1904-05-26

Mr. CLANCY asked :: What costs have been paid in each case! by the following persons or firms, in addition to the fines imposed, in the cases of the seizures of hinder twine, since the 1st day of JanuaryJ 1902 :-Wilbur Hutchinson, manager Fairchild 'Company, Winnipeg ; Alexander D. Nasmith, Wawanesa, Manitoba ; Lyttle & Jickling, Carman, Manitoba ; Charles Lunn, Winnipeg ; Blakeman & Scarth, Verdun. Manitoba ; E. H. Howes, Moosomin ; A. F. Reinecki, Regina, N.W.T.; J. W. Morton, Regina, N.W.T.; J. J. Heaslip, Alameda, N.W.T.; H. Donaldson, Winnipeg, Manitoba ; William Heath, Winnipeg, Manitoba ; W. G. McMahon. Winnipeg, Manitoba ; M. J. Wilson, Cordage Company, Chatham, Ontario ; International Harvester Company ?


Rt.   H@: So far as the department is aware, no costs were collected in those cases.


THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-INJURED CANADIANS.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is" it the intention of the government to do anything for those Canadians who have been permanently injured during the late war in South Africa ?
2.	In case such is the intention of the government, how and when will this intention be carried into effect ?


Right Hon.   S@: Under the terms of enlistment of Canadians for service in South Africa pensions were guaranteed by the imperial government at rates prescribed by imperial regulations, and fully understood at the time. So far as known, the imperial authorities have fulfilled their obligations in this regard. In addition to the provision just referred to, there has been a large fund raised in Canada, known as the Patriotic Fund, from which cases of special hardship have received generous aid. The government have been investigating the various cases with a view of determining whether any of them require special consideration on the part of the Canadian government. A conclusion will be reached shortly.


THE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.
Mr. KEMP asked :: 1. To what parts of the British empire does the preferential tariff apply ?



2.	What was the total value of imports under the preferential tariff for the year ending June 30th, 1903 1
3.	What was the value of free imports from countries to which the preferential tariff applies 1
4.	What was the value of dutiable goods, other than those which came in under the preferential tariff, from such countries ?
5.	What amount of the goods which came in under the preferential tariff, came through St. Lawrence ports, during the season of open navigation ?
6.	What amount came through maritime province ports ?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	(a) The United Kingdom ;	(b) The
British colony of Bermuda ; (c) The British colonies commonly called the British West Indies, including the following The Bahamas, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos Islands, the Leeward Islands (Antigua, St. Christo pher-Nevis, Dominica, Montserrat and the Virgin Islands), the Windward Islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia), Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago ;	(d) British
Guiana, British India ; (e) Ceylon, Straits Settlements, New Zealand.
2.	Total value of imports entered for consumption under the preferential tariff for year ending 30th June, 1903, was $37,614,505,
3.	The value of free imports from countries to which the preferential tariff applies for year ending 30th June, 1903, was $18,-7S3,4S0.
4.	The value of dutiable goods other than those admitted under the preferential tariff, which came in from countries to which the preferential tariff applies, during the year ending 30th June, 1903, was $7,224,844.
5 and 6. The amount of goods which come in under the preferential tariff through the St. Lawrence ports and through maritime province ports is not distinguished separately in the customs statistics.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I am compelled to ask again for the report of the Cattle-guards Commission, which I moved for over a year ago. At that time I had the promise of the premier that it would be brought down immediately, and the other day, when I called attention to the matter, the Minister of Railways asked me to make a formal motion for the return, which, he said, was all ready and would be brought down immediately. Since then three weeks or more have elapsed.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: I would ask the Prime Minister if he would lay on the table of the House a copy of the commission issued to Judge Winchester with reference to the proposed inquiry into the employment of American engineers and surveyors on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No objection.


Mr. KEMP.: 


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I would like to inquire of the Minister of Agriculture in reference to a return which I moved for some weeks ago in regard to the cheese-curing stations at Broekville, Woodstock and, I think, Sherbrooke. When I put a question on the paper with reference to these stations, the minister asked me to move for a return, and promised that it would be brought down immediately; but two or three weeks have elapsed, and it is not yet down.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER.: I hope to be able to lay the return on the table to-morrow.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to ask whether the government has any information as to when we may expect the report of the commission appointed to investigate a certain concession in the Yukon ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will try to give an answer to-morrow.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I would like to ask when those constituencies wrhich have not yet received their voters' lists may expect them ? Some of the constituencies got their voters' lists last year. The riding of Lennox has not yet received its list, and T suppose there are a number of other constituencies in the same position. I do not see why some constituencies should be supplied nearly a year ahead of others.


Wilfrid Laurier: I made a statement some time ago of the voters' lists which had been received and printed, and I do not know that the attention of my hon. friend has been called to that statement. I shall in, quire again how far the work has been proceeded with and let him know.


Uriah Wilson: Is it the intention to finish those of last year which were not printed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The statement is that the voters' lists are printed as fast as they come.


Mr. A. G. BELL.: What progress is being made with the return moved for on the 19tli of April, showdug the passes issued on the Intercolonial ?


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the third reading of the Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.
Robert Laird Borden: The contracts which, in their amended form, Mr. Speaker, have been submitted to parliament for ratification during the present session, are of a somewhat complicated and extraor dinary nature ; and although we have occupied a good many days in discussing their provisions, I think it necessary at this stage to go over some of the ground perhaps already traversed and to submit certain considerations to the House and the country. I have said that this contract,

as embodied in the amended agreement, is of a somewhat complicated nature, and I think I am not far from the mark in believing that not many members even of the cabinet, understand it thoroughly, while very few of their followers pretend to have studied it at all. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmer-son) may thoroughly understand it, but up to the present he has not given us any light on the subject, and we are entirely in the darrk as to the construction he puts upon its various clauses. We have been told by lion, gentlemen who have supported this ministry, one of whom is supporting it at present in this House, that all these matters are decided in caucus and that all discussion in the House is absolutely idle and unnecessary. That was in effect the language of the late Mr. Jamieson, who at one time represented in this House the city of Winnipeg, and it is the language used only very recently by the hon. member for the city and county of St. John (Mr. Tucker), who told the people of St. John, in so many words, that all these/matters are decided in caucus and that discussion in the House is absolutely futile and unnecessary. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not so regard the institutions under which we are carrying on the government of the country ; , and therefore, notwithstanding that these agreements have been discussed at some length, I desire to add a few words.
I have remarked that not many members of the cabinet thoroughly appreciate this agreement, and even those of them who during the past four or five weeks have undertaken to discuss the subject have not always shown themselves thoroughly familiar with its provisions. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government told us even this year-and his remarks will be found on pages 2512 and 2513 of ' Hansard '-that the Grand Trunk Pacific is liable to pay three per cent oh lease of the eastern division. As a matter of fact, it is not liable to pay one cent.
The Minister of the Interior told us that the additional stipulations contained in the amending agreement do not impose one dollar of additional liability on the country, and his remarks in that regard were endorsed by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). Yet it has been demonstrated beyond a doubt that these amending provisions impose a very large additional burden of taxation upon the ratepayers of this country.
We also heard from the Minister of the Interior that the Grand Trunk Railway is! bound, under the terms of this agreement, to provide working capital and necessary betterments. As a matter of fact, the Grand Trunk Railway is under no legal obligation, under this agreement or otherwise, to provide any of the working capital for necessary betterments.
Having said so much to show that even by those members of the government who have 1124
given particular attention to the measure, its provisions are not always thoroughly understood and appreciated, let me come to analyse the proposition and see whether or not it is designed to carry out the object laid down by the First Minister when he introduced the measure last year. He proposed to establish a national transcontinental railway from ocean to ocean on Canadian soil, and to do that for a certain reason,-that reason being the danger, of which he appeared then to be convinced, but of which we have not heard him say much since-the danger of the abrogation by the United States of the bonding privilege. How does the government propose to attain the object which the right hon. gentleman has in view? Let us consider for a moment what the proposal really embodies.
It is intended to accomplish this result by the following means. In the first place, we are to build the difficult portion of the line, about 1,900 miles from Winnipeg to Moncton, at a cost of not less than $76,000,000. Then we are to give this portion free to the Grand Trunk Pacific for ten years, without interest or rental. We are then to lease it for forty years additional to the Grand Trunk Pacific at a rental of three per cent, which will probably be less than the interest the government will have to pay on the cost of construction. And although we have asked the government to amend this-provision so as to provide that the country shall receive in the shape of rental at least as much as it pays in interest, that amendment has been voted down.
They next propose to grant running powers to the Grand Trunk Pacific for fifty years additional over the eastern division, or in the alternative to give a lease for fifty years additional after the period of the first fifty years shall have expired. In other words, the Grand Trunk Pacific is to have a lease or control by running powers for at least one century over the eastern division.
In the next place, the government permits the company to control all terminals on the eastern division, so that the government must eventually concede any terms which the Grand Trunk Pacific may dictate at the expiration of the lease. Then they permit the Grand Trunk Pacific to build branch lines from the eastern division to important strategic points and to retain such of these lines as are profitable and force the government to buy such as shall be found unprofitable.
Following this, it has been agreed apparently-if we may judge by the language of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays at the meeting of the Grand Trunk Railway shareholders-to subsidize lines from the eastern division to Port Arthur and North Bay, although the Prime Minister has admitted that the freight which goes to North Bay must necessarily go thence to Portland.

In the next place, the government refuse to impose on the Grand Trunk Railway stipulations which would prevent that company from carrying western freight to Portland. That subject has been brought to the attention of the government over and over again. First by one and then by another amendment, we have asked the government to impose on the Grand Trunk Railway those stipulations which they regard as of so much importance when imposed upon the Grand Trunk Pacific, and in every case, for one excuse or another, our amendments and requests to that effect have been voted down and refused.
Then the government has refused to take such powers as would enable it to prevent the Grand Trunk Railway from unfairly apportioning the rates as between its system and the system of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
In the next place, it has so framed this contract that the Grand Trunk Railway Company can acquire, hold and utilize terminals so as to place the government absolutely at its mercy on the conclusion of the lease.
In the next place, the government has left it open for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry Canadian through traffic either via North Bay, or via lake ports, or via Chicago to its terminals in the United States. That is beyond doubt. It cannot be controverted. We have the declarations or I should say we have the admissions o? the ministers of the Crown to that effect.
In the next place, the government has permitted the Grand Trunk Company to expedite the surveys of this line from North Bay to Winnipeg, with a view to the early construction of that line, so that channels of trade reaching to and connecting with the United States terminals of the Grand Trunk railways will be established to the detriment of the eastern division and to the detriment of the country, and especially to the detriment of the maritime ports of Canada. The right hon.. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has sometimes at least, been very frank as to the effect of this contract. For example, at page 1630 of ' Hansard,' quoting us of the opposition, he represents us as saying :
We cannot support your scheme ; but while we cannot support your scheme we ask you to support our scheme tor bringing the traffic from Winnipeg to North Bay

And then he interjects :
*-and surely then it will go to Portland.
Further on, he says :
For my part I have read his speech

He is there referring to myself.
-I have read his speech carefully, and I must say-it may be my fault and I shall be glad to be illuminated-if he will explain how, having brought the freight from the west to North Bay, he can send it on to St. John and Halifax, over the Grand Trunk, I will be glad to hear him.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I promised my right hon. friend some answer with regard to that, and I will answer him now. That freight which comes from west of the great lakes to North Bay can be carried to the national port? of Canada on the St. Lawrence or in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick if you extend the Intercolonial westward to North Bay. In that way you secure, and in that way alone, I believe, can you secure the carriage of western traffic to the national ports of Canada on the St. Lawrence and in the maritime provinces. But, if the right hon. gentleman thinks that traffic carried to North Bay will assuredly go to Portland, how is it in the first place that he is authorizing the Grand Trunk Pacific to build a branch line to North Bay ; and how is it, in the second place, that he has allowed to stand without contradiction for two months the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that that line is to be subsidized by this government as well as by the provincial government of Ontario ? If that line is so to affect the traffic of this country to the detriment of our national ports, why is it the policy of the government not only to permit the building of that line, but to encourage and aid the building of it by the granting of a very ample subsidy?
I am corroborated to a very great extent by certain utterances in the past-not in the very recent past-by my hon. friend the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). For, although the hon. gentleman's voice has not been raised in this House very strongly in favour of government ownership during the present session, yet the time was, and not so many years ago. when that hon. gentleman thought that the salvation of our national ports in the maritime provinces was to be found in the extension of the Intercolonial to Georgian Bay. An! let me say that a great many of these gentlemen who in days gone by-and not so very long gone by-were agitating government ownership, and almost staking their political lives upon their belief in that policy, are now strangely silent in this House, and their only answer when that policy is advanced by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House is to suggest, forsooth, that those who advocate that policy are not sincere. Well, if anything is to be said about sincerity, one would think that the reproach would rather lie at the door of those, who, in days gone by. when this was not so much an issue in this country, were loud in their professions of faith, but who now find the shackles and fetters of party discipline altogether too strong for the expression of what I cannot but think is still their sincere faith. None of these gentlemen, and especially none of those who have been elected as so-called independents, should make any suggestion as to lack of sincerity. These gentlemen had better square themselves with their past

professions before attempting to read a lecture on the virtue of sincerity to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
But I must come hack to my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) who has made a very considerable study of railway subjects, I believe. Let me refresh that hon. gentleman's memory as to what his policy and his faith were in days gone by. The hon. gentleman may have forgotten a letter which he wrote to the editor of the Toronto ' Globe ' and which was published in that newspaper on January 11th, 1899. I attach importance to his remarks because at that time he represented the constituency of Halifax and was speaking from a maritime standpoint, and especially from the standpoint of the port of Halifax. I quote a portion of his letter only :
I hope that if any possibility is presented of accomplishing such an object, the government will not lose the opportunity.
The object, as will be seen by the context, was the project of .extending the Intercolonial to Georgian Bay. He continues :-
The extension to Montreal was simply the logical sequence of the purchase of the section between Ldvis and Rividre du Loup and the extension to the waterways of the great lakes would be a still further and equally logical sequence of the steps already taken	
I believe that my hon. friend (Mr. Russell) during the present session has manifested a very great disbelief in the policy of government ownership. He has suggested that any person who expresses a belief in the possible advantages of government ownership cannot really be sincere. He thinks that those of us on this side of the House who have to some extent advocated that policy have done so altogether without sufficient study of the question. Yet, he possesses so high an opinion of his own ability that he fully believes that five years ago he was in a position to advocate this policy, and that we. after five years have intervened, and after we have been studying the question in that intervening period, are not in a position to pronounce on a question on which he was fully able to give an opinion five years ago. Thus, he does not seem to be unduly modest. But let us proceed further with his remarks.
It is a worthy aspiration for us to cherish that the mighty and ever swelling stream of Canadian commerce should not continue to flow for evermore for the enrichment of alien cities.
My hon. friend was full, then, of good strong Canadianistn. He had sympathy with the maritime ports, a sympathy which seems strangely to have deserted him in these latter days. He continues :-
The day must come if we are not to prove recreant to the ideals with which we entered upon our national undertaking, when the Intercolonial Railway will be the wTiole year
round carrying the produce of our western fields through the gateway of a Canadian port for shipment to the millions of Europe	
Mr. Blair explained a few days ago to the Halifax Board of Trade how improbable it was that either the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific would hand over to the Intercolonial at Montreal any considerable portion, if any portion whatever, of the traffic originating on those lines. The grain carried as far as Montreal by the Canadian Pacific when not shipped at that port will continue to be carried over the Canadian Pacific until it reaches its ocean terminus at St. John, and the traffic originating on the Grand Trunk will under like circumstances continue to be carried over the Grand Trunk until it reaches its ocean terminus at Portland. The Intercolonial must as to this class of business for ever continue to play second fiddle to these great company lines until it can establish a connection that will plant it right in the heart of the great distributing centres and emporiums of tho west.
Not until then will it ever be in a position to compete on even terms with its rivals for the grain-carrying business of the Dominion.
And now I commend to my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) and to these gentlemen on the other side of the House who have ridiculed the purchase by this country of the Canada Atlantic Railway, the passage which immediately follows. It is this :
If anybody can suggest a better move in this direction than the acquisition if necessary of the Parry, Sound road, he should have the floor	
My hon. friend (Mr. Russell) apparently could not find any one else to take the floor and so he took the floor himself and proceeded to demonstrate that what he had pronounced perfect wisdom a few years ago is now the most absolute folly. But he continued as follows :
.... Give us a through line to the grain distributing centres of the west, and the country will no longer be beholden to a company road running through a foreign territory, nor pay tribute to the seaports of a foreign country. We shall have for the first time in our history all the year round an all-Canadian route for the transportation of the harvests of the Dominion to the markets of the world.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has. however, developed a theory on this subject, which is worthy of attention and to which I propose to give attention for a few moments. He said speaking in this House during the present session, as reported at pages 2510 and 2511 of ' Hansard [DOT] '
We cannot undo the past altogether ; Portland has been made the winter terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I do not expect that they are going to abandon what they have. I expect, on the contrary, that Portland will serve the Grand Trunk as a winter port for the trade that they now have. But I expect that the trade of the future which is to be gathered by the Grand Trunk in the west will be brought down to some Canadian har-

bour on the Atlantic shore. At all events that is our policy.
Now it may be the policy of the right hon. gentleman and it may be his sincere desire blit will he or any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House point out to me how it is that you are to have the traffic at present gathered up by the Grand Trunk Railway Company carried to Portland and how, at the same time you are to have the new traffic which they will gather in the west carried to our Atlantic ports ? That is a proposition which I for one am absolutely unable to understand. Let me point out that not one syllable or suggestion of that kind is to be found in the language of the magnates of the Grand Trunk Company at their meeting. Sir Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays distinctly point to the conveying of traffic across the Great Lakes and to the Grand Trunk handling that traffic and carrying it and routing it in exactly the same way as they handle and carry and route their traffic at the present time. There is not a syllable or suggestion of any abandonment of their former policy. The traffic which they get from the west at the present time is carried to Portland. They bring it across the great lakes and their railway takes it at certain ports on the east side of the lakes and they carry it to Portland as their winter terminus. How are you to distinguish what they gather up in the west at the present from what they will gather in the future, and how are you for one moment to believe that any portion of that additional traffic which they will gather up in the west shall be taken to any other terminus than that to which is carried all the traffic they now control? The suggestion seems to me to be absurd and laughable. There cannot be any question about it. They carry to Portland the trade that now comes to them from the west, and they will carry to Portland in the future the trade which they gather in the west by means of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I challenge my hon. friend to point to any reason that should lead us to believe that western traffic which as Mr. Hays says will come across the lakes or to North Bay will be carried to the maritime ports of Canada.
Indeed, the traffic carried by the Grand Trunk Railway at the present time is not delivered to the Intercolonial under an agreement of which we have heard a great deal in days gone by, and thus it is not carried to the maritime ports of Canada.
There cannot be much doubt about where it is profitable for the Grand Trunk to carry this traffic. We have some interesting admissions on that point by three members of the government and I think that all who know railway corporations can certainly agree in this very reasonable proposition that railway corporations will carry freight to the point which will afford them the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
most revenue. They will use that route which is the most profitable to them and will influence the shipment of grain or any other commodity' along that route which will be of most importance to them from a revenue paying standpoint. There cannot be any doubt about that; it is admitted and conceded by all of us. Now I had a little discussion on this point with my hon. friends the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance last year. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice was very frank about it. He said in debate last year :
Our great competitor in the English market is the United States, and for six months in the year, yes, for seven months in the year, we are depending upon our chief competitor for an outlet to that market for our Canadian products.
The Minister of Justice so absolutely overlooked our maritime province ports that he declared we had no winter port in Canada and that the traffic must therefore go to Portland. I must remind him once more that we have some of the best harbours in the world in the maritime provinces and that these harbours are open all the year round and are ready to do business all the year round if the policy of this government will enable them to acquire that business. He went on :
Is that wise or is it prudent ? How can you get out from Montreal in winter except by way of Portland or Boston or New York ?
I point out once more that you can get out by Halifax, St. John, Sydney or half a dozen other ports. He continued :


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Halifax competing with Portland ? It is double the distance practically.


Mr. BROCK.: What is the use of talking ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What is the use of talking ? Can we shut our eyes to geography ? Can we shut our eyes to facts ? How much of the trade of Montreal has gone to1 Halifax ? How much grain has gone from Montreal to Halifax or to St. John ? How much of our food products have gone that way? Invariably they have gone to Portland or to Boston or to New York. As Portland is to the Grand Trunk Railway so Boston is going to be to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
That is the view the Minister of Justice took. He directly declares that the maritime ports must be ignored and disregarded. As to present traffic conditions I do not think that so far as St. John is concerned he is accurate, because the Canadian Pacific Railway has done a larger business with St. John this year and made larger shipments from St. John than at any time in the past. I believe that the bulk of their ocean traffic has gone there. The Minister of Finance discusses the matter in the same way :


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They might 'carry it to Portland if they were perfectly

free ; but under the present contract they are obliged to give the same rate to St. John or Halifax as to Portland.


Robert Laird Borden: They will give the same rate, but it will be to their interest to carry it to Portland.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Undoubtedly they would make more money by carrying it to Portland, but we do not intend to permit them to carry it there.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the restriction to prevent them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: By the fact that the Canadian rate is not greater than the American rate, and we will trust to the patriotism of the Canadian shipper that when the rate to a Canadian port is not greater 'than to an American port, he will ship by the Canadian port.
Now, I have cited that for the purpose of showing that ministers of the Crown are not altogether in agreement with each other. The hon. Minister of Finance relies in the ultimate result upon the patriotism of the Canadian shipper.


Mr. FIELDING.: At an equal rate.


Robert Laird Borden: these concessions obtain from the government either relief from the payment of this rental or a new agreement in regard to the terms upon which it shall continue to operate that railway.
Let us now look for a moment at the contract proposed by the government in so far as it affects the western division. Comparisons have been made by those who, 1 suppose, have no better argument, between the proposal which is now submitted to the country and the agreement which was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company some twenty-three years ago. We are told of the land grant, we are told of the cash subsidy, but I do not recollect that any of those hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who have discussed the subject ever remember that their own political friends, the administration of the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, made a better offer to any one who would be willing to build the Canadian Pacific Railway than the offer which eventually was accepted. Let us remember that as a starting point and let us remember that the conditions in the Northwest Territories of Canada were absolutely different at that time from what they are at the present day. There was not any one of these hon. gentlemen who now so loudly talk about the resources and the development of the Northwest who had one iota of faith in the future of that country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce had no faith in it. He had now, he says, great faith in it. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not then, in so far as I am aware, exhibit any faith in the future of that country. These hon. gentlemen we found decrying the country, and now, when the country has been developed and advanced by the very policy that they denounced, they' ventured to make a comparison between the terms which we then conceded to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the terms which are now offered to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Do not these hon. gentlemen who make that argument agree with the view of the hon. Minister of the Interior and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who have pointed out in glowing terms during the past session that the proposition now offered to the Grand Trunk Railway Company is perhaps the best railway proposition that was ever offered in the world. Do they not remember that the Northwest has been developed, that its value has been ascertained, that the splendour of that great asset is now realized by the people of this country, aye, and by the people of other countries and that it is under absolutely different conditions that we are now making a bargain with this company that proposes to construct a railway in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Let us remember that the Canadian Pacific Railway company Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
which they derided in days gone by, that railway which they said would not pay for the grease used upon its axle wheels, that company which they said proposed to construct a line through a country only fit to be the home of the bear and other wild animals now yields annual profits in the shape of net earnings to its shareholders of fifteen millions and over. Conditions are so absolutely different they make an absurd comparison when they compare this proposal and that which was offered to the Canadian Pacific Railway twenty-three years ago.
What does the government propose to do for the Grand Trunk Railway Company? In the first place let us always and constantly bear in mind that there has been an exhibition of shrewdness and skill in the framing of this scheme on the part of the Grand Trunk Railway Company which has never been surpassed before. The Grand Trunk Railway Company did not go into this scheme itself under its own name. It took good care to organize, as its president has stated, a subsidiary company ; and the advantage of that is this, that the subsidiary company, in which no capital at all will be invested, will make all the contracts and incur all the responsibilities, which it can very easily and very lightly evade, while the Grand Trunk Railway Company without committing itself in any way to the obligations of the' contract will obtain all the advantages and all the profits, by means of controlling the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and by means of the possession of its common stock, which it will receive at a nominal value, and which it will dispose of no doubt at a very considerable profit. Therefore the Grand Trunk Railway Company, under this scheme, occupies the enviable position of having all the advantages and all the profits, and incurring none of the responsibilities! or disadvantages.
Well, beginning at that standpoint-and it is a very excellent one for the Grand Trunk Railway Company-let us see what the government propose to do. In the first place, they propose to guarantee three-fourths of the'cost of 1,000 miles of the prairie section. In the next place, they propose to guarantee three-fourths of the cost, no matter what it may be, of the mountain section. In the next place, they propose to pay interest for seven years on the bonds which the government guarantee in respect of the mountain section. In the next place, they propose to permit the interest for three additional years on bonds guaranteed in respect of the moun tain section to be capitalized and added to principal. Then, on these sums, which must be advanced by the government during a period of seven years, the government exact no interest from the Company at all ; but during a period of from forty to fifty years that interest runs on until

eventually the bonds are paid. Further than that, the government agree to implement the bond issue on the whole western division in case the bonds shall be sold below par; and in that way, under the amended agreement, they materially increase the country's liabilities.
But that is not all, although one would suppose that in all conscience it was enough. The government agree further to pay four and a half years interest on the bonds guaranteed by the government over the whole western division, and to make that advance without interest for a period of about forty-five years. So that, summing all these up together, you see that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has certainly a very good proposition in respect of the western division. This payment by the government of four and a half years' interest is permitted because that will logically and naturally follow from the terms of the agreement. There is no foreclosure ; and entry into possession by the government cannot take place until the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is in default for five years ; and one can easily see that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will allow its interest to be in default for four and a half years, and after that will see that it is not further in default. Thus the government will have made an advance of four and a half years' interest, upon which it will receive no return whatever until the fifty years period has expired.
What next ? Formerly we had the security of mortgage. Now we have no mortgage. We have simply what was formerly a mortgage reduced to the security of an ordinary charge. We formerly had a first mortgage, while the Grand Trunk Railway Company had a second mortgage. Now the Grand Trunk Railway Company is placed on an absolute equality with the country, because when the government enters into possession and the interest on bonds must be paid out of the earnings of the road, the Grand Trunk Railway Company's bonds will participate proportionately with the bonds secured by the mortgage of the country. It must be borne in mind that I am putting this aspect of the question perhaps not quite fairly to the country, because, as a matter of fact, the Grand Trunk Railway Company's bonds would be in a better position than those guaranteed by the country, for this reason ; that there is no restriction on foreclosure proceedings by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, by the control which it exercises over the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, can always see that the earnings of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are applied in payment of interest on the bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and not for interest on the bonds guaranteed by this country. So that, as a matter of fact, although ostensibly the bonds are placed on an
equal footing, nevertheless in reality and in the practical working out of the matter, the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be in a better position than the government of this country with respect to the payment of interest.
The government has given up its right of foreclosure. In place of foreclosure, and title consequent on foreclosure, which could be secured formerly, it has simply a right of entry. That, instead of being an advantage, is a" liability, because it will be only exercised in case of default. That default will only take place in times of stringency ; and when those times of stringency come, the government entering into possession will be bound to see that the road is maintained and in operation. So that the right of foreclosure having been abandoned, the government has no effective remedy until after fifty years from the date of the bond issue. It obtains no running rights over the western division after the expiration of fifty years, although it concedes to the company such running rights over the eastern division. It assumes more than three-fourths of all the obligations necessary to build the road from Winnipeg to the coast, but secures absolutely no compensating advan-ages. It permits the Grand Trunk to obtain for very moderate support $25,000,000 of the common stock of the Pacific Company, while the government, for three times, ay. ten times that support, obtains not one dollar of stock or other compensating advantages. Indeed, the terms of this Bill and this contract would permit the Grand Trunk Railway Company to obtain the whole $45,000,000 of common stock, although as a matter of fact only $25,000,000^ are to be forced on the Grand Trunk Railway Company in return for what it calls its support, that support consisting of the deposit of $5,000,000, which the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company said will not cost his company one cent, and the guarantee of one-fourth of the bonds on the western division, which are secured by the mortgage of the road, and which are placed on an absolute equality with the bonds of the government. Then, last but not least, the government in return for all this secures no greater control of rates than that which is created by the general law of the land. So that, as I said before, there are absolutely no>
compensating advantages which can be called at all adequate in view of the enormous aid which this country is giving towards the construction of this railway.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question why this government, having last year made a bargain which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) declared to be fair not only to the people of this country but to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, after that -contract was thoroughly understood by the gentlemen representing that company, and after it was announced to the

people of this country months after parliament had prorogued that that contract would be carried out-it is an interesting question, I say, why these concessions have been made. One thing is absolutely certain, and that is that the government did not make them voluntarily. They have told us that themselves. I have their language under my hand ; but I will not weary the House with it. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Customs, the Minister of the Interior, have each declared that the government would have preferred the terms of the contract as it was approved last year, but that they could not adhere to the terms of that contract. They could not adhere to that contract because the Grand Trunk Railway Company would not permit them to do so.
The government take a somewhat supplicatory attitude with regard to this modified contract. They say : Do not blame us ; we did not want to make these concessions ; we preferred the contract as it was ; it was a fair contract, but the Grand Trunk Company has compelled us to make these concessions, and therefore .we are obliged to make them. Well, it is somewhat peculiar to have a contract, which was fan- to the corporation, amended by further enormous concessions to that same corporation, and to be told in the free parliament of a free people that these concessions were forced upon the government by this corporation. It is a strange condition of affairs, but it is a condition of affairs which is declared by no less than three responsible ministers of the Crown; and we are obliged to take their word for it. Therefore we must assume that there is some influence, which has apparently not been disclosed to the people of this country, and which compels the government to yield everything that the Grand Trunk Railway Company demands.
Mr. Speaker, I have run over thus briefly the provisions of this contract. I want now to say a word or two about the amendments which we have offered, and to make an observation or two on the reasons why we offered them and on the arguments which have been evoked from the government in voting them down.
I myself moved during the present session a resolution setting out our preference for a policy of government construction in place of the policy which the government is now advancing. My hon. friend from West Toronto moved another amendment demanding that the people of this country should be consulted before this enormous liability should be entered into upon terms so onerous to the country. That amendment was voted down-it is true, by a small majority-a majority of only 19, but still a majority sufficient for the purpose of carrying through this measure.
Our other principal amendments may be briefly enumerated. First, we moved an Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
amendment to oblige the Grand Trunk Railway Company to pay par for the common stock which it acquires in the Pacific Company. We moved that so as to prevent the rates payable by the people of this country in the future from being affected by watered stock, as they have been affected in the past, not only in this country, but in the United States.- I have been reading some works on the history of rates and the management of railways in the United States. I have not time to-day to go fully into that subject ; but there is not the slightest doubt that in the United States the amount of stock held by bona fide holders has influenced rates, and has been taken into consideration by those who have the control of rates in that country. We do not want any watered stock, and therefore we asked the government to oblige the Grand Trunk Railway Company to pay par for any common stock which it might acquire in the Pacific Company ; but the government called up its obedient majority, and voted down that amendment.
In the next place, we moved an amendment declaring that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, as it controls the Pacific Company, and as it will control it, ought to agree to carry out all the engagements of that company. Again our amendment wras voted down, although there seemed to be good reasons to support it Inasmuch as the Grand Trunk Railway Company obtain all the advantages under this contract, it ought surely to accept the engagements which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is nominally assuming.
In the third place, we moved a resolution providing that the rates for carriage between Canadian inland points should not be greater than the rates charged between the same points by any route not wholly Canadian. We demanded this ins order that traffic might not be diverted to United States lines south of Winnipeg owned or controlled by the Grand Trunk; and again our amendment was disregarded by the government and again voted down.
We asked that rates upon this line should not exceed the lowest rates between corresponding points by the Canadian Northern Railway, a fairly reasonable proposition ; because, apart from that, we have not any control of rates except that afforded by the general law of the land ; and the arrangement which the Canadian Northern Railway had entered into with the government of Manitoba seemed to afford some guarantee at least that the rates on that line would be fairly low.
In the next place, we moved a resolution that the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself should not in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly, permit, advise or encourage transportation of traffic by routes or at rates other than those in the said agreement provided ; and again the government called up its obedient majority,

