Mr. LUCAS:

Will the minister explain why the rate of duty on ploughs is different from the rate applied to cultivators? I am new in this House, and I have not been able to understand that.

Mr. LUCAS:

When we were discussing the Canada Grain Act the other night, I understood the minister to say that we would be allowed to discuss it again under this item.

Mr. LUCAS:

I should like to call the minister's attention to a matter regarding the car demurrage rule, which provides for forty eight hours' free time exclusive of Sundays for loading and unloading commodities. The exception to that rule is that, in that portion of Canada, Port Arthur and the West, in which the Grain Act applies, twenty hours' free time only is allowed for loading grain. I understand this legislation was enacted with a view to speeding up the loading and prompt handling of grain in the short time available for handling the crop. This legislation hits directly at the farmer; in fact, he is the only one hit, as the elevators have no limit to the number of cars they can load provided that they can get the cars. The farmer, on the other hand, unless he live**very close to an elevator, is unable to load a car in twenty-four hours, and as help is very hard to get at this time, he usually has to take an extra day to load his car. As a result, the handling of grain is not speeded up; in fact, in 95 cases out of 100 the farmer has to take 48 hours to load a car, and the object for which the rule was passed is not attained". For that

189i

reason, it has occurred to me that an amendment to the Grain Act might be submitted, allowing 48 hours for loading grain from loading platforms only. As I said before, the elevators do not need this, and I see no reason why the farmer with his grain should he allowed only 24 hours when all other commodities are allowed 48 hours. I call this to the attention of the minister and trust that he will see his way clear to bring in an amendment in this direction. It would be a great advantage.

Mr. LUCAS:

I see in the Edmonton

Journal of Friday, May 19, this headline: "Four Hundred Thousand Settlers for the Prairies, Shandro's Plan." Mr. Shandro, who I know has been in close touch with the minister for some time, states that the minister has given this plan very serious consideration. I should like to know if it is the minister's intention to bring in these 400,000 settlers from Galicia and Buko-wina, and if Mr. Shandro is to be employed for this purpose.

Supply-Immigration

Mr. LUCAS:

Subsection (a) of section 1 of this bill affects the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) stated that this was a new charter. But this is not the case of a constituency in which the charter for the construction of a railway line has just been granted. I have a paper here from which I will read a heading in order to give you an idea of what the people of that constituency have been led to believe for years with regard to the construction of this line. The paper is dated at Edmonton, September 11, 1912, and it says:

Construction to commence at once on Bruder-heim-Whitford Lake Line.

Now, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are coming back to this Parliament and asking for an extension of charter. I may say that the announcement in this paper to which I refer has reference to the Canadian Northern, which previously had the charter. Owing to the subsequent financial condition of that road, however, they were unable to carry on and the government took the lines over; the Canadian Pacific then came along and secured a charter through this territory. In view of the fact that the Canadian Northern had the charter first, and in order to prevent duplication, a clause was inserted in that charter to the Canadian Pacific granting to the Canadian Northern certain running rights. The clause read:

Provided that for the purpose of avoiding duplication of construction on that portion of

the line west of Lloydminster, the approval of the route map may be made subject to joint construction or operation with the Canadian Northern Railway terms to be agreed upon by the companies or settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) tried to convince the committee to-night that the reason these railways were not being built was because of financial conditions. I have here a clipping, Mr. Chairman, dated March 1, 1920, in which the following statement of Mr. D. C. Coleman, of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was quoted:

The railway companies are very much concerned at the moment over the possibility of a shortage of suitable construction and track labour during the coming year, but if anything like an adequate supply of labour Is obtainable it is our intention to make a start on the Cutknife Northwesterly lines during the present year.

He made no statement as to difficulties on account of finances; he attributed them entirely to labour. I submit that the labour situation in the country to-day in itself constitutes an ample reason why the railways should start construction at the earliest possible date.

Now, referring back to that clause which has been inserted giving the National Railways and the Canadian Pacific joint running rights, I submit that is one of the reasons why the Canadian Pacific has held back the construction of this road. I have before me an extract from the Edmonton Bulletin of so recent a date as February 14, 1921, which also quotes some remarks made by Mr. Coleman. It states:

The obstacle standing in the way of the completion of the Cutknife branch, Mr. Coleman explained, was the fact that settlement had not been reached between the C.P.K. and the Canadian National in regard to the latters application for running rights, over the branch from Lloydminster to Whitford Lake. The vital importance of the completion of this branch to the people residing in the territory it would serve was pointed out to Mr. Coleman, who promised that everything would be done by him to bring the matter forward.

Now, I am satisfied the objection has been overcome. The Board of Railway Commissioners have sat and given their decision, and if the matter cannot be agreed upon in a satisfactory way it could be brought to arbitration and ultimately settled by the railway commissioners.

In the district I represent the farmers are hauling their grain from twenty-five to thirty miles and almost every hon. member on this side of the House has been petitioned for his support when this matter

Canadian Pacific

came before the House. I know the conditions with which the farmers there are confronted. It is one of the best farming districts in Alberta, and the Canadian Pacific have admitted that there is no deadwood in that line, but that it would be a paying proposition from the very start. I am not here to say anything against the Canadian Pacific. I think we ought all to be proud of what it has done. It has undoubtedly done a great deal for Canada, but at the same time I submit that it has been well paid for everything it has done. They are now asking for this charter. Well, there are always two sides to a bargain, and if the people of this country through their representatives in Parliament grant this company an exclusive right for a certain number of years to build that line of railway, then if another company came along to-morrow after this charter had been granted and offered to build a line of railway there, the Canadian Pacific would say, " No, you people are bound; you have given us a charter." I submit that it should work both ways, and that if the company gets an exclusive charter for a certain number of years, it should not be averse to putting up some guarantee or bond that it will carry out the undertaking.

I think the amendment is a very reasonable one. It does not curtail the time at all, but simply asks the company if it is acting in good faith that it will start construction within the specified time and*be prepared to spend a reasonable amount of money. I have therefore much pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.