1903-06-22

OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES OF THE

[Stage Direction]
r L ij M ni ;

[Stage Direction]
.	[DOT] VOL. III.
Col. 0709, eighth line from bottom, for ' Hon. Mr. Ross (Victoria, N.S.)' read 'Mr. Borden (Halifax).'
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 22, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 204) to amend the Acts relating to the naturalization of aliens.-Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I promised my bon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that I would, to-day, give him some information in regard to the two commissions that the government has organized. the first upon the transportation question, and the second on the hydraulic concessions granted in the Yukon. In regard to the first of these commissions the House is already aware that our intention was that it should be composed of Sir William Van Horne, Mr. John Bertram and Mr. Harry Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy has signified that it is impossible for him to attend to the duties of the commission and therefore we have selected in his place Mr. Fry of Quebec. Mr. John Bertram has accepted without any qualification. When Sir Wm. Van Horne was first approached upon the subject be expressed his willingness to give his valuable services to this commission.
Since that time Sir Wm. Van Horne intimated to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) that owing to other duties and some family matters he doubted whether he would be able to accept the labour of the commission and rather asked the hon. Minister of Public Works to be relieved of the duties and the qualified consent that he had given. We would not accept this implied suggestion from Sir Wm. Van Harne that he should be relieved and we still hope that we will be able to secure to the country the valuable services he can render upon such a commission as that.
In regard to the second commission, that is the commission on the Treadgold and other concessions in the Yukon, Mr. Justice Britton has been appointed a commissioner and has accepted. We had thought of appointing another gentleman but on account of differences of opinion and the fact that probably he could hardly serve for the term which we proposed to give him we have thought it proper to ask the services of Chief Justice Killam of the Supreme Court of Manitoba, whose consent we have not yet received.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. ON THE ORDER FOR PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). Before taking up the debate on Private Bills I would suggest that we take those Bills which have come from the Senate, which have been amended there and to which amendments, I believe, there is no objection, so that these Bills can receive their third

reading. There are also two Bills on the paper for their second reading and these Bills, when read a second time, can be referred to their respective committees.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The government can have no suggestion to offer in regard to this proposition, nor can they assent to it. This is a matter which is in the hands of hon. gentlemen interested in Private Bills. So far as my own feeling goes. I cannot see any objection to the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. I.aRlvidre) being adopted.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. We might take from No. 7 on the Order paper down to the end of the list. There are four or five Bills.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is proposed to take certain Bills which come from the Senate and as to which there will be no objection. If there is any discussion they will have to stand and await their turn in the order in which they appear.
Mr. LaRIVIERE moved :
That Orders Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 be now read.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 202) to incorporate the Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada-Mr. Russell.
Bill (No. 203) respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company-Mr. Calvert.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
On section 4,
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to ask what will be the total length of the proposed line, so that we may understand what proportion the capital stock bears to the length of the line ?


Mr. MCCARTHY.: The proposed line is to run from Moncton to Quebec ; from Quebec south of Lake Abitibi, north of Lake Nipigon to Winnipeg ; thence to Edmonton ; thence through the Pine River Pass, or such other pass as may be more practicable, to Port Simpson. My hon. friend will have Mr. LaRIVIERE.
from that as correct information as I will be able to- give him as to the mileage. I suppose it would be in the neighbourhood of from 3,500 to 4,000 miles, speaking without any definite information on the subject ; geographically, I think it would be about that distance.


Robert Laird Borden: The capitalization then amounts to $20,000 a mile, as I understand it, so far as the share capital is concerned, and there is provision later on for very large bonding powers. Might I ask whether or not the bonding powers and the power to issue guaranteed or preferred stock have in any way been cut down or restricted by the Railway Committee ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I think no change was made by the Railway Committee in respect to clause 13, being the bond issue clause.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the capitalization of the road is very high.
Mr. McCarthy. That was changed. The capitalization asked for was greater than that given-no ; I beg my hon. friend's pardon, it is not ; the capitalization asked for was $75,000,000 and the capitalization granted was $75,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: For the road as originally projected the capitalization would be about $20,000, so far as the share capital is concerned. In view of the change that was made by the committee in the location, that has been somewhat cut down, but apparently it is at least $20,000 per mile at present. You are to add to that the bonding powers contained in section 15, which amount to $30,000 per mile on the Quebec section ; $30,000 on the woodland section ; $20,000 on the prairie section, and $50,000 on the mountain section. You have in addition to that, section 6, which provides that the company may issue guaranteed or preferred stock not exceeding $10,000 per mile. So that you have under section 4 a capitalization of $20,000 per mile ; under section 6 an additional capitalization of $10,000 per mile, and then you have bonding powers varying from $20,000 to $50,000 per mile. Upon the prairie sections, which I suppose will be the cheapest to' construct, you have a capitalization of $50,000 per mile.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Is my hon. friend speaking from the reprinted Bill or the original Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking from the original Bill, but I have a reprint here which does not show any change in that.	,
Mr. McCarthy. We have taken the trouble to have it reprinted again, and section 6 of the original Bill was struck out by the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: It would have been very much more convenient if the reprint had been distributed. I am not aware that I have received one.
Mr. McCarthy. My hon. friend understands that the reprinting was done as a matter of courtesy. There are a number of copies in the distribution office.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not regard it as a matter of courtesy at all. I think it is the right of every member of, this House to have a copy of the Bill as reprinted.
Mr. McCarthy. I mean that it was a matter of courtesy, because we were not ordered to reprint.


Mr. CLARKE.: We have only copies of the Bill as originally printed. Surely we have a right to have copies of it as it was amended by the Railway Committee before we discuss it ?
Mr. McCarthy. There are any number of them in the distribution office.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, for the purpose of having copies of this Bill as reprinted distributed among the members.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will the hon. member look in his file and see if he has not got it ? Everybody else has a copy.
Mr. CLARICE-. I have only a copy of the original Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Before this clause is adopted, I would like to repeat what I have already said, except the reference to clause 6, which has apparently been struck out, although there was no information in my possession indicating that, at the time I rose.
Mr. McCarthy. Was not the reprinted Bill on my hon. friend's file ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I do not find it. In view of what my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has said, and looking at the Bill as it is reprinted, it appears that the capital stock of the company is placed at $75,000,000 ; and section 13, formerly section 15, referring to the bond issue, remains, I think, in exactly the same terms as at first proposed. On the whole 3,500 miles of road the capitalization will be $20,000 per mile and the bonding powers from $20,000 to $50,000 per mile. Therefore, the capitalization of this road varies from $40,000 to $70,000 per mile. The prairie section, which I presume is the cheapest portion in point of construction, has a capitalization of $40,000 per mile. It would seem to me that this is an unusually high capitalization. I say that especially in view of the fact that we were told-if I may be permitted to refer to what took place a few days ago- that the cost of building the Canadian Northern Railway through the prairie country would not exceed, according to the estimates of the engineers of that railway, more than $1S,000 per mile, which included $3,000 per mile for equipment, or a cost of construction of $15,000 per mile. We have every right to assume that that estimate is sufficient, because it was not in the interest of the Canadian Northern Company to make it any less than the actual cost. The estimate given by the engineers of the government was, I think, one or two thousand dollars under the amount I have named.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Eighteen thousand two hundred dollars was one and $18,800 the other.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), I did not think they were so nearly alike ; and, as I am reminded by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), the cost of that particular portion of the l-oad was said to be increased by reason of the fact that there were a number of very expensive

bridges to be built. Now, if the Canadian Northern Company can build and equip its road for $18,000 per mile through the prairie section, why should this House give the Grand Trunk Pacific a capitalization of $40,000 per mile over the same country ? I do not think we ought to pass this clause until some sufficient reason is given by the promoters of the Bill or by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals why this high capitalization in respect to that portion of the road-indeed, in respect to the whole road-is demanded by this company. I am not in favour of unduly restricting this or any other company in the matter of capitalization, because I am well aware that capital seeking investmept in undertakings of this kind must have some reasonable margin. But my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, speaking, I presume for the government, has taken the position in the House that unduly high capitalization restricts and impedes any control over rates which may be afterwards exercised by either the Governor in Council, 'the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or the proposed board of railway commissioners. Therefore, if this road should not cost to build and equip more than $18,000 per mile, and we give the company powers of capitalization extending to $40,000 a mile, may we not reasonably expect that there will be less power to control its rates in the future than if we restrict the capitalization to something like the amount the road may be presumed to cost ? For my part, I would like to hear some more definite explanation, some good reason for giving this very large capitalization, before 1 would 'be inclined to agree in giving this company powers conferred on it by sections 4 to 13 of the Bill.
There is another consideration which should be perhaps mentioned at present. This company, having a capitalization, under section 4, of $75,000,000, is not bound, if I understand the provisions of the Bill, to construct any particular portion of the road. The only requirement to keep the charter in operation is that which is contained in section 33 :
If the construction of the railway is not commenced and $3,000,000 is not expended thereon within two years after the passing of this A'ct and or if the railway is not finished and put into operation within seven years after the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
passing of this Act, the powers conferred upon the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the railway as then remains uncompleted.
If that be the only provision-and it is the only one I find in the Bill-this result will necessarily follow, namely, that this company, having the power to fix its capital at $75,000,000, under section 4, may possibly build not more than 1,500 or 1,000 miles of railway, and, therefore, its capitalization-if the capital stock be fixed at $75,000,000-may be run as high as $50,000 per mile or even more. It does seem to me that some safeguard should also be taken with respect to that particular feature of the Bill, and I would ask my hon. friend to explain the grounds on which it is considered necessary to give to this company what must be regarded at present as a very excessive capitalization.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am unable to understand bow my hon. friend arrives at the conclusion that this Bill establishes a capitalization of $40,000 share stock per mile, in respect of the prairie section. We have in this Bill dealt with the question of capitalization precisely as we have dealt with it in other Bills, or as nearly as possible. We have not thought that, comparing the amount of shares, capitalization which we authorized the Canadian Northern Railway to issue, with the amount authorized in this Bill, that we are here authorizing any larger proportion than we did in the case of the Canadian Northern Railway. The hon. gentleman should take Into account the fact that we are authorizing by this measure the construction of 3,000 miles of railway, at least 1,600 to 1,800 of which will be through a very difficult and expensive country. The distance from Quebec to Winnipeg is estimated to be some 1,500 miles. That country, as you know, is exceedingly rough, through which it will cost very much more money to build a line, than through the prairie section, and a little west of Winnipeg you get into a hilly district and have to travel through an expensive and difficult country to reach Port Simpson. Taking the mileage from ocean to ocean at 3,000, we have allowed $25,000 per mile upon It. It would be quite inaccurate to say that we have allowed $40,000 per mile of share

stock to issue. We are simply authorizing $25,000 per mile. There would not require to be so much issued in respect of the prairie section as of the other. There would require to be as much again issued, perhaps more, in respect of the Quebec and the mountain sections as of the prairie section, so that, comparing the proposal approved by the committee with the proposal approved by the government in the case of the Canadian Northern Railway, when dealing with the system of less than 1,500 miles -800 miles built and 700 to be built-we have dealt in no different way with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway than we did with the other. It) was thought, upon mature consideration, that the limited capitalization we allowed there was not excessive. If the hon. gentleman is basing his criticism upon the assumption that we are authorizing stock to issue to the amount of $40,000 per mile, I think I have made it clear that his estimate in that regard is excessive.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman has correctly apprehended the purport of my remarks. I pointed out that in the Bill as originally introduced, there was a capitalization of $25,000 per mile. Assuming that the line from Moncton should be built, that capitalization might possibly be reduced to the vicinity of $20,000 per mile. But in addition there is something else you have to take into consideration, when you contemplate any attempt to control the rates in the future, and that is the bonding powers which are contained in section 13. Under section 4, you have a capitalization of $20,000 per mile, or $25,000, and it might be $50,000 per mile, because the company is not obliged to build the whole of its road. It may only build 1,500 miles, and then, under section 4, it will have a capitalization of $50,000 per mile. You will have not only capital stock issued to the extent of $75,000,000. but also bonds to the extent of $35,000 per mile on the eastern, and $30,000 per mile on the Quebec section, and $30,000 per mile/on the woodland section, and $20,000 per mile on the prairie, and $50,000 per mile on the mountain section. These are matters which will have to be taken into consideration by the government in future when they come
to deal with the question of controlling the rates. I say that the capitalization, including the bonding power under section 13, ought to bear some reasonable proportion to the cost of the road, and I do not think that the capitalization, including in that term the bonding powers, does bear a reasonable proportion to the cost of the road, even as stated by the hon. the Minister of Railways. He pointed out that some portions of the road will be very expensive to build. But the bonding powers are proportionately increased in those portions. In respect of the mountain section, you have a bonding power of $50,000 per mile. I am taking the prairie section simply as an illustration, because we have some data with regard to the construction of a road in that country, which we have not with regard to other portions. If it be true, as has been stated on the authority of engineers of the Canadian Northern Railway and the Department of Railways and Canals, that you can build and equip a road for $18,000 per mile in the prairie section, why are you enabling this company to issue bonds to the extent of $20,000 per mile and also to issue stock to the extent of $20,000 per mile on that section as well ? Does my hon. friend think that when that stock is issued-and it may be issued under an arrangement with the construction company for a very small percentage of its value-does he think that when this stock gets into the hands of bona fide holders, who may have paid from 60 to 100 cents in the dollar for it, and you have bonds to the amount of $20,000 per mile as well, that will not have some effect on the exercise by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or the Board of Railway Commissioners, of discretion as to what rates are to be charged ? It seems to me that,powers of that kind are calculated to have a very important influence upon the control of rates in the future ; and I, for one, raise my voice in protest against granting to this railway, or any other railway, powers' so largely in excess of what the actual cost of the road is supposed to be. 1 am not raising this point for the first time ; I do not select this read to raise it against ; I have endeavoured during the past two sessions to raise this question with regard to every railway charter that has come before this House. And I must say

514S
that I know of no charter that has come before us for some time past that has granted powers of capitalization that seem to me so very excessive as those it is proposed to confer upon this company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One word in reply to the bon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I did not, in my remarks I made a moment ago, address myself to the contention the hon. gentleman is now making, because, I confess, my attention being called away to the point I dealt with, I did not apprehend that he was adding the bond issue to the capital slock issue. WThen he does that, the statement he makes with regard to the total amount per mile would not be unreasonable. But I have this to say upon that subject-that I have as strong an objection as any member of this Committee to the authorizing of excessive stock and bond issues. I have contended in the Railway Committee as strongly, as I could to keep down these figures, to keep them within reasonable bounds. And, in the present instance, I am not going to deny-it cannot be denied- that the fact of the issue of a large quantity of shares added to the exercise of extensive bonding powers will necessarily bear upon the business of the road, and, will, to the extent to which it is excessive, unreasonably burden the business of the country. One cannot possibly shut his eyes to that fact. But I want to point out, at the same time, that that very result is one of the necessary incidents of railroad building by corporations in this country. You cannot build them otherwise. If the country is so adverse to taking up the construction of these particular roads by the general government, if the country will prefer that the work shall be done by a company, then, you have to put the instruments into the company's hands to enable them to raise the money. And I wish to say, in my opinion, they cannot finance upon the dollar for dollar basis of the bare value of the stock and bonds. No company has ever done it, and no company, probably, will ever be able to do it. Before the company is put upon its feet, you must offer special inducements to financial men to put their money into it. Of course, when the road is running and has become a paying concern, people look back upon what might have been done, and say Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
that it could have been made a success without such a large share capital upon which to pay dividends, and such a large bond issue upon which to pay interest. That is true enough. But before the enterprise is established, before the company is on its feet, you must go to capitalists and offer bonds at large discounts and offer shares as a sort of bonus to get the people to pur their money into it. So, if it is necessary- and it is necessary-to build these roads without the action or intervention of the government, it is necessary at the same time to recognize that you must give them the opportunity and the means to get the money required for the purpose of construction. That is my answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and I take it that it cannot possibly be gainsaid. What was the case with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway ? With all their cash subsidy and land subsidy, they found it necessary to issue millions of their shares at twenty-five cents on the dollar. And, taking one issue with another, probably the whole $60,000,000 was issued at not more than fifty cents at the outset. And, in the case of the bonds, I suppose they were obliged to dispose of them at a discount. I do not know at what discount, but I have no doubt there was one. So, it is impossible to make a calculation upon the basis of dollar for. dollar. And if the country wants the road to be built by the Grand Trunk or any concern associated with the Grand Trunk, it must put [DOT]that concern in the same position as the Canadian.Northern to raise money and carry the enterprise through.


Mr. DAVIS.: I have just a word to say with reference to the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that the Railway Committee would take into consideration both the bond issue and the stock issue of this railway company in regulating rates. I think it should be an understanding, in discussing this matter, that, so far as the stock issue is concerned, it should not have any effect whatever upon the Railway Committee in the regulation of rates, 'if my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will look into the records of American railways, he will find that they are all regulated by railway commissioners, and that about one-half the stock of railways pays uo dividends and is not taken into considera-

tion by th'e commissioners in regulating the rates. All we have to do is to say that people who lend money on mortgage are to be considered, for it is a well known fact that it is the money raised upon the bonds that constructs the railway, and the stock is a speculative element and should not be taken into consideration in fixing rates. So, if we see to it that the bonding power is not too high, we should not bother our heads about the stock. If the people put their money into the stock, they put it there as they do into any other enterprise, and they take all the chances.


Mr. BOURASSA.: I am glad of the light that has been thrown by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) upon our precious system of granting charters, especially to companies of such importance as the one now under consideration. As the hon. minister has said, it may be that it will not be possible for any company to construct a railway of this importance without being given large facilities for the raising of money, both so far as the investment of capital is concerned and the issuing of mortgage bonds. But if the rumour is true that this government .is going to guarantee the bonds of this railway to the extent of $20,000 per mile, or any other amount, a good deal of the argument of the hon. minister is destroyed, because if the guarantee of the government is given, there is no doubt that these difficulties the hon. gentleman has pointed out in the way of the promoters of this company will disappear. But the authorized capital will remain.
The MINISTER, OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. That would have to be considered.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But is the government ready to give the assurance that they will force the company to cut down the bonding privilege ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The point must be given due weight.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is the assurance given

	,


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in giving any assurance with regard to this important matter would speak a little
louder I should be glad. We could not hear what he said.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was saying that it is a matter the government would have to consider and deal with, provided they come to the. conclusion that they would give aid in any form to the company. They would have to consider the question of bond issue, undoubtedly ; and it was because no one was in a position to say whether or not the government would give assistance in any way to this company that we had to deal with the amount of stock and bonds as a committee.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am glad of the explanation given by the hon. minister. It is reassuring. But, the fact remains that we are saddling upon' the people, for all time to come, just as heavy a burden for the people of the country through which this railway shall run as the Canadian Pacific Railway has been so far, unless we take proper precautions to safeguard the interests of the people in the future. I most deeply regret- and I am not going to repeat what I said on a former occasion with regard to the Canadian Northern-that before giving support to this Bill, as seems to be the case, the government did not make up its mind to adopt a new railway policy for this country.


Mr. TALBOT.: One of the reasons given by the hon. Minister of Railways for granting such large bonding powers to the Grand Trunk Pacific, is that the part of the country through which the road will be built from Quebec to Winnipeg is very rough. I think that the hon. Minister of Railways has before him now sufficient reports of first-class engineers to demonstrate that, if a different route be chosen, the whole of that part of the line could be built within a one per cent gradient. I believe the hon. minister has that information before him now. We are told by the promoter of the Bill, my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), that the railway will be built fifty miles south of Lake Abitibi, Now, in that case they are choosing the worst part of the country, because they are going over the height of land instead of going north of Lake Abitibi. If they went north they would find a perfectly level country for their road-bed all the way. I

think this is the proper time to look into this matter and if this company is going to be subsidized to such a large extent by the government for the whole route, the company should be' compelled to pass through that portion of country where the route would be shortest and the easiest to build.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If I may be allowed to repeat an observation which I made when this Bill was before the committee, I would say that I do not see the wisdom of discussing the question of government aid in connection with this charter. For myself I have declined to discuss the two things together, and I do not admit for a moment that in passing this charter in its present form, if we do pass it, the government are committed to anything whatever. If the government decide to grant aid to the Grand Trunk Pacific, then, when the measure concerning that aid comes down, this charter must be adapted to the government aid. Therefore, I fail to see the wisdom of connecting the two subjects. In supporting this charter in its general character, I do not thereby commit myself to anything in the world, either regarding its location or anything else which has any relation to government aid. The two questions, to my mind at all events, are absolutely separate.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman permit me one word ? In what way would the hon. gentleman adapt the charter to the altered conditions ? Would he do it by amending the charter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly, if this charter does not conform to the conditions which the government require, then this charter must either be amended or dropped. Before the government will agree to grant aid the government must insist upon the charter conforming to the conditions which they lay down.


Mr. McCREARY.: Does the Finance Minister mean to say that if we agree to guarantee the bonds of this road, by a subsequent Bill we would have power to reduce the bonding powers contained in its present charter ?	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I take it that if this charter had at that time become law we would haw to amend it. But I take it that this charter would not become law until the close of the session, and it will stand open like every other matter which has not passed its Anal stage. If the policy of the government should not be in harmony with the route, or with the bonding privilege, or anything else, then it is not the policy of the government that must change, but it is the charter that must change.


