1903-09-21

Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I ask permission to draw the attention of the House to a statement that appeared in the Toronto ' News ' of Saturday last, given on the authority of a government official, with reference to the snowstorm reported to have occurred in certain parts of western Canada about a week ago.


Mr.  R. F.@: Stupart, the director of the Meteorological Department, states that weather Is again fine in the North-west, in fact, it wa*

warmer there lasit night than in Toronto. The damage by snow and frost must have been considerable. A week ago to-day it snowed steadily all day and all night at Regina.
Now, the assertion that it snowed steadily all day and all night at Regina, 1 believe to he entirely unfounded, and I am surprised that a government official should give publicity to such a mistaken assertion. The information which I have received by letter from Regina since the date of the storm, which unfortunately did prevail over a limited area in the western part of Manitoba and the eastern edge of the Territories, is to the effect that the Regina district did not suffer much damage from the storm. This information is corroborated by the reports appearing in the local newspapers. I have here the Regina
' Standard,' of last Thursday


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: That is not the hon. gentleman's paper, either.


Thomas Walter Scott: No. It states :
It seems that the Regina district was particularly favoured in respect of the great snowstorm that swept western Manitoba and North Dakota oh Saturday last. A little snow fell here late in the afternoon and by ten o'clock Sunday morning it had melted away under the influence of the warm wind. There was, however, quite a downpour of sleety rain, and the mercury was below the 30 mark. It was short, though not sweet, for reaping machines that had to quit at two o'clock on Saturday resumed work again on Monday morning.
The ' Leader ' of Regina states :
The snow-storm did not amount to anything west of Broadview.
The Regina 'West' states that:
Just enough snow fell to whiten the ground.
. . .	. No barm of any consequence is reported in this district.
What I rise particularly for is to make a publicprotest against the gross exaggerations which have obtained wide publicity concerning the extent of the damage caused by the storm and to protest particularly against an important official of the government making the kind of statement which I have quoted and which will tend to lend support or strength to the exaggerations which have been made public. Some of these exaggerations are purely ridiculous. I am advised that on Wednesday last the Toronto correspondent of the London ' Morning Post '


Mr. SPEAKER.: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) intends to conclude with a motion ?


Thomas Walter Scott: To put myself in order, although I only desire to say a few words, I shall conclude with a motion. The Toronto correspondent of the London ' Morning Post ' cabled that paper to the effect that the previous reports of the storm had been very much underestimated and that the fact was that there would be the poorest yield of wheat in western Canada that had ever been recorded.


Samuel Hughes: And that less than ten per cent of the grain would be threshed.


Thomas Walter Scott: And as my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) says that less than ten per cent of the grain would be threshed. That is an exaggeration that is purely and simply ridiculous. As a matter of fact from the best information obtainable, I believe that the snow-storm did not affect possibly more than one-fifth of the grain growing area of western Canada. The storm originated in the United States and drifted northward. It was very severe in Colorado and Nebraska. It travelled over Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana and it seemed to peter out, so to speak, when it arrived in Manitoba. There was a limited area in Manitoba of which, I think, Virden was about the centre where there was a considerable fall of snow. My information is that even in that area the damage is not likely to be very severe. No person can state with any authority yet just what the damage will be but I do not believe that within the area visited by the snow-storm the damage will exceed ten per cent and taking the country as a whole I do not believe it will amount to as much as five per cent at the greatest. I move the adjournment of the House.


Mr.   N . BOYD@Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question which has been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) is certainly a very important one and I think correct information should be given to the country as soon as possible in opposition to the reports which have been sent out, so as to acquaint the public with the fact that the harm done to the crops of the North-west lias not been such as the reports would indi- . cate. The information that I have received from my own constituency, where, I understand, the storm was possibly the heaviest, is that the effect of it has been very slight indeed. I have reports from twenty-five or twenty-six different places in my own constituency and in nearly every one of these places my information is that the loss will be scarcely more than three per cent, and in that case the evidence is not very certain. Tn some places they had started threshing three days after the storm. A great many people upon reading the report of a snowstorm in that country are under the impression that it is a most disastrous thing. It would if the crops were standing. Most of the crops have been cut and the great bulk of them are now stacked. Possibly not more than ten per cent of the crop is still standing in the stook and even if a snow-storm does overtake the crop in that condition the effect is not as serious upon it as a heavy fall of rain because the snow will not penetrate the stacks or stooks to as great an extent as the rain will. As to


Thomas Walter Scott: agreed upon that point and I submit that without the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition we will not have the agreement in a satisfactory shape in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) permit me to draw his attention to clauses 28, 29 and 30 of the agreement ? By clause 28 provision is made for the guarantee by the government of ' an issue of bonds to be made by the company for a principal amount equal to 75 per centum of the cost of construction ' of the western division. The time for which the bonds shall run is provided for by section 29 and the rate of interest is provided for by section 30. The obligation of the government is defined and limited. When you go on to section 34 you find that :
Inasmuch as the bonds to be guaranteed by the government only make provision for a part of the cost of construction of the western division, the company hereby agrees that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee bonds of the company for the balance required for the construction of the said western division.
Tlie balance of wbat ? The balance of the cost of construction. The bonds must realize an amount sufficient to secure that.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The view expressed a moment ago by my bon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) seems to me to rather make in favour of the contention which has been put forward from this side of the Hfcrase. The hon. Minister of Finance suggests a case of an issue of bonds amounting to $24,000,000 producing, by reason of selling above par, $25,000,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was reversing it. I was supposing that they realized less.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)). Well, if my hon. friend did not make use of that illustration I might make use of it myself. A case of that kind would be covered by the words we are suggesting. They are these :
The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, shall guarantee the bonds of (the Grand Trunk Railway Company, for such an amount as shall produce and provide a sum of money equal to the balance required for the comploi construction of the western division as provided in clause 34 of the said agreement.
Under the words that we are suggesting, if the bonds the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to a principal amount of $24,000,000 should sell above par and produce $25,000,000 you would have the case met exactly by the amendment we are now proposing. The danger which is to be guarded against in the other case, is also provided for in this very amendment-in case the bonds do not sell for par then you have that contingency covered by the words we are suggesting. The question is, whether either one of these contingencies is pro-371
vided for by the language of the contract and by the language of the amendment as I first suggested it, and which followed exactly the terms of the contract. Is not the meaning of the words in the contract simply that you are to ascertain the amount required, after the provision made by the government guarantee, and having done that, you are to fix that as the principal amount at par, of the bonds which the Grand Trunk Railway Company is to guarantee. There is a strong argument to be made In support of that view.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The difference between my hon. friend and myself the other day was, that the obligation to acquire this stock, and the obligation' to guarantee the second issue of the bonds were not conditions precedent to the obligation of the government to guarantee the issue of seventy-five per cent. To avoid any doubt about that, I was quite satisfied to take my hon. friend's suggestion in order to make that clear, which I think he does in the first clause of his amendment. I am willing to accept it.


Robert Laird Borden: I admit that it is made absolutely clear except in one regard.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would read subclause (b) as being a departure from the agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to have my amendment accepted, I am willing to eliminate for the present subclause (b).


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 'Very well.


Robert Laird Borden: I will, later ou, move subclause (b), because it will be necessary to have a little discussion ou it. With a view to getting at what I understand to be the attitude of the government and ourselves on this point, I would withdraw my amendment altogether for the present.
Amendment (Mr. Borden) withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move seconded by Mr. Barker :
That section 7 be amended by aiding thereto the following subsections:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in the said agreement contained, His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry out or fulfil any of the covenants, conditions or stipulations in the said agreement contained on behalf of the Dominion of Canada unless and until the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall have entered into an agreement with His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, by which the said Grand Trunk Railway Company shall covenant and agree as follows : -
(a.) That the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for such an amount as shall produce and provide a sum of money equal to the balance required for the complete construction of the western division as provided in clause 34 of the said agreement.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The objection we take to this is, that it is substantially the same thing as is already provided in the agreement, and we do not think It is wise to -make a change in the words of the agreement in order that we may accomplish the same purpose by other words. I think it is well to confine ourselves to the words of the agreement where they are sufficient to carry out the manifest intention of both parties. That is our view of the matter, and therefore we are quite prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden), which made the matter clear, and which is entirely in harmony with the contract, because It follows the words of the contract. But we think the additional words of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) are not necessary, and therefore we are unable to agree to his amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Borden) negatived.


Robert Laird Borden: That amendment having been defeated, I now beg leave to move, seconded by Mr. Barker :
That section 7 be amended by adding thereto thie following subsections:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in the said agreement contained, His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry ouit or fulfil any of the covenants, conditions or stipulations in the said agreement contained on behalf of the Dominion of Canada unless and until the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall have entered into an agreement with His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, by which the said Grand Trunk Railway Company shall covenant and agree as follows :-	.
(a.) That the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the balance required for the complete construction of the western division as provided in clause 34 of the said agreement.
By this it is intended to provide, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be under an obligation to provide the balance required for the complete construction of the western division. I understand that perhaps one reason which has led hon. gentlemen opposite to oppose the former amendment, is the desirability of having the provisions of this Bill as nearly as possible the provisions of the agreement. However that may be, this amendment goes to a certain length at least in furtherance of the object which I intended to accomplish by the amendment which was defeated. As the Minister of Justice has intimated his willingness to accept the amendment in this form, I suppose there will be no difficulty about It.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have no objection to adopt this amendment, because it recites in the Bill the words of the agreement.


Robert Laird Borden: It accomplishes something more, because it makes the words Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of the agreement binding on the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have already explained that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would never have obtained these privileges from the government until they had complied with these conditions, so that what is now proposed is exactly what is agreed to and understood.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend uses the words agreed to ' ; that may refer to sdme independent agreement not placed before the House. So far as the agreement placed before the House is concerned, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is not in any way bound by that agreement. It is not bound to do anything at all under present conditions.
Amendment agred to.


Robert Laird Borden: I now beg to move :
That section 7 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection :
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in the said agreement contained, His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry out or fulfil any of the covenants, conditions or stipulations in the said agreement contained, on behalf of the Dominion of Canada unless and until the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall have entered into an .agreement with His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, by which the said Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall covenant and agree as follows :
(a.) That the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, so long as the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall hold the common stock of the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to the amount of $24,900,000, shall perform. fulfil and carry out according to the true intent and meaning thereof, all the provisions of this Act and all the covenants, stipulations and conditions in the said agreement, which according to the terms thereof ought to be performed, fulfilled or carried out by the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
In submitting this amendment to the Com mittee a week ago, I pointed out that under the form of this agreement the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada is not bound to the Crown at all, hut the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is hound to the Crown by some very important stipulations in the agreement contained. I also pointed out that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, by reason of holding practically the whole of the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific, could at all times, and would at all times, absolutely control the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Under these conditions, and particularly in view of the fact that it has been stated by the ex-Minister of Railways that these two companies, according to his view of the agreement, are practically one and the same company ; in view of the fact that that interpretation of the contract lias been expressly assented to by the Minister of Finance in adopting the very forcible ex-

pressious used by the ex-Minisber of Railways ; in view of the fact that we have from the Prime Minister himself, and several member's of the cabinet, the express and absolute statement that these two companies are, for the purposes of this great enterprise, practically one and the same company, there seems to be no good reason why not only the Grand Trunk Pacific shall become bound to the Crown in these important stipulations, but that the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself shall so become bound to the Crown. The stipulations to which I refer are undoubtedly of a very important character. I do not pretend to deal exhaustively with this agreement at the present moment, but among the most important of these stipulations are those contained in sections 41, 42, 43 and 45. Clause 41 of the agreement is as follows :
At ail times during the terms of the said lease, the company shall continuously and efficiently operate both divisions of ithe said railway, giving due and sufficient service for the accommodation of all traffic to the satisfaction of the government.
I am not aware that the government has any security for the fulfilment of that agreement beyond the security which will be contained in the second mortgage upon the rolling stock which is to be appropriated to the eastern division. The lolling stock amounting to $5,000,000 for the eastern division is to be mortgaged to the government by a charge which will be subsequent to that contained in the mortgage upon the said property to secure the bonds guaranteed by the government. I am putting aside for the moment the question as to whether or not it will be necessary, under the terms of this contract, that the Grand Trunk Company should be absolutely possessed of the rolling stock, or whether it is possible for that company to satisfy the conditions of the contract by merely obtaining rolling stock under a lease or rental agreement. Get me assume, for the purpose of this argument, that it is necessary that the company shall be absolutely possessed, in its own right, of the *entire interest of the rolling stock of the eastern division. The rental of the eastern division is secured in the same way. This mortgage is to secure, not only the efficient operation of the railway, hut also the rental. I say the government do not seem to have a very important security for either the efficient operation of the railway or the rental, even if they adopt the argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice as to the character of the interest which the company must acquire in the rolling stock for the eastern division. I have not any accurate computation of the rental, but I suppose it might perhaps amount to $2,500,000 a year. This has been suggested by some of my hon. friends beside me. That rental is to extend over a period of forty years ; and, as security for that rental, which might amount during that time 371*
to $100,000,000, the government have only a second mortgage on $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock. So that, even for the rental, apart from the efficient operation of the road, you have not a very important security under the terms of this agreement. Then, for the efficient operation of the road, you have to rely upon the same security, and, of course, I always desire to he understood as not forgetting the fact that you have the covenant, the bald covenant, of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the same thing. But inasmuch as the property of that company is to be covered by three mortgages, and as branch lines which are expected to be built will undoubtedly be covered by mortgages which will provide for the construction of those branch lines, you have not very much security for the efficient operation of the eastern division of this railway, or indeed for the operation of the western division, although we would have probably less concern about that than about the eastern division, because, humanly speaking, we might consider that there would be no very great question about the operation of the western division after the road was once constructed. That condition of affairs would seem to indicate that it would be a very proper thing that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, controlling, as it will absolutely, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, by reason of holding practically all the common stock, should bind itself to the terms of this agreement, and among others, to the terms of section 41, by which the company has undertaken the efficient operation of both divisions of the railway.
Section 42 of the agreement provides as follows :-
I.t is hereby 'declared and agreed (between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express 'purpose of encouraging the development oh- Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through-rats on expert traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
In some remarks which I made to the House at a former stage of this Bill, I expressed the opinion that an agreement couched in that language might not be a very effective guarantee to the government or the country that traffic would be carried between Canadian inland points and Canadian ports. I .expressed my reasons to the House at that time, and I shall not repeat them ; and what I say now is, of course, subject to the remarks I then made. But

the majority of this House, the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches and their followers, did not take the same view of the effectiveness of that provision that I entertained ; and, therefore', I am bound, so far as any effect will be produced by the terms of that provision, to see that it shall be binding, not only on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which is to be a mere form, but on the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself, which shall control at all times and during a period of fifty years the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It is for that reason, among others, that I urge that the government should make all the stipulations in this contract which are binding on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company also binding on the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is in one sense making this contract with the government through the medium of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I have already pointed out that that is a very advantageous position for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to occupy, because, while absolutely controlling the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, while able to dictate its policy through holding practically all the common stock, it is at the same time not subject to any of the stipulations- contained iii this agreement, because the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself is not a party to this agreement. Now, if ht is desirable-and we are bound to so assume under present conditions-that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should make this covenant with the government, is it not infinitely more desirable that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should itself make the same covenant ? The Grand Trunk Railway Company will build the railway through the west, we must assume, at a very early day. It will be anxious to get access to the wheat fields of the west and to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway for that enormous traffic in grain and other articles which is developing so rapidly in that great country. Well, during that period, we are led to believe, by statements made by ministers of the Crown which I have quoted to the House on previous occasions, that during a considerable period the eastern division of this railway will not have been constructed. So that we shall have the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, controlled absolutely by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, running its lines into the north-western country for several years before the eastern division of this railway shall have been completed. What follows from that ? It follows that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, controlling the policy of the Grank Trunk Pacific Company, will be able to compete in the most effective manner for all the traffic gathered by the Grand Trupk Pacific Company in the west. The Grand Trunk Railway Company will have more to do with the bringing of that traffic to the eastern sea-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ports than any other corporation or influence in Canada ; and during that period at least-nay, during the Whole period of forty or fifty years during which this arrangement shall be carried out-is it not infinitely more important that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should he bound by a stipulation of this kind than the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ? I have adverted on a former occasion to the danger pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), who explained to this House that it would be a very simple thing for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to make connection with Winnipeg from Chicago, and bring out the traffic which it would pick up in the western country over those lines running into the United States, and carry it to its great terminals at Portland, where it has expended, I understand, about $20,000,000, according to a statement made in tl(is House by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. I pointed out the other day that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to think that was a rather imminent possibility, and that there was not one word or line in this contract which prevents the Grand Trunk Railway Company doing that very thing the day after this agreement was signed. My hon. friend the Prime Minister, in answering my observations a week ago, took the ground that there was nothing in the danger which I have pointed out, following in that regard the language of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, he said, was on the whole favourable to the terms of this agreement.
Get me point out to my hon. friends on the treasury benches that this is not very much of an answer. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is able to point out a danger which exists, on account of the Grand Trunk Railway having connections between Winnipeg and Chicago. Have I not the right to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the other gentlemen on the treasury benches to show me that in the agreement or in this Bill, they have safeguarded in any way the people of this country from that danger. And is not that danger one which will be imminent during the period of seven years which members of the government admit will elapse before the eastern division of this railway can be completed ? Ministers of the Crown have taken it absolutely for granted that a very considerable period of time will elapse between the date when the Grand Trunk Railway through the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, will be picking up traffic in the west and the date of the completion of the eastern division of the railway. It is obvious that there is a great deal in the opinion they have expressed in that regard. We know that a railway through a prairie country presents no great difficulties or obstacles ; we know also, that very little, if anything, has been ascertained as to the difficulties to be en-

countered in constructing the eastern division, from Moncton to the city of Winnipeg, and it seems to be agreed, by common consent in this House and in the country, that the period of time to which I have referred will elapse between the dates I have mentioned.
Let me point out another section of the contract which is important in that regard, section 43, which reads :
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
Looking at sections 42 and 43, let us consider the possibility of the Grand Trunk Railway, by means of its agents and officials, whom it will undoubtedly send into the western country for the purpose of securing traffic, forwarding traffic not along Canadian routes exclusively, but over its own rrnad and to the city of Portland. Is there any line in the contract which will prevent the Grand Trunk Railway from doing that ? There is obviously not a syllable in the contract that will prevent the Grand Trunk Railway from adopting that course because that company is not a party to this agreement.
Let us look at section 45, which reads :
The company shall arrange for and provide, either by purchase, charter or otherwise, shipping connections upon both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, .sufficient ill tonnage and in number of sailings to take care of and transport all lbs traffic, both inward and outward, at such ocean ports within Canada, upon the said line of railway, or upon the line of the Intercolonial Railway, as may bo agreed upon from .time to time, and the company shall not divert, or, so far as it can lawfully prevent permit to be diverted, to ports outside of Canada any traffic which it can lawfully influence or control, upon the ground that there is not a sufficient amount of shipping to transport such traffic from or to such Canadian ocean ports.
Is there any reason, if this agreement is to be carried out in good faith by the Grand Trunk Railway with the Crown, why the Grand Trunk Railway Company, controlling absolutely the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific and holding all its common stock, should not hind itself by an agreement under which it shall guarantee to the government and the people of this country that these stipulations to which I have referred shall be carried out in good faith by the Grand Trunk Railway. It may be that there is some stipulation included within the terms of this contract to which reasonable objection might be taken by the Grand Trunk Railway. If so it can he excluded from the terms of my amendment, but, up to the present time, I have not been made aware of any such stipulations which the Grand Trunk Railway Company ought not to make good. I therefore move that
section 7 be amended by adding thereto the section which I have just read.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When the hon. member (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was addressing the House before recess he moved an amendment, the general purport of which, I think I am correct in saying, was to require that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada was to require that the Grand Trunk Railway Company was to become responsible for all the undertakings of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of Canada. We object to that, for the simple reason that it is not in the contract, and, not only is it not in tile contract, but it is not quite consistent with the contract. I suppose that in any transaction between two parties, the government being one, if the other party to the contract was to pay $5, it would be very desirable, that he should pay $10. We would admit that it was very desirable, but, if it was not in the contract we could not exact the other $5. What my hon. friend asks is additional security, and, from this point of view it is very desirable. But it is uot in the contract, and therefore, we are not in a position to ask it. I suppose there is danger of confusion of the public mind between these two companies, the Grand Trunk Company the old company- and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. We think it is advisable that they should be closely united, and, as far as possible identical. We have called attention to this feature of this bargain-I know that I myself have done so-by saying that these two companies become practically one; and what we mean by that is explained by the discussion which took place on the terms of the agreement. The old Grand Trunk Company agrees to do certain things. These things are in themselves important. They are of sufficient importance, we think, to call attention to them and dwell upon them. But it does not follow that, because they did agree to do certain things which are important and which we value, we must call upon them to do something else which they have uot agreed to do and which it would be unreasonable for us to ask them to undertake. The Grand Trunk Company as the hon. leader of the opposition says, are uot parties to this contract. It is proposed, however, that they shall be parties to It, as their officials have assured us that they were prepared to do certain things


Samuel Hughes: What does the hon. minister mean by ' assured ' ? Does he mean that they have given verbal assurance 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Verbal- that is all that can be had at this stage. They have said that the Grand Trunk Company is prepared to do certain things. We proceed, in the contract and the Bill, on the

assumption! that they will do these things. If they will not do these things, of course we shall not do our part of the arrangement. The one follows the other. But the Grand Trunk Company proper-the old Grand Trunk Company-can only do these things in a proper and official way, and the time has not yet come for that. However, we have no doubt that they will do them. Now, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has suggested, as respects certain things, that it is well to stipulate that we shall only do our part when they have done the things set out in the Bill


Robert Laird Borden: When they have agreed to them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, when they have bound themselves to do them-the hon. gentleman's suggestion is correct. We have accepted that because it is in line with our interpretation. But, as the present amendment goes further and asks us to require them to do some things which they have not bound themselves to do and which they have not assured us they will do, and which I suppose they have no intention of doing, we cannot agree to it. They have undertaken to do certain things, and we have the assurance of their officials, which, I presume, will be carried out in regular official form as required by /his Act, that they will do these things. We nave assurance that they will take and hold certain common stock of the company. We think that important. For this reason-that the stock will not be allowed to go into the market and pass into the hands of other persons, and possibly at a later stage, be treated, in the fixing of the freight rates, as capital at a fictitious value. We think it important, for several reasons, that the Grand Trunk should take and hold that stock and not dispose of it. Instead of that being merely a privilege given to the Grand Trunk Company, we think it is a privilege which carries certain responsibilities of value to the country. Therefore we insist that they shall acquii'e, take and hold that stock. We think the country is in a better position to have its interest protected if the Grand Trunk take and hold that stock than if they were to put it on the stock market as in the case of other stocks. They having assured us that they will do that, we shall be right, before we do anything, before we give a guarantee or accept responsibility, in requiring them formally, in their capacity as a corporation, to do that thing, and that is secured by the amendment to which we have already agreed. Then, the Grand Trunk Company have assured us through their officials that they will do another thing, that is, to guarantee the bonds of the new company to the extent of one quarter of the cost of the company's road, and more than one quarter, if necessary, inasmuch as the government only guarantees three-quarters not exceeding a limited sum; the balance Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
whether one-quarter or more than one-quarter must be provided by the Grand Trunk Company by its guarantee and on its responsibility.


Mr. BARKER.: May I ask whether the officials of the Grand Trunk have assured the government that the company will guarantee more than an amount of bonds equal to one quarter of the cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have no assurance of officials that is not expressed in the words .of the contract. It was fully understood, I think, between the Grand Trunk and the government that our interpretation of the contract and theirs is the same. However, without reviving a previous discussion, I may say that this is what the Act requires, and that they have assured us that they are prepared to do what the Act requires. We get, then, from the old Grand Trunk Company two things which we regard as important. We get an undertaking to acquire, take and hold this common stock-and we think that as between having the Grand Trunk take and hold it and a different policy, one of floating the stock on the money market to be speculated in, their acceptance of this condition is a matter of substantial value. In the second place, we have their undertaking-which, at present, is only an assurance, but, we believe, will be implemented by their solemn covenant as required-to guarantee the bonds for the remaining portion of the western division. These two things are important, very important, so important that they identify the Grand Trunk Company with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in the closest possible manner. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) now comes forward and says that the Grand Trunk Company must not only acquire this stock and hold it as we propose, must not only guarantee the bonds for the remaining quarter, or possibly more than quarter of the money required for the completion of the western road, but they must, over and above that, become guarantors for all the obligations of the new company. That is not in the contract and not in the Bill, and to insert it now as proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition would be to insert something not in the contract. We have no right to ask the Grand Trunk to do it. I meed not tell my hon. friend, as a man of experience in these things, that, while we would have a perfect right in case of obscurity, something not clear, to put in a clause defending that in a manner we all understood, yet we have no right to insert something /entirely inconsistent with the contract itself. And it would be inconsistent with the requirements of the contract to put in these new conditions which would oblige them to become guarantors in a manner and to an extent not contemplated by the agreement. In the case of one company purchasing the stock of another company-and, I believe, there are such cases

in railway transactions-I do not understand that the purchasing company becomes the guarantor of the obligations of the other; it takes the stock and becomes responsible to the extent of the stock. Whatever obligations follow the purchase of the stock the purchasing company would assume, but they would mot assume all the obligations of the other company. These are reasons why, I think, it would not be fair and equitable to ask the Grand Trunk Company, the old company, to accept this new and broad general responsibility. We claim that we do get from the old Grand Trunk Company two things of importance to which I have referred-one that they should take and hold the stock and thus identify themselves closely with the undertaking, and the second that they should become the guarantors of the bonds to the extent of one-quarter or possibly more of the balance required for the building of the western division. In these two things we have obligations on the part of the Grand Trunk which we think are of value; and, if additional obligations on the part of the old Grand Trunk Company are asked, as in the amendment of my hon. friend, all we can say is that they are not in the contract and we have no right to demand them.


Robert Laird Borden: This is just as much in the contract as is the matter dealt with in the amendment which has been accepted by the government. My hon. friend does not seem to realize that. There was a provision in this contract which did not bind the Grand Trunk Company, but did bind the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, that the Grand Trunk Company should guarantee the bonds of the company for the balance required for the construction of the western division. That was not binding upon the Grand Trunk Company, the covenant Itself was not made by the Grand Trunk Company ; and the government accepted my amendment declaring that this agreement should not be binding upon the government until the Grand Trunk Company itself shall by agreement have bound itself to the government that that provision should be carried out. The matters I brought to the attention of the committee just before recess are precisely of the same character. We find certain stipulations here in this agreement which are of the utmost possible importance from the standpoint of the government and of the people of this country. Those stipulations are not binding upon the Grand Trunk Company, because it is not a party to the contract ; that company, nevertheless, controls the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ; and one of the arguments that my hon. friend made to the House on this point was in these words-and I can cite a dozen other illustrations of the same language made use of by members of the government during the progress of this debate :
What w-e regard as a very strong feature of the project is that it is to be carried out by practically the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada.
But are you carrying out this feature when one of the most important provisions of the agreement is not binding upon the Grand Trunk Company at all, but is binding only upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, especially when the danger, if danger there be in this respect is danger to be apprehended, not from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but from the Grand Trunk Company itself ? Where does the danger lie? Does it lie in any possible future action of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, considered apart from the Grand Trunk Company, if you can so consider it ? No the danger lies in the fact that the Grand Trunk Company has important connections in the United States of America, connections which have been pointed out by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Interior, and other members of the government. That is where the danger lies. Nevertheless the safeguards contained in this measure, such as they are, are safeguards, not against any action of that kind on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but against action on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, where It is less to be feared than in the other quarter. My hon. friend went on to say further in the same connection :
We have required that the Grand Trunk Railway shall not only be behind this undertaking, but in it and of it.
How is the Grand Trunk Company in any proper sense of the term in this contract and of it, if it is not bound by these very important stipulations to which I have called attention ? I do not realize exactly the attitude of my hon. friends. Here are stipulations against carrying tlie freight to ports other than Canadian ports ; here is a railway company with which the government has some understanding, the Grand Trunk Company ; here is that company having its terminus in the United States, a terminus upon which there has been expended some $20,000,000, as we are led to believe by the Minister of the Interior and by the Minister of Finance, and not one single line of this agreement has any effect whatever upon the Grand Trunk Company as a corporation distinct from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. The agreement was drawn in- rather a remarkable way, it seems to me, iu the first instance. The ordinary course of preparing an agreement of that kind would be to make it between the Crown of the first part, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company of the second part and the Grand Trunk Company of the third part, and by providing stipulations in the agreement that will bind not only the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, but the Grand Trunk Company itself, stipulations which have been devised in the public interest for the purpose of securing the car-

riage of Canadian traffic within Canadian channels. But that is not the shape in which the measure is presented to the House ; it is presented in the shape of a contract between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company alone ; and although by the scope of that contract you are to give the* Grand Trunk Company absolute command of the future policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific, you do not find in that contract from first to last one single line, one single stipulation, which is intended to be binding upon the Grand Trunk Company. When my hon. friend has to meet that difficulty, after it has been pointed out by his own colleague, what is his answer ? His answer is that what we propose is not within the terms of the contract. True, it is not within the terms of the contract, but it should have been within the terms of the contract in the first instance, and it is because it is not within the terms of that contract that we are now asking for such an amendment to this Bill as will make those stipulations binding upon the Grand Trunk Company ns well as upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
What possible difference in principle is there between accepting the amendment which we are now suggesting and the amendment which the government accepted a moment ago, regarding a covenant by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company that something should be done by the Grand Trunk Railway Company ; the government accepted that amendment, and under the Bill as it will now pass, the government is relieved from the stipulations on its part until the Grand Trunk Company shall have entered into a covenant with regard to guaranteeing these bonds. But so far as the remaining stipulations to which I called attention are concerned, the position remains exactly as it was before. The Grand Trunk Pacific Company is bound, the Grand Trunk Company is not bound, and as it controls absolutely the future policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, it is not in the slightest degree debarred from using every Influence within its power to send that western traffic over its own road and to its own American port. There cannot be any doubt about that. Yet the Minister of Finance thinks that is not a matter to be guarded against in the public interest. But why should it not be guarded against in the public interest? He says you cannot force the Grand Trunk Company to accept it. It is true you cannot foi'ce the Grand Trunk Company to accept it but you can say that this aid is dependent upon the Grand Trunk Company accepting it, and you can say that the many millions of public money of this country which are proposed to be devoted to that enterprise, shall not be given until these obligations are binding, not only upon the Grand Trunk Pacific, but upon the Grand Trunk Company itself.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Trunk Railway Company is at its back in the sense of being its backer, according to sporting parlance, that is one story, but if the Grand Trunk Railway is so far at its back that it is out of sight and out of reach, that is another story, and when hon. gentlemen opposite ask the country to support a certain scheme because that scheme has this backing of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, surely we are not asking too much, though recognizing the value of that support, in asking that it should be a genuine backing. If this contract is to be placed under the control of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, if it is to have all the advantages of the contract made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, surely it ought to be prepared to assume some of their responsibilities. I think the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition will improve the contract. Hon. gentlemen opposite, I think, will adlmit that we have a right, not to amend the contract in the sense of amending it as it is signed and which binds either party, but amending it in the sense that we will only agree to it if such and such terms are adopted and then submit the contract or the amendments to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company for their acceptance.


