[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Odette.
Bill No. 40, to incorporate the Montreal Underground Terminal Company.- Mr. Rheaume.
Bill No. 41, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Kellner.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. "W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	I beg to move:
That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Bancroft, Bird, Black (Yukon), Bothwell, Boys, Cahan, Cannon, Cantley, Dussault, Elliott, Girouard, Guthrie, Hanson, Jacobs, Kellner, Kennedy, Ladner, Laflamme, Lapierre, MacDonald (South Cape Breton), McPherson, Power, Ralston, Ryckman, St-Pere, Sanderson, Sinclair (Queens), and Totzke, be appointed in accordance with the following recommendation of the second and final report of the select standing committee on privileges and elections, concurred in by the house on the 5th June, 1928:
"The committee recommend that a special committee of the house should be appointed at the next session of parliament to examine into the evidence and deliberations of this committee this year and to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1920, and the amendments thereto, and the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, and to suggest to the house such other amendments to the said acts as they may deem advisable, such committee to give special attention to the method of selecting returning officers and the preparation of voters' lists."
And that the said special committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and report from time to time.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, it was indicated in
the speech from the throne that the government would introduce amendments to the Dominion Elections Act. Do I understand that it is intended that the work of formulating these amendments shall be done by this committee, or is it proposed to submit a bill to the house and refer it to the committee?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It is the hope of the government that the committee appointed under this resolution will be able to bring in a report suggesting such amendments as are necessary to the Dominion Elections Act. It may 'be that further amendments will be necessary, but that can only be ascertained when the committee has reported.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to amend the Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ROBB moved the second reading of the bill.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Copyright
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister state
the purpose of this bill?


Mr. ROBB:: The purpose of the bill is to
correct certain defects which have come to light in the administration of the Insurance Act, brought about by the growth of casualty insurance; to qualify the act with respect to those companies which deal exclusively in marine insurance, to give fraternal societies the rights enjoyed by ordinary insurance companies, to permit them to issue endowment policies for a period of twenty years or longer, and also, under certain conditions, to enable them to increase the maximum policy to $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he has received a letter from the women's section of the Calgary Labour party regarding the refusal of clearance to vessels carrying liquor to the United States, and, if so, is the Prime Minister prepared to give the house any information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have received a number of letters from ladies, but I do not recall that one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: In view of many letters having come to hand of the nature of the one described by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) regarding clearances of vessels carrying contraband liquor to the United States, I would like to ask the Pime Minister or the Minister of National Revenue whether he has any statement to make?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: A reply was made yesterday to a
similar question. It appears in Hansard.



CANADIAN COPYRIGHT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question. Is it the intention of the government to correct by legislation the anomalous situation of Canada, which as a party to the re-
vised Berne convention, has pledged her word to protect the Canadian copyrights of unionist foreign authors just as Canadian rights are protected in unionist foreign countries, and yet by legislation and by an order in council No. 893 passed in May, 1927, Canada has nullified the spirit and word of her signed pledge.
This fact has been made clear by a recent decision-1st of Feb. 1929-of the judicial committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, affirming the decisions of the Canadian courts.
Canada, since that decision, is in the position of being in default in her undertakings to ihe other nations, unless something is done immediately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this a question the hon. gentleman is asking?


Leon Johnson Ladner: It is a question and I think the minister is prepared to answer it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It should be drafted as a notice.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I think the minister is prepared to answer it.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to advise me that he would put that question on the orders of the day. I am prepared to state in reply that I have now before me a copy of the judgment to which he has alluded. It is a judgment of the Privy Council interpreting section 39 of the old act, which is section 40 of the act in the revised statutes of 1927 concerning registration of copyright. We are considering what amendments, if any, should be made to the act to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the recent conference at Rome. I may assure my hon. friend that all these matters are receiving the immediate attention iof the department.



SASKATCHEWAN GRAIN INQUIRY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: The Minister of Trade and Commerce being in his seat to-day, I would repeat the question I asked yesterday. Has his department received from the Saskatchewan government or any other source information relative to the time when the Saskatchewan royal grain inquiry commission may issue a report?
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of
Trade and Commerce): I can answer my hon.

International Peace-Mr. Cahan
friend by saying that we have no information in any form from the Saskatchewan government as to the inquiry.
IMPORTATION OF RUSSIAN COAL On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines, based on a telegram which I have in my hand, in regard to the importation of large quantities of Russian coal into Canada through the ports of Montreal and Portland. A large cargo came up to Montreal just before the close of navigation; several cargoes have reached the port of Portland and are now being transported to Montreal. A cargo is just being landed and another is momentarily expected. I would ask the minister if is aware of the fact and what he proposes to do about it?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines):: I am not aware of the facts, but I will make inquiry and answer my hon. friend next week.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) inquired the other day as to a return that was ordered on March 12 last. I promised that I would look into the matter and let him have a reply. I find that the return was presented to the house on the eighth June last.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: I did not have any notice.
LAFONTAINE MONUMENT On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. F. POULIOT (Temiscouata):: Is it the intention of the government to contribute something towards the erection in Montreal, the seat of government for a time, of a monument to the memory of Sir Louis Hyppolite Lafontaine, the father of responsible government in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a monuments
committee which has, I believe, to do with matters of this kind, but in any case the intention of the government will have to be made known in the estimates.
RELATIONS WITH SOVIET'RUSSIA On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North-Centre):: In view of the favourable
reports of Colonel H. J. Mackie and others regarding conditions in Russia, is the government taking any steps towards renewing relations between Canada and Soviet Russia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am unable to say more to my hon. friend than that the government is giving consideration to the matter.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 19, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister :
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the general treaty for the renunciation of war, which was signed at Paris, on the twenty-seventh day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
And that a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house unites with the senate in the approval of the above-mentioned treaty;
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the senate.
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the general opinion of the house and of the country as a whole that on memorable national and international occasions the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has expressed his views and the views of Canada generally with dignity, with clarity, in concise and choice diction and with an eloquence that has merited and received the commendation of all. I refer to such memorable occasions as the dedication of the Peace tower, the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the foundation of this Dominion, the occasion of the signing of the peace pact at Paris, the recent address delivered before the League of Nations at Geneva and the somewhat memorable pronouncement which he made on the twenty-eight October last at Quebec, on his return from Paris, Geneva and London. I think the same commendation generally may be extended to his address on Tuesday last in advocacy of the adoption of the Paris peace pact in renunciation of war. I am sure the applause which attended his address, and that which followed the eloquent and inspiring address of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) convinced the members of the house and the country generally that perfect unanimity of opinion prevails in Canada with regard to the ratification of this pact of peace. Therefore it is not in any cavilling spirit, not from any desire to make captious criticism, that, having moved the adjournment of the

International Peace-Mr. Cahan
debate, I desire to present one single issue in respect of this peace pact which I believe to be of vital significance to the future welfare of Canada, especially in its relation to the great republic to the south of us. The Prime Minister, in memorable words, on Tuesday last said:
In the name of the multitude of their dead, the nations that have signed this treaty have pledged their honour in the face of mankind never again to resort to war as a means of settling controversies between them. Surely, if there is such a thing as national honour existing, this treaty must hold a large place in the future of the world.
And then proceeding to describe the organization that had been attempted, tinder the covenant of the League of Nations, to ensure the future peace of the world, the Prime Minister -called attention to the fact that there were certain gaps still existing in that organization. He said:
In the first place, the League of Nations does not include within its membership all the nations of the world. The United States, which is a signatory to this treaty, is not a member of the League of Nations.
I desire to proceed this afternoon with the inquiry whether that gap is closed, and as to whether in view of the attitude of the government and of the predominating public opinion in the United States, that gap may he satisfactorily closed in the interests of permanent peace relationships between this country and that great republic. The Prime Minister touched upon that aspect of the question when he said:
It is obviously to the interests of Canada to have from her neighbours, from the countries that surround her, an assurance upon their national honour that never will resort be had to war as a means of settling any differences which may arise. That reason has been mentioned elsewhere as a prudential reason, a reason of prudence, if nothing else, why this country should become a party to a treaty of this kind. Canada is fortunate perhaps in her geographical position.
May I add to that, that Canada is fortunate in her geographical position only in so far as there prevails throughout the neighbouring republic, dominating its different public policies, the will to peace, not only with Canada, but the will to permanent peace with the great Britannic commonwealth of which we are members and with the great League of Nations, of which also we are members. The Prime Minister continued:
We have hut the one neighbour to the south, and this neighbour-
I am omitting some immaterial words:
-along with the other nations of the world, gives its solemn pledge that never for all time

to come will it resort to war as a means of settling any controversies that may arise.
Mr. Cahan: Does the right hon. gentleman understand that to be embodied in this document?
Mr. Mackenzie King: Most decidedly so. I cannot see how this document is capable of any other interpretation than that as between Canada and the United States-let me enlarge that-as between the British Empire and the United States. Neither will ever resort to war as a means of settling differences which may arise between them, but that they will settle all differences by pacific means, and to that end each has pledged its honour before the entire world.
I think that in the expression of that hope and aspiration touching the future relations of these great countries the Prime Minister voiced the sentiments not only of this house but of all the people of Canada. He was not more positive in his expression of opinion than was M. Briand at Paris, where, speaking in the presence of the assembled representatives of the signatory powers, he said:
Thus, shall war as a means of arbitrary and selfish action no longer be deemed lawful. Thus, its threat shall no longer hang over the economic, political and social life of peoples. Thus, shall the smaller nations henceforth enjoy real independence in international discussions. Freed from the old bondage, the nations that have signed the new contract will gradually forsake the habit of associating the idea of national prestige with the idea of force, and this single psychological fact will not be the leas* important factor in the evolution that is needed to lead to the regular stabilization, of peace.
That pact was signed at Paris on August 27th last by representatives of fifteen countries. By September 12th, 1928, I noticed in the public reports that three other nations had adhered to the pact., and twenty^-five others had signified their intention to adhere as soon as the constitutional means could be taken for ratification. Now I understand that all but three have indicated their adherence or intention to adhere, those three being Argentine, Brazil and Liberia.
I was very much struck indeed by the pronouncement made by the Prime Minister, at Quebec, I think, on his return. For myself, and speaking from my own ideals, I was impressed seriously with the hope that the pact of peace might prove to be all that the Prime Minister so ardently hoped for the nations that were giving adherence to it. But on November 1, last, an address was made in New York by a notable American, Mr. Houghton, who had been United States ambassador to- Germany, and who had just recently returned from being ambassador of the United States at the court of St. James, He had returned to his own country, and there, it would appear from the address, which

International Peace-Mr. Cahan
he gave on that date, that this spirit and will to peace which had encircled him in London was not finding expression in the public prints of his own country, and therefore he expressed himself as follows:
Until we, here in America, are ready to accept, in a practical sense, as fairly equivalent to our own, the goodwill and integrity of purpose and trustworthiness of other peoples, we shall find a durable peace beyond our reach. That is the obvious but unpleasant truth, and I know even to mention it tends to arouse all the cynical forces of distrust and suspicion within us. But there it is. It cannot be evaded!
In a world that is armed, we cannot go unarmed. In a world which is still mainly based on force, eventualities, no matter how insane, in themselves, must still be considered, and we do not need to exaggerate them. But to forget them wholly would be quite as bad. There are times, we must remember, when police power is as necessary in foreign affairs as in domestic affairs.
Upon reading that speech I felt a degree of apprehension that I find it difficult to express. November 11 was Memorial day. It is a day that is sacred to us in Canada, a day that we make a memorial for our dead, a day perhaps which is more engrossing to us in this country than to the people in the neighbouring republic, where owing to their enormously larger population the sacrifices through death and wounds which they made in the war came not so closely home to them as it did to our small population.
I remember my own feelings on November 11. I stood at the grave of my own son. Wounded in the war by shell fire, his spine partially shot away, paralyzed in his lower limbs, obtaining internal action of his organs only by mechanical means,, yet through severe suffering he attempted to overcome weakness and pain and to take some part again in the public service of his country. As I stood by that open grave and watched scores of his old companions in arms passing by, with their simple impressive rite of bidding hail and farewell by each throwing a maple leaf upon the open grave; young men, scores of them, halt and wounded, some whose faces bore ineradicable expressions of pain and suffering and sorrow, the most of them clad in heavy boots, wool jerseys -and rough jackets; young men from the fishing fleets, young men from the timber and lumber camps, young men from the farms-I felt in my own agony, God be blessed that this peace pact is in a way to be achieved as an aid and incentive t,o the preservation o.f the peace of this country and of the empire to which it belongs.
I was in that spirit when, two or three days later, I picked up the New York Herald-Tribune and read the address of the President
of the United States on November 11-the same day which is so sacred in the memories of many families in Canada. In that address he spoke first of the necessity of preparation for war, secondly, of the limitation of the armaments of war, and lastly, remember, of the renunciation of war for the achievement of national policy. I will read his words:
If the European countries had neglected their defences, it is probable that war would have come much sooner. All human experience seems to demonstrate that a country w'hich makes reasonable preparation for defence is less likely to be subject to a hostile attack and less likely to suffer a violation of its rights which might lead to war. This is the prevailing attitude of the United States and one which I believe should constantly determine its actions. To be ready for defence is not to be guilty of aggression." We can have military preparation without assuming a military spirit. It is our duty to ourselves and to the cause of civilization, to the preservation of domestic tranquillity, to our orderly and lawful relations with foreign people, j.) maintain an adequate army and navy.
We do not need a large land force. The present size of our regular army is entirely dequate, but it should continue to be supplemented by a national guard and reserves, and especially with the equipment and organization in our industries for furnishing supplies. When we turn to the sea the situation is different. We have not only a long coast line, distant outlying possessions, a foreign commerce unsurpassed in importance, and foreign investments unsurpassed in amount, the number of our people and the value of our treasure to be protected, but we are also bound by international treaty to defend the Panama canal. Having few' fuelling stations, we require ships of large tonnage, and having scarcely any merchant vessels capable of mounting five or six inch guns, it is obvious that, based on needs, we are entitled to a larger number of -warships than a nation having these advantages.
That is the pronouncement of the executive head of the great nation to the south of us, showing what confidence his government and the people that he represents had in the peace pact of Paris as an agency for securing the permanent peace of the world.
Now, is it any wonder that the New York Herald-Tribune-which I have read, I think, almost daily for thirty or forty years, and which to a large extent in its editorial columns is an expression of the views of the dominant political party of the United States -is it any wonder that this journal on November 13 last, in eulogizing the president's address from which I have read this extract said:
The United States is now the richest and most powerful nation in the world. It has, as the president pointed out, a foreign commerce unsurpassed in importance and foreign investments unsurpassed in amount. We have a long coast line and distant outlying possessions as well as our ow-n population and treasure to protect. This duty of defence comes first

By that I think the Prime Minister intended to suggest the entrance of the United States into the League of Nations, an event which always has appeared most desirable, or to revert to his words:

International Peace-Mr. Cahan
-or an adjustment of the old rules of neutrality to meet the new conditions of cooperative defence.
That is the real essence of the whole controversy, and I doubt if it could be more accurately expressed in diplomatic language. I understand and appreciate the reserve which the Prime Minister of Canada is bound to exercise in such a case, but as a simple, private member of His Majesty's opposition in this house I am not bound by the same restraints or reserves. Does the United States, under the guise of protecting its neutral rights, intend to flaunt the unanimous decision of the council of the League of Nations-because these decisions must be unanimous in this regard-and use its naval forces to preclude the members of the league from imposing economic pressure upon an outlaw power? Before developing that idea, however, let me quote further from the Prime Minister, who continued:
In any event, if, as would seem to be the case, the proposed multilateral treaty does not impose any obligation upon a signatory in relation to a state which has not signed the treaty or has broken it-
That is, in relation to a state which has not signed the Paris peace pact or which, having signed, has broken that pact, which is admittedly the crux of the controversy. Then the Prime Minister continued:
-any decision taken to apply sanctions against a member of the league which has made war in violation of its covenant pledges would not appear to conflict with the obligation of the treaty.
That is, it would not be in conflict with the obligations which the Paris peace pact imposes upon those who are parties to the covenant of the League of Nations. In that conclusion I entirely concur, and under the circumstances it was doubtless inexpedient for the Prime Minister, in this diplomatic document, to proceed further and point out clearly that the most powerful financial and industrial nation of the world is not bound by the inhibitions which are imposed upon those who adhere to the covenant of the League of Nations. It alone, among the powerful nations of the world, is still free to recognize any power which is so outlawed by a declaration of the council and assembly of the League of Nations.
Let me refer to article 16, which goes further and provides that should any member of the league resort to war in disregard of its covenants, as specified, then it shall be deemed ipso facto to have committed an act of war against the other members of the league.


Hewitt Bostock: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. Is the house ready for the question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before putting the motion, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I take it that the Prime Minister will close the debate if he speaks now, and I desire to offer two suggestions to the problem mentioned in the debate which has taken place in connection with this treaty. I am spurred by the generous tribute paid by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and wish to join with him in congratulating the Prime Minister on the excellent manner in which he represented the interests of the Canadian people overseas. I do not think anyone is insensible to the honour he has done not only himself but Canada as well in connection with these negotiations.
I also think both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition struck the right note when they suggested that without further efforts in the direction of peace the treaty itself would be almost useless. That reminded me of what Lord Grey wrote as an introduction to General Sir George Aston's book on the study of war. At that time Lord Grey wrote. I quote:
The third point of view, which is very important for all educational institutions, is that each generation should be brought up to realize what modern war means. In my boyhood we were all taught what war meant, but we regarded war as something very different from what we now know that it means; and it is by bringing home to each succeeding generation what the realities of modern war are, how vastly more castrophic and disastrous it is to the whole population than ever before, that we shall form a public opinion which will help to secure peace. It is, therefore, especially essential that the study of war in all educational institutions should be brought up to the point of bringing home to each generation what modern war really means, in order that we may have, in succeeding generations, a public opinion, not only in this country, but in other countries, which understands that it is to the interest of nations that they should avoid such things as the last war. The study of war would show that any future war will be even more disastrous and destructive to human life and property than the great experience we have all been through.
Applying the above to the present discussion I submit that it would not be carrying out the suggestion of Sir Edward Grey, and all other statesmen, if we were to allow this debate to conclude without doing our best to show the people who study the question just what is and is not involved in the treaty itself.