Robert Laird Borden: Then would it not be more convenient to let the Bill stand until the policy of the government is an-Mr. TALBOT.
nounced ? According to the hon. gentleman's own statement that would be the logical course.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To my mind that is entirely a question for the promoter of the Bill. We are not urging the Bill.
Mr-. BORDEN (Halifax). But the Bill is being urged on, and the House has to deal with it ; and the question is whether the House should deal with it, having first obtained such information from the government as we are reasonably entitled to, having regard to the importance of this undertaking and its effect upon the general scheme of railway transportation in Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that if government aid is proposed, then all these provisions may be amended. But would it not be a more convenient course to put the House in possession of such information as, according to the hon. gentleman's statement we may reasonably expect, and then at a later date in the session we could deal with the Bill, having obtained that information, and being enabled to deal with it from all possible standpoints ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My answer is that I think we have to deal with this Bill in the same manner as any other railway charter, utterly irrespective of the question of subsidy or aid. Other companies come here for charters, we do not insist upon discussing the question of subsidy in connection with their charters. We give them the charter upon the ordinary terms of other charters, and leave the question of aid to be settled later on. I am willing to treat this company in precisely the same way as other companies. Let them take their charter for what it is worth. When we come to deal with subsidies, that is another matter.
Mr. McCarthy. Having the Bill in charge, I must say to the committee what is common knowledge to every one : we discussed this chanter for nine days in the Railway Committee, most fully and completely. All the questions which have been spoken of here to-day were before that committee and we discussed them at length. I think I am safe in saying that this Bill was more fully considered before that committee than any other Bill during the past fifteen years. Now: we are in Committee of the Whole. I have no desire to stop the discussion, the Bill can be discussed as fully as possible, but I must ask the committee to permit it to go through, remodelling the Bill as the committee may see fit. We are now on section 4 of the Bill, and it is not fair, except for the purpose of argument, to couple this section with the question of bonds, and ask for an answer now. This section capitalizes the company at $75,000,000. I submit to the committee that this is a fair and
f 5152a JUNE 22, 1903 5152b	
reasonable capitalization. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has a capital now of $85,000,000. We must not mix up the bonds and capital stock, they are entirely distinct things. A person who buys stock knows what he is buying, and a person who buys bonds knows what he is buying. They are not a part of the capital, and my hon. friend showed that he was aware of that when he joined the two. I say in view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway is capitalized at $85,000,000, it is only fan- that we should be given the capi-* tal we ask for. I do not think it is an overcapitalization at all, I think it is a fair capitalization, and I ask the committee, to let this section pass. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. It does not appear to me that it is at all necessary or important, from the standpoint which has been urged by the other side, that this Bill should stand. If the governm ent decide to come to the assistance of the Grand Trunk Pacific, it can only do so by an Act of parliament, and when that Act of Parniament is proposed, it can declare and lay down the route upon which the line shall be built, and authorize the Grand Trunk Pacific to build its line according to the route indicated in that measure instead of according to the route laid down in this charter. That is not unusual legislation ; that will be effective legislation. Then as to any other terms, as to the capitalization, we would have regard to that in the Bill which we would submit to the consideration of the House, and under which we would be asking parliament to assist this undertaking. I see no difficulty. The Grand Trunk Pacific will take this charter, and if they do not get the assistance they can go on, and they are entitled to go on with it, the same as any other company that comes to parliament. The committee has to deal with this Bill from all points of view, and when we as a government have reached a conclusion as to the course we will take, if it becomes necessary to make any material change in any respect in the charter of this company, we must do so by amending the charter in declaring the routes and other questions upon which the aid is to be given and under which the company is to be authorized to build by means of this aid. Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Whether this company receives government aid or not, I say that its capitalization, under which we will include the bonding powers, ought to bear some reasonable proportion to the cost of the road, and I am taking the prairie section as an illustration. My hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) says that the stock and the grant capitalized by way of stock has nothing to do with the question. I point out to my hon. friend that if you take for example the case of the Can-dian Pacific Railway to-day, let us assume	that the stock of that railway was disposed of at a very small figure at first, it is chiefly now in the hands of bona fide holders, not o': the people to whom it was issued in the first instance. If the proposed board of railway commissioners should have the power to deal with the rates fixed by the railway, when the railway is completed it would be influenced, beyond doubt, by the fact that this stock at the present time has been paying dividends, that it is in the hands of bona fide owners who paid for it, and the rates imposed by the railway company on the products of the west would perhaps lie fixed at a higher amount than if the capitalization had1 been a smaller amount in tlve first instance. I am putting it like that, by way of illustration. If you build this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and you capitalize it by means of a stock and bond issue for double the amount it would cost to construct the road the result which I have indicated will follow. That stock is issued under arrangements that are very well known. Even where there is no power to issue below par it is very often issued by means of an agreement between a construction company and a railway company, and then only a small portion of the par value is really paid for the stock in the first instance. Stock passes into the hands of people who pay par for it and the railway goes on and prospers and pays a dividend upon that stock. It is impossible to make me believe that the fact of that over-capitalization will not have some effect upon the rates which shall be levied on the railway in. future. It is absolutely inconceivable that such a power will not be exercised by the company and the time to be careful about a matter of that kind is now, when the Bill is going through the House. When this Bill has passed through the House it is extremely improbable that any change of the Character which has been suggested will be made in it, and we will find the company secure in its rights to issue stock and bonds to the extent of $40,000 per mile to build and equip a portion of thet road which will only cost $18,000 pea- mile. I am willing to withdraw any objection I have to this apparently excessive capitalization if it can be, shown that any one of the arguments that have been addressed to the House on the subject is fallacious, but until that is done I must persist in my objection to a capitalization of the kind which is proposed in this Bill. Mr. MCCARTHY. The hon. gentleman (Sir. Borden, Halifax) will see that the bonding privilege on the prairie section is only $20,000 per mile. That is the method by which every corporation raises money for the purpose of construction. Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). What is to become of the capital stock ? Mr. MCCARTHY. 1 was going to ask the hon. gentleman that question myself. What would become of the capital stock if
5152c

5152d
it were put upon the market and offered for sale, if we eliminated the government from the question altogether ?


Mr. BELL.: Why should you have this power then ?
Mr. McCARTllY. Because by the bonds you are only placing a mortgage on the road for so many years, and when you sell your stock you can pay off your mortgage. It is absolutely unfair to classify the slock and bonds, together as capitalization. With the money raised on the bonds you build your road, then you pay off your mortage by selling your stock.


John William Bell: Out of profits.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Can the bon. gentleman give an instance where that has been done ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) is asking the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) a question.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I cannot give the hon. gentleman an instance.


William Forsythe McCreary: The promoter of this BUI says that we discussed it for nine days in the Railway Committee. I recollect very well that we did so ; but, at the same time, it was understood that when we came to the House we could make any alteration in this Bill if we so desired in regard to the bonding powers or the capitalization. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) says that we can almost make a new charter when we bring down the Bill granting aid to this road, that we can make such changes in regard to the bonding powers and capital stock as will practically amount to the making of a new charter. I have only been in this House for three sessions, but during that time such a course has never been pursued as! that which the hon. minister has suggested. I cannot recall a single instance in which a Bill was amended in the way that the hon. minister suggests when bringing down the Bill granting aid to the road, and it seems to me that the time to discuss this Bill is now and the place here. If this road is going to be constructed for the purpose of establishing another bond between the eastern people and the western people and of carrying freight from the east to the west and the west to the east, it has to be able to compete successfully with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Any one who has studied the question knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway isl able to handle all the traffic that is offered between the great lakes and the seaboard. An ordinary single track road can fake eighteen trains per day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: One way ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Both ways. The Canadian Pacific Railway do not carry during the summer north of Lake Superior, 1 am informed, more than one and a half trains per day. It is not necessary to go
Mr. McCarthy.
into this. In my opinion' it was a very unfortunate statement to make to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway is capitalized for $80,000 per mile. The very reason that the Grand Trunk Pacific are asking the country to assist in the construction of this road is to get rid of the octopus created by the capitalization of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway was built at a time when it was a little dangerous to invest money in the western country, when the Hudson's Bay Company and other great corporations that had been in possession of the country for years were saying that it was not. a habitable country. The Canadian Pacific Railway went into the North-west at a time when it was difficult to get anybody to go into business there. There are people, who, twenty years ago, could not be induced to invest a dollar in Winnipeg, who are putting up warehouses five and six stories high in that city to-day. It is a different proposition now. It is a financial proposition now, and wise men will now invest their money in the west. The proposed bonding power should be reduced from 25 to 50 per cent upon this road if we ever hope to get that relief from freight rates that we anticipate from its construction.
I heard the estimate given the other day that $18,000 per mile would build the Canauian, Northern from Grandview to Edmonton and for a distance one hundred miles east of Prince Albert, and it was somewhat of a surprise to me. I know that grading was done a couple of years ago for from 111 to 111 cents per yard. I have heard that this work is now being charged for at the rate of 22 cents per yard, which seems high. Perhaps this charge is made for station work in the neighbourhood of a muskeg. Eighteen thousand dollars a mile for the construction and equipment of that road is exceptionally high. It should be fixed at $15,000 per mile, $12,000 for construction and $3,000 for equipment. The bonding powers proposed to be allowed to this road should be reduced from 25 to 50 per cent, in my opinion, if it is going to give the relief that we expect from its construction.


Mr. HEYD.: Mr. Chairman, before this clause is put I may be permitted to say one or two words in connection with it from the standpoint from which I view it. When the Bill was before the committee and when the committee had discussed it for eight or nine days I took the position that it was the duty of the committee to pass any charter that the Grand Trunk Railway asked for, as. I then believed it was intended as a commercial undertaking in the interests of the Grand Trank Railway Company and incidentally in the interest of Canada. But, the proposition has been changed. The length of the road has been materially increased. The company is now compelled | to build' a railway in the form of a horseshoe hundreds of miles longer than that

*which was originally intended. I am still of the opinion that if the Grand Trunk Railway Company has been willing to accept the charter as amended it should be passed. Ultimately the government will be held responsible for the manner in which it deals with this railway. If it shall be found necessary to change the course of the line and to reduce the bonding power, that responsibility, I take it, will fall upon the government, and whether we vote for this charter now or whether we amend it, ultimately the government will have to assume the responsibility of looking after the interest of the country with respect to this railway. It is almost a waste of time for us to discuss the matter here, assuming that I am correct in my contention that the government are prepared to make recommendations and changes and enter into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway whereby on certain conditions they must build such a road under such capitalization and under such bonding powers. That responsibility they will, as a government, have to take. They must look to their supporters and to the sympathy of members on the other side to assist them in carrying it through this House. I am exceedingly desirous that a railway should be built across this country at the cheapest possible cost, so as to do the most good to the people of Canada and in order that freight may be carried at the lowest possible rate. The people of Canada will expect the present government to see that their interests in this matter are conserved.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: To my mind the doctrine announced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) is simply monstrous. He asks parliament to abdicate its responsibility in a matter of this kind and to saddle it on the shoulders of the government. Well, the government is nothing but a committee of this House, and to hold that it should take the responsibility of doing what it likes, after legislation has been passed by this parliament, is a monstrous doctrine. As a matter of fact, such a thing has been done too often in the past. I regret to say, I cannot agree with the Minister of Railways and Canals that we should deal with this charter just as we have dealt with other charters, lie-cause, even supposing that we have been in the wrong in dealing with other charters, that is no reason why we should perpetrate wrong doing. But, Sir, this charter is out of comparison more important than any other charter which this parliament has been called upon to discuss for the last fifteen years, and it is the imperative duty of this House to examine the whole question, and to insert such conditions in the charter as are needed in the interests of the country. So far as the capital is concerned I will not venture to express any strong opinion on that, but I do think that the contention raised by the leader of the 162
opposition is perfectly sound. The Minister of Railways and Canals said that we should allow all facilities for these people to raise money, because, leaving aside the question of government aid they may have some difficulty in getting the money. It is a fact, however, that this Grand Trunk Railway Pacific road has much more assurance than ever the Canadian Pacific Railway had at its commencement, that it is going to be a paying investment after some time. Then the company will have a capital of $75,000,000 and it will have to pay a dividend on that. Surely when the people of the west or the people of the east will come before the Railway Commission and ask for some relief from excessive rates, the expenditure on the road will have to be considered and the dividend that will have to be paid above and over that expenditure must also be taken into account. Therefore the fact that there will be an exaggerated capital will work to the deteriment of the people at large. I beg to move seconded by Mr. Angers :
That the capital of $75,000,000 be reduced to $60,000,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The question raised by the leader of the opposition is no doubt an important one, and if it be discussed on its merits apart from other considerations, I think it should receive the careful attention of the House. But, Sir, I do not know of any reason, and I have heard of no reason why this charter should be treated differently from any other charter that has been considered by parliament. The question as to what should be the bonding privileges and the stock capital of any company to which we are granting a charter is an important one. But, comparing this with other charters that have been granted in the past, and even during the present session, the Railway Committee considered that in giving bonding powers of $30,000 per mile on the most difficult sections, and $20,000 per mile on the prairie section, it was going to the fullest extreme possible that they would be warranted, in reducing the privileges granted. Notwithstanding the wild statements that are made in the House and out of it as to the cost of railways, if we take the experience of railway building in Canada and the United States, no member of this House who is conversant with the subject will pretend to say that this road could be built, equipped, and put in proper condition for commercial business at anything like the amount we are granting as bonding privileges. There is no person who can point to a railway in existence that has been built and equipped as a road of this description would have to be, for $20,000 a mile on the prairie section and $30,000 on the other sections. It has been customary in the Railway Committee of this House to grant $40,000 a mile at least in districts such as are tra-



versed by this railway, and that has been cut down to ?30,000 a mile, which means a very great difference. In my opinion the estimates given as to roads first built, is very low, and I think that any person who has studied this question will find that the figures mentioned in this Bill are also very low. We know from the experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway and other roads, that, through these different sections this road cannot be built for the amount of the bonding privileges. Considering the matter apart from anything that might happen in the future with regard to aid, and considering the scheme on its merits, in my opinion the bonding privilege, reduced as it has been below what is usually granted, is an exceedingly low bonding power if this is a bona fide company and is going to carry on the work. They cannot put it in the same position as the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Intercolonial Railway or any other railway in Canada for the amount we are granting here as a bonding privilege. The only other means they have for raising money under this charter is by the issue of capital stock, and even that amount has been reduced below what has been previously allowed in such charters. I am sure that no person who has had experience in railway matters will consider that there is a greater privilege granted for raising money under this charter than is sufficient to put the road in reasonable and proper shape. This very matter has been very carefully considered by the Railway Committee, and for my part, 1 am prepared to support the clause as is now before the House. Our action should not be based upon any prejudice or upon any rumour, but upon the actual experience of railway corporations in the past, and upon the actual knowledge we have as to the cost of railways through the different sections of the country.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If the principle were adopted, as laid down by the leader of the opposition, that the railway commission in arranging rates, should take into considers-tion the capital stock of a company so as to enable it to pay a dividend on its shares, then the shares of every railway in the country would be worth 100 cents on the dollar. If the principle is adopted that the company has to pay a dividend on every share, the shares would be worth 100 cents on the dollar. There is railroad stock in the United States, as I suppose there is also in tlTis country, that is not worth 10 cents on the dollar. Therefore, in arranging the rates, the amount of stock issued by the comrany is never taken into consideration. If the hon. gentleman refers to the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, he will find that half the railroad stock in the United States last year, and close on half this year, paid no dividend at all. The railroads in the United States are controlled not only by the Interstate Commission, but Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
by commission in every state. In fixing the rates, they hav'e never taken into account tlie amount of capitalization ; and in discussing the question here, I do not think we should approve of any principle of that kind.


Mr. BARKER.: When one listens to some hon. gentlemen who speak in this House, one would fancy that it made not the slightest difference what the amount of capital allowed to a company of this kind should be-whether it should be $50,000,000, $75,000,000 or $100,000,000. These same gentlemen when they appear before the public, after a company has been created, will talk very glibly about the iniquity and mischief of over-capitalization and watered stock, which ultimately wrings so much more money out of the pockets of the public : because it goes without saying that the larger the capital, the more will be required for dividends. It is all very well to take up a Bill such as the one we have before us, and say there is nothing mischievous in it. But I desire to point out one clause in the present Railway Act, which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals proposes to re-enact in the Bill which he has before the House, and which to my mind has a very strong bearing on such questions ns the one we are now discussing, that is. whether the amount of stock allowed to any company should be reasonable, having regard to the work to be accomplished. I refer to the following clause, which is taken from the Railway Act of 1888, which is now in force :
The directors of the company elected by the shareholders may make and issue, as paid up stock, shares in the company, whether subscribed for or not, and may allot and hand over such stock in payment for right of way, plant, rolling stock or materials of any kind, and also for the services of contractors and engineers ; and such issue and allotment of stock shall be binding on the company, and such stock shall not be assessable for calls.
There is not an hon. gentleman in this House who does not know exactly what this is intended to accomplish. A company such as is proposed to be created here will have at its back certain gentlemen ordinarily called promoters, and It is not an uncommon thing for such companies to have connected with them, not only promoters, but a construction company, who will be the contractors; and you may find, when you authorize a company of this kind to issue $75,000,000 of stock, that $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 of that may be given as a present to half-a-dozen gentlemen who may appear as a separate corporation for the purpose of constructing one or more sections of the railway. It is all very well to say that it matters very little what the amount of this stock may be. I think it matters a great deal, especially in the light of the section which I have read, that stock may be issued without a dollar being paid on it-practically as a present to those who

may be supposed to have been of service to the railway. One hon. gentleman suggests that we should leave all this to the government. I do not think a government should assume such a responsibility, even if this House allowed them to do so. The fact that under the law stock can be issued without a dollar being paid upon it, makes it of imperative necessity that this parliament should take extreme care that no more stock should be allowed to be issued than is necessary for the work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: The policy usually followed in matters of this kind is to adopt the report of the committee to which the Bill has been referred. The committee is the proper place in which to investigate all questions in connection with such a_ Bill, and we are informed that special attention was there given to it, more in fact than to any other which has come before parliament for several years. Therefore, unless a very strong and substantial reason is given why we should depart from _the usual course, we ought to follow the safe rule and abide by the report of the committee. The only point made against that report is that the road has been over capitalized, and that if such a large capitalization were allowed, we could not possibly afterwards control the rates. I would put this question to my hon.

friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) or any other member of the House : Does he believe that this road is being over capitalized? Does he think that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway can build the road even with the capitalization fixed by this Bill ? I think, on the contrary, that the country would have reason to be thankful if the Grand Trunk Pacific could build such a road as is here contemplated according to the provisions of this Bill. It is true that they have taken the power to issue stock to the extent of $75,000,000 and to bond the road to a large amount, but does my hon. friend believe that the $75,000,000 stock, if put upon the market, will realize that amount ? He knows that it will not. The country ought to be very thankful indeed to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway if they should build this railway from Moncton to the Pacific coast with the resources provided for in this Bill. What will take place ? They have undertaken to build such a railway from Moncton to Quebec, from Quebec to Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg to Fort Simpson. I say that if they succeed in carrying out such an enterprise under this Bill, without any government aid, they will havf performed a feat of great magnitude without cost to the country. But they will probably come to the government for assistance. Then, as has been pointed out by my hon. colleagues the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance, the terms upon which the government may grant assistance will have to be considered. But because this charter is passed, it does not follow that the government is bound to grant any assistance. If the government chooses either to build the railway itself or have it built by a company-either the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other company-then the terms will have to be submitted to parliament and carefully considered. But until then there is nothing to be said against the argument of the hon. Minister of Finance, that this charter has to be treated as any other charter. If it were not a charter for such a gigantic road, it would have got through before now, but the magnitude of the enterprise excites attention. That, however, should not lead us to imagine that the charter is not such a one as is every day reported by the Railway Committee and passed by this House. I may add that the amendment of my hon. friend from Labelle is not in order.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. Minister of Finance has said that it does not matter what the charter is that we are giving this company, and that the government, before granting it any aid, could alter the line and the terms and conditions. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) said that this was extraordinary legislation, and that it was the first of the kind he had ever heard of. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is the first legislation of the kind I have heard of. But the hon. Minister of Railways completely floored my hon. friend by producing a Bill, the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Canadian Pacific Railway Bill, which, he said, was formed on the same lines. Let me point out that it is not formed on any such lines at all. The Canadian Pacific Railway Bill was for the purpose of ratifying a contract made by several individuals, to wit, George Stephen, Duncan MacIntyre, R. B. Angus and some other capitalists in England, with the Minister of Railways to build a certain railway, and under that contract they were given a charter to do so. But how could the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway enter into any contract with the government for the building of a railway except such a railway as is defined in this Bill, and on the conditions therein stipulated ? The company is bound by its Act of incorporation. It cannot go outside of that. It cannot enter into a contract to do anything else than is expressly stipulated in its charter. It has no entity outside of its Act of incorporation, and therefore it cannot contract with the government as ordinary individuals could. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the government granted a subsidy for building a railway from Winnipeg to Victoria, and they got from parliament the power to enter into a contract with the railway company, which had been incorporated for the purpose of building that road. But this case is different. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is given by this Bill the power to build a certain defined line on certain conditions, and it could not make any contract with the government which would vary that line or in any other way alter the conditions of its charter. Therefore, I do not see how the contention of the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Railways can hold, namely, that after the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is given its charter the government may enter into an arrangement with it which would not be in accord with the conditions of that charter. I say that this is new legislation. But the Minister of Finance says it is quite time enough to consider the question whether the government will subsidize this road or not, and on what terms, when that question comes before the House, and that the only thing we are called upon to deal with just now is whether we are giving this company an excessive bonding power. I can remember well the arguments formerly made use of by the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), when he denounced what he called the folly of the late government in allowing over capitalization in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and predicted that when the rates were being fixed or if ever that road should be taken overly the government, the country would have to pay for that over capitalization. I took a different view at that time, and I cannot say that I have considerably altered my opinion since. The parties who invest money in railways will look to the security they are receiving for their investment. What security would investors have in the under-

taking now being considered ? First of all, there is the bonding power on the prairie section of $20,000 per mile, then there is the bonding power on the other sections, apart from the mountain, of $30,000 per mile, and on the mountain section of $50,000 per mile. The value of these bonds will be fixed by the value of the undertaking and the subsidy given by the government, and in my opinion-in which I differ a little from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friends the Minister of Railways and the Postmaster General-whether the bonding power be fixed at $20,000 per mile or $200,000 per mile would not matter so far as the investing public is concerned. Then, as to the fixing of rates afterwards, the commission would take into consideration not the watered stock, not the fancied amount of bonds issued, or any other securities placed upon the undertaking ; they should fix the rates upon the value of the undertaking itself, and its earnings, and that should be the only consideration. The amount that is issued, may affect the feeling of the commissioners in determining the value of the undertaking. That certainly is the view that has been taken by the present government: it was the view taken by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), and by the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), and asserted again and again before the committee. The amount of capital issued must have a little influence in determining the rates. But if the board properly inquire into this subject, it ought not to have that effect. Now what is the amount really available for the building of this road ? The only amount available for the prairie section-and I am sorry to be obliged to differ from so many hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the subject-is $20,000 a mile. It is true, you may give stock ; you may give it to the contractors for building. But they will get the full amount of their pay for the work they do in the cash realized from the bonds, and the value of the stock will amount to nothing. The only effect it can have is to remain as an incubus upon the undertaking, which, at some time, may influence a board in fixing the rates of charges upon the road.


Samuel Barker: The hon. Minister of Railways has told us that the clause to which he has referred is one which he proposed to put into the General Railway Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to ask the committee.