Mr. GOURLEY.: on the part of the Grand Trunk people in making this contract. I do not want to say anything against any corporation in this country, but I wiil say, that the Grand Trunk has always been regarded as a bankrupt body. I am not saying that offensively; I hope some day the country will be big enough to afford them sufficient traffic to enable them to pay interest on their securities. It has been known for 40 years that the Grand Trunk has defaulted on its securities. At one time it defaulted on its first and second securities, and then it paid interest on the second, and a while ago it paid interest on the third ; but they have not paid a cent of interest on two out of the five classes of securities they hold. I hope, in the interests of Canada, that they may succeed in paying interest on these last two classes of their securities : but surely it is not going to be said, that a company that cannot pay interest on all its securities is a company that will give credit and character to a new enterprise. You recollect reading in the newspapers one morning this summer, that the Grand Trunk president in London was approached by his shareholders who said :	This new scheme
will involve our system in enormous expenditure, and as we are just beginning to make money, do not mix us up with such an enormous new enterprise as this, and in reply to that, that president of the Grand Trunk Company in London said :	The old
Grand Trunk will not be responsible for a single dollar in this new scheme. It is to carry out that pledge of the president of the Grand Trunk to his shareholders that we have this ingenious patehed-up scheme, presented to us to-day. The Grand Trunk do not intend to commit themselves to the expenditure of a single dollar, but they want to get into the great wheat fields of the west ; they want a feeder for their old Grand Trunk system ; they want to take the wheat and other freight of this country, to Portland, where the whole energy of their system is centred. They arei not satisfied with using Canada as a highway ; they are not satisfied with taking the whole trade of Ontario to Portland now, but they want to add to it all the trade of the west, and to divert the trade of the west to the United States. When the Finance Minister gets down to Nova Scotia, he will find that the people fear that this Grand Trunk system will ruin the prospect of the maritime provinces for ever in getting the trade of the west. And now when it is proposed by the leader of the opposition to take some steps to hold this Grand Trunk Railway Company in some way under our control, or the control of the courts, the Minister of Finance gets up and says : We have made a binding contract. He ought to be anxious that we should point out to him where we can strengthen this contract. We say that the Grand Trunk ought not to have all this financial aid without us having good security that in the end we shall get what we
bargained for, but the Minister of Finance endeavours to make it sure that we shall have no security. He votes down our amendments, when, on the contrary, he ought ..to say to us : We thank you for your amendment; have you any more in the same direction ?
We are not captious critics ; we are not here to oppose this government; we are here to strengthen and aid them in making a contract in the highest interests of Canada. I venture to say that this agreement will result in the greatest misfortune to Canada. I am sure that it will result in the greatest misfortune to the maritime provinces. Nova 'Scotia, which for thirty years had been hoping to get the export trade of Canada, will, if this agreement is completed, be farther away from the goal than she was at the Inception of confederation. Sir Charles Tupper and Mr. Howe, and all the leading men of Nova Scotia, implanted the idea in the bosom of the people of that province that Halifax was to be the wharf of Canada. We want to fulfil that promise. I understood, when this Bill was introduced, that the government were attempting to fulfil that promise, because the Prime Minister went over the history of the efforts of previous governments to bring trade to the maritime provinces. He cited the efforts of Sir Charles Tupper to build railways across New Brunswick for that purpose. That was one of the bases of this proposition. And yet when the leader of the opposition points out that there is a fatal defect in this scheme, in that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is mot bound by it, and that the' Atlantic terminus of that railway is already at Portland, the reasonable induction is that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will proceed to use their old system and exploit it in such a way as to take the business to Portland. When it is pointed out that we have no hold on the Grand 'Trunk Company, and that we can get a hold upon them only by compelling them to hold the stock in this Grand Trunk Pacific Company at its face value, the Minister of Finance' says : That is 'quite true, but we do not want to make any corrections of that kind, because the Grand Trunk Company do not want them, Mr. Cox does not want them, and the other people behind this agreement do not want them. But the people of Canada want them. Look at the enormous sums of money which we are going to vote for this scheme. It will probably take $200,000,000 ; and if carried out on the splendid lines proposed by the hon. member for North Norfolk, it wall take $300,000,000 and perhaps $400,000,000. He is a magnificent exploiter of railways. I like liis ideas, and if we laid down a true railway in the interests of Canada, I would not care if it cost $300,000,000 or $400,000,000. But the proposal to spend even $10,000,000 on a rotten scheme of this kind has my most strenuous opposition. We have

in Canada the routes to control the trade, not only of this continent, but of the world ; and if we bad not been the sleepiest people on God's earth, we would have had the trade of the east, and Canada would have been a great nation to-day. Those great statesmen from Ontario, McMullen and Gibson, who adorned this House, did what ? When we want to have a great national discussion, some lion, gentlemen get tired and go out ; but when McMullen and Gibson were exploiting the great question whether the Speaker of this House should get his napkins washed once a week or not, or whether Sir Charles Tapper should have a separate wine glass for each course which he offered to his guests in England, they occupied months to settle that vital question. If the Liberal party had shut these little fellows up when they wasted the time of this parliament in discussing such questions, and had undertaken at that time to debate this great [transportation question, they would have added something to the upbuilding of Canada. But down to this day the Liberal party have never added one brick to this great edifice of Canada. They have attempted to undermine it, to blow it up, to destroy it, but they have not added one brick to the edifice down to this moment. This is the first attempt of the Liberal party to add one brick to the edifice, and what is it ? Is it a gold brick, or a miserable brick of paper, such as confidence men hand to honest men for their good, solid money ? I suppose, on behalf of my province, as this debate goes on. to show that each clause of it is a complete sell. We were told in the corridors that the government were bringing down such a measure that no man from the maritime provinces would dare to vote against it. They attempted to gold-brick the members of this House by saying that their measure was so perfect that we dare not criticise it. I venture to say fjiat no measure ever introduced into this parliament will meet such determined opposition in the maritime provinces as this scheme. Not because we do not want railways ; we want dozens of railways ; but because, as a national railway, it fails in every particular. If the government had treated with the Grand Trunk Railway Company and had compelled them to own a line from ocean to ocean, there would be something to be said for if ; but when they split this scheme into two divisions, east and west of Winnipeg, and get the dark shadow of the Grand Trunk behind it, they ruin it for ever. This is a scheme devised by the Grand Trunk Company. The Minister of Justice and the government of Canada had nothing to do with it. It' was matured in London by splendid railway lawyers, probably looked over in New York by railway sharks there, and manipulated by some other lawyers in this country, and then handed over to the government; and they werei innocent enough to accept it without understanding Mr. GOURLEY.
it. The shadow of Cox so darkened the Privy Council chamber when they were considering it that not a man of them could see a line of the contract.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I must call the hon. gentleman to order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What is the point of order ?


Peter Macdonald: It is the amendment to section 7 which is under discussion.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is the very thing I am attempting to debate. I was saying that when they were settling clause 7 darkness overspread the Privy Council chamber to such an extent that not a man of them understood a line of the clause from beginning to end. The leader of the opposition and his friends desire the government nowr to look over it and try to understand it, and then introduce into it those safeguards which will protect the greatest interests of Canada. We from Nova Scotia regard this scheme, even with every safeguard proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, as the most disastrous scheme ever proposed in Canada, and as fatal to the interests of the maritime provinces in particular. But notwithstanding that, we want the government to improve this clause of the contract as much as possible, and one means of doing that would be to accept the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) spoke rather disparagingly of the obligations assumed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company under this contract, because, as he said, that company was worthless. I cannot say that I agree with him in that statement, because, after all, when he considers the contract, he must realize that before anything is done to give effect to this contract, it is necessary for this company to deposit $5,000,000 with the government, and furthermore, he realizes-because I have heard him admit it in this House-that under this contract the government are legally not under any obligation to endorse the bonds of the company to the extent of a farthing until such time as the whole enterprise is completed from Winnipeg to the coast. Now, it seems to me that no company that was absolutely worthless, that had not some strong financial backing, would be in a position to put up five million dollars and to undertake to build a road extending from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean. The hon. leader of the opposition put the question in this form : What difference is there in principle between the amendment that we accepted this morning and the amendment we are now discussing ? I find a vast difference between the two. The first amendment provides that before the government can be called upon to endorse any bonds in aid of the construe-

tion of this road, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall see to it that the Grand Trunk Railway Company enters into a contract by which they shall bind themselves to guarantee a second issue of bonds. That was the first amendment, and that, in my humble opinion, simply gave effect to the condition of the contract. I argued, some days ago, that the obligation to subscribe the stock and to guarantee the second issue of bonds was a condition precedent to the government obligation to guarantee the first issue of bonds. The hon. leader of the opposition thought that that was not quite clear, and, in fact, went so far as to say that it was not a condition precedent. I argued that it was, and in order to set the matter at rest, we have adopted this amendment. What is the amendment which is suggested now ? Not that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall enter into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company to have something done that is provided for by the agreement, but that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall enter into an undertaking for the due performance of all the conditions of the Bill and of the contract. Now, there is no such provision in the contract. I submit that the Grand TrunkRailway Company-not according to the letter of the contract, but according to its-true intent and meaning-will be practically-obliged to see to it that all those conditions-of the contract to which the hon. the leader of the opposition referred this morning, are-carried out. My hon. friend said, 1'or instance, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would be in a position to divert traffic,-as was said by the right hon. Minister of. Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) by Chicago and thence through the-United States and by its line through Ontario to Portland. But my hon. friend (Mr.-Borden) did not construe the words used-by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce as I did. The Minister of Trade and-Commerce said that if this line was not built by North Bay, then this diversion might occur, but that the building of this line from Winnipeg to Quebec, with a branch line down to North Bay would make that diversion impossible. Now, I said that the spirit, if not the letter, of this contract is that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should carry out the conditions of this contract. Take, for instance, the obligation to operate the road. I assume-for this can be only a matter of opinion-that it is a matter of the most vital importance for the Grand Trunk Railway to have a connection with western Canada for the whole of its Ontario system. It seems to me that it is a matter of vital importance that that road, which at present has its western Canadian terminus at North Bay, should have access to the west, should have connection through Canadian territory Between its lines in Ontario and western Canada, and without the
construction of this road, how is it possible to secure such connection ?


Mr. CLARKE.: Without the construction of what road ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Without the construction of this road east from Winnipeg to Quebec, with branch lines to North Bay and to Port Arthur. How is it possible to utilize its magnificent system in Ontario so far as western Canadian trade is concerned, unless it reaches western Canada by North Bay and Winnipeg ? I say it is a matter of absolute necessity for the Grand Trunk Railway to have an entrance for its magnificent Ontario system into the west, and that an entrance is provided by this road. If they do not utilize this road in its entirety, would any government be justified in permitting them to use it partially, to use it merely to connect at North Bay, and not to use the section to Moncton and the maritime provinces ? To my judgment, it is inconceivable that any government would do anything of the kind. Look at the preamble of the contract, which provides for the construction of the railway, and which was agreed to by both parties of the contract. The preamble provides :
For the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, to be operated as a common railway highway across the Dominion of Canada from ocean to ocean and wholly within Canadian territory.
That is the preamble of the contract, that is the statement of the common intention of both parties to the agreement, in which both concur, that they are to build a railway through Canadian territory from ocean to ocean. Then, you have got, moreover, this provision in section 42, which reads :
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties ito this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels.
The agreement there provides that the condition upon which the whole of this aid is granted! is. that the goods of the west shall have an outlet through Canadian channels. To say that under these circumstances we cannot enforce that contract against the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and against any party interested in this road seems to me to be impossible to conceive. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not say that the letter of this agreement provides for anything to be done by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The amendment that we have accepted does not oblige the Grand Trunk Railway to do anything. What is in the amendment is, that we are not subject to do certain things for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, until the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway has secured this-contract from the Grand Trunk Railway Company. All we

can do is to rely upon the conditions which will exist after this road is brought into operation, when the Grand Trunk Railway, of necessity, must use this road for the purposes intended. That is the case, as I understand it, and under such conditions it is impossible to accept this amendment, because it would imply au obligation on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to get the Grand Trunk Railway Company to guarantee the fulfilment of all the obligations of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway under this contract. All I can say is, that there was never any expectation that there would be such an obligation, except so far as such an obligation may result from the general terms of the contract.


Mr. LENNOX.: As the present discussion is largely a legal discussion I shall endeavour to confine it myself to matters which are of a legal or quasi-legal character. We have a definite, square proposition made by the leader of the opposition in the amendment which he proposes. It is that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall, with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, be liable for the fulfilment of the contract and stipulations entered into with the government. A good deal has been said by the Finance Minister which can be very easily admitted. We admit, of course, that the mere fact that one company purchases the stock of another comiiany does not involve the responsibility for debt. But there is. a long distance between that and the circumstances of this ease ; and it becomes more emphasized when we consider the nature of this Bill as originally introduced and the speeches made by supporters of the government and members of the cabinet throughout the whole discussion. What we have had impressed upon us, both when this Bill was introduced and on every occasion when it has been discussed is this-that we are getting the security of the old Grand Trunk Railway Company. That has been repeated in various forms and it has been made of significance in this country-that we were not getting a contract with a paper company, but we were getting a contract with a company having large connections in Canada, and that these two systems would work together In harmony to the great advantage of this country. The hon. Minister of Justice, who has just spoken, emphasizes this view of the matter. He says that in this railway project it was found to be necessary, in the interests of Canada, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should have an extension west from North Bay. What the reason is-if this is the main object-of having an extension east of North Bay is not very apparent. But I leave that point. If it was found necessary in the interest of Canada to have an extension of the Grand Trunk westward from North Bay, what is that but saying that, though nominally and on paper, the Grand Trunk Pacific is Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
entering into this enterprise, yet, in truth and in fact, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company only, are the parties constructing this line ? And can there be any doubt that they are to be beneficiaries in this matter, if we glance back at the whole of this transaction ? From the very first day it appeared in committee down through all the stages of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, we have had here the representatives of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and practically of the Grand Trunk Railway Company alone. Now, the Minister of Finance made an important statement of fact, namely, that we have no assurance from the Grand Trunk Railway Company beyond what is expressed in the contract itself. We know, therefore, definitely, so far, what the Grand Trunk Railway Company propose to do. But, as I understand it, this does not, and should not end the matter. This is a provisional contract, placed before parliament for its approval. If it is a contract perfect in all its details and satisfactory to the people's representatives, well and good ; but it would be perfectly idle for us to debate the matter if the contract was to be accepted as a matter of course. We are here to find out whether this scheme is in the interest of Canada at all. Parliament has practically decided that point up to a certain stage. But, assuming it to be in any sense in the interest of Canada, it is for us to say whether, in its present shape, it shall or shall not become a completed contract ; and to that end we are discussing it. It is perfectly idle, in view of what the Minister of Finance has said-I say it with all deference to the Minister of Finance-for us to discuss the matter, if his view is to obtain that because a thing is in the contract, that is the end of it. We want to frame the provisions of this Bill in such a way that it shall control the contract so far as necessary in the interest of Canada. Now, I disagree-with the usual deference-with the proposition of the Minister of Finance that we have all the assurance from the Grand Trunk Railway Company that we possibly can have at this stage of the proceedings. It is perfectly clear to any one who will consider the matter, not only that we could have a different state of things before this committee, but that we ought to have a different state of things before this committee. Before this matter reached this stage at all, we should have had not only a contract signed by the parties to this contract; but if the Grand Trunk Railway Company was to stand as the sponger for this company, as was alleged at the initiation of this Bill, we should have bad a contract signed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company as well. Then we should not be met with, what I submit is somewhat captious, opposition by some members of this government. We have to treat it, however, as we have it. Now, this

project was launched as a great national scheme, as the solution of one of the greatest problems that have confronted the people of Canada, the great transportation problem. It was launched as the means by which we would secure the transportation of the products of the west through Canadian routes. That has been the burden of the speeches made by supporters of the government, and that was the strong plank upon which the right hon. gentleman who introduced this measure stood. And it was pointed out more than once-it was pointed out almost every day of the discussion-that if once we allowed that Canadian products of the west to find an outlet through American channels, it would be impossible, or next to impossible to win back that trade to Canada. Now, this is not a great national project. The only way you can secure that end is by securing identity of the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway Company with the interests of Canada. If you make it to their interest-and you can only do that by making it a matter of hard and fast contract-if you make it to their interest that the products of the Canadian west shall pass through Canadian ports, then you can to a certain extent, at all events, secure that desirable end, but, if you do not do that, this end can never be secured.
It has been pointed out, and I think the government must be impressed with the fact, although it was not expected at the time this contract was hurriedly entered into-it has been pointed out over and over again to the government that by reason of the fact that the western division of the railway is to be constructed before the eastern, there is a danger that the commerce of the west will drift over to the United States, and thence by the system of the Grand Trunk to Portland. You must therefore, by this contract-and this amendment will tend to secure that end- you must create a community of interest between Canada and the Grand Trunk Company. At present there is a hostility of interest between Canada and) the Grand Trunk. Their interest is to carry the products of the west, not by the long haul north of the Canadian lakes, but to drift it to the United States and carry it by way of their present American system. And not only is this amendment required, but more than this amendment is required in order to prevent that disastrous result. In the one case you may get some return for your money-I do not think you will get an adequate return for it-in the other case, if you allow the crops of the west and the commerce of the west to drift through the United States, instead of following a Canadian highway, to the national benefit of Canada, you will be promoting a national disaster. But that is not the only danger. I am addressing myself more particularly to the 42nd, 43rd and 45th clauses. As pointed out by the leader of the opposition, the 41st section is also involved in this matter of a national agreement; and greater even than the issues involved in the 41st section, is.the question of where our commerce shall drift, and whether this shall or shall not be a national highway. I want to point out that the danger of its drifting immediately through American channels is not the only danger. We are to have a branch railway to Port William or to Nepi-gon bay, and we are to have a branch railway to North Bay. So far as the working out of this scheme is concerned, it is not necessary to have a line from North Bay to Moncton. The Grand Trunk can tap this system at the branch running down to Port William, or to Nepigon bay, or to North Bay, and they can divert the traffic there, and there is no clause in this contract that will prevent it. What you have to get, if you are to secure in any degree the benefit of the results that were so glowingly pictured when this Bill was introduced, is to identify the Grand Trunk Railway closely with the contract, make them parties to the contract ; otherwise you will have the result that, although the paper company, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, is bound, the Grand Trunk Company, Che substantial parties behind the transaction, the men who are controlling the situation, the company which, we are told, is the security upon which this measure is launched, is not bound, and will be at liberty to do just what they please. Now, without saying anything harsh about the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I think the history of that company in the past as regards the shipment of its freights to Portland, has not been such as to inspire us with confidence that, unless you have them bound hard and fast, you will secure the end we desire. Now, it would be well for the government to take this matter into consideration : Is or is not the government willing, at this stage, to take steps which shall secure that measure of benefit to Canada which is the only excuse for introducing this measure at all ? Will they take the steps now, or will they simply refuse ? It is perfectly idle for the government to say that it is not in the contract, and because it is not in the contract it cannot be carried out. We are the persons who offer the terms upon which our railways shall be built. If we think fit, we can recall this measure from this company altogether. If we do that, we will find many capitalists in Canada and elsewhere ready to take it upon easier terms than you have offered to this company. But I do not assume that will happen. I say, all you have to do, and all that we are here for, is to say : A proposal has been made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the Grand Trunk Company ; we want certain terms ; it is the duty of the government to exact every reasonable term. It is not the duty of the government to say : Oh, it is not in the

i
contract, ancl, therefore, it cannot be done. It Is for parliament to say that we want these additional terms, and if these additional terms are exacted, there is every reason to believe they will be conceded. If they are not accepted by the Grand Trunk Company, it will be evidence of this dangerous partnership between the two companies.
I do not like this silent partnership business at all ; but if we are to have a sleeping partner, let us have him out into the open and make a contract with him that he will have to stand by.


Mr. BENNETT.: It is conceded that what is known as the western division of thi. railway will be the first part to be undertaken, or if not the first part to be undertaken, it will be the first part that will be constructed by the company building it. That is plain, owing to the fact that the requirements of the road will demand that that part shall be first constructed, and in the next place, that the construction of what is known as the prairie section of the railway will facilitate the building and the construction of the road through the mountains much faster than the eastern part. I think throughout the discussion it has been assumed that the road from Winnipeg eastward will not be constructed and in operation for some seven or eight years. In the meantime, therefore, it is idle to suppose that the Grand Trunk Pacific will have on their hands a large section of road extending from Edmonton to Winnipeg doing nothing. Therefore, it will be the duty of the Grand Trunk Pacific to look after an outlet for their grain. That outlet, I assume, must be secured by one of three courses : First, to make terms with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the transit of grain from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior ; second, to build a line from Winnipeg southward to the border and then make connection with the Northern Pacific to Duluth ; or there is a third course open, and that is to make arrangements with Mackenzie & Mann by which they would have the user of the Canadian Northern also to a point on the north end of Lake Superior, at Port Arthur.
A glance at the map will show any hon. gentleman the fact that there cannot be a distance of over 75 miles between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Northern Pacific running to Duluth. It is fair to assume that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, pouring its grain into Winnipeg and looking for an avenue outward to the east, will make one of these three arrangements instead pf running away north when the road is practically completed eastward and then running their branch south of it down by way of Lake Nepigon or to Port Arthur or Fort William. So it is fair to assume that for the first seven or eight years when the company are pouring their grain into Winnipeg which is a distributing point, the route Mr. LENNOX.
eastward is going to be by some of the routes which I have specified. Certainly, it is not going to be by a new railway built by themselves to the head of Lake Superior but rather by some easier arrangement that perhaps can be entered into. I think as far as clauses 42 and 43 are concerned, if the hon. Minister of Justice would give a frank answer, he would say that they are utterly useless for the purpose of compelling the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry out this agreement, because the clauses themselves must of necessity be carried out by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. What do the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company agree to do ? They say that any freight not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory or between Canadian inland ports. To give an illustration, we know that in the city of Toronto there are the great works of the Massey-Harris people who m'ake large shipments of agricultural implements to the Northwest Territories. Is any man insane enough to believe that when this road is constructed the Massey-Harris Company would make an arrangememt with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to have their goods shipped to North Bay, and from North Bay hundreds of miles north to meet its line of railway ? In view of the fact that they would have communications opened with the head of Lake Superior, whether at Duluth or by arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Mackenzie & Mann system, these goods would be shipped from Colling-wood, Midland or Meaford, which are all points on the Grand Trunk Railway system proper, and they would be shipped to the head of Lake Superior and on to Winnipeg, which, as my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) suggests, is 300 miles shorter. Let any hon. gentleman go to Owen Sound and what will he find ? The Canadian Pacific Railway have probably 300 or 400 men employed during the season of navigation there handling package freight and other goods because the Canadian Pacific Railway prefer to send this freight to Owen Sound, to tranship it to their boats, take it to the head of Lake Superior and then place it on cars. An exactly similar course would be followed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company instead of carrying a large quantity of freight by a circuitous route. As far as the guarantee by the Grand Trunk Railway Company proper and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as to the routing of freight goes, it amounts to very little. Now, in clause 43 the government anticipated this very matter because the government say that they will bind this company to carry all freight to a Canadian port as cheaply as they would to an American port, or, to Portland. What is contemplated by that ? It Is contemplated that the company will, if
11S25

the loss which has been reported over the country the statement is not borne out by the facts to any extent whatever. I think it is the duty of members of this House and of the press to as far as possible remedy the ill effects of the reports which the latter have helped to circulate in regard to this matter which is of such great importance to the western portion of this country.


Mr. F. OLIVER. (Alberta).: Mr. Speaker, it seems remarkable, that, when we have a meteorological service extending throughout the Dominion of Canada with important points of information throughout the territories, up to the present time there has been an absolute and utter misapprehension in the minds of the general public in Canada and in the old country as well, as to the extent and results of this storm. It seems to me desirable that the attention of the government should be drawn to that fact. Had the storm been treated in an ordinary way by the purveyors of news throughout the country it would mot have been necessary to draw public attention to these facts. But when the opportunity has been taken, for what reason I am unable to say, to spread reports which are damaging and which are very largely incorrect it is a time when we might expect that our meterological service would put the matter right before the country, would in fact have kept the matter right and not have allowed it to have gone wrong. I wish to speak of the extent of the storm and it is on that point that I think the meterological department was very greatly in fault in not having given information as to the limits to which the storm extended. My information is that on the Saturday of the storm, the 13th instant, at Edmonton, there was no storm whatever. There was no knowledge of any storm at that time. The papers report a golf tournament taking place on that day, a very successful one in fact, so that it is evident there could have been no serious break in the weather on that particular day. It seems surprising that there should have been a report generally circulated throughout Canada and extended to the old country that this storm was universal and destructive throughout the territories. It has been surprising to me in view of the statements which have appeared even in the eastern press that the facts should not have been made known. I do not know where our eastern papers get their news service from the territories, but it seems certainly as if they have been very short of information, when they have allowed for over a week such misapprehensions, such misstatements and such damaging misstatements to be circulated generally throughout the country and throughout the world to go. so far as I have seen, uncontradicted. It Is not desirable to bring such matters up in parliament but under all- the circumstances it seems to be the only remedy for a very remarkable condition of affairs.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I do not agree at all with my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) that the first false reports which were put in circulation have not been contradicted. Everybody knows that the first report of this remarkable severe storm having done damage in the North-west is an absolute falsehood. Everybody who has read the newspapers knows by this time that the storm has been very limited in its area and not at all severe. Unfortunately, when an item appears in a newspaper, it is usually copied by all others, whether it is right or wrong. I do not know that there is any remedy for that;, they have no opportunity of verifying it. If it is right, well and good; if it is wrong, serious damage may be done. But I think everybody knows by this time that, happily for us, the storm was not of the character reported, and did no serious damage.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has very correctly described the route pursued by the storm. Although I have not seen any report from the Canadian meteorological service, the American service has traced the route of the storm as northeasterly, crossing the south-western corner of Manitoba, and passing on to James bay and the coast of Labrador. There is nothing at all surprising in the supposition that there has been a storm generally over north-western Canada. We find by the European newspapers that four weeks ago a heavy snow-storm broke over Saxony and certain parts of Austria ; and there has been scarcely a month in the present year when frosts have not occurred in southern New York and Pennsylvania. But what I rise to call attention to is that a certain officer of the meteorological department in Toronto was in the North-west in the vicinity of Edmonton about this time last year, when a hail-storm occurred that did some damage in a strip about five miles in area near Westaskiwin ; and that on his return home he wrote a description of the country in which he stated that in the district north of Wetaskiwin and Red Deer, though it might be possible to grow' oats, it would be utterly impossible to grow wheat ; although only three weeks before that gentleman had visited the locality, as any one familiar with the country knows, wheat had been cut in immense quantities, and had been marketed for from 100 to 150 miles north of the very spot where this gentleman stated that it would be utterly impossible for wheat to grow. I drew the attention of the government at the time to the report of this officer. I think that before these officers turn out immigration literature for the benefit of Texas. Louisiana and other parts of the south-western states, to the development of which our American friends are rightly directing their

attention, and to prevent settlers coming to Canada, the government should see that they know whereof they speak. This is not the first time that these erroneous reports have been sent to the old country. Had not Lord Strathcona happened to he in Canada the other day, I presume there would have been no official correction of this false report which some fellow in a back office in the city of Toronto telegraphed to the London ' Morning Post' and which was then telegraphed throughout the United Kingdom. Such a telegram stating that not 10 per cent of the entire crop of the Canadian North-west would be harvested, would have had a magical effect upon immigration to Canada; and the fact that Lord Strathcona took occasion to obtain reports from the North-west and forward them to the old country tended to remove the false impression. But that action was quite incidental, and if it had not been taken, it is hard to estimate the amount of damage that would have been done to Canada.


Mr.   E.@: F, CLARKE (West Toronto). I think the hon. member for West Assiniboia has done the country a good service in drawing attention to the exaggerated reports published in the old country as to the damage done by the snow-storm in the North-west. It is not pretended, I suppose, that Mr. Stupart was responsible for the reports which came to him from the different meteorological stations in Manitoba and the North-west. I should think that the local observers would have something to do with the despatch of the reports and the statements made with regard to the direction of the storm.


Frank Oliver: Weather reports are sent in twice a day to the head office from every point in Manitoba and the territories.


Edward Frederick Clarke: X quite understand that, and I presume that the reports which are compiled in the head office at Toronto and distributed, are based on the local reports received from the sections affected. I do not rise, however, to prolong the discussion, but respectfully to suggest to the government that if they desire to ascertain who are at fault, the reports sent to the head office at Toronto from the western stations should be carefully examined ; and if it is found that they are exaggerated, those responsible for sending them should be reprimanded ; because certainly great damage might have been done to western Canada by the transmission of these exaggerated reports across the Atlantic. I am satisfied, as I am sure every other hon. member must be, that the executive officers of the Meteorological Department at Toronto would not willingly or knowingly send exaggerated reports broadcast, but" that they were justified in making up their bulletins from the reports received from their representatives in the west.


Samuel Hughes: *


Frank Oliver: I would like to explain what I think is a misapprehension on the part of the members who have spoken as to the question at issue. It is not charged that the office in Toronto circulated reports that were not justified by the information received. What is charged is, that it did not circulate reports as to good weather according to information which it must have received.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That surely ought to be a matter of departmental investigation.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, there is one fact which I wish for a moment to refer to, and which may have some bearing on this matter ; that is, that in the states of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, this dip in the temperature did more damage than it did in the Canadian North-west. The weather was quite as severe in those states as in the region affected in the Canadian North-west. Although no snow fell there was frost enough to injure the corn crop and to do much more serious damage than any that was inflicted on our own country.
Motion to adjourn negatived.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACLEAN-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria) -asked :
Has the fallowing clause in the original charter of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, passed in 1852, been repealed :-'The fare or charge for each third-class passenger by any train on the said railway shall not exceed one penny currency for each mile travel ; and that at least one train per day having third-class carriages shall run every day throughout the length of the line ' ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The question of the hon. gentleman is a legal question, involving the consideration of many years of legislation concerning the Grand Trunk Railway, and we do not think we are in a position to give any definite answer. We think it would not be wise for us to express any opinion on a matter of that character at present.


LEASE OF LONG WHARF, ST. JOHN, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria) -asked :
1.	Has the government leased or granted to
any person, firm or company the privilege of using any berth at the Long Wharf, or any part of said wharf, being a part of the terminal facilities at St. John, N.B., of the Intercolonial Railway ?	_
2.	If so, who are the parties or party having
these concessions ?	.
3.	What rental and wharfage is paid ?	%
4.	Has a drop been constructed or ordered for the accommodation of such persons, firms or companies or any other, a.nd what changes
* and improvements ; and if so, at what cost ?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S. Fielding) :
1.	Yes.
2.	Wm. Thompson & Co.
3.	Rental $1,000 per annum.
4.	Drop has been ordered, and is under construction ; it is estimated to cost $250.

Mr. BIRKETT asked :: 1.	Does the government intend improving the natural beauties of Nepean Point, and opening it to the public for park purposes, as it should be ?
2.	If so, will the government arrange or consent to add Nepean Point to Major's Hill Park, connecting the two by an overhead bridge across the street for pedestrians ?
3.	Has the question of Nepean .Point's picturesque beauty and adaptability for park purposes, and the removal of the magazine to a less dangerous distance from the city, been considered by the government at any time ? Or has the question been referred to the Ottawa Improvement Commission for their consideration ? If so, 'when, and with what result?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: No action has been taken in regard to this matter.


