1903-08-03

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for :
Resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Campbell that Mr. Speaker do
Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 147) to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Speaker, it has been represented that some points that have been raised in connection with this Bill were not fully considered by the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, and with the permission of the House, if it is agreeable to all parties, I beg to move :
That the order be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration.


Mr. CLARKE.: May I ask the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) if the proposition to refer the Bill back has been agreed to by both parties ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I may say, for the information of the House, that there was considerable difference of opinion as to the merits of this measure. The right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and some of his colleagues received a deputation representing both parties, and the conclusion was reached that the counsel having charge of this measure should present to the government the case in support of the measure and that flve days should be given to those who oppose it to make answer to the case presented on behalf of the promoters. Since that meeting was held, in so far as I am aware, those representing the municipalities opposed to the Bill in its present form have not been heard from, and I want to know if the action that is being taken meets with their concurrence ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is aware, the invariable practice on both sides of the House, I think, is to support the report of a standing committee of the House when they have examined a matter that is referred to them by the House. Naturally, we come to the conclusion that they have given the best consideration to the question that is possible to give to it, and we are prepared to give to their report all due consideration. That rule of the House has been invariably observed, except where it has been shown that there has been misrepresentation, or that an important feature of the measure has not been examined. This Bill has been reported by the Railway Committee, but since the Bill has been so reported it has been represented to us that this was a matter which invaded provincial rights. Strong representations, as my hon. friend knows, have 245}
been made to us in that respect. It is difficult to come to a conclusion and to form a judgment upon the point so raised except by a thorough examination and discussion of the Bill itself and the effect of it. We have, therefore, without prejudging the question at all, thought it preferable to have the matter referred back to the Committee on Railways, so as to give an opportunity to all parties to have the matter thoroughly threshed out, and that is the reason we have come to the conclusion that it is better that this motion should be made and the matter again brought to the attention of the Railway Committee. I have received a long memorandum from the city of Toronto upon this subject.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the matter is taken up by the Railway Committee, will those who are opposing the Bill in its present shape be communicated with and be given an opportunity of being present so that they may be heard ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, certainly.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know the views of either party, but I thought the best way to do was to give the parties an opportunity of being heard by the members of this House in the Railway Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY.: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the committee the advisability of disposing first of the clauses of the Bill that stood for consideration, and then taking up the proposed amendments of which notice has been given by hon. members.
On section 11,


Mr. MACLEAN.: I intend to take the opportunity of this motion which is now before the House to discuss the general proposition of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, both in the way of this Bill and in the way of the proposition made by the government the other day. I am quite within my rights, I think, in discussing it [DOT] upon this question, and I propose to avail myself of the opportunity.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order, is it the will of the committee that this discussion should take place ?


William Findlay Maclean: It is not out of order.


Peter Macdonald: Yes. You cannot discuss the priuciple of a Bill on one of the sections in committee.


William Findlay Maclean: This is on the motion to go into committee.


Peter Macdonald: But we are in committee.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, I can Rang on a discussion on this clause. I hold that at any stage of the Bill it is quite in order to discuss the general proposition.


Peter Macdonald: It is not in order, but if the committee is willing 1 will bow to the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Dropped.


William Findlay Maclean: No time will be lost because the discussion has to come up and it suits by book to discuss it now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I appeal to the committee that there ought be some decorum and some effort to proceed in accordance to the rules of the House. There have been a number of opportunities for discussing the Bill and there will be plenty of other opportunities. If a transgression of the rules like this is to be allowed in one Bill why not in all Bills. Surely my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will see the necessity of proceeding in accordance of the rules of the House.


Peter Macdonald: A discussion on the principle of any Bill cannot take place upon the discussion of any one of its clauses. My ruling is that the discussion on the principle of the Bill is now out of order".


William Findlay Maclean: To put myself in order, I shall have to move that the committee rise and report progress.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That would not help you.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member will have to coniine himself to show why the committee should rise.


William Findlay Maclean: With all due respect to the Chair, I can go into the whole question on that motion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You will have plenty of other opportunities.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the difference V


Mr. FRASER.: One is right and the other is wrong.


Peter Macdonald: It matters not to me, but the rule is that if the hon. gentleman moves that the committee rise and report progress, he will have to speak to that motion. The hon. member knows that just as well as I do.


William Findlay Maclean: I will appeal to the leader of the House to say if there is anything wrong in allowing a discussion on the general principle of the Bill now. I have


Peter Macdonald: not a great deal to say, yet I wish to say it, and I would like to say it to-day.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Order.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has appealed to me, I must say that I deeply sympathize with him. I understand he has a speech on his stomach which he wants to be delivered of to-day, but unfortunately the rules of the House do not permit of it. I would advise him to wait until the proper opportunity arises which is not very far off. The best way after all is to abide by the rules of the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I am well able to take care of myself, but while I do not appeal from the ruling of the Chairman, I believe that I am quite in order in discussing the Bill now. As the Prime Minister has recommended a certain form or emetic, I would suggest to him that he tender it to some of his own supporters instead of to members on this side.
On section 11,
Mr. McCARTI-IY. The leader of the opposition suggested that the word ' common ' should be inserted after the words 'amount of such' so as to make it read 'amount of such common stock.' I have consulted the parties interested, and I am prepared to accept the suggested amendment. This amendment would make the clause apply to common stock and not to preferred stock.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: In the government Bill there is a class of stock which comes after the government guarantee and which is to be guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Can they issue this stock in payment of the guarantee for that other stock?
Mr. McCarthy. I should think not.


John Graham Haggart: You are quite sure that they cannot.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Get it defined if there is any doubt about it.
Mr. McCarthy. Is there any doubt about it ?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: This clause has to be considered" in connection with other proposed amendments, one of which has reference to the power of the company to enter into an agreement with the government for the construction and operation of the line. Then there is a provision in the Bill submitted bv the Prime Minister under which the Grand Trunk Railway Company is to acquire the whole of the common stock of this company. Taking this clause in connection with that provision, what is the effect upon the question of the construction of the railway from Moncton to Winnipeg ? Is it the intention of these three provisions to which I have called at-

tention that this stock shall be issued under some arrangement between this company and the Grand Trunk Pacific and that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall construct that portion of the railway ? Is that not possible ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I think not, because this section only applies to any payment for ' plant, rolling stock, docks, elevators, wharfs, warehouses, vessels or materials.' All the common stock is to be held by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, so that during the term of the lease for fifty years it is still in the hands of that company.


Robert Laird Borden: Let us see if it can be worked out. We will suppose that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company makes a contract with the government of Canada to construct a line of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, and sublets that contract to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I do not know whether that can be done or not. I do not know what the powers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company are in that regard. Under the provisions of this clause this company might allot the whole of the common stock to the Grand Trunk Railway Company as part of the compensation for the construction of that line. I think that is possible.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I submit that it is not possible, because under the contract with the government the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway stock of $25,000,000 is to be acquired and held by the Graud Trunk Railway Company ; so that for fifty years the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will not be at liberty to allot its stock at all .


Robert Laird Borden: That does not quite answer what I have said. I have said that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway make a contract with the government to build this line. There is a provision in the Bill for a transcontinental railway that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall acquire all the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Assuming that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has the power under its charter, it could acquire under the provisions of this Bill the $25,000,000 'of stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the way I have mentioned. 1 would like to know whether the Grand Trunk Railway Company has power to enter into a contract of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The only difficulty I see as to that is that according to my general knowledge of the Grand Trunk Railway Act, that company has no authority to build a railroad at all. I may say that this section Is similar in terms to section 39 of the General Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: This is far wider. This provides that ' as consideration for rights, powers, and privileges acquired ' the company may issue paid up stock. Under
the Bill introduced by the government, it is provided that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall take stock in the new undertaking to the extent of $25,000,000. I could not understand where the company could get the money to take that stock. This section enables the new company to allot its stock to the Grand Trunk Railway Company as a payment for the guarantee of the transcontinental railway's bonds, or for the purchase of rolling stock for the new line.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to point out the word V Is it in consideration for rights acquired, for powers acquired, for privileges acquired, that they can get that stock ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under whieh of the words could it be done ?


John Graham Haggart: In consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Which of the words would cover it ?


John Graham Haggart: Any of them. A privilege is the endorsing of the bonds by the Grand Trunk Railway.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would not surely be a privilege acquired. How could you call a guarantee given upon tlie second mortgage bonds a privilege acquired by the Grand Trunk Railway ? It would be a liability incurred by the Grand Trunk Railway.


John Graham Haggart: Surely it is a privilege to the company that gets It.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am sure that if my hon. friend will consider these words iurther, he will change his opinion.


John Graham Haggart: Would it not be under services rendered ? Under this Act of incorporation the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway may Issue paid up stock for the guarantee received from the Grand Trunk Railway on their second-class securities for the purpose of purchasing rolling stock for the two lines.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There must be somewhere in the Act of incorporation authority for the Grand Trunk Pacific to transfer these over to the Grand Trunk Railway or otherwise the Grand Trunk Railway could not take the stock. I do not think they could do it under this clause.
On section 26,
Mr. MCCARTHY moved that section 26 be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
The company may construct, acquire and operate ropeways for the transportation of ores and other freight, and also tramways, not exceeding ten miles in length in any one case, to or from any point on its railway or any branch thereof, in the province of British Col-

umbia. and shall have all such powers lor the expropriation of land requisite for the convenient construction and operation of such works as are given by the Railway Act to railway companies for railway purposes, but the powers conferred upon the company hy this section shall not be exercised until a plan showing the route of the ropeways or tramways proposed to be constructed have been duly filed with the Department of Railways and Canals, and approved by the Railway Committee of tho Privy Council, or such authority, tribunal or commission as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada, for the regulation or control of railways, and no such tramway or other way shall be constructed upon or along any street, highway or other public place within the limits of any municipality until the company shall have first obtained the consent of such municipality, within which such street, highway or other public place is situate.
2. Before such approval is given, notice of the application therefor shall be given in writing to every other railway company operating a railway in the said locality, and such notice shall be published in the ' Canada Gazette ' for at least one month previous to the time named in the notice for the making of such application. and such notice shall state that all persons interested may appear and be heard on such application.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As this amendment covers mine, X beg to withdraw the amendment of which X gave notice.


Mr. INGRAM.: Does this amendment
affect a tramway which runs outside a municipality 7


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It applies to any municipality affected.


Andrew B. Ingram: The consent of every
muncipality must be obtained. But suppose a road runs between two municipalities, and one of them refuses to give consent, to whom is there an appeal for a redress ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: We have no redress.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a remarkable piece of legislation to put a railway company in such a position that if a municipality objects to giving permission, the railway company has no alternative.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This only applies to the branches.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the general law in Canada be affected ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman will remember that we had quite a long discussion when the Bill'was in committee before, and it was explained that these ropeways and tramways only applied to the province of British Columbia. That is the intention of the promoters of the Bill, and I stated to the committee that that provision was thus confined. The hon. member for Victoria and the hon. member for West Toronto gave notice of amendments, and these amendments were considered, and the power which is sought to be embodied in Mr. McCarthy.
this clause was understood hy them. I see the point made by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram). In the more thickly or densely populated section of the country it would be proper not to accept the amendment which I moved, but inasmuch as it applies to British Columbia, and the intention being only to run tramways or ropeways to or from a mine, for instance, I do not see that there would be any difficulty on our part. I quite see it might be a precedent that may do harm in the future.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not objecting so far as the present Bill is concerned, but in view of the future; I am speaking of this parliament laying down a principle covering the General Railway Act of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This matter has been discussed again and again in committee. The municipalities must have protection against these insidious attempts to promote legislation in this parliament to override provincial and municipal rights. The hon. gentleman who has charge of this Bill understands the situation exactly. He has consented to an amendment to meet the views I have presented. We must guard against any action, under the guise of general legislation, that will give power to run tramways through the streets of a municipality without its consent. What this company desired was power to construct tramways on the streets and highways of a municipality without its consent. AVill it he contended that the company should have power to run tramways through the streets of any municipality in Canada, if the municipality does not consent ? It strikes me that the power to authorize the operation of tramways belongs to the provincial legislatures, and not to this parliament.


John Graham Haggart: It does not interfere with the main line at all, or their branches. The principle which my hon. friend from West Toronto is advocating so firmly only applies to rope lines to and from the main line of the road.


Edward Frederick Clarke: To all kinds of tram-roads.


John Graham Haggart: It only applies to lines of road in British Columbia. As amended it only applies now to those in British Columbia for the purpose of reaching mines of ore.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Before the amendment to section 26 is carried, I desire to move an amendment to that amendment, of which I gave notice. The object of my amendment is to prevent this company from exercising a power which I do not think has been granted to any other railway company, that is a power to build branch lines from branch lines, and thus extend their operations all over the country. As I read section 11 of the Act, I understand that the Grand Trunk Pacific Rail-

way includes tlie main line and the branches named therein. Now when we read section 2G we find that the company takes power ' to construct, acquire and 'operate tramways or other ways for the transportation of ore and other freight to or from any point on its railway or any branch thereof.''


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman is not reading from my amendment, but he is reading from the original Bill. His point is well taken as to the original Bill, but not as to my amendment.


David Henderson: I will now read the amendment:
The company may construct, acquire and operate ropeways for the transportation of ores and other freight, and also tramways, not exceeding ten miles in length in any one case, to or from any point on its railway or anabranch thereof.
Now it is quite clear to my mind that power is here taken to construct a brand) line ten miles in length and then throw out another branch line ten miles from the first one, and so continuously ; so that practically it is a charter that covers the whole country. Now I think there should be some limitation to bring it within the general scope of what parliament has allowed, simply branch lines ten miles in length from its main line.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The proposed amendment to this section only applies to ropeways or tramways, and they are to be limited to ten miles in length. Such ropeway or ti-amway may start from the main line or from a branch line. Nothing more is asked for, it goes no further. The objection the hon. gentleman now makes is well founded as concerns the original clause, but not as concerns the suggested amendment.


Mr. MONK.: It seems to me this section simply consecrates a principle which has been accepted in the Railway Committee, that tramways should not circulate through streets without permission of the municipality. The objection raised is that this does not give sufficient power to the municipality in case of conflict arising between the municipality and the railway company. I do not think that objection ought to be sustained, because if the municipality lias a decided objection to the circulation of tramways upon its streets, I do not see that we have any power to interfere with the power of the municipality which, as I understand, we want tql establish. Moreover if it only applies to British Columbia for the conveyance of ore, I do not see what objection there can be.


William Findlay Maclean: The municipalities are not trying to block the great railway companies ; what they are trying to do is to prevent tramways being forced upon them through a general Railway Act, without their consent. No municipality ever yet tried to block a railway in the manner suggested
here to-day. They have not done it, and until such a case arises, I think we might just as well accept the clause as it is today.


David Henderson: I move in amendment to the amendment to strike out the words or any branch thereof ' in the third line of the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Sir. SIcCARTHY moved to amend section I by inserting therein the following names :
Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, C.B., G.C M G * w W%, 8.c,a;	A. Olutten-Brock!
St nf	^Alfred W. Smithers. all of the
city of London, England.	*
Hon.   S@: or in substitution ?
Is that in addition,
Sir. SIcCARTHY. Yes, in addition.
I


William Findlay Maclean: Now, Sir. Chairman, am quite in order in passing any remarks choose to pass in regard to this Bill.
sir. SIcCARTHY. Will not the hon. gentleman wait and speak on the motion to
I. CjJUl t 4


William Findlay Maclean: No, I would like to say now what I have to say. The whole principle was brought up by the names that are here proposed. We know now the men we are dealing with and we have the proposal the government made the other day. bo, I am quite in order in going into the whole question, and I am going to do it. The cry of the west to-day is in regard to transportation. The cry of the west is: Help us to move our crops; we have abundant crops, more than can be handled bv existing routes, and wte ask the people of Canada to afford us relief from the present condition of things.


Peter Macdonald: Will the hon. member (Sir. Slaclean) allow me to put the motion?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.
Amendment was read.


William Findlay Maclean: As I was saying, Sir. Chairman, tlie cry of the west is'for help to solve the transportation problem. They say : We cannot move oiy freight; there are not sufficient elevators; there is not sufficient rolling stock; in every way things are not as they ought to be, and we appeal to the parliament of Canada for relief. In answer to that appeal a proposition lias been made by the government, and this Bill has been introduced in the House. I do not think this Bill should be allowed to pass, for the reason that neither this Bill nor the proposed measure of the government deals with this difficulty in the right way. What the people want is relief in regard to transportation, and most

of all they want relief by * means of a government-owned railway. The people of Canada say : If we pay for a railway, If we supply all the money to build It, let that railway be our own. In no way let that railway pass from us into the hands of private parties. And this is in accord with the cry of the west for relief from their transportation difficulties, and relief by a road owned and managed by the government. But the proposal involved in this Bill, the proposal brought down by the government gives no immediate relief to the people of the North-west. The proposal is to build a road through the wilds of New Brunswick, a road through the wilds of the Laurentian country in Quebec, a road through the wilds of Ontario, through the so-called clay belt, and so across the prairies and through the mountains to the Pacific coast. Outside of that part of the road in Manitoba and the North-west, there is not a single proposition in the whole scheme that aids in the solution of the transportation problem, or gives relief to the people of the Northwest.
Now, in wbat way can relief be given to the people of the North-west under present circumstances? In one way and one way only, and that is by adopting the principle of government ownership. If the government were alive to the situation, the first thing they would do would be to build a railway to be owned and operated by the government from Port Arthur on Lake Superior to Winnipeg and so into the west. Some years ago when a proposition was made in this House to subsidize very heavily a railway called the Rainy River Railway and now a portion of the Canadian Northern, and owned by Mackenzie and Mann, I appealed to the government to nationalize that road. I pointed out that not only was a large grant being made by the Dominion, but large grants had been made by the province of Manitoba and the province of Ontario, the public moneys thus granted being, as I believed and contended, sufficient to build the road. And, as the public were paying for the road, I appealed to the government to nationalize the work. But they ridiculed the idea. And now we are told we are having government ownership. Within six years of the time when they ridiculed the idea of government ownership, they boast of adopting it. And I must say that the late Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) ridiculed the idea that I then brought forward, but he has sincie seen the light, and I hope he will support me in


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: If the bon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) will permit me a word, I think that what he was then proposing was to nationalize all the railways in Canada. I raised no objection to the building of a railway through that country by the government-never in my life.


William Findlay Maclean: 


William Findlay Maclean: What I say is that, when the Rainy river proposition went through, and the late Minister of Railways and Canals endorsed it, I appealed to him and to the government to nationalize that road in the interest of the country. At that time I entered into correspondence with Mr. Hays, who had recently come to Canada, and told him that, so far as I could see, the great aim of the Grand Trunk should be to get an entrance into the Canadian North-west, and the way to get in was to make such representations at Ottawa as that the government would throw out these subsidy proposals and would nationalize that road from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, and to permit the Grand Trunk to get into that country. Mr. Hays at that time said he was seized of the idea, but he had other propositions before him and that he must defer dealing with the matter for some time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick).: How did the bon. member (Mr. Maclean) intend that the Grand Trunk should get into the North-west?


William Findlay Maclean: The Grand Trunk today is at Midland. The Grand Trunk could, to-morrow, by a fleet of steamers, be at Port Arthur. Nationalize the Canadian Northern, as I say, or if necessary, nationalize the Canadian Pacific from Port Arthur to Winnipeg. Do this, and you have solved the problem. You can then extend a government-owned railway out into the prairies, or you can nationalize the Canadian Northern, and so reach through to Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and, shortly, clear across the continent. That is the way to give immediate relief to the North-west. That is the way to give the people cheap transportation. It is simply a matter of nationalizing the ' spout.' Sir William Van Horne very aptly called that portion of the country between Winnipeg and Port Arthur the 'spout,'. and my idea is that that portion at least ought to be nationalized, all other roads should be allowed equal right of way over it, and the tolls should be reasonable. Is there any other way to solve the transportation question except on the principle of ' the King's highway' ? A great mistake was made in England when the railways were first built there by allowing those railways to become private roads. Like any other roads, they should have been retained as 'the King's highway.' The step that was then taken has been deeply regretted, and an effort is now being made in England to retrieve that mistake. We also could have saved ourselves by recognizing the principle of 'the King's highway.' If we had this road from Winnipeg to Port Arthur as a public highway, we could run the Grand Trunk over it, we could run the Canadian Northern over it, wie could run the Canadian Pacific over it, and, best of

all, we could run the Intercolonial over It. We could have the four great systems working for the Canadian North-west, handling the traffic of that country, and, with the competition that would be assured, we should have a lowering of rates.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: By way of information, would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) permit me to ask how he would get from Port Arthur to Midland over the Grand Trunk?


William Findlay Maclean: For the present, I would get there by a line of boats.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not otherwise ?


William Findlay Maclean: I might go this far- nationalize the Grand Trunk to North Bay, and, if the Canadian Pacific would not make terms, I would nationalize their line from North Bay to Port Arthur.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Then the nationalization of the line would be from Winnipeg to North Bay?


William Findlay Maclean: It might be. But the way to give speedy relief is to invite these great railways to a conference, and tell them plainly what we propose.


Peter Macdonald: I must call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that he' is out of order in discussing the whole transportation question upon any individual section of the Bill. It is wholly out of order, and I rule so.


William Findlay Maclean: If you will allow me, Sir. Chairman, the amendment is that the name of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, the head of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and who is to be the head of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, be added to the list of incorporators. I think I am quite in order in discussing the whole question because the real crux of the Bill is in the men who are named here and I do not think we should deal with these men on these lines.


Peter Macdonald: The rule is quite clear that in Committee of the Whole each section of the Bill has to he taken up separately, and that the particular section under consideration is the only subject that can be discussed. That rule is well known to every hon. member of the House; otherwise, we would hardly know where we are at. We would have every section of the Bill being discussed at the same time, and I therefore call the hon. gentleman's attention to the rule which provides that a general discussion of the question cannot take place on any particular section.


William Findlay Maclean: Surely, Mr. Chairman, you will not contend that I am out of order when we are dealing with the clause that names the men who are to form this company-


Peter Macdonald: That is my decision.
Mr. MACLEAN-and in view of what we have heard as to the relations of these men to the government. I do not think I am out of order with all due deference to you.


Peter Macdonald: Then, you will have to appeal from my decision.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not wish to be put in that position. There is a clause coming up in a few minutes saying that they may enter into negotiations with the government. That opens the whole question and if you wish me to repeat what I have taken ten minutes to say, I shall be obliged to do so.


Peter Macdonald: It is one of the most painful things I am called upon to do when I am obliged to call an hon. member to order, but I am here for the purpose of seeing that the rules should be carried out as nearly as possible so as to facilitate the despatch of business. The rule I am pointing out is well known to old parliamentarians and to my hon. friend as well, and I hope he will not insist on violating it.


William Findlay Maclean: We are discussing a clause which names Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson as one of the incorporators of this company. I object to the man's name being in the Bill for the reasons I am about to give,
I think I am quite in order and on that line I intend to proceed until I am called to order again and told to sit down.


Peter Macdonald: I would lose my command of the committee altogether if I allowed any hon. member to deviate from the rule, and if I did not insist upon my rule being respected. It is far better If an hon. gentleman does not agree with the chairman to appeal to the Speaker and settle it at once.