Samuel Barker: I quite understand-the minister intends to suggest such a thing. The only difference between this section and the one in the Act seems to be this, that the directors shall only give what is a fair and bona fide value, according to the opinion of the directors, for the service rendered. I really do not think that will be
much protection to the public. In the case I have put, the construction company will be so intimately connected with the directors, if it will not consist of the same individuals, that there will be no difference of opinion between those who are to give the stock and those who are to receive it as to what would be the bona fide and fair value. They will have the whole matter to settle among themselves. I do not think that this alters in the least the effect of the clause as it already stands in the Act. No body of directors, when they pass a resolution to give a large amount of stock to the construction company, ever give anything but what purports to be a bona fide and fair value, so far as the resolution goes. They do not commit frauds, they only take a generous view of what the construction company and those interested should receive ; and in that way, the stocks are watered and enormously increased beyond what they ought to be. That is the only point I am making and the only point I am referring to, and I refer to it not to discuss this clause, but because of its effect upon the amount of capital the committee should authorize the company to issue. The question of capital should be considered with regard to its effect upon the rates the public will have to pay to the company. It is a very important question. There is no doubt that the heavier the stock, the more the public, sooner or later, will have to pay for the services given. I understand the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) to say that this is a trifle. But I think that the public, as a whole, look upon it as a very serious question. Therefore, we ought to know from the government what really is required for this undertaking. I presume that the government know, very closely, what ought to be allowed for each section of the road. We ought to have some particulars, some more definite information as to how this amount of $75,000,000 has been arrived at. Why do they want that sum ? And would not $50,000,000 be adequate ?


Mr. OLIVER.: The question has been discussed as to the danger of over-capitalization of railways in connection with this clause. In the Railway Committee, I have always been one of those alluded to by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) as always opposing over-capitalization, and for the reason he lias stated, that, in my opinion, the Railway Commission, in fixing rates, would naturally take into consideration the amount of capital on which dividend in one form or another, would have to be paid out of the earnings of the railway. It seems to me that is correct, because, if parliament authorizes issues of a certain amount, either stock or bonds, parliament is certainly a party to that issue, and could not, as a matter of good faith, stand in the way of a possibility of dividends being paid upon those stocks and bonds.

I may say that, in holding that view in the Railway Committee, I did not have very much support. The large majority of the committee always went against that opinion, and never hesitated, so far as I kuovt, to give any capitalization to any company that wanted it. Now, it seems to me that if we had been ready and willing to give every company that came along the limited capitalization that is asked, it is rather a fool time to begin changing our view when a legitimate enterprise with a meritorious proposition comes before parliament. If the House will, even on this occasion, lay down a certain policy as to the amount of capital that is to be permitted to a railway company, and apply it from now on, even beginning with this enterprise, I should be inclined to support the proposition. But if the criticism offered is made only because of fear that this proposition is likely to be of some effect, that it is likely to have practical results-if what is really opposition is put forward in the form of criticism-then, as one of those who believe in the merits of the scheme and the necessity of its being carried out, I would be compelled to support the scheme as it is, even under the accusation of agreeing to over-capitalization. I do not claim to be more clever than other hon. members of this House, but it seems to me that I can follow quite clearly the proposition of the Minister of Railways, that when assistance is proposed to be given, it will be possible to restrict the operations of these powers that we-are now giving to the company, that it will be possible then to make an arrangement, to make a bonding agreement, with the company that we are now creating, that it shall exercise such powers as we are now giving them only to the amount that we then agree to allow them. It seems to me that that would be possible and proper. So, while I would be glad, and while I think it would be a proper thing, for the House, even now, to decide upon a policy whereby no railway company should be permitted, either under the name of stock or bonds, to be over-capitalized, I am not prepared to be a party to opposition to this scheme, to single it out from all others and apply a principle which has never been applied before, and which we have no assurance will ever be applied again-taking the stand that the protection I desire to provide for the public interest can be provided at the time the assistance is given, if assistance is to be given. At that time, I would propose to hold the government strictly to account for the measure and the manner of assistance given. But at the present, I feel that, as a supporter of the scheme, I would not be justified in supporting what would appear to be rather opposition than criticism.
Another word on another phase of the fact. It seems to me there is a misapprehension as to the full effect of giving large
powers in the matter of issuing stock and bonds. It has been held repeatedly that it was necessary to give large powers to issue stock and bonds in order to enable an enterprise to succeed. Now, I am not a capitalist, and I am not familiar with the workings of railways or railway promotion; but it strikes me that if a railroad project, which in itself was meritorious, were permitted by parliament to issue only a limited amount of stock and bonds, I would feel much more like investing my money in that scheme than in one which was permitted to issue a practically unlimited amount of stock and bonds. It strikes me we are not adding to the credit of a railway enterprise, by giviDg it excessive bonding powers, or powers to issue stock, but quite the contrary.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I have listened with great pleasure to this debate. I have as a rule disagreed with the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) with reference to capitalization, because I think that a company simply asking for a right to build a railway ought not be injured in the money markets by any small or narrow view of capitalization. But just as I got ready to agree with my hon. friend from Alberta on this Bill-because I think this Bill stands upon an entirely different footing-then I regretted to see the hon. gentleman hedging a bit. I would have been much better pleased if he had brought a more strenuous political life into this debate. Now, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I think, has suggested a course that we should adopt. It is idle for the government to wink at the idea that there is to be no other corollary to this Bill, because it is simply asking us to shut our eyes to the fact. We know that another Bill is coming down as a supplement to this Bill, and therefore my hon. leader made the good point that we should consider these two Bills together. I will admit as a lawyer that the proposition of the Minister of Railways and Canals and of the Minister of Finance is perfectly correct. In a subsidy Bill we can put in any conditions we like, and if this company is going to ask the government to aid that railway, they have got to accept the conditions in the Subsidy Bill, otherwise the government will say : You have got your charter, go along and build your railway; but if you are to receive assistance from the government, you must accept such a charter as we give you. There is another general principle. If there are two or more statutes on the same subject, the last one must control the others. Therefore I see no difficulty on that point, it is merely a matter of legislative courtesy. I think it would be better to have both these Bills before us so that we could deal with them together, because then we should not be giving this company powers to-day which we would have to modify to-morrow. Therefore, I think the suggestion of the leader of the opposition


Frank Oliver: 
Robert Laird Borden: AVbat is intended by the expression ' due regard being had to tlie then market value of the stock ? ' There does not seem to be any great element of precaution in that. The stock would very likely, at that particular time, have no value whatever. Should there not be some provision that the value of the services should bear some proportion to the par value of the stock ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) 'does not surely imagine that the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other undertaking would be taken at par in satisfaction of a bona fide: claim of any kind at that early stage. I do not know how else you are going to regulate the issue of the stock paid up in exekauge for property acquired, plant, or anything else than by the precaution which is included here.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not thiuk this amounts to any precaution at all, and I do not think that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals can point out in what way it does amount to any precaution, or in what way it controls the amount of stock that may be given for any services rendered or property acquired.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It prevents stock being given for promotion services.


Robert Laird Borden: It may prevent stock being given for promotion services, but it does not do anything else. The stock given will get into the hands of those who care to take it for a nominal amount. If this is not possible, I would like to have the hon. minister show me how it is not possible, because I think I know the English language and it is a perfectly feasible thing under the terms of this section that that should be done.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I grant that it is a difficult thing to make provision for unless you omit it altogether. If you forbid giving stock what is to prevent anybody who wants a thousand dollars' worth of stock for services valued at $1,000 or $2,000 from securing it ? All he has to do is to pay his $2,000 into the hands of the company and get his stock, and the company will hand him back his $2,000 for his services. If the directors are satisfied, how are you going to prevent It ? By what legislation are you going to prevent that being done ? This section affords some protection particularly as respects the handing out of stock for promotion purposes. That it absolutely forbids altogether. When it comes to other services there would be some value attached to these services, and it will be determined by agreement between the parties.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Could you not put in 1 a minimum price ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You could not very well do that.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Could you not say at less than so much ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know that that would be very effective. The stock might not he worth ten cents. You would not want to put that into the Bill.


John William Bell: It almost seems -to me that this provision would prevent, the stock being used in this way at all. If it is only to be issued to the extent and at a value to be determined by the then market value it is altogether likely that the stock at this stage of the undertaking would not be listed and would not have any market value whatever, and if any genuine concern should receive it in payment for any services given it might involve them in difficulties which would have to be determined by litigation. I imagine that this clause in the Bill is one that will lead to no transactions.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You would prefer this to the state of the law as it now is ?


John William Bell: Yes.


Samuel Barker: I would like to suggest to the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals that it would be better to drop out the words * or services rendered.' Why cannot the company pay in cash for services rendered to it instead of giving big lumps of stock V It is not a question of $1,000 or $2,000 as the hon. minister suggests. This clause is used for a very much more extensive issue of stock. If the company has really received some services from a contractor beyond the performance of his contract, if the contractor has done something in the way of service to be compensated, let the company pay for that in cash and then they will probably pay what is really honestly due to the man. This is simply an encouragement to throw into the hands of people large blocks of stock upon which no money has been paid or is intended to be paid and it would be better to eliminate these words from the clause altogether. This was not always in the law. It was put in some years ago so as to allow people to hold stock without paying for it.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It has been in the Act since 1888.


Samuel Barker: I do not see any objection to paying for the right of way in stock, because you have a fixed value for the right of way and you value the stock at a reasonable price; but where you take the question of services performed by somebody for the company which services may be performed by some man who has financial influence and who has enabled the company to float perhaps $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 of bonds, the compensation that that man would think Mr. GOURLEY.
fair for his services would be an enormous sum, and I think the company should be obliged to settle , with such people in cash and not in watered stock handed over to be a burden for all time on the company. I would further ask the minister, whether this clause as it stands would not permit the directors to give perferred stock as well as common stock for the services.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Personally I have no objection to the suggestion of the hon. member if the committee desire to make the restriction.. I do not know what my hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) would say with regard to that portion of the clause, but J. would be in favour of striking it out.


Samuel Barker: I think it would be an improvement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am inclined to think that it would be applicable to preferred shares.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Why should a distinction be made as against this company? The wording is practically the same as section 39 of the General Railway Act which has been in force since 1888.


Samuel Barker: I mean in regard to all companies and not t9 this one in particular.
Mr. McCarthy. If the Bill of the Minister of Railways and Canals includes that provision it will apply to this road the same as to any other road. I ask the committee to pass this and then let the minister if he wishes to, consider the suggestion of the hon. minister for Hamilton to insert it in the General Railway Bill.


Samuel Barker: I do not know that it would override a clause of this charter.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: No railway charter contains a clause such as the hon. member for Hamilton suggests, and I do not see why it should be inserted in this particular Bill. There are more restrictions already in this respect in this Bill than in any other Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Except some.


Samuel Barker: Strike it out of this charter altogether and settle it by the General Railway Act.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If you strike out this clause altogether it may injure the project. If it is found that it does not conform to the provisions of the new Railway Act it can be amended later.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I understood that the only reason the committee had for inserting the clause was that this charter was not only a railway charter, but that it gives power to construct docks, elevators, warehouses and to run ships which would not be included in the General Railway Act. For instance they might run a steamship ser-

vice in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Were it not that these other things were included in the charter I would not have voted for this clause.


Samuel Barker: There is no reason why they should not be covered by the General Railway Act.


David Tisdale: This clause does not allow remuneration for services except to engineers or contractors, and I would regret if the clause were interfered with because in my experience of building railroads I have found it most valuable where your stocks or securities are not very good, and I regret to say that many of them are not good. In the case of the Georgian Bay branch of the Grand Trunk Railway, a lot of local enthusiasts, of whom I was one, built 200 miles, and we were only too happy to get the Grand Trunk Railway to take it over subsequently and operate it. We had no money in our early days and we issued stock and bonds for this purpose and we found it a very useful clause. In the days of the railway boom in Ontario we invested our money in building railway lines and we were glad to unload them afterwards on the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway. I got cured of it, but I learned a little about railways and the value of stock and bonds. Our great trouble always was to get in the unsuspecting capitalists whom we are now so much afraid we will impose upon. I believe that if the railway commission is worth a cent it will protect us, and that we, therefore, need not destroy one of the resources that is indispensable to build a railway line. I myself helped to pass this sort of a clause in 1888, and the Conservative government adopted it, and since that time, notwithstanding the thousands of miles of railway that have been built, we have not found any abuse coming from it. In the new clause which the Minister of Railways and Canals proposes in the Railway Act he still further restricts these powers. Is not this clause the same as the Minister of Railways and Canals will have in the new Railway Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is founded on it.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the clause as it stands at present render it perfectly possible to give any proportion whatever of the capital stock of the railway company, as a bonus for placing the bonds. Would not that be feasible if you leave in the words ' or services rendered.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, it is covered by services rendered, except promotion services.


Robert Laird Borden: Has that been struck out ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. I said if the committee thought proper. I am not wedded to it at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not strike it out ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: According to the rules of the House, an amendment cannot be made to a private Bill without one day's notice being given.


Samuel Barker: I think in any case this should be non-preference stock.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The answer applies which I gave to the hon. gentleman before. Section 39 of the Railway Act Is exactly the same as this, and has been in force since 1888.


Robert Laird Borden: The observation of my hon. friend from North Simcoe would be perfectly pertinent if the general Railway Act made provision for the issue of preference stock; but as it does not do that, his remarks have not very much importance.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I do not think it makes provision for the issue of any kind of- stock.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, this clause has an entirely different application from that in the Railway Act; because this Bill gives power to issue preference stock, and clause 11 is sufficiently comprehensive in its terms to include preference stock. I think the clause should certainly be amended in the way suggested by my hon. friend from Hamilton. I do not see what reasonable objection there can be on the part of promoters, because every object intended to be served by section 11 could be satisfied by limiting it to common stock.


David Tisdale: I quite agree with the hon. leader of the opposition that if there is-any doubt, it should be made clear that common stock is meant, and I think the promoters would consent to that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would you not allow a contractor to be paid with preference stock ?


David Tisdale: The object of issuing preference stock is to give a security, which is better than common stock. I imagine it could not have been contemplated by the promoters to ask for this, because it is a departure. I have not known that power to be given before. I certainly would vote against preference stock being allowed to be given; but if the committee thought differently, I would want to have it made plain that it could be either preference stock or common stock. There are serious reasons, I think, why a preferred security should not be applied in that way. The directors could apply bonds on their own responsibility without legislative authority. When the Bill went through the Railway Committee, no question of this sort was raised. If it had been, I certainly would have opposed the inclusion of preference stock.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is there a clause in the general Railway Act allowing the issue of preference shares ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: No, nor common shares either.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Then, this must be limited to common stock.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: With all due deference to the hon. leader of the opposition, I do not think his argument is good or valid. The interpretation clause does not contain the word ' stock,' and does not define or confine it. Whether it would be common stock or preference stock may be a debatable question; tout there is no limitation in the Railway Act, which has been in force since 1S88, so that I think the arguments which I advanced in answer to the hon. member for Hamilton are substantial. Of course, what the hon. member for South Norfolk says as to preferred stock not being used in this way in his experience is very strong. If it has not been so used, I do not suppose it will be used in this case. But I do not know what the intention of the promoters may be.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot say that I look with favour on this method of using the stock; but I must confess that it would be particularly objectionable to my mind to use preference stock in this way. I think my hon. friend would do well to consent to the inclusion of the words, ' shares in the common stock of the company,' in the second line of the clause, so that it will be applicable to the ordinary or common shares.
Mr. McCarthy. Let that clause stand.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The amendment could be made by unanimous consent.


Peter Macdonald: I think not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think anything can be done by unanimous consent.


Peter Macdonald: The reason for a day's notice being required is this. This is a private Bill, and there might be outside parties who, knowing that the Bill was to come before the committee to-day, and knowing this rule, would be absent, and hence could not be heard.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Outside parties could not be heard, anyway.


Peter Macdonald: They could through their representatives.


David Tisdale: The Deputy Speaker is quite right in saying that we ought not to do anything in the way of amending a clause without notice, though I am quite sure we could do anything in Committee of the Whole by common consent. I remember the same question arising in connection with Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
the London and Port Stanley Railway Bill, in which amendments were made by the
member in charge of the Bill, with the common consent of the committee.


Peter Macdonald: I will just read the rule.	'


Robert Laird Borden: Before you read the rule, might I be permitted to suggest that these rules for the business of the House are made for the governance and convenience of the members of the House, and not for the governance or convenience of any persons outside of the House.


Peter Macdonald: Knowing that there is a rule which prevents important amendments being made in the Committee of the Whole, some members might not make it a point to be present as they otherwise would if they thought that any important amendment could be made. The rule is as follows :
No important amendment may be pressed to any private Bill in the Committee of the Whole House or at the third reading of the Bill unless one day's notice of the same shall have been given.
Bourinot says that the correct course is to refer the Bill back to the Select Committee to which it had been previously sent.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of our going into committee at all if we cannot change the Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: Let me also say that the logical result of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is that we never could suspend the rules of the House unless we had every member present in his seat.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I would ask to let the matter stand until I can find out whether the amendment is of importance or not. I do not know whether the promoters will consider it important or not.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 12, describing line of railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the notice of application for charter, the eastern terminus was fixed at Gravenhurst. What has caused the company to change it to Moncton ? Also I find that this section, No. 12, contains these words :
Thence in a north-westerly and westerly direction passing to the north of Lake Nipigon, in the province of Ontario, to a point at or near the city of Winnipeg ; thence westerly and north-westerly, passing through or near Battle-ford. Edmonton and Dunvegan, or by such other more feasible route as is hereafter located, but following in a general direction that herein indicated, and by way of either the Peace River pass, or the Pine River pass, or such other pass in the Rocky Mountains as is found most convenient and practicable, to Port Simpson or Bute Inlet, or such other port on the Pacific coast between the said points as is considered more accessible and better adapted for the purposes of the company.

Wlmt does that mean ? Does it mean that they can go practically where they please so long as they get to the Pacific coast ? Is that the idea ? Will the hon. gentleman please answer these two questions-why was the eastern terminus removed from Gravenhurst to Moncton, and what is the meaning of these words I have just read ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: 1 may inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) that I am not in the confidence of the managers of the Grand Trunk.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do you know anybody who is ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I am not able to tell why the terminus was removed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is a member of the Railway Committee and he remembers the discussion which took place at the time the eastern terminus was fixed at Moncton. So far as the other question was concerned, this is the usual clause inserted in a railway Bill. It permits construction from ' at or near' a certain point to ' at or near* another point. The reasons for this are obvious. A railway company when applying for a charter, cannot lay down their routes specifically. The protection of the public lies in the power of the Governor in Council or Minister of Railways and Canals, for every railway must locate its line, and that location must be approved.


Mr. FOWLER.: I would like to ask the hon. promoter of this Bill whether it is the intention that this line shall be carried through the state oif Maine in going from the province of New Brunswick to the province of Quebec ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: As I understand the Bill, the only power given is to construct the line in Canada, I know of no other intentions on the part of the company. If such an intention exists, it has never been communicated to me. So far as I know, the intention is to build the line in Canada.


George William Fowler: I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) has given a fair answer to my civil question, in giving the information he has given just now. I am quite aware, though the hon. gentleman may not be, that this parliament would have no authority to give the Grand Trunk people power to build through the state of Maine, and that is the only thing the promoter has given in answer to my question. And the point covered by my question was ' a point of some importance.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) could have heard the last two sentences of what I said.


George William Fowler: I say it is a matter of some importance to the people of New Brunswick, and to the people of the province of Quebec as well, to know if it is the intention of the Grand Trunk Company,
in carrying their line from Moncton up through the province of New Brunswick and Quebec to the city of Quebec, to build through the state of Maine or not. It would make a difference in the length of the route and also in the direction, and I think it is only right that the intention of the company should be stated to the House and to the country. And, if the hon. promoter of the Bill has not that information at hand he will have the opportunity to procure it from the persons who are behind this Bill before eight o'clock.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: As I said, I am not going to build this road. So far as the intention has been communicated to me, the intention is to buiid the road through Canada-it is to be an all-Canadian road.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not observe anywhere in the Bill any obligation on the company to build any one of these sections. I think the Bill leaves it entirely open to build any of the sections the company sees fit to build. Is that the understanding of the Railway Committee when they reported the Bill ?
Mr. McCarthy. Several motions were .moved in the committee as to the constructions of these sections-first that they should be constructed simultaneously, then, one two, or three sections simultaneously. The committee had several votes on the subject, but the clause was left as the hon. gentlemen now find it. Of course, it was considerably different from what it was as introduced. But it was affirmed in this point by the committee after discussion, and, I think, four or five votes.


Mr. WADE.: I may say that I myself moved an amendment to this clause providing for the simultaneous construction of all the sections, meeting the very objection taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). It was urged in the committee at the time that if there was no aid given to the company it would not be fair to dictate to them what sections of the road it should build, and it was thought better to leave that until the Bill was introduced giving aid to the company, if such a Bill were introduced. We were told that if such a Bill were presented, we should have a full opportunity of discussing the matter and urging that the road should be constructed simultaneously from end to end. With that understanding, I asked to be allowed to withdraw the amendment I proposed. But, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) objected to that, and there was a vote taken op my amendment much against my will, with the result that it was defeated. But I do not say that the vote upon that amendment represented the views of the committee at the time, because a great many of the members voted against the amendment I proposed simply because they desired to have the matter brought up when the

subsidy is discussed, if a subsidy Bill is brought before parliament. I think that some undue and improper comments have been made, and the country is not fully aware of what has taken place in the committee. We have uot receded from our position in the slightest degree that there should be some guarantee that the whole line should be built; at the same time it aids the construction, and it seems to me that if this were done, it would meet many of the objections brought forward this afternoon.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No doubt a great deal of the embarrassment felt by many of the members in dealing with the Bill had its source in the impression which had become general that this company would have aid in some form or other from the government. It was my endeavour, as it was the endeavour of other members of the committee to dissociate that question from the question before the committee. It might be ultimately that aid would be given, and it might be that it would not; and it was only lair to deal with this Bill upon the basis that no aid would be given, inasmuch as it might uot be given. It would not be fair to hamper the Bill with conditions which we would not impose upon another company.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were not the company obliged to shift the terminus a thousand miles east of where they originally intended to have it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was the action of the committee. I was not in favour of it; but the committee felt disposed to do it and did it.


Samuel Hughes: Were not the members of this House justified in the belief they formed with regard to the prospect of government assistance to the road by the eloquent speech delivered by Sir Charles Rivers Wilson before the committee, wherein he distinctly said that he expected that the government were going to build the road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes. Victoria) expects an answer to that question or not. It did not alter my mind upon the question of what would be a proper action on the part of the committee. It was for the reason that the committee did not think that it ought to impose cdnditions, there not being any assurance that government assistance would be given, that the motion moved by my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) was voted down as also were other motions of the same character. I treated it simply as any other company asking for a charter would be treated, and I think that that is tlie principle upon which we ought to deal witli this Bill to-day.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 


George William Fowler: I do not entirely agree with what the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has said that, as this is only a Bill providing for a charter, we have no right to impose conditions. When this company come here and ask for a charter they are asking for certain privileges which it is in the power of this House to grant them, and if we have a right to grant them, we certainly have a right to impose upon the company the conditions which we believe to be in the best interest of the country. We have a' right to impose any conditions we see fit ; and it seems to me this is a very reasonable condition, and the only test of its reasonableness is whether it is in the best interest of the country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would the hon. gentleman treat a Bill of this kind precisely on the same basis, whether the company was to get any assistance or not ? Would he annex conditions in the same way and oblige the company to go on and construct the work without any public aid whatever, just as he would if we were giving it aid ?


