1904-05-16

INSPECTION OF GRAIN.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT
(Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 113) respecting the inspection of grain.
Mr. CLARKE.: What is the nature of this Bill ?


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: The object is to consolidate in one measure a very large number of amendments introduced from time to time to the law regulating the inspection of grain, and also to assimilate io some extent the law as it now exists between the two divisions of eastern and western Canada. There are some differences between the inspection in Manitoba and the Northwest and the inspection in eastern Canada. I wish to have this Bill printed for distribution. And I may mention that, after the second reading, I intend to propose that the Bill be referred to a special committee, before whom the parties interested may appear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire once more about the return with respect to the mail contracts that I have already "mentioned several times.


Richard John Cartwright: The ocean mail contracts ?


Robert Laird Borden: I refer to a return moved for early in the session of contracts for the carriage of mails from the St. Lawrence during the past four years.


Richard John Cartwright: I think that was laid on the table only last week. Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) did not observe it.


Mr.   R.@: ;L. BORDEN. No, I did not observe it.


Mr. FIELDING.: 

HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD, 1S77.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire also whether any arrangement ha* been made with any one or more of the provinces for stating a case with respect to the Halifax fishery award of 1877 ?


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: Representatives of the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island called upon the Department of Justice some time ago with respect to the settlement of the questions to be referred.

The series of questions to be referred is settled. Tbe form in which they are to be put has not been quite settled yet.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose it would be in the form of a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court. I would like to have a copy of the case laid on the table as soon as it is settled. I suppose there will be no objection ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No objection.



PRIVATE BIDES.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 104) respecting the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.

Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 105) respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company.-Mr. Sutherland (Essex).
Bill (No. 106) to incorporate the Chicoutimi and Northeastern Railway Company.-Mr German.
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 109) to incorporate the Montrea', Nipissing and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.-Mr. Champagne.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ETHIER-by Mr. Holmes-asked :
1.	Is the water power at Carillon leased ?
2.	If so, since when, and who is th^ lessee ?
3.	Has the lessee complied with the conditions of the lease ?
4.	If not, is it the government's intention to cancel the lease in order to give other persons the advantage of leasing and using that water power ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	It was leased on the 13th of May, 1901, and the lease was extended on the condition that the works would be commenced on the 1st of May, 1905, and would be completed on the 1st of May, 1907. John P. Mullarky is the lessee.
3.	The conditions of the contract now existing with the department have been fulfilled.
4.	If those conditions are not fulfilled it will be for the government to consider the course to be pursued for the future.
ALPHONSE pERVAIS.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Was Alphonse Gervais, of St. Hyacinthe, at the time of the last federal by-election for the county of St. Hyacinthe, in the employ of the federal government ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 2.	If so (a) when was the said Alphonse Ger-vas appointed ; (b) what was the nature of his employment ; (c) what is his salary ?
3.	Is the said Alphonse Gervais still in the employ of the government ?
4.	Is the government aware that the said Alphonse Gervais took an active part in the last by-election in the county of St. Hya-einthe ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: '
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) April 1st, 1901. (b) Temporary messenger and janitor of the excise, gas and weights and measures office, (c) $500 per annum.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.


VALLEYFIELD LABOUR TROUBLES-PAY OF MILITIA.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Has the municipality of Valleyfield, or any person on its behalf, paid over to the government the sum fixed in settlement of its liability for the pay and maintenance of the troops called out on the occasion of the labour troubles in that municipality in October, 1900 ?
2.	If so, when was the sum paid, and what
was the amount paid ?	.
3.	If no payment has yet been made on account of the settlement for the payment of the troops, assented to by His Excellency, on the 10th March, 1904, have any steps been taken by the government to collect the amount of the settlement ?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1. and 2'. No.
3. Yes.	*


MAIL SERVICE-ALBERTON TO KILDARE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	Were tenders received during the years 1903 and 1904 for the carrying of mails between Alberton and Kildare, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	If so, what were the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender ?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and the amount of the contract ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes. Tenders received 1st April, 1904.
2.	John T. Millman, $94.95 per annum ; John R. Oliver, $95 per annum.
3.	John T. Millman at $94.95 per annum.


MR. BEIQUE-BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1. Why was Mr. Beique, superintendent of the Beauharnois canal, superannuated ?
'2. What sum is paid to him annually ?
3.	From what date has he been superannuated ?
4.	By whom was he replaced ?
5.	What was his successor's occupation or trade before such appointment ?

6.	By whom was the superintendent recoin mended ?
7.	What is his salary ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Age and ill health.
2.	$952 per annum.
3.	March 1st, 1904.
4.	J. M. Deschenes as overseer.
5.	Business man.
6.	It is not usual to answer such a question.
7.	$1,000 per annum.


BEATTHARNOIS CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. W. J. Roche-asked :
1.	How many boats pass through the Beau-harnois canal each week ?
2.	How many employees are there on the Beauharnois canal, and who are they ?
3.	What are their respective occupations and salaries ?
4.	What is the annual cost for the management of the Beauharnois canal, and what is the annual revenue therefrom ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I will have to ask my hon. friend to move for a return as the information is voluminous.


VALLEYFIELD COTTON COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	Has the government, or any of the ministers, received from the town council of Valley-field a copy of a resolution of the said council, passed on the 13th April, 1904, relating to the Valleyfield Cotton Company, as well as of certain documents thereto annexed ?
2.	If so, what is the government's intention regarding that question ?
William Stevens Fielding: In reply to the hon. gentleman I [DOT] beg to say that a resolution has been received and the matter is under consideration.


CREDIT COMPANIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	Is it true that there are ten or twelve companies, incorporated by letters patent issued by the government of Canada, doing business in Montreal, in the province of Quebec, on the same system as that of the Compagnie du Credit du Canada, now in liquidation ?
2.	How many of those companies have been incorporated by letters patent issued by the government ?
3.	What are their names ?
4.	Which of them are in conformity with the law?
5.	Which of them are in conformity with their charters ?
6.	Is it the government's intention to take the necessary steps usual in such cases to protect the public ?
7.	Who is responsible for the issuing of the letters patent to such companies ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime
Minister) :
1.	The only companies incorporated by this government now undergoing examination before the courts in Montreal are : (a)
' Le Credit Universal ' (Limited) which was incorporated for the following purposes, and none other: To purchase and sell all articles of usefulness or luxury such as clothes, jewellery, musical instruments, furniture, carpets, books, musical instruments, furniture, carpets, books, throughout the Dominion of Canada. (b) ' Le Credit Co-operatif ' (Limited) which was incorporated for the following purposes, and none other : To purchase and sell all articles of usefulness or luxury such as clothes, jewellery, musical instruments, furniture, carpets and books ; the operation of the company to be carried on throughout the Dominion of Canada and elsewhere. ic) * The Credit Company of Canada ' (Limited) which was incorporated for the following purposes, and none other: To carry on general trade and commerce'by the week, buying and selling all sorts of goods and articles by the week, contracting in relation thereto and doing all things relative to the said objects of the company which are to be carried on throughout the Dominion of Canada and elsewhere.
2,	3 and 4. It is impossible to say how many companies may be doing busniess illegally and outside their chartered powers.
5.	If they are doing an illegal business they are not acting in conformity with their charter.
6.	The parties imposed upon have their redress in the courts.
7.	The Secretary of State.

Mr.   WM@: ROSS-by Mr. C. Marcil-asked:
1.	How many immigrants have arrived in Canada from January 1st to May 1st, 1904.
2.	What is their nationality ?
3.	How many homestead entries have been made or applied for during the fiscal year to May 1st ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	36,666.
2.	Detailed returns of nationalities are not completed.
3.	19,527.


BINDER TWINE SEIZURES.
Mr. CLANCY asked :: 1.	Have any seizures of binder twine been made under the provisions of the General Inspection Act, since the 1st day of January, 1902 ?
2.	If so, how many ?
3.	In what cases have fines been imposed and collected ?
4.	What fine has been imposed in each case ?


Right Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce).: 1.	Yes.
2.	Sixteen.
3.	Fines have been imposed and collected in the following cases:
Wilbur Hutchison, Manager Fairchild Co., Winnipeg, fine	$ 25 00


Alex.   D.@: Nasmith, Wawanesa, Man	5	00Lyttle & -Tickling, Carman, Man	
5	00Chas. Lunn, Winnipeg	
10	00Blakeman & Scarth, Virden, Man	
31	00E. J. Howes, Moosomin	
30	75A. F. Reinecki, Regina, N.W.T	
50	00J. W. Morton, Regina, N.W.T	
100	00J. J. Heaslip, Alameda, N.W.T	
25	00H. Donaldson, Winnipeg, Man	
165	00Wm. Heath, Winnipeg, Man	
50	00W. G. McMahon, Winnipeg, Man	
10	00M. J. Wilson Cordage Co	
281	52International Harvester Co	
51	56Total collected	$839 83
4. Answered by No. 3.


MONTREAL HARBOUR BOARD.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GERVAIS-by Mr. C. Marcil-asked :
1. Has the government, directly, or through any one of its members, received a resolution of the Chambre de Commerce of the district of Montreal, which reads as follows :-
' Considering that the efficiency of the Harbour Board, as it is now organized, is being discussed by the public ;
' Resolved, that this corpo- '. m is convinced that it is necessary, at all cost, to provide against the daily quarrels that take place between the government and the commissioners, to the great detriment of the proper performance of that commission's functions and of the interests that should be furthered, and that it is necessary to so amend the constitution of the Harbour Board as to place the executive power in the hands of the government. On the other hand, the administration should be left to commissioners having power to execute the government's decisions, and who should also act as advisers to the government. And in the case of the board being thus reorganized, it is respectfully submitted that, in the appointment of commissioners, the government should adhere to the principle which it has hitherto followed, of appointing representatives of public commercial organizations, who, above all others, on account of their personal experience in business and their daily contact with the most important and representative commercial element which they represent, are in a position to carry out the government's intentions, and, if needs be, to advise it generally regarding the requirements of the harbour.
' And herein this corporation reaffirms the idea conveyed, on the 2nd December, 1901, in the following resolution :-
' Resolved, that the government be requested to so modify the conditions that at present govern the Harbour Board of Montreal as to have the government assume the executive power in all that concerns our national port, while the Harbour Board be simply formed into an ordinary board, with certain administrative powers.'
Mr. CLANCY.: 2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to take this resolution into its serious consideration, and to act in accordance ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Yes, it is under consideration.


ST. LOUIS EXHIBITION-DENTAL ASSOCIATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. RICHARDSON-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	Has the government received notice of a meeting of the International Dental Association, to be held at St. Louis, U.S.A., on the 30th of August next ?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to send a Canadian representative to the meeting of said association ?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: We cannot find any trace of any such invitation. It is not our intention to send any representative there.


ST. LAWRENCE FLOODS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEOFFRION-by Mr. C. Marcil- asked :
1.	Is it the government's intention to give its serious consideration to the resolution passed by the Chamber de Commerce de Montreal regarding the means to be taken to prevent the floods in the St. Lawrence and to bring about an earlier opening of navigation in the springtime ?
2.	What are the means that the government proposes adopting ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONT  AINE@Minister of Marine and Fisheries: The matter is under consideration and a declaration of policy on the part of the government will be made in due time.


IMPERIAL LABOUR BUREAU.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1. Has the government any information as to the proposed Imperial Labour Bureau to be established by the Salvation Army, for the purpose of placing homeless and hopeless people where they are needed in the colonies, as outlined in the following article, appearing in the Ottawa 'Citizen' of May 13, 1904 -


&quot; IMPERIAL LABOUR BUREAU.
[Stage Direction]
" London, May 12.-General Booth's great scheme to establish an Imperial Labour Bureau, and to place the worthless and hopeless people where they are needed in the colonies, has met with a very favourable reception. W. R. Preston, the Commissioner of Immigration for Canada, described it as a magnificent project.
" 1 It is a workable scheme,' he said, ' and it will go a long way towards the solution of what is known as the social problem in this country.
" * Twenty-five per cent of our correspondents belong to the best class of sober and industrious people. They would go to Canada to-morrow, but they have not the means of crossing the Atlantic.
" * The other day, Lord Minto received a 1 letter from a sixteen-year-old boy, who begged

to be allowed a chance in Canada, as he could not earn enough money in this country to support his mother. This boy's case is now being investigated on this side.
" ' I have long been puzzled to know why British philanthropy, which is the most wonderful in the world, has not promoted such a scheme as General Booth's before now.
" ' Of course,' continued Mr. Preston, ' if the government were to attempt such a project, the expense of organization would be enormous ; but the Salvation Army, working in co-operation with the Canadian government, have their vast machinery ready to hand.
" * Every man sent out to Canada will have work found for him. In many cases of men with small families, the Ontario government has built small houses for the wives and children, anl allotted them a plot of ground for produce raising.
" ' Their legislation enables them also to take away children from drunken or immoral parents ; and the State, in its own interests, looks after these children, and Cuds work for them.
' Even if General Booth's scheme could not be made self-supporting, the matter of pounds, shillings and pence should not be allowed to weigh against the w'elfare, moral and physical of the nation.'
" Mr. Bruce Lefroy, Agent General for West-Australia, said : 'To be a success,-tue scheme must be worked from within, and not from without. That is to say, *he Australians themselves must decide where the men are to go, and what men shall go.
" ' There are,' admitted Mr. Lefroy, ' vast tracts of country ready for emigration, but I am doubtful about the " submerged tenth." It is the man who will not work in this country can be made to work in Australia, then all will be well. In the southwest division of Western Australia there are over 8,000,000 acres ready for settlers.
" ' The great population at the gold fields, which produce nothing from the soil but gold, is dependent upon the coast for all its provisions. Here there is a splendid opportunity for the tillers of the soil. The finest produce in the world can be raised in this southwest division. The cultivation of the soil creates a demand for other trades, but this is the first step towards the growth of a country. Mechanics and carpenters and builders cannot find employment until the agriculturist has commenced his work. The total imports of farm produce for last year approximates to one million seven hundred and [DOT] fifty thousand pounds. This produce could easily be raised locally. There are any number of the right sort of young farmers who would go, if their passages were paid, and these are the men that Western Australia requires ' " ?
2.	Has there been any communication between the Salvation Army, or any officer or agent of that body, and the government, or any of its officers or agents, with reference to the scheme ?
3.	What authority had, or has, W. T. R. Preston for endorsing the scheme ?
4.	What class of people is covered by the scheme that has been endorsed by the said Preston ?
5.	Is Canada to be made a dumping ground for the drunken and immoral classes of the old country, or for their children, if the proposed scheme goes into effect ?
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: 1.	The government has no information regarding the Imperial Labour Bureau to be established by the Salvation Army.
2.	No.
3.	None. The department has no official advice of any such endorsements. .
4.	and 5. Answered by No. 3.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Sir Wilfrid Laurler.
Of section 3 of the Bill, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bell.
3.	The directors of the Grand Trunk Company may from time to time, and as often as they deem necessary, enter into an agreement or agreements with the directors of the Pacific Company respecting the manner and the terms upon which the Grand Trunk Company shall or may aid or assist the Pacific Company in carrying the scheduled agreements into effect, and also respecting the consideration to be given by the Pacific Company to the Grand Trunk Company under the terms of any such agreement or agreements, and may guarantee the bonds, debentures or other securities of the Pacific Company, and perform such other services for the Pacific Company as are agreed upon, and the Grand Trunk Company may receive and take as the consideration, in whole or in part, to be given to it under the terms of any such agreement, shares of the capital stock of the Pacific Company for such amount and upon such terms and conditions as are agreed upon.
And tbe proposed amendment of Mr. Bell thereto :
That section 3 of the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following subclause 2 :-
(2) Provided always that when and so often as any share of the capital stock of the Pacific Company shall be so given to the Grand Trunk Company, or be allotted or handed over to the Grand Trunk Company under the provisions of section 11 of the Act incorporating the Pacific Company, thereupon three of the like shares shall be given, allotted and handed over to the Dominion of Canada in part considera-i tion for the aid given to the Pacific Company.
Mr. BELL.: The propriety of the resolution which I have moved in amendment to section 3 will, I am sure, become very clear on consideration of the fact that the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific is apparently intended to be given to the Grand Trunk Company in return for the services to be rendered by that company to the Pacific Company in the completion of its scheme. The capital stock of the company is fixed at $45,000,000 of which $20,000,000 may be made preferred stock and apparently that has been left out of sight in the calculation and arrangements made by the government. It must have been assumed that $20,000,000 of this stock was to' be constituted preferred stock and might be sold or disposed of for some purpose, but apparent-

it is to fulfil the expectations of the right hon. Prime Minister and the government who hold that the result of the building of this great work will be to divert the traffic which at present flows through American ports to our own Canadian ports. It would seem that nothing is more certain than the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would be interested for all time to come in continuing to make the road which they now own, running to Portland, and the terminals which they own at Portland, a profitable property. If that portion of their scheme is profitable, if that portion is to continue earning dividends for the company they must necessarily try to secure for that part of their property as much of the traffic that they are going to gather in the west as they possibly can. I do not think there is any room to doubt the intentions and purposes of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in reference to this matter. The language used to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company by the general manager and president was calculated to warn them of the fact that they must secure at once an extension of their line into the fertile prairie sections of Canada if they hope to continue the profits which they are at present realizing from the old Grand Trunk Railway system. It is perfectly clear that the president and general manager, when presenting the matter to the Grand Trunk shareholders, would not be talking about profits to be. earned for the system of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company terminating at Quebec or Moncton, because, outside of this block of common stock, the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company have no financial interest at all. Their interest is entirely in the property which has been paid for by their money, the property which to-day is represented by the stock which they hold and when the officers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company appealed to the shareholders of the company to sustain the promoters of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in building a line of railway from the prairies connecting at North Bay with the system of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, it seems to me perfectly clear that when they argued to the shareholders that it was a proper, justifiable and necessary operation on their part that they had in contemplation the diversion of every dollars worth of traffic that they could gather up in the west for the line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and not for the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at all. So that, it would seem perfectly clear to any one that the policy of the Grand Trunk Railway Company must be to continue increasing the traffic of the old Grand Trunk Railway system, and that there is no possibility of doubt upon that subject because every word uttered by these officers of the Grand Mr. BELL.
Trunk Railway Company, every reason which would appeal to any intelligent man and every condition of the contract points to the fact that the whole purpose of the Grand Trunk Railway Company as far as they have gone into this scheme at all is to aid, maintain, and increase the earnings of their original property.
It seems to me therefore, that so far as is concerned any hope of developing a great Canadian tariff over a great Canadian route terminating at Canadian seaports, the whole object of the Grand Trunk Company must be hostile to the realization of such a hope. To place the control of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the hands of a corporation whose welfare, whose very existence requires the diversion of traffic from the Grand Trunk Pacific to the Grand Trunk Railway, is at the very outset a guarantee that the Grand Trunk Pacific will absolutely fail to realize that object which the Prime Minister and his government have held out for it before this House and before the country. It is my opinion that the government have placed the control of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the hands of its most determined and most implacable enemies, and therefore that stock which will give control over the operation of the company, 5 tead of being given to this hostile corporal on should be retained in the hands of the people of Canada, who are really interested in the realization of these hopes of which the First Minister has spoken. Who has a better right to this stock than the people of Canada ? They are financing this whole scheme ; they are furnishing three-fourths of the credit for it, and if that should prove to be insufficient, and there should ever be danger of failure, the people of Canada will be compelled to implement that credit. The, people of Canada cannot shelve their responsibility upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company ; they must accept the entire responsibility should it come to be cast upon them. If any government should set up the argument that the responsibility was to be upon a corporation made by itself ; a corporation which represents only a very small fraction of the wealth and power of the Dominion, the people of Canada would treat such an argument with derision. It is clear that the whole responsibility must in the last analysis rest upon the people of Canada. The burden is theirs, the whole care of this undertaking from the first to the last must be theirs. If the Grand Trunk Railway Company should prove to be of some value in the management of the financing of the scheme ; if its organization should be of some convenience to the government in securing surveys ; that is simply an agency after all. Therefore it is, that the whole burden resting upon the people of Canada ; in the hands of the people of Canada should remain that portion of the common stock which would adequately measure-inadequately measure I would rather say-the responsibility assumed by