Samuel Hughes: Surely, the Chairman does not object to the hon. member (Mr. Maclean)


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Samuel Hughes: I am perfectly in order. Surely the Chairman does not object to the hon. member giving reasons why he objects to these names being added to this Bill ?


Mr. COCHRANE.: What is the use of going into committee at all on the Bill if we have not the right to discuss it ?


Peter Macdonald: I would suggest to the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) that he appeal to the Speaker so that we may have it settled and so that we may have a precedent established for future discussions. Mv ruling is that the general principle of the Bill cannot be discussed on any one particular section.


William Findlay Maclean: May I point out to the hon. mover of this Bill (Mr. McCarthy) has

said that certain names ought to be introduced into this clause, the names of men of great prominence in connection with this Bill and in connection with another great proposition and this brings the whole clause up. My contention is that the name of Sir Charles Hirers-Wilson should not go in for the reasons I intended to give and particularly because this man is not sound on great public questions. He is one of the contracting parties in connection with a further proposition. I am going to give my reasons and I will let the right bon. leader of the House express his opinion upon them, but, I think I am perfectly in order, and X think the right lion, leader of the House would be inclined to let me have the floor under the. circumstances, especially as I think, I am right in this case.


John Graham Haggart: It is not only the names that are included in the Bill itself, but, it is the addition of other names that is involved. The whole clause as amended will be put from the Chair for the consideration of the committee and the greater powers which are being granted are up for discussion under this clause.


Peter Macdonald: That is my ruling and probably it would be better for the committee to refer the matter to the Speaker and it would thus establish a precedent which would guide me in future.


William Findlay Maclean: I will make a motion to that effect if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman. but I do not intend it in any way to be a reflection upon your judgment. Would you have any objection to referring the question to the Speaker without putting it to the committee V


Peter Macdonald: I am willing to get the Speaker as rapidly as possible,
Mr. HUGHES, (Victoria). On what ?


Peter Macdonald: On my ruling that the principle of a Bill cannot be discussed in Committee of the Whole upon any particular section.	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: I would suggest that you refer to the Speaker the proposition that the whole of the Bill is up for discussion when the greater powrers are being considered.


Peter Macdonald: The Speaker will understand that matter probably better than I will. Let us submit to the Speaker the ruling that the principle of any Bill in Committee of the Whole cannot be discussed on any particular section.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand that that is the issue between the hon. gentleman and yourself. I do not think the hon. member disputes that it is a sound principle that you have just enunciated, but I understand the hon. gentleman to say that by adding new incorporators to those already named you involved Mr. MACLEAN.
the whole principle of the Bill. The question is whether the adding of these names does not open up the whole principle of the Bill.	*


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think the position taken by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is the right one. An amendment is moved to add certain names to the incorporators and the contention is made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) that under the circumstances hie has the right to discuss the whole principle of the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: You are proposing to add to the incorporators named in the clause that is now before the committee. Then, can you not discuss everything that you could discuss without these names being added ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The point is whether the amendment moved bv the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to add certain names to the incorporators so enlarges the question as to give the hon. member for East York the privilege of discussing the whole Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: It is exactly in the same position as if we were taking up the clause for the first time. The question is whether if we were taking up the question for the first time it would be competent for my hon. friend from East York to make the remarks which he proposes to make.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would suppose that to be a matter to be decided by the Speaker. There is no discussion after the clause has been passed, but, it is now moved to reconsider it so as to add one or two names to the list of incorporators and under such circumstances the hon. member for East York claims that he has the right to discuss the whole Bill as if it were moved for the first time.


John Graham Haggart: To discuss the whole of it as if it were reconsidered.
Mr. HUGHES, (Victoria). I understand the position to be that the hon. member for East York takes the ground that there are new names being added to this Bill, that he wants to discuss the effect that these names have on the general principle of the Bill. He also wants to discuss the effect that these names may have upon a Bill before the House and the country, and he wants latitude to do that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think he wants more latitude than that.


Mr. BELL.: I think it must be admitted that the whole clause is before the committee because I understand the present proceedings were introduced by a motion to reconsider this whole clause.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is for a purpose-for the purpose of putting in new names and nothing else.


John William Bell: Then, the clause, being amended by the addition of these names, must he before the committee.
The PRIME MINISTER, That is a question I have no opinion upon.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Is there anything particularly sacred about the first clause that we can discuss the whole Bill under it ? If there is not, we can discuss the whole Bill on the second clause and so- on up to the thirty-third clause. Under this clause you can only properly discuss whether these men are suitable men to be incorporated- whether they have the necessary capital, and so on. You cannot discuss whether they are Pagans or Christians ; that has nothing to do with the question. On the preamble we can discuss the whole Bill ; but each clause deals with a specific subject, and the discussion should be confined to that specific subject.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This clause is of special importance and should be given special attention, for the reason that one of the names proposed to be added is that of a gentleman who is at the head of another railway corporation. The hon. member from East York proposed to discuss from a financial point of view the propriety of allowing him to be connected with this company.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is a legitimate subject of discussion.


John William Bell: Surely if it is proper to discuss whether a number of persons should be incorporated, it is equally proper to discuss what powers may be conferred upon them. One must follow the other.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Certainly, but these powers are all in the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Suppose the BUI proposed that the name of Mr. Vanderbilt or Mr. Chauncey Depew should be included, would not the whole thing be changed ? The whole thing is changed now. What I propose to do is to give a reason why Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson's name should not be included in the Bill and that involves the whole question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If it were proposed to add the name of Mr. Vanderbilt that might perhaps be a good opportunity for my hon. friend to show reasons why from a national or any other point of view it would not be wise to allow Mr. Vanderbilt to become al member of this company. But I do not think that would give my hon. friend the right to discuss anything that was not relevant.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for East York could discuss the question on the motion that the chairman do now leave the Chair. Such a motion has the same effect when the House is in committee as a motion for the adjournment of the House when the Speaker is in the Chair. If there were no other way for my hon.
friend to deliver himself of his opinions, he could certainly do it in that way. However, it might perhaps be well to have the opinion of the Speaker as a precedent, and if my hon. friend desires to obtain the opinion of the Speaker, the proper way is stated by Sir John Bourinot in his book at page 483 :
If it be found expedient to refer a point' of order to the Speaker, a member will move that the .chairman .report progress and ask leave to sit again that day. When the Speaker has resumed, the chairman will report that the committee wishes to be instructed as to the point in question.


John Graham Haggart: We discussed that question the other day, and the Finance Minister took the position that we would have to get the leave of the House by a vote on the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


John Graham Haggart: I beg pardon ; that is what he stated. I took issue with him. I said that would give the majority of the House the power of refusing to allow us to get the opinion of the Speaker at all.
I said the motion should be that the committee rise for the purpose of asking the Speaker his opinion on the subject. Then, if we differed from the Speaker, .we could appeal to the House. But the Finance Minister took a different ground.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think my hon. friend confuses two things which are different. I understand that a point of order was raised, which was decided by the chairman. Then an appeal was made from the ruling of the chairman, and the committee had to rise without any motion, and the question had to be submitted to the House and not to the Speaker.


John Graham Haggart: The right hon. gentleman was not in the House at the time, or he would not make that statement. AVhat did occur was this : A question was put to the chairman for his ruling, and he ruled in a certain way. The chairman then referred the matter to the Speaker. The Speaker said, ' I cannot overrule the chairman, but I will put the question to the House.' The motion was put to the House, but we were discussing an entirely different proposition, that was, how we could get the opinion of the Speaker on the question. I took the ground that the proper course was to move that the committee rise. Then, when the Speaker came in, the chairman, without leaving his place, would ask the Speaker for his ruling. The Finance Minister said that could not be done without a vote of the House, giving its consent to the committee rising. I said that that would leave the minority in a hopeless position. The Prime Minister and the chairman both now agree with me, that the minority have some rights, and that we can get the opinion of the Speaker without the consent of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend was right the other day he is wrong now.


Peter Macdonald: The proper procedure is this : If it is deemed expedient to get the opinion of the Speaker on this question, a motion is made in writing for the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again to-day. The question has to be voted by the committee, because this is a reference, and not an appeal from my ruling. Then, when the Speaker hears the question discussed, he gives his decision, and the committee resumes. If the hon. member will kindly put his motion in writing, -we shall have the question decided.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Do you adopt that motion ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.
Air. DEPUTY SPEAKER, air. Ingram
moves

	'
The ailNISTER OF JUSTICE, air. Ingram cannot move.
air. aiACLEAN. Then I will move it.
And the motion having been put to the committee, it was agreed to.
The committee rose.
. And, air. Speaker having taken the Chair, the Deputy Speaker reported the motion.
air. MCCARTHY. Would not the hon. member for East York let us get on with the Bill, and make his motion at another stage ?
air. aiACLEAN. No, I am quite in order.
air. aicCARTHY. We are taking up a good deal of time with an academic discussion.
air. aiACLEAN. It is not an academic discussion. I beg to move :
That the committee rise and report and ask leave to Sit again this day for the purpose of getting the Speaker's opinion on the point contended for by Mr. Maclean. That he is in order in discussing the general principle of the Bill on the motion to add certain names to the list of incorporators.
Hon. air. HAGGART. You will get a decision against you on that.
air. aiACLEAN. Well, how will I put it ?
The PRiaiE ailNISTER. Come on with your motion.
air. MACLEAN. I will put it in this way:
For the purpose of getting Mr. Speaker's opinion on the point contended for by Mr. Maclean that he is in order in discussing the Bill on clause one, on the amendment to add certain names to the list of incorporators.
air. FRASER. That is an absurdity.


Peter Macdonald: That is not at all the question raised.
air. BORDEN (Halifax). Surely the hon. gentleman has a right to state his own point of order.
The ailNISTER OF JUSTICE. The trouble is that it is not his ownair. INGRAai. How would something like this do :
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day and that a reference be made to the Speaker of the House for his decision as to whether the Committee of the Whole is in order in discussing the principle of Bill (No. 64) by reason of an amendment to section one of the Bill having been offered.
air. aiACLEAN. That is all right.


John Graham Haggart: air. SPEAKER. Mr. Macdonald, of the committee of the Whole, reports that the committee has decided to refer to the Speaker for his decision:	Whether the
Committee of the Whole can discuss the principle of the Bill (No. 64) by reason of an amendment to section 1 of the Bill having been offered.
At the outset I may say that, generally speaking, the principle of a Bill should be discussed on the second reading thereof, but that rule is somewhat different in the case of private Bills and public Bills. In the case of public Bills, it is not in order to discuss in committee the general merits of a Bill on a particular clause ; but, in the ease of private Bills, the rule, as stated by May, is as follows :
The second reading corresponds with the same stage in other Bills, and in agreeing to it. the House affirms the general principle, or expediency of the measure. There is, however. a distinction between tine second reading of a public, and of a private Bill, which should not be overlooked. A public Bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private Bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the Bill, conditionally, and subject ro the proof of such allegations before the committee.
With regard to this Bill, its principle was considered when the motion was made in committee of the whole for the adoption of the preamble of the Bill. In the case of private Bills, the principle is supposed to be contained in the preamble, and when the preamble has been declared carried, then, according to my view, the principle of the Bill cannot be further discussed in committee. The Committee of the Whole is now considering clause 1 of the Bill, which contains the names of the incorporators, and on that clause it is not in order to discuss the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker then left the Chair, and the House resumed in Committee of the Whole.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, in order to get myself before the committee-and I

accept the ruling that has been given-I beg to move that you tlo now leave the Chair, and, on that motion, I propose to discuss the general question. So, we have only lost forty minutes. I wish to discuss the whole question involved in this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, the head of the Grand Trunk Railway, is now identified with this proposition for the first time, and it is proposed to make a deal between this new company and the government to settle the transportation problem in the North-west. I told the House some time ago that I did not think this was the right way to settle the transportation problem. I believe that the only way it can be solved is by the government ownership of the line that connects the main roads in Ontario with the main roads in the North-west, and my idea is to have a government-built and government-owned road from Port Arthur, or, if necessary from North Bay to Winnipeg. In that way the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway would be at once put into the North-west. Imagine what would happen in the North-west to-morrow if this were carried out. What the Canadian Pacific Railway fear to-day most of all, and what I thought the government were trying to accomplish, was to put the Grand Trunk Railway into the North-west tomorrow. Under the proposition we have now before us, the Grand Trunk Railway will not be in the North-west for six years, even if they are there in ten years ; but by nationalizing one of the roads between the main systems of the east and the systems of the west, you can have the Grand Trunk Railway in the west toLmorrow. That is what the people of Canada want to see- they want to see the Grand Trunk Railway go into the North-west over a government-owned line, and over the same line they desire to see the people's railway, the Intercolonial Railway go. But we are told that the Canadian Pacific Railway have a special clause in their contract by which their rates are not to be interfered with until certain profits have been proved to have been made. The time came long ago when the cost of that road should have been investigated, and its rates brought under revision. But that has never been done, and I suppose it never will be done. But the way to regulate the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to its rates and to give relief to the people of the North-west is to put the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, and, above all, the Intercolonial Railway, in competition with it. That is a way that has been found satisfactory in regulating rates-to have one road owned and controlled by the government fixing the rates. Real competition will bring down rates regardless of special agreements. As I pointed out not long ago, in dealing with another question, the railway passenger fares in the state of New
York were settled by dealing with one railway. An Act was passed regulating rates on that one road, and while the other roads claimed that they had special privileges, yet, competition has compelled them to reduce their rates. So, the government could at once affect a reduction of the rates by proceeding in the right way. Negotiate with one of the big roads, or, if they will not negotiate, let the government build a new road and in that way give relief to the country. But I believe the building of a new road would not be a necessity. I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway would discuss this matter with the government and that the outcome of that discussion would be a determination to nationalize this railway through the country which Sir William Van Horne has called ' the spout.'
Now, what is a practical railway for the business that is to be done ? Clearly it is a high class road. The day has gone by for cheap railways. You must have ai high class railway; you must have a double track railway ; you must have a road without curves and without grades. With that, you will be able to carry wheat at the lowest possible rates, and so give the people relief. You can build as many one-liorse railways as you like, and they will do very little good in these days. We have built many of them, and built them with the people's money. But they do not solve the problem, for they are not in a position to carry freights at the lowest rates. My idea of a road to do that work is a road of the standard of the New York Central Railway, or better still, the Pennsylvania Railway. Such a road as that might cost $60,000 a mile or even more, but once built, it would carry immense trains at a very low cost, particularly in connection with our navigation system. I will go further, and say that the moment that line had been nationalized between Winnipeg and Lake Superior, I would go to the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway and would say :	Gentlemen, we
want the wheat of the North-west carried at the lowest possible rates not only over this government road from Winnipeg to Port Arthur, but over the roads in the east ; therefore, we will assist you to straighten out your roads from Midland or Owen Sound to Montreal or any other St. Lawrence port. Government assistance given in that way would bind the provinces together as nothing else will. But you will never solve the transportation problem by a one-horse railway through the wilds of New Brunswick, through the wilds of Quebec and through the wilds of Ontario. But you can solve it to-morrow by nationalizing the road between Winnipeg and Port Arthur, building it to the proper standard and then straightening out the roads in the east from the great lakes to the sea-board. It may be that these roads would be willing to be

nationalized between Midland and Montreal, or between Owen Sound and Montreal and Quebec. Probably the best line for a high class road would be from Midland connecting with the Canadian Pacific Railway system to Quebec, or it may be over the Canada Atlantic Railway, which could be taken over by the government and made a portion of the national system. These lines would be all run as complementary of our navigation system. We have spent immense sums in this country building up our ports and harbours and making our canals. The men who own and control the railways to-day are to a large extent the men opposed to transportation by water. A system of railways owned and controlled by the government, and not handed over immediately to a private corporation, should be the complement of our navigation system. That is a thing which has been left out of view in connection with transportation in this country. The only way in which our railways can be made the complement of our system of navigation is by the government controlling andi owning them. The proposition before the House does not begin to solve the question. All it is doing in the North-west is to give another one-horse railway to reach our prairie sections. It does not touch the vital issue at a single point. It is not going to reduce the transportation of grain a dollar in years to come. It is possible that negotiations may be going on to bring the Canadian Northern into this deal. I would like to see the Canadian Northern brought in this proposition to-day, and it may be brought in later on, but I would wish to see it brought in under the control of parliament and not of the Grand Trunk Railway. I am only indulging in guess work, but I am inclined to believe that the Canadian Northern Railway would be ready to make a deal of that kind. If we did that, it would grant immediate relief to the North-west. Is not that something worth striving for ?
I am told that government ownership is not a desirable thing. The right hon. gentleman made the confession here the other day-and I very much regretted to hear him make it-that because he stood once on the bleak shores of Georgian bay and saw ail the work which Mr. Booth had to perform to make traffic for his road, from that moment he lost faith in government ownership. Was there ever a more humiliating confession ? He did not give any study to the question; he did not inquire where government ownership had been tried; lie did not go into any details; but just because a fit of despondency came over him as he stood gazing around the bleak shores of Georgian bay, he made up his mind that government ownership was not a success. But had he inquired, he would have found that wherever tried it has been a success. It has solved the transportation problem Mr. MACLEAN.
in many countries. The people of England to-day are of opinion that government ownership must come there, because the transportation charges there are higher than anywhere else. The people of the United States are coming to the conviction that there must be a grand trunk railway between the east and the west owned and controlled by the federal authorities. With a road of that kind, all the other roads would be regulated by it. In Germany, Italy, Russia, Australia, Africa, government ownership has been tried and has succeeded. It is found to be the only system which gives the people satisfactory service at 'the lowest rates. Take the experience in Austro-Hungary. They have government railways in that country, administered by the government, and the constant aim of the government commissioners is to run the railways so as to give the lowest transportation rates, and you will find the lowest transportation rates for passengers there of any country of the world. If by government ownership you mean the kind of ownership we have in this country, I do not believe in it. The Intercolonial Raihvay, as it is administered, is not my ideal of government ownership. But if the Intercolonial Railway were taken out of politics, it would, if it were administered by commissioners independent of politics and members of parliament, do you mean to say that it would not make a better showing ? I would like to see a man like Sir Thos. Shaughnessey or Mr. Hays given control of our Intercolonial with instructions to run it in the interests of the people and keep it free from politics altogether. If that were done, it would give the best solution of the transportation prob-blem. Instead of building rivals to the Intercolonial Railway, keep it as it is, take it absolutely out of politics, put it under the administration of a man like Mr. Hays, and tell him to go ahead and extend it into the North-west and run it on such lines as to force every other company, the Canada Atlantic Railway, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, to give the lowest possible rates. In that way relief would soon be accomplished.
You could nationalize a sufficient portion of our railways for my present purpose for a comparatively small sum. $20,000,000 will do it. But I do not believe that $100,000,000 will build the road proposed by the government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How could you nationalize the three roads you have named for $20,000,000?


William Findlay Maclean: You could nationalize the road from Winnipeg to Port Arthur for $20,000,000 or less.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman proposes to nationalize the Grand

Trunk Railway from Midland to Montreal, the Canadian Pacific Railway from Owien Sound to Montreal, the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway from Port Arthur to Winnipeg-could all that be done for $20,000,000 ?


William Findlay Maclean: Very largely.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Those four roads?


William Findlay Maclean: If it is more than $20,000,000, what are we to think of the hon. gentleman's proposition, which he says would only cost $13,000,000, running from ocean to ocean? But the proposition submitted to the House, I submit, involves an expenditure of over a hundred millions. We are committing this country to a proposition involving an outlay of a hundred million dollars, and we are not to get anything for our money, but are immediately to give the road away to the Grand Trunk Railway. Thus we are not solving the problem but only buildidng a one-horse railway.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is the Grand Trunk Railway a one-horse railway?


William Findlay Maclean: It will be from Moncton through the wilds of Quebec. No reason was given for it other than it would be a colonization road. The place to test government ownership and the building of a road by the government is the fat part and not the lean. Government ownership has been tried in this country always where it must fail. Politics have been mixied up with it, and it has been tried besides in an unproductive, bleak part of the country. But try it in the province of Ontario. What would the people of Ontario say to-day if the government came down with a proposition to parallel the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to Toronto and to Niagara and the Detroit river and Georgian bay. That is a road which would furnish the key to the lock. The people of Ontario would like to see a hundred millions of their money spent in paralleling these roads in the province of Ontario, because such a road would run through the heart of the traffic and bring the other railways to time. That is what I would like. But I am now asking for a very modified form of government ownership, which would put the Grand Trunk Railway into the North-west to-morrow, which would give the Canadian Northern Railway an opportunity it has not now of developing and expanding in the Northwest, and above all, would bring the Intercolonial Railway into the North-west. The principle of government ownership is one which will find approval among the people. That is the kind of ownership which the people want and the kind of relief which the people of the North-west want. It would not cost a great deal and would solve the problem right away. The proposal now brought down does not involve government ownership, although we are asked to support it because it does. As soon as the road is constructed, the government will give it away. Why should we give these railways away? If we build them, why should we not own and control them and give every railway that desires it running powers over them by our leave, and not by the leave of the Grand Trunk Railway ? I want to see these railroads run over this new road, and have running privileges, but I wish the control of the road to be in the hands of the government, and not in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway with power to discriminate against any outside road that may desire to use it.
There is another thing in respect of which I think the proposal involved in this Bill is an extraordinary one. I believe that in some way there are men associated with this scheme who hope to make money out of it in some way, who are seeking to take advantage of a large grant of public money in order to make fortunes for themselves. "Whether that is so or not, I cannot tell at the present time, we must wait and see. But my idea is that whatever money is spent on that road should be spent by the government in the interest of the people, and without any regard to the interest of private individuals who are seeking to make fortunes out of it. The history of railroad building in the past in connection with subsidies from parliament, irrespective of party, I make the broad statement, has been to build up the private fortunes of individuals. We don't want any more of that in this country; and yet I am afraid that in this bogus proposal which is said to involve the principle of government ownership, there may be a great deal of that. I want to see this road built by the people and owned by the people, in such a way that no private fortunes are made out of it, that no great grafts are to be worked, as we see they have been worked in the past. The suspicion is that they are being worked to-day, and that the project is brought forward in the interest of men who have had large experience in exploitations of various kinds. I do not know how much truth there is in that, and I am not going into it to-day. But in the light of the history of the past, all that should be avoided, and the people, for their money, should get a people's railway. They should get for their money a road that will bring relief to the people of the North-west to-morrow. The proposal of the government will only bring relief after ten years. The government should bring down a scheme that would put the Grand Trunk into the North-west to-morrow. I believe the Grand Trunk desire to get into the North-west to-morrow. I do not believe they desire ta build this line through Quebec, or through New Brunswick ; and I believe there is a clause in the Bill which says the Governor in Council may suspend

operations in connection with that if they see fit.
Now, what the Grand Trunk desire, I believe, is to get into the North-west at the . earliest possible moment; but certain parties, for reasons of one kind or another, are forcing the Grand Trunk to go through the bleak portions of Quebec and the Lauren-tian country, and through the wilds of New Brunswick. I do not believe the Grand Trunk themselves desire this proposal for one moment, but they do wish to devote all their energy to getting from North Bay, and as best they can, into the North-west and from there to the Pacific. I want to see the Grand Trunk get into the North-west, and the people of the North-west wish to see it there. But they wish to see it get there in the most desirable form. They do not wish to see it get there in this form, they do not [DOT]wish to see that great railroad tied up to the obligation of building a road, as is proposed, a road in Ontario, of building a road in Quebec, of building a road in New Brunswick. That won't solve the problem in the least, and it will take ten years to accomplish it. But the project suggested here today will solve it at once. What I suggest is that the whole energy of the Grand Trunk be devoted to getting to the Pacific. I believe in getting to the Orient by a new railway. I believe there is lots of traffic west of Winnipeg, lots of traffic through the Peace river country, lots of traffic in that district for a Canadian railway taking Canadian products to China and Japan. But the way to do that is to allow the Grand Trunk to devote its whole energy to getting to the west, not in building these roads at the present time to the north of us. They are not going to settle the transportation problem one bit; but building the road on the lines I have suggested will do it immediately, and will put the Grand Trunlo where I believe it wishes to be put-in the North-west to-morrow. As I said before, the Grand Trunk put in the North-west tomorrow, it may be over the Canadian Northern for the present, will be an immediate competitor of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and you will have the Canadian Pacific Railway changing its attitude and trying to serve the people of the North-west and cutting down rates. But as it is to-day, the whole energy of this parliament, and of the Grand Trunk, judging by the Bill as it now stands, are to be frittered away in building these roads through the wilderness of the eastern provinces.	.
Now, Mr. Chairman, later on I intend to discuss the question again, and to go perhaps more fully into it. But at present X only take the opportunity of entering a solemn protest on behalf of the people of Canada, and of the people of the North-west in particular, against this proposal. I do so because it does not give immediate relief to the North-west, it does not solve the problem, and it entails great expense upon the


