1904-04-29

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 87) for the relief of James E. Taylor.-Mr. Grant.
Bill (No. 90) to incorporate the Bessemer and Barry's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Northrup.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert. Bill (No. 92) respecting certain patents of 'illiam A. Damen."-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 93) respecting a certain patent of A. Small.-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Temagami Railway Company.-Mr. Logan for Mr. Mc-Cool.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WALTER iSCOTT (West Assiniboia). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I will crave the indulgence of the House in order to bring to the attention of the government a serious subject, which is outlined in a telegraphic message I have just received from the village of Davidson, in the Northwest Territories. The message is as follows :
No seed grain here, railway seem unable to help us, cannot yoh do something to relieve situation, if no seed here soon a lot of people will suffer, answer.

[Stage Direction]
Davidson, I may explain, is the centre of a new settlement on the Prince Albert Railway, which runs between Regina and Prince Albert, and unfortunately the village is situated north of the point where a serious break has occurred in the railway line. I am led to believe that about five miles of the railway track, where it crosses the Qu'Appelle valley at Lumsden, is at present, and has been for some days, under water. The greater number of the settlers at Davidson are men wiho went in there only last year. They prepared their land for the crop last season, and this is their first seeding season. Consequently they have to import their seed grain, and now, just at the time when they expected to receive their grain, the railway service has broken down. This, of course, emphasizes the great disadvantage at which any community is placed which is entirely dependent on a single line of railway. That is the situation in which the people of this community find themselves, and I infer that the same conditions are existing in several of the other new settlements along that line of railway. The people in most of the settlements between Lumsden and Saskatoon went into that country. only last season. This is a very serious
give us government ownership of railways, this road particularly, because it would then compete successfully with one of these other roads, of which my friend liere (Mr. t>sl&i4 is oneTjnUe great ooudhblders or-directors. We want to build that road and hel]) the
[Stage Direction]
matter. This is a problem which, if it is to be solved at all, must be solved immediately, because, if two or three weeks go by, the seeding season will have gone by. Of course, the solution largely depends on the efforts of the railway company. I am bound to say that, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the Canadian Pacific Railway, under the circumstances existing at Lumsden, have been doing their utmost to overcome the obstacles. It may be suggested, however, that if the seed cannot be got from the south it may be procured, through the efforts of the immigration officials-joined with those of the railway company, north of the South Saskatchewan. It is true that the railway bridge at Saskatoon has been carried away by- the flood, but, as we are aware, there is a ferry, and if seed grain can be procured at Rosthern or others of the farther north settlements where a large amount of grain has been raised in years past, this serious condition of affairs may be remedied.
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, I only received a moment before I came into the House an intimation that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) had received the telegram which he has read to us and I have not therefore had any opportunity of consulting with my colleagues in regard to the matter. I am fairly familiar with the circumstances of the country there and I know that that particular portion of the country has been occupied very largely during the last year by new settlers, especially settlers from the United States who have taken up large tracts of land in the neighbourhood of the station of Davidson to which my hon. friend refers. I fancy we will all realize that in conjunction with the efforts we are making to settle that country we ought to take such steps as are necessary to prevent any undue misfortune or event such as the failure to secure seed which would result in the efforts of these settlers being rendered entirely abortive for a whole year. I think I can safely say to my hon. friend, that, although, as I have said, I have not had time to consult my colleagues upon the subject, we will take whatever steps are necessary to see that seed grain is transported and placed within reach of these settlers.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the hon. minister that it would perhaps be well to notify the immigration officials and the officials in connection with the lands branch, such as sub-land agents and homestead inspectors, that grain may be got in the northern part of the country in and around Prince Albert. The people who are just going into that country are not seized of the facts and do not know what to do. In that way the difficulty may be overcome. 1 think they can get all the grain they want in and around Prince Albert.	I


Mr. SCOTT.: 



DETENTION OF STEAMER GAUSS AT BREMEN.

Mr. E. F. OLARKE (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to a statement which appears in the morning papers respecting the dilemma or plight in which Captain Bernier finds himself in Bremen. The statement which I find in the ' Citizen ' of this morning is to the following effect :-



BERNIER'S PLIGHT.

[Stage Direction]
Germans won't let the Captain sail with the ' Gauss.'
Montreal, April 28.-A special cable to ' La Presse ' from Bremen says that the German government has refused to allow Captain Bernier to leave the port of Bremen with the steamer ' Gauss ' because $5,000 of the purchase money remains unpaid. Lord Strathcona paid $70,000, holding back $5,000 until the vessel's speed should be tested in Canada. The despatch adds that upon being notified of the situation the Canadian Minister of Marine replied that the government would stick to the conditions of the sale. The German government on the other hand, demands full payment before the vessel leaves port.
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he has any statement to make to the House and if the information contained in that cablegram is well authenticated.
Rt. hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). There was some difference between the Canadian government and German government in respect to the $5,000, but I do not think that for $5,000 the bargain will be lost. I have not heard recently about the matter and therefore I assume the difference has been adjusted.

Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with I would like to call the attention of the government to the fact that a return ordered by this House on the very first day that motions were made by private members has not been brought down. I allude to the account of Mr. P. V. Savard. It may become fatiguing but I am not going to be discouraged. The order of the House must be obeyed and I really cannot see why this order has not been obeyed up to this time. I happen to know that the account is made out, that a copy of it is made and why it is not brought down and laid on the table of the House I cannot understand.
Rt. hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) evidently is better informed that I am myself because he has information that I have not, but if

the copy is made out and the papers are ready certainly they will Joe brought down.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: They have been ready for a week.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: We have been busily engaged for a week and perhaps will be still further.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: 
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Touching the matter that the hon. gentleman last referred to I think he alludes to the mortgage in connection with the Canadian Northern subsidy. Directions have been given to copy the papers and I think they will be ready by Monday.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 72) To amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Sir Wilfrid) Laurier.
On section 2 of the schedule:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the thirteenth and twenty-ninth paragraphs of the said contract, the company shall, when it shall have completed the construction of the said western division in accordance with the terms of the said contract as hereby amended, and shall have supplied rolling stock to the amount of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), if the eastern division shall not then have been constructed and completed by the government, be entitled to the return of the deposit made under the twelfth paragraph of the said contract, or any part thereof which may then remain unforfeited in the hands of the government under the terms of the said contract ; and the company shall also be entitled to have the guarantee of the government endorsed upon the said bonds issued in respect of the western division, pursuant to paragraph twenty-nine of the said contract ; and if it is shown to the satisfaction of the government that the western division will be completed and rolling stock to the said amount of fiftten million dollars ($15,000,000) supplied before the construction and completion of the eastern division and that the application of the said deposit w'ill enable the company to so complete the western division and supply
rolling stock to the said amount and that the same will be so supplied, the said deposit shall be released by the government in such instalments as may from time to time be agreed upon.
Provided, however, that, of the said rolling stock to the amount of fifteen million ($15,000,000), rolling stock to the amount of five million dollars ($15,000,000), to the satisfaction of the government, shall then have been marked in the manner provided by the twenty-second paragraph of the said contract, ready to be assigned to the. eastern division under the said paragraph upon its completion and to serve all the purposes in respect of the whole of the said contract intended to be served by the five million dollars ($5,000,000) worth of rolling stock in the said twenty-second paragraph mentioned.
Hon. OHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Chairman, before taking up this clause I want to say that I have considered the amendment suggested by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) yesterday and I think that to adopt it would improve the particular section to which the amendment is offered. Therefore, I propose to move the amendment.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: We will take it up when we come to section 2 of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like the Minister of Justice to explain to us somewhat briefly, the effect of this change,


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps it would be better to first explain the terms of the original contract, and then see how far the changes modify it. By the original contract government undertakes to construct the eastern^ diYjjipuI.Upoi). such loca-tion~and upon such plans and specifications, as it shall determine (Paragraph 5 of the original contract). Under paragraph 8 of the original contract, the construction is to be commenced as soon as plans and surveys are made and locations determined, i and it is to be completed with all reasonable despatch. There is no time limit in the contract with respect to the construction of the eastern division as there is with respect to the construction of the western division. The western division must be completed under the contract as amended, by the first day of December, 1911. The company however is obliged to make a deposit of $5,000,000, which under paragraph 13 of the contract-the paragraph with reference to the deposit is paragraph 12-which under paragraph 13 of the contract is to be returned on the completion of the construction of the western division by the company, and when the equipment of the whole line of railway, including of course the eastern division is provided. Now, under paragraph 22, the first equipment is to be of the value of at least $20,000,000, of which $5,000,000 is to be assigned to the eastern division.

The aid to be given to the company is to be in the form of a guarantee in principal and interest, of a certain proportion of the company's bond issue ; and bonds can only be issued when the western division is constructed and equipped, and the eastern division is also provided with its first equipment. The effect of these provisions is : that the company must complete and equip the western division and equip the whole line within the time limit fixed; whereas the government is not limited as to time for the construction of the eastern division, and notwithstanding, if there is any delay- which there will not be in the construction of the eastern division-the company would not strictly speaking be entitled to a return of the deposit or to a guarantee of the bonds until the eastern extension is completed. Of course, if the eastern extension is finished at the same time as the western, then the original agreement remains intact. I would like to put that in another form, briefly. Under the contract, as we have it, the government must commence the construction of the eastern division at once, but there is no time limit within which it is to be finished. With respect to the western division there is a time limit within which it is to be finished, and that time limit, under the amended contract, is December, 1911. The company is obliged to make a deposit of $5,000,000, which deposit when made (as it is made now) can only be withdrawn after the western division is finished, and also, after the equipment is provided not only for the western division, but also for the eastern division ; and the aid which the company is to receive in connection with the construction of the western division is in the form of a guarantee that is to be given to the company on the bonds to be issued by them, only after the western division is completed in its entirety and the equipment is supplied by them for the western and eastern divisions. Therefore my hon. friend will see, that the company is in this position :	that while they
may have complied with the conditions of the contract with respect to the western extension ; if the eastern extension is not completed at that time, and as a result the equipment for the eastern extension is not provided; then and in that event, they cannot ask for either the withdrawal of the deposit or the guarantee of the bonds. The object of the amendment is to provide that if the western extension is completed before the eastern extension-which as I said a moment ago is a contingency not likely to happen-and if the company have supplied equipment to the extent of $15,000,000 instead of $20,000,000; that is to say, an equipment which in our judgment will be sufficient for the operation of the western division, and of that equipment to the value of $15,000,000, they have ear-marked equipment to the extent of $5,000,000 which is to be assigned to the eastern extension ; in Mr. FITZPATRICK.
that event, they will be entitled to the withdrawal of their deposit and, also to the guarantee of the bonds.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Notwithstanding that the eastern extension is not completed ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And only $15,000,000 worth has been provided ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: And only $15,000,000 worth of rolling stock has been provided. Of course, the whole reason for the amendment is :	that possibly under the
contract; there being no obligation on the government to construct within the time limit fixed with respect to the western extension ; the eastern extension might not be ready at the same time. That is the whole reason of the amendment. Of course, the criticism of my hon. friends will be, that it is not seriously intended to proceed with this eastern extension, and that this amendment is intended for the purpose of enabling the Grand Trunk Pacific to have their line complete from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean, and when they have supplied the equipment for that section they will be entitled to the return of the deposit which we held, and they will then be under no obligation to provide the equipment for the eastern division. The answer to that is, that if the eastern division is completed within the time limit fixed for the construction of the western division, of course the contract in its original form remains intact ; the obligation to supply $20,000,000 of rolling stock remains, and also, when the eastern division is finished, if the western division is finished at an earlier period, the obligation to supplement the rolling stock so as to provide us with $20,000,000 worth remains absolutely also.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The deposit goes in the meantime ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The deposit goes in the meantime.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They get that money back ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They get that money back. I repeat: instead of our having that deposit as security to us for the equipment of the whole line, if the eastern end is not ready at the same time as the western end, then, in that event, the $5,000,000 goes, and we have only $15,000,000 of equipment.


Mr. ALCORN.: Is not the net result of the amendment to relieve the company from the provision of $5,000,000 of rolling stock ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They are relieved of the obligation to supply the additional $5,000,000 of rolling stock until such time as the eastern extension is completed, if it is not completed at the same time as the western extension. The obligation to provide $20,000,000 of rolling stock remains intact; but the security which results from the deposit of

$5,000,000 disappears if they succeed in completing the western extension before we have completed our eastern extension.


Mr. BARKER.: X do not see any objection
whatever to the change made by this clause. I think the arrangement proposed here might well have been put into the original contract. The only difficulty I see is this, that in the event of a contingency arising by which the $5,000,000 deposit is to be returned, the country thereafter will have to rely for the provision of the final $5,000,000 of rolling stock simply on the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think I made that point clear. The obligation to provide this $5,000,000 remains, except that instead of forming a part of the $20,000,000, it forms part of the $15,000,000.


Samuel Barker: I understand that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The 22nd paragraph of the original contract provides among other things for equipment to the extent of $20,000,000. of which $5,000,000 is to be marked and assigned to the eastern division.


Samuel Barker: That is perfectly clear. I understand the clause precisely as the Minister of Justice has explained it ; but I still point out that after the $5,000,000 of rolling stock has been appropriated to the eastern division, there will be only $10.000,000 for the western division instead of $15,000,000. In that case all the government have to compel the provision of the final $5,000,000 for the western division is the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. They will not have the security of the original deposit, which was contemplated to ensure that that would be done. I do not mean to say that is a thing that should stand in the way of the agreement ; but I do think that some security might have been provided that that would be done, such as a deposit of some of this capital stock. But, so far as I am concerned, I do not raise any objection to the clause as it stands.


Robert Laird Borden: There is just this to be said about it-that, assuming, as we have to assume in all these contracts, the possibility of a breach by the other party, the government might find themselves face to face with this proposition. The $5,000,000 of rolling stock might not be provided, and then what remedy would the government have ? It would not be of much use for them to bring an action against the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, because its assets would be covered by first and second charges. After all, it seems like leaving the matter very much to the discretion of the company, so far as the equipment of $15,000,000 for the western division is concerned. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what will be the practical working out of the scheme provided for marking the $5,000,000 of rolling stock ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This, I suppose, is a question of railway management rather than of law ; but I apprehend that for the purpose of identification, this stock to the extent of $5,000,000 can be marked as having been assigned to the eastern division. I do not know what the practice in general is, but I do know that when plant is leased, the lessor of the rolling stock has the opportunity of marking it in such a way as to identify it.


Mr. WILSON.: This will not interfere with the use of that rolling stock on any part of the railway ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


Uriah Wilson: Then, I do not see that it makes any difference whether it is marked for the eastern division or for the general use of the road.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The eastern division is to be operated by the company under a lease. The condition is that they shall equip that division with rolling stock to the extent of $5,000,000, to be marked for the purpose of identification, so that we may know that that is the quantity of rolling stock assigned to that particular division. With respect to their obligations under the lease, that rolling stock will be secured to us as part of the equipment of that eastern extension ; and if the company fail in the performance of the lease, and we take the eastern division over, the rolling stock so marked will of course go with the eastern division, and form part of the equipment.


Uriah Wilson: Is there any provision for the rolling stock in case the eastern division is not finished for years after the western division ? The rolling stock may be used on any part of the railway, and what provision is made that it shall be as good as when first bought ? If the company have the privilege of using it on any part of the road, it may be worn out and consequently of very little value at that time.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The provision with respect to that in the original agreement is that they must have equipment which is modern and first class. That agreement will be read as speaking at the time the company carry out their obligations under it. Their obligation, at the time the extension is handed over to them, to be operated under their lease, will be to furnish complete rolling stock, modern and in first class condition at that time.


Uriah Wilson: I do not like to differ from the Minister of Justice, but I would think that the time would be when the rolling stock was set apart; and if the government allowed it to be used, they might be out, so far as the security is concerned, to the extent of whatever depreciation would have taken place in the stock while in use.


Mr. LENNOX.: With reference to this rolling stock assigned to the eastern division being in first-class order, there is this provision in the 22nd clause of the original contract:
And the first equipment for the completed road shall be of the value of, at least, $20,000,000, of which not less than $5,000,000 worth shall be supplied for the operation of the eastern division of the said railway, and the said $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock, together with all renewals thereof and additions thereto, shall be marked as assigned to the said eastern division.
I would like to ask the minister whether there is any other provision regarding the rolling stock than the one I have just read. This clause speaks of renewals, but it is not provided in specific terms that the $5,000,000 of stock shall be kept up to its original condition.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The concluding words of that paragraph will have some effect as regards the construction to be put on it:
And the said $5,000,000 worth of rolling stock, together with all renewals thereof aqd additions thereto, shall be marked as assigned to the said eastern division and shall be held to be and form part of the equipment of the eastern division of the railway during the said period of fifty years, and shall be used as the equipment appertaining thereto, according to the ordinary practice of railways during the said period of fifty years.
Would not that imply that the obligation of the company is to maintain that equipment in an efficient condition according to the ordinary practice of railways ? Then you have the next clause, clause 23, which provides :
\ The lease of the said eastern division shall contain all necessary and proper provisions required by the government for securing, during the entire term of the said lease, the efficient maintenance and operation of the said division, including all repairs and renewals, and the maintenance and renewal of its rolling stock and equipment, so as to keep the said division, in all respects, up to the standard of modern and efficient railway practice ' and operation, as the same shall be advanced and improved from time to time, during the whole term of the said lease.


