated a dfistinguished international jurist from Massachusetts to take the place of Chief Justice Hughes on that court. The point I am endeavouring to make is this:
If we give our accession to it now as the
1766	COMMONS
Permanent Court-Accession oj United States
protocol has been revised, and it subsequently becomes necessary to revise it again because of the character of the reservation made by the United States, it might possibly come back to us again. Probably that would be the effect of it.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course it would have to go back to another conference at Geneva. Motion agreed to.


ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the protocol relating to the accession of the United States to the protocol of signature of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, signed at Geneva, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, on the 14th September, 1929, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: In 1923 the President of the United States invited the Senate of that country to approve the adherence of the United States to the statute of the permanent court. No action was taken at that time on the president's recommendation, but in 1926 the Senate approved of the accession of the United States subject to five reservations, which were communicated to the secretary general of the league. A conference of states, parties to the original protocol of December 16, 1920, was held in Geneva in 1926 to consider these reservations and a deadlock developed on the subject of the fifth reservation concerning advisory opinions.
No progress was made for the next two years, but in 1928 the United States took the initiative in requesting, through the intermediary of Mr. Elihu Root, the reopening of the negotiations which had been dormant since 1926. The committee of jurists which at this time was engaged in revising the statute of the permanent court undertook to prepare a draft protocol which would enable the United States to adhere to the court. This protocol was approved by the tenth assembly of the League of Nations on September 14, 1929, and signed on that day for Canada by Senator Dandurand. It was signed by the United States on December 9, 1929, and by fifty-one other powers in the interim.
It is unnecessary to dwell on the great value to international peace and good feeling which must arise from the participation of the United States in the work of the permanent court. The difficulty which stood for so long in the path of its accession has been successfully surmounted in the protocol now before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was with respect to that very
matter that I was asking the right hon. gentleman whether or not the Senate of the United States which, under their constitution, is required to approve of the executive action, had done so, and I stated that my memory was that the Senate had not approved of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I wonder if we do very much by approving of this resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe many other powers including Great Britain have done so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have executed it,
and so have we.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have also approved, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My understanding is
that parliamentary approval, where it is necessary, is in some countries awaiting the action of the United States, but that in many instances parliamentary approval is not necessary and executive action is all that is required. I am only speaking from memory, because I did not take the trouble to look up the matter in my books. As it stands at the moment we were bound to adopt the first resolution, but with respect to the one now before the house I rather fear that if the Senate of the United States does not approve of it our ratification will be nugatory, because it would have to go back to the main body for reconsideration, it being really a contract between the powers. I had the benefit of listening to a very instructive address upon the subject by Hon. Newton D. Baker, who was a member of the administration of the United States at one time, and hence I have followed this question with a great deal of interest. The pressure in the United States to have the Senate approve of the protocol has been and is very considerable; whether or not it has been successful I cannot say.
So far as the motion is concerned certainly I desire to agree in every way with what has been said and done, but whether or not it may be nugatory, in consequence of the fact that the necessary action has not been taken by the United States, I cannot say. However, it will do no harm in any event; if it becomes necessary to do it over again all the other nations will be in the same position.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: On
March 20 sessional paper 142 was brought

Duty on Tea
down from the Department of National Defence. The file was not complete, and some further papers were to be brought down. I should like to know if they will be brought down at an early date.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will give me the subject matter of the return, and its number, I will look into it.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is sessional paper 142, with respect to tenders for the military college.


SALARIES OF POSTAL WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) if he would bring down the correspondence between his department or the Department of the Secretary of State and the Civil Service Commission since the year 1926, relating to increases of salaries of postal workers, and also copy of Privy Council order 1644 of September 14, 1925.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence with reference to the increases was brought down last session, but I will bring down any correspondence since that date.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Unfortunately
what was brought down last session does not appear to be available. The distribution office informed me that the Postmaster General had taken out that return, and apparently it cannot be found.


Peter John Veniot: The Postmaster General has not taken that return.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is what the Postmaster General says.


Peter John Veniot: They asked me whether I
had the return, and I informed them I had not. However, I will bring down a copy of what we had at that time.


LACASSE AND FONTAINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R J. MANION (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to a matter which has been appearing lately in the public press. This concerns two young men who were sentenced, I believe here at Ottawa, about last October to a term in the penitentiary upon conviction on a charge of robbery, and who I understand are still incarcerated in the penitentiary. About a month
ago two or three other young men came forward and admitted that they were guilty of the crime. It is true that the press reports show that when these young men were brought up for trial they pleaded not guilty. This matter has not appeared in the press lately, and I do not know the present condition of the trial. I would draw the attention of the minister to this matter because if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the young men in the penitentiary, and there would appear to be some doubt since other men have come forward and admitted their guilt, the young men at present in the penitentiary should be given the benefit of any doubt until the guilt or innocence of the other men is proven. No atonement can be made for the punishment which these young men have undergone if they should be proven to be innocent. Unless there is very grave doubt as to the guilt of the three young men, something should be done to relieve Messrs Lacasse and Fontaine, as, according to the statement of the other three, their punishment would appear to be unjustifiable.
Ernest Lapointe: I will look into this matter and will give my hon. friend an answer tomorrow.
DUTY ON TEA On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS BELL (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to a telegram which I have received, reading as follows:
St. John, N.B., May 2, 1930. When tariff imposed on tea in May nineteen eighteen stocks that had been cleared at the customs and still in tea blenders warehouse were levied on in form of excise tax at ten cents per pound. Government should now refund duty on British grown tea in dealers warehouse on which duty has been paid. We feel it would be extremely unjust to ask tea importers to suffer this loss. We have precedent in auto refund under War Revenue Act nineteen fifteen issue July nineteen twenty seven page nineteen paragraph three.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a question which
should be referred to the Minister of National Revenue, and I will direct his attention to it in Hansard.
PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire when the 1930 issue of the Parliamentary Guide will be
War Veterans' Allowances

available. I have endeavoured to obtain a copy for myself, but have been told that there are none available.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am advised that copies
of the Parliamentary Guide are available and if an application is made to the clerk it will be favourably received.


WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions) moved the third reading of Bill No. 19, respecting war veterans' allowances.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is read the third time it would be well, I think to have removed any possible misunderstanding which may exist to the effect that the passing of this bill will conclude the work of the committee which has been dealing with returned soldiers' problems. As the house is aware, this bill came from the committee with its unanimous recommendation of support and has passed second reading without controversial discussion. When the committee on returned soldiers' problems was appointed, it was stated that it would be given the widest latitude in dealing with returned soldiers' problems, that is to say, the widest powers and authority. The committee has already devoted much time and energy to the task laid upon it. I am advised that at the present time the committee has before it proposals involving a complete change in the organization and machinery dealing with the awarding of pensions. Three proposals are being studied and it is hoped that within a very short time there will be presented to parliament for its consideration a recommendation for putting into effect an entirely new system for the presentation, hearing and awarding of pensions. In addition, the associated veteran bodies have made suggestions which cover major amendments proposed to be made to the Pension Act. Amendments are being considered to the Soldiers' Settlement Act and the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. I have thought it advisable to make clear to the house that in asking that this measure be given its third reading the government is not merely proposing to shelve the further work which the committee was expected to carry out at the time it was appointed. The intention is quite the opposite, namely, to further the work of the committee and enable it to be completed at the earliest possible moment. To assume that the committee would permit itself to be used for the purpose of retarding or shelving legislation in the interest of the returned men is 
entirely unwarranted, and any such assumption should be resented by members of the house and the committee. The government proposes to grant every facility for the passage of legislation based upon the committee's recommendations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the view taken by this side of the house has been that when a matter of this character arises it should be submitted to a select committee of this house. We are fortunate in having a large number of returned men on this side of the house, and they constituted largely the committee which considered the measure introduced by the Minister of Pensions (Mr. King). Where an unanimous conclusion has been arrived at as to the character of the legislation which should be enacted to meet new conditions, then we are only too delighted to see that conclusion reflected in the unanimous support of the house. So far as it is possible, every effort has been made to prevent matters of this kind becoming contentious in the sense of their being considered from a partisan point of view. I have had occasion to complain, and I suppose I will continue to have occasion to complain, of the introduction of politics into matters of this kind. The evidence is sometimes very striking, and sometimes most offensive to those of us who have no control over expenditures, but this committee having arrived at an unanimous conclusion, so far as those who sit to your immediate left are concerned, we are very pleased indeed to be able to support this legislation.
I am very glad the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has mentioned the Pension Act. It will be recalled that during the course of the discussion which took place in this chamber there did not seem to be the same desire on the part of the minister to overhaul the whole machinery of the Pension Act, as has now been indicated by the Prime Minister, or as was indicated by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King) after the long discussion which took place upon the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Muskoka-On-tario (Mr. McGibbon) on the second reading of the bill. The announcement that this committee will be continued for the purpose of considering and arriving at conclusions as to how the machinery for the granting of pensions can be impoved will, I am sure, be received with great satisfaction throughout the country. The complaints are really such that I think they will yield to very simple treatment and in that regard I know there is a well defined view amongst many men that at

Toronto Terminals Railway
the moment a few short sections would probably cure the main difficulties that have been indicated in the administration of the act.
As regards soldier settlement matters, the action taken the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), in accordance with the recommendations of the Audit Board, in making a further appropriation of 810,000,000 as against loans outstanding to the settlement board, is a step in the right direction so far as it goes, but it will be difficult to salvage much of the personal property and the committee dealing with the matter will find a great deal of difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion as to how that situation should be dealt with. As long as we are assured that the committee will have a free hand to deal with that as well as the problems in connection with the administration of the Pension Act, we are quite content and pleased that the members who represent this party on the committee will have a further opportunity of rendering useful and disinterested service to those who were their associates and comrades.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ,T. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the third reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the acts relating to the Toronto Terminals Railway Company be amended to provide that the amount of $10,500,000 which the Canadian National Railway Company was authorized to issue by the amending act, 1928, chapter 51. may be increased to an amount not exceeding $14,150,000. to be used for the purposes therein prescribed and for defraying the cost of other railway facilities necessitated by or incidental to the construction of the viaduct and works.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This involves an extra
obligation on the Canadian National, I suppose?


Mr. CRERAR:: Yes.


Mr. SPENCER:: Explain.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This resolution is the preliminary to the introduction of a measure providing for granting the securities necessary for the completion of the works that have been proceeding in Toronto for several years past. The amount required is $3,650,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does that make
the total expenditure?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It will make the total
expenditure on the part of the Canadian National Railways about $17,000,000. The matter was discussed in the house when a similar bill was introduced in 1928. It was also, I find, discussed pretty fully at that time before the special committee on Canadian National railway estimates. It was anticipated then-and I believe information was given to the house to that effect-that this additional amount would be required to complete the work. I do not know that I need say anything further on the general principle beyond the statement that I made a moment ago, namely, that this is simply carrying out a program of work that was already arranged for in 1928, and I am informed that so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, this will complete that program.


Mr. GARDINER:: Has the minister before him any items going to show the necessity for this extra grant? I believe when the bill was before the house in 1928, we understood the amount provided then would be sufficient to complete the work.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am informed that when
the measure was before the house in 1928, it was referred to the special committee on Canadian National railway estimates and fully discussed there. At that time the committee was informed that that amount would be required later, either in 1929 or 1930. As regards the details of the expenditure, it is for the completion of the viaduct to which both railways as well as the city of Toronto have contributed under the legislation passed for its construction and for certain other works that the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway have found necessary in the joint scheme to carry out, I presume, rearrangement of their yard facilities and that sort of thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Trackage.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Crerar thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 129, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

C.N.R.-Loan

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS loan of 820,042,038.84 to refund obligations


OF CANADLAN NORTHERN AND MINNESOTA AND MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railway Company, to provide for the refunding of certain notes or obligations of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Minnesota and Manitoba Railroad Company, and for the issue of substituted securities therefor guaranteed by the Dominion not exceeding $20,042,038.84, the aggregate face value of the original securities.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. STEVENS:: I think we ought to have a pretty full explanation of this resolution, including any reasons for the exchange of securities, and so forth, because I cannot recall that this matter has been discussed in the special committee on railways and shipping.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It has not been discussed in the special committee at any time in the past, as I understand it, for the simple reason that there was no occasion to bring it before the special committee. This resolution is the preliminary to a bill to provide by way of guarantees $20,042,038.84, to cover maturing obligations of the old Canadian Northern branch lines in Manitoba, and if my memory serves me, part of the branch line from Winnipeg to Fort William. Most of those securities mature on June 30, 1930; one obligation matures in November, 1930, and another on October 1, 1930. These obligations have to be taken care of on the maturing dates, and this legislation is to authorize the Canadian National Railways to sell its bonds guaranteed by the government, with the ordinary provisions that attach to such guarantees, to provide for the taking up of these securities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask whether any sinking fund existed for the redemption of these securities, and if so, to what extent, and 'were the original securities guaranteed by the government or are we now substituting guaranteed for unguaranteed securities?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not aware at the moment that any provisions for sinking fund existed in connection with the old securities. With the exception of one subsidiary company,

the majority of these securities were guaranteed by the Manitoba government at the time they were issued twenty years ago. There was one, perhaps two, of these subsidiary companies of the old Canadian Northern in Manitoba at that time whose securities were not guaranteed by the provincial government, but the others were all guaranteed. There is quite a flock of these subsidiary companies of the old Canadian Northern railway system.


Henry Herbert Stevens: One hundred and twenty-three.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: These obligations mature this year, and this is simply to provide the machinery whereby the Canadian National Railway Company can take care of them when they come due.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want the minister to understand that I am not objecting at all, but we have found from experience that these are matters of very great importance. Is it the intention, after the bill is passed, to send it for examination to the special committee on railways and shipping? If that is not in the minister's mind, I would suggest that it might be advisable to take that course because the president and the officers of the road are present at that committee and the fullest information is very readily given. That committee I think has 'been wonderfully useful and productive of a great mass of information. Very often it clears away any doubts there may be as to the advisability of a given course. I am not calling this matter in question at all. I am simply pointing out that it should receive close scrutiny, and I would suggest to the minister that the bill be referred to the special committee after it receives its second reading.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am very anxious to meet the wishes of my hon. friend. I do not think the course that he suggests is necessary, but I shall be very glad to comply with it upon one condition, and that is that the bill receive its second reading to-day. In that case I would have no objection to having it go before the special committee. I understand that we are to resume the budget debate tomorrow, and no one knows how protracted that may be, and if it should run on for a very considerable period, unless the bill receives its second reading to-day, we should be delayed in getting it before the special committee. If my hon. friends are agreeable to that course, I am quite willing to let the bill go to the special committee.

C.N.R.-Loan
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Crerar thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 130, respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times and referred to the special committee on railways and shipping.