William Findlay Maclean: country, and in every way is not in the public interest. I say now, in order that the Prime Minister may hear me, that what be should have done was to bring the great railroads into consultation, and say to them: We will nationalize our spout, we will allow you to run over it, we will let the Intercolonial run over it, we will make the Intercolonial a competitor of your road, we will fix the pace, and you must dance to that tune, if it is in the public interest. All that could have been done, all that could be done now. It could have been started five years ago. But all we are told is that the proposition to avail ourselves of this opportunity of government ownership is a mistake. I think it is no mistake. I think the one solution of the problem is government ownership, or at least government competition ; and on that line I enter this protest against the proposal. I think it is a wrong policy, I think it is a bad policy, I think it is against public interest, and it is not in the line of the progress that characterizes all other countries to-day in dealing with these great questions. Russia is building an immense railroad ; it may be primarily for national reasons, but it is also for transportation reasons. Australia is building up railroads all the time ; all the nations that have gone into public ownership are extending their systems, they are satisfied that they are right. We alone are going back on that principle. The right hon. gentleman, in this proposal, is going back on the principle of government ownership, because he proposes to denude in some way the Intercolonial. He is giving it a rival at its most important point, a Grand Trunk string to the Intrcolonial bow at very large cost and will effect but a small shortening of the distance. An hon. gentleman said the other day that he does not think it will save more than sixty miles. We have the Intercolonial to-day which is available ; it ought to be extended, it ought to be strengthened and improved ; it ought not to be run down by a competitor put alongside of it. It should be extended to the west through the province of Ontario. That would make it a great railroad, that would make it a people's railroad, then you would help the people of the North-west to solve the great transportation problem and give them immediate relief. By controlling the terminals you would control the whole situation. These terminals make the strength of a railroad's position. We are gradually spending immense sums on them. In that way you will bind the provinces together.
The right hon. gentleman, when he brought down his proposition the other day, said there was danger of the withdrawal of the bonding privilege. Is it not a fact to-day that we have an all-Canadian road from Halifax to Vancouver ? Suppose the Americans deprived us of the -bonding privilege to-morrow, we still have a Canadian railway in our own territory, controlled by this

parliament; and we will be no better able, when we have this new line of the government, than we are to-day to withstand any pressure that our neighbours may put upon us in connection with the bonding privilege.
So, that argument falls to the ground. We have an all-Canadian route to-day and we are spending $100,000,000-it may be $150,000,000-to get a road that will do nothing more as far as the bonding privileges are concerned than the roads we have today. As far as the sentimental reasons given are concerned, we will not have any better means of transportation than those existing by means of the roads we have now. They will bind the country together and the way to bind tfie country together is to reduce rates over these railways so as to give an opportunity to the community of exchanging their views and becoming acquainted with each other by means of travel. The people of the North-west Territories have to pay four cents a mile to travel on the railway and they cannot under those circumstances come east. The policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway is to take people into the North-west at one cent a mile and to charge them four cents a mile to bring them out again. That is not good public policy. In the province of Manitoba they have a three-cent a mile rate and railway competition made it. Probably the agreement that the Manitoba government made with the Canadian Northern may have had something to do with it. Governments are in a position to do different things to alleviate the grievances of the people in connection with transportation, but they must go the right way about it. In this case, the right way to go about it is not to devote ten years to the building of a new railway through the wilderness but to do something immediately right in the places where traffic is congested and right in the populous centres. There is one way to regulate traffic on railways and that is to regulate one road or to have a government-owned road in operation in competition with private-owned roads in the populous parts of the country because the effect of that competition will be to regulate traffic charges. The people of the North-west Territories not only want a reduction in the traffic charges, but they want increased accommodation for moving their freight. They say they have a congested state of affairs up there. They never can get rid of that congestion of traffic by the adoption of the proposal of the government which is now before us because there can be no solving of the problem by the building of a road through the wilderness. If the government study the question they will see that their proposition is not feasible, they will withdraw from their present position and they will begin to negotiate with the Canadian Pacific Railway and with the Canadian Northern Railway, and if they do negotiate and do get possession of a road do not let them give it away the 246
moment they get it, but get it for the people and keep it because it will have a regulative influence upon all the roads. If these-negotiations are going on, as I believe thejr are going on with Sir Charles Rivers-Wil-son, they ought to be absolutely based upon the principle of government ownership of the Canadian Northern Railway, and if we have that we will have the Grand Trunk Pacific in the west to-morrow, we will have 1,700 miles of railway competing with the Canadian Pacific Railway and we will have the resources of that great road extending its line across the plains and getting to the Pacific ocean, and in securing that we will be doing something for the people of this country. That is the issue between my idea and the idea submitted by the government. I believe my idea is one that will meet with the sanction of the people. It is an idea that I have been following very closely. I have been studying the question, I have been listening to men from all portions of the country, I have been reading the press, and if there is one thing to-day in the public mind more conspicuous than another, it is that the solution of the transportation problem whether by railways or waterways, is from the adoption of the principle of government owership, the building up of one system of railways and making the rates on this system as they ought to be so that other roads operating in competition with this government road will have to come down to these rates and give equal treatment and facilities to the people. Mr. Chairman, I beg to withdraw the motion.
Motion (Mr. Maclean) withdrawn, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 4,


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That section four be reconsidered for the purpose of amending it by substituting the word ' forty ' for the word * seventy ' in the first line.


Robert Laird Borden: This is, I suppose, in view of the proposition that the company shall build only from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. What will the length of the line be ?
Mr. McCarthy. Between 1,600 and 1,800 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: This will give a capitalization of how much per mile ?
Mr. McCarthy. A little less than $30,000 per mile-$27,000 or $28,000 per mile.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the estimate of the cost of these 1,600 or 1,800 miles ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: My information is that the cost will be $20,000 per mile on the



prairie section, and $50,000 per mile on tlie mountain section.


Robert Laird Borden: This will Include rolling stock 1


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: My information is that in addition to that there will be about $7,000 per mile for rolling stock, so that the cost will be $27,000 per mile on the prairie section, and $57,000 per mile on the mountain section.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does that include in the shape of rolling stock ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: My information does not go as far as that.


Robert Laird Borden: We were informed that the cost for the prairie section would be very much less than the hon. gentleman
states when we were' discussing another matter this session. Is that estimate based upon any reports of engineers ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I cannot say as to that, but I can say this that the railway to which the hon. gentleman referred has only built a 56 pound rail, and the intention of this railway is to build an SO pound rail which will make a very great difference. The cost of a standard railway will be much higher. The requirements of the contract are that as far as practicable the railway is to be built to equal the line of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the weight of that rail ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Eighty pounds, I understand.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the location of the railway between Winnipeg and Edmonton ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It is set out in section 12, of the Bill.
To a 'point at or near the city of Winnipeg ; thence westerly and north-westerly, passing through or near Battleford, Edmonton and Dun-vegan, 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.
There is another clause which requires the line to be located in a specific way, and, of course, it is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the proposed line run north or south of the proposed Canadian Northern Railway line V


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: North, I understand ; but, of course, that is not settled. The committee spent several days considering the question as between the three railways, and finally a clause was added that at no point they are to be closer than 30 miles. I Mr. McCarthy.	.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) mean to say that this road is going to run north of the Canadian Northern Railway to any extent after it passes Winnipeg ?
Mr. McCarthy. I cannot say.


William James Roche: As outlined on the map, if that is any guide, it runs between the Manitoba and the north-west branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canadian Northern Railway runs far north of the Manitoba and north-western branch. After it passes Portage la Prairie at any rate it surely must run south, and very far south of the Canadian Northern Railway.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) knows the country very much better than I do, and, it would be idle for me to state where the railroad is going to run. The ordinary observances have been followed in this charter, stating that it shall start from a point at or near a certain place, and then run to a certain other point. This charter is subject to more restrictions than other charters in respect to this 30-mile limit ; it is subject to the general provisions of the Railway Act, and it is also subject to the Governor in Council deeming its location reasonable. Until it is absolutely located, one cannot speak definitely as to whether it will be north or south of either ohe or the other line.


William James Roche: If it runs south of the Canadian Northern Railway it ought to be a much cheaper road to construct than the Canadian Northern Railway. When I took exception to the estimate of $19,000 per mile for the Canadian Northern Railway, the reason given for the high estimate was that it included several expensive bridges. If $19,000 was sufficient for the Canadian Northern Railway, including bridges, this road going considerably south would be an easier road to construct, and yet we have an estimate of $27,000 per mile, including $7,000 for equipment. I think that estimate was exaggerated.
Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman knows that I am not going to construct the road, and that I am merely giving the information which I have. Let me call attention to the fact that parliament is only guaranteeing on the prairie section a maximum of $13,000 per mile. If seventy-five per cent of the cost is less than that, then the guarantee is only up to seventy-five per cent. Whatever it costs will be ascertained and be subject to the control of the Governor in Council.


Mr. FOWLER.: Does the hon. gentleman mean to intimate that it is no concern of this House what this road shall be capitalized at ? Surely it is Important to the

people of tlie country whom we are supposed to represent to know whether it shall be capitalized at a larger amount than is necessary to build the road, because they would be entitled to charge rates according to the amount of their capitalization. It is, therefore, important to know this. The hon. member (Mr. Roche) has said tha(, this road which is going to go south of the Canadian Northern Railway would be a much easier road to build, and it seems to me that $20,000 per mile is a larger capitalization than should be allowed. That with $7,000 a mile for rolling stock is simply absurd.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With respect to the amount stated for rolling stock, I may say that when the contract was about to be entered into with the railway company, it was thought advisable to have the opinion of Mr. Schreiber, chief engineer of government railways, and he told us that a proper equipment for such a railway would amount to $6,000 or $7,000 a mile. We, therefore, give my hon. friend the expert opinion of a man who is qualified to speak on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it in writing?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have no doubt that we can get it in writing. It was given to the acting Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in my presence. I am not sure whether he asked it in writing, but I will ask for a certificate from Mr. Schreiber.


John Graham Haggart: The estimated length from Edmonton to the coast is about 1,000 miles, and the length from Winnipeg to Edmonton 000 or 700 miles, making 1,700 miles in all. Why does the Minister of Justice require that the first equipment of rolling stock shall the $15,000,000, apportioned to the western section ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We estimated the length of the road and multiplying it by seven, it came to $18,300,000 and we put it down at $20,000,000, and the company agreed. Of course, if my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) wishes to set up his opinion against that of Mr. Schreiber he is perfectly free to do so, but we took the opinion of a. man, who in our judgment, is competent to advise.


John Graham Haggart: I am not talking about my opinion at all, but I say that 700 miles at $7,000 per mile would not be $15,000,000. '


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It would be $11,900,000 on those figures.


John Graham Haggart: The government saw that the estimate would be more than
sufficient, but they only apportioned $5,000.000 of it for the whole line from Winnipeg to Quebec. *	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.
246*


John Graham Haggart: That is in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman has not read the contract. The $5,000,000 with respect to the eastern end is especially apportioned for the purpose of being security to us for the operation of the road. That is to say, of the $20,000,000 for rolling stock, we ear-mark $5,000,000, apportion that to the eastern end and hold that as a special guarantee. That does not mean that the $5,000,000 is the extent of the equipment ; it is the extent of the guarantee.


John Graham Haggart: But the whole stock of the road is security for the running of the road.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: For the first issue of bonds the whole stock is security on the western end, but with respect to the eastern end, we have to take a special security, because in that case they are only our tenants, and we ear-mark $5,000,000 of that stock which is to be apportioned to the eastern end, and will be security to us for the due performance of all the work.
Mi-. CLARKE. Do you get a first or second mortgage on that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We get a first mortgage. We first take security on the whole $20,000,000 on our guarantee, and with respect to the $5,000,000 in addition to the fact that it is a security to us for the guarantee of the bonds at the western end, we take it as a special security In connection with the eastern end.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There seems to be a considerable lack of information as to the location of the line west of Winnipeg. Is that indefiniteness due to the fact that negotiations are going on for the acquirement of the Canadian Northern system by the new company ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at all. It is simply due to the fact that we are observing with reference to this railway enterprise all the rules that we observe with reference to other companies which come before us for charters. When a charter is granted to a railway company, it comes under the operation of the general Railway Act, which provides that all maps, plans, and profiles of the road shall be submitted for the approval of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council; and here special provision is made for the location of the western end, which is to be subject to the approval of the government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am informed that it is impossible for this company to comply with the condition that the line running westerly and northerly from Winnipeg to Edmonton shall keep 30 or 40 miles from any other line. I want to ask if negotiations are going on between this company and the

Canadian Northern ? If so, we can understand why there is such indefiniteness in the Bill. If this company acquired the Canadian Northern, it would not be paralleling its lines.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: My hon. friend must not be too inquisitive, and ask us to tell him what negotiations are going on between two railway companies. As to what may be going on between the Grand Trunk Company and the Canadian Northern, we know nothing. It is not to our knowledge that any such negotiations are going on. We assume that such an important corporation would not undertake to build a railway through a country where they could not locate it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am given to understand by those acquainted with the country that it is physically impossible to build this railway 40 miles north of the Canadian Northern Railway.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I am sure that the railway company will be impressed with this discussion. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have a knowledge of the country because they have surveyors there now locating the line.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have the assurance from one high authority that no survey has yet been made.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Surveys have been going on for the past six months.


John Graham Haggart: Has the right hon. gentleman any information with reference to the passes ? The company has power under the Bill to take the Peace river or the Pine river pass, and to go to any port on the Pacific.


The PRIME MINISTER.: They have to go to Port Simpson.


John Graham Haggart: If that is so, that virtually locates the line. The Bill says at or near Port Simpson or Bute Inlet or any other port on the Pacific.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The intention certainly is to go to Port Simpson unless very cogent reasons are brought to the contrary. There is no doubt whatever, from the explorations we have had, that Port Simpson is decidedly the best harbour we have in British Columbia.


John Graham Haggart: I think so myself.


Andrew B. Ingram: When this Grand Trunk Pacific Bill was before the Railway Committee. several hon. gentlemen refrained from discussing the merits of this railway on the promise of the Minister of Finance, acting Minister of Railways and Canals, that when the government scheme for as-Mr. CLARKE.
sisting the Grand Trunk Pacific should be submitted to parliament, the government would be in a position to state definitely what the route would be. That was the pledge given to the Railway Committee by the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: I pledge my word of honour that that pledge was given, and if It Is not carried out now, it only shows that we cannot rely on a pledge when it is given.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me, taking this clause in connection with clause 13, that the capitalization of the company is pretty large-in fact, very excessive. Under section 13 you have $20,000 per mile of bonds authorized on the prairie section and $50,000 on the mountain section ; and you have, under section 4, $45,000,000 of capital authorized for a road between 1,600 and 1,800 miles in length. Has my hon. friend who is moving the Bill made any estimate of 'wlnit the total capitalization would amount to ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: My hon. friend will remember that we discussed this fully before the committee before. I am unable to apply the term capital in the way he does. I cannot understand the bonding privilege as capital. A bonding privilege is something that may be executed to its fullest extent, or it may not be. I have therefore made no calculation, and am unable to answer the hon. gentleman's question.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suppose that capital, in the sense in which I am using it, would include the expenditure of .money raised by bonds as well as the ex-'penditure of money raised by the issue of capital stock. This railway might be built altogether, as many other railways are, with the money raised from the sale of the bonds. Suppose the common stock of this company were $50,000, and it were given bonding power sufficient to build the whole road ; would not the question of capital in that case be involved in the amount of the bond issue ? It is none the less involved because you fix a substantial sum as the capital stock of the company. The result will be that you will have this company capitalized, including the bond issue, to the extent of some $57,000 per mile, and my hon. friend does not pretend that the road on the prairie, including equipment, will cost more than $27,000 per mile. I am still of opinion, notwithstanding what has been said to the contrary, that a capitalization of that kind may interfere to a great extent with the control of the rates hereafter. It is impossible, looking at the conditions as they are, to say that the amount of outstanding bonds and capital stock in the hands of bona fide holders will not affect the question of the control of rates in thei future. These mat-

ters will be looked at by the tribunal, whatever it may be, which has to deal with the question of control of rates in the future.
I may say further that it is remarkable we have not a more definite statement as to where the location will be. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) has said that it will be very much cheaper if built south of the proposed line of the Canadian Northern Railway than if built thirty miles north. But the promoter of the Bill is unable to say whether or not this company proposes to build north or south of the Canadian Northern Railway. I should think that some member of the government should be prepared to make an announcement on that point, in view of the fact that the government has introduced a measure which contemplates assistance to this company of a very substantial amount, not only on the mountain, but the prairie section as well. Surely the government takes some interest in this question of capitalization. It is a question of practical interest to everybody throughout the country. The people believe that a high capitalization will materially interfere with that control of the rates which is desirable we should have. The information of my hon. friend is extremely indefinite and based on such insufficient data that we are not very much inclined to accept his estimate of the cost of the road across the prairie section. We have no information before the House in the shape of engineers' estimates that I am aware of, and we know that railways have been built on the prairie section for very much less than the hon. gentleman suggests. It is quite true that the standard of this road may be somewhat higher, but we are merely guessing unless we have some information of the kind to which I have referred. Why should this road have a capitalization of $57,000 per mile ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is on the mountain section.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I am speaking of the whole road. On the mountain section, you have not only the capitalization included in the stock issue, but a possible capitalization of $50,000 per mile of a bond issue as well. We have no exact information as to the length of the mountain and the prairie section. We may presume that the prairie section will be 1,100 long and the mountain section 000. That is the nearest approach we can make to it, from the somewhat indefinite statement made by my hon. friend in charge of the Bill. '


George William Fowler: It seems to me that the promoter of the Bill should give some reasons why he is making this reduction. What is the basis upon which he is working ? The original Bill required a capital of $75,000,000. He has struck off $30,000,000 and made the capital $45,000,000. According to the position presented by the First Minister, the company are to be rid of the building of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton. This would be the more expensive part of the line. Under the first arrangement, they were to build from Moncton to the coast. 'They are getting rid of the more expensive portion and yet their capital is allowed to remain at considerable more than half the original amount. This committee should have the basis on which the hon. gentleman makes his deduction. The hon. gentleman declines to answer. That is just what I expected. Thefe is evidently no basis. They have simply lumped the matter just as they did the whole transaction. They have gone into it without any information. The very gentleman who promoted this Bill before the Railway Committee and who has been lauded as such a railway builder, did not actually know anything about the country. He did not know where Lake Nepigon was ; lie did not know the length of the line and the nature of the country, and was simply taking a leap in the dark. We need not ask for definite information, for we are not given even indefinite information. But it seems to me that when the government is going to give such substantial assistance to the enterprise, these men who are promoting the Bill should have the information we are asking for.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The committee lias already had a good deal of information. It is provided in the contract that the mining section is to be assisted by the guarantee of the government to the extent of 75 per cent on its cost, and the liability of the government is in no case to exceed $30,000 per mile in that section. It is assumed that the mountain section is between GOO and 700 miles in length. It is not possible to say exactly, but it will not be less than GOO or more than 700. Suppose it is 600. The bonds to be guaranteed by the government to the extent of 75 per cent will cover an amount of $18,000,000. The other twenty-five per cent will bring the amount to $24,000,000. This is a very low estimate, but that would be the lowest cost of the mountain section. It is estimated that the prairie section will be between 1,000 and 1,100 miles long. On that section we guarantee that bonds of the company to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost, our liability not to exceed $13,000 per mile. As to that we have some data, because some time ago we had a Bill passed in this House under somewhat similar circumstances over the same prairie section, in which it was agreed that we shoull guarantee the bonds of that body. It seemed a fair arrangement, and therefore, taking the cost of that part of the road at $13,000,000, as regards the government guarantee, you will have the whole cost of the prairie section between $16,000,000 and $17,000,000. Add $25,000,000 for the mountain section and you will have a total

cost of $42,000,000. Then you must add $20,000,000 of rolling stock, which brings the amount to $62,000,000. My hon. friend knows well that the stock to be issued by the company is an unknown quantity, as regards the amount which it will realize. As my hon. friend knows, it would not realize one hundred cents on the dollar, but only what the confidence of the people aud the state of the market may fix. Under these circumstances, the company must have some leeway. In all cases in building a railway like this, you must give power to issue bonds and stock to a certain extent above the par value. If you knew that you were going to get exactly the face value of these securities you could calculate in that way what you would require. But you are not able to do so, consequently you must fix a wider limit.


George William Fowler: The bonds are not counted in the capital stock. You must have capital to cover the margin between the seventy-five per cent guaranteed by the government and the cost of the road. On the mountain section there will be $6,000,000 and on the prairie section about the same-at any rate a total of $11,000,000 or $12,000,000 as I remember it. But, if you require $12,000,000 to make up the difference between what will be realized from the sale of the bonds guaranteed by the government and the actual cost of the road, what is the need of this capitalization of $45,000,000 ? It seems to me, that the public would have more confidence in this enterprise and also would give a higher price for the stock if the authorized issue was not so large. For, if $45,000,000 of stock is issued, as this will not increase the earnings, you have that much less security for a good return to the persons who invest. Then we must consider the people who are to be served by the line. There can be no possible question that that is a matter that will be taken into consideration when the tariff of tolls is to be fixed for this road by the Railway Commission under the Act now before parliament. The question will be asked :	What is the
capital of the road ; what interest must be paid to those who have invested their money in the enterprise ? For that reason it is very important that we should know somewhat accurately the basis on which this calculation has been made up. If it is reasonable that a capital of $45,000,000 should be allowed, this committee will cheerfully grant it. But, until the information is before it, the committee ought not to be asked to authorize such a capitalization as is here proposed.