George William Fowler: I may say this, that in the case of the company receiving pecuniary assistance such as the minister speaks of, the conditions you would impose might be more onerous than the conditions you would impose when they were only asking for a charter. It depends entirely on what you are giving them as to what conditions you would have a right to impose. It is all a question of reasonableness after all. That is the standpoint from which I look at this question, when we are asked to say whether this company shall begin simultaneously at these different points, because they have divided this railway into different sections. Now they must have had some object in view when they made that division. Why not consider the railway as a whole ? Why not come here and ask for a charter over this line as a whole, to run from Port Simpson to Moncton ? Then the matter might be in a different position. But here they have divided their line into sections, and therefore they would have a perfect right, according to their charter, to ask for aid to build the prairie section, the section that would pay for itself, and leave the other sections unbuilt. Therefore we see this extension that was given as a sop to the maritime provinces, this extension from Que? bee


Fletcher Bath Wade: We should not complain if it has been given.


George William Fowler: But if it is no good then we have a right to complain; if it does not fill the bill we have a right to complain. If it does not remedy the grievance which we are complaining of, then we have a right to complain, and that is the point I wish this committee to consider. Because there is no assurance, there is nothing in

tlie charter which compels these people to build from Quebec down to Moncton, and therefore if they are honest about this


Fletcher Bath Wade: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Does he complain because the Bill has been changed, and the eastern terminus has been made at Moncton instead of Quebec ?


George William Fowler: I have no objection whatever to the extension down to Moncton, I am in perfect accord with that; but I want something more than a mere provision in the charter to assure me that it is going to be built. That may suit the hon. gentleman for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), but it does not suit me. I want to say here and now that the conduct of the gentlemen who were promoting this Bill before the Railway Committee was not such as to impress me with much confidence in their bona tides. I want to say that the lack of frankness with which these gentlemen replied to the reasonable questions that were asked them by men who were there representing their constituents, impressed me that they were not bona fide in their intention to build from Quebec down to Moncton.
^t six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 12,


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgraiu) asked me to move the amendment of which he gave notice as follows :
That the said Bill be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, with instructions to add to the said Bill, after section 13 of said Bill, the following :-*
Provided that in the event of the company receiving from the government of Canada any assistance, either by way of subsidies, moneys, land grants, guarantees, loans, or in any other manner whatever, the work of construction on the Quebec section be commenced simultaneously with the work on the woodland and prairie sections and be completed and put in operation simultaneously therewith and before the company exercise any of the powers conferred upon it by section 33 of the present Act in respect to ' lease and running powers over other railways.'


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That motion might very well be moved when we are going into committee, but not while we are in committee.


Peter Macdonald: An hon. member may move that the committee refer back at any stage.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Ml'. Chairman, let me call your attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman's motion is to refer back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines not to the House. Your jurisdiction only is to receive a motion that this
committee rise and report progress. This motion should have been moved in amendment to motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.


Peter Macdonald: The rule is that the hon. gentleman cannot move now. The amendment is out of order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: May I ask the ground for your ruling, Mr. Chairman ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I understand the point takeii it is that this motion must be moved when the Speaker is in the Chair, and not when the House is in Committee of the Whole.


Peter Macdonald: We have not the power to move in this committee that a certain Bill shall be referred to a committee of the House, but while the Speaker is in the Chair, this motion should have' been made that the Bill be referred back.


Frank Oliver: Before this section passes,
I wish to offer some remarks to the committee. I do not think, as a member representing a constituency deeply interested in this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, in the project as a whole, and in its success, that I can support the passage of this clause through the House, as it stands, f objected to a certain provision in it in the Railway Committee, and I feel so strongly on the subject that I feel compelled to register my objection against it in the Committee of the Whole. I have more faith in the commercial success of this proposed Grand Trunk Pacific scheme than many of these who have already spoken on it seem to have. While they supported it in a measure, they declared themselves as of the opinion that it was not within the bounds of possibility that it should be a commercial success. For my part, if I did not think the scheme was a good one in the interest of the people of Canada and that it contains the elements of financial success,
I would not have abused the position which I hold in parliament of voting for it or supporting it. Believing that this is a good proposition for the country at large, and that it is a practicable business proposition, I feel bound to do my part at any rate to leave the proposition in a position whereby it shall have a reasonable chance, both of benefiting the country and turning out to the financial benefit of those interested in it. As I understood the policy of the government in regard to this scheme, as stared by the right hon. Prime Minister before the Bill was introduced, it was that there should be a transcontinental railway extending from tide water to tide water. To secure this transcontinental railway extending from tide water to tide water entirely on Canadian territory, it was expected that this country, according to the sanction of parliament, would be prepared to make very considerable financial sac-

rifiees. I am sure that parliament agreed as to the desirability of having a transcontinental railway entirely on Canadian territory extending from tide water to tide water, and not only from tide water to tide water, but from tide water on one shore to tide water and open navigation all the year around on the other shore. If this is desirable, and every body will agree that it is desirable, then it is most desirable that the shortest possible line between an all the year around ocean port on the Atlantic and an all year round ocean port on the Pacific should be chosen. It is necessary that this should be in the interests of the people who require to use the road, and it is just as necessary on the part of the people who are to own and operate the road. Every mile of length more than is absolutely necessary means increased cost in the building and increased cost in the operation. Somebody has to pay for that. It may be that the company is willing to agree to an unnecessary lengthening of the line, believing that the country will pay for the extra cost of building and operating that unnecessary length. And the company are perfectly right in believing that it is the country, either the national treasury or the ^producer who is to use the road in order to get his products to market, who actually has to pay this extra cost. If that should be the case, then when parliament is defining the route and the terminal points of this road, it is the duty of parliament to define the shortest route and the most available and suitable terminal points. I cannot support the section as it stands, which provides that the eastern terminus of this great transcontinental road shall be at a point where there is no ocean port; where there is no possibility of making an ocean port, and which will entail an unnecessary construction of 100 miles to reach a Canadian winter port, and a consequent increased cost of hauling. Owing to the number of rulings which have been made here to-day, I cannot tell whether I would be in order in moving a motion or not, but I propose to lay before the committee the suggestion that the word 'Moncton ' be changed to ' St. John,' so that parliament shall become responsible for indicating the eastern ocean port of this transcontinental road at the nearest and best port that Canada has in consideration of distance and other matters. I do not see how parliament can justify itself if it gives assistance towards the construction of a railway, the whole purpose of whose existence shall be to give Canadian ocean port facilities the year round, and then allow that road to be constructed to a point where there is no ocean port, and which is 100 miles from the nearest available ocean port, the construction of which to that point would increase the haul by about 200 miles.
Mr. GOURLEY, I want to move an amendment to that clause 12.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I object.
Mr. OLIVER,


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Then I beg to give notice that on the third reading of the Bill I shall move that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of inserting the following amendment :
Provided that in the event of the company receiving from the government of Canada any assistance, either by way of subsidies, moneys, land grants, guarantees, loans or in any other manner whatever, the work of construction on the eastern section be commenced simultaneously with the work on the Quebec, woodland and prairie sections and be completed and put in operation simultaneously therewith and before the company exercise any of the powers conferred upon it by section 33 of the present Act in respect to lease and running power over other railways.
1 can assure the promoter of this Bill that all we in the maritime provinces are desirous for is that we shall be assured that this Grand Trunk Railway, which has received from Canada enormous grants of money, shall have a Canadian eastern terminal, and so far as I am concerned I am willing that it shall receive more aid, provided it shall become a national highway in the true sense of the word. I would suggest to the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) that he should leave to the maritime members to determine upon the question of the eastern terminus. I would be perfectly willing to take his judgment with reference to the terminus in Alberta, but he ought to reciprocate, and take our judgment as to the eastern terminus. We do not propose that the road should stop at Moncton, because there is no very great sea-port there, but what we do wish is that there may be some common point in the maritime provinces upon which we can agree, and if the Grand Trunk Railway comes to Moncton we shall take chances afterwards as to which is the best port, whether it shall be Country Harbour, St. John or Halifax. I am not sectional enough to be wedded to any of these ports. All I want is that the products of this great country shall be sent to the markets of the world through a Canadian port, no matter which it be. I want the gentlemen from the west to be Canadians first. At this time in the history of Canada we should not know that there is a west or an east. For my part, I do not know that there is any boundary between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Ontario ; I know nothing about provincial boundaries, excepting as regards little provincial affairs with regard to the administration of mere local funds.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There are no boundaries in this country for me except the Canadian boundary from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the 49th parallel to the Arctic ocean. This is all the country a Canadian should know, and every Canadian must reach that standard and be prepared to do everything that will develop Canada as a whole. We must understand that this railway company has already a large system of

railways operated in Canada. If this company had no port at Portland, I would be in a different position ; but it has enormous terminals there, and so far as I am concerned, I believe that by proposing to come to Moncton the Grand Trunk Railway are simply dragging a red herring in front of our noses so that when they get their charter and have their line built to Montreal they will give the go-by to the maritime provinces and say : Gentlemen, we have terminals at Portland, and we will use them. I can understand the promoters of this Bili being blinded by their surroundings ; I can understand one or two gentlemen in this House being blinded by their associations with the Grand Trunk Railway, but I cannot believe that the ordinary member from Ontario or from the west can be blinded by such considerations. I quite understand that any Canadian in this parliament should think and think only of making the Grand Trunk use a Canadian port. The time has come, and parliament might as well know it first as last, when the people of Canada will not put up any longer with a foreign port being used to export the great products of Canada. I am willing to vote any amount of money to develop the west; but I want the western members to see that it is a disgrace to Canada to have the great products of the west shipped at Portland. What will the world think of Canada if we use a foreign port ? It will say that Canada is crippled in its geographical area. It is a scandal to Canada, and will give a bad impression of the country abroad. Notwithstanding the fact that we have the best ocean ports if only they are exploited and used. The other day it was alleged in the Railway Committee that because Halifax or St. John was over 150 or 200 miles apart, farther from the west than Portland, that was an answer to the proposition to use a maritime province port. But I am prepared to show that two or three hundred miles at the end of a long haul is not the slightest obiectioii. There are railroads in the United' States which will carry the products of the country 3,000 miles as cheaply as other railroads will carry them 2,500 miles. Therefore, the gentleman who said that 200 miles of haul was going to destroy the value of a maritime province port as a great entrepot of this country, was not right in his statistics nor right in his heart-he was wrong at both ends. Now, Sir, I undertake to say that the time has come when this House should give the Grand Trunk formal notice, giving them one, two, or three years to make preparation to leave Portland. Is not this time for doing that, when they are coming to parliament asking us to make this system, which has hitherto been a purely Ontario system, a great north-western system ? They are asking us to extend their system into the great territories of the west, to enable them to bring grain
and dump it at Portland. In the early days when the Grand Trunk Company got its charter, there was not in Canada the national feeling that exists today ; the provinces were not confederated, there was very little hope that we would arrive at our present stage of development, and the Grand Trunk was allowed to make its entrepot at Portland. But now that is all changed. Canada has become a great country stretching from one ocean to the other, and there is no reason why the Grand Trunk should not be told, if you want this charter, you will have to take it on the express and clear condition that you shall use a Canadian port. I am in favour of the motion of the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), but it is inadequate. I do not care how many clauses you put into the charter, requiring the Grand Trunk to take their freight to a maritime province port. Unless the shipper routes them that way it is no protection, because the Grand Trunk can give the shipper a wink, and say, route all your stuff to Portland. We must meet this question like lawyers and men, in a way that will make it impossible for the Grand Trunk to budge from a Canadian port. Turn this question around. Suppose the Grand Trunk came here asking us to make Seattle, in Washington, their dumping port on the Pacific coast. I would fight as strongly for you in the west as vou should be fighting for us. You expect us-to stand up as one man and say that our Pacific slope shall not be abandoned, and the United States coast used and exploited by a great Canadian concern against the Intel ests of Canada. In the same wav I want all the members of this House to stand up and say that the maritime province ports of this country must be exploited and developed for the purpose of rounding out this confederation. I am bound to tell you that the whole maritime provinces are aroused over this question. I was home two or three weeks ago, and I never heard a question so thoroughly discussed up and down the streets, in Halifax, in Amherst, in Truro, as this question ; and every merchant, every workingman, every man in the streets, was of the opinion that the time bad come when the maritime provinces should stand up for their rights. I remember when the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, the Conservative party with which I was identified, had to meet the charge of all that money being expended in the western country.


William Forsythe McCreary: How about the Intercolonial ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Of course, that was our answer. I do not care where the money is spent if it is necessary that we should have a national highway over Canada, and we voted in support of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not extend the Intercolonial westward ?
down


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am willing to do that;
I am willing to do anything. But what we want is two transcontinental lines. Extending the Intercolonial westward will not help it. Here is this great Grand Trunk Railway, with its ramifications all through the heart of the country, whose place can never be taken by any other railway, it has the command of a great body of internal trade which no other railway can get; and we want to make the Grand Trunk take the whole of that enormous trade which it commands and dump it at a Canadian port. Ultimately we shall have to have some control over the rates of these great transcontinental lines ; and perhaps the best way would be for the government to extend westward the road which they own, and in that way they would control these great lines in spite of fate. But that is not the question we are dealing with at present. If every man in this House takes a firm stand on this question, I am persuaded that Canada will occupy a better position than it does to-day. I do not care a fig about politics. I am a party man, as a rule, but on this question, when the interests of the country are at stake, I am not a party man.
I think the proper course is to agree upon some common point ; and if the Grand Trunk goes to Moncton, the men who are managing the line may be left to find the best port to use as a summer and winter port. If the men who are asking these enormous sums from Canada will come forward and say, we will make our port in the maritime provinces, the process of leaving Portland will have begun, and it will be gradually abandoned without any stringent or strong measures, which I would be averse to, because the Grand Trunk put its terminus at Portland in early times with the consent of parliament. We must give them consideration on that ground. I would be willing to go far to compensate them for any loss'they might incur in moving their terminals to Canada : but they must come to Canada, and that is the universal feeling in the maritime provinces. I am a Unionist, but if it comes to this, that any portion of this country is not going to be dealt fairly with by the country as a whole, I feel bound to insist that the rights of every part of the country should be respected. We in the maritime provinces have stood by the west, we have advocated the spending of money in order to develop the west, and we do so still, but it must be understood that the maritime provinces shall receive the support of the rest of Canada In their desire to make our all the year round Atlantic port on the Canadian coast. The whole thing simply amounts to this. If you are not going to carry out the compact of confederation, it is idle to have a confederation. If we are to make of confederation the success we hope to make it. we must see that justice is done to every portion of it, we must see that the union is maintained in its integrity, and that each and


Edward Frederick Clarke: every province has its rights and privileges respected. I hope that the province or Quebec, the great province of Ontario, and the whole of the west will stand by the maritime provinces in the appeal we are now making.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has spoken quite eloquently on the desirability of our having a Canadian national winter port instead of Portland. That is my idea as much as his, and it is because I desire to see such a result that I refuse to endorse a proposition which would unquestionably prevent its being achieved. This road must be given the shortest line to a Canadian port or commercial reasons will prevent it from using that port. Either St. John is that port or we have none. It is therefore our duty, if we have any such ambition, to provide that this road shall run to St. John and not run around 200 miles. But if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is built from Quebec to Moncton and if traffic is ever carried to a Canadian winter port, that carriage will be 200 miles longer than it need be. That certainly means that the freight will not be carried over that road. We may use means which will compel to a certain extent the use of our own roads to our own ports, but there is a limit beyond which we cannot compel trade to follow our channels, and that limit is passed if we compel freight to be carried 200 miles out of its way in a total distance of about 400 miles. The Intercolonial Railway is acknowledged to be working at the greatest possible commercial disadvantage because it does not run to St. John by the nearest possible route. Are we to repeat to-day the error made twenty years ago by allowing that port of St. John, which is Canada's nearest all the year around ocean port, to be hampered by chartering a railway to run around it a distance of about 200 miles ? Those who uphold such a proposition can only do it on the supposition that the Grand Trunk Railway will never be built between Quebec and Moncton. I would be very sorry to support such a proposition ; and it is because I cannot support it that I take the liberty of forcing my opinion on the House at this stage. I look upon this as a great national question. Although I am not from the maritime provinces, it is just as dear to my heart to see a Canadian port handle Canadian trade as it can be to the heart of any one down by the sea. But if that be our ambition, we must take the proper means to achieve it, and when we are giving a charter to and aiding a railway, let us do so in such a way that it will have a reasonable chance to accomplish the object we all desire to see achieved.


Mr. LOGAN.: My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is not very conversant with the geography of the maritime provinces. I agree with the hon. member for Colchester that we would not presume in



JUXE 22, 1903 51S6

[Stage Direction]
the maritime provinces to dictate the course of any railway through the district of Alberta and set our views in that connection against those of my hon. friend. The first proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway was to build a road from Quebec and then use the Intercolonial Railway to Halifax. Having taken some little trouble to ascertain the distances between certain points,
I find that the difference in distances between C'haudiere Junction and Moncton by the Intercolonial Railway and by the proposed route from Chaudi&re Junction to Moncton, in as direct a line as possible, is 129 miles. We save 129 miles by building the road from Chaudi6re to Moncton in as straight line as possible.
David Tisdale: How far is the whole distance from Quebec to Moncton ?


Hance James Logan: Three hundred and sixty-eight miles by the proposed route from C'haudiere to Moncton, and it is 497 miles by the Intercolonial Railway. This shows a saving of 129 miles on the proposed route to Moncton from C'haudiere as compared with the Intercolonial Railway. What I want to point out to my hon. friend from Alberta is this, that coming from Chau-difire to Moncton this road will pass through or near Chipman, N.B., and from Chipman there is a road already constructed to a point on the Intercolonial Railway near the city of St. John, so that when you are building this direct line from Chaudiere to Moncton, you come within fifty miles of St. John. Therefore my hon. friend's contention that we should use the port of St. John is met by the fact that the road will be completed to St. John when the proposed line is built to the town of Chipman.


Robert Laird Borden: I find by the Intercolonial time table that the distance from Quebec to Moncton to which he refers is 488 miles.


Hance James Logan: Then the leader of the opposition corroborates my original statement. Now, I say if you build the road from Chaudiere to Chipman you are then within about fifty miles of the city of St. John. If you contend that the port of St. John must be used for heavy freght, then you have your line to that port. But everybody admits that passenger traffic will actually come from the port of Halifax. Do you imagine, Mr. Chairman, that passengers coming from Liverpool to this country would desire to pass the port of Halifax and go on 300 miles through the tides of the Bay of Fundy to the city of St. John, when they could get off at Halifax and proceed west by rail ? Everybody admits that Halifax is the proper port for passenger traffic. Now, by building a road from Chipman to Moncton, a distance of less than fifty miles, you have got a railway from Chipman to Halifax. So when you build to this given point 163
of Chipman, you swerve to the right fifty miles to St. John, and to the left fifty miles to Moncton, where you join the Intercolonial and proceed to Halifax. We do not claim that Moncton is a port, of course, it is nothing of the kind; but it is a given point from which the traffic will travel to Halifax, and if you swerve off from Chipman, freight traffic will be taken down to St. John. Let me repeat this once more. You leave Chaudiere and go dowrn to the point called Chip-man. When you reach Chipman you are within fifty miles of St. John on the right and fifty miles from Moncton on the left. Now, Mr. Hays, the distinguished manager of the Grand Trunk, in his statement before the Railway Committee, said that* he could fill half a dozen ports with the traffic from the west. Then why do you want to confine it to the one port of St. John ? I am not here to make any criticism about the capabilties of the port of St. John, it has got the Canadian Pacific Railway terminus there at the present time, but I am here to state that there is no better port in the world than the port of Halifax. It has no high tides, it has no currents, it has no ice, it is a magnificent port, one of the most magnificent ports in the world. Now, by going to Chipman you can utilize the two ports, and if Mr. Hays' statement is correct that he can fill six ports, then you have more than one port, because you can go to Halifax as well as St. John, and my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) reminds me that there is also the magnificent harbour known as Country Harbour. I want to point out another thing, that when you come from the west to the east, you are 300 miles nearer to Liverpool when you get to Halifax than you are at St. John. When you get to Halifax you are on the ocean, you are out at sea, but when you get to St. John you are in the Bay of Fundy, which has sometimes tricky tides. Therefore it seems to me that in insisting that this terminus be made at the city of Moncton, you provide for utilizing the two great ports of Halifax and St. John-also Country Harbour.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the distance from C'haudiere to Moncton by the short line ?


Samuel Hughes: It is 129 miles shorter.


Mr. TUCKER.: I would like to say a few words also on this question. It always appeared to me that we were doing the proper thing in assisting the farmers in the west to relieve themselves of their surplus grain. To do that it is necessary, if we are to compete with the American lines, to afford as cheap a rate as the United States can give. Now, I believe in running a straight line from a point a hundred miles east of Lake Nipissing straight to Quebec. Certainly it will run through a good country,



a country that will be settled in the future, and a country from which I believe the railway will derive a good profit before long. Now, the great point for the maritime province people to consider is the route to be followed between Quebec and a maritime port. For myself I am in favour of the port of St. John. X am in favour of it because X am well acquainted with the advantages that that port possesses over any other. I do not say that our port is more handsome than any other, but I think that it affords shipping facilities of the very best order. Its excellence has been approved by disinterested men who reported in its favour for cattle shipment. The officers that were sent out by the British government admitted that there was no port on the Atlantic coast, which included every port in the United States, that possesses advantages for the shipment of cattle equal to those afforded by the port of St. John. I think the opinion of these disinterested men may be taken to be as near the truth as possible. I believe that if the line ran to St. John it would be better for the merchants of Canada. I do not say anything against the idea of turning'off and running to Moncton; but no man in this House can persuade me that It is advantageous, after reaching Moncton, to go 189 miles farther, a distance which is practically unnecessary. From Chipman to St. John the distance, we are told, is fifty miles; we are also told that it is fifty miles from Chipman to Moncton. I think the distance will be found shorter to St. John than to Moncton. However, when they arrive at St. John, goods can go on board ship, but when they arrive at Moncton, they have 189 miles further to go. Then we must consider that the cheapness of the transportation of these goods to Great Britain is the principal feature when we are endeavouring to compete with American lines. The freight can be carried from St. John to Liverpool as cheaply as it can be carried from Halifax to Liverpool. If there is any advantage, it is in favour of St. John. People who send steamers to St. John on speculation, irrespective of grain or other goods, are always sure of getting a cargo of deals, it matters not in what season of the year. For this reason, I oppose building a line that is adapted to business for only six months in the year while the other six months it will benefit the United States. Let us benefit ourselves all we can, consistently with the interest of business.


