Mr. JACOBS:

That may be;-and he may find it necessary to get home as fast as he can. There ought to be no reason in the world why the two railway companies should not get together and provide a convenience of this kind for passengers. It is purely in the interest

of the passenger that I present the bill, and not for the convenience of the railway companies. The bill might reasonably be sent to the railway committee and there be threshed out. I understand that the railway companies in the past have retained counsel to oppose such a bill, and from 1921 to this date I am sorry to say, they have been successful. At any rate, I submit that the bill should go to the railway committee. I am inclined to think that the intellectual calibre of the house is a little higher than it has been in the past, and for that reason I hope the bill will go through.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I do not desire

to oppose the hon. member's suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I do not oppose it, for the reason that such a reference would give to the railway companies and to the officers of the companies an opportunity to put forward all the reasons why, in their opinion, the bill should not pass. The information I have regarding the matter indicates that more difficulty and more expenses would be involved than my hon. friend appears to believe would be the case. With regard to the statement he made respecting British practice, my information is that during and shortly after the war it was possible for a time in Great Britain for persons to travel by one road on a return ticket of that railway and to come back by another road, as my hon. friend intimates. I am also informed, however, that a number of years ago this practice was discontinued in Great Britain and exists to-day only under special permit conditions where the rail service, by reason of the financial difficulties in which the transportation companies there find themselves at the present time, has been curtailed. There has been a reduction in train service, and in such cases, where the curtailment operates to make it difficult for the holder of a return ticket conveniently to return on the same line, he may obtain a permit to use the ticket over another road. My hon. friend would not desire to have his bill so amended as to involve the necessity of securing a permit before one could use the ticket over another line. My advice is that this is the condition that prevails in Great Britain at the present time.

The objections advanced by the railway companies-with which objections the hon. member, in view of the previous experience he has had with a similar bill in other sessions, is reasonably familar-rest broadly upon the

Railway Act

basis of the confusion which would result, and the difficulties surrounding contractual relations of this kind as between the passenger on the one hand and the company which has entered into the original contract on the other, and also a third company which might under the law be compelled to assume part of that contract notwithstanding that it had not been a party, in the first place, to such contract. I am merely re-stating in this connection the objections registered on former occasions by the railway companies themselves to the proposed arrangement. However, in view of the convenience to the public which my hon. friend urges would result from the adoption of such a measure, the government will be perfectly content to have the bill pass its second reading in order that the possibility of the suggestion may be thoroughly examined by the railway committee.

Mr. MANION:

As I asked a couple of

questions regarding the matter, it is possible that I may be taken as opposing the bill. As a matter of fact, I was neither opposing nor supporting it. As regards the incident to which my hon. friend has referred, when, as he says, he was going from London to Glasgow-

Mr. JACOBS:

Glasgow to Edinburgh.

Mr. MANION:

-Glasgow to Edinburgh, the stations were exactly the same. A few years before that, a similar incident occurred in my own experience and there was a refusal to give a return ticket, so that I had to pay a second fare to return from Glasgow to Edinburgh after I had gone by one road from Edinburgh to Glasgow.

Mr. JACOBS:

They should have issued a return ticket to a returned soldier.

Mr. MANION:

I was not a returned soldier at that time. I mentioned this in order to show that the rule has not always been the same. I do not know what it is now, but at the time of which I speak the rule was not as has been indicated. As I say, I am neither opposing nor supporting the bill, because I think it should go to the railway committee. The point I make, however, is this: A man, in buying a return ticket from one railway or the other, gets a special fare by reason of that very fact that he buys the return ticket from the one company; the railway gives him a favour because it gets the return passage. I do not see, therefore, unless it can be proved that the return fare is equitable to both railways, why another railway should be forced to accept it. That is why I asked the

question. I am on the railway committee and I am open to conviction either way in this matter.

Mr. JACOBS:

In my bill it could be provided that when the ticket is turned over to the other railway company the passenger will have to pay the additional sum, so that he does not get the advantage of the reduction due when a return ticket is bought.

Mr. MANION:

That is different; I did not understand that.

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

The reason, I believe, why the railway companies give return tickets at liberally reduced rates is to secure the double travel on their lines. My hon. friend's bill proposes to give a privilege to the travelling public. I do not believe the Railway Act compels the railway companies to sell return tickets, and therefore if the bill passes, instead of giving an advantage to the public, the railways will in all probability discontinue selling return tickets, to the detriment of the public.

Mr. JACOBS:

In Canada we have two railway systems issuing tickets, in the summer months, at any rate,-I do not know whether it applies all the year round-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Does the hon. member intend to close the debate? If so, I may inquire whether other hon. members wish to speak.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. SPEAKER:

This is not the committee stage, but the hon. member may speak to the question.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

On one occasion this year I was at a point where the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National join, both railways going to Calgary. One route is longer and the charge over that line is four or five dollars more than in the case of the other. How would that work out?

Mr. JACOBS:

I was going to remark-

Mr. SPEAKER:

This will close the debate.

Mr. JACOBS:

-that, without reference to other countries, we have in Canada two railway companies who have an arrangement whereby in the summer months-this may be done perhaps at other times also, although I am not aware of it-a return ticket is issued from Montreal to the Pacific coast returnable by Prince Rupert; you travel to Vancouver on the Canadian Pacific railway and

Railway Act

return via Prince Rupert on the Canadian National railway. That is the system I want to have legalized, so to speak, for every part of the country. If it is not an inconvenience for the railways to carry a passenger across Canada surely it would not be an inconvenience to carry a passenger two or three miles.

Mr. DUNNING:

Is it not a fact that in

the case of a ticket such as my hon. friend refers to, issued over the Canadian Pacific railway to Vancouver and over the Canadian National railway from Prince Rupert, it is a part of the contract that the holder of the ticket must travel by that route?

Mr. JACOBS:

Being bred to the law I

do not place so much value on so-called contracts as my hon. friend may. This contractual relation referred to could be easily established by legislation providing that the same contract entered into by the issuing company shall be followed by the company bringing the passenger back.