Robert Laird Borden: Further than that, the right hon. gentleman has dealt only with the bonds guaranteed by the government. But that does not touch the question I was dealing with, the amount of bonds and capital stock the company is allowed to issue-$50,000 of bonds per mile Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
on the mountain section and $20,000 of bonds per mile on the prairie section. Let us see, taking the estimates given by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), what the road is to cost. He says it will cost $20,000 a mile for the prairie section. That, I believe is excessive. Then, he asks $7,000 a mile for rolling stock which is also pretty liberal. That makes $27,000 a mile for the prairie section of say 1,100 miles, or a total of $29,700,000. Then take the mountain section. It is said that this would cost $50,000 a mile, add $7,000 for the rolling stock and you have $57,000 a mile, for say 600 miles, or a total of $34,200,000. Sb, the cost of the whole road, even on these pretty liberal estimates would be $63,900,000. How do you propose to capitalize the company in view of that ? In the first place you give $45,000,000 of stock, and bonding powers amounting to $52,000,000, or a total capitalization of $97,000,000, which is $33,000,000 more than the whole cost of the road, even according to the very liberal estimates of the hon. member for North Simcoe. It may be true, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said, that you must give some leeway. But what excuse is there for a leeway of $33,000,000 on a total estimated cost of $63,900,000 ? What excuse is there for that ? Does the right hon. gentleman pretend to say that that very extravagant capitalization, when the securities have been sold and have passed into the hands of bona fide purchasers, will not exercise an influence upon the control of rates upon that ? I believe it is bound to exercise a very considerable influence, and I protest for my part, against this excess of $33,000,000 over the very liberal estimates submitted to the House by the hon. gentleman who is promoting the Bill.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to ask the right hon. First Minister whether, as a matter of fact, it is not the intention of the parties to these negotiations that the Grand Trunk Railway Company-not the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the Grand Trunk-shall receive a present of $25,000,000 of this stock? Under the 27th section of the agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific, it is provided that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall acquire and take $25,000,000 of the stock, and shall also hold it during fifty years. It strikes me that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would find it rather difficult to raise $25,000,000 to pay for that stock, unless they could afterwards sell the stock, and under the contract this is just what they cannot do, for they must hold it. I doubt whether there is any intention as between the two companies, the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, that the Grand Trunk shall pay a dollar on that stock. I think it will turn out that this stock is to be given as a recompense to the Grand Trunk for guaranteeing 25 per cent

of the cost of the road. They will get that for their guarantee, while the country will get nothing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) point out in this Bill where there would be any authority for the Grand Trunk Pacific to do what he suggests V


Samuel Barker: I only read from the section of the contract which says :
The company undertakes

That is,.the Grand Trunk Pacific Company undertakes, for the Grand Trunk undertakes nothing

-.that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall acquire and take the said common stock to the amount of twenty-five million dollars, except shares held by directors not exceeding one thousand shares, and shall hold the shares during the term of the said lease, and so long as any of the bonds guaranteed by the government under the terms of this agreement shall remain outstanding and unpaid.
Looking at that from a common sense standpoint and in view of the fact that it is much to be doubted whether the Grand Trunk Company could afford to pay $25,000,000 for that stock-I do not suppose the Grand Trunk Pacific expect the Grand Trunk Railway Company shareholders to acquire so much stock and remain liable to be called upon to pay one hundred cents on the dollar-I infer that there will be what is commonly known as a dicker, and the money advanced on the bonds will be apparently advanced on the stock. By some of the ways unknown to dealers in stock the Grand Trunk Railway Company will get the stock without any liability ; there will be, as I said, simply a present made to the Grand Trunk of $25,000,000 out of this $45,000,000 of stock.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no limit to assumptions, except the imagination of the gentleman who makes them. But I would repeat my question and ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) to point out where the Grand Trunk Pacific would have the authority to make sucli a ' dicker' as he speaks of.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask a question that I was about to ask when the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) rose, and that is, what the government proposes that the Grand Trunk shall pay for the $25,000,000 of stock that they are supposed to acquire. If the Grand Trunk is coming into this thing, it should show its good faith. We ought to have some assurance that, if that company acquires $25,000,000 of stock, it will pay for it. If it pays for it, this country will be relieved to that extent of the actual cost of the road.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Irishmanlike, my hon. friend answers one question by asking another. I would like the hon.
member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) to answer the question I put.


Samuel Barker: The minister has heard of the various methods that have been adopted in the past in ordinary commercial companies, and In what are called industrial companies, by which an immense amount of stock is placed upon the market as paid-up stock when not a dollar Is paid upon it. There are various ways of doing it. We know that there have been large manufacturing concerns in which a million or two millions of stock have been issued as paid-up stock and never a dollar has been paid upon it, and yet it has gone out to the public, and the public have bought it as paid-up stock, and to all intents and purposes, it is so far as legal obligation goes, paid-up stock.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Joint Stock Companies Act is known to us, the Railway Act is known to us all, and 1 would like the hon. gentleman to point out in the Joint Stock Companies Act or in the Railway Act anything that will justify the statement he has made.


Samuel Barker: -Does the hon. gentleman mean seriously to assure this House that under this contract if the Grand Trunk Railway take twenty-five millions of that stock, they are going to pay for it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not here to say what I think, I am here for the purpose of applying the law. The hon. gentleman has made a statement, and 1 want him to point out by what law he justifies that statement.


Robert Laird Borden: Why can it not he done under section 11 ? 'The question has already been asked.


William Findlay Maclean: I press for an answer to iny question.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) to point out any section of any law that justifies his statement.


Samuel Barker: I know this, that bonds can be sold for what they are worth, and tlie Grand Trunk Railway Company can take stock at one hundred cents on the dollar and take bonds at five cents on the dollar, and buy both. The hon. gentleman has heard of such a transaction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As to bonds, yes ; as to stock, no.


Samuel Barker: Very well, if some people in the same transaction want to buy both bonds and stock, they can buy very little in bonds and a great deal In stock. Very much like the old well-known practice under the Duncan Act, where a man paid five cents for a bit of ginger bread and got whiskey free.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think we have any law in this country which says that those who subscribe for stock must pay for it.
Mr. MAC-LEAN. What are the Grand Trunk Railway to pay for this $25,000,000 of stock?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: So far as I am concerned, under the law, they have got to pay full value for it.


William Findlay Maclean: As a member of the administration, has he made a contract with this road, or does he know that they intend to pay the cash ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I know what the law requires of them, and I expect them to comply with the law.


William Findlay Maclean: Here is a contract involving $25,000,000, and we have no assurance from the government whether this $25,000,000 is to be in money, or whether it is to be practically a gift to the Grand Trunk Railway.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 4,


Peter Macdonald: Shall the amendment be adopted?


William Findlay Maclean: We were to have had some explanation about that. We would like the promoter of the Bill or some one representing the government to tell us what is to be done with this twenty-five million dollars worth of stock that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are to take up, when they are acquiring it what they are to give for it. and if the money that they give for it is to be devoted to the purpose of constructing the road. If that is the case it alters very largely the financial aspect of the proposition. Before the committee rose at six o'clock, when that question was up, we were expecting some information on that point either from the .government or the promoter of the Bill. I ask again for that information.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I cannot understand the difficulty that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) sees in the matter. There is no difference in this Bill from any other Bill respecting capital stock, and I am at a loss to understand how you can mix the privilege of issuing bonds and debentures with capital stock. The issue of bond or debenture requires the placing of the assets of the company of a mortgage, and that mortgage must be paid off in this case within fifty years. If that mortgage is paid off. the company are relieved of their obligation, but if it is not paid off. then the mortgagees have the right to foreclose the Mr. BARKER.
mortgage on the road. How you can mix up with capital the placing of a mortgage on the assets is more than I can understand. This is capital stock to be issued for ordinary purposes. It is not an exorbitant sum. It is greatly reduced as compared with the Canadian -Pacific Railway or any other railway company that ever asked for corporate powers from this parliament, and upon this clause I cannot see how you can mix up the capital stock with the bonding privilege. This is a fair capitalization. I have not heard any criticism of the amount of the capitalization except by joining it with the bonding privilege. I cannot understand the view which hon. gentlemen take, because every bond issued is secured by a mortgage. On onie side of the ledger you have the assets, on the other side you have the mortgage, and you cannot make the capital any better or any worse because one balances the other.


David Henderson: I do not think that tiny one desires to mix up the capital stock of this company and the bonds except the promoter himself, and it appears to me from what lie has said now and said before, that he is rather desirous of confusing our minds upon this question. The stock of the company, we are told, is to he $45,000,000. and of that $25,000,000 is to lie acquired by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. What we want to know is what becomes of this $25,000,000 after it is acquired by the Grand Trunk Railway Company?


An hon. MEMBER.: They have to hold it.


David Henderson: Is it intended that they receive that as a gift for promoting this gigantic scheme? Is it intended that that $25,000,000 is to be divided amongst the provisional directors as their compensation for promoting this gigantic undertaking ? Is it intended that they shall purchase it, and if so, at what price shall they receive it-25 cents on the dollar or 50 cents on the dollar, or will they get par for it ? I am very suspicious that this $25,000,000 is to go to the Grand Trunk Railway Company to be divided amongst the directors as compensation for promoting this scheme. There is certainly something mysterious about it from the peculiar wording of the resolution and from the peculiar manner in which the promoter has endeavoured to answer the questions that have been propounded from this side of the House. I think we must have some specific declaration as to what will ultimately become of that $25,000,000, whether tile par value of the stock is to be realized from the Grand Trunk Railway Company and whether the $25,000,000 goes into the construction of this road.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am rather surprised that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson), if he has read the contract,

should make that statement. I think we have a right to assume that if the Grand Trunk Railway Company subscribe for this stock they will carry out their agreement according to law. It will be fraudulent to subscribe for this stock in some roundabout way, and to obtain it in a manner not in accordance with the laws of the country. My hon. friend suggested that they might dispose of this stock to some other parties. It is clearly agreed that they are to hold this stock as the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and they cannot dispose of it. Having entered into an agreement with the parliament of Canada to hold the stock, it would be a violation of the whole agreement should they attempt to dispose of it.
I suppose they would be liable to all the penalties that would be incurred for a breach of contract. There might even be a foreclosure of the mortgage. I do not think there is anything but what appears to be a straight business contract according to the laws of the country, and we have every reason to assume that a large and responsible company such as the Grand Trunk Railway Company would carry out any agreement that they entered into. I would be very sorry to think that there was anything in the Bill or the contract that would appear to be otherwise.


Mr HENDERSON.: Is it the intention that the Grand Trunk Railway Company in taking up this $25,000,000 of stock shall practically furnish $25,000,000 towards this undertaking? If that is the intention it would appear to be a bona fide transaction, but I confess from the manner in which the promoter answered the questions on this point it led to a great deal of doubt in my mind as to whether this was the intention or not.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Has the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) any idea that if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company were to be wound up, the shareholders of that company would not have to pay 100 cents on the dollar, and if lie has not any doubt upon that point he cannot have any doubt upon the question he is asking. When he endeavours to charge me with mixing up the bonding privileges and the capital stock. I absolutely repudiate his statement. I did not mix them up. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and other lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House, when the discussion was up here the other day. sought to add the capital stock and bonding privileges together, to divide the mileage of the road into that and to show that this road was capitalized by the result per mile. That is absolutely foundationless. The premises are not correct. A bond that is issued cannot he said to be part of the capital stock of any kind of a company, because every bond is secured by mortgage. You have the assets upon one side and the
bonds upon the other, and if the bonds are not liaid the right of foreclosure can be exercised in this case at the end of fifty years. This is the ordinary case of a company asking for incorporation. When a railway company comes here asking- for incorporation, it has its capital stock and it has its bonding privileges. We have never heard of this discussion before. We have never heard of the process of adding bonding privileges and capital stock together and saying that the capitalization of the company is the result of that addition. I do not think, in business parlance, that that is a correct way of stating the case. I think it is absolutely incorrect, and the question is whether $45,000,000 is a fair capitalization for the company or whether it is not. The Canadian Pacific Railway, which will possibly have twice as _ much mileage as this road, have a capitalization of $85,000,000. In addition to that they received $25,000,000 in cash, $35,000,000 of railway constructed, and 25,000.000_ acres in land. I am not charging that the aid which was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway was improperly given, but when you put the two cases in parallel columns, it cannot be I argued that the capitalization of this company is unfair or that it is inadequate to the requirements of the company. The bonds must be met in fifty years and it is not fair to mix capital stock with bonding privileges.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think this Bill is to be considered as an ordinary Bill going through the House under the same circumstances as most Bills, and I think my hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) does not quite seize the sense of the argument on this side of the House as regards capitalization. The object of this great enterprise is to reduce rates, and that consideration was given- to the bonded indebtedness of the company, and the argument founded upon that was that the capital should not be made too large, because, if the bonded indebtedness represented a very large sum requiring payment of interest and it was necessary to pay interest upon an exorbitant amount of capital stock, the real object of all our efforts would not be attained ; that is to say, the payment of interest upon the bonded indebtedness and the payment of dividends upon the stock would prevent our attaining a great reduction of the rates. That is the way I understood the argument. As to an enterprise of this kind having a great effect on the reduction of rates, experience has proved the contrary ; experience has proved that when there are rival companies rates are not reduced. There is increased accommodation, greater conveniences and more comfort, but ail arrangement is generally arrived at between rival lines so as not to reduce the rates, at all events to such a degree as that provision will not be made for the payment of interest on the bonds

and also for doing justice to the shareholders of the stock of the company. It is therefore very natural to say that the bonded indebtedness being so much per mile and there being a second mortgage authorized, you will find that if you have a capital of $45,000,000 you will not be able to give to the western people that reduction of rates which they have a right to expect. I have an open mind on the question whether it will not be necessary for the company to have a capital of $45,000,000. I take it that the company will have to expend, over and above the bonds which it is authorized to issue, a sum approximating $10,000 per mile for the mountain section, because the report of the engineers made in 1877 for the route which the company has chosen to Bute Inlet represents an expenditure of $60,000 per mile, covering 523 miles. The authorized bonding in that region is only $50,000 per mile, so that the company will have to spend $10,000 per mile at least, if we are to have the standard railway that is stipulated in the contract, without taking into consideration the terminal facilities which the company is obliged to provide at Fort Simpson. In addition to that, the amendments which have been adopted to-day authorize the company to build branch lines to North Bay, to Montreal, to Port Arthur, and also tramways each not exceeding ten miles in length in British Columbia. I doubt very much if the company will be able to give us a line of railway in the prairie section of the standard required by the agreement for $20,000 per mile. [DOT] It may be so, but there are a great many rivers there and one or two watersheds, and the land is not absolutely flat. For my own part, I have an open mind on the question of the $45,000,000 capitalization. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has raised a question of very great importance, and one which was probably suggested by the latitude found in section 11 of the Bill. He asked for distinct information as to whether the Grand Trunk Railway is going to put into this company cash or its absolute equivalent to the amount of $25,000,000. That is a very important question, because the agreement made with the company, and which was emphasized by the Prime Minister, requires the company to put $25,000,000 into the enterprise, If the company is to get $25,000,000 in any other way ; if it is to get it in the way of a gratuity for promoting the Bill, or if it is in any way permitted to not carry out what seems to be the letter and spirit of the agreement, then it is a very important matter upon which we should be fully enlightened.


Mr. WADE.: There is a feature of this discussion which is somewhat novel. Gentlemen on the other side contend that freight rates are fixed in consideration of the amount of capital in the way of stock or bonds that is put on the market. I would Mr. MONK.
j ask these gentlemen opposite, if any one of them has ever had anything to to do with the fixing of rates upon railways, and if so can he tell of one solitary case where the capital stock or the bonds that were issued entered into that consideration in the slightest degree. I submit that the fixing of rates on railways is determined upon a different basis altogether. It seems to me that we would be mere children to suppose that the tribunal which has the fixing of the rates j would take into consideration, not the dollars and cents that the road costs actually in money, but the amount of stock and j bonds that have been put upon the market. I make bold to say that no such considera-J tion has ever prevailed yet in the fixing of j rates upon a railway.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think a great many ex-j amples might be given.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Can the hon. gentleman I give me one case in which it has been done?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is certainly an important element in determining the rates on a rail-| way like this.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Can you give me a single case ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are many cases which might be mentioned in the United States, but without going further than Montreal, I might say that in the case of the Montreal Street Railway that was an element in determining its rates. It was alleged by the Montreal Street Railway Company-that their rates could not he made lower and a reasonable dividend paid to the holders of stock, and so the amount of the stock was taken into consideration. Also, in the case of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, it was urged that the rates could not be made lower on account of the large capitalization |of the company, which. I think, is $17,000,000. It is a question frequently raised on behalf of the company when a company is called upon to reduce its rates.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not see wherein the statement of the hon. gentleman has the slightest bearing on the case we are discussing. I repeat my statement, that I do not believe a solitary case can be cited in which the railway authorities in fixing rates on a railway, have taken into consideration the amount of stock or bonds that had been issued. I am speaking in the presence of the late hon. Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart), and he can correct me if I am wrong. We have nothing to do with railways in the United States, and I am not speaking of street railways ; I am speaking of railways which are under the control of this government. I would refer the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) to the 29th paragraph of this agreement, which says :
The rates and tolls to be levied and taken by the company on any part of the said rail-

way shall be under the control of the Governor in Council or of such authority or tribunal as is designated under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the control of the business of the railway.
Surely, any person who takes any of the bonds or the stock of this railway, takes it with a full knowledge that the government, or the tribunal that is constituted by this parliament for that purpose, has the absolute control over fixing rates. Does he mean to tell me that the government or the tribunal which is constituted are foolish enough to have their decision warped in the slightest degree by the amount of stock or bonds put on the market ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Most decidedly.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Then I must say that he has small confidence in the government, at which I am not surprised, and small confidence in the i tribunal that will be organized; but surely the hon. gentleman who sits beside him will not agree with him in that assumption. The hon. gentleman knows that if the company place the stock at anything less than par, under the law, the holders of the stock will be liable to pay the balance in case it shall be necessary. In this case, in order that the government or the tribunal may not be deceived, the 19th section of the agreement gives the government the most absolute power to investigate in any way they see fit, by the employment of engineers, accountants and inspectors, to ascertain just how much money has been put into the construction of the road. In addition, they have a director sitting at the board of the company, and having access to all its books. If $25,000,000 of this stock were allotted to the Grand Trunk Railway Company on payment of 10 per cent, they would be liable, in case of necessity, to pay the other 90 per cent, and there can be no injury to anyone.


William Findlay Maclean: Let me point out an instance which will meet the hon. gentleman's argument. If the government undertook to regulate the rates of this road, it would be in the way of the company being cited to show cause why the rates should not be reduced. The company would say, ' we have issued $45,000,000 of stock.' This may have been purchased by investors for little or nothing ; but in the meantime it may have changed hands, and the old argument of the widow and the orphan would come up again. The Toronto Street Railway pays dividends on $6,000,000 of watered stock, and that fact is the great stumbling block in the way of a reduction of fares. We have asked what consideration the Grand Trunk Railway Company are to pay for this stock. If it is the intention that they shall pay cash for it, and that the money shall go into the treasury of this company, it will go a long way towards building the road. If the money goes in,
value will come from it; but if it is to be watered stock on which dividends are expected to be paid, there will be very little hope of a reduction of rates subsequently.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has apparently examined the proceedings before the Railway Commission of the United States, or he would not have made such a sweeping statement as he has made.


Fletcher Bath Wade: On the contrary, 1 said I was not referring to any proceedings in the United States, but I was confining myself to the proceedings in Canada. I am not familiar with the laws or practice in the United States.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.) While the hon. gentleman asserts that it would be childish to take that argument into consideration, American publications say that it is an argument that has been made there again and again before tribunals having power to fix rates, and an argument to which effect has been given. Therefore, when he makes the broad assertion that no one but a child would rely on that argument, he is casting an imputation on gentlemen who have as much familiarity with railways and as much capacity to make an argument as any hon. gentleinan in this House.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If a man gets any of this stock for nothing, he has notice that there will be control over the rates, and the fact that lie holds a par value of $100 for which he gave nothing cannot be given as a reason for keeping up the rates.


Robert Laird Borden: I should not think the question of notice would arise in such a case at all. Every one holds stock subject to the general law of the land.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: And surely subject to a specific contract under which the stock was purchased.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot grasp my hon. friend's point. All I am suggesting is that when this matter comes before the tribunal having power to deal with rates, this argument, which has been made over and over again in the past, will be repeated, namely, that the company whose rates are sought to be controlled is capitalized at such an amount, and that it is fairly entitled to have its rates fixed, so that it can pay a legitimate profit to the persons who hold the stock. That is an argument which is not affected by any question of notice, so far as I understand it. With regard to the other point, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are bound to pay $25,000,000 in cash in any possible event, I do not see how that can be made good, in view of the fact that section 11 provides exactly the contrary-that there may be some cases in which stock can be given for considerations which are not cash.



COMMONS '864

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no statute requiring the rates to lie fixed according to the amount of the capital stock. Therefore, the only reason why the tribunal would take the amount of the capital stock into account would be that the tolls or rates should be put at such a level as to enable the capital put into the undertaking to be remunerative. If that be the reason, is it not open to the tribunal, which we appoint to fix the rates, to ascertain the true amount of capital and not take the nominal value, especially when those who take the stock take It knowing that a contract exists between the company and the government, providing that the tolls shall be regulated by the tribunal and that the government shall have power to investigate in order to ascertain what the true amount of the investment is. With respect to the contribution, I do not think it is argued that the contribution should be in cash for the stock. It may be in the equivalent to cash. The company will have to give something equivalent to cash in return for the stock.


William Findlay Maclean: What is that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Plant, rolling stock, elevators, wharfs, warehouses, vessels or materials of any kind. That is what the statute says. If they do not give an equivalent in cash they would have to pay the cash.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has made it very plain now. The intention is exactly what we suspected all along. They are to give the capital stock in return for rolling stock, vessels and services and so on. due regard being had to the market value of the stock. And if the stock would not have any particular market value they could give $25,000,000 of stock for almost nothing and no one could find any fault. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has made the matter extremely plain.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If I have satisfied the leader of the opposition, I am quite happy.


Samuel Barker: I desire to call attention to a provision which was in the General Act respecting railways as first introduced, but which was subsequently struck out by the committee, and which is now in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill with a very significant addition. In the General Railway Act, as originally introduced, there was this clause, which was struck out after discussion in this committee.
59. 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.


Robert Laird Borden: After discussion, that clause was struck out. But now we find in this special charter that same clause, which was considered improper to be inserted in the General Railway Act, and in addition certain very significant words :
11. 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 plant rolling stock, docks, elevators, wharfs, warehouses, vessels or materials of any kind-
Now comes a very important addition :
. Or as consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired and also for bona fide claims, &e.
I need not go on with the clause, but here are the significant words : As consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired. Why, Sir, does this House overlook the fact that the board of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the board of the Grand Trunk Railway are one; that when the president of the Grand Trunk Railway sits in his office and shakes hands with the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, he shakes his own hand ; that when these two companies sit down together, under another clause of the General Railway Act, and make arrangements for the interchange of traffic and all those other things so common among railway companies, the one company can give to the other rights, powers and privileges, the value of which no one can estimate or weigh ; that if they agree that these rights and privileges are worth $25.000,000 or $25 no man could say it was right or wrong, and that the Grand Trunk Railway may stipulate, in any traffic arrangements which it shall make with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, that $25,000,000 of common stock of the latter road shall be transferred as a consideration for entering into the agreement. How is any railway commission to say that such a bargain is fraudulent or that they paid more or less than the value of the bargain ; and yet, under this clause, with these words in it. which was rejected from the General Railway Act, these two companies may agree that $25.000,000 of common stock shall be considered the equivalent of the contract entered into between them and be considered paid up stock not assessable for calls.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: My hon. friend has discovered a mare's nest. He knows that this same clause was standing in the old Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: No.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Yes. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) stood up in his place, when this clause in the General Railway Bill was objected to. and said that it was similar to the one in the Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: You have added words which make it entirely different.