Frank Oliver: My geography, perhaps, is not as accurate as that of some of my critics, yet I do not think they came out very well in the display. I would like to say that in the figures I have taken down there is this difference ; the present route by the Intercolonial Railway between Quebec and Halifax is 129 miles longer than the proposed route across the province of Mr. TUCKER.
New Brunswick. Passengers, then, using the present Intercolonial Railway to Halifax have to travel 129 miles further than they would have to travel if this Moncton proposition is carried out. But, if I do not mistake the facts, even adopting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), freight will have to be carried about 100 miles further than it otherwise would be required to be carried in order to reach St. John. That is to say, taking a direct line, or as direct as possible, down the St. John valley to St. John, approximately, 100 miles shorter than going around even by Chipman, as he says. Now, I submit, that, as between 100 miles longer for freight and 129 miles longer for passengers, the interests of this country would be in favour of the shorter freight route instead of the shorter passenger route.


Fletcher Bath Wade: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) a question ? How does he make out that the freight route to St. John is 100 miles more ? Where does he get his figures ? I contend that his figures are not correct.


Frank Oliver: It is 89 miles from St. John to Moncton. This proposed point to Chipman is 50 miles from Moncton and 50 miles from St. John. Now, it must, therefore, be in the neighbourhood of 50 miles on the way from Moncton towards St. John. But it is 89 miles by a direct line from St. John to Moncton by rail. Then any point 50 miles from St. John and 50 miles from Moncton must be about half of 89 miles from St. John.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh,


Frank Oliver: I am stating my position in answer to the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), who asked me to give the basis of my calculation. According to my calculation, the position is as I state.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Have you seen the map V


Frank Oliver: Yes, I think I know as much about the map as the hon. member (Mr. Talbot). If Chipman is approximately about half as far east of St. John as Moncton is, it takes that much difference to get to Chipman, and that much back, and take the two together it makes approximately 100 miles. That can be noticed on the map as easily as it can be figured out, and there is no question about it. Let me further point out that the suggestion of running the road direct to Moncton involves the crossing of certain divides and lengthening of the road beyond an actual air line; whereas the proposition to follow the St. John river as much as possible gives not only a shorter line, but, probably a better grade. * Now, if it is a matter of so little account that the road shall reach the ocean port, that it shall go to a certain point and be spider-legged from there, why not just as well go to St. John and then take a short run around to Moncton and to Halifax. It is no further to

St. John from Moncton than it is from Moncton to St. John-I think lion, members will admit that at least. Then it is a reasonable proposition that the freight shall be carried to Moncton and then carried to St. John.


Fletcher Bath Wade: No, rro.


Frank Oliver: That was the argument before the Railway Committee. It is not Chipman which is desired to be the terminus.


Hance James Logan: They hare to go to Chip-man to get to Moncton.


Frank Oliver: That is no argument. There is a road down the St. John valley, so that it is just as far from Chipman to St. John. If it is so easy to run back from Moncton to St. John, it is as easy to run forward from St. John to Moncton. And what we who are interested in this railway from the point of view of those who furnish the traffic of the road and so are interested in the cost of service over the road, would ask is, wherever you run your road, run it by the nearest ail Canadian air line to a Canadian port-and that is St. John. It is not something that is to be decided in the future. Those cities have been there for a hundred years. The port of St. John is the best available port on the Bay of Pundy according to the facts before us. Why should we wait to find out something more ? Why spend years in waiting to find out, why spend millions of money to find out something which is known and known beyond peradventure for many years ?
Now, I would like to speak on the subject of sectionalism. It has been hinted that those who ask that the shortest route should be adopted are sectionalists, and the interest of the west and that of the east are said to be in conflict. In this case, the interest of the west and the interest of the east are one. I claim that the interest of both parties is to get the shortest line from the source of travel to the ocean port, from the ocean port to the field of supply. I did not raise this question of sectionalism. I stand here accused of sectionalism. Will the House believe me when I say that the members who set out to advocate this most remarkable proposition to go to Moncton, do not represent any part of the province in which it is proposed to run this road. If that is not sectionalism, I would like to be told what it is. We do not stand to be accused of sectionalism, by these hon. members at any rate, who, not being in a position to have the road built into their province, attempt to dictate to this great country where that road shall have its terminus. There is sectionalism for you. And not the provinces which must furnish the traffic for the railway, but the province which hopes to benefit from the traffic over the railway which nature has decided shall not be built 163*
within its limits. These gentlemen have appealed to the House on grounds of patriotism and nationalism. I hope they will take these appeals to themselves, because they are more fitting subjects for appeals of this kind than those of us who ask that this greatest of national questions that have come before parliament in recent years be decided on the broadest and most unquestionably national ground.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I am sure if I were to attempt to discuss the geography of Alberta I would make as many mistakes as has my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), who has just taken his seat, in his reference to New Brunswick. At considerable pains I have worked out the distances by the several proposed routes. I find that from Chaudiere by way of Connor's Station, Ed-mundston, Boiestown and Moncton, the distance is 340 miles. A portion of this mileage is fixed by actual railways now constructed. There would be 276 miles of railway to be surveyed. Adding the usual percentage for curves, it would make the distance 368 miles. This information is obtained from what would be considered the most reliable sources in this Dominion. If you go by way of Connor's Station, Ed-mundston and Nashwaak bridge route, you have precisely the same result, 368 miles.	The St. John river route will
commence at Edmundston and run down the valley of St. John and reach Woodstock. It would then strike back through the country. It would go down the valley of the St. John to Fredericton, which is some 60 odd miles, and if it did not it would have to go to Fredericton junction and follow down, paralleling the present Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. WILMOT.: Not at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from Sunbury (Mr. Wilmot) says not at all. I am sure it would not go down through Sunbury, because if it did it would be inundated two months in the year at least. It could not go * down the western shore of the St. John river, because the gradients would be such as would make it an impossible route. It would have to go back from the river and follow a line parallel to the Canadian Pacific Railway line. The distance by the route that is proposed via Connor's, Edmundston, Woodstock, Fredericton, Chip-man and Norton would be, to St. John, 437 miles. You must go around by Chipman, utilizing the Chipman line and going down over the Intercolonial from Norton to St. John. The distance, as I have said, is 437 miles. I am going to point out the difference between what is known as the Chipman route and the western banks of the St. John river route, which is practically the present route of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; that is by way of Woodstock and McAdam. The distance is 398 miles.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is that around by McAdam ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It must strike in somewhere near Harvey.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You are using the present route of the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: You would have to go down nearly 60 miles paralleling the Canadian Pacific Railway to St. John. I am giving the exact mileage, but it would depend very largely upon whether the route would end on the present line of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Harvey or Fredericton junction. If at Fredericton junction the distance would not be so great. If at Harvey it would be some miles longer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What would it be doing at Harvey ? It is not going through the state of Maine.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would go over from Woodstock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To Harvey ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is Harvey not in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, then Fredericton juncton would be the junction point. That would be many miles from the boundary line of Maine.	1


Robert Laird Borden: Harvey is about half way between McAdam junction and Fredericton junction ?


Mr. HALE.: Would it not be shorter to go down the valley of the St. John river to Fredericton ?	[DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is exactly 39 miles shorter. If you were to go down the St. John river, you would find yourself on the western bank of the St. John river at Carle-ton port, which is not possible. You would have to get on the eastern banks of the St. John river into the city proper. They have not sufficient room for ships and they have no terminal facilities on the western side of the harbour, and it would be out of the question to attempt to have enlarged terminal facilities on the western side of St. John river harbour, the Canadian Pacific having exclusive advantages there. If you were to attempt to go on the west side, you would only save 39 miles. By going around by Chipman you are within a certain distance of Moncton, and if Canada is to aid a railway, and with that magnificent harbour of Halifax and with the advantages of St. John harbour, because I do not wish to minimize the advantages which St. John possesses, and from the standpoint of Mr. Hays there would be more traffic than any one Mr. EMMERSON.
harbour could handle, I think this route is entitled to consideration. Now, summarizing distances, by way of Chipman down to Boiestown it would be 368 miles to Moncton. By the Nashwaak bridge route it would be precisely, or practically, the same distance to Moncton. The Boiestown route was the route surveyed by Mr. Hartley, an engineer who surveyed that route previous to confederation. The present route of the Intercolonial Railway was known as the Major Robinson route. He surveyed it through the northern section of the province. Mr. Hartley surveyed what is known as the central route right up through the rich valley of the St. John. There is one thing that must not be lost sight of in this matter. I do not think that sectional differences should prevail, but I do say that if Canada is to aid in the construction of a railway on Canadian soil and covering the shortest possible distance, if the railway is constructed by the Chipman route it would open up the best sections of the country. I think I can speak for New Brunswick, having a knowledge of it that few have had the opportunity to possess, and as far as New Brunswick is concerned this route via Chipman will develop and open up one of the best sections of the country that we have, rich in mineral resources and fertile agricultural lands. It would open up and develop a country which to-day, by reason of the want of railway facilities, is lying undeveloped. The mere distance of 37 miles should have no weight when compared with the vast advantages which would accrue from this route. It would be absurd to talk of running a railway to St. John parallel to the present Canadian Pacific Railway, and if the suggestions of some hon. gentlemen were carried out, it would be tantamount to the building of a parallel line. As one of the representatives of New Brunswick, I certainly strongly urge, as I have already strongly urged, the adoption of Moncton as the terminal point in eastern Canada.


Mr. ANGERS.: Did you say 176 miles ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is 176 miles from Moncton to Halifax by the present route of the Intercolonial Railway.


An hon. MEMBER.: One hundred and eighty-five miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Very well. It is absurd to talk about going to Moncton and running back over the Intercolonial Railway to St. John, a distance of eighty-nine miles, because if my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) would prepare a little map for himself he would at once see how it is possible to get to St. John in a very much easier way by adopting the present Central system and a portion of the Intercolonial Railway. That is the route that the engineers have spoken of, and that is the route which practical railway men have

approved. I have said that the distance from the Cliaudiere to Moncton by either of the central routes would be 30S miles, whereas the distance between the Chaudi&re Junction and Moncton by the present route of the Intercolonial Railway is 497 3-10 miles, showing a saving of 129 3-10 miles. If you go down and parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway following the western banks of the St. John river, far from the banks, and in a country which from my knowledge is not available for easy railway construction, you would only save thirty-seven miles difference as between these two routes. I feel certain that if sectional views were to prevail so far as the province of New Brunswick is concerned, the views of the people who understand the geographical and topographical conditions of the country are practically all in favour of the adoption of the route) via Moucton as against the adoption of the western route paralleling the Canadian Pacific Railway to St. John.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If there were any sectional ideas prevailing, I can quite understand that possibly the city of St. John would naturally favour the route on the western side of the St. John river, but St. John is not the whole of the province of New Brunswick and no one need run away with that idea. Whatever may be the views of the citizens of St. John, they are not by auy means the views of the people of the province of ~New Brunswick in this particular at least.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. geu-tlernan (Mr. Emmerson) if he has considered what effect, if any, the construction of this proposed line will have upon the Intercolonial Railway so far as freight and passenger traffic are concerned ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not fancy that it would have any great, or even any material effect because by reason of the Canadian Pacific Railway route between Montreal and St. John; St. John has the advantage in securing the traffic. But the great traffic which the Intercolonial Railway possesses, is peculiar to itself and one which it must necessarily retain. The Intercolonial Railway skirts the shores of the St. Lawrence; it runs at the head of those rich harbours and bays in northern New Brunswick which are teeming with fish. That traffic will always belong to the Intercolonial Railway. It runs through a rich agricultural country; a country rich in lumber resources as every one knows. That traffic would not meet with any material depreciation. We must of course conclude that the traffic on this new line will be through traffic, and unfortunately the Intercolonial Railway has not possessed that through traffic to any considerable extent. That is another strong
reason why the Intercolonial Railway would not lose that which it never has had.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: I would not have addressed the committee were it not that my hon. friend from St. John has made an appeal for his city and spoken of his great faith in it.
The theological definition of faith is :
Faith is the substance of things hoped for ;
The evidence of things not seen.
I prefer in material matters to walk by sight and not by faith. Now, Sir, I do not desire to set up Halifax as a rival of St. John. I do not wish to excite any feelings of emulation even. In the past, when St. John has been mentioned it" has always been supposed that there was a considerable amount of rivalry on the part of Halifax. I shall not take any sectional view of the question at all, but I wish to impress upon the committee the duty of selecting a common place of distribution and that place has been named by many of the speakers to be the common centre of Moncton, through which the lines will radiate to whatever points are available. From Moncton you can go to St. John; you can go to, Pietou; you can go to Halifax; you can go to Sydney; you can go to Country Harbour or any other place. I say that in Nova Scotia and Halifax we have a right to expect a participation in the benefits derived from through freight from any part of the country wliere-ever it may be, and we ask for no more than that. We ask for no monopoly, we ask for no invidious selection of our own port, but we do ask that all may participate and that we shall merely have that share of the trade of the country that nature has destined for us. But I would say that if you would undertake to carry these goods for shipment to the port of St. John you will remember that this is not a terminus. The object of taking these goods to the sea-board is for shipment to Europe, and therefore in that link of ocean navigation when you bring your goods to the harbour of Halifax it balances the difference which may 'be against Halifax in the matter of railroad carriage, because When you come to the port of Halifax in your steamer you have 300 miles to go up the Bay of Fundy to1 St. John, a most difficult bit of navigation in the winter time. St. John is 300 miles further from Europe than is Halifax, and therefore in the in-going and out-going trip you have 600 miles more of most difficult navigation in the winter season, which is the season when these goods will be shipped from a maritime province port, if they are ever carried over this railway. From the knowledge which I have of this matter, I can say that these 600 miles of difficult navigation for these large steamers is a balance over expenses if you carried the freight twice between Moncton and

Halifax to ship from that port. I think it would be much cheaper to ship from Halifax than from St. John, although St. John may be a few miles nearer on the railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Having furnished the House with some figures, possibly it would be fair if*I gave the details on which those figures were based. This information was obtained by me in the Railway Department. From Chaudiere to Edinundston in the county of Madawaska, New Brunswick, the distance is 1G2 miles. From Edinundston to Plaster Eock, on the Tobique river, by way of St. Leonards, the distance is 48 miles. From Plaster Eock to Boiestown, the distance is 55 miles. From Boiestown to Moncton by way of Berry's Mills the distance is 75 miles. The totals 340 miles. 276 of the mileage, is unsurveyed country. The rule of engineers is to add 10 per cent for curves. Therefore, adding 28 miles to the 340 miles makes 368 miles. The Nasli-waak Bridge route is somewhat nearer Fredericton than the Boiestown route. From Chaudiere to St. John via Fredericton on the left or western side of the river, the distances, are : from Chaudiere to Edmund-ston, 162 miles ; from Edmundston to Fredericton, 170 miles by the Canadian Pacific Railway mileage ; and from Fredericton to St. John, 66 miles, by the present route of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think probably on account of gradings this route would be somewhat lengthened. The total mileage of the last route is 398 miles as against 437 miles by way of Cliipman to Norton, on the Intercolonial Railway, and back to the Canadian Pacific Railway, lauding you on the eastern bank of the St. John harbour.


Samuel Barker: What is the distance from Chaudiere to St. John by way of Woodstock and Harvey ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I took it by Fredericton Junction. I give that as 39S miles.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not propose nor do I propose to take any part in the discussion so far as it appears to be a question between the relative claims of Halifax, St. John and Moncton. I think that partakes too much of a sectional character to interest this committee, and I am sure that we are not contributing to the estimation in which we would like to be held in this House by entering upon those controversies under the circumstances as they exist to-night. When this Bill was before the Railway Committee, I did not offer any objection to the strongly expressed desire of the members, chiefly from Nova Scotia, and one at least from New Brunswick, that Moncton should be made the terminus of this new line, and I will tell you why I did not. Not because I did not feel that it was a very important question ; not because I did not feel that there were very grave reasons why it would Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).
not be to the interest of Canada from a national point of view that that question should be settled ; but because I was satisfied in my own mind that that was not the place or^tlie occasion on which a question of that kind should be settled. Nor do I think that to-night or this committee is the time or the place when a question of this kind can be properly determined. This committee can accept neither the statement made by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) nor the statement of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) as to the distances between the points mentioned, or as to the best routes to select between Chaudiere and the ocean. We are not possessed of the information necessary to enable us to decide those questions. No surveys have teen made ; no one can say what circuitous route might have to be taken in order to place the terminus of this line at Moncton ; and this committee would not be safely guided by acting on such representations, though made in good faith, and in every confidence that they are correct, in the absence of sufficient data. This committee would not be wise in being guided to a definite conclusion without further information on those points. I am not disposed, then, to engage in any controversy on this question, but I leave it for the present where my hon. friends have left it, and I make bold to say that whefi this question comes to be finally determined, no government is strong enough to determine it other than in the true national interests of Canada. When this question comes to be determined, it will be determined only after there has been a complete and thorough survey of the whole ground. If it comes to be necessary in the interest of Canada as a whole, to build another competing line with the Intercolonial Railway, for which I do not see any necessity at the present time, the government must be sure that it founds its conclusions on evidence that will be complete, conclusive and satisfactory as to the proper route to select. While I will not take any part in this controversy, I feel bound to say to my hon. friends who have cast reflection on either the capacity or the efficiency or the national character of the port of St. John, that they have not been warranted in the statements they have made, and I am sorry my hon. friends have taken this occasion to make' these reflections. My hon. friend from Cumberland spoke of the tricky tides of the Bay of Fundy. I want to know what is the data oh which my hon. friend considers himself justified in so characterizing that great waterway. Let him take up the returns made from time to time, reliable returns, and see -what is the nature of the casualties which have occurred in that bay, and I venture to say that there is no bay on the whole northern coast of this continent which has been so free from accidents,

so free from casualties, and so safe to navigate as the Bay of Fundy. I am not going to make any reflections on the harbour of Halifax. I do not know that I could do it, but I would not do it if I could, because it is not a question which ought to he raised in this manner before this committee, and holding the opinion I do, I would not raise it if I were ever so much in position to do so.
Another hon. gentleman has talked about the small size of the harbour and its lack of capacity to handle traffic. No one who knows anything about St. John would make that statement. It is quite true that there has been a congestion of traffic in that port. But why ? Because the harbour has been dependent almost entirely on the expenditures made by the people of St. John themselves to provide traffic facilities. But we have plenty of room to provide additional accommodation. There is no end to the amount of business which can be done, but there is a limit to the capacity of the people to put their hands into their pockets and provide facilities, and it is because the people have not been able to provide traffic facilities in a greater measure that the complaint is made concerning congestion of shipping. I do not know where my hon. friend gets his measurements. He says it is 300 miles more or less from Europe further to the port of St. John than to the port of Halifax. I am amazed to hear such a statement. If I could cross the Bay of Fundy on boat and go to Halifax, it would not be more than 120 to 130 miles at the most in a direct line. We do not propose to take those steamers over the land, but my hon. friend has forgotten that it is not going to be necessary, in the interests of the business of Canada, for a steamer loading at the port of St. John for Europe to go all the way round the coast of Nova Scotia until she comes to the harbour of Halifax. She will put right out and get across in less than half the distance which my hon. friend says has to be traversed more to reach the port of St. John than I-Ialfax. But there is no doubt whatever on this point, that the harbour of St. John is accessible, is free from ice, is in every respect a safe harbour and is capable of expansion to any degree which the business of the country will require for some time to come, and when the question comes to be considered commercially, it will not be found necessary to decide it in the way some hon. gentlemen propose who have expressed their opinions here to-night.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I think that this discussion is out of place and untimely, but when it comes to be a question of comparison between the merits of the harbour of St. John and those of Halifax, I cannot refrain from taking a part in the discussion. After this charter is granted and the government decide to assist the company, it will be time to say what route
should be adopted. No person of sound mind would for a moment think of comparing Halifax to St. John. You can spend millions of dollars on St. John and you will never make it but a small mud hole in comparison with Halifax. It is only the other day that a big steamer was wrecked in the harbour itself, because it had not room to turn around and get to its proper mooring. The harbour of Halifax has been claimed by the best navigators who ever frequented the ports of North America, to be equal to any in the world except that of Rio in South America and Sydney in New South Wales. You come in from the sea and in half an hour you are into a safe, commodious harbour, with an ordinary rise and fall of from four and a half feet and in spring tides six feet. You get your load and go away, and in half an hour are out on the ocean. You have a clear course to go wherever you want, whereas in the harbour of St. John you have a thirty feet rise and fall of the tide, and when that tide is out, it is not a very desirable place for steamers to go to. If that port is to be the terminus of this road, it would be better that this road were never built.


Joseph John Tucker: Referring to what my hon. friend who has just spoken has said regarding St. John harbour, I would like to say a few words. The harbour of St. John has had some of the largest men-of-war-the great standard of Halifax-in it and they lay there with perfect safety. I agree with my hon. friend that Halifax harbour, when you get into it, is all right, but he can give no instance in the port of St. John and that so-called terrible place the Bay of Fundy, of a number of lives or vessels lost, although the tonnage and the shipping going to that port has far exceeded that in the port of Halifax. This has strengthened the hands of the merchants and underwriters. What is the matter with the St. Lawrence, with its insurance rates unusually high and a number of ships constantly going ashore ? I see sometimes in reading the papers, that as many as four ships have gone ashore in the one day. But you do not find anything of that kind in the port of St. John. Ships move in and out with perfect safety, and they have nothing at all to interfere with them. We have plenty of tide but not more than Bristol.


William Ross: The ships must anchor outside until the tide rises.