International Peace-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
I am not going to criticize captiously, but I do wish to point out that while we feel we can ratify this treaty, which is a step forward in the direction of international amity, yet there are conditions surrounding it which circumscribe and contract it, and about which the people should know if our further efforts in the direction of peace are to be fruitful. Strictly speaking, the treaty itself did not originate with either Briand or Kellogg. If I remember correctly, the first rought draft of a treaty of this type was produced by Professor Shotwell of Columbia university. The draft was brought to the attention of Senator Borah and also of Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia university. Both these men were so taken with the possibilities of such a treaty and it appealed to their imaginations so effectively that they took steps to see that M. Briand in France secured a copy of this draft. I think we should indicate to the professor during the course of this debate that we know it was neither Briand nor Kellogg who originated this idea, but that the present draft was his own work. This treaty has been referred to as the greatest event the world has seen since the birth of Christ. Of course, we know to-day that that is a wild emotional outburst having little basis in fact.
There are unquestionably reservations surrounding it which unquestionably detract from its force. The Prime Minister has said there are none; that he preferred to adopt the verbiage of Mr. Chamberlain and to intimate that there were no reservations to the treaty. But the right hon. gentleman intimated that there Were "interpretations," and in the final analysis it is the interpretations of the treaty, if accepted, that become the treaty. I think the Prime Minister knows very well that the treaty is circumscribed; it is contracted from the original form in which it went out by certain proposals. After the proposed treaty was submitted to France by Mr. Kellogg, France led the European concert in the direction of reservations, subsequently accepted by the United States. The first suggestion was that there should be an amendment to the draft of the treaty leaving wars of self-defence outside the ban imposed by it. The second suggestion was that the violation of the treaty by one of the signatories released all the others, and the third suggestion reserved any commitments that had been made by the respective signatories under the covenants of the league or other pacts such as the Locarno pact and the treaties of neutrality. The treaties of neutrality are rather important
from the European point of view, inasmuch as it is through them there has been established what is now known as the "little entente"; a growing and powerful factor in European affairs.
Mr. Oliver Cabot Lodge, in an article in Harpers magazine for December last, commented upon the interesting situation which arose; the following appears at page 34:
The State Department thought that if these amendments were secured, there would be nothing left of the Kellogg proposal. A high official of the department told the writer, for instance, that if these points were even admitted the treaty would be made "ridiculous." But here is what finally happened. The treaty itself was not amended, but the French points were virtually admitted by Secretary Kellogg in his address before the American Society of International Law in Washington on April 28, 1928.
The article continues:
But in this case it was felt that the sole value of the treaty lay not in its binding effect -which admittedly is practically nil-but in the "moral" effect which the knowledge of its existence would have on public opinion which, it was hoped, would be very great. Therefore, it was argued, the special interests of the parties concerned would be adequately cared for if they were incorporated in diplomatic notes, provided that these notes received the same attention from the public as did the treaty itself.
This is contrary to the usual manner of restricting treaties by amendments. Because of the very nature of this treaty Mr. Lodge submits that it was only necessary to agree to the terms of certain diplomatic "notes" to have the treaty in effect amended although not changing the wording of it. The article continues:
It thus follows that these reservations demanded by France are actually, if not legally, co-equal with the pact itself. But the senate will not pass on them.
He was disappointed in this regard, which brings us to another interesting point a little later on.


Mr. JACOBS:: Did you say that was an
article by Senator Lodge?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: When was it written?


Edward Joseph Garland: It appears in Harpers Magazine of December last.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understood that Senator
Lodge had been dead for three or four years.


Edward Joseph Garland: I may have made a mistake in that.


Samuel William Jacobs: It may have been Oliver
Lodge, the spiritualist.
362	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Garland (Bow River)


Edward Joseph Garland: I will
relieve the facetious gentleman's mind by reading to him the title of the article and the name of the person who signed it. " The Meaning of the Kellogg Treaty " is the title, and it is written by Henry Cabot Lodge.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that the senator?


Edward Joseph Garland: I was not
aware there were two gentlemen of international reputation both named Henry Cabot Lodge. The senator died some time ago, his son I believe wrote the article.
Mr. Lodge did not expect the senate to pass upon these reservations, but a powerful bloc consisting of from twenty-five to thirty senators opposed the treaty asking that the report of the committee be accompanied by a complete statement of the Monroe doctrine of the United States, and also that their position should be made very clear with respect to commitments in regard to obligations imposed by the treaty.
Brief reference to the report of this committee was made by the member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), but I think at this stage it would be better to refer first to the statement made by Mr. Chamberlain, who said that the real efficiency of the pact would depend not on any engagement undertaken by the United States government but on how the rest of the world thought the United States government would judge the action of an aggressor, and whether they would help or hinder him in his aggression. In discussing this treaty in the House of Commons on July 30, Mr. Chamberlain said:
If the American nation ranges itself behind its own treaty, then indeed the signature of the treaty will be an additional and most formidable deterrent of war, and it will be in addition a most valuable security for peace.
According to Mr. Chamberlain, the real efficiency of this treaty is concurrent upon the United States definitely accepting obligations in regard to violators of the treaty. What did the senate of the United States do? It backed away altogether from that and all the eloquence and power of Borah and those associated with him were powerless against the blockade. All the efforts of the pacifist movement in the United States were powerless against the opposition in the senate. They might not be powerless at a future time under other conditions and I would not like the impression to remain that was possibly left on the house by the hon. member for St. Law-renee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that the senate was expressing the will of the people of the United States. Certainly the minority group of twenty or thirty in the senate were not, in

my opinion, expressing the real will to peace that we find everywhere permeating the United States common people. But we do find that those few men in that powerful assembly were capable of having embodied as a part of their report on the treaty that which Mr. Lodge says, in a subsequent statement on the matter, ties the report definitely to the treaty itself and makes it an interpretation of the treaty. As they have included President Monroe's message of December 2, 1823, it might not be amiss at this stage to repeat it:
W: owe, it therefore, to candour and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness.
So much for that. The report then continues :
The committee-
That is the foreign relations committee of the United States senate.
-further understands the treaty does not provide sanctions, express or implied. Should any signatory to the treaty or any nations adhering to the treaty violate the terms of the same, there is no obligation or commitment, express or implied, upon the part of any of the other signers of the treaty to engage in punitive or coercive measures as against the nation violating the treaty.
That interpretation of the position of the United States by the United States senate over the opposition even of Senator Borah is more eloquent than any criticism of the treaty by anybody else could in effect be. But that is not all. Let us go back again to Sir Austen Chamberlain's speeches. He says: The real efficiency of the treaty is the recognition by the United States of its obligations in respect thereto. The United States rejects any real obligations in respect thereto and, therefore, if Sir Austen Chamberlain's position be correct, surely the real efficiency of the treaty is destroyed. I do not think it really is, but I think a powerful supporting influence has been removed by the action of the United States senate.
Let us consider just another point in connection with this. So much for the United States Monroe doctrine, but if one listens to the speech of the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George coupling the Monroe doctrine with the expressed attitude of the United States to-day as he uttered it through the particular selections he made, one would imagine that the United States of America was the sole violator of this will to peace that the

International Peace-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
people of the world have so rapidly generated during the last few years. What are the facts? The very first suggestion that any doctrine similar to the Monroe doctrine should become a part of or be a circumscribing regulation to the treaty came, not from the United States who sent the draft treaty in its original form and who were certainly prepared to sign it in its original form, but from England herself, in Sir Austen Chamberlain's letter, comes the restriction which has already been read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Let me remind the house of its terms:
I should remind Your Excellency-
That is Mr. Kellogg.
- -that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's government have been at '"mins to make it clear in the past that inter-c rence with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect.
The effect of that letter, of that interpretation, was at once to establish a definite British Monroe doctrine clearly and unequivocally. What could the United States people do; what could the United States senate do, faced by a situation in -which Sir Austen Chamberlain, speaking for the British people, said that the principle of self-defence shall not be confined even to the far-flung territories of the British Empire, but shall extend beyond them into unspecified regions, the location of which we have not yet been able to determine.
They may be Abyssinia, Persia, Egypt, or many other countries in which England has a special and [DOT] financial interest. Some of them are in Asia, some in Africa, and naturally her interests of defence in Europe are recognized. Therefore the British doctrine laid down by Sir Austen Chamberlain's letter deliberately destroys the influence of the treaty if the principle of self-defence is not narrowed down and more clearly defined with respect to the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. The United States Monroe doctrine destroys the effect of the treaty in respect of the American continent, and the only other one left is Australia, which, as part of the British commonwealth, would be involved in any difficult situations arising out of such reservations if accepted. One could go on and discuss this question of the Mon-roe doctrine and the British policy in regard thereto at some length.
I do not wish t-o do that, but I would direct
-the 'attention of the Prime Minister to the Manchester Guardian of -May 25 last, in which appears a leading editori-al o-pposing Sir Austen's extension of the right of selfdefence to cover "certain regions" outside the empire which are of "special and vital interest to our peace and safety". Further it says:
The treaty outlawing war should not be allowed to become a vehicle for setting up a "British Monroe doctrine," says the Guardian.
Certainly there is no question about the position of the liberal-minded persons of Great Britain in that -respect. It was voiced by the Manchester Guardian in no uncertain terms. Then Lord Cecil rose in the House of Lords and attempted to secure a definition from Lord Cushendun as to just where these territories were, what the areas were, what the particular interests were; but he received no satisfaction whatever to his inquiries, nor has anyone since been able to clear up just what these unspecified territories are. To quote further:
"The oddest result of all," says the Manchester Guardian, concerning the treaty discussion, "would be that acceptance of the treaty by Great Britain should be made the occasion for asserting her right, even though she should not herself be attacked, to wage war in certain as yet unspecified regions of the world, which are of special and vital interest to her."
Mr. THOR-SON:	Would the hon. member
say that Canada associates herself with that interpretation by Sir Austen Chamberlain?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no
hesitation whatever in saying that it would be madness on Canada's part to associate herself with any such interpretation and I do not understand that she has so associated herself. It has just -been suggested to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) might have directed his question to the Prime Minister with greater effect than by directing it to a mere critic of the treaty.


Mr. BOURASSA:: That is what we call in French carambo-lage.


Edward Joseph Garland: A going
around, enfilading. Wh-at is this thing that they call self-defen-ce? Great Britain has spoken of it; the United States has spoken of it.
The right hon. the Prime Minister referred I think to Lord Cushendun's remarks the other day in which he qualified it as " bona fide self-defence." What is bona fide selfdefence? It is just as vague as the other. It is just as ridiculous, really, as the other, and it does not in any degree safeguard us, nor can we be safeguarded until there is a very clear definition of just exactly what is
364	COMMONS
International Peace

Mr. Garland (Bow River)
meant by self-defence. Before I go any further I want to quote Doctor Morrison of the Christian Century, in this regard:
It is beginning to be evident that the British reservation is sabotaging the pact, that it leaves a huge gap in the renunciation of war-indeed, for Britain the gap is bigger than the renunciation-and that it practically invites the defeat of the pact in the United States senate.
I submit that opinion to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who is bitterly critical, and with some justification, of the United States militaristic preparations. There is no question about it, there is some justification for these criticisms, but there also has been some provocative action on the part of Great Britain. Doctor Morrison goes on:
But this British reservation has confused the issue. It has introduced "ifs and ands." Thus our senate has been provided with a smokescreen-
Indeed it has:
-behind which it can completely emasculate the treaty.
Professor Edwin M. Borchard of Yale, one of the leading American jurisconsults, writes:
Tlie treaty as now qualified by the French and British reservations constitutes no renunciation or outlawry of war, but, in fact and in law, a solemn sanction for all wars mentioned in the exceptions and qualifications. When we look at the exceptions, we observe that they nclude wars of self-defence, each party being free to make its own interpretation as to when self-defence is involved, war under the League Covenant, under the Locarno treaties, and under the French treaties of alliance. If self-defence *mild be limited to the terms "to defend its territory from attack or invasion," as suggested by Mr. Kellogg, it would be of some value, but it is understood that no specific definition of self-defence is necessarily accepted.
I simply submit the evidence of these authorities upon that one point of self-defence to show how it vitiates the whole treaty and almost destroys its effect unless we are willing, as has been expressed in this house already, to go on now and endeavour to secure a closer and a better definition of just what self-defence does actually mean. I might by the way in this regard quote a rather facetious utterance of Lloyd George. Mr. Lloyd George discusses this question at some length in his articles in the Daily Express. He says:
The rejoicing amongst genuine advocates of a peace based on judgment and not on violence has been abated considerably by the reservations demanded by France (re-echoed by Britain) and accepted by Kellogg in his famous speech. They realize the advantage of a solemn declaration by all the great powers condemning war as an instrument of national policy. But their doubts may be expressed in this form:
I am satisfied that this will appeal to the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs):

"Thou shalt not kill", was a definite commandment which had a legal as well as a moral force. But supposing Moses, in order to pro-pitate the most contentious tribes, had delivered an allocution to the children of Israel explaining that he had not quite meant the inhibition to be taken too literally, and that its operation must be subject to considerable qualifications- that killing to protect certain interests was permissible, and that if you killed in self-defence, you were the sole judge of what constituted rdf-defence. The practical value of the commandment would be seriously damaged by these modifications.
I think even the hon. member for Cartier would agree with him in that regard. We can see that the "interpretations" by no means help the pacific purpose of the treaty, and if those who so ardently support it are sincere, they must go much further than we have yet gone. We must go to the point of recommending a very clear definition of self-defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that the Germans still maintain that the Great war was one of self-defence on their part.


Edward Joseph Garland: Quite right, and I have never discovered any major war in history that was not claimed to be one of salf-defence by both sides.
I have not very much time left, and although there is much to be said on this question I must curtail my remarks. The hon leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made a very eloquent appeal the other day on this subject, and said that if we were sincere in the matters we should go further than the treaty and do our best to secure international disarmament. So strongly did he emphasize that point that he returned to it nine times in the course of his short speech, and in more eloquent terms than I command he laid before the house the dangers of armament, the terrible disasters that were likely to follow from having armies and navies and the countries simply waiting for an opportunity to use them. I do not need to quote the New York Nation in this regard, although it has an intensely interesting comment on the subject. All I will say is this: In dealing with the question of disarmament, we are dealing with a tremendously intricate problem. We are dealing with national jealousies, hatreds, fears, aspirations; we are dealing with the injustices perpetrated under the treaty of Versailles; we are dealing with many problems which we in this country have but the smallest conception of, and above all, we are dealing with chancelleries whose whole mental machinery has descended to them from, or has been constructed out of, the old

International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
policies of the past when treaties were made for the purpose of successfully waging war, not for the purpose of establishing peace, and until we can secure in the chancelleries of these countries persons who are pledged to peace and have the spirit and the will for peace, it is going to be a very difficult problem for us to solve. The only thing we can do is to do our best to solve it. Sir George Aston in his book on war, uses these terms:
The march of science has brought the whole human race into such close relationship that the life of every man, woman and child is intimately affected by conflicts.
No one questions that. The leader of the opposition reiterated it again and again in his speech, and I say that there is more hope for peace in the growing realization by all peoples of the truth of this statement of Sir George Aston's, the realization that any future major war will leave no part of the country free from the possibility of attack, but will expose every citizen, whether he be a prime minister or a preacher, a school teacher or a school boy, an inmate of a hospital or an old men's home, to being brought into actual personal contact with the conflict-there is more hope, I say, in the growing realization of that truth than there is in this pact of peace. Indeed, I will go this far and say that the pact of peace is an attempt to crystallize into definite form that realization which has been growing for the last ten years in the hearts of all people. No brush, Mr. Speaker, CGuId paint the horrors that will face civilization should we permit another major conflict to ensue. No words could describe, no imagination could even picture what is likely to occur. I therefore urge that in further pursuing this matter, the government of this country should, in addition to endeavouring to secure a proper definition of self-defence, go to the length of doing its best to be effective' by sending out an invitation to Great Britain and the other nations of the British commonwealth of nations and to the nations of the world to hold a disarmament conference. Do not wait for somebody else to do it; let us do it. Let the Prime Minister add still further to the laurels he has already gained by taking the first step in this direction.
Let us hold the conference here in Ottawa, far from the evil influences of London, Washington, Paris or any of those centres of the old diplomatic school. Let us make an appeal to the peoples of the world to come to us, one of the most peaceful nations on earth, with the greatest record of peace that I think any nation has, with a marvellous country to
show them, and let us demonstrate to them as clearly as we can our willingness to implement this treaty by real work. Faith? Yes. An expression of faith, say the Prime Minister. An expression of faith, says the leader of the opposition. But faith without works is dead. Let us now go to work. There should be little difficulty in inspiring the imagination of statesmen like my right hon. friend, like Premier Briand, like Secretary Kellogg, like ex-Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. Others may not readily do so, but these men will respond. Then let us hold the conference free from the entanglements of experts, naval and military, except in an advisory capacity. Even there I would limit rigidly their powers in the course of the discussions.
Let us do this and so give the world that is struggling onward some real realization of the desire for an international civilized social order somewhat akin to the social order now definitely established within each state. Surely if the mind of man is sufficiently brilliant to conceive of these marvellous engines of production and of transportation that have so limited the area of the earth that to-day it is simply a matter of hours to span it, surely I say it can conceive and do for us that which must be done if we are to save our civilization.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose in closing the debate to prolong in any particular the discussion which has taken place. I have rather in view a desire to give expression, on behalf of the government, to our appreciation of the tone of the debate throughout, to express satisfaction with the high level on which it has been maintained, of the sincerity with which hon. members from their different points of view have dealt with this alil-important subject; and above all to say that I agree most heartily with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) when he says that there is one thing at least about which there can be no doubt, and that is the perfect unanimity with which this House of Commons gives its approval to the treaty itself.
One or two references have been made by the last speaker (Mr. Garland) to the question of reservations. I do not wish to go into that subject at the moment, but I would point out to him with respect to the so-called Chamberlain reservations, that since the time Sir Austen Chamberlain made the statement that there were certain regions which Great Britain regarded as vital, and which could not be attacked without her feeling that a
i6	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
question of self-defence might present itself, practically all the nations of the world have signified their intention of adhering to the treaty. What powers Sir Austen Chamberlain may have had in mind as the ones likely to attack the regions to which reference has been made, I cannot say. I am quite certain, however, that they were not the one or two countries of South America which up to the present time have not signified their intention of adhering to the treaty. The fact that all countries now have virtually signified their intention so to do makes it quite evident that the so-called reservation at_ one time made by Sir Austen Chamberlain is no longer a matter of any significance, inasmuch as if one of these countries, or any country adhering to the treaty, is attacked by an aggressor, immediately other countries are relieved from their obligations under the treaty not to resort to war. So far, therefore, as the reservation made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain is concerned, having regard to the present position of the treaty, I think, we may say, as Sir Austen Chamberlain himself did say, that Britain's adherence is given without any reservation.	.
It is always a difficult matter to interpret what may be in the minds of individuals or of nations. I doubt if any of us are justified in judging other individuals or other nations. I think we are safe if we continue to hold that "By their fruits ye shall know them," and if we believe that the nations which have signed this treaty have done so believing in their hearts that they ^ were helping to mark a place of new beginning in the relations towards each other of the nations of the earth. That place of new beginning will, without question, have its effect upon international law. International law, like everything else, is a matter of growth, of evolution. International law, in years gone by, was based upon the theory that war might be an instrument of national policy, that it had a certain legitimacy, that it was an attribute of national sovereignty. That can now no longer be asserted of war. War has lost its legitimacy, it has lost any association with the sovereignty of nations, it has become a thing that is abhorred and outlawed so far as the world is concerned, and from now on the nations of the earth will seek through the medium of international conferences and in other ways so to restate or develop the underlying principles of international law that instead of their being based on any theory of the possible exercise of force as a legitimate sanction on the part of nations in their relation with each other they will have to be based on some theory of the settlement

of all international controversies by pacific means. I believe in that particular a great advance has been made, and I am sure that we shall see at the League of Nations and at other international conferences efforts made for disarmament, for arriving at understandings between countries as to the governing principle in such matters as the freedom of the seas, efforts to lay down a new course of procedure, not entirely new perhaps, but at all events of a character which will beget an adherence to understandings, to principles and to obligations surih as has not been possible heretofore.
May I say to my hon. friend who has just spoken that I think we are indebted to him for having brought into the discussion the name of Professor James T. Shotwell. It had been my intention to make reference to Professor Shotwell, because without knowing how far my hon. friend may be justified in all he has said, I feel certain that those who know most about this treaty would be the first to concede that Professor Shotwell's part had been an all important one. Without doubt the best treatise on the question of war as an instrument of national policy, on the Briand-Kellogg peace pact, is the volume which I hold in my hand, and which is entitled War as an Instrument of National Policy and its Renunciation in the Pact of Paris, by James T. Shotwell. The fact that Professor Shotwell, now a professor at Columbia university, is a Canadian and a graduate of Toronto university is I think a source of pride to us all.
With regard to Canada's position in the matter of reservations, that was made quite clear in the correspondence which was brought down. There was one feature about our reply to the invitation which was extended, a feature which distinguished it in one particular perhaps, from others that were received namely, it was the briefest and the most to the point. The communication in which Canada's reply was sent reads:
Office of
The Secretary of State for
External Affairs, Canada.
Ottawa, I6th July, 1928.
Sir,-I desire to acknowledge your note of June 23rd and the revised draft which it contained of the treaty for the renunciation of war, and to state that His Majesty's government in Canada cordially accepts the treaty as revised and is prepared to participate in its signature.
Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Sgd.) W. L. Mackenzie King,
Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Honourable William Phillips,
Minister of the United States of America, Ottawa.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: To whom was that sent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To the Hon. William Phillips, United States Minister to Canada. It was from the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In referring to Professor Shotw-ell and his part, having in mind as well what the horn, member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) *was kind enough to say with respect to some of the despatches, I had intended to mention, that public men are more indebted than is generally known to scholars and to those w'-o assist tin expert positions in the public service.