355S
and that most important amendment was voted down. That amendment should not have been voted down if the government had at heart the interests of the national ports of Canada. The danger is not from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, because it has no terminals in the United States. The danger is from the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which has its enormous interests in Portland and Chicago. But when we asked that that company should be bound by the stipulations contained in this contract against the diversion of the traffic, every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, even those who shouted most loudly for the interests of our Canadian portsj, stood up manfully and voted down our proposal.
We moved an amendment that the government should have power to enforce a fair apportionment of rates between the Grand Trunk system and the Grand Trunk Pacific system, a most important amendment ; but the government called on their supporters to vote that down also.
We moved that the rental of the eastern division should be secured upon the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific. That also was rejected.
We moved that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should pay a fair rental for any temporary lease of the line from Winnipeg to North Bay. The government did not approve of that amendment and rejected it.
We asked by an amendment that the government should supervise any agreement between the two companies respecting the issue of stock by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and thus prevent the creation of watered stock. The government has made a most ignominous surrender with regard to that. Last year over and over again ministers of the Crown declared that the rates payable by the people of this country might be affected by the issue of stock. This year they have permitted the Grand Trunk Railway Company to do that which it was forbidden to do last year. Watered stock is now to be permitted under this contract, and our amendment asking that it should not be permitted was voted down by that same obedient majority which was relied on with regard to the other amendments.
We asked that the government should receive shares of the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company in proportion to the support given by the government to the enterprise-that the people of this country, who are giving three or four times the support to this enterprise that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is giving, should be considered in the apportionment of stock, that the interests of the country, as well as the interests of the corporation, should be considered. Once more the government called up their majority so worthy to be relied on, and voted this down.
We asked further that alien labour should not be employed in the construction of this railway except where the Department of Labour found it to be necessary. A newfound zeal for the interests of labour was then displayed by the government, and we are promised general legislation to that end. In the meantime, however, we have asked that a special stipulation should be inserted in this contract in order that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should receive notice that in the surveys and in the construction of this road preference must be given to British labour, and in order that those how controlling the surveys and the construction of the road should clearly understand that other things being equal the preference must be given to our own . citizens.
In the next place, we moved that the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific should not be placed upon the market unless issued payable at par. Surely that was reasonable. Surely it is not the policy of this government that stock issued at five, ten or fifteen cents on the dollar should go subsequently into the hands of bona fide holders at par, and stand in the fixing of rates as if it had been sold in the first instance at par. Surely the policy of the government is not a watered-stock policy ; yet that is the policy contained in this contract. In fact, so far as this stpck is concerned, it may be said that it is not even a good quality of water, and the simile has been used that it is only froth. A watered-stock contract is, however, what the government is submitting to us, a watered-stock policy is what they are advocating. If that be not the case, why did they vote down our amendment that the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific should only be placed on the market if payable at par V Is there any reason why the people of this country should be saddled down with rates raised to an undue point because the stock does not represent capital invested, but merely the profits of the promoters ?
In the next place, we asked that a provision be inserted to the effect that if the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific should divert traffic to foreign ports, any complaint thereon should be investigated by the Railway Commission, and be reported to parliament for action. If the government was sincere in saying that it desires to prevent diversion of traffic to foreign ports, it would have accepted this amendment, which is of the utmost possible importance to our national ports.
Then we moved a resolution that the prairie section should be completed within four years from the passing of the Act. That was voted down. Although time could not wait last year, the government was very anxious to have it wait this year.
We then moved an amendment that if the Grand Trunk Pacific should exercise its right to force on the government any unprofitable branches at the end of fifty years,

the government might take all or any of the remaining branches. In this way we desired to prevent this country being placed in the position of having to take and operate unprofitable branches without having the option of controlling the situation by taking also all the branches this company might find profitable. We further moved that the government should have haulage rights and running powers over the western division for the same period granted to the company over the eastern division. Both these amendments were rejected.
Then we proposed that the government should be empowered to expropriate the railway from ocean to ocean, upon paying fair compensation, and, in addition, we moved a further amendment empowering the government to do so in case these companies should not carry out the true intent of the agreement, or should combine, or conspire, to divert traffic to foreign ports. Some observations were made with regard to these amendments last night, and I desire to say that, with regard to this as well as any other company, I take the same position as I did last year. When last year I was advocating the empowering of this government to take over, if necessary, a certain portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I used this language :
In this connection it should be added that if, in the public interest, the whole or any portion of any great line of transportation can be more advantageously operated by the country than by a private corporation, then the same justification exists for exercising the right of eminent domain, upon payment of due compensation, as that which permits the government of a great railway corporation to expropriate the business, or property, or undertaking of a farmer, of a merchant or manufacturer.
My night hon. friend smiles, I do not know for what reason he would make any distinction between the two. The principle has been justified in the United States, In Great Britain and in this country, on the ground that it is in the public interest and in the interest of the -whole country, and I say I know of no reason why it should not be exercised in the case I have mentioned with all due regard of course to private interests, because in such cases you must not only be fair, but you must be generous to the person whose property is taken against his will. But so far as the principle itself is concerned, I say that it supports action in the one case as well as in the other.
I took that position last year with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I am prepared to take it with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. I make no distinction between the two, and I say that if the interests of this country should demand in the future that the government shall take over this undertaking and shall itself own the line which is to be constructed, to a very great extent, by means of the aid furnished by the public, this country should have no hesitation in doing so. And a provision of that kind should be inserted in the Bill, in order that the Grand Trunk Railway, the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and all others interested, may have due notice that this country is prepared to act upon those lines.
Perhaps we have not sufficiently realized in Canada that railways are, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope) the other evening, the great national highways of the present day. Except 1,551 miles of government railway in Canada, all our railways have been constructed and are owned by so-called private corporations, which, however, were created to exercise a public function, and in that connection I may quote to the House the words of the late President Garfield on this subject in the United States Congress :
Since the dawn of history the great thoroughfares have belonged to the people, have been known as the King's highways, or the public highways, and have been open to the free use of all on payment of a small uniform tax or toll to keep them in repair. But now the most perfect and by far the most important roads known to mankind are owned and managed as private property by a comparatively small number of private citizens. Yet, in all its uses the railroad is the most public of all our roads.
And to the same effect is the language used by the Interstate Commerce Commission on two occasions. First, in 1892, as follows :
The railroad is justly regarded as a public facility which every person may enjoy at pleasure, a common right to which all are admitted and from which none can be excluded	 The railroad exists by virtue of authority proceeding from the state and thus differs in its essential nature from every form of private enterprise. The carrier is invested with extraordinary powers which are delegated by the sovereign and thereby performs a governmental function. ... So far from being a private possession, it differs from every species of property and is in no sense a commodity. Its office is peculiar, for it is essentially public.
Again, in 1898 :
While railway transportation in this country is carried on by private capital, it is essentially. a government function. . . . The railway is, from its very nature In respect to the greater part of its business, a virtual monopoly. The essential feature of a government function or of a monopoly is that it excludes the idea of competition.
According to the last report of the Department of Railways and Canals, there are in Canada 19,077 miles of railway. From this are to be deducted 1,551 miles of government road, leaving 17,526 miles of railway, all of which were probably aided by the government. That aid, Dominion, provincial
and municipal, is as follows :
Cash, Dominion	$167,007,344
"	provincial	
39,884,584"	municipal	
12,661,527"	loan G.T.R.,	1855-57 ..	15,142,633"	other loans	unpaid	..	821,625Total	$226,517,713
So that we have in Canada to-day railways aided to the extent of $226,511,113. Besides this there are provincial loans and municipal subscriptions of stock, bringing the grand total up to $231,520,480, or $13,552 per mile for every mile of railway constructed in Canada. Besides this, there have been gifts to these companies of land aggregating at least 60,000,000 acres, or 3,500 acres per mile-lands which when given were worthless, perhaps, but some of which are now very valuable.
In bringing these facts to the attention of the country, 1 am not criticising bargains made in the past, but I am pointing out the enormous aid that these railway corporations have received, and I am suggesting that it is now time for us to pause and consider whether or not in the future we shall carry out the same policy, or whether we shall at least see to it that, in return for any aid afforded to railway construction, the country shall have some interest in the ownership of the roads and some share in the profits resulting from their operation. What returns have we at the present time from these enormous subsidies of money and land ? We have no interest in the roads which have been largely constructed from our own assets and no share in the evergrowing profits arising from the operation of these roads. These profits are, and must be, appropriated for the benefit of the shareholders. We cannot undo the past, as my right hon. friend has said. We cannot interfere with vested rights, and I am not suggesting that we should interfere with vested rights. But let me point out that in considering what is to be done in the future, we have the right to take into account what profits have been made by these companies so largely aided by the state in the past. During the year ending 30th June, 1903, the profits of Canadian railways were no less than $28,583,000. These are the roads that were aided by the country to the extent of nearly $14,000 a mile.
Consider also the amount of bonds and stock issued by the various companies. This is of importance, when we remember that the government are permitting in this very contract the watering of stock to an enormous extent. The issues of Canadian railways are as follows :-
Bonds	$424,100,762
Preferred stock .. .. 136,846,825
Ordinary stock		346,923,487
Total	$907,871,074
It is beyond doubt that the bonds did not realize full value. It is beyond doubt that the stock, to a very considerable extent was not paid for in full. But these securities are expected now to make returns to those who are bona fide holders. And when a question of rates comes before the Railway Commission, the holders of these securities
will be insistent that rates shall be so fixed that they may receive a fair return on stock for which they may have paid one hundred cents on the dollar although that stock in the first place may not have contributed ten cents on the dollar to the construction of the railways.
I do not minimize what these railways have done. I admit that they have done a great deal to open up and develop Canada. But we have to pause and consider whether a different policy in the past might not have brought about equally satisfactory results with greater advantages to the country. Suppose that we had undertaken, in the first place to build the Canadian Pacific Railway or some other great railway which yields an ample return; suppose that we make a very large discount for the alleged disadvantages of government ownership, should we not have had a fairly good paying property to-day, and might we not have had at least the same advantages that we now have in the opening up and devefopment of the country ? Could not even the splendid results which have attended railway enterprise in Canada have been gained with less cost to the country and with greater advantage to the country in the shape of a return of some revenue for the enormous public aid that has been given for the construction of these railways.
In North America, state ownership of railways has not made much progress. Perhaps, therefore, we may be overlooking the fact pointed out the other day by my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope) that, outride of Great Britain, Canada and the United States, the total railway mileage of the world is distributed as follows ;-owned by private corporations, 87,834 miles; owned by the governments of various states no less than 146,813 miles. Of fifty-two countries that have been considered in a very able argument presented to the Senate of the United States, forty-two have public railways, while but twenty-nine have private railways ; twenty-one have public railways only, while but nine rely upon private railways only. Let us look very briefly at the experience of one or two countries in this respect. And I am not now making an argument in favour of state ownership, but rather reminding the House that, perhaps, we in Canada have not very much considered this question, and have not looked, as much as wo might have done, to the experience of other countries.
In Belgium, the state owns 2,513 miles of railway, out of a total of 2,845 miles. The operation of these railways resulted in a profit in the year 1900 of more than $11,000,000. Freight and passenger rates have been reduced more tha 40 per cent. A report on the administration of railways in Belgium made to the Royal Commission of Great Britain, states the result thus-and I am quoting from page 464 of Mr. Jeans' work on railway problems.

of government ownership in so far as the Intercolonial is concerned. On the contrary I think there is a stronger sentiment than ever in the minds of the people of Canada in favour of retaining and operating the Intercolonial Railway as a government railway of Canada. By the extension of that railway westward it could do a profitable.business. Its lines in the province of Nova Scotia and southern New Brunswick are profitable and paying although operated at a low freight rate. This line from Montreal westward would be even more profitable. These two profitable portions would ensure fair average results upon the whole system.
Let me point out to my right hon. friend that, if the press is to be believed, a very strong protest has been made by gentlemen in the west, some of whom, I believe, have been supporters of his own party in the past, against putting to one side any idea of government ownership in connection with the proposed transcontinental railway. I do not know whether this document, which I have observed in the ' Citizen ' of this morning, is authentic, but it contains some very cogent language from which I shall quote a few words :
The remedy lies in railways under public ownership and operated by a non-partisan commission. The Intercolonial should be freed from the spoils system, placed under such a general manager as Sir Thos. Shaughnessy, Mr. Hays, Mr. Whyte or other efficient railway administrators, and extended to the Rocky mountains and the Pacific ocean.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad I have the support of some of my friends on the other side of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: 

best, in fact the only effective mode of preventing division of our traffic ; we enable the people as a whole to participate in the growing prosperity of the country and in the advantages; accruing from its increasing commerce. In all these respects our opportunities will be multiplied one hundred fold.
There are those who are alarmed at the prospect of government operation of railways. I am not insensible to the fact that there are certain difficulties, possibly certain disadvantages attending state ownership of railways. But, Sir, we have to choose at the present time when this contract is placed before us, and let us remem-her that even if we build this line there is nothing to prevent us leasing it for a limited period, until public sentiment on this point is more fully developed in Canada. And if we should lease that line, built and owned by the people of this country we should undoubtedly be able to lease it on much better terms than have been secured for the people of this country with respect to the eastern division. If from the eastern division we have secured a rental of three per cent, surely for that splendid profitable western division we could secure a very much higher rental. But, Sir, I believe that by the time we would have this road constructed from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the growing sentiment of the people of Canada would have reached the conclusion that that road, constructed by the people of this country should not only be owned, but operated by them. That is the point to which I believe public sentiment will have arrived in this country, even if this road shall be built by the government with all possible expedition.
The government is driving this measure through parliament, not by the aid of a reason or argument, but by the mere force of its submissive majority. Not one man in ten of the government supporters has taken sufficient interest in the measure to make himself thoroughly acquainted with it in all its details. The Grand Trunk has decided what the government must do, and the government has decided what its supporters in parliament must do. The Grand Trunk thus dictates to the government and through the' government to the country.
Before committing the country to an enterprise which will .increase- our national obligations by more than fifty per cent; which will so pledge our future resources as to prevent any great scheme of national transportation for many years, and which will probably destroy the Intercolonial Railway, and will indefinitely retard any advancement in state ownership ; before doing this, constitutional usage demands that the government should submit the question to the people. We have moved an amendment to that effect which has been voted down. The government has no mandate from the people to engage in this enter-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
prise, nor has it any legitimate authority to deny an appeal to the people. It has no justification to refuse to listen to the voice of the people. It proposes at all cost to force this measure through parliament and upon the people. It proposes then forthwith to enter into binding contracts, and to thus stifle the voice of the people, even if that voice should be raised with no uncertain sound against this measure. I have heard all throughout the country ; I have heard from Cape Breton in Nova Scotia to the western part of Ontario, what the government propose to accomplish by means of this stroke of political genius. I have heard on every hand of what the supporters of the government have been saying as to the resources which would be placed at the disposal of the government in the approaching campaign. These things have not been said in the closet, they have been said upon the house tops ; in every part of the country I have visited I have heard, them. But Sir, considerations of that kind are not sufficient to stifle the voice of the people. No one can tell in advance what the verdict of the people will be. If that verdict should be against the government, the design of the government is nevertheless that the will of the people shall not be regarded, and that the will of the Grand Trunk Pacific magnates shall prevail.
To this, Mr. Speaker, we now enter our strongest demur. Against it we now formulate our most solemn protest. We do not propose that the voice of the people shall be stifled, and we declare that if the Conservative party is returned to power at the next general election, it will enact such legislation as will enable the will of the people to prevail over the will of this corporation, however great and however powerful it may be. The people of Canada, if they realize their own strength, are and will be greater than any corporation-greater than all corporations. They may not have the same organization or the same capacity to combine, but their power when exerted to the full is at all times irresistible. If it is the will of the people of Canada, as declared by their voice at the next ejection, that another railway from ocean to ocean shall be built, owned, controlled by the people of Canada, and not by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company;-if it is the will of the people that we shall assume not only nine-tenths, but ten-tenths of the obligations necessary to construct another transcontinental road and by that means own and control a national railway highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific-the Conservative party if returned to power, is prepared, in accordance with the will of the people so expressed, to place upon the statute-book of Canada such legislation as will enable that result to be accomplished with the least possible delay.
It is for the people to decide. We shall abide, indeed we must abide by their ver-

diet. But let them understand that they have the absolute choice ; let them understand that the door is not yet closed. By expropriation, or by any other fair and just policy we shall carry out the will of the people. Let the people determine whether Canada shall have a government-owned railway, or a railway-owned government.
The sanctity of contracts demands that the legitimate rights of the promoters of this undertaking should be respected. There must be no repudiation. They shall not be put to any loss, but at the same time the country shall not be required to pay to them any prospective or speculative or unreasonable profits. If they see fit to join with the government in driving this measure through parliament by the aid of an obedient majority, they must take that course with their eyes open, and with the understanding that the right of the people of Canada to a voice in so great an enterprise is not to be denied and will not be disregarded.
Against the Grand Trunk Railway we harbour no ill-will. It is entitled to, and it shall receive the fullest justice at our hands. By that justice it shall receive such running rights over the extended government lines as will give it complete and ample access to the Northwest. But these rights must be accompanied by stipulations adequately conserving and protecting the public interests, and especially the interests of our great national ports.
Having said so much, I now move the following resolution, which is designed to express, in connection with those already moved, the policy which the Conservative party will carry out in attempting a solution of the great problem of national transportation. I move, seconded by Mr. Hag-gart-seconded by Mr. Kemp rather-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Explain.


Robert Laird Borden: I will explain. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) will give hearty support to this motion, and as hearty an endorsation fo what I have said, as any hon. gentleman in the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Nevertheless, as I placed in his hands a resolution which I have asked him to move, and as he could not move that resolution if he seconded this, I have asked my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Kemp) to second this resolution instead of my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart).


Mr. BENNETT.: Laugh now.


Robert Laird Borden: That was the observation which I made to my hon. friend from Lanark, when I spoke to him just now in a low tone of voice, and therefore the catcalls which emanated just now from my 113i
hon. friend the Minister of Finance, were quite out of place. I therefore beg to move :
That the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be resolved :
That the Bill proposes to ratify and confirm agreements imposing upon the country enormous obligations for the construction of a Transcontinental Railway, a large portion of which is to become the property of a railway corporation, to whom the remaining portion is to be leased for fifty years on terms onerous to the country.
That the obligations undertaken by the country under the proposed agreements will provide almost wholly for the cost of constructing the proposed railway, while the obligation assumed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company is comparatively small.
The House is of opinion that instead of ratifying the proposed agreements it would be more in the public interest that the Dominion should assume the whole obligation necessary for extending across the continent the present government system of, railways thereby completing a transcontinental railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific entirely owned by and under the control of the people of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, one year is but a short time in the life of a country, a parliament or a government, but sometimes it happens that within so short a space events occur which have much to do with the making of history. About one year ago it became publicly known that this government had entered into negotiations with some gentlemen of eminence in the railway world for the construction of a second transcontinental railway, and we shall do well if we look back in our mind's eye and recall the manner in which that proposal was first met. True, the matter had not yet been submitted to parliament, but parliament was advised by incidental remarks in this House and in the discussion in the Railway Committee upon the charter of the company which proposed to enter upon this work, and in the public press, of the views of the opponents of the government, and I am justified in saying that the general view of the opposition was against any proposal for the construction of another transcontinental railway. We were asked in the House and in the press, sometimes in triumphant tones, where was the mandate for this government to enter upon these negotiations for the building of another transcontinental railway ? We were told in the Conservative press, and in the committee in this House, that the people who were undertaking to devise means and ways for the construction of another transcontinental railway were simply unscrupulous company promoters whose aim was to make a raid on the public treasury. That was the attitude of the opposition less than a year ago. At that time, it was not a question of details. The bargain had not then been consummated. The contract had not been entered into. We were only at the first stage

of the matter. But the mere idea that the government was prepared to enter into negotiations with eminent railway men for the construction of another transcontinental railway wag met with taunts and jeers and with the statement that we were simply endeavouring to promote the schemes of unscrupulous people. That was the condition then, but what do we see today ? Hon. gentlemen opposite are, metaphorically speaking, tumbling over one another in their eagerness to show their desire for the construction of another line from ocean to ocean. We find them by motions and amendments, by declarations in the public press, at every stage of the discussion, declaring that they are not opposed to the construction of another railway but wish to express their disapproval of this, that or the other feature of the scheme. When the project was brought down to parliament, it was found that the scheme was so bold and comprehensive, so carefully thought out and guarded in the public interest, and entailed so small a charge, comparatively speaking, upon the public treasury, that these hon. gentlemen were amazed that the government should have been able to negotiate such a scheme. From that moment down to this the process of evolution-nay of revolution-in the minds of hon. gentlemen has continued until to-day they are out-bidding each other in their protestations of favouring, by one mode or another, the construction of another transcontinental line. That is the position in which they are now as compared with that which they occupied a few months ago. My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, felt himself impelled by those conditions to make a change of policy at a very early date. A very short time after the government proposal was brought down, and when it became known that it was going to accomplish great results at a very moderate cost, my hon. friend found it necessary to turn right about face, and brought down a scheme of his own to create something which he called a transcontinental railway.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman speaks of my having made a right about face and as having expressed an opinion against another transcontinental line. I am not aware of having expressed any such opinion.


William Stevens Fielding: I am speaking of the general attitude of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: And I have the right to assume that the leader of the opposition was in harmony with his followers.


Robert Laird Borden: WTho were those who expressed an opinion against another transcontinental line ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am speaking of the general attitude of the opposition, and I Mr. FIELDING.
can refer my hon. friend to the discussions of the Railway Committee and in the press of his party. I am speaking, not of any particular utterance, but of the general attitude of the Conservative party on the question at that time. If my hon. friend the leader of the opposition carefully refrained from taking any decided stand, it simply showed that he was waiting to see which way the cat might jump.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Might I ask a question ? Is there any truth in the remark that the Minister 'of Finance was likely to follow the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) and leave the cabinet on this question ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, and order.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection to answering. I rather like this questioning, but I did not quite catch what my hon. friend said.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Minister of Finance was contemplating leaving the cabinet ?


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend tell me who said so ?


Samuel Hughes: Rumour has it that the hon. minister himself said so.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I can answer my hon. friend by asking him his authority for the statement. If anybody said so, I give him the most unqualified contradiction. If my hon. friend will find the person who started the rumour, he can give him that answer. We brought down last year a contract dealing with this matter, which was carefully drawn, and as we think guarded the public interests very well. What happened at that time ? Hon. gentlemen opposite declared that it was a contract entirely in the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway. They declared that the people who negotiated that contract on the side of the government were either grossly incapable or grossly dishonest. They said that the Grand Trunk Railway had its own way in everything, that the contract was one which was only of value to the Grand Trunk Railway, and that we were giving that company a tremendous gift at the expense of this country. Now, we knew when we made that contract that we were dealing with men of eminence in the railway world, but we knew that we were not dealing technically with the Grand Trunk Railway itself. We had a contract signed by the leading men of the Grand Trunk Railway, the president, several of the directors, and the general manager ; and while we were convinced that these men were acting in good faith, we were quite aware of the fact that they were not authorized by any vote of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway to enter into any engagement. Therefore, as some portions of that con-

tract contemplated the doing of certain things by the Grand Trunk Railway itself, it became necessary, before any further progress could be made, that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway should approve of it.
When we came to deal with the Grand Trunk itself, we discovered that the company were not prepared to go on with the undertaking. This was not through any lack of good faith on the part of the gentlemen who made the contract. They had acted in good faith, and they believed, and had a right to believe, no doubt, that the contract which they had assented to in Ottawa would receive the assent of the shareholders of the company. And I suppose they had the more right to believe so in view of the representations made by bon. gentlemen opposite that this was such a profitable and valuable contract to the Grand Trunk Railway Company.	These hon. gentlemen had spoken of this contract as being all one-sided, declaring that we were making a great gift to the Grand Trunk Company. And yet when the Grand Trunk Company came to consider the matter by its board of directors and subsequently by its body of shareholders in London, we found that the company had so little faith in the statement of the hon. gentlemen op-Xjosite that they refused to accept as a free gift this contract which hon. gentlemen opposite said was full of profit for them. The Grand Trunk Company, no doubt, had followed closely the discussions in this House ; they had heard our side of the case-and we made the best argument we could in favour of what we believed to be a good contract. And the Grand Trunk people, no doubt, had followed the speeches of the hon. gentlemen on the other side. If they had accepted the statement of these hon. gentlemen that this contract was one-sided and all for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Company and to the injury of the Dominion, surely the directors of the Grand Trunk Company would have been delighted to accept it, and the shareholders would have been only too haippy to endorse their action. The Conservatives of Canada, who were educated by hon. gentlemen opposite to believe that this was such a profitable thing for the Grand Trunk, and to believe that we were giving the company such a generous present in the form of this contract, must have been astonished when they discovered that the Grand Trunk did not regard it in that light, but, on the contrary, believed that the obligations under that contract were such as would bring disaster to the Grand Trunk itself. When you compare the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite on that subject with the attitude of the Grand Trunk Company by its directors and shareholders, I think you must come to the conclusion that these careful, sagacious financial men in London did not put much faith in the views advanced by
hon. gentlemen opposite as to the great profit the Grand Trunk would make out of it. The hon. gentlemen opposite have quoted very frequently in this debate the utterances of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson in favour of the contract. Well, when we presented the contract to our shareholders, the parliament and the people of Canada, we naturally made the best case-we could for it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: 
James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) endorse Mr. Merlin's views '!


William Stevens Fielding: 
Mr. SPROULE.: I suppose the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) is aware that Mr. Allen expressed these views before these last concessions were granted ?


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Allen's memorandum was read after the last concessions were granted and at a meeting which was assembled for the very purpose of ratifying the contract as amended by those concessions.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not the fact that one of the directors intimated that Mr. Allen's memorandum was written before the last concessions ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson said that he hoped the later concessions had removed some of Mr. Allen's objections. But the fact remains that Mr. Allen's memorandum was read by his own son at a meeting of the shareholders called not only after the concessions had been made but called for the very purpose of considering and ratifying the contract thus amended. And it is evident that the concessions did not remove Mr. Allen's objections. Otherwise he would not have sent his son to the meeting to join in a protest. Now, what we learn from this is that we should not adopt extreme views. And, inasmuch as Mr. Allen on one side presented the extreme view that this contract was going to be disastrous to the Grand Trunk and we declined to believe him, equally we declined to believe the speeches of hon. gentlemen on the other side who presented the other view declaring that this was a disastrous scheme for Canada. One thing we do know-that the popular financial opinion or the moment was voiced by Mr. Allen rather than by Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, because, I am informed, immediately after the meeting, the Grand Trunk stocks were depressed on the London market. I have no doubt that if they have not already come up they will come up, because as the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) said last year the best kind of a bargain that you can make is a bargain where the interests of both sides are fairly considered and where both sides may be able to make a fair return for their investment.
Now we may consider for a moment why we are dealing with this matter to-day. The hon. gentlemen opposite have opened up the whole question, but in reality we are now met for the consideration of the amendments only. Let us see what they are. They were dealt with very fully in the committee and I shall not weary the House by dwelling on them at any length. The first one,-not the first in order, but I mention it first because it is the one which has been most discussed in the House-is that which relates to the common stock. In the original contract it was provided that the Grand Trunk Company should take and hold certain common stock. They came afterwards and asked that they might be permitted to pledge or use that stock in such a way as would assist them in raising money. We agreed on the understanding that they should retain a controlling interest in the stock. The concession is not of importance as regards any immediate interest; its only importance is in relation to the capitalization of the railway, in respect of the amount upon which dividends shall be earned and freight

rates be based. It bas already been pointed out in the debate that in the past the capitalization of a railway has been regarded as of particular importance, because of the experience which this country has had with another contract, not made by this government but made by the political party with which the hon. gentlemen opposite are associated. In the Canadian Pacific Railway contract there is what is called the 10 per cent clause. By that clause it is provided that until the company earns 10 per cent upon its capital the ordinary provisions of the Railway Act respecting the supervision of railway rates shall not apply. That has been regarded, especially in recent years, as a very objectionable condition and we know that the people of the Northwest have protested against it and have in the strongest manner asked that some relief be afforded. At this moment there is pending in the courts a suit for the purpose of determining what constitutes properly the capital of the Canadian Pacific Railway upon which earnings are to be computed. I do not for a moment presume to say what the decision may be. but I point out that there is this great difference between the former contract and the present one, that whereas there was such a clause in the former contract, the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, and it therefore became r, matter of importance as respects that contract to be able to determine what the capital is, no such importance can be attached to the question of capital in this contract because there is no 10 per cent clause. .In the case of the. Canadian Pacific Railway you have to submit the question to the decision of the courts in order that you may find out whether the capital upon which interest is to be earned and upon which freight rates may be based means the 25 cents on the dollar for which Canadian Pacific Railway stock at one stage was sold, or whether it means the whole dollar which the shareholders no doubt will claim to-day. That point has to be settled as respects the Canadian Pacific Railway, and if we had a similar clause in this contract it would be of vital importance to us to take care that no watered stock should be computed in the capital of the road ; but inasmuch as there is no 10 per cent clause in this contract, it is not of importance. I have pointed out before, and only repeat it now by way of record, that in the Railway Act of Canada we have the most unlimited and unqualified power to fix the rates of jthe Grand Trunk Pacific. There is no limitation such as the late government placed in the contract of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This Grand Trunk Pacific is to come as fully, as completely, as unreservedly, as respects freight rates,' under the control of the railway commissioners of Canada as the smallest railway within the Dominion. This point is of the utmost importance, because conditions which might have been necessary in the case
of the Canadian Pacific Railway with a 10 per cent clause are not necessary in this case when there is no such clause. Therefore while I myself would have preferred, for reasons which I gave in the debate last year, that that contract should have remained as it was, still the change that has been made is not open to objection as fully as the hon. gentlemen think it is. The hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) speaking of it to-day, made repeated references to watered stock upon which dividends would have to be earned and upon which freight rates would have to be computed. There is no possibility under the legislation respecting this contract for watered stock to be considered in the fixing of freight rates. The Railway Act, section 309, provides the fullest and most ample authority for the railway commission to inquire into all the operations of railway companies, and to find out not only their nominal capital, but to find out exactly what that capital represents, what good was done by the company with it, what value was received, and then the commissioners can judge what capital is to be the basis on which a reasonable interest will be allowed. Section 309 is lengthy, but if the House will permit, I will read it, because it has not yet been read during this discussion. This section provides :
The board may from time to time, by notice served upon the company, or any officer, servant or agent of the company, require it. or such officer, servant or agent to ' furnish the board, at or within any time stated in such notice, a written statement or statements showing in so far, and with such detail and particulars as the board requires, the assets and liabilities of the company-the amount of its stock issued and outstanding-the date at which any such stock was so issued-the amount and nature of the consideration received by the company for such issue

The amount and the nature of the consideration received by the company for such issue. ' They cannot take it at 25 cents on the dollar and, as in. the other case, ask to earn interest on the 100 cents which is the nominal value.
the amount and share of the consideration received by the company for such issue, and, in case the whole of such consideration was not paid to the company in cash, the nature of the services rendered to or property received by the company for which any stock was issued-the gross earnings or receipts or expenditure by the company during any periods specified by the board, and the purposes for which such expenditure was made-the amount and nature of any bonus, gift, or subsidy, received by the company from any source whatsoever, and the source from which and the time when, and the circumstances under which, the same was so received or given-the bonds issued at any time by the company, and what portion of the same are outstanding and what portion, if any, have been redeemed-the amount and nature of the consideration received by the company for the issue of such

bonds-the character and extent of any liabilities outstanding, chargeable upon the property or undertaking of the company, or any part thereof, and the consideration received by the company for any such liabilities, and the circumstances under which the same were created-the cost of construction of the company's railway or of any part thereof,-the amount and nature of the consideration paid or given by the company for any property acquired by it,-the particulars of any lease, contract dr arrangement entered into between the company and any other company or person,-and generally, the extent nature, value and particulars of the property earnings, and business of the company. '
Notv, Sir, with that section before them the Board of Railway Commissioners are clothed with ample power to inquire into the issue of all common stock, into the manner in which this common stock is received by the Grand Trunk and the value which they give to the Grand Trunk Pacific for that stock, the purposes to which the money so received-if the payment is in money- is devoted and the value in money or in any ether form of any assistance which the Grand Trunk Railway render in return for that stock. On every question of that kind the board of Railway' Commissioners becomes the sole and only judge and therefore there is no chance whatever for watered stock as a basis for freight rates.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, when you left the chair at six o'clock I had been'inviting the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the government deemed it expedient to propose to parliament some changes in the Grand Trunk Pacific contract of last year. I pointed out, Sir, that while we had a contract with eminent men connected with the Gfand Trunk Railway Company, including its president and chief officials, nevertheless, we were aware that the contract, before it could be carried into execution, would have to be approved by the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We had every reason to suppose that the arrangements made by the president and principal officials of the company would probably receive the support of the shareholders. As it turned out, however, difficulties occurred in that direction. A member of the board of directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company took exception to the arrangement, just as one of our colleagues in the ministry had taken exception on the other side of the case, and the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company came to us with the statement that they were not able to carry the shareholders with them in giving approval to the contract. Therefore, it became necessary for us to consider what course we should then pursue. We might have told the


William Stevens Fielding: directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the promoters of this scheme that we would stand on the contract of 1903 and that unless that contract would be carried out to the letter the whole arrangement would have to go. Wei might, on the other hand, have met the company in the spirit of fair discussion, to see whether we could agree upon some changes which would meet the wishes of the company without in any way seriously imperilling any public interest. The conclusion -the government came to was that it would not be wise to put in peril a great national undertaking to which we attached so much importance if amendments could be made of such a character as to meet the wishes of the company without any serious disadvantage to the Dominion. Hon. gentlemen opposite have interpreted that transaction in a somewhat unpleasant and by no means polite way. They have presented the state of affairs as being that the Grand Trunk Railway Company said :
' We must have these amendments,' and the government granted them. I suppose that could be said as respects a transaction between any two parties. What happened was that the two parties to this undertaking sat down to consider whether concessions could be granted that would meet the criticisms of the objecting Grand Trunk Railway people without seriously disadvantaging the interests of the government and the people of the Dominion. Now one would think from the tone of hon. gentlemen opposite that to propose changes in a contract originally made in a grave matter of this sort is something quite unheard of and necessarily very wicked and bad. Do we forget the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, that after the government of the day had granted many millions of money, that after they had granted many millions of acres of land, that after they had granted exemption from custom taxation, that after they had granted exemption from land taxation, that after they had granted exemption from railway competition, that after they had given to the Canadian Pacific Railway very nearly everything on the earth and in the waters under the earth, the Canadian Pacific Railway came back here in a few years and said that they would have to drop the whole undertaking if the government of Canada did not come to their assistance. Have hon. gentlemen forgotten that that great corporation at a very early stage in its history came back and said : Unless you can advance us $30,000,000 to aid this enterprise we are sorry to have to tell you that the whole thing will have to be given up. That was the position which was presented to Sir John Macdonald at that time. He had his choice. It may be that some ungenerous critic on the Liberal side did state that the Canadian Pacific Railway had s^id : Ion must do this and the government did it. But looking back over the transaction now, even those who differed from the gov-

eminent of that day would probably acknowledge that it was a wise step on the part of the government and parliament of Canada to come to the aid of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as they did at that time, and help them out in their great national undertaking. As it turned out the loan that was then made to the Canadian Pacific Railway was repaid to the government and the government and people of Canada lost not one cent on that account. But, it might have turned out otherwise. There was no guarantee at that time that the Canadian Pacific Railway would prove the great success which ultimately it did prove. The government of the day felt, and I think, looking back over it now, that we can say wisely felt, that it was not well to put in peril that great national undertaking if they could meet the cotnpany by granting some concessions that might seem fair and reasonable. It was in that spirit that this government met the people connected with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and sat down to negotiate for changes. Immediately before the recess I called attention to shie of these changes and I will now briefly proceed to speak of the others. The most of these changes are of comparatively little importance. There are only two of them that are of serious financial importance. The others were changes to which the Grand Trunk people attached some importance because they would enable them to remove objections from the minds of the shareholders, and because they would remove objections from the minds of timid capitalists, and we know that capitalists are always timid in regard to matters of this sort. For example, there was a proposal to increase the time for the completion of the road from five to eight years. We do not anticipate that the eight years will be exhausted, but the promoters of the company came to us and said : You are to have $5,000,000 of our money as a forfeit and you cannot expect us to obtain the assent of our shareholders to the forfeiture of that large sum of money unless we shall have the most liberal time for the completion of the road. They said that they did not expect to take eight years. They still believe that they will be able to complete the road in five years. But they said that for the assurance of their stockholders and for the assurance of timid capitalists it would be better to grant an extension of time to eight years, instead of the five years originally stipulated for the completion of the road. That concession we agreed to give them. I do not think that anybody in the House will regard it as a matter of very great importance. Then they asked that we should make arrangements respecting the leasing of the portions of our line that might be completed. Our original scheme contemplated the leasing of the eastern division to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It was provided by the Act that
any portions of the road which might be completed in the meantime might be operated by the commissioners. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company came to us and said : If you complete any portion of the road in the meantime we think you should give the lease to us, and we could offer no objection to that. We have no desire to operate this road at all. We object emphatically to the operation of this road as a government work. Later on I will be ready to take issue with my hon. friend, and if he is prepared-as he has not yet done- to come boldly out as the champion of government ownership and operation, 1 tell him frankly that as respects this great national work we differ from him, and we will carry our difference into the discussions before the people of this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You cannot help it.