Samuel Barker: The words I have quoted are not in the old Railway Act, namely, ' in consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired.' These have been inserted for the purposes of this Bill.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: My friend knows that when this clause was before the committee, the point now taken by him was not urged. The clause was in the General Railway Bill and also in this Bill, so that the point sought to be made by the hon. member for Hamilton that it was specially introduced in this Bill to make up for something that has been struck out of the General Railway Bill is incorrect. Although there have been some words added, they are simply words which require to be added because this company, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has pointed out, is going to erect docks, warehouses and vessels. Therefore the clause is not a departure from the law as it has been since 1888, in section 39 of the Railway Act, which was passed in that year. This company is to provide terminal facilities both upon the Atlantic and upon the Pacific. Therefore, the bonding privilege and the stock they ask to be allowed to issue is not exosbitant. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) seeks to draw a red herring across the scent by speaking of the president of one company making a bargain with the other company simply by shaking hands with himself. Why, what has been the clamour in the country up to the present time until this contract was announced to the public? It has been that irresponsible people wiere behind this scheme. We had it day after day in the press that the Grand Trunk Railway Com-papny of Canada was not prepared to back this scheme financially. And now this is answered conclusively when it is shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is behind this scheme financially and every other way. Why, then, should we have the hon. gentleman saying that a bargain between these two companies will be made by the simple process of the chairman of both shaking hands with himself ? This is entirely opposed to the criticism to which the Bill was subjected in the committee. And it is unfair criticism. The desire of the whole country was that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada should take part in this scheme and give it stability. What we have before us is not section 11 or section 13 ; the question is whether $45,000,000 capitalization-having regard to the general legislation which has passed this parliament-is fair or unfair in the casie of a company such as this. And hon. gentlemen are discussing extraneous matters in trying to lead us to the consideration of other sections of the Bill,
which have already been discussed and passed.


Samuel Barker: I thought I was discussing the question of the capital stock of the company, and I am very much mistaken if I have said a word outside of that subject. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) says correctly that in the General Railway Act, as introduced, there was the clause that I more than once called attention to in this House as a very objectionable one, as enabling a company to issue capital stock without getting any money for it. After lengthy discussion the Minister of Railways voluntarily withdrew that clause as one that he did not think it proper to allow to remain in the General Railway Act. But the hon. member for North Sim-coe (Mr. McCarthy) rather gets outside the line of the argument. He says that that clause was in the General Railway Act during the discussion of the clause in this Bill in the Railway Committee, and therefore there was nothing extraordinary in that clause. But the bon. gentleman has overlooked that I pointed out to him that there were very important words incorporated in this clause in this special Bill that was never in the General Railway Act at all ; and it happens that the ' very words that are introduced into this Bill that are peculiarly fitted as between two railway companies allied as these two are, to enable one to issue a large amount of capital stock to the other without getting a dollar out for it. The particular words I referred to were not in the General Railway Act at all ; they are ' or as consideration for rights, powers and privileges acquired.' That is, one railway company may issue stock as fully paid up when it acquires from the other powers and privileges. Why, that is the very point we are raising, that the Grand Trunk Pacific, by entering into an arrangement with the Grand Trunk may acquire privileges of unknown value, and as consideration for them may hand over its common stock. You cannot measure in dollars, or in any way, the value of privileges accorded by one great company to another for the interchange of traffic, the use of terminals and all the other things that a company fifty years of age can offer to a youngster just coming into existence. And, I ask, when these hon. gentlemen were drawing a clause in the terms of the General Railway Act and for this very purpose, why did they not adopt the clause in the General Railway Act as it stood at the time. They inserted all the provisions there, and they added these particular words that never appeared in the General Railway Act. If they have any object at all, it is to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific to give this enormous amount of common stock as compensation for the privileges they propose to gain from the Grand Trunk. Now, I would like the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy), as

he is so ready to answer me and so ready to charge me with using unfair arguments, to explain how these words came to be inserted and who inserted them. Was it the hon. gentleman himself ? He introduced the Bill and has been in charge of it; perhaps he will tell us with what motive these particular words were inserted. Surely the clause that had been in the General Railway Act since 1888 was sufficient for all purposes. Why did they want to insert these words in this particular Act except for the purpose that I have suggested ? And if they wanted the power to deal with the rights and powers and privileges that one company can accord to the other, I think it is a reasonable argument for hon. gentlemen on this side of the House-particularly when you take this provision in connection with the fact that $25,000,000 of common stock is to be acquired from one company to the other company- that this stock is to be given, and, on the other hand, this clause 11 provides for the consideration.


John Graham Haggart: I desire to say just a few words in reply to the hon. gentleman for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). I am glad to see that that hon. gentleman has arrived at the same conclusion that I have often expressed in this House, that the Railway Commission which we are creating will be empowered to inquire into the actual cash expenditure on the road, and fix the charges on that basis. But the hon. member differs entirely in his conclusion from the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the Postmaster General (Sir "William Mulock). How often, before the Railway Committee have these hon. gentlemen urged the reduction of the powers to issue stock and the bonding powers of the several railroads under consideration on the very principle that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has urged-that the amount of capitalization, including bonds, would be a consideration with the commission in fixing {be rates of the road. I have again and again contended for what the hon. member for Annapolis now says, that the issue of bonds and the issue of stock is an internal affair that concerns the company itself and is independent of any legislation that we may enact in reference to fixing of rates ; that the true criterion is the amount of cash expended on the road, and that on the basis of this cjtsh expenditure the commission should fix the rates. I do not say that the capitalization of this road is too large when we consider that all the rolling stock of the road is to be arranged on the western section, and that the powers of bonding are confined to that section. They have to build the section of the road from Winnipeg to Lake Superior, they have to build the connection between the main line and North Bay, and-whether they ever intend to build it or not-to make the connection
with a railway that centres in Montreal. If they intend to do all these things the capitalization is not too large. But, unfortunately for the consideration of this subject, the hon. member who lias charge of the Bill did not explain that feature of it. He confined his explanations to the government section of the road, and the road which the company intend to build from Winnipeg to the ocean. He did not seem to know that capital was required for the purpose of building these sections of the road. I am not opposed to the Bill at all. Give the Grand Trunk Railway Company the fullest power to enable them to fulfil the bargain they have entered into with the government. When you give them that power, then we will discuss the bargain they have made with the government. But, we cannot shut our eyes to the statement of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), where he draws attention to the extraordinary powers given in section 11. I have stated before that it empowered the Grand Trunk Railway Company to make an arrangement with this new corporation which enabled them, in exchange for the guarantees which they give for the rolling stock that is put upon the road-or, as my hon. friend says, in pursuance of any other family or private arrangement made between the two companies-to give this stock over to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Now, the question must occur, how is the Grand Trunk Railway Company to raise the $25,000,000 ? The Grand Trunk Railway are in this position, that the common stock is the only thing they have, with the bonds of the company. What is the value of that stock ? What is the value of our claim that we have against the Grand Trunk Railway Company for nearly $30,000,000 ? That precedes the common stock of the company, it comes after the other securities to which we have given a preference, and if that security which we have at present is not worth a cent, what is the value of the promise of the company to fulfil these conditions ? Nothing whatever. That is the position of the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway. They have to raise money outside this scheme to build that portion of the road from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. On the road that proceeds from Winnipeg to Quebec it is a necessity for them to have a branch to Lake Superior. They have to raise that money. They are unable to give a security upon that portion of the road to the parties who invest money in it, as it is a purpose independent entirety of all the other undertakings. AH the branch lines, not exceeding six miles in length, are liable to be hypothecated by this new company as security for the advances made for the purpose of building these particular sections of road. As 1 said before, the capitalization, to my mind, is not too great. But let the House remember that we know exactly what is the


Samuel Barker: value of the powers of clause 11 in tlie agreement, that it enables this company to give the Grand Trunk Railway Company tiie whole of this stock for any reasons which come within clause 11, and these reasons may not be binding upon a commission if the views of the government are taken, if the views of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals are taken, if the views of the Postmaster General are taken, that in consideration of the fixing of rates on the railway the capital and bonding powers of the road are to be taken into consideration. As I said before, I am with the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) in thinking that the commission's duty, if it is not clearly defined in the Bill, is to look into the expenditure of cash put into the road for the purpose of construction, and on that they should act, not on any watered stock, not on any stock given away for promotion, or for any of these other purposes. As the leader of the opposition says, these matters are considered by railway commissions in the United States at the present day-the amount of capital stock, no matter how much it is, and the amount of bonds issued upon the road, because the innocent holders of bonds do not know whether they have been watered or not. It is a fair consideration for the commission to see that not more of a bond issue or stock issue is made upon the road than what the road requires for actual construction.


Mr. RUSSELL.: I do not think the leader of the opposition said exactly what the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. ILaggart) attributes to him. I listened carefully to his statement, and I did not understand him to say that the commissioners are guided by the amount of capitalization. I think it would have been a mistake if he had said that the commission, in settling freight rates, were very materially influenced by the question of the capitalization of the company, because so far as I understand these questions, these fixed charges do not very materially enter into the question of what the freight rates shall be. The freight rates may be made to depend upon cost of service into which the question of capital of course enters, but I think they are based more frequently upon causes other than the amount of capital invested in the road. They may in some eases be based upon cost, but more frequently they are based upon the traffic that is carried over it. They do not enter into the question of how much capital is put into the road, but whe-lier it charges more for freight that is to be carried than the traffic will bear, it may be that the question of over capitalization would enter into the fixing of freight rates, and the question of stock watering might also enter into the fixing of a rate. But I am satisfied that those questions enter only to a small extent into consideration. If 1 may. quote the language of one of the lies! authorities on that subject on this continent,
the extent to which stock watering ever does enter into the fixing of rates has been much exaggerated by the popular imagination.
I am quoting substantially the words of Professor Hadley, who has given this whole subject of railway transportation a more scientific consideration than perhaps any other writer on this side of the Atlantic. Speaking of the matter of stock watering * in the fixing of rates, and of over capitalization which is the same thing in another form, he says :
Its influence in this matter is very much exaggerated In the popular belief. A railroad,
, as we shall see when we come to consider the attempt to base rates on cost of service, does not take its fixed charges into account in making its rates. lit tries to arrange matters so that on each class of business it shall make as fnuoh money as it can above operating expenses. If it makes a mistake in one place it is so much loss to the stockholders. It is not a thing which it can try to make up at some other place ; because, by supposition it would in any event try to make all it could at that other place, and to raise rates there would do more harm than good. To make the most at all points put together, It tries to make the most at each point.
In a foot note to this passage he says this, which I think is very relevant to the point made by my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade).
The railroads which have high capitalization on the whole do business at lower rates than the cheaply built ones. During the last twenty years while rates have been falling so rapidly, the average capital iaeieount of railroads per mile has been increasing. The railroad men often try to make their capital correspond to their profits ; but they do not try to make their rates correspond to their capital.
And they could not make their rates correspond to their capital if they did try, because these are determined by other considerations. Therefore, I am doubtful whether any commissioners in any of the states ever have undertaken to settle the freight rates by a consideration of what it has cost to build the road, and I do not think they could successfully do so if they tried.


Robert Laird Borden: With all due deference to the authority that my hon. friend (Mr. Russell) has cited 1 think it hardly hears out his conclusion.


Benjamin Russell: I intended to allude to the very striking difference of opinion between my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and the very much higher authority on railway questions of the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart).


Robert Laird Borden: I am sorry that my hon. friend forgot that because it was a great oversight en his part. He cites an authority which says that while railway companies take the view that their profits bear some relation to their capital, their rates do not bear any relation to their capital. Inasmuch as their profits must de-

pend upon tlieiv rates one would naturally suppose that the latter must equally have some relation to the capital stock. Therefore, the authority which my hon. friend has cited has not been of very much assistance to him. Notwithstanding what has been said, I think it would be a very difficult matter fifteen or twenty years from the present time for a commission to embark upon an inquiry to ascertain what has been the cost of this road, and the amount of capital that has been put into the road. Particularly when you have a clause like this under which $25,000,000 of stock can be handed over in consideration of certain rights, powers and privileges. It would be a most difficult thing for a commission to inquire, twenty-five years from now, whether these rights, powers and privileges were worth $25,000,000 of stock. It has been suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Russell) that my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is a high authority upon these questions, and I recognize as much as the hon. member for Hants the authority which his opinion bears upon matters of this kind. It has been suggested that the difficulty which I brought to the attention of the committee could always be got over by an inquiry as to the actual cost. I say with all deference to my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), that such an inquiry would be attended in the ordinary course with very great difficulty after the expiration of a period of years. It would be an inquiry which would envolve an enormous amount of work and it would be an inquiry which in the end would probably be futile. It would be almost impossible to make such an inquiry in a case of this kind where we should have to deal with transactions under section 11. However much my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) may think you can work this matter out, on a strictly logical basis, or that you will not have to consider the amount of bonds and the stock outstanding, I say that taking things as they are in this world, and dealing with matters of this kind before the members of a Railway Commission you will find that such questions as these will have more or less influence. Therefore, I say that the question of capitalization must, in my own opinion, have some effect upon the control which parliament may be able to exercise in regard to rates in the future. I think my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has made a better answer than the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) in regard to capitalization. I have not examined the particulars of this section providing for these additional lines, and I am not aware whether it is compulsory upon this company to undertake the construction of these lines but it is only optional upon the company to undertake the construction of the lines that have been referred to, you may still have the same difficulty that the company may not see the advantage in future of constructing these lines, and Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
nevertheless you raise this capital to $45,000,000. These lines must be of considerable extent if they cover the whole of the excess of the capital to which I have referred, because we find the company with a capitalization of $97.000,000, and we find there an excess of $33,000,000 approximately over the cost as estimated by the hon. member for North Simcoe, which estimate was based upon $20,000 a mile for the prairie section, $50,000 a mile for the mountain section and $7,000 per mile for the cost of equipment, which I am sure every hon. member who has considered this matter at all would regard as an exceedingly liberal estimate particularly for the prairie section. But, taking that estimate as approximately correct you have the sum of $33,000,000 by which this company is capitalized over and above the estimate of cost put forward by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy).
I therefore still think that the capitalization of this company is not upon a proper basis and I am still of the opinion that the excessive capitalization may in future exercise an influence upon the rates which shall be charged by this company.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5,
Mr. McCarthy moved :
That section five be reconsidered by the committee for the purpose of amending it by adding after the words ' capital stock ' in the seventh line thereof the following ; ' not exceeding twenty million dollars or the equivalent thereof in sterling money.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They may issue the whole of the stock as preference stock or any portion the company may determine. This is to limit to $20,000,000 the amount of preference stock they may issue.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9,


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That section nine be struck out..
He said: This is covered by the terms of the General Railway Act and there is no necessity for it.


John Graham Haggart: Before this is struck out let me draw the attention of the committee to the fact that two of the members of this incorporated company are members of the Senate-George A. Cox, and Win. Gibson, of Beamsville. How is it possible that that company can contract with the government when the new Bill introduced into the House the other day provided that no member of the House of Commons or of the Senate shall be interested in any way in this undertaking or Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: After the Bill has passed and the company becomes organized, then I presume, it will become

necessary that these two gentlemen shall both disappear from the company.


John Graham Haggart: Would it not be a great deal better to strike them out at the present time ? Here is a contract being entered into between the company and the government of the country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The agreement has not yet been sanctioned by parliament.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They have no financial interest in it.


John Graham Haggart: Well, if you are determined to leave them in, let them be left in.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I move that in lieu of the section which it is sought to eliminate the following clause be inserted for the protection of the government:
The government of Canada may from time to time appoint a director for such period as it deems proper as provided for in the agreement referred to in the schedule of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, 1903 ; who shall not be required to hold any shares in the said company to qualify him to act as such director, but shall be entitled to exercise all the rights, powers, arid privileges of a director elected by the shareholders.


John Graham Haggart: Has the hon. gentleman given notice of that amendment ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not. I am presuming on the indulgence of the committee to allow that amendment to go through. It is for the protection of the government.


Samuel Barker: Is there any reason why that director should not be appointed by the Governor in Council ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The government of Canada means the Governor in Council.


George William Fowler: What is the idea of appointing this director ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The proposed agreement provides for the appointment of a director in order that the government of Canada, which will have large interests in this concern, should have some one on the board in a position to inform the government of what is going on. That really is the object. We have authority under the agreement to appoint engineers and expert accountants and auditors to examine the books, but by having a director who shall not be the holder of any stock and who shall he exclusively under the control of the government, we think we would be in a better position to control the operations of the company and to understand all they are doing.


George William Fowler: Why should not the amendment provide that this director shall not he a holder of stock in the company ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It does.


George William Fowler: No. It says he shall not be required to hold any shares, but he may hold shares.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We will make it to read ' who shall not hold any shares in said company.'


George William Fowler: That is what I want.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the section be amended by striking out the words * be required to.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 12,
Mr. MCCARTHY moved to amend section 12 by adding :
Provided also that should the government of Canada undertake the construction of a line of railway from the city of Winnipeg to the city of Moncton, and the company not exercise the powers hereby conferred upon it In respect to the construction of the eastern section, the Quebec section and the Woodland section, the company shall nevertheless have power to build branch lines from points on the line of railway so to be constructed by the government to a point at or near North Bay, Nipissing Junction or Gravenhurst, and to Port Arthur and Fort William respectively, and also to a point on the Montreal and Western Railway or to the city of Montreal, and all the powers by this Act conferred upon the company with respect to branch (lines authorized to be constructed from its main line of railway to the said points respectively shall fully and in all respects apply to branch lines constructed to such points from the said line of railway to be constructed by the government.
Robert Laird Borden: What will be the length of these lines ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Some of them would be pretty long. The one from the main line to Montreal would be pretty long ; the one to join the Temisea mingue road would be about 90 miles, and the one from the main line into Port Arthur and Fort William would be in the neighbourhood of 150 miles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How far north of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway at North Bay will this line run ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Two hundred miles approximately. I think the Temisea mingue road is about 100 miles north, and this line may be 90 miles above that.


Mr.   C@: KE. How far north of Ottawa will this line he ?
Mr. McCarthy. It would be in the neighbourhood of Lake Abittibbi ; it would be about 200 miles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And how far north of Montreal ?
Mr. McCarthy. From 130 to 150 miles north of Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: The branch line to Port Arthur and Port William is to be about -what length ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I think from 100 to 150 miles from the main line.


John Graham Haggart: That will be about 430 miles from Winnipeg ?
Mr. McCarthy. About that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a peculiar feature of this Bill that we do not know exactly where the Quebec section is going to be, and that is an element of some importance, in considering the length of these branch lines which we are authorizing the company to build. Will the Quebec section follow about the line of the proposed Trans-Canada Railway ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: No, away south of that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will it go in a direct line from Quebec to the eastern limit of the province of Ontario ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Yes, as far as possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Even if it goes In a straight line, that portion north of Montreal from which a branch line can conveniently be built into the city of Montreal, will be away north of Lake Nominingue. Even if it goes in a direct line from Quebec to Lake Abittibbi, it will deviate considerably from the Trans-Canada line, and it will be at least 80 miles north of Lake Nominingue, or over 200 miles north of Montreal. But owing to the many lakes in that district, at least 20 per cent would have to be added for curvatures, so that I think we may assume that it will be at least 200 if not 250 miles from Montreal.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No such distance.


William James Roche: Does the promoter of the Bill say that this road is to be run north of Lake Nipegon ?
Mr. McCarthy. Yes.


William James Roche: About how many miles north of Port William will it be ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I said that the branch to Port William would be between 100 and 150 miles long.


William James Roche: How would the mileage from Port William to Winnipeg compare with that of the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I cannot say.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the main line passes south of Lake Abittibbi, it will be very important to know where the branch to Montreal starts from.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I presume that it would start from the most convenient Mr. McCarthy.
point on the main line to reach Montreal, because of course it would be impossible to ignore so important a centre as Montreal in connection with such a line as this.


Edward Frederick Clarke: According to the statement of the hon. member for North Simcoe, this line will run 400 miles north of Toronto. The city of Toronto is as large a distributing centre as the city of Montreal, and how does the hon. gentleman say that it will reach that city ?
Mr. McCarthy. We come down by the Temiscaming road, now being built by the Ontario government to North Bay, and thence over the Grand Trunk Railway from North Bay to Toronto, which is the shortest possible route, and which is now being used by the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The point of junction is four hundred miles north of Toronto, or only one hundred miles less than the distance from Toronto to Quebec, and people in Ontario who want to use this new road had better go to Quebec from Toronto.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Of course, Toronto has been en tirely overlooked in connection with this enterprise.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would not have the hardihood to say that Toronto and the whole population of that part of Ontario has not been neglected by this Bill.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: This Bill provides for Ontario what it has not had in the past, an opportunity to go into the North-west.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope that the hon. gentleman's knowledge of Quebec is better than it appears to be of Ontario. This railway will run 400 miles north


Samuel Hughes: North-east.


Edward Frederick Clarke: North of Toronto, and will be of no value to that section of Ontario.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What about North Bay ?	.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: How much shorter can you get to North Bay than by the present Grand Trunk Railway road ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will tell you. One of the absurdities of your proposition is that the Grand Trunk Railway itself intended to run from Gravenhurst west. The promoters have been compelled to shift their eastern terminus from Gravenhurst, the present northern terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway proper-they have been compelled to shift it first of all from Gravenhurst to Montreal, then to Quebec, and then to Moncton. The original proposition was to run north-west from Gravenhurst to get into Manitoba.

Mr. McCarthy, no.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is being compelled now to go 300 miles further north from Toronto than Gravenhurst.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: How can you get from Gravenhurst to the west unless you go around lake Nipissing ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Grand Trunk Railway is at North Bay now.
Mr. McCarthy. Yes, 250 miles north from Toronto. We have to go that distance now any way.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are at North Bay.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: And you are bringing the terminus about 100 miles south of that to Gravenhurst. If you make Gravenhurst the terminus, how much shorter would it be than going by North Bay, if you have to go around by Lake Nipissing to get west 1


Samuel Barker: Surely the hon. gentleman does not mean to say that you have to go around Lake Nipissing to get west 1


Samuel Hughes: If he does not know better, somebody should send him a hiap. Why is this amendment proposed to run from Gravenhurst ? Take the line from Gravenhurst to Sudbury, it will be a saving of upwards of 75 miles when the new Canadian Pacific Railway is constructed, as it will be in a short time.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is intended as a great trunk line.


Samuel Hughes: Which line, you have two or three ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The main line from the Pacific ocean to the east is a trunk line.