Samuel William Jacobs: Sometimes public men are scholars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wish
to say in regard to the work of the Department of External Affairs is that too much credit, where credit is due at all, cannot be given to the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, whose quite exceptional talents and services we are so fortunate as to have at the present time. I refer of course, to Dr. O. D. Skelton.
There is just one word further I desire to say before I conclude. I should like to thank my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for his kind congratulations upon the small part I played in representing Canada at the signing of the peace pact in Paris, and also to express to other hon. members in the different political parties my very sincere appreciation of the extremely generous way in which many of them have made reference to that part and to my presence at the League of Nations in Geneva. It was a great privilege and honour to have had the opportunity of representing Canada in the signing of a document as momentous as this treaty for the renunciation of war, and to have had the privilege of participating in a conference as memorable as that which was held ,at Paris. Great as was that honour and privilege, I am sure hon. members will believe me when I say that there is something which I shall always'cherish even more deeply. It is that in seeking to discharge my duty as the representative of Canada on that occasion, in the endeavour to give expression to what I believed to be the single mind of this country, I appear, if I am to judge by what has been said, not to have too greatly disappointed the expectations of some of my friends, and to have been so fortunate as to have won the kindly approval of my fellow members in this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in measures to provide for the construction prior to the 31st day of August, 1932, of the following Canadian National Railway branch lines:-
1.	From a point on the Murray Harbour branch to a point on the Georgetown subdivision of the Canadian government railways in the province of Prince Edward Island. Estimated mileage, 10; average expenditure per mile, $37,000; estimated cost, $370,000.
2.	From Sunnybrae to Guysborough, in the province of Nova Scdtia. Estimated mileage, 67; average expenditure per mile, $52,238; estimated cost, $3,500,000.
3.	From a point on the Dundas subdivision near Brantford to a point on the Dunnville subdivision near Cainsville, in the province of Ontario. Estimated mileage, 6*1; average expenditure per mile, $221,311; estimated cost, $1,350,000.
4.	From a point on the Garson branch to the Falconbridge mine, in the province of Ontario. Estimated mileage, 4; average expenditure per mile, $46,250; estimated cost, $185,000.
5.	From a point on the Sudbury branch to a point in the township of Fairbank, in the province of Ontario. Estimated mileage, 25; average expenditure per mile, $74,000; estimated cost, $1,850,000.
6.	From a point near Melfort to a point near Aberdeen, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage, 89; average expenditure per mile, $31,460; estimated cost, $2,800,000.
7.	From a point near Central Butte or Mawer to a point in township 18 or 19, range 10 or 11, west of the third meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage, 50; average expenditure per mile. $36,000; estimated cost, $1,800,000.
8.	From Neidpath to a point on the Canadian Pacific railway near Swift Current, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage, 31; average expenditure per mile, $38,709; estimated cost, $1,200,000.
9.	From Ridgedale, in the province of Saskatchewan, thirty miles towards The Pas, in the province of Manitoba. Estimated mileage, 30; average expenditure per mile, $36,666; estimated cost, $1,100,000.
10.	From a point near Unity to a point nea: the provincial boundary in township 36 or 37 in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage, 50; average expenditure per mile $35,000; estimated cost, $1,750,000.
11.	From a point near Hamlin to a poin; near Glenbush, Medstead or Robin Hood, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage 33; average expenditure per mile, $34,848; estimated cost, $1,150,000.
12.	From St. Walburg, in the province of Saskatchewan, to Bonnyville, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 117; average ^e,nod±re per mile< $36>°00; estimated cost,
$4.2.1^.000.
13. From Alliance to a point near Youngstown or Hobson, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 82; average expenditure per mile, $36,000; estimated cost, $2,952,000.
C.N.R___Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
14.	From a point at or near Bulwark to a point in township 38 or 39, range 8, west of the fourth meridian, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 25; average expenditure per mile, $35,000; estimated cost, $875,000.
15.	From Hemaruka to Scarpa, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 41; average expenditure per mile, $35,000; estimated cost, $1,435,000.	.
16.	From a point near Swift Creek to a point
near Tete Jaune, in the province of British Columbia. Estimated mileage, 12; average expenditure per mile, $60,000; estimated cost, $720,000.	.
17.	From New Westminster to a point on Lulu island, in the province of British Columbia, with branches therefrom. Estimated mileage, 29; average expenditure per mile, $51,724; estimated cost, $1,500,000.
He said: Probably it would facilitate the business of the house if I made a brief statement now, before the Speaker leaves the chair. What I say at this time can, of course, be supplemented later in committee. Hon. members opposite indicated on a former occasion a desire for such a procedure with respect to a similar motion.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. members might wish to ask questions, and if the Speaker left the chair the minister could theu be in a position to reply as he proceeded.


Mr. DUNNING:: I am content to go into committee immediately.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


Charles Avery Dunning: In presenting this resolution I desire to call attention to the fact that the same procedure is being followed as on the last occasion when it was my privilege to introduce a branch line program for the Canadian National Railways.
The resolution, it will be noted, contains seventeen items which will be represented by seventeen separate bills which I hope to introduce after the resolution has been adopted by the committee. Following first and second readings, I shall, as on the last occasion, move that the bills be referred to the committee on railways and canals in order that the officers of the company may appear before that committee and give full information to its members with respect to the proposals which they have recommended to the government in the way of new railway construction.
Briefly, I may observe that the great development which is taking place across Canada, evidenced by increased traffic receipts on our railways, and the further fact that the existing three-year program of Canadian National construction is now in its last year, moved the management of the Canadian National to make a close investigation of

the interests, in a branch line sense, of the system. The same considerations moved them also to take into account all requests received from all parts of Canada for facilities of this nature. Their examination of the circumstances has resulted in the recommendation by the management to the board of directors, and in turn to the minister and to the government and to this house, of the program of construction for the next three years as outlined in the resolution now before the committee.
The new program is considerable in its extent. It will represent 701 miles of new railway to be constructed by the Canadian National system within the next three years, at a total estimated cost of $28,749,000. In this connection I should say, however, that the other great railway corporation has also indicated by advertisement its intention to ask for power from this parliament to construct a very considerable mileage of new lines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Much more than here indicated.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is much more in actual extent. It became apparent, upon the publication by the two railway companies of their proposals, that there was danger, if both were proceeded with, of duplication, very uneconomic in character so far as the people of Canada are concerned; and for that reason the government urged upon the managements of both roads the desirability of a conference to adjust their efforts along sound lines, in such a manner as to avoid useless expenditure. Personally, I have taken the view throughout that not only is duplication wasteful, in providing facilities to a greater extent than are now needed in certain areas, but that it is also wrong to assume that, because the Canadian Pacific are spending money in a manner which might prove to be uneconomical, therefore the people of Canada do not suffer inasmuch as it is the money of t-he Canadian Pacific which is being spent. I hold that view to be entirely wrong; I believe that in fact the people of Canada must pay for uneconomic railroading in the last analysis, whoever does it, and because the government hold that view we feel that we are not stepping beyond what is our duty in asking the managements of these two great corporations to endeavour to cooperate, to the end that useless or uneconomic duplication of facilities may be avoided.
I mention this fact because the mileage and the total to which I have just referred may be and I hope will be subject to some modi-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
fication by reason of the conferences which have occurred and by reason of possible joint facilities in certain areas rather than duplicate facilities, the full details of which I am not in a position to place before the house to-day. However, I am in a position to say that the areas of possible conflict have been narrowed to one area by conference between the managements of the two systems. So far as I know at present, in the railway committee there is likely to be conflict between these two great systems with respect to only one area in Canada, and I may express the hope that by the time the railway committee stage is. reached even that difficulty may be straightened out by the mutual efforts of the managements concerned.
Perhaps it would be well for me to mention another phase of this matter in order that the committee may have before them full knowledge of the intentions of the Canadian National both with respect to the construction of new lines and the purchase of existing lines to which reference was made in the speech from the throne. Strictly speaking the purchase of lines is not presently before the committee; I intend not to discuss it but merely to give the committee information as to what is in the mind of the management and what the management have recommended to the government in respect to purchase.
It is proposed by the management, and I expect to introduce a bill to enable such action to be taken, that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways jointly purchase the railways known as the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, the Pembina Valley railway and the Central Canada railway, the combined names signifying what we usually know as the Peace River lines and also the Alberta Great Waterways railway owned by the government of Alberta. It is also intended upon the recommendation of the management-and you may take it for granted that the management is recommending and has conducted the negotiations in each of the cases to which I am referring-to propose the purchase of the Quebec Oriental railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western railway, which two lines together comprise what are usually known as the Gaspe lines, serving the Gaspe peninsula in the province of Quebec. In New Brunswick, although the negotiations between the management of the Canadian National railways and the government of New Brunswick are not complete, with some minor details remaining to be ironed out, in general I can indicate that it is proposed to purchase the St.
7SS94-24
John and Quebec railway, usually known as the St. John valley railway, and it is also proposed to purchase the Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway, presently owned by the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, along the south shore of the St. Lawrence river from the city of Montreal. I give this just as a matter of information in connection with the construction program in order that members of the committee may have in mind the whole of the Canadian National proposals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What sum of money is involved in the last three purchases?


Charles Avery Dunning: Offhand I cannot answer my hon. friend, but I can give him the figures from memory, subject to correction.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Will the Kent Northern railway be included?


Charles Avery Dunning: Negotiations are proceeding in that case. The management of the Canadian National railways undertake the negotiations with respect to all these matters, and when a point is reached at which the railway management is satisfied that an economic arrangement with the vendors is possible, then a request is made as to whether or not the government will approve of purchase on the terms arrived at.
Before leaving these roads I should mention one other of interest to hon. members from British Columbia, in connection with which negotiations have been going on for some time without success. A new arrangement has been entered into between the government of British Columbia and the managements of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways whereby a survey will_ be undertaken jointly by the three bodies into the resources of the country which conceivably might be served by any extension to the present Pacific Great Eastern railway.
The leader of the opposition was asking for figures. With respect to the Quebec, Montreal and Southern railway my memory is that $6,000,000 is the figure; with respect to the Gaspe railways, $3,500,000. I have not in mind the figure for the St. John valley railway, but I believe it to be about $6,000,000. With regard to the Kent Northern railway, an offer of $60,000 was made many years ago, and I cannot say what the amount might be in that case. In the Duncan report it was mentioned as being desirable that negotiations should be entered into once more for the purchase of that line, and at the interprovincial conference it was urged by the representatives of the provinces that negotiations should be undertaken in connection

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

with other railways to which I have referred. At that time the federal government indicated its willingness to instruct the management of the Canadian National railways to enter into negotiations with respect to these various lines, not only the ones in New Brunswick but the others to which I have made reference. I am afraid I am really a little out of order in discussing the purchase aspect of the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is nothing new.


Charles Avery Dunning: As my hon. friend says, it is nothing new for me or for him to be out of order, but with respect to the program of construction now before the committee, I think that can be examined in detail with much greater facility before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I am not asking in any way that discussion should be limited on this occasion, nor do I desire that discussion be curtailed when the matter is brought back from the committee.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The present construction program involves an estimated expenditure of $28,000,000, I understand?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And the contemplated
acquirements involve an expenditure of from $16,000,000 to $20,000,000. How does the minister propose to finance these expenditures? Will it be done by the sale of bonds?


Charles Avery Dunning: Each bill asking authority for a branch line contains a standard clause which I think the leader of the opposition helped me frame the last time we had such a program, authorizing the financing of the particular project by an issue of bonds.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose these will be
guaranteed bonds?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: To what extent were new issues of bonds made by the company and endorsed by the government during the past year?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not that information at hand, but I shall be glad to get it.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been told the
amount is about $100,000,000. Is that correct?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer that
now. There was a large volume of refunding during the last year. I will get the information for my hon. friend.
[Mr Dunning.]


Hugh Guthrie: I would like to know the amount of new bonds issued during last year; what bonds were for refunding, and what the purpose of the refunding was. I suppose the balance would be for new undertakings, equipment and the like?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To cover the steamship company, too?


Mr. GEARY:: Referring to the possible
conflict between the two roads as to the occupation of territories, will the Minister of Railways be good enough to tell me if when this matter comes before the railway committee, the information in regard to the Canadian Pacific application will be before us? Are they making applications for new charters or for renewal of old charters, or how does that company propose to extend its services?


Charles Avery Dunning: The procedure with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will be the same as it has always been, by way of a private bill. That private bill may include applications for new charters and applications for the renewal of some old charters. With respect to the one area of conflict, I have no doubt that the railway committee will listen to the representations of both companies regarding that territory in dispute, whether it happens to be dealing with (he Canadian National bill or the Canadian Pacific bill.


George Reginald Geary: They will both be before
the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course. I will be
in the hands of the committee, but judging from previous experience, I imagine the committee will be able to thresh this matter out whether it arises on the Canadian National bills which I am introducing now, or on the Canadian Pacific private bill.


Mr. MANION:: Will the minister be willing to give a statement to the committee as to what progress has been made in the negotiations between the two companies toward reaching an understanding?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend
was out when I gave that information a few moments ago. The range of possible dispute has narrowed down to one area.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Might I ask the minister just what particular area that is?


Charles Avery Dunning: I suppose it is no secret, having regard to the discussions in the press; it, is the area between Aberdeen and Melfort in the province of Saskatchewan.

C.N.B.-Branch Lines


Mr. TOTZKE:: ' Does the minister think there is any possibility of reaching an agreement on that particular dispute?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have hope, but it is
not a very confident hope.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I have serious objections
to make to the route being followed by both these lines. I presume I can make those objections when the matter comes before the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. GERSHAW:: The publication of this
program of branch line construction will bring great disappointment in the district whence I come. There is a large area about 200 miles square in southern Alberta without any Canadian National railway service at all. There are upwards of 100,000 people in this district, and like other people of Canada they have contributed to the support of the Canadian National railways but they receive nothing in return. I wish to speak of one line in particular, namely the Medicine Hat-Hanna branch. Hanna is on the Canadian National railway line running from Saskatoon to Calgary. The rails were laid down to a point called Steveville. The grade was continued through to Redcliff many years ago, but the railway has never been completed.
The district through which this grade runs is a very fertile one and would support a large population were the line only completed. This grade goes into the town of Redcliff where there are large brick plants, clay product plants, and the Dominion Glass Works. It was expected that the line would be continued through to Medicine Hat or running rights obtained over the Canadian Pacific. There are large industries in this latter city, including flour mills with a capacity of about 6,000 barrels per day. The daily freight originating in this city amounts to about fifty carloads.
The farmers who live along this grade were definitely promised this railway many years ago when a delegation of them met the then president, Mr. Hanna. A contract was entered into with the town of Redcliff whereby the town was to do certain things and in return the Canadian Northern Western railway was to complete a branch into the town. A definite contract was signed with the city of Medicine Hat, and the city has carried out its part of the contract and spent a lot of money in doing so. But the railway company has not done anything as yet toward the carrying out of their part of the contract. The people in this district have been very patient, both during the years of the war and after, but within the last yrar or two 7S594-244
they have made vigorous demands that the remainder of this line be completed. As three-quarters of the expenditure for this line has been made and three-quarters of the line built, the people can see no good reason why it should not be completed at once. I would like to urge upon the minister and the members of this house the necessity for giving this matter immediate attention, because the people of Medicine Hat can show that they have lost considerably through not having north and south railway accommodation. New industries will often not go to Medicine Hat or Redcliff because there is no railway competition. The industries there are at a great disadvantage through not having direct communication with the Canadian National line. Other lines have been promised in the district, but I wish to emphasize the necessity of this one particular stretch of railway, and ask the minister to use his influence to have the management of the Canadian National complete this line at the earliest possible day.


Mr. GARDINER:: I wish to take this
opportunity of supporting the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) in his request. I had the privilege at one time of representing that constituency in this house, and I know of their difficulties.
This grade was built, I believe, in 1921 from Hanna to Medicine Hat, but the steel was laid only to Steveville.' The result is that south of the Red Deer river there is a good grade built but no steel, and the farmers of that district cannot understand why the railway has not been completed. The last time I was in that part of the country I had the opportunity of motoring over this roadbed, and I can assure the house that it is well built. I have many friends and acquaintances who have left this district simply because there are no transportation facilities.
We are spending millions every year to bring people into Canada and settle them on western lands but, in my judgment this money would be better spent in providing branch lines for the people already here, and more particularly in laying steel on grades already completed.
I would direct the minister's attention to the fact that the Canadian National Railways have many projects of this sort in western Canada where the grade has been built and where no steel has been laid upon the grade. Under those circumstances one can well understand what the people will think of a person who will construct those road-beds without putting the steel on them and giving the service which the people demand. We are extending our railroads north, and that is quite proper; we realize that the people of

Branch Lines

the north require transportation facilities. But anyone cognizant of farming conditions in western Canada knows that, comparing the open prairies with the wooded or bluff parts of western Canada, it is much easier to develop a farm on the open prairie than in the bush. I have had experience in both. When I first started farming in western Canada I lived at North Battleford and I know how hard it is to cut down the bush and get the land cultivated. The work is much easier out on the open prairies and consequently when we find quite a long stretch of railway grades built on the open prairie where the people are willing and eager to extend their operations, it is hard to understand the purpose of the management when they leave those grades without any steel on them. I could mention to the minister several places in a similar position to those that have been referred to by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw).


Milton Neil Campbell: In spite of what the Minister of Railways has said about the desirability of the two roads getting together and ironing out their difficulties, I think we are to be congratulated that we have in Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors a body of men who have shown intelligence and interest enough in the road to see that they are going to get whatever is coming to the Canadian National. There might be a good deal of danger in this ironing out process of the Canadian National not getting a square deal. When the opening up of the north country was considered a doubtful experiment; when the members of the house were opposed to opening up that country by means of a railway, no one ever thought of approaching the Canadian Pacific to do that; we had to fall back upon our own railway. Now that we have found the wealth increasing in that north country; now that experiments have shown pretty clearly, at any rate, that the project of opening up the north country and developing a route to the sea is favourable, it would be an act of injustice on the part of the house to permit the Canadian Pacific to acquire territory there that is wanted by our own road. I certainly hope when this matter is being considered by the railway committee that, as regards the disputed areas, they will take that into consideration and give preference to our own railway, the Canadian National.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I understand that the Canadian Pacific also have a branch line project and from some of the speeches I have heard I have come to the conclusion that in

at least one district there is danger of serious conflict. In view of this serious conflict in at least one district, I think the district represented by the hon. member for Melfort or some other member on the other side, I should like to ask the Minister of Railways just what the minister's position and also the relative position of the Board of Railway Commissioners would be in respect thereto. I have in mind the construction by the Canadian Pacific of a railway from Cut Knife to Willingdon and a continuation of that construction from Willingdon to Edmonton. Here the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have been duplicated and parallelled for about thirty miles. Two or three miles from the little town of Lamont they built a station and from the town of Lamont you can see the elevators at the other station. About three miles from the town of Brueder-heim they built another station and from the town of Fort Saskatchewan they built another. These stations can easily be seen from these three points on the Canadian National. As a matter of information, what would be the relative position of the minister and the Board of Railway Commissioners should such a conflict occur in one of the districts in which these branch lines are being projected?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps all the questions could be asked first and I could make reply.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: The minister
mentioned certain existing lines that were to be acquired. Did he mention all that are to be acquired this year?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I mentioned1 all
that are likely to be acquired, and even qualified that to the extent of saying that the management is still in negotiation with regard to some of them. I am certain of having bills with respect to the Gaspe railway, the Quebec, Montreal and Southern, the Edmonton Dunvegan and associated lines, the Alberta Great Waterways. In all probability, almost certainly the negotiations with the province of New Brunswick with respect to the St. John valley railway will be completed. I am not so clear as to the Kent Northern, as I explained to the hon, member for St. John-Albert. I think this is all.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Is the acquisition of the railway owned by the Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company in Nova Scotia from Maccan to Joggins Mines under consideration by the board?