them. The Grand Trunk Company is going to do very little for this enterprise. When this matter was before the Railway Committee, those who had studied the question asked : what good will the Grand Trunk Company do in return for this ; and the answer given by the officers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company was :	we will
give that new corporation the benefit of our experience, of our organization and of our terminals. Well, the Grand Trunk Railway have some very important terminals at Montreal, and they have another very important terminal at Portland, and evidently the Grand Trunk Company had in View at the time, that all they were going to contribute to the success of the Grand Trunk Pacific was the use of their trained officers and their terminals. The Minister of Justice told us in this debate, that there was a responsibility resting upon the Grand Trunk Company for a heavy outlay, and he mentioned among other items, the responsibility for providing the money with which to construct terminals for the use of the Grand Trunk Pacific system. I would like to know where these terminals are to be constructed? The terminals at Montreal are in existence now, and if they were given for the use of the Grand Trunk Pacific it would mean some money value, or if it became necessary to enlarge them, expenditure would be incurred ? But we have no reason to expect that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to give the use of its terminals without some price. Any traffic that comes over the Grand Trunk Pacific, as distinct from the Grand Trunk Railway, would necessarily pay some rental for the terminals at Portland, but it is not the intention of the government apparently that any portion of the traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific shall go over that fine to Portland-although in my opinion it is the absolute determination of the Grand Trunk Company that all the traffic they can possibly divert to Portland will find its way there. But where are the terminals of which the Minister of Justice spoke, and as to which he argued they would be provided out of the twenty-five millions of common stock. Does the Minister of Justice seriously argue now, that the cost of providing these terminals at either Montreal or Portland is to be at the cost of the Grand Trunk Company, and if he does not, then there is nothing for which the Grand Trunk ought to be paid by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I do not think it is possible to show that any burden of outlay is to be imposed on the Grand Trunk Railway Company for these terminals in respect to which they would not be otherwise repaid. Then the Minister of Justice argued that the rolling stock which is to be provided for the Grand Trunk Pacific on both the eastern and western divisions is to be paid for out of this common stock. We do not know exactly how the Minister of Justice arrived at that conclusion, but we do know that both the president and the manager of the Grand Trunk Company have stated to their shareholders- in such a fashion as I think would probably bring them within the reach of the Criminal Law of England, if it could be proven they had made false statements-they have stated that the rolling stock is not to be provided for out of the common stock at all, but that it is to be provided for by a trust, under which the rolling stock will be acquired, and through which the purchase price, and the interest would be gradually returned out of the earnings of the road. There is no possibility of proving to this House or the country that any moneys for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Pacific are to be taken out of that twenty-five millions of common stock which is to be placed in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway. As a matter of fact it is treated by the officers of the Grand Trunk Railway as being a certain payment made to them in consideration of their services. These high officers of the Grand Trunk Railway have held out to the shareholders the promise, that they are to be repaid for any responsibility, or for any outlay they may incur, out of that common stock. That being the case, and the fact remaining that the people of Canada are really the true guarantors, who must stand behind the Grand Trunk Company ; who must make good all these deficiencies, who must overcome any failure that may arise ; and who bear three-fourths at least of the financial burden of the guarantee of the funds required by this road ; it would justify the claim made in the amendments offered to this House: that three-fourths of this common stock, which is to be given in recognition of services rendered, should be given to the people of Canada if one-fourth is given to the representatives of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
When in addition to that we keep in mind the fact that so far as any one humanly can judge, the interest of the Grand Trunk Company will not be in the direction of making the Grand Trunk Pacific a success, so far at least as the eastern portion is concerned, while the hope of the people of Canada is that such a success will be attained, we can easily see that it would be much more important to the people of this country that that stock which will give the power of directing the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, should not be put into the hands of what is necessarily a rival and hostile corporation, so far at any rate as the eastern portion is concerned, but kept within the hands of the people of Canada, who could thereby possibly realize their hope of an allCanadian line carrying traffic from the western part of Canada to our eastern sea-boards. Every reason, both of fair and equitable division of this stock and national interest in this matter, indicates to my mind the necessity of retaining the control of the common stock in the hands of the people of this country, if we are going to realize out of this

great undertaking the hopes which the government have held before us. I therefore move :
That section 3 be amended by adding thereto the following as subclause 2 :-
(2) Provided always that when and so often as any share of the capital stock of the Pacific Company shall be so given to the Grand Trunk Company, or be allotted or handed over to the Grand Trunk Company under the provisions of section 11 of the Act incorporating the Pacific Company, thereupon three of the like shares shall be given, allotted and handed over to the Dominion of Canada in part consideration for the aid given to the Pacific Company
Mr, BARKER. I desire to add a few words to what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has said with regard to this clause.
I did not observe that the hon. gentleman referred to one feature of the agreement which distinguishes very materially the aid given by the government from that given by the Grand Trunk Company. The people practically guarantee three times as much as the Grand Trunk do in respect to the western division ; but in addition to that the people undertake to pay the interest for seven years on what they guarantee without receiving anything from the railway in return. Now, the Grand Trunk Company will be in possession of the railway for that seven years, and they will receive the earnings to cover their portion of the guarantee. The country presents them, in fact, with seven years' interest upon the whole amount of its mountain section guarantee. The country not only does that, but it undertakes, if the interest is not earned in the next three years, to capitalize and receive back in forty years the three years' interest. There is therefore a very material addition to the aid given by the country, over that undertaken by the Grand Trunk Company, apart from the fact that the country's obligation is three times that of the Grand Trunk. This shows, if anything was needed to show, the absolute fairness of the proposition that where the Grand Trunk receives one share for entering into a guarantee in aid of this Pacific company, the country, which guarantees three times as much, should receive three shares. We hear, and it was pressed upon the House last week, that the Grand Trunk Company had to furnish terminal facilities for this Pacific Company, and would be entitled to some recompense for those terminals. I would like some hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House to state what terminal the Grand Trunk is possessed of in connection with the western division that it can give as a matter of value to that division. The western division ends at Winnipeg. The Grand Trunk is many hundreds of miles from Winnipeg. It has no terminal whatever that it can furnish to that western division, and it is in connection solely with the western division that this guarantee will arise. Therefore all this rather loose talk about terminals to be furnished by the1 Mr. BELL.
Grand Trunk does not seem to amount to much when you really consider the true position of the matter. What terminals will the Grand Trunk furnish for the eastern division ? According to the contract, the government will have to pay for those terminals. Under section 15 of the agreement, the terminals are part of the cost of construction of the eastern division which the government of Canada will pay for. Therefore I would like to know what these terminals are that we hear so much about that the Grand Trunk are going to furnish. They have nothing to furnish for the western division, and it is* w'ith reference to the western division that this resolution is moved. Chicago and North Bay are the nearest points they have to the western division. They have not a dollar's worth of property within hundreds of miles of any part of the western division. Therefore there is nothing they can offer as compensation to the Pacific Company for the grant of the common stock. As regards the western division, there is nothing from the beginning to the end of the transaction that the Grand Trunk propose to do beyond guaranteeing one-fourth of the bonds, and receiving all the stock they can get for that guarantee. That is the whole transaction with regard to the western division. As regards the eastern division, the terminal facilities are to be provided by the government as part of the cost of construction of that division. Therefore I cannot see why there should be any objection to providing that the government of Canada, which guarantees three times as much as the Grand Trunk Company, shall receive a corresponding proportion of the common stock as paid-up stock, and on the same terms in every respect. If there should be any distinction between them, the government should receive more than the Grand Trunk, because the government, without any possibility of revenue from that road, undertake for seven years to pay the interest on three-fourths of the bonds of the western division.
Nobody has pretended for a moment that the prairie section will not be profitable from the beginning, so that there is no very great favour on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway in that respect. They will get all the revenue. So far as the obligation goes, the Grand Trunk Railway takes only one-fourth of it, practically, and will take all the profits, while the government assumes three-fourths of the obligation and get none of the profits. There is the distinction between the two. I cannot understand why, if the Grand Trunk are to receive $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 or any other number of millions in paid-up stock as compensation for giving their guarantee, the government should not receive at least three times that. In all the discussion we have had upon the various clauses of this Bill, I have not heard one word suggested why the government should not be accorded a proportionate considera-

tion to that which is accorded the Grand Trunk Railway.


Mr. SIFTON.: At the risk of repeating what has been said twenty or thirty times already, I would venture a few remarks in reply to what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) has said. I need not refer specially to the hon. gentleman's reference to the statement made by the Finance Minister at the last session of parliament respecting the question of the distribution of common stock. His remarks were made with reference to a provision of the contract which ",as before the House at that time, and they applied to that contract. It is not disputed that the government would have preferred that the contract in that respect should have remained as it was, and the House is in full possession of the fact that the change in the contract is a concession to the company. To say, therefore, that what was proposed last year differs from what was proposed this year is not adding anything to the argument and not assisting the House in coming to any conclusion with regard to the merits of the case. My hon. friend further, I think, based the whole of his argument in favour of his amendment practically upon the assertion that the entire financial responsibility for the carrying out of this contract rests with the government and the people of Canada. If I understood my hon. friend correctly, he repeated that statement a number of times, and I am quite unable to see upon what ground he is able to make an assertion of that kind. The statement is true only to a certain extent. It is perfectly true that the road originally will be built out of the proceeds of bonds. Sly hon. friend spent some time in demonstrating that fact, but I do not think that was necessary, because it has not been disputed from this side from the beginning that the scheme of financing this road was that the original construction should be paid for out of the proceeds of bonds-three-quarters government bonds and one-quarter bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway. It may be convenient for my hon. friend, in arguing the question, to try and .leave out of consideration the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway assumes responsibility for the payment of the interest upon 25 per cent of the cost of the road, but the shareholders of the Grand Trunk did not leave aside that fact. The Grand Trunk Company pledges its financial responsibility to guarantee the payment of the interest upon second mortgage bonds to the extent of 25 per cent of the cost of the road. If the proposition is not successfully carried through, if working capital is not furnished, if traffic is not found for the road, if the road is not operated in such a way as to be profitable, then who are the parties who will suffer ? Leaving out of consideration for the moment the position of the government, which we perfectly
understand, the Grand Trunk Railway will suffer by reason of the fact that it is liable for the interest upon these second mortgage bonds ; and unless there is a profit 11 be derived from the road, the Grand Trunk Railway has no way in which it can recoup itself. So that the Grand Trunk Railway, by becoming the guarantor of those bonds, puts itself in a position which compels it, as a matter of business, to do what is necessary to carry the transaction to a successful conclusion as otherwise it will lose the interest on the second mortgage bonds which it guarantees. It is perfectly evident that that is the manner in which this proposition was looked upon by tlm shareholders of the Grand Trunk- Railway, and I do not think it is debatable that that is the way in which it would be looked upon by any association of business men. If it were stated to an association of business men, met for the purpose of considering the proposition, that the whole financial liability will be upon the government and that the guarantee of interest on the second mortgage bonds is of no account whatever, they would look on the statement as in the last degree absurd. The Grand Trunk Railway is liable for this interest and its liability can only be met out of the net proceeds of the traffic on the line, so that it is bound to see that the line is successfully operated. That is what I meant when, in making some remarks on the second reading of the Bill, I said that the company was tied to this proposition in such a way that it is compelled to furnish not only the working capital but the money for betterments that -may be required from time to time. My hon. friend from Hamilton says that the Grand Trunk Railway will have no-terminals at Winnipeg which will not be provided out of the ordinary cost of construction. The ordinary terminal facilities, which may be considered a legitimate part of the original construction, will no doubt be paid out of the proceeds of the bonds, but I am speaking well within the mark, when I say-every man who has paid any attention at all to the accounts of the operation of railways will bear me out- that large amounts are required for expenditure on the line from time to time, and that the expenditure begins on a large scale practically from the time the road is opened for operation. Improvements, betterments and repairs are at all times required. The Grand Trunk Pacific will have no credit; it will not be able to go itself into the money markets of the world to secure large sums for the purpose of carrying out these obligations. It is already under obligation to the Grand Trunk Railway for the $5,000,000 deposit put up with the government. The Grand Trunk Railway securities must, at the very outset, be pledged for that purpose, and everybody knows that as the operations go on from day to day, money will be required and the credit of the Grand

Trunk Railway will be called into operation, and it will be only through the credit of the Grand Trunk Railway that that monev can be procured. So that, although it is not set down in express words that the guarantor shall furnish working capital and betterments and all the rest, the scheme to day, as a business result, requires that the Grand Trunk Railway shall do these things and many more things, the necessity for which will arise from time to time in connection with the successful carrying out of this enterprise.
Now, my bon. friend from Pictou suggests as another reason, I take it, why it is true that the .entire obligation rests upon the government in connection with this enterprise, that, if a failure occurs while the enterprise is in course of carrying out, resort will be had to the government for assistance. My hon. friend, no doubt, has in view the fact that that occurred in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that when the promoters of that enterprise did get into difficulties they came to the government and parliament of Canada and asked for assistance, which parliament at that time gave. Well, I am quite unable to see how the suggestion that such a thing can happen applies to the argument which my hon. friend is pressing upon us. What may or may not happen in the future, what the parliament of Canada may or may not conceive it to be in the interest of the public to do in the future, has nothing to do with this contract. If difficulty arises in carrying out the enterprise, if the calculations made in connection with it should not turn out to be correct, and the promoters should come before parliament and ask for further assist-* ance, that would be a matter for parliament to decide at the time ; and we cannot form an opinion on the merits of the ease until the emergency arises, if it ever does arise. But we know that in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway the emergency arose from causes which cannot exist in this particular matter. The assistance given to the Canadian Pacific Railway was of a different character. The gentlemen who were connected with that company in the promotion Of its financial undertakings had not, at the time when money was required, sufficient financial resources to enable them to secure the assistance in the money markets of the world that they required. They acquired that later on, and developed such strength that the assistance given by the parliament of Canada was returned in full, with the exception of that portion of it for which payment was made in lands. But the circumstances here are altogether different. It is not, I venture to say, in the least degree likely that a similar state of affairs will arise in connection with the contract that is before us. The Grand Trunk Company, with its credit and resources, will certainly be able to meet the obligations that rest upon it.- The government will certainly be Mr. SIFTON.
able to meet the obligations that rest upon it. So that there can be no serious ground for the suggestion that difficulties of that kind can arise in future. Now, if I understand the real point of my hon. friend's suggestion

the other matters to which I have referred being, I take it, preliminary to the argument which he adduced to this committee in connection with this main question-the proposition is practically this : That in the arrangement that has been proposed by the government and embodied in the present Bill the stock goes into the hands of the Grand Trunk Company, and that stock and the voting power upon that stock remain with that company while the operation of the road is going on, and that the policy in the operation of the road, directed by the Grand Trunk Company owning the $25,000,000, will be of a character which is not in the interests of the people of * Canada, but that the tendency of the management will be, in pursuance of what has been suggested as the original proposition of the Grand Trunk, to divert the traffic of the road from the point at which the old Grand Trunk system meets the Grand Trunk Pacific north oT Norfll Bay. And, if I understand the argument aright, it is to this effect -that, in order that we should be enabled to control the policy and management of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, we should have a majority of the stock of that company ; and the purpose of having the majority of the stock of that company is- to prevent the old company, the Grand Trunk Company, from diverting the traffic and taking it to Portland. For my part, I have no difficulty in answering to my own satisfaction the -argument my hon. friend has advanced. That argument does not carry conviction to my mind, because I have never thought, and do not think now, that the traffic whieh will arise in connection with that western section of the line of railway, the construction of which we are discussing, is going to be carried either one way or the other simply because somebody would like to have it carried in that way. I have always thought, and I think now, that when the heavy traffic of the western division comes down to the point of junction with the old Grand Trunk system, the ultimate destination of that freight will be governed by the fact that we have been able to"give a route over which it can be successfully and economically transported to a Canadian port. And that is the main point to keep before us in connection with the enterprise. If the railway which we propose to construct from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton will not enable the company operating the road to transport the traffic to Quebec and the maritime ports more economically than it can be carried by bringing it south to the older part of Canada, and so to Portland. I should not hope that that object would be effected. I should not hope that the enterprise would commend itself to the

judgment of the parliament of Canada. It is because we are satisfied that a line of railway can be constructed over which that traffic can naturally flow, over which it will be to the interest of the company to carry that traffic, that we believe the enterprise will commend itself to the judgment of the House.
There is another point which may be talren into consideration having reference to the argument of my hon. friend from Pictou. The Grand Trunk Pacific Company covenant with the government of Canada to pay them interest at 3 per cent on the cost of the line of railway. Will it be to the interest of the Grand Trunk Company, the guarantors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, to put the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in default in connection with this enterprise ? Surely not. And, surely, we are not going to debate this proposition that is now before us upon the assumption that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada is agreeing to place its guarantee upon several millions of dollars of second mortgage bonds as an assistance to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway with the understanding that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company out of the proceeds of its profitable traffic shall pay three per cent interest on the eastern division, and that is secretly the intention of the Grand Trunk Company to perpetrate a deliberate fraud by putting" the Grand Trunk Pacific into bankruptcy as soon as it can. I do not think my hon. friends opposite intend to discuss it upon that basis. But that is the bare and naked effect of the argument which they press upon the House, as I understand it.
There is, perhaps, one more point which may be considered in connection with my hon. friend's (Mr. Bell) argument. It seems to me that the company which has the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to the extent of $25,000,000, out of which it has been suggested, very large sums of money are going to be made, upon which, certainly, the company will desire to have dividends, would not wish ro see the Grand Trunk Pacific put into bankruptcy and so prevented from paying the dividends upon its stock. Because, if the direful consequences follow which are predicted and the Grand Trunk Pacific is put into such a position that it cannot fulfil its obligation it cannot pay its dividends and so its stock becomes of no value. It is out of this stock that the Grand Trunk Company is to get practically the only return it can get for the difficulties and financial responsibilities it is incurring-which it is incurring at the present time and suffering from at the present time through the depreci-, ation of Grand Trunk stock in the money markets of England. It surely cannot be suggested that holding that stock, having that
as the only possible compensation for the obligations which it has incurred, it is deliberately going to destroy the value of' that stock by causing the Grand Trunk Pacific to fail in its obligations. It seems to me that the fact that the company has the stock, that it desires to profit by the stock, is one of the strongest reasons why we may look for the Grand Trunk bending all its energies from first to last to make this enterprise a success.
Now, a word as to the details of the proposition which my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) has suggested. I think I will be within the sense of the House when I say that the proposition which my hon. friends opposite have placed before us cannot be accepted as a serious proposal at all, or-as one which if hon. gentlemen had the power to put into effect they would put into effect. What earthly use would there be in the division of the common stock of the company in the proportion of 1 to 3 the government taking three and the company one. That practically means a government line. There is no substantial difference. Such a proposal would be a childish proposal. The Grand Trunk would say very properly : If you are going to take three-fourths of the stock take the whole of it, build the road and operate it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Clifford Sifton: Exactly. Therefore I say if we are going to discuss a proposition for a government road let us discuss that, but do not let us put that forward in the shape of a proposition that we should not have a government road but that we should have three-quarters of the stock of a road ostensibly owned by a company and that we should draw the dividends on that stock. Do not let us have hon. gentlemen going around the country telling the people of this country that if we had only accepted their proposal the people of Canada would be getting rich by the dividends on these shares of common stock. That is the nature of the proposition ; it is not made seriously ; there is not a business-man on the other "side of the House who would put that into effect if he had the power to do so. Hon. gentlemen would do as we do and say : Either this is to be a company line or a government line ; if it is to be a government line it will be owned and operated by the government, if it is to be a company line the control of the stock will be with the company.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) is very fond of stating just what will be done on this side of the House and seems to imagine that he possesses some instinctive knowledge of what is in our minds. The project of the government is that $25,000,000 of the common stock of this company shall be handed

over to the Grand Trunk and the president of the Grand Trunk has said that that stock is to be received for the support which the Grand Trunk is to give this enterprise. The proposition of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) is a very plain one. He says, inasmuch as the government of this country is giving to this enterprise at least three times as much support as the Grand Trunk is giving, there is no reason from the standpoint either of fairness or public interest why the government should not hold three shares to one held by the Grand Trunk. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) says that is not a business proposition. He seems to imagine that the control by the government of this company through a control of the stock is an absolutely absurd idea. Does he not know that exact precedents are afforded ? For example the British government owns a controlling interest in the stock of the Suez canal and does so for reasons of public policy. It has been held out to us by gentlemen opposite by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) that there is some great object in having the Grand Trunk control this great line of transcontinental transportation. The Grand Trunk has one terminus- at Chicago, and its other terminus at Portland. The Prime Minister, only the other day, stated that he did not expect that the traffic of the Grand Trunk Railway Company would in the future go elsewhere than to Portland; that is the traffic which they now control. He did express the hope that the traffic they would gather in the west in the future from this new line would go not to Portland but to the maritime province ports. I do not know on what ground he bases that hope because if the traffic they now gather up is going .to Portland one would suppose that tlie" traffic- wlTOli they gather up in the west in the future would follow the same line and would also go to Portland as their traffic has done in the past. How would the public interest of this country suffer if the government controlled the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ? That is a question for the Minister of the Interior to answer. Does he think that the public interest would be less served by having that line controlled .to that extent by the government of this country ? Is there any reason to anticipate that our ports in the maritime provinces would suffer ? Is there any reason to anticipate that the rates would be higher if the government of this country controlled the policy of that road ? So far as the question of policy is concerned it seems to me that the proposition of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) is not only an eminently fair one, so far as the Grand Trunk Railway is concerned, but is one that is pre-eminently in the interest of this country, because this Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
new transeonlinental line if it is going to serve the peopIeNjTTlTC "west as -well as the people of the east-and we have rights in the east which require to be considered, as well as the rights of the people in the west -if it is going to subserve both these interests, it can do so much better if controlled by the government than if controlled by a road which has its interests centred in Portland. This is particularly the case in view of the declarations of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, both of whom recognize in the clearest possible way that the interests of the Grand Trunk from every possible standpoint would lead it to send its traffic to Portland if it could possibly do so under the terms of this contract. I have pointed out over and over again, thirty or forty times, that there is not one word in this contract which prevents the Grand Trunk from taking traffic to Portland.
The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) says apparently that this amendment would not be a fair proposition to the Grand Trunk itself. He endeavours to explain certain language which he used the other day when he declared that the Grand Trunk was bound to see that working capital is provided.. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) may have used these words in the sense in which he says he used them but certainly the context did not point to that conclusion. He was discussing the terms of the contract and any one reading his language would understand it as a plain declaration that there was some term in the contract which bound the Grand Trunk Company to provide working capital. The Grand Trunk is not bound to do that under the contract. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) says the Grand Trunk is bound to do so, because it guarantees what he calls second mortgage bonds, and the Minister of the Interior refers even to the interest on these bonds. Has the hon. gentleman read this contract ? Has he not yet awakened to the fact that the bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk, so far as interest is concerned, are exactly on a par with those guaranteed by the government ? Has he not yet discovered that in the contract V My hon. friend shakes his* head, apparently he has not. We have been discussing its terms long enough for him to realize that fact. If he does not realize it, let me refer him to clause 7 in the Supplementary Agreement which I think makes this plain. The Grand Trunk Railway bonds, so far as interest is concerned, are exactly on a par with the bonds guaranteed by the government. Therefore, so far as interest is concerned, and up to the expiry of the fifty years' period, they are not second mortgage bonds at all, they are bonds secured on the road in exactly the same way as the bonds guaranteed by the government are secured.