Haughton Lennox: With reference to the clause which the hon. minister has just read, I am afraid that hardly meets the point. That deals with the question of base, but I am speaking of a case in which there may not be any lease, namely, where the western section is completed before the eastern, or possibly before the eastern is begun. In that case there will be no lease of the eastern section actually executed and no provision for the keeping up of the rolling stock to its original standard.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I agree upon that point.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Haughton Lennox: That point, I think, is worthy of being considered. With regard to the part of section 22, to which the minister was good enough to refer me, that is the part providing that the $5,000,000 of rolling stock shall be held :
To be and form part of the equipment of the eastern division of the railway during the said period of fifty years and shall be used as the equipment appertaining thereto, according to the ordinary practice of railways during the said period of fifty years.
I do not see that that strengthens the position. I would be inclined to think that that provision was rather for the protection of the company. We have heard a good deal about the company leasing rolling stock, and I assume-I think it is quite capable of that construction-that this concluding part of the section is for the purpose of enabling the company to comply with the terms of the contract without actually purchasing the stock. It would ' enable them to lease the rolling stock, according to the ordinary practice of railways, during the period of fifty years.' More than that, it is probably intended to cover this case which no doubt will arise under this contract. The rolling stock is interchangeable between the eastern and the western divisions, and it may be sent east and west over the whole line, as it may be required, from time to time, * according to the ordinary practice of railways, during the said fifty years ; ' and I think there is, even with the reference which the minister has been good enough to give me, a good deal of question as to whether that rolling stock, if it be not required for use on the eastern division, will have to be Kept up to the state of efficiency in which it was at the time it was new. If those provisions are not such as the minister suggests they may be, if they have not the effects he suggests, we may have this state of things. We may have stock, which is ear-marked for the purpose of complying with this provision, used in connection with the western division, and depreciated in value not only by user, but by reason of the fact that at the time the eastern division is completed it will be out of date.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Linder the original contract, the obligation of the company would be to equip the eastern extension with rolling stock of a modern and efficient character. My hon. friend will admit that 1


Haughton Lennox: I think so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In what respect does my hon. friend think the amendment is a departure from that obligation ? We must not forget that except where it is affected by the amendments, the original contract remains in its entirety. It is quite true that the $5,000,000 rolling stock forming part of the $15,000,000, will be

operated in connection with the western extension during all the period that may elapse before the eastern extension is completed, and of course during that period there will be user and depreciation ; but when they come to equip the eastern extension, they must do it according to the lease. The lease then takes effect, and the obligation which they have incurred to supply proper rolling stock will apply, and it will be the duty of the government to see that this stock is in such a condition as the contract stipulates it must be when the lease is made.


Uriah Wilson: Th^s could be got over if the Minister of .Tustice could define when the $5,000,000 of rolling stock is to be given in security for the eastern division. The company have to provide that rolling stock before they can withdraw the $5,000,000 deposit. Of course, they will use that stock. You do not expect that the government will insist that it should be laid aside and not used.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course not.


Uriah Wilson: The whole question then is, when will that rolling stock be taken ? It does seem to me that it will be taken when they are allowed to withdraw their deposit. Consequently there will have to be another arrangement, and the government will have to decide whether it will insist on the company making good the depreciation wh'ich may be caused the rolling stock by the use of it.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to refer to what the Minister of Justice said immediately preceding the remarks of my hon. friend. I am not prepared to dispute his statement that when the time comes for actually equipping the eastern division, the rolling stock must be equal to the requirements of the original agreement. We must look at all these matters. I presume, in the same way as they would be looked at in a court of justice having regard to the general scope of the contract But what I would direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to is this- that, although it may be perfectly true, as he says, that, when the time comes that the company has to actually equip the eastern division for use, then, although the lease will compel them in words to comply with the original provision for five millions of dollars worth of rolling stock, yet, we have only the covenant of the company. The security is gone; we plart with our security when we obtain rolling stock ear-marked for the eastern division to the value of $5,000.000. Then, when the time arrives, three or four years afterwards, when it becomes a matter of immediate necessity to equip the eastern division, we have the covenant and liability of the Grand Trunk Pacific to make up stock for the eastern division to the amount and value of $5,000,000, but we 731
have no security deposited for the purpose of that contract, and we have to depend on their liability under the original and amended contract and whatever lease they may enter into.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot pretend to say that our security for the equipment of r\ the eastern division is not to be decreased \ by the release of the deposit. It would be ( absurd to say so. I admit quite freely that, 1 to that extent we decrease our security. I \ am not here to say that black is white and i white is no colour at all. But the contingency for which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) seeks to provide is a contingency which cannot possibly arise. It is not conceivable, in view of the assurances that have been given, the undertakings that have been entered into and the interests that exist in this country, that the eastern section should not be completed to Moncton at the same time with, if not sooner than, the western division. I cannot conceive that as possible in view of the absolute assurances given to this House and the country. I cannot conceive it possible, in view of the fact that the , whole policy of this scheme falls to the I ground if we have not the eastern extension I to enable the Grand Trunk Railway to com- j municate with the west. And I say, further, [DOT] that it is impossible to conceive that the i Grand Trunk would have a western division * extending from Winnipeg to the Pacific < ocean and no connection with their Ontario system. It is impossible to conceive that. Then, if the extension is built for a thousand miles through northern Ontario to connect with the Grand Trunk system at North Bay, there is no government in this country that could disregard that fact. It may be that, when this contract is to be given effect to, this government may have shared the fate of other governments and passed away. But, once the road is constructed for a thousand miles through northern Ontario it will be impossible, in view of the conditions existing then, for any government to abandon the extension of that line to Quebec and Moncton.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that probably nothing will be gained on this side by discussing this clause. But it seems not out of place to point out that in the change now being made the government is acting consistently with what they have done in every clause of the original and amended contract. The Minister of Justice has pointed out that'in this case there was an oversight in the original contract, which oversight operated not against the country but against the Grand Trunk ; and the Grand Trunk came to the government and pointed out that, in case of the government not completing the eastern division as soon as the western division was completed, hardship to the Grand Trunk would result. And

the government were clearly justified, when this was pointed out to them, in remedying the hardship as much as they could. But 1 wish to point out that, by the course they take, the government remedy the hardship in such a way that the security given to the country for the performance of the work is lessened by about $5,000,000, if the view of the ownership of the equipment taken by the Minister of Justice is correct.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no use trying to avoid that.


William Barton Northrup: So, again the government failed to safeguard the interests of the people, even though the favour asked was entirely in the interest of the Grand Trunk.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to have placed distinctly on record-probably with the concurrence of the Minister-the effect of the alterations made. There is one view of the matter which the hon. minister, I think, did not refer to. I understand the Minister of Justice to have referred to every change that has been made by this amendment in in a very candid way, and in a very fair way, with the exception of one. There is one that I would like to refer to, to see if I understand it correctly. And that is in the concluding part of main section No. 2 of tlit supplemental agreement:
And the company shall also be entitled to have the guarantee of the government endorsed upon the said bonds issued in respect of the western division.
That is introductory. This follows which. I think, is an alteration in the contract which has not been referred to :
-and if it is shown to the satisfaction of the government that the western division will be completed and rolling stock to the said amount of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) supplied before the construction and completion of the eastern division, and that the application of the said deposit will enable the company to so complete the western division and supply rolling stock to the said amount, and that the same will be so supplied, the said deposit shall be released by the government in such instalments as may from time to time be agreed upon.
Now. I understand that this is on the same line as the original agreement and merely varies it in amount. So, we have this state of things to keep in mind-I am not discussing now, whether it is a good or a bad state of things-that without complying with the original or any agreement, without building the western division, the company may, if it is made to appear to the government that tney will complete the western division and will supply the rolling stock under the original and amended agreement, obtain the release of the security.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. I do not think so. Would my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) Mr. NORTHRTJP.
be good enough to look at section 13 of the original agreement ? I understand this to mean that when the western road is practically completed, and the equipment of $15,000,000 supplied, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the government that the $5,000,000 on deposit, if applied to the completion of the construction or the purchase of rolling stock, will complete that construction and supply the equipment, then it may be released in such instalments as the government may determine. But it is only on condition that the result will be to get the western extension completed and the $15,000,000 of rolling stock provided.


Mr. OSLER.: I suppose this will be as good a time as any to ask the minister whether there will be a clause added providing that rolling stock is to be free from any lien.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The matter was discussed last year and we considered that the question was absolutely free from doubt, under the terms of the contract. I may say it was in the mind of everybody at the time tile contract was made, that the rolling stock should be the absolute property of the company. It was discussed at the time, the parties to the agreement had it in their minds, and the agreement was drafted for the purpose of making that absolutely sure.
I now say. and I say it deliberately in the presence of the Prime Minister and on behalf of the government, that the rolling stock is to be supplied to the satisfaction of the government, and that it is the deliberate intention of the government to say that no rolling stock can be supplied to the satisfaction of the government, unless it is rolling stock which is absolutely free from all encumbrances, so that under the terms of the contract, we shall have a first charge upon it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I presume, that being the case, the minister will add a few lines to the clause, because the Grand Trunk have given the government notice in the most deliberate manner that they intend to secure (hat rolling stock through a trust company. There is evidently no misunderstanding between the directors of the Grand Trunk Company and the government, and certainly as I read [DOT] the contract, from a Canadian standpoint, I think it is quite open to the Grand Trunk Pacific to provide that rolling stock on a trust lease. It is evidently the intention of the Grand Trunk to do that, because they have deliberately notified and stated in a public meeting of their shareholders that this is how they intend to raise the money to secure that. Surely the government, having that notification of the attitude of the company from the general manager of the Grand Trunk, to the meeting of the shareholders, that they intend to obtain that rolling stock by raising money and giving the

229S
rolling stock as security-surely the government will not think it too much to take precautions so that there shall not be a' misunderstanding.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My recollection of the meeting at London, is that the general manager did not use quite the terms now referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Osier).
I have here the official report of the proceedings containing, as I am informed, all that took place and issued by the company.. I quote the following from the words used by the president at the foot of page 33.
He boldly states that the liability upon the Grand Trunk will amount to 9,000,000 pounds sterling,

This is referring to Mr. Allen.
-and he divides that 9 millions sterling into 3 millions liability in respect of guarantees, 5 millions in respect of rolling stock, and 1 million in respect of the deposit. As regards the 3 millions in respect of guarantees, that, as I stated to you will undoubtedly be a liability. As regards the 5 millions for rolling stock-in the first place, the estimate is not 5 millions, but 3 millions. With that the Grand Trunk Company has nothing to do. That rolling stock will be provided by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and, as the general manager will perhaps tell you, they have laid their plans for providing that rolling stock by a trust fund.
These are the words used. I want to further state that I have read carefully over what Mr. Hays is reported to have said, and I And that he makes no reference to that at all :	he does not implement the
statement of the president. I would like to say that, as I read these words, there is nothing absolutely contradictory in the positions taken by tlie president of the Grand Trunk and by myself. They may provide this rolling stock by the aid of a trust fund, that is utterly immaterial to us. It is perfectly immaterial how they raise the funds to provide the rolling stock. What is material is that they should give us that rolling stock under such a title as would enable us to have a first claim upon it, to the exclusion of all others. That is what the contract calls for and what we will insist on.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is it not a simple matter to make that quite clear, because no one familiar with railway matters can misunderstand the reference to a trust company. It is the common, ordinary way of raising money by all the leading railways ; there is hardly a leading railway on this continent or in England in which the same thing does not prevail, the rolling stock is raised through a trust fund, and is earmarked to identify it, and under the contract which is made by the builders or vendors of , the railway stock with the company, the payments are extended for from five to fifteen years, and until the last payment is made, the title of that rolling
stock remains in the vendor. This is not open to discussion ; any one familiar with railway matters knows what the Grand Trunk president means when he said that.
I quite believe that lit is the intention of tlie government to l|ave the rolling stock placed upon the road without a lien upon it, but surely when the government have been notified, deliberately and clearly, of the intention of the Grand Trunk, they should make it so clear that it will not be open to dispute hereafter. Why not put a very simple line or two in this agreement, making it quite clear that the rolling stock is to be put on the road without a lien ?
The rolling stock will be provided by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and as the general manager will tell you they have laid their plans to provide the rolling stock by a trust fund.
This is practically the same as the wording of the report from which the hon. gentleman has been reading ; this is from the verbatim report of the Grand Trunk shareholders. There is not any question.
I think, that the Grand Trunk Pacific people intend to raise the money for that rolling stock by giving a lien upon it, and if there is no clear definition of that put in the present contract, we will next year have the Grand Trunk Pacific coming to this parliament and stating that they understood that they were to be permitted to provide that by a trust fund and* are unable to raise that $15,000,000 in any other way. There will be no other way for them to raise it except in this way, because they will have no other credit left; they will have exhausted every credit and every asset they have, there will not be a credit remaining to them when this contract goes through, on which to raise $15,000,000 or $500,000, ana we will have the exhibition of these gentlement coming back next year and saying they are not able to raise $15,000,000 and asking the government to consent to their raising it through a trust fund. Is it not the part of ordinary common sense to so define this, that there can be no dispute, and if the Grand Trunk people say that they cannot raise this money except by a trust fund, let us deal with it now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This matter was the subject of an interesting discussion last year. I then expressed the opinion of the government with respect to the construction we put upon this contract. I also read to the House, the opinion of the counsel who were engaged to draft this agreement, and I also quoted the opinion of the deputy Minister of Justice who was consulted in connection with it. All this took place last year when this contract was going through. That was sufficient notice to the Grand Trunk of the position this government intended to take, and of the construction which they intended to put upon this contract. Since that time the matter! has

been discussed by the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway and has been the subject of an amended agreement, but it never occurred to them, notwithstanding the discussion, notwithstanding the knowledge they had of the position the government was going to take, to ask for an amendment, to ask for any change. It has never occurred to them to bring the question up. Why should we make trouble for ourselves ? We hold that this contract is complete, that its terms are fully expressed and if my hon. friend will bear with me for a minute, I will give him in a few words the reason why I hold the opinion. The eleventh clause of the contract provides that :
The company shall lay out, construct and equip the said western division, &c.
That is the first clause in which the word ' equip ' is found. Then comes section 12, which provides that the company are to make a deposit of $5,000,000 :
' As security for the construction of the western division and for the first equipment of the whole line of railway.
Then section 13 provides that the deposit put up for the purpose of securing the construction of the western division and the equipment of the road may be returned to them in instalments, which instalments are to be used for the purchase of the equipment. Then, if you go on to section 19, you there find that:
For the purpose of enabling the government to determine the cost of construction of the said railway, or of any portion thereof, or the cost of the equipment supplied.
Does that imply a lease ? We have a right to make an examination into their accounts, so as to be sure that the cost of the equipment is up to the value that they are called upon to provide. That is $20,000,000. If we are entitled to investigate the cost of the equipment, does that imply that we shall investigate the title under a lease ? In section 22 it is provided that:
The company shall equip both divisions of the said line of railway with modern and complete rolling stock suitable and amply sufficient for efficient operation and the handling of all classes of traffic to the satisfaction of the government

Here are the words that are important:
-and the first equipment for the completed road shall be of the value of, at least, twenty million dollars.
.First we have the right to investigate the cost, and then we provide that the value of the equipment shall be $20,000,000. Then, in clause 23


Mr.   R.@: Jj. BORDEN. Will the hon. Minister of Justice permit me to ask him a question before leaving that, because I have not been quite able to follow his argument, or1 Mr. FITZPATRICK.
rather to agree with him in regard to this question ? Does he mean that the word ' equip ' implies absolute title, or that the word ' value,' used in the context, 'would imply absolute title? What I suggest is this: Suppose that one's house should be said to be furnished with furniture costing $5,000, or that I should undertake that a certain house should be furnished with furniture of that value, would there be necessarily any implication as to the title ? I should think not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Undoubtedly not. I think the hon. gentleman is perfectly right. I never argued that the obligation to equip implied the obligation to give a title, but I say that when we read this contract we have to read all the sections together, and read them in such a way as to give effect to every line and every word of every section. Section 23 provides that:
The lease of the said eastern division shall contain all necessary and proper provisions required by the government for securing, during the entire term of the said lease, the efficient maintenance and operation of the said division, including all repairs and renewals and the maintenance and renewal of its rolling stock and equipment.
Is it to be a lease for fifty years that they are to give us of this rolling stock ? Could they give us leased rolling stock, would that comply with the terms of that condition Then, we have much more than that. Section 34 provides that:
Inasmuch as the bonds to be guaranteed by the government only make provision for a part of the cost of construction of the western division, the company hereby agrees that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall guarantee bonds of the company for the balance required for the construction of the said western division-
These are the words that are of importance.
-exclusive of the said twenty million dollars required for the first equipment.
They are obliged to guarantee the bonds of the company necessary to build the road, exclusive of the cost of equipment. Does that imply a lease ? Would the leasing of rolling stock comply with the terms of that section ? Then, after all, you get back to section 35, which is one of the most important clauses in the whole contract, and in which clause it is provided that:
For the purposes hereinafter in this paragraph respectively defined, the company may and shall create mortgages to trustees, as follows
(a) A mortgage which shall be a first charge upon the railway, undertaking, equipment and property.
If this rolling stock is held under lease, under which lease, of course, the title remains vested, until the performance of the conditions, in the lessor, how can they give

to us upon that equipment a mortgage which Shall be a first charge ? Do not the words ' first charge ' imply a charge which excludes any other charge, or any charge in the shape of a lease, or of any other character ? Then the words of section 37, in respect to the purchase of material, are as follows :
The company shall purchase all material and supplies required for the construction of the western division and the equipment of the whole of the said line of railway from Canadian producers.
There is an obligation to purchase this equipment from Canadian producers. I do not lay emphasis at the present time upon the purchase from Canadian producers, but on the fact that they are obliged to purchase this equipment.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not want to argue the question any further, but in view of the statement made by an hon. gentleman of the prominence in business circles of the hon. member for West Toronto, I am obliged to reply that it is not the view of our government, and that it is certainly, as far as the government are concerned, not their intention, and I do not think that any person, by any construction, will be able to so interpret this agreement.