LOAN OF $8,609,000 TO RETIRE CENTRAL VERMONT REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railway Company to provide for the issue of new securities by the company, guaranteed by the Dominion, not exceeding $8,609,000, the aggregate face value of the original securities, to repay temporary loans negotiated by the company as successors by amalgamation to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the purpose of retiring the five per cent ten-year refunding mortgage gold bonds of the Central Vermont Railway Company, dated May 1, 1920, amounting to $8,609,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is something very
serious-the placing of a guarantee of this country behind securities for a railroad in the United States of America. I certainly think it is a wrong policy. I understood that in the reorganization of the Central Vermont railway its securities were to be financed without our guarantee. If you put the guarantee of the Canadian National Railways behind those securities, that is one thing; if you put this country behind them, it is another. It amounts to the same thing in one sense, but not in another. The whole of the Central Vermont system is in the United States, and I am sure the hon. minister will remember the discussion about the Minnesota and Manitoba railways. A small mileage of that railroad is in the state of Minnesota, and some grave constitutional difficulties arose in connection with freight rates and matters of that kind because of that fact. That was many years ago.
Now, does the minister think as a matter of public policy that the Dominion of Canada should guarantee the bonds of a railway in another country? I confess to him that I have thought about it a great deal and have been unable to find any evidence of any other country ever having done so. Surely if the road is as valuable as it is thought to be since
the reorganization, the securities should be sold the same as other railways sell their securities -in the United States; and if not, we should finally, after very careful consideration, determine what our future course is to be as a matter of policy and act upon it. We have the port of Portland on our hands now, and we have this and one or two other railways in the United States in our possession. Some very thoughtful writers, I observe, are of the opinion that we should sell our United States' holdings. I suppose the hon. minister saw the article some time ago in this connection suggesting that that be done. I fancy I reflect the mind of a very great many Canadians who are very, very apprehensive when you ask this Dominion to put its guarantee behind the securities of a railway in a foreign country. I should like the minister's explanation of the matter in the light of that fear that has been expressed to me in letters that I have received since the resolution came on the order paper. Certainly, I repeat, my understanding was that the Canadian National Railways and the Central Vermont railway were arranging the finances, and that the Dominion of Canada as such would not appear in the matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In reply to my hon. friend, this bill does not ask the guarantee by the Dominion government of any Central Vermont railway securities. It is a bill to guarantee the securities of the Canadian National Railways, the same as many other bills that have gone through the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The proceeds of the sale
of the securities provided for in the resolution will be utilized by the Canadian National Railways to repay temporary loans which they made a few years ago, necessarily arising out of the situation in the Central Vermont railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister has it wrong, I am sorry to say. If he will look at his resolution he will see that the first part of his statement is correct, but not the latter part. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railway Company to provide for the issue of new securities by the company-
That is, by the Canadian National Railways.

guaranteed by the Dominion, not exceeding $8,609,000, the aggregate face value of the original securities, to repay temporary loans negotiated by the company as successors by amalgamation to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for the purpose of-
C.N.R.-Loan

Of what?
-for the purpose of retiring the five per cent ten-year refunding mortgage gold bonds of the Central Vermont Railway Company, dated May 1, 1920, amounting to $8,609,000.
The Central Vermont railway issued ten-year gold bonds at five per cent for $8,609,000 in 1920; they are now coming due. The Central Vermont railway should meet them because they are their obligation. We have reorganized the Central Vermont railway through receivership, and we now control its capital stock and the issue of its securities, which I understood were sold without the guarantee of the Dominion. My information was given to me by one of the officials, without having his books before him, that the road is operating now on a profitable basis. I do not say it is earning sufficient to pay interest on all its securities, but it is making a little money and is now a first rate road. The Governor Smith family that at one time, as the hon. minister knows, controlled the Central Vermont railway, have now, by process of receivership, been eliminated from control, and the capital stock belongs to us, but it cost many millions of dollars to reorganize it through the receivership. These $8,609,000 ten-year gold bonds mature this year. I think there is some other money in there too than the Central Vermont railway bonds. It strikes me that the Central Vermont railway should arrange its own finances.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It might have been better before answering my hon. friend's question if I had given the background connected with this matter. Many years ago the old Grand Trunk Railway of Canada became associated with the Central Vermont Railway system. As time went on the relationship developed to the point where the Grand Trunk railway secured control of the Central Vermont railway. This road was in receivership back thirty-one years ago, and in the reorganization which then took place certain financial assistance was given by the Grand Trunk railway, for which it received seventy-three per cent of the common stock of the Central Vermont system. In 1920 the Central Vermont railway had some $12,500,000 of securities maturing which it found very difficult to finance, and the board of directors of the Grand Trunk railway at that time placed the guarantee of the Grand Trunk railway behind the securities of the Central Vermont railway both as to principal and interest. In 1920, as many hon. members know, there were disastrous floods in the state of Vermont, with the result that bridges were destroyed, grades washed out and other serious damage done to the system. It was necessary 
of course to make good this damage. The Central Vermont railway was then thrown into a receivership and, as my hon. friend stated a moment ago, that receivership terminated a short time ago by the Canadian National railway system, who were the inheritors of the old Grand Trunk railway, securing complete control of the stocks of the Central Vermont system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just there, to enable the minister to go on with his statement without further interruption, that was the time, it occurs to me, that a thoughtful administration would pause and consider whether or not they should let somebody else take over the Central Vermont system instead of ourselves. In other words, might not the first loss have been the best loss?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course, my hon. friend
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) was then in charge of the railway department. I think the judgment of the government at the time was that the position taken by the Canadian National Railways management was sound. In other words, they had either to look after these maturities or let the whole thing go by the board. Not only did the Canadian National railway system, as the inheritors of the old Grand Trunk railway, have a very substantial financial interest in the Central Vermont railway, but the Central Vermont railway was also of very great value to the Canadian National system as part of its transportation organization.
When the company was thrown into the receivership in 1927 following these disastrous floods there were still outstanding $8,609,000 of these bonds which had been issued in 1920 and which had been carried by the Grand Trunk Railway. Of course they immediately became due, and to protect them the Canadian National Railways through a process of temporary financing found the funds to take them up. It remained in that state until the receivership was finally discharged in the month of January of the present year. The present measure simply seeks to enable the Canadian National railway system to issue these securities with the guarantee of the government. They are securities of a general kind which would be guaranteed by the government to repay the temporary financing. I believe that was done through the Canadian banks in 1927, when $8,609,000 worth of bonds were required to be taken up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But were the bonds sold in 1927?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were they repaid?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The bonds were taken up and were repaid, as I understand it; that is why the temporary financing was done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were not due until May 1st of this year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They became due through the receivership.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A receivership does not make a bond due.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am told that that is the occasion for having these securities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Canadian National Railways were responsible for very much more; I think they were responsible for about $38,000,000 altogether. I recall some items of this character in the general group of finances which had to be cared for. But the special financing of the Canadian National Railways which in the budget of this year the minister reported had been successfully covered by an issue, was the sum of $40,000,000 borrowed from the banks to cover the various outstanding maturities which had been redeemed. That was in the fall of 1928; it was carried into 1929 and it was finally discharged by two issues of $60,000,000 each by the Canadian National Railways, absorbing those advances by the bank. If this was included, as the minister included it, in the borrowings from the bank it would be in the $40,000,000, and therefore there would be no necessity for that, so that it could not have been included in that sum.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It may have been advanced by the then finance minister, but it was temporary financing on the part of the Canadian National Railways.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think this bill should go to the committee, the same as the other one. For the information of the house I ask the minister if the receivership has been completely discharged.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, it has been.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the railway is now completely owned by the Canadian National railway system?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, the Canadian National Railways control all -the stock of the Central Vermont system.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the Canadian National Railways are responsible for the securities of the Central Vermont system?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.
C.N.R.-Loan


Mr. BOYS:: Is the Dominion responsible at the present time for all those bonds of the Central Vermont Railway which are to be retired?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. I should have said that the securities of the Central Vermont system -you are referring to the ones mentioned here?


William Alves Boys: I wish to find out whether
this constitutes a new obligation in the form of a guarantee on the part of the Dominion or whether it is merely the retiring of bonds of the Central Vermont system for which the-Dominion is responsible by way of guarankee-or in some other way. If the Dominion is; not responsible at the present time for these, this is a new undertaking and a new obligation on the part of the Dominion of Canada,


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Evidently I failed to make my meaning clear to my hon. friend. These bonds were issued in 1920, to the extent of 812,500,000 if my memory is correct; they were guaranteed by the Grand Trunk railway system, and they were Central Vermont bonds. When the receivership was applied for in 1927, $8,609,000 of these bonds were still outstanding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or did that $8,000,000
buy the whole $12,000,000?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, these were in the
hands of the Canadian National Railways, and I am told that it became necessary to care for these bonds. I presume there was a provision in the bonds to the effect that if the interest were not paid or if some other condition were not complied with, the bonds would forthwith become due and payable. At any rate the Canadian National railway system found it necessary to take up this $8,609,000 worth of bonds. That was accomplished by temporary financing. Where the money came from I am unable to say at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is unimportant at the moment.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Canadian National
Railways are now the sole holders of the bonds of the Central Vermont system, and it is now necessary to provide for the temporary financing for the purpose of taking up these bonds. The present bill provides for that. Consequently it does not add anything to the obligations of the Canadian National Railways. I am informed that the value of the Central Vermont system to the Canadian National railway system is very considerable indeed. The Central Vermont system repre-
C.N.R.-Loan

sents the distributing end of the New England states, largely for the heavy traffic on the Grand Trunk western lines in that part of the United States lying west of the province of Ontario. The traffic originating on the Grand Trunk western lines hauled through the province of Ontario and Quebec, is passed on for distribution in the New England states through the Central Vermont system. This traffic is perhaps the most valuable under the control of the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid the minister has not grasped the significance of the questions which were asked. There was a receivership; why were these bonds not cleaned up in the receivership? As a general rule when a company goes into the receiver's hands it does so for the reason that it cannot pay its debts. In this case a receiver was appointed; ultimately the property was sold under the hammer and this country through the Canadian National Railways, bought it in. The question I ask is how did this country buy it in unless it was bought in subject to the payment of $8,500,000 of bonds or subject to some other provisions of which we have no knowledge. I suppose those provisions will be stated and the matter will be cleared up before the special committee. If the Canadian National Railways took up these bonds in order to buy the property it means that we are putting $8,500,000 into property because we bought it at a receiver's sale. We otherwise would not have it at all, but having bought the property we have to pay the prior encumbrances registered against it. That is the whole story as I see it. If it was a receiver's sale and it was sold subject to $8,500,000 in bonds, we have to pay them off. From the remarks of the minister I gathered that the bonds were retired by temporary loans and before title could be completed in court. They had to get money so that the bondholders could be paid off and they paid them in order to get title to the Central Vermont Railway. My point is that this parliament should have been consulted as to whether or not we should have bought in that property. That is the difficulty I am in. I will admit that the railway is very valuable for the purposes of distribution, but there is no other company capable of operating it. No one else could take a lease for ninety-nine years, or whatever it might be. We have put enormous sums of money, perhaps $25,000,000 or $30,000,000, into this property since the receivership. Apparently what has happened is that the Canadian National Railways, at a receiver's sale, bought this property which was subject to a Central Vermont mortgage 
loan of eight and a half million dollars, and having bought the property we had to pay off that amount by temporary borrowings to enable a title to be made by the referee or judge in equity. The receiver went out of possession and we issued Central Vermont securities. It seems to me that if Central Vermont securities were issued they should have been placed in the treasury of the Canadian National Railways as against any contributions we might make, but the question I put to the minister for his consideration is whether the guarantee given in connection with any railroad which is out of the country should not be the guarantee of the railway company-the Canadian National Railways-instead of the guarantee of the Dominion. There is not very much difference in fact but there is a great difference in law. The one involves the nation and the other a corporation; the one involves the Dominion of Canada and the other the Canadian National Railways, which is an entity. With the information supplied by the minister I believe we now understand the situation; that is, this property was sold subject to an obligation, which obligation was paid by the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. CAHAN:: According to my knowledge that is the fact.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could the minister give us the total amount we have invested in this road?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The road was bought in at the receiver's sale by the Canadian National Railways for $22,000,000, I think. In addition to that there is $5,000,000 advanced under receiver's certificates. That does not represent the total amount invested in the Central Vermont system by the old Grand Trunk system which, as my hon. friend stated a few moments ago, amounted to about $38,000,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that include this
$8,000,000?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, that was included, and in that $38,000,000 is included also the $12,000,000 guaranteed in 1920.


William Alves Boys: I do not know that any great good will result from prolonging this discussion when the minister says the bill which will be introduced will be sent to the special committee, but I must confess that as the matter stands now I do not understand the proposition at all. I understood the minister to say that these bonds had been cared for by temporary loans, and if that was the case they must have been paid off. Now we are told they were not paid off, that when the

C.N.R.-Loan
railway wTas sold to the Canadian National Railways these bonds were an obligation. Certainly the minister did say they were taken care of by temporary loans. I do not know how you take care of a mortgage or bond by a temporary loan except by paying off the obligation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That was done.


William Alves Boys: If they have been paid off they are not in existence to-day, so why should we require this amount to retire gold bonds which were retired long ago?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This money was raised by loans from the bank.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: In discussing this
matter in committee last year it was stated bv the officials of the Canadian National Railways that the S8,000,000 was to be taken off the $40,000,000 temporarily borrowed from the banks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then this amount is included in the $40,000,000?


Eugène Fiset: That was the obligation contracted through temporary loans from the banks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend has made the situation still more involved. There was some $40,000,000 borrowed from the banks to take care of certain outstanding obligations. If that amount included this $8,000,000 there is no occasion to raise this amount now, because bonds to the amount of $40,000,000 already have been retired by an issue announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech the other day.


Eugène Fiset: It was also stated
that special legislation would be necessary in order to refund this amount.


William Alves Boys: Would the minister tell the
committee whether the bonds were retired by temporary loans? If they were so retired, they cannot be in existence.


Eugène Fiset: We all understood
they were retired out of temporary borrowings from the banks.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sure my hon. friend
will understand if my information is not so complete as it should be, because I have only gathered the background of the story in rather a general fashion. However, my information is that when the Central Vermont Tailway was thrown into receivership in 1927 these bonds then outstanding, to the amount of $8,609,000, had to be provided for, which was done by the management of the Canadian National Railways-I presume with the consent of the Minister of Railways of that time-through temporary loans. The position remained in that way until the receivership proceedings were finished, which I believe took place in January of this year.


William Alves Boys: The minister says this obligation was met by temporary loans. Does not that mean that those loans retired the bonds which were outstanding? I can understand the government now wanting this money to repay those temporary loans, but that is not w'hat the resolution says. It may be that in the end we will achieve that result, but if that is the meaning of the resolution it is not well expressed. The minister surely will not suggest that the resolution does not plainly say that this amount is required to retire the 5 per cent ten-year refunding mortgage gold bonds of the Central Vermont Railway Company, amounting to $8,609,000. That statement leads one to conclude that they exist to-day, whereas the minister says they do not exist but have been paid off. There may be loans from some bank for which the proceeds of these bonds may be required, but that is not what the resolution says.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the good fortune to belong to the legal profession and consequently do not wish to criticize the wording of the resolution. May I say, however, that the whole purpose of the bill which will be based on this resolution is to provide for a means of repaying to the Canadian National Railways the moneys temporarily borrowed for the purpose of retiring these bonds, and that is the intention of the resolution. I may say further that the bonds of the Central Vermont Railway Company to an equivalent amount will be lodged with the Minister of Finance, and if in the future a favourable opportunity presents itself, these bonds may be sold.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Crerar thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 131, respecting the Canadian National Railway Company and to provide for certain financing in connection with certain lines of railway located principally in the state of Vermont.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Now, Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be referred to the special committee on Canadian National railway estimates.
1776	COMMONS
Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Richard Bedford Bennett: In consenting to the
second reading of these bills, we do not commit ourselves to the approval of any principle which may be involved therein, but reserve our rights in sending them to a committee in order to expedite the business of the house.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I quite understand that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 122, to amend the Exchequer Court Act-
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Payment of money into court where doubt exists as to whom it should be paid.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This enables the Exchequer court to deal with interpleader proceedings.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly; I gave an explanation the other day. This is to provide machinery for the deposition of money with the Exchequer court in cases where money belonging to other parties is in the hands of the crown. Claimants shall set forth their claims to the money, and the court shall direct as to whom it shall be paid. This would refer to such cases as the decision of the pecuniary claims commission. That commission decided that the United States should-pay to Canada a certain amount of money in respect of claims which had been made by the government on behalf of certain Canadian claimants. The decision merely stated that such an amount should be paid without adjudicating as to the various claims. It is rather embarrassing for the government to make such adjudication, and this bill provides that such matters shall be decided and settled by the Exchequer court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 123, respecting criminal procedure in Alberta.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

On section 1-Order in council confirmed.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this bill acceptable to the Attorney General of the province?


Ernest Lapointe: It is introduced at the
request of the Attorney General of the province of Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
. That it is expedient to provide for the readjustment in accordance with the terms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act of the pensions of officers and constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were retired to pension prior to 31st May, 1924, and who were in receipt of extra pay during the whole or part of the period from 15th May, 1919, to 30th May, 1924; and to readjust the pensions of widows of officers who had received the extra pay as aforesaid.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: This resolution is for
the purpose of introducing a bill to give effect to demands which have been made and recommended by various members of the house, among whom is my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Under the statute of 1919, the governor in council was authorized to pay a bonus or extra pay to the officers of the mounted police. This bonus was paid for five years, the order in council being extended from year to year until 1924. In 1924, this extra pay was consolidated with the regular or statutory pay, and since that date the pay received by the men has included the bonus paid during those five years. At the same time the rate of pension was increased in order to be based upon the new salaries including that extra pay, but only from 1924. The few officers who were retired during the period extending between 1919 and 1924, and who were being paid this extra bonus when their retirement took place, were not included and they were not granted this new rate of pension to which they would have been entitled had the consolidation taken place earlier. They were receiving this additional salary, but it was not included in the pension which was granted to them. All the associations of the old mounted police officers have been asking the govern-

Judges Act Amendment
ment to include those few men in order that they might be granted the same pension. I may say that they are very few and unfortunately they are rapidly disappearing. At. the present time the extra amount which will be added to the pension bill will be only about $8,000 and this amount will decrease gradually as those men disappear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Justice is quite right in referring to a communication that I directed to him in connection with this matter. I pressed upon him the claims of a certain number of pensioners of the old police force, who because of the change in pay by reason of the discontinuance of the bonus, found themselves receiving a much smaller pension than those who left the force a little later with the same number of years to their credit, the fact being that what was a bonus was converted into salary and naturally it being so converted, the pension was based upon the salary they were receiving. In this way men with a lesser number of years of service found themselves in some instances receiving a somewhat larger pension than those who had taken pension in previous years. I should like to learn from the minister the number of persons affected, and another question pressed upon me by those interested is whether or not it will be applicable to widows of pensioners.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the minister knows, the case to which I was directing particular attention was what I conceive to be a very deserving one of a widow of an officer who had died and whose pension was based upon his salary less bonus, although the widow of another officer who died with fewer years of service to his credit-


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
remember the name of that widow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should not care to
mention it.