The Grand Trunk guarantees one-quarter of the bonds on the mountain section, and guarantees a little more than one-quarter of the bonds on the prairie section, but any difference in that regard is more than made up by the fact that the government, upon the mountain section, is paying interest for seven years, without recourse, and after that for a further period of three years the government is bound to pay interest if the net earnings of the road are not sufficient for that purpose, and the net interest for a period of three years is to be capitalized. We might also bear in mind that the advance to be made by the government of this country to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, during the period of seven years in respect to the mountain section is an advance upon which the government is to receive no interest whatever. It is an advance to be made by the government. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is not obliged to p'ay any interest upon it, except the interest in respect to the period of three years, after the first period of seven years has expired.
My hon. friend says that the causes which made it necessary for parliament to come to the aid of the Canadian Pacific Railway in days gone by with a loan of $30,000,000 will not arise in the future and that there is no reason to suppose that this contract, for the payment of rental of the eastern division would be modified in any way in the future. Does our experience during the past six months lead us to put very much confidence in the opinion of the hon. Minister of the Interior on that point ? Have we not already, before one single dollar has been spent, before any of the work of construction has actually been begun, had the spectacle of the Grand Trunk Railway Company forcing the government, as declared by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), to make concessions, which, during the past session of parliament were declared to be absolutely and completely against the public interest ? The hon. Minister of the Interior practically says the same thing. He says : We would like to have the contract as it was ratified and adopted last session, but we cannot have it. The Grand Trunk will not permit us to have it. That is the story of the hon. Minister of Finance ; it is also the story of the hon. Minister of Customs. How does it happen that the Grand Trunk Railway Company holds this government in the hollow of its hand ? TUnt is the position as declared by three ministers of the Crown. They would like to have the contract in respect to these important particulars exactly as it was passed and ratified by this parliament last year, but the difficulty of our situation is that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will not permit them to have it in that way. It declares that it must have concessions, and 100
because the Grand Trunk Railway Company declares that it must have concessions, they, with reluctance, not believing the concessions to be in the public interest, yield to its demand, and the concessions are accordingly submitted to parliament for its ratification. Well, if the Grand Trunk Railway Company can exercise an influence of that kind at the present time, for what reason does the hon. Minister of the Interior think that it will not exercise similar influences in the future ? My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior may say that we have finality now. Have we finality now any more than we had during the past session ? Does he not recollect that the hon. Minister of Finance and the right hon. leader of the government and other hon. gentlemen who advocated this measure last year told us that not one line or one syllable of the contract could be changed, because, they said, it was agreed to between the government and the gentlemen who are promoting that company. They said, we understand each other ; we understand the interpretation of the contract. What you suggest would interfere with the contract as we understand it and therefore we will not permit of any change. There was finality, then, one would have thought, as much finality as the hon. Minister of the Interior claims now ; yet, within six months after the contract had been declared in the most emphatic manner a final settlement of all the terms between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the government, the government yielded to the demands of the company and made concessions of a most important and far reaching character. Therefore, we have no reason to suppose that this will be final, and I submit that the only safeguard which the country can receive is some such safeguard as that which is suggested by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell), a safeguard by means of which the government and not the Grand Trunk Railway Company will control the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in future. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior says that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is committed to the support of this enterprise and that it will guarantee one-fourth of what is necessary for the construction of the road. If the Grand Trunk Railway Company by that means is committed to the support of this enterprise, is not the government very much more committed to the support of this enterprise ? The government is guaranteeing three-quarters of the bonds and it has to do something more than that. The government has to enter into possession and operate the road in ease of default, and that entry into possession and operation of the road without any means of obtaining any title- will undoubtedly commit the government to any expenditure which is necessary for the proper maintenance and operation of the road after such default has been made. Therefore, if you say that the Grand



Trunk Railway Company is committed as a business proposition to the support of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, I say that the government, to a very much greater extent, to a very much more important extent from a business standpoint, is committed to the support of this road and is committed to the furnishing of any such working capital and the providing of any such betterments as may be necessary upon that road. If no default is made the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will furnish the betterments and the working capital. If default is made it is upon the government and the people of this country and not upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company that the burthen of maintaining that road after the period of default will fall. That follows from the very terms of the contract. Therefore, it seems to me that the argument which the hon. Minister of the Interior has made on that point from the standpoint of the Grand Trunk Railway Company is trebly an argument for giving to the government of this country some control over and some interest in this road, because it is, to a very much greater extent than the Grand Trunk Railway Company committed to the support and carrying out of this enterprise.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Mr. Chairman, we are building a national transcontinental railway and if this agreement goes through as it is now proposed to have it go through, what will be the result ? Our millions will be subject to the stock exchange in New York. The Grand Trunk stock to-day is on the open market, anybody can go and buy it, and those who buy it can control the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It is as sure as there is a sun under heaven that American railway interests will control both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway of this country. Notwithstanding that we are calling this a national transcontinental railway, notwithstanding that we are putting millions and millions of the people's money into this project, the day is coming when American railways will control the Grand Trunk and through it will direct this new railway enterprise. We are making a great mistake. We should control these roads. We should keep the stock in the hands of the people of Canada. Not long ago we authorized an increase in the capital stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway. A splendid opportunity was then given the people of Canada of controlling this stock by having it placed in the hands of the government of Canada. We could have got the money at three and a half per cent and we could have made five per cent on our investment. We ought to do that in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific.
We are neglecting the opportunity, and as a matter of fact we are building, with the money of the people of Canada, a great transcontinental road that any day may fall into the hands of American railway corpor-Mr R. L. BORDEN.
ations. Do we want the Vanderbilts and the Morgans to control this road ? If we do, we are giving them the opportunity, and when the time suits them to take this road they will take it. Then, this road, built by the people of Canada, will no longer be a national transcontinental route but a mere appanage of some of the great American railroad systems. Sir, the people of this country will declare that such a thing is not in the public interest, and they will insist that if their money is to go into this road, the control of the road must remain in the hands of Canadians. I predict here, and I am sure it will come true, that when it suits the great American railroad interests to do so, they will go on the London market buy the common stock which controls the Grand Trunk, and in so doing they will control the Grand Trunk Pacific and Canada will be at their mercy. Is it prudent, is it national, is it good economy for this government and this parliament to be party to any such transaction ? I do not think the government and their supporters can go on the platform and say that their policy is such that although the people have built the road, the American railroad interests may gobble it up at any moment they like. The government has not ventured any defence of their non-patrloitic policy in this respect. I would like some member of the government to rise in his place now, and deny that this Canadian National Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is not likely to be at the mercy of the American railroad corporations. That being so, why should we waste our money in a project, which cannot be justified from a national, from a patriotic, or from an economic point of view ? The same thing applies to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I believe in the nationalization of our railroads, and I believe that we should at this very moment begin to acquire stock in them. We had an opportunity to get a large block of Canadian Pacific Railway stock but we neglected it ; here is an opportunity to get a large block of this Grand Trunk Pacific stock, and let us avail of it. Whenever new stock is issued by either of these two companies it ought tp be taken by the state, and especially so if it is a dividend paying stock as is now the case with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I say that this project, viewing it in this respect, is improvident, unpatriotic, unnational, and against the public interest ; most of all, it is against the will of the people of Canada who are to-day largely In favour of the nationalization of our railways.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: The logic of the Minister of the Interior is usually more or less clear, even though his facts be erroneous, and I was all the more surprised today at his display of false logic in trying to show, that the present project would result in inducing freight, when it reached Winnipeg, North Bay or Quebec, to go over the government constructed road, rather than

over the Grand Trunk Railway system proper. His sole reason for this contention was that when the traffic reached these points of junction, the government had provided by this contract inducements to the Grand Trunk Railway to send freight over the all-Canadian route. But the Minister of the Interior failed to point out wherein that Inducement lies. He did not tell us why the Grand Trunk Railway should desert its costly terminals at Portland for non-existing terminals at Halifax and at St. John. The Minister of the Interior was so illogical, that it was plain to all that he himself saw the fallacy of his argument. Once the Grand Trunk Pacific is constructed and the Grand Trunk controls it, the Grand Trunk will take good care that every dollar's worth of freight over the Grand Trunk Pacific will at the first point of junction be turned over to the Grand Trunk Company. Is it hot com-" mon sense that such should be the case ? At Quebec the freight would be nearly 200 miles nearer to Portland than it would be to our maritime ports, the Grand Trunk Company have a splendid road to Portland with fine terminals awaiting that freight, and is it not common sense that to Portland the freight will be sent ? Even if it should pass Winnipeg or North Bay it would be far more in the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway to have that freight sent over their own line, than to continue it on to St. John or Halifax. And still more, why should not the Grand Trunk Company deflect that freight at Winnipeg over its roads in the United States. Anybody who knows anything about the transportation business will tell you that it costs far more to deliver coal away up in the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, than to deliver it to the roads leading into Chicago. This in itself would be a strong inducement to the Grand Trunk Railway to use their American connections. On a former occasion I took the liberty of pointing out to the First Minister and to the Minister of the Interior, that possibly the only company on the continent of North America, that should not have control of the Grand Trunk Pacific, is the Grand Trunk Railway, because it is the only company having lines already established over which our western Canadian freight, can be diverted from Canadian seaports. If there is any explanation to offer as to this contention I would like to hear the Minister of the Interior give it, because it would seem that on him has devolved the duty of finding explanations and excuses of this policy of the government.


William Findlay Maclean: Just a word on the point I referred to a few moments ago. If the Grand Trunk Pacific is liable to be taken over any day by American railroads who get control of the Grand Trunk Railway then the policy of the American roads will be hostile to Canada and Canadian ports. The right hon. gentleman told us that the great thing we have to fear is the abrogation of the bonding privilege ; but I tell him that a 100i
still greater thing we have to fear is that the control of this transcontinental road is now in the open market and may be acquired by American railroad interests. Let me say now to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, that the best policy on which they can make an appeal to the people of this country, and the policy upon which they can sweep the country is, to declare : that when the Conservative party gets into power, it will be in favour of the purchase of the Grand Trunk's stock now on the open market, and by, purchasing that stock we will repatriate this scheme we are putting through here to-day, and have a national system of railroads in this country. 1 commend that proposition to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. It is the best proposition to go the country on I ever heard of. It is right on the line of public sentiment to-day ; it is on the line of the national ownership of railroads. It involves a very small expenditure. For less than $50,000,000 you can buy the stock of the Grand Trunk to-day. As I said before, you could rent the Grand Trunk to-day on a guarantee of the bond issue and the payment of the charges, for a dollar a year ; but going into the market and buying the stock to-day, when it has only a nominal value, is the only way we can get this railroad back, and bring about the national ownership of railways. On that platform the Conservative party could sweep this country in the next election.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: They had bet
ter do it, then.


William Findlay Maclean: All right ; we will do it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman is aware, I suppose, that under the legislation we have now it would be impossible for the Grand Trunk to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say it was possible ; but I say that under the legislation which the hon. gentleman is putting through the House it is possible for American interests to control the Grand Trunk, and, controlling it, to control the Grand Trunk Pacific. Is not that possible ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not saying anything about that.


William Findlay Maclean: Besides, there is no provision in this Bill that the majority of the directors shall be British subjects.
Amendment (Mr. Bell) negatived, and section 3 of Bill agreed to.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I desire to introduce at this stage is one on the lines of the discussion that took place a couple of weeks ago, when the question of granting the extension of time for the construction of the western division was up for consideration, In view of the prolonged discussion that

took place on that occasion, the major portion of one day's sitting having been taker up with It, unless the government have in the meantime changed their minds, I do no! hope that anything I can add on this occasion will have that very desirable result. However, I desire to review, in as few words as possible, some of the reasons why I think the contract, so far as it relates to the western division, should not be extend ed for three years, as provided in this amended contract. We have been told by various members of the government that the construction of this road was of very urgent necessity ; they referred particular ly to the prairie section of 1,000 miles, extending from Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains. Various members of the government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, dwelt at length upon the importance of this road being constructed through that congested district, which was already choked with 'freight which the present railway systems were unable to handle. The only objection offered by the Minister of Justice against adopting our suggestion to have the prairie section completed within the five years provided in the original contract is simply that he says he has every confidence that the selfishness of the company will induce it, in its own interest, to construct it within that time. He admits that it will be to the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific people to construct that portion of the line at the earliest possible moment, because he says it will be the best paying portion of its system-in other words, the fat portion, which will be remunerative from the very first day of its operation. If this is the case, and I believe it is, then it is imposing upon the company no onerous condition to require it to construct that portion of the line within the time provided in the original contract. We are not handicapping it in any manner in asking it to enter into a compact with parliament to complete that portion of the road within the time the Minister of Justice states he is bound to believe it will construct it ; and we are not asking anything unreasonable. in view of the acperience we have already had of this company. When we left this parliament last session, we, as representatives of the people, had done our duty in passing upon a certain contract. It remained to the company to implement its part of the contract. We were told that it was absurd to expect that a company of business men would have so little regard for their good faith and their standing as financial men as to break faith with the people of Canada ; and yet thirty days had not elapsed before they failed to implement the first essential feature of the contract, namely, the putting up of the legal deposit. Therefore, we are not justified in taking for granted that this company are now going to do so and so. Last session the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
was put up as an expert to reply to the exMinister of Railways, made use of the following language to show why the western portion of the road should be pushed through to completion at the earliest possible moment :
We have undertaken the construction none too soon. I estimate that five years from to-day, with a continuance of the conditions that exist now, the grain products of the Canadian Northwest will have increased at least threefold. The present means of transportation will prove utterly inadequate, and this road will be imperatively called for	We know further
| that the loss, even of a year, in making the 1 preparations which are essentially necessary, would prove to be a most serious matter before this road is ready for business. ... I believe 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 on all charges.
I believe that still.
Here is a declaration of a specific character made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). That hon. gentleman states most explicitly that the government would not be justified in extending the time for the completion of the western division from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean.
I am sure that if he were in his seat now and wished to be consistent, he would have to condemn the government for giving this extension of three years. But of course if that hon. gentleman desired to be consistent in his inconsistency, he would, like other members on that side, uphold the government in agreeing to this amended contract just the same as he upheld it with regard to the original contract last session. But these are very strong declarations of his and this great weight should be attached to them in view of the fact that he was selected to speak as the mouthpiece of the government in reply to the condemnation of the scheme by the ex-Minister of Railways. Mr. Blair. One year has gone by of the five and nothing has been done-not because of anv fault of tbe present opposition but through the fault of the company itself, in having refused to conform to the original contract, notwithstanding the solemn compact which we were assured by the members of the government last session it had entered into. In speaking of the congestion of the prairie section, which was to be relieved by the construction of this line in the earliest possible time, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) said :
The congestion during the last year or two has occurred not only during the months when wheat was pressing upon the railways, but during other months when the railways have been choked with cars loaded with general merchandise; and when the wheat season has come on they have been caught with their yards full of cars loaded with general merchandise which even then, before the wheat began to move, they have been unable to handle. While that congestion was not serious in the early stages

of the development of the country, It has now, according to the testimony of competent observers, reached a stage when it is absolutely necessary that effective relief should he given. No person who has any knowledge of the situation will for an instant throw any doubt on this statement, that if arrangements are not made for relieving the congestion of traffic not only in wheat, but in cattle and produce of all kinds for shipment outwards, and in general .merchandise for shipment inwards, and if those arrangements are not made soon, as surely as the sun shines, the greater portion of that trade will go south to the United States.
Yet notwithstanding that declaration made last year, the Minister of the Interior seriously comes down this session and asks us to prolong that congestion and to allow that danger of having the traffic diverted to the American lines to continue hanging over us for the space of three years longer than that provided hy the original contract. The Minister of Agriculture also spoke on this question, and made use of the following language : '
I contend that it is a crying duty to provide for the future trade of our country. By the scheme which is proposed we do provide for the creation of another transcontinental channel of communication, which will be ready for operation five years hence. Were we to delay the inception of this work, I venture to say, without fear of controversy, that we would delay it too long. If within the next five years such a channel of trade were not created, I venture to say that a condition of affairs would arise in the country which would he a menace to our national existence.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior had a good supporter in his colleague the Minister of Agriculture. His colleague made a good second in pointing out the national calamity that might befall us should the construction of this line be postponed a day. an hour or an instant, to use the words of "the First Minister. Yet they are both now asking us to prolong that agony three years and have the people of the west submit during that additional period to the congestion of traffic and all the dangers it may give rise to. In approving this ori->
ginal contract, the Minister of Agriculture said:	.
According to the contract that is before the House to-day, the new road ought to be buil five years after the contract is signed. In 1908 then, the road should be built. We may safel believe that it will be a year or so after it construction before it is at its best in the car riage of freight.
Then the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) thus expressed himself :
So that we have this condition of affairs, that the railway must, immediately after this contract is ratified, begin the construction of the western division of this railway and must have it completed within five years.
Every gentleman who spoke on that side dwelt on the absolute necessity of the western division being constructed at the
earliest date possible, yet we are now calmly asked by these very same gentlemen to give an extension of three years time foi* the construction of that same division. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), although not so lengthy in his remarks, was, if possible, even stronger and more to the point. He said;.
The people of the west cannot wait, they have said that for years. They cannot wait and they are not going to wait any longer, the people of older Canada cannot wait.
But to-day we have that hon. gentleman supporting a proposition to make the people of the west wait another three years. He has now not <the slightest objection to making even the people of his own constituency, which he was so anxious should be afforded relief at the very earliest moment, wait another three years for that much desired benefit. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) spoke in much the same terms :
I wish to say a word as to the facts which appeal to me in regard to the necessity for the early construction of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the interests not of western Canada, but of eastern Canada.
Yet, when we are asking the Minister of Justice to incorporate a clause into this supplemental contract, by means of which the prairie section-not the western division, and mind you, Sir, all these quotations I have given this afternoon referred to the western division from Winnipeg .to >the coast-when we are asking the Minister of Justice to accept an amendment which will not at all interfere with the eight years he is giving the company to extend the line to the coast, when we are asking him to accept an amendment *which will enable this congested district in the prairie section to be relieved and secure beyond peradventure the construction of the thousand miles of railway through this most important section of the country, without unnecessary delay, we are told that we are making an unreasonable request. The reason given by the hon. minister for not dealing wnth the prairie section in this way is that he desires to deal with the western section as a whole. He thinks that the mountain section should not be delayed, but neither do I desire that it should be delayed. What I am asking is that it should be constructed at the earliest possible moment, but I recognize that there may be difficulties in that section which are not to be encountered on the prairie division. I recognize that the work on that section may be very difficult and costly, and I am not asking to have the extension of the time on that portion of the line shortened. I am leaving the supplemental agreement exactly as it is as regards that section, but I am simply asking the Minister of Justice to direct his attention to the prairie section, where

this congestion is supposed to exist; and if we wanted a precedent for dealing with the two separately, we have it in this supplemental contract We find that the two sections are in almost every respect treated separately and distinctly. Take, for instance, the payment of interest. The government are giving a bonus of seven years interest for the construction of the mountain division. This bonus, for practically it is a bonus of upwards of $4,000,000, is not granted to the company for the construction of the prairie division. We recognize that the mountain section is to be differently dealt with because of the difficult character of the country, but when it is dealt with differently in its financial aspect, why should it not be dealt with differently as regards relieving the congestion of traffic ? There is also a difference in connection with the guarantee of the bonds. We guarantee the bonds to the extent of three-fourths of the cost of the prairie section, but our guaranty is not to exceed $13,000 per mile. On the mountain section, however, we guarantee three-fourths of the cost without any limit to the amount. Here again we have a precedent for asking the government to deal differently with the prairie section as regards the period of construction. I shall not at this stage touch on the question of location. The Minister of Justice has convinced me that the government are not in possession of information which would lead them to decide where the road is to be constructed. I accept unhesitatingly this statement. I believe that the surveys are in the hands of the company.
The road is to be constructed by the company and the company will locate the line where they please, subject, of course, to the plans being approved by the government. I, therefore, will not press that upon the government at the present time. But I was struck by one expression made use of by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) which, I think, places us in a rather peculiar position. According to the hon. minister the country is to go into partnership with a company that has practically no credit. He says that the Grand Trunk Pacific has no credit other than the credit afforded it by the guarantee of bonds by the Grand Trunk Company on the one hand and the guarantee by the government on the other. But for this they could not go into the markets of the world and borrow money for the construction of the road. Is not that a humiliating position for the Dominion of Canada to occupy ?
Another notable part of the speech of the Minister of the Interior was that in which he sought to convince us that the traffic would be carried from the west to a Canadian seaport. He tells us that the mere wish on the part of one man or another will not cause the grain to be carried from the Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
Northwest to one of our own seaports. 1 agree with him in that. But, what proof has he given that this traffic will be carried to a Canadian port ? He tells -us that, when the grain from the Northwest reaches the point of junction with the North Bay line it will go to Portland unless more economical haulage is afforded to some seaport in Canada. And he tells us that he is convinced that the traffic will go to one of our own ports. But what proof has he ? What single item of proof did he offer ? He could not give us any, for the simple reason that the government have no facts upon which to base an opinion on the matter. They have no surveys made-the hon. minister (Mr. Sifton) himself has told us that much-east of North Bay. We do not know whether we can get a road through that wild part of New Brunswick of sufficiently low grade and easy curves to secure the carrying of grain by this line. How can he expect the people to believe that this line will carry traffic to a Canadian seaport, when he does not adduce a tittle of evidence in support of his statement ? Without prolonging my remarks, I desire to move an amendment. In view of the fact that this prairie section is through a portion of the country in which railways are so easily constructed that the government themselves were going to compel the company to build the whole division, including the mountain section, inside of five years, I think that we are not making a request that will be taken exception to by the government or the company, if we ask that the company be required to complete the prairie section in less time than is required by this agreement. I, therefore move, seconded by Mr. Boyd :
That the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following section as subsection No. :-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the scheduled agreements, or in this Act, or in the Act hereby amended, the prairie section of the western division shall be commenced forthwith and shall be completed within four years from the date of the passing of this Act, unless prevented by any of the causes enumerated in the 10th paragraph of the original agreement as amended by the first paragraph of the supplementary agreement.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In view of the very full discussion which took place last year when an amendment almost similar in terms was introduced, I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Roche, Marquette) will not expect any extended remarks from me.