William Barton Northrup: One must not forget that while the construction put upon this agreement by the government is in some sense important, the construction, after all, if there is to be a difference between the Grand Trunk and the government, will be niade by the courts, and it is the courts
which will decide. Governments come and go. Even if this government should be in power, it would not have the construction of this agreement left in its own hands, and it the government says that it means one thing and the president of the Grand Trunk says that he thinks it means another thing, it is for the courts to decide really what it does mean. It does seem to me that when last year the government was expressing so strongly its belief in the construction it now adheres to, when hon. gentlemen take a different view, and when legal opinions are obtained from outside the House, as good legal opinions can be obtained in the country, supporting the view held by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, some attention should be paid by the government to the arguments which have been advanced in opposition to the view which it takes of the contract. Surely, in no ordinary private transaction would any solicitor or counsel dare to advise his client to run the risk of insisting on an interpretation that he thought was right when so many eminent counsel held a different view.
The Minister of Justice told us to-day that he read the opinions of certain legal gentlemen last year. I do not at the moment remember how their opinions were worded, but I do know that the Minister of the Interior, in his speech of this year, professes to have the opinion of Mr. Shep-ley, of Toronto ; a gentleman whose opinion always carries weight, and which no doubt is a very interesting and valuable contribution, but which has no more reference to the point we are discussing and were discussing then, than the flowers that bloom in the spring. I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that the only point in the clause is the word ' equip.' If ' equip ' implies purchase there is not the slightest doubt but that the Minister of Justice is correct; if equip does not imply purchase, then the portion of the clause he read has no reference to the subject at all. The Minister of Justice did not read clause 15, and I submit that one cannot come to a reasonable interpretation of the word ' equipment ' without reading that clause. Amongst .other items, clause 15 provides for the rental paid for the rolling stock rented for the use of the eastern division. When one finds in this document itself, a provision made for the rental of the rolling stock to toe charged up in that way ; would it not be idle to contend that there was no intention to have any of the rolling stock leased. Clause 35 which refers to the mortgage, does not bind the company to own any rolling stock of any kind. Unless there is something in the Act, outside of the mortgage clause to compel them to purchase rolling stock, there is nothing to compel them in the mortgage clause, which merely says, that they have to give security on all the property they own. If they

do not own property they cannot give security on it. If they do purchase any rolling stock, that would be included under this clause and would be put in the mortgage, but unless there is a clause somewhere else which requires them to become owners of the rolling stock, there is nothing to lead to any other conclusion than that which I contend for. As to clause 37, with regard to the purchase of material in Canada ; we all know that that was put in, in order to secure protection to Canadian manufacturers and producers, but that does not state what the company is required to purchase. I submit that in view of the difference of opinion which exists amongst legal gentlemen in this House, and amongst eminent counsel outside of this House, and in view of the fact that we"have had the opinion of eminent counsel in support of our views, and in view of the fact further, that the president of the Grand Trunk Railway holds the same view that we took in the House last year ; surely there can be no possible objection to the Minister of Justice putting in a clause, defining the meaning of the word * equipment ' and making it clear beyond peradventure. If the president of the Grand Trunk misunderstood the clause, no harm can be done ; and on the other hand if the Minister of Justice is wrong (and to err is human) then at an early stage of the proceedings we will save protracted and expensive litigation, by inserting a few words to define what the word ' equipment ' means in this section.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course lawyers will differ even if they do happen to be on opposite sides and one is interested in criticising a contract and the other in maintaining it. My hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) said that Mr. Shepley's opinion had not very much to do with the question, and I think in referring to it he broke out into poetry about the flowers that bloom in the spring. Let me read the opinion of Mr. Shepley, given on the 8th of April, 1904 :
On the 14th August last you wired me as follows :-
Examine provisions agreement between government and Grand Trunk Pacific and say whether provisions of agreement with regard to equipment of the railway would be fulfilled if company should supply rolling stock not owned but leased or hired by them for that purpose. Examine paragraphs 22 and 33 A. I was not in Toronto at the time, but at St. Catharines, and my firm repeated the message to me there. On the same day I wired you from St. Catharines as follows :-Examination of clauses 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23, 35 A and 35 C, as published ' Globe ' 31st. July and 1st August in my opinion not be fulfilment of contract by company. On the following day I wrote you from St. Catharines a letter of which the following is a copy :-
Tour telegram was repeated to me here yesterday afternoon and after a long search I found a copy of the ' Globe ' containing the Mr. NORTHRUP.
contract between His Majesty and the representatives of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. I telephoned a wire from here to Toronto, which I suppose was duly sent on to you last night.
To-day my firm has sent forward your letter with the inclosures. ' After further consideration, I am confirmed in the opinion expressed in my telegram of last night. I do not see how in view of the provisions in the contract tc which my telegram refers, it is possible to argue that a leasing or hiring of rolling stock would be an 'equipment' within the meaning of the contract. It is manifestly intended-[DOT] and I think the intention sufficiently expressed -that the rolling stock forming the contract equipment shall be the property of the company in such sense that the first mortgage contemplated by section 35 A and the mortgage contemplated by section 35 C shall both operate upon a clear ownership vested in the company.
I may add to the sections mentioned in my telegram clause 11 of the Act of Incorporation as tending to support the view I have ventured to express.
In addition to getting the opinion of Mr. Shepley I consulted Mr. Chrysler, who confirmed Mr. Shepley's opinion and concurred in it. Then, for my own personal satisfaction (my deputy being absent at the time the contract was being drawn) I consulted Mr. Gormully, the solicitor for the Bank of Montreal, a man whose reputation so far as a matter of this sort is concerned stands second to none in this country ; he also confirmed the opinion given by Mr. Shepley. As I said last year, my own deputy, Mr. Newcombe, concurred. It will not be necessary for me to read the opinion he expressed, but let me make this short extract :
The line cannot be said to be really equipped within the meaning of the clause with rolling stock ' suitable and amply sufficient for efficient operation and the handling of all classes of traffic ' when all the title that the company has is a leasehold interest or an equity of redemption which may be terminated or foreclosed at any moment.
I' read those opinions now, simply because of the opinions expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup). I think it would be fair for my hon. friend to look at the question from the standpoint that all this was said last year before the contract was submitted for approval to the Grand Trunk shareholders at the meeting in London, and before a suggestion was made with respect to an amendment. The Grand Trunk Company have never expressed a doubt on that subject; they have never asked us for any modification of the agreement in that respect, and under these circumstances I fail to understand how it could be possible for them, to argue in good faith, that there is any doubt as to the construction to be put on this agreement.	.


Robert Laird Borden: It would seem that the attention of these gentlemen who have
AP~RIL 29, 1904
given legal opinions has not been directed to clause 14 of the original contract which is absolutely inconsistent with the opinion jest read, and I shall show how. The word ' equipment ' is apparently regarded in that opinion as indicating absolute ownership of the rolling stock which was placed upon the road, but if you look at section 14 of the contract you will see that the word ' equipment ' cannot possibly be used in that sense. I would thank the Minister of Justice to send me over that opinion, for, of course, one cannot understand it properly from just hearing it read ; I would like to read it. Clause 14 is very specific :
14. For the purposes of this agreement, the expression ' working expenditure,' as applied to the eastern division of the railway, shall mean and include all expenses of maintenance of the said division, and of the stations, buildings, works and conveniences belonging thereto, and of the rolling and other stock and movable plant used in the working thereof, and all such tolls, rents or annual sums as are paid in respect of property leased to, or held by, the company in respect of the said eastern division (apart from the rent of any other leased line), or in respect of the hire of rolling stock let to the company as part of the equipment of the said eastern division, &c.
If that does not imply that, in some circumstances and under certain conditions, the equipment of the eastern division shall be hired, and not absolutely owned, I do not understand the meaning of the English language.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My expectation was that we should have this question out before this measure was through. I have no objection to letting it stand. We can have it out again.


Robert Laird Borden: I could not gather much from the opinion of Mr. Shepley quoted by the Minister of the Interior. It seemed to be an opinion that was telegraphed, as words were omitted which made it almost impossible to follow it unless one had before him the case that was submitted to Mr. Shepley. The further opinion which lias been submitted by the Minister of Justice to-day is a written opinion, and of course it will be easy to gather from it what Mr. Shepley's view is. So far as any criticism of these opinions is concerned, if I venture to criticise them, I will defer it, because one thing on which I agree with the Minister of Justice is that it is not desirable to give off-hand opinions upon a statute or upon considered opinions given by counsel. I would say with regard to the last opinion that clause 14 of the Act could hardly have been before the learned gentleman who gave it, although a perusal of the whole opinion may alter my opinion with regard to that. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has not of course forgotten the very full argument that was made on this point by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), who dealt with the question of working expenses in this connection, although from a somewhat different standpoint and with a somewhat different purpose.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 14 has not escaped my notice, and I am quite certain that in the course of my conference with Mr. Shepley it did not escape his notice, although possibly he does not refer to it. So the equipment of this part of the road to the extent of $5,000,000 the title must be absolutely in the company ; but any other part of the equipment they may bold under any title they please. Our security is limited to the extent of $5,000,000. and it is only with respect to that that I asked the question.


Robert Laird Borden: If I were to give an opinion along the lines given by these learned gentlemen, for whose opinions I have every possible respect, one of the first things I would have dealt with would have been section 14.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. Shepley himself drew the contract for the government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then, naturally he would back up his own contract. What a grand opening this affords for a good lawsuit. Although the matter could be cleared up by the insertion of two lines, tlie Minister of Justice deliberately leaves it open to a fat lawsuit. Does it not seem absurd not to make the matter perfectly straight and plain by putting in a few words when we have the power to do it ?


Haughton Lennox: Referring again to the alternative amendment of section 13 of the original contract, the Minister of Justice pointed out that, as be understood the contract, this only applies in case $5,000,000 will complete the equipment of the road. I was addressing myself to that branch of the case, both in reference to the consideration of this clause, and for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that this gives the company very great latitude. Although the construction put upon clause 13 of the original contract by the Minister of Justice may be perfectly plain in the way be states, it is not equally plain in the clause that is now introduced in amendment to that. Section 13 of the original contract says :
Provided, however, that when it is shown to the satisfaction of the government that the application of the same will enable such construction and equipment to be complete.
I presume that means the application of the So.OOOJlOO. But it is unfortunate, though probably not fatal, that the same phraseology is not adapted in the amended contract; and I notice that the same system prevails in other parts of the contract. For instance, in section 1 of the amended contract a different phraseology is adopted from that employed in the original contract; and when that occurs, as the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) points out, it always

invites litigation. If the hon. minister will refer to the wording of the amendment embodying the same alternative provision, he will notice that it has not the same wording as the original section, and is not equally clear. But, assuming that the matter may work out in the way the minister says, I wish to call attention to what was said by him in his opening remarks this afternoon. We have this additional latitude allowed "to the company, along the same lines as before, and as soon as they have come to within $5,000,000 of completing their contract, and assuming that they have provided an equipment of $10,000,000, they can get all this security released. But more than that. It may happen that we shall have a deteriorated stock at the time we come to obtain the execution of the lease with reference to the eastern division. So that although the government have the right to call upon the company to equip the eastern division with $5,000,000 of rolling stock and to mark that $5,000,000 rolling stock as appropriated for the eastern division, as soon as the company obtain the release of their deposit, the company may continue to use that rolling stock on the western division until such time as the eastern division is ready for its use, and it will necessarily depreciate. That depreciation will ultimately have to be made up, and the only security we have that it will be made up is, not the security of a money deposit, but the good-will of the company. That is the legal aspect of the case. Let me say that I do not agree with my hon. friend from East Hastings that this is a reasonable concession to the company, in view of all the circumstances. I feel that it is another evidence of the fact that every concession made is in favour of the company and not one in favour of the country.


Samuel Barker: I suppose that section 2 is not considered finally adopted or approved while this question of the construction of the agreement is under consideration by the Minister of Justice. I understood him to say that he would consider the points that were being discussed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not consider the question of the rolling stock closed at all, but I expect the section to go through and when we get the contract finally through the committee, we may ask the committee to rise and have the whole matter discussed at a later stage.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3,
Pending the completion of the eastern division by the government, the company shall be entitled to lease from the commissioners, to be appointed under the said Act, and to operate such portions of the said eastern division as may from time to time be completed, but upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the Mr. LENNOX.
company and the said commissioners, which terms are not to be more onerous than those of the lease of the whole division by the said contract provided for, save in so far as may be necessary to give full effect to the paramount right of the said commissioners next hereinafter mentioned, and subject always to the paramount right of the said commissioners to use and operate the same without any payment of tolls or other compensation for such purposes as they may deem necessary or expedient in the execution of their commission.
Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 9 of the Act which provides for the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway refers to the operation of the eastern division until completed. The section reads :
The construction of the eastern division and the operation thereof until completed and leased to the company, pursuant to the provi-ions of the agreement, shall be under the charge and control of three commissioners.
The object of the amendment is to provide that pending the completion of the eastern division, and according as each section is completed, the government shall have power to lease each section to the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the Grand Trunk Pacific bound to take over the section ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not bound, but entitled to lease it. Tinder the Act providing for the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway, you will find that the eastern extension, until completion, is to be operated by the commissioners. This is to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific to lease from the commissioners such portions of the road as are completed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They need not lease any portion unless they please.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not until it is complete. Their obligation as to taking it over comes into effect only when it is entirely completed.


Samuel Barker: The commissioners are here given power to lease such portions of the eastern division as may from time to time be completed, pending the completion of the whole division. I think everybody will agree that the first section of the eastern division which will be completed must be that portion between Winnipeg and the junction of the North Bay branch. There are two points where junctions may be made. The line being constructed from Winnipeg-easterly, the Grand Trunk Railway will first construct for a distance of perhaps 300 miles, a branch to Lake Superior. The main line will then proceed still further easterly, until it meets a branch running down to North Bay. Everybody knows beyond doubt that that portion of the eastern division will be the first completed. In fact, it is that part that must be constructed first to make the prairie section useful to the Grand Trunk Pacific or Grand Trunk Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: How does my hon. friend know that it will be tbe first completed ?


Samuel Barker: Because it must be in order to enable tlie Grand Trunk Pacific to get at tbe prairie section. If the junction between Winnipeg and Lake Superior and the junction between Winnipeg and the North Bay branch are not completed early, there is no object in building the prairie section, because in that case the Grand Trunk Railway would have no connection with the west.


William Stevens Fielding: Why not go on with the line further east at the same time ?


Samuel Barker: The first section to be completed will be that which I have mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: We do not admit that.


Samuel Barker: I assert that beyond a doubt. I do not think there is an hon. gentleman who doubts it except perhaps the Minister of Finance, and I do not admit that he doubts it. But I make that exception as he has just said that he does not admit it.


William Stevens Fielding: Did my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) speak of branch lines ?


Samuel Barker: The line to points of juncture with branch lines.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is speaking of the main government line.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking of the main government line from Winnipeg to the junction first with the Lake Superior branch and then easterly to the junction; with the North Bay branch. I say that these two sections of the government work must necessarily be completed-


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps there is a misapprension. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) I understand has reference to two lines, one the branch line to Port Arthur and the other the government line from Winnipeg round to connect with North Bay.


Samuel Barker: No, the Minister of Justice has not quite understood me. The government line, called the eastern division, will proceed easterly from Lake Winnipeg towards Lake Abitibi about 300 miles easterly of Winnipeg where it will strike the branch that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to build down to Lake Superior. Then, when it comes five or six hundred miles eastward it will strike the branch that leads to North Bay. These two branches in connection with the main line, will give the Grand Trunk just what its original idea was-a connection with Lake Superior and with its system at North Bay. Now, until that section is completed the prairie section will be almost useless to the Grand Trunk.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What will be the distance, from the point of intersection with the North Bay branch, to Toronto ?


Samuel Barker: It will be, perhaps, 370 or 400 miles.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Nearer five hundred.


Samuel Barker: It depends, as the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) said yesterday upon where this survey is going to run the line. No doubt, the Grand Trunk will run it where it will pay the Grand Trunk best. The. government is allowing the Grand Trunk to do the surveying, and the nearer they can run the line to North Bay, the better for the Grand Trunk, but, perhaps the worse for the government. They may even run it through a very costly country in order to get the junction point as near asi possible to North Bay. But that is not what I am arguing. What I speak of is the line from Winnipeg to the point of junction with the North Bay branch. In order to get through to the east with the traffic from the prairie country no doubt that will be the first section completed. There can be no reason for completing any other section before it. And yet, this supplementary contract contemplates that one portion shall be completed before another. Now, what is the position when that section is completed ? The position is that the commissioners may lease this 800 or 900 miles of the main line, which the Grand Trunk was willing to construct itself-had applied for a charter to enable to construct as its own work


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not the Grand Trunk.


Samuel Barker: The Grand Trunk Pacific. But cveryhoilv ***<)!>ikiiif>'it a'lLlrTtffWGrand Trunk Pacific charter belonged to the Grand Trunk. They just put in the word 'Pacific ' that is all. The Grand Trunk Pacific was willing to build that portion of the work itself. Now, the government have undertaken to build it; and they give these commissioners power to lease it to the Grand Trunk until the final completion of the whole 1,900 miles to Moncton. And on what terms ? On terms that will not be more onerous than the terms for the whole eastern division when it is completed, and the terms upon which that lease is to be made are that not a cent shall be paid to the government for seven years


Mr. McCREARY.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) mean to say that the Grand Trunk would have built that line from North Bay without the support of tlfe government, if they had been allowed to do so ?	.


Samuel Barker: That is another question.


William Forsythe McCreary: What is the difference?


