1934-02-28

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

Mr. VALLANCE:: 1.	Wliat- are the names of the persons who submitted tenders for mail contract rural route No. 1, Battleford, Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the amount of each tender submitted for that contract?
3.	What is the name of the person to whom the contract was awarded?


Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1 and 2. Geo. W. French, Battleford, $475 per annum; James Savard, Battleford, $480 per annum; Geo. Laycock, Battleford, $489 per annum; W. H. Chapman, Battleford, $494 per annum; Fred G. Light, Battleford, $500 per annum; Victor Davies, Battleford, $600 per annum; Geo. W. French, Battleford, $600 per annum; Alex. Pritchard, Battleford, $720 per annum.
3.	Geo. W. French, who was the lowest tenderer.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-LIQUOR SEIZURES

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	What number of seizures wras carried out by the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada, at Sherbrooke and Thetford Mines from January, 1933, to this day?
2.	What quantity of liquor was seized in each ease?
3.	What number of automobiles was seized?
4.	How many were sold by auction?

Questions
5.	How many were returned to owners, by whose order, and why?
6.	What is the number of automobiles that will be sold at the next auction?
7.	What are the makes of these automobiles, and who are the owners?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	26.
2.	Amount of liquor seized in 12 cases- Nil; amount of liquor seized in 14 cases-as follows: 128 ounces alcohol; 3 gallons alcohol; 40 ounces alcohol; 25 ounces alcohol; 60 ounces alcohol; 48 quarts beer; 4 quarts alcohol; 21 gallons alcohol; 1 quart alcohol; 12 ounces alcohol; 2 gallons alcohol; 17 ounces alcohol; 120 ounces alcohol; 4 gallons mash and 3 bottles spirits.
3.	9.
4.	Automobiles not sold by auction, but by tender after due advertising. Four sold by tender.
5.	Three cars released on payment of voluntary penalties collected by members of R.C.M.P. subject to decision of the Minister of National Revenue. One car sold by tender to former owner.
6.	None-no cars sold by auction but April 1, 1934, tenders will be asked for one car.
7.	Oldsmobile coach seized from David Metivier at Thetford Mines, Quebec.



PICTOU COUNTY, WHARF REPAIRS

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works spend any money either by way of construction or repair of wharves in the county of Pictou, in the calendar year of 1933?
2.	If so, at what places were such expenditures made respectively?
3.	Who were the foremen, in each case, and at what times were such amounts spent and amount of each expenditure respectively?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: ' 1. Yes.
2.	Pictou, Pictou Island, Bailey's Brook and Skinner's Cove.
3.	Pictou: (a) Isaac T. Arbuckle; (b) July
22 to November 1, 1933; (e) $5,804.49. Pictou Island: (a) Allan MacFarlane; (b) August 21 to November 10, 1933;	(c) $1,609.71.
Bailey's Brook: (a) H. Scott Patton; (b) August 1 to November 18, 1933; (c) $864.73. Skinner's Cove:	(a) Fred Shannon; (b)
October 21 to December 31,	1933;	(c)



$1,895.85. EDUCATION OF INDIANS

Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: 1.	What is the distribution by provinces of the amounts spent on Indian education as reported in the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1933?
7472ft-65 i
2. What is the Indian population of each of the provinces of Canada?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.
Indian Education Vote-Expenditure for year 1932-33
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
Northwest Territories	
British Columbia	
Yukon	
$	1,235 26
37,007 94 17,073 74 59,908 17 374,920 34 216,389 73 303,181 40 265,793 22 28,586 89 391,246 68 16,880 59

Indian population by provinces- census 1929
Prince Edward Island	 295
Nova Scotia	 1929
New7 Brunswick	 1	604
Quebec	 12,885
Ontario	 27,420
Manitoba	 12,263
Saskatchewan	 10	784
Alberta	 g'84g
Northwest Territories	 4	615
British Columbia	 25107
^ukon	 1,264
108,012



SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I.-CUSTOMS COLLECTIONS

Mr. MacLEAN:: What amounts of customs were collected at Summerside, P.E.I., during the years 1926 to 1934, inclusive, giving yearly amount separately in each case?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 

AIR MAIL SERVICE

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What air mail routes were carried on during the year ending March 31, 1933?
2.	What routes are now being carried on?
Questions

3. What was the revenue from air mail service during the year ending March 31, 1933?
i.	What is the cost to date for the year ending March 31, 1934?
5. What is the estimated cost for the balance [DOT]of the year?


Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Amos-Siscoe; Big River-Ue a la Crosse; Buffalo-London-Detroit; Fort McMurray-Aklavik; Fort Resolution-Cameron Bay via Rae; Lac du Bonnet-Bissett; Leamington-Pelee Island; Moneton-Charlottetown; Mont-real-Albany; Montreal-Rimouski; Narrow Lake-Sioux Lookout; Peace River-North Vermilion; Prince Albert-Lac la Ronge; Quebec-Seven Islands; Seven Islands-Anticosti; Char-lottetown-Magdalen Islands; Siscoe-Pascalis; Toronto-Detroit (discontinued April, 1032) ; Vancouver-Victoria; Winnipeg-Pembina.
2.	Amos-Siscoe; Big River-Ile a la Crosse; Buffalo-London-Detroit (discontinued May, 1933); Fort McMurray-Aklavik; Fort Reso-lution-Cameron Bay via Rae and Camsell River; Lac du Bonnet-Bisset; Leamington-Pelee Island; Moneton-Charlottetown; Mont-real-Albany; Montreal-Rimouski; Narrow Lake-Sioux Lookout; Peace River-North Vermilion; Prince Albert-Lac la Ronge; Quebec-Sept lies; Havre St. Pierre-Port Menier; Charlottetown-Magdalen Islands; Siscoe-Pascalis (discontinued July, 1933); Vancouver-Victoria; Winnipeg-Pembina; Sept Ues-Natashquan; Cameron Bay-Coppermine.
3.	$290,301.69 (estimated).
4.	Cost for present fiscal year up to January 31, 1934-$166,015.47.
5.	$42,312.77.



RURAL, MAIL BOX CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VENI0T:
1.	What was the price paid under contract for rural mail boxes in 1927-28?
2.	What was the price paid per box tor the 10,000 boxes purchased by the present government?
Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	$2.80 per box-plus sales tax of 10 cents each. Freight extra f.o.b. to various destinations.
2.	$2.75 per box-plus 6 per cent sales tax -f.o.b. destination.



OTTAWA IMPERIAL CONFERENCE-REPRESENTATIVES OF CANADIAN LUMBERMEN

Mr. GUTHRIE:: 

GERMAN CONSUL-GENERAL IN CANADA

Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and at his request I beg to make answer to the following question asked by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs):
In view of the fact that Dr. L. Kempff, German consul general in Canada, has issued from his office in Montreal, publications grossly offensive to people of the Jewish race and likely to stir up enmity and strife in this country against Jews, will the government take appropriate measures for the suppression and confiscation of the anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi literature now being circulated by the German consul general in Montreal, and also for the recall of Dr. Kempff and other officials of the consulate who are responsible for such acts?
The hon. member for Cartier has not given any particulars of the publications which he states have been circulated by the German consul-general, and which he describes as antiJewish and pro-Nazi. I am, however, informed that the consul-general states that the publication issued from his office is one entitled Germany's Fight for AVestem Civilization, and that between two and three hundred copies of this pamphlet have been mailed to representative men in public and business life. We are assured that no further copies will be circulated.
It is not necessary to remind members of this house at any length of the privileges and responsibilities of the representatives of a foreign country abroad. It is clearly established that a diplomatic representative must abstain from intervention in the internal affairs of the country to which he is accredited. It is equally clear that in the performance
i02g

Questions as Orders for Returns
of his task of advancing and protecting the interests of his country, he is entitled to make representations to the government to which he is accredited on any development that may affect the interests of his own country. It is also recognized that within limits set more 'by custom than by any definite rule, he may give public addresses designed to increase the friendly feeling towards his own country, as Lord Bryce did so notably while ambassador at Washington, and that he may on occasion communicate to the press to correct what he considers a misstatement of fact on an important matter affecting his country, without, however, entering into a prolonged or acrimonious public controversy. In appropriate measure, the same rules may be taken to apply to consular representatives.
Ordinarily there is a clear line of demarcation between the internal affairs of the country to which a representative is accredited and the affairs of his own state. Issues may arise, however, of such broad and almost universal interest as to present aspects of concern to the people of all countries. I might refer to such issues as have arisen of late in more than one country in Europe, involving discussion regarding the merits of freedom of speech, the democratic form of government or pacific ideals in international policy-issues which of course are a matter of interest and concern in Canada as well. Naturally, in the discussion of any such issues, there is double necessity for caution.
I can say to the hon. member for Cartier that I do not think any occasion has arisen for suggesting the withdrawal from Canada of Doctor Kempff, or other officers of the consulate. The consul-general is a man of long experience in the dominion and of proved friendliness to this country. I am sure he had no intention of intervening in Canadian affairs, and that no further circulation may be anticipated of documents which, while intended to support the attitude of his government, contained material objectionable to large sections of Canadian opinion.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MEROIER (St. Henri):: 1.	Has the government completed the expropriation of the buildings erected in the square composed of St. James, Windsor, St. Antoine, and Cathedral streets, in the city of Montreal, province of Quebec?
2.	What are the names of the proprietors of the buildings expropriated in said square and the amount paid to each one of them?
3.	Have all the buildings acquired by the government, to date, been demolished?
4.	If any of the buildings were not demolished, were these properties rented by the government to a third party?
5.	If so, to whom, for what period of time, at what rent or on what terms?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Return tabled herewith.


SOREL TIMBER YARDS-EMPLOYEES
Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	What are the na-mes of the supernumerary employees who have worked in the maritime timber yards of Sorel during the months of September. October, and November, respectively, 1933?
2.	From what county is each one of them?
3.	Who recommended each one of them?


CIVIL SERVANTS-DISCHARGED AND SUPERANNUATED
Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total number of civil servants and government employees discharged' and superannuated under the ruling regarding all employees 65 years and over?
2.	What were the numbers discharged and superannuated respectively, in each department of the public service since the order came into effect ?
3.	How many persons 65 years of age or over, are still in the employ of the government?
4.	What are the names of the said' persons, and in what respective departments of the public service are they engaged?


SUNBURY, N.B., UNEMPLOYMENT CAMP
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What supplies, if any, for the unemployment relief camp at Sunbury, New Brunswick, were purchased in New Brunswick?
2.	From whom were they purchased?
3.	Have tenders been called or invited' for such supplies?
4.	If so, who tendered, and what was the-amount of each tender?



REVENUE FROM QUEBEC POST OFFICES

Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: What is the total revenue derived from the 658 post offices in the province of Quebec, specified in sessional paper No. 95, dated January 26, 1934?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and documents, in connection with the appointment and dismissal of Mr. J. C. Levesque, postmaster at Bagotville, and also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to an inquiry held in connection
Motions )or Papers

with charges made against said J. C. Levesque, including the proof and evidence of all the witnesses heard at said inquiry together with the decision arrived at by the commissioner who held said inquiry.