William Stevens Fielding: What does my hon. friend say ?	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is Hobson's choice with you ; you cannot help it.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot understand my hon. friend.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: ' Nobody does.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friends over there speak for two railway companies who are in the habit of advising them what to do, but they must remember the homely adage:	that you should not measure
another man's corn by your own bushel. We had no desire to operate this eastern division, and inasmuch as we did not want to operate the road when completed, we saw no reason why we should not make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific for the operation of any portion of that road which when completed they might be willing to operate. In giving them that concession we gave them nothing which in any sense could be deemed a disadvantage to the people of Canada. Another amendment, and a very trivial one, is as regards the causes which might arise for the noncompletion of the road. In nearly all contracts of this character there are clauses providing that if, from the act of God, or the King's enemies, or because of floods, &c., a work is delayed, the contractors shall not he held to account, and in this case the clause did not include the word ' strikes ' among the causes which might delay the work. We saw no reason why we should not agree to insert the word ' strikes ' in this contract.
Then a question arose as regards the rolling stock. The company were under obligation to provide $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock of which the sum of $5,000,000 was to be designed for that eastern division. The company pointed out that while they were bound to complete the western division in a given time there was no time

fixed for tlie completion of the eastern division. We were building the eastern division ourselves, and there was no reason why we should bind ourselves to complete it at a certain fixed date, although it is needless for me to say that, subject to physical difficulties, that eastern division will be pushed forward with all possible speed. However, the Grand Trunk people pointed out that as there was no time limit fixed for the completion of the eastern division, it might possibly happen that if they finished their western division they would have their rolling stock ready for the western division, and we not having completed the eastern division would not be in a position to receive and make use of the $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock which they were bound to provide for it. I do not think it was reasonable that we should penalize the Grand Trunk Railway for a possible default of our own. We do not anticipate that there will be any such default. We fully understand that the eastern division will be pushed forward to completion as rapidly as possible, and we expect it to be completed as soon as the western division. If that be the case, then this amendment has no effect whatever. But if it should turn out from auy cause that they have finished their road before our road it finished, then we say that if they have provided $15,000000 worth of roiling stock under the terms of the contract, and if they ear-mark $5,000,000 worth of that as belonging to the eastern division, even though they cannot yet put it on the eastern division, we will regard that as a substantial compliance with the conditions of the contract. Surely no one would contend that we should penalize the company for a possible default of our own. That is the explanation and all the explanation that is needed as to the change in the contract with respect to the rolling stock.
Then, as to the foreclosure and sale. The company asked that no temporary default should lead to foreclosure, and that that power should, not be exercised by us until they should be five years interest in default. We thought that that was not an unreasonable request. In the ordinary relations between the owner of a house and another man who holds a mortgage on it, the mortgagee does not usually desire to force his friend and customer into difficulty by foreclosing the mortgage, because the interest may be for a time in default. In the ordinary relations of life a reasonable time would be allowed the mortgagor to overcome his difficulties and make good his default, and it generally happens that a foreclosure does not take place because a man may be one or two or even three years' interest in default.


Robert Laird Borden: But the power is -there.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. What we were asked to agree to was, that we would not exercise the power of foreclosure unless the default in the payment of interest should be for five years. As a matter of business between man and man, I think that was a fair and reasonable arrangement and no one in the country is going to be alarmed because we gave the company that assurance. Then as to the manner of foreclosure. In the original contract it was provided that we might take possession of the road in case of default, but in the amended contract it is agreed that as the government and the company would have an interest jointly, then, what I understand is the English system will be adopted, and the road will be pii t into the hands of a receiver, who will act as the representative of both parties and who will distribute the earning in proportion to the interest of the parties concerned. That does not seem to be a very grave or a very serious change in the original contract. Surely, when the Grand Trunk has an interest in common with us, we should be willing to see that the earnings are fairly distributed, and that while we have received our proportion the Grand Trunk Company should receive theirs. Their obligation to pay the interest on the second bonds still remains.
Another amendment is, as regards the running powers over the eastern division after fifty years. Why should we not give them running powers over the eastern division at any time ? Is not the whole design of the scheme that the eastern division should be a common national highway between the east and the west; is not the whole theory that we should give running powers to every railway company who desired them ? And, if the Grand Trunk Company after fifty years are dispossessed ; if the government then determines to take over the eastern division and not allow the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate it any longer, what possible objection can there be to granting running powers to them or to any other railway which is able to utilize the privilege ?
There is another change in the contract as respects branch lines after fifty years ; but we discussed that so recently that I would not be justified in enlarging upon it now. The Grand Trunk may during the fifty years of this lease build branch lines and when the government take over the road these branch lines will be useful to one party or the other. It may be that some of these branch lines would not be profitable to the Grand Trunk Pacific but would be profitable to the government as owners of the main line. I pointed out the other day that in the case of a short branch it would not pay the company to run it as an independent road, and what might then be an unprofitable transaction for the company might be a very profitable one for the

government who would be owners of the main line. In connection with that I may present the view that in this period of great expansion in the Dominion, with the splendid growth of our country, evidence of whch we see around us on every side, surely there is no one so lacking in faith in the future as to believe that fifty years hence any one of these branch lines would be unprofitable. I am sure that on reflection hon. gentlemen opposite will agree with me, that with the rate of progress our country is happily making, and especially our western country, the increase of traffic over all these lines must be such that it is hardly reasonable to conceive that fifty years from this date, any one of these branch lines could be regarded as unprofitable.	[DOT]
There are two remaining amendments and they are of some financial importance. One is with regard to the guarantee on the mountain seetion of the western division. In my calculation last year I was advised that 480 miles was the proper estimate of the mountain section, and I shall continue to use that calculation, although I notice that Sir Rivers-Wilson speaks of it in round numbers as 500 miles. As regards the prairie section, we guarantee three-fourths the cost of the road, not exceeding $13,000 per mile, and there is no change in the contract in that respect. But with regard to the mountain section 480 miles or 500 miles, our agreement of last year was that we would guarantee three-fourths of the cost not exceeding $30,000. It was roughly estimated that this part of the road would probably cost $40,000 per mile. We quite understood from the beginning that we would be expected to guarantee three-fourths of the cost, and the limit fixed was supposed to represent that. But we provided that if the road should cost more than $40,000 per mile, the Grand Trunk Pacific people had then to take that risk. The company came to us and said that this was regarded as a difficulty in the minds of some of their people. They said that the cost of the mountain section might prove to be more than $40,000. a mile, and some of their people were afraid that if the government were only to guarantee $30,000 a mile the Grand Trunk's proportion would be larger than they expected, and that prospect introduced an element of uncertainty.
They thought the element of uncertainty should be divided between the government and the company. They thought the government should agree to guarantee three-fourths of the cost, whatever it might be. Both parties will have an interest in seeing that that cost is not an extravagant one. Both parties will have a common object in seeing that the cost is kept down. But they proposed that instead of limiting our guarantee of the mountain section to $30,000 a mile, we should make it three-fourths of the
cost whatever it might be found to be ; and that amendment the government have agreed to make. That amendment involves us in some measure of increased obligation. Precisely what that increased obligation is I suppose must remain a matter of debate.
It was roughly estimated at first that the mountain section would cost $40,000 a mile.
I notice in the discussion that took place before the Grand Trunk shareholders in London, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson made reference to that part of the road as likely to cost $50,000 a mile, to which he added interest during construction, bringing the cost up to $56,000 a mile. We are inclined to think that is a high estimate. But let us frankly say that if the mountain section of the western division costs much in excess of the original estimate of $40,000 a mile, then to the extent of our proportion of the increased cost we are assuming an additional obligation. I do not think, however, that it is a very great obligation and if it maintains the proportions of three-fourths and one-fourth, we do not think the country will regard it as a very formidable charge.
The remaining clause of financial importance deals with the question of implementing the guarantee on the western division. When this contract was entered into, or perhaps it would be more correct to say [DOT] when the negotiations began about a year ago, the money market was in a fair condition ; and it was estimated in all the negotiations that a government guarantee bearing three per cent interest would probably sell at par. As the months rolled on, by the time the Grand Trunk people came to be in a position to discuss the matter in financial circles, the money market had taken a very unfavourable turn, and the company thought they -would not be able to raise the necessary money on a government guarantee of 3 per cent. They pointed out that if they had to sell the bonds below par, they would be to that extent short of the means to build the road, and they asked us to agree that the amount of aid we had agreed to give them in money should be in some shape made up. After some discussion, because it was a serious aspect of the question, we came to the conclusion that we would meet them in that respect, and would rearrange the financial affairs of the western division, so that they might expect to realize a sum equal to par from the sale of the bonds. The form in which that is to be done is not distinctly laid down in the agreement ; but, as we have pointed out during the debate, a rational and reasonable -way would be to implement the amount of the bonds to be issued, so that by issuing a larger amount of bonds at 3 per cent, the company would realize as a net result of the transaction a sum equal to par of the first amount. That is the way we have all assumed in the debate that the matter should be arranged, and I have no doubt

which in extent, I venture to say>
is unsurpassed in the North American continent, perhaps in the whole world.
*
I am satisfied that It is possible to establish a splendid national railway on the route proposed with the best ocean ports as its terminals. With a Rocky Mountain passage very much lower than that of any railway yet constructed across the North American continent, and with general engineering features even more favourable than those obtained on the Intercolonial Railway, such a line would give breadth to Canada and admit of settlements and profitable industries where such are not now possible.
I have another bit of testimony. My right l.on. friend the First Minister has said there are mountains of information on this subject, but we will be content with only a few hills to-night.
To-day, in the morning paper, I find a report of the evidence before the Transportation Commission by Dr. Bell and Mr. Macoun. Mr. Macoun'. after dealing somewhat with the Peace river country is reported as follows :
Mr. Macoun also gave evidence regarding parts of Georgian bay that he had visited. He stated that he had been with the expedition under Mr. Low that went to Hudson bay from Lake Winnipeg via the Berens river. The country through which the Berens river flows, he said, is very rocky. But at Trout lake, 54 degrees north latitude, a settler of seventeen years' experience had told him that he had never lost any crops through frost. The settler's cultivation extended to all the usual farm crops. Surrounding Trout lake there was an immense area over a hundred million acres in extent which was good agricultural land. Its climate was temperate on account of comparatively low altitude and summer frosts were very infrequent. Most of the country between Lake Winnipeg and Hudson bay, Mr. Macoun said, was practically unburned. He thought that a good deal of the land on the east coast of the bay was suitable for agriculture. At Rupert's bay there was no natural harbour, but at Richmond gulf the harbour was excellent.
In reply to a question the witness said that in the sub-arctic forest belt of Canada there were, approximately, 1,000 millions of acres of agricultural land.
Such is the information given us in general terms regarding that vast northern country. Some portions of this evidence refer to sections through which the road will run, while other portions refer to land lying further north. But if we have, north of our railway, great tracts of land that are good, then, by all means, the nearer we can get the road to these tracts the better. And, inasmuch as we are going to build a road further north than any other in America, we shall do something "to develop these tremendous stretches of land described in the words I have quoted from Mr. Macoun. Sir, one does not need the gift of prophecy to predict that, within the lifetime of men in this parliament to-day, the timber, the land, the mines, the waterfalls in that vast stretch Mr. FIELDING.
of territory will be the foundations upon which will be built villages, towns, and, possibly, cities that will stand as testimony to the wisdom of the policy that sends the railway through that north land.
Now, I have spoken so far of the attacks made by hon. gentlemen opposite upon the country between Winnipeg and Quebec, upon what I may call the western part of the eastern division. But, bad as that enterprise is said to be, bad as the policy of the government is said to be which holds out the hope of railway construction through that vast territory, there is a lower depth still to which this government have descended, for they have actually agreed to build a railway from Quebec down to the city of Moncton. Horror of horrors ! It makes the hair of hon. gentlemen opposite almost stand on end. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) prayed Heaven that the road might never be built. And up and down the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite has gone the cry that that road is the iniquity of iniquities.	Well, now, we can
make some allowance for hon. gentlemen from Ontario and the west for taking such an ungenerous view of the matter. Perhaps I should rather say we could have made some allowance last year, because they were not expected to understand eastern public opinion ; they were not expected to be as familiar as others would be with the condition of the provinces down by the sea. But, if we could make some allowances last year, we have less right to make allowances now, because, in the meantime, they have had the opportunity of learning a good deal about the matter. My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) last year took a good deal of pains to collect testimony as to the longstanding public opinion in the maritime provinces with regard to that road, and I may have occasion to allude to part of that evidence before I conclude. I say we can make allowances for the hon. gentlemen from Ontario and the west so far as last year was concerned, but not so much this year. But I confess that I have great difficulty in making allowance for my hon. friends opposite who come from the eastern provinces. They ought to have known better ; and, unless they are very much less intelligent than I take them to be-for I know that they are intelligent, able, capable men-I am bound to believe that they do know better. But when they sit quietly in their places and allow hon. gentlemen on their own side to create the impression that this road from Quebec to Moncton is an unheard of enterprise, a thing which nobody wanted and nobody believed in, then, they do not do justice to their own part of the Dominion. Why, Sir, for very many years, as far back at least as 1889, we have had an agitation in the lower provinces for the construction of a short line or railway from Quebec to Moncton. Yet, hon. gentlemen oppo-

site would talk as if it were something that nobody had ever heard of, a wild scheme which recently entered into the imagination of some crazy persons. Down in the maritime provinces, the newspapers, the boards of trade and all the ordinary avenues through which we receive expressions of public opinion have over and over again called attention to the desirability of this road. But my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. Ij- Borden) seems to think that it ife a bad scheme, that there is no good in it whatever. I notice that in the earlier stages of this discussion lie was willing to do something in the west. He was willing to build over the prairies, to build in some shape across to the Pacific ; but, when it came to this section Quebec to Moncton, all he would agree to do would toe to give a gracious consent to inquire into the question whether there was any merit in the scheme. And, in the omnibus amendment he moved some time ago there was no reference to the Moncton road. I think that is a very strange proceeding on the part of my hon. friend. He was ready to build through the west, through the mountains-anywhere but in the maritime provinces. I do not think that is a fair position for him to take. I do not think he should allow his friends from Ontario to drive him into such a position. *My hon. friend said that he would be good enough to kindly inquire-I do not know when, but some time in the distant and uncertain future, after he has built over the prairie and through the rockies-he would take time to inquire whether there was any merit in the Moncton scheme. And, if he could make up his mind that we were to build the Moncton section, it must be as part of the Intercolonial Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: Railway can make use of it we have running rights over the road as far out as Winnipeg. I notice, by the way, sneaking of running rights, that only last session lion, gentlemen opposite spoke most contemptuously of the idea of any company using , running rights over a large stretch of line. Nothing of the kind was possible according to them, but I notice that this year they complain bitterly that we did not get running rights over the whole line

to

 the Pacific ocean at the end of ttm-fiftT-rcnifi arrangement. If running rigfffs can be utilized in one case I cannot see why they could not in the other. In his reference to the Canada Atlantic my hon. friend is after all only falling back on the water stretches policy of Alexander Mackenzie of 30 years ago. When that policy was advanced the party opposite did not view it with very great favour. There was much to be said in favour of that policy as a temporary measure, but my hon. friends will remember that the Conservative party at that time had no words of praise for the policy of utilizing water stretches. We all agree that although the water stretches might have been useful at the time, an allrail route was necessary. It was necessary for the Canadian Pacific Railway ; it was necessary for the development of this country. If the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) had his policy respecting the Canada Atlantic carried out, the most that would happen would be that he would have a summer route; he would have connection with the lakes and would have some relation to traffic in summer. But it is not in summer that the maritime provinces expect to get traffic, and I fail to see where we are to get such a very large result from the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic as my hon. friend suggests, because when the winter comes the Canada Atlantic at the Georgian bay has no traffic to give to the maritime provinces and in summer it could only give traffic to Quebec. Thus while the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic has some merit, while it is desirable to have the Intercolonial brought into closer touch with it, and into communication with the steamship lines on the lakes, yet I quite realize that it would not give us the advantage which the Dominion demands. We know that if we have the water stretches policy we must also have the all-rail line, and that is the policy which this government are offering to the House. I have said that this policy of building a road through the maritime provinces from Quebec down to Moncton is by no means a new policy. As far back as 1889 or 1890, a company was formed for the purpose of constructing a line of railway, not from Quebec directly, but from Edmunds-ton, which is the terminal point of the Temis-couata road, running down on the Intercolonial as far as RiviSre du Loup. A company was formed to build that line from Edmundston to Moncton, a line which so far as it goes was precisely the line Mr. FIELDING.
contemplated by the present government scheme. We are making the scheme larger because instead of starting from Edmundston, and using the Intercolonial down to Riviere du Loup our policy is to start fr&m the Quebec bridge, run through the counties of Quebec until you turn the corner of American territory at Edmundston and down through the centre of New Brunswick to Moncton. As far back as 1890, this company was formed and an application was made by parties associated with the Grand Trunk company for a subsidy from the government. It is a matter now of history that the government of the day were well disposed towards that scheme. My information came from a gentleman who, I believe, knew the facts and he assured me that the government viewed the scheme with favour ; at all events the Prime Minister (Sir John Macdonald) favoured it. Ultimately the scheme was turned aside. It was believed that it was turned aside because another railway company objected to it. That is the common rumour, of course I have no special knowledge of it, but my information is that Sir John Macdonald favoured that line, and up to a certain point gave it encouragement though ultimately it was not carried out. That policy found much favour in ,the lower provinces. Public meetings were held, delegations were sent to Ottawa, boards of trade passed resolutions and all the usual methods of expressing public opinion were employed to-support that road, and yet 14 years afterwards hon. gentlemen stand up in the House and treat this as a scheme that nobody ever heard of before. Even more recently, Sir, we have abundant information as to the popularity of this scheme. Only last year when it was announced that the Grand Trunk Company were applying to parliament for legislation with a view of constructing a transcontinental railway, instantly the public opinion of the maritime provinces became aroused with regard to this old project of a new short line on British5 territory. In the various public bodies, in the boards of trade, nay in the very legislature of one province, the importan8eof the scheme was recognized. Pardon me if I read an extract. Hon. gentlemen opposite have derided this eastern division as a wild scheme and something undreamt of, of which no one ever heard before ; what will they say when I remind them, for it has been stated before, that last year when the Grand Trunk made this application and before the government had brought down its scheme, the legislature of New Brunswick by unanimous vote demanded that that scheme should extend down to the maritime provinces ? The motion was made by an hon. gentleman on the government side, Mr. Robertson, it was seconded by Mr. Hazen the leader of the opposition, and it was couched in the most emphatic terms. Here is the resolution :

Whereas the^&ata^-'rrrrrrk-Pftcifl.O- Company is now_jnaiiirg^applioation to the federal ~parlia-nSnt for the granting of a charter enabling the said company to build and operate a railroad, extending from the Pacific sea-board across Canada to the Atlantic coast, and in said application the city of Quebec is named as the eastern terminus of said railroad in summer, and no mention is made as to where the eastern terminus of said railroad is to be during the winter season.
Whereas, in the opinion of this House, not only the interests of the eastern provinces, hut of the Dominion as a whole, imperatively demand that the said road should be an allCanadian route, both in summer and winter, and it is highly proper that all necessary conditions should be attached to the granting of such charter so as to secure beyond question the carrying out of this national idea ;
Therefore resolved, that this legislative assembly do strongly urge upon the federal administration that in any charter so to be granted to the said Grand Trunk Railway Company it be specifically expressed that the winter port of such Transcontinental Railroad line be in the maritime provinces of Canada, and that said railroad be an all-Canadian route from ocean to ocean ; and
Further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded by His Honour the Speaker of the House, to His Excellency the Governor General through the Secretary of State for Canada.
Well, [Sir, that which the legislature of New Brunswick asked to he done is precisely what the government of Canada have done, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite have not hesitated to stand up and say that this Moncton extension, this new road down to the maritime provinces, is soemthing unheard of, unwarranted and uncalled for. The Grand Trunk scheme originally was to build from North Bay to Winnipeg, and thence to the Pacific ocean. It was proposed after some discussion that the road should go down to Quebec. Then the agitation in the maritime provinces continued, and a demand was made that the road should not stop at Quebec, but that it should go down to the sea-board, and as a result of that agitation we had expressions of opinion in the Railway Committee and in this House. I again say that what the legislature of New Brunswick demanded is exactly what the government of Canada have done. Well, at that time Mr. Blair was Minister of Railways. The Board of Trade of the city of St. John, to show how zealous they were in the matter, how keen ly interested they were, sent this telegram to Mr. Blair :


Hon.  A. G.@: Blair, Ottawa.
Grave apprehension is felt here as to Grand Trunk plans regarding maritime provinces. Strong feeling that if Dominion assistance of any kind to transcontinental road is given, stipulation that railway find a terminus in maritime provinces, and further, that all freight originating in Canada, or received along the line, should be shipped through maritime terminus, shall be an absolute condition. Can you assure us that in case of assistance being 114
given, the Grand Trunk will build through maritime provinces and ship freight thence ?
(Sgd.) W. M. JARVIS, Pres.
Mr. Blair, in his reply, advanced a view which was somewhat in line with the policy that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has taken up. He held out the idea that the Intercolonial Railway, by association with other roads, could do the work. He telegraphed to Mr. Jarvis as follows :
W. M. Jarvis, St. John, N.B.
I believe that in case government gives financial assistance the Grand Trunk Pacific will be obliged to enter into a satisfactory traffic agreement, binding itself to hand over at Quebec Its ocean winter traffic to Intercolonial or build a line through to a maritime port. Have been doing everything possible to bring this about.	.
(Sgd.) A. G. BLAIR.
You will observe that Mr. Blair suggests the utilization of the Intercolonial Railway, and that all that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition can hold out to the maritime provinces is that they should utilize the Intercolonial Railway. But the suggestion made by Mr. Blair, the suggestion which is the foundation of the policy of my hon friend the leader of the opposition as respects the maritime provinces, was scouted by the St. John Board of Trade. I have an extract from the St. John ' Sun ' of May 20, 1903, giving a report of the meeting of the board of trade :
On May 19th, the council of the Board of Trade met to consider further action with reference to the extension of the Grand Trunk Pacific through the maritime provinces, and a telegram was sent to Mr. Blair, stating that the signers did not believe that any arrangement could be made between the Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk which should prevent the latter from shipping practically every ton of export freight via Portland. The telegram concluded by saying : ' We urge in the strongest terms that no government assistance be granted to any transcontinental railway that does not undertake to build their line through to some maritime province port.
The idea which runs through the whole project of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that this business can be done by utilizing the Intercolonial Railway, was the idea that Mr. Blair advanced in his telegram to the St. John Board of Trade, and the St. John Board of Trade sent that memorandum in reply, signed by a large number of the leading merchants of St. John, including the president of the Conservative Association, Mr. W. H. Thorne.


Samuel Hughes: They elected an opponent of the government, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel).


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I am anxious to oblige my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). I thank thee Jew for teaching me that word. I am dealing now with the value of the Intercolonial Railway in re-
JiEVISED EDITION

lation to the great through export traffic. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition can give no hope to the maritime provinces except as to the use of the Intercolonial Railway. He does not want to see an inch of new railway between Quebec and Moncton. We must use the Intercolonial Railway. Well, let us see what 'is the opinion of some other people as to the value of the Intercolonial Railway in that relation. I have a quotation here of an opinion expressed only a couple of years ago by a gentleman who is quite eminent in railway matters, and whose opinion hon. gentlemen opposite will value. It is that of no less a person than the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart). Speaking in 1902, he said :
Any man who knows anything of the commerce of this, country, knows that not a bushel of grain can be profitably exported by the Intercolonial. . . . And I can tell the committee that when I was Minister of Railways-this is a confession-we carried grain from Quebec to Halifax at prices that did not half pay the cost of transport	It is an unprofitable business. You cannot compete against nature.
I do not think the situation is quite as bad as that, but I am giving hon. gentlemen opposite the opinion of their expert. I find also that I have a quotation from the Conservative organ of St. John touching on the same point. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition gave us a quotation from a good Liberal paper to-day, and I want to return the compliment by giving him a quotation from a good Conservative paper on this question as to the value of the Intercolonial Railway for winter export business. This is from the St. John ' Sun ' of May 8th last, at the time when we were discussing the question of what form and shape this Grand Trunk scheme should take :
It has been shown

Says this Conservative organ-
-that the Intercolonial Railway route by the north shore cannot by any possibility be a competing line for winter export business. Nearly six years ago Mr. Blair declared he would be prepared in a few years to take winter export business. . . . The scheme is a failure. The St. John end Halifax elevators have been empty, as they were last year. The Intercolonial Railway terminus at St. John has hardly been used at all for through traffic, and would have been used still less if it had not been engaged to accommodate Canadian Pacific Railway freight. The Intercolonial Railway route w'oiild be useless for the winter business of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
That is the statement of the Conservative organ of St. John. That is the scheme which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition holds out as the only hope of the maritime provinces. That is the scheme which the Board of Trade of the city of St. John says is utterly worthless. That is the scheme which the Conservative organ of the city Mr. FIELDING.
of St. John says is utterly worthless. That is the scheme which my hon. friend from Sduth Lanark, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, says is absolutely worthless and useless in connection with winter traffic. I have another extract from that esteemed St. John paper, the St. John ' Sun,' dated May 14th :
The strong resolutions sent from the different legislative, municipal and commercial bodies in the east are clear and explicit. They ask one and all that the Grand Trunk Pacific shall get no public assistance unless the company shall build to the maritime provinces and make a terminus at a maritime province port.
I ask the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to this sentence-
The Board of Trade and other bodies knew that an undertaking to deliver freight to the Intercolonial Railway is no good for the purpose they have in view'.
The editorial goes on to say :
The people of the maritime provinces, and wo believe the people of Canada, do not propose to compromise in a traffic agreement with a road that does not profitably handle the traffic.
They do not propose to compromise on the policy offered by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
They insist on one thing and one only. They say that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway itself must be built to a Canadian winter port. This is the message of Mr. Jarvis, and the St. John Board of Trade. That is the resolution of the city council and the county council of St. John, of the legislature of New Brunswick, of the other bodies which have made declarations on the subject.	.
So much for public opinion in the province of New Brunswick and in the city of St. John. Let me briefly call attention to a resolution of the Halifax Board of Trade.
Whereas, objection having been taken to that part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme which provides for the building of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton

Observe that the Halifax Board of Trade has said that somebody has been objecting to this road going down to Moncton. Who was it, I wonder ?
Whereas, objection having been taken to that part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway scheme which provides for the building of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton, N.B., this board desires most emphatically to reaffirm its previous declaration (appended hereto) that no scheme of government transcontinental transportation will be either adequate or equitable to each province of t>he Dominion which does not ensure the carriage of Canadian products through Canadian ports in winter as well as in summer, and regards it as imperative that stringent guarantees to carry out that policy should be exacted by the government.
We further maintain that.the construction of the road west of Quebec without ensuring its continuance east through Canadian territory would be manifestly unjust to the maritime provinces.

This board is also of the opinion that the building of the shortest possible line through Canadian territory from Quebec to Moncton, N.B., would be of immense advantage to the maritime provinces, as well as to the rest of Canada, and would secure for the road a large share of through freight and passenger business, which at present is done through United States ports.
That is the verdict of the Halifax Board of Trade, not upon an empty or general principle, but upon the concrete scheme of building this road down to the city of Moncton. As the leader of the opposition knows, the Halifax Board of Trade is composed of men of both political parties. I will not say which of the two parties has the greater number of representatives on that board, but I do know that a good many of the gentlemen who signed and supported that resolution, and who have spoken to me about it, and declared their confidence and faith in this scheme of ours, are amongst the leading supporters of the hon. the leader of the opposition in the city of Halifax.
My hon. friends opposite finding that there own policy in this matter is not receiving much favour in the lower provinces, they set out to try, if possible to decry ours; They have tried to make it appear that the clauses we have inserted in our contract are of no value. But, Sir, I do not think that any clauses you could put into legislation and practice could be more effective than those which we have provided. We have had an opportunity of judging of what hon. gentlemen opposite desired in that respect. They asked us through the voice of the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) to put a clause iu the Grand Trunk charter for the purpose of guiding and directing this traffic down to the maritime provinces. We did not think that was the right place to . insert such a clause, but it is worth while looking up their proposal as an evidence of the way they would deal with the matter if they had the power to do so. When the Grand Trunk Pacific charter was under consideration, Mr. Fowler moved the following resolution, and the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House all supported it:
That the order for the third reading of Bill No. 64 be cancelled, and the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, in order that the following section may be added to the said Bill :-
' All freight originating in Canada, and received along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, intended for export across the Atlantic, shall be shipped through Canadian ports, when the route is not otherwise specially .indicated by the shipper ; and that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway shall carry all such freight to the eastern Canadian sea-boards as cheaply as to any American port on the Atlantic sea-board.'
The object which hon. gentlemen opposite had in view in that respect is the same as the object which we had in view. With the general sentiment expressed in that resolu-1 114} _
tion we heartily concurred, but we objected to it for two very good reasons. In the first place, we thought it was inadequate in its terms, and in the second place we wished to place it, not in the charter of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but in the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific so that we might bind them. There are some things which you can properly deal with in general legislation ; there are some things which you can properly put in a company's charter ; but there are other things which might more properly become matters of contract, and we were anxious that this should be made a matter of contract and so we put into that contract the two clauses which have been so often referred to and which I am obliged to read again. Section 42 says :
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian Chanels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Then, clause 43 says :
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely,-the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
There is not a line in the proposal made by the opposition that is not expressed in these clauses with threefold greater force. There is not a suggestion made by the opposition in this respect, which is not included in these clauses, and which is not expressed with more force and more comprehensiveness than that in which hon. gentlemen opposite proposed to express it in their general assertion of the principle. We bind the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to the solemn obligation under their hand and seal, that they will do all that hon. gentlemen ask, and they further covenant that in good faith they will not attempt to evade it. but in all ways possible carry out the spirit and intention of the provision. In clause 47 of the contract it is provided that if any dispute should arise between the government and the company as to the interpretation to be put on any portion of the agreement, it shall be determined by one arbitrator, or if neces-

sary by other arbitrators to be agreed upon in the usual way. I believe, Sir, that it will be seen that the clause we have inserted in this respect, is as complete as language can make it. But in the face of all that, hon. gentlemen opposite still say that the trade will go to Portland. Again I must draw their attention to something they omitted to quote from that much thumbed report of the meeting of the Grand Trunk Railway shareholders in London. These hon. gentlemen on the other side tell us that notwithstanding all these precautions the trade of the new line will go to Portland. But that Is not the opinion of all the people connected with the Grand Trunk Company. One of the reasons why Mr. Allen resigned from the directorate of the Grand Trunk Company was, because we had bound his company to send the trade through the ports of the maritime provinces. I quote now from Mr. Allen's memorandum, as read at the meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders in which he gave his reasons for resigning :
If the proprietors will look at the map annexed to the special report they will see how the new line is affected by the Canadian Pacific and the Northern Pacific, which route, no doubt, will compete with the new line at various points. Bearing this in mind, I would point out that the Canadian Pacific-as appears from the ' Stock Exchange Year-book '-was incorporated in 1881, and did,not pay any dividend until 1895, and then one li per cent. That line had enormous land grants and subsidies.
Mr. Allen knew that, but hon. gentlemen on the other side seem to minimize it
The new line has none. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Allen knew that too, but hon. gentlemen opposite did not emphasize that point:
The new line has none. (Hear, hear.) And the new line will be held by a most uncertain tenure, a lease for fifty years without a proviso for re-entry in case of breach as to part, and subject to a heavy mortgage with a right of foreclosure on the remainder. I do not suppose that any railway of importance was ever made on such extraordinary terms.
According to hon. gentlemen opposite the extraordinary terms were all in favour of the Grand Trunk, but Mr. Allen thought the extraordinary terms were so much against the Grand Trunk that he resigned from the board.
And what is almost worse than anything else, the line-which is to be built to a standard not inferior to the main line of the Grand Trunk- is to' take all the traffic over the line entirely through Canadian territory to Halifax, leaving the Grand Trunk section to Portland, with its expensive lifts and miles of sidings out in the cold. (Applause.) Add to this the right of the government to allow running powers over the line to any company it pleases, to fix the rates, and, in fact, to do practically what it likes.
That is the statement of one of the directors of the Grand Trunk Company. Hon. gentlemen opposite can see nothing in these clauses to send the traffic to Halifax or St.