Samuel Barker: I say that the Grand Trunk Pacific applied for a charter last

session to enable It to build from Winnipeg to North Bay. They intimated that they were going to ask for a subsidy, and I suppose they would have done so. But let me say this-if the Grand Trunk Pacific had been allowed to go on with their work under their proposed charter allowing them to build from the Pacific ocean to North Bay, they would never have expected to get such a subsidy as the government are giving in connection with this western division. Does anybody suppose that, if the Grand Trunk had been allowed to go on with the project of last year, they would have come to this parliament and expected parliament to give them seven years' interest upon the cost of construction ? No one ever heard of such a thing being sought by any company. Would they have expected the country to undertake to guarantee seventy-five per cent of the cost of construction V Has that been done in any other case ? Why, the terms granted for the western division alone would be far more than they would have expected from parliament for the whole distance to North Bay. There is no question about that. No one ever heard of such a subsidy being granted to a company that undertook such a work under the conditions of the present day. Mackenzie & Mann, or the Canadian Northern, or whatever these companies are called, did not get any such concessions. The Grand Trunk would not have expected to get from parliament the concessions they are getting under this contract ; and I say they were ready, therefore, to build that section themselves. And what is the result of it all? The commissioners may give this section over to the Grand Trunk for the time between its completion and the completion of the whole eastern division, charging them no interest or rental ; and, when the main lease comes into operation, by the very terms of this agreement, they will get the road again for seven years for nothing. Now, what I want to know is this : Why did not the government say to the Grand Trunk, when arranging thjs supplemental agreement : If you want that particular section from Winnipeg to the junction point on the line from North Bay, you must pay rent for it ? They might not only have said that, but they might have made it conditional that the Grand Trunk should take over this line and pay a reasonable interest on the cost. What does the arrangement made by the government mean ? At the lowest estimate given by bon. gentlemen on the other side, the cost of that road, irrespective of interest during construction will be $31,000 per mile. If you add interest during construction, the cost will be $34,000 to $35,000 per mile. Allowing that the road will be 900 miles long-we cannot tell exactly what the mileage is not knowing where the junction point will be, but it will be about that length-there will be something like $30,000,000 spent by Mr. BARKER.
Canada to construct that road, and the commissioners are enabled to give the Grand Trunk Pacific the lease of that property and not ask a dollar of rent for it. And yet, this portion of the road is not a property that will have no revenue. It will be that portion of the line over which all the traffic will pass from the prairie section through to Montreal and Portland. It will be the route by which all the merchandise and manufactures from the older provinces going to the west will pass to Winnipeg.


An hon. MEMBER.: In summer.


Samuel Barker: Winter and summer

anything that goes all-rail will go that way. If there is any part of the road that will be profitable to the railway company it will be this highway by which the traffic to and from the prairie section must pass. Now, Sir, is it not preposterous to say that the country should spend $30,000,000 in constructing that and then give the commissioners power to hand it over without receiving a penny ? The country, during all the time of the completion of the road, have to provide the interest on the money borrowed. I think, Sir, it would have been the least that would have occurred to hon. gentlemen opposite to say : You shall use that when it is completed, because it is a perfect connection with your system ; we impose no hard terms upon you, but we give you the very line that you yourselves wanted to construct, we pay for the construction, we will hand it over to you for operation and you will avoid having [DOT]to find the money for that portion of the road, we say now that you shall operate it and shall pay the interest upon its cost. That would have been a perfectly fair demand for this government to have made under the circumstances, and yet it does not seem ever to have occurred to the government that anything should be asked for the use of that 800 or 900 miles of road. The only explanation I can get of it is that they really thought the commissioners could make a fair charge for its use, and that they would get something by way of rent but they possibly overlooked the fact that under the seven year clause of the lease they could not charge any rent. They seem to have overlooked these seven years altogether. What was the object of saying that the terms should not be more onerous than the original lease when the original lease meant no rent at all. The government thought they were to get something for it, but they overlooked the fact that under the terms of the original lease they could not charge any rent. I think that the clause requires some explanation from the Minister of Justice beyond what we have had thus far, and I would like to hear wliat it is.


William Forsythe McCreary: I would like to know what authority the hon. member for Hamil-
. 2313

toil (Mr. Barker) has for saying that the original proposition of the Grand Trunk Pacific was to build from North Bay to Winnipeg. My impression was that their original plan, was to build from North Bay to apoint north' of Lake Nipigon and thence to the Pacific coast.


Samuel Barker: Oh, no.


William Forsythe McCreary: That was until Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson came to Winnipeg and interviewed the Board of Trade.
Mr. BARKER, If my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) will refer to the Bill introduced by the Grand Trunk he will find there is nothing about that.


William Forsythe McCreary: I am saying what was originally contemplated by Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays. The plans produced and circulated through that country by the G. T. R. showed a line drawn north of Lake Nipigon and, north of Lake Winnipeg, but after interviewing the Board of Trade of Winnipeg and seeing that great city and its commerce, Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays concluded. it would be folly to go north of that city and changed their course. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that the original intention was to go from North Bay to Winnipeg, has my hon. friend (Mr, Barker) any license to say that the Grand Trunk would have undertaken to build that road without material assistance from the government, without as great assistance as is to-day being granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific ? We will for the sake of argument, admit that the government would give the same guarantee as they are today giving for the mountain section, i.e., guarantee 75 per cent of the cost of construction of the road from North Bay to Winnipeg. The Grand Trunk would undoubtedly have asked that much assistance. Then we would not have had running rights for the Intercolonial Railway ; that new road would have been the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific. To-day we have a road owned by the government- not by the Grand Trunk Pacific-over which the Intercolonial Railway may run, a road owned by the people and not by private corporations and any other road may also run over it. Looking at the question from an engineering standpoint no man would venture to say that a line could be built from North Bay to the head of Lake Nipigon and on to Winnipeg with as good gradients as can be obtained from Winnipeg to Quebec. I do not think an engineer in Canada would say that you could build such a road. You might as well say that you could build a railway sloping down the precipitous banks of the Ottawa river as from North Bay to Winnipeg. From an engineering point of view it is
impossible. I have spoken to men who have gone over that country and they know it is impossible. Admitting for the sake of argument that the Grand Trunk are going to connect at a point some distance north of North Bay with their Ontario system, I ask why should they do this? Suppose that their main line runs to a point 300 to 400 miles north of North Bay, then would it be cheaper for them to haul grain and produce down to North Bay and to the lakes which are closed in the winter, than to haul it from Winnipeg to Quebec ? The line from Winnipeg to Quebec will be cheaper, shorter and have a better gradient and they can haul more grain over it. It is true that western Ontario may not send products over that line ; but western Ontario is not all Canada. I was told the other day that on the largest train of goods that ever went into Winnipeg, carrying 83 cars, about a mile long, as many carloads came from points east of Toronto as from Toronto and points west. All manufactured products are not from the western part of Ontario. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is quite mistaken in some of his premises, and I think in future discussions he should correct them. He has no license to say that the Grand Trunk has not demanded as much for the construction of the line from North Bay to Winnipeg as they are now demanding for the construction of the line through the mountains. Had the government acceded to the wishes of the Grand Trunk Railway we would have had a very much worse bargain than we have, the present arrangement secures a shorter railway, better built, and with better gradients.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The position of the hon. gentleman now seems to be simply that he is trying to excuse the government and to apologize for the enormous subsidies they are giving the Grand Trunk, by making the assertion, without any justification whatever, that the Grand Trunk would not have proceeded to carry out their original intention unless this government built the road from North Bay to Winnipeg and guaranteed three quarters of the sum required to build the prairie section and the mountain section. What justification has the hon. gentleman for saying this ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I have the justification that they asked that very assistance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From whom ? Unfortunately the facts are against the hon. gentleman.


William Forsythe McCreary: Not at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Hays is on record on the 24th of November, 1902, and he has put himself on record since then, and so has the president of the Grand Trunk Railway. The hon. gentleman must know that, if he knows anything at all. On November 24th

last, Mr. Hays Issued a statement which was published first, I think, in the Montreal ' Star,' and afterwards in the Toronto ' Globe.' In it he said :
This company is now prepared to go right ahead with a railroad extending from North Bay or Gravenhurst on our present line through that portion of northern Ontario, familiarly known as New Ontario, through Manitoba to either Bute Inlet or Port Simpson.
The road will be of the most modern and up-to-date character for the handling of both freight and passenger business-in fact, the road will he of the highest standard in every respect.	*
No one who has been studying the *wonderful developments that have taken place in the Northwest during the past few years can fail to be deeply impressed with the growth of this extensive and rich territory ; and our directors feel that in view of the apparent need of additional railway facilities, and in order to guarantee the present Grand Trunk system direct connection with that very important and growing section of Canada, the only wise policy is to take active steps towards this extension.
We are entrenched in the central portion of Ontario, the manufacturing district ; hut when it comes, to taking goods to the west, we' only get the haul as far as North Bay. Under the circumstances, it has been felt that further development was necessary, and hence the present scheme.
That is the statement published from Mr. Hays' pen on November 24, 1902, in Montreal.


William Forsythe McCreary: Where is there a word in that statement about building a road without a N subsidy or assistance ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The maintenance of the position of the Grand Trunk, as Sir.Rivers-Wilson pointed out, and as Mr. Hays has since declared, impelled them to seek an entrance to the Northwest Territories. Mr. Morse who, I think, was vice-president, made a statement in Winnipeg. I said that it was last November that Mr. Hays made a declaration upon this subject. I should not have said last November, because it was on November 24, 1902, that he spoke, which is a year and a half ago. Mr. Mors' made this statement at Winnipeg :
We are going to build at once. . . What is more Important is the fact that we are not a new company. . . . Having connection through the best manufacturing districts In the east and to the Atlantic sea-board, that your people are most anxious to reach, you can see how it will benefit the west. On the one hand, is direct connection with manufactories that can supply the needs of houses in the west ; on the other is your direet line hack to the sea-board. Of course, what we look to is the magnificent opportunity of opening up and developing one of the greatest stretches of country under heaven. I refer to that boundless tract of land which lies to the northwest of you.
Now, the hon. gentleman sees the justification he has for asserting that unless the government of Canada built this road from North Bay or from north of North Bay Mr. CLARKE.
to Winnipeg, provided $13,000 a mile for building the prairie section and provided $30,000 or $40,000 a mile for building the mountain section, the Grand Trunk would not have gone into this proposition.


William Forsythe McCreary: That is not the statement I made and not the inference that the bon. gentleman should draw from the statement I made-


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be very sorry to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, and l will give way to him if I have made any statement misrepresenting his position. He says that the Grand Trunk Company would no1 have gone on with their proposition unless they got practically all that this government is giving them, and unless the government made them a present of a line fiom North Bay to Winnipeg, for ten years without paying anything for it, and for forty years afterwards by paying three per cent interest upon the cost, guaranteed them $13,000 a-, mile for the prairie section and guaranteed them three-quarters of the cost of the mountain section together with the payment of interest of the cost of the mountain section for ten years after it has been completed. Is that the position which the Grand Trunk Company are taking now ? or were the Grand Trunk Company only faking the people when they made the announcement, and when they said that it was essential to the continued prosperity of their company that the traffic of the west should be secured to tbe Grand Trunk Railway Company? Is that the justification hon. gentlemen are depending on for this prodigal bargain with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which they have voted shall be carried through the House as speedily as possible ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentle-n an has in his hands a statement on which he relies to make his point. Would he kindly inform the committee wherein that statement says anything to justify the statement he now makes that the Grand Trunk Railway Company intended to build that road without aid ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The lion. Minister of .justice must be drawing upon his imagination when he says that I made the assertion that the Grand Trunk Railway Companj expected to build this road without aid. But, I defy any hon. gentleman to show that before'the Grand Trunk Railway Company made their statement as to their intention to go into the Northwest Territories, they expected, or had any guarantee, or undertaking from this government that the line from North Bay to Winnipeg, would be built and presented to them, and that they would get the enormous assistance they are getting in constructing the line through the prairies and to the Pacific coast.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No body has ever argued anything of the sort.


Mr.   CLARICE@: The hon. gentleman for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) argues that this must be a provident contract, because the read would not have been constructed if the government had not given the Grand Trunk Railway Company aid. I repeat that every public utterance jnade by Mr. Hays, every utterance made by Mr. Morse, and every utterance made by Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson demonstrates the fact that it was a matter of self preservation for the Grand Trunk Railway Company to obtain access to the west as speedily as possible, and Sir Rivers-Wilson and Mr. Hays have stated again and again_the reasons why. I heed not take up the time of the committee by repeating them. Mr. Hays pointed out that last year they had 24,000,000 bushels of grain handed over to them by roads which collected that traffic in the west, I presume, the Canadian Northern Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, that this traffic went a long way to enrich their system throughout Ontario and to give it- an enormous amount of business, but that they had no assistance or guarantee that that traffic would be continued to them, and that hence, in order that they might be able to provide dividends for their shareholders in the future, as they had done in the past, it was essential that they should gain access to the west.


William Forsythe McCreary: By what route ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: By what route ?


William Forsythe McCreary: By North Bay.


Edward Frederick Clarke: By the route from North Bay to Winnipeg and the route from the head of Lake Superior to Winnipeg. Mr. Ross, the other day, pointed out that the construction of the branch line from near the city of Winnipeg on the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to Port Arthur, would enable the company to develop their business over the great lakes by way of their ports on Lake Huron and the Georgian Bay in the province of Ontario. The government, by this propositiou, are doing practically for the Grand Trunk Railway Company what the Grand Trunk Company intended to do for themselves. I presume that the Grand Trunk Railway Company would have secured only the reasonable assistance usually given, of $8,200 a mile, or possibly $6,400 a mile, to have enabled them to have gone on with the work. But, even with that limited assistance, the government could have made piovision, if there was any advantage m making it, that the Intercolonial Railway should have running rights over the road which the Grand Trunk Company proposed to construct.


William Forsythe McCreary: It seems to me that at last after the hon. gentleman's statement, we have got the opposition just where we want them. The hon. gentleman lias said during this discussion that the Grand Trunk Railway could not possibly carry grain all-rail to the seaboard.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who said ?


William Forsythe McCreary: That was the view of every hon. gentleman who spoke. Now the hon. gentleman says that there was handed over 24,000,000 bushels of grain to the Grand Trunk Railway Company that was collected by other roads, and that the Grand Trunk got the benefit of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, the hon. gentleman must not misrepresent me.


William Forsythe McCreary: And that the Grand Trunk were going to build a railway from North Bay, via the north of Lake Nipigon, to Winnipeg, in order to enable them to secure that traffic.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; I made no such statement. I have their statements here, and I repeat that Mr. Hays and Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson both declared that it was essential for the maintenance of the present condition of prosperity of the Grand Trunk Railway Company that the traffic which they now have handed over to them at their ports on the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron should be continued to them, that they had no guarantee that under the present conditions it would be continued, and that it was essential to its continuance that they should get access to the west and gather up that traffic for themselves, so as to be able to send it down by the lakes to be hauled over their system in the province of Ontario.


William Forsythe McCreary: The hon. gentleman has not said a word about North Bay. Will not ' Hansard ' show that he said that it was necessary to build from North Bay ? Asked if it was necessary to construct that road from North Bay to Winnipeg to get that traffic of 24,000,000 bushels, he said it was.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not at all. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not mean to misrepresent me. If the hon. gentleman knows where North Bay is, if he knows its location in the province of Ontario, he knows that the statement he attributes to me would be absurd. North Bay is not within 200 miles of the ports I am speaking about-Goderich, Midland and Sarnia. North Bay is an inland town, it is not a port at all, as the hon. gentleman knows.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word in reply to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) as to the terms of this lease. We are advised and believe that he is entirely unwarranted in the statement that a temporary lease of any of the sections of this road which have been constructed is to be had on the terms which he states. The idea that the company are

to get a temporary lease of these sections as they are constructed and pay no rental is entirely unwarranted. However, that is a question of legal interpretation, upon which it is not fit that I should dwell. It was another point on which I wished to make an observation in reply to the hon. member for Hlamlillton. He started out, with the assumption that this section from Winnipeg to North Bay must of necessity be built first. The hon. gentleman has no warrant for that statement whatever. That section is part of the eastern division of the road extending from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton.


Samuel Barker: I did not say that it must of necessity be built first I say it will undoubtedly be built first, and I say so now.


William Stevens Fielding: Anybody hearing my hon. friend would assume that the Grand Trunk had the building of it. But I will accept his amended statement that it will undoubtedly be built first. Why should it be built first V Wherein does it occupy a different position in reference to the whole undertaking from that of any other given section ? There is no distinction. It is a part of the eastern division. That division is to be constructed by the government. I take the responsibility of saying that all sections of the road must be pressed forward, and the hon. gentleman has no right to say that the western end or that section, from North Bay junction to Winnipeg, will be built first and that the other will be built after. There is no reason why an equal number of miles eastward of that may not be built as rapidly as that section, unless there are physical difficulties in the construction of the road. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) desires to convey the impres sion that the portion of the road east is not to be vigorously prosecuted. I say, on behalf of the government, that such an impression is entirely unwarranted. The whole section from Winnipeg down to Quebec and down to Moncton is an obligation equally binding on the government. There is no one part of it which is more binding than the other ; that portion which is in the province of Ontario, and that portion which is in the province of Quebec, and that portion which is in the province of New Brunswick, they all stand as part of the same scheme, and the government would certainly make a fatal mistake if they would follow the suggestion of the hon. gentleman and construct the western portion of that first and leave the eastern portion uneon-structed. I for one am prepared to say that the eastern portion of that road must be dealt with in the same manner as the section between Winnipeg and North Bay junction.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And at the same time ?


William Stevens Fielding: And at the same time ; unquestionably, Sir. I undertake to say, that this government would be guilty of a gross Mr. FIELDING.
piece of deception to the people of northern Ontario, to the people of northern Quebec ; to the people of New Brunswick ; to the people of all the maritime provinces, if they would adopt any such policy as that which my hon. friend suggests.