Ernest Lapointe: I have the names of
those to whom the matter would apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will look at the list
when it is ready. There are two in whom I am interested. If it deals with the case of widows as well, I am glad that the government has been able to take this action.


Ernest Lapointe: It does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope this bill removes any possible chance of further complaint upon that score. Is the measure sufficiently comprehensive to deal with all the cases I formerly discussed with the minister?


Ernest Lapointe: It deals with those with which my hon. friend dealt in his letter. There are about twelve former officers, five widows of officers and about thirty men who are dealt with by this legislation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 132, respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should not like the house to go into committee on the bill this afternoon as some further information is desired.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act to provide that an annuity equal to his salary at the time he ceased or ceases to hold office may be granted to a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or of the Exchequer Court of Canada who held office on 31st March, 1927, and continued or continues in office until he attained or attains 75 years of age; and that an annuity equal to two-thirds of the salary annexed to the office which such judge holds at the time he so ceases to be a judge may be granted to a judge of the said courts, appointed after 31st March, 1927, attaining 75 years of age after service of 10 years, or aggregate service of 10 years in that office and as judge of a provincial superior court.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee; Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: As the members of the committee will no doubt remember, in 1927 the Judges Act was amended so that judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Exchequer Court of Canada-it applies not to other courts but merely to the federal high court-on reaching the age of seventy-five should cease to hold office. It was provided in that act that on retirement the judges of these courts would be granted a pension or annuity equal to two-thirds of their salary. At that time the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George raised the point that with respect to judges who had been appointed prior to the enactment of this new law it was not fair to deprive them at the age of seventy-five of part of their salary; that they had been appointed for life and that the least we could do, if it was desired to provide for their com-
Judges Act Amendment

pulsory retirement, was to respect what my hon. friend then called a contract or agreement and to give them an allowance equal to their full salary. I did not agree with my hon. friend at the time, but I must say that since I have been reconsidering the matter I have found that there is much force in that contention; and for those judges who were then members of the court, and they are very few indeed, this law will provide an annuity equal to their salary. Of course all judges appointed following this legislation will take office with the full knowledge that their term will expire when they reach the age of seventy-five, and they will be granted a pension amounting only to two-thirds of their salary.


Mr. AVHITE (Mount Royal):: I presume that the case of Mr. Justice Mignault is covered by this legislation?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Robert Smeaton White: I congratulate the minister upon doing him this justice, though it is tardy.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The only point I wish to
make is this. As I said before, there are judges who have reached the age of seventy-five who are still competent to carry on judicial work, and it might be well for the Minister of Justice to consider whether their services should not be made available in case of the temporary absence of other ju'dges from the court, or made available for such work as is given to judges upon commissions.


Ernest Lapointe: As far as acting on
commissions is concerned, there is nothing to prevent judges who have reached the age of seventydive and are fit to do the work from being engaged for special work of that character.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Their services, it seems to
*me, should be made available without salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the second reading
of the bill I was going to refer a little more [DOT]at length than my hon. friend from St. Law-rence-St. George has done to that very matter. Why should we not provide that judges might sit ad hoc?


Ernest Lapointe: You mean retired
judges?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. In England, Lord
Mersey used to go down and hear divorce cases when there was a full list, although he was a man of eighty. Frequently that has been done in England. Now that we are providing for pensions for judges, I think we

might provide that if any retired judge is willing to sit he might be called in to sit ad hoc for the purpose of making a quorum or ensuring a full court. The real difficulty with the judges of seventy-five has been the strain of continuous work, but their vast experience would certainly be very useful if it could be utilized on special occasions. During the summer I had occasion to think of another matter, and I made up my mind to speak to the minister in that sense. I had not intended to do it just now, but my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George has brought it back to my mind. I think that if we pay a pension with respect to all tne retired judges we should have a call on their services to sit aid hoc in any appeal court if it is thought desirable to have them. I do not know whether it can be entirely worked out or not, but m Great Britain it has worked very satisfactorily.


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion is certainly worthy of consideration, and I promise my hon. friend to look into the matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I notice that in England, as the leader of the opposition says, judges who are practically retired do sit not only in probate and admiralty but in other divisions from time to time in order to fill vacancies ad hoc. I know men who have reached upwards of eighty years who perform such functions.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 133, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 126, respecting the Department of Marine.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Friday I gave all the particulars, I think, which the house would wish to have with respect to this bill and the next two on the order paper. The purpose of these measures is simply to divide what is at the present time the Department

Department oj Marine
of Marine and Fisheries into two separate departments, a Department of Marine and a Department of Fisheries. The law officers of the crown thought that it was best to proceed by creating the two new departments, and then formally to repeal the old act under which the Department of Marine and Fisheries exists to-day. This bill, as well as the_ bill respecting the Department of Fisheries, is to all intents and purposes, in its phraseology and provisions, identical with the Marine and Fisheries Act as it now stands, only such changes being made as are essential to separate the two departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that it is proposed to put dredging in the hands of the marine department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For a long time it has appeared to the government that some reorganization of the work of some of the departments would be in the public interest and it has seemed advisable to have dredging brought as largely as possible into the Department of Marine instead of having it retained, as it is now, in part in the Department of Public Works, in part in the Department of Railways and Canals, and in part also in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The idea is to get as far as may appear to be desirable all the dredging into the one department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is one matter in Canada about which it might be said that scandals have arisen, it is dredging.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This ought to prevent it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This will add to it because it is putting the dredging into the department where it does not belong. The Public Works department should handle it because it has the facilities. I had to read a year ago last spring a judgment given by the judge of the exchequer court in connection with a dredging contract which was awarded by one department and dealt with by another. The Public Works department has the engineers, it has the machinery, to take care of this work. That is its business. I learned at that time that the Department of Railways and Canals, for instance, also has engineers who are capable of dealing with certain phases of dredging contracts. The marine department up to the present moment has not been equipped particularly for that business; the Public Works department and the Railways and Canals department have been. When I read the testimony in that case where the applicant was awarded a large sum of money, I am bound to say I
felt the crown should have taken an appeal from the decision of the exchequer court. A dredging contract had been made, it had been assigned, and then boulders larger than those expected were found. In the end the exchequer court gave judgment for a substantial sum of money. At the time I discussed the subject of dredging with some of our friends, and I think if the Prime Minister will make inquiries he will find that two of the departments are peculiarly equipped at the present moment both as to dredges and staff to deal with it. The very words "railways and canals" involve an engineering staff with the requisite knowledge to deal with the situation. The marine department originally was never intended to deal with these matters; when Mr. Smith was deputy minister, it was not a department dealing with matters other than those touching shipwrecks, shipping and fisheries. Now that a special commission has recommended a separate department of fisheries, Professor Macmillan is not going to be a tremendously busy man if he gets the position. He will have a few weeks work, I suppose, before a general election, but in any event it does not appear to me that there will be such a tremendous amount of work in the fisheries department alone as to keep the new minister very busy. My friend from Quebec would seem to think that the fishing was good. He might make it an all the year round job, but I doubt even that. But, seriously, I do think that if the Prime Minister will look into this, he will see that the public works and railways and canals departments have an adequate engineering staff and already own a considerable quantity of dredging equipment.
I should like the Prime Minister to look into the cost of dredging in the various departments as shown by the Auditor General's report last year. It is one of the most amazingly interesting studies in the world. I have not the time these days to go into it that I had in the days gone by, but if my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) will for a moment lay off fruits and vegetables and devote himself to ascertaining just how much it costs to dredge channels one summer and then redredge them next spring he will realize what a profitable avocation dredging has become. It is really one of the most highly paid callings that I know of, the pearl diver has nothing on dredging now. In days gone by the pearl divers used to bring up very valuable pearls from the sea bottom, but their gains are as nothing compared with the profits of modern dredging in Canada. There is my friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Sinclair)-if he will look into it a little now that New Zealand
Department oj Marine

butter has been taken care of to his satisfaction, he will find that dredging is really a most profitable enterprise. I suggest to the Prime Minister that before he turns over dredging entirely to the marine department he study the matter from the economic standpoint, especially in view of the experiences in connection with the new harbour in Hudson bay. There is a dredge up there on top of a wharf that they are finding it difficult to use, as the hon. minister told us last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at Churchill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: The dredge was to be moved to Churchill.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are waiting for a storm to take it off.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The storm will come as
soon as the elections come. The dredging there is in control of the railway department. The government ordered two big dredges from Vickers'; they were built specially for the purpose. They were turned over to the Department of Railways and Canals. That department certainly has the necessary technical knowledge to deal with the situation, that is, the utilization of these dredges to the best advantage for the purposes for which they are intended. Now it is proposed to turn them over to the marine department, but that department has not the requisite technical staff. I am not talking of political dredging, but of harbour dredging. I see the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) smiles.


Eugène Fiset: It is all right for
Rimouski.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt about that. The only trouble is there is not enough of it there. I think the matter should be very carefully considered before final action is taken. Dredging at a harbour like Churchill must always be more or less under the Department of Railways and Canals because the streams flowing into bays of that type will bring down silt all the time, and the department will have to have dredges there in any event.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The character of
the bottom of the harbour does not indicate that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking of the silt that rapidly flowing streams carry out each spring. In my youth I w'as familiar with the Miramichi river and I know what used to happen there.


Charles Avery Dunning: It does not happen where the river runs over rock as in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The river usually brings
down the silt from the banks higher up.


Charles Avery Dunning: That happily is not the case at Churchill. To reinforce my hon. friend's point, I may say there is, however, a difficulty of a different character in all those shallow streams running over rocks, in that the ice tends to lift a certain number of boulders, and as the ice comes down in the sipring it deposits those boulders in the harbour. To that extent my hon. friend is correct, even though there is no silt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all I am saying to the Prime Minister about it. I feel it is a matter in which the public service will be best served in the manner that I have indicated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any reorganization will be effected with the greatest care. I believe the Marine department at the present time does all the dredging on the St. Lawrence river below Montreal. There are really three departments doing dredging. The thought is to get dredging as largely as possible, having regard to efficiency and economy, done by one department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The shipyard at Sorel and the dredging below Montreal furnish fairly good employment for a number of people year in and year out. Governments may come and governments may go, but dredging goes on forever. As the Prime Minister said, the dredging of some of the harbours in Ontario on the lake shore is dealt with by the Public Works department; others, as the former minister will remember, are dealt with by the Department of Railways and Canals. Last summer I w^as at Fort William and Port Arthur, and the dredging going on there was on a fairly comprehensive scale; it was being done by the Public Works department. Then at another point the Department of Railways and Canals was doing the dredging.


Charles Avery Dunning: The harbours all over Canada, as I understand it, are taken care of by the Public Works department at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I understand.


Charles Avery Dunning: The one exception to that is so far as Port Colborne can be considered a harbour because it is the exit of the Welland canal, and is part of the Welland canal-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I had in mind.

Department oj Fisheries


Charles Avery Dunning: -the dredging there, and indeed of all our canals, is done by the Department of Railways and Canals. The harbours on the St. Lawrence below Montreal are in the main taken care of the Public Works department, although the main channel is dredged by the Marine department. Churchill, of course, as my hon. friend has indicated, is unique and had to be dealt with according to the circumstances which prevailed there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is construction.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not suppose the
Prime Minister would care to give us the name of the new minister, or what his recommendation to His Excellency the Governor General will be in connection with the new office. I notice the absence of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) and I do not think this matter should be disposed of until the admiral of the fleet has had the opportunity of expressing his views.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The appointment will be made in due course.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 127, respecting the Department of Fisheries.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-definitions.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this
matter I believe the Prime Minister stated his intentions the other day. I thought however that it might be possible to have brought into this department one of the other less important departments so that there would be no necessity for increasing the number of ministers. As it stands at the present time the Minister of Fisheries will not have very much to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend would be surprised at the extent of the activities which will be under the direction of the
Minister of Fisheries. Let me read some of the acts for the administration of which the minister will be responsible:
Biological Board Act.
The Customs and Fisheries Protection Act.
The Fish Inspection Act.
The Fisheries Act.
The Deep Sea Fisheries Act.
The Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Protection Act.
The Meat and Canned Foods Act.
These are matters of considerable importance. As I explained the other day, our fisheries in value comprise at present the second largest part of our natural resources. The hope is that this all-important resource and the industry to which it gives rise will be developed to a much greater degree than has been the case in the past. If the minister devotes his time and attention to that end he will find plenty to do.


Mr. POULIOT:: After the departments are separated will the fisheries of Quebec return to the jurisdiction of the federal government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will not in any particular alter the present situation.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is the Meat and Canned Foods Act not under the control and jurisdiction of the Department of National Health?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
certain sections which relate to the canning of fish and shell fish. Those sections come under the attention of the Department of Fisheries.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Will this act include an entirely new set of officials for the new department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; there is a fisheries branch and a marine branch of the department at the present time. The fisheries branch is under the control of a separate deputy head, and the officials will be transferred to the new department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Constitution of department.
Richard Bedford Bennett: A question has been
raised by an hon. member as to the relationship existing between the province and the present department. The Prime Minister will recollect that in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario certain arrangements have been made in regard to fisheries. In those provinces, while the administration properly belongs to the provinces, the Dominion has been doing the work; in one or two cases I believe the reverse is the case. The
Department oj Fisheries

matter was brought to my attention last year. No doubt the effect of this bill will be to place the whole jurisdiction belonging to the federal authorities under the control of the new department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister will no doubt recall that representations have been made by Pacific coast fishing interests in regard to proposed changes in the Biological board and in the extent of its administration.


Mr. CARDIN:: There is on the order paper a resolution for the appointment on the Biological board of two additional representatives of the industry, one to represent the province of British Columbia and the other to represent the maritime provinces. At present we have only two representatives of the industry on the Biological board, one from each coast, and it has been recommended by the board that the number be increased to four.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The activities of the board will not be restricted.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister considered the observations made last year by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) in connection with the activities of the Biological board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have any steps been taken?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is another matter in connection with the Department of Fisheries to which I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister. There is at the present time a little paper issued by that department. Some time ago there was a discussion as to the appointment of an editor; that discussion is no doubt within the memory of those members who are always anxious to dissociate themselves from political patronage. So great is the demand for space in the journal that they print on one side only of the paper. Some of you will no doubt say that such procedure will be beneficial to the paper industry; you are probably saying that at the

present time. It is printed on a glazed paper, magazine type, and the eight pages contain only four pages of printed matter. To my mind this is a good illustration of the great love of economy illustrated the other day by the hon. gentleman. If there is nothing more to engage the attention of this high paid publicist than to have printing on only one side of the paper, why have the minister at all? Between publicists, the Biological board, the new Minister of Fisheries and all these statutes with which he is going to deal, it might be important to ascertain why he is able to fill only one side of the paper of this eight page journal. I know the Prime Minister is very busy, and I doubt if he has time to know of all these things, much less read them, but all the departments now are issuing house organs indicating their importance in the world to which they belong. The Minister of Finance, being modest, confines himself to the Canada Gazette, and once a month or so he manages to have his statements appear there. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce has numerous publications; you see his name in almost every newspaper the moment you pick it up. His publications deal with everything concerning the welfare of the people almost from the cradle to the grave. Then you get down to the Postmaster General. There is nothing you wish to do about which you cannot consult him, from the carriage of eggs through the mails to the delivery of great departmental store calendars, to say nothing of cheques. Perhaps the estimates would be the proper place to discuss this question, but a word or two now will not be amiss. We also have the organ of the Department of National Revenue, which has become a work of art. Engraved upon the front of it we have the Connaught building, and ever and anon we find the photograph of some well known gentleman who has served this country with great merit and whose memory is thus perpetuated. I fear we will use it for exmembers of parliament after the next election.


Jean-François Pouliot: And my hon. friend is putting that on Hansard, which is another kind of advertisement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but it is not so widely read.