William Stevens Fielding: John, but this director of the Grand Trunk Company saw enough in them to enable him to declare that these clauses obliged the Grand Trunk Railway Company to send the traffic down to the maritime provinces, and for that among other reasons he tendered his resignation and left the board.
We have been speaking of this traffic as between the east and the west, very largely in relation to the handling of grain. The grain traffic is most important, and we hope that much of it will come down to the eastern provinces. But at the same time let me point out that the grain traffic is not the only thing to be considered in this connection. There are a million people in these provinces down by the sea ; they expect to produce something that they will wish to send to the west; they expect to consume the things which the west shall send to them ; their desire is to have a shorter, a quicker and better means of transportation between the east and the west.
Whether we carry the grain or not, we believe this road is going to have a very important effect in developing improved communication between the east and the west ; and Moncton is selected for the reason that it is in the very heart and centre of the maritime provinces. It is in the eastern part of New Brunswick close to the Nova Scotia boundary, and almost within a stone's throw of the point at which you leave the Intercolonial Railway in order to make communication with Prince Edward Island. All the traffic coming from the west to Prince Edward Island or coming from Prince Edward Island and proceeding west, will cross the strats at a point near Moncton -between Summerside or thereabouts and Point du Chene near Sheidiac. There is another crossing between Pictou and Charlottetown, but that does not touch the traffic with the upper provinces. Moncton is selected as a convenient point which will . give access to all portions of the maritime provinces.
Efforts have been made to create a hostile feeling to this scheme in the city of St. John. I undertake to say, from some little knowledge of the affairs of St. John, that the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme had very little to do with the result of the recent election in that city. There were local conditions which people down there understand well which account for the result.
I believe the best minds of the city of St. John recognize the importance of the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. There is no more intelligent, enterprising, plucky community in the Dominion of Canada than the people of St. John. They have shown great pluck and courage in dealing with the development of their port ; and I give them all honour for it. I say the best and most intelligent men in the city of St. John recognize fully that this. Grand Trunk Pacific scheme is a srood thing for St. John as well as for other places. Of course, in

every community you will find a little knot of narrow, selfish people, who consider the interest of their own place and nothing else. Every community has some of these people. In St. John, in Montreal in Halifax, everywhere, you will find a little knot Of narrowminded men who want to look out for number one, and have no care for any one else. If this government had agreed to send the Grand Trunk Pacific to St. John, you would not have heard a word of opposition to it from that quarter. You did not hear a word of objection to this scheme from the city of St. John on the ground of the large obligations or on any of the other considerations which are distressing hon. gentle-ment opposite now. An amendment was moved in the Railway Committee to the effect that this road, instead of running to Moncton, should run to St. John. If that amendment had carried, you would not have heard a word from any one in St. John against it; but that amendment was unfair to the maritime provinces. This scheme is not for the benefit of only one port in the maritime provinces. It is a scheme which we believe will develop the maritime provinces generally, a scheme which deals with the rival ports fairly. If we had adopted that amendment, we would have been unjust to the maritime provinces as a whole- unjust to eastern New Brunswick, unjust to the great county in which Moncton lies, unjust to Nova Scotia, unjust to Prince Edward Island; and if in order to please any one section of any one province it is necessary to be unjust to all other sections, such a policy will find no favour in the minds of this government. But while this scheme holds out hope to the maritime provinces generally, there is no part of the maritime provinces which ought to regard it with more satisfaction and hope than the city of St. John. When you arrive at Moncton you are much nearer to the city of St. John than to any other important port in the maritime provinces. When in former years a similar scheme was proposed, and some one suggested that it would be hostile to St. John, a distinguished public man in the legislature of New Brunswick said : If you bring the railway to Moncton, which is 90 miles from St. John and 186 miles from Halifax, if St. John cannot make its way under these conditions, St. John does not deserve to make its way. That was the sentiment of a distinguished man in the legislature of New Brunswick, and we might echo it to-day.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Who was the man ?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that it was the Hon. A. G. Blair ; and I thoroughly endorse Mr. Blair's sentiment on that point. The city of St. John has every reason to believe that this scheme is a good one for that port. During the past winter some steamers went away from the port of St. John because they could not get freight
there-because there was only one line of railway into St. John, the Canadian Pacific Railway. That railway has its own line of steamers, and very naturally and properly gave its freight to its own line. It would not give any freight to the Allan line, and the Allan line left St. John because there was only one line of railway to that port. We are holding out to the maritime provinces-to St. John, Halifax and all the new ports that will yet arise-the hope of having a fair chance in these matters ; and, in the language of my friend Mr. Blair, if you give them a fair chance and they cannot fight their own way, we believe it will be their own fault. But we believe that when this scheme is fairly understood, the people of St. John, the people of Halifax, and the people of the maritime provinces generally, will see that it is full of promise for them.
I have a strong hope that through this scheme the maritime provinces will get some of the grain trade of the west. I hope I am not lacking in enthusiasm, but I always try to temper it with caution, and not to promise too much. I know the difficulties in the way of a long haul by rail. I know that when you have a long haul to one port and a short haul to another, the short haul has the advantage, and I quite realize that there are difficulties in sending the grain traffic to the maritime provinces. But we are overcoming difficulties of this kind in the development of this Dominion, and I do not see why we should not do it in this case as in others. But this is not a matter of grain traffic only. In the general traffic of the country, in all that goes to make up an interchange of traffic, I believe hopefully and confidently in the ability of the maritime province ports to overcome difficulties. They look with hope to the people of other provinces to be truly national in their aspiratipns, and to see that a national policy does not end when it reaches the boundaries of the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec, but that a truly national policy looks to the interests of every part of this Dominion, from the great west down to the shores of the great east. But, Sir, this far I will go, while I speak with moderation and caution in view of the difficulties of the long haul, while I recognize the difficulties, still I am going to take this position, that if by this scheme we cannot send the traffic to the ports of the maritime provinces, then by no other scheme proposed in this parliament can you send a pound of traffic down there. There may be difficulties in sending the trade down there by our scheme, but there are much greater difficulties in the way of the scheme suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have prepared some tables of distances, taking Winnipeg as a common point in the west, and dealing with Halifax and St. John in the east. I have given the distances by the opposition plan as defined by my hon. friend the leader of the oppo-

sltion. I find It necessary to mention the particular member who defines the plan, because they have different plans, and I must be careful not to make one set of opposition members responsible for what seems to be the policy of another set.
I find that in the opposition plan, as described by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the mileage between Winnipeg and Halifax will be as follows. Perhaps, however, I am wrong in holding my hon. friend too seriously to the proposition he made some time ago. We have not heard much of it of late. That scheme was not received with profound respect by his friends, and in his 'speech to-day reviewing the whole Bill, beyond making allusions to the possible acquisition of the Canada Atlantic, he made no reference whatever to that remarkable policy which he outlined some weeks ago. However, as the policy is still to be found on ' Hansard,' even though it be ignored by the opposition now, I am going to give them the benefit of seeing how it will work out on a mileage basis :


WINNIPEG TO HALIFAX BY MR. BORDEN'S
[Stage Direction]
From Winnipeg to Fort William via C.
P. R	 426
From Fort William to Sudbury	 555
From Sudbury to Scotia Junction, to be
built	 105
From Scotia Junction to Coteau, via Canada Atlantic Railway	 294
From Coteau to Montreal via	G. T. R. ..	39
From Montreal to Halifax via Intercolonial	 837
Total	2,256
In contrast to this let me put the government scheme.
Frotn Winnipeg	to Quebec, estimated .. 1,475
From Quebec to	Moncton	 400
From Moncton to Halifax	 186
Total	2,061
From Winnipeg to Halifax by the scheme
of the leader of the opposition	2,256
By the government scheme	2,061
Difference in favour of government scheme	*	 195
So that if we cannot send the traffic down to Halifax by our scheme, what chance has the hon. gentleman to send it by his scheme, which is 195 miles longer ?
Then I take the other opposition scheme, the one described by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), whose plan was to utilize the old Grand Trunk line and not build east of North Bay. That is the scheme which the hon. member for Hastings said every member of the opposition was in favour of. Now, there ought not to be any misunderstanding about this, and the statement of the hon. gentleman is very clear. He said that the opposition to a man were favourable to the original Grand Trunk policy, which was to build a road from Mr. FIELDING.
North Bay to the west. When interrupted by the late lamented member for Selkirk, Mr. McCreary, who, in order to remove any possible doubt, asked him whether he had really said that the opposition were prepared to support a scheme for the railway from North Bay to the west, the hon. gentleman replied that while he was not authorized perhaps to speak officially, still from the dozens of members he had spoken to, from his own personal opinion and his general knowledge of the views of the opposition, he could safely say that the opposition were prepared to support the original Grand Trunk scheme of giving government aid to a road from North Bay to Winnipeg and across to the Pacific. That statement was received with applause, and the hon. gentleman, addressing himself to the hon. member for Selkirk, said: ' the hon. gentleman will see from these manifestations of opinion that I have not misvoiced the views of the hon. gentlemen who sit around me.' So that we have some reason to conclude that that is the true and only genuine opposition scheme ; and perhaps it is because of the very positive assertion of the hon. member for East Hastings and the applause with which it was received, that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition seems to have buried out of sight his scheme of a few weeks ago. Then, taking the scheme of the hon. member for East Hastings, what are the distances :

[Stage Direction]
Miles.
From Winnipeg to North Bay, estimated 1,012 From North Bay to Montreal via Orillia and Belleville by the G. T. R.', the shortest possible line over the G. T. R. 496 From Montreal to Halifax by the Intercolonial	 837
Total	2,345
From Winnipeg to Halifax by government scheme 	2,061
Difference in favour of government
scheme	 284
Distances to St. John show the same difference in favour of the government plan.
Well, if we cannot get any traffic down to the sea by our scheme, what chance have we got of getting it down by the schemes of the opposition, which are of greater length? I think I may very fairly say, without being too confident, that as compared with the several schemes, if there be any doubt whatever of the ability of this government and parliament to send western traffic for export by the ports of the maritime provinces, every difficulty found in our scheme exists with five fold greater force in those of hon. gentlemen opposite. The figures I have given make it absolutely clear that if you cannot send traffic by our plan, there vis not the ghost of a chance of sending it by any plan proposed by the op-

position ; and the only hope which the maritime provinces can have of realizing the expectations they have been indulging in for years is by giving their cordial approval to the policy now before the House.
We have had this evening another view presented to us-another one of those kaleidoscopic views which hon. gentlemen opposite are presenting of their railway policy. I have shown what the policy of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was a [DOT] few weeks ago and what the policy of the opposition is to-day, as defined by the hon. member for East Hastings. But in this amendment we have another definition of policy which seems to point towards government ownership. I say ' seems to point ' advisedly. And here I want to congratulate my hon. friend from South Lanark (Air. Haggart) upon the wise discretion he displayed-a discretion we would naturally expect from him-when he refused to permit his name to be given to-day as seconder of this resolution. 'My hon. friend from Lanark is an old public man and an old party man, and as the latter he has become a bit hardened. Men become that way when they are in the party ranks a long time and my hon. friend would be disposed to go quite a long way to stand by his party. We all do something of that, and my hon. friend, being a loyal man, would go a long way to support his leader. No doubt he is a good enough party man to vote for this amendment, but I can well imagine him saying to the leader of the opposition : I must draw the line somewhere ; it is hard enough to ask me to vote for a resolution favouring government ownership, but do not ask me to second it. Consequently, when his name was given as seconder, it was instantly withdrawn. That may have been a mere accident, but we could not help reflecting on it when we knew the position which the hon. gentleman has taken for years on the question of government ownership. That is a big question, one on which men may reasonably differ and one which is engaging more attention every day. We are in our scheme opposed to the principle of government ownership in the fullest sense of the word. We are opposed at all events to the principle of government operation for reasons which we will explain ; but if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is prepared to take ground fairly and squarely in favour of government ownership and operation of the railways of this country, I admit at once that the question is a big one upon which a line might be drawn and new parties perhaps be formed. But my hon. friend has done nothing of the kind. As I said a moment ago, he has been carrying on a flirtation with this question of government ownership from the beginning of the session. In his earlier amendment he had vague, general allusions to government ownership, but he did not bring down a straight, square amendment declaring in
favour of the principle of having the railways of this country owned and operated by the government. Again I say, though we might differ from my hon. friend on that question, yet it is a great question and would be well worthy of being the basis of reorganization of parties in any country. But, what do we find ? The hon. gentleman has drawn his amendment in a very ingenious way. He spoke of the insidious clauses of the Grand Trunk agreement. There is nothing in the Grand Trunk agreement so insidious as the words in which he has dealt with the (question of government ownership. He first describes the scheme that is before the House as an inexpressibly bad scheme ; it is expensive, wicked-no language that can be used within parliamentary privilege is too strong to denounce the scheme. Then the hon. gentleman says that, rather than have this desperately wicked scheme, it might be well to consider whether we should not have government ownership. It might occur to my hon. friend that some people who are interested in the question of government ownership might be inclined to say : We do not necessarily tie ourselves to this scheme. We are in favour of the government ownership as a principle and are prepared to assert it at all times, from this time forth we are in favour of government ownership-no more subsidies of soulless corporations, no more grants to any body ; we are going to stand up for the great principle of government ownership, we are going to have government of the people by the people and for the people in the matter of railways. But the hon. gentleman does not say that. He has drawn his amendment in such a curious form that all he asks his people to decide is that, rather than this desperately wicked scheme of the Prime Minister it might be well to have government ownership. The amendment says :
The House is of opinion that instead of ratifying the proposed agreement, it would be more in the public interest-
Observe. Not that on the merits it would be worth while, not that government ownership is right or sound, but that it is a little better than this Bill :
-it would be more in the public interest that the Dominion should assume the whole obligation necessary for extending across the continent the present government system of railways, thereby completing a transcontinental railway, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, entirely owned by and under the control of the people of Canada.
Still, I venture to say, those people in the Dominion-and one can respect them highly -who entertain strong opinions on the question of government ownership will not be misled by the terms of that amendment, especially, in the light of the record of hon. gentlemen opposite on the question of gov-
[Stage Direction]
ernment ownership to which I would ask the privilege of calling attention.
I have found, Sir, that the idea of government ownership is a popular one in some respects. There is something attractive in the idea of the municipalization, or, in tlje larger field, the nationalization of great public utilities. There is a growing feeling in that direction. Services that, years ago, were dealt with by private corporations, are gradually being absorbed by the state, and I presume that that will go on. But I am satisfied that public opinion in Canada^ has not reached a point which would justify us in saying that the people of the Dominion are prepared for a general policy of government ownership and government operation of railways^-.)-*- is the 'theory of this thing jsiitoer''man the practice which seems to attract people. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith) in a speech he made the other night, pointed out that, while all the municipalities in Canada could easily acquire the power to run their tramways very few of them had ventured to take over those services. The theory of the thing looks right, but when the'hard-headed citizen, in his municipal meeting, faces the question of municipal ownership, in nine cases out of ten. he backs out, he is afraid to face the question even within the narrow limits of a municipal organization. Theoretically the scheme receives favour, but it does not seem to receive wide favour in practice. As respects the Intercolonial, I think that if we were starting out afresh I should doubt the wisdom of government ownership. But we have had the Intercolonial built by the government and owned and managed by the government for many years, and I would not be willing to change it to-day. As regards the Intercolonial and any extensions which may be made of the Intercolonial within the ordinary area, having regard to local traffic, I think it should be carried on under the system of government ownership and operation. But I am not prepared to agree with hon. gentlemen, though, of course, I would respect their opinions very highly, who are ready to go the whole figure and adopt government ownership and government operation for a greaDtraascullli neuLa 1 'rail w ay. I think we mighfprofitably look into what has happened in this House on that question. I may remind the House that some years ago, as I have reason to believe, the Conservative party, then in power, not only were opposed to the principle of government ownership being extended, but, to a very large extent they favoured the policy of transferring the Intercolonial to the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is not a matter that anybody could offer any definite evidence about, because these things do not take tangible shape until they are put before parliament. But. in the lower provinces, it is a matter of public notoriety that agents of the Canadian Pacific Railway say Mr. FIELDING.
came down there for the purpose of operating on public opinion and trying to create an opinion favourable to the transfer of that road to the Canadian Pacific Railway. And it was well understood that at * any rate, certain members of the Conservative government then in power viewed it with favour, and, if local public opinion could . be worked up in the maritime provinces favourable to the scheme, the government would have been willing to make the change. And, if they did not make the change, it is not because they were not willing but because maritime public opinion was hostile. I do not presume to make a definite statement as regards that, but only give it as current rumour and gossip in the maritime provinces at the time. The objection to government ownership is one that can be considered easily in connection with the Intercolonial. A railway, in these modern times, does not confine itself to railway operation. Most of the successful railways find it necessary to go into other lines of business affiliated or connected with it, lines of business that a government could not well take up. Take a single illustration. The Canadian Pacific Railway to-day has a great hotel system, and I am sure that the managers of that great enterprise would say that they believe that the hotels that are established along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway have a great deal to do with the development of its passenger traffic. If the Intercolonial were owned by a corporation to-day it would have to establish hotels. But, as it is a government work it cannot establish hotels, nor can it go into various lines of business-wMeh a private corporation jambD-enter upon. One could multiply illustrations of the field into which the Canadian Pacific Railway has entered in all its ramifications but one will be enough. Now, the strongest men on the Conservative party are on record as being against this principle of government ownership. It is not a new question. The people of Canada have had it before them in one form or another for many a year. This parliament has had it before it, and a great many members of the Conservative party have considered it and placed themselves on record with regard to it; and I believe I am justified in saying that the public opinion of the Conservative party in Canada -and, of course, I have no right to speak of it and can only give it as a passing opinion-the best minds of the Conservative party to-day are hostile to the principle of government ownership and operation. I can cite, without having quotations to give, the Montreal ' Gazette,' one of the most highly respected of the Conservative journals. This newspaper is constant in its attacks on the principle of government ownership and its declarations that the government has no business to own and operate railways. And I venture to that that paper represents the best

class of public opinion in the Conservative party. We have in the ranks of the opposition an hon. member who is more or less an expert in the matter of railway matters. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and I think I am justified in saying that, in all his past speeches he has never had a word to say in favour of government ownership of railways.
My hon. friend to-day will hardly claim that he is in favour of the princple of government ownership, and even in this debate, although allusion has been made generally to the question by my hon. friend in one or two cases, he has never gone beyond what I might call that flirtatious method in which the leader of the opposition is inclined to discuss it. They talk of government ownership but take great care not to give evidence for it. They have quoted the opinion of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair). One would think they would attach more importance to the opinions of eminent men in their own ranks. However, since they have quoted Mr. Blair, let me remind them that the last votes which Mr. Blair ever gave in this House, so far as I can see from the records, were two votes which he gave against motions in favour of government ownership. I have said that the strong men in the Conservative party have been against government ownership. We have had at an earlier stage, in the speech of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), a quotation from the speech of Sir John Macdonald which will bear repetition. It was from a speech delivered in 1881 in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway :
The government has every right to use all their exertions in order to relieve themselves and the country of the obligation of building this road, (the Canadian Pacific Railway) and of the still greater obligation of running it. We see this In the Intercolonial and in every public work. Why, Sir, it is actually impossible for the government to run that railroad satisfactorily. The men we put on the road from the porter upwards become civil servants. If one is put on from any cause whatever, he is said to be a political hack; if he is removed, it is said his removal was on account of his political opinions. If a cow Is killed on the road a motion is made in respect to it by the member of the House who has the owner's vote as support. The responsibility, the expense, the worry and annoyance of a government having charge of such a work, are such that, for these catises alone, it was considered advisable to get rid of the responsibility.
The bon. gentleman there had reference to the attitude of his governent on the question of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If we are to understand that these gentlemen "have ijo-iday become champions of government ownership, let me remind them that the government of the late Mr. Alexander Mackenzie built many miles of road as a government work and the first thing
the opposition did when they came into power was to present that road, to the value of $37,000,000, as a free gift to the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is the record. Sir. of the Conservative party, and 1 have given the opinion of Sir John Macdonald. I have shown you that in carrying out that opinion, where the good, honest Mr. Alexander Mackenzie had built a government road and given the country! the advantage, if it be an advantage, of government construction, these hon. gentlemen opposite came in and presented it as a free gift to the Canadian Pacific Railway. We need not go so far back as the opinions of Sir John Macdonald. We need not rely on the opinions of Sir John. That dis- . tinguished statesman has long since passed away. We may get some information from the old veterans who are still to the fore, and whose opinion still weighs in the minds of the old Conservative party. I am afraid the new Conservatism which presents the many sided view of this railway question they have given in their amendments and speeches will not agree with the opinions of the old Conservaties, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper. At a more recent date, in 1897. during the time of this government we had this question up again. Our government proposed to grant aid to the Canadian Pacific Railway to build what is called the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. In the debate that occurred on that important question. Sir Charles Tupp'r spoke as follows;
I learned with infinite pleasure that the government had abandoned the idea or intention of building this railway as a government work.
I am quite aware, that a portion of the press giving a considerable support to the opposition has put forward this policy of the construction of the road through the Crow's Nest Pass as a government work. I confess that I was astounded to find that, with the evidence that we had before us of the result of the construction and operation of government railways in Canada, a single intelligent man could be found in this House, or out of it, who was prepared to advocate such a policy in this case.
What will the old veteran say in London to-day if the news is carried over the cable that his unworthy successors have brought down a motion and presented it to this House which deals with a principle which he says no intelligent man could be found to support ?
We have already solved, we have set at rest for ever, in my judgment, in the mind of any reasonable or 'intelligent man
[Stage Direction]
I wonder whether this has any reference to the hon. gentlemen on your left to-day. Mr. Speaker.
-we have already solved, we have set at rest for ever, in my judgment, in the mind of any reasonable or intelligent man, the question whether it is better for Canada to construct a railway and operate it as a government work or by the aid of a private company.
[Stage Direction]
Settled for ever ! Still these hon. gentlemen are trying to resurrect it to-night in a half-hearted way in the hope that they will fool a portion of the people of this country who have taken an interest in this question. Sir Charles Tupper continued :
I would deplore in the strongest manner any attempt in this country hy any government, I care not who they are, or who they are opposed to, to construct another government railway. That_is the position I take.
I want to ask the Conservatives of Canada, choose you this day whom you will serve, the veteran leader who led you through many a fight to victory, or the new men who have come forward to-day with this kaleidoscopic picture of a many-sided railway policy winding up with something like a declaration in favour of government ownership ?
But there is no reason why we should rely on the old veterans. We have the counsel of these venerable men and it is right that we should quote them, but then we may recur to modern times. Let us see in more recent times what were the views of hon. gentlemen opposite. I will coniine myself now to the discussion of this very question. Only a few months ago, after our contract with , this company was signed, after we had presented it to parliament, after we had debated it for several weeks, one hon. gentleman in this House who believed in government ownership, rose in his place and put on record an amendment setting forth that principle, I allude to the hen. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee). Here is the motion which he made in the latter part of last session.
By reason of the growth in population and the rapid development in the productiveness and trade of Canada and especially the western part thereof, the time is opportune for the adoption of a definite policy of government construction and operation of railways under a properly safeguarded civil service system, put entirely beyond the influence of partisan politics.	-
That is the motion which was moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) several months ago, while this question was before us as a part of the record on this very measure. And what does the record tell us ?
I find that that motion was voted down in this House by a majority and I find that among the men who voted against that motion was the railway expert of the opposition the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart). My hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope) made a two hours speech the other day on government ownership but three or four months before the hon. member in this House voted against government ownership. I see the veteran from Hill ton (Mr. Henderson) is in his seat to-night. We shall hear from him no doubt upon this subject.
Mr. HENDERSON.: Certainly.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: And I have to remind him that only a few weeks ago he voted against a straight motion for government ownership.


David Henderson: Oh.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Rosamond) is in his place to-night. He may need to be reminded that he voted against government ownership.
I do not see the genial face of my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), but some of his colleagues may remind him, lest he goes astray, that he voted against government ownership only a few weeks ago. The late lamented Mr. Cargill was amongst those who recorded his vote against government ownership. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) voted against government ownership. The late Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) only a few weeks ago voted against government ownership. I find that the hon. member for West Durham (Mr. Ward) voted against government ownership. I find that my esteemed friend from Sunbury and Queen's, New Brunswick (Mr. Wilmot), who is now manifesting a warm interest in government ownership, voted against government ownership only a few weeks ago. I hope my hon. friend will not forget that fact when the vote is taken to-night upon this amendment.
My hon. friend from Northumberland, New Brunswick (Mr. Robinson) is not here, but he was amongst those who voted against government ownership only a few weeks ago. My hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Ball), who, I think, is here, also voted against government ownership. The name of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition does not appear in that vote. He was absent, but I am going to pay him the compliment of believing that if he had been present he would have voted with his expert, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. Seeing my hon. friend from Sunbury and Queens in his place, reminds me that in the speech which he made recently in the debate, in which he suddenly expressed opinions favourable to government ownership, and a very sudden change it was, as I have pointed out, he said upon that occasion that he was in favour of government ownership on the condition that you put your road into the hands of a commission absolutely independent of the government. Would my hon. friend tell me what kind of government ownership that may be, if it is placed in the hands of a commission absolutely independent of the government ? What is the underlying principle of government ownership ? It is the control of these great public utilities by the people. Whetheyjt is in the municipal council, the cit^orthe town coum eil. Tir'ffre provincial or national government, publie ownershipr-TnPani-public- control by the people, and public control by the people <1 means public control by parliament, and public control by parliament means public

control by tbe government, who are a committee of parliament. The present system may be bad enough in dealing with corporations, but heaven preserve us against such a monstrosity as government ownership placed in the hands of a commission absolutely independent of government or parliament.
I believe that the Conservative party has a further record on this question of government ownership. I have been dealing chiefly hitherto with what has occurred in this House. I was reminded to-day that the Conservative party in one of our provinces had dealt with this question. I am only speaking from general recollection and information, but I think I am correct in stating that the present Conservative party in the province of Manitoba adopted the platform upon which they appealed at the elections, and that platform included the following statement:
The adoption of the principle of government ownership of railways in so far as the circumstances of the province will admit, and the adoption of the principle that no bonus should be granted to any railway company which does not give the government of the province control of rates over the lines bonused, together with the option of purchase.
Such was the platform. I remember my hon. friend, the railway expert of hon. gentlemen opposite, telling us a good story one day of a coloured man on the end platform of a car that somebody wanted to stand on. He said : Massa, you bettah git into de car. The person asked : What is the platform for, and the coloured man replied: Well, sah, platforms are to get in on and not to stand on. Evidently this platform in the province of Manitoba was a platform to get in on, because no sooner had they got in on this platform than they immediately repudiated government ownership, and began to give reasons why government ownership was not a good thing. I find that the Prime Minister of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin, made_jjjx_cxplfination of the policy whffiffi-fte~lfiTQptad-when he made an arrangement wiTEthe Canadian Northern. He argued theirJhat the -policy which he Jiafl^adopleirwaa better than public ownership. He saicT:
Now the question I proposed to myself was why would we want the Northern Pacific as a government road? We realized that we could not operate it and secure such material benefit for the people of the country as we desire without subjecting ourselves to all the dangers which threaten to overtake government operation of roads as shown in other portions of Canada. We realized that it was not wisdom to undertake the control of the road and operate it ourselves and make it part of the political organizations of the day.
iSo that we find that in almost the only province in which our Conservative friends hold power they got into power by the proclamation of their policy of government ownership, and having got into power they immediately began to give reasons why government ownership is a bad thing. When we put this in connection with the little incident I mentioned before, and in connection with the action of Mr. Mackenzie in building many Jiii4eirT)f government road, and of the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite in immediately handing it over as a free gift to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I think we have very good evidence as to the disposition of hon. gentlemen opposite in relation to^orSrnmeiit ownership. But I think I ouglitto go back and make another use of the incident to which I have already referred. I have difficulty in quite understanding which of the opposition policies I should speak to, and so I have to speak to them all In turn. Therefore, X want to go back to the policy as advocated by my hon. friend from East Hastings {Mr. Northrup). We are to give over to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, this soulless corporation, this American corporation, as described by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, this hostile corporation-as described by many hon. gentlemen opposite-with large government aid, the construction of a line from North Bay to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast. That is the last declaration of hon. gentlemen before this amendment on the question of government ownership. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of a record like that, no man in this country is going to assume for one moment that hon. gentlemen have given this subject the serious thought and deliberation which they should give to a great question of this character, and I venture to say that the suggestion already made, the proposition-if it be a proposition-that the Conservative party, in the face of that record, is to become the champion of government ownership, is a pretension that will be received with just ridicule and condemnation by the intelligent people of this country.
1 realize, Sir, that I am rather occupying too much time. Perhaps X may plead that bon. gentlemen opposite have spoken very frequently, while, excepting a few remarks at the committee stage, I have not hitherto occupied the attention of the House on this question. I want to invite the attention of the House for a short time to the question of the cost of this road, more particularly as reference has been made to it very repeatedly by hon. gentlemen opposite, most of whom have undertaken to accept and adopt certain figures which were read at an early stage of the discussion by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. Now, my hon. friend, in his statement, has spoken of the obligations of this enterprise as being from $lo5,000.000 to $171,000,000. The word ' obligation ' is used by my hon. friend in a way that might mislead. I know that my hon. friend would not say anything to mislead, but it is important, in considering this matter, to understand what the obligation of the government really is to which my hon. friend referred, and to un-

derstand that, while the government undertake to do certain things, they, on the other side, have made provision to receive certain moneys and certain credits, and it is not until you have taken both sides of the account and struck your balance, that you have a true statement of what the obligations of the government are. If a merchant were called upon to render his account, and if he charged his customer for everything he received at a high price, and then charged him with a number of things he had not received, and then forgot to credit the items on the other side of the account, the result would be as fair a statement as the calculation which many of the hon. gentlemen opposite have presented in regard to this matter.
I want to look for a little while at what our obligations are. It is true that we undertake to bnild the, eastern division of the reattTTmt it is also true that beyond
providing seven___years' interest on that
division, ~wS"are under no obligation whatever. ffe undertake to build the road, but we have provided for a tenant to occupy it. If a man owns land and he undertakes to build a house which will improve the value of his land generally, even if he had not a tenant in sight it might be a very good transaction ; but if the owner of the land has a tenant in sight to take a long lease on favourable terms to the owner, would it not be ridiculous to say that the man who built the house was improvident ? We have provided for the building of this eastern section, and we have provided for giving seven years' interest free, but we have made provision for a good tenant who is to pay us our rental after the seven years, at what we regard as a fair rate. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in his first speech, which his friends have used generally- some of them magnified it and .probably gave it a colour which the hon. gentleman did not intend for it-my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) commences his first plunge into financial delirium-I pay him the compliment of saying that it is not half as wild as that of his friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier)-my hon. friend (Mr. E. L. Borden) begins by estimating $40,000 per mile, which he says is a moderate estimate, for the construction of a road from Moncton to Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman did not give us a scintilla of evidence to back up that statement. although I think that the hon. gentleman should have named some authority for such a large estimate. I am bound to say from all the information I am able to get, that his estimate is entirely unwarranted. Last year in this House, I estimated the cost of the road from Quebec to (Moncton on a basis of $25,000 per mile, on what I considered good engineering authority, but I added that that was for a railway of about the same, or perhaps a little better character than the Intercolonial Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: I realized, however, that we wanted to make this new road a very excellent road in every respect, and I added twenty-five per cent to that estimate, and made my calculations on the basis of $31,250 per mile for that section. The leader of the opposition called it $40,000 per mile, but he gave not a shadow of authority in support or his figures.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the Minister of Finance any engineer's report which says it can be built, on grades of four-tenths percent, for $31,250 per mile.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend and I have some little Irish about us, and I will answer his question by asking another. Has he any expert authority for putting the cost at $40,000 ?


Mr.   I@: Yes, I have.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has not given it to us.


Robert Laird Borden: Neither has my hon. friend given us his authority.


William Stevens Fielding: I will give my hon.' friend my authority, but he is not willing to give us his authority. Ten or twelve years ago a road was surveyed from Edmundston to Moncton, by a reputable engineer, Mr. Adams Davy. Mr. Davy reported to his company that the country was not a difficult one, and that a satisfactory road suitable for through traffic and of reasonable grades and curvatures could be built at a moderate cost. In that report the figures do not appear to be mentioned, but the company for whom Mr. Davy made the report afterwards made an application to parliament and they estimated the cost of the road at $25,000 per mile. When companies are making applications for railway subsidies, they do not usually underestimate the cost of a road. The road surveyed by Mr. Davy was from Edmundston to Moncton which is the most difficult part of the section between Quebec and Moncton. A road from Quebec to Edmundston would be less costly, and therefore if a road from Edmundston to Moncton equal to the Intercolonial Railway could be built for $25,000 a mile, a road from the Quebec bridge to Moncton could probably be built for somewhat less per mile.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the date of this engineer's report?