CIVII, SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House do to-morrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act to the effect set forth in the following clauses, and for that purpose that the same be inserted in a Bill to amend the said Act.
1.	Section 12 of the Civil Service Act, chapter 17 of the Revised Statutes, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
' 12. The salary of a deputy head of a department on appointment shall be three thousand five hundred dollars per annum, with an annual increase of one hundred dollars per annum to a maximum salary of four thousand dollars per annum, such increase to be made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation. of the head of the department ; provided, however, that the deputy of the Minister of Justice, if at the time of his appointment he is a barrister of at least ten years' standing, and the deputy of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, if at the time of his appointment he has been at least ten years in the service of one or more of the chartered banks of Canada as general manager or as a manager of a branch of such bank, or in both capacities, and the deputy of the Minister of Railways and Canals, if at the time of his appointment he is a civil engineer of at least ten years' standing, may he paid one thousand dollars per annum, in addition to the amount herein provided for.'
2.	For the purpose of determining tne Salary of the present deputy heads, such d/eputy heads shall be credited with their period of service either as deputy or in some other capacity in the public service, at the time of the coming into force of this Act, and shall thereafter be paid such salary as they would by length of service Jiave become entitled to had they been appointed under the provisions of section 12 1
of the Civil Service Act, as enacted by this Act. Provided further, that nothwithstauding anything to the contrary in this Act contained, the salary of the present Deputy Minister of Finance so long as he remains in office shall be the maximum salary for the deputy of that department, as authorized by this Act.
3.	If any deputy head is not now entitled under the provisions of this Act to receive the maximum salary of four thousand dollars, his salary may be increased by yearly increases of one hundred dollars each until he receives the said maximum salary.
4.	In addition to the class of chief clerkships referred to in sections 15 and 16 of the said Act, another class, to be known as that of * Chief Clerkship, Grade A,' is hereby created.
(2.) The minimum salary paid to a chief clerk, grade A, shall be two thousand four hundred dollars, with annual increases of one hundred dollars up to a maximum of two thousand eight hundred dollars.
5.	Section 1.6 ot. the Civil Servict Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
' 16. The minimum salary of a chief clerk shall be one thousand nine hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary shall he two thousand five hundred dollars per annum.'
6.	Section 18 of the Civil Service Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
' 18. The minimum salary of a first class clerk shall be one thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary shall be one thousand nine hundred dollars per annum.'
7.	Section 20 of the Civil Service Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor
' 20. The minimum salary of a second class clerk shall be one thousand two hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary shall he one thousand five hundred dollars per annum.'
8.	Section 4 of chapter 14 of the statutes of 1900 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
*	4. The minimum salary of a junior second class clerk shall be seven hundred dollars per annum, and ithe maximum salary shall be one thousand one hundred dollars per annum.'
9.	The Governor in Council may, in the case of junior second class clerks whose salaries are, at the time of the coming into force of this Act, less than seven hundred dollars per annum, increase the salaries of such clerks to seven hundred dollars per annum ; but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
10.	Schedule A to the Civil Service Act as amended by section 12 of chapter 15 of the statutes of 1895, and by section 1 of chapter 14 of the statutes of 1900, is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph :-
[DOT]	(g.) Third class clerks."
11.	The minimum salary of a third class clerk shall he five hundred dollars per annum, and the maximum salary stall be seven hundred dollars per annum.
12.	Except as hereinafter provided, the salary of a third class clerk on appointment shall be the minimum salary hereinbefore provided for.
13.	The Governor in Council may, after a
[Stage Direction]
third class clerk has served one year, increase his salary, by amounts not exceeding fifty dollars In any one year, up to the maxmium salary of a third class clerk hereinbefore provided for ; but no such increase shall be made except upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
14.	Any person who is now or hereafter may be writer, clerk, packer, sorter, or messenger, temporary or otherwise, in the service of the government of Canada, employed in one of the departments at Ottawa, or in the office of the Auditor General, under Order in Council, may be appointed a third class clerk at a salary not less than the salary of which he was in receipt or to which he would be entitled at the time of such appointment (but limited always to a sum not exceeding the maximum salary of the third class) ; provided always that any such person, who in the capacity aforesaid, or in any other capacity, has been continuously in the said service for two years prior to the passing of this Act, may be so appointed without regard to his age and without passing the qualifying examination, and said Order in Council shall be held to create the third class clerkship in respect of which such appointment is made, and the. Governor in Council may, in the case of any such person whose salary is at the time of his appointment as third class clerk, less than five hundred dollars a year, increase such salary to five hundred dollars a year ; but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act. nor shall it be made except on the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
15.	So much of schedule B to the Civil Service Act as is included under the heading ' Customs,' as enacted by section 14 of chapter 12 of the statutes of 1888 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor : -
CUSTOMS.	%
Higher classes.
Inspectors,	salary from	$1,600 to $2,500
Collectors, salary from	 300 to 4,000
Chief clerks, salary from	 1,200 to 2,000
Surveyors, salary from	 1,200 to 2,400
Assistant surveyors (comprising tide surveyors, chief landing waiters, and chief lockers, salary from	 800 to 1,200
Technical officers.
Appraisers,	salary from	$	800 to $2,000
Assistant appraisers, salary from. 600 to 1,500
Gaugers, salary from	 600 to 1,200
Other classes
Clerks, salary from	$	400 to $1,200
Examining officers (including lockers and landing waiters),
salary from	 400 to 1,000
Packers, messengers and tide waiters, salary from	 300 to 600
16. So much of schedule B to the Civil Service Act as is included under the heading ' Inland Revenue,' as enacted by section 3 of chapter 12 of the statutes of 1809 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :

[Stage Direction]
Inspectors, salary from	$1,600 to $2,500
Collectors, salary from	 500 to 2,400
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Deputy collectors, salary from..	400 to	1,700Accountants, salary from	600 to	1,500Special class excisemen (chief officer in charge of distilleries), salary from	1,400 to	1,800Special class excisemen other than as above, salary from.. ..	1,200 to	1,400First, second and third class excisemen, salary from	600 to	1,200Probationary excisemen, salary from'	
Stenographers and typewriters, salary from	500 400 to	600Messengers, salary from	400 to	700
To which may be added for surveys of important manufactories and additional salary for the special class excisemen and other officers connected with such survey, not exceeding in any one case two hundred dollars per annum.
17.	The Governor in Council may grant such increases of salary in the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue at. are by this Act authorized, but no such increase shall' take effect from^a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that the person recommended for such increase is deserving thereof.
18.	Subsection (c) and the following subsections, except subsection (d) of section 47 of the Civil Service Act, are repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
' 47c. The remuneration of temporary clerks, writers, messengers, porters, packers, and sorters shall be on appointment five hundred dollars, and may be increased by annual sums not exceeding fifty dollars up to a maximum of seven hundred dollars per year, such increases to be granted only upon an Order in Council passed upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that the person recommended therefor is eligible for such increase and is deserving thereof ; and the Governor in Council may, in the case of any such temporary clerk, writer, messenger, porter, packer and sorter whose salary is at the time of the coming into force of this Act less than five hundred dollars per annum, Increase such salary to five hundred dollars per annum, but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except upon the report of the deputy head, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.'
19.	All sums of money voted by parliament for the financial year ending on the 30th day of June, 1904, for the payment of the salaries or the increases to the salaries of any persons now in the public service, shall, in the event of the promotion of any such persons to higher classes or grades, or on their transfer to other positions in the public service, be applicable in or towards payment of the salaries or increases to the salaries of such persons so promoted or transferred, and during the financial year ending on the 30th day of June, 1904, there may be paid from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund Of Canada such sums of money as may not have been voted by parliament, but which may be required for payment of such salaries and increases of salaries as are authorized by this Act
118.33


JUDGES OF THE PROVINCIAL COURTS.
[Stage Direction]
Tlie PRIME MINISTER (Rt. lion. Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) moved tine second reading of the following resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient tp amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts, and to provide for an additional judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, at a salary of $4,000 per annum
He said : My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) could not give certain information about it the other day, and he would like to give it this morning.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have with me the information that was required, but I would suggest that it would be better to pass this resolution now and then, when the Rill founded upon it is taken up in the committee, we might have the alvantage of the presence of the Quebec members. The whole matter could then be fully discussed. I would suggest that that be done, if it is agreeable to the hon. leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that would be agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution read the second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 255), to provide for the appointment of an additional Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 235) to provide for the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.-The Prime Minister.
On section 7,
Robert Laird Borden: Three amendments to this section have been proposed. I suppose thait, strictly speaking, only one amendment can be proposed at a time, therefore there is only one motion before the committee, but notice was given of the others. Two amendments, I think, were proposed by myself and one by the hon. member for West Toronto. My recollection is that these amendments stood at the request of the government, and I was in hopes that I might have had some intimation from the government as to what disposition they would propose to make of them. 1'orhaps it would be best to take them in order.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If the chairman would permit me, I would suggest that we take the second amendment first, that is the amendment with respect to the subsidiary 'agreement to be entered into by the Grand Trunk Railway, which is intended to provide that the government
shall not become responsible foi^ the first guarantee of bonds until the Grand Trunk Railway has become responsible for the second guarantee of bonds. Perhaps we might take that up and dispose of it.


Peter Macdonald: The amendment reads :
That section 7 be amended by adding thereto the following subsections :[DOT]-
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in the said agreement contained, ' His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry out or fulfil any of the covenants, conditions or stipulations in the said agreement contained on behalf of the Dominion of Canada unless and until the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall have entered into an agreement with His Majesty, the King, acting as aforesaid, by which the said Grand Trunk Railway Company shall covenant and agree as follows :-
(a.) That the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the balance required for the complete construction of the western division of the said agreement as provided in clause 34 of the said agreement.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The first two paragraphs of this amendment are merely intended, as I understand, to give effect to the agreement as it has been at all times understood and interpreted by the government. We have never at any time expected, nor was it even in contemplation, between the parties to the agreement, that the government should endorse or become liable for the first issue of bonds until the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada had undertaken to guarantee the second issue. Therefore, with regard to the first and second paragraphs, we are prepared to accept this amendment, as it is in accord with the intentions of the parties. With regard to the third section, it is impossible for us to accept the amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to say a word with regard to clause (a). If the minister will turn to page 11623 of the unrevised ' Hansard,' he will see there the resolution as I gave notice of it. I would suggest that possibly the wording of clause (a), which my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is disposed to accept might be improved if it were made to read :
That ithe Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee thie 'bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for such an amount as shall produce and provide a sum of money equal to the balance required for the complete construction of the western division as provided in clause 34 of the said agreement.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Is my hon. friend (Mi-. Borden, Halifax) adopting the terms of the contract ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I am not. The hon. gentleman will see exactly what the difference is between what I first proposed and the amendment which I now suggest. The amendment I now suggest

takes into consideration the possibility of the bond* guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company selling below par ; and, therefore, instead of saying that they should guarantee the bonds for the balance, I say that they shall guarantee the bonds to an amount sufficient to produce a sum of money equal to the balance required to complete construction of the western division.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As I understand, subclause (a), as my hon, friend first introduced it, adopts the words of section 34 of the contract ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman now wishes to depart from that and make an amendment which would have the effect of altering to some extent the terms of the agreement ?


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it alters the terms of the agreement in any case, even as at first proposed, because it provides that the Grand Trunk shall enter into a contract to do a particular thing. To that extent, and to that extent only, does it alter the terms of the agreement in clause 34. It provides that the bonds to be guaranteed shall be of sufficient amount to provide a sum of money equal to the balance required for the construction of the western division. That is all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The contract provides that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall guarantee bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the balance required for the construction of the western division. That would be secured, I think, under the amendment the hon. gentleman first proposed. But, at first sight, I would not be disposed to depart from the terms of the agreement.


Samuel Barker: I should think that the words used in the amendment to the amendment really express what the government intended. I could hardly imagine that the government was simply asking the Grand Trunk Company to guarantee a sum of money equal to the balance that was required, without considering the probability of the bonds not producing the money. The government must surely have considered what position the country would be landed in, if after it had guaranteed three-quarters of the cost, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company had given their guarantee for the remaining quarter, the proceeds of the bonds so guaranteed should uot be sufficient to complete the railway. The result would be, as the Minister of Justice must see, that the work would come to a standstill unless the government or somebody else provided more money. In drawing the agreement, the government could never have intended that. It must have been the intention of the government that, after they had guaranteed bonds equal in amount to three-quarters of the cost, the Grand Trunk Railway Company Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
should assist the Grand Trunk Pacific to provide all the money required to complete the road. That, I take it, is, beyond question, what the government intended ; and if they did not clearly express that in the agreement, then, by this clause, we should express what they really did intend. I submit to the hon. minister that this requires very careful consideration.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The clear intention of the parties to the agreement- and we say that that intention is abundantly manifest in every line of the contract-is that the company should first get from the government the guarantee of bonds to the amount of 75 per cent of the cost of construction, and whatever is required over and above that must be guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That is expressed in terms :
Inasmuch as the bonds to be guaranteed by the government only make provision for a part of the cost of construction of the western division. the company hereby agrees that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee bonds of the company for itbe balance required for the constructing of the said western division.
The intention of the parties is clear,- all that is required for the construction of the western division, above the proportion guaranteed by the government, is to be provided under bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk. I do not see how it is improved by this proposed amendment.


Samuel Barker: It was probably the intention of the parties to provide as the hon. minister lias said ; but it is very important for us to consider whether the agreement as drawn expresses that. Let me put the case to the hon. minister. Suppose the cost of the western division to be one hundred millions. The government would not be called upon to guarantee more than seventy-five millions.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would be the outside possible limit.


Samuel Barker: Now, then, the Grand Trunk will be called upon to guarantee bonds to provide the remaining $25,000,000. The hon. gentleman says they must guarantee bonds that will produce $25,000,000. Let us seo what the wording is :
The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall! guarantee bonds of the company for the balance required for the construction of the said western division, exclusive of the said $20,000,000 required for first equipment.
In the case I put, the balance required for the construction of the western division is $25,000,000 ; therefore, this language clearly says that the Grand Trunk in that case shall guarantee bonds for $25,000,000, although It might require bonds for $30,000,-to produce the $25,000,000 cash.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The language does not imply any such construction, in my opinion.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman thinks so, but is the meaning plain ? Assume that $25,000,000 is required to complete the road, then the Grand Trunk shall guarantee the bonds of the company for the balance required for construction. ' Guarantee bonds for the balance,' that is, for the amount of the balance, not bonds which, when sold upon the market, will produce that balance. That is the point of the amendment here, and I think, with all due respect to the Minister of Justice, that it will be a serious thing if it is not expressed in the clearest possible language. You will probably find that the Grand Trunk will look upon it in a very different light. There can be no question I take it, that the second mortgage bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk will not sell at par. I do not care what rate of interest you may give, what reasonable rate of interest you put upon those bonds, 4 per cent, or any reasonable rate, I do not believe they will sell at par upon the market. Very well, then it is perfectly clear that whatever may be the actual balance in money required to complete the road, you will have to issue more bonds to realize that balance. Does the Minister of Justice say the contract is clearly expressed in this respect ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think so.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman say it is not open to argument?
TheJ MINISTER OF JUSTICE. I would not say that, because ray hon. friend does argue it, but if he had not argued it I would have said it. I would not like to say that after my hon. friend has expressed his opinion.


Samuel Barker: I am obliged to the hon. gentleman for the compliment. But I repeat again, the words do not clearly convey the meaning expressed in the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition, that the Grand Trunk shall guarantee bonds that will produce the balance required. Supposing I asked the hon. gentleman to endorse my note for $1,000. I doubt if the hon. gentleman would do it. But supposing I made that request to the hon. gentleman, and then I said, Oh, I can't get that note cashed at par. I want you to endorse it for $1,100-would the hon. gentleman think that the same thing ? To my mind, this language expresses the very opposite of what the hon. gentleman says. You are to ascertain your balance, and they are to guarantee bonds for the balance, not bonds that will produce that balance. The hon. gentleman says it is intended that they guarantee bonds that will produce the balance. We ask that that shall be expressed in so many words, so that there will be no doubt.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I accept the amendment suggested by the leader of
the opposition, because I am convinced that his amendment only carries out the construction both parties put upon the contract.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the only difficulty that arises is that upon a somewhat careful examination of the language of clause 34, it was the opinion of some gentlemen on this side of the House, that there might be at least a question with regard to the point my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has raised. My hon. friend from Hamilton says that when you look at the expression ' the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall guarantee bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the balance required,' you are to understand that as being the amount of the balance required. The Minister of Justice would seem to dissent from that view, but I d<o not know exactly upon what ground, for the balance required means certainly the amount of the balance required. If it does not mean that, what does it mean ? The Minister of Finance suggests it does not say that, then what other meaning can you attach to it ? The Grand Trunk Company is to guarantee bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for some amount. The question is whether that amount as expressed in subclause (a) is such an amount as will realize the balance required ; or whether it is simply the amount of -the balance required. I am inclined to think there is a great deal of force in the argument of my hon. friend from Hamilton, that when you use the expression ' for the balance required,' that means for the amount of the balance required, but it does not mean a sum of money which will realize, when the bonds are sold in the market, the balance required, for completing the construction of the western division. The question between us is one of the construction of words. One would suppose that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, if this construction were attacked, would be entitled to say, These words are to be construed in no strained sense against us ; but when you provide by this clause that we are to guarantee bonds for the balance required, it means exactly what it says, the amount of the balance required, the amount which is represented by the balance required ; but it does not mean an amount of bonds which, when sold in the market, will realize the balance required. That is exactly the point my hon. friend from Hamilton makes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It strikes me the expression ' balance required ' means the balance required. I remember at one time when the question of the resumption of specie payment was raised in the United States, Horace Greeley said, ' The right way to resume is to resume.' I think the balance required is the balance required, and I do not think we can use any other words

to express it more clearly. What the hon. gentleman aims at and what we aim at is precisely the same thing. We are fully advised that that is already provided in the Act. Take the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton that this road is to cost $100,000,000, of which the government will guarantee three-fourths, and they will require to raise $25,000,000 more. Now, is it reasonable to believe that if the Grand Trunk guaranteed bonds to the amount of $24,000,000 and discovered that there was another million needed, they would absolutely sacrifice their $24,000,000 for the sake of that forced interpretation of the contract? The Grand Trunk, in its own interest, for the sake of the protection of their road, would be obliged to see that the bonds produced the balance required to finish the work, otherwise this $24,000,000 would be absolutely wasted. The Grand Trunk Company could not afford to do that, and that is perhaps one of the strongest arguments. Of course, we say that they could not do it lawfully. But, for their own protection, they could not afford to put any difference between the nominal value of the bonds and their selling price. But, over and above that, we claim they are obliged to do it legally.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Finance, I think, fails to realize the point. That is probably owing to his lack of legal training. The point is not a question of expediency, it is a question of construction and a question of law, a question of what the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be compelled, beyond doubt, to do.
The hon. Minister of Justice said this morning at the opening of this matter that he was prepared to accept clause (a) as suggested by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) the other day because it carried out the intention of the government at the time it entered into this contract. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition now thinks upon further consideration that the intention of the government might be made more clear by the amendment as he proposes it this morning and there can be no doubt, I think, that the wording of the amendment as proposed this morning is more specific and satisfactory than the one which was suggested the other day. Now, it is a question of construction as to wfliether the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be bound to merely guarantee the bonds for nominal amount of the balance or for the actual amount required. I take it-and I say this with all due deference to the hon. Minister of Justice-that clause 34 of the contract is not clear as establishing the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be bound to do more than guarantee the bonds for the nominal amount required to complete the railway ; in other words, that after the government have provided for 75 per cent of the total cost and Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
have ascertained what the total cost is under the contract, the position of the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be this : Bonds may be issued for what appears to be the nominal balance, the difference between the amount guaranteed by the government and the actual amount that the railway has cost. The Grand Trunk Railway Company are bound to guarantee these bonds for their face value and they are not bound to guarantee any more. I say this, of course, with a feeling of hesitation by reason of the fact that the hon. Minister of Justice has expressed a different opinion, but notwithstanding the fact that such an eminent authority has expressed a different opinion I feel so convinced that I would urge upon the hon. Minister of Justice to further consider the question. The clause says :
' Shall guarantee bonds of the company for the balance.' Assuming that the balance is $25,000,000. the Grand Trunk Railway Company might with great reason and force say : Present your bonds for $25,000,000 and we will guarantee those bonds. We have nothing whatever to do with the question of how much the bonds will produce. We have agreed to guarantee the bonds for a specific amount, wq guarantee the bonds for that specific amount and whether they shall produce a sufficient amount or not does not concern us because it is not covered by the contract. They are exactly upon the same plane as the person who undertakes to endorse a promissory note for an individual for, say, $25,000. He endorses the note but after he has endorsed the note he has fulfilled his contract. If the note does not produce the amount required by the person who has received the accommodation, the man who has endorsed is not responsible. That is the position of the Grand Trunk Railway Company under this contract. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says that this is a matter of saving themselves and that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be compelled to come to the rescue. That is not the point. The point is to make this contract clear to all Intents and purposes and it is not as clear as it should be under clause 34. The hon. Minister of Justice practically admits that. He says :	We are perfectly willing to
adopt the clause as suggested the other day, clause (a), by the hon. leader of the opposition. If the hon. Minister of Justice is prepared to adopt clause (a), as suggested the other day. I submit that there is every reason for accepting the clause which is moved this morning because it makes it clear beyond doubt that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are responsible for whatever balance there may be required for the construction of the railway and that they should guarantee the bonds not to the extent of their nominal value, but to the) extent of an amount sufficient to cover the
balance of the cost of the construction of the road. I understand that we are all

at all possible, carry the freight via Portland, or some American port. I am afraid there is not going to be any driving or forcing of grain by a Canadian route. These two clauses appear to me to be practiealiv worthless and might as well be dropped out of the Bill as well as some of those other absurd clauses as to the purchasing of goods in Canada and some others which have been discussed here. But, since the government are endeavouring to gain support for this scheme throughout the whole of Canada by the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are behind this enterprise let the ' Grand Trunk Railway Company be bound by it as far as possible. Take, for instance, a statement made by Mr. Hays upon one of the first days that this Bill was considered at the meeting of the Railway Committee. What did he say ? When asked whether this road would progress at the rate that had been suggested, he said :	With the immense powers we
have, with the great energy of the Grand Trunk Railway Company there should be a realization of our wishes and this road should be completed within a very few years. Throughout tire discussion not only in the Railway Committee, but in the House the statement has been made that the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company were one and the same concern. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are going to get all the benefit and the prestige of the reputation of the old Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is something enormous in the eyes of the Canadian people, in order that this contract which is being entered into may be fully carried out, a provision such as that proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition should be inserted.


Mr. CLANCY.: I have listened with a great deal of attention to what the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) have said. The hon. Minister of Finance has declared that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company are one and the same corporation after all. I do not wish to be misunderstood when I make use of that by saying that they are one corporation. They are separate corporations, but after all they have a common interest. The hon. Minister of Justice stated that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would in the nature of things be called upon to carry out in detail all that was contended for by the hon. leader of the opposition in his amendment. I do not know whether I accurately understood the hon. Minister of Justice in that statement. Whatever may be said about a violation of the letter of contract the hon. Minister of Justice will concede that the essence of the contract is not changed if the amendment o|f the hon1. leader of the opposition is adopted. If the essence of contract is not changed then no 372
injustice is done to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Why should there be any objection on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to amend any of the weak points in the company's contract with the country ? This is all one contract. After all, as the hon. Minister of Finance has said, we are dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and with the Grand Trunk Railway Company as one and the samje company. True they are different corporations, but they are both in essence the same. If that be true why should the Grand Trunk Railway Company hesitate a single moment, or why should it be contended that there would be any violation of the contract in substance or in essence ? Let me repeat again what the hon. Minister of Finance says that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand1 Trunk Pacific Railway Companies are the same. Why should there be the slightest hesitation to enter into an agreement to carry out every portion of the contract being entered into with the Grand Truhk Pacific Railway Company, which is all under the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself ?	,
That is the way it strikes an ordinary layman like myself, and I am sure that is the way in which it will strike the public. If they were separate corporations, and one were called- in as a mere endorser, I could quite understand that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would contend that they had not undertaken all the obligations of the other Company, but in this case they are merely becoming guarantors for another .part of their own concern, which is under a different name. I cannot see that there would be the slightest injustice done to the Grand Trunk Railway Company by this amendment, and I fail"to see why they do not assent to it. Although I am not a lawyer, I can understand the difference between the spirit and the letter of a contract, and in this case it is perfectly plain1 that what we ask is just and right in the interests of Canada. The Minister of Finance contends that no matter what kind of contract is made, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, it cannot be changed by this parliament. That means that we must swallow the contract holus-bolus. Surely we are here to advocate and to adopt such changes as are necessary in the interests of the country. I can understand a contract being so bad that parliament might reject it it altogether. I will not say that this contract is of such a character, but undoubtedly there are bad features in it, and what is parliament if it cannot remove these objectionable features ? It seems to me that the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition is not only" reasonable, but there is absolutely no defence whatever for opposing it.


The MINISTER OF FINAAOE.: I wish to answer the hon. gentleman at once. I



say distinctly that where a contract between the government and another party is submitted to parliament for approval, you cannot change one line of that contract. Parliament can reject such a contract, but parliament cannot make a contract with the other party


Samuel Hughes: Cannot parliament refer it back to have it amended?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is another question.


James Clancy: That is what I said.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not what the hon. gentleman said. He condemned me for saying that this contract cannot be altered, and I repeat what I said in that respect. This contract cannot be altered by anything the parliament of Canada may do, and unless there be a mutual agreement to change the contract, it cannot be changed. I want to state that without any qualification Whatever. As to how far the Grand Trunk Company are m this and of it, I say that the Grand Trunk Company is in this enterprise to a degree which we regard as of very great value. In tlife first place, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Justice at the initiation of this enterprise, the sum of 85,000,000 must be put up. We know that at the beginning the Grand Trunk Pacific will not have acquired the money to put up that five millions, and practically, although it is not an obligation of the Grand Trunk, we know as a matter of fact, that the Grand Trunk Company must finance the Grand Trunk Pacific at the beginning, and before the latter company is fully organized. The promoters of this scheme, and that means practically the Grand Trunk, must put up five million dollars


Haughton Lennox: Have they promised ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Grand Trunk Pacific have promised, aud the promoters of that company must so finance as to l'aise that five million dollars, and practically they will have to rely on the Grand Trunk to do it for them. The next point made by lion, gentlemen opposite is that we require the Grand Trunk to take the whole of this common stock. The fatal error in the argument of these hon. gentlemen is in assuming that this is a great advantage to the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk Company would be delighted to have that clause stricken out, so that they might be allowed to take the stock up and float it in the money market as they please. That, I have no doubt, would be more gratifying to the promoters of this enterprise. We have put that limitation in. not to please the Grand Trunk Company, but as an additional guarantee to the people that that stock is not going to be placed on the market and floated at a fictitious value. I say, unhesitatingly, that it would be better to give it to the Grand Trunk, even without any other condition than it would be to have Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
it dealt out to be used by stock speculators on the market. It is not fair to say that we are giving it to the Grand Trunk Company, because every one knows that under the provisions of the Railway Act, the Grand Trunk Company can only get it for value. However, that has been discussed over and over again, and I need not refer to it further. My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) said that the Grand Trunk is going to be behind this scheme, but so far behind that you cannot see the connection.
I do not see how the hon. gentleman makes that out, if the Grand Trunk Company has to have connection with the other company to the extent of guaranteeing these bonds for one-quarter the cost of the western section. The leader of the opposition, by way of illustration, said : Suppose that road costs a hundred million dollars, the government will only guarantee three-quarters, or not exceeding 75 per cent of that. I will suppose that such is the case, and that being so, the Grand Trunk Company does not stand away behind so far that you cannot see it. They have to come right up to the captain's office and settle by their own guarantee to the extent of one-quarter of the cost. What is the use, then, of gentlemen opposite saying that the Grand Trunk Company are going to have no obligation in this matter at all ? And, because the Grand Trunk agree to give certain valuable guarantees, my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) comes forward and says that they ought to do something more. Well, we think that is not reasonable.


Mr. FOWLER.: The statement of the Minister of Finance as to the obligation the Grand Trunk has assumed in guaranteeing 25 per cent of the cost, is answered by the claim which the hon. gentleman himself made to the House, that the government by guaranteeing 75 per cent of that cost, was not assuming any obligation whatever. That was the argument of the Finance Minister, and that is how he sought to prove that the country would only assume obligations to the extent of 813,000,000


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I never said anything of the kind.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Finance Stated that the total obligation of the country would only be ?13,000,000, and he brought to his support the statement of an expert actuary who made it less than 816,000,000, but in order to be in accord with the statement of the Prime Minister he said that he would put the figure at 813,000,000. Now, in order to arrive at his thirteen million dollar calculation, it was necessary for the Minister of Finance to contend that the 75 per cent guarantee on the western section would not cost the country one dollar. Here then, we have an answer to his latest argument that the Grand Trunk Railway Company. in assuming to guarantee the remaining 25 per cent of the cost of construction, is assuming an important obligation. They

have a mortgage over all the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific to secure them for their guarantee, and they get that mortgage as compensation from the Grand Trunk Pacific for giving that guarantee. One of the things they get is this $25,000,000 of common stock ; and yet the hon. gentleman says-I do not know what he thinks ; I must take what he says, because that may be 'entirely different from what he thinks-he says that it is better that this common stock should go into the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and be held by them for fifty years than that it should go upon the market, and that whatever value is realized from it in the open market should go into the construction of tile road. It seems to me that that is ft very strange argument. I grant that it is far better for the Grand Trunk Company ; but certainly it cannot be for the benefit of the people who are to use this railway, and who are to be taxed in the matter of freight rates for the cost of this road. Now, the hon. Minister of Finance claimed that it was necessary for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to have tills line built north of Lake Superior in order that the western division should be of any advantage to them. Every person on the other side of the House who has spoken, from the premier down, has admitted that it will take at least seven years to complete the eastern division, while the western division, as far west as the mountains, at any rate that part of it which is necessary to tap the wheat-growing part of the country, will be built and completed inside of two years. So that there will be five years during which there will be no connection between the western division and the eastern division ; and during those five years what is to become of the product ? My hon. friend says it will be more like ten years. I have no doubt that would be>
nearer the mark ; but I am taking the argument advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite. Where will the traffic of the western division go during those five years ? It will go south, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce lias pointed out, and be carried over the American lines to the connections with the Grand Trunk Railway ; and to prevent that is one reason why we are presenting this amendment, which will obligate the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry all their Canadian traffic over Canadian lines to Canadian ports. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be unable to carry it to the east. The hon. Minister of Finance said that we had the Grand Trunk Railway Company bound by obligations. What are they ? We oblige them to take $25,000,000 of stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is a strange obligation, it seems to me. We are obliging them to take the stock ; we are not. obliging them to pay one dollar for it. If the hon. minister had fallen in with the proposal of the opposition, and forced the Grand Trunk Railway Company 372J
to pay par value for that stock, there would be something in his argument. But they may get the whole $25,000,000 without paying one dollar cash for it, or in return for guaranteeing the bonds on the western division. Then, he says, there is the obligation to guarantee the bonds. That is certainly not a very heavy burden on the Grand Trunk Railway Company, if the hon. gentleman .is right in his contention that it will not cost this country one dollar to guarantee 75 per cent of the bonds on the western division. That seems to me to be a perfect answer to the hon. gentleman's contention. We have heard a good deal about this $5,000,000 security that is to be put up for the .carrying out of this contract. Let us see what value there is in that security. This $5,000,000 has to be paid up within thirty days of the ratification of the contract. The hon. Minister of Finance assumes at once, without any authority, so far as the written contract is concerned, that that is going to be put up by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We have heard that great financial magnates are connected with this scheme. If that is the case, the putting up of $5,000,000, which they are to get back again, should not be a very serious matter to them, and it would not be necessary to call upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company for that. However, the hon. minister assumes that that is to be put up by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. What they may have said to him verbally does not bind them, as the hon. gentleman knows full well. You find by reading the contract that the $5,000,000 is to be returned, and is to go into the cost of the equipment of the eastern division. What has become of your $5,000,000 then ? It has been absorbed, and you have simply the equipment of the eastern division as your whole security for cai-rying out that lease. And, mark you, you have not the whole of that. You have only a second mortgage on that equipment, because, to secure the bonds that have fifty years to run, there is a mortgage given against everything, including the equipment on the eastern division. I think that only applies to the bonds issued to the government. The mortgage that secures the Grand Trunk Railway Company does not cover the equipment of the eastern division. Let us see what we have this great security figured down to. Instead of $5,000,000 to be deposited in the treasury of this country, we have simply a second mortgage on the $5,000,000 worth of equipment on the eastern division. We have that road seven years before any interest is paid ; then there are three years more in which the company may pay interest if they earn it. Of course, it goes without saying, that they will not earn it ; that is, so far as reports are concerned. They will take the full limit of ten years. Nobody would expect anything else. That equipment then will be ten years old before

the lease begins to operate, so far as any rental is concerned. Then, before you could enforce the terms of the lease for non-payment of rental, one year at least must elapse. Of course, a government would not be so sharp as to insist on the payment of the rental in the first year. All sorts of excuses could be brought by the railway company to induce the government to defer the payment for at least another year. Then you would have twelve years within which the equipment of this eastern division would be in use before you could begin to enforce your remedy.
Now, what would be more easy for the railway company, if they wished to protect their own interests at the expense of the country-and we all know how these things are worked, we know that men when doing business with the government are not so scrupulously honest as when doing business between individuals and that perhaps the government is not quite so strenuous in enforcing its claims as the individual with whom it is doing business-than to put on the eastern division of that road all their worn out engines and cars from the western division, or even to put on it their worn out equipment from the old Grand Trunk Railway. Then you would have on that line a lot of old worn out equipment nominally worth $5,000,000 but actually not worth $1,000,000. On this you have not a first mortgage but a second mortgage and if you should put the property up for a sale you would have to sell it subject to the first mortgage and how much would it bring, a lot of old scrap that has been in use at least twelve years, some of it perhaps for twenty years. This would be practically worthless so that the great security of which we have heard so much from hon. gentlemen opposite would have faded away. In making a contract you must look at the worst possible phase of it. It may be that the gentlemen who are now promoting this railway will carry out any verbal assurance they may give to the government, but fifty years from now they will have no connection with this company and in making a contract, especially for so long a time, you should provide for every possible contingency. It appears to me that the objections I have pointed out with respect to the security under this contract are so obvious that they cannot escape the view of any person who considers its terms.