Robert Laird Borden: The best proof that the statement of the Finance Minister is not to be regarded with a very great deal of- well, I might say ' faith,' not desiring to use an offensive term-is that up to the present time the only portion of the eastern division on, which any surveys have been made, is that portion to which my hon. friend from Hamilton referred ? If there is an intention on the part of the government to make the same progress on all portions of the line, how is it that not a single surveyor has been sent out by the government ; that surveying parties have been at work within the past six months on the line between North Bay and Winnipeg, and that these surveys are being made, not by the government but by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That is a very strong circumstance to be taken in connection with the further circumstance, that that very line was a part of the project of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the first instance. If I am not correct in my statement concerning the surveys, then the government are in a position to correct me. I am relying on the information we receive from the public press. The surveys which have been- referred to by the Minister of Interior as being made by the Grand Trunk Company have not been placed before the House, and we have not much information in regard to them. Tfiis was the original project of the Grand Trunk Company, and it is the project which as the directors of the Grand Trunk have asserted is essential to the continued earning of dividends. I quote from the Railway ' News ' of the 12th of March last, in which Mr. Hays is reported to have said to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk :
We are to-day handling from fifteen to twenty millions-last year it reached 24,000,000- bushels of grain, which came across the lake from Lake Superior down to our ports, feeding the whole Grand Trunk system throughout Ontario, and this gives us the whole of the way from Montreal, thus contributing a very large portion of our earnings. We cannot hold that to our system if we do not take some means of fastening it to us. (Hear, hear.) That business to-day, gentlemen, is given to us by our competitors.
My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says that very large trains of manufactured goods, one recently comprising eighty-three cars, go from the east to Winnipeg. He said that a considerable portion of that freight came from the east of Toronto, but he did not deny that a very large portion of it came from the province of Ontario, and the route for freight of that kind would undoubtedly be by this line from North Bay. In that

regard, he is presenting to the House exactly the same argument which was presented by the general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway to his sharehdlders, because continuing, Mr. Hays expressed himself as follows :
The Grand Trunk Railway is in this rather ridiculous position from a business standpoint of gathering up traffic from the largest and most prosperous portion of Canada, taking it to North Bay, our connection with the Canadian Pacific, and from there giving it to the Canadian Pacific to haul across the country into this prosperous and rapidly developing district we are speaking of.
I am not saying that the Grand Trunk Railway should not have assistance to get into the North-west. Last year I expressed an opinion favourable to that proposal, subject to the qualification, that I thought certain conditions should have been imposed upon them by which public aid should not go to build up foreign ports. The manager of the Grand Trunk goes further in the line of what the hon. member (Mr. McCreary) says, and he continues :
That traffic will be lost to us if we do not tie it up, so that to-day the question is not what your position is going to be if you embark on this enterprise, but what it is going to be if you do not embark on this enterprise.
Great importance is attributed by those in charge of the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway, to their getting connection at North Bay with the west. The first point which they emphasize is, that they shall gather in the Northwest that traffic which comes to Midland, and not only have the haulage from Midland but the haulage from the points of production in the west, to Port Arthur or Fort William. They apparently regard it as equally important that they should have their own line into the Northwest, and not only gather up, but carry on their own line, the traffic which they now deliver at North Bay to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Those two things are regarded as of vital importance by them. Further on, in his speech, the general manager of the Grand Trunk said :	[DOT]
Here is the Grand Trunk, the parent company, standing with a large traffic ready to deliver it westbound. This traffic is now given to a competitor. It does not have to wait five, ten or fifteen years to build up a traffic ; it starts with a traffic right from the beginning, and that is of a most remunerative character,- a high class traffic, consisting of agricultural material, dry goods, boots and shoes, and all that class of merchandise that a new and rapidly developing country requires. The Grand Trunk as it is to-day, hauls it 200 miles and hands it over to a competitor and gets nothing back. Is that a business-like position to be in ? Is that a position for the directors and management of the Grand Trunk to maintain and to acquiesce in ? I do not think you will say so.
In view of the importance attached by the Grand Trunk to getting this connection ;



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
in view of the fact that it was the original project of the Grand Trunk Railway for getting access to the Northwest, and in view of the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway (through some influence of which we do not know and for some reason which we do not precisely know), is now making the surveys over this portion of the line, I believe that my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is justified in saying, that we may expect in the ordinary course of things that that portion of the line will be built first. Everyone admits that there is nothing in this contract which obliges it to be built first, but my hon. friend from Hamilton was speaking of the probabilities ; and in view of the influence which is being exercised by the Grand Trunk on the government, my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) was perfectly justified in drawing the conclusion which he did. Having regard to the fact that the Winnipeg-North Bay line will be of great importance to the Grand Trunk ; having regard to the fact that it is the line the Grand Trunk Railway first proposed to build,-I suppose with certain aid from the government; having regard to the fact that the interests of the Grand Trunk are so wrapt up in getting that connection with the west, I agree fully with the criticism that has been made by my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) upon the action of the government in this regard.
if there is any legal opinion which the government is prepared to lay before parliament showing that the view which my hon. friend takes as to the legal construction of the contract is not correct, I would be very glad to see it. The terms of the amended contract seem to be fairly plain and specific. The lease of that section or any other, is to be on terms not more onerous than the terms of the lease of the entire line would be. Then you are face to face with this fact, that for seven years the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will- not pay any rental for the line from Winnipeg to North Bay, if that line should be constructed first When you come to prepare the lease of the whole line, are you to except that particular section from the operation of the seven years' clause ? This is a point to which I have not given a great deal of attention ; but I should be inclined to think at first sight that there was a great deal in the contention of my hon. friend from Hamilton. The term of the first lease may not last more than seven years. If it does not, the company is to be free from rental ; and, when you come to make your lease of the entire line, are you not to make it in accordance with the terms of this contract ? It may be that there is some consideration which is not now present to my mind ; but speaking off-hand, I think there is a great deal in what my hon. friend from Hamilton has said. If the hon. Minister of Justice entertains an opposite opinion, I would be very glad to hear the considerations which had led him to it,

William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice will of course deal with the legal points which have been raised ; but as to the other points which the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Hamilton have been discussing, their argument would have much force if they had not omitted to give this important fact its fair value, that the section to which they have referred is to be built by the government of Canada, and the government of Canada have the right to determine when and how rapidly it is to be built. The assumption on the* part of my hon. friends opposite that the government will of necessity build that section before all the others is unwarranted.


Samuel Barker: It will be in the interest of the country that you should.


William Stevens Fielding: It will be in the interest of the country that the whole line shall be built as rapidly as it can be-not that we shall select one part and give it the preference over another part. That policy, I undertake to say on behalf of the government, will not prevail. That may be left with the government. There is no distinction made in the contract between that section and any other section ; they are all parts of the eastern division. The government is obliged to build them all as rapidly as possible. The only thing that makes it possible that one section may be completed before another is that one may have more physical difficulties than another.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What section is that ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have no reason to say that of any particular section more than another ; but of course if we meet with phvsical difficulties, we shall have to observe them. That is the only part of the argument to which I care to refer. The hon. leader of the opposition sought to give force to his contention by calling attention to the fact that the surveys east of Winnipeg are being made by the Grand Trunk Company. He regards this as a very remarkable thing : he cannot understand it. That which is a mystery to my hon. friend is capable of being understood in a single moment when viewed in the right way. This legislation which the government enacted last year was given assent to by His Excellency late in the month of October. If the government had found that the Grand Trunk Company were proceeding to carry out the undertaking according to the engagement of their representatives-because, of course, the Grand Trunk Company itself, by its shareholders, had not at that time ratified it; but if the government had found no hitch in the transaction, it would have been undoubtedly their duty to have appointed the commission and proceeded at once with the surveys. But when it was found that there was some difficulty over the matter and that it might become necessary to have further legislation, the government deemed it wise Mr. FIELDING.
not to proceed to appoint commissioners until they had the amended legislation which they are now asking from parliament. But in the meantime the Grand Trunk Company, for their own purposes, and before they had entered into this contract with the government, had begun the survey of that region at the time they had come forward with their original scheme-that which hon. gentlemen opposite want to champion and approve of in this discussion. We are willing that they should have that glory. We are willing that it shall be understood, in the words of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), that hon gentlemen opposite, one and all, to a man, were willing to support that scheme of the Grand Trunk people for a railway from North Bay to the Pacific coast. Whatever glory there is in that, we give it to them freely. We know that that was not the policy of this government. We propose a different policy, and my friend is willing to give us all the glory of that fact.


Edward Frederick Clarke: All the glory.


William Stevens Fielding: I thank the hon. gentleman for that concession, and we mean to reap the fruits of it in the public mind. But the Grand Trunk Company, at the time they made application for a charter for their original scheme, had started out survey parties.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They were dead in earnest.


William Stevens Fielding: And hon. gentlemen opposite, we are told, were dead in earnest in wanting to help them in that anti-Canadian policy, which they tell us is the policy of the Grand Trunk Company. The hon. gentlemen opposite have placed upon the journals of parliament a motion which declares that the Grand Trunk Company is an antiCanadian company. They have in their motion declared that the interests of the Grand Trunk are bound up with Portland. And yet they say that every man of them is prepared to support that anti-Canadian company in its anti-Canadian policy of building a line from North Bay to the Pacific coast. But, Sir, to come back to the main question, I want to say that the Grand Trunk Company, being in dead earnest in that matter, and perhaps expecting that they were going to get the support of hon. gentlemen opposite in that anti-Canadian policy, started out their survey parties. Those parties have been in the field for some time. The government have nothing to do with them. If it turns out that the survey work done by the Grand Trunk Company is adapted to the line which the government will ultimately adopt, there is no reason why these surveys should not be utilized by the government; and if they were approved by the chief engineer of the government there would be no reason why they should not be bought and paid for in the ordinary course of business. But there

is no agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk with respect to those surveys. The company started the surveys for their own purposes, the surveyors were in the field before the contract was made with them, and. the Grand Trunk Company have seen fit to keep on making them. That is the whole story. The government, finding that there was some difficulty between the company and themselves with regard to this contract, and finding it necessary to come to parliament for amended legislation, deemed it wise to obtain that legislation before appointing their commission to proceed with the work of construction.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has simply emphasized what was said on this side of the House with regard to this matter. He has said that the Grand Trunk Railway Company made these surveys in their own interest, indicating that the highest possible interest of the Grand Trunk was in building the line from North Bay to Winnipeg.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend does not doubt that at all. Well, if the Grand Trunk Railway has so great an interest in this line from North Bay to Winnipeg, if that line is of such vital importance to it as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is inclined to admit, how does he justify giving the company that line seven years without paying any rent ?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend does not dissent from that. That is the proposal in this suplementary contract, because it provides that the line is to be rented to this company on terms not more onerous than those which are to prevail in the lease of the whole line. T'he hon. gentleman tells us that the line is absolutely essential to the Grand Trunk Railway and then he gives it that line during seven years for nothing, although t'he company were prepared in the first instance to build it with very moderate aid.


William Stevens Fielding: How does my hon. friend know that ?


Robert Laird Borden: He gives the line during seven years without rental to this company which he calls an anti-Canadian company and then probably for seven years more without rental under the lease of the old line. My hon. friend may be able to reconcile his contradictory positions in that regard as well as his position to-day with regard to the common stock of the company which absolutely stultifies that which he took last session. My hon. friend says the government want to reap the fruits of this contract with 74}
the Grand Trunk Pacific. He did not specify exactly what kind of fruits they expected to reap. So far as the country is concerned, it does not seem likely that it will ever reap any fruit.


William Stevens Fielding: If the country does not reap the fruit, we will fail to reap it.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not quite sure of my hon. friend's meaning when he used that expression.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not mean it in the
old way.


Robert Laird Borden: I knew my hon. friend had an old way, but I did not know that he had abandoned it. Coming back to the line of argument with which I was dealing a moment ago, my hon. friend says that we on this side of t'he House one and all desire that this line should be built form North Bay to Winnipeg, and by inference that our views are favourable to the transportation of the western traffic, not to our maritime ports, but to Portland. My hon. friend knows, if he knows anything about this debate, the position I took with regard to that question last year. When I said the opposition would be prepared to aid the Grand Trunk Railway in getting into the Northwest, I declared, not only on one occasion, but on many occasions, that I would insist not only on the safeguards now contained in the contract, but on further stipulations, because I would require the Grand Trunk Railway Itself to enter into the very stipulations which are imposed on the Grand Trunk Pacific. But when I put that before this House by a motion, my hon. friend, who now charges hon. gentlemen on this side with being anti-Canadian, stood up and voted in an anti-Canadian spirit against that amendment. According to his own statement, it is an anti-Canadian spirit which would deny the country the safeguards we then sought to impose. But if that be an antiCanadian spirit, why did the Minister of Finance then oppose the imposition of these safeguards? Why was he not as zealous then as he seems to be now ? Surely my hon. friend remembers the debate which took place last year when we urged this point on t'he government until we were tired, and I am sure they were tired long before we were. We urged that point until they accused us of obstruction and refused to reply, and we had to use strong, language across the floor before we could bring to his feet either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. We pointed out that Portland was onlv 317 miles from the city of Quebec, that Halifax, even under this scheme, was 000 miles from Quebec, and under the circumstnnces it was absolutely necessary to bind, not only the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the Grand Trunk Railway, to carry this traffic to Can-

adian ports. My hon. friend, however, voted against the amendment we then proposed, and I would like to understand whether or not he will stand up and vote against it again when we propose it this year. I am inclined to think that his strong Canadian spirit will not prevent him again opposing that same amendment. My hon. friend is not in a very good position to hurl taunts of that kind across the floor. He and the Liberal press throughout the country have been continually harping about certain words used by my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup). My hon. friend in that regard spoke only for himself if he intended what the Minister of Finance and others have suggested.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Robert Laird Borden: I say again he spoke only for himself in that regard. He did not speak for me. I had stated my position so plainly last year that every way-farmg man, though a fool might understand it.
I not only stated it, but supported it by an amendment which I submitted to this House-an amendment against which everybody on the opposite benches voted and which every hon. member on this side including my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) supported. Under these circumstances, are we to be told over and over again that we are in favour of diverting the traffic of the west over the Grand Trunk Railway to Portland V Did we not offer stipulations to the government to bind the Grand Trunk Railway not to do this, and did not the government over and over again, refuse to accept those stipulations ? If this line be, as the hon. Minister of Finance says, an anti-Canadian line [DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: I said that my hon. friend said it was.


Robert Laird Borden: If it be an antiCanadian line, I do not understand why there should be any objection to the stipulations we insisted on last year, nor do 1 see why the country should not get some revenue out of the user of that line when taken over by the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is all I have to say at present with regard to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, but I would like to hear, before the debate closes, from the Minister of Justice his opinion as to the contention put forward by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker).
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 77) respecting the Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsvdlle Electric Railway Company.-(Mr. German.
Robert Laird Borden: Bill (No. 78) respecting the Ottawa River Railway Company.-Mr. Ethier.
Bill (No. 79) to incorporate the Thompson River Improvement Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 81) to incorporate the Canadian Traction and Power Company.-Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 82) respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.

Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 83) respecting the Nepigon Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 84) for the relief of Robert James McDuff Rodger.-(Mr. Grant.
Bill (No. 85) an Act to incorporate the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company, and to amalgamate therewith the Alberta Railway and Coal Company, the Canadian Northwest Irrigation Company, and the St Mary's River Railway Company.^Mr. Oliver.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEiN. As we are going along with these sections, I would like not to have any misunderstanding with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice about what took place between us yesterday. It is probable we shall have to move some amendments to the first section. It is clear that we cannot move amendments to the sections of the contract. The only way in which we can formally place our views on record is to move amendments to the sections of the Bill. These amendments may, as in some cases last year, have the effect of overriding the provisions of the contract. I only want to arrange so that there will be no possible misunderstanding.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No misunderstanding. Before the House rose for dinner we were considering a criticism offered with regard to paragraph 3 of the contract. As I understood my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), the criticism he offered was that, under the terms of the amendment, the result of the lease that would be made for the purpose of operating some of the finished sections of the eastern section would be that, with respect to these completed sections, there would be no rent payable for a period of seven years, if the company were to operate during that time. I understand his argument to be that, under the original contract, the eastern division is leased for a period of fifty years ; during that fifty years the company has to pay three per cent on the cost of construction for forty-three years, and for seven years they are to be exempt from payment of any rent or any interest and with respect to three years, if they do not pay rent, the sum is to be added to the
*2329

cost of construction, on which interest is to be paid thereafter. In answer to the hon. gentleman's statement, I may say that such a contingency as that he mentions was not in contemplation so far as any of the parties to the agreement were concerned. And I will add that, in my judgment, the difficulty does not exist. At the same time, the objection is put forward seriously, and it is certainly worthy of being considered. And, while I do not entertain any doubt on the subject at the present time, I want an opportunity to consider the matter more fully and more carefully. The leader of the opposition said, before the committee rose for recess, that we had one thing in common-we were not anxious to commit ourselves to legal opinions without having considered the points fully. Out of deference to the House, I have not expressed opinions hastily ; and, as I wish to consider this point fully, I would ask that the section be allowed to stand. I say, in all seriousness, that the objection is one that deserves consideration. I want to consider it, and to give the House my reasoned opinion, such as it is. The government, of course, always have the means of preventing the contingency to which the hon. gentleman has referred. It can exercise that power by simply not completing one section in advance of the other. An absolutely effective way to prevent it is for the government to do as they intend to do-build the whole line at the same time.


Samuel Barker: It does seem to me an extraordinary way of getting out of a difficulty arising out of an imperfect construction of a contract for the government deliberately so to perform the work that it has contracted to do that it would overcome the difficulty it has got into.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The^hon. gentleman is assuming that we admit that we are in a difficulty. That is his opinion.