William James Roche: There was no amendment last year.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps there was no amendment. But my hon. friend discussed the matter. Perhaps what I am referring to occurred this session. However, I am quite sure the matter was discussed, because I remember offering a few

remarks on the subject myself. And I am sure tbe bon. gentleman (Mr. W. J. Rocbe) *went into the matter fully with the assistance of his colleagues from Manitoba. The position that I took on the previous occasion, I take now. What is important in the interests of the country is to secure the construction of the western division, from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast at the earliest possible moment. And, while we have fixed eight years as the period within which the company may construct it, our anticipation is that the company will finish it within a shorter period than that. It is desirable that the road should be constructed in its entirety. We want an eastern outlet, it is true, but we want a western cutlet, for the products of Manitoba and the Northwest ; and I think we can best secure the completion of the road by not adopting the amendment suggested by my hon. friend. Obviously the object which the Grand Trunk Pacific have in view is to reach the rich farming lands of Manitoba and the Northwest Territory. They will put forward every effort to reach that part of the country. It is certain they will not allow an hour to pass in idleness which can be usefully employed in that direction. When they reach that part of the country they will have expended a large sum of money, necessarily. And, it must be borne in mind that under the contract as we have it, they will not be entitled to the issue of their bonds and the final endorsation by the government of their permanent issue until the road is constructed to the Pacific ocean ; so all the money expended in connection with opening Manitoba and the Northwest Territories will remain idle until they have extended the road to the Pacific. It is to our interest to make that situation such that it will be an object to them to reach the Pacific ocean as soon as possible, and we accomplish that by declaring that they shall get the government assistance when the whole road is completed. I do not think it is necessary to say anything further. Our desire is to treat the western division as we treat the eastern division-as a unit. The western division must be dealt with as a whole by the company, as the eastern division will be dealt with as a whole by the government.


Mr. HAGGART.: I understand that the government do not intend to give any guarantee of bonds until the road is completed^


Charles Fitzpatrick: I beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Haggart) pardon, I try to avoid making rash statements. I said that by law we are not under any obligation to endorse the permanent issue of the bonds until the road is completed to the Pacific coast.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) led the House to believeat least the inference I drew from what he said, and, I think the House drew the same inference-was that the government did not intend to make any advances until the completion of the road.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: What we want to know Is whether the government intend to guarantee the interim bonds. And if they do guarantee them is that not giving them assistance toward the construction of the road just as much as if they guaranteed the permanent bonds before the completion of the work ? We have never had a financial statement as to what the government intend to do. Surely that is something the country has a right to expect ? The statement of the Minister of Justice would lead one to believe that, as the government were not legally bound to give assistance before the completion of the road, they would not do more than they were legally bound to do, and would not give a cent of assistance until the company finished the work of construction. For my part, I cannot understand how they are going to finance the road. The company have eight years within which to finish the road. Will the government withhold assistance until the end of that time, or will they guarantee the interim bonds or give any advance ? Surely, that is a financial question concerning which the country has a right to some answer from the government ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not responsible for the inferences which my hon. friend may draw from my words. I am responsible for my words and for the ordinary construction placed upon them. My position is that under the contract the government is under no obligation to guarantee the permanent issue of bonds until the road had been completed from Winnipeg to Port Simpson. That is what I said. In addition to that there is a faculty or option with the government, pending the construction, to guarantee interim bonds or to give assistance to the Grand Trunk to aid in the construction of the road during that period. My hon. friend will realize there is a vest amount of difference between an obligation to do a thing and a faculty to do it, and the control we can exercise over the Grand Trunk Pacific during the course of construction is very much greater than that which we can exercise after the legal obligation to guarantee arrives. What I said was that the company cannot be considered as having a title to the guarantee of the government until such time as the road is permanently completed from end to end, and pending construction the aid to be given to the company by the government will be dependent, no matter what government may be in power, upon the

progress that is being made by the company in its works, and it would be the object and the desire, I am quite satisfied, of any government no matter which government is in power, notwithstanding the delay of eight years that the company shall execute that work with the shortest possible delay. It will be to the interest of the company to execute the works so far as Manitoba and the Northwest are concerned as rapidly as possible and to have the bonds guaranteed at the earliest possible moment, it will be to their interest to complete the mountain section as quickly as possible.


John Graham Haggart: If you are going to give them assistance in the form of bonds, it will be done on progress estimates as the work proceeds ; you are to give them advances as the woi'k proceeds. If you have an arrangement with the company to pay them on progress estimates a certain percentage as the work proceeds, what is the effect of the statement that the government are only legally bound to endorse the bonds at the end of 8 years ? You are either in the position that you will not endorse them, until the end of 8 years, or you are in the position that before the company go on to construct the road, they shall have an advance on interim bonds on progress estimates. In other words you intend to pay them within 15 per cent of the actual amount that will be obligated at the end of 8 years. What we want is a final statement of the whole financial proposition, how the government intend to act during the construction of the road and how they intend to assist in the building of branch roads to get to Lake Superior, North Bay and Montreal. We are kept altogether in the dark, we have the bare Act of parliament. The Minister of Justice simply gave to the House his belief as to the legal position of the advances which the government makes to the company. The Grand Trunk will not commence to construct a road unless they have an arrangement to get progress estimates and it is right they should get that. They will wish to get the power to issue interim bonds and we are entitled to a plain statement of the amount they are to receive and of the whole financial arrangement.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) is very anxious to forecast the intentions of the government. I am limited to the contract. Section 36 tells us :
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this agreement, interim bonds of the company secured by first mortgage may, from time to time, during, and for the purposes of the work of constructing the said western division, be issued by the company and guaranteed by the government, as may be agreed upon from time to time

There is no provision here for interim or progress estimates.
-subject to all the limitations and conditions imposed by this agreement ; provided, how-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
ever, that all such interim bonds shall be issued upon such terms that, upon the completion of the said western division, the same, or so much thereof (principal and interest) as may be then outstanding, shall be convertible, as against the holders thereof, into bonds issued under the provisions of paragraph twenty-eight thereof.
My argument is that these words, as clearly as words can express it, leave it to the government to determine a basis on which the bonds are to be issued and interim assistance given. The government should decide that, and I venture the prediction that the government will decide that in view of the interests of the country and in view of the progress being made by the company.


Mr. CLANCY.: I do not think the committee will at all object to the hon. gentleman stating that he feels bound only by the conditions of the contract. In the first place the Grand Trunk has eight years in which to construct the prairie section. Surely the hon. gentleman would not withhold the sanction of the government to the interim bonds when there was no violation of the contract on the part of the company. I would like to ask, for the purpose of shortening this discussion, if the hon. gentleman would feel justified in withholding the endorsement of the government to the interim bonds unless they had violated their contract by not constructing the prairie section within eight years. The hon. gentleman says it rests altogether with the government, but the Grand Trunk Pacific on the one hand has taken the power to issue interim bonds ; the government has taken power to guarantee them. We would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he would feel justified in the face of the Grand Trunk Pacific not having violated their agreement to withhold endorsa-tion to these Interim bonds, and on what conditions he would feel justified in withholding them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So far as one can speak now of events that may occur 4 or 5 years hence, I would say, speaking for myself, that if I were a member of a government called upon to decide the question, I should be disposed to consider that I was under a moral obligation to assist the company if they had complied with all the terms of the contract, but that the measure of that assistance would be determined by the progress they were making.


Mr. SPROULE.: I do not understand what construction the minister puts on his own Act, but it seems to me that a common sense construction of it would indicate that it was the intention of the company to issue bonds from time to time as required and that it was the duty of the government to guarantee them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Without any restriction ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, not without any restriction, but simply with this restriction that they would only be assisted in proportion to the amount of road built, and having regard to the full cost of the road.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Where is the authority for that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In section 36.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this agreement, interim bonds of the company secured by first mortgage may, from time to time, during, and for the purposes of the work of constructing the said western division, be issued by the company and guaranteed by the government,

That is for construction.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Read on, if you please.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: -as may be agreed upon from time to time, subject to all the limitations and conditions imposed by this agreement ; provided, however, that all such interim bonds shall be issued upon such terms that, upon the completion of the said western division, the same, or so much thereof (principal and interest) as may be then outstanding, shall be convertible, as against the holders thereof, into bonds issued under the provisions of paragraph twenty-eight hereof.
Now, what does paragraph 28 of the original agreement say ?
For the purpose of aiding the company in the construction of the western division, the government shall guarantee payment of the principal and interest of an issue of bonds to be made by the company

I assume the company would make that issue of bonds for the purposes of construction as they went along, and that the government are bound to guarantee them.
-for a principal amount equal to seventy-five per centum of the cost of construction of the said division as defined and ascertained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph eighteen hereof hut such principal amount shall not, in any case, exceed thirteen thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the prairie section, nor thirty thousand dollars per mile of the mileage of the mountain section although seventy-five per centum of such cost of construction may have exceeded the said respective sums per mile.
It seems to me that the spirit of that clause is simply that the government have consented to the company issuing their bonds for the purpose of constructing their railway, and that the government have to guarantee these bonds. What is the use of the company issuing the bonds and of the government guaranteeing them if the company cannot sell the bonds to pay the cost of construction ? I think that under the contract the company would be quite entitled to expect that the government would come to their aid to the extent of guaranteeing their bonds and allowing them to sell these bonds
to raise the money to construct the road. The hon. Minister of Justice says that it is distinctly understood and expected that this road will be built at the very earliest date, that it will be built long before the expiration of the time required for the completion of the whole road. That is the expectation, intention and aim. Then, if that is the expectation, intention and aim, what reason is there for refusing to put this provision into the Act ? It is not embarrassing to the company in any way ; it is not interfering with the rights of the government in any way, but it is doing for the western people what the western people desire should be done, and it is fulfilling one of the most urgent reasons that the government gave when they asked the country to make this huge expenditure, viz., providing a railway at the earliest possible moment to carry out the products of that western country required by the rapid settlement and increasing production of grain. Now, then, in all human probability the western division will be built long before the eastern division is ready for traffic. I think it is expected by every one that the western division-at least that portion between Winnipeg and the Rocky mountains-will be built long before the eastern division is ready for traffic. The object of the Grand Trunk Railway has been apparent from the outset. What is it ? To get connection between North Bay and Winnipeg at the earliest possible moment, so that when that portion of the road between Winnipeg and the Rocky mountains is completed they may be prepared to handle the produce that is gathered up along that line. They do not aim at gathering the products of that western country along the line of the western division and handing them over to the eastern division, but they aim at reaching Lake Superior and Port Arthur, or at reaching North Bay. They aim at reaching a port on the great inland lakes, so that these products may be carried forward to one of the ports with which the Grand Trunk Railway system has connection-Midland, Coll-ingwood, Meaford, or any of those other ports that the Grand Trunk Railway Company are hauling grain from to-day. Their object would be to build that western prairie section at the earliest possible date, not waiting until the whole line is constructed, because, if they did so, others would occupy the ground before them. Taking into account the rapidity with which the Canadian Pacific Railway was built when they were laying down four miles of track a day, building though prairie country, we must naturally come to the conclusion that it will only take a very short time to build the prairie section of this road. There are about 1,000 miles of it. If they were laying down four miles a day through the prairie country, it would only take them about a year to complete the work. This amendment says that it shall be constructed within four years. Is that an unreasonable time ? Not at all. If
sm

they aim to build it, as the hon. Minister of Justice says, at the earliest possible moment we give them plenty of time in which to do it If they intend to do it, they will do it within that time, and there will be no objection to tacking on this amendment to this clause. It is a very easy matter for them to fulfil the conditions of this amendment, and if the western division will be ready long before the eastern division, it is not imposing any onerous obligations upon them to' say that they shall build this road within four years, because I assume that they will be able to reach the lake with the traffic which they will gather up after they have commenced operating the prairie portion of the western division.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) has raised the question of the relief of the people of Manitoba, and the hon. Minister of Justice has raised the question of the early construction of the western division of this line. Now, as I take it, the contention of my hon. friend from Marquette is that the people of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories are in immediate need of railway relief. They want relief of two kinds ; they want relief in the way of facilities and they want relief in the way of rates. How could relief be granted to the west in the way of facilities? Immediate relief could be granted to the west by the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Georgian bay and by the nationalization of either the Mackenzie & Mann system or the Canadian Pacific Railway between Port Arthur and Winnipeg, i By>
adopting that policy you could put the Grand Trunk Railway into Winnipeg to-morrow, and by putting the Grand Trunk Railway into Winnipeg to-morrow you would call into existence a powerful system immediately competitive with and regulative of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That would give immediate relief to the people of the Northwest Territories. Another way to give immediate relief to the people of the Northwest Territories is to have the courage to tackle the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is a provision in the law for the regulation of the rates charged upon that road, but this parliament seems to be afraid to enforce the law. We could ask the Canadian Pacific Railway to produce their books so as to see what that road cost, and, ascertaining the cost of the road, we could immediately call on them, providing the cost was a certain amount and the earnings a certain amount, to grant relief to the people of the Northwest Territories. So, in two years we could grant immediate relief in the way of facilities and rates, but we are taking a roundabout way, and no relief is to be given for at least eight years.
Now, let us take the other question raised bj the hon. Minister of Justice. He wishes to see the early construction of the western portion of this road. How could that be accomplished ? It could be brought about Mr. SPROULE.
on the lines I have suggested, by putting the Grand Trunk Railway into Winnipeg, by using the Canada Atlantic Railway for the purpose of extending the Intercolonial Railway and nationalizing the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Mackenzie and Mann road between Port Arthur and Winnipeg.
If you were to do that, you could put all the energies of the Grand Trunk Pacific into the construction of the western section, and you could abandon for the present the back road from Winnipeg to Moncton, for which there is no immediate urgent demand. Let us put all our energy into granting some kind of relief to the people of the west, and then we will accomplish something. As things are now, we are accomplishing nothing. This government scheme affords no immediate relief to the people of the Northwest either in facilities, or in the reduction of rates, and yet that is what the people of the Northwest are asking for. The government have not the courage to nationalize even a portion of the railroads of this country, and they have not the courage to tackle the Canadian Pacific Railway and force them to reduce their rates. All these schemes proposed here to-day are in the air ; they afford no solution of the transportation problem. The solution of the transportation problem is the reduction of rates, and an increase of facilities for the great body of the people of this country who are using the railroads. We are putting all our energy into building a railroad through a wilderness; let us put our energy into increasing the facilities1 between the Ontario system and the Manitoba system, and reducing railroad rates. Why is the Minister of the Interior afraid to tackle the Canadian Pacific Railway ? He knows that clause in the original Act [DOT] of the Canadian Pacific Railway that entitles the people of the west to relief from the present high rates, but he sits there mum, and has not a word to say respecting it. He has never pressed upon his colleagues to execute that provision in the law by which the people in the west can bo relieved. His idea is, that the relief for grievances in this country is to expend more of the people's money and hand more railways over to private corporations, the only result of which will be to increase the monopolies which already exist. There is no attempt in this Bill to grant relief to the people of Manitoba ; there is no attempt to reduce existing freight rates, but there is a grand effort to give away $150,000,000 of the people's money to another of the private corporations, so as to increase the monopolies that already burden us. That is the sum and substance of this measure. If we are to have a road from Winnipeg to Moncton, and some time I hope we may require to,* well and good ; but our duty at the present time is to make some real effort to solve the transportation problem.


Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax).: Does the hon. gentleman advocate the suspension of the eastern division ?


William Findlay Maclean: I certainly do in view of the fact that there is no call now in the east for railway facilities, and I assert that the construction of the eastern division will have no beneficial effect on the transportation problem. It will not compel a reduction in existing rates which the people of Quebec and Ontario to-day require. The hon. gentleman from Halifax is proposing relief for people who do not jet live in the wilderness through which the eastern extension may be built, but what I advocate is, relief for the people who already are settled in this country, and who have been long oppressed by railway monopolies. Immediate relief for the people in the west will be secured by increasing existing facilities jin the west, coupling the western roads with the existing railways in Ontario and Quebec, and above all, coupling them with our present national read, the Intercolonial Railway. I want to see the maritime provinces have everything * in the way of railway facilities that they possibly can be entitled to, and if this road from Winnipeg to Moncton should become necessary eventually, I would be glad to see it constructed. But to-day it is not urgently necessary. It is only a colonization scheme at best, and it has no part at the present moment in the solution of the Canadian transportation problem. It is going to open up a new country, rich in forests rich in mining, and I hope, rich in farming lands-


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but the necessity for it is not immediate. The immediate requirements of the country to-day, are to increase the facilities in the west, and above ali. to regulate rates. The way to regulate rates, is to put the Grand Trunk into Winnipeg to-morrow-I have told you how it can be done-and to proceed to regulate the rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway is entitled to give the people of the Northwest relief, and they are not doing it because of lack of courage on the part of the government, and especially lack of courage on the part of the Minister of the Interior. He lias not raised his voice once against the monopolistic clause of the Canadian Pacific 'Railway contract, which ought to have been broken long ago, and which could have been broken, not by repudiation but by investigation. It could also have been put an end to by negotiation. Since this government came to power, they have time and again given any number of concessions !to i the Canadian Pacific Railway :	but
they have never asked the Canadian Pacific Railway to consent to the repeal of that clause which enables the Canadian Pacific Railway to keep up their rates. We may be building a great transcontinental railway system ; it may be a fine thing for the right hon. gentleman to found a reputation on : that John A. built the Pacific railway, and he built a bigger one. That >may be, but it is not a solution of the transportation problem. It may be a Laurier monument, but that is all. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), is on the right lines, and if it be put into effect, it will place the Intercolonial Railway right in touch with the Northwest; it will build up the ports of the maritime provinces and it will be a step in the direction of giving that relief which the people of the Northwest are asking for.


Robert Laird Borden: When the Minister of Justice suggests that something equivalent to this four years' clause may be enforced by means of control given by one of the sections of the agreement, he hardly does justice to the position in which the government finds itself. Eight years are given for the completion of the western division, and let us assume for a moment that the Minister of Justice is right in his opinion, that there is no legal liability imposed by the terms of clause 36 of the original agreement. There is an obligation of some kind imposed by that agreement, I would suppose ; and if the Grand Trunk Pacific Company proceeds to build this line so that in ordinary course it will complete it in eight years, and if it proposes to issue bonds for the purpose of enabling it to proceed, I do not see how any government could very well withdraw from what is at least a moral obligation under the terms of section 36, so far as the guarantee of the interim bonds is concerned. I do not think the country could expect very much relief from the minister's argument. Then, there is one circumstance that strikes us all through in considering the terms of this contract, especially the supplementary contract ; that is, that the obligations of the government are in a definite form-the hard, distinct form of actual contract-whereas the interests of the country are safeguarded merely by hopes and expectation. For example, the Minister of Justice says he hopes, believes, expects, that the prairie section will be completed in perhaps half the time allowed for the completion of the whole western division. Why should the interests of the country be preserved only by hopes and expectations-only by what the minister calls the business interests of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company ? Why, on the other hand, in sharp contradistinction to that, should every obligation in favour of the Grand Trunk Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Company be absolutely safeguarded by the most distinct and positive agreements ? One would think the interests of the country had as much claim to be safe-

2175
guarded as those of the corporations to which I have referred. So far as the completion of the eastern division is concerned, our position on this side of the House, as my hon. friend who has just sat down has said, is that the interests of the maritime provinces would be very much better conserved, in the matter of securing a portion of the western traffic, by the extension of the Intercolonial to the shores of the Georgian bay, and eventually to Winnipeg and the Pacific coast, than by any efforts directed towards the building of a railroad from Winnipeg to Quebec and Moncton through the northern portions of Ontario and Quebec. That has been repeated so often on this side of the House that it is not necessary for me to elaborate it any further.
At six o'clock Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Chairman, the amendment under consideration, if not the most important proposed to this measure, is one of the most important amendments. To my mind time is the essence of the whole Bill. When this railway was first suggested, we were told that traffic in the Northwest was congested, and that relief for the settlers was most urgent, in order that they might be enabled to move the products of their farms to the markets of the world. We well remember how hon. members from the Northwest appealed to this parliament time after time for relief for the settlers, pointing out how their grain was practically rotting in the fields for the want of adequate railway facilities. If a new railway is to be of use to the people of that country, it should be constructed with the least possible delay. Surely it does not require eight years to provide a remedy which these hon. gentlemen told us should be provided immediately. We cannot for a moment conceive that a rich corporation, having the directorate of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, backed up by the guarantee of the Dominion of Canada of 75 per cent of the money required to construct the road through the prairie section, and the guarantee of the other 25 per cent by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, requires a delay of eight years, from a financial point of view. There must be some other motive animating the government in proposing that the time for completing the road be extended for a further period of three years. It is not in the interest of any part of the country. If the road is a necessity, it should be constructed without any delay whatever. When the First Minister introduced the ' Bill for the construction of this road in the session of 1903, ' immediately ' was the word he used to denote when the work should be Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
undertaken and brought to completion. We hear nothing more of that now. They seem to have dropped the idea that it was an immediate necessity, and they are prepared to allow the people who were suffering in the Northwest to suffer still year after year ; and I am sorry to say that hon. members from the great Northwest sit in their places in this House dumb as oysters, and without protest allow this Bill to go through. But what are we to think when we look across the House and find, when we are considering a great transcontinental railway scheme involving an expenditure of from $150,000,000 to $170,000,000, that the Minister of Railways is not in his place ; the Finance Minister is not in his place, the First Minister is not in his place ; the Minister of the Interior, who should ever have a watchful eye over all legislation affecting the Northwest, is likewise not in his place ; and this matter is, for the present, relegated to the hon. gentleman who has charge of the fisheries down on the Atlantic coast.
I would like to know what connection there is between the Fisheries Department and the Transcontinental Railway. But this great scheme is relegated to a minister who is not supposed to have any connection with the undertaking. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) has so clearly explained the amendment he proposes, and has gone so fully into the reasons why it should be adopted, that it is unnecessary for me to speak at length on the subject. I need hardly say that I support that amendment without hesitation. I hope that the government, led by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, will take this matter into its serious consideration, and will not allow the completion of this prairie section to be postponed for eight years and so deprive the people of that country for such a long time of the benefits of additional railway communication. In my opinion, another transcontinental railway will be demanded for that country before this term of eight years expires. Why should these delays be allowed ? Are they in the interests of the Grand Trunk' ? Are they in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific ? Surely the government, with all its resources is able to complete the eastern division, which they have declared time and again they are going to do. Why, then, delay the western division. To my i-ind the construction of the eastern division is not of the greatest importance unless the western division is completed also, because the western division is to feed the eastern. I say again that I hope the government will seriously consider this question and accept this amendment in the interest of the people of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, notwithstanding the fact that hon. members from that section are sitting here dumb as oysters and not uttering a

word of protest or making any effort to secure a more speedy construction of tlie road. I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, representing the government, will give us some reason to hope that the amendment will at least receive the serious consideration of the government before it is voted upon.