Joseph John Tucker: Not at all, they can come in at all times, and thanks to the government, the present bar is to be removed. That will be done as soon as a dredge is built for that purpose. The world was not made in a day. Six years ago there was no grain shipped from the port of St. John, but the people living there had such confidence in the capabilities of that port that

they put their hands into their pockets and spent $750,000 in the construction of the present wharfs and gave for the use of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to assist their coming into our-port, property which, in the books of that company, is valued at a million dollars. The progress of St. John within the last six years has been simply wonderful. I feel sure that for every hundred bushels shipped from St. John, not more than one is shipped from Halifax. Such is the difference between the two ports, and the port of Halifax was amply assisted by the late government. Elevators and wharfs were built, and railways were brought down into the city and everything that could be done was done for the young child, but it did nothing for the good of the country. The merchants of our country and farmers are not shipping their produce to Great Britain from Halifax, and I doubt whether they will do so in the future.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It is very much to be regretted that this discussion should have been provoked by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). The question was before the committee and thoroughly discussed the other day, and a test vote taken, which resulted in the Bill being reported to the House in the form in which it now stands. All hon. gentlemen are aware that when this Bill was presented to the House the eastern terminus named was the city of Quebec. The maritime province members almost to a man joined together before the committee in urging that Moncton should be the eastern terminus of the road for the present. The discussion took place In the presence of the promoters of the Bill, the authorities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and that discussion seemed to convince them that Moncton was the proper place for them to have for their eastern terminus. And they, of their own motion amended the Bill and presented it to the House in that form. After long and careful* discussion, this was adopted by the Railway Committee, and the Bill was so reported to the House. Now, it does seem to me unfortunate that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) should provoke a discussion here to-night which can result in no good, for there is no resolution before the committee, merely for the purpose of airing his views as to what is best for the maritime provinces. I believe that all the representatives for Nova Scotia, and I think the members from Prince Edward Island also, and nearly every member from the province of New Brunswick, are in a better position to judge what is best for the eastern end of the Dominion than is my hon. friend from the west. If we were to attempt to interfere with his territory in the slightest degree we should hear from him, and I think we may well ask him to allow us to manage our own affairs in this direction. The hon. gentleman's argument is that this Mr. TUCKER.
will not be a national railway, because Moncton is not a port. Nobody ever contended that it was. The hon. gentleman is reviving once more the old discussion about Halifax and St. John. The relative merits of St. John and Halifax have been gone over on the floor of this House and in every part of the eastern half of the Dominion until every one is tired and sick of the subject. And one reason why we have never accomplished anything in the lower provinces is that as soon as anything is proposed to be done, this controversy is provoked, it neutralizes the efforts of those who seek to accomplish something and so nothing is gained. When we met and agreed upon Mo acton as the objective point, we thought we had got rid of this discussion; and I believe we had until the hon. gentleman brought it up again. The position taken 'by the maritime provinces is this, and I think it was fair-first, we recognized that the west must be developed and the duty devolves upon the government of providing increased facilities for the removal of its products. We do not say to the west : We wish to compel your products to come to a maritime province port, or that we are going to control your route of freight in any way or to ask you a fraction of a cent more on freight for your goods than if they were going by any other way; but we will leave you to ship your goods in any way youi see fit so as to get to your market in the cheapest possible way. But we have a right to say further, and we do say : If this Dominion is to spend an enormous amount of money for the purpose of developing the west, we in the maritime provinces have a right to a share of that expenditure; we have a right to see to it that our interests are guarded as well as those in the west. If we are willing to concede everything to them and take the position that we do not wish to injure them, we think we are right in making the demand wre are making and that we are going to stand for, namely the extension of this road to Moncton if the roadl is to be aided by the government. It is stated that the Intercolonial Railway was built for the benefit of the maritime provinces, and that is one of the things that it is very hard for a Nova Scotian to stand. The Intercolonial Railway was not built for us, and accomplished no good for us. We were not the people who were sought to be benefited by it. It was located around by the north shore of New Brunswick. Why ? Some said it was so located for military purposes, and some that it was to enhance the value of the property of some individual. Whatever may have been the object, the results were the same to us. The Intercolonial Railway has accomplished no good for us, on the contrary, it has been a vast injury and a hindrance to our progress. Why ? Because it enabled the merchants and manufacturers of Montreal, Toronto and other centres in the old Cana-

das to come down with their products and compete with our manufacturers and drive out of business nearly all our wholesale merchants. They have had the use of the Intercolonial Railway, they have had the cheap rates, we have not had the benefit of these rates, because we have nothing to ship that the older provinces are willing to take from us. And, so far as the farmers of Nova Scotia are concerned, the products of Ontario and the west come down and compete with our products to the injury of our Nova Scotia farmers. It is true, we get cheap rates on coal, but how far west can we send coal ? We do not get it farther west than Montreal, and we could send it to that port by water even if the Intercolonial had never been built. We have been injured by this line and it took us twenty-five years to adapt ourselves to the position we were placed in by the building of that road. 1 When the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, we were then promised a shoi't line of railway across the province of New Brunswick to Salisbury near Moncton. That was taken from us, and the road was built across the state of Maine to the city of St. John, receiving government aid, and we were left without any connection in that direction. And now comes this project -to build another transcontinental road ; and we say that if it is to be carried through with government aid, we put forward our claims, and we deny that the fact of the construction of the Intercolonial Railway should) be quoted against us. We want *a short line from Moncton to Oliaudiere, and we are entitled to it. We have agreed to that, so far as we are concerned. When we get to Moncton we are on the Inter- { colonial and have a direct line to the city of Halifax. I am sorry that any bon. gentleman here has seen fit to say anything against either great port. That is unwise.
I believe it is better for us to praise our country rather than to decry it. I am willing to agree to everything the hon. gentleman from St. John has said with regard to his harbour. It is true they can ship a great deal of grain from there. I am willing to agree to everything he said and also to go further and to say that within the last few weeks it has given promise of being a great game preserve, for we have had moose wandering around it. I do not say that in any unpleasant way, or as detracting from the merits of St. John harbour.
I know what they can do there in the way of handling freight. The new road, however, can not be brought in upon the western side of St. John harbour, for all tlio available space there is occupied by the Canadian Pacific Railway. They must come in on the eastern side, and, to do that, they must come down by way of Chipmun upon the line we have indicated.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to refer at any length to the subject of national spirit and the building up of a natioual highway, these are good terms, and I like to hear them. But the national highway that we want is the one that will serve the whole Dominion. If the west want an outlet for the product of the west on merely commercial basis you should not lay a single rail east of Winnipeg, but should divert the traffic by way of the United States. Are we prepared to do that ?	1
believe we are not. I believe we are prepared, as a Dominion, to make sacrifices in order to prevent that being done. We are willing to say to the west that we want to make this a continuing Dominion, to prevent the Dominion breaking up in the future when the interests have changed from what they are now. For that reason we have urged strongly, and will urge strongly, that the terminus of this road shall be at Moncton. And I appeal to the fair-play and spirit of justice of the hon. members if the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are not entitled to some consideration. There is no talk of any injury to St. John if they get there. If this road with an increased cjjstance of thirty-seven miles over a direct line, gets to St. John, I do not think the city of St. John has anything to complain of. While I am on my feet, let me give expression to what my views are on the subject.
1 believe that the freight going over this road will in the natural course of events, gravitate to St. John ; I believe just as firmly that the passenger traffic and the mails must go through Halifax. If a fast line service is ever constructed for the Dominion of Canada it must run from the port of Halifax. When you have those things, and when in addition you have the port of Quebec properly equipped with a perfect freight service there, and the port of Montreal properly equipped, and the St. Lawrence river properly equipped, and dredged, and put in proper condition, then you are in the best position to take care of the freight that is coming from the west. It is madness for us to suppose that we can be able to divert the whole traffic from the port of Portland. If the officers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company came before this committee to-night and said that it was their intention to pull up their terminus at Portland, I could not credit it, because they need this terminus in order to take care of their business. We cannot compel them to leave Portland, and I don't think we should ask them to do it ; I doubt if it would be in the interest of the western country for them to do it. But when we are providing this road, we should provide that as much freight as possible should go through Canadian channels and be shipped from Canadian ports. Let us lay no stress upon shipping, either in or out. Now we are labouring under some disadvantages. Let me tell hon. gentlemen of the anomalous position that exists with regard to the freight from the maritime pro-

vinces going west. A gentleman told me the other day that he had a certain class of heavy freight to ship from Halifax to Toronto, and he found that he could ship it cheaper from Halifax to Liverpool and back to Ontario as through freight, and save money by the transaction. That is how we are circumstanced with regard to these freights. We are simply asking for justice for the lower provinces. I regret that the question of rival ports has been brought up. There was no necessity for it, because the company themselves say they are willing to go down to Moncton. They have put that in their Bill, and why should we try to disturb it. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) talks about an increase of distance of 176 miles to Halifax. Nobody is talking about tnking freight to Halifax. Let the freight go to St. John if it will.


Joseph John Tucker: Why would you go a longer way round when you can reach your objective point much shorter, and at the same time compete more successfully with cheaper lines ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I will answer the hon. gentleman by saying to him that we do n(ft propose to do anything of the sort. W'e do not propose to go by a longer line. The route they would be compelled to take in order to get from the western side of the harbour of St. John will be thirty-seven miles longer than if they went by Chipman to the eastern side, and if St. John can be put in that position surely they have the right to raise this sectional cry. I deprecate it, I am sorry it has been made. We are agreed upon a given point, and I thought we had buried for ever this senseless war that has existed between Halifax and St. John for years and years, and which is paralyzing the efforts of the representatives of the two provinces in this parliament whenever we attempt to do anything for the two provinces. I appeal to them now to let this matter drop. Let us go forward, having agreed upon the neutral point, and then let the traffic and the travel go from there where it will. If it goes to St. John from Chipman, let St. John have it; if the travel goes to Halifax, that is the proper place for it to go to. We must meet upon common ground, and we must yield in these matters. If we cannot get everything we want in this world we must be satisfied to take what we can get. bearing in mind that there are others in the world beside ourselves.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have been delighted with the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). They have the right ring. I think a maritime province man should be big enough to say : Let any port in the maritime province win in the game ; bring your route to the maritime provinces and let God and nature determine the port. People are easily caught by catch


Fletcher Bath Wade: phrases. Start a catch phrase up in this country and it takes away all the argument you can make in a year. One hon. gentleman deprecates paralleling the Intercolonial. Why, we want railways in this country paralleling every eight or ten miles. Parallel railways every eight or ten miles and you bring in population, you bring in industry, and you produce wealth. I had an opportunity the other day to discuss this question of parallel lines. I found in the great states of Ohio and Illinois that they have paralleled railways to a wonderful extent. The state of Illinois has about
60,000	square miles, and they have between 14,000 and 15,000 miles of railway packed into that 60,000 square miles, while the whole of Canada has barely 18,000 miles. Well, you never heard the people of Ohio complain about their lines being parallel.
An lion. MEMBER. Who built tlieir lines?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is not part of my argument at the present time. I want 1o show that just as you parallel lines and build them close together, you develop the country, you get an enormous population, and you get great empire states. Now Ohio has 14,000 miles of railway, with a population of nearly 5,000,000, almost ns many people as exist in the whole Dominion of Canada. Why ? Because they have paralleled the whole state with railways and enabled five millions of people to live in that state, and to develop the business and Wealth of that country. The great trouble with Canada is that notwithstanding our enormous resources we cannot get the country developed, and therefore we cannot have population. I think we should imitate the state of Illinois in this respect, with its .14,000 miles of railway in 60,000 square miles of territory. Why, Sir, the province of Ontario, with 256,000 square miles of territory, has no more than 4,000 or 5,000 miles of railway. You people of Ontario ought to be ashamed talking about keeping railways apart, you have not got any railways in the province of Ontario. Still I am bound to say that you people of Ontario have got more railways than we have in the province of Nova Scotia. We are uncivilized in Nova Scotia, we are uncivilized in New Brunswick, because we have got no railways. A railway to-day is a great civilizer. We have got clergymen in our province, they are civilizers, but we have not got railways. Now, I want to see the Intercolonial paralleled, for the very instant you parallel it, you will have what has occurred in Ohio. Just in proportion as the railways of Ohio were paralleled the value of stocks increased. Twenty or thirty years ago when the railways of Ohio were few and far between, the stocks were scarcely of any value, now they are all first-class, and every railroad to-day is paying dividends in the state of Ohio.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Are these railways all confined to the limits of the state of Ohio ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am talking about the number of railways in the state of Ohio.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: How can you say they paid dividends in the state of Ohio ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I say that so far as the railways in Ohio are concerned, the abundance of traffic enables them to pay their way. Now then let me say another thing in reference to the state of Illinois which is the great middle state of the west. That state has something like 53,000 square miles. It has about 13,000 miles of railway and there are almost 5,000,000 people in it. These two states, Ohio and Illinois, have
27,000	or 28,000 miles of railway, almost double the mileage of railways in Canada, and they have only about one half the territory of the province of Ontario. Now then I want to bring this home so that our people will stop this infernal nonsense of talking about paralleling railways. We want to parallel our railways every ten miles before we can take our position as a country of progress and enterprise. When we get the Intercolonial Railway paralleled every ten miles through New Brunswick, I will undertake to say that hon. gentlemen will not have a word to say about the Intercolonial Railway paying or not paying, because the construction of parallel railways will give a stimulus to the enterprise of that province. It is a barren province to-day. The whole interior of the country has to be opened up and you cannot have progress without railways. A man will not go iOO miles from a railway, invest his money and undertake to do business. You must have railways. The great modern civilizer is the railway. I am going to ask this House to give us some bonuses in the county of Colchester. You may think that because we have sea routes we are necessarily in a position to dispense with railways. The contrary is the fact. There is another thing that I want to mention. In Germany and on the continent of Europe where they have great canals, it has been found that wherever there was a canal running from one city to another it would not pay, but wherever that canal was paralleled by a railway, both paid. The railway helped the canal and the canal helped the railway. You will find that in the report that was issued by the Senate which took the testimony of the most competent men on this continent in reference to transportation. If I propounded that to the wise men of this House they would say it is impossible, and yet competent men came before a committee of the Senate and showed that in Germany canals that had not paid, on being paralleled by railways were found to pay. What was the explanation ? The explanation was that the canal carried the heavy freight which was not a paying freight to the railway, while the railway carried the light freight which was not a source of profit on the canal. Consequently, both paid. You want a railway to be paralleled every five or ten miles and the parallel lines will pay. I do not want to hear any more of that nonsense that we hear in the Railway Committee, and all over the country, about paralleling railways. We want railways to be paralleled every ten miles. I want hon. gentlemen to look into the statistics of Ohio and Illinois. They afford magnificent food for any one who takes the trouble to look into this question of railway building. Ohio and Illinois are the wealthiest states in the union, barring the state of New York. In these great states manufacturing and agriculture have reached a high point, and the reason is that both manufacturers and farmers find themselves near railways. The farmers do not have to carry their grain thirty or forty miles to a railway as in our country. We compel farmers in this country to cart their grain thirty or forty miles to a railway and expect them to make money. I was ashamed this summer when you asked those immigrants to come out to this country, because, instead of having railways to enable them to ship their first crop to the markets of the world, you had them dumped down 300 or 400 miles from a railroad and you expect to maintain the reputation of Canada under circumstances of that kind. Some hon. gentlemen in the committee have spoken of Halifax as being far away. Halifax is a port which will beat Portland in distance and it will secure the business if the people of Canada understand the problem and appreciate the advantages which they possess. WTe want air lines with heavy rails, big cars and no gradients. Then we will have the same conditions as those which exist in the United States. There it is found that railways will give you the advantage of a long haul. AVith these heavy rails and big cars they will haul your grain 2,500 miles for exactly the same rate as that which they will haul it for 2,000 miles or less. The long haul cuts down the distance, and under similar conditions in this country 200 or 300 miles will make no difference. The railways will deliver freights at the same rate at Halifax as at Quebec. This is the question and this is the problem that has been worked out in the United States, and if it had been otherwise no state in the west, such as Nebraska, could possibly compete with a state farther east. In this country we talk about making a national port and it is said that Portland is 100 miles nearer than Halifax. The man who makes that statement does not do any credit to his head or his heart. I was glad that the hon. member for Annapolis made the point that he did make. I am persuaded, while I have no sectional or unkind word to say about any part of Canada, that the Intercolonial Railway has been a better commercial investment to the people of Ontario than it has been to the people of the maritime provinces.

Ml-. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I desire to rise to a point of order. I would not with ali respect try to stop my hon. friend's eloquence, but he has given notice of a motion that he intends to move which is in amendment to the clause which is now under discussion. I understand the address which he is delivering is in criticism of the clause as it now exists. To strike out the whole clause would not be in order. No motion is before you to strike out the clause and the discussion is upon the question whether the clause will be adopted or not. As has already been said, it is in the nature of an agreement whereby Moncton was named as the terminus, and that agreement has not been sought to be set aside. I assume then that the hon. gentleman should confine this discussion properly to this clause.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) is extending beyond the clause. Of course, he is not discussing the notice of motion, because he simply read it and handed it to the clerk. I hope hon. members who are discussing this clause will confine themselves to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) is perfectly in order. Some remarks have been made by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) against the scope of this clause and the remarks of the hou. member for Colchester are in support of the clause as it stands. It may be he wants something further added to it, but he is arguing in favour of the clause to that extent.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, I did not say the hon. gentleman was out of order, but I gave a warning to the committee to keep as closely as possible to the consideration of the clause.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I do not want to have to argue that the Intercolonial Railway is a disadvantage to Nova Scotia or an advantage to Ontario, but I want the people of Ontario to understand that we in Nova Scotia regard it more as a national necessity in favour of Ontario than in favour of Nova Scotia. I undertake to say that the people of Ontario get Infinitely more out of the investment in the Intercolonial Railway than do the people of Nova Scotia. We are not a manufacturing people ; we buy your products and we have nothing to send you in return, except it be coal. I do not like a discussion on this line, because I think that our policy should be a policy for all Canada and not for any province or provinces. The Intercolonial Railway was a political necessity, just as the Canadian Pacific Railway was a national necessity, and fortunately both of these enterprises will in time turn out to be great commei-cial successes. If this great railway system is to be brought to the maritime provinces, I want that it shall be so hedged that the point of export Mr. GOURLEY.
will be in the maritime provinces and not at Portland. This is the most important debate in this parliament since I have been a member, because it points to a broadening of the national life of our country. While this country sends its goods to a foreign port for shipment we never can have a national sentiment, and this debate is worth a dozen debates on tupenny-hapenny subjects which it never would make a difference whether decided one way or the other. This is a national debate calculated to give national ideas to the people of Canada, and to direct their attention towards looking at Canada as a whole. If the debate has promoted that feeling, it will have advanced the interests of Canada in an immeasurable degree.


Mr. PRINGLE.: This clause was discussed for several days in the committee, and one day the maritime province members got together and reached the conclusion that they would be perfectly satisfied if the terminus of this road was fixed at Moncton. While this discussion may be very interesting, I do not know that it is of any benefit to Canada. We heard to-night the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross), an exmember of the Liberal government, telling us that the port of St. John was a mud hole, that no sane man would ever advocate it as a terminus, and that if St. John were to be the terminus, then the road had better never be built. It is detrimental to the interests of this country that a man occupying the prominent position of the member for Victoria should state in this parliament that one of our principal seaports is a mud hole.


Samuel Hughes: The member for what Victoria ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Victoria, N.S. On the other hand, we have had hon. members to get up and tell us that Halifax is not suitable. Now, Sir, under clause 12 of this Bill the company is simply given the right to build a certain line of railway. There is nothing to compel the company to build any particular section of that road, and whether they build it or not, it is entirely permissive. We want to know what the government policy is in regard to this road, and we have a right to know it. Time and again in the committee it was asked that the government should announce their policy in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific, so that we might discuss the Bill intelligently. It may be that the government do not intend to give one dollar of subsidy to the Grand Trunk Pacific ; and if that be the ease, then we know from those who are promoting the Bill that they will not build a mile of the railway. It may be that the government intend to subsidize that portion from Quebec westward, or it may be from Moncton westward, but whatever their policy be, until the announcement of it is made to the House, it is waste of time for us to discuss the Bill.

It seems to me that the proper course to pursue is to let this Bill go on, and when the government announces its policy then we can better know" what we are doing in respect to this measure.


Frank Oliver: If I believed that this discussion was profitless I would show the strength of my conviction by not taking part in it. I do not take that view, however, ancTin fact the discussion so far has brought out in one instance such very remarkable propositions that it is just as well to make allusion to them. If I viewed the matter as does the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) I would not have raised this discussion to-night, but I do not view it in that way and I hope the House and the country do not view it in that way. That hon. gentleman set forth the idea, that so far as the members from the maritime provinces were concerned they were prepared to let the North-west get out its grain in any way it liked but they demanded their share of the general expenditure. It was a matter of expenditure to them, and not a matter of transportation. If that is their point of view, it is no wonder that they demand that the railway shall go to a place that is not a port rather than to a nearer place that is a port. It is of course a pity that any section of the members of this House by acting together cannot provide a policy for the House and the country-it is a pity, possibly, from their point of view. But I humbly submit that the people whose exertions will furnish the traffic for the railroad are more interested in the length of the railroad, the location of the railroad, and the terminus of the railroad, than any other set of men in the country; because they will pay their share towards building the railroad, and after it is built they will be the people who will keep it going. Whether they live in the west or in the east, the people who are expected to furnish the traffic of the railroad are the people who should have some say as to the length of the railway, the cost of the haul, and the terminus of the railway. They do not get together in a caucus in order to force any policy on the House and the country. They have taken for granted that this would be treated as a national matter, and that justice would be done in the premises. It seems that this is not to be the case, but that the road is to be lengthened, it may be ninety-five miles or it may 185 miles; but it is to be lengthened, because it has been so decided by gentlemen who represent provinces into which the railroad will not run. This is the proposition which is placed before the House and the country; I hope the hon. gentlemen who support it are proud of their position. I do not endorse it, and I would not like to be thought guilty of supporting such a proposition. Let me ask the hon. gentleman who said that the Intercolonial was an injury to the maritime provinces, if that is so, why, in heaven's name, does he want another road built to the maritime provinces 3 Surely, it would be better to tear up the rails of the Intercolonial than to ask for another railway to be built there. I never before heard such a statement made in this House in regard to a national question. Let me tell the House that to-day the town of Edmonton, which is the jumping off place in the North-west Territories, is using, in the town waterworks, boilers and engines from the Robb Engineering Works, of Amherst, Nova Scotia. There is trade to be done between the west and the east, and the maritime provinces are interested in having the best possible transportation facilities, and it is no more to the best interests of the maritime provinces, nor any section of them that this national railway should be lengthened one mile, than it is to the interests of the people of the North-west or any other part of Canada. If there has been trouble between Halifax and St. John in the past, I certainly would be glad to see it cease. I believe that because of those differences in the past the port of Portland lias had the benefit, and if this suggestion, which has been made ostensibly on behalf of the maritime provinces, is carried out, the port of Portland will continue to have the benefit. An hon. gentleman has spoken of this arrangement as a compromise, if you please, between Halifax and St. John. I have heard of the compromise between the old man and his wife. There were always quarreling as to how the blankets should be divided, and at last there was a compromise and the old lady took the blankets. It appears to me that is about the nature of this compromise. Halifax and St. John have compromised by providing that the railroad shall run some 100 miles distant from St. John. I have been convinced by the facts stated by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) that there is merit in the proposition to run this proposed line to Chipman, in New Brunswick. His figures are so carefully calculated and his facts so clearly set forth that there can be no doubt about it. The House will understand that it does not make a particle of difference to the argument I have taken the liberty of putting forward how the railroad shall get to St. John. The point is that it shall get to St. John by the shortest possible route. By whatever route it reaches St. John, it will be shorter than a route to any other practicable ocean port in Canada. The hon. gentleman says that if the road is built by way of Chipman to Moncton it will only be within fifty miles of St. John. Then my suggestion is that if there is to be a compromise, and if we are to do away with all this difficulty that has existed between the different sections of the maritime provinces, as well as the difficulty that has probably arisen between the maritime provinces and other

sections of the Dominion, let it be provided that the Grand Trunk shall run that little fifty miles from Chipman to St. John. Surely that is a fairer compromise for everybody and better for the whole country than the proposal that it should run from Chipman to Moncton, from which point the freight would have to be carried 185 miles further to get to Halifax, or 95 miles back to get to St. John.