Mr. DUPUIS:: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a very kind suggestion and I would ask the minister to agree to it, because I am satisfied that probably what would be inside the paper would be much more widely read than what is on the outside.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 128, to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Salaries of Minister of Marine and Minister of Fisheries.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose of this bill is to bring the Salaries Act into conformity with Bill No. 126, an act respecting the Department of Marine, and Bill No. 127, an act respecting the Department of Fisheries, both of which were passed by this house this afternoon.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is this bill to provide for a salary for the new Minister of Fisheries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This bill makes provision for the salaries of both ministers and abolishes the salary at present being paid the Minister of Marine and. Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to discuss a topic which I have discussed at various times in the past, that a railway outlet to the Pacific coast should be provided from the Peace River country.
I do not think there is universal agreement as to the state of prosperity of Canada as a nation, but I believe it is generally agreed that there is at least an easing off in employment as compared with a year ago. One of the major contributions in the past to the prosperity of Canada has been the construction of railways and other similar undertakings. During the past four or five years large expenditures have been made in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and the Welland canal. Both these undertakings are nearing completion and I believe it necessary that similar large scale developments should be carried on in order to provide for at least an equal number of workmen to that engaged upon these two large undertakings.
I desire at this time to emphasize the advantage to Canada of the development of new districts, such as the Peace River country. There is no question but that during the period of the rapid development and settlement of the three western provinces there was a very rapid growth in industries in eastern Canada. It is some time since it was first realized in Canada that the rapid settlement of the west had a direct relation to the prosperity of the industries of the east. I have in my mind the report of the royal commission on the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba, and the following is to be found at page 35:
Now, dealing first with free homesteads, it must be remembered that a rapid increase of population throws upon a provincial government a heavy burden of expenditure for education, road-building, the administration of justice, etc. It is wrong, we think, to assume, as we have been asked to assume, that, if the public lands of Manitoba had been handed over to the administration of the provincial government, the government would have adopted a free homestead policy similar to that of the Dominion. On the contrary, we find all along, from what was said by exponents of the Dominion policy in 1870 and down to the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905, that the assumption entertained was that Manitoba, and later the new provinces, if given the control of their lands, would use them, not for free homesteads, but for the purpose of revenue. It was feared from the very beginning that Manitoba, if allowed the control of its lands, would adopt a policy of settlement by land sales, which would necessarily prove to be slow, and would thus defeat the desire of the Dominion to bring about rapid settlement for the general benefit of Canada.
Before private members' day was taken away, I had on the order paper a motion in connection with this question of the Peace River outlet. I stated in that motion that I believed it was a matter of national necessity. I believe it is so because of the argu-
1784	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Kennedy
ment contained in the paragraph I have read from the report of the royal commission on the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba. I believe in the general interests of the whole Dominon we require a rapid, reasonable and sound development of the Peace River country.
Not so very long ago we were discussing agriculture in the west generally, and I think it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) who referred to the fact that one of the causes of unemployment was the coming of the combine, and other large-scale machinery in the farms of western Canada. We all know that the two difficult, slow operations in western farming are ploughing and taking care of the harvest. The small tractor has apparently solved to a large extent the ploughing problem. The coming of the combine has solved the harvesting problem. There has, however, been a tremendous displacement of labour on the farms of the older settled areas of the three western provinces. That is one reason why, without such a large immigration into Canada from abroad during the last few years, we have had a large new settlement in the Peace River country. In 192S and 1929 more than 5,000 new homesteads were taken up in the Grande Prairie and Peace river districts. The homesteads taken up represented an area of 1,760,000 acres and if certain purchases of Hudson's Bay land be added, because some settlers who came in bought land from the Hudson's Bay Company, the area taken up is still larger. The settlers who came in are not the ordinary "suitcase" homesteaders. There is a steady stream of settlers' effects, such as horses, farm tractors and general farm machinery, moving back from the railway stations to points convenient to the new homestead areas. Perhaps more important than the fact that the settlers have equipment is the fact that a large percentage of them have had experience in the very type of farming they are going to undertake in the new settlements of the Peace River country. Undoubtedly the new homesteads taken up in the Peace River country during the last two years have made a tremendous difference in Alberta, Saskatchewan and even Manitoba as well as to some extent British Columbia, in relieving what would otherwise have been a much more acute unemployment problem than we had during last winter.
I believe the outlet should be built as soon as humanly possible. It was two years ago I used the word "forthwith" in my motion,

and the then Minister of Railways objected very strenuously to the word " forthwith " because he said it meant " right away quick." Surely we cannot be in too great a hurry to suit even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar),to use the words that were used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the city of Edmonton in 1924 when he said, regarding the Peace River outlet and the Hudson Bay Railway, that they were an absolute necessity and would be built as soon as humanly possible. But in the light of the treatment that the problem has received at the hands of the government, I am not using the words in quite the sense in which they were used in 1924 and I hope that " as soon as humanly possible " means at least that the government, if it undertakes to accept my motion, as I think it ought to do, will proceed with the construction of the Peace River outlet as rapidly and vigorously as it has done with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway during the last four or five years. That would have been a generally satisfactory application, and I believe it might be even yet, of the words " as soon as humanly possible." I am in just as great a hurry today as I was two years ago, but I believe the matter can be reasonably dealt with by the government and it will be thoroughly justified in going ahead with the Peace River outlet.
It may be asked why I come to parliament with a motion of this kind in view of the purchase of the Edmonton and Dunvegan Railway by the two great railways. I think I ought to read this statement of the Prime Minister again, because it is so definite. I have quoted it a number of times. I even wrote the Prime Minister, giving him a copy of the statement, and on no occasion did he undertake to say that it was not in accordance with what he has said in Edmonton in 1924. This is taken from the Edmonton Bulletin of November 11, 1924:
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.
"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.
Peace River Railway-Mr. Kennedy

W. L. Mackenzie King, Premier of Canada, when addressing mass meeting of citizens in the First Presbyterian church last night.
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.
In those words the Prime Minister of Canada, the leader of the House of Commons, in 1924, accepted the responsibility that he would see that an outlet to the Peace River country to assist the pioneers of that district would be built as soon as possible.
The development of the Peace River country has been interrupted and discouraged over a period of years by its great distance from centres of population, and consequent higher cost of implements of production and necessaries of life, high mileage rates on freight moving in and out of the country, long hauls to and from the railway and high rates and great mileage to contend with in the sale of its products. Grain rates in 1919 were sixty-three cents to Fort William or Port Arthur. The Peace River country, however, has gone steadily ahead. The population increased from
2,000	in 1911 to 20,000 in 1926, and it is estimated the population has doubled within the last three years. The crop production has grown from about 1,000,000 bushels in 1920 to 16,000,000 bushels in 1929. I have under my hand the figures for the years
1925-30, as follows:
Peace River District.
Crop district No. 8 less census district No. 12.
Bushels of grain
1925..
1926..
1927..
1928..
1929..
2,678.127
4,945,955
11,805,360
8,531,200
16,165,996
So in 5 years there has been an increase of 100 per cent per annum with the exception of the year 1928, when there was a decrease from 11,805,360 in 1927 to 8,531,200 in 1928.
The tonnage figures so far as the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway is concerned are as
follows:
Tons of grain
1923		 60,000
1924		 96,000
1925		 89,000	.
1926, for the 11 months up
to the time when the Alberta government took over the railway..	..	91,000
1927		 215,281
1928		 243,000
1 Q9Q	11 Q Q74
1930 (estimated)..	'.!	300^00
The total tonnage grew from 222,427 tons in 1923 to 434,926 tons in 1928, slipping back to about 200,000 tons in 1929, and I estimate that this year the total tonnage will be around
600,000.
The production of the Peace River country has been influenced, of course, by the weather, but I would like to point out that the increased crop in the Peace River district has been due chiefly to the vigorous efforts of the settlers themselves, and in support of that argument I wish to give the following figures of the acreage under cultivation:
Acreage
under
cultivation
1925		 156,182
1926		 200,172
1927		 254,463
1928		 353,435
1929		 628,998
The year ahead of us looks very favourable. We had a heavy rain storm and a snow storm last harvest, and last fall the ground that we were ploughing was in about the best condition for ploughing that I have ever seen land anywhere. We had a severe winter, much frost and three feet of snow, and when the snow went away, j-ust about two weeks ago, we had another fall of a foot of snow, so that the moisture conditions are about as ideal as they have ever been in any portion of the west. The indications are that with the larger acreage and with the promise at least of sufficient moisture we shall produce this year one of the best crops we have had in the history of the country; but I realize, of course, that a whole lot may happen to a crop between now and harvest time.
I want to refer to some of the discussions that we had in this house during the last two or three years on the Peace River country. I do so now because in listening to the debates across the floor of the house I have not cared to interrupt very often, and

1786	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Kennedy
further, owing to the acoustic properties of this chamber it is almost impossible to hear exactly what is being said on the other side of the house unless one is almost directly opposite the speaker. That is my justification for making a reply now to some of the statements that were made in this house last year and the year before; not that I am accusing members of bad faith, but because I know that there is some misunderstanding regarding the conditions in the Peace River country.
On February 14, 1927, at page 258 of Hansard, I find the following:
Mr. 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 be 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? 1 understand that there was some arrangement made whereby they got some benefit.
Mr. Dunning:	They have now the prairie
standard of rates.
Mr. Brown:	If 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.
Mr. Dunning:	Yes, there is. I have not the
details of it before me, but I shall be glad to get them.
Mr. 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. 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?
I want to say that there is nothing in that statement. If the settlers in the Peace River had rates that were based on the shorter mileage to the Pacific coast, they would be practically on the same basis as Edmonton. The rates from Edmonton to the Pacific coast are approximately 20 cents per hundred. The rates from the Peace River vary from 24 cents up to 29 cents per hundred pounds. Let me give the rates. This is a statement made by Mr. Campbell, the traffic expert of the Board of Railway Commissioners, dated March 31, 1930;

and I may say that these rates have been in existence for some -time:
Hythe, Alta	 28
Beaverlodge	
\	29Wembley	[	28Clairmont	',	"	27Sexsmith	'	" 27Fairview	
26Bluesky	"	26Whitelaw	\\	26Brownvale	""	"	26Berwyn	* .7 7 26Grimsliaw	
26Peace River	
26Falher	"	26High Prairie	'	26
Here is another statement that was made by the then Minister of Railways, the present Minister of Finance, regarding rates:
Confirming my remarks now entirely to the outlet, the cut-off, so far as the people now in the Peace River country are concerned, may I, with all respect, point out to the house that they are not at such a very great disadvantage m shipping their products to the Pacific coast as compared with the people of the central u*est generally. With regard to freight rates alone, may I point out that the farthest distance points on the existing Edmonton, Dun-vegan and Central Canada railways have a freight rate to Vancouver exactly similar to the freight rate paid from points in Central and western Saskatchewan in the neighbourhood of Saskatoon. In other words, it is just cis cheap for the ^ people of the Peace river country to get their grain to the Pacific coast over their existing lines as it is for the people in central Saskatchewan to ship their grain to the Pacific coast. That is the degree of the disadvantage and the discrimination under which they labour.
That is not a fair statement, because the people of central Saskatchewan do not ship in very large quantities to the Pacific coast. They ship east, and the proper comparison is a comparison between rates from the Peace river to the Pacific coast and rates from central Saskatchewan to Fort William and Port Arthur. Here we have the statement of rates on grain, carloads, in cents per hundred pounds from various points to Fort William and Port Arthur:
Cents
Saskatoon	 22
Prince Rupert	 24
The lowest rate I read to Prince Rupert is 26 cents.
.	Cents
Regina	 20
Wilkie	 23
Swift Current	 22
Wainwright	 25
Medicine Hat	 24
When we get into Alberta we have approximately the same rates to Fort William and Port Arthur as they have to the west; but

Peace River Railway-Mr. Kennedy
only in the case of Broadview in Saskatchewan does there seem to be a rate to Fort William and Port Arthur that is at all comparable to the rates from the Peace River. AH other points run around 22 and 23 cents.
Three years ago when the report of the committee came before the house I remember moving an amendment asking for a survey of the Peace pass. The railway engineers representing the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways made a report which was examined by the railway committee in 1927. While the report on first examination looked to be fairly conclusive in some respects, on further examination we found a lot of it was pure guess work. We discovered that the engineers had accurate information regarding the line from Grande Prairie south to Obed, but so far as the Monkman pass was concerned the report was guess work. Apparently they had no definite knowledge regarding the Pine pass and very little regarding the Peace, because the Canadian National Railways' engineer, who examined the Peace pass through the years 1927 and 1928, utterly washed his hands of what had been said by the Canadian Pacific railway engineer before the railway committee in 1927. At page 2409 of Hansard of April 13, 1927, the Minister of Railways is reported as follows:
I intimated while the hon. member was speaking that the government was prepared to accede to that request if the amendment now before the house were withdrawn; and, indeed, whether it is withdrawn or not-my hon. friend can press it to a vote if he desires-the government does intend in any event to secure further detailed engineering information in order to be able to say to the people of the Peace River country and to the people of British Columbia, who are vitally affected, "When a western outlet is built, this in our opinion is the pass through which that line of railway should be constructed." We are prepared to do that in any ease.
I thought that was a promise and I said so in 1928. I then asked what had been done to give effect to or implement that promise, and the minister's reply will be found at page 4000 of Hansard of 1928 as follows:
I trust my hon. friend will not regard me as discourteous if I reply somewhat briefly. At this stage of the session I do not think the house would desire to have a very lengthy discussion on the various possible routes from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast.
As the hon. member has indicated, I made a statement last session. My hon. friend says I made a promise. I wish he had not said that, because I try to avoid making promises. I made the statement a year ago of my intention to do something which was then within my power to arrange to have done. It did not constitute a promise to do something in the future.
If it did not constitute a promise to do something in the future, I would say that it did not mean anything. Let me quote the definition of the word "promise" as given by Blackie's Concise English Dictionary:
A declaration, written or verbal, made by one person to another, which binds the person who makes it to do or forbear a certain act specified: a declaration that something will be done or given for the benefit of another; ground or basis of expectation.
Surely the minister's statement that the government would go on regardless of what happened to the motion and survey these passes and get detailed information to be able to say to the people of Alberta and British Columbia, "This is the pass through which the railway should be built," cannot be regarded as anything else than a definite, specific promise to do so. Let me quote further from the minister's statement on that occasion:
I cannot say that I am personally satisfied that sufficient investigation has been made, and I intend to endeavour to get the Canadian National management to see the matter in that light and make a further and more detailed investigation before any definite and decisive recommendation is made as to the route. I can give my hon. friend that undertaking, but at the present time I am not in position to say that such and such work will be done this year on the height of land between Alberta and British Columbia.
That was in 1928. Now, just for the purpose of comparison, I should like to remind the house that we have been passing fairly large votes for a number of years for the Hudson Bay railway. A little while ago I said that I should like to see the same vigorous action taken with regard to the Peace river outlet that has been taken with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. I think such action would be justified. Within the last fifteen minutes I have given figures showing that the freight carried on the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway has run up to something like five or six hundred thousand tons. About two weeks ago I asked a question of the Minister of Railways concerning the tonnage originating on the Hudson Bay railway, on which we have spent over $40,000,000 altogether. This railway was started in 1911, and the total tonnage originating on it in 1928 was less than 3,000 tons, and no more in 1929, and a lot of this tonnage represented forest products, doubtless ties for railway construction purposes. The particulars will be found in Hansard of a recent date. There are four possible routes out of the Peace river country What was done? This house voted in 1924 and 1925 about $125,000 for the purpose of
17SS	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Kennedy
surveying these routes. Then the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway engineers made an investigation. Their report was largely guess work. A statement made by the Canadian Pacific Railway engineer, which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) seemed to think demonstrated that the Peace river route was the best, has since been almost repudiated by Mr. Hill of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: By whom did my hon. friend say it was repudiated?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: By Mr. Hill of the
Canadian National Railways in his report of 1927. He said that he had grave doubts as to the statements contained in Mr. James' report. I cannot give the exact words, but he said that since his investigation he had much graver doubts regarding the feasibility of that route than he had at that time. But when we ran into difficulties regarding navigation in the Hudson bay straits, what happened? Why, the parliament of Canada, as shown by this return, passed the vote introduced by the government of over a million dollars in order to get some of those difficulties straightened out. Now, I submit that if it was good policy for this country to spend $40,000,000 on the Hudson Bay railway, and if it was good policy to vote over $1,000,000 to survey the straits, and to ascertain whether Fort Churchill or Port Nelson was the better harbour, it would be equally good policy to give this project adequate financial support and I think in the light of these facts that our dealings with the Peace River railway problem have been very trifling when the importance of the Peace river country to the whole of the Dominion is taken into consideration. In the debate of 1927 the Hon. Charles Stewart is reported as follow*s at page 270 of Hansard, volume 1, 1926-27.
I welcome the suggestion that a thorough investigation of the whole matter should be made before we plunge into an expenditure of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000, 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 or 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 w'ould 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.
[Mr. Kennedy.!
In the same debate, we find the following reported at page 2406 of Hansard, volume 2,
1926-27:
Mr. Dunning:	My impression, after listening to the premiers of those two provinces-
Alberta and British Columbia-
-was that what they wanted was not so much to give assistance to the Dominion, as it was to get the Dominion to take off their hands two white elephants which they possess. That was the view held by members of the committee.
Mr. Fraser:	So far as we are concerned,
we did not consider the Pacific Great Eastern a white elephant. It would not be a white elephant at all, if it were properly proceeded with. It is because it is hung up in the air that it is a white elephant, as the Liberal government said at the time.
Mr. Dunning:	I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if
the use of the term "white elephant" is offensive. I intended merely to convey the idea that by the testimony of their respective premiers the provinces now have railways on -their hands which are involving them every year not only in very heavy operating deficits, but that also they do not earn a cent toward their capital charges.
Mr. Bennett:	A deficit of a million a year
in Alberta.
Mr. Dunning:	A deficit of a million a year
in Alberta, my hon. friend from West Calgary says. I believe that was the figure submitted by the Premier of Alberta. I merely used the term "white elephant" as illustrating that condition.
I would like to remind the house that that is in the year 1927. I call this part of my speech, with apologies to the Minister of Railways of 1927 (Mr. Dunning) "the growth of the white elephant." In November, 1926, the Alberta government took over the operation of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia and the Central Canada railways. So far as freight was concerned there was an agreement with the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian Pacific Railway had leased the road; the Canadian National Railway did not have a lease of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, but there was an arrangement for an exchange of freight. The first year of provincial operation of these railways under the management of the deputy minister, Mr. Callaghan, resulted in an operating surplus of over $300,000, and the year ending November, 1928, resulted in an operating surplus of the Alberta railways of over $800,000. A large amount of that was contributed by the Edmonton-Dunvegan road. This sum was just about sufficient to pay the interest on the replacement value of the roads. It was an improvement of about $1,000,000 in two years. I have not the details for the year 1929 but I saw an item in the Edmonton Journal to