Samuel Barker: It is quite necessary in order to take the position that the subject is arguable. But the Minister of Justice says that the government has control of the situation, because if it finds that it is exposed to the difficulty that I have named, it can so carry out the work as to circumvent the company with which it has entered into a solemn contract. I really do not think that this is a position that ought to be assumed by the Dominion of Canada for one moment. But, Sir, the hon. minister points out that we have entered into a contract for a lease of the main line when fully completed for fifty years, and he commences at the rear end of it and tells us that for forty years we get a rent, for three years we capitalize a rent and for seven years we get no rent. Why does not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) commence at the other end ? For the seven years we get no rent. There is nothing on the face of this contract to
show that the line may not be still uncompleted at the end of fifty years, and then for seven years we will get no rent, for three years we will capitalize the rent and for forty years we will get 3 per cent. That is the position this unfortunate clause puts this country in. It is not a question to my inind how we are to evade the legal result of the contract into which we have entered, but of why, in these negotiations, the government of the day have not put this question beyond the possibility of doubt. We discussed two questions this afternoon, one the provision for the -equipment of $20,000,000 worth of rolling stock. The two or three words, as has been said here to-night, would have put it beyond the possibility of question or doubt. That subject was discussed day after day last session, and hon. gentlemen know the opinion of gentlemen on this side of the House, they obtained opinions from legal gentlemen in Toronto, able gentlemen, although one opinion thus obtained is very difficult to understand at all. Another opinion from that gentleman Inis been produced here in which he omits the vital clause bearing upon the question and never even refers to it. It is not a mere question of what the exact meaning of this clause might prove to be after litigation ; why do not the hon. gentlemen put in a few simple words in order to place the matter beyond question? We urge that they should put in three or four words such as ' acquire and pay for, ' but the hon. gentlemen were so stubborn, if I might use the word, so determined that they would not accept one suggestion from gentlemen on this side of the House, that even when they had the opportunity, when the agreement of last year was thrown over by the Grand Trunk and they were negotiating for new terms, e\en then they would not consider the suggestions we made and would not insert the words to make it more specific. And so here, when they are providing for a lease of property for an unknown period, a lease of $30,000,000 of property, they leave the subject in such a position that they themselves cannot assert here in this House-and I defy any gentleman on the other side to assert it unequivocally-that the construction of that clause is clear and free from doubt. They actually used language which leaves the question so uncertain that I venture to say that the gentleman who prepared the clause would never have used the words that are used here had he for one moment thought of the provision of this seven years without lease. If he had thought of that, if hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches had taken the least trouble to know the terms of the bargain as to the main terms of the lease, they would never have used the words that the interim leases of sections should be on terms not more onerous than the main lease. Why it invited trouble and we can in the inception of this clause what is observable from the beginning to

the end of these negotiations, that everything has been suggested by the Grand Trunk and accepted by the government. Let us see what this is :
Pending the completion of the eastern division by the government, the company-
Mark you, the company.
-shall be entitled to lease from the commissioners-
The company have an option of taking a lease of $30,000,000 worth of property, and cannot be compelled to use it unless they choose to do so. Who inserted these words ? Would they come from any person occupying the position of the government? No, Sir, they come from the person who wanted the option. The company should be entitled to a lease and on terms not more onerous than the main lease. Can it be conceived that a person acting on behalf of the people of Canada would have used these words ' not more onerous than the terms of the main lease,' knowing that by the main lease the first seven years were free and that he would not have used other words than these to protect the country against any possibility that that might mean a free lease for one, two, three, five, six, or seven years? Surely Sir, the hon. gentleman who employed the solicitor to draw a document for him and found that solicitor had put him in this position would say : I want another solicitor to attend to my business hereafter. The people of this country will say : We want another government to attend to our business.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: That hon. gentlemen may laugh, but the people will not laugh, you may be sure of that. We will take care that the people will have an opportunity to laugh, and when the hon. gentlemen opposite appear on the hustings, we will see on which side of their faces they will laugh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Barker: I can only assume from the hilarity of the hon. gentleman from Selkirk and other gentlemen opposite, that they think this is a trifling matter.


William Forsythe McCreary: You are trifling in most of your discussion.


Samuel Barker: Not only am I trifling with the subject apparently, but the hon. gentleman thinks it is a trifling subject.


William Forsythe McCreary: Not at all.


Samuel Barker: I think it will be regarded otherwise by the people of this country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) knew so little about this Bill that until to-night apparently he did not know that the Bill introduced by the Grand Trunk Pacific last session from first to last was a Bill to run through the city of Winnipeg.


Samuel Barker: 


William Forsythe McCreary: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. He said the original project of the Grand Trunk Pacific was to do that.


Mr. BENNETT.: The original Bill.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman from Selkirk, knows perfectly well that this House knows nothing about a Bill until it is introduced. We do not know what appears in the Toronto ' Globe, ' or what utterances are made by the Minister of Customs and by two of his colleagues in November, 1902. We look that up now and we find that the hon. gentleman's friends on the other side of the House took up what he called the original project; he had not a word of fault to find with it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He never said a word.


Mr A. JOHNSTON.: It is bad enough.


Samuel Barker: Yes, it is bad enough but we will give you more of it before we get through. The hon. gentleman knows that the only Bill ever presented to this House, the Bill to which the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup) was referring in his speech, was a Bill introduced last session for a road to run through Winnipeg. No other Bill was ever introduced in this House, but the hon. gentleman having made a charge tries to get out of it by saying : Oh. the original proposition that appeared in the Toronto ' Globe ' was the matter that was before the parliament of Canada; that was the original proposition-the original proposition that met with the approval of the Minister of Customs and the approval, I believe, of the Secretary of State and some other gentlemen, and I have no doubt- it met with the approval of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary). We neVer heard of his objection to it. The only proposition that was ever advanced by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company at that time, was the original proposition, which he, himself, says was to go north of Lake Winnipeg. I do not know whether the line was to go north of Lake Winnipeg or not. I know that was the original proposition and the hon. member for Selkirk says that it was to go north of Lake Winnipeg. He seems to have known where it was to have gone. How did he find that out ? We never found him protesting io the press or on the platform against the original proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The only proposition that was ever brought before the House was to go to Winnipeg. That, we approved of and we take care to say that we approve of it, subject to the condition that there should be terms connected with any subsidy this country should grant, that would protect our own maritime ports and prevent the diversion of traffic to Portland. That is our proposition, that has been our proposition from first to last, and I would like to know where the hon. member for Selkirk finds any objection to our course

in that respect. Now, X say again that we are quite willing to discuss or postpone the discussion of clause 3 of the agreement, but we object to its going forth for one moment, that we think that any doubtful construction of such a clause of so much importance to this country should be made possible, or that we should adopt a clause of that kind when words could be inserted into the Bill which we are discussing which would put the question beyond doubt. We insist that when we come to deal with that section of the Bill, proper provisions shall be inserted so as to ensure that this country shall get a fair return for its money.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. Minister of Justice suggest that this should stand for consideration ? I am perfectly willing to assent to that. The only thing I would like to say to my hon. friend is ttat outside of a legal question which has been raised, I understand there are two or three hon. members who have something tc say on the general merits of the clause, l am quite willing to acquiesce in whatever view my hon. friend may entertain as to whether we should go on or allow it to stand.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We will meet the convenience of horn gentlemen opposite, it is immaterial to me what we do. I am absolutely in the hands of the House in regard to the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the legal point is concerned, I entirely acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice. Perhaps we might discuss some other matter in connection with the clause. I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to the fact that while the lease is to be made by the government to the company upon the completion of the whole line, the lease of the portion of the eastern division when completed, is to be made by the commissioners. There does not seem to be any reservation of power to the Governor in Council to control that unless it has escaped my observation. Was that the intention ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The operation of the road, pending the final construction, is provided for under section 9- of the Act of last session. It is simply to give effect to that particular section of the Act that this clause is drawn so as to enable them to deal with the company,


William Humphrey Bennett: At how many miles east of Winnipeg is it expected that the branch to the head of Lake Superior will intersect the main line ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is impossible for me to say that. It is an engineering question, which would depend on the survey and the location.


William Humphrey Bennett: It really seems a most surprising thing, after the statement made this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Finance, which certainly interested the committee as well as amazed it, namely, that the Grand Trunk surveyors have been in the field for the last six months, that we are utterly unable to obtain any information from the treasury benches as to where this line will branch off from the main line going south to the head of Lake Superior. The country will be rather surprised that the government are taking so little interest in this matter. The discussion of this question has been very full and this information must be in the possession of these surveyors.
I remember that the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) who, I suppose, is as good an authority on that Northwest country from the transportation point of view and more particularly from the railway building point of view, as any hon. gentleman iu this House, made the statement that for a great many miles east of Winnipeg, it was practically a plateau or prairie country. I have no information personally of the country, but I do recollect that coming eastward from Winnipeg one does meet with a great deal of flat country. May I ask any one of the ministers who may be in possession of that information for a statement upon the subject ? We have a large representation of them in the House at present, except the ministers from Ontario and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, who is never here. For how many miles east of Winnipeg may the country be classed as plateau or prairie country ? Well, Mr. Chairman, if none of the ministers has taken enough interest ii this question in the past seven or eight months, to glean just that little bit of geography of the country, I am going to appeal to an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who, I think, does know something about it I assumed that the ministers did know something about that country. I assumed that they would have made inquiries of the surveyors and have obtained that information, but if not, I am going to ask some other hon. gentleman. I am going to appeal to the hon. member for Selkirk to tell me how many miles east of Winnipeg he considers the country may be classed as plateau or prairie country ?
Mr. MeCREARY. The boundary line between Ontario and Manitoba is 100 or 101 miles on the Canadian Pacific Railway main line from Winnipeg as you go east. Of course the railway line diverges from Winnipeg to East Selkirk running in a northeasterly direction. I imagine that the Grand Trunk Pacific would run through what might be considered a plateau or prairie country from 100 miles east of Winnipeg.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am sure we will thank the hon. gentleman for the information.

Now that we have been told by the hon. member for Selkirk much more than wa have been able to draw from any of the ministers, may I ask what will be the nature of the next 100 miles east of that plateau V


William Forsythe McCreary: I know nothing of the next hundred miles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What the hon. gentleman knows is eontined to the first 100 miles east of Winnipeg ?


William Humphrey Bennett: May 1 ask the hon. memrber for Selkirk at how many miles east of AYinnipeg he anticipates the spur to the head of Lake Superior will deflect from the main line ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Nobody but an engineer could tell that after going over the route,


William Humphrey Bennett: This is a most satisfactory state of affairs '. Here are fifteen ministers of the Crown speechless, paralyzed, palsied. Not one of them can give any information, and we must trust to the courtesy of the hon. member for Selkirk for any information that we can get. I am not exactly aware of how many miles eastward of Winnipeg this spur line will deflect, but I will ask the hon. member for Selkirk if he thinks it will be about 300 miles east of Winnipeg ?


William Forsythe McCreary: About that.


William Humphrey Bennett: The member for Selkirk admits that at a point 300 miles east of Winnipeg, the line will run south to the head of Lake Superior. We have also the statement of the Minister of the Interior that no considerable quantity of grain would be carried via the lakes. We are then to understand, that the member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) is, in the absence of the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), the government expert on railways, the substitute for the Minister of Railways ; the only oracle on the government side of the House ; and the only gentleman who has any personal knowledge of the country, and I will attribute his action to that personal knowledge, although his interest in the matter is so great that he probably made inquiries from these Grand Trunk surveyors.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He is an understudy of the Minister of the Interior.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, I cannot assent to that, because the Minister of the Interior won't give us any information, and the member for Selkirk will. The experience of the past is that the bulk of the grain is carried from Superior city or Duluth, to Buffalo, or to Montreal, for export. It is stated to-day in the press that at this early season of the year when insurance rates are very high, charters have been made to carry grain from the head of the lakes to Montreal at five cents per bushel. In the summer months it will be down to three cents, be-


William Humphrey Bennett: cause vessels now proceeding north with coal receive a better rate than they do later on in the season.


William Forsythe McCreary: That is not so. The vessels which winter in Duluth and Superior harbours and which can take out 6,000,000 bushels give a smaller rate now than they do latter on in the season.


William Humphrey Bennett: I cannot agree with my hon. friend in that. The Minister of Justice admitted the other day that last summer wheat was carried from the head of the lakes to Montreal and Quebec for three cents per bushel. At all events, the hon. member (Mr. McCreary), the railway expert of the government, has told us that at a point about 300 miles east of Winnipeg, this spur line to Lake Superior will be built, and he says that of that 300 miles, about 100 miles is prairie country. Well, the experience is that in that prairie section they can construct at the rate of four or five miles per day. so that the first 100 miles will be completed in four or five weeks if the work is pressed with vigour. We may then infer that in about a year, 300 miles of that railway will be built east from Winnipeg. May I ask my hon. friend from Selkirk if he agrees in that inference ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I am not a railway engineer. Go on with your speech.


William Humphrey Bennett: We are under an obligation to the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) because he is the only source of inspiration we have on that side of the House. Perhaps he could delve into some past records of the ' Globe,' and if he does we can get some more information from him on the subject. We learn from the statement of the Minister of the Interior, that it is the anticipation of the Grand Trunk Pacific to reach the head of Lake Superior in order to take out the grain and we learn from the First Minister that it is expected by the Grand Trunk Pacific, that they will draw their best paying freight from the province of Ontario. It is therefore in the highest degree probable, that as they have now a line to North Bay, they will build as rapidly as possible the 200 miles or so from North Bay to connect with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and then they will urge that the line on towards Winnipeg, be constructed as soon as possible. I prophesy that long before that line reaches any point north of North Bay, the Grand Trunk Pacific will have a line from the head of Lake Superior to Winnipeg. The Minister of Finance spoke to-day in order to arm himself and his supporters with campaign statements to be used in the maritime provinces. His declaration was, that this whole line was to be constructed at one and the same time, and if the sections are under way from Winnipeg east, at the same time the line will be under construction north of Three Rivers, north of Montreal, down to

Quebec and down to Moncton. But, I noticed that the Minister of Customs did not rise in his place to endorse the statement of the Finance Minister in that respect. I challenge the Minister of Customs to do so now. I do not think he is very warm in this support of the project at the present moment. He worried through some constituencies in Ontario a little while ago, and he found that the reception which the people gave to the Grand Trunk Pacific was not so cordial as the reception it meets from the supporters of the government in this House. During the whole course of this debate, not a single minister from Ontario has stood up to say a word in favour of this proposition, and I do not believe that the Minister of Customs will dare now to endorse the statement of the Finance Minister, that just so soon as this Bill becomes law, contracts will be let at every point from Moncton in the east to Winnipeg in the west. I do not believe the Minister of Customs will endorse that statement, because he is in just the same position as the Postmaster General and the other Ontario ministers. They are arming themselves and their supporters for an Ontario campaign ; but the Minister of Customs is too crafty and careful to stand up and repeat what was said this afternoon by the Minister of Finance, and when the fight comes on next fall, that hon. gentleman and his followers from that province, instead of quoting the Minister of Finance to the effect that the work on the line from one end to the other will be started concurrently, will rather be quoting the report of the Grand Trunk directors to the effect that the construction of the eastern section is a premature work.
Now, Sir, the Minister of Customs has not said a word on this whole matter, and it is notorious that many members from the province of Ontario have demurred to this proposition. I do not believe that the heart of the Minister of Customs is in the work at all. He cannot expect his followers to be enthusiastic at the reception tendered by himself and other ministers to this proposition. The fact of the matter is that in the province of Ontario the ministers are going to rely on what Mr. Ross said in the legislature the other day, that, after all said and done, this Transcontinental Railway was going to be a great feeder for Ontario, as the Grand Trunk Company were going to build a line to North Bay, where it would be brought into communication with the whole province of Ontario. With regard to the lake ports, as all the grain from the Northwest would be carried to the head of Lake Superior, it would be shipped through those different towns which have the advantage of the carrying trade. The fact is, the government intend to play with this question when they go to the electors, and there is no doubt in my mind that this clause is so framed that it will give the Grand Trunk Company practically carte blanche to do what they please with the commissioners. It is patent on the face of the clause that the commissioners are to have a free hand; and if for seven years the company are to have the use of the road free of all charge, then it is quite plain that they can have on the same terms the use of any section of the road that may be completed. When this 300 miles eastward of Winnipeg is built, the Grand Trunk Company may go on with their branch to Port Arthur ; and when that is completed they will have the full user of that portion of the road for practically nothing. I am glad that the Minister of Justice sees that the clause has so many imperfections that he has asked the House to let it stand in the meantime, with the view of probably amending and rectifying it.
Section 3 allowed to stand.
On section 4 of the schedule,
4. The twenty-eighth paragraph of the said contract is amended by striking thereout all the words following the word ' not ' in the eighth line thereof and inserting Instead thereof the words 1 in respect of the prairie section exceed thirteen thousand dollars per mile of the mileage thereof, although seventy-five per centum of such cost of construction may have exceeded the said sum of thirteen thousand dollars per mile.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: The original contract provides with respect to the mountain section that the aid provided by tfhe government shall be 75 per cent of the cost not exceeding $30,000 a mile. This amendment to the original contract will result in an obligation on the part of the government to endorse bonds to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost of construction of the mountain section without any limitation Whatever.


