1904-05-19

Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 117) to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act, as to agents' certificates for voting.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Explain.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) wish me to read the whole Bill V This Bill has simply been left in my hands by my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Oasgrain), -who asked to have it introduced.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 118) to amend the Yukon Territory Representation Act, 1902.-Mr. Cas-grain.


Mr.  A. T.@: THOMPSON-by Mr. Campbell -asked :
1. Does the Dominion government accept as security bonds for public officers the guarantee bonds of companies incorporated under the laws of the United States of America, and which have made deposits with the Receiver General, in accordance with the Insurance Act of the Dominion ?


Mr. JOHN D. REID.: 2.	If so, what are the names of the companies whose bonds are accepted as such security ?
3.	How many Canadian and British guarantee companies are there licensed to transact business in Canada ?
4.	Is the government aware that an Act of congress was approved on the 13th of August, 1894, enacting that foreign guarantee companies are not acceptable as sureties on the bonds of officials of the United States government ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister ot Finance) :: 1.	Some of the departments have accepted bonds of such companies.
2.	American Surety Company of New York ; United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company of Baltimore, Md. ,
3.	Five :	The Guarantee Company of
North America ; Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company ; London Guarantee and Accident Company, Limited ; Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited ; Railway Passenger Assurance Company.
4.	The United States Act does not specifically exclude foreign companies, but the effect is as stated. After reasonable notice the Canadian government will confine its guarantee business to British and Canadian companies.


CHAMBLY CANAL.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the contract been awarded for the macadamizing of the public road along the Chambly canal, between St. John and the parish of St. Luc ? If so, to whom, and at what price ?
2.	Has the government received tenders for the crushed stone to be used iu constructing the pier of the Chambly canal for the next fiscal year ? If so, from whom has it received tenders ?
3.	When is the contract to be awarded ?
4.	Has the contract for macadamizing the road between St. John and St. Luc been awarded to the lowest tenderer ?
5.	Has the government received tenders for the quarry stone and other stone to be used on the Chambly canal during the next fiscal year ?
6.	If so, who has tendered, and when will the
contract be awarded ?	*


Hon. H. R. BMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	No tenders have been received. The intention is to have the work done by the canal employees. Tenders, however, were received for the supply of stone for macadamizing this piece of road, the contract for which was awarded to J. E. Hebert, the lowest tenderer, at $2.45 per cubic yard.
2.	Tenders have not been received for crushed stone to be used in connection with the construction of a pier on the Chambly canal.
3.	Not until after tenders have been received.
4.	Yes.	"
5.	Yes.

6. It is not the practice to give the names of the tenderers until the contract has been awarded. Contract will be awarded shortly.


ICE PIERS ON ST. FRANCIS RIVER, AT RICHMOND.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. POPE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What was the total cost of the erection of the ice piers or breakers in the St. Francis river, opposite Richmond, Quebec ?
2.	How many piers were constructed ?
3.	Has any claim been made for repairs to the same, caused by the damage done to them by the ice this spring ?
Hon. CHARLES HYMAN.: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works, I beg to answer :
1.	$15,824.84.
2.	Eight piers were constructed.
3.	No request has been made for repairs.
TRAP-NET LICENSES FOR MACKEREL. Mr. KAULBACH asked :
1.	Is the government aware that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has recently decided that the Dominion government has no power to grant trap-net licenses to fish for mackerel, &c., on the shores of the Atlantic ocean, in Canadian waters, and that all licenses now issued for that purpose are illegal ?
2.	How will this decision affect the present holders cf Dominion licenses of this character?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to refund to the holders of Dominion licenses this year the amount of such license fee ?
4.	Or will steps be taken to reach a ' modus vivendi ' for the present season with the government of Nova Scotia, whereby holders of trap-net licenses for mackerel, and other fishing will be undisturbed in their vocation ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	The government is aware that a decision to such effect has been given on an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
2.	In most other localities no difficulties are likely to arise, and the licensees will, in their own interests, desire to continue their licenses.
3.	The question of a refund could not at once be decided, as the decision is not final ; but where licensees are protected in their holdings, they.would have no claim to refund.
4.	The government is now acting under agreement with the provincial government, and the difficulty arises only where litigation is invoked by the fishermen themselves.


OTTAWA GARRISON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BIRKETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has any application or request been made to the government on behalf of the Ottawa garrison, either for a new drill hall or for increased accommodation in the present one ?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government
to accede to such request or application, and when ?
Rt.   H@: The government has received a request on behalf of the Ottawa garrison through Mr. Belcourt, M.P. for Ottawa, asking for increased accommodation. The matter is now under consideration.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 72) to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I beg to move in amendment :
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the main motion be omitted and the following inserted in lieu thereof :-
The said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to add the following section :-
9. The part of the eastern division of said Transcontinental Railway extending from Winnipeg to Quebec shall be constructed north of Lake Temiseaming as near as possible to the village known as Baie des Peres, and thence crossing the Laurentian range of mountains through the valleys of the northern parts of the Gatineau, the Lievre, Rouge, Mattawin, and St. Maurice rivers, so as to strike the termini of railways constructed, or being constructed, along the eastern shore of Lake Temiseaming, and also parallel to rivers known as Gatineau, Li6vre, Rouge,. Mattawin and St. Maurice.
The object of this proposed addition to the Bill is to locate the Transcontinental Railway through the northern part of the province of Quebec which is known to us today. I believe this amendment will meet with the approval of the government, and especially of the members whose counties this amendment to the original Bill is intended to benefit. During the last few days we have had a number of private Bills requesting power to build railways along the valleys of the rivers mentioned in this amendment, and running towards the north to meet the proposed Transcontinental Railway. Already a railway is built or being built along the eastern shore of Lake Temiseaming through a very rich district. We had before the Railway Committee recently a Bill to incorporate a railway going up the valley of the Lievre and having its proposed northern terminus at a point to meet the Transcontinental Railway. This railway was intended to benefit the counties of Wright and Labelle. Yesterday the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) championed a Ball in the Railway Committee for a railway going north along the valley of the St. Maurice, entering the valley of the Mattawin and ending at the Transcontinental Railway. We have in existence now the Gatineau Valley Railway, and we have north of Montreal a railway, which this summer it is intended to con-

tinue further north, running through the valley of the Rouge, and. which, if this amendment is carried, would meet the transcontinental line north of Montreal. It is apparent that there are only two routes which this Transcontinental Railway can traverse through the province of Quebec. It can go north of the height of land through the valleys of the rivers flowing into James' Bay. That region is comparatively unknown ; no one has any precise information about it except what is contained in the scanty information placed before the House last year. From that information it is impossible to say whether that region beyond the height of land is suited to agriculture, although we know that there is lumber there. The statement made by the Minister of Justice in Quebec would lead one to believe that the intention of the government is that the Transcontinental Railway should pass immediately to the north of Lake Abitibi. That would lead one to believe that the intention is to have this railway run through the region beyond the height of land, and through the valleys of the rivers flowing into James' Bay. We know that this railway must pass either beyond the height of land, or on this side of it.
If the intention of the government is that the railway shall pass through the regions indicated in this amendment, then it will pass through a region as to which we have precise data, and which is already in part settled. The eastern slope of Lake Temis-caming contains many progressive settlements. There is a railway there going up north ; and undoubtedly, if the Transcontinental Railway passes within measurable distance of Baie des Peres, it will benefit a region with which we are to a certain extent familiar. It will confer a considerable benefit on the county of Pontiac, where there is a great lack of railway communication. That county is a very large one. A great deal has been done for its advancement, but it is one of those very considerable districts where a great deal can be achieved by the construction of railways. It is a rich agricultural county, and it has also considerable mineral wealth and great water power. From the eastern side of Lake Temiscaming, the railway, passing into the valley of the Gatineau and Lievre rivers, crosses a region in the county of Wright, the county of Labelle, and in part I think the county of Terrebonne north of the county of Argenteuil, where there are important settlements beginning, and where the resources are to a certain extent known, north of the city of Montreal, along the valley of the Rouge river. Some distance north of Lake Temiscaming, where the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to extend its northern extension this summer, there is a rich valley beyond the Laurentian range ; but on this side of the height of Mr. MONK,
land the railway will undoubtedly do considerable good. Because it is not to proclaim oneself converted to the plan of my right hon. friend to admit that a railway constructed in that locality will do good. Upon the whole, it seemed to me that the province of Quebec would have benefited more by having the Intercolonial Railway prolonged to the great lakes, and by establishing in the province of Quebec what all our people who take an interest in colonization state to be the immediate need of the province, that is, colonization lines, or lines of penetration, as we call them, into the northern valleys, offering inducements to the settler, and bringing the products of the north to the centres like Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers, where they would find the water route in summer and the Intercolonial Railway in winter through the valley of the St. Lawrence. My idea was that we should have a prolongation of the government railway, and also a railway policy for the province of Quebec which would provide, by means of guarantees, and without expenditure of cash, numerous and wisely laid-out lines of penetration into those new regions. But, as I said las'-night, another and a different policy has prevailed, and the hope I have in view by this amendment is to try to bring this Transcontinental Railway; where it will be of most use in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend from Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau) who will I have no doubt support this amendment, traced as a line for the railway which he had incorporated yesterday, a line going from the city of Three Rivers to a point where the Mattawin river empties itself into the St. Maurice, and following the course of that river until it meets the Transcontinental Railway. Therefore in the mind of my hon. friend, the Transcontinental Railway is intended to pass along the valley of the Mattawin river, which is partially settled, which at any rate contains valuable lands. The object of this motion is to have it declared that the intention of parliament is that the Transcontinental Railway coming from the west shall follow the course of the Mattawin river. It therefore meets the views of my hon. friend. Between the rich region which surrounds Lake Nominin-gue, north of St. Jerome, what we call the back country of Montreal, and the course of the Mattawin river, there are the northern parts of the county of Terrebonne, Montcalm, L'Assomption, Joliet and Maski-nonge. If the transcontinental line goes beyond the height of land which divides us from the Hudson Bay, it may possibly in a remote future develop a country which may prove to be valuable ; but it will not immediately benefit the regions and the counties to which I have just referred. If, on the contrary, it follows the valleys of the Rouge, L'Assomption and Mattawin
339f