C.N.R.[DOT]-Branch Lines


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no knowledge of
negotiations with respect to it.


Mr. SMOKE:: Item number three in the
resolution provides for the construction of a cut-off:
From a point on the Dundas subdivision near Brantford to a .point on the Dunnville subdivision near Cainsville, in the province of Ontario. Estimated mileage, 6.1; average expenditure per mile, $221,311; estimated cost, $1,350,000.
That is a large amount of money to spend per mile and there must be some explanation of it. Am I to assume that this means there will be grade separation throughout? Between the termini of this cut-off the new road will cross fifteen or twenty and perhaps more public highways in the township of Brantford. It will cross provincial highway number two which is a paved road running from Montreal to Windsor. It will cross a provincial road from Paris to St. George running on to Galt. It will cross another extensively travelled road known as the White School road leading north from the city of Brantford, perhaps two concession lines and1 a number of highways in subdivisions in the suburbs of the city of Brantford. It will likely traverse a largely populated section of that portion of the city of Brantford. It is possible that the extraordinary amount required per mile is for grade separation. Can the minister give the committee any information on that point?


Mr. KENNEDY:: While it is not mentioned in this resolution, the minister did mention that a bill would be introduced later dealing with the acquisition of the Alberta railways-the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia, the Pembina Valley railway, the Central Canada railway, and the Alberta Great Waterways railway. Will that bill be sent for examination to the committee after it has been presented to the house ?
M.r. DUNNING: I think beyond a doubt it would be wise to send that bill to the railway committee. The wise procedure with respect to all these bills providing for the purchase or building of Canadian National branch lines and involving the necessity of examining the officials of the system, is to send them to the committee.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 
Mr. MACDONALD (Cape Breton):: I
notice that this resolution contemplates the building of only one branch line in Nova Scotia. I would urge upon the government that it immediately take into consideration the advisability of extending, as far as Louisburg, the present St. Peter's branch of the Canadian National railway, in order to give that section of the country the transportation facilities that it urgently requires. This project has been under consideration for many years, in fact, ever since confederation, and it should have been the route followed when the old Intercolonial railway was built to Sydney many years ago. But political pressure forced the building of the Inter-
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

colonial along its present route to Sydney, with its expensive bridging, its high grade, and consequent high maintenance costs.
The old Intercolonial railway has no open winter port in Nova Scoti# outside of Halifax and no open winter port on the island of Cape Breton. With the extension of the Cape Brecon line from St. Peter's to Louisburg we would have direct access to one of the finest ocean ports in Canada, one that is open all the year round. It is situated in the north Atlantic, nearer to Europe and to all ocean trade routes than any other port in North America, and is adjacent to the world's finest fishing grounds, with unexcelled facilities for bunkering in a very short time the largest vessels afloat. For the last two or three hundred years the fleets of every nation have fished in the vicinity of Louisburg. Our coal mines are only a few miles distant. These advantages were recognized by the French as far back as the seventeenth century, and they made Louisburg their chief port of call for all their ocean traffic, as well as building at Louisburg the strongest fortress in America.
From a tourist standpoint, historic Louisburg, with its ancient landmarks and magnificent scenery, would greatly benefit by railway connection. At the present time the tourist traffic is seriously handicapped by lack of railway facilities. The proposed extension that I am urging upon the government would pass through one of the finest agricultural districts in Cape Breton. The fertile valleys of the Loch Lomond district, Salmon river, and the Grand Mira are equal to the best agricultural districts in Canada. The remaining portion of the country is well adapted to sheep raising and dairy farming, both of which are now carried on to some extent, but are seriously handicapped through lack of railway facilities.
The fisheries along the sea coast, especially from Scatarie island to Isle Madame, are among the finest in the world, but they require railway transportation in order that their products may be marketed in the fresh state, so that the fishermen in that vicinity will have a chance to earn a livelihood. Various resolutions have been adopted by the different fishing organizations of the district calling for relief in the direction of railway transportation, and in addition, they laid their case before the royal fisheries commission which sat in Nova Scotia in 1927. I quote from page 58 of the report of that commission:
During the winter months some of these localities are almost completely isolated. Railway service in such places would aid greatly in the development of the fishing industry, by providing facilities for marketing and for the more rapid obtaining of supplies.

If we intend to help the fishermen of Nova Scotia, and especially the fishermen of the county of Richmond-West Cape Breton, we must give them the railway facilities they have been demanding for a great many years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many miles would be involved in the proposed extension?


Finlay MacDonald: Eighty-four. In this district is to be found the only virgin forest remaining to the province of Nova Scotia which has not been alienated. Large quantities of pit timber, which is so greatly in demand for use in our coal mines, exists in this area. We have pulpwood sufficient to keep a one-hundred-and-fifty ton per day pulp mill operating for the next forty years, but this great source of wealth cannot be lapped unless the proposed railway extension is carried out. In this same district, too, are to be found minerals of every variety. A four-foot seam of semi-anthracite coal, superior in quality to anything yet discovered on Cape Breton island, has been worked for the past year in the Glengarry valley. It was compelled this winter to close down owing to lack of railway transportation. Large quantities cf manganese are also to be found in this district. These deposits were worked in bygone days, but owing to lack of railway transportation the operations were compelled to shut down. Iron ore, limestone, gypsum and building material are also present in large quantities. Immense quantities of high percentage zinc, copper and lead ores exist and are to-day being worked by the British Metals Corporation. This corporation have enough material exposed to keep them going for the next five years. They have spent upwards of $300,000 in prospecting and in development work. It is their intention as soon as spring opens to employ from 250 to 300 men and erect a plant for the reduction of those ores.
I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that large scale development in this district is impossible unless the much needed railway transportation is given this district. The great need of this country to-day is increased population and industrial development. The possibilities of the constituency of West Cape Breton and Richmond are sufficient, if developed, to provide a livelihood for a vastly increased population. Conditions which have hitherto existed in that district unfortunately tended to drive away to more attractive fields the most promising element of our population. In practically every case those young men and women have made good in their new fields of endeavour. During the past eight years

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
$20,000,000 have been spent by the federal government to encourage immigration, bringing into this country a 'little less than a million new citizens, most of whom have left this country. A small portion of this money expended along the lines of my suggestion would bring back to this district large numbers of its former residents, the best type of citizens for this country.
During the life of the present government railway extension 'has been practically abandoned in Nova Scotia. While the railway statistics for the past eight years show that Canadian railway trackage, especially branch line, has been increased by over 2,200 miles, railway trackage in Nova Scotia has been actually reduced according to the government's statistics. This situation is manifestly unfair to the people of our province. To-day, by means of railway extensions, we are opening up vast sections of western Canada for the benefit of foreign immigrants, who are brought into this country at enormous expense to the federal treasury, while the people of the constituency of Richmond-West Cape Breton, whose forebears settled in Canada without government aid of any kind, are compelled to sit back and see this much needed assistance withheld from them. The time has come for us to demand from the present government that the people of the island of Cape Breton receive at least British justice.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to hand in two resolutions bearing on this subject so that they may be placed on Hansard. One is from the municipal council of the county of Richmond, and the other is from the county council of Cape Breton.
Resolution passed by the municipal council of the county of Richmond.
Whereas the fisheries of Isle Madame and contiguous waters in the county of Richmond are an invaluable asset to this municipality and the entire Dominion as well, and
Whereas the farmers of Richmond, keeping pace with the times, are conducting operations on a vaster scale than heretofore, but
Whereas many farmers from the eastern sections have left tlieir farms being unable to carry on their agricultural activities at a profit owing to lack of railway accommodation, and
Whereas the pulpwood, gypsum and other mineral resources of the county of Richmond are boundless, but their development is impeded owing to lack of adequate railway accommodation east of St. Peter's on the Canadian National Line, therefore,
Resolved, that this council in annual session convened, hereby memorializes the federal government to extend the present line of railway to St. Peter's eastward as far as Louisburg or Sydney, and to construct a branch into Arichat. the shiretown of Richmond, to be operated in conjunction with the main trunk line inasmuch as the federal government has
acquired the present line to St. Peter's making it an integral part of our Canadian National Railways system, further,
Resolved, that the said government be memorialized to refund to this municipality the amount of ten thousand dollars-$10,000

borrowed to pay for the right-of-way when the said line was opened in 1903, further,
Resolved, that this council considers these demands neither unreasonable nor unjust, but the just deserts of the county of Richmond as an integral part of this great Dominion, with a right to its existence and an opportunity to work out its destiny as at present incorporated, and further,
Resolved, that copies of these resolves be forwarded to the Minister of Railways at Ottawa, and to every federal member in Nova Scotia with the request that they work in season and out of season for the consummation of these ideals so dear to our hearts and so vital to our interests.
Resolution passed by the county council of Cape Breton:
Whereas we, residents of Cape Breton West and Richmond county, being favoured by kind Providence in the variety, wealth, and magnitude of our natural resources, including among others, fisheries in variety and quality second to none in the province of Nova Scotia; virgin timberlands of vast extent, mineral wealth of such richness and variety as to induce _ the keenest interest by English and American capitalists; our already located mineral deposits, along the railway line, surveyed and located a few years ago, include coal, manganese, iron, gold, silver, copper and zinc. One deposit of the latter situated, in Sterling, Richmond county, is operating with gratifying results, even though so badly handicapped through lack of any measure of railway facilities. Our agricultural attainments and possibilities also are on a par with that of the province.
Whereas the fish market clamours for fresh fish from which for want of railway facilities we find ourselves ruled out;
Therefore, we humbly and confidently pray that your honourable council now assembled, give this matter of railway extension from. St. Peters, Richmond county, to Louisburg your most considerate attention, and through the proper channels secure the necessary grants and contracts for the execution and completion of the same, in the attainment of which you are assured of the goodwill and cooperation of the grateful electorate represented by you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the only problem that we really have to deal with is that which is incident to competition between two great system of railways, and I suggested to the minister the other day, as I suggest to him now, that he is entitled to much congratulation on having been able to iron out the differences between the two great systems of transportation until to-day there is only one difference at issue. But there is a fundamental principle that I think this house should adopt in considering matters of this kind, and that is that the Canadian National system should be treated exactly as though it were a privately owned system;
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

that is, they should be treated in exactly the same way as the Interstate Commerce Commission would consider, for instance, an application by the Southern Pacific to invade the territory of the Santa Fe, or an application by the Santa Fe to build into Southern Pacific territory, so-called. Because we are owners of an enterprise, we must not treat that enterprise as though it were other than a privately owned company for the purposes of determining where lines should be built. There was a time when we had so-called spheres of influence amongst the nations of the world. It is alleged that there are spheres of influence with respect to transportation systems. I think probably that state of affairs will disappear as the country settles and we get more people, because it is obvious that as the population increases one system of transportation will never be satisfactory to densely settled communities; and under those conditions we cannot hope to maintain a monopoly, either for the privately owned road or for our own system.
When I went to western Canada there was but one system of railway operating in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, except some small subsidiary lines that were owned by others and operated by the Canadian Pacific. As population increased and traffic became denser, two other systems entered the field, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Some of us ventured to point out that there was an endeavour to build many miles of railway in territory where the traffic would not support such additional lines. When we found an effort to duplicate the Canadian Northern system of that day by the Grand Trunk Pacific running from Winnipeg to Edmonton, we pointed out what the inevitable result would be. It is true we did not receive much commendation from the public for doing so, and certainly the electorate did not manifest any great enthusiasm for our suggestions. And yet we know that we had the absolute bankruptcy of two systems of railroad because this parliament guaranteed the securities of both in order that each might destroy the other. That is a historic fact.
Now, my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) referred to the handicap that he thought the Canadian National System was under as compared with the privately owned system when projecting new lines. He forgets the fact that the people of this country build the one and not the other. He forgets that with respect to everyone of these lines now under consideration the credit of Canada builds it. Parliament has the estimate of 
price and the statement of mileage is submitted in order that we may understand exactly what our ultimate liability will be, because, as every thoughtful man knows, it is on the credit of Canada that the money is borrowed, and not on the credit of the railway system. Some of the branch lines projected, as the minister was good enough to say on previous occasions, are not lines that in themselves will be immediately productive, but they are built in order that that territory may receive needed transportation facilities even though at the outset a loss of money is involved. The country authorizes construction on the theory that you must, so far as possible, adjust those expenditures that transportation service may be rendered to all the people, and that wdiere large surpluses are derived in one particular locality some of the money may be available to take care of what it is hoped will not long continue a deficit in another locality.
The principle I think we should adopt in dealing with the introduction of a second system of railway into a territory that is already being served, is the principle that would govern if both systems were privately owned. That is the course we should follow in dealing with competition, because our failure to do so in the past brought about the bankruptcy of two systems of railway in this country. The country's credit was behind both of them. But the country's credit today is behind only one; and if the efforts that are being put forward to make this system self-supporting are to succeed we must treat these matters as business propositions. So far as I remember, I am not on the standing committee on railways, and I shall not be available for the purpose of assisting in any work the committee may do. But I do desire at this time, before the bills go to the committee, to record my views from the observations that I have made in western Canada, where most of the lines are being built and will be under construction during a series of years. If we depart from the fundamental principle that we must treat these matters as business propositions, our efforts will fail. We must not have regard to what I might call the prejudices and passions that, are sometimes aroused, from love of private ownership on the one hand and enthusiasm for public ownership on the other. We must treat each individual case on its own merits. We must treat these matters as though they were under the control of privately owned corporations, endeavouring to build railroads into territory which is served at the moment by one or the other system. That is the only

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
observation I desire to make in that regard. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), have spoken of a matter which, I think, well merits the attention of the management of the Canadian National system. I conceive of few things better calculated to leave a bad impression upon visitors to this country than that they should see a grade built with grass growing over it and without any steel laid. I can well recall an explanation which I felt bound to make on one occasion in this regard. Those who have travelled in the daytime from here to Toronto will have seen remnants of an old roadbed. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen realize that this country has a considerable interest in that old roadbed, which serves no useful purpose at the moment. I might have mentioned this by way of illustration of the other point I have made. There was a territory being served by two roads, and a third was built, because of the views entertained at that time by the management of another railway. To-day you will find concrete culverts along the line; the steel has been taken away, but the culverts remain and the approaches to the bridges still exist, while some of the ties are also to be found. Now, to every passenger who travels along the line adjacent to this old roadbed there is conveyed an impression which is not favourable to the country. The same thing is more remarkable still with respect to the line to which the hon. gentlemen from Medicine Hat and Acadia have referred. I recollect the building of the road from Hanna as far south as the Red Deer river-a river which is not easily spanned; it involves the expenditure of a considerable sum of money for bridging, and the difficulties encountered in getting into Medicine Hat are very great. Indeed, it is disclosing no great railway secret to say that were it not for the fact that a considerable community had been located there, the railway could construct a viaduct and go over the valley rather than climb the hills, as they have had to do ever since the road was built. The situation at Lethbridge necessitated the building of a viaduct as more profitable than climbing heavy grades. There is considerable difficulty in getting into Medicine Hat from Hanna. All this, I repeat, is bad advertising for Canada. For some time a grade has been built into Redcliff.


Mr. HEAPS:: How long has that grade
been built?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been built, to my
knowledge, five years or more.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know my hon. friend
would not desire to be unfair to the Canadian National system-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, and I was about to
say that this was a Canadian Northern enterprise. I was going to fix the date. The initial construction of the line was not undertaken after the consolidation of the Canadian National system; the road was projected and built to its present point by the Canadian Northern enterprise. The grade is a good one, as the hon. member for Acadia has said. Now there is this to be observed1: when settlers come into the country and take up homesteads or acquire by purchase land contiguous to the grade of railway which is under construction, I think there is an implied agreement on the part of the railway authorities that such a grade will be completed, and that the people will have facilities available to them for handling of the traffic they create. The consolidation of the systems of railway in the west has had the effect of leaving settlers located south of the Red Deer river without transportation, notwithstanding that in many instances, when they settled there, these people spent their all in the belief that a grade which they saw being built would be completed into a railway. I fear that at the moment the cost will be quite considerable, and for that reason the line to which I refer would not became a profitable enterprise. But this is one of those cases in which there should be made the compensating adjustment to which I so often refer, and I trust that the management will be pressed by the minister to reconsider the question and determine whether or not second-hand steel from the main line or from some good branch lines could not be found to complete that railway down at least to Redcliff, and possibly running rights into Medicine Hat could be acquired.
This is not a line on which you can expect heavy steel structures. One of the railways on which I was compelled to travel during the last month had not by any means all steel structures. Under these circumstances it seems to me that a .bridge might be constructed across the Red Deer-even though it might not be the last word in railway construction.-with secondhand steel laid on that grade that extends south from Steveville to Redcliff, so that the railway which the settlers along the line expected to be built might be carried to completion.
During last summer I had an opportunity to observe with my own eyes the conditions to which the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton has .referred, and I really was
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

amazed that in .a country as old in settlement as Cape Breton the situation should be as I found it. Facing the Atlantic there is the great harbour of Louisburg, which, as most of us can recall, was once known as the Gibraltar of North America, not merely by reason of the strength of its fortifications but also because of the singular depth of water in a harbour so dose to the great trade routes of the Atlantic. That harbour has been used by large ships for many years; it opens directly on the Atlantic; and apart from all natural advantages appertaining to its situation it has great historic associations to which reference has been made by the hon. gentleman. There is a considerable mileage to be constructed-84 miles. I wanted that fact brought to the attention of the minister and that is why I interrupted my hon. friend while he was speaking to ask him a question. As one sees the glens, the hardwood trees in the fall and summer, with the evergreens, the fog settling down upon them, as it did the evening I have in mind, one can easily imagine oneself in Scotland, except that there are no sheep on the hills. And with what the hon. member has said regarding the opportunities for a wonderful growth of a great industry there I entirely agree. I have seen no part of Canada except some parts of British Columbia where, in my opinion, the sheep industry could be developed so successfully as in that portion of Cape Breton. There sit opposite me gentlemen who have gone to western Canada from that little island and made a distinguished place for themselves. Indeed, Cape Breton is settled with a type of men and women you will perhaps not find anywhere else in the world. They are undoubtedly wonderful people. I have talked with them-they had no automobiles, these Highlanders who were compelled to travel long distances-and I gathered from them that their fathers before themselves had hoped to secure a railway but had been denied it. They are looking for some form of transportation, for they desire to live in that country. Not only do they not wish to leave it themselves, but they are anxious to keep their children there. I came away impressed with that fact, and although I have had no communication with my hon. friend and did not know be was going to speak, I made up my mind that if ever I had an opportunity in parliament I would say this railway extension should be considered by the management of the people's railway of this country. I say it is beyond politics; it transcends politics. Remember the stock from which these people 
came and the type of men and women they were and are; look at them and remember their desire to keep their sons and daughters in this country, and realize how impossible it is to do so in that country where they have to face the competition of other communities when denied some form of transportation. If we can find large sums of money for the development of the new wealth of our own western fends surely we are warranted in finding for these old settlements such sums of money as will enable them to have transportation facilities. If we who live in the west did not have those facilities we would never cease agitating until we got them; because we are a new and growing country we would get them, but we are not doing as much for these older sections. I think it is worthy of the consideration and attention of the management of the Canadian National railways and I should like to impress upon the minister the necessity of bringing this matter to the attention of the officials of the system. They have suffered down there from a lack of these facilities; we can remedy that difficulty. I talked with these men and women; they were not people of my particular shade of politics but they were great Canadians, of great stock, whose descendants have gone to every part of this American continent and brought credit and distinction to the country of their birth.
That is the reason I venture to make these observations. I feel strongly about it; my sentiment was moved as it rarely is when I talked with those people and saw the transportation conditions under which they live. If anything can be done to extend lines of transportation to those old, settled places, let us do it. I remember as a boy this old Kent Northern railway; I remember the old names associated with it, and when you speak about getting several miles of railway for $60,000-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is for the whole railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, for the whole railway, .and my memory is that it is nine miles long.