Samuel Barker: This is another of the very important though very innocent-looking clauses of this wonderful agreement. Under the original terms of the contract entered into in 1903, the government agreed to guarantee 75 per cent of the cost of the construction of the mountain section, but that was not in any case to exceed $30,000 per mile. They also agreed to guarantee 75 per cent of the cost of the construction of the prairie section, subject to a maximum of $13,000 per mile. The odd thing about the change that has been made in the contract by this supplemental agreement is this : That for the section of the railway where the maximum would in all probability be more than the 75 per cent they leave the maximum standing. From the silence of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) a week ago, when the question was put to him, there can be no doubt, I think, that $13,000 a mile is a full and ample provision for three-fourths of the cost of the prairie section. The com-


Robert Laird Borden: Before this section is adopted, I think the Minister of Justice should place before the House an estimate of the additional cost to the country which this change in the agreement of the mountain section will necessarily cause.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will have to pass that on.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not particular what minister replies, so long as we get the information. The only information we had

is from the Minister of the Interior, who apparently thinks it will not cost the conn-try one dollar additional. At page 799 of the Revised Hansard, he is reported as having said, referring to myself :
My hon. friend spoke briefly of the change in the contract respecting the removal of the limit of cost upon the mountain section of the railway and upon the alteration in the remedy which is provided in case of default.
Further on, he went on to say :
But for ourselves, having gone into this enterprise with the profound conviction that it was going to be profitable in every sense of the word, including that of upbuilding Canada, and we are prepared to meet these gentlemen who, for their part, are afraid, and show our confidence by releasing the old provision and inserting provisions which can only come into effect in case of default, which we do not anticipate.
Therefore, it was plainly the view of the Minister of the Interior at that time that the change in this provision respecting the guarantee of the mountain section would not cost the country one cent.


Clifford Sifton: The hon. gentleman will put his own interpretation on it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know what other interpretation can be put on it. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) followed the Minister of the Interior, taking exactly the same line. He said this in regard to the same matter p. 872, of the Revised Hansard :
With regard to these concessions, I wish to place myself upon record as saying that the agreement as amended will not cost the Dominion one extra dollar.
It has been demonstrated beyond doubt by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that at the lowest estimate, the Minister of the Interior was only a little more than four and a-half million dollars out when he made that statement, and that the hon. member for Annapolis was equally wrong. Not the slightest attempt has been made to contradict the figures which my hon. friend from Hamilton put before the House. They cannot be contradicted successfully. The hon. Minister of the Interior says that I can place my own estimate upon it. I will read it again, and let the hon. members place their interpretation upon his words :-
We are prepared to meet these gentlemen who, for their part, are afraid, and show our confidence by releasing the old provision and inserting provisions which can only come into effect in case of default which we do not anticipate.
If that means anything, it means just what I have said. If my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has. any other interpretation, we would like to know just what it is. He says that we release the old provision and insert another, which cannot come into effect except in case of default.
But it is clear that that is not, the effect of the contract. And so I ask the Minister of the Interior to meet the argument of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), which shows that the hon. minister is out of his reckoning to the extent of about $4,500,000.


William Barton Northrup: It will be within the memory of hon. members that, when the contract was before the House last year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) startled the House and astounded the country by the extraordinary statement that this railway would probably cost the country about $8,000,000-that is, if we put $8,000,000 into the hands of a trust company they would relieve us of all liability in that regard. Looking at that statement as one given out with authority, and one that was relied upon by many hon. gentlemen opposite in supporting this measure-that it would only cost $8,000,000

And hon. MEMBER. Thirteen million.


William Barton Northrup: No, I think it was the Prime Minister who said thirteen millions.


William Stevens Fielding: That is only a difference of $5,000,000.


William Barton Northrup: I think I am right in what I stated. The Prime Minister said the total cost would be $13,000,000, but the Finance Minister whittled it down to about $8,000,000 present cash payment. Why, the hon. gentleman told us that he could take $8,000,000 out of his surplus of last year and put it in the hands of a trust company, and that would provide against all the obligations we have to meet. Looking at the change effected in this one little alteration made in the clause under consideration, we find that if the mountain section is 500 miles long, and if, as calculated by the hon. member for Hamilton, the change with respect to the guarantee increases the government's obligation by $12,000 a mile, we find that there is a sum of $6,000,000 of increase which the government would have to assume. There is no dispute, I suppose, that for seven years the company is not called upon to pay interest, and for three years more they need not pay if they do not wish to. So for ten years the country is liable for the interest on that increased obligation. The Minister of Finance must see that a very large proportion of the original expense, as he figured it out, will be caused by the change in this one single section of the contract. When we find that the practical men of the Grand Trunk-the president, the managing director in this country and all the members of their board, practically all the men who knew anything about railroading-were willing to accept the contract passed last year limiting the guarantee to $30,000 a mile, what are we to think of a government that, merely in order to allay the apprehension of the shareholders and with utter disregard of the rights of the people of the country, deliberately increase the obligation to the extent

that has been indicated ? And if we judge by the Minister of the Interior-and he must be considered at least the equal in knowledge of this subject of the other-they are not even aware that the country will be called upon to pay a dollar more. It would be interesting if the Minister of Justice would name a single one of his colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, who has even the faintest idea of what this change involves.


Robert Laird Borden: This is certainly an extraordinary spectacle with which we are presented this evening. When I ask across the floor of this House if a minister is aware that he is out about four and a-half millions in his estimate of the cost of the road, he has not a word to say. There cannot possibly be any doubt about the meaning of the words he used. He told us that the new provisions would only come into effect in case of default. It has been shown beyond all doubt that they come into effect even if there is no default, and the result of the change will be to increase the cost to the country by about $4,500,000. And the Minister of the Interior has nothing to say except that we can put our own interpretation on his words, while the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) is not in the House to defend the position he took when he boldly and distinctly asserted that the additional obligations in the contract would not cost the country a single dollar. Is no member of the government to be heard on the subject ? Surely, when my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) places these carefully prepared statements before the House and stands ready to defend them, either some minister should show that they are wrong, or some apology should be made for putting forth, on the authority of ministers, statements that are entirely misleading.


William Stevens Fielding: Assuming that the estimates of cost of the road as given by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) are correct, I have no quarrel with the figures he has given. We have to recognize the fact that we have raised the limit-if I may use that expression-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. FIELDING-understood in a proper way-from $30,000 per mile of the mountain section to three-quarters of the cost, including the interest, rises to $56,000 per mile, as claimed by the hon. gentleman, then, clearly, three-quarters will be $42,000 a mile and not $30,000, as provided in the original contract. We have to guarantee this, and we have to pay seven years' interest on the difference. I stated that the other night in answer to my hon. friend ; and if anybody has given any other interpretation of the contract, 1 certainly do not agree with him.
Mr. OSLER, ' Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise,' it is said, and I suppose Mr. NORTHRtTP.
wisdom has come to members of the government since last session. Last session the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had no hesitation at all in stating in the most positive and emphatic way the figures, even down to dollars, showing what this contract would cost the country. The statements they made last session have been found to be quite outside the mark. There has been a revised contract, a contract which has practically changed the whole conditions as submitted to us last year. I think it would be only fair for the Minister of Finance, at all events, as the member of the government responsible for the financial obligations of this country, to be as frank with us this session as he was last session when he gave the House, with the authority of his position, the limit of obligation to which this country was committed under the contract. On this side of the House we contend that the modifications to the contract this year are not trifling, as the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, said they were, but they are most serious, far-reaching- practically limitless, because they are an unknown quantity. I think it would be only fair to the House, and no more than what the Finance Minister owes to the country, if he should state what increased responsibility upon the country will be involved in the adoption of this clause.


William Stevens Fielding: The increased financial obligation is confined, if my memory serves me well, to this clause and the one with regard to implementing the guarantee consequent upon whether the bonds may be issued at three per cent or at a higher rate. There is no difficulty in making that calculation. I shall be glad to make it and submit it at a later stage. But I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) can make it more readily than I can.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like to have the figures from the Finance Minister. They would then be given with authority, and could be referred to.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps before the matter is disposed of I will be able to gratify the wish of my hon. friend and present it in that form. Meanwhile I did not understand him to call in question the accuracy of any statement made by me last year, based on the contract as it stood at that day. The hon. gentleman says there is a different situation to-day ; certainly ttere is a different situation to-day, it does not reiquire any extraordinary acuteness to discover that, because the Grand Trunk refused to go on with this under the original agreement, and we had to consider whe-tLer or not we would give them a guarantee of three-quarters of the cost of the mountain section without limit or abandon the scheme. To that extent there is a difference-I do not say of no conse-

auenee, because it is of some consequence 

between the contract of to-day and the contract of last year. Let me say that ibe hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) apparently quoted me as saying some things which I did not say, and I am afraid that he unintentionally confused two things, the cost of constructing the road and the cost of the obligation which the government under the scheme will have to bear. These are two widely different things. I did not say that the road could be constructed for 8 or 13 or 14 million dollars, but 1 gave an estimate of what the government's proportion would be, assuming that the Grand Trunk fulfilled the obligations which it engaged to perform. Any figures I gave were based on that assumption, and the statements made in this House and in the press that I said the road could be built for $14,000,000 or $15,000,uu0 were, of course unintentionally misleading. I did not Say anything of the kind.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not attribute any such statement to my hon. friend.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not referring io ibe hon. the leader of the opposition. But several speakers referred to the Minister of Finance as saying that this road would to built for $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 and then proceeded to discuss how much a mile it would cost. I do not know if these statements were made seriously, but if so, I would call attention to the important difference between the cost of constructing a read, which is the actual cost of building it, no matter by whom, and the obligation which the government will be called upon to bear on the assumption that the Grand Trunk fulfils its part of the undertaking. My figures were based on the assumption that the Grand Trunk would fulfil its contract and pay its rental in one case and its interest in the other. However, I do not want to dwell on that, and at a later stage I shall be glad to amend that estimate in the light of the amended contract. I certainly said nothing so ridiculous as that this road across the continent, over 3,000 miles long, would be built for $13,000,000 or $14,000,000.


Samuel Barker: I do not think I am one of those who put that argument forward. I think I understood the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his argument and judging from my previous understanding and l'lom what he says to-night I presume the $13,000,000 of which he spoke, was his estimate of the probable loss in interest and in financing.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not consider there is any loss. It is the amount it will cost us to secure whatever gain there may be from the construction of the road.


Samuel Barker: I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to mean that in order to obtain this contract and
what will proceed from this contract, the country is put to the expense of $13,000,000 hard cash. Is that not so ?


William Stevens Fielding: This was the rough estimate last year.
Mr. BARKER, Then according to the estimate of the hon. Minister oF Finance (Mr. Fielding) the document of last year, which is infinitely more costly as it stands to day, the document of last year was to cost this country $13,000,000 in hard cash, simply for financing it. I do not think that was the way the hon. gentleman put it to the country. I know that was the strict construction of hia words, but I think that 999 out of every 1,000 of the people of this country, understood that the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) meant that the real, tiue obligation of this country for this company amounted to only $13,000,000. I have now got it from the hon. gentleman, on the contract of last year, that we were paying $13,000,000 of hard cash out of the pockets of the people of this country for that piece of paper.


William Stevens Fielding: We have the piece cf paper and we havn't paid the money yet.


Samuel Barker: The moment you sign that paper, the moment it was ratified by the Grand Trunk and by this parliament the money was gone.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not gone yet.


Samuel Barker: This country is bound to stand by its obligations. For that agreement. which the hon. gentlemen have admitted since, is not worth the paper it is written upon, we were to pay $13,000,000. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has taken the trouble since he has had this supplementary agreement to see how much he would have to add to that $13,000,000 in order to arrive at an estimate of the cost to this country of these two pieces of paper.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be glad to do that for my hon. friend later on, and he will be amazed at the slight difference it makes. When my hon. friend (Mr. Barker! quotes me as saying that it will cost us $13,000,000. for this piece of paper, or for financing it, I do not understand what he means. The figures I gave show that for the payment of seven years' interest on the money which we are to lend or advance in the shape of guarantee to this road, the money we will spend on the eastern section and the guarantee on the western, in as much as our obligation is to give them 7 years interest on that,-and this practically is all our obligation-I undertook to produce figures to show what the seven years' interest would amount to, and what amount of money, if laid aside immediately, would enable us to provide for all the obligations of this government, subject to the state-irent I made a moment ago, subject to the

provision that the Grand Trunk would perform its undertakings. Of course every man, who endorses a note of hand is obligated for the whole amount indirectly, but it does not follow that he has to pay all of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Generally.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid my hob. friend (Mr. Clarke) is dealing with bad customers. The figures I gave were not successfully controverted last year, and before the debate is concluded I shall revise them so that they may be read hereafter in the light of the agreement. They represented the present value of the money which we would require to pay for our seven years' interest. If the Grand Trunk Company collapses, and everything goes to the dogs and the bottom drops out of everything, we have to pay the whole amount.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the total sum to be guaranteed by the government ?


William Stevens Fielding: My recollection of the sum I gave as the present value of the seven years' interest, was between $13,000,000 and $14,000,000. I think I shall be able to show before the debate closes that the difference between that and the sum necessary to cover the present contract is not so enormous as my hon. friend suggests.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is his estimate of
the cost of the eastern division ?


William Stevens Fielding: My recollection is that I estimated it at $64,000,000. This plus the interest on construction would bring it to about $71,000,000 or $72,000,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is his estimate of the cost of the eastern division ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the figures st hand-they were based of course, on the limitations which have now been removed.


Samuel Barker: I think I have always understood the hon. gentleman.


William Stevens Fielding: I think so too.


Samuel Barker: I do not think I ever misunderstood him for a moment, but I am inclined to think the hon. gentleman used language that he did not expect everybody tc understand.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, yes, he did.


Samuel Barker: That is what I am afraid of. I think that when it went forth to this country and through the Liberal press, that instead of the obligations we on this side of the House spoke of, and instead even of the $71,000 OCR) that the hon. gentleman speaks of, the whole thing was to cost a paltry $13,000,000 or $14,000,000-


William Stevens Fielding: Nobody ever understood that.


Samuel Barker: Oh, didn't they. Why the press took care that all their readers Mr. FIELDING.
understood it. I hope the hon. gentleman did not expect the press to make such a misuse of his figures. But the figures were misused. However, the hon. gentleman admits to-night


William Stevens Fielding: I did not admit anything that I did not state last year.


Samuel Barker: I am just going to state what the hon. gentleman admits to-night. The hon. gentleman admits to-night that, assuming that everything turns out just as hon. gentlemen opposite hope it will turn out, supposing that everything is profitable, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is able to pay its rents, that the railway from the beginning will be all they hope it will be, even taking that most roseate view of the transaction, we pay between $13,000,000 and $14,000,000 in hard cash. That is the position that the hon. gentleman takes to-night. We lost that according to his view, on last year's contract and we must admit that the hon. gentleman i? correct. We say further that with the changes made in the contract the hon. gentleman himself cannot demonstrate how much he has to add to that $13,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I can if I take the
time.


Samuel Barker: No, he is not quite in the region of speculation. He cannot tell how much his bonds are going to sell at. Why, he has undertaken that the bonds practically shall produce par-


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Samuel Barker: One moment-or if they do not produce par the right hon. Prime Minister is going to implement it with a little cash to make up the loss on $34,000,000 of bonds-a trifle, just a little thing. It reminds me of what Daniel Webster once said when some one spoke of $30,000. He said :	What is $30,000 ? I will pay it
myself. I understand the right hon. gentleman to say :	What) is implementing
$34,000,000 worth of bonds ? I will pay it myself. But, the people of this country, the taxpayers who have to implement this obligation that hon. gentlemen opposite place upon the country may take a different view of it. The right hon. gentleman has undertaken to guarantee certain bonds and not only to guarantee these bonds, but he has undertaken that these bonds shall provide the face value of the bonds and he says that that will involve a little expense in implementing it. The word * implementing ' is a very nice word. It is not common. It is used in the old country among people who want to employ a nice phrase to cover up a financial transaction. It means, apparently, so little, but in effect, it is so much. If there is a ten per cent discount on these bonds it means ten per cent of $34,000,000, which Is only a trifle

of $3,400,000. The right hon. gentleman in his speech admitted that there had to be a heavy discount on these bonds, and if it is five per cent it will amount to $1,700,000 in hard cash. The hon. Minister of Finance was not thinking of that last year. That was not one of the little items in his $13,000,000 and yet that is only one of the changes in his contract. The hon. gentleman must not forget that. Every change means an addition to the obligations of this country and obligations in the sense that the hon. gentleman has to speculate as to what they will be. Although last year he was so ready to denounce anything like speculation that he would not allow the Grand Trunk Railway Company to sell ono dollar of the common stock lest it should be considered a speculation, the hon. gentleman has been so converted in regard to the financial aspect of the matter that he is willing now to allow them to sell $12,500,000 of the stock and he smiles and smiles and smiles.


William Stevens Fielding: The only difference between my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and myself is that I have a little more faith in the intelligence of the ordinary reader of our discussions and in the ordinary citizen of Canada than he has. I believe that the people of Canada will not place any such interpretation upon my words of last year as he seeks to place on them. The statement I made here was based upon good authority and upon a careful examination of the facts, at all events, the method of producing it was well known to many hon. gentlemen in this House and if it was wrong nobody attempted to deny it; but I think the public understood that it meant exactly what I said it meant and nothing more. My hon. friend from Hamilton says that I admit now that this arrangement is going to cost the country $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 in hard cash and hi thinks it is a great thing to have that admission. I did not think it was an admission. I thought it was something that every one understood, but I do not think the people of Canada will be dreadfully alarmed when they make a comparison between that $13,000,000 or $14,000,000 in hard cash and the terms which were made for the building of the other transcontinental railway years ago. I think when the people consider that we paid in that case $25,000,000 in hard cash, which is a great deal more than $13,000,000 ; when they consider that in that case we gave 25,000,000 acres of land and that in this case we do not give one acre of land, when they consider that in that case we gave exemptions from taxation and in this case there are no exemptions from taxation, when they consider that in that case we gave over $30,000,000 worth of completed road, when they make a comparison between the two
contracts and when they compare the many millions that we gave away in the case of the other transcontinental railway with the exceedingly modest sum that we are called upon to contribute under this contract to the building of this great transcontinental railway, they will say that the only surprise they have is that we have been able to make such a good bargain. I think that when they compare what has been done this year with what has been done last year they will come to the conclusion that when hon. gentlemen opposite last year said that we had made a poor contract end that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had everything they wanted, they will see that hon. gentlemen have wakened up since to the fact, as the public have, that the contract we put before this House last year was in every respect far and away the best railway contract that had ever been laid before this parliament. The great difficulty was that in our anxiety to protect the public interest we surrounded it with so many checks and guards and so many lines of defence that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had to say to us :	We cannot go on with the work.