John Charlton: It strikes me that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has indulged in at least one or two fallacies in his discussion of this question. He makes a comparison between the character of the securities held by the Grand Trunk Railway and by the government on the western division and says that one is on a parity with the other, that if the government has a guarantee or security it is of a character that will not likely ever have to be paid, and that the security of the Grand Trunk Mr. FOWLER.
Railway Company is as good as that of the government. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. The government guarantees the bonds of the company to an amount equivalent to three-quarters of the cost of the road. It takes as security for that guarantee the road itself, its own investment in the road, the company's investment of twenty-five per cent more, and the company's investment for rolling stock on the road amounting to $15,000,000. Or if the road cost $100,000,000 the government takes as security $25,000,000 of investment of the company in the road and $15,000,000 of rolling stock, a total of $40,000,000 supplied by the company and in addition its own $75,000,000, making in all $115,000,000 on which the government holds a first mortgage as security for its advance of $75,000,000. As the company takes the position of a second mortgage in this matter it is in a position entirely different from that of the government.


Samuel Hughes: For what does the government hold that security ?


John Charlton: The government guarantees three-quarters of the cost of the road and holds as security the amount of that investment besides an additional Investment, one-fourth as large, and the rolling stock of the company. The government's security is ample; the company's security is a second mortgage security and if the property is not worth its cost the loss will fall first upon the company that holds the second mortgage and ultimately, if there is a deficiency, upon the government. But there is no possibility that any such deficiency will ever exist. My hon. friend has given a presentation of the case calculated to mislead public opinion and to create an impression on the country which is the reverse of the fact, to create an impression that the government have been careless and slip-shod in their method of making this contract.. This is not the case; the government, so far ns the western section is concerned, has taken ample security, is in a strong position and cannot stand to lose.
Then my hon. friend goes on to tell us that the western division will be built in two years and the eastern division cannot be built in less than seven years. A line, 1,450 miles in length, from Quebec to Winnipeg is to require seven years to construct.


George William Fowler: Will my hon. friend permit me to correct him, I said that that portion towards the mountains, from Winnipeg to the mountains would be built in two years. That is the part of it that touches the grain district.


John Charlton: The section from Winnipeg to the Rockies will extend a distance of about 1,350 miles, lacking about one hundred miles of the length of the line from Winnipeg to Quebec and to construct this 1,350 miles my hon. friend says will take two years, while the other division, 100 miles

longer, will take seven years. These statements are preposterous, simply preposterous. The hon. gentleman concedes that the eastern section is essential to the success of the western section, it will be an outlet for the western section and for other roads at Winnipeg. What is to hinder as rapid construction of the eastern section as of the western section ? It passes through a country where material for ties, piles, and to a certain extent for bridges, cam be obtained, whereas with the western section all the supplies will have to be transported long distances. In my opinion the eastern section can be constructed more rapidly than the western.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Charlton: It is my opinion that it can. These gentlemen have been talking of this country north of the height of land as a bog, as a great stretch of peat, as a country perfectly valueless, with no resources at all. Sir, it can .be proved to be a country which can furnish homes for millions of people, a country of great agricultural resources and adapted for business in other lines. The railway through this can be built almost simultaneously with the western section.
My hon. friend goes on to talk of the putting of worn-out engines and rolling stock upon this eastern section. A company operating a road of the character that this road will be, with slight grades, will in its own interest, to secure profitable operation, put on it an equipment sufficient and efficient to do the work cheaply and thoroughly. It will have no object in doing anything else. Then, he talks about the deposit of $5,000,000 as no security at all, and says it is not put up by the Grand Trunk, and so on. What does it matter who puts it up ? If the $5,000,000 is put as security for the western construction, the security is forthcoming. And he tells us that that can be withdrawn as the work progresses. It can be withdrawn only at a time when its withdrawal will secure the completion of the work.


George William Fowler: What work ?


John Charlton: The western section. When the western section is completed, the purpose for -which the deposit is made ceases. It is made as security for the western section, and it is provided that the government may allow that $5,000,000 to be used to secure completion, that the company will be obliged absolutely to complete the road before it can use the money; but if it is within $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 of completion, it can avail itself of the deposit. And the hon. gentleman, in the course of his remarks, asserts that the interest for the full period of ten years will unquestionably be paid by the government. Suppose it is, the contract provides for that emergency. It provides that the government shall pay the interest for seven years, and then, if the company is unable to pay for three
years, the government adds that interest to the capital account and the company must pay interest on that whole account for the remainder of the fifty years. What difference does it make whether the company pays the interest for the last three years or whether it is added to the capital account and the company pays interest upon it ? I do not hold with the hon. gentleman that the company will be unable to pay interest at the expiration of the seven years. I believe that the government has allowed the company to refrain from paying interest for a longer period than was necessary. I believed that at the outset. I believed that it was unnecessary to give the company more than five years, for in five years from the completion of the road, the company will be in a position to pay interest and all charges. I believe that still. I do not apprehend that there is the slightest probability of the company being in straits at the end of seven years. I believe, on the contrary, that by that time this road will have developed this business and will be one of the best railway properties in America. It will be the great outlet of the west. It will be able to lay down in Quebec the products of the wheat fields of the west cheaper than any other route, whether all-rail or rail and water. The surveys have progressed so far that we know to-day practically what the line will be. The Trans-Canada Company surveyed several hundred miles from the eastern extremity westward. The Grand Trunk Pacific has surveyed from Winnipeg to a point north-east of Lake Nepigon. The Grand Trunk Pacific have secured four-tenths per cent grades. The Trans-Canada has secured six-tenths per cent grades, but their chief engineer said that had it been an object to get four-tenths per cent grades, they could have got them ; they were seeking six-tenths which was the best they had on the Great Northern. We know to-day that more than three-fifths of this road has been surveyed and on that portion four-tenths per cent grades can be secured. And we know that the character of the country between the points to which the surveys have reached are such that we can count at least as good a line as in any portion of the country that has been surveyed. If this is true that road will do the business of the North-west. You do not need to figure as to whether that road can pay interest or whether it will be equipped with wheezy old broken-down engines. It will be carrying trains with two thousand tons of freight.


George William Fowler: Oh, oh.


John Charlton: My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) laughs. Well, he laughs best who laughs last. By the time this road is completed, we shall see. Here we have these pessimistic speculations, these misrepresentations-whether made for a purpose or not, I 'do not know-these misrepresentations and pessimistic forecasts with regard to a

scheme which is tQ be a nation builder for Canada, an undertaking which will carry itself, a road which will be worth double its cost by the time the government conies into its possession, at the end of fifty years. And we are haggling over this scheme. I am surprised. We are making representations not at all consistent with common sense or business principles. It would be better to settle down to business, to get the road started to satisfy ourselves that the government's security is ample-as it is- and to let the scheme go through ; instead of staying here until December talking about things and advancing opinions of the character talked about and advanced in this House.


George William Fowler: If any other lion, geutle-man on the other side of the House had made the reckless statements which the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has made, I would have been surprised. But, knowing the reputation of that lion, gentleman along that line, knowing the sort of statements he makes to-day and contradicts to-morrow, I am not surprised at what he has said. He betrays an absolute ignorance of the terms of the contract.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: I repeat it-an absolute ignorance of the terms of the contract. He has said that this $5,000,000 whicii is supposed to be put up, is security for the construction of the eastern division. Those are the very words the hon. gentleman used, and he used them more than once. And he said that as soon as the eastern division is completed this money is paid over. If the hon. gentleman had read the contract, he would have known that the $5,000,000 is security that the eastern division shall be equipped. Why should $5,000,000 be put up as security for the construction of the eastern division, when the government is to construct that portion of the line ? Now, if this is a sample of the way in which the hon. gentleman will discuss the matter throughout the country, how much reliance can be placed on his statements with regard to the surveys he has talked about ? He says these surveyors have reported that they have found a line on which a road can be built that will haul trains of 2,000 tons weight-such trains, I suppose, as he spoke of in his big speech on this subject, when he said that the train crews objected to having trains more than a mile long. Where does the hon. gentleman get his information? Where are the reports of these surveyors that he talks so glibly about ? If the hon. gentleman were not a member of parliament, I might make an observation or two with regard to such statements which might not be considered complimentary by the hon. gentleman. But, Mr. Chairman, knowing what a stickler you are for the rules of debate, I am obliged to restrain myself. It is not out of order for me to say, bow-Mr. CHARLTON.
ever, that the hon. gentleman's statements are about on a par with the statement of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the government had mountains of information with regard to that country, and when they laid it before this House it looked not at all like a mountain, but more like a hole in the ground. The hon. gentleman (Ml-. Charlton) is a little off with respect to his distances. He does not agree with himself. I suppose that when he made his first speech on this subject, he had been instructed. He told us that this prairie section was 1,200 miles long. Today he has it about 1.350 miles long. The eastern section, according to the Minister of Finance, is 1,875, miles long.


John Charlton: From Moncton.


George William Fowler: So, instead of there being a difference of 100 miles, as the hon. gentleman- said a while ago, there is a difference of about GOO miles, according to the statements of himself and the Minister of Finance. Well, that is about as near as the hon. gentleman can get to the fact. If the fact is GOO miles, he says 100 miles, and so be only gets within 500 miles of the fact. That shows just about the amount of truth in the statements of the hon. gentleman.
Now, he accuses us of haggling. Let everything go, he says. Why discuss this contract ? Why talk about it ? The 14 or 15 gentlemen who represent the cabinet-I do not know how many there are now, there have been so many resignations lately-but supposing there are 14 or 15 gentlemen, he says they have made a certain contract, and the 213 members of this House should let it go, because the cabinet represents, I suppose, the united wisdom of all the members of this House. Now, that does seem to me a very strange position for a business man to take, and I suppose we may consider him a business man-that we should enter into a contract for 50 years, a contract involving such a large amount of money as this contract will involve, and yet we are not to discuss the terms of it; if we do, if we attempt to improve it in any way, why, we are simply haggling. This is a very strange position surely for a member of this House, having upon him the responsibility of a representative of the people, it is a very peculiar position for the hon. gentleman to take. What is the matter ? Does he see looming up in the distance another meeting of the International Conference, and so he wants to let everything go in regard to this road. Is that the reason why the hon. gentleman has changed his view from the 23rd of May last when he opposed this whole scheme, when he denounced this scheme, denounced it publicly ? There must be some reason for it. I do not like to impute sinister motives to hon. gentlemen in this House, but when we see such a sudden bolt, such a quick turn by an hon. gentleman, a business man, too


Samuel Hughes: And a Christian.


George William Fowler: That goes without saying, all the members of this House are Christians, of course-when we see a man like this, who has a certain reputation as a business man, and who surely would not make a statement off-hand about a measure so important as a transcontinental railway project, we must assume therefore that the statement of the 23rd of May must have been a well-considered statement, he surely must have felt his responsibility as a member of parliament, his responsibility as a public man, as a member of the party, when he was opposing this thing, for he knew that, in making that statement, he was flying in the face of the premier of this country, the leader of his party, in fact in the face of his whole party-therefore, I assume that the statement which the hon. gentleman made on the 23rd of May was a careful and well-considiered statement, after having weighed the pros and cons of the whole subject. He then delivered himself of that statement on the 23rd of May, in which he denounced in round terms this whole project, lock, stock and barrel. The hon. gentleman certainly was not talking then along the line of letting everything go, and accusing us of haggling because we criticise the terms of this contract. Not at all. What then has wrought so sudden a conversion in the hon. gentleman's mind? Surely it is not the argument brought forward by the premier respecting the necessity of this road, surely he was not frightened by the ghost of the withdrawal of the bonding privilege, that cheap scarecrow. What is it ? Has he become so converted to Cana-dianism, has he at last become so patriotic a Canadian that the idea of one pound of Canadian freight being carried over a foot of American soil is so revolting to the hon. gentleman that he is willing to retract his statement of the 23rd of May ? How can we account for it ? There is only one of these three things that will account for it ; I believe he was converted, I believe he was frightened by that bogey of the abrogation of the bonding privilege; or else his patriotic soul revolted at the idea of Canadian freight being carried over American soil by American lines; or else he saw looming up in the not distant future another meeting of the International Conference, and he did not want to be left out of it. Now, the hon. gentleman can take either one of these alternatives that he sees fit. But I do say that it looks very strange for an hon. gentleman like this to say that we are haggling be^ cause we, feeling the responsibility upon us as members of parliament, seek to perfect the scheme as much as possible, and to safeguard the best interests of the people of this country.
Now, the hon. gentleman makes another assertion; ne says that we on this side have been abusing this country, that we have
been speaking of it as a country absolutely worthless. I hurl that assertion back into the teeth of the hon. gentleman. I say no man on this side has spoken in disparaging terms of any portion of this Canada of ours. We are not that sort of a party, that is not a characteristic of the Conservative party ever since that party was formed in this country. Our policy has always been the upbuilding of this country, the proper and due exploitation of the resources of this country; and therefore no man calling himself a Conservative would ever for a moment attempt to say anything derogatory of any portion of this country. We have said that this is not an attractive country, that it is not a country through which it would be easy to build a railway; we have said! that, from the very conformation of the country, it would not be easy to build such a line as is apparently intended by this Bill, that is, such a line as would be useful as a transcontinental road for the purpose of competing against American roads to the south. We say that the conformation of that country is such that it would be impossible to get proper grades to haul such trains as the member for North Norfolk has spoken about. It is all very well for that hon. gentleman, without a shadow of proof, without being able to adduce one statement of any responsible person, of any responsible surveyor, without being able to bring before this Committee one report from a surveyor of that district-it is all very well for him to get up and say thatti it is possible to build this road with four-tenth per cent grades, when he absolutely) knows no more about it than does any other hon. gentleman in this House, and far less; than some of them, notwithstanding the certificate which the Prime Minister has given him of being the greatest railway expert on this North American continent. Where did this hon. gentleman get his railway experience ? We know that he has been largely engaged in lumbering operations, but we never heard of that hon. gentleman as a railway builder, or a railway owner, or that he ever took a course of civil engineering, or has had any experience in that line. My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) suggests that his railway experience has been acquired by building a track to carry the sawdust and edgings from his mill to the place where it was burned. I suppose that is the only railway building he knows anything about, except what he has learned by travelling over them on a pass like the rest of us. I fail to see any reason why the Prime Minister should call the member for North Norfolk a railway expert, except it might be becaue he knew so little about railways. I trust, Sir, that before the hon. member for North Norfolk again stands up and attempts to lecture the members on this side of the House, he will gather together some actual facts and talk upon them, instead of basing his state-

ments upon such distortions of facts as lie has done in the statement he has just made. It has been suggested that there is an alternative proposition the hon. gentleman lias in view, instead of attending again the International Conference, namely, that the hon. gentleman is attempting to qualify for the vacant portfolio of railways, and perhaps that is why the premier gave him this certificate of character as a railway expert. We know that the hon. gentleman has been anxious for many years past to become a member of this cabinet. We know that the hon. gentleman got so rusty about the last election that he published a manifesto in which he declared his independence and that the Conservative party in his part of the country were willing, although I do not know why they should have been, to accept his statement and allowed him his election by acclamation. But the International Conference straightened him out, and he became the most subservient member of the Liberal party in this House, so subservient that the government selected him to make all these wild, flimsy, untrustworthy statements in respect to the route over which this great transcontinental line shall be built.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Justice have dilated to a considerable extent upon the interest that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would have in this eastern section, or what I shall term the government section. I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate, but I have not yet found out wherein the Grand Trunk Railway Company will have one cent's worth of interest in this government section. I have yet to see how the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be able to haul one pound of freight or how they will run their trains east from Winnipeg over the government division. Let us take an instance. The hon. Minister of Justice pointed out the great advantage that would accrue to the Grand Trunk Railway Company from hauling freight over their line to North Bay. To-day, if the Grand Trunk Railway Company wish to ship any commodity to British Columbia, how is that commodity sent ? Does it go to North Bay ? By an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, Winnipeg freight goes via North Bay but every pound of freight that originates along the line of the Grand Trunk Railway for points in British Columbia travels from Chicago to Minneapolis and St. Paul and thence passes over the Great Northern Railway and is delivered at points in British Columbia. Let us suppose that the government division is constructed and let us suppose that the western division, or the Grand Trunk Pacific part, is also constructed. Would it be in the interest of the Grand Trunk Railwav Company to send their freight by way of North Bay and over the government line to Mr. FOWLER.
Winnipeg, or would it be in their interest to send it by way of Chicago ? By one route they would have their share of the freight right up to the city of Winnipeg, while by the other all they would have would be their share of the freight to North Bay, whatever it might be. Therefore, it is in the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway to use their American line and the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not made up of children if this government is. The Grand Trunk Railway Company will use that connection and rightly so. I entirely endorse their action in so doing. The Grand Trunk Railway have no interest to east of Winnipeg in this new line. The only interest they will have in the so-called transcontinental railway will be the 25 per cent guarantee of the bonds for the construction of the road west of Winnipeg. In order to get a return on the bonds it has guaranteed on the western division would it not be in the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway to take all the freight they could over the American line and across the continent from Winnipeg west over the Grand Trunk Pacific line thus adding to its earning power, first by helping the old portion of their system in Canada and in the second place by helping the subsidiary company between Winnipeg and the Pacific ocean ? I would be very pleased if the so-called expert would attempt to point out whereby the Grand Trunk Railway will ever haul one pound of freight over the line from Winnipeg to the east. If it is going to the sea-board does the Grand Trunk Railway touch it ? Never. Freight going from Winnipeg to the sea-board passes entirely over the government line leased by the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway will not profit by the hauling of freight to the extent of a farthing. It touches Quebec and takes to the sea there, or goes down to the maritime provinces, it does not touch one mile of the Grand Trunk Railway. How can the Grand Trunk Railway be interested in that part of the business ? When the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Justice stand up and tell us about a verbal promise we might as well accept the promise of a boot-black on a pullman car as to accept such irresponsible promises as these. The Grand Trunk Railway Company will never haul a car of freight from Winnipeg to Quebec. The only advantage that they would have would be to haul it over their own line, because I expect that the government will not require the Grand Trunk Railway to use a Canadian Labe Superior port. The Grand Trunk Railway are entitled to use their American line for their eastern freight and they are not entitled to be forced north of the lakes in any sense whatever. If the government want to benefit Canada let them either control that northern line themselves or let them give a guarantee of bonds to some other company under an agreement, as the Manitoba government have done, so

that the Prime Minister could raise his hand and say : Rates shall come down. We have an example of that in the province of Manitoba. The premier of that province a year ago said :	Gentlemen of the Canadian Northern Railway, I want you to reduce your rate from 14 cents to 12 cents per bushel to Port Arthur. They kicked about it, but it was on the face of the agreement and the rate came down. There was no commission or Railway Committee of the Privy Council to state whether it should come down or not. This year Premier Rob-lin said to the Canadian Northern Railway : Gentlemen, we want that rate reduced to 10 cents under your agreement. The rate has come down and the farmers have the benefit of it. I want to tell the right lion. Prime Minister that if he in his wisdom wants to give the Grand Trunk Railway a British Columbia route by way of Chicago and Minneapolis from Winnipeg and through the Yellow Head or Pine River Pass I will not object. Let him come out and say so-and let him not pretend that we were going to have a Canadian end to it. Let him run the eastern section as a government institution and continue it through to the coast if he likes or let him give a guarantee of bonds to some) other company and then make an agreement by which he shall be able to control the freight rates on this portion of the road which will give us a Canadian route and whfch will bring about actual results which will never be brought about except in theory by the present scheme.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to bring one or two matters in connection with this subject to the attention of the government again. In the first place it has been suggested that because this contract is attached to the proposed Bill we cannot make any amendment in it. Technically this is the case. Practically it is not so. A similar agreement was introduced for which ratification was asked in connection with a railway in the Yukon some years ago. That agreement was amended in at least one respect and I think in more than one respect before the measure passed this House. Parliament; declined to give its assent to the agreement in the form in which it came before the House and all difficulty in that regard was removed by the making of a supplementary agreement which was entered into by the government on the one hand and by the other parties to the contract on the other hand. We are not, I suppose, dealing with this matter as a mere matter of form. Parliament is not asked to discuss this with the idea that in the end it should go through in exactly the form in which it is presented. We are supposed to be doing some work in regard to this contract. We have already amended it by the assent of the government in what I think is a very important respect. The suggestion of my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that we are haggling with
this matter, I can only excuse on the ground that he was not in the House when the government this morning accepted one of the amendments which I had the honour to propose.


Mr. COCHRANE.: He does not care anyway.


Robert Laird Borden: There is not the slightest objection to the Grand Trunk Railway going into the west. I myself have suggested in this House that the Grand Trunk Railway should have an opportunity of making connections between its system in Quebec and Ontario, and that great western country, and that every facility should be given to it for that purpose. We would be 'delighted to have the Grand Trunk Railway go into that country to develop it as far as possible, and we have no objection that they should even go in under the name of another corporation, as they are doing in the present case ; but when that other corporation is getting assistance from the government; when the Grand Trunk Railway is occupying the exceptionally favourable position of controlling the new proposed railway in the west, and receiving government aid for its construction, let us see that any stipulations that parliament in its wisdom may see fit to enact, shall be binding not only upon the nominal party to the agreement, but upon the real party to the agreement as well. Let us look at the attitude of the government with regard to this matter. In this contract; and I refer only to sections 42 and 43, in order to be brief, there is this stipulation, having reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific :
The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shippers, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through-rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time he greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that 'all such traffic not specifically routed otherwise by the shippers shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
What is the policy of the government with regard to that ? I am sorry the Prime Minister has left the House, because I would like to ask him this question :	Is It the
policy of the government, notwithstanding the aid that is being granted indirectly to the Grand Trunk Railway under this agreement, that the Grand Trunk Railway shall be absolutely at liberty to divert that traffic from Canadian ports. That is the way in which the agreement leaves the matter, and I challenge the Minister of Justice to deny my construction of this agreement in that regard. Is it the policy of the government that the Grand Trunk Railway, receiving this aid from the government in the form of subsidies and guarantees to the Grand Trunk Pacific, shall be fully at liberty to divert this traffic

from Canadian routes and from Canadian ports ? If that is the policy of the government, it is not our policy. I am putting before the House an amendment which is designed to impose upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company, all the obligations contained in the stipulations of that contract, and gentlemen on the treasury benches say they are not prepared to accept that proposition. When they take that course, they are simply declaring that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, to which this aid is really being given, shall be absolutely and fully at liberty to divert this traffic from Canadian routes and from Canadian ports. Is there any answer to that ? If there is, then during this debate of three or four hours I have not heard the answer, and I would like to hear it before the debate closes. In view of the action of the government upon this amendment, I assert that it must be the policy of the government, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, which is really receiving this aid from the government under the name of Grand Trunk Pacific, shall be absolutely at liberty to do tlie things which are forbidden to the nominal company by sections- 42 and 43 of that contract. What answer have the ministers to give to that ? Does the Minister of Justice say that the Grand Trunk Railway Company-not being a party to his contract, not being bound by any of its stipulations-is not absolutely at liberty to do what I have said ? This agreement, according to its recital, declares :
Whereas, having regard to the growth of population and .the rapid development of the production and trade of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and to the great area of fertile and productive land in all the provinces and territories as yet without railway facilities, and to the rapidly expanding trade and commerce of the Dominion, it is in the interest of Canada that a line of railway, designed to secure the most direct and economical interchange of traffic between eastern Canada and the provinces and territories west of the great lakes, to open up and develop the northern zone of the Dominion, to promote the internal and foreign trade of Canada, and to develop commerce through Canadian ports, should be constructed and operated as a common railway across the Dominion, from ocean to ocean, and wholly within Canadian territory.
That is the recital of the agreement and the recital of the Bill declares that a necessity has arisen for the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway, to be operated as a common railway highway across the Dominion of Canada from ocean to ocean. Is there any danger point which we can suggest on the line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is the real company, as the Minister of Finance lias himself declared more than once. I have already pointed out the great danger which the Minister of Trade and Commerce lias brought to the attention of tlie country, and I have shown that neither in his speech nor in any remarks which have been addressed Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
to us from tlie other side of the House, can we find that the slightest safe-guard has been provided against that very great danger. Where is the danger to be apprehended. In the first places in so far as the Grand Trunk Railway Company is concerned, it is to be apprehended in respect to traffic gathered in the west and brought to the shores of Bake Superior. It is to be apprehended with respect to the traffic that is taken to the shores of the Georgian bay and delivered to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is at perfect liberty to carry it to Portland, notwithstanding anything in this agreement. Will any of the ministers now say that they can gainsay my statement in this respect ? They will not say so. We are asking to put in this contract a stipulation by the Grand Trunk Railway Company with regard to that very traffic, and tlie government say : It is not part of our policy that that trade should he sent through Canadian channels ; it is part of our policy that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, receiving this aid from the government, shall be perfectly at liberty to divert it to an American port. In the second place, is there any danger with respect to traffic brought over the eastern division of this proposed transcontinental railway ? Can it he taken to Portland instead of Halifax or St. John ? I cannot myself see why it should be brought over the eastern division when it can be brought to the shores of the Georgian bay and delivered to tlie Grand Trunk Railway there ; but let us assume that it can be brought over the eastern division to Montreal or to Quebec, at a time when navigation is closed at these ports. What will be the danger then ? The danger will be, that whereas the distance from Quebec to Portland is 318 miles by the Grand Trunk, and the distance from Montreal to Portland is 291 miles by the Grand Trunk ; the distance from Quebec to St. John-even by the short line proposed by this government -will he in the vicinity of 489 miles, or perhaps 460, if you construct a line from Chip-man ; and the distance to Halifax will he 586 miles. In giving these distances I adopt for the purpose the estimate of the Minister of IHnanee which I believe to be altogether too low. After that freight has been brought to Montreal or Quebec, what is to prevent the Grand Trunk Railway Company from carrying it over that shorter distance to its own terminals at Portland, which is open for navigation throughout the entire winter ?
There is nothing in this agreement which prevents that being done, and we are asking that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall enter into a stipulation that the traffic gathered in the west and brought over the eastern division of this transcontinental highway, shall not be diverted by the Grand Trunk Railway Company to United States ports hut shall be carried to Canadian ports

for export to Europe. The policy of the government is not to insert in the contract any stipulation of that kind. The policy of the government is to leave it absolutely and completely within the power of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to do the very thing I am suggesting; and for that reason they decline to insert in this Bill the proposed amendment. Let it be perfectly and distinctly understood what the issue between the two parties is. We on this side of the House say that if the Grand Trunk Railway Company gets this aid by means of the nominal company which has been created, the Grand Trunk Pacific, which it shall absolutely control, the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself should be subject to the stipulation which requires that traffic shall not be diverted from Canadian ports. The hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, for some reason which is best known to themselves, decline to accept that proposition, and say, although we put into this contract a stipulation which is binding on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, we shut our eyes to the greater danger of diversion of traffic by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and decline to insert any stipulation which shall impose a stipulation on the Grand Trunk Railway Company in that regard. There is another danger point which might be mentioned, and that is this. Suppose this traffic is brought in the winter time by the Grand Trunk Railway as far as North Bay or Gravenhurst by the branch lines which are to be constructed, what is there to prevent the Grand Trunk at these points taking the traffic on its own line to Portland instead of to St. John or Halifax ; is there a single stipulation in this contract which does not leave the Grand Trunk Railway Company absolutely and fully at liberty to do the very thing which I have suggested ? If this is the policy of the government-and it is their policy because they decline to accede to the amendment which I have suggested-it is just as well that the House should understand it, and that the country as a whole should understand it. It is just as well that the country should realize that although we have high-sounding words, although this enterprise is called a national transcontinental railway, and although the object of this Bill and of this agreement is stated to be the transportation of Canadian traffic along Canadian routes and to Canadian ports, nevertheless the government, for some reason which they do not see fit to explain to the House, are absolutely determined that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, from which the greatest danger in that regard is to be apprehended, shall be absolutely and fully at liberty to do the very thing which is recognized on all hands as a detriment to the development of our Canadian trade. Under these circumstances, it does not seem to me that any adequate defence has been made of the proposition of the government
in this regard. Does or does not the government regard as of any serious import the danger which has been pointed out by one of the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, the Minister of Trade and Commerce ? If that is regarded as a serious danger, is it not a danger to which this country shall be open the very day after this agreement is signed ? What possible reason can there be for refusing to insert in this Bill a provision by which the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in respect to the diversion of traffic at least, shall be subject to exactly the same restrictions, the same stipulations and the same covenants to which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the nominal party, is rendered subject by the terms of this agreement ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: With regard to the new point which my hon. friend has imported into the discussion, that is to say, the guarantees for the carrying of the traffic to the maritime provinces, we shall have to leave my hon. friend's remarks to go to some extent unanswered, because they deal with a part of the question which has been repeatedly discussed throughout the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend pardon me ? I do not think I raised any new point. I endeavoured to make it plain that I had made this point when I addressed the House a week ago.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was a new point at this particular moment, though it is one which at earlier stages of this debate has been very fully discussed. What I imagine is the difficulty is this. My hon. friend finds that this contract is being compared in the public mind with railway contracts which have been made by Conservative governments in the past. He sees that the public are appreciating the fact that the guarantees contained in this contract are matters of great importance. He sees that the public are comparing the absence of exemptions in this contract with the exemptions granted in previous contracts to a favoured company. He sees that the people, looking back, realize that great exemptions from customs duties were granted under the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, while there is nothing of the kind in this. He sees that the people remember that while great grants of land were given under that contract, there is nothing of the kind in this. He sees that the people remember that while great privileges of one kind and another were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, there is nothing of the kind in this contract. He sees that the people are comparing all these things, and are comparing them to the advantage of the present contract and the present government. He sees particularly that the people of the maritime provinces are comparing this contract with the 1 history of past transactions in respect to