Mr. BOURGEOIS:: It is thirty miles long.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we are getting
thirty miles of railway for $60,000, and I believe there is an engine or two thrown in, with an odd box car or two. No, I believe it was a borrowed locomotive, but in my day I know there was a box car carrying the name "Kent Northern". We are going to spend $220,000 in building a single mile of line near Brantford to shorten the distance by six or

Divorce Court-Mr. Woodsworth
eight miles in the hauling of freight. That is an economically sound proposition, as the management will show, because by the saving in time by fast freights you can save the sum of money involved, but surely we can afford to do something for the people of whom I speak.
I mention these matters because they appeal strongly to me, I have trespassed entirely too long upon the time of the committee, much more so than I had any intention of doing when I rose to my feet.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair
and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 35, to incorporate the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada-Mr. Luchkovich.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 31, to incorporate the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.
Mr. SPENCER:: Explain.


Mr. THORSON:: This is an act to incorporate a number of persons as a mutual insurance company. The object of the bill and the insurance authorized are set out in the bill. I believe this has been approved by the Superintendent of Insurance.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is this the same company as is now operating under a provincial charter?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I really do not know.


Mr. FORKE:: I am acquainted with the personnel of the provincial company, and these are the same parties.


Robert Gardiner: What is intended by this?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. LETELLIER (Compton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3S, to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Explain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think it is necessary to make a very lengthy statement regarding this bill. It is a foundling left on my doorstep, but since I urged last year that it be given a chance to live, I could not refuse to adopt it this year. Little did I think the time would come when I would sponsor a bill for the relief of the senate, but I am very glad to urge the passage of this measure.
The bill provides that a portion of the law of England as of July 15, 1870 be made the law of Ontario. As we all know, divorce courts exist in every province in Canada except Ontario and Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Prince Edward Island.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think they have a divorce court in Prince Edward Island. The vast majority of cases that come before this parliament are from the province of Ontario, and the volume of divorce cases has become so large that it has simply swamped the agency which has handled it throughout the years. As I pointed out on several occasions last year, the way in which divorces are passed through this house is little short of being scandalous. As every member of the house knows, it is necessary that in each case a private bill should be introduced and passed as any other private bill through both houses of parliament. Usually those bills originate in the senate. It is stated by those who have been present that the procedure in the senate is fairly satisfactory. As to that I cannot say, but I cannot see how the investigation can be very thorough when so many bills are passed in such a short time. I do, however, know that when these bills come over to us, our committee work is purely perfunctory and, as we all know, the bills are simply rushed through this chamber en bloc. I understand that so great is the number of divorces this year before the senate that they have set up two committees; in fact, there was a proposal that there should be three committees; but there was some difficulty in getting a third room, otherwise we should have had a sort of three-ringed circus going on in the senate. Not only have we all the divorces that have to be accounted for in this house, but it was stated in the senate discussion a
380	COMMONS
Divorce Court-Mr. Woodsworth
short time ago, in 1928 there were 548 Canadian divorces secured in the city of Detroit. That is undoubtedly a very serious situation.
As regards the procedure of the house, if we are to deal properly with the divorce question we should not be able to do any other business whatever. Further, many of the details in the divorce cases are so objectionable that were we to attempt to discuss them on the floor of the house we should have to clear the galleries and could hardly put the evidence into printed form suitable for the mails.
Further than that, if we are to have divorce or separation, it should go much further than simply separating the two people and giving them the right to marry again. Some provision ought to be made for the custody and maintenance of the children. Something ought to be done to provide alimony for the wife. It is doubtful whether the Dominion parliament has the right to deal with such matters which may be said to involve civil rights. It is an open question; I am not a lawyer, and I am not prepared to say whether the Dominion parliament has powers or not, but I know doubt has been expressed on that point.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It has never been done by the senate.
'Mr. WOODSWORTH: It has never been done by the senate except in one case. If my memory serves me aright, it was the Campbell case in the very early days when action was taken along that line. I remember discussing that matter last year. It is doubtful whether we have the power to do that, but without some such action it is manifestly unfair to turn adrift without provision a woman and her family. She may enter action in the courts of Ontario, but the general opinion is that the court that deals with divorce or separation should also deal with the financial arrangements affecting the parties concerned. In an ordinary court there is provision for getting from outside evidence that we do not have when the matter is dealt with by a parliamentary committee. Further, as I understand the matter, in the case of divorce proceedings in the court, a little time elapses before the divorce becomes final, so that opportunity is given for a short time for reconsideration. No provision of that kind prevails in the case of parliamentary divorces.
There is no doubt that the feeling in nearly every section of parliament is that something must be done. I am well aware that a certain number of the members of parliament, on religious grounds, are opposed to all divorce, but I would point out that in the proposed legislation there is nothing that widens

the grounds for divorce. The grounds remain the same under the English law, as under the regulations prevailing in the senate. Further than that, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) so clearly pointed out last year, the matter is one not of principle but of method. If the hon. member for Labelle will pardon me, even though he is present I should like to read the statement he made last year when he expounded the matter so clearly. The occasion I may say was not the discussion on the bill which is now before the house and which was not reached last year, but a private divorce bill on which the whole question came up. He said:
The bill adopted in the other chamber

Referring to the bill now before us.
[DOT]-and presented in this house by the member for Stormont (Mr. Smith), which has been referred to this evening, does not mean the adoption by this parliament of the principle of divorce. Unfortunately that principle was adopted at confederation, and I think it is one of the great mistakes that was then made. So it is not a question of adopting or putting aside the principle of divorce. The question is, in what manner shall the power to grant divorce be exercised -with the least evil to society and with the preservation of the family spirit and the maintenance of the social fabric. I do not think the manner in which divorces are granted fhis parliament makes for a lesser number of divorces, or for the granting of them with the greatest impartiality, or with the greatest care for the welfare of families and society generally, and I believe everybody is convinced that it is largely haphazard whether a divorce is granted or refused by parliament under the present procedure. For my part, I must say that during the two years since I came back to this house it has been a question in my mind whether we are doing the right thing when we let these divorce bills pass.
A little further on he said:
If the measure I have referred to is submitted by the member for Stormont, I think it will have to be considered very seriously, and not he discarded simply because we are opposed to the principle of divorce, because, as I have said, in my view the principle has already been -wrongly introduced.
Without going into the rightness or wrongness of divorce in itself, we have the principle established in Canada and for many years we have had a number of divorces-ever an increasing number. We are not by the bill before us proposing, as I have said, to extend the grounds for divorce, nor are we doing anything that is likely to increase the number of divorces. We are simply setting up a court where these questions can surely be dealt with in a more judicial manner than they can be in parliament. Hence all that is involved is a transfer of the divorce court from the senate chamber to a properly constituted court, better

Divorce Court-Mr. Bourassa
fitted and perhaps specially designed to deal with such cases. If we adopt the bill, I am confident that it would mean the removal of what is fast becoming a great scandal in Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. I do not think it ought to pass without being fully considered by the house from the double point of view of principle and of practice. I need not tell you, sir, that I am unalterably opposed to the principle and practice of divorce, not on religious grounds only or mainly, if my hon. friend will allow me, but because, from the little study I have given to history during the last forty years, I have become convinced that divorce is the cankerworm of all decaying societies, and once that evil is introduced into a nation, it is the beginning of the end. It may take years; it may take centuries. It has been the history of Greece of old; it has been the history of the Roman empire. Take the studies, not of Catholic historians, but of every Protestant, or unbelieving and sceptical student of history; and they will tell you that the beginning of the decay of the Roman Empire was not when the barbarians began shattering the foundations of that tremendous structure, but when the Roman family began to lose that marvellous family spirit and traditions upon which the republic was built, and which were corrupted and destroyed by the Caesarean regime.
But, as my hon. friend says, unfortunately, from my point of view, at least, the principle of divorce was introduced into our constitution in 1867. It was introduced, I do not know why. I have read all the debates of confederation from beginning to end; I have read most of the correspondence, public and private, exchanged between the religious and civil authorities, or between the founders of confederation in Canada and the statesmen of Great Britain who put the final stamp upon the national covenant out of which confederation was born; and to my great astonishment I found very little related to this most important social question. They just let it pass at that.
But what is most curious, most inexplicable, is that while the basic principle of confederation was that all powers of legislation relating to religious, social and educational matters, and with regard to civil life, were to be reserved to the provinces, the marriage laws were, so to speak, divided into two parts, marriage and divorce being put under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, and the celebration of marriage being handed over
to the provincial authorities. It was altogether illogical, I think; but anyhow it was done. To be logical, to come back to the basic spirit of confederation and to remedy the evil which has been pointed out by my hon. friend fitom Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), I think we ought to wipe out entirely that paragraph of clause 91 of the British North America Act, dealing with "marriage and divorce," and hand over to the provinces full and unabridged authority to deal with everything connected with marriage. Then the provinces would be free to adopt such laws as they saw fit relating to marriage and its dissolution, and also to create tribunals to deal with these matters.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not this bill in
a measure doing that?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I think I shall cover the ground.
This was done in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick before they came into confederation. It was also done in British Columbia. With regard to the three prairie provinces, without going into details, although I have them here, it was done indirectly by the adoption of a federal law extending generally to Manitoba and the Northwest territories, which afterwards became Alberta and Saskatchewan, the laws of England as they stood in 1870, without any special reference to marriage and divorce. The question was brought before the privy council, and it was decided in two cases which were adjudicated upon the same day, or very close together, one with reference to Manitoba, and the other with reference to Alberta or Saskatchewan*-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Alberta.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Alberta, and it was decided* by the privy council that the effect of that law was to have put into operation in the three prairie provinces, as had already been done under provincial authority before confederation in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the laws relating to the dissolution of marriage as they existed in England in 1870. And so to-day in six of the nine provinces there are courts of divorce established by law, either directly by the provinces themselves, or indirectly as a consequence of legislation passed by this parliament. I hope I am putting the case as clearly as a layman can be expected to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exceedingly so.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Thank you. This being
the position, as I stated last year, I repeat now, that I for one fail to see, either as a
Divorce Court-Mr. Bourassa

Catholic or as one unalterably attached to social principles as they stood for eighteen hundred years under the sway of the Christian doctrine and Christian morals, or from a purely social point of view disconnected from any religious creed or code of morals-I fail to see that the extension of the jurisdiction which is already in operation in six of our provinces to another one changes in any way, shape or form the constitution of Canada and the application of the principles contained therein. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to this bill on principle; or rather, I am opposed to the principle of the constitution from which this bill, if it passes, will be derived, just as the divorce courts in two of the maritime provinces and in the four western provinces have been established.
On the other hand, believing, as I do, that if we want to remain true to the spirit of confederation we must not interfere at all, or interfere only to the slightest degree possible, in all those matters that relate to social life, civil rights, and religious and educational matters, believing at the same time, as I do, that the provincial authorities should take the moral responsibility of asking from this parliament such legislation as they may be deprived by the letter of the constitution from passing themselves,-


Mr. ARTHURS:: Would my hon. friend
tell me when and where the province of Ontario has asked for this legislation?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is what I am going to explain.
I have endeavoured to make myself clear on one point first, as to the principle at stake. I am opposed to the principle of divorce as contained in the constitution. I am prepared to vote to-day, to-morrow or at any other time, to amend the constitution in this regard. I go further; I invite the government, here and now, and this parliament, to study the question and take the earliest opportunity of having the constitution so amended that marriage and divorce may be handed over to the provinces with complete and unhampered powers of legislation with respect thereto, leaving them free to establish or suppress courts of divorce, in order to meet what they may consider the moral or immoral needs of their respective populations.
My second point is this, that until we have tackled the root principle of the question, it is ridiculous to say that by voting for this bill we would approve the principle of divorce. Why, every session we vote divorce bills by the bushel. The fact that either you, Mr. 
Speaker, or the clerk of the house writes "carried on division" upon every one of those bills, does not, I feel, relieve me or any other member of -this house of the responsibility of having voted all those bills without even knowing what is contained in them, or the evidence upon which they are based.
Last session, when I thought a similar bill would come before the house, I obtained particulars of the number of divorces voted by this parliament since confederation was established.	Here is a summary of the
figures. In the fifty years from 1867 to 1916, inclusive, parliament voted 310 divorces; in the five years from 1917 to 1921, inclusive, 294 divorces-just sixteen less than in the preceding fifty years; in the following five years, from 1922 to 1926, inclusive, 608 divorces. In the one session of 1926-27, 196 divorces were granted, and in the last session 238. So that in the two last sessions we, the members of this house, opposed to divorce on principle, religious principle, social principle, or any principle or no principle at all, we have decreed that 434 couples, married before God and according to the laws of this country- unions which, according to our tenet, could not be dissolved but by death-should be divorced; and we think our conscience is clear because the clerk of the house wrote on a piece of paper, "carried on division!"
I cannot agree with that view, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I ask this house in logic, in conscience, in courage, to do one of two things,- either withdraw divorce from the powers of this parliament by way of an address to the Imperial parliament for an amendment to the constitution to hand over those powers to the provinces, or else take such means as will ensure that divorces shall no longer be granted as they are at present.
Before last session I never read the obscene literature distributed to this house and the other, and scattered over the country to fall into the hands of boys and girls. It is sent sometimes under the frank of members of parliament, and apparently takes the place of the obscene literature coming from the United States which we have asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) to exclude from this country. But last year I thought I would overcome my disgust. I read some of the evidence and I found that in most of the cases the only witness was a private detective hired by one of the parties, sometimes after an understanding between both parties, as is clearly shown under the veil; and the senate in such cases granted the petition for divorce on the testimony of that one man. In other cases-well, I do not say

Divorce Court-Mr. Bourassa
that this really happened, but one day, on the train between Montreal and Ottawa, I noticed a lawyer from Montreal, a witty Scoteh-Canadian of excellent professional standing. I asked him what he was going to Ottawa for. "Oh," he said, "I have a divorce case before the senate, a very interesting case. The evidence is not quite clear, but my client is a charming woman, and I have told her to put on her best dress and look as interesting as she possibly can, and that I think it will then be an easy matter to secure the verdict of the senate committee." Of course, I do not put too much stock in such stories, but the fact that divorces should be granted by a committee of parliament which meets during the session-


James Arthurs: Mr. ,Speaker, the hon.
gentleman clearly has charged the senate with being unduly influenced in its disposition of divorce cases by arguments or appearances not of a legal nature.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I have made no charge whatever against hon. senators. I have simply repeated the joke, if you like, of a lawyer. I was proceeding to explain that divorces granted by a committee of parliament, which is not a tribunal invested with the authority of a court of law, although composed of men just as respectable perhaps as judges, produce what always is the inevitable result when you hand over to a set of men authority which should belong to another set.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask the hon. gentleman to make no reference to the senate, it being against the rules of the house. The senate under our constitution is invested with the duty of hearing and investigating divorce cases.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for your kind advice, and I will take good care not to come back to that point.
Now, sir, having given my views, and having laid down the principles that I think should' govern us in dealing with this subject, and having suggested that the government should take the earliest opportunity of ascertaining the sense of the house upon the possibility and the desirability of having the constitution amended so as to put all matrimonial laws on a sound and proper basis, I proceed to my next point.
I would not vote for the second reading of this bill if I did not hope that it would be properly amended in committee, in order to lay the moral responsibility for this piece of legislation upon those who are supposed to be
asking for it. An hon. member on the other side asked me a moment ago a very pertinent question: whether Ontario had officially requested this legislation? I do not know, but I should like to have the bill-


James Arthurs: My hon. friend in his remarks led me to believe that he had so intimated.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, on the contrary. I
wish to have the bill amended in such a manner that the people of Ontario, represented officially by their legislature, the body who should deal with this matter, might have the opportunity of expressing its will. And that legislature would have that opportunity now if the very intelligent and farseeing suggestion of the Hon. Felix Geoffrion, proffered at the time of confederation, had been adopted-in other words, if the matter had been left exclusively to provincial jurisdiction.
A friend of mine, a member of this house- I do not want to mention his name now because he is not here-prepared last year some amendments in connection with this legislation. As I say, he is not here to-night and I do not want to commit him, because I do not know whether he is prepared to move these amendments this year. All I can say is that he is an English-speaking Protestant member of this house, and a representative of Ontario. The first of his amendments is rather unimportant; it simply proposes an alteration in the wording of the first clause, striking out, in the two last lines of paragraph 1, the words "shall be the law of the province as to dissolution of marriage and as to annulment of marriage", and substituting the words "shall be in force in the province of Ontario". That is a slight amendment. The principal change consists in a new clause to be inserted as follows:
This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council. provided such proclamation shall be issued only upon the receipt by the Secretary ol State for Canada of a duly certified copy of a resolution passed by the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario, requesting the issue of such proclamation.
This, it seems to me, would clearly divide the responsibility between the two authorities The legislature of Ontario being precluded constitutionally from establishing, under provincial statute, a court for the dissolution of marriage, or from giving to one of the existing courts the necessary jurisdiction, this parliament would confer the jurisdiction; this parliament would vest in the Supreme Court of Ontario the power to annul or to dissolve marriages. But the law passed by this par