rivers, it will immediately become a centre of considerable activity for the northern parts of those very extensive counties to which I have referred, and which are at present without railway communication. In fact, in my idea, as I have said before, these regions were to be opened up by the lines of penetration to which I have already more than once referred, especially when I had the honour of speaking on the second reading of tills Bill. That is why it seems to me important that we should not leave it undecided, or leave it to be settled by the executive at present existing, or by future governments, where this Transcontinental Railway shall pass within the limits of the province of Quebec.
I have not referred in my motion to the region south of Quebec, because I have l'Ot the knowledge of that region which some of my colleagues have. But my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, by what he said hi the House last night, seemed to admit that that was a point of some importance. On tl.e northern side of the St. Lawrence it N an essential point. Indeed, the decision of the government being that the Transcontinental Railway shall be built according to the original plan, I think it is essential that we should so locate it in the province of Quebec that it will be of immediate benefit to the population of that province. The question may arise as to whether this line, which we have determined to a certain extent, and which passes, as my right lion, friend will see, partly to the north of the Laurentian range but crosses that range when we come to the vicinity of the sources of the Mattawin river-the question may arise as to whether this increases the length of the railway. I have examined that point. We have no absolute data, but so far as I can see having examined and taken such measurements as I was able upon an official railway map of the Department of Railways, that line is in reality the shortest line from the vicinity of Lake Abitibi down to the city of Quebec. Therefore to sum up the advantages of this location, we would have a direct line from the point where the railway enters the province of Quebec, a short line to the city of Quebec, and carry it through a country of which we have some knowledge, the rivers of which flow down to the St. Lawrence and north to Hudson bay. We v ould bring this important line of railway '[DOT]within measurable distance,-a distance which could be covered within a very short time-of these lines penetrating to the north and bringing colonists to occupy that region. We would bring it within reasonable distance of a line of railway at present constructed in part, east of Lake Temiscam-ing, a colonization line ; a line of railway which, as was stated in the Railway Committee a day or two ago, will very soon be constructed along the Lievere river and will go up north along the valley of that
river. It would make this important line meet the Gatineau Valley Railway, at present in part constructed', and it would bring the Transcontinental Railway within measurable distance of Montreal, probably less than 100 miles from the present terminus of .the line which goes from Montreal north of St. Jerome up to Labelle. It would bring the Transcontinental Railway through the northern part, at present settled in part, of the counties of Montcalm, L'Assumption, Maskinonge, Joliet, in fact most of the counties between Montreal and Quebec on the northern side of the St. Lawrence. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, that this amendment Should commend itself to the favourable consideration of the House and I hope the government will see fit to adopt it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: More than orce in the course of the present debate this session, and also in the course of the debate last year, my hon. friend has stated his firm conviction that the government scheme of a Transcontinental Railway is an ill-advised one. He has stated more than once that instead of building a railway east and west, we should have lines penetrating from the south to the north. My hon. friend, to give him the justice to which he is entitled, has done his best to prevent the adoption by parliament of the government scheme. Having failed to impress parliament with his views, parliament having on the contrary decided in favour of the scheme of building a transcontinental [DOT] ailway to connect the east and the west, at tidal waters, my hon. friend is consistent with himself in endeavouring to kill in detail by impossible amendments, the scheme he has been unable to kill as a whole. I may simply observe that it is quite easy to do ns the hon. gentleman has done. It is quite easy to project a railway across a country by drawing a line on the map, leaving out of consideration the rocks, mountains and rivers, and then simply stating to the House that the line so drawn is the best solution of the question. We, however, cannot adopt that mode of locating a railway. On the contrary, we believe that all we can do is to fix the general and salient features and leave to engineers the location of the line. It is impossible to say now whether the railway should go on the north or the south of the mountains and plains. We have only to say to my hon. friend, as we did to my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Morin), that the government is not undertaking at this moment to locate exactly and determinedly where the line is to pass. That is a part of the business which has to be settled by the engineers in the field. But the little game to which my hon. friend resorts is very transparent. He wants simply to put himself in the position of being able to say to everybody in the counties of

Pontiac. Bertbier, Assomption, Montcalm and Maskinonge, that he proposed a resolution which, if adopted, would have provided every man with a railway, and that if the policy he advocated had been followed, every man in those counties would have a railway passing his own door. But looking at the amendment, I do not think it is even consistent with itself. It says :
Part of the eastern division of the said Transcontinental Railway extending from Winnipeg to Quebec shall be constructed north of Lake Temiscaming as near as possible, to the village known as Baie des Peres, and thence crossing the Laurentian range of mountains

I have not looked at the map recently, hut Baie des Peres is very far from the northern end of Lake Temiscaming. It is much nearer the south than the north.
Crossing the Laurentian range of mountains through the valleys of the northern parts of the Gatineau, the Lievre, the Rouge, Mattawin and St. Maurice so as to strike the termini of railways constructed or being constructed along the eastern shores of Lake Temiscaming and also parallel to the rivers knows as Gatineau, Lievre, Rouge, Mattawin and St. Maurice.
If my hon. friend is to run a railway parallel to the rivers known as Gatineau,
Maurice. As au hon. friend beside me remarks,that is a pretty crooked road. I have read the language of the resolution and. I leave it to the House to say whether I have not interpreted it correctly.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Monk.
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Henderson,
Armstrong,	Ingram,
Avery,	Kidd,
Barker,	Lefurgey,
Bell,	Leonard,
Blain,	MacLaren (Perth)
Boyd,	McGowan,
Bruce,	Monk,
Carscallen,	Northrup,
Clancy,	Pope,
Clare,	Richardson,
Clarke,	Rosamond,
Cochrane,	Sproule,
Donnelly,	Taylor,
Earle,	Thomson (Grey),
Ganong,	Tolton,
Gilmour,	Vrooman,
Hackett,	Wilmot,
Halliday,	Wilson-38.
	NAYS :
Bouge, Mattawin and St. Maurice, he cannot have a railway running east and west, but must have it running north.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend is mistaken. That is not what is asked for. It is to touch the termini of the railways going parallel to those rivers.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would like to know where are the termini. There does not exist to-day, a single terminus to one of these railways. They are all under construction.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where is the terminus of my hon. friend's railway ?


Wilfrid Laurier: In the city of Quebec. The terminus is to be at Quebec on the St. Lawrence River, at Moncton in the maritime provinces and at Port Simpson on the Pacific. All these railways to which the hon. gentleman (ill-. Monk) refers at the present time are being constructed ; not one of them has been constructed ; not? one of them has a terminus ; and therefore, it is not fair to the House to say that this is to strike the termini, because there are no termini.


Mr. SPROULE.: Do not the charters of these roads indicate where they are to run ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The charters indicate that they are to go northward as far as is necessary to connect with the new road. But my hon. friend, unless I mistake his language if he means anything, means that the road is to run parallel to the rivers Gatineau, LiSvre, Rouge, Mattawin and St.
Messieurs
Archambault,	Lovell,
Bazinet,	Loy,
Bickerdike,	Macdonald,
Blanchet,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Bourassa,	Macpherson,
Brodeur,	McCarthy,
Bureau,	McCool,
Calvert,	McGugan,
Campbell,	Mclsaac,
Carbonneau,	McLennan,
Champagne,	Malouin,
Christie,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Delisle,	Matheson,
Demers (Levis),	Mayrand,
Demers (St. John),	Meigs,
Desjardins,	Mignault,
Douglas,	Morrison,
Erb,	Mulock (Sir William),
Fisher,	Murray,
Fitzpatrick,	Oliver,
Fortier,	Parmelee,
Galliher,	Paterson,
Gauvreau,	Prefontaine,
Geoffrion,	Proulx,
Gervais,	Puttee,
Gibson,	Riley,
Gould,	Rivet,
Grant,	Roche (Halifax),
Guthrie,	Ross (Ontario),
Harwood,	Ross (Rimouski),
Heyd,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Holmes,	Rousseau,
Hyman,	Russell,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Scott,	
Johnston (Lamhton),	Sifton,
Lang,	Sinclair,
Lapointe,	Smith (Vancouver),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Stewart,
Laurier (L'Assomption),Sutherland (Essex),	
Lavergne	Talbot,
(Drummond & Artha.)Tolmie, Lavergne (Montmagny), Tucker, Law,	Turcot,