Samuel Barker: If I understand the logic of the hon. gentleman's argument it is, that, having made such a wonderful agreement last year and being in so much worse a position as a result of the negotiations which the hon. gentlemen opposite have carried on with the company, the House had better accept these amendments because if they have another chance of amending the agreement it may be very much worse.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to amend that statement.


Samuel Barker: Allow me to make the statement for the present. One part of my
hon. friend's argument is this. He said that such dreadful things were done in days gone by

	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say they were dreadful.


Samuel Barker: Well he said that we had things done in days gone by that were far worse than this.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that. I said that this was far better.


Samuel Barker: The inference which the hon. gentleman wished to have us draw was that the things which are done now are much less dreadful than those which have been done in the past. Therefore the hon. gentleman says :	If I can show you
that some people in days gone by have done some rascally thing, some stupid thing, something beyond the regions of common sense, you have to do nearly that much for the present company. Their argument is something like this :	A man

some years ago stole a sheep ; surely the present government can steal a lamb. What in the name of common sense have we to do with bargains of the past, when we are considering l*y the hard facts of the present day, what the government now propose to do ? Would the Finance Minister in his private transactions, allow any person with whom he was dealing to point out some folly he had committed in his callow youth, as a reason why he should commit the same folly to-day. Surely not. I do not discuss whether what has been done in the past has been good or bad ; folly or wisdom ; but surely we can ask the government to justify their own actions not by the alleged folly of their predecessors, but by the wisdom of what they are proposing to do now.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is driven into the position of characterizing the action of his friends of former years, as folly and rascality. I have not done so. On the other hand, I am rather disposed to say that some of us may possibly have been too fearful and too distrustful of events in the days of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. I am rather disposed to give the hon. gentlemen opposite some measure of credit for that great enterprise, and to admit that perhaps some of us were to some extent mistaken. I do not characterize their action of that day as folly and rascality. There was difference of opinion about it, but on the whole that great enterprise turned out better than many expected. If my hon. friend will be glad to have me make that acknowledgment I am disposed to do so, but he himself has been forced to describe the transactions of the men of that day, as folly and rascality.


Samuel Barker: Nothing of the kind.


William Stevens Fielding: I said nothing of the kind, but that is the only way in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) could apply his argument. I do not say that what was done in the past was folly and rascality. I assume that the money that was paid for that great enterprise was probably wisely paid. At all events, looking back at it, the enterprise has been a great success. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) says that in my own private affairs I would not make comparisons. Well, if I were going to purchase an article that I had not before purchased, I would fiud what some one else had paid for the same article.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: About the same date.


William Stevens Fielding: I would make due allowance for the date, but I do not think that the mere change of date would alone account for the vast difference between the obligations which Canada assumed in the former case, and the comparatively moderate obligations, in the proper sense of the Mr. BARKER.
word, which Canada is to assume under this contract.


Samuel Barker: I quite understand now how many of these clauses have got into the agreement. I presume that if the Grand Trunk Railway had gone to the Minister of Finance and said : such and such a thing was done twenty-five years ago, and you had better do the same thing now ; the hon. gentleman -would at once accept the proposition. If he can only find out that some one, a quarter of a century ago did anything at all extraordinary, that would justify him in doing the same thing to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: But we are not doing the same thing.


Samuel Barker: What I said was, that if these things had been done, as the Finance Minister said.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say it.


Samuel Barker: I did not say they were done.


William Stevens Fielding: Neither did I.


Samuel Barker: I did not accuse the hon. gentleman of stealing a lamb, because another gentleman might have stolen a sheep ; I only put it as an illustration, that if these things had been done a quarter of a century ago, that has not the slightest bearing on what he is doing to-day.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The president of the Grand Trunk Railway in his address to his shareholders stated:	That the Grand Trunk
could not at this time expect to receive the same aid as the Canadian Pacific Railway did.


William Stevens Fielding: The Grand Trunk people knew the present government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No ; they knew the present conditions. Since parliament rose last year the Prime Minister has carefully avoided obtaining any knowledge of the cost of the road, or its location, or the nature of the country through which this eastern section will run, and he consequently looks upon the contract in the same light as he did last year. But the Finance Minister is in a different position. It is his duty to tell us what in his opinion this enterprise will cost the country, assuming that the bonds are sold at three and a quarter per cent, or possibly at three and a half per cent. If at three and a quarter per cent it will run into a good many millions, and if at three and a half per cent it will run into $30,000,000 or $40,000,000. These are figures that cannot be denied. The Minister of Finance assumes that this country has no obligations under this contract, unless in the extraordinary event, as he says, of the whole country going to the dogs. I deny that. I say that this country assumes obligations, and possibly may have to pay large sums of money even though the country be

enormously prosperous, because the government is undertaking to build a road through a territory about which nothing whatever is known from a road standpoint, 'l'he Finance Minister does not contemplate the possibility of the engineers finding difficulties in locating a road of the standard which the country has obligated itself to build. It is possible that a location cannot be found for a road of such a standard. If that be so, and if any one section of this road had to be abandoned, or if its construction had to be postponed for twenty years, then this government is assuming obligations of the most serious character, and though the country may during these twenty years prosper to a degree unthought of, still the country would have to discharge its obligations. The Minister of Finance should place before us fairly and squarely what are the possibilities as to the obligations which the country assumes.


Haughton Lennox: The difficulty seems to be that no one assumes responsibility for the building of this Transcontinental railway. Ordinarily we would expect to have the Minister of Railways here to give answers to reasonable questions, but unfortunately that is not the case in the present instance. This is not a captious criticism, because I believe that we have not altogether departed from the theory of responsible government, and responsible ministers. If there is any reason at all in having cabinet ministers assigned to different departments, surely in a large transaction of this kind-one of the largest Canada has ever engaged in or is likely to engage in for a very long time to come-it would be reasonable to expect that the Minister of Railways, at all events, would be in his seat and would have some information to give us. On the other hand, we have the spectacle of minister after minister, so far as they do speak at all, disclaiming any special knowledge of this matter. The Minister of Justice yesterday was very pronounced in telling us that he was not a railway expert and could not give us the information we desired. The Minister of Finance has taken the same attitude from time to tame, and I think he has borne out in some degree by some of the statements he has made. The right hon. gentleman who introduced the measure explained last night that although at the head of a business government, he is not himself a business man. Thus all those gentlemen who speak at all have disclaimed any possibility of giving us the information we expect on matters of this kind. What is the extraordinary position taken by the Minister of Finance to-night? He says we shall be sur-surprised at the smallness of the figures when he comes to make his calculation of the additional cost involved in this amended contract. I am sure the opposition will not be surprised at the actual
figures when they are correctly made up, whatever the hon. minister's calculations may be. I think the country has a right to expect that not tonight or next week, but at the time the government entered into this transaction with the railway company, when the Minister of Railways was authorized by the cabinet to put his hand to that agreement, and so pledge Canada to this change of contract, the Minister of Finance had ascertained the exact extent of the increased liability the country was incurring. That seems to be a reasonable proposition. Is it not extraordinary that the Minister of Finance has to admit to-night that he cannot give a reasonable approximation of what the increased liability is. I do not think a much more humiliating position could be taken by that hon. gentleman nor by the cabinet as a whole than to be obliged to tell this House, after this matter has taken the form of a definite contract, signed, sealed and delivered-a contract which the government are evidently determined to force through- that thy never made a calculation as to what increased liability is going to be put upon the country by reason of this change. The government have determined to go it blind-first to let the railway company get everything, denying them practically nothing, giving them every concession they ask, and claiming no concession and no benefit for the country, and then come here and tell us that not one member of the government has ever made a calculation to see what increased burdens this change would place upon the people. I do not think I could ask a more complete condemnation of the government. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that we are not so slow as he is in that regard-that we do know something as to the cost.


William Forsythe McCreary: Since when ?


Haughton Lennox: Since the hon. gentleman came back to the House. I want to tell the Minister of Finance, that, although he says we shall be surprised at the very slight difference, the change will make in the burden assumed by the country, we know that will not turn out to be a fact. If the hon. gentleman had made the calculation and presented it to the House. I might reasonably have some diffidence in controverting his statement. But he has made no calculation, and according to himself he knows nothing about it. Therefore I am at liberty to tell him that we have made a circulation, and unless he says that he regards a difference of four or five millions as a mere bagatelle, it does not agree with what he said he hoped for to-night. I do not think we need resurrect ancient history. There is nothing I suppose, that more condemns a man making an argument, particularly a man of the distinguished ability of the Minister of Finance, nothing that shows more completely



235G
the poverty of the situation in which he stands as regards the support of this contract, than that he has to try to draw a herring across the trail by mentioning the Canadian Pacific Railway in comparison. I think we cannot do better than refer the bon. minister to the argument that was put forward by the hon. Minister of Interior in support of the Bill of last session. That lion, gentleman spoke for probably half an hour to show that this contract would be profitable to both parties, that there was no use of talkng about it being a failure, that it was of a character that must secure the success of the company as well as advantage to the government and the country. He pointed out the difference between the conditions under which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had to build their line and the conditions under which this company are undertaking the transcontinental railway. He emphasized the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway had gone through the poorest part of the country, whilst this railway bad the very pick and choice of that great western portion of Canada in which to build. He also pointed out the almost insuperable difficulties that were met by the Canadian Pacific Railway at that day, as contrasted with the facilities with which this company will obtain its supplies. No better argument probably could be submitted in answer to the hon. Finance Minister than the argument of his own colleague. The Minister of the Interior completely refutes, if reputation is necessary, the argument based on this comparison by the Minister of Finance. But even if the Canadian Pacific Railway had never been mentioned, by the Minister of the Interior, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will certainly receive no support and no consolation from" the people in the country by asking that a contrast be made between the conditions under which the Canadian Pacific Railway was built and the condition under which this line is to be built.
Any one knows that the conditions to-day are entirely different from what they were when the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was undertaken. Then the Northwest was a great lone land and an unknown land, in the possibilities of which the Conservative party in this country alone had faith. And it is plain that what would be a reasonable estimate in those days for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway could serve as no justification whatever for the entering into this extraordinary contract by this government. When we try to find out what this contract ready implies, we can find no one on the government benches capable of giving any accurate information. Not one of them apparently has made the study of it a specialty, and the result is we have from the various ministers who have spoken on this question the most loose, contradictory and unreliable statements. We certainly are entitled to expect Mr. LENNOX.
from the Minister of Finance a careful estimate of the additional burden which the section we are now discussing will put upon the people, but that hon. gentleman is evidently not in a position to relieve the public mind on that point. I submit, we Should never have been asked to consider these important amendments without previously having had from the Minister of Finance an accurate estimate of the increased liability which the country is thereby assuming. But instead we find ministers making most general, inconclusive and uncertain statements. Who has charge of this matter ? Certainly the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) has l'.ot. The Minister of Justice disclaims having anything more to do with it than to pronounce on its legal questions. The right hon. gentleman who introduced the measure, and who has more at stake in it than anybody else, because his future fame depends upon its success, has been so uncertain in the statements he has made from time to time, that we cannot place reliance on them. Take for instance, what he said in connection with the amendment we are now considering. On the 5th of April, when introducing these amendments, and apologizing for them, he said :
The next section is more important. It relates to the assistance to be given by the government for the construction of the western division. These provisions of the new contract are embraced in sections 4 and 5.
If this is a section of special importance, we certainly have the right to expect that the information of the right hon. gentleman regarding it would be accurate. What does he say ? After quoting the words of the section-and I must say we would have had much more accurate information if he had stopped there and not gone on to give his own interpretation, he proceeded to say :
The government would not accept either of these propositions, but the proposition which was finally adopted is embodied in the section I have just read, and is to this effect. First of all the restrictions as to the liability of the government guarantee in the mountain section is removed. In the original contract the government guarantee was limited to $30,000 per mile on the mountain section, but now we undertake to guarantee 75 per cent of the cost of construction, whatever it may be, without any restriction. Then we undertake also to implement the proceeds of the sales of the bonds, so as to make the amount actually going into the construction, 75 per cent of the total cost of construction. This is to be done on conditions further to be agreed upon between the government and the country.
He gave tbe House to understand, then, that this undertaking to implement tbe proceeds of the sale of the bonds, so as to obtain their face value, applies only to the mountain section. But that is not the case. The fact is that this undertaking extends to the prairie as well as to the mouri-

laiu section. This is a very material difference. It might be said, possibly, that there was something vague about it, that the right hon. gentleman was only speaking of the mountain section, but a little careful attention will show that that could not have been the case, because he said :
Then we undertake also to implement the proceeds of the sale of the bonds, so as to make the amount actually going into the construction, 75 per cent of the total cost of construction.
We do not undertake, as regards the prairie section, to guarantee 75 per cent of the cost, whatever that may be, but we only undertake to guarantee an amount not exceeding $13,000 per mile. Beyond that limit our guarantee does not go, either in the new or the old contract, so that when we find the right hon. gentleman saying, when speaking of the mountain section, that we are to implement the proceeds of the bonds as regards the 75 per cent guarantee, we know conclusively that ififei intended to confine ^thot observation to the mountain section. What does this show? It does not show of course, that the right ho ill gentleman intended to mislead the House or the country-I would not for a moment say anything of the kind-but what 1 do say is that from first to last, whoever has come forward as the exponent of the position of the government, has been hazy, and none more so than the right hon. gentleman, I cannot for one moment imagine that the right hon. gentleman intended to mislead anybody, and therefore I am forced to the conclusion that he did not understand the matter with which he was dealing.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: I am one of those referred to as having made use of the estimates of the cost to this country of the road which arc to be found in the speeches delivered at the introduction of this Bill last year. I no doubt' have done so. But it is not because I accepted these estimates as accurate. On the contrary I pointed out that when the Prime Minister estimated the cost to the country, during the period the Grand Trunk Pacific would have a lease of the road, at $13,000,000. there was not one of his followers' who did not quote that estimate as being the total cost to this country of the construction of the road.
Therefore, if it could be misunderstood by the followers of the Prime Minister in this House how very misleading it could be, and was calculated to be, in the country at large! The Finance Minister referred to that estimate, and, taking it as correct said that it could be met by an arrangement with a trust company for the present payment of some $8,000,000-1 think it was $8,000,000; certainly not more than $9,000,000. The deposit of this sum of money, he said, would suffice to pay the $13,000,000 of the Prime 754
Minister's estimate as the payments of which it was made up came due. if members of the House sitting behind the government could misunderstand the meaning, if they could believe that this was the total cost to Canada, how much more were the people at large likely to be misled by calculations of this kind ? We know now what they meant. There is no attempt to dispute that the total obligation for the building of the road is enormously larger than $9,000,000 or $13,000,000. These obligations will be not less than $150,000,000. If their railway expert, Hon. Mr. Blair, were making the calculation to-day as he made it last year, and adding the increased obligation of this amended contract to the $139,000,000 of his estimate of that time ; he could not calculate the obligation at less than about $150,000,000. And, to-night, we find hon. gentlemen opposite driven from every defence of this contract by the fair, sound and businesslike criticism, and with nothing left to fall back upon except to say : But what did you do with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway contract some thirty years ago ? When that is their only defence, it shows what a hopeless position they are in. We are not here to discuss what was done thirty years ago. The conditions then and the conditions now are so totally different that comparison is impossible. The point to be considered now is what conclusion reasonable business men should arrive at with regard to the contract before us. It is quite evident to this House, and must be evident to the country at large, that the government have been unfairly matched-matched with men who are far their superiors in business acumen. It may be said to the credit of the chief manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and his co-directors that they have made an excellent bargain in the interest of their company. I do not know that the Finance Minister has made any attempt so far this session to explain why he was so emphatic in saying that if the Grand Trunk should attempt to get out of its obligations this contract was so firmly and strictly made that it would hold them tight. He said they could not get out of it, for instance, with reference to the $25,000,000 of stock- they could not dispose of a single dollar's worth of it-where is the hon. gentleman on that question to-night. He has not a word to say in defence of his position. It is all gone to the winds along with every guarantee and proviso that was inserted in the original contract in the interest of the people of Canada. All abandoned and not a word to be said in their defence.


William Barton Northrup: I shall not occupy the attention of the House at any length. The minister (Mr. Fielding) seemed to think that I had misrepresented what he said, and as I have no desire to misrepresent the hon. gentleman or any other member of this House, I would take the liberty of remind-

ing him of his exact words, as they appear in the revised ' Hansard ' :
My toon, friend the Prime Minister in the course of his speech said that we could meet the responsibilities of this contract by setting aside the present year's surplus which is roundly stated at $13,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite have thought that was a rash statement. I am convinced that the figures I shall be able to give to the House will show that my hon. friend's statement is substantially correct.
And then he recited the various items to make up his total of $11,512,000. So, I do not think I misrepresented it very much. Speaking of the hybrid contract, part of the line to be owned by the government and part by the company, one speaker, the exMinister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) estimated the obligation at $130,000,000 or $140,000,000, and, in answer to this the Minister of Finance said that less than $8,000,000 would meet the responsibility of the contract. I am not surprised that the people thought that this was all it would cost the country to have that road built.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) is too good a lawyer not to know the weakness of reading a portion of a statement like that. He will see that the whole argument was based upon an actual calculation of what would be the country's share of expense on the assumption that the Grand Trunk would fulfil its obligation, and I am sure that he so understood it.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Monday, May 2, 1904.