Divorce Court-Mr. Bourassa

liament conferring that power would not come into force until the interested party, the province of Ontario, should take action in the matter. The people who come to this parliament to obtain divorces; the people who create such a vast amount of work for the senate of Canada; the people who have forced the senate of Canada to ask for this legislation:	those people would apply to the
elected legislative body which represents them, which has to deal with their local alfairs. with their education and other matters of civil law; and that body would express its views and its desire in clear form. Then the federal authority would put the law into force after the people of Ontario had asked for it. I hope this will satisfy my hon. friend on the other side.
I do not know the views of Ontario touching this matter. What does any one of us know about the views of that province? What right have we to create a court of divorce in Ontario without knowing what the people of that province desire? Are they in favour of it or are they opposed? Are you going to create a committee of this house, composed only of representatives of Ontario, and take a vote among them before the house as a whole deals with the question? Where are the staunch upholders of provincial rights in this matter? This is the time for them to speak; because, I repeat, if we appeal to the spirit that quickeneth rather than to the tetter that killeth, we shall find, in the light of history as well as of reason and logic, that we shall be making a grave mistake if we vote for this bill as it stands, without making it clear that we are not imposing it upon the people of Ontario, in the absence of any opportunity on their part, and on the part of their own representatives in their own legislative governing body, of signifying their will. If we impose the bill upon them under such conditions we shall, first, encroach upon the moral rights of the people of Ontario, and, secondly, drive another nail into the coffin of our constitution, because we are again discharging one of those abnormal functions of intervention which have worked to the evil of the country and to the evil of the province affected every time this has been done.
Without infringing on the rules of debate, may I draw a comparison with reference to school rights? Everyone knows what trouble, what quarrels, what bickerings, what misunderstandings arose as between race and race, as between creed and creed, as between province and province, because of the nonsensical clause 93 of the British North America Act, which had been framed in one way in Quebec, then

changed in the parliament of United Canada, and further changed in London. Most people are under the fallacious impression that the power of intervention on the part of the federal parliament in school matters was asked for by the Roman Catholics and the people of Quebec. The very opposite is the case. All our people wanted to keep under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces education as well as marriage, and everything else which pertains to social life and civil law. Clause 93 was imposed upon the parliament of United Canada, with concurring legislation from the Imperial parliament, by the Protestant minority of Quebec who dreaded encroachments on their privileges on the part of the French and Catholic majority. That dread has entirely disappeared, because, in the years that have elapsed since confederation, the minority of Quebec have not only preserved all they had prior to confederation but have received an overflowing measure of generosity in the way of legislation, money grants and otherwise. Therefore, if we had our constitution amended in such a manner that it would be brought back to its basic foundation in regard to this matter, that would be the solution; short of that I for one am prepared to vote for this bill, but I want the people of Ontario to take their share of the responsibility. I do not want to be told next year or five years hence that I, a French Canadian Catholic from Quebec, have been a party to imposing this legislation upon the people of Ontario, whether Catholic or Protestant-and I know there are some excellent Protestants just as much opposed to divorce as we are-by a blind vote, without knowing their wish or their will as expressed by the men whom they elect to deal with those things which pertain to their civil life. I do not wish it said that I have voted for this bill simply because the worthy members of the senate quite rightly are tired of granting divorces, because we have not yet concerned ourselves with our moral and legislative responsibility in this regard, and because we have voted divorces by the bushel without knowing the circumstances of the cases and without knowing what will become of the children, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworht) has said.
In all these matters I think mainly of the children; I am more concerned with their fate than with either the husband or the wife, because after all the parents are responsible for what they do, and even if an unjust verdict is rendered against one of the parties, that happens under any jurisdiction; but the innocent little boys and girls see the family disrupted and do not know where to give

Privilege-Mr. Donnelly
their hearts or to which of the authors of their life they can give their devotion. Oh,
I think of them, and apart from all religious principles I am opposed to divorce mainly on account of the children.
But, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, if there is to be divorce, let some thought be given to the innocent victim of bad marriages, the child; let not these cases be decided simply because a police agent follows a man or a woman as the Pharisees followed the adulterous woman in Jerusalem. Perhaps we are more apt to pass judgment upon the fallen than Jesus Christ was; perhaps on the other hand the reason we never examine these judgments is because we are very Christ-like; but I am afraid that we have fallen into the habit of letting these divorce cases go through without being looked into by this house simply as a matter of custom. We have let matters drift, because for many years, as I have shown, there were very few divorces. They were considered to be individual cases; they were supposed to be dealt with as the claims or grievances of only a few citizens. But these are no longer individual or isolated cases. They constitute one of the acutest social problems with which we have to deal; a problem which has engaged the thought and study of not only the clergy of all denominations but of all thoughtful statesmen and social thinkers in all countries which are supposed to preserve some remnants o! Christian civilization. This is the one question which has most greatly moved the deliberative bodies in all countries in Europe, and everyone admits it is the one evil threatening the very heart of the great nation to our south.
Now, are we going to solve this problem as a Christian, intelligent nation, or are we going to let it drift according to political exigencies, or simply to copy what the Yankees are doing, as is so often the case? For my part I am not prepared to take my model from the United States or from any other country. I would like this parliament to deal with this question from a Christian, a national and a rational point of view; and I hope I am not hurting the feelings of anyone, nor am I preventing the adoption of a remedy, when I ask this house to ponder a little before this bill is voted as we have voted divorce bills in the past. Do not let us carry it " on division " simply because we do not care to make a study of the question, because we of Quebec have no divorcees in our constitu-78594-25
encies or because the good people of the maritime provinces or the western provinces are no more concerned with it. Let us look into the root of this question; let us consider the principle; let us think of the consequences of this legislation; and if we adopt it let us do so in such a manner that the moral responsibility attached to it will be divided between the bodies representing the province immediately interested, just as in the constitution-absurdly, I admit,-marriage and education are divided in a very clumsy manner which is explained only by such historical circumstances as I have recalled to the memory of the house. Let us see that these responsibilities are divided just as education and marriage are divided as between federal and provincial jurisdiction. In dealing with this one aspect of the marital situation let us do so, for once, according to the spirit and the letter of the constitution. If we want to do so let us pass a bill to provide for the establishment of this jurisdiction, but let us hand over to the provincial authorities the right and the power to say when and how this will come into operation.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman having exhausted his time, I am afraid he cannot do so.


James Arthurs: Mr. Speaker-



PRIVILEGE-MR. DONNELLY

Mr. THOMAS DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I rise to a question of privilege.


James Arthurs: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Hewitt Bostock: A question of privilege always takes precedence.


Thomas F. Donnelly: In the Toronto Mail and Empire of February 22, appears an article headed as follows:
Farmer Members Charge Faith Broken by Malcolm.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the question of privilege is proceeded with, if a member of the house is on his feet there can be no interruption of his remarks on a question of privilege which does not touch the subject matter of his observations. This is a different matter altogether.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker did not declare it nine o'clock, which would automatically close the debate.



Privilege-Mr. Donnelly


Hewitt Bostock: It being nine o'clock the house will revert to the railway bills which were under consideration when the house rose at six o'clock; but a question of privilege is always in order before the Speaker leaves the chair.


Thomas F. Donnelly: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no point of
privilege raised yet.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I want to state the
point of privilege now. First of all, I know nothing regarding the meeting that took place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member's name is not mentioned, nor is the name of this parliament.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Let me speak.


Hewitt Bostock: So far I have not seen a question of privilege.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Just as soon as I am through I will give the hon. leader of the opposition a chance to talk.


Hewitt Bostock: A matter of privilege
may affect an hon member or it may affect the house collectively. So far I have not detected a question of privilege, but the hon. gentleman states that after having read the article he will explain how it affects him or how it affects this house.


Thomas F. Donnelly: It says here that there was a meeting held between some western farmer members and Mr. Malcolm. I know nothing whatever about that meeting. Then it goes on to say there was a meeting between the grain commission and western Liberals, and I am a western Liberal.


Hewitt Bostock: Will the hon. member
please explain the question of privilege?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am coming to that
point right now.


Hewitt Bostock: The question whether
there was or was not a meeting is not one of privilege.


Thomas F. Donnelly: But I claim I was at the second meeting which was said to take place between the grain commisison and the western Liberals, and I do not propose to listen to articles such as this which suggest that we were at the meeting to damage the pool. We were upholding the pool, and we were there for that purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Thomas F. Donnelly: And nothing occurred
at that meeting which would damage the pool in any way, shape or form.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: So far I can see only a
matter of personal explanation; there is no question of privilege.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I rise to a question of
privilege, as my name was mentioned in the article. The article makes statements which were undeniably untrue. The first part of the article as to the conference with the Liberal members is quite true, but the second part is absolutely untrue. This portion of the article states that the western members who asked me for a conference to present some

Privihgc-Mr. Donnelly
views with regard to the Board of Grain Commissioners did so with the idea of damaging the wheat pool; that is not the case. These men were defending the wheat pool and attacking the Board of Grain Commissioners for not having properly administered the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would point out once
more that the rules of parliament were made for some purpose. The hon. gentleman is now engaged in a long discussion as to what did or did not take place. On a question of privilege he may deny any statement that aSects himself or that affects the dignity of this house, but he is now arguing it, which is an entirely different matter.


James Malcolm: I am stating facts.


Hewitt Bostock: A question of privilege
must concern the character or conduct of a member, or the collective honour of the house. So far I have not seen a question of privilege.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is there no question of
privilege when a newspaper correspondent lies about the actions of members of this house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the Saskatchewan legislature, and I think that remark might be withdrawn.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw, withdraw.


Hewitt Bostock: I quote from page 303
of Bourinot:
It is the practice in the House of Commons to bring up a question of privilege after prayers, and before the house has taken up the orders of the day. Only in very aggravated cases, requiring the immediate interposition of the house, will any business be suddenly interrupted. If a member be insulted or attacked, or some disorder suddenly arises, a debate may be interrupted; for as it has been clearly expressed by an ancient authority, "whether any question is or is not before the house; and even in the midst of another discussion, if a member should rise to complain of a breach of privileges of the house, they have always instantly heard him."
I am now listening to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), but so far I find no reflection or no libel in the statements which have been read to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I now rise to a point of order touching upon the dignity of this house. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has used the word "lies."


An hon. MEMBER:: That is all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the hon. gentleman's idea of the dignity of parliament? Of course I am entirely in Your Honour's hands,
but I do feel, on a question of order, that anything like that is entirely unworthy of the Canadian House of Commons and its traditions.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I addressed to Your Honour, a question as to whether or not it was a matter of privilege for a member of this house to call attention to the fact that a newspaper correspondent had lied with respect to him and other members associated with him. If the word "lies" is too straightforward, I will say "writes untruths."


Hewitt Bostock: The word "untruths" will not do, I am afraid. I have it in Bourinot and Beauchesne that such drastic expressions may not be used with reference to an hon. member, and the house generally frowns on the use of such expressions with reference to a gentleman who is not a member of the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, with all deference to Your Honour, I ask for an answer to my query: Are members of this house to be subject to articles of the kind read by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), composed of-I can only use the word "untruths," and have no right to call the attention of the public and the attention of this house to the fact that the statements made have no foundation in fact? Has the house no rights with respect to a matter of that character? I am merely asking your advice, sir, in this matter, because it is a serious one for the members affected.


Hewitt Bostock: This is what I read in Bourinot at page 352:

It has frequently been formally ruled by speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
I have not the other authorities under my hand, but I know that even against strangers the amenities of the house do not permit the use of such expressions. I am saying this on behalf of both sides of the house. It is just as well to protect ourselves against ourselves for the future.


James Malcolm: The question of privilege I wish to raise is that the statement contained in the article relative to myself and members from Saskatchewan were not statements of fact. A statement of fact would be exactly
3S8
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

the reverse of what was in the Mail and Empire article. I do not know whether the correspondent was given that information in good faith or whether he made it up, but I wish to deny absolutely the statements in the article.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the resolution with respect to the construction of Canadian National railway branch lines-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: When the house rose at six o'clock I was about to attempt to reply to some of the questions addressed to me during the discussion of the resolution by various members of the committee. First, let me say that I omitted to mention one railway with respect to which negotiations for purchase have been going on for some time past, with what success in the recent past I am not in a position to say, but it is a fact that negotiations have been proceeding with respect to the possible purchase by the Canadian National of what is known as the Inverness Railway.
With regard to requests which have been made by various members of the committee that the Canadian National program of branch line construction should have included some lines which are not in the program, I can only say that the management can hardly be expected to deal in one program with all branch line problems and requirements of the country. It will be remembered, as I stated before recess, that it is only two years since the house adopted a very substantial branch line program for the Canadian National, and it is now almost completed. This year will see the conclusion of construction work with respect to that program. Two years later the management come again and ask for authority to construct within the next three years a further 701 miles. I submit to the committee this principle as being sound in our relationship to the Canadian National along the line of construction program initiation. We must rely upon the management to be the judge as to when they shall propose the construction of further branch mileage in any part of Canada; they must have regard to the economic necessities of the property with the administration of which they are charged. The management have proved themselves over a period of years to be very capable of looking after the interests of the property, and there-

fore in the first place the government and the House of Commons must rely upon the judgment of the management with respect to those branch lines with are most necessary and which, in their opinion, should be included in a further program. More than that, we must have regard to what they indicate as the maximum expenditure which it would be wise to make, having regard to the other budget requirements of the railroad in any particular period.
The particular problem mentioned by the hon. member for Medicine Hat is one of the difficult problems left to the Canadian National as the result of the wrecks of private ownership which the Canadian National management were called upon to co-ordinate into a useful whole, a truly national system. The old Canadian Northern railway, a number of years before it became a part of the Canadian National, had projected the railway to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred, had, in fact, graded practically the whole of it. It still requires a very expensive bridge across a large river and it would also require the laying of steel upon the grade. I would direct the attention of the leader of the opposition specifically to this point, that it would also need terminal facilities at the city of Medicine Hat in order that it might be successfully operated. The management of the Canadian National have not seen their way clear as yet, having regard to all the other demands upon the system from coast to coast, to recommend further work upon this line. I shall be pleased to do what I deem to be the limit of my duty with respect to a matter of this sort, and that is to place before the management as fully as I can the views expressed by members of the house with regard to such situations as that mentioned by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
I appreciate very much the remarks of the leader of the opposition as relating to myse'.f and the work which has been done. I appreciate also the importance of the principle wh:ch he laid down as to the treatment which should be meted out by parliament to the two great railway corporations in Canada. It is not generally realized that the position of Minister of Railways is rather an anomalous one. Under the general Railway Act the Minister of Railways has responsibilities with respect to all the railway systems in the country, but with regard to one of those systems he is in the position of being practically the only shareholder. My hon. friend indicated to-night that he understood very clearly the difficulties of such a position, a

C.N.R-Branch Lines
position which, as he indicated, is occupied not only by the minister but by parliament in its relationship to our two great railway systems.
The hon. member for Mackenzie was somewhat concerned as to whether we were protecting Sir Henry Thornton sufficiently in connection with any negotiations which might be under way with the other great railway corporation. I hasten to assure him that neither Sir Henry Thornton nor the management of the Canadian National needs assistance from anyone by way of protection when they are engaged in negotiations with any other corporation. They can very well take care of themselves and I feel sure that any arrangement or compromise which is agreed to by Sir Henry Thornton and the management of the Canadian National Railways will not involve in any sense the sacrificing of the interests of that institution. Sometimes we do not give proper consideration to the great difficulties which have been overcome in the coordination of the various entities which have gone to the making up of the present Canadian National system. Situations such as that mentioned by my hon. friend from Medicine Hat have been,simply impossible to avoid in various parts of Canada because of the method which was adopted by the government of the day and by parliament in the acquisition of these roads. Only one went through a receivership, the Grand Trunk Pacific. The others were acquired, and in the acquisition, not only was the property acquired, but also all the obligations that went with the property, many of which obligations this country would have been rid of had the receivership method been followed with respect to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and with respect to the old Canadian Northern Railway Company. The present Canadian National railway management, therefore, has assumed of necessity, not only the assets, but also all the obligations, and not only financial obligations, but obligations of a contractual nature left to it by what I sometimes describe as the wrecks of private ownership.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Could a receivership
have been called into effect in the case of these other companies, in view' of the guarantees of securities by the provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not discussing
whether or not a receivership could have been applied, but I am saying that a receivership would have relieved the present Canadian National .management of a great many of the contractual obligations of the old
privately-owned corporations. In answer to my hon. friend, I am personally of the opinion that the receivership method could have been applied. It was applied, as a matter of fact, in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and in that case there were a number of issues of provincial government guaranteed bonds outstanding. I think that is all I have to say at the moment, unless some other points arise or matters are brought up to which I have not made a general reference. I shall be glad to answer any questions, if there are any, and if not, we might pass the resolution and proceed to introduce the bills.


Alfred Speakman: There was another
point mentioned upon which I had hoped the Minister of Railways would have something to say. Before I proceed with that, however, may I say that I rather think the hon. leader of the opposition partly misunderstood my remarks. I did not in any way suggest, in mentioning the desirability of placing the two roads on a parity in the matter of receiving construction rights from this parliament, that we should relax in any degree our control over the financing of the Canadian National railway construction, or that we should permit them to indulge in the practice of receiving blanket charters, but rather that some restriction should be placed on the Canadian Pacific railway in that respect.
The leader of the opposition, in common with others, has mentioned the difficulties that have arisen in respect of that practice, and of the disabilities that have been laid upon the people of Canada in various parts by the securing of charters calling for the construction of a certain line, which line would not be constructed for years, and sometimes not at all. Thousands of people have gone into the outlying districts on the strength of just such charters and thousands of people have been sadly disillusioned when, after many years, they have found that the transportation facilities they expected had not been provided. My suggestion was not that we should extend that practice to the Canadian National railway, but rather that we should consider if it was not possible to place some definite obligation perhaps on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the acquisition of its charters which would tend to the more immediate construction of the lines thus authorized; somewhat in the same manner, although perhaps by different methods, as we now adopt in regard to the Canadian National. The minister, knowing the situation as he does, I am sure appreciates my point, and he must have given a good deal
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

of thought to the question of putting the two roads on a parity in this respect. It is well known that we have before us a great era of development of the mineralized areas in this country, and if the practice that has prevailed in the past of securing and extending charters from time to time is allowed to continue, I feel that by the time these mineralized areas are ready for development and transportation facilities are actually required, we shall find that the Canadian Pacific railway has preempted practically all those areas, and that may be very much to the disadvantage of the Canadian National. I believe this is a subject which might well engage our attention, and I would like the Minister of Railways, who, as an intelligent man, familiar with the circumstances, and sincerely desirous of seeing our national railway succeed, must have given thought to this matter, if he is not prepared to make some suggestion or express some thought on the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have, as my hon. friend indicates, had to give thought to most of the problems which arise in connection with this matter, and I had rather hoped that instead of being asked for suggestions I might possibly receive the help of members of this committee by receiving suggestions. One of the difficulties of occupying a ministerial position apparently is that one is supposed to put up proposals t'o be knocked down by other people, only rarely receiving from them constructive suggestions.
We are here to-night dealing with a Canadian National branch line building program. It is essentially different from a charter program. It is different because a charter program is merely a request made to this parliament for authority to build lines of railway. The Canadian National branch line program is more than that. It is not only authority to build, but it constitutes a vote by the shareholders of the money necessary for the particular piece of construction work. That is the broad difference. It is only in recent years that we have had this condition. It is only since we inaugurated the policy of a three-year construction program that we have completely got away, so far as the national system is concerned, from the old charter method. I may tell my hon. friend that all the charters held by the former private companies now comprising the Canadian National railway system have been allowed to go completely by the board, and now when the Canadian National comes to this parliament with a request to be permitted to build a branch line it means that the branch line wil be
[Mr. Speakman.l
built because parliament, acting as such, not only grants the charter power, but in the same bill, in the capacity of shareholders of the company, actually votes the money to do the work. The bill constitutes the authority of the shareholders, and at the same time, the authority of parliament as to charter powers.


Mr. STEVENS:: Has the last three-year
construction program been completed?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is the last year
of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister indicate roughly the stage of the program at the moment?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry that my report is on my desk upstairs, but I will send for it and give my hon. friend the information. In general terms I may say that the construction authorized in the last three-year program will be completed this year, with the exception of one line which, by reason of some other arrangement having been made, has become unnecessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite sufficient.


Charles Avery Dunning: Replying further to my
hon. friend from Red Deer, this parliament, ' in dealing with private railway corporations in the past, has adopted the principle-mark you, it is this parliament rather than the government which has adopted the principle -of imposing in the railway committee upon the private company applying for a railway charter the obligation of commencing construction within two years, and of completing construction within five years. Now the penalty imposed by parliament in that connection simply means that unless those conditions are complied with, the authority to build the line in question lapses, and it is necessary for the railway company to come back to parliament for a renewal of the charter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just as the private company does.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am speaking now of the private company. May I say to my hon. friend from Red Deer that it will be for the railway committee when the private bill of the Canadian Pacific is before them to give consideration to the condition to which he referred, and to any amendment which should be made to it in the light of experience. I am not disposed personally to go so far as completely to discourage the investment of private capital in the extension of the Canadian Pacific railway system. I do not think

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
that would be wise, and further I doubt the practicability of the shareholders of a private company extending the three-year authority to their -directors which this parliament, as shareholders of the Canadian National, is now extending to the Canadian National by way of financial authority. I doubt if the ordinary private corporation could proceed in that manner. Or to put it in another way,
I doubt very much if it would be practicable for the Canadian Pacific to come before this parliament applying for a charter having in their hands the authority of the shareholders to spend the amount of money necessary. It would require an entire readjustment of the financial arrangements of such a company to enable that to be done. But the railway committee can and, I believe, should give consideration to this point, as to whether the period during which the private company is authorized to proceed should not be adjusted to the period which has been found to be a sound period from the point of view of the Canadian National. If we did that it would mean that instead of five years, the limit of authority for building would be three years in the case of the Canadian Pacific as in the case of the Canadian National. I am only intending that as a suggestion for consideration in order to meet the condition to which my hon. friend from Red Deer and others have referred during the course of this discussion. There may be other ways. This is one which occurs to me as a means of equalizing to some extent the condition of which my hon. friend complains.