Maurice Dupré: It may be stated in reference to this motion that there is no correspondence concerning Joseph C. Levesque, because he was never postmaster at Bagotville. I am informed that this man acted as assistant to his mother, who was the former postmistress at Bagotville and was dismissed on August 22, 1931, on account of old age and inattention to duty.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: With the permission of the minister may I ask if he has any information or documents relative to an inquiry held *concerning this same person, Mr. Joseph *C. Levesque, when he was acting as postmaster for his mother?


Maurice Dupré: I am not ready to say that he acted as postmaster, but I may tell my hon. friend that the copy of all correspondence, including reports of investigations, and so on, was tabled in the house by the Postmaster General on April 11, 1932, in compliance with an order of the house passed at the request of my hon. friend, himself, on March 7, 1932. If there is any report on Mr. Levesque himself, my hon. friend would find it in the documents then tabled. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the motion might be dropped if my hon. friend is willing.
Motion withdrawn.



PASPEBIAC, QUE., WHARF

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of pay lists and accounts for *material in connection with work done on the Portage wharf at Paspebiac, Quebec, in 1933 and 1934.



PEACE RIVER OUTLET


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the Peace River country should be connected by a direct railway outlet to the Pacific coast.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up a great deal of the time of the house this afternoon, possibly not the whole of my forty minutes, in going over some of the arguments which time and again have been presented in this house for the last ten years. But as the representative of

the Peace River country I think it is my duty to bring this matter again to the attention of the house and the government. The whole program of railway development in a new country is a very important matter not only for that particular part of the country but for the dominion as a whole. While we have not yet got an outlet to the Pacific coast, certain developments with regard to railways have taken place in the last ten years which have been of importance to the more thickly settled) portion of the Peace River country, and our efforts in that direction and the developments that have taken place for the assistance of the settlers have been of some consequence. However, due to the dry weather in the more southerly sections of Saskatchewan and Alberta and to the difficulties they have experienced in those sections with regard to grain growing, there has been a large influx of settlers from those sections into the newer district of Peace River. Anyone who will study the population of those western provinces will be very much struck with the thinning out of the population in the southern sections that has taken place over a period of years and with the movement to the northern portions of the province of a large number of settlers from the southern sections. The population of the Peace River oountry has in the last ten years increased from about twenty thousand to something like fifty thousand, and of course that is one reason why there has been a constant demand for new railways, new roadis and new schools in that district. But notwithstanding the depression, and that we have, or think we have, a great deal of difficulty in providing new facilities, there is a constant need and a constant demand for these new facilities regardless of what may be happening in the oountry generally. We still have settlers trying to establish themselves at a distance of sixty, seventy-five, eighty and a hundred miles from a railway, and that is not just in a few isolated cases. I will mention Battle River prairie, located eighty miles north of the town of Grimshaw and about a hundred miles by road from the town of Peace River. There we have a large territory, possibly twenty miles square, which is thickly settled and is being developed in spite of the present handicap of low prices, so low in fact that in some cases grain will hardly pay for its cost of transportation to the railway, and in other cases it actually does not pay the cost of transportation. In that settlement we have people who have moved in there from older settled districts where some of them were

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Kennedy
well established. They have come into this newer country in an effort to reestablish themselves notwithstanding the handicaps and difficulties of the situation because, so far as they can see, it is the very best thing they can do. The only alternative for them would be to go into town or into some other district where they would be .able to do practically nothing for themselves and would have to accept direct relief.
Then we have the Hines Creek and Clear Lake prairie country lying north of the Peace river, and passing through to Hudson Hope through the constituency of my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). There is a settlement there in a section about eighty miles long and possibly ten to twenty or thirty miles deep. Driving through it you would hardly notice that there were any settlers, but if there was anything to draw them together you would soon find large groups of settlers gathering together from the timber and park sections of ' that district where they are trying to hew out for themselves new homes amongst the timber and the bush.
We have also settlements on the south side of the Peace river extending back right to the Rocky mountains. They are mostly new settlers who have come in there from the older districts to make a new start and reestablish themselves so that they may be independent of relief so far as that lies within their power. They have a tremendously difficult task before them, difficult enough for young bachelors, but much more difficult for older men who have families, some of whom have been well off in other days but have come up there to start the battle all over again and provide for their families. Many of them are enduring tremendous hardships and are forced sometimes to ask for relief. But they are doing their very best to reach independence by their own efforts.
It seems to me a tragedy that we have to say in the face of such conditions that we will not go ahead and spend any more money for railways because, forsooth, we are having certain financial difficulties in this country. Over a long period of years in the history of railway development in this country we have made mistakes, and we are now trying to do something to consolidate the railways of Canada and to provide for more cooperation and the elimination of duplication. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is no question of duplication in this instance.
How are these people going to be able to establish themselves,-and I think that would be a good thing in the interests of the whole
country,-if they are not able to earn money; if there is no new government money, if you like, coming into the district so that they may earn something by their own efforts to pay their expenses and help reestablish themselves? How are they going to be able to establish themselves with the low prices that prevail to-day? It seems to me that the government must assume some responsibility in the matter of enabling these people to establish themselves. The situation calls for something more than direct relief, if they are to be given any encouragement in their efforts to establish themselves and get some satisfaction out of their lives. We have throughout that whole country a type of people generally who hate to take relief, and will only take it as a last resort when they are absolutely forced to it, and because of that fact I am very anxious to see the government undertake to do something in their behalf.
I mentioned a little while ago the question of duplication, but I submit that there is no real question of duplication here. That whole country has been surveyed, and surveyed in such a way that it is possible to lay out a plan of development of the Peace River country, covering ten times the amount of land that is now under cultivation, and without a single mile of duplication in the whole thing. We know exactly where the branch lines ought to be and where the main outlet ought to be, and where the branch lines and the outlet should be fitted into one another so that we will have one harmonious whole when the railway project is completed.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that we ought to vote in this house a sum of money to carry through the whole railway program at once, but I am asking for a gradual development looking towards the completion of that outlet so as to give the settlers who are there an opportunity to establish themselves under reasonable com ditions. The financial argument crops up at once but I submit that this is not as serious to-day as it was a year ago. There is talk everyhere of a general recovery. The speech from the throne stated that there was evidence of a return to permanent prosperity. While that statement may be a little strong, there is certainly evidence of a return of something better than we had a year ago. Because this is true not only of Canada but of countries like Great Britain and the United States we have reason to believe that this recovery will continue. I hold in my hand the monthly review of the Midland bank, and I should like to quote from a speech of the

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Kennedy
Right Hon. Reginald McKenna. Among other things he says:
World trade may still 'be disorganized, the exchanges chaotic, international dealings hampered by prohibitive tariffs, quotas and other restrictions; yet, notwithstanding all these obstacles, often described as insuperable, the trade of this country by universal. acknowledgment has for many months been making steady and gratifying progress.
And again:
The supply of an adequate quantity of money is now seen to be as certain in restoring trade and employment as the curtailment of the required' supply is certain to restrict them.
And again:
The word inflation is in constant use as a term of reproach; but just as deflation may be good or bad according to the conditions at the time it is put into operation, so also with inflation.
He continues:
We have seen a revival of business and a * return to employment, accomplished by a comparatively slight rise in the price level;
He was dealing with the matter from the standpoint of monetary operations but the point I desire to make is that he stated that there had been a general recovery and improvement in prices. It is acknowledged everywhere that if we can get an improvement in prices we shall be able to start out of this depression. I think it is generally acknowledged that recovery is on the way in the United States. Prices have risen there as well as in Canada, We have seen a rise in the prices of farm products, hogs and wheat as compared with those prevailing a year ago.
I think the legislation before this house as well as other things that have happened in connection with the monetary policy give a definite indication that the financial question is on the way to a solution and that to some extent we are leaving the depression behind. This being so, I hope that we shall be able to arrive at a partial solution of the great problem of an outlet for the Peace River country. It seems to me that keeping people unemployed when they are willing to work is a great waste which should be eliminated in the near future.
In connection with the question of the duplication of railway mileage, I desire to say again what I have said before. The survey made of the Peace River country by the engineers shows that when this outlet is completed there will be an average of 6,000 acres of economic land to a male of railway as compared with the average of 5,000 acres for the three prairie provinces. I think this answers any argument as to duplication. I

think on the whole our yields of grain and other commodities have been a little higher than those of the three prairie provinces. This indicates that the construction of this railway should prove to be a reasonably economic proposition. A survey has been made of. 2,000,000 acres along one of the proposed routes of this outlet and this shows that the land is suitable for agricultural purposes. I do not know of any instance in Canada where a development has been so well planned and where the results have been predicted with such certainty. There has been a careful study made of the cost of construction, the relation of branch lines to one another and the value of the land.
There has been developed to-day in the Peace River country about 1,000,000 acres of land out of a total of about 10,000,000 acres of economic land. Five engineers, Fairbairn, Gzowski, Hill, James and Sullivan, surveyed this route in 1925, and their report shows a total of about 8,500,000 acres of economic land. Some years ago the Department of the Interior issued a pamphlet on the Peace River country and this showed the total number of economic acres as 10,000,000. I think the latter figure is just about right, but whether it is 8,500,000 or 10,000,000 acres does not matter. The fact is that 1,000,000 acres have been developed.
I should like to deal with some of the arguments advanced in the report of the engineers against the construction of this line. I do this because I submit that the arguments advanced at that time can be shown to be not entirely sound to-day. It is impossible for anyone to sit down and state what will happen in the future. These engineers did their best but I do not think their arguments apply to-day. They stated that there would not be a sufficient density of traffic to make the railway pay at anything like the then existing rates, which were 39 cents .per hundred pounds. Another argument was advanced to the effect that grain traffic does not pay. They stated that as the traffic from the Peace River country would be mostly grain there was every reason to expect that the railway would not pay very well. I should like to submit a few figures to the house in this connection. At pages 66 and 67 of the steam railway statistics of Canada for 1932 is given the total gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, the Northern Alberta Railway and other railways of Canada. The mileage and so on appears on page 54. I have worked out a table showing that the total gross earnings per mile of line on the Canadian National

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Kennedy
Railways is $6,377. These are the earnings for the year covered by the 1932 report. The Canadian Pacific earned $7,246 per mile of line, while the Northern Alberta lines earned $1,812 per mile.
In regard to the operating ratio I find that the Canadian National, with earnings of about $6,000 per mile of line, had an operating ratio of 95-96, while the Canadian Pacific had a ratio of 80-70. The Northern Alberta lines, with gross earnings of only $1,812 per mile, just about one-third the earnings of the other two lines, had an operating ratio of 79-13. I know none of these lines is doing very well to-day in the way of earnings, but I am saying that notwithstanding the argument with regard to the density of traffic; notwithstanding the argument with regard to the unprofitableness of the grain traffic, as set out in the report of 1927, the Northern Alberta lines showed a better result from the standpoint of the operating ratio than either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific.
I am not going into the question of why this should be so. There may be certain matters of grades which would account for it, or it may be due to other factors, but notwithstanding the fact that all the railways are having difficulty in connection with earnings the Northern Alberta railways, a large portion of which are operating in the Peace River district, showed a better result from the standpoint of the operating ratio than did either the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National.