Wilfrid Laurier: Lemieux,	Turgeon,
Lewis,	Wade,
Logan,	Wright-91.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Angers,	Casgrain,
Cowan,	Pringle,
McColl,	Ward.
Emmerson,	Fowler,
LeBlanc,	LaRivigre,
Reid (Restigouche),	Hale,
Costigan,	Morin,
Hughes (P. E. I.),	Kemp,
Fielding,	Borden (Halifax),
Sutherland (Hon. J.),	Haggart,
Davis,	Daniel,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Beland,	Birkett,
Beith,	Calvin,
Bourbonnais,	Gourley,
Girard,	Kendry,
Charlton,	Lennox,
Copp,	Porter,
Monet,	Roddick,
Ross (Yukon),	Smith (Wentworth),
Bruneau,	Brock,
McEwen,	Sherritt,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Wallace,	* Tisdale,
Dugas,	Tarte,
Mackie,	McIntosh,
Borden (Sir F. W.),	Kaulbach,
Kendall,	Roche (Marquette),
Haszard,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Thompson (Haldimand) Bennett,	
Dyment,	McCormick,
German,	Lancaster,
Brown,	Ball,
Ethier,	Broder,
Gallery,	Culbert,
Stephens,	Hughes (Victoria),
Schell.	, La veil,
MacKinnon,	Maclean,
Marcil (Bagot),	Robinson (Nor.),
Power,	Seagram,
Tobin,	Osier,
Amendment (Mr. Monk) negatived.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Notwithstanding the cheers which we have heard, we on this side of the House believe that we have a duty to perform, and that if it is a foregone conclusion that the Bill now before the House shall eventually become law in some form, we should endeavour to safeguard the interests of the country in every respect before it finally passes. With that object in view. Mr. Speaker, I shall place in your hands an amendment to a clause which lion, gentlemen to your right may not consider one of the more important clauses of the Bill, but which to my mind is a very far-reaching clause indeed. I refer to section 3. It appears to me that it is the duty of parliament as far as possible to retain under the control of parliament, or of the government of the day. the action of the Grand Trunk Pacific as well as of the Grand Trunk in connection with this measure. That is of paramount importance because the country has furnished practically all the money that
is to be expended on this road, so nearly all that we may say practically the whole amount is being supplied by the government. Therefore I say that it is our duty to safeguard the interests of the country and to retain control oyer every possible expenditure in connection with the construction of this road. Now in order to make the amendment which I proposed as plain as possible to the House and to place my remarks in as brief a form as I can, I shall read the clause of the Bill which I propose to amend.
The directors of the Grand Trunk Company may from time to time, and as often as they deem necessary, enter into an agreement or agreements with the directors of the Pacific Company respecting the manner and the terms upon which the Grand Trunk Company shall or may aid or assist the Pacific Company in carrying the scheduled agreements into effect, and also respecting the consideration to be given by the Pacific Company to the Grand Trunk Company under the terms of any such agreement or agreements, and may guarantee the bonds, debentures or other securities of, the Pacific Company, and perform such other services for the Pacific Company as are agreed upon, and the Grand Trunk Company may receive and take ats the consideration, in whole or in part, to fie given to it under the terms of any such agreement, shares of the capital stock of the Pacific Company for such amount and upon such terms and conditions as are agreed upon.
The president of the Grand Trunk Railway at the meeting of the Grand Trunk shareholders in London on March 8 last, made an important declaration. He then said that the line was to be constructed by a joint partnership between the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. It is an ordinary practice in all partnership agreements to insert a clause that no member of the partnership should he permitted to do any act that would involve the partnership in any liability without the consent of the other partner. I hold that as the Dominion of Canada is the chief partner, the partner that would be responsible for the money that would be expended by this partnership it is our duty to see that no agreement or obligation can be entered into by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company unless with the full consent and approbation of the other partner, the government of Canada. That is an ordinary precaution which is taken in the forming of all partnerships, and such clauses are contained in all partnership agreements. The government will bear practically all the expenditure in connection with this vast undertaking. Its share will be nine-tenths of the entire capital stock of the partnership, while the share of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is merely one-tenth. Therefore. I contend that before this Bill becomes 1 a w some provision should be made under which the government will be given absolute control over the entire ex-

penditure, and the Grand Trunk Pacific will not be in any sense permitted to enter into any agreement with the Grand Trunk or with any other party that would involve the expenditure of money contributed by the Dominion of Canada until the government of Canada has become aware of the purpose for which it is to be expended and made responsible for the expenditure. It is necessary in the interest of the country that whatever is done with the money which is provided for the purpose of constructing this vast undertaking the government of Canada should be made a consenting party and should concur in every expenditure that is made. This I think is more especially the case with reference to the capital stock of the company. The capital stock provided for the construction of this road is $45,000.000. The Bill provides that the Grand Trunk Company shall receive from the Grand Trunk Pacific the large sum of $25,000,000 of stock. To my mind the Grand Trunk Pacific should not be permitted to pass over this large sum of money to the Grand Trunk Company without the government being apprised of what was to be done with the money, who eventually should get the benefit of it, and therefore that no agreement should be entered into between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, with respect to that sum until the Governor in Council has approved of the agreement and of the disposition eventually to be made of that money. This would be an ordinary precaution in any business partnership entered into by any two individuals and surely a large transaction like this, the ordinary safeguards of every day business should not be overlooked when such a vast amount of money is under consideration. If the Grand Trunk Company is to get this $25,000,000 as is provided for in the Bill, they should not be permitted to do so, save with the approval of the government and the government should be held responsible for the final disposition of that money. I therefore beg to move, seconded by Mr. Ganong:
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by adding the following words to section 3 of the Bill
Every such agreement shall be subject to approval of the Governor in Council ; and a certified copy of every such agreement shall forthwith be deposited with the Secretary of State for Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Henderson) negatived on the same division.


Mr. RUFUS POPE (Compton).: Mr. Speaker, there has been good news circulated through the corridors not only of this House but of the hotel aud even in the streets, in places of gathering, and that is that the hon. Minister of Railways and Mr. HENDERSON.
Canals (Mr. Emmerson) is going to make a speech upon this subject. I am glad to see him present and I congratulate him upon at last having mustered up sufficient courage to venture to say a few words in connection with this subject. It is said that the speech is not altogether a new one, that it is one that has been under preparation for some time and that we very nearly had it some days ago. For some reason or other it was not delivered much to the regret of everybody, but it lias encouraged me to know- better late than never-that we are to be treated to some remarks from that hon. gentleman. Much as this question has been discussed and while there is not, perhaps, very much new material to be brought into this debate, at the same time, I feel that this question is sufficiently important that we need not hurry, even for the amusement of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who do not take seriously into consideration the import or meaning of the Bill before the House or what the general legislation on railways in Canada means not only to-day but has meant in the past. I have great respect for those men who have fought the battle of politics and those who in days gone by have introduced and carried through important legislation and also for those to-day who are working in the same direction. While these men worked well in their time and acted according to their lights, still we must be progressive. We must move forward with the new conditions of things as each and every condition throws some new light upon the legislation of -this House no matter if it is a subject that has been handled a long time and dealt with upon many occasions. I feel in connection with this subject that there is no country that has done so much for railways as Canada has done for her railways and which as a nation is receiving so little consideration. We are continuing this policy to-day. By this Bill and by the many Bills which are being introduced into this House we are increasing the tremendous burdens which have been placed upon the people of this country in the form of dividends and interest upon bonds. If any one takes the trouble -to examine the figures showing the extent of the burdens which we have imposed upon the people of Canada he will come to the conclusion that this is a serious question, that a reduction in the rates of transportation is essential to the prosperity and development of this country and that such reduction is not to be bad if we pursue the same policy in the future as we have pursued in the past and as we are pursuing at this time. Now Sir, I think it will not, perhaps, be out of place before I move the amendment that 1 am to move in connection with this subject if we should take into consideration seriously the tremendous obligations that the legislation of this country has imposed upon the people. While the situation as it at present exists is a difficult one for us to deal with, the longer we postpone action the more difficult the problem

will become. Some day it lias to be dealt with. We must all recognize and I am sure we do recognize that the railway is the common road of to-day. It is the same as the King's highway was in days gone by. We gave the King's highway to special people in the olden days when the toll-gate system prevailed, but one after another the toll-gates have dissappeared until now you can only find a remnant of this policy of the past in soipe parts of the country. If we hand over oitr special privileges, our citizenship and the right of transportation to corporations of private individuals associated together, the government of the day must assume the responsibility for so doing. Transportation is one of the functions of government. You cannot divest yourself of the fact that transportation in its entirety or in its details, or in the abstract or in whichever way you take it is one of the functions of government. The figures contained in the Statistical Year-book for 1902. which is the latest issue that I have been able to obtain, are rather against the continuation of the present policy, because, as I looked over these figures from year to year, I found that we were going from bad to worse. The railway mileage of the country is IS.867'83 miles. Deduct the Intercolonial Railway mileage of 1.510'94 miles and the mileage of the Grand Trunk main line, 728 miles, and that leaves a mileage built by subsidies from this country of 16,088-89. I am estimating that these roads in their original condition cost $20,000 a mile. That is the only estimate that I give as the rest of the figures which I propose to quote are absolutely statistical figures. I have ventured to say that these roads could be built for $20,000 a mile. Any lion, gentleman who takes issue with that is at liberty to make these figures less or make them greater as he may see fit, but he will find a tremendous burden resting upon the people of Canada just the same no matter on what basis he makes his calculation. Multiplying the number of miles by 20,000 we get the total cost of the railways in Canada and the result is $332,577,800. That money properly expended in my judgment should have constructed every line of railway that is now existing in Canada taking into consideration that you are bound to have certain improvements on these roads after the first construction the cost of which comes out of earnings and profits. If you look at the aid we have given to these roads we will find that the Dominion, provincial and municipal governments of Canada have given in cash $237,000,000 towards the construction of these roads. We will find that we have given about 60,000.000 acres of land. The land actually amounts to about 63.000,000 acres but some of it, not having been utilized up to date, I have placed tile figures at 00.000,000 acres. At a valuation of $2 per acre that will amount to $120,000,000 or a total of $357,000,000 that the people of Canada have paid towards the construction of roads that should not have and did not cost more than $332,577,^00. leaving a bonus of $21,475 per mile, the total bonus exceeding the total cost by $24,422,000. Besides that we have the loan of $15,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Railway which has never been returned. Including that $15,000,000, we have given as bonuses and aid and consideration, $39,422,000 more than the roads have cost, and yet as a nation we have no interest whatever in these roads. Under such circumstances the time has arrived when we should seriously consider the policy we have been following, as well as our future policy in aiding and assisting these transportation lines. But that is only the most harmless part of the story. We have authorized these railways by chartersl to: issue ordinary stock to the amount of $328,135,066, and we have also given them power to issue preferred stock to the extent of $132,266,767, or a total stock issue of $460,401,833. After we have bonused these roads for over twenty-four million dollars more than they cost, we gave them the perpetual privilege of taxing us to pay dividends on over $460,000,000 of stock. But that is not all. We have given them also the privilege of bonding these roads to the extent of $404,806,847, upon which vast sum of money the freight rates and passenger rates in this country must be based so as to pay dividends and interest; for it must be remembered that out of the people comes the interest and dividends which they pay on that $460,000,000 of stock issue. Let us see what these very charitable promoters of these schemes have done themselves. Up to last year they had put $11,000,000 all told into the construction of these lines of railway, making a grand total -not including the Grand Trunk loan-of one billion and ninety-eight millions eight hundred and fifty-two thousand two hundred and nine dollars, that we have loaned down the future possibilities of the transportation of this country with this enormous sum of over one billion dollars. There is not much use of us sitting in this parliament to discuss the question of lower transportation rates under these circumstances. Until a radical change comes over the sentiment of this House, until we realize that to the state and to the state alone ought belong the highways of this country, there is not much use in our trying to solve the transportation problem. These figures show that the liability per mile for the subsidies to railways and the money that we are paying interest on, amounts to $66,000 per mile. Before we can ever hope that freight rates will not continue to increase, we must remember that these people under the charters we have given them, have the right to tax us until they make that four hundred odd million dollars of stock bear what interest they are able