Mr. OLIVER.: transcontinental project. What is being done to promote that great scheme is being done in spite of these men and their friends, in spite of that company which to-day holds the Northwest Territories in the hollow of its hand, and which these hon. gentlemen are anxious should continue to control our country and help them back to office. But the people of the Northwest are not to be deceived. We have suffered too long from the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite and the monopoly of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have suffered too long from the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite and the railway monopoly on which they have prided themselves for so many years. Had they, in the beginning of this proposition, said, ' yes we welcome some means, any means of relieving that country from monopoly ; had they put forward some alternative proposition worthy of consideration ; had they adopted the policy of government ownership, had they adopted any policy but the policy of obstruction, they might have received some credit. But they did not adopt any policy except a policy of obstruction, and from day to day, during this session, their policy has been obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, and nothing else. What policy is contained in the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition ? Only a policy of delay. What policy can you find in the amendment of my hon. friend from West Toronto ? Only a policy of delay. And that policy has been backed up from day to day with only ten, twelve, fourteen and possibly sometimes a few more members of the opposition in their places. This corporal's guard have been holding up this great transcontinental scheme simply by the parliamentary privilege of obstruction ; while an the time the great body of the members of the opposition were absent, transacting their business at home. A handful of them here in parliament have dared to face this country and hold up the government's transcontinental railway scheme in the. interests of monopoly. And now they hope to save themselves by a motion to limit the time for construction of the prairie section. An hon. gentleman near me suggests that if they would limit the time for debate, they would do something to facilitate the construction of this railway. I endorse his suggestion, and I put this view before the House, that every day hon. gentlemen opposite hold this bargain from completion is a day taken olf construction and added to completion of the railway. It is the deliberate purpose of hon. members of the opposition this session. as it was their purpose last session, to delay, and if possible block this scheme. They are working with that object; and their hope is this year, as it was last, that by delay and still further delay, something may yet turn up that may save their friends from ultimate competition and stop the Northwest from relief. Last year Mr. OLIVER.
their efforts were crowned with success. They held the House in session from day to day and from month to month until the snow flew and until the money market hardened and a season of lesser prosperity of the west reduced credit.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: Yes, they did this so that this bargain, which was to be financed on the basis of money at three per cent, could not be financed on that basis. The whole basis of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway bargain was that money could be borrowed at three per cent. It could when that bargain was made, but the money market tightened and the rate for money rose, and hon. gentlemen in touch with the money market conditions of London, through their friends of the Canadian Pacific Railway, knew that every day they were holding parliament in session and preventing the completion of the bargain was bringing them nearer to hoped for victory. That was their hope ; and last winter their friends throughout Eastern Canada chuckled to themselves and said, the bargain is dead and the Grand Trunk Pacific will never be built. But when this session opened they found the present bargain ready and the money deposited; and now their policy is to delay from day to day so as to prevent construction, and if they succeed as well for another month as they have during the past two, the summer will be half gone and construction will have become practically impossible for another year. That is what these gentlemen are working for. That is their general scheme, of which this amendment is but a part. Do they think we do not see these things ? Do they imagine we do not know them ? Do they believe that the people of the Northwest do not know and appreciate their manoeuvres at their full value ? The Grand Trunk Pacific put on its surveyors last September from one end of the Northwest to the other. They ran the surveys all winter ; never took their men out of the field, so that the line might be ready for construction as soon as this spring opened. When parliament sat on the 10th of March, the bargain was completed, the deposit was made, and the only thing lacking was the assent of this parliament. That was the 10th of March and we are now at the 10th of May. Two months of a session, none too long, already used up, and we have heard that our hon. friend's brag that another month will yet go before the bargain is assented to. Another month will carry us nearly to July, and practically the possibility of effective work this summer will be gone. And these are the gentlemen who want credit, who want praise, who expect to win votes throughout the Northwest, because they propose to limit the time for the construction of the prairie section.


David Henderson: I am glad indeed that I succeeded in drawing one hon. member

from the Northwest Territories out of his shell. I thought that these hon. members ' had forgotten that they represented that great northwest country as day after day ipassed, whilst this large measurt in the interests of that country was under discussion and we had never a word of counsel from them. The hon. gentleman says that we have been adopting a policy of obstruction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: Hear, hear, several hon. members say. I presume they are simply voicing the sentiment expressed by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) -in no way sincere in expressing that sentiment however, because I am quite sure that this House and the country will endorse the statement I make when I say that no obstruction has been offered to the construction of a transcontinental railway in Canada. We on this side of the House have offered to the government a railway scheme, not to be completed in eight years, not to be completed in four years, but a scheme which would practically give immediate relief to the people of the Northwest and that is what makes my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) feel so bitter and so much out of temper as he is compelled to stand up behind the government and cast a vote contrary to his own convictions, a vote which he knows is not in the interest of the people whom he represents. It is beyond question that the people of the Northwest want a railway into that country in less time than eight years. On this side we are prepared to give them a railway in a mere fraction of that time, but the hon. gentleman who has talked so much about obstruction realizes the fact that he is compelled, as I said, to stand by the government which he is supporting and to refuse to the people who are so much interested in getting railway construction in there, and that puts him entirely out of temper so that he is unable to say anything but ' obstruction, obstruction.' The people of the west have no doubt been demanding railway construction. He says they have been demanding it for ten or fifteen years. Possibly they have. That is about as long as I have been in parliament and I am not going to quarrel with him about the time. But if they have been demanding additional railway facilities for ten or fifteen years, surely the hon. member will be satisfied to accept an amendment that would reduce the proposed time of eight years for the completion of a road through that country, to four years. Why does he not bring his tremendous influence to bear upon the government of the day and induce them to adopt a policy that would give more immediate relief to the people of that country ? Surely he is the man who is obstructing the people of the Northwest
by refusing to give them the necessary facilities which they are demanding. The hon. gentleman reflects on the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) because he has proposed this amendment, has proposed an amendment that the road be constructed through the prairie section in four years instead of eight years. My impression is, and I think I voice the sentiment of every member in this House when I say, that the people of the Northwest will endorse the action of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) and condemn the speech of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). What they want is immediate construction, and immediate relief. They do not want to be prevented from getting better railway facilities for a period of eight years if better facilities can be secured in four. Who will say it cannot be accomplished in four years ? Do you mean to say a great railway corporation with such an important directorate as is named in this Grand Trunk Pacific Bill-backed up, as I said before, by the whole Dominion of Canada, which furnishes three-quarters of the money, while the Grand Trunk furnishes the other quarter-who will say that a corporation like that is unable to construct a road through a prairie section of country for a distance of a thousand miles in four years ?


Mr. SCOTT.: Nobody.


David Henderson: I am glad the hon. gentleman agrees.


Thomas Walter Scott: They will do it in less time.


David Henderson: No one will agree to that, but the hon. member for Alberta condemns the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) because he proposed a resolution which would reduce the time for the construction of that road from eight years down to four years. I am glad that I have one sympathizer, at any rate, on that side of the House and I hope when we come to divide on this amendment that the hon. member will not do like the hon. member for Alberta and vote against his own convictions, The Northwest wants railway construction ; we on this side have been and are now desirous of furnishing every facility at the earliest possible moment to relieve the congestion. We have offered a scheme and we claim it to be in the interests of the country if the government would adopt that scheme and give it effect. I trust that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) will receive the approbation of the government and the consent of this House.


Mr. NORTHRTJP.: I certainly would not occupy the attention of this House in reply to the observations made by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) had it not been that I noticed that hon. gentlemen opposite seem to give a certain weight and authority

to his utterances, judging- by the applause *with which they greeted him. That hon. gentleman was complaining very bitterly that both last session and this the opposition of this House, had, as he expressed it, obstructed the passing of this Act. Thai is a rather serious charge and in my humble judgment it is a charge that is not only utterly unfounded, but is utterly unfounded to the knowledge of every gentleman opposite, and unfounded to the knowledge of the ministers. I rise in my place not to answer the hon. member for Alberta, not to waste time in discussing the question with him, but because I can see that he does not understand the meaning of obstruction. But at least he does understand the wisdom of the sage of old, who said :
He who fights and runs away
Lives to fight another day.
As his absence from the chamber amply demonstrates. But when we look at the agreement made last year between the government and the Grand Trunk, when we find that it was dated July 29, and therefore could not and did not reach this House until August, when this House had been nearly five months in session, when' we remember the work, apart from the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, that was then standing before the House, including the Franchise Act, which, so far as the individual members were concerned, was- one of the most important that could arise-when we remember these facts and remember when we adjourned, no one who understands the meaning of obstruction would accuse the opposition of obstructing this measure. Had the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) been in this House in 1896 when the Remedial Bill was before the House, he would have had a very different conception of the meaning of obstruction. I venture to suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that obstruction would mean rising professedly to discuss a question, and not really discussing it but consuming the time of the House, saying nothing that could add to the information of the House or assist the House in arriving at a decision. If that be correct, I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite if any man ever rose in this chamber and more perfectly obstructed the business of this House than the hon. member for Alberta has done in the few moments he has occupied this evening. He rose to oppose a certain amendment, an amendment the object of which was to secure the building of the prairie section at as early a day as possible and I challenge any hon. gentleman opposite to state one single sentence, one single word, one single syllable that fell from his lips that had anything u*der the sun to do with the case before the House.


William Barton Northrup: Not one word did he utter to show why an extension of time should be granted. He -did attack the opposition; he tried to flaunt tl^s, that and the other thing in the faces of the opposition, but on the question before the committee he had not a word to say. He was good enough to say-and I took his words down. We would like the bargain better than it is, but we are thankful to have it as it is. Why, Sir, he agrees with the opposition when he says: We would like the bargain better than it is. That is exactly the position we take on this side of the House. That is the position we took last year, that is the position we take to-day, but the difference between the hon. gentleman and ourselves is, that when we say that we would like to have the bargain better than it is, we do our best to secure a better bargain than the outrageous proposition which we now have before the House. Let any hon. gentleman opposite state one single act that has been done by himself or by those on the government side of the House to secure a better bargain. Then after the hon. gentleman had said:	we want a better
bargain, apparently forgetting what he had already said, he went on to say:	The
present bargain is a good, fair and honourable bargain. What shall we say of any hon. gentleman who speaks of this bargain as a good, fair and honourable bargain and still wants it to be better than it is ? Has that man any conception whatever of the question which he is discussing ?	1
think we are justified in assuming that he has not. But, I did not rise to waste the time of the committee by discussing the wandering utterances of the hon. member for Alberta, but simply to call attention to the fact that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have given no good reason to show why an extension of time should be granted. By all means let them show it, if any good reason can be shown we are perfectly willing to agree that the time should be extended. But, we admit that we do not know of any good reason. We admit that we cannot see why this section of the road should not be constructed within the time originally provided for, and we feel bound to support the amendment unless hon. gentlemen opposite can give us some reason why th* section cannot be constructed, and we think that we may fairly say that any man who occupies the time of this House ostensibly to discuss the question before the committee, but who carefully avoids touching the question as to whether there is any good reason why the time should be extended, can be justly accused of obstructing the business of the House.


Mr.  W. J.@: 
Frank Oliver: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. J. Roche) does not wish to do me an injustice. He will find by references to ' Hansard ' that I did not take part in the debate.


William Roche: I think the hon. gentleman did take part in the second day's debate.


Frank Oliver: I specifically state that d did not make any attack on the hon. member for West Toronto.


William James Roche: Then the hon. gentleman by that means condemns the conduct of his colleagues from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) and from Sackatchewan (Mr. Davis).
'} [DOT]"a S]ad to know that I was in error in including the hon. gentleman, because I oo not wish to do him an injustice. When la question involving an expenditure of $150,000,000 comes up in this House and the Conservative members in this House in the exercise of their legitimate duties endeavour to perfect that measure, they are accused by the hon. gentleman of obstruction, but, when a matter appertaining to ancient history or to abuse of the Canadian Paci-101
lie Railway comes up, and which occupies session after session and when the hon. gentleman, who, if he did not take part in the debate the other day only proved the exception to the general rule, is participating in such a discussion, he considers it legitimate criticism. I will leave it to the members of this House to say whether the hon. gentleman is consistent on that score or not. The hon. gentleman states that every time we get up to discuss anything or move any amendment in the effort to perfect this measure, it is with the idea of dictating a measure calculated to advance the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He is one of those gentlemen who has been acting the part in the west of a demagogue, appealing to the passions and prejudice of his constituents, trying to stir ' O strife and to create bad feeling against [DOT]the Canadian Pacific Railway. Yet, he would not have been in that country to-day were it not for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and a great many of his own supporters would not have been in the splendid positions which they occupy to-day, financially and otherwise, were it not for the Canadian Pacific Railway. But, it is a strange thing that an hon. gentleman on this side of the House cannot get up to support any amendment which is calculated to make this measure more perfect, but he must have his motives impugned and his aims linked with, what the hon. gentleman is pleased to term those of the Canadian Pacific Railwrav monopoly, which he says, we are now fighting iu the interest of. If the hon. gentleman were true to his principles as enunciated last session, he would not be found voting in the way he is to-day. I have a document which I read from earlier in the session, when the hon. gentleman was not in his place, in which he himself enunciated a policy similar to that which he is objecting to on this occasion. The hon. gentleman gave twenty-two becauses. He said that this road should be constructed because, and because and because, twenty-two of them in all, although he gave not a title of evidence in support of one single because. But, he prefaced these becauses by this remark :
I believe that government ownership throughout of such a railway would be in the best interests of the country and people, both present and future.
Still, when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in place of involving this country in this huge expenditure, and in this great liability, proposed to save this country all that great liability and expenditure, much of which will be in cash and to undertake the construction of this road as a government road, and construct it at once, where is the hon. member for Alberta ? Toting against the opposition as usual. The hon. gentleman has lost all that independence that he plumed himself



or possessing prior to 1896 and prior to Ins coming into this House. He is now pie-pared to out-IIerod Herod in advocating the most questionable measures that emanate from the government. He goes on :
But, as it has been shown that only one member of the cabinet, as it was, supported government ownership throughout, and as the feeling in parliament in its favour is confined to a few members on the Liberal side
What a travesty ! Where are they ? We have not heard from a single member on the Liberal side this session who has said one word in favour of government ownership. The hon. gentleman might as well point them out. Does he refer to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals ? If the Minister of Railways is now in favour o. government ownership, he is keeping the fact to himself. 'Last year he believed that the government should extend the Intercolonial Railway ; he may not have changtd his mind, but as to whether he has or not we are left in the dark. Perhaps his mind has not changed ; perhaps the reason why the, government are gagging the Minister of Railways is that his mind on that question Pas not changed, and they are afraid to allow him to express his opinion. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) desires to leeturs members of this House for non-attendance, let him turn his guns on the cabinet ministers ; let him lecture the Minister of Railways, who is rarely in his place, and especially when this railway legislation is under discussion. In his speech, which was distributed throughout the west as campaign literature, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) goes on to say :
-to wait until belief in government ownership has grown sufficiently to ensure the building of a transcontinental railway as a government work, would mean leaving the western country without a competing outlet, either east or west, too long for the good of either east or west. If we cannot get what we want, the next best thing is to get what we can, on the best terms we can. That being the case, I support the present arrangement.
Yes, he supported that arrangement in this House last year ; he went through his constituency during the recess lauding the gov-* eminent, lauding the Grand Trunk Pacific and the great advantages it was going to confer on the country hut this year he supports amendments to that contract, which, every one of them, confer greater benefits on the railway company and inflict greater liabilities on the people of the Dominion. The hon. gentleman complains that the hon. member for Marquette desires to catch some votes. Ah, that is what pinches the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver). He realizes that the people will hold him to account for opposing this amendment. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) is such a slave to his party that he won't join the member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) in Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
supporting a measure which he knows would be in the interest of the country, because he knows that if he did not slavishly support his party, he would not get from them that support that he desires to get during the coming election. I have not time to glance over all his ' becauses,' but one of them is :
Because it does this without land grant, tax exemption or provincial or local aid of any kind.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) knows perfectly well that the provincial government has given this past session cash and land grants to this company for a branch line to connect with the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific amounting to upwards of *2 000.000. Sir Rivers-Wilson has stated to his shareholders that not only are they o-etting that aid from the Ontario government, but the Dominion government are going to supplement it by the usual grant, which is $6,400 per mile. And yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) will no doubt go home and tell his constituents that this road is being constructed without any local, municipal or provincial aid of any kind. The hon. eentleman (Mr. Oliver) has also stated that we have already delayed the construction of this road for one year. Well, that shows the logic of the hon. gentleman. We on this side of the House, in our innocence, believed that the delay was because of the breach of faith on the part of the company with the parliament of Canada. We did our duty at the last session of parliament ; we passed the Act and left it to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to implement their portion of it. But they absolutely refused to keep faith with the people o' Canada, and yet the hon. gentleman states : We kept parliament here so long that it entailed a financial stringency, and the com pauy was unable to raise the money. Does he not know that Mr. Hays stated that they refused to put up the deposit, not because of financial stringency, for he said they could get plenty of money ; but they put up bonds instead as a matter of convenience to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I leave the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) to settle that score with the president of the Grand Trunk Railway. I think the boil, member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) interjected the remark that it was unnecessary to accept this amendment, because the road would be constructed in less than four years. How very child-like is he in his simplicity and abiding faith.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is my authority.


William James Roche: I trust the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) will take the authority of the hon. member for Hamilton in other directions. When the question of freight rates was up last year, and when I had the honour of introducing an amendement pro-

viding that the freight rates charged on the Grand Trunk Pacific would not be greater than those charged on the Canadian Northern, the party spirit of the lion.' gentleman (Mr. Oliver) compelled him to vote that amendment down, although he said he felt convinced that if they would not charge as low rates as the Canadian Northern he would support it. How innocent the hon. gentleman is ? The Minister of Justice called upon his followers to vote the amendment down, because it would necessitate carrying grain so cheaply that it would ruin the Grand Trunk Pacific. Perhaps that is why the hon. member (Mr. Scott) voted against it. I leave him to settle that with his friend the Minister of Justice. Now, if the road will be constructed in less than four years, why does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) object to this amendment ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. gentleman wish me to answer him now.


William James Roche: Yes.


Thomas Walter Scott: Simply because it would make it necessary that the contract be sent back to the old country for ratification.