Mr. REID:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? He spoke of the development of wheat acreage. Is the hon. member in favour of the agreement to curtail the wheat acreage?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is another question, but I will say that I am in favour of the wheat agreement. I distinctly said so the other day, and I do not know why I should be asked that question again. The problem of settlement on the land does not involve the question of wheat. I am giving the results of the operation of the Northern Alberta railways with the traffic that is available. The problem of settlement in the Peace River country to-day is a problem of the development of homes in that country, and that will be the problem for years to come as far as new settlers are concerned. Unless something happens with regard to the world demand for wheat there must be a change in the development of new countries from what we have had for the last twenty years or so in western Canada.
My hon. friend has brought up the question of whether there is room for the development of this new country. One argument is that some settlers are moving from districts where they were farming large acreages into a country where they are going to farm small acreages under different conditions. Another argument is that we have a first-class country for producing hogs, and there is plenty of room for the development of this industry in Canada in connection with our export quota.
One of the reasons why I mentioned grain, and one reason why I said the railway was paying, is that grain constitutes about four-fifths of the total traffic on the Northern Alberta railways. It is not the same year by year but that is about the figure. For instance, in 1932 the grain traffic amounted to about 350,000 tons, while the grand total was 525,000 tons. On the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National grain constitutes about one-fifth or one-sixth of the total tonnage.
Years ago it was said that railways built north of Edmonton would never pay for their axle grease. A survey of the Peace River country was made by a man who has since passed away, I believe, James M. Macoun. In his report-which I believe was suppressed -he informed the people of Canada that the Peace River country never would be fit for white men unless they were ready to accept very low standards of living. Then we had the report of the five engineers, which threw cold water on the railway development for which we were asking in 1925. In spite of everything, however, the Peace River country has developed, and it has justified the construction of the railways which some people did not expect to pay for the axle grease they used. To-day, in spite of the difficulties encountered in a new country, they are making as good a showing, so far as the operating ratio goes, as are the two main lines of railway in Canada. I believe it is going to take a number of years to work out the solution, and by the time that is done and the outlet is completed probably we will have a general improvement in conditions. We have people in there who are anxious to establish themselves in homes in that new country, people who wish to be independent of relief, who wish to be self-supporting, and who have sacrificed everything people should be expected to sacrifice in order to be in a position to settle in that country.
In spite of the difficulties that may exist I would like to see the government take hold of this matter and begin construction; extend branch lines, if necessary, in order to give rail-
1034	COMMONS
Peace River Outlet-Mr. Mackenzie
way service to those who have settled along the probable route, and complete the outlet as soon as it is financially possible and economically wise to do so, which I think will be in the not far distant future. I say that not a single statement, discouraging though many of them appeared at the time, that has been *made against this development has been borne out by the facts in a reasonable way, and I submit that this construction is absolutely justified.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to occupy the attention of the house for only a few moments in order to lend my personal support to the resolution that has been moved, with commendable fairness, by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy).
On looking over the debates of former years I find that the situation in the Peace River territory was very carefully discussed in this house in May, 1932, when the hon. member for Peace River submitted a resolution very similar indeed to the one moved this afternoon. At that time the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) made what I thought was a very fair reply. Again last year I believe the hon. member for Peace River introduced another resolution in this house which went to a division and was lost by a considerable majority.
I must congratulate the hon. member for Peace River for being at least consistent on one point since he took his place in this house. I find, on looking up the records, in 1922 in the first place he brought this whole question to the attention of this chamber aadi as a result of his representations at that time I find that a sum of $50,000 was voted for a reconnaissance survey of the Peace River area, this sum being increased: to $75,000 in 1923. I find also from the records that in 1924 a meeting was held in -the office of the then Minister of Railways, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, at which meeting there were present to di-scuss this whole question of the Peace River development the late Sir Henry Thornton; Air. E. W. Beatty, K.C., president of the Canadian Pacific Railway; the Hon. Mr. Greenfield, at that time Premier of Alberta; the late Hon. Verner Smith, at that time Minister of Railways of Alberta; the late Air. W. F. Maclean, then one of the members for Toronto; the present member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) who has just sponsored the resolution, and the late Hon. John Oliver, then Premier of British Columbia. It was agreed at that time that certain surveys should be made and as a result of the agreement arrived at a report

was made in 1925 which was, I believe, tabled in this chamber early in 1926. This report was signed by five engineers and, as the house is aware, it recommended the Obed route.
Very briefly I wish to reiterate what I said on this whole question in 1932, and that i3 that- an obligation of honour rests upon all parties represented in this house in regard to t-he construction of an outlet from the Peace River area to the Pacific coast. I desire again to place upon Hansard the declarations made, first, by my own right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), second, by the then leader of the Conservative party, now leader of the Senate, and, third, by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his Winnipeg speech in 1930. Speaking in Edmonton in 1924 my leader said this:
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 find that about the same time the Right H-on. Arthur Aleighen speaking a-lso in Edmonton, on October 1, 1924, made the following statement:
I have always urged' that the north country should have railway relief. I cannot be accused of making futile promises, such as the Hon. Mackenzie King promised in the speech from the throne, at the opening of the last session of parliament, when he stated he was going to give railway relief to the north country, but nothing has been done.
Then the present Prime Minister, speaking in Winnipeg in 1930, used these words:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay route, and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada; to the Pacific slope by a Peace River outlet, and east and west by the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, and we pledge ourselves to aid existing traffic channels and to increase port facilities.
Since that time, as the house is aware, comprehensive surveys have been made of the entire project, as a result of which there has been unfortunately a lack of unanimity among the engineers in regard to the best route to be followed; but I agree entirely with the representations made by the hon. member for Peace River, in the first place in regard to the great value and the richness of the soil of what is a veritable empire itself, in the second place in regard to the necessity of doing something constructive to assist the settlers who are in that territory. I think the minister will agree with me that those

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Fraser
settlers, of whom there are now 40,000 or 50,000, are in that area to-day as a result of representations made to them by various governments, some being made by both governments of British Columbia, some by both governments of Alberta and some by both governments of the dominion. I believe today, when we are going to consider entering upon gigantic projects of public works in the near future, there is, regardless altogether, first, of partisan considerations and, second, of the various reports that have been made by railway engineers, an obligation of honour resting upon this chamber to carry out the promises that were made, as long ago, I believe, as 1924, ten years ago. If the government is to consider in the near future a system of public works, I would make this recommendation to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), and I said this two years ago. I believe the line from Prince' George to Finlay Forks could, according to the report of Major Crysdale, be constructed for $6,000,000 and construction costs will be lighter to-day than they probably will be at any time in the future. I appreciate the fact that the wheat policy of Canada is being changed by the wheat agreement, and at the present moment I do not want to be critical of that agreement, for I quite realize the significance of the question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), because in the old days those who believed in the Peace River development believed in it essentially on account of the wheat growing possibilities of that area, but I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that it has great potentialities in addition to wheat growing. Therefore I recommend to the government that they take into serious consideration the advisability of including in the public works project they are about to undertake, the construction of a Pacific coast outlet.
I do not see how members from eastern Canada can ask us from the west to support any scheme for the development of the St. Lawrence waterway when they refuse to lend their support to the building up of what, to my mind, is of far greater importance to the dominion and contains far greater possibilities for the enrichment of our Canadian nation. Therefore I trust that in the same constructive way as that in which I have endeavoured to support the resolution of my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways will join all parties in this chamber and the government will take steps as soon as possible to build the very much needed outlet from the Peace River country to the sea.


John Anderson Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). First, it is rather surprising to me, in looking over the records of last year, that after all the splendid arguments that have been brought to bear upon this question, not only by the hon. member for Peace River but by others, a similar resolution moved last year received the support of only thirty-nine members of the House of Commons. That being so, I think there must be something wrong or something lacking in the arguments that are being adduced in support of this resolution. I am wondering whether we are not looking at the question from too limited a viewpoint. The general support of the question has been from an agricultural viewpoint, or probably not so much that, but, to be more specific, from the point of view of raising wheat and other grains in that district. Probably too much stress has been laid upon that angle, and I propose to say a few words on some of the other potentialities of that important area.
In the first place, I am not surprised that under present conditions the government should find it hard to justify itself in providing probably $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 for the purpose of increasing the production of wheat in the Peace River area when they have already on their hands something like 140,000,000 or 150,000,000 bushels of wheat that they cannot dispose of. Such an attitude is not very strange and, as I say, I am not surprised that there should be a certain amount of hesitation and cogitation in regard to this project before they put more of this country's money into the construction of a Peace River railway. And that is not the whole trouble that this government may have in considering this question, because after all every member of this house knows, and nearly every person in the Dominion of Canada should know by this time, that the railway problem is the largest and most serious single problem facing the dominion, so I can readily understand that there should be a certain amount of hesitation. At the same time I admit that we are probably looking at this question from too limited a viewpoint. I want to assure the house in the first place that there are immense opportunities in the Peace River country for the development of the live stock industry. That is important for the dominion; it is particularly important as far as the province of British Columbia is concerned. Let me call the attention of the
1036	COMMONS
Peace River Outlet-Mr. Fraser
house to the situation with regard to the production of live stock there. British Columbia is a very large importer of live stock products. At the present time we produce about 50 per cent of the amount of beef that we consume in British Columbia, and that notwithstanding the fact that in the central area, which I represent, we have the largest stock producing range area in the Dominion of Canada. With regard to hogs, you do not have to go to London to find a market for Peace River hogs, because British Columbia raises only ten per cent of the hogs she consumes. A similar situation exists as to butter; there are immense possibilities for the production of butter in the Peace River country. British Columbia consumes 20,000,000 pounds of butter a year, and we are actually producing at the present time about 5,000,000 pounds. So there are enormous opportunities for agricultural expansion apart from the production of wheat. By the way, in referring to the Peace River country I am speaking of the British Columbia area. The hon. member for Peace River is better qualified to speak of the Alberta area than I am, and perhaps is as well qualified as I am to talk about the Peace River area in British Columbia, because he lives closer to it and comes in contact with it oftener than I do.
With regard to the production of hogs, I want to submit a clipping from the Peace River Block News, the only paper published in the British Columbia area of the Peace River country. Let me say first that I have seen these hogs being shipped. I want the house to understand that the Peace River country is a new country, and there are very few diseases amongst the live stock in there. The stock that has been brought in has been well and carefully selected; it is well bred and well fed. I never looked at a prettier line of hogs than I have seen coming out of that country, and I am sure you would find they grade very high in Edmonton. Here is the latest information I have with regard to hogs produced in that country, taken from the Peace River Block News, published in Dawson Creek, the issue of February 7 of this year:
On January 30, the day the Peace River hogs were sold. $8.85 was paid for bacons. Dawson Creek Cooperative Live Stock shipping association shipped out 123 hogs which averaged $16.10 per hog net.
Then it goes on to say:
The Peace River district shipped 1,756 hogs on this train which sold for about $25,000 or an average of roughly $14.25 gross.