to wring out of us. Another view of the case is that over and above what we paid for these roads in good money, we find watered stock and bonds thrown into the hands of these speculators to the extent of $766,274,409, in addition to the value of the land grant, which being $120,000,000, would make a total of $886,274,409, which is purely speculative ownership in the railways of Canada, and which give a liability per mile in excess of cost of $46,000. The legitimate ambition of every railway corporation is to make its stock worth par or better than par, and taking the stock at par we have given them authority to have the earning power of these roads based on $46,000 per mile more than they [DOT] cost to build them. If you take the total capitalization, the shares, preference shares, and common shares, in 1901 these roads earned an average of five per cent. That being the average earning power of the Canadian railways, I think it will be admitted that the whole stock of all the railroads in Canada is precious nSar par, and the pieop'le have to bear that burden. Take that $766,000,000 at an average of five per cent, and you have a burden of $38,313,720 which the people of this country have to pay annually to the railway corporations. Now the total tonnage of freight in 1891 amounted to 34,000,000 tons, and that 34,000,000 tons had to bear this extraordinary burden of $38,000,000 a year in the way of interest. If the state had guaranteed these bonds they would have sold at a better price, or they would never have to be issued at all, because we had already paid enough money to build these roads. In that case of course the stock would never have existed as is the case on the Intercolonial Railway, and the result would be, that the people of Canada would have to pay $38,000,000 less in freight, or one dollar per ton less taking the total freight hauled in the year 1891 as a basis. Realizing as we do on this side of the House, our duty to the country, and realizing the bondage into which we may plunge our people by further injudicious expenditure in this matter, it is no wonder that when we come to 4 study these figures we keep you many days in the chair, Mr, Speaker, before we ven-true to impose upon the people of Canada any further burdens.
We have done something for the Grand Trunk Company, and we know what consideration we have had in return. We have recently seen the action of that corporation in the northern and western parts of the province of Ontario, where, by the mismanagement, or perhaps I should say the mis-judgment, of Mr. Hays, he saw fit to dismiss roadmasters and superintendents, who had been a long time in the employ of the Grand Trunk Railway, who were horn to the climatic conditions of this country, and were used to handling snow and knew how to get rid of it, and replace them Mr. POPE.
with men from the south, who were unacquainted with the climatic conditions of this country, and who allowed the railway to become blocked with snow day after day. To shield himself and to recompense the company, Mr. Hays said to the people of Ontario : You must pay for this, so we will increase the rates on the King's highway. I say the Grand Trunk Company has received some consideration from the people of Canada, as the following figures show :-
Original loan to Grand Trunk,
1855-57	
Simple interest due at confederation	
Simple interest due June 30, 1903	
Total principal and interest (6 p.c.) due June 30, 1903.... In addition to these sums advanced, the G.T.R. and its amalgamation received :- Dominion government aid ... Provincial aid -
Ontario____ .... $2,671,333
Quebec	 1,354,797
Municipal aid-
Ontario	$5,723, 954
Quebec		*	293,7 7 4
Total	
Amount given to the Great Western when debt was compounded in 1869	
Amount given to Northern Ry. in 1877	
Grand total
10,457,458
32,708,088
2,850,843
4,026,130
6,017,728
15,142,633
43,165,546
58,308,179
1,152,568
3,258,760
12,894,701
71,202,880
4,411,328
75,614,208
So, Mr. Speaker, we have done something for this great Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada ; and when it cares so little for the consideration that has been extended to it that under temporary adverse conditions, such as a heavy fall of snow or a severe winter, it seeks a rtfinedy for its difficulties by imposing higher rates, I say it is time that we knew where the public interests come in on the King's highway ; because I cannot take any other view, under modern conditions of development, than that the common highways of our grandfathers are largely things of the past, and that these roads, which have been subsidized and built with our moneys are the real King's highways, and should be subject to government control.
Another way of looking at the subject is to take the amount due at confederation, which was $15,142,633, and interest amount-

ing to $10,457,458, making in all $23,000,091 as principal on that date, and taking the average interest paid by the government as 5 per cent from that time until 1877 ; 4J per cent for the ten years 1877-87, 4 per cent from 1887-97 and 3i per cent from 1897 to 1903, and compounding the interest each half year (as the government has to pay for its money), the principal and interest would ' now amount to about $118,000,000. This does not take into account Dominion aid, provincial aid and municipal aid. When we look at these surprisingly large figures, when we take into account the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has received from us $75,000,000, I think we can afford to eradicate from the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite the statement that Canada owes very much to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and I think the Grand Trunk Railway Company ought to be able to stand without making any plea at the door of parliament for special consideration.
Now, I have taken a very deep interest In the discussion tliat has taken place in this House on this question. I have made some effort to solve the problems of the development of our Atlantic ports, the development of our great west, the carrying of the products of that great country down to the sea at the cheapest rates, and the [DOT]carrying back of the goods required for the sustenance and clothing of the people ; ami. Sir, looking at the figures which I have given, and realizing that the railway corporations have a right to impose what rates they see fit in order to provide reasonable dividends, and realizing the heavy burdens imposed by them on the people, I see no hope in the competition of private railroads for such a reduction of rates as is essential to the development of the east and the west. X may be wrong, but I see no possibility of this railroad entering into competition in the Northwest on any other basis than that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern and other railroads in that country. There will be additional facilities for the movement of the products of the country, but there will be no reduction of rates. As Mr. Hays said to the shareholders of his company in London : We can no longer guarantee the maintenance of the dividends that we have been paying unless we penetrate the great west and get a share of the carrying trade of that country for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. That is his object. It is a legitimate object. He represents the company ; he is paid to represent it. But, in view of the figures which X have given, is parliament to stand here and consent to increase the transportation burdens of this country, by a further issue of stock to the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the mere endorsation of a certain set of bonds ?
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that it is no use of my afguing this question. This government *comes to us with a closed book, whiclr can
only be opened by the man who wants better terms. The people of this country are not allowed to open that book ; but the man who wants to assume less responsibility and to make Canada assume more responsibility, lias the privilege of opening it and dictating the contract. Every line of that contract is dictated by the Grand Trunk people. The Grand Trunk Railway people played a holdup game on the Prime Minister and his government. They led the right hon. gentleman and his cabinet along last session until they got them to bring down a measure to this House, and tlien the great American railway man said to himself: We are not getting just what we want now, but we will leave this as it is until we get close to an election, and then we will say to the government : We cannot carry out this and you must give us better terms and conditions. Throughout the length and breadth of Canada, we had the government press and supporters lauding the contract' of last year, and they went on praising it until late in the autumn or early in the winter, when all at once they were made aware of the fact that the terms were not acceptable, and the whole bargain would have to be remodified. The government then found themselves in this position. They had either to change the terms so as to suit the Grand Trunk Railway or do what they have never yet done, exhibit some moral courage and backbone, and say to the people : We .have made a mistake and will now take the opportunity of undoing the evil we did. Instead of coming frankly to parliament and saying, these men deceived us, they led us into making a contract with them which they assured us their shareholders would ratify, now they are asking to have all those clauses struck out which last session we considered so necessary to protect the public interest, and we have decided to have nothing more to do with it-instead of doing this they agreed to everything the Grand Trunk Railway demanded, and struck out every one of those clauses which minister after minister last session declared so essential for the protection of the public. The right hon. the Prime Minister would have stood better in this House and in Canada, his name would go down to posterity in much better order if he had had the moral courage to say :	No Yankee promoter is
going to hold up the people of Canada so long as I represent them. He had not, however, the courage to do this, and now another story has to be told-a story of less responsibility to the railway company and greater responsibility and increased liability on the part of the people, and no cheaper freight rates when all is accomplished. The right hon. gentleman led the country to believe that this was to be an all-Canadian road for the development of Canadian ports and the transportation of Canadian products, but he has called on his followers to vote down amendment after amendment