railways. He sees that the people there are noting the fact that when the Canadian Pacific Railway arrangements were going through this House, the maritime provinces were humbugged by the Conservative party with assurances which that party never intended to carry out. He sees that the people there remember to their sorrow that assurances were given by the Conservative government that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-though it appears that the company never gave such an assurance-were going to build a short line on Canadian territory to assist in developing the trade of the maritime provinces; and that the people remember that that pledge was not carried out. He sees that the people remember how the government of Canada in later years undertook to carry out that pledge by introducing a measure for the construction of the Harvey and Salisbury line, and had it thrown out in the Senate. He sees that the people of the maritime provinces, as well as the people in other parts of Canada, are making these comparisons. My hon. friend knows that the people in the maritime provinces realize that guarantees are given in this contract for the first time that the trade of the west will pass through maritime province ports. We know that throughout the maritime provinces today there is the knowledge and the conviction that the interests of the maritime provinces on this great question have been considered in the framing of this contract as they never were considered in connection with any previous contract. Knowing all this, and knowing that the people of the maritime provinces are fully, cognizant of all these things, my hon. friend thinks that he can draw a red herring across the scent, and try to make it appear that this contract is not sufficient to secure this purpose. Well, Sir, if this contract were as bad, or half as bad, as my hon. friend represents it to be, it would be vastly better than previous contracts which pretended to advance the interests of the maritime provinces, but never served them in any degree whatever. I would like him to compare the guarantees in that respect provided in this contract with the guarantees, if there are any, in the scheme which he has presented to this House. What guarantee have we that under that scheme a pound of freight would pass down through the maritime provinces ? We have in this contract for the first time recognized the right of the maritime provinces to share in the trade of the west, so far as it can be carried by rail, and we believe that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will accept this contract in good faith, and carry out the assurances which they have given. We are not regulating the old Grand Trunk Railway by this contract; but we are giving aid and help in the construction of a new road, and we are taking a reasonable guarantee that the traffic originating on all that line of railway from Winnipeg to the Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
Pacific coast shall be brought down over this road to the maritime provinces in the proper season. I do not mean that it will all be brought there, but that we have secured guarantees that at any time when grain or any other product is coming from the west by rail, the same rates shall be given from points in the west to points in the lower provinces as are quoted by way of United States ports. That, Sir, I think is a reasonable, a proper and a sufficient guarantee. What my hon. friend is asking by his amendment is that we should go much further and ask the Grand Trunk Railway Company to give guarantees in matters which are entirely beyond the proper scope of this agreement. We have confined ourselves in this contract to the new road which is to be constructed, and we have given every reasonable and proper assurance by the contract placed before the House and by the explanation given of it, that as respects that new road, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will take whatever export freight is coming from the west by rail at the proper season and will quote the same rates for that trade to ports in the lower provinces as they quote to ports in the United States. If that be done, then, Sir, we are prepared to trust to the people of the west, to the shipper of freight and to all who are interested in our western country, to give the preference to the maritime ports. In that respect we think that every reasonable assurance has been given, and I believe that the people of the whole Dominion will regard these provisions with approval, and that the people of the maritime provinces particularly will appreciate the efforts, now made for the first time, to secure for them some share of this western business.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, I did not observe in the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) any attempt to answer the arguments by which I showed that it was even more desirable to have certain stipulations now contained in the contract made binding on the Grand Trunk Railway Company than upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, if the purposes expressed in the preamble of the Bill and in the agreement itself were as important as the government states, and as we all believe. My hon. friend contented himself with going over some ancient history. I do not know whether he was desirous of obstructing the progress of this Bill or not, but he went over a lot of ancient history that taight naturally be expected to give rise to a discussion of some hours, while he did not attempt to answer- one single argument that I addressed to this committee. What is

his answer to the point I made, that even if the contract does call this a National Transcontinental Railway, there is not a line in the Bill or in the contract to prevent the Grand Trunk Railway Company from carrying the freight of the west from Montreal or Quebec to Portland ? He says that the people of the maritime provinces have been deceived in the past by some former administration, and, therefore, the logical conclusion is, that it is undesirable to provide any safeguards now. I would like him to tell the House why the government hesitates to put in this contract, or in the Bill, if it is too late to put it in the contract, a provision which will make that impossible in respect to traffic gathered by the Grand Trunk Railway by reason of the building of this railway in the west. Is there any possible logical reason which the government can advance to the people of this country why that should not be done ? I know of none, and I have pointed out, and I again point out to the government, that when the Grand Trunk Railway takes possession, as it may take possession, of that freight, either at Quebec or at Montreal, it will be in a position to carry it to Portland, instead of to St. John or Halifax, and in doing so it will not violate a single stipulation contained in this Bill. My hon. friend asked me a question in the course of his remarks. He said : You propose an alternative scheme, and in that scheme I would like to know what provision you make for this ? His recollection is short ; if he turns to my speech, he will see that I distinctly stated that the stipulations which, under the terms of the contract, are binding upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, should be made binding, and would be made binding, under my scheme, upon the Grand Trunk Railway as well. Bet me give him another safeguard which I suggested. I advocated the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to a point on the Georgian bay, and pointed out that by such an extension a very considerable portion of this traffic would undoubtedly be secured to the people of the maritime provinces, by reason of the government having that traffic in its own hands, so that it could see that that traffic would be conveyed in the winter months, not to Portland or to any other United States port, but to St. John or Halifax. These are two important differences between the proposal which I have made, and the proposal which the government is noW_ making to the House. My hon. friend is desirous of inviting comparisons at this stage between these two alternative proposals. I repeat again, that there are danger points all along this line on account of which, in the absence of any stipulation binding on the Grand Trunk Railway Company, we may expect to see that this railway, to which the aid of the people of Canada is being given, may be used to carry traffic to American ports,
and not to Canadian ports at all. I pointed out then, and I point out now-and my hon. friend has not answered me-the danger that will exist when traffic gathered in the west is brought to Georgian bay ports. It is perfectly clear that the Grand Trunk Railway, having the advantage of controlling the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, can secure that traffic at the Georgian bay ports and carry it to Portland or to any other United States port, and the government of Canada will be absolutely powerless to lift a single finger against such action. I pointed out, in the second place, that if this freight, instead of being taken to Georgian bay ports, is taken, for example, to North Bay or Gravenhurst, the Grand Trunk Railway, owing to the advantage it possesses of controlling the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, can take possession of that freight at these points and carry it to United States ports, and there is not a single line or a single word in this contract that would prevent the Grand Trunk Railway Company from so doing. And I pointed out, in the third place, that there is a danger which has been referred to by my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), in the most distinct terms, that connection may be made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company with Winnipeg, and by that means the traffic coming over the Grand Trunk Pacific from the west can be carried over American territory and to American ports, and there is not the slightest safeguard in this contract against that being done. Under these circumstances, what is the real reason why the government hesitates to adopt the policy of insisting that the Grand Trunk Company, being the real company aided by this proposal, although it is aided in the name and in the guise of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company- what is the reason the government hesitates to impose upon that company the conditions and stipulations it has imposed on the Grand Trunk Pacific? As I pointed out before, and as I now desire to emphasize, the danger of sending traffic to American ports is not in the Grand Trunk Pacific at all, but in the Grand Trunk, which has its terminals in Portland and its interests largely centred there. While I do not blame the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the slightest degree for looking after its own interest in any contract it makes with the government, or for seeking to utilize to the fullest extent its property, including its terminals at Portland, I do say that, while the Grand Trunk is properly vigilant for its own interest, the government of this country should be properly vigilant for the interest of this country, and, when it aids the Grand Trunk, as it is virtually doing, to build a railway into the North-west, it should see to it that that aid is accompanied with such conditions and stipulations as will render it impossible, as far as condi-

tions and stipulations can render it impossible, for tliat company to divert to American channels one pound of the traffic gathered by the Grand Trunk Pacific in the North-west. That would seem to me a reasonable proposition, but either that proposition has absolutely escaped the attention of the government, or the government, for some reason of its own which it has not seen fit to disclose to the House, disregard it. They insert certain stipulations which sound well, so far as the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned, and leave it open to the Grand Trunk to divert traffic to Portland or any other port of the United States of America, as it may think best. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) thinks he answers this by talking to me, and to the House, and to the country, about the disadvantages of contracts made with railway companies in the past. We are not dealing with these now ; we are dealing with the contract which is before us. If these contracts in the past have been disadvantageous to the interest of this country, surely that ought to afford all the more reason why, in making this contract, which will pledge the credit of the country and tax the resources of the country to an enormous amount, we should provide, beyond peradventure that the interests of the country in all these important respects are most fully and sacredly safe-guarded. The Minister of Finance thinks that he can set aside these conditions with the statement that a Conservative administration, fifteen or twenty years ago, did not make as good a bargain with regard to some railway com-panv as it might have done. I think it is idle'for the Minister of Finance to attempt to dismiss the matter in this way. I do not wish to go into that matter of ancient history, and take up the time of the House, as he seemed to wish to do, with a discussion of a matter of fifteen or twenty years ago. 1 propose not to waste the time of the .House, but to discuss the contract that we have before us. And, in discussing it, I find these points to which I have referred, and I ask the members of the government one after another, what they have to say with regard to it; and, one after the other they give me answers which, in no offensive sense, I would be inclined to regard ns absolutely flippant. My right lion, friend (Kt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when I suggested the danger which was made apparent by the words of one of his colleagues, seemed to think that he dealt satisfactorily with the matter when he showed that the argument of his colleague on the whole was in favour of the proposition before the House. We all knew that. But is that an answer to the suggestion of danger, plain to be seen and clearly pointed out by a member of the government, and not guarded against in the contract ? And when I repeat these suggestions, with other suggestions, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance thinks he gets rid of that


Robert Laird Borden: difficulty at once by saying that some contract of fifteen or twenty years ago was not as advantageous to the people of this country as it might have been. I do not regard that as a satisfactory answer. I have yet to hear one single argument or suggestion from the treasury benches of any value which would prevent the government from accepting this amendment. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says it is not advisable to go so far with restrictions upon the Grand Trunk. Why not, pray? Is it, or is it not the desire and intention of the government to prevent the traffic gathered by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the Northwest being diverted to United States ports? If that is the intention of the government, what possible reason can there be for rejecting this amendment, what possible reason for not insisting that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the real party to this contract though not formally bound, shall be subject to exactly the same conditions and restrictions as the government lias thought it wise to impose upon the Grand Trunk Pacific ? Are these restrictions of any value so far as the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned ? Does the government lay any stress upon them? My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when lie introduced this measure to the House, laid the greatest possible stress upon the very provisions of the contract to which I am referring. These were heralded throughout the length and breadth of this country, as the very acme and climax of statesmanship. That is the attitude the government assumed with regard to this measure at that time. But, when they are face to face with a proposition which they cannot deny, that there is much more danger from the Grand Trunk, the real, though not the nominal party to this agreement, they simply dismiss the suggestion with some such remark as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance makes this afternoon, or with the suggestion that they do not think it advisable to put restrictions of that kind upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance told us, in a recent speech that frequently he had sought to convince the Grand Trunk that it would be to their interests to become more thoroughly a Canadian railway in the proper sense of the term than they had been in the past, and that he had selected every proper occasion to convince them of the necessity of doing so. I desire to point out now that he has the best opportunity of convincing them that it is so in their interest by inserting these restrictions and conditions in the contract, as he has the right to do ; by saying that the government shall not be bound by the provisions and conditions of this contract, that the government shall not grant any aid to this undertaking, unless and until the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall become bound by the very stipulations in the contract contained which are de-

signed to prevent the diversion of Canadian traffic to United States ports. If the government are in earnest with regard to this matter, they can very easily put that clause in the Bill and call upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company to fulfil its obligations in that regard. If they are not in earnest, they can vote this amendment down ; they can say that it is not advisable; they can say that contracts made twenty years ago were not to the advantage of the country ; they can say that the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, though it pointed out a grave danger, was, on the whole, a speech favourable to this project; they can make all manner of irrelevant remarks of that kind. But they will not make remarks of that kind or dismiss this amendment in that summary manner, if they are in earnest in desiring to impose proper safeguards to provide that Canada's traffic shall not be diverted to American ports.


Samuel Hughes: When I was speaking before recess at six o'clock there were a couple of points more I proposed touching upon. The earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway this last year have been upwards of $40,000,000. The earnings of the Grand Trunk Railway via Chicago and Minneapolis in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, once that road gets into fair working order, without the slightest extravagance, I should imagine, would be $60,000,000 a year, or say $50,000,000. Five per cent of that would be $5,000,000. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in connection with the Grand Trunk therefore could easily lose in one year the $5,000,000 on old rolling stock, or the guarantee they have to give for the rolling stock on the eastern section of the road. Now, in connection with the mileage and the hauling of freight over the road, as has been pointed out on many occasions, the eastern section, or the government section, will not be completed at the very nearest calculation short of seven or ten years from to-day. It will take two or three years to get the surveys made ; and when the spokesman of the government said to-night that instrumental surveys had been made of three-fifths of the route from Winnipeg east, he was stating what he should have known was untrue. There have been no instrumental surveys made of that eastern section whatever. But the point I want to make is in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk, and the hauling of freight over that route north of Lake Superior. The Grand Trunk will guarantee 25 per cent of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific, that is from Winnipeg to the west. The Grand Trunk passing through Chicago and Minneapolis and joining the other road in Winnipeg, will find it to its advantage to take, the freight of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in
which it has a 25 per cent interest and direct that freight over the Grand Trunk route via Minneapolis and Chicago. We will take two cars of freight starting from the city of Toronto for the Pacific ocean ; we wiil send one via the new road north of the lake on the eastern division. The Grand Trunk own the line as far as North Bay, say 200 miles. Then they will have another 200 miles over the Ontario government railway, and then 1,000 miles over the eastern section to Winnipeg, and 1,600 miles onward to the Pacific ocean, that is in all about 3,000 miles of road. The Grand Trunk Railway Company's share of the freight, say $200 on that car, would only be two-thirtietlis of the whole amount, they would only have; 200 miles out of the
3.000	miles, in other words, they would have one-fifteenth of the entire freight of that road, speaking now of the freight from Ontario points, not of the freight that goes to the ocean at all. The Ontario government road would have its share of the 200 miles of haulage, the eastern section from Lake Abitibi to Winnipeg would have its
1.000	miles, or two-thirtieths, and the Grand Trunk Pacific would have the other 1,600 miles, or sixteen-thirtieths of the haul and freight rates on that railway. Take the other car that goes via the oid Grand Trunk Railway proper through Chicago and Minneapolis on to Winnipeg. That way it is about 1,400 miles from Toronto to Winnipeg via Chicago, that is about 1,400 miles, and 1,600 miles on to the Pacific ocean. Via Chicago and Minneapolis the Grand Trunk Company then would have fpurteen-tliirtieths of the freight rates, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, its associated road, would have the balance. Why, take a car of any produce over the line east of Winnipeg and north of Lake Superior, and in every case it is to the advantage of the Grand Trunk Railway to haul it through the United States route and onward. Now, supposing the Grand Trunk, as the leader of the opposition has pointed out, were to operate this road after it is completed from Winnipeg east, what share of that freight would the Grand Trunk Pacific get ? Where would it touch the Grand Trunk Pacific at any point between Winnipeg and the city of Quebec or Moncton ? Not a mile of the Grand Trunk Pacific would be traversed by a solitary car hauling freights, and not a cent of passenger rate would be evolved over it. I fail therefore to see where the government expects that the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk Railway, either of them, will ever operate this north shore road for an hour. As it has been pointed out repeatedly in this House, the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean will probably be built at the end of five years, and the eastern section or the government section will not be completed undoubtedly for many years thereafter. And what is the Grand Trunk Pacific going to

do with all the freight ? To whom is it going to be handed over, to the Canadian Pacific Railway, to the Canadian Northern, or to the new American line, to be brought down to Duluth, through United States routes and onward into Canada ? I am satisfied there is only one solution to this question, and the more it is looked into by the public the more certain they will be that this is just another means of getting the Grand Trunk into the west, giving it a transcontinental line which in every sense ought to be a magnificent road, and that this line through the northern part of Canada is merely something which the government are dangling before the electors in order to help carry them once more to victory. I am satisfied, however, that in that scheme they will ignominously fail.


Mr. BROCK.: We are engaged at the present time in discussing probably the most important question that has come before this parliament during the last thirty years. We are face to face with a very serious question indeed, and we should therefore approach this subject seriously. We are not here to find fault with what was done thirty years ago, we are here to make the best arrangement we possibly can make for our country at the present time. A question was asked by the leader of the opposition this afternoon, a definite question, in which he called upon the hon. gentlemen opposite, both those sitting on the treasury benches and those behind them, to make a definite reply. We then saw, Mr. Chairman, I must say, one of the most lamentable spectacles this House has ever observed, a gentleman of the greatest influence on the other side of the House, the Finance Minister of this great country, getting up and, instead of replying to the question asked him, making a very weak stump speech. What have we to do with the bargain that was made thirty years ago ? We are now desirous of making the best arrangement we can under the circumstances in which we find1 ourselves today. Do the government think they are not responsible to this country 1 Axe they merely responsible to the Grand Trunk Railway without consulting the House ? Having made that arrangement which has almost culminated in a contract, they now say to this House :	You must swallow
it holus bolus, we cannot change it. If this House were true to itself it would be changed. If the members of this House would come here definitely determined to do the best they could for Canada and for their constituents, that arrangement would be changed, or better still-and this is still open to hon. gentlemen opposite-time might be taken to consider this matter. I myself am very susceptible to argument. I have listened with the greatest care to the arguments from the other side of the House. I am very sorry that more do not come Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
from hon. gentlemen from back benches on the other side of the House. It is very strange that hon. gentleman sent from all parts of Canada should come here and place their opinions and the interests of the country entirely in the hands of the few hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches. That is not what they were sent here to do. They were sent here to show some little independence of opinion. If they have any arguments, they were sent here to make those arguments in this House in their own way. I have a suggestion to make which I think would not be a bad idea for the government to take into consideration at the present time. Originally the Grand Trunk Railway Company did not apply for a charter to build a road from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They wanted another charter altogether. Would it not be well for hon. gentlemen opposite to go before our friends of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and say : We find this scheme very objectionable ; we find difficulty in passing it ? In fact, hon. gentlemen opposite can only put it through by calling upon their subservient majority. They cannot allow their followers to have any independence of opinion, but they must come here and swallow the whole Bill. Under these circumstances, I think that the government might very well go to those with whom they have been consulting and say : You only want a charter to build a road from North Bay to the Pacific. We will give you a charter to build that road. Build it yourselves with your own money, own it and control it yourselves. Then, we have the scheme which has been propounded on this side of the House. They might adopt that scheme and carry it out because it will give a road to the Atlantic ocean which will be independent of the circumstances that are surrounding the present proposition and it will be a road that will be in the interests of the whole country. I would like to ask those members who come from Huron, from Bruce, from Perth, and western Ontario, what possible interest they have in a road between Winnipeg and Moncton. The proposition made, first of all, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company would connect the whole Grand Trunk Railway system of Ontario and Quebec with the North-west, and by allowing the Grand Trunk Railway Company to build their road from Winnipeg to the wheat fields we would give the relief to the North-west Territories that they are asking for at a very much less expense to this country than that which is involved in the present scheme. The Grand Trunk Railway Company would be only too glad to get a charter to build a road from Winnipeg through that magnificent country by way of Edmonton and out through the Peace river country to the Pacific, and they *would be only too glad to build that road without making any demand upon this country. Think of it for a moment. This respectable company has been

organized for the purpose of building n road from Winnipeg through the Northwest Territories. What are they getting? They are getting $13,000 per mile, guaranteed by this country. Why should we guarantee that? The government say that it is not costing anything, but when they argue on the other side they say it is costing $15,000,000. This question is at present an issue between the two sides of the House. For goodness sake let us not have so much politics to the square mile in Canada.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: I am delighted to hear hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House say ' hear, hear.' I have no doubt the same will be said from this side of the House. Let the Grand Trunk Railway build their road and let them own it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: 1 can understand that there is no rake-off in this proposition, but there is a great deal more for Canada in it. What objection have you, or what objection can this country possibly have, to the proposition made by the hon. leader of the opposition ? Why should we not extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay ? If we extend the Intercolonial Railway to the Georgian bay we are the masters of the situation. The great bulk of the grain will go down in that direction. It may not go to Halifax or St. John, because we will have to consider the interests of the Northwest Territories. The North-west Territories cannot afford to have to sell their wheat for from 5 to 30 cents a bushel less for the sake of sending it by way of Halifax or St. John. That is the difficulty you are met with at once. If you are going to force this grain by an all-rail haul to Halifax or St. John, the farmers of the Northwest Territories must take from 5 to 10 cents a bushel less for their wheat. It can be carried for from 5 to 30 cents a bushel less either by the adoption of the proposition made by the hon. leader of the opposition or by the all-water route. One thing we have been forgetting is the importance of the all-water route. I do not hear half enough said about the desirability of spending money on our water-ways or harbours, because if we deepen our water-ways, nine-tenths of the grain coming from the Northwest for ail time to come will go down by way of the all-water route. We can provide for a route which will be self-sustaining, and it will not take four or five years, nor yet two years, to make that route available for traffic. In less than two years the work may be completed. This is too serious a matter to be shoved through this House in the way it is being shoved through. I notice that there is an attempt being made to choke off this debate. I tell you the country is listening to it with a great deal of interest. I hope I will not be accused 373
of abuse, even by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), if I follow the example of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who spoke of a proposition which was made as being humbug. I assure you that in all the years that this parliament has been in existence, in all the years we have deliberated on questions which have been deliberated upon in this House, there was never a more glaring humbug than the railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, which is put forward as a national railway at the present time. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) made a most extraordinary statement about the capabilities of the road and our ability to build the road. I have looked through a book that has been given to me very carefully, and I do not find) any justification of what he says. I do not find the report of a single engineer to bear out what he states. He talked about certain grades and certain curves. I do not find anything of that kind at all in this book. These are the mountains of information we were going to get on this subject. I would suggest-I do not do so in any bumptious sense, but simply as giving some good business advice-that as this contract has so many defects, and as it has been so terribly pulled to pieces, the manly course for the right hon. leader of the government to pursue at this time would be first of all to consult with his followers and to consult with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, but in the meantime to withdraw this Bill and to bring down a Bill which is more likely to give more satisfaction to the country, not only at the present time, but for all time to come.


John Charlton: It seems to me, Sir, that at this stage of the discussion, it might be proper to present the House with some data with regard to railway rates. I am impressed with this belief, because of the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Brock), who tells us that it would cost us from five to ten cents a bushel more to lay down wheat at sea-board from the west, by this rail route than by the present method of transportation, or by the scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition. It would be well to give careful consideration to this question, because it is always folly to argue from false premises, and to assume things to be correct which prove to be fallacious. The developments in railway construction in late years are not very generally understood, and the low cost of transportation on first-class lines with low grades will perhaps hardly be credited. I am almost certain that my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) will not credit what can be proved to be the fact with regard to this matter. When I spoke upon this question nearly a month ago, I made a statement with regard to the advantages possessed by a line with low grades, as compared with the kind of roads that are usually constructed, with grades of one per cent or 52 feet to the mile, and some-



times grades in excess of that. 1 made a statement subsequently, with regard to the cost of transporting grain over a road with four-tenths per cent grade, in answer to the hon. member from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte). That statement was necessarily imperfect; it was made on the spur of the moment; it was made from data which had not been thoroughly worked out, and some only of the leading points with reference to this transportation problem were presented. Since that time, I have been accumulating information upon this question, and the outcome of my investigations has been, to convince me that a transcontinental line, the Grand Trunk Pacific, built from Quebec to Winnipeg, north of the height of land, will positively out-distance all competitors in transporting wheat from Winnipeg to the sea-board. This is something I was not aware of on the 24th of May last; it is something I was not perhaps aware of 30 days ago. It is a statement which will be, I think, warranted by transportation conditions, and by facts which I will present. I received a communiction from Mr. Scott, of the Great Northern Railway, shortly after my speech on the 12th of August in which he endorsed the position I took at that time, and in which he stated that upon one section of the road upon which they were operating with six-tenths grade, or 32 feet to the mile, they were able with the mogul engine they used,-weighing 75 tons without tender-to haul trains of 2,000 and 2,220 tons gross weight, which would give a weight in freight of 1,350 tons. Upon the basis of a six-tenths grade with train mileage eleven cents per mile higher than Mr. Scott quoted, wheat could be transported from Winnipeg to Quebec, on that kind of a road, cheaper than it is at present transported. However, the plan that I advocated on August 12th was the construction of a road with four-tenths per cent grade, or 21-12 feet to the mile. I communicated a few days ago with Mr. Ledyard, the president of the Michigan Central system, asking him what was the cost per train mile for transporting freight on the Canada Southern portion of their road, between Detroit and Buffalo. That road has a grade of 19 feet to the mile. Mr. Ledyard, replied to me ; perhaps I had better read his letter in order that I may not be accused of misunderstanding his position or of misstatement. The letter is dated September 9th :
Dear Mr. Charlton.-T have your letter of September 7th. With the new locomotives which we are now using to replace those of lighter power on the Canada Southern, it will he easily practical to haul trains consisting of from sixty to seventy cars of grain, each car carrying forty tons, from the Detroit to the Niagara river.
Mr. Ledyard goes on to state the diflicul-ties that surround the separating of trains cost per mile between freight trains and passenger trains, and he expresses regret that he was unable to give me definite in-Mr. CHARLTON.
formation upon that point. But this is definite information in regard to loads. The information is, that upon the Canada Southern with practically a four-tenths per cent grade, with the locomotives that are about to be introduced, they are capable of hauling from 2,400 to 2,800 tons of grain per train.


William Rees Brock: Does that take Into account anything about return freight, or is that merely one way ?


John Charlton: It does not. They can haul just as much return freight as they can going down. [DOT]


William Rees Brock: They do not get the return freight.


John Charlton: Perhaps not.


William Rees Brock: And if not, does it increase the cost ?


John Charlton: That is a perfectly fail-question to enter into consideration. The hauliug back of the empties, if you cannot, get return freight, must be considered and my hon. friend is quite right in that. But, that is the capacity of the locomotives on this road, or will be, for haulage of grain from the west to the east. Now, Sir, the train mile cost of moving loads is : 89 cents to the mile on the Great Northern-that is for all trains, passenger and freight-it is 87-31 on the Canada Atlantic ; 92-2 on the Grand Trunk, and 91-87 upon the Intercolonial Railway. We are therefore making due allowance if we call the train cost per mile one dollar. Upon the assumption that the train cost per mile is one dollar-which is considerable above the returns given by these four roads-then with an assumed distance of 1,475 miles between Winnipeg and Quebec, and assuming that the loads will be, not 2,400; tons or 2,800 tons per train, but 2,000 tons per train (which is a moderate estimate on the class of l-oad that I am dealing with) the cost per bushel would be, for 00,000 bushels pea- train, two and a quarter cents per bushel to Quebec. But first of all, we will take the calculation on the basis furnished by Mr. Scott, with a six-tenths per cent grade, and with loads of 1,350 tons instead of 2,000 tons. With one dollar per train cost of loads and train loads of 1,350 tons per train, on a six-tenths grade, the cost of transporting 45 cars with a thousand bushels to each car or 45,000 bushels, which is about 1,350 tons, would, be three cents and three mills per bushel from Winnipeg to Quebec. Add to this 50 per cent for net earnings, 1-7 cents ; and we have a total cost, with 50 per cent added, for transporting grain from Winnipeg to Quebec, of 5 cents per bushel. Now, it is fair to deal with the question of the empties. That must be dealt with in this connection, as my ' hon. friend from Toronto suggests. There may be return freight or there may not be. I assume that the empties returning without freight will cost one-half of what the loaded" cars cost to bring them down. That would be 1-7 cents per bushel.

That would leave the cost of transporting wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec, with the allowance for hauling back the empties without freight, and with 50 per cent, profit on haulage of the wheat, of 6-7 per bushel.


Mr. CALVIN.: Will you put that in the contract ?


John Charlton: No, we will not put that in the contract. We will put it in the Statement of facts before the Committee. We will set this against the wild and reckless statements that it will cost ten cents a bushel more over this lime than it will over any other route.


William Rees Brock: Over a route carrying a large number of passengers.


John Charlton: That does not make any difference in the carrying of freight. We are dealing now with the question of the cost of transporting wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec. The passenger traffic may play some part in this business; but that road is to be built primarily for the purpose of moving the millions of bushels of grain, the cattle and the other products of a great agricultural region, increasing in its productions year after year; and of course passenger business as well as return freight will follow.
Now, Sir, if we were to start at a point 1,200 miles west of Winnipeg, say at Fort Dunvegan, on the Peace river, and suppose we have a 6-10 per cent grade, and the distance from the starting point to Quebec is 2,675 miles; what would it cost to transport wheat ? The cost on the train mileage at $1 per train mile, would be six cents per bushel; add to that fifty per cent for net earnings, three cents more, which makes nine cents per bushel; and to that one-half the cost of transporting the loaded cars down to Quebec, for hauling the empties back, without any reference to the return freight that might be secured, three cents more; which makes twelve cents per bushel as the total cost of moving wheat from Dunvegan to Quebec, including 50 per cent, profit on hauling of the wheat.
Let us now figure on the basis of a 4-10 per cent grade, 21-12 feet to the mile, and what will be the result ? On that grade, if Mr. Ledyard is right, it is far within the mark to put down 2,000 tons or 66,600 bushels of wheat to the train. To remove that from Winnipeg to Quebec, on an estimated mileage of 1,475 miles would cost for hauling, on a train mileage of $1 per mile, 2i cents per bushel; add 50 per cent for net earnings, 1-13 ets. per bushel; add one-half the cost of hauling the loaded cars down for hauling the empties back, 1:13 cts. That gives4'51 cts. as the cost of hauling wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec on a modern road with 4-10 per cent grade, such as the Canada Southern has, and with 50 per cent profit on the cost of hauling. Add to that, if you choose, one-fourth to cover the cost of any deficiency and contingencies, that is, 1-13 cts., making a 3734
total of 5-64 cts. per bushel for hauling wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec, with 50 per cent profit on the cost of hauling. Does my hon. friend realize that there may be some things about this proposition that have not been understood ?


William Rees Brock: Quite so.