George Reginald Geary: If my hon. friend will allow a question,-has it not been the practice in the railway committee on the application of the Canadian Pacific for a new charter or for the renewal of an old charter to consider the claims of the Canadian National to the territory involved? It seems to me that in the committee I have heard the Canadian National oppose such applications. Doubtless they get notice of those applications for renewal.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I think every member of the committee is aware of the fact that each of the two railway companies exercise their rights before the standing committee on railways and canals to protest against any proposed activity of the other which may in their opinion be prejudicial to their own interest. But the point made by my hon. friend from Red Deer is that with respect to the private company this parliament says:	Yes,
you may have five years to choose whether or not you will build these lines. He submits
that during that five years the national railway system is practically barred from that particular piece of territory. Not that thi? parliament could not authorize them to go there, but as a matter of fact if any such proposal came forward it would be opposed with some degree of legitimacy by the com' pany which already had the charter rights. The problem which my hon. friend from Red Deer put to me I answered as best I could with one suggestion; there may be others. I am completely in the hands of the railway committee with regard to the means of fairly dealing in that equal business way, to which the leader of the opposition made reference, with regard to both these great corporations.
I am satisfied that for some time to come at any rate Canada needs both these systems, efficiently managed and prosperous. I believe therefore it is of the greatest importance that we should endeavour to treat them with the utmost fairness and see to it as far as we can that they do not get into destructive and wasteful competition with each other. I hope they will compete. I can assure members of the committee that there is no lack of competition. The management and the personnel of each corporation are keen to further their respective interests. And Canada has reason to be proud of the staffs of both her great railways. They are keen in competition. But it is very easy when you have two great opposing armies, each working for its own institution,-it is easy I say for them to get into a condition where competition in certain of its aspects becomes wasteful. That is what this parliament should endeavour to guard against so as not to repeat in the future the mistakes of the past.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I had
no intention when raising this question of reflecting in any critical way upon the minister or the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand that.


Alfred Speakman: I do not intend at
this time to carry on an exhaustive debate on this subject, interesting and important as it is, for I realize that this is neither the time nor the place to do so. And I do not wish in any way to attack the principle of privately owned railways. The Canadian Pacific has given service. It is a transportation system of which we are proud, and although a public ownership man, I am disposed to give absolute fair play to both great systems and say: God speed you both and do the best you can for the country. All I am suggesting now for the consideration of the Minister of Railways and the railway
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

committee is that this problem does exist, and that as business men, as lovers of fair play, we wish to give to both railways an equal opportunity in the development of this country to do the best they can, and yet not give special privileges to either. At the present time I believe the privately owned railway has a very great advantage over the other in its plans for future extension, and I merely suggested that we should give our best consideration to meeting that problem and equalizing the condition between them as far as is possible.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise unnecessarily to protract the discussion precipitated by the resolution of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). This resolution is one of very great importance, involving as it does a contemplated construction program by the Canadian National railways for the next four years. We all realize the importance of adequate transportation facilities to every province and to every constituency of this Dominion. But those of us who find the economic development of our constituencies, with its attendant industrial prosperity and the material welfare of the people, retarded by a lack of railway transportation, feel that now is the time and this is the place to make ourselves heard and to press for redress.
I know that the generalissimo of the Canadian National railways not long ago asserted that at the opening of parliament it was the custom of hon. members to go gunning for the Canadian National railways. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to place myself in that category. I do not intend to go gunning for Sir Henry Thornton or for my good friend the Minister of Railways. As a Canadian, I am proud of the Canadian National system; it is worthy of the support and admiration of every Canadian, irrespective of party affiliation; it is perhaps the greatest experiment in government ownership in the world. I know that in planning a program of construction the Minister of Railways and those who control the management of that great system must have in mind two objects. First, they must promote economy and see to it that the colossal investment of the Canadian people shall not be impaired and that through time it will return a dividend to the people who have made such large investments in the enterprise. That is of primary importance. But there is another aspect of the question which should commend itself to every member of this house when we speak of branch lines, and that is the necessity of developing the industrial resources of the country so that our people 
may find employment and that in this way greater prosperity may result and a greater traffic accrue to the Canadian National system.	.
The constituency which I have the privilege to represent, humbly and probably feebly, has been neglected more, perhaps, than any other constituency in eastern Canada in the matter of railway transportation. We have in that constituency a road known as the Inverness railway, extending from Point Tupper to Inverness, a distance of some sixty miles. I heard the minister make some reference to it to-night, but I do not think he made any definite statement. But we had conversations with reference to the matter last winter and I gathered-and do not think I took too much for granted, but he will correct me if I am wrong-that after certain problems had been worked out in connection with some other roads, which might be described as shreds and patches left out of the Canadian National system, this Inverness road would be taken over as a part of the system. I felt I had an assurance from the minister last year to that effect; indeed, I thought I had something in the nature of a promise that this would be done before the expiration of this session. I should like to have something definite from him to-night in regard to this particular matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: Like many others, my hon. friend has spoken to me with reference to the particular railway in which he is interested- and when I say interested I mean as a representative of the people of his constituency. I think if I remind him he will recollect, precisely what I said. It was to the effect that when we were dealing, through the medium of the management of the Canadian National Railways, with the other properties to which I made reference this afternoon and again this evening, negotiations would be undertaken with respect to the Inverness railway. My hon. friend knows, of course, that I cannot guarantee the success of a negotiation between two parties. I could not say that the road would be taken over, because both the buyer and the seller are to be considered; and Sir Henry Thornton is in the same position in relation to that problem as with respect to others; he is empowered to undertake tentative negotiations with the owners, and upon being satisfied of the economic soundness of the proposition he may then make recommendations to the government and ascertain whether the government are prepared to accept. That position has not yet been reached

C.N.k.-Branch Lines
with respect to the Inverness road. I do not wish to convey to my hon. friend that it will not be reached, but at the moment I am not in a position to say definitely that it can be. It is a matter of bargaining.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I thank the minister for his explanation, but I would point out that this road is in a slightly different position from the others he has mentioned. Some four years ago the Canadian National system took this road over under lease although they did not buy it. They have been paying a rental of $25,000 a year for the road for the past four years and they have paid the owners something like $100,000. They hold the road under option to purchase at a price of, I believe, $500,000, and already they have paid, as I say, something in the vicinity of $100,000 or $125,000 in rental. The situation is this, that so long as they do not own the road, although they have already paid one quarter of the purchase price specified in the option, they will not improve it. My constituency is therefore in the unfortunate position of having the worst railroad service to be found in any part of Canada. If the Minister of Railways would travel over that road from Point Tupper to Inverness he would immediately experience a sensation which would be distinctly good for his soul. It seems to me that since the Canadian National have already paid over a quarter of the purchase price by way of rentals, the road should be taken over and brought up to the standard of a branch line in order to provide a suitable service for the people, some 35,000, whom the road serves. But this would be only an initial step, because after that we wish to have the road extended north about sixty miles to Cheticamp. My hon. friend laughs-


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: -but I will te'l
him-


Charles Avery Dunning: Just a genial smile.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: -that if he ever comes to Inverness, as three of his distinguished colleagues did last year, to address a .political meeting, he will not laugh over this question. I do not think it is fair to the county which I represent and which is certainly one of the wealthiest in Nova Scotia and perhaps in the Dominion-that is, potentially. North of Inverness, in the sixty miles for which provision should be made in this program, we have something like two billion tons of coal. In Nova Scotia, when we speak of coal we speak generally in terms of the British Empire Steel Corporation, as though
there were no coal deposits in the province other than those controlled by that corporation. But in Inverness county we have as much coal as is controlled by the British Empire Steel Corporation, although we cannot develop it because of lack of transportation facilities. Now we want to see this road taken over by the government and extended north to Cheticamp.
I feel I owe the house no apology for speaking about this matter, even though it is of a local nature, because this is a principle which might be followed by parliamentarians in public life as well as by individuals in their private affairs:
To thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou eanst not then be false to any man.
If we are true to the constituencies we represent in parliament, we cannot be false to any other part of Canada. I would strongly urge the minister to take over the Inverness road and then extend it north to Cheticamp. I listened this afternoon to that splendid eulogy of the Highlanders of Cape Breton from my very distinguished leader (Mr. Bennett), and naturally my Scottish pride was stirred. We all have our peculiar racial characteristics and are all inclined to think that our own race is the best in the worid. I must point out, however, that besides the Highlanders of Inverness county, to whom the leader of the opposition paid such a splendid tribute this afternoon, we have in the northern section, comprising 40 per cent of the population, about 15,000 French Acadians. Now if there is one class of people to whom Nova Scotia owes something, it is the French Acadian. He has been tried in the crucible and he came through splendidly. He has become a fine citizen of the province of Nova Scotia and of Canada, second to none in his loyalty to British institutions and in the love he always cherishes for this country and for that little plot he calls home. These are a homeloving people; the French Acadians in northern Inverness have stuck to the soil through thick and thin, through difficulties., travails and disappointments; they have stayed with agriculture and have developed homes for themselves under adverse circumstances.
Now what is the situation? In the winter some of these people have to carry their flour by team a distance of about fifty miles, and when they get a barrel of flour it costs them about S3 more than it costs any other Nova Scotian. That is a situation which should not prevail, and I think these people who have shown enough courage to remain on the land
C.N .k.-Branch Lines

and try to develop homes in this way while creating prosperity in the province of Nova Scotia are entitled to consideration from this government and from the Canadian National railways. I hope the day is not far distant when they will get the service they deserve, and if that service is not given by this government it will be given by the government headed by my leader after the next general election.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I might deal
with this question before any others are addressed to me. I am sure my hon. friend will not charge the Canadian National railways with being unwilling to negotiate; I can assure him that the president of the system has made an offer for this property. Over a period of years the Canadian National railways have been paying a rental of $25,000 a year, I think, based on the interest on a capital sum, and I understood my hon. friend's remarks to indicate that he agrees that this rental is rather excessive. However, in this case I submit that the Canadian National management are in the best position to know what that property is worth to the Canadian National railways, and certainly I do not intend to say to the management that they must offer more than in their opinion is a fair price. I know an offer has been made; I have not in mind the figure, but surely my hon. friend should address his remarks to the owners of the property, or else have them iemonstrate from their point of view that any tentative offer made by the Canadian National management is not a fair offer. As my hon. friend indicated, the Canadian National railways now are giving service on the line in question, and I can assure him that for the last five years at least that service has been given at a loss with respect to the operation of that property. At all times the Canadian National railways have shown a disposition to endeavour to meet that situation as far as they could, having due regard to their responsibilities to the public as a whole.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I did not intend to criticize adversely the management of the Canadian National Railways in this regard; the reply of the minister was the first intimation I had that an offer had been made for the property. About a year ago I had a conversation with Sir Henry Thornton in his Montreal office, during which he told me that it was not a question of price at all, that the price of $500,000 in the option probably would be paid when the road was taken over. I did not know that an offer had been made since; all I wanted to get at was why the road has 
not been taken over. If it is a question of price and if the Eastern Trust Company, who own that road, will not come to terms, I think the Canadian National Railways could find some way of making them do so. If possible I would like to know what price has been offered the Eastern Trust Company.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the price in mind, and in any case I think my hon. friend will agree that I have gone about as far as possible in giving information on a matter which is the subject of tentative negotiation. I am not anxious to embarrass the negotiations being carried on with respect to any of these properties; indeed, possibly the sounder course would have been to come to parliament only with such as have been concluded and to refuse to discuss those under negotiation. Knowing, however, my hon. friend's anxiety and the anxiety of other members from that part of the country I wanted to give the assurance I have given to-night. If my hon. friend can help in the negotiations he is free to do so.


John Evans: It was gratifying to learn
from the Minister of Railways that an arrangement had been made between the two great railway companies with respect to the construction program for this year. I can assure the house that feeling is rather keen in Saskatchewan; they believe it unfair that in any part of that northern territory the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should run their lines across the trunk lines of the Canadian National Railways which have developed that part of the country at tremendous cost to Canada. I rose particularly to put on record the views of the organized farmers of Saskatchewan. In a short letter from Mr. Thrasher, he says:
Dear Sir:-	_	.	_
As you are aware, organized agriculture in western Canada for over twenty-five years has fought for the institution and protection of public ownership. We therefore urge that when the subject matter of the enclosed resolution is being considered by the federal government you give every consideration to the representations made herein.
The resolution, adopted by the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, reads as follows:
Whereas we are advised that it is the intention of the Canadian national railways to pres-sent plans at the coming session of the federal parliament for their building program, and that such plans will include the construction of a branch line from Aberdeen to Melfort, and;
Whereas we believe the construction of such branch line will provide needed service to producers in that territory between Aberdeen and Melfort, and will form an integral part in the construction of the shortest possible transporta-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
tion route from northern and central Saskatchewan to Fort Churchill via government railway lines,
Therefore be it resolved we strenuously urge upon the federal government that in justice to our own national railways, and for the protection of the producer and consumer from a transportation standpoint, the application of the Canadian National Railway for authority to construct a branch line from Aberdeen to Melfort be granted, such line to be constructed immediately authority is granted.
In short, that is the view of organized agriculture in the three prairie provinces. Resolutions similar to that have been passed repeatedly, particularly since 1904, when we asked for the government ownership of the terminal elevators at Fort William. We feel that now we are recovering from the railway debacle which faced us a short time ago we should not do anything to create such a situation again. Private ownership has been very costly to this country; in fact I think I would be quite justified in saying that no public utility in private hands has been a success in Canada. While it may have paid its way it has been too costly to the people, and the cost has been out of proportion to the return received by the producer.
These are some of the views which have been constantly brought forward by organized agriculture and deliberated upon year after year. We still believe that the logical thing for all public utilities in Canada is public ownership. While an arrangement is being made between the two railways as to their branch line program at this particular time, we feel that the fight is only beginning and that it will get keener and1 keener as the years go on. The time is not far distant when the people of this country will see that the railway situation-one company in private hands and the other under public ownership-will simply become unbearable. We have a board and general manager connected with the publicly owned system whom I believe the country can trust, but the time may come when this may not be the case, and we may have to step in and meet a situation as bad as the one of which we have rid ourselves.
I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without putting our views on record. I received a resolution from the Saskatoon board of trade in which they completely reverse the decision arrived at by the executive committee of that body some time ago. They now believe that while the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should be treated fairly it should not be allowed to cross the line of the Canadian National, but that running rights should be granted to the Canadian Pacific to permit them to get into the new territory. They suggest that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company
should acquire the line from Dalmeny to Carlton, and construct the parts needed to connect Saskatoon with Prince Albert. But whatever is done, I hope this parliament will not allow one railway to interfere with the earning power and the development and efficiency of service of the other.


Milton Neil Campbell: As I understand it,1 the Canadian National not only receives authority from parliament to build lines, but that authority carries with it the obligation to build, whereas the charter received by the Canadian Pacific carries with it no obligation to build.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no obligation to build in any Canadian National bill, but there is an appropriation of money for a specific purpose, and of course it cannot be used for any other purpose.


Milton Neil Campbell: I take it that when parliament votes the money for this purpose, the board of management of the Canadian National Railways can do nothing else but go ahead and spend that money as parliament dictates.


Charles Avery Dunning: They must have a good reason for not going ahead; my hon. friend is right to that extent.


Milton Neil Campbell: We know that companies have secured charters with the sole purpose of blocking the construction of other roads. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has not been so great a sinner in this regard, but I do think the position of the two roads should be equalized. In certain cases the Canadian Pacific Railway charter should carry with it a forfeiture of bond and there would then be a direct obligation upon the company to go ahead and build the road, and the charter could not be used for the purpose of blocking another road.
The following is a resolution which was passed by the Wynyard section of the United Farmers of Canada:
Whereas, we believe that it is the earnest desire of the Canadian public that the national railways be allowed to expand consistently with the development needs of the country, that they may become an asset and not a liability and
Whereas it is becoming increasingly apparent that northern Canada will become a storehouse of revenue, and
Whereas, a competitive railway building program into these regions would not be to the best interest of the publicly owned railways,
Be it resolved; that we urge upon the Dominion parliament to give the national railway preference in allocating territory for railway building throughout the whole Dominion.
The following editorial appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 12th last:
C.N.K .-Branch Lines

Having been the first in the field in the north, and being a publicly owned system in which the people of Canada have a large stake, the Canadian National system is entitled to something better than an even break in the allocation of the northern railway areas. This is to say, if both railways are prepared to build into a given area at the same time, the decision should go to the Canadian National.
The editorial continues:
The obvious line of policy for the Canadian National is to get in first, and we imagine the country will be prepared to deal with any government, house of commons, or senate, that gets in the way of this policy.
I think the principle laid down by the Free Press is a sound one, and whatever railway is in the territory should have the first opportunity to build there. The territory in dispute, as indicated by the Minister of Railways during the course of the debate this afternoon, is certainly Canadian National territory. I do not think any reasonable person will dispute that, and I hope when this matter comes before the railway committee that they will see that the Canadian National secures the consideration to which it is entitled.


Mr. RYERSON:: Would the Minister of
Railways reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) this afternoon?


Charles Avery Dunning: I apologize for having
overlooked replying to that question.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I am advised that this cut-off is intended solely for the use of through freight trains. With respect to other

related matters such as the cost of construction, the reasons for it, highway crossings and so forth, I am sure the two hon. members most interested will reserve their questions for the officers of the company in the railway committee. Just at the moment I have the general explanation that the reasons for the high cost per mile are the long, continuous deep cutting for a double track and two substantial highway crossings. Full details will be available for my hon. friends in the railway committee.