William Stevens Fielding: About 1890.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Finance is aware that railroad building is more expensive now than it was then.
Mr. FIijLDING. On the contrary, I can tell my hon. friend that while certain commoditities are dearer now, "yet the improved machinery and facilities which science enables us now to employ, has brought about the result that railroad building is no more expensive to-day than it was

several years ago, but ratber less. Then, last year I estimated that the road from Quebec to Winnipeg would cost on a basis of $28,000 per mile. 1 made that estimate, not because I belived that the country was any more difficult, but because it was less accessible and there might be a greater cost for getting supplies. Again, in order to provide a fine grade of road, I added one-quarter to the estimate, and I assumed that the road would cost $35,000 per mile. The leader of the opposition made it $40,000 but gave no authority whatever for his theory. I stated last year that my information as respects the estimate of $25,000 per mile for the one section and $28,000 per mile for the other, was obtained from an eminent engineer, and I think I said my information came from Mr. 0)1 ling wood Schreiber, the chief engineer of government railways. I was then asked if I obtained a written report from Mr. Schreiber, and I said I had not. Anticipating that the same question might be asked again this year, I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Railways to obtain from Mr. Schreiber a statement of his views on the matter, reminding him of the information he gave me last year. Mr. Schreiber has addressed to the Minister of Railways the following letter, which deals entirely with the original estimate of $25,000 and $28,000 per mile :
Office of the Deputy Minister
and Chief Engineer.
Ottawa, Ont., 17th May, 1904. Hon. H. R. Emmerson,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.	*'
Sir,- In compliance with your request that I should put in writing the information orally given by me to Mr. Fielding last summer, while he was acting minister of this department, in respect of the estimated cost of constructing the eastern division, between Moncton and Winnipeg, of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, I would state as follows : premising that the character of railway I had in view was a substantially built railway, with maximum grades of less severity, and curves of greater radius than those on the Intercolonial Railway.
As to the section between Moncton and the south approach to the bridge now in course of construction over the River St. Lawrence at Quebec, I advised Mr. Fielding that from my personal knowledge of the general configuration of the country, and from information gathered from the written reports of various engineers who have traversed the district, I had arrived at the conclusion that the cost of construction should not exceed $25,000 per mile.
As to the section between Quebec and Winnipeg, I considered this section on the assumption that the line would probably follow the height of land from a point some distance from Quebec to a point north of Sudbury, and thence to Winnipeg, passing north to Lake Nepigon, I availed myself of the information contained in various engineer's reports on surveys made of the country lying between the neighbourhood of Sudbury and Winnipeg, and the conclusion I reached was that the cost of construction need
not exceed $28,000 per mile, and I so informed Mr. Fielding.
I would say that I am still of opinion that a road of the standard above indicated can be constructed at these figures.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, COLLINCWOOD SCHREIBER,
Chief Engineer.
Hon. gentlemen will observe that Mr. Schreiber is dealing with a road of less severe grades and somewhat better in its character than the Intercolonial ; but not wanting to be confined to a road of that character and wanting to allow a liberal margin for a better road, I added in both cases twenty-five per cent to the first estimate making my calculation $31,250 per mile from Moncton to Quebec, and $35,000 per mile from Quebec to Winnipeg.
In conversation with Mr. Schreiber I asked him whether he considered.the allowance I made in that estimate a liberal one, and he said that he authorized me to say that he did ; and I heard a prominent railway contractor say that he would be very glad to take contracts under these circum- , stances. So I think my hon. friend has magnified his first cost in that respect ; and if he gets an excessive first cost, it follows that he gets an excessive cost for interest ; and so, having started wrongly, he gets astray in the whole calculation. An hon. friend suggests that perhaps I should ask my hon. friend at a later stage to give us his expert who says that it cannot be done under $40,000 a mile. We will hope to receive that. I find that the hon. leader of the opposition has estimated the Quebec-Moncton section, 400 miles, at $40,000 a mile, making $16,000,000 ; a fair estimate would be, 400 miles at $31,250 a mile, $12,500,000 ; excess of Mr. Borden's estimate, $3,500,000. My hon. friend's estimate of the section from Quebec to Winnipeg, 1,475 miles at $40,000 a mile, amounts to $59,000.000. A very liberal estimate would be 1.475 miles at $35,000 a mile, or $51,625,000; showing an excess in Mr. Borden's estimate on that section of $7,375,000. So that the excess of my hon. friend's estimate of the cost of the eastern division from Moncton to Winnipeg, amounts to $10,875,000 ; and of course if my hon. friend puts that into his capital account, he immediately proceeds to put in a sum for interest based thereon ; and so one wrong step leads to another, and so he get astray in the whole calculation. My estimate of the cost of the eastern division is as follows ;
Capital account, actual outlay $64,125,000
Interest during construction
capitalized	 7,031,975
Total capital account	 $71,156,975
There is a question about the three years' interests which is to be paid if the road earns it ; and if it does not earn it, it is to be capitalized and carried into tlie capital

account. The hon. leader of the opposition takes for granted that it will not be earned, and he simply adds it to his account. Whether it is earned or not, it is at the most only an investment, on which we receive \, interest.	*
But worst of all is the statement which the hon. gentleman makes in regard to the Quebec bridge. Bast year I dealt with that matter at a time when there had been no special legislation with respect to it. It was a fair question for debate what the relation of the Quebec bridge was to this transconti-netal scheme. For convenience of calculation I put into my statement $2,000,000 as the proportion fairly chargeable to the eastern division for the Quebec bridge. I stated at the time that I thought that was too liberal, and that I would not like to be tied to that amount in the future. But my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is not content with that liberal allowance; he coolly carries to the outlay on this transaction the whole issue of bonds for the Quebec bridge. On account of the bridge he carries into his calculation $6,978,319, of which $6,678,200 is for the issue of bonds and $300,519 for interest. Now, I do not hesitate to say that nothing could be more grossly unfair than the insertion of that item in the hon. gentleman's calculation, and I am sure that when the matter comes to be considered, my hon. friend will be shocked at his own conduct. The fairest way would be to leave the Quebec bridge out of the transaction altogether. It is not a matter arising out of this transcontinental scheme. The Quebec bridge project has been before the country for some years. It has been acknowledged as an obligation by both political parties. Several years ago, before this government came Into power, Sir Charles Tupper went to the city of Quebec, and made a great public speech, in which he declared that it was the policy of the Conservative party to build the Quebec bridge; and more than that, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition himself last session, went down to Quebec and made a speech when he wanted to please the electors of that city, and this Is what he said:
Moreover, the extension of the Intercolonial Railway coupled with the completion of the Quebec bridge, to which both political parties [DOT]are committed, may mean much for the future of Quebec.
If both political parties are committed to the Quebec bridge, what right has my hon. friend to charge it as part of the transcontinental railway ? The most that anybody can say in relation to the Transcontinental Railway and the Quebec bridge is that the adoption of this great transcontinental scheme has created an additional reason for the Quebec bridge-not only an additional reason why we would build it, but an additional reason why when built it Mr. FIELDING.
shall be a self-sustaining public work. Was that all ? The Jjon. gentleman came back from his Quebec speech and sat in this House and let the Quebec bridge Bill go through without opposition. The members of the opposition voted for the Quebec bridge Bill, and they share with us the responsibility for every dollar of that expenditure. What, then, are we to think of the hon. gentleman who treats it as part of this abominable transcontinental scheme which he wants to defeat by his amendment ? Sir, if it is a part of this transcontinental -scheme, the hon. gentleman and all his followers have an account to settle with the people of this country, because when they go on the public platform and condemn this scheme, men will rise up and say, ' Why do you condemn it ? You voted for a part of that scheme, that is, the Quebec bridge.' The hon. gentleman will say that has nothing to do with the trans-ontinental scheme at all. The answer will be, 'Why then do you charge it up against the transcontinental scheme ?' I venture to say that my hon. friend, with his attention drawn to it in this way, cannot show the shadow of a reason why he should add six or seven millions of dollars to his calculation on that account. But the hon. gentleman started out with only a little less zeal than the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who made the cost of the eastern division $120,000,000. He started out to make up an alarming statement to the people of this country ; and, not content with adding $10,000,000 to the fair cost of the eastern division, he adds six or seven millions more by including the Quebec bridge, which he voted for himself.
Now, the government's obligation in this matter, as I have already stated, is confined to the seven years' interest. Let us not get away from that. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Company fulfil the obligations which they have undertaken by this contract, then the only obligation that this government will be called upon to meet will be seven years' interest on three-fourths of the cost of the mountain section and seven years rental on the eastern division. It admits of no debate. Can we safely assume for the purposes of the calculation that the scheme is to work out successfully, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will fulfil its obligation ? I believe we can do so. for several reasons.
First we have the engagement of eminent, responsible railway men of honourable reputation, who entered into the agreement with the full confidence and belief that, in the great development of this country, the scheme will be made a success. Secondly because each one of us, as he looks at the expansion of Canada which is going on now, as he sees the evidences of new life, hope and confidence which have come into this country since the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) became First

Minister, must have an abiding faith that this scheme is going to prove successful. Then there is a third reason which my hon. friends opposite are bound to accept. Every argument they have made as to the profitable character of the enterprise to the Grand Trunk Railway must he based on the assumption that the Grand Trunk Railway has fulfilled its obligations and paid every cent. If the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk Railway, as holders of the common stock, are to make one cent out of this enterprise, they must fulfil every obligation they are under to this government. They cannot make a cent until they do so. The Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk

Pacific- -must see that the interest is paid, on- the western division, 

*Bd'_ that they are not called upon to pay it. They must see that the rental is paid on tile eastern section and that we are not called upon to pay it. And until both these obligations are discharged, not one dollar can be made by the promoters of this enterprise. Therefore I am justified in saying that the whole argument of hon. gentlemen opposite,' who have laboured so hard to prove that the promoters of this company in the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway are going to make a lot of money, can only be *based on the scheme becoming a success and the government fully protected. On the assumption therefore that the company *will fulfil its obligations, I want to make a summary statement of the obligations which the government is assuming. In the first instance, the government must
hllild tha	Auriaion, hilt it has a fenajli
who will paythe interest on the Cost. The government then has to assume the obligation of guaranteeing the bonds on the prairie section to the extent of J^AAQQ a mile, -but no one thkibts that that "section will pay its interest from the beginning. Then we are bound to guarantee three-fourths of the cost of the mountain section, but we believe that there again the interest will be paid, and that we are not going to be obligated in the proper ^sense of the word. Assuming then that all these obligations will be met, our sole obliga-tiorfsjs the seven years interest. Last session my; right hon. friend, the leader of the government, made the statement that we could provide for the obligations entailed by this scheme out of one year's surplus. The statement which my hon. friend made in that off-hand way was absolutely and literally correct. I showed that by setting aside some $13,000,000 or $14,000,000, which" was somewhat less than our surplus, we could provide for tile payment of the seven years interest which we are under obligation to give to Lie pnrppnriy p,y 0ur agreement we give then seven years free rental on the eastern division, and seven years free interest on the mountain -section of the western. I pointed out, upon the authority of an
actuary, that by laying aside $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 we could provide for the complete payment of that obligation and that therefore that was the measure of what we would have to pay. I have been asked to revise that statement, and I am glad to be able to inform tile House that the result of my revision is that the figures are not materially changed by the supplemental contract. I strike out of the calculation the Quebec bridge, which, as I have clearly shown, has no part here, and when I do that I find that the possible increase which may result from the changes made in the contract do not materially change the figures presented last year :
Prairie section, 1,000 miles; the government to guarantee three-fourths of the cost, not exceeding $13,000 a mile.
The amount which the government has to guarantee on this section is thus limited to $13,000,000. The company will pay the interest on this from the beginning, and therefore there will be no burden whatever on the government.
Mountain section, 480 miles. In the calculations I made last year, my figures for the section from Quebec to Winnipeg were somewhat larger than those of some hon. gentlemen, but for the mountain section they were somewhat smaller.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these estimates for a four-tenths per cent grade V


William Stevens Fielding: They are estimated upon the larger sum $35,000 per mile for the section from Quebec westward and $31,250 per mile for the section from Quebec to Moncton.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman any report of any engineer which says that the line can be built for that sum with a four-tenths grade ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, but I have the statement of a very eminent engineer that the allowance I made of 25 per cent above the first figure was a fair and reasonable allowance for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the Deputy Minister of Railways.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, Mr. Schreiber. I stated that I allowed 25 per cent extra for the better grade, and he said that was a fair allowance. For the mountain section I am taking the highest figures of hon. gentlemen opposite. We estimated last year roughly that $40,000 per mile would cover the cost. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) relying on the statement attributed to Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson that the road will cost $50,000 per mile, plus interest on construction, made the cost $56,000 per mile. I may point out that the company has only power, under its charter, to issue bonds to the extent of $50,000 per mile, and as it has made no application for an increase, I think

we may fairly assume that it does not expect, the road to cost more than $50,000 per mile including the interest. I think I might have made the computation on the basis of $50,000 a mile, but in all these calculations I wish to be on the safe side. I take, but under protest, the estimate of my hon. friend from Hamilton of $56,000 per mile, which would cost $26,880,000. On this the government guarantees three-fourths in cash or $20,160,000.
Assuming a possible discount of 5 per cent on the bonds issued, it would require additional bonds to the amount of $1,061,052, making a total issue of bonds to be guaranteed by the government of $21,221,052. Annual interest on $21,221,052 at 3 per cent is $636,631. The government pays interest for 7 years (all other Interest being paid by the company) as its contribution to the work.
To provide at once this interest for the 7 years it would be necessary to lay aside now the sum of $3,177,794.
A summary briefly of the figures show the following :
Total present sum required to cover 7 years' interest (all other interest being paid by the company) on cost
of eastern division	$10,655,562
Total present sum required to provide government portion of 7 years' interest (all other interest being paid by the company) on cost of mountain section, western division. 3,177,794
Total present sum required.... $13,833,356
That is to say, if, out of our large surplus this year, we should set aside $13,833,356, it would provide for the full payment on the seven years' interest which is all the obligation that the government are to bear as respects the whole line from iMoncton to the Pacific.


Mr. BELL.: At what rate of interest does the hon. minister calculate it ?


William Stevens Fielding: Three per cent.


Adam Carr Bell: 

3rd. That your petitioners, therefore, ask that their application for authority to construct such a line of railway, to be called the ' Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ' shall he granted.
4th. That your petitioners will he prepared, immediately an agreement is entered into by the government, and the concessions hereinafter mentioned are sanctioned by an Order in Council, to place a corps of engineers in the field, both at the eastern and western ends and at other points on the projected line.
5th. That the routes to be selected shall be submitted to and approved by the government, after proper surveys have been made.
6th. That as soon as the plans and routes are approved, work shall be commenced and the road shall be completed and in operation within a period of five years from the time the Act is in force.
7th. That all the work shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the chief engineer of the government.
8th. That in order to provide for connection \ ith the Atlantic sea-board all the year round and through an all-British territory route, your petitioners will be prepared to enter into an arrangement with the government for an interchange of traffic, or other satisfactory agreement, with the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, or to consider such other proposal as the government may submit.
9th. That your petitioners would have the advantage of all the eastern connections, in Ontario and Quebec, of the Grand Trunk Railway, and by this means on the completion of the transcontinental line there would be established and opened up a complete system from ocean to ocean.
10th. That the conditions referred to in clause 4, upon which your petitioners would undertake the carrying out of the proposed work, may be set forth as follows :
(a.) That the Dominion government will grant a cash subsidy to your petitioners of $6,400 per mile of railway, and in addition 5,000 acres of land per mile.
(b.) That the payment for the carriage of the mails shall be calculated on the same basis as provided for under the contract made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
(c.) That rails and materials of every kind used in the construction of the railway-if dutiable-shall be admitted free, if such material cannot be obtained in Canada upon equally favourable terms.
(d.) That the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and all stations and station grounds, work shops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required rnd used for the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company, shali he for ever free from taxation by the Dominion or by any province hereafter to be established or by any municipal corporation therein ; and the lands of the company in the Northwest Territories (until they are either sold or occupied) shall also be free from such taxation, for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
Your petitioners ask that your governmerr will give the prayer of this petition their early and most earnest consideration.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
On behalf of the petitioners,


GEO. A. COX, CHAS. M. HAYS, WM. WAINWRIGHT.
[Stage Direction]
Now I want my hon. friends to look into this matter a little further and to see the Mr. FIELDING.
difference between the offer of the Grand Trunk as they have stated it and the offer as it really is. I have shown _ you, Sir, that they ask the maximum subsidy of the Railway Act, which-is-$6,4011 per mile. They also ask "exemptions with regard to customs taxation, such as were granted in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway and such as we have refused to grant them under our contract. They also ask exemption from taxation, particularly in the matter of lands in the Northwest Territories an exemption which has been the cause of great difficulty in the Northwest Territories, and which we emphatically refuse to grant hereafter to any company whatever. And then they ask that we shall give them 5,000 acre3 of land per mile. Five thousand acres of land for one mile of railroad might not alarm anybody but when you multiply that by the mileage of a long line of railway you discover that 5,000 acres a mile is a very considerable amount. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) in the speech which he made the other day on the value of the aid granted by Canada to railways during past years dealt with the question of both lands and money and he computed the value of the lands "which we have given in bygone years at $2 per acre and I do not think that was an unfair calculation. If it will be generally admitted that $2 per acre was a fair estimate as respects lands granted in the past, $3 per acre would not be an unfair estimate, but a very moderate estimate, as to the value of lands to be granted now and hereafter. I do not think the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) would object to,such a calculation as that. Let us see how it works out.
The distance from North Bay to Winnipeg is 1,012 miles.
From Winnipeg to the Pacific, 1,480 miles.
The total distance of the line proposed by the Grand Trunk is 2,492 miles.
2.492	miles at $6,400 per mile amounts to $15,948,800.
2.492	miles at 5,000 acres per mile amounts to 12,460,000 acres.
12,460,000 acres at $3 per acre amounts to $37,380,000.
Thus the proposal of the Grand Trunk Company which the hon. gentlemen opposite deserted as being a proposal to build for the ordinary railway subsidies, was a proposal which demanded from us in lands and money, placing a very moderate value on the lands, a total amount of $53,328,000. For a transcontinental railway ? No, for a railway which would begin 1,000 miles from the sound of the Atlantic waves, which would begin at North Bay and go to the Pacific ocean. We were to pay $53,328,000 for a part of the transcontinental railway, while we present to the House to-day a scheme which gives us a whole transeontin-
[Stage Direction]
ental railway at a cost of about $13,000,000. There is no question in the proposal of advances or loans or guarantees ; there was nothing coming back on the other side of the account, no rental to be paid to us in the future, no interest to be paid to us on the prairie section or the mountain section or any other section. It was to be a clean, straight, free gift of $53,000,000 in money and property for a piece of a transcontinental railway, instead of $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 for a magnificent scheme for a railway from ocean to ocean on British territory.
Never before was such a truly national policy presented to this parliament as that which we have presented in this transcontinental railway scheme. From ocean to ocean it has conmmanded the admiration and confidence of the people. British Columbia is practically unanimous in support of it; as a Conservative editor in that province has said, the people of British Columbia should be a unit for this scheme and the men in public life who oppose it will as they should go down to defeat. Come down to the Northwest Territories and Manitoba and the people hail this scheme as a new line of internal communication, a new line of competition, a new outlet for the people of that region who want to send their products to market. Come down to the province of Ontario. Opposition members from Ontario say there is nothing for that province in this scheme. Read the testimony of the president of the Board of Trade of Toronto, Mr. Ellis, who says that this is not only a great scheme for Canada, but a great scheme for Ontario, and a great scheme for its capital city of Toronto. Come down to the province of Quebec and where is the man in that province who dares to hold up his head against this scheme ? A handful of men who by some accident have struggled into parliament from the province of Quebec are found to-day apologizing for their opposition and moving amendments, declaring where this road ought to go. The province of Quebec is a unit in favour of this scheme and in the provinces down by the sea, in the public press, in the independent press, in the boards of trade, in the public bodies that represent public opinion irrespective Of party, there is abundant evidence that shows public sentiment is in favour of this scheme. It is indeed truly a national policy and one which demands and will receive the confidence and approval of the people. Sir, the people are not going to worry themselves over small and petty criticisms. They are not to be disturbed by the ill-natured suggestions such as that which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had the bad taste to indulge in to-day, when he hinted at corrupt transactions in connection with this great scheme. It ill becomes my hon. friend, to whom has descended the title to the leadership of the Conservative party, to send such jibes across the floor of this House. Does he forget the record of1 1154
the Conservative party on the Canadian Pacific Railway ? My hon. friend may not have been with them in those days, but if he occasionally identifies himself with their past policy and desires to share in their virtues, he must be content to be reminded of some of their sins. I will remind him as a suggestion that he should not have sent such a taunt across the floor of this House that the darkest page in the history of this country, a page which made every Canadian ashamed as he went abroad, was the page which told the story of the political corruption of the Conservative party in the first stages of the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is no ' send along another ten thousand ' telegram in this transaction, and the hon. gentlemen opposite have extraordinary audacity when they presume to make any suggestion of that kind in the light of the history to which I have made this faint reference. My hon. friends opposite need not expect that thevw are going to disturb the public by their amendments or by any number of amendments. We heard one hon. gentleman state last night that they had moved twenty-one ; I do not know whether that number- is correct or not, I believe that the Liberal party moved pretty nearly that number away back in 1881, and if the old veterans will not be offended, let me say that the greater part of these amendments are not held in the most precious memory or respect to-day. They have been forgotten. Perhaps the public were unjust, but the public have been cruel enough to forget these amendments and to-day there are not many men who could tell us what they were all about. Twenty years hence the 21 amendments of hon. gentlemen opposite will be forgotten, and if brought to memory, they will only be regarded with curiosity as a part of the" history of the period. I believe-I hope this is not irreverent-that if we were to bring down the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, and place them before parliament, my hgn. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), could devise amendments to both of them. I admit that their power of devising amendments is great and that no scheme which we could bring forward would not be susceptible to treatment of that character. But, the people of Canada will not bother about amendments of a petty character. Where the amendments are grave and serious they will treat them gravelly and seriously. But they win not be misled by such petty criticism as has been given to this great measure. They will see and fully appreciate the nobility of the scheme. They will realize that the measure is one which has much to do with the making of this country, with the building up of a new nation on this northern half of the American continent, and when the time comes, and I cannot doubt that before long it will come for a formal expression of their judgment, they will say that my right hon.
[Stage Direction]
friend wlio leads the government of this country and who has done so much in a short time for the upbuilding of this Dominion, has through the enactment of this legislation given the crowning proof of liis courage, his patriotism and his sagacity.
Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of pleasure to the very plausible speech made by my bon friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). He has not only the business of the Department of Finance, the tariff and a great many other things on his shoulders, but he has assumed the role of Minister of Railways and Canals this evening. How pleased the hon. Minister of Railway and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) must be sitting in his seat here to have another speak for him with the ability with which the hon. Minister of Finance has spoken in reference to the department which is peculiarly his own. Wo have the first time this evening listened to some of the reasons given by that department in reference to this extraordinary transaction which we are discussing. We, on this Side of the House and the country as well expected to hear from the Hon. tire Minister of Railways and Canals, or at least from his department, a description financially and otherwise in reference to this scheme which is at present under consideration. Until this evening we have not had one word from the department of Railways and Canals, a department paid by the people of this country, for the purpose of informing them upon questions such as that which we have been discussing this evening. For the first time this evening we have the report of the deputy head of the department, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, as to the cost of the railway between Winnipeg and Quebec and between Quebec and Moncton. We have the first authoritative statement and we have that statement marked ' confidential ' as between the Grand Trunk* Railway and this government and in which a request is made for what ?-for a subsidy for the purpose of constructing a road from North Bay to the Pacific coast. We knew that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had applied to this parliament for power to construct this road. We naturally supposed that the ordinary subsidy would be granted. We naturally supposed that because we had the word of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that in regard to the branches to be constructed he expected the ordinary subsidies from both the Dominion and the local governments. For the first time we have this document which is marked ' confidential. ' What right have the Grand Trunk Railway Company to mark a document asking the people of this country to subsidize an undertaking of that kind * confidential.'
Under the rule and practice in England, the word ' confidential ' would be struck 'out Mr. FIELDING.
without asking the permission of the party who wrote it, and it would be treated as a public document referring to business which had no right to be confidential. Are there no other documents from the Grand Trunk Company to the government in connection with this matter ? Was the president of the Grand Trunk Company deceiving his shareholders when be said that they expected the usual subsidies from the Dominion and provincial governments to assist in building the branch lines ? We know that the undertaking is not complete without the building of branch lines to Lake Superior, to North Bay and to Montreal, but where is the correspondence between the government and the Grand Trunk Company in respect to these branch lines ? The government has treated the people of the country with scant courtesy indeed in regard to this matter.	[DOT]
The Minister of Finance taunted the opposition with changing their views on government ownership of railways. Well, Sir. there has been no change in the opinion of the opposition with reference to this scheme, but just imagine the authors of tlie Ottawa platform charging members on this side of the House with changing their opinion. Why, the whole thing is ridiculous there is not a single plank in their platform which they have even attempted to stick to. Tlie Minister of Finance accused us that we did not read the remarks of Mr. Allen to the Grand Trunk shareholders but I will read them for the hon. gentleman's benefit and let us see what comfort he can get out of them. Mr. Allen resigned as a director of the Grand Trunk Railway on July 24th, and he drew up a memo, for his son to read at the meeting of the board which was called for the purpose of considering the second agreement. The Finance Minister told us that the second agreement was before the board and that Mr. Allen was fully aware of it when he drew up this memorandum.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that. I stated that when Mr. Allen's memorandum was read at the meeting of shareholders the whole matter was before the meeting.


John Graham Haggart: matters at all what has been paid for the stock. The whole objection to watering stock is that the amount of stock watered might in some way represent an actual investment in money in the undertaking. A great many state railways in Europe, have been acquired by expropriation, and the question of watered stock does not enter into the calculation of their value. The value of the railways for expropriation has been ascertained in two or three different ways. In Switzerland they simply look at the net earnings of the railway, capitalize those, and in that way get at the value of the railway as a going concern. The Interstate Commerce Commission never take into account the nominal value of the stock of an undertaking in fixing rates. They only consider the actual expenditure upon the undertaking. It is true, experts differ on this matter. The lion. Minister of Finance gives me the title of expert. I differ from the Postmaster General and the ex-Minister of Railways on this matter, though I must say they have some authorities on their side. Some evidence was given before the Interstate Commerce Commission by Prof. E. R. Johnson, who is a celebrated authority on these matters. It was as follows :
Q. On the effect of watering stock, and unnecessary additions to the bonded indebtedneis upon railway employment and railwray wages, have you any remarks to make ?-A. It is usually said that the watering of stock or the unnecessary additions to bonded indebtedness do not affect the scale of wages paid or the rates charged by railroads. I question whether the statement in that form is true.
For the purpose of fixing rates, the Railway Committee do not consider the question of watered stock ; they only consider the actual cash value of the undertaking at the time, which is to be arrived at by the net profits capitalized. That is entirely different from the opinion of the ex-Minister of Railways, whom the First Minister has spoken of as the greatest railway expert in the world. To get at the value of a railway for the purpose of expropriation, the method followed in countries where that is done is to take the net earnings of the road over ten years, get at the average per year and capitalize the railway on that amount.	*
The hon. Finance Minister asks my opinion on the question of the state ownership of railways. That question is not involved in the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. What he says is this, that if you are going to pay' for the cost of this whole undertaking, it is worth trying the experiment whether state ownership would not be better than making a present of the railway to the company. What are the facts in regard to this undertaking ? The Finance Minister asked what would be the use of a great transcontinental line if it were to connect with an American road at Mr. HAGGART.
Point Ldvis, and had not a connection of its own with a port in the maritime provinces ?
He said that every petition, every statement from gentlemen of importance down in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, was to the effect that if the Grand Trunk Pacific was to be built at all, it had to be built to some port in the maritime provinces. But the present scheme was not contemplated by any of them. This scheme ends in Moncton, and is throttled by the Intercolonial at Moncton just as it would be at Levis. Does the hon. gentleman intend to subsidize a road from Moncton to St. John ? No, because he has told us that while the people of St. John would be unanimously in favour of the project if the road were to be built from Quebec to St. John, there were other interests in the maritime provinces to be considered besides St. John. There were Halifax and other ports to be considered, each of which is just as much entitled to be a terminus of this railway as is the port of St. John. This scheme, therefore, is nothing else but a compromise. The terminus is fixed at Moncton, and then you will have to travel over the Intercolonial to go to St. John or Halifax, just the same as you would have to do if the road only went to L6vis. What becomes of his reasoning when he says : Oh, it would not do at all to utilize the Intercolonial from L6vis ? But one of the great benefits of this scheme was the virtual extension of the Intercolonial from Halifax and St. John to AVinnipeg. The Intercolonial had secured running powers from Quebec to Winnipeg. But why should running powers be so valuable from Quebec to Winnipeg and be of no value from Levis to Halifax or St. Jolin ?
AA'e had a report, and a very meagre one, this evening from the Department of Railways and Canals with reference to the financial position of this road. We thought perhaps it was a commercial undertaking, but it has assumed a new aspect this evening. It is intended for the military defence of the country. In case the time should ever come when the people of this country will be threatened by our neighbours to the south, it is essential that we should have a backbone of communication for the purposes* of defence. Well, we ought to have a report-on that point from the Minister of Militia. We ought to have his reasons for the building of this line, which is not only to be a commercial, but a military undertaking. But an extraordinary feature about it from this point of view is, that when it comes down to the maritime provinces, the hon. gentleman leaves out of sight the military question altogether, because the road then comes within fifty yards of the international boundary. It runs between the Intercolonial and the state of Maine ; and if we are to believe the profiles posted up in the room of the Railway Commission, it will come within fifty yards of the Maine

boundary. The hon. gentleman talks about a survey made of the road from Edmonton to Moncton and from Edmonton to Quebec. Well, one peculiarity of this road is, that from Quebec down to River Ouelle it almost parallels the Intercolonial. I was about to say ' paralyzes,' and perhaps that would be the better word. What is the necessity of another extension almost paralleling the Intercolonial down to River Ouelle, from which place it crosses over to Moncton ? We have had a carefully prepared report submitted-the first -we have had-regarding the financial position and the actual cost of the eastern section. In the Department of Railways there are able men on the engineering staff, who ought to be able to furnish us with the details of the gradients and curvatures and the estimated cost. East year the hon. gentleman gave a statement from information he got from the Railway Department that this road would only cost $28,025 per mile, and he adds a certain amount until he gets the figures of cost up to $35,000 per mile. He accuses my hon. friend the leader of the opposition of over-estimating the cost when he made it $40,000, but if we take the figures of the hon. Minister of Finance and add the interest during construction, we will find that there is a difference of but $300 or $400 a mile between the two. When Mr. Schreiber was asked to put in writing his opinion on the cost of the road, he gave his opinion on the cost of a road with the gradients and curvatures of the Intercolonial. But we w-ere told that this was to be a road of first-class character : and, if so, the estimate of cost from Winnipeg to Moncton would be below the mark at $40,000 per mile. Take the road which was described in this House by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and others on the government side-a road with four-tenths gradients, or about twenty-one feet per mile-and then com-* [DOT]pare that with the Intercolonial. Why, the gradients on the Intercolonial-and I have just got these for the purpose of showing what value is to be placed on Mr. Schreiber's report of the cost-are sixty-five feet and more to the mile, and the maximum curvature is 694 feet. If you intend to build a road like that, do you suppose that you will ever be able to carry grain over it from Winnipeg to the coast ? No ; my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is under the mark when he estimates $40,000 per mile. The Minister of Finance, by a little juggling o'f figures, made the cost equal to about $14,000,000. But when you borrow money to build a road-and the hon. gentleman estimates that the eastern section will cost $71,000,000, on which we will have to pay interest for seven years, which will amount to $13,000,000, besides some other liabilities which we may reasonably expect-are you simply going to take that $13,00,000 as the charge against the country ? A more absurd, misleading statement was never made.
You build a road and borrow the money on the credit of the country to pay for it, and you pay out the cash ; is not that an indebtedness to the people who hold the bonds? True, you may be recouped, but the amount of the bonds is the measure of our liability. When we built the Welland canal, we were told that the tolls would recoup us for the interest on the expenditure, and consequently it would cost us nothing. Can you imagine a more childish contention ? It would not take in an ordinary schoolboy in a public school. The amount to be charged against the government is the liability undertaken at the moment and the money expended. What is the proposition of my hon. friend ? He says that we are to pay out in cash three-quarters of the cost of the western section and build the whole of the eastern section. In that case, is it not time, if that expenditure is to be made at all, to try what government ownership will accomplish ?
The Finance Minister hints at some features of the management of the Intercolonial Railway by his former colleague. We were promised, if we would extend the road and give it an entrance to Montreal that, though the expenditure might be large, it was like the expenditure of a man who paid to remove his business from a back street to a front street. They told us that the increased receipts would give splendid results. Counting deficits, so-called improvements and rolling stock, they expended no less than $22,000,000 on the Intercolonial. That capitalized at four per cent would mean an annual expenditure of $880,000. To keep the Intercolonial in as good a financial condition as it was in when handed over to tnem, they had to make $880,000 more per year. And what is the result ? We have not yet received the figures for last year, but the probability is that, notwithstanding this extension to Montreal whicli was so much lauded by hon. gentlemen opposite, there will be a deficit on the Intercolonial. I warned the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Daurier) and his then Minister of Railways, of whom he has since spoken of as the greatest expert in railway matters in Canada and whom he has made chairman of the commission that is to administer justice to railways, that he had thrown back the possibility of -government ownership for fifty years, that you could not justify government ownership after this extravagant expenditure on the Intercolonial. And now the right hon. gentleman's Finance Minister, after giving the loose rein to the ex-Minister of Railways, quotes our experience on the Intercolonial and reads a statement of Sir John Macdonald in reference to government ownership, and so concludes that it would be a bad jilan to try it now. It would be a bad plan to try with such management of government railways as we have had under the right hon. gentleman's regime. But there is no reason that the management of