Peace River Railway-Mr. Kennedy
the effect that for the six months ending June 30, 1929, the Alberta railways had the best six months on record. I have the article in my hand but I shall not quote it at this time.
So far, what has the Dominion government done? In the year 1924 the sum of $75,000 was voted; in 1925 there was a further sum of $50,000. The Canadian National Railways at the request of the Minister of Railways in the years 1927 and 1928 sent out Mr. Hill. As a result we have the report of the five engineers connected with the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The government has contributed about $125,000 in cash. No doubt the minister will think that the purchase of the fifty per cent interest in the Alberta railways at a cost of $13,000,000 and the fifty per cent cost of the 85 miles of construction of branch lines this year should be taken into consideration, but as far as the Edmonton-Dunvegan and the Central Canada are concerned it amounts to nothing more than taking over a going concern. In other words as far as railways are concerned the province of Alberta has undertaken the development. The pioneers who went into the country undertook the development of the farm land; the Dominion government with the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways came in after it had all been put on a paying basis, and when the country had proven that it could pay, and they took over a going concern. In other words I do not think we can say that in connection with the Peace River country the Dominion of Canada has taken over a burden.
I have heard statements made with regard to the various offers made by the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways. I am not going to take up very 'much time because some other members may wish to speak, but I would like to read the offers in 1925 of those two railways, and then I shall have something to say about the final offer. Following are the offers by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the Alberta railways in the month of June 1925:
(1)	The Canadian Pacific Railway is prepared to operate the Edmonton-Dunvegan and British Columbia and Central Canada for five or ten years with a preference for ten years.
(2)	The Canadian Pacific Railway will undertake to put into effect the prairie rates on passenger and freight to points north of Edmonton on the Edmonton-Dunvegan and British Columbia and Central Canada Railway and to treat these railways as part of the Canadian Pacific Railway to give the benefit of one line haul to Peace River.
(3)	Give express and telegraph rates similar to those existing in Alberta and Saskatchewan and will pay in rental $50,000 per annum.
(4)	Alberta government to pay interest, capital, expenditure on the railways and the cost of additional mileage.
(5)	In case of a competing line built through any of the passes by the Dominion government or the Canadian National Railways, either party shall have the right to terminate the agreement by giving six months notice or to require a conference.
The Canadian National Railways were even more canny than the Canadian Pacific Railway when it came to offering for the Alberta railways in 1925.
(1)	The Alberta government will lease the Edmonton-Dunvegan and British Columbia and the Central Canada railways for one dollar a year for twenty-five years.
This applies from the month of July, 1925.
(2)	The Alberta government will pay all existing fixed charges.
(3)	The Canadian National Railways will make, at their own expense, any future capital betterments to the property, but if the railways are taken over by another railway on the expiration of the lease, the Canadian National Railways will receive compensation for the capital and interest.
(4)	The Canadian National Railways will pay in addition to one dollar half the operating profits (if any) after the new fixed charges which they may have created, have been deducted.
(5)	The Canadian National Railways will put in "main line rates" (freight).
(6)	Western outlet. This question was to be left to the future, but I might say that the Canadian National Railways would probably feel disposed to undertake such construction, providing the necessary funds can be found, when the export grain from the Peace River district reaches 10,000,000 bushels per annum on an average of three successive years and the question of land grants can be considered at that time.
I might say that most people have understood that Sir Henry Thornton promised to build a western outlet when we had 10,000,000 bushels of export grain. Possibly that was a fair promise, but the statement was hedged about with various provisos. I never read that paragraph without thinking of that paragraph in J. M. Barrie's Little Minister, where Dunwoodie refused, under cross examination, by a law officer of the crown, to answer any questions. When he was asked whether he was in town the previous night he said "I micht hae been", and when he was asked why he would not make a definite statement he said, "Because I am a canny man." I often think that by this statement Sir Henry Thornton .proved himself as canny as any Dunwoodie ever imagined by J. M. Barrie.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. The statement has been made in this house time and again that the Hudson
1790	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Kennedy
Bay railway did not cost the people of Canada anything because the government sold preemption lands in the western provinces and spent the money on the Hudson Bay railway. It is true this money was not set aside in a trust account, but an equivalent amount of money was used. I find in Hansard of May 4, 1925, that in reply to a question by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) it was stated that 2,573,600 acres were soJd in the province of Alberta at $3 an acre, which money was taken to build the Hudson Bay railway. So I think, if it is fair for the Dominion government to do that, they should consider definitely going ahead with the Peace River outlet.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: That is not nearly so
bad as what they did with Saskatchewan lands.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The last offer for the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway was that made in June, 1928, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Previously the Alberta government had offered the Alberta railways, including the Edmonton, Dun-vegan and British Columbia and Canada Central railways, for something like 816,000,000. The Minister of Railways turned down that offer, but the great crop of 1927 came along; the Canadian Pacific directors went through the Peace River country and, upon their return to Edmonton, offered the Alberta government the price which that government had set upon those railway lines.
Complaint has been made that from 1925 to 1928 the Alberta government kept raising the price for these railways, but the reason is quite obvious. Anyone with a business that has been losing money and which has not been able to pay the cost of operation for a few years, and who, within say three years, gets it on a basis where it pays nearly all the fixed charges as well as the cost of operation, naturally would raise the price. That is the reason why the Canadian Pacific Railway Company offered $25,000,000, the price set by the government of Alberta, and no doubt that is the reason why the Canadian National Railways took a fifty per cent interest. For the life of me I cannot understand the wisdom of the policy of the government, when you consider the main line *'f the Canadian National Railways west from Edmonton and lack of local traffic. If it was a good proposition to take a fifty per cent interest in the northern Alberta railways and get half the traffic for the Canadian National railways, I do not see why it would not have been a good policy to take over the whole thing and get all the traffic. I never 
could see any justification for that policy from the standpoint of the Canadian National Railways or of the Dominion government. We all know that the Canadian National Railways want business more than anything else, and in my judgment by refusing to take over the northern Alberta railways they lost one of the best chances any railway ever had to get main line traffic. The responsibility for this action must rest on the government and the management of the Canadian National Railways.
Now I wish to come to the question of branch lines. Every time this matter has been debated here and in committee the Minister of Railways and the presidents of the two railway systems would always say, "We need Peace River branch lines, and after we get branch lines we will build an outlet when the traffic justifies it." There is something in that, but I should like to point out that three years ago we were from 150 to 200 miles behind with the branch line program and to-day we are at least 500 or 600 miles behind. I submit -that the people who have left the older portions of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta and gone into the Peace River country on their own initiative, people who are not asking for any special help like those who are in the ranks of the unemployed to-day, have the right to expect the Dominion government to see that they will get railway facilities just as soon as it is humanly possible to do so.
Consider the Battle River district, where there has been a development much more rapid than anything we have seen in the Peace River district. That district has been settled during the last three years, and to-day there is a highway, only four feet narrower than the standard highway throughout the western provinces, running from the railway into the Battle River country. We have at least 2,000,000 acres of settled land fit for the plough in the Peace River country and not one-half of it is under the plough yet, without taking into consideration the 1,700,000 acres taken up during the last couple of years. I am quite satisfied that it is absolutely unjust, so far as the railways and the government are concerned, to say that the question of an outlet for that country will not be dealt with until the branch line situation has been remedied.
It just means that the 20,000 pioneers who went into the Peace River country, who developed it and demonstrated to the railways and the Dominion of Canada that it was a real asset, are going to be asked to carry the burden of expensive freight rates as long as they live. We say that these people are entitled to and should have the shorter mileage

Peace River Railway-Mr. Ladner
and lower rates which they would get through an outlet to the Pacific coast. If we were catching up with our branch line program; if we were getting to the point where fewer settlers were 80, 90, 100 and even 200 miles from the railway there might be some justification for that argument, but when we are getting further behind with our branch lines I submit that the argument is absolutely valueless and falls to the ground. It may be all right for the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways; they are getting from 6 cents to 10 cents extra for hauling grain out of the Peace River country to Fort William and Port Arthur and to Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I submit, however, that it is not fair for the government to say to the pioneers, "We are going to ask you to carry that burden just so long as we are behind with our branch line program."
I think I have said enough on this question, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to show that we are going ahead rapidly with the development of the Peace River country. The Prime Minister made a promise in 1924, and he has fallen down on that promise. I think that opinion is general, and I do not see how he could expect the settlers to think otherwise. In spite of that, however, there is no disposition to sulk or sit down and do nothing. The development in the Peace River country has done a great deal to offset what otherwise would have been a much more serious unemployment trouble during the last few years. In that country there are 10,000,000 acres of land just as good as the 600,000 acres which produced 16,000,000 bushels of grain in 1929. In comparison with our policy in connection with the Hudson Bay railway and other railway problems, I submit, as the Prime Minister has said, that it is crying out for action, and I would like to see the government take definite steps to deal with the matter.
I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Spencer:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"immediate steps be taken to implement the pledge of the Prime Minister given at Edmonton in November, 1924, with regard to the Peace River outlet."


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this question is one of vast importance to the province of British Columbia and the Peace River district, and for that reason I intend to occupy the time of the house for a few moments with some observations regarding this amendment. The last speaker (Mr. Kennedy) has referred to the promise made in 1924 by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister visited the province of
British Columbia in November, of 1929, and I would like to call to his attention the report of a speech he delivered which appears in the Daily Province under date of November 16, 1929. Out of two hours discussion and oratory which the leader of the government gave to some three thousand people in Vancouver, the newspapers featured the following article:
Peace River Outlet Endorsed as Policy by Prime Minister
Endorsement of the Peace River outlet to the Pacific, was indicated by Premier Mackenzie King to an audience of nearly 3,00(1 which taxed the capacity of the new auditorium on Friday night. For nearly two hours, he reviewed his eight years of administration.
"As a government we believe in the Pacific outlet for the Peace," said the Premier, "and we don't intend to allow the railways to dillydally in reaching their decision. If they do, then the authority of the state can be called on to make them reach one."
The Premier reiterated his assurance given at Edmonton that "the spearhead of immigration as far as his government's policy is concerned, will be the Peace river."
It is to be noted that some changes now are taking place with respect to the Department of Immigration. The report continues:
The Liberal government, the Premier added, has implemented its promises in completing thr Hudson Bay railway, and everywhere on the coast he has heard "Peace River outlet to the Pacific."
"I ask you, is this government, which has dealt with these great transportation problems brought about reduced freight rates, organized scattered national lines, constructed a great railway from central. Canada to the Atlantic -cannot this government be trusted to find an outlet from the centre of the Dominion to the Pacific?"
Those are the words he uttered to three thousand people in the city of Vancouver. But he went farther than that. Knowing the susceptibility of the people of the west with regard to the promises of his government, and the knowledge of the shadow of a doubt which they sometimes cast upon his utterances just prior to an election, the Prime Minister forestalled that situation with these words:
"I am told that the people don't want any promises. Well, I won't make any promises -you know what trouble we had in the Senate with our branch line bills."
I ask the house to consider what was said in that pledge. Did he or did he not make a promise when he said, "As a government we believe in the Pacific outlet for the Peace, and we don't intend to allow the railways to dilly-dally in reaching their decision. If they do, then the authority of the state can be called upon to make them reach one"? Is that a commitment of government policy, ox

Peace River Railway-Mr. Ladner
is it not? Is that a principle to which the government is committed, and which the people may expect to be carried out, or is there an uncertainty in vague expressions which will enable the Prime Minister to escape? Towards the end he made an attempt at escaping when he said, "You know what trouble we had in the Senate with our branch lines bills."
This is a matter which should be beyond the pale of party politics. A vast area of some
74,000,000 acres is awaiting development and immigration, and now stands ready for the hand of constructive statesmanship. In glowing terms and with the fervour credited to great speakers, the Prime Minister in 1924 told the people of western Canada in the plain language of plain people: If you elect us to power, we will see to it that this railway is constructed. Six years have passed and the settlers are forced to go in of their own volition. The government's immigration policy is a farce, the spearhead of immigration pointing south, and the minister is to be prorogated, so to speak. Six years pass by, and another election approaches, so the right hon. gentleman appears upon the platform in Vancouver and expresses himself in a wholesome way by saying: If you entrust me once more with power, I will see to it that the railway systems will not dilly-dally; if they do, I will bring the authority of the state to bear upon the heads of those business men who have failed in their duty so far as transportation from the Peace River district is concerned.
The merits and desirability of an outlet from the Peace River district, and an aggressive policy to settle that district, are beyond argument. The facts have been placed frequently before the house, and the undertakings of the government are specific. Their obligations are well founded and well bounded. An undertaking was made six years ago which they have purposely and deliberately failed to carry out, and yet the Prime Minister went to Vancouver in November last and reiterated in more vigorous terms the same pledge and the same undertaking. I ask the Prime Minister: Will he this evening, in reply to this amendment which is simply a request that he fulfil the honour of his undertaking, pledge to the people of this country the immediate fulfilment of his promise with regard to the construction of the Peace River outlet?


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to support most cordially the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) regarding an immediate outlet for

this great inland empire. The fame of the Peace River country has gone out not merely to the whole of Canada but to the whole world, and its further development must and will contribute greatly to Canadian prosperity. I would like the house to realize the full significance of the words which I have thought out, because I would not at this moment endeavour to give a false impression regarding the greatness of the country for which we are advocating a direct outlet to the Pacific coast. An era of vast expansion is awaiting this great territory as soon as the proper transportation facilities are provided. This plea has been made continuously in this house since 1924, and I think it is but right and proper that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the members of the government should be faced squarely with the problem which confronts them. I want to be impartial and enable the Prime Minister to explain exactly why for six years the government has failed to listen to the views which have been presented to this house. It is up to the government at this important time when the problem has in a way been taken out of the government's hands and made the subject matter of public opinion, as I shall show in a few moments.
Let me give the house a few excerpts in regard to this important question, the Peace River outlet. I find that in 1924, before the parliament of Canada, the Prime Minister considered that this question was of paramount importance, To prove that, I will quote his words delivered in the city of Edmonton in the presence of the very people who were advocating what we have been advocating for the last six years. It is said that a man who possesses the gift of words and disguises his thoughts by sophistication, is not doing what an educated man should do, and I am going to give to the Prime Minister exactly what I believe he meant when he uttered these words in the city of Edmonton on the 12th October, 1924. He said:
The future prosperity of this country is bound up in the development of its great natural resources, and, to develop these resources it is necessary to have a large increase in population. 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 fu prospective settlers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who said that?