Henry Elvins Spencer: We have heard a good
deal this afternoon and evening with regard to giving each of the railways, the privately owned one and the publicly owned one, an equal opportunity. The trouble is that the publicly owned one, in my opinion, has not had an equal opportunity for a number of years. Prior to a year or so past I know that the amount of mail carried for the government by the Canadian Pacific was far more than that given to the Canadian National, and I only hope that by this time there has been a change in that respect. Again, lines which are constructed by the Canadian National are expected to be completed in three years. The Minister of Railways pointed out that there might be a discrepancy in the fact that while three years are given to the Canadian National, five years are given to the privately owned railway. The option of having two years to start and five years to finish may have been all right some years ago, but it is thoroughly out of date to-day, and we might quite well call for branch lines to be completed within three years, Railway building has developed tremendously of late years, as we have been shown in the very rapid development of the Hudson Bay railway; we should therefore equalize conditions between the two railways by having the same terms given to both with regard to construction.
I feel very much in sympathy with those members who have suggested that privately owned railways should be asked to put up some sort of security as a guarantee that they will go ahead with their work. Not only is it unfair to parliament that the railway company should fail to carry out the construction work for which a charter is given, but it is particularly unfair to those parts of Canada where the charters are given. I remember in 1922 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company came back for a charter for the eighteenth year. When a charter is given to a railway company the people very often flock into the district affected, in many instances by

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
the hundred, in anticipation that the railway is going to be built, and if construction is not gone on with for a number of years, frightful hardships are entailed on those who have settled there. It seems to me, therefore, that we should cut down to three years the time given to the railways to complete construction, and at the same time we should give the railways an equal opportunity for carrying His Majesty's mails.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Will there be an opportunity later in the session to discuss the question of branch lines? In this connection may I say that for the past three years I have brought to the attention of the house and particularly to that of the Minister of Railways the acquiring of a branch line about twelve or fifteen miles in length, owned by the Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company, and running from Maccan to Joggins Mines in the county of Cumberland. I have been assured by the minister that the matter of acquiring it was under the serious consideration of his department.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, of the management
of !he Canadian National.
Mr. SMITH' (Cumberland):	By implication at least some assurance has been given that this road will be taken over by the Canadian National. I do not think that is a very fair or frank manner of dealing with pleas such as have been in the past in this connection. The hon. member for Inverness to-night stated that the line he spoke of was, he thought, the worst in Canada. I think that is right with one exception; because this line to which I refer is even worse than the one of which he spoke. There is no objection on the part of the company owning the line to its being acquired at a reasonable price. It serves a country that is very rich in coal, agriculture and lumber. The people have pressed for consideration for the past number of years and the minister has given me to understand, through his answers in the house in previous years, that consideration would be given to the acquiring of this branch line. I do not think it is fair or frank for that sort of statement to be held out to those people when year after year large appropriations are asked for in connection with expenditures in other parts of Canada-and I have not the least objection to them-while these people are left with a totally inadequate railway system to serve that part of the county I have the honour to represent. Will the minister assure me that there will be some
opportunity of discussing the matter later on in the session, either when the railway estimates are brought down or on some other occasion ?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot deny nor would 1 attempt to deny to my hon. friend the right to speak to this question at any time when, under the rules of the house, a matter of this kind may be discussed. In connection with his charge of lack of frankness, there are two sides to a bargain; there are buyers and sellers, and the Canadian National Railway is not compelled to deal with anyone with respect to the purchase of the line, is not compelled to pay the price that somebody thinks the line is worth. If my hon. friend has any information as to offers that have been made by parties owning the line in question and as to the public necessity of it, seeing that he is not satisfied with the answers he has hitherto received, I wish he would put down his arguments in a letter to me which I shall be glad to transmit to the management as representing his views so that there will be no misunderstanding between us in future. If my hon. friend regards my previous replies as being unfair and lacking in frankness, as he states, that is the only recourse I have. I cannot go further than that.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I have no
direct knowledge myself of the offer, or of anything concrete with respect to the negotiations that have taken place between the company and the Canadian National Railways; but my information is that they have been for some time past at the point of agreement, and that they are merely waiting for the Canadian National Railways to accept the offer which they have made and which they consider to be a reasonable one. As I say, I have not been in communication with the company and I cannot give any direct statement about the matter, but that is the information that comes to me from fairly reliable sources.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is of
course not the only member of the house who has pressed that matter of the Joggins railway. I cannot add anything to what I said a few moments ago.


Alfred Edmond Bourgeois: In view of the observations of the Minister of Railways and Canals with regard to the purchase in the very near future of the Kent Northern Railway, I desire to draw his attention to the fact that in the last request made for its purchase a provision was embodied that in the event of its purchase favourable consideration should be given for its extension from Richibucto to St. Louis,
C.N.R.- Branch Lines

a distance of about seven miles. This extension would be of the greatest importance to the people of the northern section of Kent county, as it would serve one of the most beautiful and prosperous agricultural sections in New Brunswick. It is because of the disadvantages under which these people are labouring, and because of the advantages they would derive from the affording of proper railway facilities, that I take this opportunity of bringing this very important matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways. I trust, therefore, that at as early a date as possible after the negotiations have been completed he will ask the management of the Canadian National Railways to give the matter favourable consideration so that steps may be taken looking to the completion of the extension to which I refer.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I think it would facilitate business if the house would consent to have the bills read a second time now, in order that they might be immediately sent to the committee on railways and canals. The discussion we have had this evening is the sort of discussion which would normally take place on the second reading, and if the house is agreeable I would appreciate advancing the bills to that extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as we are concerned we desire to expedite the business of the house to that extent. There is no purpose to be served by delay, except delay itself, which wc do not desire.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then I move, Mr. Speaker, that the said bills be now read a second time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I doubt whether the
motion should be put in just that way. I think there should be a separate motion for each bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: They will be recorded
separately. That was the understanding on a former occasion.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.



SECOND READINGS AND REFERENCE TO RAILWAY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On mol ion of Mr. Dunning the following bills for the construction of Canadian National branch line railways were read a second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines:
Bill No. 43, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point on the Murray Harbour branch to a point on ihe Georgetown subdivision of the Canadian Government Railways, in the province of Prince Edward Island.
Bill No. 44. respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Sunny Brae to Guysborough, in the province of Nova Scotia.
Bill No. 45, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point on the Dundas subdivision near Brantford to a point on the Dunnville subdivision near Cainsville, in the province of Ontario.
Bill No. 46, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point on the Garson branch to the Falconbridge mine, in the province of Ontario.
Bill No. 47, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point on the Sudbury branch to a point in the township of Fairbank, in the province of Ontario.
Bill No. 48, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Melfort to a point near Aberdeen, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Bill No. 49, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Central Butte or Mawer to a point in township IS or 19, range 10 or 11, west of the third meridian in the province of Saskatchewan.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 50, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Neidpath to a point on the Canadian Pacific railway near Swift Current, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Bill No. 51, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Ridce-dale, in the province of Saskatchewan, thirty miles toward The Pas, in the province of Manitoba.
Bill No. 52, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Unity to a point near the provincial boundary in township 36 or 37, in the province of Saskatchewan.
Bill No. 53, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Hamlin to a point near Glenbush, Medstead or Robin Hood, in the province of
Saskatchewan.
Bill No. 54, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from St. Walburg, in the province of Saskatchewan, to Bonnyville, in the province of Alberta.
Bill No. 55, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Alliance to a point near Youngstown or Dobson, in the province of Alberta.
Bill No. 56, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point at or near Bulwark to a point in township 38 or 39, range 8, west of the fourth meridian, in the province of Alberta.
Bill No. 57, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Hema-ruka to Scapa, in the province of Alberta.
Bill No. 58, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Swift creek to a point near Tete Jaune, in the province of British Columbia.
Bill No. 59, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from New Westminster to a point on Lulu island, in the province of British Columbia, with branches therefrom.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Grand Trunk Act, 1908-7, with respect to pensions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hen. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed1 resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Railway Act and to provide for a grant to the railway grade crossing fund of $200,000 per year for ten consecutive years from the 1st April, 1929.
Richard Bedford Bennett: On the assumption that the hon. minister will afford the same facilities for discussion of the resolution as was done in the previous case, it seems to me desirable that the house go into committee without further discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into
committee, Mr. Johnston an the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, this resolution deals with one feature only of a general amending bill covering several amendments to the railway act. It happens to be the only financial feature requiring a resolution. If the resolution be carried, the bill when introduced will enable hon. members to become familiar with the terms of the other proposed amendments, which are I believe of more, importance in the minds of many hon. members than the one specifically mentioned in this resolution. With respect to the financial resolution only, the amendment provides for a renewal for a further period of ten years of the grant, now provided by statute, of $200,000 a year to the grade crossing fund.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was the original vote passed?


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty years ago. It will be remembered that during the last session of the house I proposed certain amendments to the railway act with respect to the grade crossing fund, designed to bring the fund into more general use for the purposes for which it wa3 originally created by parliament. During the year the effect of those amendments has become apparent, and a much greater interest is now being taken in the grade crossing problem by municipalities, the provinces and the railway companies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What balance is left in the fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: The effect of the increased activity has been to reduce the sum available in the fund as of the 9th of February, 1929-the most recent figures I could get-to SI,904,387. That includes all the credits available under previous legislation. I

Railway Act
have statistical data which perhaps can be better dealt with so far as the general question is concerned when the bill gets to the committee on railways and canals. I may say that the various matters contained in the amending bill which will be introduced following adoption of this resolution can be satisfactorily dealt with only before a committee of the house. For the convenience of those using the railway act it is always desirable to have all amendments made to the act during any one session included in a simple amending bill rather than in the form of a number of separate amendments. Therefore my proposal is, if it suits the convenience of hon. members, that the discussion with respect to this matter take place in the railway committee, and again in committee of the whole when the bill comes back to the house.
I think that would be the best way to move forward; and of course if the house is agreeable to passing the resolution now it would not preclude future discussion.


George Reginald Geary: Does the minister think it expedient to put that statistical information, if not too voluminous, on Hansard, or to distribute it to hon. members in some other way?


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to the grade crossing fund?


George Reginald Geary: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be very pleased to supply it to my hon. friend.


Mr. CAHILL:: Put it on Hansard.


George Reginald Geary: I was suggesting that the minister put it on Hansard so that it will be available to everybody.


Mr. PRICE:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad indeed to hear the minister say that $200,000 a year for ten years will be provided for in the estimates. I desire to call to his attention an unsatisfactory condition of affairs in my constituency. A few years ago in the city of Moncton an arrangement was made with the railways for the depression of the railway tracks in order to eliminate the level crossings through the centre of the city. At that time the city council, influenced very largely by the press then supporting the Liberal opposition, declined to cooperate with the railway department. The railway went so far as to say they would pave the street between the two subways, as it was considered important that the work should be carried out. I wish to call the attention of the minister to the very urgent necessity of making those improvements. We have had some very near 78594-28
accidents at that point. Moncton, being the headquarters of the Intercolonial railway, is a very important railway centre, with upwards of 2,000 employees, and the Atlantic division of the Canadian National is handled there.
As this suggestion has been before his department on a previous occasion and has been approved, I would ask the minister to have it looked'into again to see if something cannot be done to improve these very unsatisfactory railway crossing conditions in the city of Moncton.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the statistics which the minister proposes to pvt on Hansard show the number of people whom we are succeeding in killing on level crossings each year?


Charles Avery Dunning: In fairness to the railways I would say that it is a statement of the number of people who succeeded in killing themselves rather than of those whom the railway succeeded in killing. If there is one fact that is emerging from the investigations that are being conducted by the Board of Railway Commissioners with the aid of the municipalities and the safety league, it is that the people engage in the business of killing themselves to a far greater extent than the railways engage in killing them. A member of the railway board called my attention to this strange condition, that with respect to all the level crossings within our cities over which electric cars travel at very high speeds, the accidents are relatively few. I suppose it is because the danger is ever present within a city, whereas the temptation out on the country road is to try to beat the train. Frankly, it is not within the range of financial possibility for this country to separate all grade crossings even if the Dominion, the provinces and the municipalities cooperated to the fullest extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are 15,000 grade crossings.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; and of necessity they are being added to every year. But very good work is being done by the railway board and by the municipalities under the amended provisions of the Railway Act which came into effect last year, and which have loosened up and made possible assistance for the separation of grades at crossings that under the old law was not possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In my judgment it is
rather bad practice to introduce a money bill with legislation affecting an amendment to the Railway Act itself, because in another place there might be power to amend or

Railway Act

reject the latter, but there is no power either to amend or to reject a money bill- at least we say there is not. To introduce a money measure, which must be preceded by resolution, with amending provisions of the Railway Act, is in my judgment wrong. It was started some years ago when there were introduced into the Railway Act provisions for the grant of a sum of money to the railway grade crossing fund.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the act was consolidated those provisions were inserted. Now, we are dealing with this money measure as a part of the Railway Act, and I think it is bad practice from a parliamentary standpoint. One of the strange anomalies that is very difficult to explain is that notwithstanding this parliament has provided about $200,000 a year to assist in eliminating the dangers incident to level crossings, we still have in that fund over a million dollars, the equivalent of five years' accumulation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a singular commentary upon the lack of curiosity on the part of municipalities to ascertain how they may be assisted in bearing the cost of grade separation. The situation in Moncton, referred to h.y hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price), was strikingly brought to my attention while passing over that very area last summer in a motor car. It does seem to me that if recourse were had to the amended provisions as to the availability of a portion of the grade crossing fund for the purpose, some relief might be possible. I am not sure whether under the amended provisions the fund would be available in that particular case.	[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: The present provisions
are very broad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, last session they were broadened to meet practically every case that might be suggested. But, as we said last session, is it desirable to extend financial assis-ance beyond the term of the parliament that grants it? ^ We are going to make a ten-year grant within measurable distance of the end of this parliament, and we have a five-year accumulation of the fund unexpended. That probably is of academic interest, due to the fact that it is money intended for a purpose about which there is unanimity of opinion. But it does occur to me that the better way to deal with this matter is to put the $200,000 in the estimates every year and not make part 
of the Railway Act provisions which by reason of their financial character must be preceded by a resolution, and which in reality have nothing to do with the Railway Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not inclined to
disagree with my hon. friend in respect to the general position which he takes with regard to a financial measure being included as part of a general measure; but, as he very properly stated, the practice did not start in parliament and antedates my presence here by some years and, I think, his own.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Having regard to the well known situation of it from the point of view of the interested parties, and the circulation of the information in the form which has taken place during the past year, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that there would likely be confusion in changing it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except if it were put in the estimates, which it well might be.


Charles Avery Dunning: In both of the last sessions during which I have occupied my present position there have been amendments broadening the application of the fund. The result of that is seen in the payments made. I give now the statistical information my hon. friend asks for. The aggregate expended up to and including 1928 is as follows: The railways, $4,315,333; the municipalities, $4,430,298; and the grade crossing fund, $1,079,595; or a total of $9,825,227. During 1928, up to November 7, the grade crossing fund expended $662,000; that is for 1928-29. So my hon. friend will see that if this rate of expenditure continues it will not be very long before it will be necessary to come back to parliament and ask that the $200,000 a year be considerably increased.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: An hon. member says "hear, hear," but there is a feature of the question which I might mention even at this late hour, and that is the provision made whereby provinces may come in and contribute towards this fund, with such conditions regarding the expenditure of their contribution as they may desire to lay down. I believe the province of Quebec is now considering making some such arrangement, which undoubtedly would have the effect of greatly encouraging grade separation and crossing protection generally in any province which should see fit to contribute to the fund. After all the responsibility. strictly speaking, is on the railway and the municipality, or the crown in the right

1-tailway Act
of the province in any highway which crosses the railway. This assistance is another of those forms of Dominion aid intended to induce and to help other bodies to carry out what are really local obligations. More and more it is being recognized that this problem is of such a serious character as to justify contributions on a basis which will, under the. administration of the federal body, please remember, enable the problem to be more adequately dealt with as time passes.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is there any provision in the present railway law to enable the department to spend any money under this vote with the aid of the provincial government instead of the municipalities? I do not think there is.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: And you will accept the contribution of the provincial government instead of a grant from the municipality?


Charles Avery Dunning: Absolutely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is done in the western provinces.


Mr. BROWN:: With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Pontiac, it may possibly be considered outside the realm of the discussion but the matter is one to which the house should give some consideration. Would it be within the province of the railway committee to discuss the question as to people being killed at grade crossings? The minister has properly said that people are killing themselves at grade crossings. This is a subject to which the attention of the public should be drawn. A resolution was placed on I he order paper at a convention of the United Farmers of Manitoba in which it was proposed to make it an offence for a person driving a vehicle of any kind not to stop on coming to a grade crossing. The moment the resolution was read there was such a protest that the person who intended proposing it refrained from putting his motion. It seems to me that either the railway committee or some other committee, at any rate somebody, by means of a private resolution or otherwise, should bring this question to the attention of the house. I am informed by railway men that it is becoming a serious question for railway engineers. It is getting on their nerves, this foolish practice indulged in by some people who drive automobiles. A case was called to my notice of a man who had been in the habit of racing the train for a few miles alongside the track and then crossing ahead of the engine and waving his hand at the 78594-26i
engineer. Finally he was caught. This practice should be frowned upon. In fact, not only deliberate attempts to get ahead of trains but carelessness as well should be frowned upon, and in some way the attention of the public should be directed to the very serious condition of things which has developed. We must have some sympathy with the railway engineer. He is in charge of a train travelling with a tremendous momentum, and which cannot be stopped at a moment's notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And, what is more, cannot turn aside.


John Livingstone Brown: Exactly. While the public
may not be prepared to accept the principle that it should be accounted a criminal offence for anyone to go over a railway crossing without first stopping, nevertheless the time will come when w7e shall have to give further consideration to this problem. It seems to me that the railway committee might very well engage at this time in an investigation of the question.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what I had in
mind a little while ago when I referred to the desirability of getting this particular amending bill before the railway committee. There it will be possible to summon the officers of the Board of Railway Commissioners having to do with the administration of the fund, and also to get the officials of the railways who are in touch with the men themselves, the men who are subject to the strain mentioned by my hon. friend. In connection with this matter the railway committee could, I believe, become an excellent safety propaganda medium, much more so than this committee, for the reason that those specially engaged in the work could appear before the members of that committee with necessary information and answer any questions asked.


George Reginald Geary: The leader of the opposition brought up a question with regard to the size of the fund remaining. Until recently the railway board has been loth to undertake any expenditure, giving plainly as the reason that there was no prosperity apparent in the finances of the Canadian National Railways, and that it did not choose to saddle that railway with any greater expenditure than could be helped. For this reason many applications of merit have been refused. If the Minister of Railways will look at his fund he will find that he has a considerable balance, and the means of getting rid of it in a way which will be fair both to the municipality and to the railway is to amend the section so that larger
Fisheries Act

grants, in connection with each separation of grades ordered, might be made. This would relieve the municipalities of a burden. The contributions at present, except in a few cases, do not amount to a great deal of money. However, we shall have an opportunity later on of discussing this very point with the statistics before us. Anyone who has any experience in the matter will recognize that the reason for the balance in the fund is the fact that it has not been drawn upon by the railway commission; it is not that there were no cases in which the commission had jurisdiction to make allowances.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 60, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISH INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister make
a short explanation?


Mr. CARDIN:: I intend to move that the bill be sent to the marine and fisheries committee in order to give interested members an opportunity to discuss it fully.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee of marine and fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Fisheries Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister say
shortly what the bill is about?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The object of the bill is
to put into effect the recommendations of the fisheries commission, and the bill makes statutory the seasons for fishing in the different sections of the maritime provinces. I intend to ask that this bill also be referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that under
the circumstances this bill can be hardly sent to a committee to-night, because the question of making statutory regulations which heretofore have been enforced at the discretion of the minister is a matter about which some hon. members desire to make some observations. especially having regard to the variable 
character of the discretion which has been exercised by different ministers during the last ten years. There is a difference of opinion with respect to these matters which some hon. members wish to discuss.


William Gordon Ernst: I should like to ask the minister one question with reference to these two bills. According to the order paper they are the only bills'to be introduced as a result of the report of the fisheries commission. Are we to take it that these two bills embody all the changes to be made as a result of the work of that commission, or are others contemplated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The other recommendations were matters of regulation which we can carry out without coming to parliament.


William Gordon Ernst: Are we to take it that this
is the only legislation resulting from the investigation by the fisheries commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, this will be the only
legislation this session.


William Gordon Ernst: And that commission cost

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee of marine and fisheries.



MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 33, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the
Opposition): If the bill goes into committee it will have to come right out to-night, because some question has been raised as to its effect upon pensions, as to whether or not it should be amended in order to provide some more favourable treatment for those whom it might adversely affect by the application in the future of a principle which has not been applied in the past. I suppose if it does go to committee the committee must rise immediately, because it is now eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 34, to amend the Technical Education Act.

Private Bills
Richard Bedford Bennett: We can hardly proceed
with this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There will be no discussion on the second reading; the bill just goes to committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 25, 1929