Samuel Hughes: But the hon. minister must look at the amendment. He is proposing by it to abandon the eastern section :
Provided also that should the government of Canada undertake the construction of a line of railway from the city of Winnipeg to the city of Moncton, and the company not exercise the powers hereby conferred upon it in respect to the construction of the eastern section, the Quebec section and the Woodland section, the company shall nevertheless have power to build branch lines from points on the line of railway so to be constructed by the government to a point at or near North Bay, Nipissing Junction or Gravenhurst. and to Port Arthur and Fort William respectively, and also to a point on the Montreal and Western Railway or to the city of Montreal, and all the powers by this Act conferred upon the company with respect to branch lines authorized to he constructed from its main line of railway to the said points respectively shall fully and in all respects apply to branch lines constructed to such points from the said line of railway to be constructed by the government.
So that, after all we are going to Gravenhurst. As between running to Lake Abit-247J
tibbi through North Bay over this road on the one hand, and the line from Gravenhurst north-westerly to a point on the main line on the other, there will be a saving of at least 250 miles from Toronto. Yet we are told by the promoter of the Bill that this is the shortest way to get into the North-west from Toronto.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We could not build a trunk line and make through connection at many different points. That would destroy its character as a trunk line. The various provinces must make connections. If my hon. friend is right in saying that it is 250 miles from Toronto to North Bay, and this line will pass 400 miles north of Toronto, then It means that it will pass, 50 miles north of North Bay.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman dispute that ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, but you cannot have the main road running down from Toronto and at the same time have a transcontinental trunk line, you have to choose whether we shall have a main trunk line, which will be a benefit to all the provinces, or confine its benefits to one particular province. If I were looking at the matter entirely from an Ontario standpoint, I might be anxious to see the road terminating at a point in Ontario, but it is a national trunk line, and the provinces will have an opportunity of making connections with it, and I trust there will be many such connections, among them a connection at North Bay. It is not unlikely there will be a cut-off on. the trunk line westerly of the Temiscamingue road, going down to Sudbury, and in that way connecting with the existing Ontario system. In a like manner the city of Ottawa wifi make its connection with this line. It wifi no doubt extend one of its lines now running northerly from the city of Ottawa and make connection with the trunk line. No doubt, also, It will he the object of Montreal to extend the line now running to Labelle so as to connect with this trunk line. Similar connections will take place in Ontario. And before it reaches Moncton, no doubt, there will be connections with the city of St. John. Thus each province will connect with the trunk line. If it is to be regarded from a sectional standpoint, and should have to go down to the different provinces, it would entirely lose its character as a trunk line. We cannot have it both a local line and a trunk line as well. It is not intended to side track any province or give any one province any undue advantage, but should be considered in a broad, fair spirit with due regard to the interest of the whole Dominion.


John Graham Haggart: This Bill is simply an empowering Bill giving the Grand Trunk Railway the power to build these branch lines. Unfortunately, it is not provided in

the agreement that lines are to be built to Lake Superior, North Bay and Montreal. All the other provinces in the confederation are provided for. The Dominion government builds a line from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton, but this present Bill is only an empowering one. It is not one of the conditions with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway that they shall build one mile of branch line in the province of Ontario, or towards North Bay, or Lake Superior or the city of Montreal. They are simply empowered to do it, if they choose. If this is to be a trunk line, why should it not be a part of the agreement that the company should make connection with Toronto and Lake Superior ? Why should) it not be part of the agreement that they shall connect with Montreal ? Every other province of the Dominion is provided for but the province of Ontario. But equally neglected is that part of the province of Quebec between the main line and the city of Montreal.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) allow me to interrupt him to point out that no provision is made for connection with the city of Halifax or with the city of St. John.


John Graham Haggart: It is already made.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It is only an enabling power, the same as it is in the case of Montreal and Toronto.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. member (Mr. Wade) pretend that there can be any route from Moncton to Halifax shorter than the Intercolonial ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Does he pretend that there is any shorter route from Moncton to the city of St. John than the Intercolonial ?
Mi-. WADE. Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: There is the point of Chipman on the road between Quebec and Moncton from which a shorter route could be had to the city of St. John. But once you go to Moncton, there is no possible route to St. John shorter than by the Intercolonial Railway. The whole of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are provided for by the Grand Trunk Railway, but there is only an enabling Act to allow the Grand Trunk, if they choose, to build a line to Lake Superior from North Bay, or to build to the city of Montreal, or to reach Toronto by connecting with the Northern or North-western Railway running south. Instead of merely empowering the company to do this, it should be part of the agreement. Every other part of the Do-


John Graham Haggart: minion is provided for except the province of Ontario and the great commercial centre of the whole Dominion-the city of Montreal. For the eastern provinces the road is to be built by the government, and for the rest, from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, it is provided that the road is to be built by the company.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is not doing himself justice. He says that when the road reaches Moncton there is no shorter route than by the Intercolonial. The same observation could be made with regard to Montreal. The main line will run some miles north of Labelle. Supposing we say that if it goes to Quebec there will be no shorter way to Montreal than by Quebec. Why go to Labelle or to Moncton, if by branching off at an earlier point you can reach other points, as the city of Montreal and St. John ? But in any event, the hon. gentleman will admit this-that however the road may he located under our Bill it will be far better for Ontario and Quebec than the line he would locate, for he would take It to Hudson's bay. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) wants it brought down to Toronto


Edward Frederick Clarke: I dispute that. The hon. gentleman has no authority for making that statement as coming from me.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has argued that this road ought to go to Gravenhurst to connect with Toronto. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has argued that it should go to Hudson's bay. How can we please both of these gentlemen ?


Samuel Hughes: I notice another point in connection with this wonderful resolution. They are going to give the Grand Trunk power to build branch lines 800 miles from the nearest point of the Grand Trunk Railway system. They are going to allow them to build a branch line from this government road to Port Arthur and Fort William. I have never seen such legislation in this House, allowing a company to build ' branch ' lines hundreds of miles away from where it has a dollar's worth of property. Does this mean that the government intend handing over this whole property to the Grand Trunk at the end of fifty years, or even before that ? If not, what do they mean by authorizing the Grand Trunk to build branch lines from a government road ?


Mr. HACKETT.: I heard the hon. Postmaster Genera] (Hon. Sir William Mulock) say that all the provinces were to be served by this railway. I would ask him what provision is to be made to connect Prince Edward Island with the road ? I asked a few days ago if it was the intention of the

government to build a steamship which would cost only $250,000 to keep up communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and the reply was that there was no such intention. And yet the government ask us to contribute to the building of this railway, while they will not give us any of the privileges of connecting with it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I submit that in reference to to the branch to Montreal, we ought to know, within a couple of hundred miles, where that branch is to be. I do not know of any other case in which parliament has authorized the building of branch lines without determining, to a certain extent, through what part of the country they are to pass. There is already a great deal of the element of vagueness in this scheme.
I think it will be possible to tell every man in the country, wherever he may be, that this line of railway is going to pass right through where he lives. But with respect to Montreal, my hon. friend, by his amendment, asks that we give the company authority to build a branch to connect with the Montreal and Western Railway, or to build to Montreal. These are two very different authorizations. A branch that would connect with the Montreal and Western would be a branch of extreme length. It would put Montreal 250 miles from this main line of railway, bring it as far south as you can. If it passes 50 miles south of Lake Abittibbi, and even if you give it a curvature towards the inhabited portion of the province of Quebec, if you connect with the Montreal and Western, you put Montreal 250 miles from that main line. If you ask authorization to connect with Montreal direct, you can do it over a distance of 100 or 125 miles, by going through the first inhabited place, St. Michel des Saints, in the county of Berthier, and so direct from Montreal. Which of these lines are we authorizing the Grand Trunk to build ? I do not refer to the main line ; that is not ill question this evening. I refer to this branch line, which has not been discussed in committee, and of which my hon. friend gave notice only when the Bill came back to the House. I think that we in the city of Montreal have a right to know by what means you are going to connect, and from what direction. Are you going to reach Montreal by the Montreal and Western, or are you going to go by the most direct route ? It makes a difference of 150 miles.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.
Mr. MONK*. It does.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What map has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is a map upon which I have drawn a line from 50 miles south of Lake Abittibbi, the point indicated by the Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill, straight to the city of Quebec.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If that is the map that the hon. gentleman sent me a moment ago, I scaled it from the line the hon. gentleman has placed, and it only makes 50 miles north of the terminus of the railway that runs into Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It may be only 50 miles, if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock) scaled it correctly, but that only brings him to the end of the Montreal and Western.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It brings you to the line that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has fixed as the line of tlie proposed Grand Trunk.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the hon. gentleman is not correct. But whether he is right or not, have we not a right to know whether a branch road is to be built to connect with the Montreal and Western and so reach Montreal, or whether a branch is to be built to Montreal direct. In other words, have we not a right to know where that branch is going to be located ? The same remark applies to every other branch, but I am particularly interested in knowing how Montreal is going to have communication with that main line.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: By running that branch of 50 miles.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then why do you not authorize the building of a branch from the main line down to the terminus of the Montreal and Western Railway ? We ought to compel the building of that branch. Are we goind to depend entirely upon the good will of this new company as to whether we are going to have any connection between Montreal and the main line ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman suppose that a great trunk line such as this would pass within a few miles of the city of Montreal and not make connection with that great commercial centre ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then if the hon. gentleman's argument is correct, we should impose the obligation and not merely give them the choice.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Self-interest will be the best compulsion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let us make no mistake. There is not a distance of fifty miles, nor of one hundred miles from this main line. The distance exceeds that by far. When we come to examine the agreement-which is not now submitted for consideration-my hon. friend will find that that main line runs at least 250 miles north of Montreal, if we are to give any credence to the vague description of that line as it was given by the Premier.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong.


Samuel Hughes: The Postmaster General takes a map and lie draws a line on it, and looks at the scale and figures up the distance. He has never traversed that country up north. We have heard the statement made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) who, though speaking in favour of another road, said it was impossible to cross the line of country south of the height of land on account of the mountains, that it was impossible to get a line to run east and west, and that the only possible route from Quebec to the great west was away north of the height of land, 100 miles north of the line drawn by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The Postmaster General, I suppose, takes a line from the end of this Montreal and Western Railway to the point drawn on the map by the member for Jacques Cartier, which is 75 miles by the scale, and you can easily add 20 per cent to that for the devious windings of the hills. There is another point. Why should the government employ a roving commission to build a line from Gravenhurst to some imaginary point on the Grand Trunk Railway through a country over which they already have a road to North Bay, a country in which construction is now going on in connection with the James Bay Railway, and in which the Canadian Pacific Railway is at present, it may be. preparing to construct a railway 1 In other words, they are going to endeavour to cripple both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the James Bay Railway ; and even if this branch from Gravenhurst is never built, it will be held as a whip over the heads of these other two companies in order to depreciate their bonds in the markets of the world. Why should the government insert that word ' Gravenhurst ' in this agreement ?


George William Fowler: In looking over this agreement I fail to see any provision made for a connection with the city of St. John, except the connection by way of the Intercolonial by Moncton. I understood, when the matter was discussed before, that there was to be a connection in another way, by Chipman. I would like to ask from the promoter of the Bill what is the intention, why that was left out, or whether it was an oversight.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I have no information.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that is rather an important matter. The city of St. John is one of the most important of our Atlantic seaports, and if this railway is to be any good at all it should give the shortest possible connection with the sea. and that certainly cannot be made by going away round by Moncton. I understood both the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and the Minister of Justice to say that the shortest way to get to St. John frdm Moncton was not by way of the Intercolonial, but by way of Chipman. I would not think so much of that, coming* from the Minister of Justice, because living so far away from Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
New Brunswick, he would not be well posted in the geography of that province. But the member for Annapolis surely would be expected to know something about it, and according to him it is easier to go to St. John by way of Chipman than by way of Moncton, direct by the Intercolonial.


Fletcher Bath Wade: What I said was that there was a shorter way over this line of railway to St. John than by way of Moncton to St. John. I mean that you go off the main line at a point near Chipman, and go to the nearest point on the Intercolonial on its way to St. John, which is a point about 33 miles to the east of St. John. Norton is the name of the place.


George William Fowler: There is no such provision in this agreement.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Is there any provision that it shall go to Halifax ?


George William Fowler: I think I was right in understanding that the intention was not to take any shorter course from the main line of this road to St. John than by going to Moncton and from there down by the Intercolonial.


Fletcher Bath Wade: You would save 50 miles.


George William Fowler: It is possible to save fifty miles.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Assuming that we have power to build from L6vis to Edmundston, then starting from Edmunds-ton, would it not be almost a direct line to go by Chipman, which would be a common point to Moncton and St. John ?
Mr.. FOWLER. No, you could make it much shorter by not going to Chipman at all.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If the committee would allow me, I would add a clause to build from a point on the government line so as to approach Chipman. or if necessarv, go to St. John.


George William Fowler: Why not provide to go to St. John by the shortest possible route from Edmundston, if you want to strike St. John by the shortest line ? Why not cut across, because it would be much shorter than to go around the triangle ? If you take your route from Edmundston and' go down the St. John valley you will get a much shorter line.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) have stated emphatically that the Intercolonial Railway from Moncton to Halifax is the shortest possible route. There are eminent engineers whose names I might mention who would state emphatically that the road could be shortened at least fifty miles. The road was run up to the Spring-hill Mines, where it hugs the side of the mountain for the purpose of being near the

mines. Theii, it went down to suit the interests of Peter Mitchell to Chatham and Newcastle.
Mr. IxAULBACH. The Grecian Bend.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Yes, the Grecian Bend. If you follow that route on the Grecian Bend you can stand on the platform of one of the front cars, and you will see the cars behind, because the road is so crooked; whereas, if the line had followed the valley below, it would have found a natural level country to traverse. I know something about the history of that road. If Sir Leonard Tilley had had his own way the road would not have been built by that route, and it would have been shortened considerably, but Peter Mitchell was one of those Scotchmen who was bound to have his own way, he bad a following from northern New Brunswick, and the road was diverted away from the proper route. Those who will assert that the road from Moncton to Halifax is the shortest possible route are speaking of something they know nothing at all about.


George William Fowler: The Mitchell influence which the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) refers to certainly would not affect the route from Moncton to Halifax. That influence would only secure the adoption of the route along the north shore instead of down the valley of St. John, where Sir Leonard Tilley wished it to go. But, as far as the route from Moncton to Halifax is concerned, if you take the map and draw the straightest line that you can from Moncton to Halifax, you cannot affect a saving of fifty miles or anything like that, and of course, there are engineering difficulties which would prevent you from making a straight line if you wanted to.


Fletcher Bath Wade: On the contrary, you will escape the engineering difficulties.


George William Fowler: Not at all. It is about 180 miles, or under 200 miles, from Moncton to Halifax, and you cannot affect a saving of anything like fifty miles even by following a straight line. As far as the southern district is concerned, if the promoter of the Bill wishes to add an amendment, the only amendment that would be practicable would be one providing for a route starting from Edmundston and going in the most direct course to the city of St. John.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I have the authority of the most eminent engineers for what I have said.


William James Roche: Do I understand from the promoter that the contract entered into between the company and the government does not compel the building of a branch line to the head of Lake Superior?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I do not think the contract refers to it at all. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) has the contract before him.


William James Roche: If the contract does not provide for connection with Lake Superior as far as this road is concerned, it will not fill the bill as affecting the movement of wheat from the west, because an all-rail route cannot hope to compete with a rail and water route, and there will be mighty little grain to come down over this all-rail route to an Atlantic seaport. Unless there is a connection with Lake Superior, it will not afford the relief to the western people that it is supposed that this road will afford. Even with connection with Lake Superior, it will be at a disadvantage, because the route as mapped out north of Lake Nepigon is 100 miles or 150 miles north of Lake Superior. If there is not going to be compulsory connection with Lake Superior, in so far as the commercial aspect of the line is concerned this route will not relieve the congestion of the grain traffic that we have been feeling for the last two years in the west, and the people of the west will not approve of this large expenditure of money when it will not afford them the relief which they so much desire.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Marquette) seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. There is no doubt that it is the intention to build to Lake Superior. That was provided for in the original clause, but since the main line is to be built by the government it is necessary to amend it so as to give this company power to build a branch line to reach Lake Superior. It is clearly the intention of the company to build a branch line to Lake Superior.


George William Fowler: Do I understand the promoter floes not propose to make this amendment in respect to St. John? The hon. gentleman has changed his mind.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I did not say that I could ask for any amendment other than I have asked for now unless it was prepared by the solicitor for the company, who knows what the railway company wants and the amendment which the company wants is the amendment which is now before the committee.


George William Fowler: But the amendment which is before the committee does not speak of St. John at all.
Mr. McCarthy. No.


George William Fowler: What amendment did you propose to offer ? You say that I am asking too much because I want you to go by way of the shortest line. Do you propose to amend the section by making the route shorter, but not the shortest ? I cannot understand the position which the hon. gentleman takes. Have I wounded his feelings in any way by standing up

for the best interests of the province which I represent, or does he refuse to grant that measure of relief to the people of St. John which a moment ago he himself admitted that they deserved? Surely my hon. friend does not consider the matter in any personal way. I was trying to promote the interests of a portion of the people of the province of New Brunswick and of St. John, and it does seem to me that the hon. gentleman, who was going to grant this measure of relief, should not withdraw it simply because I asked more than he is willing to grant.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. gentleman overpowers me with the greatness that he seeks to thrust upon me. I am only in charge of this Bill in the House. The amendment* which the company thought would afford them the relief they desired is before the House. I have nothing to do with it. All I have are the instructions which I have received as to this. Personally I would he glad to grant relief to the whole Dominion, and particularly to the part which the hon. gentleman represents, but I have nothing to do with it. The amendments are making necessary corrections in the original line which was approved by the committee, of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but by reason of the government undertaking the building of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton, I have to get this proviso inserted allowing branch lines to be built. That is all that is asked for by the company.


George William Fowler: I was not thrusting any greatness upon the hon. gentleman. There are said to be three classes, some who are born great, others who achieve greatness and others who have greatness thrust upon them, but the hon. gentleman belongs to a fourth class. He assumes greatness. The hon. gentleman said that he would amend his amendment by providing that there should be a branch line from some point on the main line leading from Moncton to St. John. But, now he goes back upon that, and the reason he gives for going back upon it is because I suggested to him that instead of branching off at Chipman, he should branch off at the main line before he came to Chipman, because in so doing he would get a shorter route to the city of St. John. The hon. gentleman has given a puerile reason for now refusing to grant the small measure of relief which he was willing to give some time ago. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman may have been inspired by an authority higher than himself to change his mind. I hope it is not because of a whisper from the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Labour by whom he is surrounded.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We must start with the idea that it cannot be left to my hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) or to any Mr. FOWLER.
other member to determine what we shall have or what we shall not have in the Bill ; the committee must take upon itself to decide that. The situation is this : It is the intention of the government to construct the line from Winnipeg-to Moncton and in connection with that line it was thought desirable to give to the company the right to construct branch lines for the purpose of reaching commercial centres. The first of these centres after leaving Winnipeg, is Fort William, then Port Arthur and North Bay, and finally Montreal. When we leave Quebec after crossing the river, the line goes to Edmunds-ton and from Edmundston to Moncton, and between these two points there will be a branch to the city of St. John just as there is a branch to other cities on the western end of this section. I understand that has been in the mind of the Minister of Finance for some time. It has been considered and discussed, and I cannot see any reason why, if the committee wishes it, we should not authorize that company to build that line to St. John.


George William Fowler: I am very glad to have the support of the Minister of Justice for my contention.


Mr. LENNOX.: This is a very serious proposition. The government proposes to build the line from Winnipeg to Monpton, but the Bill now before this committee is not the scheme that we considered in the Railway Committee. To-night we have before us a railway to be constructed by the government and to be owned by the government from Winnipeg to Moncton, but the scheme before the Railway Committee was a proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to build a national transcontinental railway. It is now proposed that we should give our sanction to the building of a number of branches, and that is altogether outside of the line of the project which was reported to this House by the Railway Committee and which I submit is the only subject which this House has now a right to consider. We are not in a position to-night, and we will not be in a position to decide on any such scheme as is now proposed until this Bill goes back to the Railway Committee and is there considered in its new aspect. The branches were not included in the Bill which we considered in the Railway Committee and their consideration is not properly before this House to-night. All that is left of what went before the Railway Committee is the building of the line by the Lrand Trunk Pacific Railway from Winnipeg west to the Pacific ocean. Ill-defined as the whole scheme is, more ill-defined still is that scheme to build branch lines, and yet we are asked to sanction this indefinite scheme although it never came before the Railway Committee of this House. I do not want to throw any barriers in the way, but I want to have the question treated in a logical sense and in the light of the responsibility which we owe to the people. If

the government is going to build the line from Winnipeg to Moncton why on earth can not they build the branches as well ? It was said the other day that we had a hybrid scheme before us, but what kind of a scheme is this which comes up for consideration to-night ? We have the trunk line from Winnipeg to Moncton built by the government; we have the western end built by the Grand Trunk Railway, and we have proposed to-night a lot of little feeders to be built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the national line constructed by the government. I venture to say that the feeders in the end will be the people of Canada and not the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Therefore, I protest with all the force I can against this uncertain and indeterminate kind of partnership and mixup which is proposed between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


Samuel Hughes: I desire to ask that the word ' Gravenhurst ' be dropped out of the proposed amendment, inasmuch as there is one line of the Grand Trunk Railway already constructed to North Bay, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are about to complete their own line from Toronto to connect with their main line at or near Sudbury. Then, there is still another road under construction, the James Bay Railway, from Toronto to Parry Sound, and connecting with the Northern road a little west of Wahnapitae. The insertion of this word ' Gravenhurst,' giving this company a roving commission to construct a line from that point to some point on their main line, will materially affect these other companies when they go to the markets of the world to raise money. I presume that the hon. member in charge of the Bill has no objection to drop the word ' Gravenhurst.'


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I cannot consent to the hon. gentleman's suggestion, in view of the suggestion of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that this road is not the shortest route from the west to Toronto, and for other reasons.


Samuel Hughes: The cut-off from North Bay to this Arctic road would answer as well as a cut-off from Gravenhurst. I am satisfied that if this Bill went before the Railway Committee, that committee, with the non-partisan spirit it has always displayed, would not allow-it to parallel all these other roads ; and if the hon. member in charge of the Bill will not consent to withdraw the word * Gravenhurst,' I will ask the sense of the committee upon the question, and will move that this Bill be referred back to the Railway Committee, which I am satisfied would not tolerate any such iniquity.
Mr. McCarthy. Looking at the map, 1 cannot see that the proposed road will parallel either the Canadian Pacific Railway or what the hon. gentleman calls the James Bay Railway, which I presume is a part of tlie Mackenzie & Mann proposed transcontinental line, which I understand is neither under construction or located to Winnipeg. It will not parallel these lines, but will cut across them.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman, I suppose never took a prize in geography. Certainly the knowledge he has displayed in geography would not entitle him to rank as first-class.
Mr. McCarthy. Not if you were the examiner.


Samuel Hughes: I have myself seen the survey parties of the Canadian Pacific Railway within the past six weeks, and I learned from them that their work of locating their line was nearly completed. I dare say that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, with a little more foresight than this government, make surveys before they undertake to construct a line. The hon. gentleman speaks of the James Bay Railway as not being surveyed. It is surveyed to upwards of a hundred miles north of Wahnapitae. I move that the word 'Gravenhurst' be omitted.