That is in Edmonton. Then it goes on:
In December, bacons -were selling at $4.75 on the Edmonton yards so that the last shipment realized over double as much as a month previously. When the price of $2.75 paid 13 months ago is compared with returns of January 30, 1934, the benefit of the British quota is still more apparent. The price paid 13 months ago for a 220 pound bacon hog was $2.75 per one hundred pounds, less 80 cents per hundred pounds freight and commission which would net the shipper $4.38. The same hog at $8.85 would give $17.71.
Note the difference in price, just four times as much as it was a year ago. I submit that there will be a tremendous expansion of all branches of the live stock industry as soon as proper railway facilities are provided for this country. Not only that, but that industry will afford a splendid market for the grain that grows so luxuriantly there. In the Peace River country they do not consider they have had a crop of wheat at all unless it averages forty bushels to the acre, and of oats 125 bushels to the acre is not uncommon. They have plenty of feed; the country is healthy and with proper care can be kept healthy; the stock that is in there at the present time is of first-class quality, and I have no doubt that the people in there who are raising live stock are intelligent enough to see that diseases are kept out. Let the members of this house never forget that they should not confine their thoughts to wheat when thinking about the development of the Peace River country.
There are other things besides live stock along the route of the proposed railway- and let me say that I never talk about the Obed route; there must have been something wrong with the engineers when they indicated that as a proper route by which to tap the Peace River country. I have always believed that the (Peace River country should be opened up only along the Peace river itself.
The house should not overlook the fact that in the valley of the Peace river there are almost unlimited quantities of timber awaiting some means of transportation.
In the area will be found all the water power necessary for the manufacture of the timber.
But in my opinion wheat and live stock and forestry are comparatively only side issues in the development of the Peace River country. Coming as I do from a district which is vitally interested in the development of the mining industry', I consider that the mining possibilities of the Peace River country offer magnificent opportunities for the investment of money and the employment of labour.

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Fraser
Let no man forget that the mining industry when it is active and prosperous, when minerals are at a fair price, is the largest employer of labour of any injdustry and is also the largest consumer of all kinds of goods. From that point of view the mineral resources of the Peace River country are entitled to attention. What is the extent of the mineralized part of that area? It must be remembered that it is largely an unexplored country and it is difficult to give an accurate idea of just what the mineralized zone may be, but as nearly as I can judge it is 50 miles north and south and 150 miles east and west, or 7,500 square miles. This zone is very highly mineralized, and might produce any kind of mineral, particularly gold. What other commodity in the world to-day commands the attention that gold does? All through the Peace River area-and I am not speaking of the agricultural area but of that portion tributary to the Peace River and through which all these streams run- there is a highly mineralized section, capable of immense mineral development. In that area there are at least 7,500 square miles. So far as mines are concerned that is a tremendous area. Not only are there lode mines, but there are placer mines as well. In the area to which I have referred there are probably 500 miles of gold producing rivers and streams. If they would produce gold a few years ago sufficient to give a man a living, what will they do to-day?
I could give an illustration of the difference that the price of gold has made in the production of that comlmodity in my own community, because I am surrounded on all sides by exactly the same kind of gold bearing streams. Twenty or twenty-five years ago we had 400 or 500 prospectors working up and down our rivers. Those men made their living entirely by rocking or sluicing the banks and benches of the gold bearing streams in that area. They did not make a great deal of money, probably only a dollar or a dollar and a half a day, but they were able to eke out an existence because living was quite cheap. During the years of high wages those prospectors drifted away from their occupation oecause they could get better wages doing other work. To-day, however, on account of the depression these prospectors are coming back, and I want to tell you that in my own business, last year, I bought from just these small producers something pretty close to 1,000 ounces of gold. I do not purchase gold in large quantities at all. If a man has forty or fifty ounces he will never come to me
with it, but lie will send it right straight through to the assay office. All my purchases are made in quantities valued from $5 to $50. Despite the small purchases however I obtained an amount approaching 1,000 ounces. That is all new money. The activity is due partly to the depression, because these men, who are active enough to undertake the work, are doing the very best they can to keep off relief. I have known dozens of them, personally, who have come to me and told me that they were tickled to death to be able to make enough money to buy grub for themselves for another couple of weeks.
That is the condition which might be duplicated in the Peace River country, because there are just as many gold bearing streams in that country as there are in my own community. That is not all the placer prospects there are in the Peace River district by any means, because there is the Omineca section in which placer operations are going on at the present time. Large sums of money are being expended there in opening up placer mining properties. They are providing labour, and they have to haul their stuff with tractors through woods, where there are no roads at all, both in winter and summer for a distance of about two hundred and seventy-five miles. If the railway were put through the Peace River country transportation would be brought almost to their doors at least, that is the way they would feel, because they would have to travel a distance of only fifteen or twenty miles to reach a railway. One can imagine the difference it would make to the work of the placer miners. But that is not all.
In addition to the placer miners there are the lode miners. When one surveys the possibilities for lode mining he is simply staggered. I want to say that the whole 7,500 square miles is just as capable of production as the particular section about which I am now going to speak. It is just as capable of producing large quantities of gold and providing employment for many men. By the way, in passing let me say that in British Columbia we have, as hon. members from British Columbia know, what for the last ten or fifteen years has been described as a white elephant. I am referring to the Pacific Great Eastern railway. The year 1933 was the first year since the construction of the railway that it has paid operating expenses. This year on the operation of the railway we had a profit of $73,000. That is a very satisfactory result when we remember what has been happening since the road was first built.

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Fraser
What is the reason for the change? What made it possible for the Pacific Great Eastern to make a profit?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Gold.


John Anderson Fraser: Nothing else but gold. Only one thing has been responsible, and that has been the activity in the gold mining portion of that district. Just to show hon. members what a little change it takes in industry to take a railway out of the red and put it on a paying basis may I say that in Barkerville, one of the most active areas, probably an area of ten square miles-not more than that-is the one which is under investigation at the present time. I do not think there is much more than double that amount under investigation in the Bridge river country. On account of the activity in the mining industry these two small areas have brought that railway from a non-paying proposition to a paying proposition. Is it not well that this house should be reminded of conditions of that kind when we are talking about the Peace River railway. I think we should have our attention directed to the possibilities for mining in the Peace River country. Do not forget what 7,500 square miles of area means in a placer mining country. There are good rivers which will produce employment on their benches and bars for placer mining. We have the Finlay, the Parsnip, the Peace and fifteen or twenty of their tributaries throughout the whole of their length.
The one particular prospect to which I shall direct the attention of hon. members in connection with lode mining, is that located at Mount Selwyn, at the junction of the Parsnip and the Finlay rivers. Mount Selwyn is one of those large, barren looking mountains that anyone may see in British Columbia in almost any quarter he may travel. But the fact that it contains minerals makes considerable difference. What are the prospects or possibilities for that little section at the junction of the two rivers I have mentioned?
I refer to the point where the Parsnip and the Finlay rivers meet, and from that point run together as the Peace river.
I shall now direct my attention to statements made by mining engineers who for the last twenty or thirty years have been examining the property. At this point I shall outline some of the results of their investigations. These men are men of good standing, and men whose opinions should be respected. They are men who have nothing to gain by giving out information which is more or less unreliable. The estimated tonnage in the one property at the junction of the two rivers I have men-	,
tioned is 1,384,000,000 tons of ore above the level of the Peace river. Some hon. members have heard of Canadian mines which go down three or four thousand feet below the level of the present stream. There is no reason why the ore in Mount Selwyn would not go to any conceivable depth. It might just as well go six or seven thousand feet below the rivers as it towers four or five thousand feet above the river. One engineer has made the statement that if the ore averaged $2 a ton, it would be the largest mine in the world. A number of assays have been taken, and of 63 assays the ore averaged $4.28 on the old valuation of gold. Also four hundred samples of that same ore ran from $4.70 to as high as $12 a ton.
I could elaborate, Mr. Speaker, on the possibilities of mineral production in the Peace River country and in the territory contiguous to this proposed railway at much greater length than I have done. Probably I could write such a good prospectus that many hon. gentlemen listening to me would wish to subscribe and take shares in some of these properties; but I do not propose to go any further. All I can say is that I am amazed that this situation should remain as it has done before this parliament, where it has been under continuous discussion for the last ten or twelve years, with nothing done. After the house has had the advantage of listening to the case presented year after year by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) the situation still remains as it was ten years ago. It is amazing. The biggest surprise I got out of it all was when I turned up the records to-day and found that on a proposition of this kind only thirty-nine members of the house were found supporting it and all the rest opposing it.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the development of the Peace River country does not rest only upon the production of wheat. It is time that greater attention was paid to the other possibilities of the Peace River country and that we forget about wheat. I would not be at all alarmed over the possibility of an extra production of wheat because the people in the Peace River country are all intelligent-they would not be there if they were not

and they know just as well as we do what the situation is regarding wheat. They are not going to grow wheat when they cannot sell it. Do not believe for one minute that they are going to grow a lot of wheat when they know perfectly well that the market cannot absorb it. They will turn their attention to other kinds of production, and there are all kinds of things that can be

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Dupuis
produced in that' country in addition to wheat. I have very much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words in favour of the resolution which has been moved by my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). Sometimes it may be thought in this house that the people of the east and their representatives are not interested in the problems of other parts of this country. That certainly is not the case, and if my humble voice can destroy any prejudices in that regard I shall feel that I have not spoken in vain.
This year I had the advantage of making my first trip to the west. En passant, may I say that I shall always remember that trip and the kindly way in which I was received by my fellow-citizens of French and English origin and by those of Liberal and Conservative belief. I might add that the Progressives also were kind enough to facilitate my trip through the west.
I went to the Peace River district, where I have quite a number of relatives and friends who have gone out there from my own district. It is undoubtedly true that to make such a trip gives one a far better knowledge of the actual situation than one can acquire by reading books, historical and geographical, on any country. I was surprised to find that the district of Peace River is a real country by itself, rich in soil and natural resources, in mines and in timber, and possessing also many other resources which hon. members who live in that part of the country are better able to enumerate than I can. Of all the places that I had the pleasure of passing through I can truly say that none seemed to me more fertile, if I except the Red river valley, than the Peace River district itself. To judge by the way the farmers there are going in for mixed farming, it is a real province of Quebec. But as the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said a moment ago, though Providence has blessed that country with a fertile soil and great natural resources, what advantage can the people derive from their production when prices are so low? During my trip I noticed that eggs, for instance, were given to the village store for five cents a dozen in exchange for goods. Butter, when they could sell it at all, was sold at from six to ten cents a pound. They produce not only wheat but a large quantity of oats, but they could not sell their grain
at a reasonable price last summer, and one of the reasons for the poor return to the farmer was the cost of transportation. If I am well informed, it cost from five to six cents a bushel to carry the grain from the Peace River district only as far as Edmonton. At that time oats was selling at 24 cents a bushel. When you deduct the cost of transportation and the cost of production, the farmers might just as well do as some of our labouring men do-declare a strike, and just produce for themselves. That reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of a little story that I heard when I was out there. I was talking on this very subject of the prices of farm products when a farmer told me that just before I arrived all the hens of the district had met together and declared a strike. The rooster decided that with the prices being received for eggs it was useless for the hens to go to so much trouble to lay them, and so the hens decided not to lay any more. Perhaps, when he speaks again, the hon. member for Peace River will tell us just what occurred. With the prices these farmers are receiving for their products they might just as well follow the decision reached by the hens.
It is a pity that any district with so many possibilities for future development, with such interest for the newcomer should be cut off from civilization simply because this government refuses to spend sufficient money to construct this outlet. I know the government consider this matter from the financial point of view; their purse is empty after having spent so much for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway which did mot bring the desired results. They have been forced to cancel a contract already entered into for the expenditure of $50,000,000 to develop the Canadian National Railways terminal in Montreal. I know the government will say that they cannot spend money at this time but I think there should be at least a vote of sympathy. I do not think I need be a prophet to say what the government will decide to do. I am afraid they will vote against this resolution. As the hon. member for Cariboo said a moment ago, only thirty-nine members supported a similar resolution moved last year. At least the government should give a vote of sympathy to this resolution. They should admit that the principle of this resolution is sound, that an outlet should be built in the near future. I am afraid the building of such an outlet will not be in the hands of the present government, but the matter would be there for the next government to take into immediate consideration. Even though the government decide