Mr. A. E. KEMP.: I do not rise to discuss the merits of the question so much as to challenge a statement or two which fell from the lips of my hon. friend from Annapolis <Mr. Wade) and which I do not think should go without being challenged. The hon. gentleman said that the Intercolonial Railway had not been of any use to the people of the maritime provinces, that it would have been better for them had that road not been built. He stated that after the Intercolonial had been built, the manufacturers and merchants of the west went to the maritime provinces and closed out their manufacturers and merchants. Previous to the building of the Intercolonial Railway, so far as I am informed, the manufactures which the people of the maritime provinces used, which they did not themselves manufacture, came largely from the United States. The manufactures which came from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec replaced those from the United States. If the hon. gentleman will consider the matter further, I think he will see that he did not pay a very great compliment to the manufacturers and merchants of the maritime provinces who, so far as my knowledge of them goes, are shrewd men, and quite competent to compete with those from Quebec and Ontario, when the conditions are equal. When the hon. gentleman says that the west sends everything to the maritime provinces and the maritime provinces sends nothing to the west, he is very much in error. The products of Sydney, New Glasgow, Yarmouth, St. John, Moncton, Halifax, Amherst, and other centres of the maritime provinces are to be found in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and the North-west, and some of the finest industries this country possesses are to be found in those maritime cities. I rose merely to challenge the statements which the hon. gentleman made. I think that the Intercolonial Railway was a necessity of confederation, and I believe that it has operated to the mutual advantage of the people of the east and the west, and certainly we must all admit that an interprovincial trade is much preferable to a trade between this country and the United States.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I rise merely to correct a misapprehension of some remark I made regarding the harbour of St. John. I do not wish to be understood as having any way depreciated the capacity of that harbour. What I had in my mind-which possibly I may not have expressed as clearly Mr. OLIVER.
as I should-was the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway have exclusive privileges- and I use the word advisedly and in its broadest sense-on the western side of the harbour, and that it would be necessary for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to provide terminal facilities on the eastern side of the harbour. It would therefore be very much more to the advantage to the Grand Trunk Railway to go around even thirty-seven miles more by way of Chipman in order to reach that point than to go down the valley of St. John, paralleling the Canadian Pacific Railway, and reaching only the western side of the harbour. St. John has a splendid harbour and great room for expansion, and I certainly deprecate the references made to the respective advantages or disadvantages of Halifax and St. Jolio. As the hon. member for Annapolis has remarked, the Intercolonial Railway has been somewhat of a disadvantage to the province of Nova Scotia, but I do not think he wished to include the whole of the maritime provinces when he made that remark, because he stated that it was the influence of northern New Brunswick which very largely controlled the location of that road. On a former occasion I referred to the advantage which the Intercolonial Railway has been in cementing old Canada with the maritime provinces, and I will not further refer to that subject. In conclusion, it seems to me that this route, with its thirty-seven miles to Moncton, in addition to what it might be to St. John, is one that will meet the interests, not merely of the maritime provinces, but of Canada as a whole.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with my hon. friend in regretting that any reflection should be cast upon either the harbour of Halifax or St. John. So far as St. John is concerned, I myself, a year ago last December, saw five ocean steamers loading there at one time. That would be sufficient to dissipate any idea that the harbour is not capable of being made the winter port or one of the winter ports of Canada. At the same time I do not want it to be said that I agree with some hon. gentlemen who seem to think that the harbout of Halifax is not fitted to be the winter port or one of the winter ports of this country. The advantages of that harbour have been stated fully by a number of hon. gentlemen so that I need not repeat what they have said. I shall confine myself to stating that there is no port on this side of the Atlantic which is better, and I do not know one that is as good. In addition I can tell my hon. friend from Alberta that some ten or twelve years ago Halifax took more trade from Ontario and the west than it had steamers to accommodate.


Frank Oliver: I did not make any insinuation against the port of Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that the hon. gentleman is too broad-minded to do

anything of the kind, but I think a number of hon. gentlemen to-night were unduly exercised about some jealousy between the two ports. Let me assure the House that among the business men of Halifax there is no jealousy of St. John. On the contrary they would like to see it prosper. While they would like to see their own port become the winter port, they would prefer that St. John should have this advantage rather than an American port, and I am confident that a similar sentiment prevails among the business men of St. John with regard to Halifax. The business men in both cities are ready to support any project which will make either the winter port of Canada to the exclusion of any foreign harbour, and I do not think that my hon. friend from Alberta exactly understood the purport of the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis having reference to the expenditure. I was listening with a great deal of attention to the remarks of my hon. friend from Annapolis, and while he used the word ' expenditure,' I understood his remark to mean that the people of the maritime provinces-if you are going to spend much more on the transcontinental-want to share the benefits of that expenditure in the way of transportation facilities. That is the view which my hon. friend from Annapolis presented to the House. The question presents itself to us in this way. Suppose that we built the transcontinental and that it should be diverted 200 miles on this side of Edmonton to Portland in the United States, and thus cut off from Edmonton and its vicinity the benefits of this railway, what they would otherwise enjoy, I think that my hon. friend from Alberta would have something to say if he were not going to get any transportation facilities. The people of the maritime provinces have to look at it in this way. If we are to have another great transcontinental railway, it should have its winter port in this country. In the maritime provinces only can you find a winter port, and they are naturally anxious that the trade should not be diverted to any other country but should be, as far as the commercial conditions warrant, extended to some/ open port in the maritime provinces.
I know that the hon. member for Alberta has expressed himself frankly in favour of that policy to-night and his only objection had regard to the additional length of this line in its extension to St. John. I only make this remark to give to him the benefit of the view which suggests itself, and not unnaturally, to some gentlemen of the maritime provinces. As the promoters have seen fit to assent to Moncton and as there will be no difficulty whatever I suppose to their obtaining additional power to extend from Chipman to St. John, we might leave the matter as at present and indulge in future discussion at some other time, should the government see fit to bring down a measure and ask the House to consent to it.


Frederick Harding Hale: I wish to correct a statement made, both in the Railway Committee and here, to the effect that the maritime provinces members were called together and decided on Moncton as the terminus df this road, t This is not the case, because there are several members of the maritime provinces who never heard anything about this matter until they heard it at the Railway Committee, and therefore it was not possible for them to agree to Moncton as the terminus. Let me here say for the benefit of this committee, that there is no other possible route for this road except from Quebec via Connors and the valley of St. John river to Fredericton and thence to Chipman and St. John. I think that is the proper route, and that is the only route that can possibly be built successfully. And, so far as the harbour of St. John is concerned, it does not need any person on this committee or in this House to advocate its good qualities to those who know anything about it. It is only those who are acquainted with the harbour of St. John who will attempt to say that it is not capable of doing all the business that may be brought there.
On section 13-bond issue,


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to this clause, I wish to be understood as repeating the observations I made with regard to clause 4, dealing with the subject of capital stock. As I referred to this clause somewhat fully in the remarks I made, I shall not repeat here what I said, except to say that I regard the proposed capitalization of this company as altogether excessive. It seems to me that the government, in taking the responsibility of permitting the Bill to pass in this way can hardly be regarded as having given that consideration to the reasons which have been already brought to the attention of the House which I think their importance demands.
On section 15-power to make changes in steamship business,


Robert Laird Borden: There is a model clause for this, is there not ? Is this the usual clause ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It is practically the same. 1 would not go so far as to say it was exactly the same. The Canadian Pacific Railway have it, the Winnipeg and Hudson's Bay have it, the Hudson's Bay and Pacific have it, and the Canada Atlantic have it.
On section 16,
The company, may purchase, lease er otherwise acquire, hold, enjoy and manage, as well in Canada as in such other places as are deemed expedient for the purposes of the company, and either in the name of the company or in the name of a trustee or trustees for the company, such lands, water lots, wharfs, docks, dock yards, slips, warehouses, elevators, offices and other buildings as it finds necessary and convenient for its purposes ; and may construct any of such works or buildings and sell or otherwise dispose thereof for the purposes of

the company ; and may carry on the business of warehousemen and wharfingers, and charge wharfage and other dues for the use of^ any such property ; and may take and hold, either in the name of the company or in the name of some person as trustee for the company, and dispose of, shares in any incorporated company having for one of its objects the exercise of any of the powers hereby conferred upon the company, and may enter into any agreements with any such company respecting the use of any of the property of such company.
2. If the company cannot agree with the owner for the purchase of any property in Canada required for wharfs, docks, dock yards, slips or elevators to he used in connection with the railway, it may cause a map or pian and book of reference to be made of such property, and all the provisions of sections 107 to 111, inclusive. of the Railway Act shall apply to the subject matter of this subsection and to the obtaining of such property and determining the compensation payable therefor.


Robert Laird Borden: This section seems to give very wide powers. As I understand it. it would enable this company to hold all the shares of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, or, indeed, of nil the telephone companies in the country, and all the shares of all the telegraph companies too. The words I refer to are ' and may take and hold, either in the name of the company or in the name of some person as trustee for the company, and dispose of, shares in any incorporated company having for one of its objects the exercise of any of the powers hereby conferred upon the company.'
Mr. McCarthy. The hon. member (Mr. Borden. Halifax) will see that early in the section are the words ' for the purposes of the company.' It could not be deemed expedient. for the purposes of the company, to own the whole stock of the Bell Telephone Company or of all the telegraph companies in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that quite covers what I am talking about. I will read, leaving out the unnecessary words. ' The company may purchase as well in Canada as in such other places as are deemed expedient for the purposes of the company '-the words to which the hon. gentleman refers only to places other than Canada, and the company would be ttie judge of what would he expedient. I do not at present see that the clause controls in any way, with respect to matters to which I refer.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If it is expedient.


Robert Laird Borden: It is only a question of place.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think the words ' may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, hold, enjoy and manage as well In Canada as in such other places as are deemed expedient.' are governed by the words ' for the purposes of the company' It is evidently intended to be for the pur-Mr. McCarthy. .
pose of the company. I suggest to put after the word ' manage,' ' for the purposes of the company.'


Robert Laird Borden: If that suggestion were carried out it would modify the meaning down to the end of the 53rd line. Then after that do you not proceed without any qualification ' and may carry on the business of warehouse men and wharfingers and charge wharfage and other dues for the use of such property'?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is intended.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the words to which I call attention were not intended to give the company the absolute right to hold a majority of the shares of any telephone company. It would hardly be necessary in the interests of the promoters of the Bill to desire such wide powers as are contained in these words.


Samuel Barker: It is necessary to be careful about this, because this same form of language is creeping into a number of Bills, and no language could be broader.
Mr. McCarthy. In section 17 of the original Bill a great many larger powers were asked, and at the suggestion of the minister it was remodelled. I think that was one of the clauses that were left to be settled between the solicitor of the railway company and the minister. The clauses now in the Bill were settled. I should have thought that the objects referred to would only be the objects conferred in this section, and not the objects generally conferred iu the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose we put it in that way, instead of the word ' hereby ' you say ' by this section.'


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I have no objection.


Samuel Hughes: What is the meaning of the words in the second line [DOT] as well in Canada as in such other places?'
Mr. McCarthy. We might need a wharf or a dock in another country besides Canada.


Samuel Hughes: For what purpose ?
Mr. McCarthy. For the purpose of carrying on the business of the company.


Samuel Hughes: I presume the intention is to run a steamship line to the old country.
Mr. McCarthy. Yes, or to Japan or China. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow this section to pass.


Samuel Hughes: Let it stand and get your amendment ready.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I cannot see what advantage is to be gained by the amendment

suggested. I would rather not have the clause interfered with without consultation, if it is possible to get it through without.


Samuel Barker: My objection is this, that if you can find some company that has got a number of powers, one company in this Act, you can agree with that company as to all its powers.
And may take and hold either in the name of the company or in the name of some person as trustee for the company, and dispose of shares in any incorporate company

That is in the whole company.
-having for one of its objects the exercise of any of the powers hereby conferred upon the company.
Now, if you find a company that has got any one of the powers that this company has, you may take shares in the whole of that other company. Surely that is not intended.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is a very usual clause. I have sent for the Joint Stock Companies Act, I think I can find it in the Joint Stock Companies Act.


Samuel Barker: Quite possibly, but I think it is very objectionable.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Still, it is to be found in all the other Bills and if it is a usual clause in the Companies Act, I do not see why we should single this out.


Robert Laird Borden: The position I understood the hon. member for Simcoe to take was this, that the word ' hereby ' was intended to limit the powers to the objects set forth in section 16. I said I was perfectly willing to accept that, provided it had some words that would make it perfectly plain. I was proposing to move that we strike out the word ' hereby ' and substitute the words ' by this section.'


David Tisdale: I think there is no doubt but that they are general. If you look at subsection 2 of clause 22, they could buy up all the telegraph and telephone lines in the country if they wished to. It says :
The company may construct, maintain, control and operate telegraph and telephone lines upon and along its railway and branches ; and may establish offices for and undertake the transmission of messages for the public by any of its* lines, and collect tolls therefor ; and for any of the said purposes may enter into agreements with any other company, or may lease the company's lines or any portion thereof, and may connect its lines with the lines of any companies having authority to operate telegraph or telephone lines, and may enter into arrangements with any such companies for the exchange and transmission of messages or for the working in whole or in part of the lines of the' company.
2. The company may construct, maintain and operate any other lines of telegraph and telephone. not exceeding ojie hundred miles In length in any one case, from any point on the lines constructed or to be constructed along 164
the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, to connect such lines with any other lines of telegraph or telephone in Canada ; and may also construct, maintain and operate telegraph and telephone lines from its western terminus or termini to any point on Vancouver Island, and for this purpose may lay submarine lines of telegraph and telephone between such points.
That is a special power given to this company. Under that, I think there is no doubt they could buy up all the telegraph and telephone lines in the country. I remember calling attention to this clause in the committee. Although it was passed, I take the same view as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) does that it will be general. I think it is general, and I do not see any reason why it should be required. Clause 16, is a special clause about wharfs, &c., and there is no objection about buying up steamers, and so on. I think it would be well to confine the section to the powers given in section 16. It was not intended that this company should be given the power to go and buy up telegraph and telephone lines. We have never knowingly granted in any Bills we have passed, any such power.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) will realize how important it is with a Bill of this character not to do anything that will have the effect of interfering with the powers that are intended to be conferred. This point was considered in the committee, and the solicitor of the company was present. This clause was a matter of special consideration, and I apprehend under the circumstances, we cannot go very far wrong by passing a clause of this description which only con-, fers powers that the general company's Act would give.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Do you find that in the General Companies Act ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am looking for it now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Let the section stand and we will come back to it later on.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 17,
The company may, for the purposes of its railway and steamships and in connection with its business,-
(a.) build, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire. manage or control, at such points or places along its railway or any branch thereof, or at any ports or places of call of any of its steamships such buildings as it deems advisable for hotels and restaurants ; and may purchase, lease and hold the land necessary for such purposes ; and may carry on business in connection therewith, and afford such facilities as may tend to the comfort and convenience of the travelling public ; and may let any such building for such purposes ; and may acquire, hold and dispose of shares in any incorporated company having for one of its objects the exercise of any of the powers by this section con-



ferred upon the company, and enter into agreements with any such company respecting any of such building, lands, facilities or business ;
(b.) purchase, lease and hold lands required for, and lay out, establish and manage parks and pleasure grounds, and give a lease thereof to. or contract with, any person for the use thereof upon such terms as the company deems expedient.


Samuel Hughes: I see that the phrase ' by this section conferred ' is used, while in the preceding section the word 'hereby' is used. The hon. leader of the opposition was pointing out that the words should be ' by this section.'


Robert Laird Borden: The language of this section is extremely comprehensive :
May acquire, hold and dispose of shares in any incorporated company having for one of Its objects the exercise of any of the powers by this section conferred upon the company.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That is quite a frequent clause.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be frequent, but I doubt very much the wisdom of it, because, where you have a, number of companies incorporated embracing a large number of objects, if you include in these charters language of this kind you give almost unlimited powers of amalgamation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24, subsection 2,
Robert Laird Borden: Is this section giving general telegraph and telephone lines usual in these railway charters ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: In connection with their business.


Robert Laird Borden: This does not seem to restrict it to the company's business. You give them power to collect tolls from the public, and so forth.


David Tisdale: This matter was very carefully considered in committee. You give them the usual powers that are given to other railway companies, and then you give them power to make a line 100 miles long, but only for the purpose of connecting with other telegraph or telephone lines, and on Vancouver island the committee considered it reasonable to do that.


Robert Laird Borden: It is just as I said : Power to do a general telephone and telegraph business.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Within certain limits. It is quite apparent that the intention was to give them the power, in so far as their line and its branches are concerned, to have telegraph and telephone lines, and if they desire to utilize these lines for general purposes, then they have the right to do so, but governed by the General Railway Act. They get power to construct lines not exceeding 100 miles in length.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: Must they keep the poles on their own right of way ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, with the exception of the lines 100 miles in length.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does that mean ? Does it mean that they can go up and down the streets of a municipality, provided their lines did not exeeed 100 miles in length ?


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They could not without the consent of the municipality.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But they apparently can by this Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But under the Railway Act, the amendment of 1899, it must be with the consent of the municipality.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But that is changed by the Bill which the solicitor of the railway has before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Powers, development of lands, water power, &c. ; construction of dams and biddings for electricity ; shares in other companies ; shares in mining companies.
Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me these are extremely wide powers. What is the object in giving the company power, for example, to enter into mining and timber speculations ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman will find similar clauses in quite a number of charters. The idea of the committee seems to be that it has been found useful in the development of that western country to grant such powers. The Canada Eastern, The Canadian Pacific, the Toronto and Hudson Bay, the Edmonton and Slave Lake, the Port Dover, Brantford and Berlin, and the Bay of Quinte Railways have ail clauses of a similar character. So that there is ample precedent for this clause. It was very fully considered in the committee, and the form of it was somewhat changed.


Robert Laird Borden: I must say that I think these powers are extremely wide, whether they have been granted in other cases or not. The company is authorized to enter into the business of supplying water, and electricity for light, heat and power, provided it has a surplus of these things; and it can very easily establish a surplus if it wants to. It can also take, bold, and dispose of shares in any company incorporated for any of these purposes. It is authorized to acquire, develop, work, and dispose of mines, mining rights, timber and timber lands. It is also authorized to crush, smelt, reduce, amalgamate or otherwise treat and dispose of ores; engage in general mining and lumber operations, or in the manufacture and sale of the products thereof. It seems to me that these objects are

very foreign indeed to tlie general scope of a railway charter. However much they may have been granted to companies in the past, I 'think it is not advisable, even in the interests of the company, to confer such wide and extensive powers.


Samuel Hughes: Will tlie lion, gentleman who has charge of the Bill quote a similar section to this ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The Act to incorporate the Lake Superior and Hudson Bay Railway Company provides :
The company may, in connection with its undertaking and for the purposes of its business, erect, use. or manage, or aid and subscribe toward works, machinery and plant for the generation. transmission and distribution of electric power and energy ; acquire and utilize water powers and dispose of the same, either directly or by converting the same into electric or other power and energy.


Samuel Hughes: Does that say that the company may sell its surplus power ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: No, this is much more restricted.


Samuel Hughes: " This provides that the company may engage in these businesses for any other purpose than the purposes of the company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If this company developed electricity on the line of the railway, it might be very convenient for the people in the vicinity of the railway to have an opportunity of purchasing electric light.


Samuel Hughes: I think it would be very convenient, but the promoter of the Bill said that there were ample precedents for this clause. We are asking for these precedents, and we have not had them.


Samuel Barker: Does the minister think it would be advisable to authorize this company to engage in gold mining or lead mining ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think it would be very detrimental to the public interest that they should contribute to the development of mines on their line of railway, because, while they would be creating traffic for themselves, they would be contributing to works of public utility. This is not a railway through a settled part of the country, but is more in the nature of a colonization scheme.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the minister is arguing that way on the ground that this company will construct this railway with their own funds.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I like to deal with these matters as we meet them, and when we come, to the question of funds, 164}
I dare say my hon. friend will be heard from.
Sir. AIcCARTHY. In the charter of the Ottawa and Northern Railway Company it is provided :
The company may in connection with its railway and for the purposes of its undertaking,-
(a.) acquire, use, and dispose of any property, water powers and other powers, rights, easements and privileges, for the purpose of or in connection with the production, manufacture or supply of electricity for heat, light and power and for any other purpose for which the same may be used ;
(b.) produce, manufacture, use, supply and dispose of electricity for traction, light, heat and power, and for any other purpose, for which the same may be used :
(c.) locate, lease, acquire, work, and sell mines, minerals, mining rights, timber and timber landis, and develop such mines and crush, smelt, reduce, amalgamate and dispose of the ores and products of any mines, whether belonging to the company or not ; and acquire, use, and dispose of all buildings, machinery and plant requisite or necessary for carrying on or operating the said lines.


Robert Laird Borden: While subsection ' a ' may be restricted to some extent, it is not very much restricted at tlie end, and subsection ' b ' is not restricted at all. My bon. friend the Minister of Justice suggests that the effect of this section would be to develop the country through which the railway passes. It might have that effect, or it might have exactly the opposite effect; because a company of this kind possessing these enormous powers, in addition to having complete control over the only line of railway passing through the country, might rather tend to discourage competition. People who were disposed to enter into mining, lumbering, or smelting operations might be deterred from doing so for the very reason that an enormous corporation like this might place them rather at a disadvantage in any undertaking which they might otherwise be disposed to engage In. For example suppose you had a district in which there are coal mines. A company, which is owning practically the only railway in that section, would have an enormous advantage over any other corporation or person. It seems to me not good policy to give this company power to engage in general commercial enterprises. We might as well give it power to engage In banking or in manufacturing, which would not be much foreign to Its general undertaking with the powers conferred by this section.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has always restricted such powers and I cannot see how he let this clause pass through the Railway Committee.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: In the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company, just the same powers were given, and that was a charter passed this session.

On section 26,
The company may construct, acquire and operate tramways or other ways for the transportation of ore and other freight.


Robert Laird Borden: Should not the local or municipal authorities have notice of any application under this section before the company receives power to construct such tramways.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Notice is published in the ' Gazette.'


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend knows what publication in the ' Gazette ' means. It might be published in the ' Gazette ' and none of these concerned would know anything about it.
Mr. McCarthy. The 'Gazette' is the medium by which all official notices are given. This is practically an exact copy of what was put in the Canadian Pacific Railway Bill sixty-one Victoria, chapter sixty.