John Charlton: Things that it is necessary to understand before we talk very learnedly about what it is going to cost and what it is not going to cost, and about the utter impossibility of transporting grain over this transcontinental railway from the prairies to Quebec. Let us take the cost from Brandon to Quebec, 1,608 miles. It costs 14 cents per hundredweight to transport from Brandon to Fort William to-day.


William Rees Brock: This is a supposititious case which you are stating. It is not the fact.


John Charlton: It is a supposititious case to this extent. Given a railway with certain grades, a certain alignment, a certain character of construction, with a certain weight and strength of bridges, &c. ; take the experience of other railways of a corresponding character, find what they can do, make an allowance of 25 per cent, and then see what are the results of your calculation. They will work out. Of course, they will not be admitted by our hon. friends on the opposite side, because there is too much politics in the question. When my hon. friend says he desired to see this question divested from political considerations, I felt like saying Amen, but I thought he did not realize the full meaning of his assertion.


Robert Laird Borden: When my hon. friend speaks of the cost of a train per mile, what does he include in that-the cost of the road in the first instance, with the fixed charges, or the bare cost of hauling the train, without regard to the cost of the road in the first instance ?


John Charlton: It includes all the cost of maintenance, keeping up of the road, the cost of stations, agents, and every other expense, but not the interest on the cost of the road. You provide for that in the 50 per cent profit, which will pay interest or dividends. With regard to the cost of haulage from Brandon to Quebec, a distance of 1,608 miles, with trains carrying 66,600 bushels, the cost on the basis of a train mileage of $1 per mile would be 2-42 cts. per bushel; add 50 per cent profit 1 -21 cts.; haulage of the empties back, one-half the cost of hauling the loaded cars down, 121 cts.; making a total cost of 4-84 cts. per bushel for hauling grain from Brandon to Quebec. Add to this, if you please, 25 per cent to cover contingencies, as I have done in other cases, and you have 1-21 cts. more, making a total cost of 6-05 cts. per bushel. Any railroad man will tell you these things are possible. As I said in a speech here on August the 12th. Mr. Mc-Nicoll, in talking that matter over, said that with four-tenth per cent grades no other mode of transportation could compete with

a railway and that the Canadian Pacific Railway, with grades of 4-10 per cent, would be capable of transacting four times the business it then did.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would make his statement a little plainer. I have been trying to follow him, but I do not know what he means by this one dollar per mile. Does he mean one dollar per ton per mile?


John Charlton: No, it means the cost of moving a train one mile.


David Henderson: How is that arrived at ?


John Charlton: Well, it is arrived at by keeping an account of the cost. All roads keep a record as to the cost of trains per mile. I gave the cost of four roads, the cost on the Great Northern Railway of 89 cents per train mile, on the Canada Atlantic Railway of 8T'31 cents; on the Grand Trunk Railway of 93-2 cents and on the Intercolonial of 91-87 cents. All roads give this in their return-the train cost per mile. They do not separate the cost as between passenger and freight trains.


Samuel Barker: Some of them do.


John Charlton: I would like to find it out.


Samuel Barker: I will show you one.


John Charlton: Mr. Ledyard in his letter here says that it cannot be done. I do not know if he is a greater railway authority than my friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) or not. Perhaps I had better read what Mr. Ledyard says about it. He writes :
No one has ever yet been able to determine what the cost per trata-mi-le is for moving freight. The Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States has endeavoured to figure out a basis, but It is only a theoretical one. No one can tail, for example, what wages of iday and night operators at all stations should be divided between freight and passenger trains or how the legal and general expenses should be apportioned between the two classes of traffic. It is Impossible to determine in the maintenance of a roadway, how much of the cost of the same ought to be assigned to the movement of freight, and how -much to the movement of passengers, and there are a thousand instances of a like nature in the operation of a railroad on which experts differ, and the result in any case would be merely guess work. Any one can tell, of course, the actual cost of moving a freight train, hauling a given number of cans between any two given points, but such cost would he made up solely, in such a case, of the wages of the engineer, fireman, the wages of the train crew and the oil and fuel consumed, but this would be no fair criterion because there is the expense of maintenance, which must be carried on and which is rendered necessary by the operation of the trains themselves. I regret I am unable to furnish you, with any degree of accuracy, the information you ask for, but I think you will appreciate from the reasons I have given why it is impossible to do so.


John Charlton: That is to distinguish as between the cost of freight trains and passenger trains.
Now Mr. Chairman I have given the cost on grades of 6-10 per cent. I had proceeded to give the cost on the 4-10 per cent grades, of moving wheat from Winnipeg to Quebec, making it 5-64 cents, with 25 per cent added to the cost based upon the train milleage ; 50 per cent for net profits, and adding the cost of moving back the empty cars at one half of the cost of bringing down the loaded cars. In all these cases no allowance is made for freight back, and it is not to be supposed that that road is to go into operation and to continue in operation without a large movement of freight to the west. That movement of freight to the west, whatever it may be, is an addition of so much to the net earnings of the road above the 50 per cent upon the net earnings on grain moved to the ocean ports. In a calculation on 4-10 per cent from Brandon, 1,608 miles, to Quebec, the result is as follows :
Cents.
Mileage cost, $1,608 ; freight train load,
66,600 bushels, making cost per bushel. 2'42
A,did 50 per cent for net earnings	 l'2i
Empties back at one-half cost of hauling loaded oars down	 1-21
Total	 4-84
That is the cost for hauling wheat from Brandon to Quebec, with 50 per cent profit on the haulage down. Add to that, if you please, 25 per cent more in order to make the calculation sure, and you have a cost as before stated of 6-05 cents for bringing wheat from Brandon to Quebec. The present rate from Brandon to Fort William is 8-2 cents, and the exceptionally low rate of a few days ago, hy water from Fort William to Quebec, 3 cents a bushel, a rate at which vessels carrying- grain were losing money. That makes a cost of hauling from Brandon to Quebec by rail and water of 11-2 cents, against 6-2 cents by all-rail transcontinental l-oad. These figures will stand investigation.


William Rees Brock: They are going to be investigated.	,


John Charlton: They are based on data that cannot be disputed, and if we can get the road that X speak of, with that 4-10 per cent grade-


William Rees Brock: 


John Charlton: Yes, ' if,' and we are going to get it, and we will see who is right, the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Brock) or myself, when the result is shown by time, and the question is settled hy the logic of facts.
Now we will take the cost of moving wheat from Dun vegan, in the Peace river valley,. 1,200 miles west of Winnipeg, to Quebec, on a road of this character, estimating on the data I have in my possession. That would be 2,675 miles i

Cents.
The train cost would be $2,675 ; the train would carry 66,660 bushels ot wheat ; the price per bushel for carrying that would
be	 4-2
Add to	this 50	per	cent	profit	
2-1Add cost back again to Dunvegan without any freight	to	carry	back	
2-1Total	
g-4
Add to this 25 per cent again, it' you think the calculation is too low, or sailing too close to the wind, and you get as the cost of bringing wheat from 1,200 miles west of Winnipeg, or any intermediate jioint between Winnipeg and the 1,200-mile limit, a sum not exceeding 104 cents per bushel. If you will concede these figures you are through talking about the folly of building this road. If you concede these figures your case is gone, you have not a case at all. If you concede these figures you will immediately close the discussion and say : For Heaven's sake give us the road, and give it to us quick, as the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) said in his, speech in Vancouver a year ago. Give it to us as quick as possible, will be your prayer.
The cost of moving wheat at the present moment by the Canadian Northern Railway from Winnipeg to Fort William is 6 cents per bushel. 10 cents per hundred. The cost from Fort William to Montreal is 3 cents, making nine cents a bushel by this rail and water route via the Canadian Northern Railway, against 65 cents by rail on the basis of the figures I have given from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Brandon to Fort William the cost is 8'2 cents ; then it is 3 cents from there to Quebec, making 11-2 cents against 0-5 cents by rail. The InterState Commerce Commission of the United States gives the lowest cost of removing the grain from Chicago to the sea-board, up to within a few days ago, for the year 1903. By all rail, the cost from Chicago to New York. 998 miles, was 8 4-10ths cents ; from Chicago, 1,039 miles 8 4-10ths cents ; from Chicago to Philadelphia, S22 miles 7 8-10ths cents ; from Chicago to Baltimore, 860 miles. 7 5-10ths cents. This is the all-rail cost. This grain is hauled over some heavy grades, as all these roads but the New York Central pass over the Alleghany mountains. Besides, these figures, of course, afford a profit. They show that grain can be transported, and is being transported at a low, rate by rail. They do not show as low a rate as I have figured it out by the transcontinental line, but it must be remembered that these roads must pay dividends on a capitalization which includes a great deal of water. For Instance, take the New York Central-every dollar of stock in that road represents it is said 75 cents of water. Where it pays a six per cent dividend on its stock, it is paying tliirt.v-two per cent on its cost. We have a safeguard against this in the case of the transcontinental line. We shall know what it has cost, for the government has supervision over the cost of the western section, and the railway company has supervision of the cost of the eastern section. The railway company has to pay interest on the cost of the eastern section, and it will take good care that the cost is not stuffed. The government has supervision over the rates, and will see to it that they are not based upon water in the stock. We are not making the mistake that was made twenty-one years ago in the case of the Canadian Pacific by fixing the supervision of rates iu such a way that we cannot touch them. We have command of the situation. We shall have the data to show what it will cost the road to transact business. We shall know when it receives a fair return upon flu-money invested, and, at any time, the government has power to intervene, if the rates were unreasonable, and regulate those rates. By the lake and canal route last year the cost of transportation from Chicago to New York was 5 51-100ths cents, or less than the rate I have given from Winnipeg to Quebec with a 4-10 grade. By lake and rail from Chicago to New York, the cost was 5-89-10(t cents. Now, these are very low rates, but if the data I have furnished are correct, we can do the work for less than the money charged here. The result of these investigations simply prove that this transcontinental road will defy competition ; it will move the grain from Winnipeg to Quebec cheaper than it can be moved by any other route. Now. when you are making a comparison between American rates and the rates I have been giving, if we take tire rates from Winnipeg to Quebec, to make a comparison, you need to count, not from Chicago toj New York, but from the centre ot Iowa to New York ; for a comparison of the rates between Brandon and Quebec you need to take from Omaha, Nebraska, to New York. And when you add the rates from Omaha or the centre of Iowa to Chicago and Chicago to the sea-board, they will be as much again, asi I have quoted, as the cost of the work as it can be done on the transcontinental road, if the grades are as it is desired they all be. Of course, it is a question of grades. If this road is built with grades of fifty feet to the mile, or sixty, or seventy feet to the mile, the money is thrown away, and the purpose for which the road is built cannot be achieved. We must get a road of this class ; and we can and will get a road of this class ; and that road will carry the grain of the Canadian North-west to Canadian seaports in defiance of any American competition that can be brought to bear. That is why I have taken so warm an interest in this discussion. The investigation I have been led to make convinces me that this road will be a nation builder ; that it will give control over our own traffic ; that it will carry the traffic

of our North-west to our own seaports ; that it will emancipate us from a dependence on the American lines. I feel that in many representations that have been made with regard to this matter we have beeu pursuing a course that is not in the interest of the country, that is not in accordance with the facts, and that is not patriotic under the circumstances.
Now, Sir, with regard to return freight Will we get any ? We have a road passing through 1,400 miles of wilderness. It is not the kind of country represented by my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). It is not a country perfectly worthless, with a climate so severe that men cannot live there, or with a soil so poor that nothing can be grown upon it, a country with nothing but scrub brush growing in it. It is a country with a magnificent clay soil, a climate equal to that of Winnipeg, for it lies nearly all south of the latitude of Winnipeg. At Moose Factory last year the mean temperature was one degree higher than that of Winnipeg. I am informed; by good authorities that grain will grow as far north as the Rupert river, and throughout the valley of the Nottaway. In the country south of James Bay there are vast stores of timber, not so much pine, but great quantities of spruce and banksian pine, great quantities of balm of Gilead and poplar ; and all this is needed either for transportion to Quebec in the form of deals and square timber, or for transportation to the prairies of the great west. Now, can thisj business of transporting this lumber either west or east be carried on economically and successfully ? I have figured this question out. I have taken the weight of white pine at 2,500 pounds per 1,000 feet. Well seasoned white pine will weigh about 2,200 pounds per 1,000 feet, or if dressed 2,000 pounds. I have assumed, however, that it will be 2,500 pounds. Now, this train of which I have spoken, carrying 2,000 tons of grain eastward, will carry back 1,600,000 feet of white pine lumber from the forest to the west. I have estimated an average haul of 1,800 miles. The actual cost on the white pine counting it at $1 per train mile would be $1.25 -per 1,000 feet for the whole distance for the haul of 1,800 miles. Add 50 per cent for profit or 63 cents per thousand. Allow also a similar amount for hauling empties back too-another 63 cents per 1,000 feet. This would make the cost of hauling the white pine for an average of 1,800 miles, $2.50 per 1,000 feet, which is less than it costs to transport lumber from Vancouver, or Revelstoke, or other points in the Canadian Pacific across the mountains to the prairies at this moment; and there is a vast trade done from those points.
Now, white pine lumber, dressed, would cost, on the same basis of calculation, $2 per 1,000 feet for an average haul of 1,800 miles. Red pine will weigh on an average 20 per cent more than white pine ; upon
that basis it would cost $3 per 1,000 feet to transport red pine in the rough, and $2.40 per 1,000 feet to transport red pine, dressed on each side, from the forests of the north to the prairies of the North-west, an average haul of 1,800 miles. Banksian piue, or jack pine, as it is called, grows in that country to a good size and makes admirable dimension timber and good finishing lumber for some purposes, slightly heavier than red pine, and it will weigh 25 per cent more than white pine. To transport jack-pine lumber would cost $3.34 per 1,000 feet for the lumber in the rough, and $2.75 per 1,000 feet for lumber dressed, from mills upon the line of this road, on an average haul of 1,800 miles to the prairies. Now, is there much of that lumber accessible ? Every stream that this road will cross will have tributary to the point where the road crosses it, every tree growing upon that stream to its source. Lumbermen bring their logs down stream, they run logs down small streams by building dams and damming up the water in lakes, and taking advantage of the accumulation of water in winter to float their logs down ; and I repeat that every river and stream on this road will have tributary to the road every tree growing on the waters in the valley or accessible to that stream above the road. Now, with regard to spruce-there is a large amount of spruce in that country. It is very largely transported from the Pacific slope to the prairies now. Spruce will weigh about 10 per cent more than white pine, somewhat less than that; it will cost $2.77 per 1,000 feet in the rough to transport spruce lumber over the line of this road to the prairies of the west, on an average haul of 1.800 miles, and $2.31 per 1,000 feet to transport spruce lumber that has been planed upon both sides. It will cost $2 77 to transport balm of Gilead and poplar lumber, and $2.51 when dressed. Now, these are moderate prices ; these prices are not very much higher than freight rates upon the lakes ; these prices are no higher than the price of transporting lumber from Duluth to Buffalo, down the great lakes. It costs $1.50 per 1,000 feet to send lumber from Cheboygan, or Collingwood, or any of the ports on Lake Michigan or upon the Georgian bav to Buffalo. These prices are moderate, and this road can carry lumber from the forests to the prairies of the west and lay it down at prices that will enable the consumer there to buy lumber cheaper than it can be bought in Quebec, will lay it down at prices for transportation very little higher than the price of transporting lumber from Midland or Collingwood to the rural districts and the interior towns of the province of Ontario.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here is a scheme which combines two salient points. First of all. this road is laid down from Quebec to Winnipeg on a line which is direct, on a line which is the best that can be obtained,


John Charlton: on a line which will give low grades, on a line different from the line that the hon. leader of the opposition proposes to acquire from Sudbury to Fort William through the Laurentian region north of Lake Superior, where a good road can never be built. We know what the character of two-tliirds of the line is already, we know this line can be made strictly first class. It strikes from Quebec to Winnipeg in almost an air line; it will have low grades, directness, and the additional advantage of opening up for settlement 1,300 miles of wilderness. It is a wonder to me that men of good sense, of good business ability, if they are disposed to take a fair, unbiased view of this case-it is a wonder to me how any man can oppose it, how any man can arrive at tiie conclusion that this is not the thing we want. It is the thing we want


William Rees Brock: You opposed it.


John Charlton: No, I did not. I have heard a great deal of reference made to my speech of the 23rd of May. I have not said much about it. I never opposed this road ; my hon. friend is entirely mistaken. I advocated this road in that very speech. All I said that they could harp upon, all I said that I desire to modify to-day, is that I did not think the road could transport grain in competition with the water route. I said this because I was not in possession of the data that I am in possession of to-day.
An lion. MEMBER. You had better wait a while longer.


John Charlton: Perhaps I had better read to the hon. gentleman some words of Lord Beaeonsfield, uttered some years ago ; it is hardly worth while, however. Lord Beaeonsfield compares a man who cannot change his opinions, to an ass. So long as he has data that warrants him in changing his opinion, he is bound to do it, because this is a progressive world. Mr. Chairman, we are here to learn ; we know something more than we knew when we were ten years old ; we know more than when we were babes. We ought to know more at twenty than at ten. We ought to keep on learning from facts, as they develop. If I entertained opinions on the 23rd of Slay that I have modified since, I would advise my hon. friends to examine into the data upon which the change has been arrived at, and see whether it is justified or not. Now, Mr. Chairman, the successful transaction of business upon this road is a foregone conclusion-if the grades can be obtained, and the grades can be obtained. I know that north of the height of land is a great alluvial basin. There are no greater engineering difficulties in the way of constructing a road than there is down the magnificent valley of the St. Lawrence.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: How far does that alluvial district extend ?


John Charlton: From some distance west of Quebec to a little distance east of Winnipeg, and from the north of the Height of land to James bay. We have already discovered 16,500,000 acres of good arable clay land, and there is as much more, probably. There is room there for several millions of people, and when we get this road through, we will have that great country settled. We will have the transportation of our own grain from the far west to the sea-board, and we will have a Canada with some breadth of settlement, and with a line of communication back from the frontier not liable to interruption in case of war. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything more to-night upon this question. I rose to give these figures with regard to the cost of transportation, because assumptions are made that are totally at variance with the facts, as was the case with the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock). These statements that I have made I believe to be absolutely correct; I believe they are as easily demonstrated as a problem in Euclid ; I believe that this railway will distance all competition, that it will carry grain from the prairies of the Northwest to Quebec much cheaper than it can be done by any other route ; that it will answer and fulfil all the expectations of its projectors, and will be the greatest event that has ever happened in the history of this country, in promoting its interests and placing it in a position of one of the powers of the world.


Samuel Barker: I am sure that hon. gentlemen opposite must have listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Certainly, it has given a great deal of pleasure to this side of the House. One remark 1 may make upon his speech is, that he has attempted to give information to the House upon a branch of the subject about which we may suppose there is something known. The subject he has dealt with is about the only matter concerning this proposed railway that we have knowledge about, and if the expert of the government is wrong in the information he gives upon this particular branch of the question, we surely may have a great deal of doubt in regard to the rest of it. The hon. gentleman, on the 2nd of September, made the speech which he has repeated to-night. He undertook on that occasion to tell us at what cost the traffic upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway could be carried for with certain gradients. And he began with information that he had obtained from Mr. Scott, who, I believe, is a very respectable railway man. and who is the authority upon vvhicli the government expert relied upon that occasion. The hon. gentleman told us upon that occasion that his information was that a train load of 2,000 tons could be carried one mile for 89 cents, and he gave Mr. Scott as his authority for that astounding

statement. The hon. gentleman was good enough, in order to be safe, to add 11 cents, and to call it a dollar for hauling 2,000 tons, or, as he put it a little later on, 60 cars, one mile.


John Charlton: No, forty-five.


Samuel Barker: I have it here.


John Charlton: It does not matter whether you have it there or not; it is forty-five cars.
Mr.. BARKER. This is what the hon. gentleman said :
On such a grade an engine of the character I have stated can haul 60 cars loaded with 1,000 bushejs to the car, or 60,000 bushels, amounting to 1,^00 tons.
The hon. gentleman endeavoured to support his statement by reciting the leports of other railways. He cited a letter from the president of the Michigan Central Railway, but of course he had to tell us that the president of the Michigan Central Railway was unable to distinguish between the cost of hauling passenger and freight trains. No doubt he did find a difficulty there, because the Michigan Central does not in its statistical figures distinguish between a passenger service and a freight service.


John Charlton: What road does ?


Samuel Barker: There are other companies that do, and I will cite one in a moment for the hon. gentleman. I will cite a road which is one of the best roads in the United States, one of the pioneers in hauling heavy trains, and for the last thirty or forty years has been bringing its track down to almost a level, and which gives in its statistics, as nearly as can be ascertained, the cost of hauling freight. I will also give one or two Canadian roads, and I think I shall be able to show in a very few words to the satisfaction of the Committee that the hon. gentleman's figures are entirely illusory. I think if I succeed in showing the Committee that the hon. gentleman began his calculations upon an utterly absurd foundation, I need not follow him through all the elaborate calculations that he has favoured the Committee with. I think 1 Will show that the hon. gentleman has started out wrong. if he undertook to elucidate a problem in Euclid, I fancy old Euclid would tell him that if he began wrong the Lord only knows where it would lead him to. That is what he has done in this case. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, be says, works its trains for 93 cents a mile, and the hon. gentleman on that basis thinks he is safe in going to work and building up a calculation that at $1 a mile It can haul 2,000 tons, or 60 cars. Now, let me tell the hon. gentleman that the ?1 or 93 cents, or 89 cents, is not at all for the haulage of a train of 2,000 tons. That is the operating cost of the average train of the Mr. BARKER.
road for the year. What does the hon. gentleman suppose the average train-load of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, including passenger, mixed and freight trains, is? It is ITT cars. The hon. gentleman actually goes astray at the beginning, and he works out a problem with a result that no man in America ever heard of. The average number of passenger cars on -a passenger train on the Grand Trunk Railway is four, on mixed trains nine, and on freight trains 27, or an average on the whole of 17T, and to haul these 17 T cars one mile is 93 cents, not 45 cars or 60 cars carrying 1,800 tons or 2,000 tons, as the hon. gentleman says.


John Charlton: My hon. friend, I am sure, does not want to misrepresent me or to mislead the House. He fails to take notice of the fact that my argument is based entirely on a question of grades-a 4-10th grade. The Grand Trunk Railway might be hauling trains averaging 17 cars up heavy grades, and it might cost to haul if cars over such grades as much as it would cost to haul 50 cars over a level road. Therefore, this comparison that the hon. gentleman is making is entirely misleading for that reason.


Samuel Barker: Well, I will give what the hon. gentleman will admit is a fair comparison. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway is about the best graded road in America. The average tonnage of freight trains on the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern is 5764 tons, and it costs them to move this tonnage, distinguishing freight trains from passenger trains, $2 per train per mile-one third or one-quarter of the tonnage, and nearly double the cost he is speaking of. I wish to be quite fair, and I will say this, that the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern is a very particular company and charges more to its working expenses than is usual with other companies. Therefore, its working expenses are higher than is usual. I admit that, but the very fact that such a road as the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern, which has been the pioneer in hauling heavy train-loads, the average train tonnage per mile is 5764 tons, shows how very absurd it is for the hon. gentleman to talk about 1,800 tons or 2,000 tons in respect of the average train-mile cost. It is absolute nonsense.


John Charlton: That is an assertion to be proved by the facts.


Samuel Barker: Take the Canadian Pacific Railway. The hon. gentleman will say that the grades are not what they ought to be on the Grand Trunk Pacific. I will allow as much rope as he likes for that. I am reading now from the last report of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The hon. gentleman can get it in the library if he wants it. The average number of

tons of freight per train-mile on the Canadian Pacific Railway was 288 tons.


John Charlton: What are the grades?


Samuel Barker: No matter what the grades are. The average number of tons was 288. I am only pointing this out to show that the hon. gentleman did not know the meaning of the figures that he was dealing with. The hon. gentleman when he took 2,000 tons which he said was carried for 89 cents a mile, supposed that he was dealing with the average. He was dealing with the heaviest possible train. The very road which he was speaking of carries trains of three or four cars, and 89 cents per mile is not the cost of drawing the heaviest trains, but the cost of drawing the average train, and the hon. gentleman ought to have known it. If he did know it, he should have told the House the facts, because a statement of the facts exposes the fallacy of the conclusion which he pretended to arrive at from his premises. The Canadian Pacific Railway, when dealing with the cost per train-mile of all its trains- passenger, mixed and freight-puts it down at 1-176. But if you compel the Canadian Pacific Railway to put 2,000 tons on every one of its trains, instead of 288 tons, what would be the cost ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) takes good care in his calculation to take earnings on 2,000 tons, but for the charges he takes the cost of hauling one-third to one sixth that tonnage. That is the way the hon. gentleman works out his figures.


Edward Cochrane: He is an expert.


Samuel Barker: Yes, that is the kind of expert information the country is supposed to rely upon in building this road. That is what we have to rely on, and yet we know much more about the cost of transporting freight than we know about the country away north of the height of land. I am not going to waste the time of the House in following the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) through all his calculations; they are absolutely absurd. The hon. member from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) laughs.


Mr. DAVIS.: Surely we can laugh.


Samuel Barker: Very well; I can only say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) starts out with a calculation, assuming that 2,000 tons carried one mile costs a dollar, and I defy him to produce evidence that one-quarter of that tonnage can be carried for that cost over such a line as is proposed and I say that the whole speech of the hon. gentleman is mere talk, and it would be absurd to waste the time of the House in following it up. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) has talked about return traffic. There is a pamphlet here that has been issued by the government, and although I have not had time to read it all through, I have read that portion referring to the Abitibi district which we are told is the
best district through which this line shall pass. I beg leave to read a few extracts from this mountain of information about the Abitibi district. On page 48 we read this :
Timber-White and red pine are found over the whole region examined, and are by no means rare even as far north as Lake Abitibi

That looks to me as damning with faint praise indeed the timber resources here.
-but on this lake, with the exception of a few healthy individuals

These reporters use delightful language.
-with the exception of a few healthy looking individuals about six feet in circumference-
That is about two feet thick; it sounds bigger when you give the circumference.
-observed near the outlet, they are all very small and scraggy and are confined to the numerous islands and points. They are quite abundant and of excellent quality on the slopes of the hills along both sides of the height of land. When ascending the hill described as rising 700 feet above Lake Matawa-gogig on the north side of the height of land, several fine trees were measured, and were found to be from eight to nine feet in circumference at a height of from four to five feet from the ground, and from the summit of the hill, groves of white pine were observed in all directions. White spruce, yellow birch and cedar are. also tolerably abundant and cf good size. Fine specimens of the latter tree, tall and straight, were observed, chiefly in hollows among the hills, on the south side of Lake Abitibi.
It is perfectly clear that these gentlemen found these treasures to the south of the railway, and apparently the hon. gentleman talks about damning the streams and running the logs up to the railway. Is he going to run the logs up stream. The streams to the south run towards the Ottawa, and the hon. gentleman is going to build a railway north of the streams and float the logs up it.


John Charlton: Does this road run north of the height of land anywhere ?


Samuel Barker: There is something else in this report.
The most abundant tree in this region north of the limit of sugar is aspen-
I do not know w5at they use that for.
-after which come canoe birch, spruce, bank-sian pine and Canada balsam. Elm and ash occur occasionally on low flats as far north as Lake Abitibi.
That is plainly the extreme point to which these gentlemen think it is safe to say there is timber to be found. At page 46 we have something about the soil and climate, and this is also very interesting, especially when we find that these are the choice morsels the government is able to give us out of the mountain of information.
The whole region examined extending northward from the mouth of the Montreal river



That is away down near the Canadian Pacific Railway.
-which is about thirty miles south ot the head of Rake Temiscaming, may lie pretty correctly described as a level clay plain with a great number of rocky hills and ridges protruding through it. There is a marked distinction between this region and the country to the south.
Here is another bit, and I am sure it will make the bon. gentlemen opposite delighted with the country, and it will afford the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) visions of untold train loads.
Potatoes-Several acres of this' clay soil are cultivated at the Hudson's bay post at Abitibi and with satisfactory results.
Several acres remark that!
The only crop grown at present is potatoes. But I was informed by the man who was in charge of the farming operations (a French Canadian who has been more than thirty years at Abitibi, but was brought up as. a farmer near Sore!), that several other crops, including wheat, had been tried in former years

You will remember now, that the only crop is potatoes, and just fancy the extent of the farming operations on these several acres.
-and with such results that he is inclined to insist that all the ordinary cereals can be cultivated as successfully at Abitibi as on the St. Lawrence.
Such an opinion from a man who has been for so many years engaged in the cultivation of the soil, is worth recording, and ought to he reliable.
And, Sir, on that sort of information we are going to spend $100,000,000, and upon it the hon. member (Mr. Charlton;) bases his high sounding phrases about this wonderful district. We find when we get at the .hard facts about the very best region of the lot, so far as can he learned from these extracts, the timber is south of this railway ; and that the farming operations for the last thirty years of the gentleman quoted, have been confined to growing potatoes on several acres. A most wonderful amount of information surely. I confess that I have not read the whole of this mountain of information through, but so far as I have gone there is no more information in fifty pages, than I have read in these two or three pages. There is a good deal of information about geological matters, and %bout lignite and things of that kind. At page thirty-three the statement is made, that the whole country slopes westward, so that the grade will be against the traffic which my hon. friend the expert (Mr. Charlton) will see is a very important -matter for consideration.
There is another subject to which I would like to call attention. In the cost of operating railroads fuel is a very material consideration. The Canadian Pacific Railway has to pay a good deal for its fuel on certain, portions of its line. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern is especially favoured in regard to fuel But just fancy this line running from the north side of Lake Mr. BARKER.
Nepigon, past Lake Abitibi to the city of Quebec. I have heard lately that lignite has been found in that country. It was found in the West twentyjfive years ago. I have never yet heard' that even when lignite was found on th-e line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that railway ever used it, -and I do not suppose the hon. member for North Norfolk will pretend that it is a suitable steam fuel. If not, where is this road to obtain its fuel ? The hon. gentleman is probably (aware, ;from b|is great knowledge of railways, that it will be necessary to have stores of fuel about every one hundred miles along the road. That fuel will have to be carried from 500 to 750 and sometimes 1,000 miles in order to be at proper distances for the locomotives. That will be a very important consideration in the cost of transport. For twenty years to come the local traffic will necessarily be very small. I doubt whether there is an hon. gentleman in this House, however sanguine he may he about the success of this road, who honestly believes that we will get one farmer to go into that district so long as there is an acre of land to he obtained in the great wheat fields of the west. It is absurd to suppose it. Where will you get immigrants to settle in that part of the country, while we have the magnificent wheat lands in the west ?
The wheat traffic of the railways -u-p to the present has occupied at th-e' outside five months in the year-about two and one-half months in the fall and two and one-half in the early summer. If we go so far as to double the output in eight or ten years from now that would only give ten months traffic altogether and you will have three railways competing for it-the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. At tlie very outside there will not be more than four months' traffic for that road, if it gets its full share of the wheat against the lake and rail -routes. What business is that line going to have for the other eight months of the year ? Does the hon. gentleman suppose that the jack pine and the spruce which he speaks of are going to keep that road alive? It is the cheapest of cheap traffic. Then -ho-w Is that road going to live? The hon. gentleman knows that the less traffic you get, the 'higher you must -make your charges, and yet lie is trying to bolster up this proposition toy working ou-t on erroneous premises a statement of the -cost of train haulage and of freight earnings which he will not get a railway man in American to endorse. The hon. gentleman cites Mr. Scott. I have no doubt that Mr. Scott was quite honest and truthful in his statement; but he was not giving the cost of such a train as the hon. gentleman speaks of. but the cost of an average train on his own road, which I venture to say will not average more than twelve cars ; and yet the hon. gentleman bases upon that tlie

cost of hauling forty-five or sixty cars. I do not think I need dwell further on the hon. gentleman's argument. He must revise his figures before he can show that it will be possible for this road to live on the rates proposes.