by offering so much in cash per mile and so many acres of land to secure the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Mr. Mackenzie never got an offer to do it. He offered 20,000 acres of land per mile and so much in cash. My hon. friend compares the arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway -with the splendid arrangement this government has made. He says that we exempted the Canadian Pacific Railway from taxation. What taxes could we have collected from the building of that road or what taxes could we have collected upon any imports between the north of Lake Superior and the Pacific coast before the road was built ? It would have been entirely useless to have attempted to have made any such collection of taxes. Of what value was the land ? The Canadian Pacific Railway would have been glad to have taken a dollar an acre for it. It only assumed any value as a result of the building of the railway and it has become of value by the development of the country which is going on at the present time. Then, my hon. friend tells us about the experts who have been over the road. He mentions Sir Sandford Fleming in reference to the construction of the road from Winnipeg and he describes him as an expert engineer. Did the hon. gentleman ever read Sir Sandford Fleming's statement in reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway ? Did he ever read that gentleman's statement as to what the people of this country would have to pay for the running of that road after its construction, as to what it would cost them for a certain number of years and that by no possibility could the company put it upon a paying basis until there was a population of 800,000 in the Northwest Territories. If the hon. Finance Minister would only get him to make the surveys, I will promise him that there will be no road completed within the next twenty years. It would take him twenty years to make a survey of the country from Winnipeg to Quebec. He would do it thoroughly and perfectly. He is an engineer who would see that everything was perfectly done.
In reference to the character of the country, Dr. Bell has been quoted. The hon. gentleman quoted from some remarks he made in a report of the geological survey issued twenty-five years ago. I have had many conversations with Dr. Bell in reference to the character of the country. He says that nothing is known of the country back from the banks of the rivers, that all the explorers who go up to Hudson's Bay follow the rivers, that there are morasses and rocks in most places between the rivers and that it is impossible that the character of the country can be known. It is possible that north of the height of land through drainage the coutotry may turn out to be an excellent country. Then, the hon. gentleman refers to the remarks made Mr. HAGGART.
by Mr. Macoun before the Committee on Agriculture yesterday. Mr. Macoun was talking about a country lying north of Lake Winnipeg. Our railway passes south of it. He is 150 miles from the line of the road when he commences his description of the country. He says that there are a thousand million acres of arable land between Lake Winnipeg and the shores of Hudson's bay. Every one knows that on the slope of Hudson's bay there is a large clay plateau on which the land is excellent and the only question is as to whether summer frosts are such as to prevent grain from being successfully grown in that part of the country. I hope that it may turn out that grain can be grown there. I hope that that section of the country may turn out to be all that is expected of it, but this railway does not touch it at all. The hon. gentleman tells us what a magnificent country this is. He has spoken of the forests of pulpwood that renew themselves, I think he said, every seven years. You can go in and cut them down and they will grow up every seven years. It is, he says, a magnificent country that we are building this expensive railway through. There is no one on this side of the House who is decrying the country. What we want on this side of the House and what the country wants is that before entering into an undertaking on which the hon. Minister of Finance intends to expend $64,000,000 of the people's money, we should have an accurate report as to what the country is. We have not a tittle of information as to the country between Lake Abitibi and Quebec. The right hon. leader of the government says that we have mountains of information, but we have nothing that is of any practical use to a railway man. I be-| lieve that Sir Sandford Fleming is possessed of surveys to a certain extent between Lake Nepigon and Winnipeg. I tried to get these surveys. They -were made when the Canadian Pacific Railway was in course of construction. I thought they were in the department, but I was told by the hon. Minister of Finance that the only surveys in the possession of the department were those published in the report of Sir Sandford Fleming. I knew that several surveyors had been at work north of Lake Nepigon and had surveyed east and west. I gave a description of that country, describing it as a sea of morasses broken up here and there by ridges. The right hon. leader of the government added to that description by saying that there was jackpine in that section of the country. We jlo not decry the country but we want to know the bald facts in connection with it. We hope that the water powers which the hon. gentleman described are to be found in that section of the country, and we hope that the immense quantities of agricultural lands are to be found as they have been described, but we want more information in regard to the

country. We do not want to expend $64,000,000 and then find that it is worthless. We want to know what the country is really like. We are called upon to enter into a contract with this company, while my hon. friend in the modest amendment which he has proposed declares that if we have to pay the whole of the money virtually for the building of the road the people of this country should own the road. Test it as to whether the government can operate the road or not and if we find we cannot, it will be time enough then to enter into a contract with some company for the purpose of running the road. The hon. gentleman has given a wonderful description of what the results of the building of that road will be in the next twenty years. He spoke of some of the mistakes that were committed by his friends opposite who were opposed to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway and he added that these twenty-one amendments which we have moved will be forgotten altogether, that within the next twenty years they will have passed into ancient history, that the men will have been forgotten who moved them and that he was ashamed to own that similar amendments had been proposed by his friends when they were in opposition to the great and grand scheme of the Canadian Pacific Railway. What a remark to make of his leader there who moved some of the amendments to the Canadian Pacific Railway contract.
The Minister of Finance has told us that the people of every province in the Dominion would hold up their hands in favour of this scheme. Well, Sir, if the bald question were placed before the electors, whether they would pay three-fourths of the cost of building the western section, and whether they would pay the cost of building the whole of the eastern section to hand it over to a private corporation ; or whether they would try government ownership, I venture to say that nine-tenths of the people of Canada would vote in favour of government ownership The only argument against government ownership is the management of the Intercolonial Railway by this government. We had the greatest railway expert in the country at its head, as the Prime Minister tells us, and his management of the Intercolonial Railway was such that it retarded government ownership in Canada for perhaps a hundred years. Expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway which ought to be controlled and carefully scanned by the Minister of Finance, passed current and were justified by him when these expenditures were made in the maritime provinces, until $22,000,000 in almost useless expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway, was thrown into that sink hole. The people of Canada are not against the maritime provinces receiving a fair and just share of public expenditure. We have entered into an allianee for better, or for worse, and each province in this
Dominion must receive fair-play. The people of all Canada are glad of the prosperity of the lower provinces, and they want to see the transportation problem solved in such a way that it will be as beneficial to the maritime provinces as it will be to the rest of Canada. This transportation question should not be a political question ; it is above all parties. Instead of having the question studied carefully by competent authorities we have this government entering into an arrangement with a private corporation, which I conceive to be the grandest piece of folly that ever was perpetrated in any country. They are guaranteeing the construction of a railway from Winnipeg to Edmonton for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and they are at the same time guaranteeing a railway over practically the same ground for the Canadian Northern. The Grand Trunk Railway have a right to get into that western country. I am free to state here that the Grand Trunk Railway has done more than any other railway to develop Ontario and Quebec. It is a popular company, it has a good road, and those who invested their money in it have had but scant return. The benefit has all accrued to the people of Canada, and if there were any arrangement to be made with a railway company, the advantage should be given to the Grand Trunk Railway. I am in favour of the Grand Trunk getting into Winnipeg. It will afford competition, but at the same time, competition to be efficient must be controlled by a government owned railway, because no commission that ever was appointed, and no Acts of parliament will ever regulate freights. The railway companies will make secret arrangements and favour individuals and corporations, and you will never get at them The evidence before the Interstate Commerce Commission shows that it is impossible to reach them. Men who are upright in every walk of life; managers of railways, managers of industrial companies, will enter into dickers between themselves by which advantages will be given to some which are not given to others and you cannot prevent it. I have come to the conclusion that the only proper solution of the question is government ownership of the railroads. The Standard Oil Company for instance make arrangements with the railway companies to have their oil carried for ten cents a barrel, and they stipulate that the oil of rival concerns shall be charged fifty cents a barrel. Not only that, but they force the railway companies to pay to the Standard Oil Company the difference between the fifty cents and the ten cents. The only real way to get at these big corporations is the test of government ownership. The transportation question is a favourite one with me, but if we are to make an expenditure of nearly $100,-000,000-not the $13,000,000 which the Minister of Finance talks about-and if we are to build a railway, let us own it. We pos-

sess in Canada a means of transportation such as is possessed by no other part of the continent : not even the great Mississippi river can compare with the gt. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers in the matter of transportation for the purpose of developing the richest wheat producing and agricultural country in the world. I am asked, why we did not develop our transportation system when the Conservatives were in power. Well, we had not a Finance Minister who was generous enough to place at our disposal $125,000,000 for transportation purposes, and if I had, I would have to-day in Canada a system of transportation without a rival on this continent, and which would have placed us in a position that we need not care for any other country in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have dealt at sufficient length with this question. In all seriousness, let us try the scheme proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition ; let us give it a chance. I believe that^the country is with us, and that when we appeal to the people we shall receive a mandate to carry out his proposition. I believe that state ownership of railways is bound to be tried in this country. The people of Canada will not submit to the tyranny of corporations, especially railway corporations. We have given them special advantages; we have placed them in a position to earn large sums of money ; and what we require from them is a return of fair rates and transportation facilities for the people of the country.


Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention this evening of making a speech. I have not prepared any speech. I have already stated in this House my views, and I believe also the views of the constituency which I represent, in regard to this transcontinental railway. But, Sir, the hon. Finance Minister, in the course of his speech to-night, made such an extended reference to the city which I have the honour to represent that I could not allow this discussion to pass by without saying a word or two, not only to correct the hon. gentleman to a certain extent, but in order that the ideas of the Board of Trade of the city of St. John, which he so largely quoted, should not be misrepresented in this House and all over the country. The hon. Minister of Finance quoted some of the resolutions which had been passed by the St. John Board of Trade ; and if I heard him distinctly, I think he said those resolutions were passed in the month of May. Now, reference has been made to the evolution which takes place in public opinion, and reference was made in that connection to the idea of government ownership. I think the Minister of Finance spoke about platforms being used only to get in on, and the hon. gentleman related a little story in that connection. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his Mr. HAGGART.
seat gave a very effective reply to that, when he made some reference to a platform known as the Liberal platform, which was adopted in the city of Ottawa some years ago. If I mistake not, one of the planks of that platform was that the Liberal party should advocate free trade as it was in England. So when the hon. Finance Minister shows that the government and the party which he represents are abb! to change their opinions very frequently, or as often they think necessary, surely gentlemen on this side of the House and the people of the country have a right to change their views also. As the country advances and education spreads among the people, views must necessarily change. The hon. Finance Minister referred to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who had voted against government ownership. Suppose hon. gentlemen on this side of the House or hon. gentlemen on the other side have at some time or other voted against government ownership, that is no reason why at this time or at some future time they should not be in favour of it. Government ownership might be all very well at one period of a nation's existence and a very poor thing at another period. These things must be determined by the facts as they are at the time. The hon. Minister of Finance quoted one or two resolutions passed by the St. John Board of Trade, but he did not quote them all, and I intend to fill up that little hiatus which he has left in the history of the proceedings in St. John. When I first had the opportunity of addressing this hon. House I referred to those resolutions, so that the fact that the hon. Minister of Finance has not referred to them is a little more noticeable than it would otherwise have been, because he certainly must have known of them. The resolutions which he read were passed in the month of May ; the resolutions which I will read were passed in the month of August. The people of St. John were beginning to study this transcontinental railway scheme, and while they looked at it in the first place simply from an Intercolonial point of view, they began to think about other things in connection with it. They began to have it driven home to them that as there was nothing in this agreement to compel the routing of freight to maritime province ports, it was necessary to pass some resolutions other than those which the Minister of Finance has referred to ; and the first one brought before the board of trade at the time I speak of reads as follows :
Whereas it is of vital importance to the development of the over-sea traffic of the Dominion that its exports should he shipped via Canadian ports, and
Whereas, under the terms of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway contract now under consideration l* the Dominion parliament routed freight may oe shipped via foreign ports, and
V. lu reas, there is reason to fear that a very large portion of the freight from the west by

the proposed railway may be routed via such foreign ports contrary to the declared policy of the Dominion government, that the products cf the Dominion should be exported via Canadian ports only, both in summer and winter.
Therefore resolved, that in the opinion of the St. John Board of Trade, the contract should be so varied tha,t it be made imperative that all freight originating on the line of the proposed railway or its branches, and carried by the railway for export shall be shipped via Canadian ports.
Further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to the senators and members of the House of Commons for the province of New Brunswick.
That was one of the resolutions which was Offered, but not the one which was passed. The members of the St. .Tohn Board of Trade thought that it was not sufficiently strong, and the one which was passed I shall now read, and I think that hon. members will conclude that at all events there is one board of trade in this Dominion which believes in the extension of the Intercolonial to the west and government ownership and operation of that railway. The resolution which was passed is as follows :
In view of the present proposition for a Grand Trunk Transcontinental Railway, and believing that the best interests of Canada would be conserved by the building of a government owned and mana'ged transcontinental line ; and also believing that a subsidy of cash and land grants to a corporation may result in the land passing into foreign control ; and further believing it best for the government of Canada to retain the land for settlers at a fair valuation ; the St. John Board of Trade places itself on record as favouring extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal across the continent through Canadian territory, and the improvement of harbour facilities, particularly on the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the maritime province coast.
That is the position which the St. John iRoard of T*rade took at that time and which it still holds. Therefore I shall find no difficulty in supporting the amendment offered by my hon. leader, a resolution which is entirely in conformity with the views of the constituency X have the honour to represent.
On the question of government ownership, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson)-he was here a moment ago, has he gone again ? This is the first time I have had the honour of a seat in this House and I therefore cannot speak from personal experience, but I have understood that the present Minister of Railways and Canals only a short time ago expressed himself in favour of government ownership and the extension of the Intercolonial.


David Henderson: So he did.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I wonder now that he should be so backward in coming forward and stating his position in such a way that no one will be able to doubt what his views are. I think it is due to the House
and the country that he should come to the front and let us know, if he has changed his views, what has induced him to change. And if not, let him state his views in an open and manly manner as he ought to do. The hon. the Finance Minister paid a compliment to the people of the city in which I reside. He said that they were far-seeing business men. but at the tail end of his eulogy, he rather intimated that they were selfish as well. Well, Sir, I take it that we are all selfish. There are many members in this House, but I do not know of one of whom I could say that he is a purely unselfish man, and as far as our position in this parliament is concerned, we are elected for the purpose of representing our con-ctituency. If it were not necessary for every different part of the country to be represented. it would be very easy to say, why, there are 214 seats to be occupied in this House, let the members be elected to these seats in a holus bolus fashion and not necessarily because they represent different parts of the country. But the very fact that we are elected to represent different parts of the country, goes to show that each one should represent, the particular constituency to which he was elected. Therefore I think no representative is called upon to apologize for representing the constituency which has elected him, and the charge of selfishness hardly lies against those who are endeavouring to save the country useless expenditure. In order to make this line as short as possible and with easy grades, the only way is to bring, it down the valley of the St. John river to the city of St. John. In that way you would get the shortest possible line. If the people of St. John were as selfish as represented, they might well have passed a resolution having this object in view. The Minister of Finance also gave as one of the reasons why this line should be built that it would be very far from the border and consequently more valuable from a military point of view. Well, I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the Liberal party in this country opposed the building of the Intercolonial when the reason given for the route selected was that it would suit military purposes. Then these hon. gentlemen sneered at that contention, but now it is brought forward as a strong reason in support of this scheme oi the government. But the fact is that, in so far as any information we have been able to obtain goes, it will be difficult to find any route across northern New Brunswick, if the road is to go across to Moncton, which will be a better route or by which freight can be carried any better than by the Intercolonial. At all events, I give as my authority the report of Sir Sandford Fleming,
] which was published in the sessional papers a good many years ago, at a time when he was endeavouring to find the very best route for the Intercolonial. When the hon. Min-

ister of Finance attributed the removal of the Allan line from St. John to Halifax to the fact that there was only one line of railway to St. John, I looked over to the Minister of Railways and wondered if he M ould allow such a statement to go uncor-rocted. Surely the Minister of Railways Mill recognize the fact that there are two railways going to St. John, one of them being the railway over which he presides. I think that was a mistake which the Minister of Finance should hardly have made, especially under the circumstances.
Because, if these Allan line boats were to take in freight at Halifax, that freight would have to be given to them by the Intercolonial Railway, and it could have been carried just as well to St. John-and so much cheaper as it was so much nearer. The fact is that, as to the taking away of the Allan Line from St. John to Halifax, it was really rather in the nature of a little trick played on the people of St. John, because the Intercolonial that gave these boats the freight at Halifax could much more easily have given that freight at St. John. I think the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) objects to government ownership. He cited as a reason for objecting to it the experience that this country has had with the Intercolonial. Well, of course, I sympathize with that view. But the idea Mre have in our minds on this side-the idea I have, at all events-of government oM'nership is not a system under which the minister presiding over the department finds his highest expression of statesmanship-in the summary dismissal of some poor unfortunate labourer on the railway, or filling up the different places with political appointments, running the railway as a political machine. That is not the view that this country has of government OM'nership ; it is not the view which we advocate. We advocate government OM'nership M'hich will give us a good command of the railways under the government as the best management now has under the corporations, such concerns as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk. There is no doubt that if this parliament wishes to have government control over the Intercolonial in such a way that politics shall be entirely dismissed from its management, they know' very well it can be done, and that is the kind of government OM'nership which M'e advocate and which the people, I believe, require, I will not detain the House any longer. I simply wished in speaking on this occasion, to bring forth the resolutions to which I have referred, because I think the speech of the Finance Minister did not place the Board of Trade and the city of St. John in exactly the right light that they should occupy before the members of this House and the people of this country.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Mr. DANIEL.
I have every reason to be grateful for the consideration that has been shown me on this side of the House on all occasions since I first had the honour of having a seat here, and I appreciate at its true value the distinguished consideration-shall I say courtesy ?-which has been extended to me by hon. gentlemen opposite not merely tonight, but during the past two weeks. This measure, pre-eminent as it is above all other measures since the days of the Canadian Pacific Railway scheme, having reached this stage I may be pardoned, perhaps, even by hon. gentlemen opposite, if I venture to make a few observations, notwithstanding that I gave expression to my views last year at some length, and notwithstanding the further fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has covered the ground in a most ample, able, and comprehensive way. I do not think I need follow at any great length the remarks of the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart). I need not follow him in his wanderings ; but I might avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate a gentleman who is not now a member of this House on the very sudden conversion M'hich he has been the means of bringing about. I do not think the conversion was direct, but that it was rather through the medium of the leader of the opposition. We have noticed the very great change which has apparently come over his mind with respect to government ownership. Since I first entered this House time and time again have I heard the hon. gentleman from South Lanark speak very forcibly against government ownership and against government-operated lines. But to-night he has tumbled in head first, feet up. He took the tumble, and he has certainly given an exhibition of a conversion as sudden as one of M'hich we are told in Holy Writ. I do not intend, at this stage, to make any further-remarks with respect to the hon. gentleman's attitude on the question. But there is a suspicion, in the maritime provinces at least, that the hon. gentleman, when he had charge of the Department of Railways was disposed not to continue the operation of the Intercolonial as a government railway. There is a suspicion that there was a scheme -a conspiracy, I might say-to have the Intercolonial Railway become the property of a great corporation. That was frustrated, very happily in my judgment, by the electors in the election of 1896. It seems to have been a well-founded suspicion because you cannot convince the people of the maritime provinces to-day that, if the hon. gentleman had continued as Minister of RailM'ays, the Intercolonial Railway would not have ceased to be a government-owned and government-operated road.
There is one other remark, made by the hon. gentleman, to which perhaps, I should refer. He referred to the remarks of Mr. Allen before the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Rail-

way in London in March last, and seemed to lay great stress upon the fact that the paper read by the son of Mr. Allen who had resigned as a director was written by Mr. Allen before the modified contract was made. If there was any point to be made against the Finance Minister's argument with respect to that, it would be from this standpoint -that the words to which exception was taken by Mr. Allen had been modified or changed by. the contract which subsequently entered into the later contract. Let me call the attention of this House to the fact that the very point to which exception had been taken by Mr. Allen, the clause or feature contained in the first contract to which exception was taken is precisely the same. There is no serious change in the modified contract. They are in no sense changed by the modified contract. If hon. members will turn to page 22 they will find the first point to which exception is taken. Mr. Allen says :
I have not added anything for the probably very large expense of carrying out the conditions of clause 45 of the agreement.
And so forth. Clause 45 was in no sense changed by the subsequent contract and if you turn to page 23 you will see that Mr. Allen says with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway contract entered into in 1881 : .
That line (the Canadian Pacific Railway) had enormous land grants and subsidies. The new line has none.
That seemed to be very objectionable to him and he could not accept for himself as a shareholder of the Grand Trunk the contract because of that fact. But there was one worse feature, the worst of all, as he says :
And what is almost worse than anything else, the line-which is to be built to a standard not inferior to the main line of the Grand Trunk- is to take all the traflic over the line entirely through Canadian territory to Halifax, leaving the Grand Trunk section to Portland, with its expensive lifts and miles of sidings out in the cold. Add to this the right of the government to allow running powers over the line to any company it pleases, to fix the rates, and, in fact, to do practically what it likes. Lastly, it must be remembered that the Canadian board is to be a mixed board of English and Canadian directors, so that practically the Grand Trunk board has to find money for a different board to spend.
Now, if either of these features had been changed by the modified agreement there might be some point in the argument of my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart). The hon. gentleman spoke of the Intercolonial Railway and its management, particularly during the past seven years, referred to the cheap purchases by that road. I do not propose at this moment to enter into a discussion with respect to the Intercolonial Railway. I quite agree with
the hon. gentleman when he states that materials are purchased as cheaply, if not more cheaply by the Intercolonial Railway than by other corporations.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: The hon. member for South Lanark did not say that. He said that could be done.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) made a remark about cheap purchases and he admitted that the purchases of material in connection with the Intercolonial were very cheap. He based on that an argument in favour of government ownership and rather pointed to the extravagance in other directions than the purchase of materials. I do not think that point is material at this moment, nor do I think it material to discuss government ownership ; a little later on perhaps I shall invite the attention of the House to the attitude of some of the leaders of the hon. gentlemen. I am sure it is no mere rhetorical declaration to state that we in Canada to-day are nation-builders- not merely the representative men on the floor of parliament, not merely those who hold cabinet positions, but the sturdy yeomanry of the country, the pioneer of the west, the man on the plains and the settler in the more settled communities of the east are all enthused with the determination to develop Canada, to build it up. It is an axiomatic truth that railways precede national development, and the extension of trade and commerce follows railway construction. It is a further truth that manufacturers cannot thrive or agriculture flourish in advance of transportation facilities. We have had this exemplified in the building of the Candian Pacific Railway. We first had it exemplified in the building of the Intercolonial, then later on with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I need not elaborate that point, but if we go beyond our own country and look at our neighbours to the south, if we cast our eyes in that direction, what do we see ? Some fifty years ago the people in Ohio and some of the other eastern states made very great sacrifices with a view to extending their railways. They aided them very largely by land subsidies. The United States itself contributed to that and if we take that country as an illustration of what has been accomplished, I am sure that in that very thought itself there is a justification for the attitude and the course of the government with respect to the present proposal for the construction of the Transcontinental Railway.
I wish to invite your attention to some figures which I think will be of interest if not to members of this House, certainly to the country.
In 1850 there was in the United States a population of 23,000,000. They had 9,000 miles of railway. Their internal commerce was $2,000,000.000. Their total wealth was

$7,000,000,000. In 1903 their total population was 79,000,000. Their mileage of railway was 202,000. Their internal commerce, which is a synonym for their national commerce, was $20,000,000,000. Their total wealth was $100,000,000,000. Mark the increase in the short period of fifty-three years. Their mileage of railway had increased 2,000 per cent ; their population had increased 230 per cent, their internal commerce had increased 900 per cent. Their total wealth had increased 1,400 per cent. With these object lessons, with the object lesson to be seen in our own country and the object lesson to which I have just referred in connection with the United States, is it at all surprising that the people of this country, since the first proposition was made to have a second transcontinental railway, have looked eagerly to the parliament of Canada with a view that their well expressed desires should be fairly and fully consummated with respect to this matter.
They do look for that and when the right hon. leader of the government brought his proposals before this House not quite a year ago the hope which was evidenced in the country gave place to faith and the people looked forward to the early consummation of that idea. This hope and faith were not sectional. They were to be found everywhere throughout the country, not merely in the great west but in the east. In the great west where there is a tide of immigration of about 100,000 souls yearly, where people are rushing in by tens of thousands to find homes for themselves and for their families, it must be realized that among them and throughout the whole country there is a throbbing pulsation not merely in regard, to the agricultural life of the country, but in reference to the industrial life of the country and there is evidence that the people feel there is an urgent necessity for bringing closer together the remote sections of this country. People who have not crossed this continent have no idea of the vast distances. They cannot possibly realize the difficulties that there are in the way of having the remote sections of the Dominion brought more closely together. Those of us who have had the privilege of going through this country realize that unless the several provinces are bound more closely together, unless there is compression there cannot be that advancement either in our social, or our political or our industrial life that the resources of this country justify. With the conditions prevailing to day there is a feeling broadcast throughout this country that the time for action is ripe. There is a feeling which will be tremendous under the immigration which will arise in the future that inactivity on our part means the dwarfing of our future development, and supineness under existing conditions means that we are not building for the future as we should. This of course is but a very faint and inadequate Mr. EMMERSON.
picture of the sentiment that prevails throughout this country. Have hon. gentlemen in this House realized 'all that this means ? Have they taken into consideration what the people of this country demand ? Are they realizing now, have they been realizing during the past month or more that there is an eager hope on the part of the people of Canada that parliament shall take such a step as will develop and open up this country and bring together its various sections. If they have realized this what have been their methods ? They have contributed in no way towards the advancement of the idea which prevails throughout this country that we need another transcontinental line. It will be admitted and it is admitted that there is a necessity for this road. It will be admitted that if that necessity exists we should have the road. There may very naturally and very properly be difference of opinion as to the attainment of that object in some form or other. [DOT] I notice that all of the leaders on the opposition, and almost all of the hon. gentlemen opposite are leaders, or assume to be, have apparently united to obstruct in every possible way the carrying out of the idea of a second transcontinental railway.
Let us briefly recite the history of this measure. In July, 1903, the proposals of the right hon. First Minister were laid before the House. Through weary weeks the measure was debated and it was discussed from every standpoint. We all had a share in the discussion. Finally, in the autumn months, the Bill had reached the stage when it was pronounced to be a settled fact that in so far as the government and parliament of Canada were concerned this Dominion would have a second transcontinental railway. Then, the hope of the people turned to the company for the carrying out of their part of the transaction. With faith they looked to the government for the execution of their portion of the contract. They had witnessed the obstruction in parliament during the past session and they feared that obstruction in some form or other was being used out of parliament, that perhaps in the financial world there were methods pursued that would obstruct the full carrying out of this project. At first, it was only a fear. Soon the country realized that it was all too true and the Grand Trunk Pacific promoters came back to Canada fully realizing that in some way the financial world had been turned against them. This was a very unfortunate condition of things-at least it was so considered throughout Canada. There was a feeling, and I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite must have shared in it, of very great disappointment fully proving and evidencing this fact that there was a very strong desire that the railway should proceed and proceed without delay and when jt was found that it was impossible to have

that scheme go through in its then condition there was very serious disappointment on the part of the people of the country. The promoters of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway came to the government again and the government, I think very wisely in the judgment of the country, decided to relax some of the original hands by which they had bound the company in the first agreement. The modifications and changes in the original agreement were but a degree. They involved no departure from the essential principles of the original contract. The people recognized that if this project was to be carried out, as carried out it must be, if the wishes of the people are observed, these changes must be ratified by parliament. Parliament again assembled and the people of the country looked eagerly for a speedy ratification of the modified agreement. They realized that last year the matter had been very fully and exhaustively discussed and they expected that these modifications would be at once ratified by parliament and that there would be no delay. The thousands throughout the length and breadth of this country who were looking hopefully forward to participating in this great work, the men who were seeking employment, those who were looking forward to going out into the west and there adding in the carrying out of this idea those engaged in the industrial life of the country who were calling hopefully for markets for their manufactured products, have been disappointed, because there has been this unforeseen delay. And why has there been delay ? It is because of the obstructive tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is because of their obstruction in this House ; obstruction that has not a parallel in any parliament in this or in any other country; an obstruction which was absolutely without justification.


James Clancy: Did they obstruct the deposit of the ?5,000,000 by the Grand Trunk Company V


Henry Robert Emmerson: The deposit was made before this session of parliament assembled so that there is no point in the interruption of the hon. gentleman. The obstructive tactics of these gentlemen last year have been improved upon this year, and when every other avenue was closed to them, they thought of debating whether the Minister of Railways should not have addressed the House.


Samuel Hughes: And the Minister of Railways has spoken at last.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has a very unbridled tongue, and I wish he had horse sense enough to know how to check it. Sir, I do not wish to make references to myself ; personal references are not inspiring, certainly not to me. Let me however say, that if the tactics 116
which have been adopted towards my sell by gentlemen opposite during the past few weeks, lend dignity t0 the House of Commons, I fail to appreciate the true spirit of parliamentary government in this or any other land. Let me ask the House to consider my connection with this matter, it is claimed that I have been inconsistent, and it is said that because I have the honour of being Minister of Railways and Canals, I should have taken charge of this measure and should have directed its passage through parliament. I became minister of Railways and Canals on the 15th of January last, and so I did not participate in the preparation of the contract or in the modifications thereto. I felt that it was not my duty to in any way take the matter out of the hands of those gentlemen who had so ably guided it through parliament last session. I know that modesty is a commodity in which my- hon. friends opposite do not indulge to any great extent, but I did at least hope that they would have appreciated that virtue when they saw it exemplified in others. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance was acting Minister of Railways in 1903, and did he introduce the measure to parliament, or did he guide it through its several stages ? No. As was natural, the right hon. the leader of this House who is the father of this great measure, guided it through the Commons, and its legal aspect was very ably dealt with by the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And why should there be any change from the procedure of last year ? I felt that there was no necessity for my engaging in the debate, or sitting in this House to hear repeated the time worn and stale stories with respect to this Bill, and that I might much better be employed in looking after the affairs of my department. I gave my time to those who had business with the Department of Railways and Canals, and I may say that the duties of that department are not of a light character. Day after day while the discussion on this Bill was dragging along, I sat in my office here receiving delegation after delegation of gentlemen who came to make representations to the minister on important matters affecting the public interest. The very afternoon that the leader of the opposition indulged in his tirade I was listening to a delegation from North Sydney, in the province of Nova Scotia, who came to make representations as to the terminal facilities at that port. That question is a very important one, affecting as it does our trade relations with Newfoundland, and it is essential not only in the interest of the port of North Sydney, and of the province of Nova Scotia, but the interests of all Canada that an effort should be made to provide ample terminal facilities there. I listened to that delegation, and I believe that their wants will be recognized by parliament



upon the advice of the government. Why should my hon. friends opposite complain because X am doing this ? On an average four delegations have waited on me each afternoon, aside from those which visit me during the morning hours at the department. I felt that in doing this I was discharging my duty to my country as Minister of Railways and Canals ; X felt that I was discharging my duty as I saw it, and in this light I conceive that the remarks indulged in by hon. gentlemen opposite have not done justice to themselves or to this parliament. Of course, I know that these gentlemen are good natured ; I was almost going to say that they are not sincere but perhaps that would not be parliamentary.