proposed by the opposition which would have guaranteed that result. He has left this whole matter to the kind consideration of the Grand Trunk Railway, his partner in this scheme. Under certain conditions there is to be an appeal but to whom ? To the Railway Commission, but when we suggested that the contract itself, and not the Railway Act alone, should govern in every case, we were voted down. Every time a suggestion has been made which would give the people greater voice in the control of this railway and of the money going into it, that suggestion has been voted down. Look to the great seaports of the United States and the wonderful improvements that are taking place in them. Behind these ports there is a tremendous nation of 80,000,000 people. Compare that to the population behind the Canadian ports. You can get line after line of steamers to go to American ports which we cannot get to ours. That is due to the fact that the American railways have been developed to a stage of perfection which ours have not reached, and the volume of ocean tonnage also. I do not believe that there is any desire to develop the carrying trade of this country on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. Nor will that trade be properly developed until we have a national-owned and operated railway. No doubt there will be development in our western country and no doubt that country would develop even if this parliament never sat again, but we are here to stimulate that development. and in my opinion that country will not progress at the rate we desire unless we have a transcontinental government road across the prairies and the mountains down to the sea-board of British Columbia. I am a government-owned railway advocate. I supported it against my party in the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal and I do not regret it. but when I see men on the other side who dare not talk against government ownership in their own constituencies, bending with such docility under the party lash, it almost makes me feel that while I have no apology to offer to my judgment, I have really an apology to offer to the Conservative party for having been independent in holding my own views in days gone by. Take this Transcontinental Railway system, placed as it is in the hands of a corporation, and what have we got ? Have we got a fair rate-creating institution ? If you will take the books of any railway corporation and analyse them you will find in them the most unfair treatment of traffic that you could possibly imagine. You will find some people charged as much for 100 miles as others are for 40 or 50 miles. We have competitive points established by these great corporations ; but if you are not at one of These points you must pay whatever rates they choose to Mr. POPE.
charge. Just treatment, Sir, at the hands of the government is as essential to the rights of citizens as justice rendered by the courts. The fundamental principle of government should be to protect the people and give them justice with regard to transportation when they are paying for it. What right has a railway corporation to develop one town at the expense of another ? Or to give a preference to certain individuals over others ?
That has been the history of all transcontinental railroads in America, and the lines are being laid that history may repeat itself in this case also. You should know, Mr. Speaker, for I know, and what I know is common talk, for I have no special way of obtaining knowledge on this subject, that there is to-day and has been for a year or more a combination of men, Mr. Cox and others, who put in a' certain sum of money and hire their engineers, their specialists, their geologists and mineralogists and send them trooping over the route this Grand Trunk Pacific is expected to follow. They are gobbling up the great natural resources of that country. And, when the settler goes along there, he will find in the possession of these people all special privileges. And when the railway is built, you will find special rates entered in the rate books of the Grand Trunk Pacific for the benefit of the men who have exploited that country for their own pockets. With this condition of affairs, looking forward I see no relief from unfair transportation charges. And all because we have not secured in our own right that which we pay for. I see no relief through handing over holus-bolus to a private corporation the power to tax us as they please up to a certain amount. I do not wish to reflect upon the personnel of the commission, nor do I wish to reflect upon the integrity of the government, but I say I have very little respect for the interference of any government with a strong corporation that has a voting power and influence throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is natural that the government should wish to remain where they are. But their remaining there seems to necessitate the acceptance of aid in the time of their trial. And for that aid they lend themselves to these corporations. They take the money ; it is handed out to the electorate ; the facts are afterwards exposed in the courts of the land and there you have modern government under existing conditions. For my part, I would be disposed to construct this road for the people and by the people, and to operate it through an independent commission that would be beyond party influence and would be answerable only to the parliament of Canada. I believe this policy would be much cheaper to the people and would do something in the way of securing justice to the men who are to do business in Canada. Why, Sir,

when we are pressed by these corporations we sometimes have to go so far as to bring down our books and show the rate of profit we have, in order that we, may convince them that we are entitled to some reduction in rates. That is not at all infrequent. But you never hear of a railroad company bringing their books for you to see how low they can make the rates.
I have seen an estimate made that public ownership of railways in the United States would mean a saving to the nation of $160,000,000 a year. It would mean a reduction of the workman's day to eight hours, it would mean practically the carrying of the mails free ; it would mean the elimination from the legislature of what is known as railroad politics-and there is no worse form of politics than that. We see these rings joining together, forming, link by link, a chain around the Railway Committee of Canada, and those chains are being more strongly welded every day. I do not blame these promoters ; I do not blame these interests for what they do. If this country wants to be flim-flammed for more than the $400,000,000 it has already paid, I do not blame those to whom the money is to be given. But the question arises whether we, as independent, thinking men. as representatives of Canada, as trustees of the public funds of Canada-aye, Mr. Speaker, as trustees of what is infinitely more sacred, the future welfare and prosperity of Canada-should give our assistance to* the welding of these links and the lengthening of these chains until they bind our country fast beyond the possibility of rescue. In my judgment, if we transfer to a private corporation so important a means of communication as this transcontinental line, we shall have gone a long way towards making the position of the people intolerable, and removing from ourselves the possibility of coming to their relief when the demand arises, as it will some day. And that some day does not mean a time in the distant and unknown future. I believe that before ten years passes by the burning question in this House will be the demand from the people of Canada for equity and justice in the matter of transportation charges levied by these railway corporations.
An hon. gentleman on the other side of the House the other evening wanted to know if there had been much progress made in the direction of government ownership. If that hon. gentleman would take the pains to look up the records, he would find that outside of the United States a very large proportion oHhe world has already adopted the principle "or government ownership. He would find that throughout the world outside of the United States, the privately-owned lines have an aggregate mileage of 88,000 miles, while the public owned roads are 146,000 miles. So. Sir. the rest of the world-is not asleep. And t he older a nation 108
grows the more keenly the people feel the evils of private ownership. There is no province of this Dominion to which the remarks I am making will appeal with greater force than the province of Ontario. That province is becoming thickly settled. Each man thinks he has the right of citizenship in the same degree as his next-door neighbour ; and the moment one begins to take that position he begins to feel as a personal injury the unfair treatment the railway corporations are meting out to men in business and in every other walk of life. If the hon. gentleman who asked after the progress of public ownership would look into the figures he would find that out of fifty-one nations,\ forty-one have public railroads and twenty-nine have privately-owned railroads ; twenty-one have publicly-owned railroads only, and of the fifty-one nations there are only nine that have no public railways whatever. It is not necessary that I should go into details on this point. But if the hon. gentleman -will study the books and pamphlets that are being published on this subject, written by men of worth and of high reputation as experts in transportation problems, they will find plenty of evidence in favour of public ownership-in fact, I do not know but they will find a ' mountain of information ' as big as the mountain of information that the Prime Minister thought he had discovered regarding the northern country. The hon. gentleman would find that this question was attracting the attention of the world. He woujd realize that in the Railway Committee of this House we are making no progress, no improvement, but are going on the same as in former times granting to favoured individuals these special privileges of imposing burdens upon the country for all time in the future. I realize that this corporation is going to be formed, and I believe that this road is going to be built -whether for the best interests of the east, whether for the best' interests of the west, certainly, in the best interest of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his colleagues. Whether there are other and greater interests than cabinet interests is more than I can say. The mere argument that the construction of a railway will do good is no argument at all. We know that the construction of a railway almost anywhere will do some good. But the question is how this expenditure of $150,000,000 can be made to yield the greatest benefit. That is a problem that we should consider.
I would be inclined to work on the lines indicated by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), only 1 would advocate perhaps more strongly than he did- but I do not think with any more earnest desire of its early accomplishment-the extension of the government owned line to the Pacific coast. In view of the fact that the Grand Trunk are to be given,


P.EVISED EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
to dispose of at their own sweet will, the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific for the mere endorsation of a contract, and in view of the fact that we as a nation and as a people have also endorsed $3 of bonds to every $1 which they guarantee, I say that if the Grand Trunk are entitled to a portion of the stock, the people of Canada are entitled to their percentage according to the liability they assume. This resolution which I am about to move was also moved in committee. I remember the argument of the Minister of the Interior on it. He succeeded in convincing me more than did any gentleman opposite that if Canada wishes to protect herself, to guard her interests and to get value for the money she puts in, she should safeguard these interests in this contract, and here is one method of safeguarding. The 'lion, gentleman was frank ; I give him credit for being frank. He said the Grand Trunk Pacific had no financial standing, no way of raising money. The other parties with whom the Minister of Railways, on behalf of the government, signed his name in full as the representative of the people of Canada, were worthless, were incapable of carrying' out their agreement, and the government depended on this thin thread of the endorsation of one-quarter of the bonds by the Grand Trunk as security. Under these circumstances, I am convinced that if there is any difficulty in the future in regard to the carrying out of this contract -and we are told by the members of the government who have spoken that money must be raised for many things-we may find that further aid is needed from the people of Canada, and I say that, as a safeguard, as a just and right precaution in a business partnership, we, as the people of Canada, should have a voice in the fixing of these rates when the time comes. Consequently, I move, seconded by Mr. Rosamond :
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same by adding thereto the following to section 3 of the Bill :
Provided always that when and so often as any share of the capital stock of the Pacific Company shall be so given to the Grand Trunk Company, or be allotted or handed over to the Grand Trunk Company under the provisions of section 11 of the Act incorporating the Pacific Company, thereupon three of the like shares shall be given, allotted and handed over to the Dominion of Canada in part consideration for the aid given to the Pacific Company.
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I might say to my hon. friend that I listened with very great interest to the speech which fie has just made. It was in many respects an important one, and contained a great deal of information. It was as strong an argument as I have heard on the floor of the House in favour of government ownership, but my hon. friend cannot expect to have convinced the government or the House,
Mr. POPE
because he does not seem to have convinced himself. Whilst he argued in favour of government ownership, he refrained from the conclusion which his argument warranted, and he concluded with a motion which we have heard discussed before, a motion which was presented a few days before by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). As the motion was then fully discussed on both sides, I do not know that there is anything more to be said upon it
House divided	on amendment of Mr. Pope. Alcorn,	YEAS : Messieurs Lavell
Armstrong,	Lefurgey,-
Avery,	Leonard,
Barker,	MacLaren (Perth),
Bell,	McGowan,
Blain,	Monk,
Borden (Halifax),	Northrup,
Boyd	Pope,
Bruce,	Porter,
Carscallen,	Puttee,
Clancy,	Richardson,
Clare,	Robinson (Elgin),
Clarke,	Rosamond,
Cochrane,	Sherritt,
Donnelly,	Sproule,
Earle,	Taylor,
Gilmour,	Thomson (Grey),
Hackett,	Tolton,
Halliday,	Vrooman,
Henderson,	Wilmot,
Ingram,	Wilson.-43.
Kidd,	NAYS : Messieurs
Archambault,	Loy,
Bazinet,	Macdonald,
Bdland,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Bickerdike,	Macpherson,
Blanchet,	McCarthy,
Bourassa,	McCool,
Brodeur,	McEwen,
Bureau,	McGugan,
Calvert,	Mclsaac,
Campbell,	McLennan,
Carbonneau,	Malouin,
Champagne,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Christie,	Matheson,
Delisle,	Mayrand,
Demers (Ldvis),	Meigs,
Demers (St. John)	Mignault,
Desjardins,	Morrison,
Douglas,	Mulock (Sir William),
Erb,	Murray,
Fielding,	Oliver,
Fisher,	Parmelee,
Fitzpatrick,	Paterson,
Fortier,	Prdfontaine,
Galliher,	Proulx,
Gauvreau,	Riley,
Geoffrion,	Rivet,
Gervais,	Roche (Halifax),
Gibson,	Ross (Ontario),
Girard,	Ross (Rimouski).
Gould,	Ross (Victoria. N.S.),
Grant,	Rousseau,
Guthrie,	Russell,