John Charlton: My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) evidently distrusts the reliability of the statistics which I have given, and the conclusions which I have arrived at. I am sorry that he does not see the thing as it is. He is an excellent railway authority, and a very candid and intelligent man, and I think he hardly gives due consideration to many points in this matter that he should consider. The hon. gentleman lias made comparisons of the train cost per mile on other roads with the cost on the Canadian Pacific Railway for one, and on the Lake Shore road, south of Lake Erie as another.


Samuel Barker: And the Grand Trunk you cited yourself.


John Charlton: Yes, and the Grand Trunk. No attempt is made to separate the cost of passenger trains from the cost of freight trains on the Canada Atlantic, the Michigan Central, the Canadian Pacific Railway, nor as far as I am aware, on any other Canadian road. A comparison, for instance, made with the Canadian Pacific Railway on almost any of these lines is not to be taken literally and absolutely as a fair one, because the conditions are different. The hon. gentleman compares the cost of hauling a train of sixteen or seventeen cars with that of a train of sixty cars. It may cost no more to haul a train of sixty cars than one of twenty cars, if the one has a grade of 60 feet to the mile, and the other 20 feet. A sixty-car train can be hauled in the one case as cheaply as a twenty-car train in the other case. That is something which the hon. gentleman really either loses sight of or does not give due consideration to. He talks of the train cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is somewhat higher than some of the others, I should imagine, but that railway has very heavy grades. It has grades on the east side of the Rockies of 120 feet per mile, and it has a grade of 200 feet to the mile for five miles on the west side. These are tremendous grades, and the cost of moving trains upon them is necessarily very heavy indeed. It takes a powerful locomotive to move a small train up the 'Selkirk range. It is absurd to make a comparison under these conditions with the road which I am talking about.


Samuel Barker: You made the comparison yourself.


John Charlton: I made the comparison to show that it costs more to haul over heavy grades. The whole of my argument was to show that this road must have low grades to accomplish what we expect. If
it has heavy grades, it will fail to do so. I have tried truthfully to show the cost of moving freight on these roads, and I have added 25 per cent to the cost in order to cover contingencies for hauling on a 4-10 per cent grade, in order to make the statement a truthful one. With regard to Mr. Scott's statement, I have it here and I think I had better read it. It bears date the 20th of August and in it Mr. Scott says :
I have since read a good deal of criticism as to your assertion that grain can be hauled from Manitoba to Quebec all rail for less money thatf it now costs by the lake route.
I have no hesitation In confirming what you state.
Low grades, heavy engines and cars, and heavy rails and bridges have revolution zed railway transportation, and water competition will not be in it in future, and for so long as you have to tranship from the 7,000 ton boat at Port Colborne or Buffalo to the 2,200 ton boat which is the limit of the canals at Montreal.
The following information may perhaps interest you in case you may have to speak again on this subject : -
On the Lake St. John road the most level division, we have a long grade of 6-10ths of one per cent, or thirty-one feet per mile, against the traffic. Over this grade our modern compound freight engines (Baldwin make, mogul type, weighing 75 tons exclusive of tender) are daily hauling loads of 2,000 to 2,020 tons, equivalent to 45 cars carrying 1,000 bushels of wheat each.
Which was the statement I made, not 00 cars. Mr. Scott continues :
This road is expensive to operate on account of the steeper grades on some of the other divisions of the line, and yet our total cost of operating last year, including office staff, terminals and all other expenses, was only 89 cents per train mile. Mr. Hays thinks that for a calculation of this kind we might say $1 per train mile.


Samuel Barker: What is the 89 cents ? It is the average per train mile for the year.


John Charlton: I do not know if the hon. gentleman understands his business or not. He says the cost per train mile !s 80 cents, but whether he is hauling half-trains or quarter-trains In order to keep down his average cost per train I do not know.


Samuel Barker: That is the average cost for the year. No man works out what a train costs.


John Charlton: He says it is the average cost per train mile. That is the statement of Mr. Scott and I think he is a political friend of my hon. friend.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman did not ask Mr. Scott the number of cars on his average train.


John Charlton: He is hauling as many cars as he can ; he is hauling 45 cars on a 6-10 per cent grade. It has cost .is much on a heavier grade to haul the thirty cars as it did on the lighter grade to haul forty-five

1192S
cars. On the light grade the cost Is much diminished ; when the grade increases in steepness the number oi cars is diminished.
Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) took occasion to say something about the country to the north and he read an extract telling us what a miserable, ordinary country it was. His quotation was greeted with cheers on the other side. I suppose it would please my bon. friends on the opposite side if the whole country from Quebec to Winnipeg was a desert and it would be a source of gratification to them if there was no future before it at all. I am surprised at the tendency displayed on the other side to belittle this country, to run it down, to say it is worthless, and at the cheers that greet any statement of that kind. It is a kind of sentiment to which I am not accustomed. I wish to read a little extract here, as I have the example of my hon. friend to warrant me in so doing :
Good lands, at A'bitiibi.
Surveyor reports very little rock in that district.
Toronto, Sept. 21.-Mr. T. J. Patten, ot Little, Current, is the first of the surveyors sent up to Lake Abitibi region vho has returned to civilization. Mr. Patten's party was engaged in laying a base and meridian lines west of Lake Abiitibi. In the whole 66 mile's where the lines were located, Mr. Patten says they found only three small rock exposures, and nearly the whole country traversed was good clay land. In some places the land was wet, hut this, Mr. Patten says, was chiefly owing to the exceptionally wet season. He met several of the surveying parties who are on township work, and reports that they were all well and busy.
That is a statement which is a little more encouraging than the statement which my hon. friend took the pains to read from a report which lie had glanced over and from which he picked out the most unfavourable passage he could find.


Bennett Rosamond: What are the next G8 miles ?


John Charlton: The next 08 miles is better ; it grows better as you go west.


William Rees Brock: Then go west.


John Charlton: 'Young man go west' is a motto that will apply to that country. The hon. gentleman had a little sneer at me about floating logs. I suppose lie has ridden saw-logs down stream and has been broken in by being ducked a hundred times or so and narrowly escaping with his life. He says that this road crosses streams that go south and he asked if I will float the logs up stream. I would ask if these streams flowing south have no course above the road? Is there not a chance to float logs down to the road on the streams even if they do flow south. I would ask how many streams that flow south it does cross ?	' Does it cross
many between Quebec and Winnipeg?


John Charlton: 


Samuel Barker: The report says the timber seems to run out when you get up .where this railway is to run.


John Charlton: My hon. friend should make this investigation more thoroughly and should study the matter without green spectacles.


Bennett Rosamond: Has any location of the line yet been made ? Has it been settled whether it is to go north or south of Lake Abitibi.


John Charlton: There is a line which has been run south of Lake Abitibi.


Bennett Rosamond: Where is the proposed! line to run


John Charlton: If my hon. friend will go up with me some morning I will show him. A line lias been surveyed and an instrumental survey has been made by the Trans-Canada Railway for several hundred miles west of Quebec. That company have secured 0-10 per cent grades. But I was conversing with their chief-engineer on Friday and he said that they started out witl the expectation of getting nothing better than 6-10 per cent grades and did not try to get anything better, but that there would be no difficulty in getting '4-10 per cent grades only that the cost of the road would be increased. Grand Trunk Railway parties; have surveyed from Winnipeg eastward and are now east of Lake Nepigon, and they report a line of 4-10 per cent grades. The country between the point where tlie Grand Trunk Railway surveyors now are and the point reached by the surveyors of the Trans-Canada Railway is known from the reports of explorers to be highly favourable for railway construction so that there is no question that the desired grades can be secured on the whole line from Quebec to Winnipeg. With regard to lumbering this road passes north of the height of land west of Lake Abitibi and crosses the tributaries of Moose and Albany rivers and a great! many lumbering streams flowing from the south to the north and running into Jamefi Bay. Where it crosses streams whose courses are either north or south it crosses streams, which if they have lumber on them, will be tributary to this road for all the lumber on their course" above the road, and I cannot comprehend the object of the hon gentleman's statement in that matter. Theri he tells us from that report that the whole country up there slopes to the westward. If it slopes to the westward four feet to the mile It will be a slope, if it slopes twenty feet to the mile, It will be a very decided slope hut one that would not interfere with getting a 4-10 per cent grade, and whatever his supposition with regard to the matter may be, we have to set against that suppo sition the report of actual surveys ou that part of the Trans-Canada Railway surveyors and I repeat that we can get a 4-10 per cent grade to 'Winnipeg.

Now, with regard to the question of fuel. Wood has been used upon railways, and it can be used again, and it is as cheap and effective a fuel as coal. But there is the chance of getting enormous quantities of peat in that region. It is a region amply supplied with peat, and peat widely distributed. I am told by those familiar with the preparation of peat that there is a process in use in Germany by which peat is prepared for fuel and furnishes the most excellent fuel for steam generating and domestic purposes, and moveover that the byproducts saved in preparing the peat pay for the expense of preparing it. If we have no other fuel supply we can use the peat located along the line of railway. The ingenuity of man will provide the means for using this material, so we need not trouble ourselves on that score. My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) says there can never be local traffic there.


William Rees Brock: Never.
Ml*. CHARLTON. There are a good many predictions and prophecies made with regard to this road. If some of those who indulge in them live for a few years longer, they will be convinced they are neither prophets nor the sons of prophets. The country through which this road passes will develop a local trade in the products of the forest and the products of the soil. There is a line of railway from Sudbury to Port Arthur, 555 miles in length, which my hon. friend proposes to buy, if his scheme is adopted-the lean portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has no considerable local trade and never will have, for there is nothing to create it, neither timber nor soil. That is an entirely different country from the country through which this road will run. This is not Laurentian rock, it is not a stretch of granite as it is from Sudbury to Port Arthur ; it is not like that, a country of heavy tunnels, deep cuttings and steep grades, but a fruitful country, a country fit for settlement, a country well timbered, and a country that will create in due time, a vast local trade for the railway passing through it. The hon. gentleman says that nobody will go to that country as long as they can go to the prairies of the Nbrtli-west. But the fact is that the people are going to just such a country. All you need in order to get people into such a country, is to give them means of communication. The hardy pioneer, the axeman, the lumberman, will go there. And let me tell the hon. gentleman-for I have worked at the business of chopping down trees, logging up and clearing forest lands-that the hardy pioneer with his axe, a little food and a yoke of oxen will go to the woods, and will make headway, will make a farm and will acquire a competence with less capital than it requires to start on the prairies-very much less. If an man goes to the prairies, he must have money to buy lumber for a house,
to buy lumber for the barn, to buy lumber or wire and posts for fences. Everything he does in the way of putting up buildings or fencing his lands costs an outlay in money, but, if he goes to the forest, he builds his house of logs1, he can hew logs for the floor, he can rive out shingles for the roof. 1-Ie need spend no money, except for glass and nails. He can chop down the forest and he can put in the fire in the spring and burn off the brush, log up the logs and burn them, bring the land into cultivation and raise fine crops-and he cau do all this practically without capital. He has to endure hardships, it is true. He is a hero. But, in time, he has acquired a farm, be is surrounded with all the comforts of civilization, he has a competence, he is a man of means. Why, the hon. gentleman knows nothing of what he is talking about. There is a class of people who prefer that kind of country, and by this class of people the country will be settled. They are the hardiest and best element in the population of Canada-selfreliant, vigorous, frugal and patriotic. They will go into that country and will make a local business for this road-don't trouble your mind about that.	,
The hon. gentleman says that this road will only have four months' business out of the twelve. That will be unfortunate. Why, Sir, this road will have local business to the extent that it is created throughout the year. This road will have a business of transporting crops in all seasons from the west of the sea-board. It will have the advantage of taking grain, for instance, in the Peace river valley and putting it into Quebec on board vessels in nine days from the time it is loaded on the cars, less than half the time by which we can get i!t (to the sea-board by| any other route. That is an enormous advantage, the advantage of saving time. It can transport wheat to Quebec from the time of threshing until late in the autumn, and then it can keep transporting it to Halifax and St. John, until the next spring, when it can resume transporting it to Quebec. It is not going to be necessary to put that wheat all into the market within four or five months, for the country will develop in such a w:ay that there will be capital to carry the crops, and elevators to hold them ; and the busin-ness will be distributed over the year instead of the grain being rushed out to market in a few months, as is now done because the lakes close up and there is no communication. These are conditions in the transportation problem which need to be considered. These lions in the path, these bugaboos which our friends opposite conjure us, are difficulties only iri appearance and not in reality. These lion, gentlemen wish to impress the country with the idea that this is a bad measure. They ask the people to put them in power and they will buy roads already built ; they wiil take over 555 miles of road through the

rocks and put the country's money into that ; they will double-track roads from the lakes into" the North-west ; they will spend $150,000,000 and will not put $20,000,000 into new works. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we have a good thing. We have adopted, in this transcontinental scheme, a plan that is in the interest of Canada, that is calculated to develop Canada, that is for the benefit of all Canada and of all classes of the people, a scheme that ought to command the support of every man in this House and every man in this country. I feel thus deeply with reference to this scheme, and I am sorry to see so many arguments used against it which, I believe, in many cases are entirely unfounded.


Samuel Barker: I would like to read the paragraph in the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) which the hon. member got up to read. This speech was delivered on the 6th of May last, and the part that I shall quote is reported at page 3463 of ' Hansard.' The hon. gentleman took up the book but failed to read :
So when you reach Buffalo, it the competition Is keen, it the American railway lines find it necessary, in order to secure the control of the business of carrying wheat from Buffalo to New York at a price which would leave them a bare profit, iit can be done. I am told, on the New York Central Railway at fifty cents a ton, or one cent and six mills per bushel. So you have the possibility of carrying wheat from Port Arthur to New York for three cen:s a bushel, or at most four cents- a bushel. Now there are conditions which render it, in my opinion, impossible at present to compete with that route. It is useless to think of hauling wheat from a point as far west as Port Arthur by an all-rail route to Quebec or to Halifax at prices such as those I quoted with regard to the American lines.


John Charlton: As we are having the diversion of reading my speech of the 12th of May last and as some of it is read in the way the old Scotch woman repeated the eighth commandment ' though shalt steal' leaving out an essential part of it-I may read a portion of this speech and 1 will only say that in that speech I was proceeding upon the assumption that this road, if built, would be a road of the character of those we have now, and I was making my calculations upon the basis of the then existing transportation methods and facilities. I took in that speech broad ground in favour of a line from Quebec to Winnipeg, and I asserted, as the hon. gentleman says, that it had been stated that wheat could be hauled from Buffalo to New York for 50 cents a ton, and that would be the bare cost of hauling wheat without a profit or any allowance for bringing empties back. In the calculation I have made to-night with reference to these rates from Winnipeg east, I have shown what the actual rates charged upon these roads are, and what they have been. These quotations that the hon. gen-Mr. CHARLTON.
tlemen make of that speech are entirely foreign to the case, and utterly' irrelevant and childish in view of the purpose for which they are made.


William Rees Brock: It is curious to see how hon. gentlemen, when they are cornered in their statements and their assertions, will try to squeeze out of them. Now I want to draw the attention of this House to the scheme, and to the statements upon which they are going to spend $100,000,000 on that railway. We have had the whole scheme from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) this evening, and his statements in support of it are so contrary to his previous statements that I know the country will have no confidence in them. I cannot understand why' the government will allow themselves to be so misled by the hon. gentleman as to believe that grain can be hauled by railway at any such rates as he has stated. He was so completely upset by the reply made by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), that I do not wonder at the lamentable spectacle he has given us to-uiglit. The building of a railroad is not such an extraordinary thing. We can get the opinions of engineers, we can have that whole country surveyed in a year, and all we ask the government to do, all the country wants them to do, is to delay proceeding with the construction of this road. The talk about there being no time to wait, and all that sort of thing, is completely played out now. We all know that we can wait. There is no difficulty about the bonding privilege, we are not going 'to be attacked by the United States. There is no reason why this government should not even now, at this late date, revise their scheme. We are only asking them to do what the whole country wants them to do ; and we are prepared on this side of the House, if they can bring forward a scheme with some data to back it, and to show that it is feasible, we will be only too glad to join with them in building the road. After a great deal of labour these mountains of information have got here, and we find that they are not even in the shape of a ridiculous mouse. The information, in fact tells against the government scheme. You turn it over, page after page, and you get information contradicting the statements that are made in this House about the richness of that country, about the magnificent forests, about the enormous amount of red and white pine. Hon. gentlemen must remember that in making statements of that kind they are going to he found out. If it turns out to be a fact that the timber is there, why not tell us all about it, and then we can go into the scheme with our eyes open.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to the government. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in the House, because I believe that he approached this subject with a heartfelt desire to do what he

thought was good for this country. But evidently he was urged into it. I did not know at that time that the hon. member for North Norfolk was so filled up with this subject himself. Indeed he was so full of it that he was rather reckless in making supposititious cases as to the grain that could be drawn over it. There is no absolute information about it. As ordinary business men, leaving politics out of tile question, if any one came to you with a project of that kind, and asked you to invest your money in it, there is not one of you would do it. I think the hon. member for North Norfolk would be grand at writing a prospectus for a shady company. He speaks of timber limits, and soil that produces potatoes being so rich-really, if it was not so serious it would be laughable. I can assure these gentlemen that the country is asking for information. What we have got is so limited, is so uncertain, is so unreliable, that I do hope the government will consent to the delay that we are asking for. I am not talking for the sake of talking, for the sake of smothering a railway scheme that is going to do good to the North-west. I am as much in favour of doing good to the North-west as any hon. gentleman opposite. But I say the scheme propounded by the leader of the opposition is one that will give the immediate relief that the Northwest wants a great. deal sooner than the scheme of the government, and at enormously less expense. If you want to bring your grain down to be shipped from Quebec or from Halifax the scheme of the leader of tlie opposition will do it. The hon. member for North Norfolk spoke about bringing grain by the carload from the Peace riper country. I do not believe that it will ever be brought from the Peace river country to the east. That grain will find its way westward to the Pacific ocean, and will be shipped to China and Japan in the shape of flour or foodstuffs. Millions and millions of the products of flour will go in that direction. it will pay better to take it there, because the haul will he shorter, and you will get a bettor price for it. There is no use in talking about bringing grain from the Peace river country to Quebec to be shipped, it can't be done. The furthest west you can go for grain will be Edmonton, and from Edmonton you can lay it down cheaper by taking it to Lake Superior and thence eastward. The hon. member for North Norfolk obtained his information from the authorities lie mentioned by not asking them exactly what he wanted. Had those authorities known that he wished to send 2,000 tons on each train, they would have given him a very different estimate. Estimating a 12-car train at the same price as a 43 or a 60-car train, you can see at once how ridiculous his statement is. Therefore, I would advise the government to consult other authorities in this matter, to consult with their own friends of the Grand
Trunk, and get their consent to withdraw this Bill until another session.


David Henderson: The figures that have been given to us to-night by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) have upset all previous notions about railway traffic. The difference between the calculations made by the horn member for North Norfolk as to what grain can be carried for and will be carried for on this new transcontinental railway, and what it is now carried for on other roads is so great that I must come to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman has made some terrible mistake in his calculations. If the hon. gentleman has not made a mistake in his calculations, surely the Grand Trunk Railway Company has been bleeding the farmers and grain dealers of this country white, as the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) Used to tell us about the national policy-in fact, worse than bleeding them white. I can scarcely think that the Grand Trunk Railway will thank the hon. member for North Norfolk for the expose he has made to-night of the apparent extortion that is being practised on the people of this country by that company. I propose to make a few comparisons, and I will leave it to the judgment of lmn. members of this House to say whether this statement of the hon. gentleman is reasonably within the mark or not, because if it is I must repeat what I said before that the Grand Trunk Railway Company and other railways have certainly been taking extortionate rates from the farmers for carrying grain, far beyond what I think any man had any preconceived notion of. Take the Grand Trunk Railway from the port of Oakville, in the county I have the honour to represent, in the matter of freight. I do not apprehend that it will be possible for this transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec to get a road of better grades than you will get from Oakville to Montreal, down the shore of Lake Ontario, and down the St. Lawrence river, where there is a decline, not a rise, in the road-bed, and consequently we cannot expect to find any grade even as great as that which the liom gentleman speaks of. We are told that this new road is to be modelled on the Grand Trunk Railway from Toronto to Montreal, that it is to be a road equally as good. There is no demand that it should be any better. Now, assuming-and I think I am quite within the mark when I do assume-that the grades on the Grand Trunk Railway from the county of Halton to Montreal are as light as any grades that can possibly be obtained on this new transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec, I think this comparison will be a very fair one. I am very sorry that the hon. gentleman is leaving the Chamber, because I would like him to give an explanation of the figures which I propose to give. From Oakville to Mont-

real tlie distance is 354 miles, and the charge of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for carrying wheat is 7'20 cents pea- bushel. According to the calculation made 'by the hon. gentleman of .$1. with 50 cents added per train mile, the Grand Trunk Railway Company should at the present time carry grain from Oakville to Montreal for ITS cents per bushel.


William Rees Brock: What do they charge ?


David Henderson: They charge 7:20 cents, or they are charging 6 2 cents more than what the hon. gentleman tells us grain will be carried for from Winnipeg to Quebec over the new transcontinental railway. I would ask the hon. gentleman if that is not a fair comparison ? I will apply the same calculation to Brampton, which is 354 miles from Montreal. The present cost of carrying grain from Brampton to Montreal by the Grand Trunk Railway is 7 20 cents. The actual cost of carrying it, according to the hon. gentleman's calculation, basing it on the same rates as he says wheat will he carried from Winnipeg to Quebec, is 118 cents per bushel, or again an excessive rate of 6:2 cents per bushel which the Grand Trunk Railway Company are at present charging the people of Brampton, in Peel, represented by my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Blain), more than they should charge, or 500 pt?t cent more than would be a legitimate charge. I will take another place. From Collingwood to Montreal the distance is 402 miles ,and the cost of carrying wheat is 8-40 cents. According to the calculation of the hon. gentleman ns to the rate at which wheat can be carried from Winnipeg to Quebec, the Grand Trunk Railway Company should carry wheat from Collingwood to Montreal for 1'34 cents, ot they are charging 7'6 cents more than they are entitled to charge. Take it from Peterborough, and surely the grade from Peterborough to Montreal, on the Grand Trunk Railway, is as low a grade as possibly can be found on a line crossing the height of land nine times between Winnipeg and Quebec. The distance between Peterborough and Montreal is 286 miles. The Grand Trunk Railway, and no doubt the Canadian Pacific Railway also, charge 6 cents pet bushel. The rate at which the hon. gentleman tells us wheat can be carried for that distance over this new road will be less than 1 cent, or -95 of 1-cent per bushel, showing us that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway are actually charging the farmers and grain dealers of Peterborough 5'05 cents per bushel more for carrying grain than the same grain could be carried for over this new transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Quebec, or they are getting 500 per cent more than they are entitled to. We will take Midland, which is 388 miles from Montreal. The charge is 8'40 cents pet bushel. According to the hon. gentleman, * Mr. HENDERSON,
this grain ought to be carried from Midland to Montreal for 1-30 cents per bushel, showing, therefore, that the Grand Trunk Railway to-day according to his calculations, are charging the farmers around Midland and the grain dealers of Midland 7TO cents per bushel more to carry the grain from Midland to Montreal than ought to be charged, according to the rate that the hon. gentleman has given us for the carrying of grain from Winnipeg to Quebec. Now, I think it is not necessary to do more than to point out these figures to show the absolute absurdity of the calculations made by the hon. gentleman. I cannot understand how he can reconcile his figures with the actual charges at the present time. To my mind, something ought to be done in regard to rates, both on the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, if these enormous charges are being extorted from the people over and above what a fair paying rate would mean. The only fair conclusion I can arrive at is that the hon. gentleman has made, as my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has pointed out, some terrible blunder in his calculations, and that they are utterly unreliable. No confidence whatever can be reposed in them, and I hope and trust that the government will not base their conclusion as to the transcontinental railway, whether they will go on with this transcontinental railway or defer it for another year, on such erroneous calculations as we have had from their expert to-night.


Mr. BELL.: Mr. Chairman, I think that a careful study of the figures given by the h*n. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) will show that he has made some miscalculation in his figures in some directions. The greater part of the hon. gentleman's speech was based on the calculation, that a trainload should consist of 2,000 tons. He quoted the authority of Mr. Scott of the Great Northern, that a train would consist of forty-five cars, each car carrying 1,000 bushels, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) went on to calculate, that such a train woidd consist of 2,000 tons of freight, but in reality such train contains ony 1,323 tons, or two-thirds of two thousand tons. To commence with, the figures of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) are incorrect to the extent of one-third. Then the hon. gentleman referred very frequently to information he is in possession of, derived from the engineers who are now engaged in locating the route for the proposed transcontinental railway. If there is such information in possession of gentlemen on the government side, gentlemen on this side of the House should be supplied with it as well.


John Charlton: I stated that I got this information from the engineer of the Great Northern Railway. It is not information of an official character. I met that gentleman with Mr. Scott on Friday, and I received this

information from him, which I assume is correct.


John William Bell: That is as to the work of the surveying parties.


John Charlton: Yes, he had control of the surveying parties of the Trans-Canada, and I think he was in communication with the Grand Trunk.


John William Bell: It is unfortunate that we on this side of the House are not in possession of that report.


John Charlton: You have it in the same way as I got it, except that I am the intermediary.


John William Bell: I have heard several times about the corridors that the government was in receipt of information from parties in the field, and I think that has been stated in the House by others than the hon. member (Mr. Charlton). If the government have such information, it is important that it should be laid on the Table so that all members of the House may have the advantage of it in discussing this question. It must bo remembered however, that the Trans-Canada surveys passed a very great distance from the proposed route for the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Trans-Oanada passed north of Lake Winnipeg or about 300 miles from the city of Winnipeg. I have always understood that their line was to pass at one point about 100 miles south of James bay, which is about 150 miles north of the propose! route for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the information obtained for the Trans-Oanada would therefore have no relation whatever to what the gradients may be on the Grand Trunk Pacific. If there be any country easy for railway construction, it will probably be found in the alluvial plain which occurs at the foot of James bay, and which is referred to by Dr. Robert Bell as being a comparatively narrow basin inclosed within a circular rampart of rocks, and which circular rampart approaches at its northern terminus,where it flanks James bay east and west forming the eastern and western boundaries of that alluvial basin, which there is in the neighbourhood of 200 miles in diameter. Therefore, the alluvial tract, which has been referred to frequently as being in the neighbourhood of James bay, is bounded on each side by considerable obstacles in the form of a great drop in the land, which gives rise to a number of waterfalls, which are referred to in all the reports, and which have been spoken of in the course of this debate as likely to furnish opportunity for developing a great deal of water power. That being the case, we are not in possession of such information as would warrant us in concluding that the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) is right in assuming, that it is a certainty that a railway line -can be laid down in that country, which would give a maximum grade of four-tenths of one per cent a mile. Upon that supposition the 374
argument of the hon. gentleman rests, and if that cannot be realized, then all the figures he has used here with a grSat deal of skill, to prove that freight can be carried at these surprisingly low rates, absolutely lose their foundation.
Mr. CHARLTON, I did make a calculation of a six-tenths grade which was quite' satisfactory, but I also made a calculation on a four-tenths grade.


John William Bell: According to my knowledge, the Trans-Canada line was projected through the easiest and most level course that could be procured anywhere, and still the chief engineer, Mr. Doucet, only spoke to me of six-tenths grades, and I did not learn from him that it would be possible to realize anything better. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton has said that the engineers did not realize a better grade than six-tenths, because they did not look for it. It can searely be possible that they would not try to realize the very best possible grade, because the whole argument which was addressed by the promoters of the Trans-Canada to the government, to whom they were looking for a subsidy; and to the public, from whom they were seeking financial support; rests upon the fact that they hoped to secure a line which would furnish exceedingly easy gradients, and would enable them to carry timber into the west, and wheat from the west to Quebec, at a cheap rate.


John Charlton: The engineer said that while they found isix-tenths grade there would be no difficulty in finding four-tenths, only the cost would be increased somewhat; but it could be done quite easily.


John William Bell: Of course, by incurring greater expense in construction, easier grades could be procured. But the whole possibility of carrying freight at very low rates, such as have been cited by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton), would necessitate that it must be a comparatively cheap road to build. In all the calculations made by the hon. gentleman to-night, he has not taken into account anything which I think will be at all adequate to meet such fixed charges as would be necessary to secure a grade of four-tenths per cent. Such a road must be constructed at a very large cost. I think we must assume that the figures given by the Finance Minister of the estimated cost of this- road, $28,000 per mile, would not permit of any very extensive engineering works to secure such a grade in a country where there is any difficulty in getting such grades. The calculation that wheat can be carried from Winnipeg to Quebec for G cents and a fraction per bushel seems to me a very difficult one to maintain and even a more difficult one to believe, when we remember that that road from Winnipeg to Quebec, for over 400 miles, would run through the same country as the Canadian



Pacific Railway and the Central Northern Railway ; and under the pressure that can be brought to bear on these railroads by the local government of Manitoba, which as the result of making concessions to these railroads, has the power to extract the best possible terms from them, and in spite of all the other pressure which can be brought to bear by public opinion and every other agency, it has been impossible to reduce the cost of carrying grain from Winnipeg to Port William, a distance of something like 400 miles, below 8-4 cents per bushel.


John Charlton: That is from Brandon.


John William Bell: It includes Brandon points. And yet, the hon member for North Norfolk asks this House to believe that this new road will carry grain from Winnipeg, past Fort William, across Ontario, and across Quebec to the city of Quebec, three times the distance, for three-fourths of the cost. It is an immense assumption ; and it would require absolute demonstration to warrant any person whatever in believing it possible, especially when it is recollected that the House is approaching the consideration of this subject without very much information of a positively certain character. I say that to ask the House to decide on a question that involves such an amazing assumption is to ask too much.


John Charlton: Perhaps I might, in candour and fairness at this stage, if my hon. friend would permit me, say that we want to deal with this question in view of all the facts. In my calculations I distinctly confined myself to the cost of moving grain, basing them on a train mileage cost, which includes all the expenses of the road ; but I said that this train mileage cost would not include the interest on the investment in the road. That is something that has to be taken into consideration, and that would necessarily increase the price to be charged for the transaction of the business. My hon. friend deals .with the question as if there were no such element in the matter, and it may be that the cost is lower than it would be, because that element has to be taken into consideration.