William James Roche: I don't think that would follow at all; other amendments have been accepted without entailing that action. The Minister of Justice has told us that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in their own interest will see fit to build the road in less time than is provided for in the contract, and therefore there would be no hardship on the company in binding them to it in black and white. Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is not going to take the mere word of the Grand Trunk Company-indeed we have not even the word of the company that they will construct this road in less than the full term of eight years. The Minister of Justice told us that it is to the selfish interest of the Grand Trunk Company to do so. Taking a superficial view of present conditions, we might agree to that, but who can tell that conditions might not arise which would make it to their selfish interest not to prosecute that work with vigour. We may have another stringency in the money market ; we may have poor crops, and these gentlemen may think it to their financial interest not to push the construction of this road as rapidly as they otherwise might. In view of the scepticism of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) in the past as to the good faith of corporations, it is most extraordinary that at this juncture he should leave it to the good faith of a railway corporation to do just as they please, and that he should refuse to stipulate in this Act of parliament that they should do what is in the interest of the country. The Grand Trunk Company does not rely on the good faith of the government, they will not take the word of the government for anything; they are binding the government hard and fast in black and 101J
white in regard to every concession made them, and it is only right that we should insist on similar precautions being taken on behalf of the country. True, the Minister of Justice has stated that he had great hopes that this company would construct the road in less than eight years. Well, I do not think that you will find that any corporation in this modern age, constructs railways on hopes ; they want something more substantial. We on this side do not desire to leave it to a corporation which has already shown so little regard for their good faith to the country, to again refuse to do what is presumably in their interests. For my part I have not that abiding faith in railway corporations, which the Liberal members from the west now seem to have. The other day we were told by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) that he saw the hand of the Canadian Pacific Railway in some proposition made from this side of the House. When anything emanates from this side of the House, hon. gentlemen opposite see something sinister in it; they think the Canadian Pacific Railway is always behind it. How very suspicious these gentlemen are ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) told us that if this road were not completed within five years on the western section, the only spout is the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it would throw all the traffic over that line east of Winnipeg. Is not that a tacit admission that he does not expect the road east of Winnipeg to be constructed within five years ? Surely by the time they will have 1,000 miles constructed west of Winnipeg, they would have 430 miles constructed down to the head of Lake Superior, to carry the grain, and that is the way that practically all the grain will go that will be carried over this road. When the hon. gentleman. (Mr. Davis) says that it is merely a move in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway it is but a puerile as well as absurd objection, and it is also an admission that he does not expect that this road east of Winnipeg will be constructed within the next five years.
Now, I have not seen any reason adduced on the part of the government, certainly not on the part of the hon. member for Alberta, to make me believe that the company intends to build that road prior to the full expiration of the time of eight years, or to impress me with the idea that it would be injudicious on my part to press this amendment. Not having that faith in the company which these hon. gentlemen seem to have, I mean to press this amendment. So far as I am concerned, it is offered in good faith, with a desire to relieve the congestion which these hon. gentlemen last session claimed that the country was labouring under, and for which it demanded immediate relief ; and, as hon. gentlemen say that the company will not require the three years' delay for which they are asking, I desire to have that put in black and white.


Frank Oliver: I must apologize for taking up any more of the time of the House ; but hon. gentlemen opposite have complimented me so highly, both as to my personal course and my remarks, that I think, it would be hardly fair on my part to let the matter pass withing further reference. I would refer the House to the three speeches which have just been made as the most indisputable evidence of the charge of obstruction which I made. If anything that has been said by the three members who have spoken in reply to myself gives any reason for the support of the motion that has been made. I will vote for it. One hon. member has said that I have given no reason for voting against it. I do not have to. It is up to them to give a reason for voting for it, and they have not done so. There is no such reason. An hon. member has claimed credit for propositions to amend the bargain. This is child's talk. It takes two people to make a bargain, and the suggestion I make that somebody else shall do something is of no value unless there is a probability of that other person acceding to my request. Now, these hon. members, as I have charged, have taken up the greater part of last session and the greater part of this session in making suggestions as to how this bargain might be changed-as they say bettered. I could keep this House in session for the next ten years making similar suggestions ; but those suggestions might be obstruction just the same.
The bon. member who has just sat down has brought in the question of the Manitoba freight rates. I do not remember exactly . how he made the connection. Last session he had proposed one of his numerous intelligent and patriotic motions in regard to making the freight rates over the Grand Trunk Pacific subject to the rates charged in the province of Manitoba by the Canadian Northern. Would the hon. gentleman mind just repeating what he did say in that particular ?


William James Roche: I did not say subject to the rates. I moved an amendment that the rates from Winnipeg to the Great Lakes to be charged on the Grand Trunk Pacific should not be higher than those charged on the Canadian Northern for a similar distance .


Frank Oliver: When the hon. member moved that motion the rates on the Canadian Northern from Winnipeg to the Great Lakes were said by the premier of Manitoba to have been fixed at 10 cents per hundred weight, and the idea was conveyed that if we supported the hon. member's motion we would thereby compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to fix its freight rates on the basis of 10 cents per hundred weight. But there were a few of us who knew a little better, in the interests of our constituents and the west, thnn to support any such motion ; and the justification of our action is the fact that to-day Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
the rates from Winnipeg to the lakes over the Canadian Northern are not 10 cents per hundred weight, but 11 cents. So that if we had supported the hon. gentleman's beautiful motion instead of protecting the interests of our constituents, we would have been making them subject to the whim of the government of the day in Manitoba, or subject to the control of that government which is exercised to-day by the Canadian Northern Railway Company. That is a position that we did not accept. We are very glad to-day that we did not accept it, and I think the hon. member shows very poor judgment in alluding to it on this occasion.


William James Roche: The rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur to-day is not 11 cents but 10 cents per hundred weight.


Frank Oliver: When a statement is made in the House by an hon. member, that statement, I believe must be accepted. May I give my authority for the statement that the rate is 11 cents ? My authority is William Mackenzie, the president of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, who, I think the House will agree knows what he is talking about.
The question of the number of votes the hon. member is going to secure for his party in the west, and the number he is going to take away from the government, by this very clever motion, this obstructive motion, this child's play motion of his is not a very serious matter. If his motion were serious, and if the question were whether we opposed or supported that motion, and if it made a difference of a snap of the fingers whether we did or did not support, we have the easiest possible means of preventing injury to ourselves and doing an injury to the hon. member and his friends by moving an amendment to that motion. All that would be necessary to square ourselves and put him in the wrong, provided the people were simple-minded enough to be misled by it, would be to move that the construction of the railroad be completed in three years instead of four years, or if he moved for three years to make it two ; or If he moved for two years, to make it one.


An hon. MEMBER.: Move it.


Frank Oliver: 
William Findlay Maclean: Without any partisan feeling, let me say a few words more in favour of government ownership as the solution of this problem. Hon. gentlemen opposite have brought forward a scheme to settle the transportation problem of this country. We, in Ontario and Quebec, have a substantial grievance in the matter of freight rates charged us both by the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The people of the Northwest have equally a transportation grievance caused by the freight rates charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and to that grievance the hon. member for Alberta has given expression. One company is as bad as the other, and there can be no cure of the iniquities of the one by strengthening another, which is free to do the same thing. The Grand Trunk Railway has been unfair to the eastern provinces. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been unfair in both the east and the west, and there is nothing in this legislation to prevent these two companies coming together under the one management and increasing three or four fold the tyranny which now exists. There is nothing to prevent the consolidation of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The only way to afford relief is to establish government ownership. Take the Grand Trunk Railway in the east and nationalize it.


Mr. HEYD.: How much will that cost ?


William Findlay Maclean: It will not cost anything like what it will cost to build this road, and the building of this road will give no relief. Nationalize the Grand Trunk Railway, and to-morrow you give relief to the whole province of Ontario.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: How much is the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway in amount ?


William Findlay Maclean: A very large amount.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: $200,000,000 ?


William Findlay Maclean: Granting that it is. you are giving $175,000,000 to this road and are getting no relief. You could get the Grand Trunk Railway to-morrow for a rental for 999 years by assuming its obligations and the traffic will meet these obligations.
Mr. HEYD1. How do you know it?


William Findlay Maclean: We khow it because it is a fact. It is the traffic that has to bear all the burden, and it will be the traffic of the Northwest and Eastern Canada that will have to bear the burdens of all our railways. What I propose is this. Nationalize and use the Grand Trunk Railway and use our present terminals and government railway system in conjunction with our waterway system, and the two will give relief. Take a man like Mr. Hays, who is a first-class railway man, what are the problems before him ? One is not to afford relief to the west or the east, but in some way to earn dividends for the people who have their money invested in that road, and the other problem, how can I neutralize the waterway system of this country ? But under government ownership, you would have the railways and the waterway system used together, under the management of a great transportation man like Mr. Hays, and his problem would be how to carry freight at the least possible cost. That is a very different problem from the other two. The only relief we can have is government ownership of railways, run in connection with our waterways, and have both administered by a system altogether removed from partisan influences. I do not take the government railway we have to-day as an exemplification of the advantages of state ownership. It is a partisan administered railway. I would like to see a railway administered by a commission composed of men like Mr. Hays, Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy, who would run the road in the interests of the state and not in the interests of outside shareholders. There is nothing in the present legislation to prevent the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway consolidating, so as to strengthen their hold on the east and the west. That is all this legislation will end in. Then there is nothing to prevent the Grand Trunk Pacific from falling into the hands of the American railways, and if it should, what relief would there be for the country ? Has any relief ever yet been obtained from the bonusing of private enterprises ? I would' like hon. gentlemen to give me an instance. In the east we have a substantial railway grievence to-day. We have freight rates that are an injury to the farmers and the manufacturers, and they cannot get relief. We are afraid to tackle them. All we do is increase the number of monopolies. But let us instead do away with them. Let us take one railway over, connect it with the present government system, and use it in connection with our waterways, and then by so doing we will have done something towards solving the transportation problem. That is a reasonable proposition and the only one which will prevent the strenthening of monopolies and their consolidation in the future. There is another view. The government are defending this scheme on the ground that

it is a national one. They say it will open up the back country. That may he. That must stand on its own foundation, but it will not solve the transportation problem and will not give the people any relief. Why will not the House tackle the question where it is to be tackled ? Why not tackle it in Ontario, Quebec and the West, where these exorbitant charges are collected today. What relief is there to the farmers of the west and the east in this legislation ? None whatever, and there never will be ? There will be only the increased cost of maintaining two companies where one would do, and that being the case, I say that we ought to put our whole energy in to trying something new. Let us try a railway owned by the state and see what that will do. What we would like in Ontario would be to see the Intercolonial Railway extended into the city of Toronto and the Detroit and Niagara rivers and out to Georgian bay. That would give relief right away, but to merely give the Grand Trunk Railway $175,000,000 and leave it free as it is to-day to consolidate with the Canadian Pacific Railway and make the monopoly greater still, will be no relief to the people in the east or in the west. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) is always raising the question, what will it cost to nationalize either system ? It will cost very little.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: How much ?


William Findlay Maclean: I say that you can take over the Grand Trunk Railway system tomorrow on a rental of $1 a year, if you will assume the charges which the traffic to-day bears and pays for. That is not a serious undertaking for this country. All the countries of Europe which have adopted state ownership have taken over the railways there, and found no difficulty in financing them. They found the enterprise profitable. They found it granted relief to the people, and the only relief which will come to this country in the way of transportation charges will be that furnished by government ownership.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: How do the rates on the government owned railways in Europe compare with the rates paid in this country at present ?


William Findlay Maclean: They are far less in every respect. Take the passenger traffic, and it is one-third in Europe what it is in America.


Alexander Johnston: What are the figures?


William Findlay Maclean: I intend to take them up in connection with the passenger traffic.


Alexander Johnston: Surely you have them at your fingers' ends.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, and I intend giving them to the House, but the hon. gentleman must take my word. The passenger and Mr. MACLEAN.
freight rates on government roads are less than they are in Canada.


Alexander Johnston: And the United States too ?


William Findlay Maclean: In Canada on the Intercolonial Railway we pay two cents a mile and on the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway three cents and four cents, so that even here the rates are much less on the government owned road. And freights are ever so much lower on the government-owned roads of this country. I grant you that the government-owned are not paying ; but then they have never had a fair chance ; you must de-politicalise them before they can be a success. State ownership is a success wherever it has been tried. It is giving the people relief. Private ownership never gives the people relief, but the tendency of privately owned roads is to combine and maintain their monopoly over the people who use the railway. Government ownership in the Australian colonies, in New Zealand and the different countries of Europe has been a success. Every country that has adopted it is increasing its mileage of government-owned road and striving for the day when every mile of railway within the country's borders will be the property of the state. Prance will soon come into the ownership of every mile of railway in that country. Germany has now the ownership of almost every mile within the borders. Russia has but few miles of railway that are not the property of the government. And that little kingdom in the east, Japan, which is making such a showing before the world, started out with a national-owned system of railway that has proven a great success, rates both for freight and for passengers being much lower than they are in this country. There is no solution of transportation problems except in state ownership. The movement in the United States in favour of state ownership is great and growing. I would ask hon. gentlemen to read the pamphlet in that direction which has just been published by the interstate Commission at Washington. That pamphlet goes to show that with government ownership the cost of the administration of the railways could be reduced fifty per cent ; the treatment of the men could be improved ; the unnecessary waste in competition could be avoided ; and all the time the nation would have only one party to deal with

itself. How can you bring this Grand Trunk Railway to time in connection with the proposition that is now before the House ? Have they kept the law of the country in the employment of men to make surveys for this new road? Was there ever a more patent exhibition of dereliction, of evasion, than that which we see in connection with Mr. Hays and the correspondence in regard

to tlie employment of engineers for the making of these surveys ? His whole object is to evade the law. And, when you give him this $150,000,000 and this system of railways, he will be just as busy as ever trying how much he can take out of the people of Canada and how little he can give them in return. That is what he is paid for ; it is his business to work in the interest of his shareholders. The time has come when we want our railroad managers to work in the interest of the people of Canada and in some way to try and reduce the freight and passenger rates in the interest of the people. I venture to say that Mr. Hays and Sir Thomas Shaughnessy are working in the interest of the Americans who use our railroads. The Americans are getting the preferred rates to-day in freight transportation and in passenger travel. The people of the American republic have the preferred position in regard to both these great railroads, and they always will have until we own the roads and regulate the tariffs. That is the great fact of state ownership-you are not bound by any contract to any person ; you are free, every day in the year and every hour in the day, to apply the remedy which the situation calls for. And you cannot foresee what is going to happen ; you cannot protect yourself against the future by any contract. You can protect yourself if you have your freedom. if you have the complete control, if you can do to-day what is necessary to ameliorate the conditions of to-day. Mr. Hays will do nothing for the people of the Northwest, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy will do nothing for the people of the Northwest, any more than they will do anything for the east, unless they cannot possibly avoid it. What they are apt to do is to do all they can for the shareholders of their several companies, and to antagonize the waterway system of this country on every possible occasion. They delayed the improvement of our canals-they are on record as having done that-and they will do it in the future. They will oppose the canalization of the country between Lake Superior and Winnipeg, though that canalization will probably be one of the greatest means of relief to the country that could be afforded. You create these great private interests, these two great corporations that will be free to combine at any time, and the result will be that you will be led to do nothing for the lelief of the people, but much for the strengthening of the corporations. Let us stop giving the people's money to these private corporations and begin putting that money into a project that the people can own and control. Let us put our money into a railway proposition that will work in with our waterways ; let us put our money into a railway proposition that will build up our own ports. What guarantee
have we that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not be used ultimately in the interest of LTnited States ports ? I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if there is any guarantee ? This Grand Trunk can pass into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Dutch shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway may get together any day and sell out to American railroad interests. There is nothing that so endangers the future of Canadian nationality, there is nothing so prejudicial to the territorial integrity of Canada, as that our railroads are liable at any moment to pass into the hands of American railroad interests. It is nothing for the Vanderbilt interest, the Morgan interest, the Rockfeller interest to go on the London market and buy control of the Grand Trunk. And, if that is done, where are we then ? If that comes, we shall have to exercise the right of eminent domain and take over these roads. I hope we shall have that power left at least. But, if hon. gentlemen opposite keep on giving away, they may give away the right of eminent domain some day, and then we shall find ourselves hopeless. Let us stop once fpr all. If the people's money is to be spent for railways, let it be spent for the people's railway. Let us have a road that we can control at any moment and on which we can regulate the rates at any moment, a road that foreigners cannot take out of our hands. If we do that we shall begin to solve the problem of transportation, to give the people cheaper rates and better means of communication. And the effect of this will be that we shall have done something to build up the country. We shall be prepared, as I said this afternoon to spend money liberally in opening up our back country. But when we give money for a railroad, let us keep the money for ourselves and not hand it over to corporations that are liable to pass into the hands of people not of our own nationality. Public ownership is winning in this country ; it is growing ; the people of Ontario, I am quite sure, are in favour of it.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: What are the evidences of it ?	,


William Findlay Maclean: There are evidences of it every day.


Ralph Smith: Where ?


William Findlay Maclean: I see them every day in connection with municipal affairs and in connection with railroad affairs. The province of Ontario is starting to build its own railroads.


Ralph Smith: How many cities in Ontario own their own street railways ?


William Findlay Maclean: A great many more would own them to-day if it were not for the monopolies that have been created that get control of the press and of the municipal

councils and balk every effort to municipalize these services.


Ralph Smith: How many cities in Canada own their own street railway ?


William Findlay Maclean: Port Arthur. And Toronto to-day would become the owner of its street railway hut it is prevented by a conspiracy in the city, backed up by the Ross government.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Oh, pshaw !


William Findlay Maclean: And perhaps the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) can tell us why we have not got control of the Consumer's Gas Company. The people there are in favour of it, but there has been some influence that has balked them on every occasion.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: You are going to buy the stock.


William Findlay Maclean: If the people of Toronto could get an opportunity they would buy it. But gentlemen like the lion member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) will do their best to prevent the municipality securing it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I want cheap gas.


William Findlay Maclean: You will get cheap gas when you let the municipality own the plant.


Alexander Johnston: We are getting it now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I must draw the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) to the fact that he is wandering very very far from the question under discussion. He is discussing a question wholly and entirely outside the matter before the committee, and I would like him to be good enough to come back to the matter before the committee.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentlemen opposite wandered away, not I. They asked questions which involved this discussion. I was advocating the position that relief for the Northwest could only come by government ownership of railways. That question had been raised by the hon, member for Marquette (Mr. Roche). The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) was talking about obtaining relief for the people of the west, and he supported this scheme. My contention is that the only relief will come from government ownership, and I think hon. members on this side having been making it clear to the people of this country that government ownership is the only relief, and as I said before there is evidence all over that the people of this country are in favour of government ownership. The attempt that is being made to put down the government ownership and to discredit it, and the efforts that are being made by private monopolies to control the press of this country so as to head off government owner-Mr. MACLEAN.
ship whether in municipal or state affairs, are surprising and public opinion to-day is not being voiced as I believe it ought to be upon this subject. But when the election comes on and hon. gentlemen opposite have to discuss this question with the people, they will be surprised to find how far public opinion has gone ahead of the opinion in this House. There are too many fossils in this House ; there are too many men in this House, reflecting the opinions of the 19th century. We are in the fourth year of the 20th century and the 20th century has a great many progressive ideas, and the idea that is stronger to-day in reference to the great problems of government than any other idea, is the idea that the state must do something to relieve the people and the private corporations will not cure the evils that exist. Private corporations are responsible for more political corruption. private corporations are responsible for more wrong doing than any other cause ; private corporations when they have massed behind them immense collections of wealth and capital have no conscience, they are breaking down the conscience and the ideas of honesty held by representative men, whether they happen to sit in municipal councils, in legislatures or in parliament. They are beginning to demoralize the courts of both the United States and this country.


Peter Macdonald: I must insist that we go back to the question. There is no use discussing every question you can think of.


William Findlay Maclean: No.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member must obey the chair and return to the discussion of the question that is under consideration. I hope the hon. member will not require any more urging.


William Findlay Maclean: I obey your ruling, of course, but I think I am quite in order. I am discussing now the question of the relief of the Northwest Territories which has been raised here this evening. The motion before the chair is that the construction of this road should be hastened. I am prepared to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) to this effect, and I am endeavouring to show how great a relief can be afforded to the west by the government ownership of railways.


Peter Macdonald: I must insist that the hon. member should not discuss a question which in my opinion Is not before the chair. I cannot understand how an hon. gentleman will insist and insist on disobeying the chair. It is admitted and will be admitted by everybody that the discussion of government ownership is not in order.


William Findlay Maclean: The early construction of the road is before the committee.


Peter Macdonald: That is the question.


William Findlay Maclean: I am discussing that question from the point of view of public ownership. I am going just one step further than the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment, but I have practically completed what I had to say. The only " thing that will improve the situation and will secure the early construction of the road is on the line of government .ownership, and tha utilizing of the railways of this country in connection with the relief of the west.
or against. We have various departments with a minister at the head of each ; is it to be said that the minister who is put at the head of that department is so absolutely unable to discharge the duties of the Minister of Railways, that he has not been allowed to open his mouth to give one word of explanation ? What a spectacle for this House ! What a credit to the government ! How will they go before the people and justify their conduct and defend their action in putting such a man in that position.


Robert Laird Borden: I would have thought that on a question of this kind which is a very practical one. and upon which we are entitled to all possible information, the committee might have been favoured with the opinion of the Minister of Railways and Canals. That gentleman is supposed to be more familiar with practical subjects of this kind than any other member of the cabinet and he is fortified by the advice of a number of experts in his department. I regret that in the midst of a very interesting discussion of this subject, he has seen fit to leave the Chamber after being here for a few minutes, and I would suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who is leading the House or to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) who is in charge of this Bill, that much time would be saved if they would send at once for the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) and let him give us his opinion on the subject. I am sure that little discussion would be needed after, hearing the opinion of that gentleman before we would come to a vote.


William Stevens Fielding: If I thought that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. Li Borden) would attach as much importance to that opinion as he professes, I would act on his suggestion, but I am afraid he would not.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know why the hon. Minister of Finance should say that because I have had no opportunity of listening to liis opinion, and therefore I cannot form any conclusion. At all events I think that we on this side of the House, should have the opportunity of being influenced by him and in asking that. I do not think we are demanding anything that is unreasonable.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is on strike.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it for shorter hours or a larger salary ? It cannot be for shorter hours, because he is very seldom here at all. He puts in very little time in the House and some one else has always to do 'the explaining. He seems to be simply there as a figurehead to draw a salary. The country should know that and the sooner we get down to the principles of responsible government and have a minister representing a department who will be here to explain a measure in his department the better for the House and for the country.