Harwood,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Hyman,
Johnston (Lambton),
Lang,
Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Laurier (L'Assomption),Tolmie. Lavergne,	Tucker,
(Drummond & Artha.) Turcot, Lavergne (Montmagny), Turgeon, Lemieux,	Wade,
Logan,	Wright.-92.
Lovell,
Scott,
Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Vancouver), Stephens,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Talbot,
PAIRS :
Ministerial.
Angers,
Cowan,
McColl,
Emmerson,
LeBlanc,
Reid (Restigouche), Costigan,
Hughes (P.E.I.), Thompson (Haldimand) Dyment,
German,
Brown,
Beith,
Bourbonnais,
Davis,
Charlton,
Copp.
Monet,
Ross (Yukon),
Bruneau,
Schell,
Harty,
Wallace,
Dugas,
Mackie,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Kendall,
Haszard,
Sutherland (Oxford), Lewis,
Cartwright,
Ethier,
Gallery,
Law,
MacKinnon,
Marcil (Bagot),
Power,
Tobin,
Johnston (Cape Breton),
Amendment (Mr. P
Opposition.
Casgrain,
Pringle,
Ward,
Fowler,
LaRivigre,
Hale,
Morin,
Kemp,
, Bennett,
McCormick,
Lancaster,
Ball,
Calvin,
Gourley,
Kendry,
Lennox,
Porter,
Roddick,
Smith (Wentworth), Brock,
Birkett,
Reid (Grenville), Tisdale,
Tarte,
McIntosh,
Kaulbach,
Roche (Marquette), Johnston (Cardwell). Haggart,
Daniel.
Tupper,
Broder,
Culbert,
Hughes (Victoria), Maclean,
Robinson (North.), Seagram,
Osier,
Ganong.
ope) negatived.


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment which I propose moving and which is as follows :
It is hereby declared that the intent and meaning of the agreement, a copy of which forms the schedule to the National Transcontinental Railway Act, was, and as modified by the supplementary agreement, a copy of which forms a schedule to this Act, is, that the rolling stock in the twenty-second clause of the said original agreement mentioned, as the first equipment, shall be so acquired by the Pacific Company that an absolute and indefeasible interest therein shall rest in the said company subject to the several mortgages referred to in clause 35 of this agreement, and free from any 108J
prior charge, rent, or interest whatsoever, whether as working expenditure or otherwise.
This question has been fully dealt with in committee, and I simply move the amendment for the purpose of placing it on ' Hansard ' and having the division recorded showing where hon. members stand on this question. It is a very important one in the interest of the country, but 1 shall not discuss it further as it was fully discussed in committee.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is a question that was very fully discussed when the Bill was considered in committee, and I desire now to briefly say what I have already said that the conclusion which the government has come to in reference to this rolling stock is that it is necessary in view of the terms of the agreement that the company should have absolute title, such as is described in this amendment, to that rolling stock to comply with the terms of the contract.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I agree that it is necessary in the public interest, but I do not at all agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that it is clear under the terms of this agreement without the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Taylor) negatived on the same division.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a similar motion to that which I moved when we were in Committee of the Whole regarding one clause of this Bill :
Moved by Mr. Sproule, seconded by Mr. Cars-callen, that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the Bill by adding thereto the following section.
Should the government be of the opinion at any time during the continuance of any obligation of the government in respect of the western division, or during the lease of the eastern division that the earnings upon the traffic interchange between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's system of railways and the system of railways of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, have not been properly apportioned between the said two companies, the question of such apportionment shall be determined by the arbitrators to be appointed by the government, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada in the manner provided by paragraph 47 of the agreement, or shall be determined by the Board of Rail-way Commissioners as mentioned in section 19 of the said agreement.
I need not refer at any length to this because I dwelt upon it when the discussion in committee took place. There will be three interested parties in the operation of this combined railway system, and this amendment is for the purpose of enabling the government to determine whether the earnings of freight and traflic over the three roads is equitably divided between the three.

There is a provision already in the contract for a division of the earnings between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the company which leases and operates the government's portion of the road, and the government system of railways and in the event of the government deciding that the earnings have not been properly divided they can resort to arbitration as provided for in clause 44 of the contract. But, in the event of the government deciding that there has not been a proper division of the earnings between the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which operates the government's eastern division and the government system of railways, there is no method at their disposal for determining this or for referring the question to a board of arbitrators. This is to provide for that, and I shall move the resolution, Mr. Speaker, and place it in your hands.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When this amendment was up for consideration in the Committee of the Whole it was then argued on behalf of the government that provision was already to be found in the Railway Act which would enable the Board of Railway Commissioners to make the investigation necessary to meet the object which this amendment has in view, but as it is possible that sections 206 and 207 of the Railway Act do not go far enough, as I said during the course of the discussion, it is the intention of the government to amend section 267 so as to accomplish the object that my hon. friend has in mind.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that the proposed amendments to the Railway Act, were to be submitted to us before we voted on these questions. I imagine that the time at command of the Minister of Justice, has not enabled him to accomplish what he desired in that respect.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I drafted the amendments, and I have them here, but they only came to me this afternoon, and I should like to have an opportunity to consider them and submit them to the other members of the government. I hope to be in a position to hand these amendments to my hon. friend very soon.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that the Minister of Justice would be able to give them to us to-day, but not having done so, it naturally follows that we are inclined to persevere in our amendment. I will not go into any further discussion of this subject, because it has been discussed very fully in committee. What we desire to accomplish by means of the amendment is, that the country should be safeguarded in respect to the apportionment of rates between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific systems. Under the law as it is at present the country is not properly safeguarded. It may be that the Mr. SPROULE.
amendment to the Railway Act which the Minister of Justice will introduce later may accomplish what we desire, but in the meantime we must proceed.
Amendment (Mr. Sproule) negatived on the same division.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr.  J. R. T.@: AY ELL (Leeds and Grenville)
I wish to submit to the House the amendment that was moved by me in committee yesterday afternoon. I do not desire to repeat the argument I then made, nor do I think that a proposition such as this requires argument to commend it to the House. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have power to build branches from the eastern section to connect with, first :	the headwaters of the St. Lawrence navigation system ; next at North Bay with the Grand Trunk system, and again at Montreal with the nearest seaport. If, at the end of fifty years the government should take over this road, the Grand Trunk retain running powers over it for fifty years longer, and if they retain the possession of these paying branches, particularly the three to which I have referred, the government cannot bring any freight from the west, save to Quebec, without paying toll to the Grand Trunk Company. It is very important that this should not be the case. The Grand Trunk can practically hold the government up, and hold the country up in connection with these tolls, if they can hold in their hands the outlet of that eastern section to the points I have mentioned and particularly to Lake Superior. It is, I think, admitted by all that in the summer time, giain can be carried cheaper by the water route, and so far as we can see now, export grain from the Territories and Manitoba will certainly be brought to some point on Lake Superior to which these branch lines may be built. If the government have no power to take possession of any lines except such as the Grand Trunk Railway Company may choose to give them, they will have no connection with the lake system unless they build parallel roads. It is not in the interest of the country as a business transaction ; it is not in the interest of the people who use these roads ; it is not in the interest of lower freight rates in the west, that grain seeking an outlet during the season of navigation should have to travel over two roads coming from Winnipeg. in order to reach the water route. All that difficulty can be obviated by the government arranging now to purchase such branches as they may need, under exactly the same terms as the Grand Trunk have called upon the government to agree to with respect to the branch lines which the Grand Trunk does not care to keep. The

contention was raised in the committee, that the Grand Trunk might profitably work these connecting lines, and therefore had better keep them ; but it seems to me that we should look at this matter purely from the standpoint of the country whose representatives we are, and that we should consider what position the country will be in when the time comes, if it ever does come, when it may have to take upon itself the operation of this transcontinental line. When that day does come, it is self evident that the country should have branch lines, and should have the right to purchase any lines that may connect the main line with important points in Ontario and Quebec, or with the lakes. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Kidd :
That the Bill be amended by adding the following section.
If at the expiration of the lease mentioned in the 11th paragraph of the supplementary agreement the Pacific Company should elect not to retain one or more of the branch lines in such clause mentioned, the government shall be entitled in such case to take over not only such branch line or lines as the said company so elects not to retain, but any one or more of the remaining branch lines which the government under the circumstances may think necessary or requisite for the efficient or profitable operation of the eastern division, and the value thereof shall be determined in the manner, and subject to the deductions, in the said 11th paragraph set forth.
Amendment (Mr. Lavell) negatived on the same division.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to propose, seconded by Mr. Cochrane.
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to insert the following as section '	:-
Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the said supplementary agreement contained the amount of interest payable by the government without recourse against the Pacific Company under the provisions of the 32nd paragraph of the said original agreement shall not be increased but shall remain and continue as fixed and provided in the said original agreement and as if the first, fourth and fifth clauses of the said supplementary agreement were not therein contained, and as if the said three clauses formed no part of the scheduled agreements or of any agreement between the parties thereto.
This motion was pretty fully discussed the other day in Committee of the Whole. What we call for is that the government, ii: the changed agreement, shall not increase the liability of the country or the amount of interest that is to be paid by the people of Canada in respect of this railway. I pointed out in the committee the other day that under the original agreement on the 500 miles which are termed the mountain section, the government guaranteed $30,000 per mile, making a total guarantee of $15,-
000,000. Under that agreement the country was to pay $3,150,000 of interest. Under the new agreement the country is called upon to guarantee three-fourths of the total cost of the 500 miles of the mountain section. The estimated cost of that is $50,000 per mile ; add $6,000 per mile of interest during construction, which makes a total estimated cost of $56,000 per mile. Three-fourths of that is $42,000 per mile, making a total guarantee by the country under the new agreement of $21,000,000. Interest on this amount for seven years would be $4,410,000. Thus you will notice that under this changed agreement, which is regarded as very unimportant by some members of the government and by some of their supporters, we are called on to increase our guarantee by $6,000,000 and our payment of interest by $1,260,000.