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Munn
that this thing is impossible at the present time, they should look to the future. An administration should not build just for the present, it should build for the future. The future of the Peace River valley is one which should not be overlooked or discarded by an inconsiderate vote. I should like to see this resolution pass unanimously so that when the time comes when the government feels that this outlet can be built, the construction will be started immediately to enable the development of the natural resources of this district. The citizens of this particular section should be afforded the opportunities to which all citizens are entitled, no matter where they live or what may be their race, religion or party.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) upon introducing this resolution once more. Even before I came to this house I was a supporter of the building of an outlet from the Peace river. I desire also to congratulate the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) who has introduced a new light into this discussion. I hope more hon, members from the east will follow the lead of the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) and make a trip into this country. Once they do that I think they will take a different view of the whole matter. It is not my intention to take up mutih time; I desire only to go on record as being in favour of the building of this outlet just as soon as finances will permit. I appreciate the fact that it is not likely the government will attempt to put through a vote to build the Peace River outlet this year, but they should give the matter sympathetic consideration. It should be put on the agenda so that at some time in the future either they or their successors will construct the promised outlet to the Pacific coast.
The hon. member for Cariboo referred to gold. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway runs through his and my ridings, and I can confirm every statement he made in this regard. This railway made an operating profit in 1933. It has been referred to as a white elephant, but that term is now out of date. With the help of th'e miners, I think it is going to get itself out of its difficulty. In the Bridge River district two new mines were opened during 1933 and I think I am safe in prophesying that there will be three or four, and perhaps five new mines opened up during this and next year. They have not even started in that district, and the same applies to Quesnel,

near where my hon. friend lives, where they have hardly scratohed the surface.
The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville referred to the fertility of this district. It might be interesting to the house to know that in British Columbia there are more fertile acres than in the whole of Japan. In addition we have unlimited natural resources such as gold, silver, copper and timber. The largest copper mine under the British flag is in my riding. In addition, there is the wonderful climate. We ask those from eastern Canada to give us support in this move. I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) not to turn down this resolution but to give a promise that 'this outlet will be built just as soon as we are out of the woods financially.


Mr. OLOF HANSON ('Skeena):: In rising to support this motion, Mr. Speaker, as I have supported similar resolutions ever since I have been in this house and long before I came here, I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said with regard to the resources of the Peace River country. I was one of the first to go into the Peace River country; there were very' few settlers when I was there in 1905. I saw the possibilities then, and since that time, with railway facilities promised by all political parties in Canada, settlers have been pouring in. The hon. member for Cariboo has ably described the development that has taken place. I shall not take up any further time in adding to what has been said already; I simply wish to associate myself with the resolution.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I intend to make
only a few remarks on the resolution now before the house, which reads:	.
That, in the opinion of this house, the Peace River country should be connected by a direct railway outlet to the Pacific coast.
I think this is an important resolution; it was before the house last year and we have it up for consideration again this year. Last year the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) received a certain amount of support, but that support was not very strong or very encouraging. The fact that the resolution is introduced again this year proves that the hon. member has a good deal of courage, of persistence and of fidelity to duty, and any member of parliament who does not possess these qualities would be better off back home or doing something else. It seems to be the experience of many members of the house that though we debate a matter for years, though a question may be brought up

Peace River Outlet-Mr. McIntosh
in. parliament many times, no matter what government is in power action is delayed. I congratulate the hon. member for Peace River on bringing in this resolution once more, and I also congratulate those who supported the resolution last year. I do not know how many will support it this year. I hope it will1 be supported by a good many hon. members, and I hope that many hon. gentlemen to the right of the Speaker will lend their support also.
May I say also, Mr. Speaker, that I really do not think hon. members should be afraid to rise in their seats and support a resolution of this kind, because it has a direct connection with their own pledges which were given in 1930. All these pledges have been read to the house time and again, but there is no reason why they should not be brought up every day of every session until there is an election, because it only brings hon. gentlemen opposite face to face with what they said they would do or would honourably try to do not only for the Peace River country but for other parts of northern Canada as well. I find, Mr. Speaker, in the pledge presented to Canada in 1930 by the Conservative party, when they appealed to the country and won the day on the ballots cast in the election, the promise to improve the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay route, and the pledge to construct also such brandies as might t>6 ILGCSSScLry to I*C ndcr that route most readily available to every part of Canada. In that same pledge they promised to build a Peace River outlet to the coast.
So we have a pledge dealing with this Peace River outlet, with the Hudson Bay railway and with branch line development in northern Saskatchewan, in order to make those areas more productive and more settled. But no action was taken by the government following the debate last year; no action has been taken, despite its pledge and the statements that were made in the house a year ago when this resolution was being considered. It would appear that the main reason for this lack of action is the general railway situation in Canada. No doubt the government will repeat the statement that the railway situation is mot hopeful, that the tonnage is not large, that the railways are going behind, and that trade is not heavy enough to warrant any future construction of rail facilities. We find the government taking cover behind this general statement of rail policy, with the result that during the past twelve months nothing, has been done by way of rail extension.
May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that apart from the mineral, timber, water power and other resources of that huge area, we must not forget the human element, which is perhaps of the greatest importance. There are thousands of settlers in that area who have come from different parts of Canada, and of course if they lack rail facilities they lack any connection worth speaking of with the outside world. In my opinion the government ought to do something to alleviate the distress of those settlers, and that is why I have risen this afternoon to say a word in connection with this resolution, as I did last year. I was one of the thirty-nine who supported the resolution then introduced, and I am quite ready to support it again.
After all, the constituency of North Battle-ford which I represent in this house is in very much the same position as the Peace River district. I think perhaps the railway problem in this constituency, upon which I have touched time and again in this house, is just as acute as the problem of the Peace River outlet, if not more so. In 1930 hon. members opposite made the pledge that if their party came into power there would be railway development carried on in northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba and northern Alberta. The government have been in power for four years now, but there has been no railway construction undertaken and no branch lines built. As a consequence men and women who have trekked from southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba into the upper part of northwestern Saskatchewan are to-day without adequate transportation facilities. They are in the north hewing out homes for themselves, keeping off relief, trying to raise families and to do their duty by the state, and looking for rail development which has not come. Personally I think if anything at all can be done to help these people, it ought to be done.
The problem in North Battleford riding is a part of the Peace River problem.; there is no doubt about that. When I touched upon that problem in the house in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I referred merely to a petition numbering 500 names, from the North Battleford constituency. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was in his seat that day and apparently he thought I was going to read the 500 names. I had not any such intention; I wanted merely to read the preamble of the petition and to refer to its importance, when the Prime Minister rose and objected to a member reading a petition. It was not the kind of petition he thought it was; apparently he jumped to the

1042	COMMONS
Peace River Outlet-Mr. McIntosh
conclusion that it was a petition to the House of Commons. It was not a petition to the House of Commons; the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) if I remember correctly, has a copy of it, as I have, and it was quite legitimate for me to mention the petition before the hon. members of this chamber and, if necessary, to read parts of it without any objection coming from the Prime Minister or any supporter of the government or of the party opposite. I was prevented, however,, by a humbug argument, as it were, from referring to that petition, and that is why I think the matter should not be entirely dropped and why I take advantage of the present opportunity not only to say something in favour of the resolution, but also to deal with a counterpart of it concerning the "Northland" in northern Saskatchewan.
The Minister of Railways on a later occasion answered a question with regard to more railway accommodation in the northern part of the constituency of North Battleford by making a statement which will be found at page 643 of Hansard of February 16. I believe it is the kind of general statement which the Minister of Railways usually makes to a question of this kind. I do not know whether he can make any other answer or not. Perhaps he is in earnest and really cannot make any other answer, and if so we shall have to abide by that decision. But his answer was that I knew quite well the position of this railway north of the North Saskatchewan and in between North Battleford and Edmonton. I certainly know it quite well, but that is no reason I should not bring it up again in parliament to find out whether the government had any new policy on it. My reason for bringing it up was to discover whether the government or the Department of Railways had during the summer formulated any new policy with regard to the construction of that line, and I was quite sincere in the question I asked at that time. The minister went on to say that he had written me because I had brought the matter up time and again in the house and had also written him time and again about it. That was quite right. Then he went on further to say:
He knows that the matter has to be submitted to the management of the railway, and when the management are deciding to recommend to the government and parliament the building of branch lines the railway he is supporting will be given consideration along with others.
That is tantamount to an admission that this branch line railway connecting the country north of the North Saskatchewan river and between North Battleford and Edmonton will not be built until there is a general program
[Mr. McIntosh.1
of branch line building throughout the dominion. I do not think that is fair; I believe there is such a thing as making a special case of a particular railway problem, and I believe this is just as much a particular railway problem as is the Peace River outlet.


Mr. MANION:: Which of them is the hon. member supporting at the moment?