Haughton Lennox: What the hon. member who has just sat down has said has emphasized the necessity of pressing on the committee the point I take. I understood that the proposal to charter the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway from Moncton to Winnipeg was struck out of the Bill. I am told by a member of the committee who has followed the discussion this afternoon, that this is not the case, and that it is proposed to charter this company to run a line from Moncton to Winnipeg. I ask the promoter of the Bill if that is correct ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I presume the hon. gentleman has read the amendment ?


Haughton Lennox: I understand, then, that that is not the case. But It does not alter the position I took. Hon. members of the committee should keep this fact clearly in mind, that what was first proposed to the House and discussed in the Railway Committee was not the construction of feeders or branches, but of a national highway from ocean to ocean. If there had been a question, in the Railway Committee, of constructing these feeders, we would then have considered the question of paralleling or interfering with existing charters. We would have considered the whole question on a broader basis than was necessary under the Bill as presented to the Railway Committee. The committee have referred to this House the Bill to build a trunk line from ocean to ocean, and we have not now the right to initiate what is. to all intents and purposes, a new Bill, but must confine ourselves to the proposition' debated



COMMONS '892

[Stage Direction]
in the Railway Committee. All that we have the right to deal with is that portion of the road which the government have not decided to build, namely, from Winnipeg to Port Simpson. These branch lines are, therefore, out of the question. The government does not propose to build from Winnipeg to the Pacific, so that that portion of the charter is properly before this committee. This is the crucial point, namely, that the question of building these branches was never brought before the Railway Committee and never considered by them.
Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Look at the main clause.


Haughton Lennox: If it was considered by the committee, why bring in an amendment now ? If it was considered by the committee and rejected-
Mr. McCarthy. Never.


Haughton Lennox: Then there is no ground for bringing it in.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If the hon. gentleman will look at the main part of section 12 he will find that the idea was that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway should construct from Winnipeg to Moncton and build branches. But now that the government are going to construct from Winnipeg to Moncton, it is deemed necessary to provide that these branch lines should be built.


Haughton Lennox: I cannot see it in that light, because if it were considered by the Railway Committee and not rejected by that committee, it would be in the Bill as reported by that committee to the House, and there would be no necessity for that amendment. But what the promoter of the Bill is proposing is some scheme that was never considered by the Railway Committee, I therefore must protest against any such attempt in the strongest possible manner.


Mr. EMMERSON.: A suggestion has been made to the effect that a line should be provided from Edmundston to St. John. That, in my judgment, would be very impracticable, and would not serve the interest of the city of St. John as they would be served by the amendment I am about to propose. Chipman is a common point, and from that point it would be in the interests of the country to reach St. John by the nearest possible route. From Chipman there is today a line connecting at Norton on the Intercolonial Railway with the city of St. John. I would move that these words be added to the section :
Also build a branch line from the main line at a point at or near Chipman to St. John, or to acquire any existing branch lines which may serve the -same purpose.
That amendment would be in the interests of the whole Dominion as it would give the shortest possible route to an Atlantic port.


Haughton Lennox: 


Mr. KAULBACH.: I must take exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Westmoreland. His amendment would be most unfair to the province of Nova Scotia inasmuch as Chipman is very far south of a direct line drawn from Edmundston to Moncton, and that point (Moncton) could be reached very much more conveniently by a shorter line which would cost the government less than the route which the hon. member proposes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the company, not the government.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The government have to pay for it all the same. I know very little of New Brunswick as respects the route which the proposed company intend to take, but I gather my knowledge from a geographical sketch taken from the map of Nejv Brunswick and Quebec. There are very many engineering difficulties almost insurmountable on the route between Quebec and Moncton. First of all, I would say, I am utterly opposed to the Intercolonial Railway being paralleled. Again I am opposed to that proposed line of road between Quebec and Moncton running to Edmundston, because it brings us too close to the American border. I object to it for the same reason that I object to the Canadian Northern going through the state of Minnesota to the city of Winnipeg. But, if the proposed road is to be taken from Quebec to Edmundston. I do not see why the Intercolonial should not be utilized as far as River Du Loup, and then take the Temiseouata road to Edmundston and in a straight line from Edmundston to Newcastle and then utilize the straight line from Newcastle to Moncton. If you look at the map, you will see that this is almost a straight line. But if you take the road to Chipman, you make an angle, and a divergence which would be saved in taking the line from Edmundston to Moncton via Newcastle. Going from Edmundston you will reach Newcastle almost as quickly as you reach Chipman, and the distance from Newcastle to Moncton, I think, is no more than 70 miles.


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: If I am not keeping within tbe rules, Mr. Chairman, I am wiling to take my seat, but I think I am not digressing more than some hon. gentlemen who. have preceded me.


Peter Macdonald: I did not call the hon. member (Mr. Kaulbach) to order.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I thought the voice was yours, sir. I think that my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) is quite wrong when be asks that the road should go to Chipman, because it would make the road from Chipman to Moncton considerably longer than if it ran direct

from Edmundston to Newcastle and thence by the Intercolonial to Moncton.


George William Fowler: I do not understand why the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson), if he is sincere, if his solicitude for the best interest of the city of St. John is as great as it appears, should object to this branch road going from Edmundston to St. John. Take your main line from Moncton by the most direct route, but let the branch line from Edmundston go down the valley of St. John along the old line of the Intercolonial, the line approved by Sir Leonard Tilley, but in which he was overruled by Mr. Mitchell, according to traditions of those days. Let your branch line run from there, and you need not deflect your main line from Chipman at all, but go by more direct route, as the hon. member from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) has pointed out, than if you deflected your main line in order to strike Chipman. That would serve the interest of St. John better, and that large and important section of the province which has now no railway, the valley of St. John, it would serve efficiently, and would be found perfectly practicable and would give a shorter route to St. John than if you go across the province to Chipman and thence to St. John. You have to go by Norton and down to St. John by way of the Intercolonial, which is a long way, making two sides of a triangle, whereas if you go direct from Moncton you make only one side of the triangle.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I took the trouble, on a former occasion, to demonstrate to the committee discussing this matter that if you were to attempt to go to St. John by way of Chipman, you would have to travel only 37 miles more than you would if you were to follow the valley of St. John and go into St. John, landing on the west side of the harbour along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I also endeavoured to show that when you reach the western side of the harbour you are in a place where the harbour rights and terminal facilities are almost exclusively held by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that for such a road as this it is absolutely necessary to get access to the harbour of St. John op the east side, in what is known as St. John East. . In order to get harbour facilities and terminal facilities in St. John, it would be necessary to utilize the property on the east side of the harbour. Hon. members know that there is a bridge company which controls the bridge over the falls. That has been a great barrier to the traffic of the city of St. John. The tolls have been very large, as they have a monopoly, and have a branch line running from their bridge into St. John. This has been considered a very serious obstacle to the trade between St. John and the western section of the country. To go by way of Chipman would be only 37 miles farther, and it would bring you into St.' John on
the east side of the harbour, where there is every opportunity for terminal and harbour facilities. I would say to my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) that it was only within a very few years that a survey was made by, I think, the Ternis-couata Railway, and under the direction of or in connection with the Grand Trunk, as I understand. That survey, the latest made of that country, shows the selected route from Edmundston down to a point at or near Chipman and running across from Chipman to the Intercolonial somewhere between Moncton and Salisbury. That route is considered the shortest, though it is not the best route that is to be found. My hon. friend from Lunenburg speaks of going down to Newcastle. But he must realize that the topographical conditions would make that utterly impracticable. He would find obstacles like the Nipisiquit lakes, and the Bald mountains, and others between the waters of Tobique and the Nipisiquit rivers. If you could go as the crow flies, it would be all right. But you must recognize the topographical conditions in the way and, recognizing these conditions, I think that all hon. members of the commit-eet will realize that the only route possible would be from Edmundston down more through the centre of the province. You could not deviate to the north to any great extent. My hon. friend from King's knows that, and he knows also that any line down through the centre of the province would bring him near Chipman-


George William Fowler: No.
Air. EMA1ERSON. It might be a few miles away. But when they were seeking the shortest line they located it a few miles back of Chipman.


George William Fowler: A long way.
Air. EA1A1ERSON. I have seen the survey, and I have discussed the matter with the gentlemen on the survey, so that my information is direct. So it would be at a point at or near Chipman. There is a wilderness between Chipman and the head of the waters known as the Salmon river, on the main highway between Chipman and Har-eourt, on the road leading to Richibucto in the county of Kent. I have travelled over that line and am familiar with the topography of the country ; I know the conditions which would make it necessary to pass in the vicinity of Chipman. Now after reaching Chipman, it would be in the interest of the company operating that line to take a cut of 70 miles to the city of St. John rather than go a like distance to Aloncton and then travel back oyer their tracks SO miles to St. John. If you went from Chipman to Aloncton and turned back to St. John you would go a distance of 150' miles. By means of this branch which the company is seeking power to build, or acquire, they can go into St. John from Chip-man, a distance of about 70 miles, saving 90

miles in reaching St. John. To go by the line indicated by the hon. member from King's (Mr. Fowler), you would travel down the valley of St. John to Fredericton, then there would be two ways open for you if you wished to keep on the western bank of the river St. John. You might follow down the western bank by Gagetown as far as Hampstead, and there you would meet barriers all the way which would lengthen your route. It is an impracticable route, as my hon. friends know ; there are hills and mountains to overcome, and there are low lands submerged a month or more every spring, and even during the autumn freshets. Then there is another route by following the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fredericton down to St. John. There again you are met with another difficulty at St. John. You do not shorten your distance, and you are met with the bridge barrier at the harbour ; you are met with a condition of things which make it impossible for this company to secure terminal facilities. The Canadian Pacific Railway have control of what is known as the Carleton branch, they have control of the terminals there, and you would have to go away out into the open, down towards Duck Cove, if you wanted to get larger facilities on that side of the harbour. Now, by this proposed route, if you were to go to Chipman and go down by way of this branch to St. John, you would bring St. John 204 miles nearer to the bridge at Quebec than it is to-day by means of the Intercolonial Railway. You annihilate a distance of 204 miles, and you bring St. John and Quebec that much closer together.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman is altogether astray in his mileage.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can prove my figures to a mathematical demonstration, because I know whereof I am speaking. I am calculating from Chaudiere, from a point where the bridge will cross the river at Quebec, and I am showing that from that point to Moncton is 498 miles. From Moncton-and my hon. friend can add the figures together -to St. John is 89 miles. The sum total of that exceeds the distance from ChaudiSre-


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: What is the entire distance to Chipman ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: To St. John 383 miles by way of Chipman ?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman cannot make it within 425 miles by way of Chipman.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The distance, by way of the Intercolonial Railway from the point where this bridge crosses the river at Quebec, to St. John, is 587 miles. The distance by the surveys which have been made from that point down to Chipman, and from Chipman down to St. John, is 383 miles. The difference between 383 and 587 is 204 ; that is the saving in distance between those Mr. EMMERSON.
two points. This only goes to show, however, that even if there were a variation of a few miles, there is an annihilation of 200 miles as between these two cities, by the proposed route by way of Chipman, and then down to Norton, thence down to St. John. This amendment proposed by me makes it possible for the company to secure these rights, it makes it possible for St. John to have the advantage of being that much nearer the trunk line, and it makes it not only possible for her to be that much nearer, but it ensures to that city a large proportion of the freight traffic that would come down over that route. Certainly the interests of St. John would be in that direction, the interests of no other section would be injured, and the interests of the company itself and the interest of the transportation facilities of this Dominion are best served by the operation of this branch line.


George William Fowler: I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that from Edmundston it is necessary to parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway all the way down to Grand Falls. You have got to go to Grand Falls before you can get away from the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The topography of the country between Edmundston and Grand Falls is such that it would not permit the construction of a line northward or eastward.


George William Fowler: Exactly. I quite understand the reason why. Topographically the country is such that you could not get away from it and you must parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway down almost to Grand Falls. You would need to parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway, also for a short distance going down the western side of the river. As far as terminal facilities are concerned what my hon. friend says respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway having absolute control of the terminal facilities on the western side of the harbour of St. John is scarcely correct, i do not think the Canadian Pacific Railway have any such rights as the hon. gentleman has just stated. The control of the terminal facilities which belong to the city of St. John is in the hands of the city of St. John and these facilities are not under the absolute control of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The city handed over the Carleton branch irrevocably.


George William Fowler: That is very true, but the wharfs and docks which are terminal facilities after all, are still under the control of the city of St. John. There are two elevators belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but there is ample room on the western side of the harbour for facilities for both, and it is only a question of money. As I understand this agreement, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway are obliged to provide the necessary terminal facilities at all

ports on the Atlantic and Pacific to which their lines run. Therefore, the argument which my hon. friend has made does not affect the case at all and the interest of the port of St. John, which is the commercial centre of a very large portion of the province of New Brunswick, and in the welfare of that city a very large portion of the province is intimately concerned- the interest of the port of St. John will not be served by this road unless it branches off at Edmundston instead of Ohipman, as suggested by my hon. friend. I see the hon. member for the county of St. John (Mr. Tucker), in his seat-unfortunately the hon. member representing the city of St. John is not present, hut X think the hon. member for the county of St. John will bear me out in the statement I have made. I do not think that hon. gentleman will be so recreant to his duty as to agree with the hon. member for Westmoreland that the route which he had proposed by the way of Chipman would be so advantageous to the city of St. John or so advantageous to those represented by himself as the route from Edmundston direct to the city. I quite understand why the hon. member for Westmoreland is so desirous to have this deflection made at Chipman. My hon. friend represented the county of Westmoreland. Moncton is the chief town of that constituency and it is only natural that he should wish that this road should not be lessened in its importance as far as Moncton is concerned by having a shorter route to St. John. By the route which he proposes the line will be ten or fifteen miles nearer to Moncton than to St. John, and that, perhaps, may to some extent account for the desire on the part of the hon. member for Westmoreland to have the branch line start from Chipman rather than from Edmundston. The hon. gentleman must realize himself, if he is honest, that he is influenced by that motive, because such motives do affect us imperceptibly notwithstanding The fact that we may believe we are taking a fair and impartial view of the question. As far as I am concerned, I have no such interest affecting me because my interests would be the other way. If the deflection is made at Chipman a portion of the road would run through my county from Chipman to Norton, and I am looking at what is going to be for the best interests for the country at large, uninfluenced by sectional interests. We want to get the western produce forwarded by the shortest possible route to the Atlantic ocean, and that object can only be achieved by adopting the route which I have suggested, and 1 suggest to the hon. gentleman that he amend his amendment by striking out the word 'Chipman' and inserting 'Edmundston,' and by striking out all after the word ' St. [DOT]John' in his resolution. That will cover the whole case. The Grand Trunk Railway line will go to Moncton in order to
suit hon. members from Nova Scotia, and the hon. member for Westmoreland, but let it branch off at Edmundston and both purposes will be served, besides which the best interests of the province will be served.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It may not be known to the members of this committee that there is already a line from Edmundston to St. John.


George William Fowler: There is a line from Quebec to St. John.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a line direct down the river St. John from Edmundston to St. John.


Samuel Hughes: Is there not a line from Levis to Edmundston.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a line from Rividre du Loup.


Samuel Hughes: There is a line from Levis to Edmundston.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think there is one thing that the hon. member for King's, New Brunswick (Mr. Fowler) has entirely overlooked and it is a matter which is very material in the discussion of this question. It is of the greatest importance to have a railway that will open up and develop the coal areas in the vicinity of Chip-man and it is of vast importance to the city of St. John that there should be a direct communication such as would be afforded by this line I have suggested in the amendment I have proposed. The hon. member for King's, of course, is very heroic. He does not think of the interest of his constituents. I confess to a desire to contribute in every possible way to the advancement of the section of country from which I come. I do not want it to be done at the sacrifice of any other portion of the Dominion. I want it to be done in the general interest, and the general interest in connection with the transportation facilities of this Dominion demands that there shall be the shortest possible route from Quebec to Moncton affording facilities for the transportation of freight and passenger traffic. The natural outlet for that traffic, or a large portion of it at least, would be by means of a deviation at or near Chipman. Whether it is at Chipman or five miles farther, it makes no difference. The nearest point to the city of St. John is secured by the branch which I have suggested in the amendment now before the committee. It is hardly necessary to take up any more time in the discussion of this matter. The interest of St. John requires it. It would be folly to think of building a line from Edmundston following the route of the present Canadian Pacific Railway. You can go to-day by two different ways to St. John. You can either go down by the Gibson line, on the eastern side of the St. John river, or you can go out from Wood-

stock by way of Me Ada in Junction. These lines connect with Edmundston ; they connect direct with the city of St. John ; and we will simply be building a long line of railway following the tracks of the other line, and we will be affording facilities which are now accorded for transportation between Edmundston and the city of St. John.


George William Fowler: It is a strange thing that you should call a railway a transcontinental line which ends at Moncton, which is not a seaport at all. My hon. friend (Mr. Em-merson) has said that you must not build this branch from Edmundston, because there is already a line of railway from Edmundston. Well, there is already a line of railway from Cbipman to the Intercolonial Railway at Norton ; there is a line of railway already projected and chartered this session to connect Chipman with Moncton ; there are lines of railway connecting Quebec with St. John ; there are lines of railway connecting the west with the east ; but is that any argument why there should not be another line of railway ? I am surprised at the very fallacious argument which my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) has advanced. He says he is prompted to work on behalf of his constituents. So am I. But when the good of the greater number is concerned, then the good of the smaller number has to give way. It is the duty of a representative of the people in parliament to advocate the best interests of the whole country rather than of any particular section, even though that particular section happens to be the section which he represents, so long as no great injury is done to it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You would even shut out King's county ?


George William Fowler: It is impossible to do that. King's county occupies such a central position in the province of New Brunswick that it has got to be heard from, whether in this House or outside the House.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: My hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) is a little astray in his arithmetic with regard to distances.


George William Fowler: In his geography, too.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are a poor schoolmaster.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I confess that I have not that knowledge of the province of New Brunswick that my hon. friend possesses, but at the same time when I look at the map which I have before me, I cannot for the life of me understand how he can say that the shortest line from Quebec to Moncton is via Chipman.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend pardon me ? The shortest practical route, according to the surveys, is a line through Mr. EMMERSON.
Chipman. As the crow flies possibly you could get shorter, if you built an air line.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: What surveys are you referring to ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am referring to the last survey made by the Grand Trunk Railway and the Temiscouata road, which I think is the very latest survey, and which was made some eight or ten years ago.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am safe in saying that if you take the distance from Edmundston down to Chipman and then back to Moncton, that the present Intercolonial Railway is equally as short. I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman would want to go down to Chipman. There is no reason why we should make that diversion and lengthen the distance to Moncton from Edmundston. According to the Intercolonial Railway time-table, the distance saved on the entire proposed new line from Quebec to Moncton is only about 44 miles.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Where did you get that on the Intercolonial Railway time-table ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: By going by way of Riviere du Loup and the Tdmiscouata road, which you would have to take, because you cannot get through the Alleghany range' of mountains


Fletcher Bath Wade: The Alleghanies do not reach there.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: There is a line of mountains between the St. Lawrence river and the St. John river of that name.


Mr. MORIN.: And these are the Alleghanies.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am therefore correct. If you want to overcome that range of mountains you must come by Riviere du Loup, take the Temiscouata to Edmundston and straight over as well as you can to Newcastle on the Intercolonial Railway. Then you could utilize the Intercolonial Railway from Newcastle to Moncton. If that course is taken, and I am informed by those who know the country, that it is practicable, it would be the better course to pursue. If my hon. friend will look at the map he will see the distance from Edmundston to Newcastle is shorter than by going to Chipman. The distance from Chipman to Moncton is greater than if you go from Newcastle to Moncton. Under those circumstances, my view is correct as to this route being the shorter of the two.


Samuel Hughes: 1 take the liberty of submitting some figures which I have obtained from the most accurate reports available. First I take the figures given by the Prime Minister the other day from Moncton to Edmundston, which he said was on the authority of some survey which I have been unable to find a trace of, but I presume the hon. member for Westmoreland

(Mr. Emmerson) furnished these figures. The Prime Minister stated that the distance from Moncton to Edmundston is 209 miles. The shortest distance to Lfivis is 196 miles, and adding 10 miles to reach the 'bridge that would give you at least 415 miles from Moncton to the Chaudiere bridge. I venture to say that you would have to add at least 10 per cent to that for the 209 miles from Moncton to Edmundston, which would give you 20 miles more, making the total distance 435 miles. Every one who has been in the central part of New Brunswick knows that it is a sea of hills which are worse to get over than mountains.


Fletcher Bath Wade: How do you get your figures from Moncton to Edmundston ?


Samuel Hughes: The Prime Minister stated in his speech that it was 209 miles. It is much more as a matter of fact, but I take his figures. The present Intercolonial Railway is 577 miles from L&vis to St. John. Via Ohipman the route will be 196 miles to Edmundston from Levis, or 206 miles from the Chaudiere bridge to Edmundston and 209 from Edmundston to a junction above Chipman. Then you will find that it is 15 miles farther from Chipman to St. John than it is from Chipman to Moncton. and the road will cross 20 miles north of Chipman. No one pretends that the main line will run into Chipman. Therefore, the saving from Quebec to St. John by the new route compared with the old route will be, at the outside, only 127 miles, and to the city of Moncton a saving of only about 48 or 50 miles.


George William Fowler: I wish to move an amendment, that all the words in the amendment of the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) after the word ' Chipman ' be struck out, and the word ' Edmundston ' be inserted, and that all the words after the word * St. John ' be struck out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that the hon. member who has charge of the Bill gave notice of his amendment, which is amendment No. 1, and that of the hon. member for Westmoreland is amendment No. 2. My hon. friend puts in a third. I think we shall have to get rid of one of these amendments before we can take up another. I do not wish to press the point, but I think that is the rule.


George William Fowler: If the Chair is to stand to the strict rules of order, I think the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), did not give notice of his amendment, and therefore it is as much out of order as mine.


Samuel Hughes: My interpretation of the rule is that notice has to be given of an amendment, but that amendments to that can be moved without notice.


John Graham Haggart: I understood that the motion made by the hon. Minister of Justice was a substantive motion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is an amendment to the clause as it stands. Even an addition is an amendment. I have no desire, however, to see the rule pressed.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Logan).: If I am compelled to rule, I must rule that the amendment of the hon. member for King's, N.B., (Mr. Fowler) is out of order.


George William Fowler: The point I take is that you will have to rule on both amendments.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In any case, I think, we can all agree that we do not want three amendments before us at one time, and I do not think any good purpose can be served by my hon. friend pressing that point. When the amendment of the hon. member for Westmoreland is disposed of, my hon. friend can move his. i


George William Fowler: But suppose it is adopted ?