John William Bell: I may have been doing an injustice to the hon gentleman ; but I was taking his figures to be, as I thought he intended them to be, based on his assumed estimate of $1 per train mile of the cost, and on the further assumption that trains could carry 2,000 tons. So far as the Lake St. John road is concerned, I have shown that the case cited by Mr. Scott did not provide for a train of 2,000 tons, but only 1,300 tons. As to the fixed charges and the interest charges on that road, they would have this effect, that after it goes into operation, and has secured so much of the wheat traffic of the west as to get even 30,000,000 bushels of grain to carry out in one year, that is to say, three-fourths of the wheat shipped from Winnipeg last year, if
the figures given by the hon. member for North Norfolk are correct, the total earnings of the road for all that enormous traffic would only realize $900,000 of gross earnings, whereas the interest the company would have to pay to the government of Canada on the cost of the road would amount to practically $1,500,000 ; so that unless it could succeed in developing some large and remunerative source of revenue, from which it cannot be understood to	come at this moment, the
road, after carrying the whpat. would be left short $60,000 to pay the goviern-ment the interest on the cost of the road. However, it seems to me not necessary for the House to proceed too seriously to consider the argument of the hon. member for North Norfolk until he produces figures which are more easily verified, all his statements make such drafts on the credulity of the members of this House that when one comes to estimate the improbability of all these assumptions, one realizes that the whole argument is not deserving of really serious consideration. I do not know what it was that provoked the hon. gentleman to resume the consideration of this part of ihe railway problem, as I think it was undesirable at this time to pursue th,.. line of argument.
The Minister of Finance {Hon. Mr. Fielding) is very fond of using the expression that someone is guilty of drawing a red herring across the scent. Now, if I have ever seen a red herring drawn across the scent and very successfully drawn for a considerable time, it has been done this evening by the hon. member for North Norfolk. We were engaged in the discussion of a definite proposal, the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition which dealt very specifically with a definite proposition and I must admit that although I have always found the Minister of Finance very ingenious and ready to cope with atny argument, he satisfied me that he was unable to grapple^ with the arguments of the leader of the opposition at all, in fact he had no answer to make to them. He resurrected the very ancient matter of the compact made by the government of the late Sir John Macdonald with the Canadian Pacific Railway twenty years ago. At a critical moment the hon. member for North Norfolk {Mr. Charlton) came to; his rescue and introduced into the discussion considerations that were dealt with over a month ago, and for the last hour or more our attention has been diverted to problematical railway hauls and to an ideal railroad which I would like but do not expect to see realized. To come back to the subject which is really before the House I feel that the opposition cannot go too far in sustaining the position taken by their leader. His amendment asks the government for nothing more than is contained in the jjroposition submitted to the House by the government. According


John William Bell: to the present contract the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway undertakes to arrange or provide-and to a certain extent the whole contract is based on this-that the Grand Trunk Railway shall do certain things; that it shall stand behind the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway; that it shall finance that company and that it shall afterwards carry on the business of that company in so far as it can control that business, in such a manner as to secure to the people of Canada the full benefit of the road and all the advantages that should accrue from the large expenditure which Canada is asked to make. When the leader of the opposition, without going outside the terms of the contract, without suggesting any new proposition, asks the government to add to their Bill, words that will make it absolutely clear that the Grand Trunk Railway shall do the very thing which the contract implies it shall do, the government instead of complying with that reasonable proposition or advancing some reasons why they should not agree to it, fell back on the consideration of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance suggests a great many considerations and suggests them with great ingenuity but not one of them to my mind at all touches the subject. The leader of tbe opposition and the opposition are not asking for anything new; they are merely asking that the government shall add such words to their Bill as will guarantee that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall do and shall abstain from doing the very things which they tell us it is the purpose of the Bill that the Grand Trunk Railway shall do or abstain from doing. In answer to the very clearly proVteu case of the leader of the opposition in which he shows that the Grand Trunk Railway is everything in this contract and that the government has impressed on the House and on the country the idea that it is of the greatest importance to this country that the Grand Trunk Railway should be interested and should undertake some responsibilities in connection with this Bill, they still declined to view with favour the proposition of the leader of the opposi-tjon and to put such language into the Act as shall insure that the Grand Trunk Railway shall do those things which it is understood this contract implies they shall do. The leader of the opposition has pointed out that the Grand Trunk Railway is not directly bound and yet is to have absolute control in the future is to have the majority of the stock and is to be in a position to dictate the policy of the new road, to elect its directors, to frame its policy or change its policy, to rule it in every respect, as, when and how it pleases. The leader of the opposition after proving these points goes on to show how it may be to the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway company, which is really the power behind the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway not 3744
to live up to the spirit of this contract but to develop its trade with Portland rather than with Montreal or Quebec, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, speaking no doubt, to a certain extent, in the interests of the people of Nova Scotia whom he here represents and who are known to be very solicitous indeed as to the success of the projected railway in diverting grain trade to the maritime provinces in so far as it can be carried there in winter, knowing how solicitous the people of the maritime provinces have been from the beginning to secure such a route for this road as will carry the traffic so far to the north that there will be no danger of its being diverted to Portland, knowing all these things, the leader of the oposition has endeavoured to secure from the government such reasonable concessions as would guarantee that what we understand to be the purpose of this measure should be made sure and to guarantee that no power should be able to prevent the absolute fulfilment of the promise held out in this Bill to the people of the maritime provinces. The leader of the opposition gets no satisfactory answer from the government to this demand. The Minister of Finance ignores the proposition raised by the leader of the opposition and discusses a variety of other points, he suggests that the people of the maritime provinces in the past have been deceived by a former government and instead of combatting the proposition of the leader of the opposition, that in this case the people of the maritime provinces are being put in a position where they may be deceived by the government, the Minister of Finance ignores the arguments advanced by the leader of the opposition and attempts to divert the attention of the House and of the country from them. Apparently he is indisposed to consider these arguments and the hon. member for North Norfolk raises an issue which for the time diverts the attention of the House from the issue before it. All this goes to prove that there is some mystery in connection with this matter on account of which the unanswerable arguments of the leader of the opposition are treated in this way. Why is the government so stubborn in refusing to make this very proper addition to their Bill ? Why, if it be a fact that it is of the utmost importance to Canada that the Grand Trunk Railway should be a party to this contract, does the government not consent to what seems to me to be a reasonable proposition, and accept the amendment which would simply place that matter absolutely beyond doubt and would guarantee that what we understand to be the spirit of that contract should be absolutely and certainly the letter of the contract, which would have to be lived up to without deviation.	1
If there is any reason whatever why the Grand Trunk Company, which is supposed to be the soul of this business, which is supposed to furnish all the money, which is

supposed to give the guarantees, the guarantee that the eastern section shall he taken off the hands of the government when it is ready, the guarantee that it shall be equipped, the guarantee that it shall be operated, and, finally, the guarantee that the traffic originating in the west upon the road put in the possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company by the assistance of the government shall not be diverted from Canadian ports, but shall be carried from the west to the east over Canadian lines and delivered to Canadian ports -if there is any reason why it is an unfair thing to ask that that very hope and purpose which the government would seem to indicate as their hope and purpose in passing this legislation should be made absolutely certain by the addition of a few words not altering the meaning of the contract, but placing the Grand Trunk in such a condition that it must carry out the obligations assumed for it by the Grand Trunk Pacific. I cannot, for my part, conceive what is the reason the government decline what to my mind seems a perfectly reasonable proposition. There seems to be a mystery, there must be a mystery of some kind, or the government would accept a proposition entirely in line, entirely on all fours, wTith what they tell us is their own proposition. Still, the arguments addressed from this side of the House to the government are ignored instead of being answered; they are avoided; other considerations are discussed ; and finally, the House has been diverted absolutely for two hours or so from the consideration of that important point by reviving the exceedingly visionary ideas which have been held by the hon. member for North Norfolk, and going over the whole past course of this debate. What does it mean? What can it mean? It must mean that-there is some ground upon which the government of Canada are unable to secure from the Grand Trunk the conditions which the House is asking for. It must mean that when the Grand Trunk Company came to the government and asked assistance towards the construction of a road in the west, the government tacked on to their scheme of building a road in that part of the country in which they are interested and in which the company are interested, and in which there is prospect of a. great and profitable traffic, this long eastern extension of the road ; and, in order to persuade the person who represented the Grand Trunk to accept that contract, the government had to accept just such terms as the Grand Trunk chose to give them. And now that the opposition in this House urge the government to bind the Grand Trunk to do the things which they seem to be bound to do, it is beyond the power of the government to secure these conditions from the Grand Trunk Company. The Grand Trunk Company, we are told, to a certain extent is absolutely bound ; still, when we come


John William Bell: to look into the contract carefully, the only guarantee, the only security is $5,000,000 to be spent upon rolling stock on the eastern extension of the railway, which will be forfeited if they do not fill their contract. But, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), even if this whole $5,000,000 of rolling stock was furnished; at the end of ten or fifteen years, the company would only forfeit what was at one time worth $5,000,000, but might not be worth more than $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. And this it would be well worth the time of the Grand Trunk to sacrifice for the sake of getting promptly, and with the assistance of the government, access to a large portion of the traffic of what is undoubtedly going to be an exceedingly wealthy portion of the country, the prairie section of the west, a country that as soon as the rails are laid upon it will probably be ready to furnish a large amount of traffic. It would not be a great concession, even if the Grand Trunk had to face the probability or possibility that it would eventually lose this $5,000,000 or $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock which in the course of five years would have depreciated to a large extent. But the Grand Trunk is not afraid that anything of that kind will happen. A great many changes will occur in the next twenty years. And we must recollect that from the time the surveys have begun until the eastern portion of the road is finished will probably be a period of ten years, and, for ten years after that, the company can retain possession of the road without any necessity of paying interest. Thus, there is a period of twenty years before the company will be called upon to pay interest. How many changes may occur in twenty years ? It is certain that nearly all the men who are actually engaged in debating the terms of this contract will have passed off the stage of active participation in public affairs. And, in this case, as in many others it may be found impossible to secure from the company if it fails to fill the terms of the agreement any compensation whatever. In the looseness, in the vagueness with which the company is bound, there can be no doubt at all, that, if they were to come to a government twenty years hence and plead that they had been prevailed upon to take over an unprofitable road which they did not want, to assist the government of the day in undertaking the responsibility for the purpose of completing something like 1,400 miles of what is practically a colonization road, they would be able to make such a proposition to the government of that day as would justify, or at least, warrant, the government in^ releasing the company from its bonds. Now, the opposition are not satisfied to leave the matter in such a condition. If the Grand Trunk is in this contract behind the Grand Trunk Pacific ; if it is the company that is to carry on the terms of the contract,

if it is the body that is to guarantee the people of the older provinces that the trade of the west shall he carried through the older provinces to the sea-board to Canadian ports, we say that ought to be made perfectly and absolutely clear, there ought to be no room for contention, no room for doubt or question that the Grand Trunk in accepting the assistance they did, accepted these conditions and knew exactly what they were accepting. Yet, in the face of what seems to me a perfectly reasonable and fair and justifiable proposition for which I [DOT] have heard no answer of any satisfactory kind, the government simply rely upon forcing-that is the effect of it-upon forcing the opposition to accept this contract in the precise shape in which it is. It insists upon forcing the country to accept the contract in the precise shape in which it is. It practically denies the opposition any chance of doing anything in the matter. The whole responsibility of passing this must rest upon the government. The opposition has done its duty in this connection when it lias pointed out the changes which it thinks should be made in the public interest.
Now, it is not impossible that the contract can be modified. As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, if that position were taken by the government it has been abandoned, because modifications in this Bill have already been agreed to. It would be a piece of folly for us to discuss this measure at all if that were not the case, it would be simply a waste of time. If it were impossible for the HJouse to justify the government in doing certain things in the way of making changes, and impossible for the government to make those changes, then what would be the use of discussing this Bill at all ? The changes can be made, and we maintain that they should be made, and yet, in reply to what is urged from this side of the House, the government have apparently put up a prominent supporter to divert the attention of the House entirely from the matter under consideration. We on this side are merely doing our duty in pointing out what we think should be done ; and I am sure that the Minister of Finance will have to use a much better argument in approaching the people of the lower provinces to justify him in the course he has decided to take upon this occasion. than to refer to anything that he may cite as mismanagement or badly drafted agreements made twenty-five years ago. It is not sufficient to satisfy the people of Canada as to an error made to-day, to tell them that a former government, a quarter of a century earlier, had made other errors. Conditions have changed since then. The construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was undertaken under pressure of a necessity which compelled succeeding governments at that time to go on. and they had to go on under circumstances which rendered it difficult for themselves or for
contractors to know exactly what could be done. They had to make great concessions in order to induce any company to take hold of that work. To-day everything is changed. The Grand Trunk Company know, every one who is interested in railway work knows, that in the west beyond Lake Winnipeg, extending towards Edmonton, there is a great region of extraordinary fertility which will be at an early day filled with an active producing population. We know there is no greater prize to-day open for competition to men who are actually engaged in extending the railway system of Canada, than is to be found in that country. Therefore we are not groping in the dark with men who are as much in the dark as ourselves. We are dealing with men who have full knowledge of all the circumstances which attach to the construction of railways in that country, and we ought to be in a position to exact from the company to which we are giving this favourable contract, every item of advantage that we can reasonably ask on behalf of the people of the older provinces of Canada who are largely going to pay the cost of this work.
Mi-. OLIVER. I had been at a loss to understand exactly what the meaning of this amendment was, but I have found out now from the plain statement made by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Bell). It is quite clear that the proposed amendment is made to create the impression in the minds of the people of the maritime provinces that their interests are being ignored in the provisions of this Bill. A few days ago several members of the opposition stood up and were at equal pains to make it appear to the central part of Canada that its interests were being ignored by the provisions of this Bill, because the road was being extended to the maritime provinces. That seemed to be a very good argument while it was being used, but it has been very well met by the argument put forward to-day that the Bill is insufficient because it does not guard the interests of the maritime provinces. Now, for the benefit of the people of the maritime provinces, it may be pointed out that the construction of a piece of road which their friends here claim will cost some $15,000,000, is fair evidence of the good-will on the part of the parliament and government, at any rate, towards those provinces. It is fair evidence that there is some intention on the part of the government to have that piece of railroad operated, and if operated it must be to the benefit of the maritime provinces. As to the security taken for the operation of that road, it seems to me that $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock is a satisfactory security. But it is the same as a bubble, a puff of wind to hear members opposite. I have always been given to understand that $5,000,000 of security for the operation of $15,000,000 worth of property would be a a pretty fair security : and if that


Haughton Lennox: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr Oliver) what report he is reading from ?


Frank Oliver: You may ask, certainly.
Mi". LENNOX. I wrnuld like to know the authority from which the hon. gentleman is reading. I do not think that he mentioned it.


Frank Oliver: I am not as dependent upon other people's brains as some hon. members of this House. The cost and facilities of transport of the export surplus, under certain circumstances, is the most important influence in fixing the value of the crop and the farmer's profit. Water transportation is cheaper than rail. If the Canadian wheat fields were on the shores of the great lakes, and if the lakes were open all the year round, there would be no need of a railway to carry the export surplus to ocean ports. But the eastern edge of the wheat fields is 400 miles west of the lakes, and the lakes are closed for five months in the year. During the whole year the wheat must reach the lakes by a rail haul of from 400 to 1,400 miles, and during nearly half the year it must go forward, to the ocean all rail, or await the following season of navigation. The season of lake navigation is the season during which the crop is sown and grown, and not more than two, or at the outside three months of navigation remain after harvest.
If crop which does not cross the lakes in the fall is held by the farmer awaiting lake transport next spring, the money value does not go into circulation, and the farmer himself and the business of the country suffer a loss which cannot be counted in cents per bushel. If it passes from the farmer to the dealer, it must pay the costs of storage for the winter and incidental expenses. The dealer must protect himself against the possibility of a lower market the following summer by a margin over the mere cost of storage, which may be called a commercial insurance. These conditions tend to throw the grain trade into the hands of a few strong companies, which means monopoly in buying, and. therefore, an illegitimate lowering of prices to the producer. The result is to reduce the fair profit of the farmer and to keep the grain trade and. all business dependent upon it in an unsettled and unsatisfactory condition, to the general disadvantage and loss of the whole country.

During the past two seasons not more than one-quarter of the crop reached the sea-board by the lake route without paying winter storage charges. As the crop acreage increases, the proportion which must stand winter storage charges or go forward ail rail must increase, unless the railway accommodation across the wheat fields andi to the lakes is increased proportionately. At best it is a physical impossibility for more than half an average crop to he taken across the lakes before the close of navigation. The summer rate by lake and rail, Brandon to Montreal, last year averaged 164 cents per bushel. The winter storage, insurance and other definite charges were 5 cents per bushel, making a total charge, Brandon to Montreal by lake and rail, on winter stored grain of 214 cents. Two million bushels of wheat were for-war-ded all rail, Brandon to St. John, last winter by the Canadian Pacific Railway, at the same average rate of 214 cents per bushel. But the all-rail shipments saved the margin required for commercial insurance, caught the highest market price, enabled business to be done on smaller capital and thereby cut out monopoly, shifted the grain trade from a speculative to a business basis, and demonstrated that an all-rail haul was a practical proposition.
Although a necessary charge, the margin taken by the dealer as a commercial insurance is not a fixed amount, and can only be approximately arrived at. Last season me dealers dropped from summer to winter prices on October 18th. From that date until a short time before the close of navigation, on December 6th, two prices were current at all purchasing points, one the elevator price, and the other the car price. The elevator price was the final market value, with the lake and rail transport, costs of winter storage, commercial insurance, &c., deducted. The car price was the same market value, with only the cost of summer transport deducted. At 181 purchasing points in the west, under observation of the grain commissioner, the spread between the two prices was from 7 to 94 cents per bushel. That is, over and above the storage charges of 5 cents, the buyers took from 2 cents to 44 cents a bushel for commercial insurance and incidentals. It is evident that the higher the fall price, the greater the chance of a drop before spring, and, therefore, the greater the margin for commercial insurance the buyer must take to protect himself, and so the greater the loss to the farmer. On a crop of 50,000,000 bushels, only half of which can go forward by water direct, the loss to the farmer on the remaining half, because of its being held in storage until spring instead of going forward all rail, at an average allowance of 3 cents per bushel for commercial insurance and incidentals, is three-quarters of a million dollars. On a crop of 50,000,000 bushels, of which only a fourth goes forward by water
direct, the loss will be over a million dollars. And, estimating a spread of 44 cents per bushel, the loss would be nearly a million and three-quarters. There is no means of arriving at the loss from not getting the wheat forward to meet rises in the market, but it may very well be greater than the charge for commercial insurance and all incidentals. The Canadian Pacific Railway have not encouraged the all-rail haul, because the road was not built to accommodate that trade; because they have not the equipment which it would require; but chiefly because it was easier and better for them, until forced by circumstances to take a high rate per mile for the short haul to Fort William than a low rate per mile for the long haul to St. John. The Canadian Pacific Railway line from Brandon to St. John is 2,035 miles long. It pays interest at 4 per cent on a capitalization of $64,700 a mile, or five and a quarter millions a year.
The proposed Grand Trunk Pacific, from a like prairie point will be 1,930 miles to St. John. It can only be capitalized for its cost, on which it pays 3 per cent interest. A-t $30,000 per mile, it will have to pay $1,440,000 a year, or less than a third of the fixed charges of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The road will be built according to modern railway requirements and operated by_ modern methods. Therefore, if the Canadian Pacific Railway can haul grain at all at the rate of last winter, the Grand Trunk Pacific can haul it profitably at the same, and possibly at a less rate.
The yearly congestion of the western grain trade is partly natural and partly artificial. The winter congestion is natural; the fall congestion is artificial. The artificial congestion may not occur at all, or it may last for one or two months in the fall. It can be remedied by an adequate increase of transportation facilities west of the lakes.
The natural congestion must occur, and must last for at least five, and practically for six months. Its only remedy is transport by an all-rail route to a winter port, on terms which will permit a rate based on the cost of construction and cost of haul. This is provided for by public ownership, the lowest rate of interest on actual coet. and government control of rates.


Samuel Hughes: Some gentlemen on the other side have taken exception to the statements I have made regarding the elevations between Levis and Moncton. Not only that, but some of them have misrepresented me. The hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Talbot) said :
I notice, however, in reading the unrevised edition of ' Hansard ' reporting his speech, that he has thought prudent to eliminate certain figures which he had mentioned in the House in relation to distances from points of the Intercolonial Railway to imaginary points of this new government construction.
That statement is manufactured out of

whole cloth. Not a word or figure was ever eliminated by me from the ' Hansard ' In any speech I ever made in the House.


Mr. TALBOT.: Permit me to explain. In his speech, the hon. gentleman mentioned distances between certain stations on the Intercolonial Railway and certain summits, or as he called them passes. I i emember one in particular where he mentioned 1 lie distance from St. Philip de Neri, ,.'i the Intercolonial Railway to a certain summit. I did not see them in ' Hansard,' and I thought they were omitted from the notes or something else.
Mi-. HUGHES (Victoria). I do not know anything about that. 1 never read the report of my speech in the ' Hansard,' and if the figures are not there, I have nothing to do with It. The figures I gave to the House are absolutely correct and before I conclude, the hon. gentleman will realize that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) also said :
It is true that my hon. friend, as well as some other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, coming from the so-called banner province of Canada, do not think It worth their while reading about this part of the Dominion for which they seem to have had deepest contempt, and which is called the province of Quebec. It is very perceptible that what galls them in this new project is the fact that the province of Quebec will receive from it considerable benefit through relief being afforded to old settled townships and villages, and the immense development which will follow the opening of a new part of the province.
I regret to say that a couple of tbe minor members from Nova Scotia, and one from New Brunswick, indulged in small petty appeals to prejudices and to localities. I can tell tbe hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) that it is no part of the Tory policy to play on the feelings of localities, and while he was ne glecting the interests of his own constituency some years ago I was advocating the construction of a railway through it. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) gave a garbled version of what I said in this House in 1891. Speaking on a subsidy to a road running through this identical locality I then said :
This will be another through Canadian Pacific Railway line, and when the new bridge is completed at Quebec, the Canadian Pacific Railway will then be able to use its line on the north shore in connection with this line, as an addition'll through-road to the sea. Some two months ago, I had a motion on the Order paper in favour of reducing the grades on the Intercolonial, to a minimum and giving all railways connecting with that road running powers over it, in order that our seaports might be built up. I also favoured the doubletracking of the line from Moncton to the seaboard, because the more traffic we can bring to our Canadian sea-board, the more we will build up our country.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria),
That Is two years ago, and yet the member for Annapolis tried to make it appear ill this debate, that we were prejudicing the minds of the people in Ontario by objecting to build a railway in the maritime provinces and I regret to say that the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) has been small' enough to resort to similar language.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Was what I said correct or not ? Does no one in Ontario complain that the province of Ontario is being sacrificed for the benefit of the province of Quebec ?


Samuel Hughes: Not at ail.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I have heard it manj times. Is that true ?


Samuel Hughes: Is 1,671 feet above the level of the St. Lawrence, and that is the first pass by which he could get through the mountains. Then he goes on and describes the easterly grade, and says, on page 44:
The surveys made for this line show that the maximum grades need not exceed 52 feet per mile. The length of line to construct by taking this outlet will exceed that down .the Abeneakfe valley by about one mile.
Then he goes on to the eastern part, to Lake Pohenegomook, which is directly north of Maine. He says :
The country around and west of Lake Pohenegomook, in the direction a line should take, is very mountainous, which caused several lines to be run to find practicable grades leading from the lake.
The first attempt made was up Wild Cat creek, its course 'being towards the west and leading up to the head branches of the River Noire, and presented the best direction to reach Mr. TStu'is line, .after traversing .about ten miles of this valley this part of the line was abandoned, finding it impossible to reach the River Noire waters with any practicable grade.
I returned to Lake Pohenegomook, and the only alternative was to follow the side hill along the west shore of the lake as far as the Smoky river, then following the north-western branch to its head, to obtain a longer course to overcome the heavy ascent necessary to reach the high eleva/tion at which Mr. T&tu's line terminates. '
The country taken here, as far as the .line between the fourth and fifth ranges .in the township of Pohenegomook is the same as. that followed by Mr. Crawford for his short line survey from River Ouelle to Edmundston for the Dominion government. Ait the above point my line left Mr. Crawford's and took .a westerly course into the townships of Ohabot and Painchaud in the county of Kamouraska, connecting with Mr. Tetu's line in the latter township, about 16J miles from the point of departure of Mr. Crawford's line. The maximum grade on bl is line commences near the foot cf Lake Pohenegomook and rises at the rate of 71-28 feet per mile for a distance of nine miles.
That is more than three times the gradient our friend the expert was going to give us.
In that next four miles the summit between the Smoky and Noire rivers was reached with a grade of 65 feet per mile, at an elevation of 1048 feet above the initial point on the Temts-conata Railway.
And the point they start from is Temis-couata, where the elevation is 496 feet. Add to that the elevation stated at 1,403, and you will have the elevation of that road at this point about 1,500 feet. The report goes on :
The remainder of the line surveyed contains grades of 53 feet per mile and under. The highest elevation attained above the initial point is 1,065 feet. About a mile east of Mr. Tetu's line. The height is increased after reaching Mr. Tetu's line and then a considerable fall takes place towards the west for several miles.
This is the famous line you gentlemen are going to run, on which yon are going to Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
have grades of one-half per cent. The report goes on :
The maximum grade on the new survey for this line need not exceed 53 feet per mile, excepting at Lake Pohenegomook, where the only long continuous grade of 71-28 feet per mile
occurs.
Then he gives the mileage which I will summarize, it runs 207$, 2091 and 205i and these are the surveys that the member for Belleehasse (Mr. Talbct) pointed out as being feasible and as going to short, n the line of the old Intercolonial Railway between Levis and Moncton by 140 miles. I want you, Sir, to bear in mind that taking his own figures as I have given his elevations he has crassa.l five different ranges of mountains the lowest 1.300 feet in 1 eight and the highest 1,700 feet i.i height, in order to reach that point.
And now, having readied New Brunswick, we proceed down the valley of the St. John. The hon. member for Victoria, N.B., (Mr. Oostigan) paid some attention to your humble servant in this regard but contented himself by referring to the elevation. He did not attempt to show that any figure which I have quoted is in the slightest degree wrong. The Minister of Finance took Sir Snndford Fleming's central route and told us that was the route that was to be fo'low-ed and then our friend from Victoria, N.B., told us that we were to take some shert imaginary air line. The hon. member for Belleehasse (Mr. Talbot) says that these gentlemen do not know what they are talking about, that it is the other survey that is to be selected. However, I have analysed the central line as propounded by the Minister of Finance and have shown the elevation then given that if a profile of that line could be drawn it would resemble an ordinary coarse comb. The hon. member for Annapolis says they are not going to run the air line of the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. nor the central one of the Finance Minister and he went on to show that the course of the road will run through different counties in New Brunswick to Moncton and then there will be a branch from Oliipman to St. John which will traverse the counties of King's and St. John, The line will start at ChaudiSre Junction, it will be 270 miles from Eastman to St. Laurent and 30 miles from St. Laurent to Lake des Roches, 25 miles from Lake des Roches to Boiestown and Chipman is then about 52 miles. If you figure these distances up and add the 207 miles you will find that the road from Chau-diere Junction to Moncton will be as follows : From Moncton to Fredericton, 95 miles ; from Edmundston to Fredericton, 165 miles.
A total of 260 miles and then from X^vis to Edmundston via the road laid down by the member for Belleehasse is 207 miles making a total distance according to the figures of hon. gentlemen opposite of 467 miles from Chaudifire or L6vis to Moncton.

Why, Sir, the Intercolonial Railway is only 486 miles and the difference is only 20 miles in favour of this road with itff-grad-ients of 71 feet to the mile for miles of its course, and with scarcely a gradient on the whole road of less than 62 or 63 feet per mile. And this is the road they are to give us as the short line, the fast hauling route to the sea. I have a map here, issued by the government, a geological survey map, giving the elevations in the parts of New Brunswick to be traversed by the road as indicated by the members for Victoria, N.B., and Annapolis and this map shows the elevations to be even more pronounced than I have stated, for instance at the point where the Tobique river crosses the proposed line the elevation is 365 feet, and at a point ten miles from that it rises to 1,206 feet, a gradient of 81 and 1-10 feet per mile for ten miles, and the hon. member for North Norfolk says that 20 feet per mile is the maximum we are to have on this great road. We will have to go four miles in order to make each mile of that grade ; in order to make this ten miles distance this road will have to be increased in length to 40 miles if he is to get such a grade as he speaks of. Between Boiestown and the Salmon river the elevation is again upwards of 1,208 feet. It is not necessary to go into these figures any further. I simply wish to take the figures of the road as propounded by hon. gentlemen opposite and to show that they are going to have a road 460 miles long from Levis to Moncton, and to have on it maximum grades of 72 feet per mile and minimum gradqs of 53 fedt per mile. And yet these gentlemen will go around the country endeavouring to deceive the people with the idea that they are going to give a short line through the country. I want my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) and hon. members from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to remember that the people of Ontario in objecting to this, as they have objected, are not objecting to having a road built through that country. When the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan) were neglecting their duties in this House, I was here demanding justice for those localities. We were willing to give $6,400 a mile for a railway through that country, but not to give $60,000 a mile. When the people refuse to give $60,000 a mile to build such a road, I think they are justified in the position they take.
I shall not take up the time of the House, at present, further than to point out some facts as to another route which has been referred to by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I would like to refer to the gradients on that hon. gentleman's road. In a distance of 300 miles, the gradients were as follows, as will be seen at page 51 of the Intercolonial Railway pamphlets :
Grades-	_ 'Miles.
Under twenty feet	 41A
20 to	30 feet	
O'G30 to 40	"	
13	940 to	50 "	
15-251-9 feet	
2	1528	"	
18-356	"	
1-560	"	
4	761	"	
V363	"	
0-964	"	
3-265	"	
3568	"	
2-769	"	
1-770	"	
11-5
This is the route the Minister of Finance pointed out as being such an excellent route over which to run this air-line, this vast transcontinental road. And in the face of these grades and mileages, these hon. gentlemen have the hardihood to pretend that they are going to save distance. Taking these grades and stretching them out, I venture to say that, if they get eyen a one-half per cent grade instead of the four-tenths per cent grade of the hon. member for North Norfolk, it will increase the length to twenty or thirty miles longer than the Intercolonial
road.
*
Amendment negatived.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another amendment outstanding which the government asked time to consider. I beg leave to move that amendment as follows :
That section 7 be amended by adding thereto the following subsections :-
(2)	Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the said agreement contained, His Majesty the King acting in respect of the government of Canada shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry ouit or fulfil any of the covenants, undertakings, conditions or stipulations in the said agreement contained on behalf of His Majesty the King acting as aforesaid, unless and until the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall have subscribed for the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company payable in cash at par to the amount of not less than $24,900,000.
(3)	The Grand Trunk Railway Company shall hold the said common stock to the amount aforesaid so subscribed for and acquired -is aforesaid, during the entire term of the lease mentioned in clause 20 of the said agreement, and so long as any of the bonds guaranteed by the government under .the terms of the said agreement shall remain outstanding and unpaid, and no pledge, transfer or conveyance of any part of the said stock during the said period shall be valid or effectual.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am prepared to accept that if the hon. gentleman will follow the terms of the agreement, and, instead of the word * subscribed for,' use the words ' acquired and taken,' and instead of ' payable in cash ' the words ' shall acquire and take as aforesaid.' I adhere to the terms of the agreement; but I accept the proposition that these be made condi-

tions precedent, so as to make it perfectly clear.


Robert Laird Borden: Let me have this over night, and I will let the hon. gentleman know the first thing in the morning,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I sup pose that section had better stand.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In view of this amendment, it is possible I may be obliged to prepare a further amendment to the same section.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 8,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Are your amendments ready ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin) I believe had one.	*


Mr. MORIN.: I will be ready to-morrow To-day is my birthday.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am in hopes, now that we have passed what I may call the controversial stages of this im portant question, that we will now be able to give quiet consideration to what remains. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.25 a.m., Tuesday.

Tuesday, September 22, 1903.