James Clancy: A rather serious question [DOT] has been raised. I understood the Minister of Finance to make the startling announcement that the Minister of Railways and Canals has resigned. What led to it was that he said that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition never valued the opinion of the Minister of Railways Tind Canals until he had resigned. Unless the hon. gentleman makes some explanation of his statement it will go to the country that the Minister of Railways and Canals has resigned.
Amendment (Mr. W. J. Roche) negatived.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the section be adopted ?


Robert Laird Borden: There was not any clause under discussion. This was simply a general amendment to the Bill. I think we passed clause 3 did we not ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.
On section 4 of the Bill, agreement authorized between the Grand Trunk Railway and His Majesty.


William Stevens Fielding: My observation is that hon. gentlemen opposite attach importance to the opinion of the Minister of Railways only after he has resigned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That seems to be a parody on responsible government. A minister is supposed to be at the head of his department and to represent the views of that department and to give such explanation in reference to what comes under that department as would enable us to vote for


Robert Laird Borden: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: This provision is made in view of clause 7.


Robert Laird Borden: We can go on with sections 5 and 6. Perhaps we can dispose

of them and then we have an amendment to section 7.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 5 of the Bill,
The provisions of sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and of subsection 4 of section 19 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act shall apply to the scheduled agreements as If the said provisions had been expressly enacted with reference to the scheduled agreements.	;


Charles Fitzpatrick: This section refers to sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Aat of last year. Section 3 refers to the validity of mortgages, section 4 has reference to the form of securities, section 5 refers to the signature of the guarantor and section 7 refers to the rights of the government as to securities.


Robert Laird Borden: Was not this a section which the hon. minister thought would require some amendment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, I made a wrong reference.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6 of the Bill,
The rights . conferred upon the government of Canada by section 6 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act shall be subject to the restrictions and provisions contained in the agreement hereby ratified and confirmed, as well as to the restrictions and provisions mentioned in the said section 6.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That section refers to the restrictions in reference to the remedies of the government in case of default by the company in the payment of interest on the guaranteed bonds.


Robert Laird Borden: What is really the effect of that ? As I understand, it imposes upon the government some restrictions in regard to the payment of interest under the contract as amended which were imposed under the original contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Exactly. The last few lines of section 6 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act impose certain le-strictions. If my hon. friend will look at section 6 of the original Act he will find the following :
And the government in respect of all moneys so paid (subject to the exception aforesaid) and the interest thereon shall be in all respects in the position of, and shall be entitled to the rights and remedies of, bondholders in respect of whose bonds default has been made.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you say ' restrictions ' ? I do not exactly understand that clause. Perhaps I have not taken in the whole effect of section 6, but it seems to me rather to confirm the right of subrogation in the government in respect of any moneys which it may pay as interest Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
on the bonds which it guarantees. But, why use the word ' restrictions ' ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: You have restrictions in reference to section 32 of the agreement. In respect of section 3 there are also restrictions.


Mr. BARKER.: Restrictions are expressly referred to in the old section 6.
, Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I observe there is a clause at the end of section 6 which makes this the proper word to be used.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Parts 7 and 8 of the amended agreement alters the conditions of payment of interest so as to make them applicable.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say to the hon. Minister of Justice that if in respect to any of these clauses which we are passing rather hurriedly we find that our amendments are more especially applicable there will be no objection to taking them up ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, that was the original agreement, as I understood it.


Robert Laird Borden: There will be no objection ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7 of the Bill,
Subsections 2 and 3 of section 7 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act are hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted as follows :-
Notwithstanding anything in the said Act or in the scheduled agreements contained. His Majesty the King, acting in respect of the Dominion of Canada, shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry out or fulfil any of the covenants, undertakings, conditions or stipulations in the scheduled agreements contained on behalf of His Majesty, acting as aforesaid, unless and until the Grand Trunk Company covenants and agrees as follows with His Majesty, acting as aforesaid :-
(a.) That it will guarantee the bonds of the Pacific Company for the balance required for the complete construction of the western division in the scheduled agreements mentioned, as provided in clause 34 of the agreement a copy of which forms the schedule to the said Act
(b.) That it will acquire and take the common stock of the Pacific Company to the amount of not less than $24,900,000 as in clause 27 of the said last-mentioned agreement provided.


Mr. ALCORN.: Mr. Chairman, I propose to move an amendment to clause 7 by way of adding a subsection for the purpose of binding the Grand Trunk Railway Company by its corporate name as well as the Pacific Company to observe the objects sought by the Bill of last session as well as the Bill now before the House, and the agreements which these Bills respectively

confirm and more particularly in reference | to the carrying of freight by a Canadian route to and from Canadian ocean ports and at a favourable competing rate. The objects of the scheduled agreements and of both Bills are stated in the preamble to the original agreement. The preamble of the original agreement provided :
Whereas, by reason of the growth in population and the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada and especially of the western part thereof, and with a view to the opening up of new territory available for settlement, both in the eastern provinces and in the west, and the affording of transportation facilities for such territory, and for other reasons, the 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 and wholly within Canadian territory.
It will be observed, however, that the agreement of last year, and also the present agreement are made between His Majesty and the Pacific Company alone ; the Grand Trunk Company not being bound. However, by section 4 of the present Bill, the Grand Trunk Company is authorized to enter into with His Majesty, such contracts as may be necessary to carry the scheduled agreements into effect. Therefore when this Act shall have been passed the way will be open for making the condition which I propose should be made in connection with the aid which is given ostensibly, to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but in reality to the Grand Trunk Railway. In my humble opinion the somewhat lengthy discussion in this House last session and this session, has made the following points abundantly plain :	First: that the Grand Trunk Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are one interest, are composed in fact of the same persons ; Second, that the company will complete the western division long before the government can complete the eastern division. In fact we have recently had the government's admission in this House, that the company for over a year have been actively engaged not only on the surveys of the western division which the company has to construct, but on that portion of the eastern division between Winnipeg and the North Bay connection. They have been doing that apparently with the assent of the government. We may adduce from this, the fact, that that section will be constructed long before the government can construct the eastern section, and the result of that will be that the Grand Trunk Pacific will send its freight either on their American connections by way of Chicago, or by its North Bay connection down by the main line of the' Grand Trunk through Montreal to Portland. Third : that these routes being established, the traffic will not afterwards be diverted, even when, if ever, the government
have completed the eastern section. Fourth : that it is the interest of the Grand Trunk, and will for all time remain their interest, to utilize these routes instead of the Quebec-Moncton-St. John route. Fifth : that the Grand Trunk Company will not consent to render useless and unproductive its expensive terminals at Portland. Sixth : that there is no evidence showing that it is possible to make a route for grain over the Winnipeg-Moncton section which will enable the company to haul grain at a profit, as against the water or rail and water route. Seventh : that there is no evidence showing that it is possible to build on the eastern division the high class of railway which it is admitted is the only class which could hope to compete with existing routes by water or by rail and water. Eighth : that there is in fact no evidence to show that it is at all possible to build the eastern division as projected. In order to show that the Grand Trunk Railway itself regards the two companies as one, and what the benefits are that the Grand Trunk Railway expect to receive, let me call the attention of the House to the language used by Sir Rivers-Wilson at pages 6 and 7 of the record of the proceedings of the meeting of shareholders of the Grand Trunk held on the 8th of last March. Sir Rivers-Wilson having described the enormous growth of the western country in population and wealth, and having dilated upon the necessity of the Grand Trunk, in their own interests, getting an entrance into that country, he proceeds :
There is no time to be lost if we are to avail ourselves of the great opportunities presented. Prosperity is flowing rapidly from the east to the tvest outside and beyond the territory covered by the Grand Trunk. Thus surrounded on all sides by elements of progress, it is absolutely impossible for our company to stand still. We must either continue to advance, or must recede and yield the offered advantages to more enterprising and far-seeing competitors. Having arrived then at the conclusion that the best interests of the company necessitated some early measure in the direction I have indicated, we caused a Bill to be introduced into the Canadian parliament for securing a charter of incorporation for the creation of a company with an independent organization, but in close connection with and under the control of the Grand Trunk Company for the purpose of building a line of railway from a point of junction at or on the Grand Trunk line, passing through the most fertile districts of the Northwest, and terminating at a port on the Pacific coast.
Further on he says :
Our original idea was to build from a point on the Grand Trunk Railway to the Pacific coast. The intention was that the point of junction should be at or in the neighbourhood of North Bay. It was made, however, by the government a condition of the grant of the charter of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company that a line should be extended eastward from North Bay to Quebec into the city of Moncton,

_ in New Brunswick, to the point of junction on the Intercolonial Railway communicating with St. John, New Brunswick to the southwest, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, to the southeast. As a result, however, of negotiations with the government, another Bill was introduced hy the government itself for ensuring the construction of the contemplated line from New Brunswick to the Pacific in joint partnership between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. An agreement under which this line would be constructed and worked was embodied in the government Bill, and it is the first of the two agreements which are submitted to you to-day so far as they affect the interest of the Grand Trunk Company. The Bills and the agreement were discussed hy paijiament during the whole of an unusually prolonged session.
Lord Wei by, speaking on the same subject, is reported to have said at page 20 :
The government of Canada has come to a provisional arrangement, subject to your approval, with the board. If you say ' No,' there is very little doubt that there are many others ready to avail themselves of the opportunity, and we have every reason to believe that the government of Canada has entirely decided that it will carry out this new line, and, if you refuse to do it then other parties, without any doubt, are ready to come forward and take up the development which is offered and the opportunity will pass away from you.
Mr. Hays, speaking in the same tenor, says (page 31) :
Now, gentlemen, the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to be in quite a different position from that of an ordinary new enterprise stretching across the territory I have explained to you. Here is the Grand Trunk, the parent company, standing with a large traffic ready to deliver it westbound. It does not have to wait five, ten or fifteen years to build up a traffic ; it starts with a traffic right from the beginning, and that of a most remunerative character, a high class traffic, consisting of agricultural material, dry goods, boots and shoes, and all that class of merchandise that a new and rapidly developing country requires. The Grand Trunk as it is to-day hauls it 200 miles and hands it over to a competitor and gets nothing back. Is that a businesslike position to be in ? Is that a position for the directors and management of the Grand Trunk to maintain and to acquiesce in ? I do not think you will say so. This enterprise -which we are advocating to-day, ladies and gentlemen, combines points and advantages that no other transcontinental line in the United States or Canada can have.
Therefore I think it is abundantly clear, from these statements of the railway interests, that they speak of themselves as one and the same interest, composed as they are of the same people ; and they refer to the benefits that are to accrue from the scheme as benefits to the Grand Trunk Company. That is the state of affairs as between the government and the railroad interests. We have the Grand Trunk Company, in no way bound to carry out the scheme as it has been presented by the government to this House, and under no obli-Mr. ALCORN.
gation other than those provided in the two subsections of this section. We have, on the one hand, the Grand Trunk Company, a wealthy corporation, thoroughly responsible for all its engagements, whose covenants would be good, and the actual beneficiary under the scheduled agreements not bound in any manner whatever ; and we have on the other hand the Pacific Company, the mere legal entity, the technical myth, the artificial unreality, created by the government at the request of the Grand Trunk Company, for the purpose of assuming ail the liabilities, although, as has been admitted in this debate to-day, an unsubstantial company, without assets or credit. That company has never had any exigible assets, nor will it ever have any ; for all its property will be covered by the mortgages which under these agreements it must necessarily make to the government ; and when it will fulfil its obligation to purchase the necessary rolling stock, it will be without credit. It is that company, without assets or credit, that the government would have us accept as our sole security instead of the Grand Trunk Company which would be perfectly responsible for its engagements. At the same time, we have the evidence of a Grand Trunk officer that the whole of the benefits which are to accrue to the railroad interests from these agreements will go in fact to the Grand Trunk Company, which, as I have said, is in no way bound. Now, the absence of any such feature in this agreement so appeals to the business mind that we find our American cousins resident in Atlantic seaport cities, and with some understanding of this matter by reason of their connection with the Grand Trunk, which has its terminals in those cities, so struck with this fact that the Boston ' Advertiser ' in a recent issue has something to say about the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the government's claim that it will take Canadian goods to Canadian ports. It says :
While the Laurier government talks about the use of Canadian ports by this road New England is not alarmed. The new road, when built, must hand its freight over to the Grand Trunk, and the latter will carry the freight wherever there are the most steamships to take it. It is true that the Canadian government has signed contracts with the new company to have the Canadian ports used as much as possible, but the new company does not control the entire haul. And when the cars switch from the road of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the Grand Trunk, the latter has the say as to the destination, in many cases. If the New England ports have the best facilities, the biggest fleets, the road will do its best to work along that line. The export business is not a matter of sentiment. The very fact that no contract has been made binding the Grand Trunk in the future is a pretty good sign that the Canadian government is building the new eastern line rather to catch votes than with much idea that the export business will be taken away from the ports of this section for very long.

It appears to me that the scheduled agreements and the Bills which severally confirm them, are one long record of concessions in money and credit to the allied companies. Canada, as regards the eastern section, pays all the cost and takes all the risk. If she succeeds ill building the line, she hands it over to the railroad interests for ten years free, and they may at any time abandon it and throw it back on our hands in a dilapidated condition. That is shown bv the fact that the contract as presented to the House contains no penalty in case the company sees fit to take that course. It is true, we have the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company that they will not adopt such a course ; but we have not the covenant of the Grand Trunk Company. Nor have we any penalty attached to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company if it should adopt such a course. Even if the eastern section is built, or if, as is more likely, it is not built, (except the North Bay section), or if the trade routes are established, as I have pointed out. what would happen '! Whichever course is taken, the Grand Trunk, by its American connections through Chicago or by its connection through the old main line eastward via North Bay, will reap all the benefit of the entire scheme if it is successful, and Canada will suffer all the loss if it proves a failure. Finally, let us observe that the government insists on providing by law that the Grand Trunk Company shall control the Grand Trunk Pacific. We have that specific provision made in these Bills. On the other hand, the opposition propose that the Grand Trunk Company shall come into this agreement by its corporate name-shall be absolutely and strictly bound to carry out the objects which the government ostensibly have in placing this scheme before the House, and shall use its best endeavours, notwithstanding its divergent interests, to carry on the trade through Canadian routes to Canadian ocean ports at fair competing rates. It is impossible for me to perceive any intelligent reason why the government should refuse to accept such an amendment as I have the honour to present, unless it be as has been alleged, that the government finds itself in the hollow of the hand of the Grand Trunk Company. If the government are able to offer any intelligent reason why this amendment should not be accepted -why the Grand Trunk Company, instead of the myth, the unreality, the company without assets or credit, should not be bound, I certainly have some curiosity to hear them.
I have the honour, then, to move, seconded by Mr. Wilson :
That section 7 of the Bill he amended by adding thereto the following subsection as subsection ' D.' :
Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the Act hereby amended, or in the scheduled agreements contained, His Majesty the King acting as aforesaid, shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry out or fulfil any of
ihe covenants, conditions or stipulations in the said scheduled agreements 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 :	That neither the Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway Company nor the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall in any manner within its power, directly or indirectly, permit, advise, or encourage the transportation of traffic by routes or at rates other than those provided in the said agreement, and that each of the said companies shall, in all respects and in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted and accepted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and to Canadian ocean ports.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not bad an
opportunity of considering this amendment, as I have not had a copy of it, but I perceive from what I have heard that it proceeds on the assumption that the Grand Trunk Railway will be interested in ruining the earning capacity of the Grand Trunk Pacific, that the desire of the Grand Trunk Railway will be to divert trade from the Grand Trunk Pacific at Winnipeg down its American system by way of Chicago. But there are difficulties in the way. In the first place, there are no connections that I know of at present which would enable the Grand Trunk Railway to go from Winnipeg to Chicago. There are no lines existing now controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway which would enable that idea to be carried out. and no such line can be built except with the consent and sanction of the parliament of Canada. In addition, the project originally put forward by the Grand Trunk Railway; and upon which so much stress is laid by our lion, friends opposite-a project which appeared to receive the almost unanimous approval of these gentlemen-was to extend their line from North Bay into the city of Winnipeg, so as to put their Canadian system in touch with the west. That project of the Grand Trunk Railway received the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite, but how could that be carried out if the Grand Trunk Railway are going to divert the trade down to Chicago ? In that case what will become of the connection between Winnipeg and North Bay ? Then we must not forget that the Grand Trunk Railway guaranteed the second issue of bonds. But if they ruin the earning capacity of the Grand Trunk Pacific, how will they meet the interest on that second issue ? In addition the Grand Trunk Railway will be the holders of the majority of stock in the Grand Trunk Pacific, and that stock they will have to pay for as hon. gentlemen opposite will no doubt perceive when they give the matter a little calm reflection. But when the Grand Trunk Railway' have paid money for that

stock, is it likely that tliey will proceed deliberately to ruin the earning capacity of the enterprise in which the}' hold the stock? It seems to me that all these reasons should induce us to reject the amendment offered by my bon. friend.


Samuel Barker: As I understand it, ffie object of the amendment is this :	Very
substantial aid has been granted by the country to this Grand Trunk Pacific, upon the understanding that the Grand Trunk Pacific will in good faith use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which such aid is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels to Canadian ocean ports. The clauses of the contract which purport to ensure the carrying out of that understanding are mere covenants of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but that company, as has been said so often during this debate is a mere figurehead, a nonentity in every respect, a company in mere name, a company whose policy is controlled absolutely by another corporation, a company which is absolutely in the power of another corporation, a company whose interests may not be those of the controlling body. Therefore we desire that that company which is given control shall itself be bound to do what its creature the Grand Trunk Pacific has agreed to do. It is of no avail to the country that the Grand Trunk Pacific should be under obligation to send this traffic in a partieu! ir direction, if the company which we place in control of it is itself free to do as it pleases in that regard. We say it is absolutely useless to make one company agree to do a particular thing, if it is to be bound by another company which may make it do the opposite. The Grand Trunk Pacific is bound not to divert traffic from Canadian to United States ports, but the Grand Trunk pacific is rendered absolutely helpless, because its whole policy is placed in the hands of another corporation ; and as that other corporation is the one which will reap the whole benefit, it ought to be bound to do that which the Grand Trunk Pacific agreed to do. Surely the Minister of Justice would not stand up and say that that is an unreasonable contention. If it were reduced to the case of individuals, the hon. gentleman would scout the idea of saying that the party who was to control the other should not himself be bound.
Could one imagine a more absurd proposition to be advanced by business men in the face of the millions of obligations this country has undertaken ? The Grand Trunk Railway Company is having put into its hands, into its grasp of iron, the whole of that immense property-3,400 miles of railway costing about $170,000,000, and we are to be satisfied with a mere covenant of a company subject to its control. The government refuses to consent to the con-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
trolling company being bound ; the government refuses to say that the Grand Trunk, which receives the whole benefit of this subsidy and guarantee, shall be bound to see done what they say the Grand Trunk Pacific must do ; we have to rely simply upon the covenant of a company that cannot control itself. Surely, the proposition need only be stated for its absurdity to be seen. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) is a plain business proposition that no man dealing between individuals would for a moment hesitate to adopt. I venture to say there is not a solicitor in the land but would insist upon such a covenant as is proposed here. What earthly use to this country is the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific that it will not divert the traffic when you put over its head another company that can make it divert the traffic whether it wants to or not? Of what avail will it be to have a covenant from the Grand Trunk Pacific that it will carry traffic to St. John or Halifax if another company can say the traffic must not go there ? Now, Sir, I do not wish to occupy unnecessarily the time of this House. I have had to speak on this subject far more frequently than I would wish to do. But I cannot understand how hon. gentlemen opposite-able men and honourable men as they are-and knowing, as I do that they must see the absurdity of many of these provisions-can sit in their seats, and vote down our amendments, the Grand Trunk Company may object to them. That is the position tliey occupy. Hon. gentlemen, on the Treasury benches, who know as well as I do, and believe as firmly as I do, that many of these covenants are mere fictions, sit there and call upon their supporters to vote down amendments that are proposed here, not on the merits of these amendments, but lest this agreement should fail, with political consequences that might be serious for hon. gentlemen opposite.
Amendment (Mr. Alcorn) negatived.


James Clancy: I beg to move :
That the Bill be amended by adding thereto the following section :-
The government shall have the right to inspect all books of accounts, statements, contracts, correspondence, vouchers, waybills, and all other papers and documents of ,the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, the inspection of which may be considered necessary for the purpose of investigating or determining any question, matter or thing arising out of the said scheduled agreements, or the said lease, of the provisions of this Act or of the Act hereby amended, or connected with the apportionment of rates and earnings, or with the obligations or undertakings of the Grand Trunk Company or the Pacific Company, pursuant to the said agreements or lease, or to the National Transcontinental Railway Act or to this Act.