Mr. WILMOT.: I must say that in listening to the discussion to-night concerning this very important measure, I am impressed with the profound ignorance that prevails regarding the location of the line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I presume that the principal object in view is to find the shortest route. So far as New Brunswick is concerned, I know that the line which keeps to the western part of the province is the most direct line to the seaport of St. John. I have collected figures concerning the different routes through the province of New Brunswick. My hon. friend who represents Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) had a Bill before parliament relating to the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway. That railway was to run from Quebec to Connors, where the New Brunswick system of railways terminates, at the extreme north of the state of Maine. The distance from Quebec to Connors I find is 134 miles ; from Connors to Edmundston, 32 miles ; from Edmundston to Grand Falls, 38 miles ; from Grand Falls to Andover, 22 miles; from Andover to Woodstock, 54 miles; from Woodstock to Fredericton, 65 miles ; from Fredericton to St. John, 65 miles; making a total distance from Quebec to St. John of 410 miles. From Quebec to St. John via Chipman is 461 miles. Taking Fredericton as the common point, it is 460 miles via Chipman to St. John, as compared with 410 miles by the valley. From Fredericton to Chipman, there is a line of road surveyed, subsidized and partly built. I suppose that, in the interest of our Nova Scotia friends, rise should be made of that line from Fredericton to Chipman and thence direct to Moncton. That part of the country is well adapted for building a railway. I have been over every foot of the ground myself and therefore can

speak from personal knowledge. A considerable portion of that road will go through the county I represent. There is another fact I would point out. This route, the St. John River Valley, is covered by a road owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think it is beyond possibility that the government could acquire that road. It is already being built down the valley of the St. John by the shortest route to the sea, and I think it is a very reasonable proposition that the government should acquire that road, which, I believe, it could do at one-half what it would cost to build through the centre of the province. As regards the line spoken of by the right hon. the First Minister, from Edmundston to Moncton, in a direct line through the centre of New Brunswick, no man can tell what difficulties would be met in its construction.
I have no personal knowledge of the northern part of New Brunswick, but a great many young men who live in my county are employed lumbering in that district, and they all inform me that it is a very rough country indeed. The right hon. gentleman stated to the House that the distance would be 209 miles. That may be correct; but, in view of the difficulties that would have to be encountered, it would be much more expensive to build and operate a road there than the one I have mentioned. The distance to St. John via the Intercolonial Railway is 577 miles. By the St. John valley route it is 410 miles, and by Chipman 401 miles. I think therefore that the suggestion I have made is one that should be adopted and which would satisfy our Nova" Scotia friends. Considerable money could be saved by acquiring that portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway which runs through the valley of St. John and the upper St. John and the government could acquire at the same time the road from Fredericton to Chipman and Moncton. That would affect a saving of money as compared with taking the centre route. My hon. friend from Westmoreland spoke of the difficulty of going down the St. John's valley from Fredericton. There is no such difficulty as he imagines. I know every foot of the route. If we followed the bank of the river all the way down, then difficulties would be met such as he suggests. But I would make a straight line and go down to Gagetown and through the Nerepis country to Westfield country. My hon. friend knows we could get a shorter line by Fredericton going that way than by following the bank of the river.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I think we are wasting our time in this House by this discussion. In the first place, to whom are we talking ? We are talking to a government which does not know what it wants. Have they got an engineer or a map or any one that can tell them what they want ? The other day the right hon. the First Minister read what he Mr. WILMOT.
had to read. Previous to that he had written to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and all that he wrote was not based on any reliable information, tie gave the distances from place to place, and I can prove that his figures were not correct. We are thus all discussing this matter in the dark. Why does not the government postpone this Bill for another six months or a year and in the meantime send out engineers with instructions to run a line from place to place and find out the best route. Until this is done, we are not in a position to intelligently discuss this matter. Each lion, member talks in favour Of his own county or town, and what is the government to do amidst so many contradictory and confusing suggestions and opinions ? Take the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill. He has frankly told us that he does not know what to do or what to say. He is simply the promoter of the measure and does not care how it goes. Not long ago I was tailing with a gentleman and he said to me plainly : ' We are in the hands of the Vanderbilts, the Morgans and the Hays.' He told me as plainly as possible-this was six months ago in the city of New York-that the road would be built whatever way Morgan and Hay and Vanderbilt wanted it, and there was no use of our thinking that we had any say in the matter. Is the government going to throw itself into the hands of the Morgans, Hays and Vanderbilts ? If the government allows itself to be dropped into such a mud hole, you will see American engineers over here bringing their own men and running that road wherever they choose; and if anybody else interferes or writes to the government protesting against this as not being right, the government will be as dumb as an oyster, and the first thing we know the road will be built just where Morgan wants it. It is time for us to have a little light thrown on this matter ; and while I have no intention of taking up the time of the House any longer to-night, I shall have something to say later on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Samuel Hughes: Where does the hon. gentleman gets his figures ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From the Railway Department.


Samuel Hughes: There is no survey in the department of any such road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I secured the figures there.


Samuel Hughes: They guessed at them. There are no such figures in the Railway Department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are in connection with a railway which was projected,

and Incorporated under the laws of the Dominion.


Samuel Hughes: I know all about it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am giving the hon. gentleman some information. The distance from Chaudifire to Connors Station is 130 miles; X won't take off a mile; I won't add a mile.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) is right


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Logan: Order.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I was only agreeing with what the hon. gentleman said.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Logan: I must call the hon. gentleman to order.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thank my hon. friend (Mr. Morin). I want somebody to help me out. The distance from Connors to Ed-mundston is 32 miles; from Edmundston to Nashwaak Bridge is 123 miles; from Nashwaak Bridge to Chipman, 32 miles ; from Chipman to St. John, 66 miles ; total, 383 miles from ChaudiSre to the city of St. John. Now, to St. John from the same point by way of the Intercolonial is 587 miles. That makes a difference of 204 miles. My hon. friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) says that, instead of departing from the main line at Chipman, you should leave the main line at Edmundston and build, down the valley of the St. John, although there is a large system of railways over that route now. I am going to show that the distance would be greater from Chau-diere to St. John by the route the hon. member for King's proposes than by the other. From Cbaudiere to Edmundston is 162 miles. I am now giving you actual distances. From Edmundston to Aroostook Junction is 57 miles ; Aroostook Junction to Woodstock, 53 miles; Woodstock to Fredericton, 60 miles. That makes a total of 332 miles from ChaudiSre Junction to Fredericton over a located railway.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: No, 345 miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If it makes 345 miles, I am willing to take that. From Fredericton to St. John is 66 miles, making a total of 398 miles from Cbaudiere to St. John by the proposed route of my hon. friend from King's.. By way. of Chipman it is only 383 miles, or 15 miles in favour of the Chipman route. Surely the amendment of my hon. friend will not hold water in the light of these facts.


John Graham Haggart: What is the distance by the Intercolonial from Levis, or from Chaudidre Junction, to St. John?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From Cbaudiere it is 587 miles, and from Levis some miles less.


John Graham Haggart: From L6vis it is 578 miles.
24S


Henry Robert Emmerson: The bridge will cross the river at Quebec, and I think that is the correct point from where to start. The traffic comes across this bridge and the route would start from that point and go through the parishes back of Levis.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. gentleman the distance from Fredericton to Moncton ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have it from Nashwaak Bridge to Chipman, 32 miles, and from Chipman to Moncton, 51 miles.


George William Fowler: I do not know where the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson, got his figures, and I do not care. If his figures are correct, then the maps that have been furnished officially and have heretofore been regarded as correct, are entirely wrong. Moreover, if the hon. gentleman's figures are correct, the rule of mathematics which declares one side of a triangle to be shorter than the other two sides is all nonsense. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to talk glibly about the distance from this point to that when there are no engineer's reports on the subject. Of course, we are bound to accept in a parliamentary sense the hon. gentleman's statement. And we do accept it in that sense.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am glad for even that small measure of credit.


George William Fowler: It is quite as much as the hon. gentleman deserves. But if the hon. gentleman will look at the map he will see whether it can be possible that his statements are borne out by the facts. This is an official map issued by the department over which, we .all hope, the hon. gentleman will soon be called to rule. So, we must accept it as being absolutely correct. Also the rule of mathematics to which I have referred and which was taught us in childhood we can hardly deny now. But the acceptance of the hon. gentleman's figures is a denial of both. I do not say that he is making up these figures, but I say that the source from which they are compiled is wrong. It must be wrong, because it is absolutely impossible that a line from Edmundston to St. John-or from St. Leonards, because you have to follow up the line that distance, as I understand, before you branch off-it is impossible that such line to St. John can be longer than if you go across the province of New Brunswick to Chipman, then strike across to Norton on the Intercolonial and back by the Intercolonial. In such a route you are going west, then south-west, and then east.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The distance from Cbaudiere to Connor's Station, 130 miles, is the only section in which there has not been a survey, except the survey made in connection with a railway that was incorporated by this parliament. From Connor's to Edmundston, according to the mil-



eage given by the Canadian Pacific Railway booklet


George William Fowler: Your trunk line follows that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am giving the figures showing the actual mileage from Edrnund-ston to Nashwaak bridge. From Edmund-ston down to Grand Falls or near there, you have the actual mileage of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the located line. Beyond that you have an actual survey that was made a few years ago, and the mileage was secured by me from data furnished as a result of that survey.


George William Fowler: By your proposition you do not go to Fredericton.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I go to Nashwaak bridge, which X think is nine miles from Fredericton. All these distances are absolutely correct from surveys which have been made, or from located lines. So there cannot be any error with respect to the distance of 383 miles. Now as to the 398 miles, I have given a less distance than is given by the hon. member for Sunbury (Mr. Wilmot). He makes the distance over 398 miles. Therefore, it is longer by that route than it is by Chipman, that is, the route that was surveyed a few years ago in connection with the proposed line of railway through the heart of the province.


George William Fowler: How far is it from Fredericton to Chipman by the hon. gentleman's figures ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From Nashwaak it is 32 miles, and 66 miles from that point into St. John.


George William Fowler: Sixty-six miles from Chipman to St. John and 32 miles from Nashwaak to Chipman makes 98 miles. Now this Nashwaak bridge is nine miles from Fredericton, and Fredericton is 66 miles from St. John, and 66 miles and nine make 75 miles, and 75 from 98 leaves 23, which is the advantage of the route I speak of. Out of the mouth of the hon. gentleman have I proved that his statement with respect to distance is absolutely incorrect.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You cannot prove the whole by showing that a part is less or more.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), has made just the statement that a man makes when he jumps in, knowing nothing at all about the case. Now my statement is absolutely correct. The hon. gentleman says that from Nashwaak bridge it is 69 miles to the city of Fredericton. By his own admissions he shows that the route I have been favouring is some 23 miles shorter than the route iie wishes to take to go to St. John by way of Chipman. I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman should be opposing this., Mr. EMMERSON.
It is surely in the interests of Moncton, and it should be the object of the hon. gentleman as a representative from New Brunswick, and it is in the interest of the whole country, to reach an Atlantic port by the shortest possible route. It has been pointed out to the people of St. John that they are going to have all the freight while the passengers will go to Halifax. Well, if you save 23 miles by going to St. John rather than by going to Chipman, why not choose that route ? It is not going to affect our friends from Nova Scotia, it is not going to injure anybody, and it will materially benefit the port of St. John. Therefore, I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw his amendment and allow mine to pass.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman has referred to the River Valley route, and I pointed out that that route, going down from Woodstock to Fredericton and thence on to St. John, would be a distance of 398 miles. I pointed out that the other route by way of Nashwaak bridge would be


Robert Duncan Wilmot: At what point is that bridge-directly opposite Fredericton ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend does not know every foot of that country. There is the covered bridge and the Nashwaak bridge.
Mr. FOWLER, They are both on the Nashwaak river.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are both on the river. What is known as the Nashwaak bridge is up the Nashwaak river. By this route which is an entirely different route from the river route the difference is fifteen miles. It is a question as to whether the river route or this one is the better. As far as the Nashwaak bridge is concerned it is nine miles from Fredericton. It may be more. It is more than twenty miles, my hon. friend from York, N.B. (Mr. Gibson) states. That does not alter the point raised by myself in respect to these different routes. The Nashwaak bridge route is one and the river route is another. The Nashwaak bridge route is the one that is the shortest.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), I will not say endeavoured to mislead the committee, but he certainly placed his figures before the committee in a very equivocal manner, saying that he had obtained figures from the Department of Railwayss and Canals showing the distance from Levis to Connors to be 136 miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One hundred and thirty.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend is a little astray. He should have put the six on. Thesie are the figures given by the promoters.
Mr. EMMERSON My information is 130.


Samuel Hughes: Even these, as the hon. gentleman must know, are short of the true figures. There has never been a survey of that route. Yet, to stand up and give imaginary figures is asking us to accept something that should be taken only with a grain of salt. More than that, no survey for a railway can be run there. It is possible to have a survey for a wagon road, but you cannot have a route 136 miles long or anything like it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Mr. TALBOT.: Probably the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) would be surprised if I could read to him reports of three surveys that have been made all the way from Chaudiere to Edmundston, which is thirty miles beyond Connors.


Samuel Hughes: They have certainly been made, but not to Connors-and not for this route as proposed.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Beyond Connors.


Samuel Hughes: There have been no surveys made for the routes spoken of. I care not what the hon. gentleman says.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman does not know all that there is in the Railway Department.


Edward Hackett: A short time ago I asked the government what they contemplated doing for Prince Edward Island in connection with this matter. I received no reply. Whether they desire to treat us with silent contempt or not I do not know, but I am here to raise my voice in favour of the people of Prince Edward Island, and I take the position that the government should do something in connection with this Bill which is now before parliament. We know very well that the company is a mere shadow, that the substance stands behind in the shape of the government, and I would like to ask the government what they contemplated doing for Prince Edward Island in connection with the matter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know that there is anything in this Bill showing what the government are going to do for anybody. This Bill is to incorporate a company. There is absolutely not a word in it stating what the government are going to do.


Edward Hackett: I have an amendment to move in connection with this matter.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: There are three amendments before the Chair now.


Edward Hackett: 
Peter Macdonald: An amendment must be relevant to the clause under consideration. This amendment is not relevant.


Edward Hackett: I must submit to your ruling, but is it the desire of the government that my amendment be overruled ? I invite the Minister of Finance to come to my rescue. He knows very well how matters are in Prince Edward Island, because he has been there, and he has made very strong promises to the people. This company is only the shadow, the government is the substance. In the Bill the company is empowered to acquire railways and build steamships, and it is most unfair to me that I should be ruled out of order, when my amendment is perfectly germane to the whole Bill, and also, I believe, to the clause under discussion.


Samuel Hughes: That ithe amendment be amended by striking out the words ' .or Gravenhurst.'
If you pass this clause without striking out ' Gravenhurst,' it will give power to the Grand Trunk Railway Company to interfere with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Toronto to Sudbury and the James Bay Railway from Toronto to Wahnapitae.
Amendment (Mr. Hughes) negatived.


Samuel Hughes: Inasmuch as there are some radical changes in this Bill, it should comply with the rules of the House and be referred back to the Railway Committee.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: That after the word ' Moncton ' on page three, line eleven, the words ' or the city of St. John ' be added in section twelve.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: When the hon. gentleman gave notice of this amendment it was understood that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway were going to build the Quebec and Moncton division. In view of the fact that the government is going to build the section this amendment will come more properly as an amendment to the government measure.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Is it to be unchangeable, like the laws of the Medes and Persians ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This matter was fully threshed out before the committee and voted down, and I do not

suppose wg will want to discuss it again at this late hour.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: The Minister of Finance is* incorrect in stating that I moved this amendment in the Railway Committee. My amendment in the Railway Committee was that it should be built to St. John, and this amendment makes it Moncton or St. John.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I accept the correction, but the substance is the same.


John Graham Haggart: Now that the government is to build that division of the railway, this amendment would come more properly as an amendment to the government measure.


Samuel Hughes: It would do no harm to move it now.
Amendment (Mr. Wilmot) negatived.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: One of the reasons given by the Prime Minister for the building of the eastern section of the main line by the government was that it should be thrown open for the use of other railways as well as the Grand Trunk Railway. Does that apply to these branches which are to be built in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway? Will other companies have running powers over these branches ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract has no reference to branch lines ; it only refers to the main line. The branches will come under the General Railway Act.


Mr. CLANCY.: These lines are in no sense branches of this railway as a government road. They are really main hues constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I rather object to discussing the government scheme on this Bill; but I may anticipate the discussion to the extent of saying that they will be branches of a leased line. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have a lease of that line, and as lessees they desire to construct branches.


James Clancy: It seems to me that you might as well say that any road that crosses the Grand Trunk to-day and that is leased by it is a branch. It is not a branch at ail, but another road.


Samuel Hughes: I presume that the interpretation is that the government may also build these and make a present of them to the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will think of that by and by.
Mr. McCarthy. The next amendment of which I have given notice is as follows, which I move as an additional clause :


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: The directors of the company shall have power to enter into an agreement or agreements with the government of Canada or with commissioners authorized to enter into such agreements on behalf of the government of Canada, respecting the construction and operation of a line of railway, or any portion thereof, to be the property of the government, between the city of Moncton, in the province of New Brunswick, and the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, provided, however,^ that such agreement shall not take effect until it has first been approved of by a majority of the votes of the ishareholders of the company, present or represented by proxy at any annual meeting or at a special meeting of the shareholders duly called for the purpose of considering the same.
That is simply conferring upon this company the power to make the lease provided for in the government scheme,


John Graham Haggart: I think the usual course is to require a two thirds vote of the stockholders.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I wish to add an amendment giving the company all the powers necessary to carry into effect the agreement entered into between them and the government.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George William Fowler: I wish to add a clause of which I have given notice. I beg to move in amendment that the following clause be added :
That all freight originating In Canada and received along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, intended for export across the Atlantic, shall be shipped through Canadian ports, when the route is not otherwise specially engaged by the shipper, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall carry all freight to an eastern Canadian sea port as cheaply as to any American port on the Atlantic sea board.
There is in the agreement, I understand, a clause to that effect, but not in this particular Bill. As the government has seen fit to recognize this proposition as a good one by adopting it in the agreement, no doubt it will be accepted in this Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is one of several matters which were mentioned before the Railway Committee, .and the view that I took and others was that they were probably matters to be considered in connection with the government contract, but not to insert in a private Bill. The matter has been fully dealt with in the government contract, quite as fully as my hon. friend desires, and I do not see that any good purpose could be served by putting in to this charter the clause he suggests.
Mr. FOWLER, I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. He claims that the government have provided in the agreement a similar clause, but, we have the absolute right to attach this condition to the charter. The company are asking for a charter, and this

committee has the right to impose any obligation we may consider in the best interest of the country. The hon. gentleman has not given any reason why this amendment should not be accepted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are two points in opposition to the hon. gentleman's view. If it were necessary and proper to put this condition into the company's charter, I should prefer other words. The words in the agreement serve the purpose much better than those of my hon. friend, and if we had to put this in the company's charter, I would like to see the words more carefuly chosen. My other objection is that they are out of place in the charter. We cannot reasonably impose this obligation on the company except in connection with government aid. I do not say that we have not the power, but it would be unreasonable to use it. It is only in connection with the government aid that it would be reasonable to impose a condition of this character. And in the Act giving government aid the matter is dealt with.


Samuel Hughes: But supposing the company runs branches from all along the leased line or from the line west of Winnipeg, according to the logic of the minister, this clause would not apply.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As a matter of fact, this does apply to branches too.


Samuel Hughes: Branches constructed without government assistance ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Without having anything to say as to whether government assistance is given or not.


Edward Hackett: Before the Bill is reported, may I ask, Mr. Chairman, what became of my amendment ?


Peter Macdonald: There were two objections to it-one that no notice had been given of it, the other that it was not relevant, in my opinion, to the question under discussion.


Edward Hackett: Will you allow it to stand as an order for consideration ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) could give notice of it for the third reading.


Edward Hackett: I will leave it in your hands as a notice, Mr. Chairman.


George William Fowler: I think there were some other amendments of which hon. members gave notice.


Peter Macdonald: The mere giving of a notice does not bring these amendments before the committee.


George William Fowler: But, Mr. Chairman, you read some that were not moved.


Peter Macdonald: I presented Mr. McCarthy's, because he is the promoter of the Bill. But if hon. members absent themselves from the committee, and expect that I will place their amendments before the committee, they are likely to be disappointed.
Bill, as amended, reported.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FERRY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 180) to incorporate the Prince Edward Island Ferry Company.-Mr. Emmerson.
On section 14,
George William Fowler: There is a phrase in that relating to these mortgages-' not inconsistent .with law.' That seems to suggest that otherwise these people might make a mortgage inconsistent with law. It seems to me this phrase should be eliminated.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are the usual clauses put in steamship incorporation Bills, and they were put in by the committee.


George William Fowler: That does not seem to be a justification for putting in words such as these.
Bill reported, and read the third time.
Mr. EMMERSON moved that the Bill pass, and the title be ' An Act to incorporate the Maritime Railway and Transportation Company.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
'	QUESTIONS.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Was Captain Dixon, sent to South Africa with the First Canadian Contingent, commissioned to write for .the government a record of the Canadians in the war ?
2.	If not, what were his duties ?
3.	Has .that .officer yet furnished the government with .an historical record ?
4.	If so, will the government have it laid on the Table of the House, with a view to its being perused, and if deemed advisable, printed for distribution ?
5.	Is Captain Dixon still in the Canadian service ? If jiot. when did he leave it, and where is he now serving ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir F. W. Borden):: 1 and 2. He was sent to South Africa as historical recorder.
3.	No.
4.	When received, if deemed of sufficient importance, it will be laid on the Table of the House.
5.	He is on the reserve of officers. He has not been in the pay of the Dominion government since his arrival in South Africa.



DOKIS INDIAN RESERVE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria) ' -asked :
[Stage Direction]
Have any trespasses been made and complained of on the Dokis Indian reserve, French river, during the past five years ? If so, by whom ; and have damages, and to what extent, been paid therefor ? If any amount paid, what disposition was made of same ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton):: The only trespass of which the department have received notice is a trespass made by the Hardy Lumber Company on the Dokis Indian reserve, French River, during the winter of 1899. The quantity of timber cut was 1,129 saw logs, containing 172,336 feet board measure, for which the department charged and collected $1,034.02 for timber and damages, which sum has been placed to the credit of the capital funds of the Dokis band.



PARDON OF RUDOLPH HETU.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. NORTHRUP-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria).-asked :
1.	Has one Rudolph H6tu been lately pardoned ? If so, on whose recommendation ?
2.	For what offences was he sentenced ? For what term was he sentenced ; and how long has he served thereunder ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. C. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	Yes. Upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice founded upon medical certificates to the effect that confinement was rapidly developing tubercular consumption for which unless the patient were released, little could be done in the way of treatment.
2.	Hetu was sentenced for forgery and electoral frauds ; for the first mentioned offence he was awarded twelve months imprisonment ; for the second a fine of $500, or in default of payment, six months imprisonment.
He had served seven months and one day.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In the absence of the Prime Minister, I move that the House go into committee on the following resolution, to-morrow :
Resolved, that it is 'expedient, in connection with the Bill now before this House, respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, to ratify the agreement set forth in the schedule to the said Bill, entered into on the 28th of July, 1903, between the government and certain persons on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by parliament at the present session thereof, and to authorize the government to do whatever is necessary to give full effect to the said Bill and agreement.
I may say that His Excellency the Governor General has been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, and recommends it to the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT.: The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


John Graham Haggart: What will be the business to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Justice will take up the resolutions respecting judges, and we may proceed with the iron and steel bounties. It was the intention of the Prime Minister to proceed with the Grand Trunk measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1 o'clock a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 4, 1903.