Mr. MONET.: Whose estimates are these?


Richard Blain: These are not my estimates. I do not pretend to present estimates, not being a railway man. These are the estimates of Sir Rivers-Wilson, president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and I am quite sure that my hon. friend will accept them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, no.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Justice shakes his head. I am very sorry that hen. gentleman does not hold so high an opinion of Sir Rivers-Wilson, who seems to have had considerable influence in the government since the last session of parliament. Every change made in the agreement which passed at the last session of parliament is a change not in the interest of the country. All the changes are in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I do not think it is too much for me to say that Sir Rivers-Wilson does hold considerable influence with the present administration. This is a question which, in so far as the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned, was not entered into hastily. When it was before the Railway Committee at the last session of parliament, Mr. Hays, the general manager of the company, attended the committee from day to day, and very carefully watched the proceedings ; and while the agreement was being prepared, Mr. Hays was in constant communication with the government, and all these questions were submitted to him for his ap-pioval. After that agreement was debated many weeks and months in this House, and was thoroughly understood by the government and people of Canada, so far as the liability of the country was concerned, we on this side of the House were a little surprised to find the Grand Trunk Pacific Company coming forward shortly after the close of the session and saying. We cannot fulfil the agreement we have entered into, and we call upon the government to change it. The government did change

it, and this changed agreement increases to a very considerable extent the liability and the cash payment of the people of Canada. Some /hon. gentlemen opposite venture to say that this changed agreement, in so far as the paragraph which I am asking the government to amend is concerned, places no increased liability on the country. If that be true, I do not think the government can refuse to accept this amendment. But I do not think the government will say that it is true. The Minister of Justice understands that this changed agreement does increase enormously the liability and the cash payment of the country. 1 think the government should have been more careful about the interests of Canada. This is a great enterprise, involving an expenditure of from $150,000,000 to $175,900.000, and I think it would have been just to the people of this country that the government, bearing in mind that parliament was to assemble within a short time, should have laid this agreement on the table of the House, and allowed the opposition as well as their own supporters io discuss it, before putting their seal to it. I think they should at least have seen to it that any changes made in the agreement adopted at the last session of parliament should have been in the interest of the people of Canada instead of being ail in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


Charles Fitzpatrick: An amendment similar in terms was offered for consideration, I think, by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), and as it had to do with the financial clauses of the agreement, it was dealt with by the Minister of Finance. I do not think there is anything I can add to what my hon. colleague said, and I would ask that I be considered now as repeating the remarks made by him.
Amendment (Mr. Blain) negatived.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I desire to move :
That the Bill he amended by adding thereto the following section.
Notwithstanding anything in the scheduled agreements, or in this Act, or in the Act here hy amended contained, it is hereby declared and enacted that in the event of the government determining to undertake the operation of the eastern division upon the termination of the said lease, the government shall he entitled for a further period of fifty years to such running powers and haulage rights over the western division, or any portion thereof and over any branch line or lines running from any point or points in the eastern division as may be necessary or expedient in the opinion of the government, upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the government and the Pacific Company, or as may from time to time in case of failure to so agree be determined in the manner provided by clause 24 (2) of the original agreement, which is hereby made applicable to cases arising under this section.


Richard Blain: 
Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the examination of this question, which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice intended making, he has not yet been able to make, and therefore I would ask my hon. friend to let his amendment stand. '


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have to claim the indulgence of my hon. friend, who moved this amendment, and of the House. I intended looking into this matter last night, but have been so busy with other clauses of the Bill that I have not had the time, and I would prefer that the amendment should stand over until after the adjournment.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have no objection to withdrawing the amendment provided that shall not preclude me from proposing it again after the adjournment and accompanying it with such further remarks as I may deem necessary.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Certainly not.
Amendment (Mr. Ingram) withdrawn.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: I have an amendment, the object of which is to secure the enforcement of certain very important clauses in the original Act, namely, clauses 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. The object of clause 41 is to secure the efficiency of service, clause 42 provides for the routing of freight, clause 43 is intended to develop trade through Canadian channels, clause 44 provides for a fair division of traffic, and clause 45 compels the company to provide shipping facilities on the Atlantic and Pacific. And, in the original contract there is no provision made for the investigation

of these matters. It would seem an oversight on the part of that government which admitted the propriety, we might say the necessity, of such provisions by their insertion in the original contract not to have any provision made for their investigation. So, practically, as the Bill stands, the House was merely expressing its opinion that these -would be desirable conditions, but no means are provided for securing their enforcement. In order to provide that these may not be merely ornamental but also useful clauses, T beg to move, seconded by Mr. Bruce :
That the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to amend it, by adding thereto the following section.
1.	In the event of	any	complaint	beingmade that the terms and provisions of the	41st, 42nd, 43rd,	44th	and 45th clausesof	the agreement, a	copy	of which	formsa schedule to the National Transcontinental	Railway Act are	not	being duly	complied with and observed, suih complaint and all circumstances connected with such non-compliance or non-observance shall be immediately investigated and reported upon by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and their report with the evidence shall be laid before parliament forthwith, or if parliament be not then in session, within the first ten days of the next following session for such action thereon as parliament may deem expedient.2.	The Pacific Company and the Grand Trunk Company shall be duly notified of such investigation and shall have the right to appear and to be heard thereat.
The remarks I have already made, will explain why I think it desirable that there should be some way of enforcing these clauses, and it has occurred to us that the practical way is that, if any complaint is made, the Railway- Commissioners, to whom .we have lately given such wide powers, should be instructed to investigate and report to the House, leaving it for the House to move. If the matter is left as it is now, when complaints are made, there will be nothing upon which parliament could base action. The second clause provides that the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific be notified. This is in order that no injustice may be done. The Grand Trunk being responsible for the policy of the company, should be notified, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, being the company itself, should be notified. They should have an opportunity to appear before the Railway Commissioners, so that when the case is laid before the House it may not be an ex-parte statement, but a complaint with the evidence to support that complaint on one side and the statement of the railway company's case on the other side.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When this amendment was offered for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole, I expressed the opinion that the object in view could be accomplished under the provisions of section 45 of the Railway Act. I have bad
occasion to look into the matter more fully since I expressed that opinion, and I do not see at the present time, any reason to depart from it. I would therefore, ask the House to reject the amendment. At the same time I intend to look into the matter still more fully, and if there seems reason for changing the opinion I have already formed, I will prepare an amendment to the Railway Act to meet the difficulty which my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) suggests.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it is perfectly clear, that in the Railway Act, there is no pointing out of a remedy by parliament, as there is in this proposed amendment. Whether or not the Railwav Act provides for investigation in a case of this kind is a question on which there *night be some legitimate difference of opinion. I do not think the Railway Act does provide for it. Ho'wever, I would not be surprised if my hon. friend tha Minister of Justice differed from me. The reason why I think that it does not apply is that the scheduled agreement does not seem to he so made a part of the statute as to constitute it a portion of the special Act. I think a very strong argument might be made to that effect. But, if we put that to one side altogether, the importance of this amendment is that it points the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific to a remedy which may be exercised by parliament upon the report of the board of Railway Commissioners in the ease indicated by the amendment. That is a most important feature of this amendment, and would be a very important feature of the Bill, if it were added. It would give to parliament the undoubted right, without breach of good faith, to take action in such a case. I do not know whether my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is able to catch what I say. May we have better order, Mr. Speaker ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is so much noise that I have abandoned the idea of hearing.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be a great relief, Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen who desire to carry on conversation would retire either to No. 16 or to No. 0, and conduct their conversation there. Those rooms are provided for that purpose. Not only does conversation here interfere with the business of parliament, but it seems to me decidedly bad manners for gentlemen in this House, when a discussion is being attempted on matters of serious im' port, to persist in conversing at the top of their voices. I cannot understand why it is done. I do not know that it is done more on one side than on the other, but whether it is done on one side or the other, I, for one, protest against it.


Mr. OLIVER.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) turn his eye to the left ?


Robert Laird Borden: I said I was not speaking of one side more than of the other. Did not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) understand that ? If he did not understand it, let me repeat it-I was not speaking of one side more than the other.


Frank Oliver: I was merely-


Robert Laird Borden: Now, if my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) will pardon me, we do not need to continue this discussion. I had great difficulty to-night in understanding what my hon. friend the.Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was saying, though he was speaking in a fairly loud tone of voice, and he tells me that he cannot hear what I am saying although I am speaking as distinctly and as loudly as I can.
What I was. remarking is this-in case parliament needs to take action in the future, fair notice should be given now to the Grand Trunk Pacific and to the Grand Trunk that any failure on their part to fulfil the terms of their agreement will he followed by action of parliament in that way. If we impose no stipulation on the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I do not think that parliament would be fairly in a position to act in the matter afterwards. If the Grand Trunk Company, although controlling the policy of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, was not itself guilty of violating any stipulation contained in this agreement by which it had been bound, I do not think that parliament should be invoked in such a case unless there is contained in this agreement some provision which shall serve as a notice to the Grand Trunk Company, that the action of parliament can be invoked. For that reason I regard this amendment as an important one, and for this reason it is that in the absence of any such amendment to the Railway Act, as that which has been suggested by the Minister of Justice, we ask that the Bill shall be amended in accordance with the terms of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup).
Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived on the same division.