Mr. McINTOSH:: I am supporting both
of them. I believe the Peace River outlet is a particular problem and ought to be given special attention, and perhaps if it were, something might be done. The unfinished part of what is practically equal to a main line between North Battleford and Edmonton, north of the North Saskatchewan river, is also a particular railway problem and ought to be given special attention.
May I say again that although seventy miles of that railway line has been graded, during the last four years not a tap of work has been done on it and the grading is falling to pieces. Although 10,000 settlers from southern Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, southern Manitoba, indeed, from all parts of western Canada and many from the east, have gone into that very productive area and have been trying to hew out homes for themselves, not a thing has been done in the last four years to finish the sixty-nine or seventy miles of road that could be completed without difficulty or much cost to the country. In 1930 we had relief camps in that part of northern Saskatchewan and with seven or eight experts in laying steel, all the government would have had to do would have been to hire a few of those men and there was enough labour there to have those seventy miles steeled, yet it was not done. The steel that could have been used to complete that line has, I understand, been taken out of that district entirely; the ties are there, rotting by the wayside, and the grading is falling to pieces; yet 10,000 settlers are calling out for railway relief and for four years a policy of vacillation has been pursued with nothing accomplished. That is not fair; it is not playing the game; it is not doing what could be done, because that road, when built, will return to the exchequer of Canada every cent that is required for the building of it. There is no question about that road being a paying one. Not a single official of the Canadian National Railways can produce in the House of Commons facte to prove that any line of railways that has been built in northern Saskatchewan has not been a paying road during normal years. Those branch lines have also helped to make a paying proposition of the

*	Peace River Outlet-Mr. Bury
main line of the Canadian National between Winnipeg, Saskatoon, North Battleford and Edmonton. There is no argument that the road would not be a paying one. Not only have we seventy miles of grade ready for the steel -and it will not be in that condition very much longer if it is allowed to remain as it is for many more years; in fact, a great deal of work will have to be done on it now to put the roadbed into proper shape-but about forty miles of that road have not been graded. I would like to see those forty miles graded and the seventy miles that are graded, steeled. When those jobs are done, we shall have railway facilities for the people in that part of northern Saskatchewan and they will be encouraged to go ahead and open up more fully that splendid, productive area out of which will come a great deal of trade. The best class of hogs and of cattle are raised there; there are lumber and timber, fish and fur, and further north there are mineral areas. All in all, the districts tributary to this road have a great future and the people who have settled in them could make that future still brighter if they had the necessary railway accommodation.
In conclusion, may I say that I believe we have been told in the house time and again by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), who is also Acting Minister of Immigration, and other members of 'the cabinet, that the government has a wonderful back to the land policy. They want the people to go back to the land. Where were the people to go in western Canada but largely into these northern areas? Much of the land there had not been taken up, they took the government at its word, they went north, they have started their settlement duties, they have a prodigious job on their hands, and the least [DOT]the government can do would be to come to the rescue of those who have taken them at their word with regard to this land policy and have settled in these northern areas, and who must have railway accommodation if they are to make the best of life in that part of Canada. So I hope many hon. members will give this resolution their support; and that the government will find it possible in the coming months to take some of the money that they propose to make use of perhaps in building public works, and apply it to railway construction in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan. I think i,t would be the worst kind of folly for the government of the day 'to spend fifty or a hundred million dollars in building bridges and roads and public works all over Canada where many of them would not need to be built and have 74726-66J
in the northern parts of western Canada thousands of settlers crying out for railway relief and nothing be done in the way of railway construction. I would say that the construction of branch line facilities opening up these new areas is the question of the hour, and if any money is to be spent on public works during the summer months it should be spent on railway construction.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to trespass on the time of the house to any extent. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) was very properly congratulated by previous speakers on his courage and persistence in bringing this question of the Peace River outlet year after year to the attention of the government and of the house. I trust that some time or other, and we hope in the not too distant future, he will reap the reward of his persistence and realize the hopes which he has expressed' in this house.
The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) rising to support the motion gave an excellent exhibition of the way in which a man can make one point for the motion and two points for something else; one point for the problem of the Peace River outlet, and two points for the railway problems of his own constituency. Were I to follow the same line and take my hon. friend as a precedent for what I do I should occupy the time of the chamber in dealing with problems relating to my own constituency. I purpose, however, to confine myself entirely to the motion of the hon. member for Peace River. May I say in that connection, however, that it is very wonderful the way in which the memories of some hon. gentlemen operate. They are so keen and so quick to perceive and recall pledges that were given by their political opponents and so absolutely oblivious of the equally strong and clear and emphatic pledges which were given by their own leader and members of their own party.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
not correct. I said all the pledges given by the leaders of all the parties.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I said some members, I did
not say all the members of the opposition. My hon. friend has not yet attained that position of preeminence in his party that when I speak of some members of the Liberal party or the opposition he must necessarily be referred to.
They are so quick to see the mote in their neighbour's eye notwithstanding the disadvantage of the lumber yards that occupy their

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Bury
own. I have supported the proposal of the Peace River outlet from my first connection with this house in 1926. I also supported it in 1932, and in refreshing my memory on the debate of that year I found such an excellent speech delivered by myself at that time that I was very strongly tempted to bring Hansard to the house and read the same speech on this occasion. I do not kuow whether the rules of the house would permit that or not, but I find it very difficult to amplify to any great extent what I then said.
The people of the Peace River are entitled t'o this concession; entitled to it for a great many reasons. One reason is the size and wealth of the area which they occupy, in veritable truth a new empire in the north. They are entitled to it by reason of the rapid growth of the population of that district and the very considerable numbers to which that population has now grown. They are entitled to it above all by reason of the unambiguous and unequivocal pledges that have been made by both parties in this house, the right hon. leader of the opposition having taken the Peace River outlet as the spearhead, whatever that means, of his policy; so fine a spearhead that when you come to see what has been done you cannot find it at all. It is like a point in Eucdid-has no parts and no magnitude. We have been twitted with the fact that since this government came into power nothing has been done in the direction of a Peace River outlet. Of course everyone knows the conditions through which the country has been going and the financial and economic stress and strain and burden that has been imposed upon the government, rendering it absolutely impossible for any government, however strong its wish might be, to implement so important a promise as the construction of a Peace River outlet. But nothing is said by hon. gentlemen opposite of the years of office of the right hon. leader of the opposition when, notwithstanding his unequivocal promise, absolutely no step in this direction was taken.
It has now been suggested that we should rather encourage a rival policy to the Peace River outlet in the construction of branch lines feeding the country and connecting the outlying districts with the existing Alberta railway. I cannot say that I agree to that. I think our settlement policy was wrong from the beginning. I think the settlement policy of this country should have been as far as possible to confine settlement to the immediate neighbourhood of the railways or where railways were projected and intended to be

constructed. That policy, however, was not pursued. I understand it is one of the major principles of the settlement policy of the present Alberta government, that the principle to be followed by that government is to circumscribe settlement so far as possible and keep it from going too far away from existing or projected railway lines. That is a policy that should have been instituted and rigorously observed from the very commencement. But now we have to deal with an accomplished fact, a condition that has come into existence, and it is impossible to wait for an outlet until connecting branches of railway have raimified into the far distant parts of that great territory. Moreover if any settlement is to be encouraged it can only be by making it profitable, and it can only be made profitable by providing an outlet to the Pacific coast. Where that outlet shall come is a matter entirely for engineers, I am not going to deal with that question. I wish merely to say that my whole and hearty support is given to the motion of the hon. member for Peace River, though I am quite aware and keenly alive to the present financial and economic conditions in Canada, and the other great burdens resting upon the government. I very much feel on that account that any action which can be taken certainly could not be taken this year.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, for an hour and a half I have listened to a very interesting debate on the question of a railway to connect the Peace River section with the Pacific ocean. At once I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon, member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) both of whom are directly interested in this question, on the consistence and persistence with which they have brought it before the house during many years past. The other day I made it my business to check up on the number of speeches made by the hon. member for Peace River in regard to this matter, and I find that from the years 1922 to 1934, inclusive, he has made at least one speech a year. This, therefore, is his thirteenth annual pilgrimage to the shrine, and I hope it will meet at least with as good luck as did the others. The number thirteen is supposed to be unlucky, but on this occasion I hope we shall be as generous in our promises as we have been in other years.
I might express a further opinion, sir, that the addresses delivered this afternoon from all sides of the house and all sections of the country have been, with one exception-and

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Manion
it was not a very great exception.'-absolutely moderate and non-political. The exception I fear I shall have to point out was that of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. .McIntosh)-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thought that was coming.


Robert James Manion: -who finds it difficult to get away from politics at any time, even on an occasion like this, when two-thirds of his time was used in speaking for his own constituency, and one-third for the Peace River outlet. He permitted himself to get into the political field rather extensively.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Killing two birds with one stone is pretty good work, isn't it?


Robert James Manion: Attempting to kill a number of birds with one stone was what the hon. member was trying to do. The hon. members for Peace River and Vancouver Centre have pointed out that in the past all parties have promised some relief to this new land or last empire of northwestern Canada. On a number of occasions the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) stated that this is an obligation of honour upon both parties, and in his statement I think there is a good deal of truth. After all, however, it must not be forgotten that during the last four years conditions in this country have been of such a character, due to general world conditions, as to bring us to the realization that circumstances alter cases and, therefore, may sometimes be permitted even to alter promises. While it is true that in that northwestern, section of our country my right hon. leader made promises-at least, it is so stated, and I have not found anything to justify a contradiction-I must draw to the attention of the house the fact that conditions have been such that I doubt if any government would have been justified, hereof ore, in spending money upon the construction of the road.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Cariboo. I am not saying this simply because he spoke from this side of the house, because it is a fact that members from all quarters of the house have supported the project. But the hon. member did bring into the picture a number of very interesting new points, and described vividly and in 'most interesting fashion the north country of British Columbia, leaving the description of northern Alberta to the hon. member for Peace River. In my view the hon. member for Cariboo delivered a most inspiring address, from the standpoint of that section
of the country, in support of the resolution; of the hon. member for Peace River. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) did what so many hon. members from Quebec do to inspire the rest of us- although, not always with success-when he delivered in English an excellent speech in support of the resolution. He did say in his remarks that he did not suppose we would give even sympathetic consideration to the resolution. Well, I shall at once dispose of that by saying that the hon. member for Peace River has always had my sympathy, coming as I do from a section of 'Canada sparsely provided with railways and, like the Peace River country, in proportion to area not well supplied with population. I feel that I am particularly qualified to sympathize with the hon. member in his desire to have these 40,000 people served by a railway.
Of course in a country of such vast proportions as Canada railways are very necessary. The fact remains however that the money required to build them reaches such large amounts that even a few miles of railway constructed through a section of the country such as would have to be traversed in building this outlet runs into huge sums of money. The various estimates as to the cost of building the outlet run all the way from 813,000,000 to $80,000,000, according to the number of branch lines constructed. Various investigations have been made into the proposal now before us. References have been made to some of them this afternoon. Four routes have been mentioned as possible methods of getting out of the Peace River territory into other parts of Canada. One, which was more or less generally condemned by at least two or three hon. members, was the so-called Aggie-Obed route, where there would be a back haul of some considerable distance. But the routings which were recommended in some of the earlier investigations made by the Canadian National Railways- although I do not think the Aggie-Obed route was supported in the earlier investigations by the Canadian Pacific Railway- were the Monkman pass route, the Pine pass route and the Peace pass route. The latter, I believe, is the one which has received the greatest amount of support from hon. members this afternoon. In connection with that outlet it is only fair to say that the late Sir Henry Thornton and Mr. Beatty discussed the matter with me on various occasions. They took the attitude that now would not be an appropriate time to spend a large sum of money upon this project, because-at least some of them took this attitude-it would take at least ten times the
1046	COMMONS
Peace River Outlet-Mr. Manion
traffic now offering in that district to enable the road to pay its way. That was the summing up of their correspondence with me, and also the summing up of some of the reports made in regard to the project.
Four different reports have been made. The last one was in 1932, when a committee of engineers was appointed partly, if not altogether, at the request of myself. The commission was composed of Mr. Gzowski, of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Fairbairn, of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Mr. Crysdale, as the third man, not appointed by the province of British Columbia, but whose appointment was agreed to by that province. Although the commissioners did not visit the section in connection with the making of the report, aill had previously visited the section, on various occasions and were familiar with the problem. Their report was tabled in this House of Commons and on a number of occasions has been referred to in debate. These gentlemen took the attitude that they could not make a recommendation. While their findings have already been placed on record, although not in this debate, for the sake of the present record perhaps I might be permitted to read a brief synopsis of their report. They say:
At the time the 1925 report was made, local Interests were mainly concerned in obtaining a western outlet to cheapen their freight cost to the Pacific, and supply further railway mileage in the district. Since that time, a reduction of freight rates has been accorded them, now substantially equalling rates which would obtain if a western outlet were in use.
Further on they say:
In view of the above, our conclusions are:
1.	No western outlet is justified for the present, as the existing railway furnishes the most economical route. It will take many times the present traffic to justify another railway outlet.
2.	The Obed route for a western outlet is the most favourable from a railway economic standpoint, considering the present phase of the railway situation.
3.	We recommend that the matter of a final route be decided when the question is a practical one, believing that by the time the volume of traffic has reached a point where a western outlet is justified, general and possible local conditions may have materially changed. When the decision is imperative, the whole situation should be reviewed, in order to appraise all the contributing factors, including the potential traffic which may accrue from the lands beyond the definite areas included in this report.
That in brief was the report of the Crysdale committee, if I may term it such, signed by J. M. R. Fairbairn, chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific; C. S. Gzowski, chief en-