David Henderson: Oh, quite so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would not wish to use unparliamentary language towards any hon. gentleman, and especially is that the case in reference to my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), but if his friends have seen fit to indulge in taunts against me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that they did me no harm, and as to the mystery which surrounded my silence, that seems to have worried these hon. gentlemen themselves more than it has troubled me.
And now with regard to the charge of inconsistency. We have had quires of extracts quoted to show that I have been inconsistent, and that my course during the discussion on the Bill to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Company last year, was not in harmony with the course that X have since pursued. Let us see about that. Certain gentlemen were desirous of being incorporated under the name of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company with a view to construct and operate a railway between the Pacific ocean and' North Bay. i opposed that Bill in the committee. I felt that it was not a national line. I believed that it was not in the true sense a measure that would fulfil the expectations of the people in all sections of Canada. I did not take that attitude merely in the interest of the section of the country from which I come. I took it because I felt that it was in the interest of all Cfln-ada that if we were to aid any railway at all we should have a railway from the shores of the Pacific to the shores of the Atlantic, built across the continent on Canadian soil. I felt that if this line were constructed and aided by government subsidy, it would simply mean that the products of the west would be transported down to North Bay and out through American channels to American seaports. I did not conceive it to be within the line of my duty to support such a measure. The Bill was subsequently amended so that its eastern terminus would be at Quebec. That was a little better ; but I felt that even with that amendment, I should oppose the meas-Mr. EMMERSON.
urd, and I did. I realized that if the products of the west were brought to the east by that company as far as Quebec, perhaps during the summer months shipments would be made from the port of Quebec, but during the winter months every pound of traffic would go via Portland or Boston or some other American port, particularly Portland ; and I felt that that would be in the interest of the company. I realized that it would not be in their interest to transfer their freight at Quebec to the Intercolonial Railway. I realized that if you wished to make that company interested in utilizing Canadian winter ports, you must compel them to operate a road into the maritime provinces with the view of utilizing a port there ; and I did propose as an alternative that rather than build a railway aided by government funds from the Pacific to Quebec, to be treated in the way I have stated, it would be preferable for the government of Canada to extend the Intercolonial into the wheat fields of the west, where it could gather up the grain and bring it down to be shipped from Canadian ports during the winter months, even though it might be done at a loss. I argued that it would be better to do that than to give this proposed company the opportunity of taking the produce out by way of Portland. It is said that I am inconsistent in that respect. Why, Sir, I went further in that connection. When even the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) and other hon. gentlemen opposite in the committee were sneering at the proposition and scouting the idea that the Intercolonial would be extended into the west, I went further. I said : If you are opposed to extending the government line into the wheat fields of the west, construct a line into the west and give to some company the right to operate it ; place upon that company the onus of operating the road, and give rights over it to all companies which gather the wheat of the west into the great city of Winnipeg. At that time the government had not made its proposals.. At that time there was nothing in the air ; there were no whispers as to what should be done. It has been said that the suggestions which I made with respect to the extension of the Intercolonial into the wheat fields of the west were inspired by the then Minister of Railways. Let me say, in justice to that gentleman, that from the very beginning down to the close he did not consult with me nor confer with me in any way with respect to any policy in relation to the building of the transcontinental line; and when I made the suggestions which I did before the Railway Committee, I did it without any knowledge, other than what other hon. members had. as to the views of the then Minister of Railways and Canals. One thing I never did propose was a government-owned and operated road from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I did propose a gflxer nment-owned

and operated road to the wheat fields of the west; or as an alternative to that, a government-constructed and government-owned, but -eempany-operated road to the wheat fields of the west. Opposition to government ownership and government operation was so strongly in evidence in that committee that I realized the utter futility of any attempt being made to have an extension of the government railway into the west. There were very few who had any sympathy with the idea. I do not know of one hon. member sitting on the other side of the House who favoured the proposition in any degree. If the company has its terminus at a Canadian seaport in the east, there is no doubt that it wilj be to its interest to use it. That is the history of all railways. It is particularly the history of the Canadian Pacific Railway with respect to the city of St. John. When the Canadian Pacific Railway Company first got their short line railway it was with no idea that there would be an export trade through the port of St. John ; and it was only after years of persistence on the part of the people of Canada and the people of the maritime provinces, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company made any movement towards the carrying out of that idea. Efforts were put forth by the people of St. John, the people of New Brunswick and the legislature of New Brunswick all urging that there should be an export trade. Even steamship lines were communicated with, negotiations were had, and it was by reason of the co-operation of the steamship lines with the government and with the Canadian Pacific Railway, that finally there was a start ; and it is only, I believe, since this government came into power that the full fruition of all that expenditure has been realized. Not the full fruition because the work is in progress. It is advancing year by year ; there are a great many strides in that direction, and the port of St. John is destined to become a great port for Canadian exports.
Subsequent to the understanding referred to in connection with the Railway Commission, the government announced its policy. True, it is not the original proposition as made by me, namely the extension of the Intercolonial to the western wheat fields, but it was at least the carrying out of an idea which I had foreshadowed in that committee in connection with the construction and ownership and operation of the line. The proposition in a few words is this : The .government should construct and own the road from Winnipeg 'to' the 'Maritime provinces via Quebec, and this road should be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific, but should be open to all companies gathering wheat in the west wishing to have running rights over it. I know that it is certainly popular throughout New Brunswick. I realize that there is a strong feeling among the people there in favour of this proposition, and they are only hop-116}
ing that there shall be no more obstruction on the part of the opposition to delay the carrying out of this scheme. The proposal is certainly all that I would ask for and really more, because it insures the construction and ownership by the government, involving the control of rates and-the obviation Qf_aIJU-tiH^-TTPiycTr5ns which were so Ttften made by hon. gentlemen opposite to the operation of a railway by the government. What is of more importance perhaps, it is the shortest possible line from thq^ wheat centres of the west to the Atlantic sea-board, and that, considering our geo- ,f graphical position, is an element worthy of the greatest consideration. There is one thing lost sight of, it seems to me, in this discussion. We speak of this railway as one intended for the sole purpose of emptying the rich fields of the west out on the Atlantic sea-board, but to my mind it is equally for the benefit of the east and will provide a market for the products of the east. It will not merely provide a market for the manufacturers of Montreal and Toronto and other great centres in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, but also for the business men of the extreme east. To-day I know of one concern, which has been in existence in Moncton a number of years, a very prosperous manufacturing company, which is making every arrangement for taking advantage of the markets of the west and is hoping for a speedy consummation of this project.
I do not wish to repeat what has been so very eloquently expressed by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, but'I cannot refrain from making a reference to what we heard so much about last year, the proposition of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, known as the alternative proposition. That withering plant, which has never been watered by the favourable consideration of this House or even of the hon. gentleman's friends around him, or stimulated by the nourishing sunshine of popular approval, is entirely neglected this year. We do not hear of it at all. It is true that the faltering hesitancy regarding government ownership which was so much in evidence heretofore has been measurably removed, and we now have a northwest and east policy of government ownership. Some of the leaders on the other side say that the road should end at North Bay. Some say that it should not be built at all, and others pretend that we should purchase the Canada Atlantic and utilize the waterways. Let me say once and for all that individually I look upon any scheme that will extend the Intercolonial to Ontario with favour, and if the purchase of the Canada Atlantic would tend to that end I as an individual member, would favour that proposition. But the Transcontinental Railway scheme now under consideration is in no sense a bar to the carrying out of what is called the Georgian bay scheme. But I

a good deal of the evidence on this point has been cited by the Minister of Finance, there are some features and some facts, as taken from that paper, to which he has not referred. The ' Sun ' says, speaking of the purchase of the Canada Atlantic :
Again, it may be said that the purchase of the Canadian Atlantic, recommended by Colonel Tucker, would bring the Intercolonial Railway to Parry Sound, which is not exactly on any direct land route to the Pacific, though it is an important traffic line between the Intercolonial system and the great lakes. Finally, it will be noticed that Quebec and other places interested in the Trans-Canada route w'ould not find their purchase in the least disturbed by government extension from Montreal toward Georgian bay. What they want most is the development of that spacious portion of Quebec and province lying between Chicoutimi and James bay, a region supposed to have great possibilities. The demand for a railway through that country will still be pressed, no matter what government roads and Grand Trunk roads are built elsewhere. If the country is as rich as it is represented, and if the route is no longer and no harder than its advocates maintain, the claim cannot be resisted.
On May 14th, the St. John ' Sun,' referring to the question of the Grand Trunk Pacific in an editorial, contained the following :
The strong resolutions sent from the different legislatures, municipal and commercial bodies in the east are clear and explicit. They ask, one and all, that the Grand Trunk Pacific shall get no public assistance unless the company shall build to the maritime provinces and make a terminus at a maritime port. The boards of trade and other bodies know that an undertaking to deliver freight to the Intercolonial Railway is no good for the purpose they have in view'. From Quebec by the Intercolonial Railway is 111 miles farther than from Quebec to St. John by the circuitous route of the Intercolonial Railway. Temiseouata and the Canadian Pacific. The Grand Trunk extension from Quebec to St. John by the St. John valley would give a still greater advantage over the north shore route. But it is not worth while even to argue the case. The Grand Trunk people, the Intercolonial people, and the winter port people all know that export and import trade between the Canadian west and Europe can never be handled by the Intercolonial Railway route. We have had the test of six years' experience for one thing. Mr. Blair thought six years ago that he could do this business. He said so over and over again. He found that he was mistaken.
Again, in referring to tlie telegram of Mr. Blair to Mr. Jarvis, it says :
In view of these circumstances the reply of Mr. Blair to Mr. Jarvis is altogether unsatisfactory. Mr. Blair and Mr. Hays practically say the same thing. The Grand Trunk manager said a week ago that his company would be willing either to hand over to the Intercolonial Railway all the w'inter traffic that road could take or else to build to the coast. Mr. Blair wires to Mr. Jarvis :
' I believe that in case government gives financial assistance the Grand Trunk Pacific will be obliged either to enter into a satisfac-Mr. EMMERSON.
tory traffic agreement binding itself to hand over at Quebec its ocean winter traffic to Intercolonial Railtvay or build a line through to a maritime port. Have been doing everything possible to bring this about.
Now, here, to my mind, is the richest portion of this editorial:
The minister must have noticed that the resolutions and telegrams sent him do not ask this alternative.
There was no alternative proposition in their minds. It was not to he if the Intercolonial Bailway would not make satisfactory arrangements that this shorter line would be ibuilt into the maritime provinces, but it was that no matter what the Intercolonial Railway might do the shorter line would be built direct from Quebec into the maritime provinces.
The people of the maritime provinces, and, we believe, the people of Canada, do not propose to compromise on a traffic agreement with a road that cannot profitably handle the traffic. They insist on one thing and one only. They say that the Grand Trunk Railway itself must be built to a Canadian winter port. That is the message of Mr. Jarvis and the St. John Board of Trade. That is the resolution of the city council and the county council of St. John, of the legislature of New Brunswick, and of the other bodies which have made declarations on the subject.
These quotations from the [DOT] ' Sun ' suggest the attitude of Mr. Blair on this question and if I may be pardoned I will make some reference to that attitude. What was it ? It certainly is pertinent to notice what Mr. Blair's advice to his colleagues on that question was. We have heard what he saidi to the St. John Board of Trade. WTe have heard what he said to Mr. Jarvis. We have heard what his attitude ttns in the Railway Committee. Now, we refer to that celebrated confidential document, a document that was made famous by the fact that it was purloined and then introduced into the debate by the hon. leader of the opposition thereby taking away its confidential character. We learn from that what Mr. Blair regarded as the ideal railway policy. At the close of his memorandum of the 10th December, 1903, Mr. Blair said :
The ideal policy, as it appears to the undersigned, for the government to adopt, so soon as it shall be deemed necessary to take up the subject of a third transcontinenal railway, would be to insure, first, that the railway shall be wholly Canadian. That it shall not promote the carriage of our export products, or our imports southerly by way of United States lines of railway ; but to and from the St. Lawrence in summer and the ports of Halifax and St. John in winter. That the Quebec bridge be utilized as a part of said line, and that the railway be pushed westerly from that point by degrees to the Peace river district, through the Rockies to the Pacific coast. In the meantime, it would be well to decline all assistance to railways to which government is not already

committed, and propose to parliament that railway charters covering this territory be withheld.
Such a policy as that above outlined, the undersigned believes would meet the hearty support of the Canadian people, would materially strengthen the government, and would be regarded as both bold and progressive. The country is prepared to-day, as it has never been before, to assume large responsibilities in order to insure its fuller development, and government, if it fails to act, will lose a splendid opportunity of proving its capacity and courage to cope with and solve large problems in a manner commensurate with Canada's marvellous progress.
The essential features of what Mr. Blair calls the ideal policy have been adopted in the measure which was brought before parliament by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. Now, the principal change is in respect to the Quebec-Moncton section. I am not going to argue in respect to that. My views were stated at some length last year in connection with the Quebec-Moncton section. I could, if time permitted, read the evidence of prominent lumbermen in the province of New Brunswick as to the importance from the local standpoint of developing and opening up the immense areas of rich timber and agricultural and hardwood forests which exist there. I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to these letters but the evidence is voluminous and it is at hand if any hon. members of the House wish to refer to it. But it is obvious that Mr. Blair, outside of the exception of the Quebec-Moncton section, as respects the remaining portion, the portion from Quebec to the Pacific coast which he apparently accepted, wanted the government to proceed at once declaring that if they hesitated they would not show their ability or courage to cope with great difficulties and he felt that the time was ripe for action. He wanted to stop all assistance to1 railways within the territory indicated. He declared that:
The country is prepared to-day, as it has never been before, to assume large responsibilities in order to ensure its fuller development.
And he goes on further and says :
And government, if it fails to act, will lose a splendid opportunity of proving its capacity and courage to cope with and solve large problems in a manner commensurate with Canada's marvellous progress.
It is said that this railway will cost a lot of money. Railways do cost money. They cannot be built without money and I am sure that if a comparison were made as to the estimated cost of this road with the proposal put forth by hon. gentlemen opposite there is certainly going to be a very great saving to the country by reason of the adoption of the government proposal. But, the very moment you admit that the work is necessary you admit the element of cost. Of course, we have this on authority
which has not been questioned, and which will not be questioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, namely, the authority of Mr. Blair :
The country is prepared to-day, as it has never been before, to assume large responsibilities in order to ensure its fuller development.	.
No one, of course, knows exactly what the precise cost will be, but it is safe to assume that it will not be one dollar more than is absolutely necessary. Can the opposition say that their scheme for a transcontinental railway will cost any less than that which has been proposed by the government ? Since no one denies that another railway spanning the continent is absolutely and imperatively necessary, let us see what it will accomplish. First, it will afford an outlet for the rapidly growing products of the great west; secondly, it will create needed competition in the transportation of merchandise to as well as from the west; thirdly, it will open up vast areas to settlement over the entire line ; fourthly, it will create a new source of wealth to the Dominion ; fifthly, it will allay the persistent irritation in the west over the transportation problem ; sixthly, it will demonstrate to. the world the enterprise and financial strength of the Canadian people.
I am sure that this last is a matter of very great importance to the people of this Dominion, because we wish to be recognized abroad as a country young it is true, but strong in our youth. We wish to let the world know that we have resources, and that we have both the courage and the ability to advance. I say boldly, that this measure has the approval of the country at large, it is popular in the west; it is popular in the east! Now, Mr. Speaker, I have *perhaps taken up more time than I had intended, and let me say in conclusion, that I have not changed my views one whit on this subject. As they were last year so are they this year. I believe that this scheme is one of the best that could be propounded in the interests of Canada, because it means a minimum of expense with a maximum of advantage to the people of this country. The proposition appeals to me even more strongly than it did last year as being in the highest interest of all Canada, and its consummation will be an epoch in the history of our land to which we may all look forward with the happiest expectations. It will make the beginning of national greatness for us. Let us trust that in the future the great author of this scheme will have the satisfaction of knowing that he built wisely and well for the future of Canada, and if perchance some day a great artist will arise to paint an allegorical picture descriptive of the right hon. gentleman leading the hosts of Canada up the steep declivity of national greatness, the right hon. Prime Minister will be represented carrying

a banner on which will be inscribed ' Canada's development and victory while in the valley below will be seen the Lilliputian figures of lion, gentlemen opposite who have tried and tried in vapi to obstruct the passage of this great national measure.


Adam Carr Bell: 3^84
gentleman who did not at all agree with the Firpit Minister that 'there was any urgent necessity. But that utterance was not by a gentleman seated on this side, but by one who had very recently been Minister of Railways. So that the charge which my hon. friend the Finance Minister makes against the opposition of having been unwilling to recognize the necessity of railway development in this country does not at all lie against us, but can be made with a great deal of force against supporters of the government themselves. Not long before the present measure was introduced in this House, the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) expressed the opinion that it was not at all necessary or urgent, and that opinion was agreed to by many others as well who at that time formed part of the government. The elx-Minister of Railways, speaking on the same subject last year, said :
The first of these objections, that is to the immediate construction of such a road, can be disposed of, I believe, with a single observation. To those who urge upon us the policy of to-morrow and to-morrow and to-morrow ; to those who tell us, wait, wait, wait ; to those who advise us to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate and to inquire, our answer is : no, this is not a time for deliberation, this is a time for action. The flood of tide is upon us that leads on to fortune.
I am sure the right hon. gentleman has not forgotten that passage.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have read it.


Adam Carr Bell: Mr. Blair then went on to say :
I fail to discover wherein we have to appeal to heaven against the possibility of a little delay in this matter. I know of no reason why the interests of Canada are going to be prejudicially affected because when we move forward we see the end, or think we see the end, to which we are looking, because we know the limits of the responsibility by which we assume to be bound, and because we believe we understand the conditions under which we are operating. Why is it said by my hon. friend, in this manner and in these terms, that we must not pause a moment to deliberate ?
I could quote at a great deal of length from the speech of the ex-Minister of Railways, but I shall content myself with quoting one more passage : I
I have studied the question somewhat, and I do not know just how soon or how far in the future the time might be when such a line as this would be called for by the west ; but now or in the immediate future there would have been no demand for any such railway project as this.
So that the charge made by the Minister of Finance that the opposition have changed their minds on this subject, that they did not believe there was any urgent necessity for such a road, and are now impressed with the fact that there is a great deal of Mr. BELL.
urgency for it, is absolutely lacking in foundation. That opinion was not expressed on this side, but was expressed and held so strongly by the ex-Minister of Railways that rather than join with his leader in carrying out the work we are now discussing, he preferred to resign his position and practically go into opposition to the measure. Although the speech of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, I must admit, was very clever from his standpoint, it had this defect that from first to last it did not meet any of the arguments or objections made from this side. He left those entirely aside and set himself to proving something which nobody disputes and to argue against contentions nobody has made. But he ignored completely all the strong points made against the contract from this side. For instance, we on this side hold that, in so far as any contract exists to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry freight to Canadian ports, there is no guaranty at all. What does the Minister of Finance say in reply to that ? He simply read the clauses of the contract made, not with the Grand Trunk Railway, but the Grand Trunk Pacific, and asserts that these are not only more binding, comprehensive and definite than any proposition suggested from this side, but that they are actually all powerful, satisfactory and convincing and will compel the fulfilment by the Grand Trunk Pacific of all the contracts they have made. That is simply avoiding the whole issue and begging the question. What this side has contended is that the government has entered into a contract with what is really a dummy or a bogus company, if I may use the expression, a company called the Grand Trunk Pacific which was really set up to stand between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway and prevent the latter from incurring liability. What did the Minister of Finance say with reference to that point ? He simply passed it by. He refers to the letter of the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific and says that it is perfectly satisfactory, but the whole point of the argument on this side is that the Grand Trunk Railway is really the contracting company and should be called upon to bind itself to carry out this contract. Again he deals in the most ingenious fashion with the argument which he purports to derive from the report of the meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders. He takes up the argument made by Mr. Allen, who, he says, was perfectly aware of the objections to the contract from the Grand Trunk point of view, and he assumes that Mr. Allen knew al'l the conditions and advantages of the amending contract. He argues that because the memo, of Mr. Allen was presented to the meeting of shareholders at the time the amended contract had been entered into and was submitted to the shareholders, he was in possession of the facts and that the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway were aware of all the

advantages in connection with the amended contract.
He ignores, in fact refuses to read, the statement in which the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company says that Mr. Allen's language can only be accounted for by the fact that he is not acquainted with the provisions of the amended contract. And so from beginning to end, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has skated over every piece of thin ice in the bourse of his argument, and, in the end he has not added a single argument to the reasons that the government ought to be in a position to advance to induce the people to support the government measure. He winds up with the assertion, as did the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson), that the country is wild for this contract; that in British Columbia every man is in fa you'1 of it, that in Ontario every man is in favour of it, that in New Brunswick every man is in favour of it, that in Nova Scotia every one-


Edward Frederick Clarke: The children cry for it.


Adam Carr Bell: That is what they would have us believe. This is no argument in favour of the Bill. It is a very good assertion for the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to have his colleagues make to keep up the courage of his followers. We are told that there is no better way of keeping up one's courage than by whistling, and in this case these hon. gentlemen are simply whistling to keep their courage up. They are evidently much afraid of the position in which they find themselves. Looking closely to the speech of the Finance Minister it is evident that the point he is afraid of and the point that the leader of the government is afraid of, is government ownership. And how does the Minister of Finance deal with it ? He tells us in the early part of his speech that he is going to take issue with the leader of the opposition fairly and squarely, that the government will meet the opposition in the country and prove to the people that government ownership is not a good thing for this country, and will challenge the opposition tc- make out a case. And then he proceeds to make out a case against government ownership. In order to do so he cites an opinion of the late Sir John A. Macdonald, also an opinion of the respected ex-leader of the Conservative party Sir Charles Tupper, adverse to government ownership ; and, apparently, he believes that he has convinced us, or should have convinced us, that, as these wise and great and eminent Conservative gentlemen expressed themselves in opposition to government ownership, therefore, government ownership is a thing that we should not support. It is good to learn that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has come to that state of mind to that improvement of judgment, in which the words of the late Sir John A. Macdonald have a
great deal of weight with him, in which he is ready to listen to Sir Charles Tupper as one who speaks with oracular truth and power. Of course, to the gentlemen on this side of the House, the opinions of these great statesmen, men who in the past have led them with success, with credit to them and benefit to the country, have a great deal of weight. But these leaders have passed from the scenes. The questions we are dealing with to-day are not those with which they dealt. And, while we look back with a great deal of reverence to their record in active politics, and will, unquestionably pay great attention to the deliberate opinion of such men, we know very well that, at this time, we must take the position that thd right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said he was going to take. The time has come when we must decide. We cannot wait ; we cannot go back twenty years and accept the opinions, given, perhaps, correctly, by gentlemen of great knowledge in view of the circumstances that surrounded them. We have to deal with the situation as we find it to-day, and it is one in which we would have been glad to luar from the Finance Minister, had he had it to offer, sound argument against the principle of government ownership. What did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) give in addition to the opinion of these great and eminent men 1 The final argument was that, whereas the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) at one time had expressed himself as having an opinion adverse to government ownership, therefore,- and this was the concluding argument, if I may dignify the remark with such a name -the leader of the opposition should take the advice of his railway expert and vote against government ownership. Well, it's a poor rule that won't work both ways. I would commend the advice of the Minister of Finance to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and would suggest the advisability of his following the advice of his railway expert the present Minister of Railways and Canals, (Mr. Emmerson) who has expressed himself very strongly in favour of the principle of government ownership, and decide to abandon his Bill and vote for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. If it is a good rule for the leader of the opposition to be guided by his railway expert and decide these questions in that fashion, it must be a still better rule for the leader of the government to follow the advice of his railway expert, whom he had the opportunity of choosing himself, and in placing whom in his present office, no doubt he considered his fitness for the position. I do not know that the Finance Minister, in the course of the very long speech he made, dealt in anything like an argumentative sense with any other matter than this one. He led up to this one deliberately, announced that he was going to

know very well that the right hon. gentleman's answer to every one who says that the eastern division of this road may not pay is : We are not responsible ; the Grand Trunk Railway takes the burden off our shoulders. The Grand Trunk Railway Company stands between us and any possible loss, as far as the eastern part of the road is concerned. That would be satisfactory to the people of the country if it could be shown that the Grand Trunk was a corporation that ever sustained any burden or stress. What is the history of the Grand Trunk Railway Company ? It has already received S15.000.000 from the people of Canada, and it has never paid a cent of principal or interest. The Grand Trunk Railway Company is only earning about $800 a mile, and there is going to be a liability of $1,200 per mile on the eastern portion of this road, providing the whole costs $40,000 a mile. The right hon. leader of the government says that the people of Canada incur no liability, because the Grand Trunk Railway Company are going to take the liability off our shoulders. What is the strength of the Grand Trunk Railway Company as compared with that of the country ? The fact of the matter is that the moment a difficulty arises which compels the Grand Trunk Railway Company to go into default, it will throw up its hands, and the responsibility falls back upon the government. What has been the experience during the past year ? The right hon. gentleman last year brought before this House a contract which could not be touched in any particular, because it had been made with the company and had to be observed by this country and by the government. We could not affect it. The most necessary and legitimate amendments had to be voted down, because embodied in that Bill was a contract which was sacred, and the most powerful inducements to amend that contract could not be listened to for that reason. The Bill having become law, what was the result ? What the company had contracted to do in respect of the deposit of $5,000,000 it did not litid it convenient to do. Did the company sweat, or worry, or fret about it ? The company simply went into default. The result was that the right hon. gentleman and his government were practically taken by the throat and were compelled to make such amendments as the company required. There is no doubt about the accuracy of that statement. Proof of it is to be found in the speech in which the right hon. leader of the government introduced the amendments this year, and in that portion of the speech of the hon. Finance Minister to-night in which he dealt with the amendments. As far as the hon. gentlemen who have dealt with these amendments are concerned, they have simply recited them, stated their meaning and why they yield this, why they yield that and why they yield the other. They did not "want very much. They wanted only one Mr. BELL.
sleeve of our coat, then they wanted the other sleeve, then they wanted the skirt, and the result was that they took the whole coat. Apparently, judging from the speech of the right hon. leader of the government and the hon. Minister of Finance, the government were utterly helpless. They had their project, the success of which project was bound up in getting the Grand Trunk Railway Company to go on with it. The Grand Trunk Railway Company said : We cannot do it, because the money market is not favourable. We cannot make our deposit ; and down came the government. The government yielded, and we may fairly suppose that the government will yield again before another year passes. If the company find out that all that is necessary, in order to get better-terms, is to refuse to go on they will not fail to profit by that lesson ; yet in place of accepting the proposition made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that the .Country, paying pine-tenths of the cost, should own and operate the road, the right hon. gentleman seems determined at any cost to hold on to the company. The extraordinary hold the company have upon this government is shown by a rather singular occurrence that took place here this evening. I do not know that a more extraordinary thing was ever known to take place in a British parliament than that a gentleman occupying the position of Minister of Finance should have allowed weeks and months to pass before he ventured to give to this House which was engaged in discussing this measure, an authoritative statement of the financial aspect of this measure, and of what the cost of the road would be.
The Minister of Finance comes here at the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute when it is impossible to test the accuracy of his figures, and he gives to the House information that should have been given the very day the Bill was first introduced. In addition to that, the ,Minister of Finance has the distinction of having tabled to-night the demand made upon the government by the Grand Trunk Railway Company for assistance for the construction of their road through the west. Now, we know what we should have known long ago ; that the demand was for $6,400 and 5,000 acres of land per mile. And in this connection we were told that the government of Canada had actually to get the permission of Mr. Hays to inform the parliament of Canada of the demand that was made upon the people of Canada by that corporation. Sir, such a thing is degrading both for the government and for the country. Imagine the government of Canada asking permission of Mr. Hays to reveal to the representatives of the sovereign power of the people of this country, a matter affecting the interests of the people. No more extraordinary thing has even taken place in any parliament. There was something

about the speech of the Finance Minister which afforded me great gratification. 1 used to know the hon. gentleman in Nova Scotia. I sometimes had very serious regrets about his course of conduct, but tonight when I learned what an intensely loyal and patriotic man he has become, I felt that I was rewarded for all I had suffered from him in the past, and furthermore for all the good advice I have given him. A few years ago the Minister of Finance was premier of Nova Scotia, and he was then an ardent repealer who could not think anything or say anything good of Canada, and whose mission in this world was to carry his province out of this frightful confederation. He is the gentleman who once said : that the idea that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be built, before a road was built in Prince Edward Island, was absurd. At that time the Minister of Finance was so provincial and so lacking in national sentiment, and so disloyal to our institutions, that I was delighted to hear him confess to-night that whether we had a good country or a bad country : ' this is our country.' I am pleased to find that the Minister of Finance with such a record in the past, is in a position to-night to take to his breast the whole of this country ; its jack pine, its muskegs and its granite ridges. I have never seen in my public career any sign to give me so much satisfaction, and I can hope that the conversion shall be a lasting one. It took a long time to come, but under able tuition and with good example, and with the inspiring reward of high office and some emolument, in the greater and larger sphere my friend has gotten over these little delinquencies of his, and has rid himself of that desire for flirtation with secession and repeal. While my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is litre to-night to admire everything that is Canadian and to talk as a solid Canadian, you cannot imagine what pleasure it gives me when I reflect, that he is the same gentleman who a few years ago writing for the instruction of the people of Nova Scotia, addressed them in this language :
If you do this the battle will he fought and won, the enemy dethroned and Nova Scotia set free to enter upon that career of usefulness and success which nature ever intended should b? hers, and hers alone.
People of Nova Scotia, if you have any of that latent fire and enthusiasm which once throbbed in your hearts, and in the hearts of your fathers, let it be awakened and aroused ; let the principles of justice and liberty, the love of freedom and of home once more animate and inspire you ; let your dearest rights, privileges and institutions be nobly espoused and gallantly upheld ; let the vials of your righteous indignation be poured forth against those who would further bind you by that monstrosity of legislation-the British North America Act- and let it be said to-day that you have championed the cause of political freedom, that you have thrown off the Canadian monster, and
emancipated yourselves and your beloved province from the thraldom, the servitude and the bondage of the Canadian union !
I do not know that I ever in my life enjoyed such a feeling of satisfaction and delight as when to-night I heard the Minister of! Finance use the language that a Canadian statesman should use. He is no longer tainted with this dislike of the British North America Act. No longer does he hate his brother Canadians ; no longer does he indulge in petty provincialism ; no longer does he insist on having railways built in Prince Edward Island, before railways are built in the west; he is to-day ready to build a railway through jackpines, western muskegs and granite ridges. We cannot allow the right hon. gentleman to forget that he it was that first introduced the muskeg and the jackpine in this discussion. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman knew a jackpine from a muskqg, but I am disposed to think that he referred to these things innocently, not knowing what damage his reference might do to the fair name of our country. However, I must repel the insinuation that the jackpine and the muskeg originated on this side of the House. We are perfectly prepared to accept our friends on the other side of the House as being loyal to-day, but we do not like a certain effort that is all the time being made to try to force the opposition in this House into the position of belittling the country. We do not belittle or decry the country throughout which this railway may run. We are perfectly satisfied to say that we do not know anything about it, but we hope the best for it. What is the argument of the Finance Minister in that connection? He has apparently made up his mind to love it all, good or bad, because it is our country. But when you come to deal with commercial matters, sentiment is not the only thing that is to be considered. A country that is well governed would not build a railway into an unproductive district simply because, in the words of the Finance Minister, it is our country. If we were going to occupy our country fully, we would have to gridiron the whole north with rails, and that is not what any rational government would recommend.
There is one feature of this discussion in which the Finance Minister took a certain amount of interest and pleasure ; that was in developing the idea that there is a tremendous desire for this particular road in the maritime provinces, and therefore no maritime province man could safely oppose it. I should not think that was proper teaching for the Finance Minister to give to any representative body. It is to my mind rather a provincial way of looking at the matter. In discussing a railway which is to span the continent, we should not consider exactly how it is going to impress every polling section in the country. If it is a

good scheme, it may be necessary for a man to take the unpopular course of supporting it-unpopular so far as his constituency may he concerned. If it is a wrong scheme, it may be the duty of a public man to oppose it and thereby incur a great deal of odium. Each man must decide for himself what he will do. We should get rid of these small sectional views, and regard the measure from the standpoint of the nation, and express the truth about it even if that should cause a certain amount of loss of strength in particular localities. But to my mind there is no reason at all why the maritime provinces should be excited over this project. The Finance Minister was very careful to say that he did not know whether this project would succeed in carrying grain to the sea or not; and if the hon. gentleman who has the opportunities which he has to inquire into that matter is unable to satisfy himself on that point, surely we in the opposition may examine the measure critically and find out what defects are in it without incurring hostility on the part of our constituents. There is a way in which the government, if disposed to bring about the carrying of the grain traffic to the maritime province, could effect that result at once, without building any railway at all. They have only to take the amount of money required to meet the interest on the outlay on the eastern portion of this road, and devote it to bonusing the carriage of wheat from the west to the east over the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway and over the Intercolonial from Montreal, in order to divert a large amount of that traffic at once, without losing time in waiting for a railway to be built. The Intercolonial last winter carried freight at the rate of 9-100 cent per ton per mile ; and at that rate it is quite possible to carry to Halifax and St. John a large portion of the grain traffic of the west, and realize at once for those ports the benefits of being the winter ports through which the grain will flow. But under the scheme now proposed, if you are going to exact such rates as the Grand Trunk manager, Mr. Wainwright, said before a commission of this House were absolutely essential in order to yield earnings, you are not going to see any important part of the grain traffic of the west carried directly to the ports of the maritime provinces.
There is not to my mind any case made out against the arguments of the opposition. All the points that have been made in reference to the common stock, in reference to the propriety of more stringent control over the action of the Grand Trunk, in reference to the necessity of controlling the arrangement made between the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, are all strong arguments against the present scheme, and not one of them has been met by hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House. The Finance Minister, Mr. BELL.
in speaking of the common stock, speaks as if the concession made to the company at the present time is a very trifling one. Last year he referred to the provision which prevented the common stock being sold to the Grand Trunk Company as one of the utmost importance. What is the effect of the Grand Trunk Company holding the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ? There is $25,000,000 of common stock, and $20,000,000 of preferred stock which represents the voting power of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ; and so long as the $23,000,000 of stock is in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, so long will that company constitute the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and it will to a certain extent be responsible for the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific. But now that the government has consented to allow the Grand Trunk Company to dispose of that stock, that security for which the Finance Minister held out last year, is lost I would have liked him to have dealt more fully with that subject, and to have explained to what extent he believed that not only the common stock but the preferred stock should have voting power and should be held by the Grand Trunk Company. Although this matter has not been discussed previously in this debate, it strikes me as singular that so little has been said as to the disposition to be made of the preferred stock.
I would have liked very much if the Minister of Finance had dealt more particularly with that subject, but he did not see fit to do so. But so far as the releasing of the Grand Trunk Railway from the obligation to hold $25,000,000 of the stock is concerned, it simply amounts to this, that the Grand Trunk Railway is in effect the Grand Trunk Pacific and yet is in a position to sell the stock and place it upon the market and get out of any obligation whatever that might otherwise rest upon it. The Bill has been discussed at very great length by the opposition, and has been shown to possess serious defects. I regret very much that the government have not been able to bring arguments to meet the objections from this side. I particularly regret that at no time in the course of this discussion has anything like adequate consideration been given to the sti'ong point made by the leader of the opposition to the effect that whereas the government is practically contributing nine-tenths of the cost of the road and assuming all the liability, it ought to contribute the other tenth and own and operate the whole road in the interests of the people.
House divided on amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden.
YEAS:
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Kaulbach,
Armstrong,	Kemp,
Avery,	Kidd,

Barker,
Bell,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Brock,
Broder,
Bruce,
Carscallen,
Casgrain,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Culbert,
Daniel,
Donnelly,
Earle,
Ganong,
Gilmour,
Hackett,
Halliday,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria); Ingram,
Johnston
(Cardwell),
Angers,
Archambault,
Bazinet,
Beland,
Blanchet,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Bourassa, Bourbonnais, Brodeur,
Brown,
Bruneau,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Campbell,
Carbonneau,
Champagne,
Christie,
Copp,
Costigan,
Cowan,
Delisle,
Demers (L6vis), Demers (St. John), Desjardins, Douglas,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Gallery,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gervais,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Guthrie,
Harwood,
Haszard,
Heyd,	[DOT]
Holmes,
Hughes
(King's, P.E.I.), Hyman,
Lancaster,
Lavell,
Lennox,
Leonard,
MacLaren (Perth), McGowan,
Monk,
Morin,
Northrup,
Osier,
Pope,
Porter*
Pringle,
Puttee,
Richardson, Robinson (Elgin), Rosamond,
Sherritt,
Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Taylor,
Thomson (Grey), Tolton,
Vrooman,
Wilmot,
Wilson.-59.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Lewis,
Loy,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
Maclaren,
(Huntingdon),
Macpherson,
McCarthy,
McEwen,
McCool,
McGugan,
McLennan,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Monet,
Morrison,
Mulock
(Sir William), Murray,
Oliver,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Power,
PrSfontaine,
Riley,
Rivet,
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross
(Victoria, N.S.), Ross (Yukon), Rousseau,
Russell,
Schell,
Scott,
Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Vancouver), Stephens,
Stewart,
Johnston	Sutherland
(Cape Breton),	(Essex),
Johnston	Thompson
(Lam(bton),	(Haldim'd and M'ck.
Lang,	Tobin,
Lapointe,	Tolmie,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tucker,
Laurier (L'Assomption) Turcot,	
Lavergne	Turgeon,
Dr'm. and Arth.),	Wright.-105.
Lavergne (Montmagny),	
PAIRS:	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Dyment,	McCormick,
Wallace,	Tisdale,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Lovell,	Kendry,
Kendall,	Roche
Wade,	(Marquette), Gourley,
Macdonald,	Ball,
Grant,	Maclean,
Beith,	Calvin,
Roche (Halifax),	Hale,
Harty,	Reid
Logan,	(Grenville), Lefurgey,
McColl,	Ward,
Emmerson,	Fowler,
Sutherland	Haggart,
(Oxford),	
Dugas,	Tarte,
Mclsaac,	Robinson
Biekerdike,	(Northumberland), Roddick,
Ethier,	LaRivibre,
Davis,	Boyd,
Talbot,	Seagram,
Proulx,	McIntosh.
Amendment (Mr. R.	L., Borden) negatived


John Graham Haggart: Before the main motion is carried, I beg to move :
That the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by adding the following as section No. :
Notwithstanding anything in this A<?t or in the supplementary agreement contained the government shall have and may exercise all rights, powers and remedies in respect of possession, foreclosure and sale upon default by the Pacific Company in the payment of interest on the bonds guaranteed by the government as. fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as if the sixth, seventh and eighth clauses of the said supplementary agreement were not therein contained, and as if the said three clauses formed no part of the scheduled agreements, or of any agreement between the parties thereto.
I do not intend to make any lengthened remarks on this subject. When the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) was making his speech a short time ago he was a little factious about the leader of the opposition not having me as the seconder of his motion. Nothing would have afforded me greater pleasure than to second that motion, but as I moved this resolution when in Committee of the Whole I would have been debarred



from moving it if I had seconded the motion of my hon. leader. I suppose the Finance Minister is satisfied after the remarks I made in support of the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition tfiat 1 would have no objection to seconding that motion. I have nothing further to add at this late hour to the arguments I used in committee in support of my present amendment. The government are incurring a larger financial responsibility than was originally intended. I see the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) in his place. I wonder what he will have to tel) us about the proposition he made-the Finance Minister did not mention it in his financial statement [DOT] that he was going to set aside a quantity of land in the Northwest from the sale of which the government would be enabled to meet part if not the whole of the expenditure tfiat they will be put to in connection with this scheme of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Amendment (Mr. Haggart) negatived on the same division.