Peace River Railway-Mr. Brady


James Charles Brady: The Prime Minister of Canada uttered these significant words in 1924. For six long years the people of the Peace River country and the people of British Columbia, who depend upon those great natural resources have been waiting for the implementing of the words of, at that time, the greatest and most important man in Canada.
Let me go a little further and speak about some other ministers of that day. I refer to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), at that time Minister of Railways. As reported on page 2212 of Hansard of 1927, the then Minister of Railways had this to say:
"Mr Dunning:	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.
Then he said that in order to assist in the development and settlement of the Peace River country and to encourage immigrants, 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.
What does the acting Minister of Immigration say? And I am glad to see the minister in his place, because I know he will stand up and say just what he said in 1927. Unfortunately, however, actions speak louder than words. I would have been delighted to see that before to-day he had urged the final solution of the great problem of the Peace River country:
Hon. Charles Stewart:	I am a strong
advocate of the outlet to the coast and 1 support the suggestion that there be a survey made with a view to having the route definitely settled, this year if possible.
Thus we find three important _ cabinet members of the government realizing the importance of solving the problem of this great inland empire. If I am to judge tonight of what they have done I must bring in a verdict of disapprobation of their lack of vision and understanding regarding not merely Peace River and British Columbia but Canada as a whole. What a wonderful chance was given to the present government and the Canadian National to solve this problem. The Canadian Pacific, understanding the potentialities of that great country, of its own accord took up the solution of this problem and bought from the Alberta government the railway lines, at what price? At the very price dictated by the Alberta government. What is the inference to be drawn from that? It means that the Canadian Pacific realized the importance of controlling the wonderful wealth of that great territory.
How far have we proceeded towards getting an outlet from the Peace River to the Pacific by the amalgamation of the two great transcontinental railways? I should like to know.
I doubt very much whether the agreement entered into between these two great transcontinental railways is going to solve the problem wihch it was within the power of the present parliament of Canada to settle on its own initiative. What has happened since the agreement between these two great transcontinental railways was made? In September 1929, the Canadian chamber of commerce, representing not merely the whole of Canada, but also the British Empire, England, Scotland and Wales, paid a visit to the Peace River country because of the wonderful stories they had about it's wealth and fertility. Who were the members of the Canadian chambers of commerce who went to the Peace River country in 1929? Whom did they represent and what was the result of their visit to that country? I will briefly mention who were the men and women who comprised the Empire chambers of commerce who visited the Peace River country. It was the largest, the most influential and most representative body of business men and women within the empire. Why did they go in there? Why did they choose in 1929 to spend a week, nay, ten days visiting the Peace River country? The answer is this. Already the fame of that country had gone abroad. What was the result of their visit? I am going to add to the words of the Prime Minister in 1924, of the Minister of Railways and Canals and of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in 1927, the words of the president of the Canadian chamber of commerce on his return to Calgary from the Peace River country. If I used these words myself I would probably be looked upon as exaggerating, but Mr. Birks, of Montreal, the president of the Canadian chamber of commerce, after visiting the Peace River country from Spirit river to Grande Prairie, to Dawson Creek, Rolla, Beaverlodge, Peace River, and back to Calgary, asked what he thought of the Peace River country, replied:
"We were amazed and thunderstruck at the immensity and wonderful fertility of this great Peace river country."
He was amazed; he was thunderstruck. What did S. P. Gundy, of Toronto, say on his return from that visit? If there is one practical man who could not be carried away by emotion I think it is this very gentleman; and here are his words:
"Never in our lives have we met such people, or enjoyed a trip like this. Wherever I go


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, no one who is familiar with the question brought up by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) will deny that it is one of very considerable importance and interest to the people of that vast district. The settlement of the Peace River area during the past four or five years has been stimulated, and I think there is every reason to expect that the progress thus far made will continue, perhaps not in the same degree or at the same rate, but certainly at a rate comparable with what has happened in the older districts.
While I cannot quite agree with all the arguments that my hon. friend has advanced in support of his resolution, nevertheless I can

Peace River Railway-Mr. Crerar
say to him at once that some of them are deserving of the best consideration of the house. With the background of what he has said I, of course, personally am not familiar, not having been in the house during recent years when the discussions that he has referred to took place. All I can do in any remarks that I may make is to deal with the situation as I have ascertained it since I came into the department a few months ago.
As my hon. friend stated, there have been several investigations as to possible outlets to the Pacific coast. That work I understand, so far as the railway companies are concerned, is not yet completed. The house is aware of the fact, as indeed my hon. friend has stated, that last year the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railway finally got together in an arrangement to take over all these northern railways, and they are now being operated jointly by the two railway companies through a holding company, the board of directors of which is composed of members drawn equally from each railway. During the past few years, as my hon. friend stated, several surveys of a preliminary character have been undertaken from the Peace River area looking for an outlet down to the coast. So far as my information goes the management of the two railways have not as yet reached any decision as to which of these is the best, and it will be necessary to make the most careful examination in order to establish this. According to the information given me recently, the work will be continued this summer by the railway companies. During the few months that I have been in charge of the department I have discussed the question with the presidents of both railway systems. Naturally they are a little reluctant to give any undertaking to proceed with the work immediately in view of the position of railway revenues at the present time, but so far as I have been able to judge, undoubtedly they are both of opinion that it is only a matter of time until such an outlet will be completed. Of course the terminus of that outlet will depend naturally on the route that is ultimately selected.
My hon. friend made some references to the Hudson Bay railway and drew a parallel between the building of that railway and the progress made in providing an outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace River country. In that he was supported by my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). But the two cases are not exactly parallel. In the first place, the Hudson Bay railway to my certain knowledge has been before the people of western Canada for at least forty years; and
even so far back as 1908 a considerable block of land in the province of Saskatchewan-my hon. friend states there was also some in the province of Alberta, I accept his statement though I have not any personal knowledge of it-I say a very considerable block of land in the province of Saskatchewan was set aside and the proceeds of the sale of those lands were earmarked for the Hudson Bay railway.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does that mean that we
have to wait forty years too?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think my hon. friend will not have to wait quite so long as that. The Hudson Bay railway of course was built for the purpose of giving ready access from the central prairie country to tidewater. But may I point out that from the proceeds of the sale of those lands 825,000,000 will be available towards the expense of that undertaking when the collections are finally made. That arrangement was made over twenty years ago and the road will not be finally open for traffic until at least 1931. Let me say, that were it not for the serious position of the railway revenues at the present time, I think there might be very reasonable ground for assuming that the road would be built from the Peace River in the near future.
In his resolution my hon. friend states:
That immediate steps be taken to implement the pledge of the Prime Minister given at Edmonton in November, 1924, with regard to the Peace River outlet.
I am not in a position to say what pledge the Prime Minister gave on that occasion, beyond the information given me by the hon. member, which information, I understand, was taken from a newspaper report.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Could not the Prime
Minister give it? I mailed a copy to him two years ago.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend by his resolution means that the government should give every attention it can to the carrying out of this undertaking, then I think that his resolution might be accepted. The two railway companies are interested of course in this outlet.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would the hon. gentleman tell me what that means?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The two railway companies are interested in this outlet. So far as the government is concerned I can say that it is prepared to stand behind the Canadian National Railways in the performance of its share of the work, with the necessary funds,

Peace River Railway-Mr. Crerar
that is to say, the government is prepared to provide funds through the customary agency of parliament as in other works carried on by the Canadian National Railways.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister admit that the government has assumed a real responsibility in the declaration of the Prime Minister of 1924 and 1925?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not hear the hon.
gentleman's question.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did not the government assume responsibility in connection with that outlet, or is that responsibility being passed on to the Canadian National Railways?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. I am speaking without knowledge of the discussion which took place in parliament on a previous occasion in relation to this subject. I am prepared to say, however, that if my hon. friend who moved the amendment, means that the government should use every agency within its power to secure this outlet, we will accept his resolution at once and without question. I presume that is the meaning my hon. friend wishes to convey, and I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I am prepared to give my very best effort and energy towards the achievement of that purpose. The first essential was the disposal of these Alberta railways. That has been accomplished through the creation of the Alberta Northern railways, and the two major railway companies are now interested in it. They are naturally interested in any outlet to the coast, and so far as the government is concerned I can say that we will use all our influence and will give every assistance we can to the railways to reach a decision at the earliest possible moment so as to have an outlet to the Pacific ocean. I am quite prepared to say that on that understanding the government will accept my hon. friend's resolution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the closing words of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) either have a very grave significance or they are merely a repetition of the utterances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1925 and on subsequent occasions. When a minister of the crown, in particular the Prime Minister, makes statements before the public they are usually taken at their full face value. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister clearly stated in the city of Edmonton that he and his government were deeply concerned with the problems of the settlers and producers in the Peace River district, and that he would see

at the earliest possible moment that they secured an outlet to the Pacific coast. Years have gone by. We had a report in 1925 from a joint board of engineers of the two railways. They were some of the most distinguished men in Canada. On that board were such men as Mr. Sullivan of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Gzowski, Mr. James, Mr. Hill and some whose signatures are rather difficult to read. These were the most outstanding railway engineers in the country I have in my hand a report which has been in the hands of the government and in possession of both railways. It has been before the railway committee of this house; it has been cited and read, and in it can be found virtually all the information needed in regard to making a decision about the outlets. I say to the Prime Minister that the words which he uttered-'"will use every agency in its power" -are very strong words. I am beginning to wonder if they mean anything, and that is the question my hon. friend has asked in his amendment. We are wondering whether or not the words of the Prime Minister which were uttered five years ago are to be respected, are to be followed out, or are to be implemented with action. I can recall several occasions when my hon. friend the member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) brought this matter to the attention of the house. The matter was debated at length and most earnestly in the session of 1927; yet nothing has been done.
Let me bring to the attention of the house one or two points in connection with this matter. The Minister of Railways stated a minute ago that this was undoubtedly a subject of great interest to the people of the Peace River district. It is a subject of great interest to western Canada, and that interest should extend to the whole of Canada. Every member of this house ought to be interested in it. The Peace River district represents a vast empire in the north country. It is not merely a section that is somewhat isolated and in due course will receive consideration, but it is a vast empire, with immense resources, lying at the present time in a more or less idle condition. After the repeated utterances in this house as to the possibilities of that country, it is needless for me to do more than to suggest one or two facts to the government and to this house. Northern British Columbia is west of the most fertile section of the Peace River country. You could put both Norway and Sweden in northern British Columbia north of the Canadian

Peace River Railway-Mr. Stevens
National Railways. They would be placed in a latitude similar to their own, with better conditions and richer resources of minerals, timber and agricultural lands.


Charles Avery Dunning: And a much better
climate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, a much better climate. In Norway and Sweden there are between nine million and ten million people, whereas in northern British Columbia there are about
20,000	white people-probably there are only about 10,000. I mention these circumstances to show what the possibilities are. In northern Alberta, the coimtry we are discussing, there is a vast area of the finest agricultural land in Canada, with a climate which is exceedingly attractive. To those who understand it, it is not and never has been a question of a few settlers trying to get an outlet for their wheat. I have heard some people say that these settlers had no business to go into that country until transportation facilities had preceded them. As a matter of fact transportation was assured them when the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway was constructed about 1912 or 1913.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; when that railway
was undertaken and constructed naturally the settlers expected to receive some consideration. In 1925, in the city of Edmonton, the Prime Minister assured them of an outlet. He was taken at his word, and many more settlers went into the district; there is no question that these settlers had a right to expect consideration. There was no doubt that if the railway were opened to the coast where there would be a reasonable outlet for their products the country would develop by leaps and bounds. The minister says the work of the railways, which at present are looking into the situation, is not yet complete. I submit to him that it is not necessary to sit down and idly wait until these two companies complete their work. He also referred to the financial situation and said that in view of the present financial condition of the Canadian National Railways he did not know whether he would be warranted in going ahead with this project.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think my hon.
friend quite understood my statement. I said that the two railway companies which were interested in the Alberta Northern railways were rather (reluctant at the moment to undertake this work, in view of the decline in railway revenues.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In that regard let me say to the minister that in my estimation this is the very time to take up this great national work, if it is justified, because it would take several years to complete this road. This is a big undertaking, and I venture to say that if you started immediately you could not complete the work within two years; indeed, with the use of ordinary methods I doubt if you could construct this road in three or four years. It is a big job, and now is the time to undertake it. We certainly hope that conditions will improve before three or four years pass. To-day we are faced with a good deal! of unemployment, and this would be one way to relieve that situation. This is the time to undertake the work; money is cheap and can be secured to-day probably at much lower rates than may be the case in a year or two.
The main point in the whole matter is that the thing is needed and has been badly needed for years. For several years it has been promised repeatedly, and should be proceeded with. There seems to be a lack of appreciation of the vast heritage which we have in that north country and which this outlet would open up not only to Canada but to the whole world. In view of all these points I think the government should proceed with this work now rather than, in the words of the minister, use every agency under their control in this direction, if in the opinion of the government financial conditions justify it. Let us face the question and say it ought to be done; it is an expenditure which is warranted. The undertaking would not require more than a few million dollars at the outset; probably
82,000,000 would see you through the first year, and the heavy expenditures would come at the end of the second or third years. This work is warranted; conditions are ripe for it; the result's are assured and the undertaking should be proceeded with.
I have just one word more before I conclude. The question of an outlet often has been trotted out as an excuse for not going ahead with the work. Undoubtedly there is a peculiar geographical condition in that country. My hon. friend who represents the district will correct me if I am at all unjust in my statement, but I might tell the house that the Peace River, which runs from the west eastward, goes through a deep cut in the terrain. This cut is of a character which I am assured is impossible of being bridged at any reasonable cost. Therefore the vast area to the north of the river will find an outlet
1798	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Stevens
on the Pacific coast further north than Vancouver. On the other hand there is an area south of the river which naturally would find its outlet through Vancouver.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure my hon. friend from Prince Rupert would not agree with that statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not so sure of that, but I cannot help it. As a matter of fact I was going to add, for the consolation of those who think there should be only the one outlet, that if that area south of the Peace River and the area now under cultivation, with its adjoining territory, were brought up to full production, these products would tax the full capacity of whatever route was chosen, on a single track basis. There is no doubt of that, and with the two areas separated by nature, as they are by a deep cut, the Peace River district will require two different outlets. There is no question of that in my mind; that is the ultimate outcome, and it is not fair to befuddle the public by putting Prince Rupert or Stewart against Vancouver on the one hand, and Vancouver against the northern points on the other hand. It is not a statesmanlike way to approach the question, and it is not fair. It is not good economics; it is not sound business. The geographical situation is there and it cannot be changed. My opinion is that the government should take the report it has had in its hands for five years and the information gathered since, of which there is a great abundance. Several ministers of the crown have been in that country, and I venture to say there is not one of them who will not endorse the facts I have stated, even if they will not endorse my sentiments. Then there is this other report, which I understand now is complete and which, by the way, is merely the report of a survey of resources. All this information is in the hands of the government, and this work ought to be done. We in this house who are interested in this matter are trying to bring the government to act and not merely indulge in preelection promises. The Minister eschews that, but I rather think that even his immaculate behaviour would not prevent him from wandering slightly astray in making preelection promises. Most people are more or less afflicted with that habit, but there are times when we can very properly say to those who have the reins of power, "You have made certain promises and statements; we believed they were sound and right; the people accepted them seriously and now we call upon you to implement them."

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I desire to say just a few words with reference to a problem with which I had some personal connection during the pakt several years. As I think my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) knows, personally I regard the question of a western outlet from the Peace River district as Canada's major immediate transportation problem. I use that expression deliberately, having regard to the fact that Canada is just completing the Welland canal, a major undertaking costing a very great deal of money, as well as another transportation effort in the Hudson Bay railway. I say deliberately that in my opinion Canada's major immediate transportation problem is that referred to by my hon. friend in the motion now before the house.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that in dealing with this problem the government can be accused of dilatoriness during the past few years. Until a year ago the railways in northern Alberta, the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia, the Central Canada and the Alberta Great Waterways railways, were owned not by either of our great transportation systems but by the government of the province of Alberta. Negotiations were under way for several years, and finally we were successful dn arranging to have these lines taken over by a company owned jointly by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The arrangement which was approved by this house one year ago provided for the taking over of the lines and, in addition, for a comprehensive program of branch line construction. I believe I am correct in saying that the two great railway systems which now own the Alberta Northern railways are fulfilling the obligations then undertaken with regard to the construction of branch lines. At that time I indicated to the house that the government was asking the two great railways system to concern themselves immediately with the problem of a western outlet for the system of lines terminating in the Peace River district. That request was made and was pressed upon the railways concerned, not only by myself as Minister of Railways at the time, but also by the Prime Minister, and by my successor in office (Mr. Crerar), who spoke a few moments ago. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) indicated in his remarks that the work which is being carried on has nothing to do with the finding of a route, but concerns only the resources along the route. I think my hon. friend is confusing two things. The

Peace River Railway-Mr. Dunning
survey of resources in British Columbia now being undertaken by the two great railway corporations has to do with the problem of the Pacific Great Eastern, and is being conducted at the request of and with the cooperation of the government of British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Having in mind, of course, the projection of the Pacific Great Eastern into the Peace River country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Possibly, but not certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Undoubtedly.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is very sure about that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend seems certain that the Pacific Great Eastern represents the best outlet to the Pacific coast for the Peace River country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not so certain.