gineer of construction, Canadian National Railways, and C. R. Crysdale, consulting engineer. I am quoting it from the unrevised Hansard of March 14, 1932, when I put it on Hansard during the discussion that then took place.
After that report was made public both Sir Henry Thornton and Mr. Beatty informed me that they agreed with it. They took the attitude, as has been taken by others, that what was needed more than a direct outlet was more branch lines in that territory. In that regard I have noticed that Mr. Brownlee, the premier of Alberta, appearing not very long ago before the royal commission on transportation, generally known as the Duff - commission, which was investigating the whole railway problem of this country, gave some opinions which I think it is well to put on Hansard, Mr. Brownlee being a particularly able statesman and a man who does speak to a large extent for a considerable portion of the province of Alberta. He is quoted as follows:
All I will say is this: So far as our provincial government is concerned we would not say that there is such a necessity for that outlet

He was speaking of the Peace River outlet:
-that in a time of financial difficulty the matter should become an urgent one. We do believe that what is far more urgent is that there should be a moderate expansion of branch lines in order that the railways may secure the full benefit of the potential development that is there and the settlement that has gone in. Settlement has gone into the Peace River country to a very large extent in districts fifty or sixty miles from any railway, and as a provincial government we urge very strongly that the small expenditure necessary to provide branch lines to enable those who have gone in to develop their holdings and to make a contribution will be far wiser at the moment than any coast outlet.
He also referred to a telegram from Grande Prairie to the Duff commission with reference to this outlet, and said:
I have not read it, but I assume you will find that that telegram differs somewhat from the opinion that we have expressed. We have not so far been able to bring ourselves in line with the views either of the people of Vancouver or of the people immediately at Grande Prairie that the expenditure on another line of railway through to the Pacific coast, so far as this province is concerned, is a necessity. It may be that the development in the northern part of British Columbia would seem to justify a line of that kind, but we would certainly emphasize strongly that what we conceive to be the needs of the Peace River country will best be served by branch lines rather than by such an extension.

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Manion
I quote that merely to show that there is a difference of opinion in regard to the matter, and for that reason I cannot help but feel that it is a little difficult for a government to promise immediately, under present financial conditions, to undertake such a task as the building of a road from the Peace River territory whether by one route or the other, at a cost of from ten to perhaps fifty million dollars. The two great transcontinental railways still take the attitude that they cannot afford to make any heavy capital expenditures, nor can they permit themselves, they still submit, to go into any branch line construction. They are quite willing-naturally they would have no objection-that the dominion government itself, if it wishes, as a government should construct this line, whether by the Peace pass outlet or any other. By the way, on the last occasion on which I discussed this question with the two then heads of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, they both did favour the Peace pass route along the Peace river and then cutting down to join with the Pacific Great Eastern which, as has been pointed out here this afternoon, last year made a profit on operating for the first time in many years. But they do not admit that they would agree to making the railways in any way responsible for the expenditure of one dollar to make that connection. Therefore, if anything were done, it would be entirely a problem to be faced by the government and the people of Canada at this time and perhaps for some time to come.
It is worth remembering that during the years that have gone the railway rates from the Peace River area, both to Vancouver and to Fort William, have been lowered considerably. My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) and my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) know that very well, but as some others in the house may not know the facts I shall place the rates on Hansard in order to keep the record full enough so that the question may be fairly well understood:
Rate on Grain from Grande Prairie to Fort William
(Per 100 pounds)
1922
1925
Cents
63)
43
35)
In other words, the rate in 1925 and since that time has been a little over one-half the
rate existing in 1921. Here are the rates from Grande Prairie to Vancouver for the same quantity of wheat:
Rate on Grain from Grande Prairie to Vancouver
(Per 100 pounds)
1922
1924
Cents
58i
43
28
In other words, the rate in 1925 was considerably less than half the rate in existence in 1921. The rates which I have just given, namely, 35) cents per 100 pounds from Grande Prairie to Fort William, and 28 cents per 100 pounds from Grande Prairie to Vancouver for 1925 are still the rates in existence between those points.


Olof Hanson: Is the rate the
same to Prince Rupert as to Vancouver?


Robert James Manion: I imagine it is.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from Peace River confirms my own understanding.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Has my hon. friend quoted the rate from Edmonton to
the coast?


Robert James Manion: I have it here, having sent out during the debate to get it. I hoped that it would show that the rate from Edmonton to the coast was about the same, but I find that the rate from Edmonton to Vancouver at the present time is 20 cents as against the rate from Grande Prairie to Vancouver of 28 cents; and that the rate from Edmonton to Fort William is 26 cents, as against the rate from Grande Pirairie to Fort William of 35) cents. I have also here the rates per 100 pounds from Saskatoon to Vancouver and to Fort William, and I might as well give those. From Saskatoon to Vancouver the rate is 24 cents, as against the rate from Grande Prairie to Vancouver of 28 cents; and from Saskatoon to Fort William the rate is 22 cents, as against the rate from Grande Prairie to Fort William of 35) cents.
So there is no doubt that the people of Grande Prairie and of the Peace River country generally are up against pretty heavy rates in the shipment of their products. Of course, we cannot forget that Canada in the past has built too many railways. We built three where two would have been ample. We have had so much duplication and unnecessary competition from coast to -coast in
lots	COMMONS
Peace River Outlet

Mr. Manion
Canada that, as someone expressed it here this afternoon, the railway question is, as this house knows, the greatest problem without exception that Canada has to face at the present time. He would be a courageous man who would take the attitude that Canada has not too many railways, too many canals and too much duplication of various other kinds of facilities and utilities.
It must be admitted that world conditions in general and Canadian conditions in particular have been improving during the last few months. To my mind there is no doubt that conditions are on the upgrade. It is my belief that within a few short years, perhaps in one or two, conditions will be back practically to normal. But at the moment I should not like to take it upon myself to say that conditions have approached' so nearly to normal that as a member of this government I could promise to start forthwith the building of this railway.
I took a briefer part in the debate last year than I have done to-day. At that time I was perhaps more frank than polite in replying to my hon. friend; I told him that we could not give this matter any consideration. I did not mean that as a short answer, although, and perhaps quite rightly, my hon. friend was annoyed. I thought it better to say just what I thought on the matter, that it was beyond the realm of possibility at the time. I believe that conditions to-day have improved so much that, without promising immediate construction or anything of that sort, I can promise that the matter will be given fair and honest consideration.
During the past few months both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railway have been able to show better earnings than they have shown for some time. From about 1928 the returns for these railways started to go down and dlown until we began to think there was no bottom to the pit into which they seemed to be descending. But six months ago, for the first time in two or three years, railway earnings started to increase; that is, the earnings for each week of this year began to show an improvement over the earnings of the corresponding week last year. This improvement has continued for almost six months without interruption, and this in spite of the fact that our grain has not been selling very well throughout the world during the past year. Our wheat sales have not been such as to satisfy most of us, whether from the west or from the east. The earnings of the Canadian National Railways for the month of January and the first three weeks of February show an increase of sorne-
thing over 83,000,000 compared with the corresponding seven weeks of the previous year. I am sure that all members, from whatever portion of the country they may come or to whatever party they belong, will be pleased to know that our railway situation has somewhat improved. Whether we or some other party is in power, the fact remains that the people of Canada have been placed in the unfortunate position of having to pay the deficits on that great system. In the past these deficits have amounted to huge sums and I am very happy to be able to state to the house and to the country that the railway situation appears to be steadily improving.
Last year the hon. member moved a motion similar to the one he now moves, and it was voted down. In 1932 the hon. member moved a motion which was slightly different in its terms. His motion of 1932 read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, in the best interests of Canada, it is desirable that the construction of the Peace River outlet should be commenced at the earliest possible date.
I believe I am correct in stating that the resolutions of this and last year are the same.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman confirms that statement. His resolution this year reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Peace River country should be connected' by a direct railway outlet to the Pacific coast.
I intend to move in amendment, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) that three words be added to this resolution. There may be some question as to whether they alter the meaning, but I think they would make the resolution more acceptable to myself, to the members of the government and to hon. members on this side. I hope my hon. friend will accept this amendment and that the house will give it unanimous support. My amendment is:
That the resolution be amended by adding the following words:	"when circumstances
permit."
The resolution will then read:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Peace River country should be connected by a direct railway outlet to the Pacific coast when circumstances permit.
This amendment is not moved with any desire of blocking the resolution, but rather to call attention to the necessities of the present financial situation. May I point out that a resolution which was voted down last year by a vote of 133 to 39, I believe it was,

Peace River Outlet-Mr. Kennedy
is not in a much better position to be accepted by the house this year. The opposition last year came from all sections of the house just as did the support, in lesser degree. I have the greatest sympathy for the hon. member (for Peace River and I desire to give some encouragement to him and to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). I suggest therefore that the hon. gentleman accept the amendment on>
the understanding that it means exactly what it says; that when circumstances permit, which we trust will be in the very near future, every consideration will be given this project.
Mr. MdINTOSH: Is the minister's conclusion with regard to the Peace River outlet the same as his conclusion with regard to all branch line facilities?


Robert James Manion: I have no desire to enter into a discussion of my hon. friend's project. If the hon. gentleman will ask me again on some suitable occasion, I will answer him.
I do not think we should muddy the waters, so to speak, by drawing the Saskatchewan river into the Peace.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Peace at any price.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I think I should reply to one or two of the arguments which have been put forward and also indicate my position with regard to the amendment. During the course of the debate it was stated that we should forget all about wheat. I believe that the best type of railway is one near to agricultural, mining and lumbering activities.