Samuel Hughes: 1 have the honour to move :
That the Bill he not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by adding the following as section 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 1st paragraph of the supplementary agreement.
It is quite unnecessary that I should take up any time, at this late hour


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, we really must have better order, or we shall take a little time in discussing the adjournment of the House. I made the arrangement to close this debate to-night, and 1 propose to carry out that arrangement; but we must have better order-that will have to be understood. A great deal of time has been taken up by hon. gentlemen on the other side. We do not complain of that, of course. But we cannot get on if this disorder continues. We will be as brief as possible, but we have certain motions to present, and we must have order for their consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: I altogether agree with my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden), I must ask hon. gentlemen on this side to keep better order.


Samuel Hughes: It is quite unnecessary that any additional argument should be advanced to convince the House and the country of the necessity of pressing this prairie section of the road to a speedy finish.


John Graham Haggart: If the road is necessary at all the only part that is' immediately necessary is the prairie section. That section, as every one knows who is at all conversant with that country is easily constructed, compared with the eastern division or with the mountain section. There are no clearings to be effected until the road reaches whichever pass in the Rocky Mountains is to be taken-fellow-head, Pine or Peace River pass. Settlers are going in all through that country, so that I am satisfied that the amendment 1 have presented will meet with the hearty approval of the entire Northwest. I shall not attempt further to convince the Prime Minister. I had hoped in the early part of the session that he would withdraw the Bill. All we can hope now is that he will accept some of the amendments that we are offering to the measure.
Amendment (Mr. Sam. Hughes) negatived on the same division.


Mr. E. GUSS. PORTER (West Hastings).: I beg to move .
That the hill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by adding the following as section No.
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 the covenants, conditions or stipulations in the said scheduled agreements contained on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, unless and until the Grand Trunk Company shall have entered into an agreement with His Majesty the King, acting as aforesaid, by which the said Grand Trunk Company shall covenant and agree as follows : That the Pacific Company, so long as the Grand Trunk Company shall control the policy of the company, shall perform, fulfil and carry out according to the true intent and meaning thereof, all the provisions of the National Transcontinental Railway Act and all the covenants, stipulations and agreements in the scheduled agreements, which according to the terms thereof ought to he performed, fulfilled or carried out by the said Pacific Company.
Having moved this amendment in Committee of the \\ hole, and having taken occasion then to express my views pretty fully upon the question, and considering the length of time that has been occupied-and, I think, well occupied-in the discussion of the measure before the House to-night, i would not, at this late hour, attempt to discuss the matter further or to add to what 1 have already said upon the question, except to urge upon the House one point in connection with this amendment.
There may be room for discussion and for a difference of opinion upon the amendments that have been offered to this Bill and upon the merits of the Bill itself, but the object of this resolution is that once the conditions and stipulations have been agreed upon between this government * and the Gnand

Trunk Pacific Railway there can be no further doubt as to what those conditions are, and having settled those conditions X conceive it to be the duty of this government or of any party to see that these covenants or conditions are carried out. That is the sole object of this resolution. The government has neglected this duty. I would not have said this much Mr. Speaker, as it must be apparent to every member of this House that it is only fair and in the interest of the country that the performance of the conditions of this contract should in some way be secured to the eountry. When I introduced this amendment in the committee, hon. members on the government side of the House saw fit to treat it with silence I can conceive of their adopting that course only from one of two reasons, either that members of the government considered that this amendment was unworthy of discussion, or they considered that the principle involved in this amendment was unanswerable. I cannot believe that members on the government side believed that the principle contained in this amendment was unworthy of discussion but I do believe, and I feel we have had every evidence of it during the discussion of this measure, that it is by reason of the manner in which individual opinion on the government benches has been stifled in this matter and the fear that the discussion of amendments such as I have introduced here will expose in a still greater degree than has already appeared, the weakness of the government upon this matter that they have chosen to treat the amendment with silence.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the question is put, I would like to call the attention of the government to a matter of some moment, namely that on no less than four or five occasions during the present session and during the previous session members asked the government for copies of all correspondence and documents relating to the project which we have been discussing for the past few weeks. On page 447 of ' Hansard ' of last year it will be seen that the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal (Mr. Tarte) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or Mr. C. M. Hays, per William Wainwright, or any other person, In relation to a new transcontinental railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I would ask my hon. friend not to press that motion at this stage of the session. Communications chiefly verbal have taken place between the government and the parties representing the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, hut no definite conclusions of any kind have been arrived at. Matters are still under discussion. So it would be quite impracticable for us to bring down any correspondence until a later stage, which we will be glad to do during the ' present session.
1174	.
Later on my bon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asked a somewhat more comprehensive series of questions involving the same matters. One of the questions he asked was this :
Is it a fact that some members of the government are urging the said Grand Trunk Company to purchase the Mann & iftackenzic system ; and that the said Grand Trunk Company is asking for a large land grant, as a condition of said proposed purchase ?
To this the following answer was returned :
It'is not a fact that members of the government are urging the Grand Trunk Company to purchase the Mackenzie and Mann system, nor is the Grand Trunk Company asking for a large land grant as a condition for such a purpose.
Then another question asked by the hon. meber for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was this :
Is it a fact that divisions in the cabinet are the sole cause of such delay ?
To this the answer was :
This is not a proper question, and if it were a proper question, the answer would be : There is not the slightest foujulation in fact for such a statement.
I am mentioning that for the purpose of showing that the attention of the government had been particularly directed to this question. Again, on April 2nd, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier put a further question to the government on the same subject and he received the answer from the government through the then Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) the concluding portion of which is as follows :
But it would be premature to make any announcement now. As soon as this can be done in the public interest, parliament will be informed fully.
A further motion was made, to be found
in ' Hansard ' p. 1031, to which practically the same answer was returned. During the present session my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier moved for
Copies of all letters, telegrams, cables and memoranda exchanged between the government and the authorities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, regarding the new transcontinental railway project, including the eastern division thereof.
He said : Mr. Speaker, before the motion is carried I would like to add to it the words ' since the last session of parliament.'


Rt.   H@: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), before putting this amended motion, that I brought forward all we have upon this subject. Indeed there is nothing else.


Mr. MONK.: I have not seen the return. Does it purport to cover everything absolutely ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If it does not I would press my motion because I ask for every communication of every nature whatever.


Wilfrid Laurier: I brought down everything upon the subject.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend may understand that he may have deposited on the table of the House everything that he considered necessary or essential, but, this motion goes farther. Does my right hon. friend's report cover everything ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I brought down everything without any equivocation at all, that we have on the subject.
Then again at page 590, replying to myself, the right hon. Prime Minister said :


Rt.   H@: I have to inform my hon. friend that everything relating to this matter has been laid before the House, the letter of the president of the company, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, making certain requests, and the concessions made by the government.
Then, further on I spoke on the Orders of the Day of April 20th, to this effect:
Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the government whether there is or Is not any correspondence between the government and either the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company relating to the Transcontinental Railway project, wl#ch has not yet been brought down, and also whether there are any papers or documents relating to that project or negotiations with these companies, or either of them, which have not yet been brought down?
To which the right hon. gentleman replied as follows :
As to correspondence with either the Grand Trunk Pacific or Grand Trunk Railway Company, I have to inform my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that there is no correspondence- everything has been brought down.
Now, to-night after these assurances have been given to the House and to the country on so many different occasions we have my hon. friend the Minister of Finance producing for the first time a document from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to the government dated as far back as December, 1902, and presenting that for the first time to the House, after all these declarations have been made in parliament. I would like to know on what ground my hon. friends can justify that position. We have had these assurances from time to time that every document would be brought down during the past session and afterwards on two occasions at least that every thing had been brought down without any equivocation or evasion whatever, yet to-night the Minister of Finance reads to the House a public document upon' a public subject with regard to public aid demanded by the Grand Trunk Pacific for a public undertaking in this country. He reads that after we have all these declarations and assurance from the government that no such document existed. And strangest of all he thought he could not read it until the Grand Trunk gave him permission to read it to the parliament


Robert Laird Borden: and the people of ths country. You might as well call an Act of parliament confidential as to call that document confidential, a petition asking for public aid to a public undertaking in this country. The Minister of Finance who had not the courage to make his financial statement when it could be answered, sees fit to make it in the closing hours of the debate. We have that document introduced in the closing hours of the debate by permission of the Grand Trunk. It is fortunate that they were kind-hearted and generous enough to give that permission, otherwise we would not have known anything about it.
If it had not been that the government thought it was in their own interest at this iate moment to spring that document upon the parliament of this country after the repeated assurances which they had given that no such document existed we would have gone on accepting the assurance which they had given and we would have gone on believing that the right hon. leader of the government had stated the fact accurately to this House when he made the statement over and over again that every document had been brought down without evasion or equivocation. I do not understand on what principle the government trifles with parliament in this way. How is it that the right hon. gentleman ventured to say on more than one occasion, how is it that he ventured to say during last session through his Minister of Railways and Canals that every document would be brought down and how is it that he ventured to say only on the 20th April last that every document had been brought down without evasion or equivocation and how is it that the hon. Minister of Finance, to-night, by the kind permission of the Grand Trunk Railway Company brings down for the first time this public document to the parliament of this country? My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) spoke of the supposed necessity of obtaining the permission of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in strong terms but those strong terms should be made infinitely stronger when we consider the assurances and declarations that the government have given over and over again to parliament that every document on this subject has been brought down. I cannot understand it unless there has been some lapse of memory on the part of my right hon. friend, and I shall await with a great deal of interest the explanation which I think is due to the House from the right hon. gentleman on this subject.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, it will be a very easy matter to give my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) the explanation to which he thinks he is entitled as to what he imagines to be a laches on the part of the government in regard to this subject. I have to tell him

that I am not disposed at all in any way to accept the lecture which he has thought it advisable to give to me. If the hon. gentleman does not understand the reason why this document was not brought down it is simply because I, at all events-I do not know what his manner may be-when I receive a letter which is marked ' confidential ' do not think that I am authorized to bring it down to parliament. Every one has his own way of looking at these things If there are hon. gentlemen in this House who believe that when they receive a letter which is marked ' confidential ' they are not bound to keep it secret but that they have a right to bring it down and give it'to the public, I do not share their views. If Mr. Hays, or anybody else, approaches the government in a confidential manner his confidence must be respected. In this matter there were communications coming from the Grand Trunk Railway Company which were not marked ' confidential,' which were public and which were filed in the archives of the department and all these communications were brought down when they were asked for. Whether my views conflict or do not conflict with the views of hon. gentlemen opposite all I have to say is that for my part as long as I am here, whether I am addressed simply as an individual member or as the head of the government, by whomever it may be, let it be by one iii ever so humble a position or so high a position, if I am addressed in a confidential manner his confidence shall be respected. I want to know was there anything in that correspondence, which, if it had been brought down, could have been of any service to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House? Was there anything in it which could have helped them in the discussion ? Was there anything concealed in which the public could be interested in any way ? This confidential letter was in my own possession. This is the explanation which I have to give to my hon. friend. I did not think I was justified in bringing down that letter which was addressed to me and marked 1 confidential.' I could not give it to the public until I had written to Mr. Hays, asking him to allow me to give it to the public. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) said a moment ago that it was a degradation to ask the permission of Mr. Hays. All I have to say to my hon. friend is that my views differ from his upon this matter. It would have been a degradation to have betrayed the secret of anybody by bringing down to the public a letter which had been marked 'confidential.' If I had done that I would have been degraded in my own eyes and I would have had to accuse myself of having so far forgotten myself as to submit to the public a document which was marked 'private.' This correspondence lasted for a long time and when Mr. Hays gave us a communication which
we had to file in the archives of the department, it was brought down as I said last session, and I repeat again that every communication has been brought down without any evasion or equivocation whatever.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that parliament, tonight, is treated to a new divergence from the usual course.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Certainly it is. The right hon. leader of the government speaks of confidential correspondence. A confidential petition to parliament praying for aid for a public undertaking


Wilfrid Laurier: It was not to parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was to the government in the first instance, but to the country in the main, and had the stipulation been carried out the country would have been obliged to have fulfilled the requirements of It. Now. this matter has two features that seem to require attention. One is the absolute assertion over and over again that everything had been brought down. There was no explanation that everything that was not confidential had been brought dowr. but the statement that everything had been brought down implied that whether or not confidential communications had passed everything had been presented to this House. The second is as to the courtesy with which parliament is treated. I have yet to learn that parliament and the country were not entitled to that information which the House got only to-night. Why did the House not get it last session? When it answered the purpose of the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) to give confidential communications to the House he gave them and when it answered the purpose of the government to give this confidential communication to the House it was brought down and not till then. There is no rule that will apply to one side of the House and that will not apply to the other side. If it was right to bring it down the House should have had it in the first instance and if it was right that it should be kept from the House, if it was of a confidential nature there is no justification to give it now. But, in my opinion it could not properly be considered as a confidential communication. The House should have been in possession of it to enable it to wisely and carefully consider the various propositions that were made to the country through parliament and had to come to a conclusion in reference to this matter.
If the rule holds good all that is necessary to the withholding of any of these communications is to mark them confidential, and if the government do not desire

370S
to give them to the House an intimation may he given to the parties with whom they are having communication to mark their communications ' confidential.' But, there is a better standard than that by which these things should be judged and it is that when any application is made for assistance from any source to this parliament, parliament is entitled to have that information given to it at the earliest possible moment, and it' has not treated parliament with the consideration with which the representatives of the people should be treated if such information is withheld from the House.


Adam Carr Bell: I do not see how the Prime Minister can justify his conduct. The course he decided upon involved him in giving incorrect information to the House. The government was asked whether the company had applied for land grants, and the reply was that they had not; whereas the fact is brought out to-night by the Pnance Minister, that they had applied for 5,000 acres per mile, and yet through the mistaken course of the premier he is led to state to the House what is absolutely opposed to the fact. How could the Prime Minister have possibly stated to the House that the company had not asked for a land grant ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is quite easily explained.


Adam Carr Bell: There is no propriety in allowing public documents of this kind to obtain a confidential character. They come to the ministers as a committee of this parliament, and to treat such communications as confidential is giving an advantage to the authors of them which they should not possess. If such documents are to be treated as confidential, even after negotiations have been concluded, it is laying down a principle that no House of Commons should ever assent to for all that any one would have to do is to mark a document sent to the government ' confidential,' and then it remains a secret from the representatives of the people in this parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I be permitted a personal explanation ? The letter which was brought down this afternoon by my hon. friend the Finance Minister, was addressed to me in November, 1902, and it was with reference to a project of the Grand Trunk to be assisted to build a railway from North Bay to the Pacific ocean


Mr.   I@: I understood the Minister of Finance to state that it was a petition for public aid.


William Stevens Fielding: It was a petition addressed to the government.


Robert Laird Borden: It was a petition addressed to the government for public aid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Personally it. w-as a letter to obtain assistance for a railway from North Bay to the Pacific ocean. This proposition was not entertained in any way whatever. Then the Grand Trunk Company made the other proposal which has been placed before the House, for the construction of a railway from Quebec to the Pacific ocean.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: Late as the hour is we should not allow this incident to pass without an earnest protest. I have not had long experience in parliament, but I can say that the answers given time and again by ministers to questions put by gentlemen on this side of the House, have not been as candid as they should be between gentlemen, not to speak of the fact that the information was givenn by ministers to representatives of the people. I would ask the Prime Minister, if we now have all the papers in possession of the government. If the right hon. gentleman says that he has now produced everything, am I to take his word, or, am I to suppose that there still may be something confidential which has not been produced? Is not that a most extraordinary position for a Prime Minister to place himself in ? The right hon. gentleman did not say he had produced everything except papers that were confidential, but he said ' without any equivocation,' to use his own words, that he had produced everything. The right hon. gentleman misled the House by saying that he had produced everything. Are we to understand in the future, that when a minister answers a Question in plain Eng-iish, we are to cross-examine him to ascertain whether there is something behind, so that we may know the true meaning of his reply ? We were told most distinctly that every document in the possession of the government had been produced-that was said without any reservation-and yet we have a most formal public document relating to the subject we have been discussing all last session and this, laid upon the Table at the last minute. That document was concealed from the representatives of the people in parliament.


James Clancy: The Minister of Finance is very fond of cheap victories, and to-night he has unconsciously disclosed a conspiracy against the rights of the Canadian people. He read what he said was a petition. and that petition was an offer made by the Grand Trunk as against the Trans-Canada, and Mr. Hays very ingeniously consented that that document should be marked ' private ' in order that the government would have an excuse for withholding it. The right hon. gentleman has told us that he has a code of honour of his own. Has he the same code of honour as the Postmaster General who sits beside him, and who did not hesitate to publish broad-

cast, letters that were marked ' confidential.'
I know of no more serious thing than that the government should deliberately conceal documents that belong to the public.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I hardly think that is parliamentary.


James Clancy: What is it ?
Mr, SPE AKER. I do not think it is parliamentary for an lion, gentleman to say that there was a deliberate concealment.


James Clancy: Perhaps I shall be warranted in saying deliberately withheld.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not think that is any better.


James Clancy: Well, I will withdraw that, and say that the Prime Minister unconsciously withheld it-that he was not acting upon his own will or motion, but was acting on the advice of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. X know of no more serious charge against the ministry than to say that documents that belong to the people have been withheld under any pretext whatever. These documents belong to the people the moment the negotiations proceed. Probably no incident in this whole affair reflects less credit on the government than this very transaction.


Robert Laird Borden: As my right hon. friend does not quite agree with my recollection, I would like to say that the document begins as follows :
To the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., P.C., premier of the Dominion of Canada, Ottawa :
Your petitioners desire to memorialize your government in regard to the construction of a first-class line of railway from the northern terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway at or near North Bay, Ontario, through to the Pacific coast.
And it ends :
Your petitioners ask that your government will give the prayer of this petition their early and most earnest consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: There can be no question that if the government had taken any action on that petition with the view of bringing down to parliament a measure based thereon, then the idea of such a document being confidential could not be entertained, and it would have been the duty of the government to ask the authors of that document to remove the word ' confidential.'


Mr. PRINGLE.: Why was the document read ?


William Stevens Fielding: For good and sufficient reasons. But we are now dealing witn the question whether the government were bound to bring it down at an earlier stage. The government were not bound, first, because it was a confidential document.


Samuel Hughes: No.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says no, and yet he sees staring him in the face the word * confidential ' on the document.


Samuel Hughes: I say no document of this kind can be confidential.


William Stevens Fielding: Any man who writes a letter to another man has a right to make it confidential. If the man who receives it has any reason to think that it should be made public he must apply to the author of the document and obtain his permission to make it public. In this case the document was not dealt with ; parliament was not asked to do anything in relation to that document ; and I dispute the contention of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), that in bringing down a return or in answering a question in this House a minister is bound to take notice of any documents that are confidential. Such documents must be ignored. The suggestion that we should say that we have a document, but it is confidential, is out of the question. If a document is confidential* it must be treated as such, and no reference whatever can be made to it. So much with regard to the non-production of the document earlier. The hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) says, why bring it down now ? Not because it has any relation to the scheme before parliament, but because hon. gentlemen opposite in their efforts to discredit the scheme have made erroneous statements, and in order to correct those statements we have asked the author of the document to remove the seal of secrecy, so that we might bring it down.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman contend that it relates to the scheme?


William Stevens Fielding: I say it relates to statements made by hon. gentlemen in discussing the scheme, but not to the scheme itself. Hon. gentlemen opposite, in their endeavours to discredit the scheme, have made unfounded statements in reference to the Grand Trunk proposal. It is because of those statements and not because the document related to the merits of the scheme, that it was brought down, and it was proper that it should not be brought down without the consent of the gentlemen who wrote it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That document refers to the building of a transcontinental railway. Have we not been dealing exactly with the same question and with the same individuals, so that the document must have to do with the subject before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: We have not been dealing with any scheme touched by that document whatever.


Samuel Hughes: 1 interjected a remark to the right hon. the Prime Minister

over which he seemed to have got very touchy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: I dare say that questions concerning fine points of honour are quite unknown to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but we do not expect him to be a judge of these matters at all. In my opinion the duty of the First Minister, the moment he received a public document marked ' private and confidential,' was not even to read it, but to return it to Mr. Hays and the Grand Trunk Railway and notify them that no such document could be received subject to any such restriction, but could only be received as an official document. Just fancy a petition to the Prime Minister, to be handed to his government, being treated as a confidential document. It looks very much as if this matter had been borderiug on conspiracy for a long time before the people were taken into the confidence of the government. It looks as though a great many negotiations had been going on before anything was made public. Public documents should be treated as such, and the duty of the Prime Minister was to have returned this document unread, and notify the parties who sent it that it could not be acepted unless the words ' private and confidential ' were removed.


Mr. RUFUS POPE (Compton).: In his speech this evening and afternoon, the hon. the Finance Minister said that myself with others had not dealt fairly with the government in our estimate of the cost of the construction of the road from North Bay westward. After the answer had been given by the right hon. the Prime Minister that all information, papers, and documents relating to this question had been laid on the Table, what other conditions could I assume than that the Grand Trunk Pacific had asked for the construction of this road on other basis than those which had been submitted to this House. We in the opposition should have the same information upon a subject of this character as the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues in the cabinet. We have a right to be given the fullest details. I believed that we were given the fullest information and was therefore warranted in stating that the Grand Trunk Railway had agreed to construct from North Bay westward for the ordinary subsidy granted to railway construction in this country. It is unfair that at the last moment the Finance Minister should bring forward a document, hitherto unknown to parliament, and base an argument on it. It was unfair and unjust. I know nothing of the rule of government and perhaps as little of the rules of parliament, but I know the rules of fair-play, and I say that it is only fair-play that the man who stands up and opposes a great governmental scheme should be put in possession of all information pertaining to it.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: Perhaps it might be well to go back some months and


Samuel Hughes: inquire what effect the concealement of this petition had on the legislation in this House. I remember when the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill was introduced and referred to the Railway Committee, the hon. the Finance Minister was asked whether it was the intention of the Grand Trunk Pacific to ask for any assistance, and he said it was time enough to arrange the terms when the Grand Trunk Pacific did ask for assistance. On the strength of that misleading statement, for it was a deliberate statement on the part of the Finance Minister


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Does any one deny it V


William Stevens Fielding: I deny it, the statement was not made. The statement made was that it was time enough when the government proposed to parliament.any scheme for aid, to discuss the condition under which that aid could be granted.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, the statement was that it was time enough when the Grand Trunk Pacific asked for assistance-and I will go further and say to hon. gentlemen on that side that they understood it in that light. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd)-if I may be permitted to use his name


Mr. PIEYD.: Do not use my name, for I do not know anything about it.


Andrew B. Ingram: That hon. gentleman said in the committee that it did not make any difference to us where they built the railway so long as they paid for the construction of it. Therefore it had a perfect right to grant that legislation. That was the statement he made, and it was a misleading statement. There were other ministers of the Crown in attendance at that committee from tirpe to time, and from time to time this question was asked and answered in the w'ay and' spirit I have stated, and by reason of the answers given on different occasions to the committee, we refrained from discussing "'here that railway should run. Now the right hon. gentleman says to-night: is there anything in that correspondence that would be of service to members of the opposition ?
I hold that if members of the opposition and members of the government side who belong to the Railway Committee had/ known about that petition, they would have discussed the question from a different standpoint. I would ask the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister as well, what would have been the result after eight months of a session last year, if the legislation granted by this House had been carried out ? Would we in that case have heard anything of that petition to-night ? Not one word. Then again, the Finance Minister says that the object of reading that petition to-night was to meet the arguments presented by hon. gentlemen on this side.

But the same arguments were presented If st year. This subject is discussed throughout the country and every man who knows anything about it knows that the Grand Trunk last year expected that they would get fair and reasonable assistance in carrying out their project. That is what we believed then, and that is what we believe now. But when it was stated that no land grant was asked for by the company, then. I say again, the government were misleading the House. In the discussions that have taken place upon the land grants the Conservative opposition here have been taunted with supporting a policy of land grants to railways. But the government did not explain to us that the company last year were asking for $53,358,000 in land and money to assist the Grand Trunk Pacific. They misled the House with regard to this project. And I say it is a sorry finish to this affair when we find the government which preaches such a high standard of morality now, at the eleventh hour-no, not at the eleventh hour but at the twelfth hour and even longer after-reading a petition that was intended just as much for this country as for the government.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The Minister of Finance has said that the reason why this document was not brought down before was that it had not been dealt with by the government. This document is signed by George A. Cox, Charles M. Hays and William Wainwright. Are we to understand that the government thought so little of these petitioners, and regarded their petition as of so little importance that they did not even consider it ? That does not seem to me to be reasonable. Another reason given by the Minister of Finance is that the document was marked 'confidential.' This memorial was addressed not to one individual member of the government, but the government as a whole. And this petition was followed almost immediately by the official notice in the * Canada Gazette.' The petition is dated November 2. 1902, and it was followed on December 15, 1902, by notice of application for the incorporation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the notice being almost in the very terms of the memorial. Hon. gentlemen opposite are not always so scrupulous with regard to documents that might be considered confidential. It was only the other evening that we had the Minister of Labour (Sir Wm. Mulock), when dealing with a discussion in regard to the alien labour, making the statement that Mr. Hays, instead of answering his correspondence had sent a letter marked ' confidential ' to the Prime Minister, that the document was a public one, and so he had no hesitation in telling the House the contents of it. And he went further, and said that his reason for being ready to give
it was that the Prime Minister had stated the'substance of it in the afternoon. This was the very foundation, the very initial proceeding, in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the parliament of this country was entitled to know how the proceedings were commenced.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: My only justification for addressing the House at this late hour of the morning is that there seems to be a misunderstanding between the two sides of the House with regard to the matter before us. As the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) has said, the government is formally committed to the principle that if a document is addressed to the government in a matter touching the public, even though marked ' private and confidential,' it is to be brought down.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


William Barton Northrup: Documents have been brought down by the Postmaster General which were marked ' confidential,' and the plaudits of hon. gentlemen opposite supported him in doing so, while the Prime Minister had not a word to say against that course. The government, I think, laid down a principle, and I am not prepared to say that they have departed from it, that if a document relates to the public, even though marked ' confidential.' it should be brought down. It will be seen that this document relates to a matter in which the public has no concern whatever. We have only to look into the letter of Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson to see that. He says :
It has always seemed to me that the government of Canada

not the public of Canada, but the government of Canada,
-and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, being in point of fact partners in the enterprise-
And so on. I am prepared to defend the government in the position they have taken. They agree with Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson, that the position they occupy is that of a partner with the Grand Trunk in this great scheme, and they regard a communication from the head of the firm to the junior partner as confidential. True, it may relate. to a great public enterprise, but it is a matter in which the Grand Trunk and the government are partners. Evidently the hon. member for Cornwall and those behind him think that the public have something to do with these matters. This is a matter where the Bill conceived by the Prime Minister and arranged with the Grand Trunk is to be carried out. And, with the principle laid down by the government that, where the public is concerned, even a document marked ' confidential ' should be laid before the House, I am sure

they would have brought down everything that related to the public. The Prime Minister was quite sincere. Viewing this as a communication between partners, and one with which the public had nothing to do, the Prime Minister told us that everything was brought down that should be brought down. If that view is correct, that the public had nothing to do with this matter, they are perfectly right in refusing to bring down the document.
If the view held by hon. gentlemen on this side be correct the public is most intimately and vitally interested in this and is entitled to all the information it can have. Put while I would be sorry to say that the government are two-faced and brought down a document when it suited them, and did not when it did not suit them, still, if the government really believed that the public was interested in this matter they would have brought this document dowil. I think I am justified in saying it is a simple case of difference of opinion, the government and its supporters, as junior members of this important firm. Hays, Cox & Company, they should stand by their partners while we stood by the people.


Right Hon.   S@: The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Pringle) has alluded to me and stated that a short time ago I read in this House communications sent by Mr. Hays to the premier marked ' confidential.' 1 presume that, however inaccurate he may be, he has reference to some remarks which I made in the House upon the 13th of May instant. On that occasion I was giving to the House the correspondence up to date that had passed between myself and the Grand Trunk with reference to the subject that evening under discussion and stated that I had written to Mr. Hays and that he had replied transmitting to me a letter which he had sent to the premier which might properly have been sent to myself, and that Mr. Hays in his communication to me expressed the wish that I should not make his letter public except with the consent of the premier. He did not say to me that it might not be used by the premier, and the premier himself having the control of the document stated to the House before I spoke what its tenor was. When I spoke therefore. I did not make known to the House the nature of the letter to the premier ; the premier had already, as was his right, made that communication to the House.
Another hon. gentleman has referred to an incident that happened seven years ago when I published to the House and the country certain documents that were upon the public files when I took office. On that occasion the facts connected with the transaction were essentially different from those referred to to-night. On that occasion, I may say briefly that although I shared the entire Mr. NORTHRUP.
responsibility of that publication I had not myself seen the communications until they were printed and placed before the public. The matter came up incidentally in my department in the following method : One of the officers in the department asked me what was to be the procedure in dealing with public contracts and I told him the ordinary procedure that the law laid down. He informed me that that had not been the procedure in the past and brought to my knowledge a number of cases in which the public interest had been disregarded for the promotion of private interests, and on exa rnina-tion it was found that in these various transactions the irregular letting of contracts had resulted in a loss to the country of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, the exact figures of which I set forth in that report.
I gave instructions throughout the department that ail contracts that had been irregularly let were to be cancelled and relet according to the Post Office Act. That was done and I instructed that one of the officers of the department should prepare a return to parliament setting forth all the circumstances connected with the letting of these contracts and to give to parliament the correspondence bearing on the subject. I myself did not go into the public files or see the letters in advance of their publication, but they were published because the officer found them upon the public files. They were not placed upon the public files by me but by my predecessor, a member of the preceding administration, and I presume if he placed them on the public file it is fair to conclude that he had authority from the senders to so make use of them, and whether or not he had authority it seems to me that these letters had direct bearing upon the public affairs of the country, and disclosed and were part and parcel of, a project to rob the people of Canada. That is what they were and I doubt myself if the documents having that purport may be regarded as confidential. When my hon. friends opposite took extreme exception on that occasion to the course pursued I wonder how they reconciled their action then with their action to-night. Here they declare that no communication to a minister concerning the public interest should be regarded as private and confidential. How do they reconcile their contention to-night with their criticism of my actions seven years ago in having given to the public documents which I found on the public files ? That was the transaction then and I accept the full responsibility, but there is an essential difference between that transaction and the one to-night. In my case the documents were on a public file. I got them where they had been placed by my predecessor, in a very different method from that in which the leader of the opposition became possessed of a private and confidential document a short time ago, the circum-

stances of -which have not yet been satisfactorily explained to this House and to the country.
Amendment (Mr. Porter) negatived on the same division.


Andrew B. Ingram: I move, seconded by Mr. Wilson :
That all the words after the word " That " in the main motion be left out and the following subtituted therefor :-' the Bill be referred back to a Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by adding thereto the following as section No. - :-
" ' Notwithstanding anything in the scheduled agreements, or in this Act, or in the Act hereby amended contained, it is hereby declared and enacted that in the event of the government determining to undertake the operation of the Eastern Division upon the termination of the said lease, the government shall be entitled for a further period of fifty years to such running powers and haulage rights over the Western Division, or any portion thereof, and over any branch line or lines running from any point or points in the Eastern Division as may be necessary or expedient in the opinion of the government, upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the government and the Pacific Company, or as may from time to time in case of failure to so agree be determined in the manner provided by clause 24 (2) of the original agreement, which is hereby made applicable to cases arising under this section.' "
I moved this before, and it was understood that I would have the privilege of withdrawing it and moving it again to-day. I understood that the Minister of Justice desired to say something in connection with it.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: The hon. gentleman moved it, and at my suggestion withdrew it. I desired at the time to have an opportunity to look into what I had already said on the subject, for the purpose of deciding whether or not I would maintain the opinion I had then expressed. I have, since my hon. friend moved his amendment, considered the matter further, and I can see no reason to depart from the opinion I expressed when the amendment was moved in committee.
Amendment (Mr. Ingram) negatived on the same division.
Motion (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agreed to on the same division reversed, and Bill read the third time and passed.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Wilfrid Laurier: I have a motion to make which, I suppose, will not be opposed. I move that the House do now adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: Before that motion is put, I would like to inquire what business we are to take up to-day ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I do not know that we will be in a condition to do much
business, but we will take up the estimates. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) will take up his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 5.25 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Fbidat, May 27, 1904.