Charles Avery Dunning: A great many people do not regard the Pacific Great Eastern as a sound economic outlet to the Pacific coast.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say that that investigation is being carried on primarily to make a survey of the resources on the route of the Pacific Great Eastern and in the territory served by it, and has in mind the projection of that road or the connection of that road with the Peace River country. In explanation of that one observation of mine which the hon. minister has taken up, I had in my hand a moment ago the report of the joint engineers of the railways, Messrs. Sullivan and Gzowski and the other group. In 1925 they reported on the very point which the minister is now discussing, the question of route, the question of outlet, and so forth.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can continue now to
make my point, that the survey of resources along the route of the Pacific Great Eastern may have and probably will have some bearing upon the settlement of the question of a western outlet, but what was discussed last year in the house, and what we had reference to when we spoke of the government bringing pressure to bear on the railways, had nothing to do with the Pacific Great Eastern. That had to do with an outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace River country, and the defining by the railway companies of the best, the proper, the most economical, and the soundest route to pursue in that regard without tying up the railway companies either to the Pacific Great Eastern or to any other project.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite true.


Charles Avery Dunning: As the Minister of Railways has indicated, progress was made last year by the railway companies in this connection. I personally am not satisfied with the progress which has been made, but I think in fairness to the two great railway companies consideration should be given to the serious diminution of revenue which may have dampened their ardour with respect to the surveying of new projects. As my hon. friends from that part of the country know, the Canadian National engineers for years have argued that the Obed route was the best one. I am hoping that that belief may be corrected by the investigations now going on, which are testing that belief as well as the availability and economics of other proposed routes.
As far as my own investigations go, and they are not at all final, I believe that an outlet should be chosen which would make available either of the existing ports on the British Columbia coast. An outlet should be provided which would make it possible for the products of the Peace River country to travel with reasonable economy to either of the ports which now exist on that coast.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Do I understand the
minister to say that the Canadian National is making a survey at the present time on that same basis?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say what work is going on at the present time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Was anything done in
1929?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have been out of touch with things for several months, but my information is that the railways did proceed to gather the information necessary to enable them to make a decision.
The railways may decide that in view of their economic situation they do not desire to go ahead immediately with the building of this road. If that should be the situation, then parliament must take cognizance of that fact. I hesitate to say this, but it may be necessary for parliament to vote directly the funds required for such a project. I had hoped that the economics of the proposal would appeal sufficiently to the great railway companies, who are now in the position of owning the northern lines, 6o that they themselves would propose the measures whereby the work would be definitely undertatken. In that event, parliament would be asked to guarantee the bonds with respect to the Canadian National Railways, and to vote the necessary authority in so far as the northern Alberta railways were concerned.
That is one possibility. Another is that the two railway companies may not agree as to
1800	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Dunning
what should be done. In that event, parliament must be in a position to act, either with the Canadian National Railways or through the power which rests in parliament to undertake matters of this kind if the will of parliament so desires. As a matter of transportation economics, everyone concerned naturally would prefer to see it handled by the railways themselves as a business proposition rather than by any direct governmental undertaking.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: When does the minister expect that the railways will be able to tell him whether or not they will go on with the work?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Minister of Railways has spoken already.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Minister of Finance has arrogated to himself the right of saying that it is up to the railways and that parliamentary responsibility is shelved.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend says that I am arrogating certain things to myself. I was merely telling the house what would be the natural step. If that be arrogance, then I am guilty. However, I do not think I can be accused of arrogance. My hon. friend has a perfect right to speak or to ask me any questions, but I do not think he is treating me quite fairly when he accuses me of arrogance in dealing with a public matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the hon. gentleman is aware of the difference of the terms "to arrogate" and "arrogance". I repeat that the minister has arrogated to himself the statement of what he claims to be a fact, that the responsibility for the decision in connection with the construction of this line now is upon the railways and not upon parliament.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: The promise of the Prime Minister has been forgotten; the promise of the Minister of Railways has been forgotten-the railways are to decide.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: When does the hon. minister expect the railways to decide either for or against?


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand my hon. friend now, but I do not think he understood me. I did not at any time state that the decision rested with the railways. What I did say, and what I intended to convey in the plainest terms, is that it desirable in the

national interests that this undertaking should be carried out if possible in the same manner as any other national transportation undertaking, that is, by the railways concerned, or, failing joint action, by the Canadian National Railways as such. I was giving an assumption of what would happen if the managements of the railways, or the management of the Canadian National Railways acting singly, decided that this proposal could not be recommended to parliament. I hope my hon. friend will listen to me when I say that our position wmuld be then exactly the same as it was in the case of the Hudson Bay railway, because the Canadian National Railways never would and never did assume any responsibility for the construction of that railway.
My hon. friend asks w'hen we may expect an answer from the railways. I think we are entitled to receive very shortly a definite answer from the railway companies concerned. I am not familiar with the recent developments along that line, but I think sufficient time has elapsed to enable the railway companies to make a definite recommendation or a definite statement of their intentions within a very short period. This matter having been evolved so far, having reached the stage where the railways of northern Alberta are owned by the two great railway corporations, having reached the stage where those two railway corporations have had plenty of time -here I am speaking only personally, but I believe they have had plenty of time-to go into the matter thoroughly as to the economics and the shortest route which should be followed, if action is not determined upon by the railways we shall have to face the situation as to whether or not we are in the same position with regard to this matter as we are with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. Personally I have no doubt as to the action we shall take if that is the position in- which we find ourselves.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Supposing the railways
fail to act, what will be the policy of the government?


Charles Avery Dunning: The policy of the government, the policy of any government, must be to see that the outlet is built.


Leon Johnson Ladner: When?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend realizes
the position in which his question places any minister. Does he want me to give an answer which in effect will be saying to the railway companies:	You have no responsibility in
connection with the matter?

Peace River Railway-Mr. Garland (Bow River)


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister made an
answer six years ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: What was it?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That the government would build a railway practically immediately.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is unfair in that regard, and he knows it better than I do.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The statement is on
Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: The record stands of what this government has accomplished in the face of great difficulty with respect to the Peace River area within the last few years. There is no doubt in my mind that we can have this outlet constructed by normal railway means and to-night I do not want to say anything that would encourage the idea on the part of the railway systems of Canada that they can escape the responsibility which is properly theirs. That is the reason I answer my hon. friend's question in the way I do. But on the other hand I must repeat what I said at the outset, that this to my mind is Canada's major, immediate transportation problem, and that action must be taken with regard to it. Personally I have no fault whatever to find with my hon. friend's resolution as I understand it.


James Charles Brady: I should like to ask the minister a question. He says that this is the immediate responsibility of the two great transcontinental railway companies. I would like to ask the minister:	When this agreement was entered into, did the minister place the onus of an immediate outlet upon those two great transcontinental railway companies?


Charles Avery Dunning: The agreement, as my
hon. friend well knows, did not comprehend the question of the outlet at all. I am very much afraid that if any insistence had been placed upon the railways at that time to give a definite undertaking regarding the immediate building of an outlet, we would never have got the agreement; the railways would never have been purchased. As I have stated to the house before, I believe the acquisition of the railway by the Canadian National preferably, or, failing that, by both railways, was a necessary and essential first step in the solving of the problem. Until the railway was in other hands than those of the provincial government I could see no way whereby the problem of an outlet or the development of the Peace River country could be solved. As I have said before-and I say it again to-night-I believe 2419-114
last year's legislation represented a very definite step and the time is now ripe for a further step along the same line.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the house for a moment or two to this question? The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on April 13, 1927, made it clear that he regarded it as the absolute duty of the government, of the parliament of Canada, to see that a comprehensive survey was undertaken in order to discover the most economical route for the construction of this line. In 1927 surveys were advocated by the former Minister of Railways, the present Minister of Finance. Surveys were carried on during
1927	and 1928 and there is a partial report based upon the engineers' discoveries or investigations. For 1929, however, we can find no evidence other than the minister's rather hazy statement as to what investigation has been or is being conducted by the Canadian National. It appears to us from the evidence before us that for some reason or another the active work started in 1927 was dropped at the end of 1928, and other than a very vague general statement that the minister believed the Canadian National were conducting an investigation, there is no evidence that they have been so or that they are continuing a survey which they themselves admitted in the
1928	report was only a partial one. If they are not continuing a survey they are trying to carry out a policy on a partial investigation instead of pressing on with the actual survey. That one point alone would indicate to me that there is something lacking in the policy of the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will permit me to answer that question. He surely remembers that the detail work in 1928 was all done north of the Peace River and that very valuable information was secured regarding that area.


Edward Joseph Garland: But are the surveys in the various passes continuing? The answer of a man who has given a great deal more study to the question than I have, namely, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) is: No, they are not continuing with the active surveying. In that report they stated that the surveys therein undertaken were only partial and could by no means be regarded as complete. It looks to me as though for some reason or another all active working connection with this matter, of which the Minister of Finance emphasized the importance, has now stopped, and we have entered what one might call a resting period until the election is over. The engineers who

1802	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
examined the situation and reported in 1924, their report being published in 1927, showed that for the years from 1919 to 1923 the total production of wheat in that area was
5,328,000	bushels and the total production of all grains for the five years was only 19,000.000 bushels, and they indicated that the time for the construction of the road would be when the production of that country reached the
10,000,000 bushel mark. That mark has long been passed; to-day the production of wheat done amounts to 10,000,000 bushels and the total grain production is more than 16,000,000 bushels.
As regards the other point raised by the Minister of Finance, let me point out that the settlement in that district has proceeded and is now proceeding at a far more rapid rate than the branch line program of the two lines can possibly cope with. If ever there was justification for the parliament of Canada stepping in and saying: "Let us get to work on this Peace River outlet," we have it now. Far better to do that if only to relieve the unemployment situation that prevails at present and is likely to continue for some time to come, than to disregard the appeal of those who went into that country-and to-day there are 35,000 people there-believing that the honour of the government was behind the construction of the outlet. They have waited almost too long; they have become disheartened and discouraged, although the hon. member for Peace River has endeavoured to paint a picture of courageous settlers in that district still carrying on the battle against high rates and unfair conditions.
On November 10, 1924, the Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. gentleman who is now sitting in his seat opposite, definitely stated in the First Presbyterian church in Edmonton-he chose a very excellent place to make the statement-that the construction of the Peace River outlet was an absolute necessity. If it was an absolute necessity in 1924, surely the right hon. gentleman realizes that it is an infinitely greater necessity at this moment, and yet his responsible minister says: This is for the two railway companies to decide, and if the railway companies delay unduly-whatever that may mean-then it will be the duty of this government to step in. That is not a very courageous stand. That is not carrying out pledges or keeping promises. That is not justifying the glorious phrases that the Prime Minister and his colleagues poured forth from the hustings in Vancouver and Calgary and Edmonton. It is not keeping faith with the .people. I ask the Prime Minister now if he will not rise in this house and declare that he recognizes the necessity 
to-day as he did in 1924, and will he not pledge his government to see immediately that this survey is completed at the earliest date and construction commenced as soon as possible; and in order that that may be done, let the necessary vote be inserted in the supplementary estimates.


Charles A. Stewart: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, there have been two problems in the province of Alberta in which for the past year I have been greatly interested and the solution of which I have tried to forward. While not forgetting the general problems of government I have felt it incumbent upon me to press in season and out of season for the return of the natural resources to the western provinces, and to seek if at all possible a solution of that .problem whereby these resources might be returned. And in conjunction with that problem there was the question of an outlet from this last new great northwest to the Pacific coast.
I very well remember in the days when the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway was being (projected into the Peace River country that I was sent in there for the purpose of making an investigation and bringing in a report to the provincial government on the potentialities of that portion of the province of Alberta. Having visited the territory upon that occasion for the first time, I became convinced that the paramount necessity of the people in that region was to secure a railway, and I so advised the government. The railway was projected into the Peace River country. Sometimes I think, and I believe my views are shared by a great many people, a better route might have been chosen than the one selected. However, the railway is now built and for a considerable number of years the people have been enjoying the facilities afforded by it. The railway, of course, was .projected into the Peace River country with the avowed intention of going on to the coast through some pass. We were told at that time that it would be the Peace River pass. One need only glance at the map to realize that an outlet of that character would best serve the interests of the whole of that territory. Rightly or wrongly I have advocated through all these years the construction of a line through the Peace River pass, giving access either to Prince Rupert, or going south and joining at Fort George with the projected construction of the Pacific Great Eastern to that point in order that the citizens of that territory might have an outlet. This matter was under active discussion in 1923, 1924, 1926 and 1927 prior to the announcement that a complete survey

Peace River Railway-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
of these passes was to be made with a view to the selection of the most feasible route, and when that survey was undertaken there was undoubtedly in the minds of the officials of the Canadian National system and of its surveyors the desire and the intention to build from Aggie to Obed on the main line of the Canadian National. I took some responsibility as a representative of Alberta for rather opposing that idea, believing that an outlet should be sought by way of the Peace or Pine pass giving access from that territory over the height of land to the coast and serving, if possible, the two ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I was under the impression that that survey was going on all these years. But last year I understand that the railways made the statement that the most pressing necessity of the moment was the construction of branch lines, and I am somewhat, surprised to know, as stated by my hon. friend, that that survey has not been prosecuted as rapidly as was expected. But I do know this, from the reports of our own Dominion land officers, that down the Peace River there has been a very large number of homesteads located this past year, and one of the immediate necessities, in addition to that mentioned by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), will be a railroad projected northward to give those people the necessary railway facilities to get their produce to market.
I was also greatly interested in the reported discoveries of minerals along the shores of Slave lake and Great Bear lake. Last year a reconnaissance was made by aeroplane and a very interesting report was brought back as to the possibility of a railway line being projected from some point at or near Grim-shaw northward and northeasterly into the mining area.
So, Mr. Speaker, the problem of railway construction in that country seems to be a very pressing one to say the least, and will continue to be a pressing one. If the railways are undertaking branch line construction, I am convinced that they should also undertake the construction of an outlet to the coast. My hon. friends opposite make the statement that the government themselves should embark upon this project. The Minister of Finance put it very concretely when he stated that if the two railways do not agree it will become the business of the Canadian National Railways to build that outlet, as they have built an outlet to the Hudson bay, to give the people these very greatly needed facilities. Speaking for myself I will continue to advocate as strongly as I can, as I have done in the past, the construction of such an outlet. It was 2419-1141
stated in a letter I believe by Sir Henry Thornton, upon request, when asked what he would consider a reasonable volume of traffic to warrant the building of an outlet for the Peace River country, that when the settlers in that locality produced 10,000,000 bushels of wheat he thought that an outlet to the coast would be warranted. My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) states that that figure has already been reached.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Sixteen millions bushels.