John Anderson Fraser: Was my hon.
friend referring to me?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, I
think it was some other hon. member. I should like to remind the house that the Peace River district is likely to be producing wheat even at a time when great difficulty might face other wheat producing parts of the world. Herman Trelle won the prize at Chicago three years in succession. His exhibit was such that a special order was passed preventing him from exhibiting for a period of three years. He was classed as a super-crop man and was not permitted to exhibit for three years as other exhibitors were becoming discouraged when they were forced to exhibit against him. It would seem, therefore, that we will be producing wheat just as long as the world requires that commodity. But I realize how much stronger our case is when we produce
other commodities, and this argument applies more particularly to that section of British Columbia referred to by the hon. member for Cariboo. When the minister says that certain steps will be taken as soon as circumstances permit, I am not quite willing to accept that on the basis laid down by the engineers. In all their reports- they make the point that until the present lines pay and leave enough over and above to make this outlet pay, the road will not be built. There never was a railway built in Canada on that basis and I do not think we should be asked to comply with such conditions, in order to justify our request for a railway, which never had to be complied by any pioneering settlement in anjr part of Canada. In 1927, notwithstanding the discouraging report of the engineers, the northern Alberta railways actually paid their operating expenses and had enough money left to pay their fixed charges of about $800,000. Yet that was the year in which they brought down this report which said there was no hope, even with the freight rate of 39 cents-and it was on the 30 cent basis that this surplus was acquired-of the lines paying even operating expenses with the immediate traffic or with many times the immediate traffic.
Something was made of the statement by Mr. Brownlee, and I have this to say to the minister: I am not asking for a vote of $13,000,000 or $10,000,000 this year or next j'ear, but there are at least 300 miles of line in that country that will be either part of the main line or branch lines and that will serve settlements now actually in existence. So there is no real conflict at all between the man who says we need branch lines and the man who says we should build the outlet. I do not think I need elaborate that point; in the one case, if you construct this 300 miles of road and take the Peace pass route, it will be part of the main line serving the settlements, but if any other line is built it will be a branch line that will be necessary in any event.
I am disposed, Mr. Speaker, to accept the amendment, always remembering that we can discuss the matter again, and also in view of the financial situation of the country, but I do submit that if we are going to undertake a program of public works in this country certainly we ought to consider whether or not some portion of that money should be spent in the development of a line that will be part of any Peace River outlet that is built. So, Mr. Speaker, while the motion and the amendment are in the hands of the house, I am disposed to accept the motion as amended if
C.N.R.-Capital Structure

the other hon. members are willing to do so; if they are not of course I shall have to vote for the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.


Mr.  A. E. MIJNN@Vancouver North: Whereas, the attention of this house has been drawn by the Royal Commission to inquire into railways and transportation in Canada to the urgent necessity which exists for an early consideration of the capital structure of the Canadian railways (vide section 84-87 of that report), and
Whereas, that commission recognized that a very substantial part of the money invested in the railways comprised within the Canadian National System must be regarded as lost and that its capital liabilities should be heavily written down although the said royal commission did not deem the time opportune when making the said loyal report to deal with this important matter but suggested that the same receive early consideration by the board of trustees, and
Whereas, a board of trustees has been appointed by the government:
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, it is of vital importance that the attention of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways be directed to this matter and that this house deems it highly desirable that the said board of trustees shall consider this question and report thereon with the least possible delay as being of vital and primary importance in the interests of all concerned.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up very much of the time of the house; the resolution speaks for itself. This is purely a matter of business and has nothing to^ do with politics. As hon. gentlemen have said already this afternoon, this railway situation is one of our big problems. Now we have a new board of directors, and when you, Mr. Speaker, or any other business man, put a board of directors in charge of that business your ambition is to see that they make it pay. If the new trustees are business men, as I think they are, in my opinion they would want this capital structure remoulded. A great deal of money has been lost, and it is not fair to ask this new board of directors to make provision for that money. It must be written off some time, and while perhaps it should have been done before this, in my opinion there is no excuse for further delay. I realize that this is a huge undertaking; we will be told that there are so many subsidiary companies that it is not possible to carry out this 
suggestion, but this is a practical proposition, and in my opinion this resolution should be accepted by the government.
This resolution has as its object the early stabilization of what may be properly called one of the most important public utilities in Canada, the Canadian National Railway's, in which we are all interested because it is owned by the government of Canada. It is not my intention to dwell on how, when or why we became possessed of this great system of transportation; we now own it and, in my humble opinion, should control it and show an interest in its welfare, and in my judgment the first step in proper and intelligent control is to reduce the capitalization as soon as possible to its true present-day value. Such a step as is proposed in the resolution is essential if we are to expect that considerable measure of relief for the taxpayers of Canada to which the Duff report refers. I should like to refer to section 86, which is found at page 30 of that report:
It has been suggested that in view of the excessive capital liabilities in relation to the earning power of the system they should be reduced to an amount which would more nearly approximate the earning power of the railway. The net operating income (i.e., the amount available for interest and dividends) of the Canadian National System for the period 1923 to 1931 inclusive averaged $24,414,447 per annum. This figure would' require adjustment if adequate provision were made for depreciation.
It is obvious that on this basis of earnings the capital liabilities would require a very drastic writing down. And while this commission is of opinion that it must be frankly recognized that a very substantial part of the money invested in the railways comprised within the Canadian National System must be regarded as lost and that its capital liabilities should be heavily written down, they do not consider that the time is opportune to deal with this important matter.
That was their opinion at the time this report was made, but they go on in the next section, 87;
This question as well as that previously referred to, dealing "with the present involved financial structure of the Canadian National System, should, in the opinion of the commission, have the early attention of the board of trustees, which it is recommended should be entrusted with the control and management of the System.
That the problem is a great one, there can be no two opinions, and it is worthy of serious consideration. I would remind the house that the demands of the Canadian National Railways upon the federal treasury have been an important factor in disastrously impairing international credits, so much so that there is

C.N.R.-Capital Structure
difficulty in securing immediate relief in an acute situation through fresh borrowings from 'Great Britain and the United States. I would refer hon. members to the report, paragraph XII, page 31 in regard to this matter. This situation, so graphically described by the commission, is in itself sufficient justification for our beginning at once a wise stock taking.
But there are other reasons. It is a well known fact that the demands of the Canadian National Railways upon the federal treasury have created a financial problem which have been the cause of an increase in taxation.
The resolution, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction and will permit of a better solution of present difficulties. By way of further justification of the resolution I would again refer to the report, for it clearly indicates "the excessive capital liabilities in relation to the earning power of the system should be to an amount which would nearly approximate the earning power of the railway."
Without labouring the question by quoting facts and figures, I would direct the attention of hon. members to paragraphs VIII, IX and X, pages 27 to 30 of the report, wherein will be found facts the seriousness of which will convince the reader that now is the opportune time to direct the attention of the board of trustees to the fact that now is not too soon to take stock and put into operation a rigid course of assessment by revaluation of what, in my humble opinion, is a national asset which, if properly and judiciously managed, may become of infinite worth to the people of this far-flung dominion. To the members of this house as representatives of the people, as custodians of the system, in fairness to all concerned, the board of trustees, the bondholders and employees, but above all to the people as taxpayers and owners, this resolution is submitted in the hope that it may receive favourable consideration.
I do not know just what attitude the government intends taking in connection with this matter. As I said before, it is purely a business proposition and not by any means a political move, and some action should be taken in the very near future. I move the adoption of the resolution.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: 8386,000,000. The water, whatever there was in it, was squeezed out of the Canadian Northern, and nio cheaper railroad mileage in its physical condition, no better asset from a railway standpoint, was ever produced in this country than the Canadian people secured in the Canadian Northern lines at a cost of 8386,000,000 when they were taken over in 1919.
Then we come to the Grank Trunk. The capital charge and present liabilities of the National railways on account of the Grand Trunk Railway when it was taken over by arbitration was 8216,000,000, making a total for these four sections of the national system of around 8913,000,000. It is frequently stated that the people of Canada were loaded with a lot of deadwood obligations because of the Grand Trunk Railway. But what are the facts? The stockholders of the Grand Trunk, the English people who put their money into it, are the people out of whom that money was squeezed.


Albert Edward Munn: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he speaking in favour of the resolution or against it?


George Brecken Nicholson: I am speaking in favour of the resolution. I am speaking in favour of having the capitalization of these roads fixed, and fixed on a proper 'basis, so that the people will know exactly what the roads cost them, and why, and what the roads must earn if they are to compete on a proper basis with other railways. As I have said, the Grand Trunk, the best planned railway system in eastern Canada, second to but few comparable systems in the United States, came into the possession of the Canadian people for the sum of 8216,000,000, in round figures.
Now we come to the fifth section, the Grand Trunk Pacific, built in association with the National Transcontinental under terms by which the Canadian people were responsible in the same degree for the money spent on it.as they were for the money spent on the transcontinental in the east. Why? Because under the terms of the contract entered into with the Grand Trunk the Canadian engineers, or the officials of the transcontinental east of Winnipeg, were responsible for checking the expenditures on the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Winnipeg. Likewise the officers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in reality of the Grand Trunk, were responsible for checking the expenditures on the transcontinental. The figure for the Grand Trunk Pacific was
8124,826,000.	If I wanted to take the time I think I could find where I have said in this house that it always seemed to me that 
these two groups of men vied with each other to see which would waste the most money, all chargeable to the Canadian people; for in reality that is what happened-it was a campaign of extravagance equalled only by what has taken place since the lines were taken over by the people themselves.
The gross total of charges against all these lines at the time they were taken over was
81.106.000.	000 odd. To put them on a proper basis and show what should have been charged up to them at that time, there should have been written off from the cost of the transcontinental east of Winnipeg and the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Winnipeg the sum of
8265.000. 000.	That is the total sum that should be written off, because the management of the Canadian National Railways has been responsible for every dollar that has gone into them from that day to this. That would have made the total at the time they were taken over, $841,000,000 odd.
At the time the railways were taken over and consolidated into the Canadian National system an accurate estimate was made of what it would require to bring this whole system into such a condition that it could be rated as a class one road as that term is used in reference to railway lines all over North America. Had that been followed out it would have resulted in a basis of approximately $60,000 a mile for the whole Canadian National railway system, including the roadbed and everything that goes with it, and equipment. It may be interesting to the house to know that we secured the Canadian Northern with everything it possessed on a basis of $33,000 odd per mile. But to bring it up to standard would require further expending. I have the figures under my hand but will not take the time to put them into the record, showing what would have been required to bring that line up to a class one basis or 860,000 a mile covering the whole system. The old Grand Trunk, as it is commonly termed, which forms the main connecting link through eastern Canada for the Canadian National system, was a double track line and properly should carry a higher capitalization than the single track lines that constituted the major portion of the system all across Canada. The point is that meanwhile the Canadian people, through the management of the national system, have added something like $1,500,000,000 to the capitalization of the whole. Some say that should all be written off and the lines left with a capital of $840,000,000. Bot if the Canadian people are to have a proper understanding of what the Canadian National railway system means to them

Questions
and has meant to them and will mean to them, the proper thing is to begin where we started and squeeze out the water that was in the lines at the time they were taken over. But the water we have ourselves pumped in should properly remain so that the people will realize what they are doing.
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 1, 1934