I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will concede that it is only necessary to state in a few words the object of this amendment to make its importance perfectly apparent. The hon. gentleman knows that there is no provision in the agreement or in the Bill itself by which it is possible to provide any machinery to investigate the relations between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. As has been already pointed out on many occasions in this House, these are one company lor all practical purposes. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company exists only for the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Now, let me give some cases that will occur in the relationship between these corporations two in name but one in fact.
Let me take the case of the rentals to be paid for the last three years of the ten years on the eastern division. That will be governed entirely by the capabilities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to pay. It would be a very easy matter, and it would be somewhat businesslike on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to see to it that, by the division of the earnings between themselves and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as managed by them it should be impossible for the Grand Trunk Pacific to pay the rental provided for under the provisions of the agreement. Then, let us remember that, with regard to the western section, this same thing would arise there. We have the western section controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the name of the Grand Trunk. Pacific Railway Company. AVe have the eastern connections from North Bay to Montreal and Portland owned and controlled by the Grand Trunk Railway Company having the Grand Trunk Pacific as a feeder.
In a word. Mr. Chairman, the object of this amendment is to secure means of investigating the relations between the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. It is not a case where any one could interfere between two corporations under separate names and separate interests, but two corporations having one interest, that being the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway. We have no means under the present agreement or the present Act to examine into the accounts of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They may milk the cow as dry as can be, every dollar of earnings that should go to pay the rental in the one case and interest in the other, can be absorbed by the Grand Trunk proper and we have absolutely no power to investigate or examine into the books or the accounts of the Grand Trunk. In a word the object of this amendment is one of which I am sure every hon. member in the House will recognize the importance. The government of the
day have a contract with the creature, the mere shadow of the Grand Trunk, and we must protect our interests by examining the accounts of the Grand Trunk as well as of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I need not enlarge upon that question as I am sure that every hon. gentleman will see the importance of a provision of that kind in order to guard the public interest. We have a right to know what the accounts of the Grand Trunk are and to know the relationship between the two companies, because we are concerned in aiding the Grand Trunk after all and the Grand Trunk should be brought within the reach of responsibility to the government. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I imagine, unless I am greatly deceived, will be prepared to accept at least the substance of the amendment I have the honour to propose.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think I would be disposed to consider very favourably an amendment of this kind were it not that the essence of the amendment is provided for by the general Railway Act of last year, section 45 and section 49.


Samuel Barker: Do I understand the Minister of Justice to say that under the Railway Act the Board of Railway Commissioners can decide as between two railway companies what the relative proportion of their through earnings are?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not understand anything of the sort nor has my friend who has no doubt drawn this amendment any such idea. My hon. friend here will see that they have the right to inspect the books. Let him look at section 19 of the Grand Trunk agreement and he will there see that we have the power to investigate the books of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Samuel Barker: For what purpose ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: For all purposes , to ascertain the proportion of traffic.
The company shall keep separate accounts of the earnings and expenditure of the eastern and western divisions, and, for the purposes of this agreement, the earnings from through traffic shall be apportioned between the eastern and western divisions.


Samuel Barker: Certainly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 45 of the Railway Act provides:
The Governor in Council may at any time refer to the board for a report, or other action, any question, matter or thing arising, or required to be done, under this Act, or the special Act, and the hoard shall without delay comply therewith.
And section 49,
The board, the minister, inspecting engineer, or person appointed under this Act to make any inquiry or report may :-

Among other things
(d.) Require the production of all books, papers, plans, specifications, drawings and documents, relating to the matter before it or him.


James Clancy: That is only one company.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Where is the additional power here ?


Samuel Barker: The eastern and western divisions are to be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific- and the provisions the hon. member refers to enables inquiry to be made as to the division of earnings as between the eastern and western divisions, a very proper and eminently business-like proposition. I would like the Minister of Justice to state when traffic goes over both the eastern and western division and also over the Grand Trunk proper, what provision he has made for ascertaining what division of the freights is made as between the three V I took some trouble to point that out last year to the hon. gentleman. The very fact that the hon. gentleman recognized that it was essential to our protection to have means of compelling a proper division as between the eastern and western divisions, shows that he requires a further provision to enable a propet apportionment to be made as between the Grand Trunk Pacific, both eastern and western divisions, and the Grand Trunk proper. Let us take traffic from say Edmonton to Montreal going over the western division to Winnipeg and over the eastern division from Winnipeg, to North Bay, then over the Grand Trunk proper-no party to these stipulations-from North Bay to Montreal. This agreement contains the provision that the government can intervene and see that the through rate is fairly and properly divided as between the western and eastern divisions as far as North Bay, and surely, as a matter of common sense, the hon. gentleman will see that a further provision is needed to settle the proper apportionment of the through rate as between these two divisions of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk proper. If it were not necessary as against the Grand Trunk proper what was the object of having it here as between the two divisions of the Grand Trunk Pacific ? I think I made that very clear last year but' the trouble then was that if we altered so much as the dotting of an ' i ' or the crossing of a ' t ' in this agreement it would upset the whole agreement, and so hon. gentlemen would not listen to anything. Since then we have had the whole agreement thrown at large and the hon. gentlemen opposite have had opportunity to rectify all these omissions. The Grand Trunk, having one interest as to the western division and a different interest as to the eastern division, might unfairly divide the through rates so as to make the portion in which they have a leasehold interest non-paying, while the Mr. FITZPATRICK.
wsetern portion of which they hold dividend bearing stock would be made profitable, Therefore provision is made for fair apportionment. But that reasoning applies when you come to the through traffic running over the Grand Trunk to Montreal or to Portland, where the Grand Trunk might take for its share a higher proportion of the rate than was reasonable and so starve the Grand Trunk Pacific. We have not had a word from the minister upon that point. I would like to hear what the hon. gentleman has to say.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I was under the impression that this amendment had reference to the inspection of books ; I do not see anything else in it. Perhaps my hon. friend will read it again.


Samuel Barker: If the goverment had access to the books they would find out very soon if the rate was fairly divided.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is given by the Railway Act.


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman thinks the clause is not quite sufficient he has his remedy. The hon. gentleman knows that in order to ascertain whether there is any unjust apportionment you must get at the books.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Railway Act provides for it.
* Mr. BARKER. Why does the hon. gentleman, leave the Grand Trunk Railway Company in a position to take an undue proportion of the traffic to itself? Does the hon. gentleman dispute that it can do so? What control has he over the proportion that the Grand Trunk proper is going to take out of the through rate from Edmonton to Montreal or Portland? Does not the hon. gentleman know that the Grand Trunk proper is one corporation and the Grand Trunk Pacific is another and that the two may enter into an agreement for a division of the through rate by which one gets sixty per cent and the other forty per cent. That might be unreasonable, and yet it is quite lawful for these two companies to make such an agreement. The hon. gentleman says: Oh, you have not provided for that in this amendment. May I ask what is the duty of the hon. gentlemen opposite in such a case ? The difficulty is pointed out. I point out to them that on the face of this it is quite possible for the Grand Trunk Railway Company proper to take as its share of this traffic such a percentage of the through rate as will starve the leasehold portion upon which the government depend for its rent, and as may starve the western portion upon which the government has guaranteed the bonds. Yet, the hon. gentleman has provided no remedy for that. Is it not possible for him to look at it in the interest of the country? Is that the position that hon. gentle-

men on the treasury benches are going to take ? This amendment even in the minister's view of it, will enable the government to get at the facts and point out that an unreasonable advantage is being taken. But, supposing it does not, is the government going to sit still ? Is the government going to refuse to add words that will prevent the Grand Trunk Railway Company from depriving the government section of the road and the section which is guaranteed by the government, of its fair proportion ? It can take care of the traffic as between the eastern and western divisions. Why has it not protected the government against the Grand Trunk ? The point is that the Grand Trunk has an interest in depleting the traffic of the Pacific end for the benefit of its own road. The hon. gentleman says :	Oh, you have not provided
for that. What is the hon. gentleman going to do about it ? Is he going to sit still and ask the House to validate this agreement while leaving that blot upon it ? I should hope not. I should hope that even if a page of this House should whisper in the hon. gentleman's ear the possibility of such a thing, he would jump up instantly and take care of the interests of the country. Is there any reason why the hon. gentleman should not go as far as this amendment goes? Is there any reason why the hon. gentleman should not have the means of ascertaining whether a wrong is being done or not. The hon. gentleman will not even suggest his remedy for it. What is his remedy? The only provision that the hon. gentleman makes is as between the two sections of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. He leaves the Grand Trunk Railway open to do as it pleases. It is like three men entering into an arrangement under which two of them are bound as between each other and the third is left loose. Hecan-rob them both. That is the position the government has left this contract in. The Grand Trunk proper, an absolutely independent party, can take out of one hundred cents of earnings, sixty cents and leave twenty cents to each of the other two, and there is no remedy. The hon. gentleman has not provided one. He has taken very good care that the forty cents shall be divided fairly as between the two, but he has taken no precautions as against the Grand Trunk Railway Company which controls the whole lot and will take what it pleases. I do not know anything that puts this government in a more ludicrous position as a government of business men than that. Even suppose this amendment were subject to the doubt which the hon. Minister of Justice seems to east upon it, it would not leave the matter in as bad a position as that in which it now is.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Fortunately hard words do not break any bones. Really we 102
must observe to some extent the rules of the House. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has put into the hands of the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) an amendment to move. We want to deal with that amendment. The amendment provides simply for an inspection of the books. If my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) wants to bring in something in regard to traffic arrangements we will deal with that. He has asked that there shall be some arrangement whereby the books of the Grand Trunk shall be examined. My answer to that is that the General Railway Act, sections 45 and 49, makes provision for what he asks us to do. Why waste our time beating the air about something that effects traffic arrangements? If my hon. friend from Hamilton wants to get at the traffic arrangements he knows perfectly well that no such traffic arrangements as he suggests could be made between these two companies without getting the approval of the board of Railway Commissioners. Such an arrangement would have no validity whatever.


Samuel Barker: Why ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Because the law says so.


Samuel Barker: Does my hon. friend mean to assert that two companies operating a through line cannot agree that one shall have ninety per cent and the other ten per cent if they please?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not say thaL I say that they cannot make an arrangement of that sort without coming to the board of Railway Commissioners and having it approved of.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that without the sanction of the board of Railway Commissioners two companies forming a through line cannot agree between themselves as they please about the proportion of the rates which each shall receive ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Samuel Barker: You do ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Well, I do not think there is any use of arguing.


William Stevens Fielding: In the meantime let us deal with the amendment.


Samuel Barker: I understand the hon. Minister of Justice to state that two companies forming one line could not agree in any way without the approval of the board of Railway Commissioners. I would like to know if that is so ?


Mr. DEPUTTY SPEAKER.: Shall the section be adopted ?


James Clancy: There is no great hurry about this ; we want the hon. Minister of



Justice to answer. It it is necessary for me to stand on my feet in order to entertain the chairman, I shall take great pleasife in doing it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I made the statement and I reaffirm it now. Such an arrangement as that in order to be enforced would have to be approved by the Railway Commissioners.


Samuel Barker: It is a matter of every day agreement between two railway companies forming a through line, one railway having 25 miles, perhaps, of that through route and the other 500 miles, that the company having the 25 miles would receive Ifive times the amount per mile that the other would get.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The question is, as to whether they must have been approved by the railway commission.


Samuel Barker: If there are two companies forming a through line, the railway commissioners may decide what the through rate will be


Charles Fitzpatrick: You cannot collect a "cent on the railway without having the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners, under an amalgamated agreement or any other agreement.


Samuel Barker: If there are two companies forming a continuous line, they may charge a through rate to be approved by the Boat'd of Railway Commissioners, but suppose that the through rate is one dollar one of them may take 99 cents and the other one cent.


Wilfrid Laurier: If a third party suffers because of that, he can go before the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Samuel Barker: Will the Minister of Justice point me out any clause that will prevent the two companies dividing the through rate between themselves V


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend's argument has been that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific might make an agreement between themselves which would be detrimental to the people of Canada. So long as no person complains no one would have anything to say to the arrangements between the two companies, but when some one complains, the Board of Railway Commissioners step in to remecTy the evil if it'eShste: [DOT] -


Samuel Barker: The Board of Railway Commissioners come between the railway company and the toll payer. But suppose a through rate of a $1 is approved of, and one company takes 99 cents and the other company takes one cent, the Board of Railway Commissioners have nothing whatever to say to it. There is nothing in the Railway Act to prevent it.


James Clancy: 


William Stevens Fielding: What has that to do with this amendment ?


Samuel Barker: I am answering the argument of the Minister of Justice that the Railway Act provides for it all. I point out to the Minister of Finance who is always so anxious for the public interest, that there is a blot in this contract and. we may fairly say to him and to the Minister of Justice, that they owe it as a duty to the people of this country to remove that blot. Does the Minister of Finance understand me ?


William Stevens Fielding: What I understand is that the hon. gentleman is trying to show that there is a blot in his own amendment. He and his associates have prepared an amendment and they have persisted in talking about something else. I do not think that two such eminent jurists as the Minis ter of Justice and the member for Hamilton should show a bad example to the laymen of the House in straying away from the subject which is before us. We have had an opportunity of rambling over the whole contract again and again, and there is no need of doing it on this amendment.


Samuel Barker: I was not addressing myself to the Minister of Finance as a professional gentleman, but as a businessman, and I understand he plumes himself on being a man of business. This after all is a matter of -business, and it is a question whether the gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches are going to force through the clause as it stands now, because the Minister of Justice says amendment does not go far enough.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The amendment does not touch the case within one hundred miles.


Samuel Barker: Does the Minister of Justice mean to say that the difficulty we have been pointing out, and which we in our humility have been endeavouring to correct, is not a real difficulty ? Knowing that the difficulty exists, is lie going to force this agreement through and remain silent about it ? Is that the position of the hon. gentleman, and is this another case in which we must bow down before the Grand Trunk ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman has been talking about a matter which is not referred to in the amendment, and which seems to have dawned on him since the amendment was proposed. We believe that this thing is provided for by the law. There is no traffic or tolls which can be levied on any railway in Canada without the previous sanction and approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Samuel Barker: That is not the point at all.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In addition to that there can be no amalgamation agreement between two companies without the approval

of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that is the point which we are dealing with, and if my hon. friend will read section 281 of the Railway Act he will find that that is the case. A railway company cannot collect anything on its own railway without the consent of the board, nor can it make an agreement with another company without submitting that agreement to the board.


Samuel Barker: Do I understand the Minister of Justice to say that it would be necessary for the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific to submit this agreement to the Board of Railway Commissioners ? The Grand Trunk Railway in the supplementary a'greement is given control of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Stevens Fielding: We are dealing with freight rates now.


Samuel Barker: I am answering the statement of the Minister of Justice, that they cannot agree to anything without the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not said anything of the kind.


Samuel Barker: Suppose the Board of Railway Commissioners approve of a rate between Edmonton and Montreal ; the division of that rate between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific is a matter of agreement from day to day between the two companies. We propose that the government of Canada shall have power to inspect not merely the books of the Grand Trunk Pacific, eastern and western divisions, but the books of the Grand Trunk proper, so as to ascertain what the division of these rates may be. Then perhaps we will have the Board of Railway Commissioners to decide whether the agreed apportionment of the rates is reasonable or not, having regard to the interests of the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Grand Trunk Pacific own And ornate the line from Win-nipi^weSF; the Grand Trunk Pacific operates the line from Winnipeg east. It is one through line operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific so far as regards its operation. In order to allow us to intervene in respect of that company, so far as its different rates over its own line are concerned, we have section 19, which enables us to inspect the books of the company with respect to the lines under its own control.


Samuel Barker: Why ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Because it is necessary to the subdivision of the rates between the government-owned and operated road and the company-owned and operated road. It is quite apparent that we must have that power to investigate if we want to be sure of the earning power of the com-1024	,
pany, and ascertain whether the three years' payments should be deferred or not. Dealing with the other proposition, as between the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, say between the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Edmonton to North Bay and the line of the Grand Trunk from North Bay to Montreal, you are dealing with separate corporations. Neither the Grand Trunk nor the Grand Trunk Pacific can collect anything in the way of tolls or rates without submitting their tariff to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Board of Railway Commissioners must first approve of the tariff on both roads. If the Grand Trunk Pacific enter into an agreement with the Grand Trunk, what is called a traffic arrangement, the Board of Railway Commissioners must examine that agreement, and it cannot take effect without the approval of the board.


Samuel Barker: The Minister of Justice has either not listened to me or I have failed to convey my meaning to him.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not listened.


Samuel Barker: I am sure the hon. gentleman could not have failed to understand me if he had listened. He must know that every hour of every day throughout the year through rates are made all over the continent. It may be from San Francisco to Portland or from Chicago to New York. The companies can all agree by telegraph, from hour to hour probably in exciting times, what their through rates shall be, and what the divisions of those rates shall be. No authority controls what each may take of the through rate. The commissioners decide what the whole rate shall be. That is what affects the shipper. What we are trying to get at is that the Grand Trunk proper, controlling the whole affair, shall not be in a position to. take more out of the through rate for its own rails than it allots to the government-leased portion or to the western division. That question has nothing to do with the amount of the through rate. The Board of Railway Commissioners will see in the Shippers interest that the through rate is not more than is right. That is not the question we are dealing with. It is the question of dividing the through rate between the three sections-the western division, the eastern division and the Grand Trunk proper ; and it is just as material in the interest of this country, as lessors and guarantors, to have control over that apportionment as it is the interest of the lines of the Union Pacific and its connections from San Francisco to New York, to know what their divisions are, so that they will each get their fair share of the lawful rate ; and the hon. gentleman should protect the country in that respect here. If the Grand Trunk choose, it can take the lion's share of every through rate which the Board of Railway Commissioners may authorize.


James Clancy: I desire to ask tlie Minister of Justice one question. I suppose I ought to make an apology. I ask the question with that proper humility which laymen ought to have on all such questions. Assuming that every agreement between railway companies with regard to traffic rates must first be approved by the Railway Commission, I will suppose that the Railway Commission fix a certain rate from Edmonton to Montreal. That is to be divided between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Would they assign a certain proportion of that rate to the one and a certain proportion to the other 7 I do not think they would. They would inquire if that was a fair rate-why ? In order to protect the shipper from paying too much. We will suppose that the next time the shipper ships over the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk, and he pays the same rate. Does the hon. gentleman say it is necessary to protect the shipper in the one case more than in the other, and that it is necessary to interfere with the two corporations as to the division of the rate ? The hon. gentleman would say :	No, they
may divide it as they please, because we have taken care that the shipper is protected. The shipper is protected in the same manner in the one case as in the other. So that it does seem to a layman as stupid as myself that there is no protection such as is sought by the amendment, namely, that the government shall have the right, not on behalf of the shipper, but on behalf of the whole people of Canada, who are backing this scheme, to see that the division of these rates is properly made. If there is any doubt about it, surely we ought to avail ourselves of the opportunity to correct any difficulty of that kind.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is far too modest in his estimate of himself. I am sure that no man would be more surprised if we took him at that estimate than himself. We are dealing with an amendment which provides for, the inspection of the books. I have pointed out, I think to the satisfaction of some hon. gentlemen opposite, that the General Railway Act provides for that. We have travelled from that amendment to another ground-that respecting the division of the freight rates as between the two companies, and the hon. gentleman says : Assuming that the tolls levied were fair on the whole route, and the shipper would not have a right to complain, what would the Railway Commissioners do ? I am not here to declare what the Railway Commsisioners would do.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has assumed what they would do ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think my hon. friend will bear me out that I have not assumed anything except to point out what Mr. BARKER.
the law is. I will venture, however, to assume what I would do if I were a railway commissioner. If I felt an agreement of this sort was entered into so that the public interest would be jeopardized, I would think the government would have the right to go before the Railway Commissioners and complain of that agreement in precisely the same way as a private individual would.


Samuel Barker: 
Samuel Barker: I would ask the Minister of Justice to point out one word in the Railway Act which enables the Board of Railway Commissioners to make any investigation into the apportionment of the rates and earnings as between the railway companies There is nothing to prevent the companies giving the whole through rate, whatever U may be, to one of them if they choose. The

Grand Trunk Railway can do what it pleases. It may give all the earnings to the Grand Trunk Pacific or take them all itself, or it may apportion them at its own pleasure, having the control of both companies, and that may make an enormous difference as to whether one section of the line may be profitable and another unprofitable.' There is nothing to enable us to investigate matters connected with the apportionment of the rates and earnings as between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific and this amendment goes beyond the Railway Act in giving such power of investigation.
Amendment (Mr. Clancy) negatived.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the clause be adopted ?


John Graham Haggart: Before the clause passes, let me draw attention to clause 34 of the scheduled agreement, which provides that the Grand Trunk Railway shall guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific for the balance required for the construction of the western division. Clause 34 provides for two issues of bonds. Under this agreement the two are made pari passu.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think that is quite correct.


John Graham Haggart: It is for the balance required for the completion of the western division. I notice that under the Act giving the charter to this company they have only the right to issue $50,000 of bonds per mile. Does this clause empower them to issue more ? Because from the arguments I have heard here and the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I am led to believe that it will require more than $50,000 a mile for the mountain section. How are you going to provide for this ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The point raised by my bon. friend is, I suppose whether or not the Grand Trunk Pacific charter, which authorizes the issue of the bonds, authorizes the company to issue bonds to the extent of $50,000 a mile for the mountain section and $20,000 a mile for the prairie section, will be construed as being extended by this agreement


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. gentleman think this empowers the company to issue for more than $50,000 per mile ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would not like to say that.


Samuel Barker: We would like the section to stand, but the amendment is rejected.
Progress reported.


OTTAWA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Mr. BENNETT ROSAMOND (North Lanark) moved :: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we ought to have some explanation showing why this exception to the rule should be allowed.


Bennett Rosamond: A similar measure has already been proposed with regard to other insurance companies to meet the conditions arising from losses incurred in the Toronto fire. The Ottawa Insurance Company desire to reduce their capital stock in order to meet the difficulties incurred-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But is this not a petition to incorporate a company ?


Bennett Rosamond: The company is already incorporated under Act of the Ontario legislature, and it now seeks incorporation under this authority in order to meet the difficulty that has arisen and so that it may not be necessary to wait until next year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 17, 1904.