Charles A. Stewart: He, as well
as others, must realize the responsibility of a promise of that kind, and we should have action upon this very greatly needed improvement in that part of the country.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the minister aware of any work that is being done at the present time by either or both of the railway companies in connection with the Peace River outlet?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
I am concerned, I thought that surveys were being projected. I do know that one season was taken up in reconnaissance work north of the Peace River, and I understood that a complete survey of the Pine pass was to be made. I do know that they have a complete survey of the line to Obeid because I have seen the figures which the engineers have presented as to the cost of construction of that particular line.
May I say that I have not changed my mind? It is not for me to say how the outlet should be built, but I do think that the projection should be westward through one of these passes in order to give the needed facilities, rather than a line from the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway to Obed connecting with the Canadian National line. We must all agree that if the two railway companies can come together about the route to be followed in building the outlet, it will be very much better than having a division of opinion and the necessity of stepping in and constructing the line by the Canadian National Railways alone. I confess frankly that having the two railway companies purchase the existing lines in this territory has not added to the ease of the construction of this outlet.
But may I conclude by saying that so far as I am concerned, and so long as I am a representative of the province of Alberta, I shall continue to advocate just as strenuously as I can the construction of this outlet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the motion before
1801	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Bennett
the house is the usual motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair. The amendment thereto calls upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to implement a promise which he made to the people of Canada. The discussion has wandered far afield and has covered many matters which were not involved in the observations made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kennedy) who moved the amendment.
Should the Prime Minister of this country make a promise on the eve of an election for the purpose of securing support for his candidate and then disregard that promise? That is the question; nothing more nor less than that. It is all right to go to Saskatoon and ask how many miles of branch lines you have to build to get support for the member. It is all right to think in terms of miles of railroad, as was done by the Prime Minister in the reported speech at Saskatoon, and it is all right to go to Edmonton and promise a Peace River outlet at the earliest possible moment, and it is all right to make that statement again in Vancouver. But Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said that chickens have a habit of coming home to roost. And they have come home to roost in this case! What is the Prime Minister going to say about it? That is the question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not what the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) says about the painful struggles he has made for Alberta and the weeping he has indulged in during the past year in the intervals when he had something more to think about than natural resources. But had he been thinking of the natural resources during the past six years we would not have been taking up the time of the house this session in doing tardy justice to the western provinces. It is not enough for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) to say there will not be a Peace River outlet for a year or two. That is not an answer to the question before this house to-night. The question now before the house involves the honour of parliament and the honour of the Prime Minister. It is not good enough for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to tell us that he knows something about this thing and to work himself up into a fine frenzy as to what he has done to make the government live up to its promises. What is the answer that this parliament and the people of Canada are waiting for? Shall we tolerate such a condition of affairs in this country that the Prime Minister, with all the authority and responsibility of a minister of the crown,
fMr. Bennett.]
goes out to the trusting people and standing before them in a church edifice at Edmonton tells them what he will do, and then three or four years later still disregards that promise? That is the issue involved in the amendment made by the hon. member for Peace River. It is high time such an amendment was made in this house. It is high time for the people of this country to realize that they cannot be longer deluded by these promises made by the Prime Minister on the eve of an election. It is only a few days ago that the same sort of thing had to be dealt with. When one reads the language used by the right hon. gentleman in Vancouver one realizes that it was a promise as near as he could make a promise and yet not make one, following upon the fact that he had made the promise at Edmonton and was confronted with it at Vancouver. But it was good enough to try to mislead three thousand people or more. Where is the honour of this government? They prate and prattle of the high moral issues that are involved, in a fine frenzy they talk about the ideals of Liberalism and the open road. But let them keep their promises; then we will have some honour in this country. It is all right for you to promise branch lines when by so doing you can get votes; but when that day is past you come and tell parliament, "We have not anything to do with branch lines; it belongs to the railways." Read the speeches made by the right hon. gentleman while in western Canada within the last fifteen months in which he took credit for what his government had done in constructing branch railways. After all, who is able to build these railways, the government or the railway companies? Some people have thought that this government endeavoured to control the railway companies. Most people looked upon the speech made by the right hon. gentleman as an indication of that. Sir, I put to the house this question: If the government has power enough to build branch lines, or to compel the railway companies to do so, it surely has power enough to protect the honour of parliament and the honour of the Prime Minister. That is the question at issue. Upon that question I will not permit the hon. gentleman, even if he desires, to withdraw his motion. I think it is high time this parliament passed upon the observations made by the right hon. Prime Minister. The people of this country, to use the language of the street, are beginning to understand the game, they are beginning to see through it, they are beginning to strip this mantle of righteousness that the right hon. gentleman wears, realizing the time is come when promises given for votes must

Peace, River Railway-Mr. Bennett
be implemented in parliament or else he must cease to hold office. That is the position in respect to it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I just wish to say that
I had no intention of withdrawing the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I felt pretty certain of
that, but I wished so to intimate to my hon. friend beforehand so he would not make any mistake about it. But there is the issue, sir, the whole issue, and it could not be made clearer. The Prime Minister went to the trusting and confiding electors of Brandon and promised them what he would do; then three or four years afterwards, as the hon. member says, he pleads that he is in the hands of the railways. The matter was in the hands of the railways then, or else we have been deceived ; one or the other. Either the railways were free to do as they pleased with respect to branch lines, or they were not; and if they were not, the government would be able to claim credit for its branch lines program. Indeed, at the time it said: "Look at the trouble we had with the Senate when our branch line legislation reached that chamber." Now the Senate is reformed by the advent there of the former Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke)-and all is well.
Now, sir, I ask, Does the Minister of the Interior think the people of Alberta are deceived with that sort of talk?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, he does not
think so. He knows the electors of Edmonton will recall the speech made by the Prime Minister in the Presbyterian church, he knows their memories have not entirely failed them, and he knows they will hold not only the Prime Minister but himself responsible for the failure to implement that promise. The Minister of Finance is absent. No wonder! He came in and did his little bit; he has been a boy scout for to-day; he has done one good deed. He has come up and tried to defend the breach of honour and of obligation by the Prime Minister to the people of Canada, especially of western Canada. Having done so he has gone out. He will get the meritorious reward for service well done. As I have said, he has been a good boy scout to-day, he has done one good turn-he has helped a big brother.
But, sir, some hon. gentlemen look upon these matters as what they call "just the pastime of politics." They think it is a delightful thing to make these promises before an election and then say, "Look how we outdid the Conservatives." Mr. Meighen could
not make such promises and implement them, for he was not in power. Oh, no. But when he made a promise he kept it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it would be
so strange to hon. gentlemen opposite to think that any leader of a party would keep a promise that they laugh. Why would they not? Long habit has induced them to believe that when a prime minister makes a promise he has no intention of keeping it. They laugh at the very thought of a prime minister keeping his promise. Is it any wonder they laugh? If I sat behind the Prime Minister I would certainly feel like laughing. Why, even the Minister of Justice laughs at the thought. And may I add that the performances in this house during the last three or four months are strictly in keeping with the same general principle? I will review them at a later date, but I shall nol do it now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: To-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To-morrow? Well, that
would be a very opportune time. I thank the Roderick for the word; it steels my sword. Now, let us recall the circumstance in connection with the Peace River outlet.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before my hon. friend
goes on, may I tell him why we laugh?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I would judge that it was because of the recent appointment to the bench in Quebec; I would judge that from remarks my hon. friend has made on previous occasions.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend why his friends cheer. It was because he, the new judge, was a member of an administration the premier of which, Mr. Taschereau, is the greatest Tory in this country, according to the leader of the opposition; he took the crown off his head to put it on the head of the Quebec premier. I will tell my hon. friend why we laughed. We laughed because the present leader of the opposition presented a petition on behalf of a man named Collins to unseat the present member for Peace River.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, my friend from
Temiscouata who has such a high regard for judicial authorities-


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a precedent that does n-ot date back to the reign of Queen Anne.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was in the reign of
Queen Anne of happy memory that a statute was passed and the decision of the privy
1806	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Bennett
council made with respect to the meaning of the words trade and commerce. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could apply those words in connection with the appointment to which he refers.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know if there is a trade between the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Peace River-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can assure the hon.
member that there is no commerce.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then it is "peace" river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There should always be
peace, perfect peace, between the hon. gentleman and myself.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then it is the styx.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Peace River project is a matter upon which we voted in this house. The government of the day was not only content to make observations but the Prime Minister induced his followers to vote down the resolution moved at that time by the hon. member (Mr. Kennedy). I supported the motion, believing that the time had come when it was desirable that a little progress should be made. There are those yonder who say that there is no progress in the Conservative party, that progress rests entirely with Liberalism. For instance, there is the chief whip of the Liberal party, who is the champion of that statement. I have been reading some of his magnificent speeches delivered throughout the various parts of Ontario and Quebec; he speaks in Ontario chiefly. In his opinion progress is synonymous with Liberalism-but progress may be backward; you may slip down hill as well as up hill.


Ernest Lapointe: That is Conservatism.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Tennyson expressed it very well when he said, that man's the best conservative that lops the mouldered branch away. I would judge that that is why the hon. member for Temiscouata complains of the Prime Minister's recent appointment to the Quebec bench. It is all right now, is it?


Ernest Lapointe: I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, it is all fixed up now.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I have nothing to withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is not so much peace after all; the hon. gentleman says he has nothing to withdraw. His observations the other day indicated that the gentleman appointed was unfit for the position, but now he says he has nothing to withdraw. I shall leave it to the minister and his supporters.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the opinion of the hon. gentleman himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us look at the Peace River outlet which has been endorsed as the policy of the Prime Minister. I have before me the headlines of the speech made by the Prime Minister on November 6, 1929.
Peace River Outlet Endorsed as Policy by Prime Minister.
Vancouver Audience hears Premier King's Assurance That His Government Will Cheek all "Dilly-dallying" In Decision on Survey.
While his government was dilly-dallying and while his Minister of the Interior was inactive, the survey stopped. The survey having stopped the dilly-dallying continued.
I can only repeat the question: Can we hope to make progress in Canada if the chief citizen of the country makes promises on the hustings and in parliament, secures the support, and then makes no attempt to fulfil them? In this case the surveyors are withdrawn, the railway is not completed, and the outlet is undiscovered; progress is backward as well as forward. The speech of the right hon. gentleman remains unredeemed, and the obligation is disregarded six years afterwards. That is the position I put to this house; and I shall observe with much amusement the attitude of my hon. friends when they attempt to condone the action of their Prime Minister. They will no doubt as usual take their whippings like litttle men, realizing that they have done one more good turn for the cause which they supported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
leader of the opposition during the course of his remarks said something about wandering far afield. At that time he was referring to other speakers, but I think his remarks would more often apply to his own address. My hon. friend has said that we have before us an amendment to the motion to go into supply, and he asked what the action and comment of the Prime Minister will be in connection with that amendment. He then turned to his friend from Peace River district who moved the amendment and made the statement that he does not propose to allow him to withdraw the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I would not permit him to withdraw it without first taking a vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman said that he would not permit the hon. member for Peace River to withdraw his motion without first having a vote taken. The

Peace River Railway-Mr. Mackenzie King
hon. member for Peace River then, doing his part, told us that he did not intend to allow the amendment to be withdrawn.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have not heard anything yet that prompts me to withdraw it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will not need to withdraw his amendment because the government is prepared to accept it; the government does not propose to have the amendment used simply for political purposes. Let me read the amendment that we may see the extent to which hon. gentlemen are trying to play politics with this important Peace River project. Listen to the amendment; it reads as follows:
That immediate steps be taken to implement the pledge of the Prime Minister given at Edmonton in November, 1924, with regard to the Peace River outlet.
Do hon. gentleman opposite expect that hon. members on this side of the house are going to vote not to implement any pledge given by the Prime Minister? If hon. gentlemen opposite do not expect them to vote in that way what does my hon. friend mean when he says he will not allow this amendment to be withdrawn on the government giving an undertaking that it is prepared to carry out its undertaking? The amendment has been so worded and introduced as an amendment on going into supply as to place the government before the people of this country as appearing to be in the position of. declining to implement a pledge which the amendment says has been given by the Prime Minister. I tell my hon. friend-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Six years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not care
whether it was six or sixty years ago so long as the pledge remains, and so long as there has been good and substantial reasons why it could not have been implemented sooner. I am sure the reasons which have governed up to the present will be supported by public opinion. I am prepared to say that when the opportunity presents itself for the carrying out of this pledge, it will be carried out. I do not propose to have hon. members on this side of the house put in the false position of appearing to be voting for anything to the contrary. If hon. gentlemen opposite between them wish to draft an amendment with a view ' to trving to embarrass the government politically, that is their own lookout, but I can tell the people of this country and particularly the people of western Canada that as far as this Peace River outlet is concerned, the government does not believe that tactics of the kind will help the project. The government is in earnest with respect to having that route
constructed just as soon as, having regard for essential consideration, may be possible. If hon. gentlemen opposite are determined to seek to make political capital out of it they will have to make their own explanations to the electors.
My hon. friend says a pledge was made in 1924 at Edmonton, and he reads words which he indicates are those directly spoken by myself. To begin with, I do not think the report has anything in direct quotations. It is a statement of what I purported to say at the time I was speaking in Edmonton.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The important part of
the speech is in direct quotations, and it was taken from the Edmonton Bulletin, a friendly newspaper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I used the expression "I pledge myself" in regard to anything; I am quite sure that is not my own language. If I had been speaking with respect to an undertaking of the government I would have made a reference to the government and said that I spoke in the name of the government. I think I am sufficiently well acquainted with my own manner of speaking to know the language I would have used at the time, and in giving any undertaking for the government, I would have taken care to mention the government in that way.
However, I have not the slightest doubt that I did say I believed the construction of this route was essential and necessary and that it would be undertaken-apparently the word "humanly" was used-as soon as would be humanly possible. That is general language; it does not mean that the railroad necessarily would be constructed that year or the year following. It meant that the road would be constructed, having regard to those circumstances for which a government must have regard, as soon as relevant circumstances would make such construction possible.


Leon Johnson Ladner: When will that time be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will wait a moment I will tell him. At the lime I was speaking, conditions were very different from what conditions are to-day with respect to the possibility of the government being in a position to guarantee the passage of measures through this parliament. Reference has been made also to a speech which I delivered in Vancouver, during the course of which I am reported to have said that we had had our experience with regard to branch lines, and so we had. When I was speaking in Edmonton, I am not at all sure that that was not at a time a program of branch line construction which we had placed
1808	COMMONS
Peace River Railway-Mr. Mackenzie King
before parliament and which had passed this house had been rejected by the other house. If I am not mistaken our branch line programs were thrown out on two or three different occasions. That being the case I think I was justified, speaking in Edmonton in qualifying my language as to what in the name of the government I could undertake with respect to a railway which would afford an outlet from the Peace district to the Pacific. The report of my speech as read says that they would have to be patient.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The Prime Minister was discussing the Hudson Bay railway and the Peace River outlet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I was discussing the Hudson Bay railway and the Peace River outlet, but I was discussing these questions at a time when I knew the extent of the government's power in the matter of getting railway legislation through this parliament and I was speaking in the light of that knowledge. When I spoke at Vancouver, I was equally careful to have regard to what I believed the power of the government would be with reference to legislation which it would wish to have enacted by this parliament. I was careful not to make unconditional promises, but to make perfectly clear to the electorate difficulties with which in the past the government had been forced to contend and difficulties with which we might have to contend in the future. My hon. friends opposite have read, from the Vancouver Province of November 16, 1929, headlines which appeared above the article dealing with the meeting which was held in that city.


Leon Johnson Ladner: And the context as well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But not all the context; I am going to show that my hon. friends picked out parts of the context as best suited their purpose. I will show also what they did not read. This was the heading:
Peace River Outlet Endorsed As Policy by Prime Minister.
Vancouver Audience Hears Premier King's Assurance That His Government Will Check All "Dilly-Dallying" in Decision on Survey.
Then my hon. friend read some of the text, as follows:
"As a government we believe in the Pacific outlet for the Peace," said the Premier, ''and we don't intend to allow the railways to dillydally m reaching their decision. If they do then the authority of the state can be called on to make them reach one."


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the Prime Minister still stand by that statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most decidedly I still stand by it. Let me read further from the text of the article:
The Premier reiterated his assurance given at Edmonton that "the spearhead of immigration as far as his government's policy is concerned, will be the Peace River."
Continuing, the first minister reviewed the activities of the two great railways in making a survey,-
This is the part my hon. friends did not read.
*-at his request, of the construction problems associated with the outlet, and added they were working together on branch line development in the Peace River area. Parliament, he felt sure, will want to know what these railway companies think about the matter before taking any action. Until they finish their surveys, it will be difficult to get the house to act. '
My hon. friends did not read that part of the speech, and in deliberately omitting it they were seeking to put both myself and the government in an entirely false light. What I said at Vancouver I adhere to at the present time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will please keep his seat. I did not interrupt him, and I have very little time in which to finish my remarks. If he so desires I shall be just as pleased to move the adjournment of the debate and conclude another day. What I had in mind, as I expressed it here, was that parliament would wish to know-and in speaking of parliament I refer not only to this House of Commons but also to the other chamber through which all measures have also to pass-before it either granted charters to the companies or made the necessary appropriations for a railway of the character described, what the railway companies themselves thought about it. I submit that if the government attempted to bring forward a project for a railway from the Peace River country to the Pacific ocean or to connect at any given point or points with other lines which run to the Pacific; without having in its possession the views of the two railway companies and their reports upon the surveys which they had made, it would be very difficult if not impossible to get the necessary support to pass the legislation through parliament.
Happily, in more particulars than one, we as a government, are in a different position to-day from the position we have been in during previous years in our dealings with many matters in parliament. We can with some degree of certainty, when we bring forward a measure which we know to bo

Privilege-Mr. Kennedy
supported by necessary information and essential consideration, undertake to say that in all probability the purpose of the measure will be implemented in its course through both houses. I want to repeat here what I said at Vancouver: We have asked each of the railway companies to expedite the surveys which they are making. I have spoken personally to Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; I have spoken personally to Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways. The present Minister of Railways and Canals said to-night that he also has expressed the views and desires of the government to the presidents of these two systems, and the former Minister of Railways and Canals, the present Minister of Finance, made a similar statement. We all have impressed upon the presidents of these systems that it is the desire of the government to have this matter expedited and the surveys completed, that it is our view that at an early date agreement should be arrived at by the two companies as to the route which they will jointly recommend, and that failing agreement by them the government itself will undertake to make a decision.
Since it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I will move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 6, 1930.