Samuel Hughes: This gives the copy a omnibus charter to build an electric road over the entire country.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: A tramway.


Samuel Hughes: A tramway may be operated by steam or by electricity.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The general Act limits it to ten miles.


Samuel Hughes: Not a tramway, it limits branches to six miles, but this is not a branch but it is a regular railway.


David Tisdale: The view of the committee was this. Tramway is a pretty well understood definition. It is something much simpler and cheaper than a railway and nobody would be foolish enough to contract it except in a new country where we would want it for temporary use before the quantity of work would justify the building of a railway. You cannot afford to build a tramway where there is any work for a railway. A tramway is not a railway. You can put a mule on it or a span of horses.
Mi\ HUGHES (Victoria). A street railway is a tramway.


David Tisdale: No, it is a street railway, and the Electric Railway Act applies. That is the intention of putting it in at all events.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not so clear about that. Why would not an ordinary street railway operated by electricity be comprised within the meaning of this section ?


John William Bell: It is ' for the transportation of ore or other freight.'


David Tisdale: They could not make such a road without the consent of the muni-Mr. McCarthy.
cipality. Besides, they could not carry passengers.


Samuel Hughes: We should limit it to ten miles ?


Robert Laird Borden: This wording gives them power to construct tramways, and in some parts of Canada an ordinary street railway is called a tramway. In the maritime provinces that is quite common. In fact the electric street railway in Halifax is called a tramway, and the company that runs it is called the Halifax Electric Tramway Company. These tramways are unrestricted as to distance and may be operated by any motive power whatever. Does the hon. Minister of Justice think they are restricted V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, I think the hon. gentleman is right.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that it ought to be restricted in some way, as to distance at least. Otherwise the company will have a charter to build tramways all over Canada.
Mr. Hughes (Victoria). The clause read by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) limited it to ten miles.


David Tisdale: These tramways must be approved, not by Order in Council, but by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I think hon. gentlemen will find the same power given to the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway. In a new country, very often, there is need for a cheap means of transporting freight, particularly in the mining and lumbering sections. But if you were to confine this to the carrying of ore, the company would not be free to carry back to the mines the supplies that were needed. Tram-roads are very useful, and facilities should be afforded for their consideration.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Surely, there is ample protection in the latter part of this clause. A plan must be filed with the Department of Railways and Canals and the route of the tramway must be approved by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. It is not likely that they would allow an electric railway line entirely apart from the purposes of this road to be operated by this company. And not only that, but notice must be given by publication in the ' Canada Gazette ' and to every other company operating a railway in the locality of the intention to build one of these tramways.


Samuel Barker: Then, why not leave it to the general provisions of the Railway Act on that subject ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That only provides for branch lines, and so there might be some question about these tram-roads.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If it is so necessary to give notice in writing to every railway company in the section, surely, if there is a municipal organization covering the railway proposed to be exploited, they should be given notice also. Why give notice to the railway company and not to the municipality ?


David Tisdale: The provisions of the Railway Act apply.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am asking the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) the question and I would like an answer from him.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Well, it is information the bon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) wants, I suppose ? He is not merely trying to trap me ? I think that the suggestion of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) is right-that the Railway Act applies and that notice would have to be given. If notice were not given, and that fact were brought to the attention of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, the application would not be granted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) might suggest that these words be added ' notice to be given in writing to the municipalities affected.'
Mr. McCarthy. I must say that I think there is ample protection provided in the clause.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not know whether there is or not, but I am bound to accept the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy. But it seems to me unreasonable that the railway companies which are the creatures of this parliament are to be notified of the intention of the company to construct tramways, municipalities through which the tramways are to pass, need not be notified at all.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: By the general Railway Act, they cannot commence construction without the consent of the municipalities.


Samuel Hughes: While the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is hunting up a clause relating to that point, I would suggest to the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), who, I presume, is looking after the Bill in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair)- and I must say I think it strange that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is not here to superintend this very important measure, but leave it to the promoter of the Bill and the Minister of Justice, neither of whom seem very familiar with the circumstances or with the clauses of the Bill- I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that a limit of length of these tramways should be introduced into this section. Ten miles, I think, was mentioned in the Bill referred to by the hon. member for Simcoe. I know that the hon. Minister of Railways
and Canals is very strong on this point. I am satisfied that this clause was not brought to his attention when it was going through the committee, or he would not have allowed the Bill to pass in the committee without fixing a limit of distance.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think what my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) says, makes against his own argument. There must have been some cause shown why this unlimited power should be given. It was allowed to go through the committee without change, and, I do not know of any argument having been advanced for changing it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. Minister of Justice say that the rights of municipalities will be protected under the clause without amendment ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I was going to say that it very frequently happens that municipalities are interested in application made before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and as a member of that committee I see that municipalities are invariably represented. I was just looking through the Railway Act to see under what section they are notified, but I do not see anything making it necessary to notify the municipality, except as the public are notified through the ' Canada Gazette.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would ask the hon. minister if he does not think it passing strange, to say the least of it. that the railway companies must be specially notified, while the municipalities, which certainly are as much interested in the construction of these trams, are not to be notified ? Aim, is there anything unreasonable in suggesting that, in those places where the company proposes to extend its line, the municipalities, if there are any, should be notified. I think the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is looking over the existing Act to see whether the interested municipalities in this respect are protected or not. But may I ask the Minister of Justice if the Railway Committee of the Privy Council will not be superseded by the Bill that is now passing through the House under the direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it will.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are provisions in that Bill which give extraordinary power. And when -(if I may be permitted to refer to the matter now)-when some of its clauses were being considered, we were told that the way to protect the rights of municipalities was by provisions in the special Acts that are passed in this House from time to time. I am sure the hon. Minister of Justice will bear testimony to that. If it is not a hardship that the railway companies who may be interested are to be notified, surely, it cannot be a hardship to make

It necessary that the municipalities through which these trams are to be constructed, shall be notified, and, if they have objections to offer, that they may be heard. I would like also to ask what is the meaning of the words ' other ways ' in the first line of this section, which reads, 'the company may construct, acquire and operate tramways or other ways ? '


William Forsythe McCreary: The obvious intention of this section is simply to enable them to carry freight and supplies to and from the camp, or from any mining properties. The question raised by the hon. gentleman would never come up. .Wherever there is a municipality organized there are always other methods provided for carrying freight.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are municipalities in the older sections of Ontario, densely populated, that have no tramways at all.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I say where there is a municipality there are other means of transporting supplies in and out, such as by ordinary cartage. In a locality where lumbering operations are carried on, the simplest plan is to put in a tramway. That is all that is contemplated here.


Samuel Hughes: I am satisfied that the words ' or other ways ' would allow the construction of a railway.
Mr. McCarthy. Then the General Railway Act comes in.


Samuel Hughes: You can build a railway six miles long without the authority of the Railway Act, and this will give the company permission to build a line 100 miles long, if they wish.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If it was a railway it would come under the operation of the Railway Act.


Samuel Hughes: Any railway company can build a branch six miles long without having the word ' branch ' mentioned in its charter. But when you want to build a branch line from any point to any other point, they are always put in the Bill. Now, not only do we limit the number of miles these branches should be constructed, but the minister is particular to have the places mentioned from which they start and to which they go. That is not done in this Bill at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the Minister of Justice say that under this clause the rights of municipalities are fully protected ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that under this clause, with the General Railway Act, the municipalities would be protected. I would not consider it possible for a moment that the Railway Committee would consider a question in which the interest of a municipality was concerned without notice having been given to the municipality.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Robert Laird Borden: Should there not be some restriction as to the length of these tramways ? Is it desirable to give an unlimited right as to distance ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I apprehend, speaking somewhat without knowledge, that the intention of the company was to have tramways constructed for the purpose of enabling them to communicate with the mines and other works of that description, and that they wanted to erect cheap means of conveyance to get to them. I apprehend that is what they have in view. It was never intended to give to the company the right to do anything except to operate such lines or ways of communication.


Samuel Hughes: If this road was running through the British Columbia mountains and there was a mine fifteen or twenty miles away, under this Bill they need not come here for any authority, for this would give them power to build a track.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They could not go one inch beyond the line of their railway without having some autlior-tiy from this parliament to do so. I am willing to defer absolutely to the opinion of the leader of the opposition on that point.


Samuel Hughes: Supposing there is a mining company in one of these valleys, and in order to get that ore out it is necessary to build a wooden tramway. Is it necessary to come to this House to get a charter ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The mining company might do that if they choose, but the railway company could not do it.


Samuel Barker: Could 'not they go twenty miles on their own land ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course they could on their own land, but I say they could not go beyond their own right of way. But I do not anticipate they would own twenty miles on each side of the road.


Samuel Hughes: They have power to buy for the purposes of the company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: On their own land they can do it. They might buy all the land in the neighbourhood for the purpose of reaching this mine.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Hon. gentlemen see that it only applies to ore or freight. It cannot be considered, therefore, to be a railway.


Samuel Hughes: In the Canadian Pacific Railway Bill they are limited to ten miles.


Mr. GALLIHER.: In British Columbia
we would be very glad if the company could
extend its line twenty miles beyond the

main line in order to reach a mine. We won't kick in British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: Make it fifty miles if necessary, but let us have some restriction.


Mr. FRASER.: I suppose the object is to get freight. If it is fifty miles by tramway what is the difference, so long as they are opening up the country, and getting freight? Tt helps every body, no body is going to be injured. It is in the interest of the railway, in the interest of the company and in the interest of the mining.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the meaning of the words ' for the transportation of ore and other freight ' ? Would not that give them the right to construct the tramway for the purpose of bringing other freight ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It would permit them to build a tramway or any other way on which to carry ore, or freight of any kind, such as lumber.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman say as a legal gentleman that this section would confine the construction of these tramways to the mountainous country, or a country where mining was going on ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I should think so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about hauling grain on tramways in the prairie section, hauling any agricultural produce ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There might be such a case. But if it was nothing but a tramway, what is the difference, even if you carry grain of any kind, provided you help the people in that district ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then the idea is that this is not to be confined to mining countries, and that a tram can be built on any part of this line to an unlimited length.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: To carry ores and freight, any supplies to the mines or out of them.


Samuel Hughes: The member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser)) is very plausible. He may take the same stand here to-night as in every Bill that has been before this House for years. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has been very particular to limit this to certain distances.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is the railway.


Samuel Hughes: No, not the
railway. The railway could only go six miles without special permission. We are giving them power to build a tramway.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No.


Samuel Hughes: We are certainly giving them power to build a trainwav. The words ' other way ' will include a railway.
Mr. FRASER, No.


Samuel Hughes: A railway is another way.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, no.


Samuel Hughes: What is it then?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is a lesser way than a tramway.


Samuel Hughes: No, I understand the meaning of the English language as well as the hon. member for Guysborough does.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But not the Gaelic.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know about the Gaelic-perhaps the Gaelic, too.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That would be putting the greater before the less.


Samuel Hughes: We have clauses drawn by lawyers with the idea of obtaining certain powers without having to come back here for them. I maintain that every solitary station along the main line and branches of that road could have its tramway or electric road.
Mr. McCarthy. Subject to the approval of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.


Samuel Hughes: Everything is subject to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. They have to file their plans before they can build a branch of any kind. They can build an electric road from every station along the line.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Is it reasonable to make a statement of that kind ? When they come before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, is it reasonable to suppose that such a state of affairs would exist ? It cannot possibly exist. You have to keep in mind what is intended by the clause. It specifically says for the purpose of getting out ore or other freight.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Or other freight, which means everything.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Jurisdiction is given to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to sanction this power.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it intended that the jurisdiction of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council shall be perpetuated after the railway commission is appointed ? I do not know whether the railway committee is to be abolished or not.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: As I understand it, this railway commission will have jurisdiction, and the matter will then be in the hands of independent persons.


Samuel Hughes: Lawyers for these railway companies-I care not whether it is the Grand Trunk Pacific, or the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Canadian Northern-draft these Bills in such a way that

they get all the powers it is possible for them to get. They are a perfect nuisance at the Railway Committee, as every one knows.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Do not be offensive.


Samuel Hughes: Every one knows it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Samuel Hughes: I know it is hard on the lawyers, but it is the only chance we have of getting even with them. I think this clause should be held over until we get the opinion of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who does know something about railway legislation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be content with the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice. I want to be clear myself, personally, as to the meaning of this word ' tramway,' how far it extends, and what powers are given to the company to construct tramways. I am prepared to take an expression of opinion from the hon. Minister of Justice in respect to the matter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand it to mean purely and simply that wheii you give to this railway company these facilities for collecting freight, in my judgment, you substitute this for the ordinary method of collecting freight by means of vehicles and horses.


Samuel Hughes: Under this clause would this railway company have authority to construct a tramway or other way from any of its stations to run 30, 40 or 50 miles across the prairies or up the mountain valleys for the collection of freight ?


The MINWER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot see that there is any limit put upon their right here.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This road, I understand, will run into the ancient city of Quebec, of which the hon. Minister of Justice is the representative.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I hope it will.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand it is going down there. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice if this company will have the right to construct tramways in Quebec city ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Or in any other city ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I consider that the municipality would have sufficient control to prevent that being done without the consent of the municipality having first been obtained. That is a power that would Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
have to be exercised subject to the decision of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope the hon. Minister of Justice will assist us when the general Railway Bill is being considered in insisting that the board of railway commissioners to be appointed shall not have power to override the rights of municipalities in this matter.


Samuel Hughes: In all fairness, the matter should be considered, and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals should be consulted in connection with this question. I know he objects to this provision. In this Bill there is a clause limiting the company in the location of its main line to a line 30 miles away from another main line. Under this section that 30 miles is wiped out entirely. The company may construct tramways from every station along the line as far as they choose to go. These tramways would constitute a railway, in which event they would come under the general Railway Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like, with the permission of the committee, to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to a section that will probably be embodied in the General Railway Act, which makes provision that a railway may be carried along or across any existing highway, leave having first been obtained from the board as hereinafter provided. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council have now the power to give all of these rights which are being asked for in this clause ; and the Board of Railway Commissioners, under the new Railway Act, can give the right to this company to construct a tramway upon, over, or across any highway, the only condition being that they shall not obstruct the passage of vehicles or close up the entrance to a man's house. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to this clause, in view of the proposed clause that is going into the Railway Act. We are trying to prepare an amendment to section 184, of the Railway Bill to meet the views of those who believe that the rights of municipalities should not be taken away from them.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It has been suggested that the word ' ways ' might mean rope walks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not mean waterways ?	[DOT]


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Or any other kind of way.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not mean a waterway ?	[DOT]


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It could not mean a waterway, seriously.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not
limited in its construction.
Mr. HUGHES {Victoria). This clause should be allowed to stand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In view of the extraordinary privileges we are giving the company, it is "not unreasonable that we should be able to understand exactly what rights are to be reserved to this railway commission and whether the municipalities are going to be protected. Unless I have the opinion of the Minister of Justice to the contrary, I shall rest firmly under the opinion that this clause practically filches from every municipality in the country the light to protest against any tramway coming in, along or upon its highway, without its consent.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not like to commit myself to a legal opinion without considering it, and giving an opinion which I think would be of some value.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is because we place so much reliance in the opinion of the Minister of Justice that we wish to proceed slowly and let this clause stand.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not in charge of .the Bill.
Mr. McCarthy. Let it stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 27,


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask what is the idea of including the word ' mills ' in this section ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The precedent for this is to be found in 2 Edward VII, chapter 15, an Act relating to the Canadian Northern Railway Company.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That does not give the company power to operate mills.


Robert Laird Borden: When I said a moment ago that this company might be allowed to engage in banking business, I did not know there was something approaching it. I see they are allowed to make advances to settlers.


Samuel Barker: That is a loan company.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. What is the meaning of having the word ' mills ' here.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think I would drop the word ' mills ' myself.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to drop it also.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has been found very desirable that railway companies should have that power. For instance, it would be in the interest of the company and in the interest of the settlers to have a saw mill. Some railway companies have come back for amendments to
include this power, and this is confined for the purposes of the company.


Samuel Barker: There is nothing in this clause about the purposes of the company.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think this section applies only to the purpose of the company. I think the Canadian Pacific came back to get legislation to enable it to encourage mining by going into smelting.


Samuel Barker: All the clauses the hon. gentleman lias referred to in other charters have been for the purposes of the company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This clause would be a distinct advantage to the country in promoting settlement; but perhaps mills might be cut off.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Mills are very necessary.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The other clause was not changed, but this clause was discussed at length in the Railway Committee, and we amended it subject to the approval of the Minister of Railways; and in view of the precedents which I have referred to, I think I am not unreasonable in asking that it should be allowed to pass in the form in which it now is.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern power to construct mills ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: They have power to construct mills, and as a matter of fact they are operating lumber mills.


Robert Laird Borden: The word is not restricted in any way in this clause, so that the company might operate woollen mills or cotton mills. The hon. gentleman had better accept the suggestion of the Minister of Justice, and strike that word out.
Mr. McCarthy. I do not think the hon. gentleman should ask me to do that. If we were a thousand miles from nowhere, the company would have to get timber to construct bridges, and it is only fair that it should have power to operate mills.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Under that clause it might have all the mills in creation-saw mills, woollen mills, cotton mills, gin mills, and every other kind of mills. I think the hon. gentleman should take the suggestion of the Minister of Justice and drop the word ' mills.'


Samuel Barker: Any railway company can put up a mill for its own purposes. We do not want; provision for that in the statute.	*	"


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If we were four or five hundred miles away in the country, and our own mill was constructed, the hon. gentleman would not say that we could not give settlers the advantage of it.


Robert Laird Borden: But this section apparently would authorize the operation of a woollen mill or a cotton mill in the city of Quebec. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice might find some difficulty in his own constituency when some of his own supporters were met with the competition of this company by the erection of some of its mills there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the development of the west owes a great deal to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for erecting saw mills and for building smelters to' encourage the mining industry, when private capital would not do it. I think no possible harm could result, but it would be greatly to the interest of the country, if this power were given to this company. There is no iuteution, of course, to start woollen mills or cotton mills, but for these two particular purposes which I have mentioned, I think it is necessary that it should have that power.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If you would confine the meaning of the clause to saw mills, there would be no objection.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The first words in the section control its meaning .	' The company
may, for the purpose of promoting the settlement and cultivation of any lands served by its railway or branch lines.' Everything is subject to promoting settlement and cultivating land.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman will read the whole clause, he will see that it does not bear that interpretation. If this is to be a railway company, it should not go into milling and manufactures of all kinds. There ought to be some limit.


Bennett Rosamond: I think that this clause ought to stand. It also authorizes the railway to be a trust and loan company.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: We will limit the clause to saw mills and grist mills and other similar works.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 35-Power to acquire stock in other companies.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a very extraordinary power, is it not ? I would ask the Minister of Justice what he thinks about it. Does it not confer unusually wide power, and is it not in direct contravention of a clause of the Railway Act ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Under 2 Edward vii, chapter 46, section 15, it is provided ;-
The company may acquire, hold and dispose of stock and"'bonds in any other company, provided that such powers shall not be exercised unless and until the directors have been expressly authorized by a by-law passed by them for the purpose and sanctioned by a vote of not less than two-thirds in value of the shareholders present or represented by proxy at a special or general meeting of the company duly Mr. McCarthy.
called for the purpose of considering the subject of such by-law, and such by-law shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: What company received these powers ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The Canada Eastern.


Samuel Barker: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) knows that there is a clause in the General Railway Act prohibiting a railway company from acquiring stock of another railway company under a penalty of $1,000 against any director who takes part in such a transaction. A provision such as the hon. gentleman has read, may have crept into one special Act, but this general clause is to prevent the very thing .so permitted. The object is to prevent railway companies from buying up the stock of other companies appointing friendly boards and so doing away with competition. This was discussed on Friday last, and I think the Minister of Railways and Canals approved of that provision in the General Railway Act. The provision inserted in this Bill would enable this company to buy up all the small lines on its route, even provinical railways, and do away with all competition.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This penalty is against a director, if he makes this purchase with the funds of the company.


Samuel Barker: As a director, it could only be with the funds of the company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But one director could not bind another.


Robert Laird Borden: But this enables a company to buy with its own funds stock in other railway companies to an unlimited extent.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I fancy the clause referred to in the General Railway Act is clause 276, which provides :-
No company shall, either directly or indirectly, employ any of its funds in the purchase of its own stock, or in the acquisition of any shares, lands or other securities issued by any other railway company in Canada.
And the clause following, No. 277, provides for the penalty.


Samuel Barker: The reason certain companies were allowed to acquire stock in other companies was because they had obtained long, almost perpetual leases and afterwards were allowed to acquire the stocks. But the object of the general provision is manifestly to prevent one company buying up another and so doing away with competition.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: In view of this general provision can this section be read as applying to any railway company ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Why not
make it clear by saying 'any company not
being a railway company ' ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The general section provides that this shall not be done, but only excludes companies which have the power. It does not cover companies which may hereafter acquire power.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid that would hardly do. It says :
But this shall not affect the powers or rights which any company in Canada now has or possesses by virtue of any special Act

And so on, that Act must be read in the present, and would be considered applicable to companies that got special Acts of parliament, I think. It would be better to adopt the suggestion of the Minister of Finance and insert words excluding railway companies.


Samuel Hughes: Why not leave it over and look into the matter ? But even then they could buy up a bank or any other company.


Robert Laird Borden: I was just going to suggest that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I was going to ask my hon. friend who runs the financial end of the government whether they could do that in the case of a bank.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They could buy up the stock.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the section read :-
The company may acquire, hold, guarantee, pledge and dispose of stocks and bonds or other securities of any company other than a railway company, upon such terms

And so on ? Carried.


Robert Laird Borden: I want this carried on a division, for I object to the principle of any company being allowed to buy stock in another company. I dq not wish to obstruct the objects of this company, but I do not see why it is necessary to grant such a power, and I object to the principle of any railway company or any other company being granted such extensive powers as these.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
On section 31, subsection 3,
The company may unite with, or enter into any agreement with any other company, corporation or person for the construction or maintenance of any such bridge and the approaches thereto, as a joint work, or for the joint working, control, management and use thereof.
Samuel Hughes: In regard to this section, I beg to suggest to the government, not to the promoter of the Bill, that in the construction of any bridge across any large streams in the North-west, or any part of the country where the railway company gets a subsidy, the government should see to it that the bridge is constructed so that it may be a passenger bridge as well as a
railway bridge, and that the bridge should either be free or the tolls should be fixed low.
On section 32,


Samuel Hughes: We have in the past added to a number of Bills some provision respecting passes through the mountains, that where there is only room for one road the other companies should have the right to use the tracks of the pioneer company. We have done that year after year in all roads going through mountain passes.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 20o) respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.20 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, Tuesday, June 23, 1903.