Mr. M. K. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: I have an amendment to offer with respect to the rate of interest to be paid as a rental by the Grand Trunk Pacific for the use of the eastern section under this agreement. While it is quite specifically defined in this agreement that the lease shall be at the rate of 3 per cent on the total cost to the country of the construction of the road, we are left at sea as to what that cost will amount to to the country. We know that the money for its construction will have to be borrowed, and yet even with the conditions the best that have ever been known Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
in Canada, money cannot be borrowed at that rate, and it is not conceivable that when the Canadian government enters into such a huge speculation, shall I call it, as the building of this road, taking into consideration all its conditions and all its probabilities, Canadian credit is likely to improve to such an extent that money will be procurable at a lower rate than it is to-day ; the probabilities apj)ear rather to be in the opposite direction. It is not likely that for years to come at any rate we shall be able under the very best conditions to borrow money at 3 per cent, which is the rate fixed at which the Grand Trunk shall pay for the road. I offer all amendment to it as follows, seconded by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Thomson) :
Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the Act amended, or in the scheduled agreements contained, the rental to be paid by the Pacific Company in respect of the eastern division under the lease thereof shall be payable half-yearly and shall not be less than the average rate of interest payable from time to time upon the moneys borrowed by the government for the construction of the eastern division.
In offering this amendment I am fully conscious of the fact that having already come under the consideration of this parliament it is not likely to be carried now, but we on this side of the House feel it our duty to emphatically and as clearly as we can, place ourselves on record as to what our views are on this very important arrangement which has been entered into between the government of Canada, the people of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. This apparently insignificant difference between 3 per cent and 3* per cent which is the best rate at which we can procure money, totals up a very large item on the total cost of the road, and for the whole period for which the Grand Trunk will have the privilege of practically owning it for the nominal payment of a rental. It does seem a reasonable and fair thing that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should pay at least as much rental as the government has to pay for the money which they borrow. Taking into consideration all the privileges that are granted to this company and all the advantages that are given to them under this contract, in the original contract and in the improved conditions which they have got under the amendments which have been suggested and added thereto by the Grand Trunk themselves, it seems to me that this apparently small concession should be made by that company. It may seem small, but it is a very important one, running up into millions of dollars. It is estimated by the great railway expert of this country, that there is a difference of some $18,000,000, possibly more than that under the improved conditions in favour of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and therefore it seems that they should be compelled to

pay for the rental of the eastern division at least at the same rate of interest that it would cost the country to borrow the money for the extension. .
Then, Sir, while the provision is made in the contract that the rental is to be paid over to the government annually at a certain time of the year it would be but reasonable that being in possession of the road continually and deriving revenue from it constantly they should at least pay that interest half yearly. This would be an important difference to the exchequer and a provision of this kind should we think be embodied in the Bill. If this is not adopted at least we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have asked from the government on behalf of the people of Canada that which seems to be a reasonable and fair thing, and one which should be conceded in all fairness to the country in view of the extensive . privileges granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific in respect to this part of the contract. In asking the concession of these two points, the payment of rental half yearly and the payment of a rate of interest at least equivalent to the average cost to the country of the borrowed money, we are simply asking what should be done in justice to the people of Canada. As I said before we may not succeed in having these amendments carried, but we feel that tlie country should know that we as representatives of various sections of Canada have been voicing our views of what is fair and just, and we believe that in doing so we are voicing the opinions of the mass of the electors who are behind us and to whom we have to give an account of our stewardship. We believe that these very reasonable amendments will meet with the approval and the endorsation of the mass of the people who think on these matters irrespective of any political bias which they may have. Therefore, I would submit this amendment to the House without any further discussion.
Mr. FITZPATRICK, In reference to this amendment as well as to that moved by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) I beg to say that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who is especially charged with the financial arrangements of the government, dealt with that question from the financial standpoint in committee, and I should prefer to echo here merely what he said at that time and assume that what he said would be the answer for the government if he were present at this time.


Mr. T. I. THOMSON (North Grey).: I think this is a very reasonable amendment and one which will receive the support of the country if it does not receive the support of this House. I do not see why we should be called upon to construct the eastern section of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, borrow the money, possibly, at three and a half per cent, assume all the responsibility and risk in connection with this expenditure and then give the road over to the company at a rental which shall be less than the rate which we have to pay in interest. 1 believe that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should pay the government in rent what the interest will cost us. It is not likely that this country will be able to borrow money for years to come at any better rate than we are borrowing at today. The government cannot borrow money to-day at three per cent. With the increased demand for money by the government of Canada, with the liabilities which will have to be met from time to time and with the increasing requirements of this country it must be that our credit will not stand as well in the future as it has in the past. I believe that we will have to pay considerably more than three per cent for the money which is required to construct the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I do; not see why we should be asked to pay a greater rate of interest than we ask the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to pay for the use of the road. That being the case I think this is a reasonable amendment and one that ought to commend itself to every member of this House, as I am satisfied that it will commend itself to the country. I therefore shall have much pleasure in supporting this amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Richardson) negatived on the same division.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothweli).: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has so set his face against reason and the amendments up to this time that I have somewhat despaired of the hon. gentleman acceding to anything that was even so completely within the bounds of reason that it would be difficult to find a justification for his resistance. I beg leave to move the following amendment:
That the Bill he not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to add the following section thereto : -
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 3 of the supplementary agreement it is hereby provided that in the event of the completion of that portion of the eastern division which shall extend from a point at or near Winnipeg easterly to the point of junction with the Pacific Company's branch line to Lake Superior, or easterly to the point of junction with the Pacific Company's branch line to North Bay, before the completion by the Dominion of Canada of the -whole eastern division, then the Pacific Company shall he entitled to lease, and shall lease, pending such full completion, from the commissioners the said portion and portions so constructed from a point at or near Winnipeg to such points of junction, at and subject to a rental, payable halfyearly, equal to 3 per cent per annum upon the cost of construction of the said portion or por-

tions so leased, and subject also to such reasonable and usual conditions as may be agreed between the commissioners and the Pacific Company ; provided that the said lease or leases shall be subject always to the paramount right of the said commissioners to use and operate the whole or any part of the said portions so leased, and for such purposes as they may deem necessary or expedient in the execution of their commission ; and the commissioner shall allow and deduct from the rents so to be paid by the Pacific Company reasonable tolls or compensation for their exercise from time to time of the right to such use and operation, which tolls or compensation may be agreed between the Paeifi.c Company and the commissioners, and in case of failure to agree as to the same, or as to the aforesaid, conditions of the lease, they shall be determined in the manner provided by paragraph 24 (2) of the agreement aforesaid.
I can scarcely believe that it was present to the minds of the members of the government that under the agreement the Pacific Company would have the use of that line during the whole period of construction free from any rent or tolls, and that they would after the completion of the whole of the eastern line be entitled to enter into possession under the general lease which practically covers ten years without any payment of rent. The hon. Minister of Justice told us, I think, only a day or two ago, that it was the intention of the government to construct the eastern section simultaneously with the western section ; that would mean the completion of the whole of the western section, including the mountain section which covers a period of eight years. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company construct the western section, as has been strongly represented by hon. gentlemen opposite and more especially by the hon. Minister of Justice himself, within a very short period there is absolu-tely\ no doubt that the sections from Winnipeg to Fort William, or some portion of Lake Superior will be constructed in order that the water route may be used, and to North Bay in order that there may be connection had with the old Grand Trunk system through the province of Ontario, using practically their own system as far as the east is concerned. I can scarcely believe that the members of the government had that called to their attention, or if they had, that they would not have remedied what seems to be a great defect. There is no reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should not pay rent for that. On the other hand there is very great reason why they should pay for it because they use it and will use it probably as a spout from the west even after the eastern section is constructed. It would amount under ordinary conditions to this, that they would have a portion of the road for at least eighteen years, if it took eight years to construct the western section free of rent. It would have another effect. Hon.


James Clancy: gentlemen opposite had laid much stress upon the fact that the line which ia going to be built from Winnipeg to Quebec and to Moncton will be a guarantee that Canadian products will be carried through Canadian ports. Hon. gentlemen opposite can see that the moment that the eastern section is constructed from, say, North Bay, or Fort William, or both, the whole of the traffic will go over the two branch lines. During the season of navigation the Grand Trunk Pacific will avail of the water route just as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern do now, and when navigation closes the tendency will be for the Grand Trunk Railway to bring this western freight to Portland over their own line. I do not know that we can enter into a quarrel with a great railway corporation because they conduct their business on strict business principles, and that is what the Grand Trunk Railway would be doing if they sent their freight to Portland. If the Minister of Justice were making this agreement anew, I doubt if he would provide that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company should have that line during the whole term of construction on the terms provided for in this clause. I do not think that the Minister of Justice will now say that that provision is in the interest of Canada. I do not yet despair that the hon. gentleman will accept this amendment, which indeed hardly goes far enough to provide a reasonable safeguard in the public interest.


Mr. A. BRODER (Dundas).: I can well understand why the Minister of Justice does not like to accept all these amendments. Why, he would not know his own child to morrow if he were to dress it up in these amendments.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: The child would be so much better looking, that the Minister of Justice would think that it did not belong to himself. The prairie section will be finished first, and the Grand Trunk will be anxious to get from Winnipeg to Port Arthur and North Bay so that they may be in a position to route the grain over their own system to Portland. The longer that state of things prevails the more difficult it will be to get the freight over your eastern section when it is completed to Quebec. It is generally understood that the ocean freight rates largely control the routing of export freight, and for years freights have been cheaper from (Portland than from our Canadian ports.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not for wheat.


Andrew Broder: In winter ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In summer.


Andrew Broder: I am sure the Minister of Justice will see the reasonableness of the amendment, so that the Grand Trunk Paci-

fic may have to make some further arrangement with the commissioners in order to control that traffic previous to the eastern section being completed. I trust the hon. gentleman will accept this safeguard.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The difference between our hon. friends and ourselves is, that in the contemplation of the government the eastern extension is to run from Winnipeg to Moncton, whereas in the contemplation of hon. gentlemen opposite, the eastern section is to run to North Bay and never go further. The government, by the amendment to the original contract, provides that the completed portions of the eastern section may at any time be let by the commissioners to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but hon. gentlemen opposite want to make this power applicable exclusively to that part of the line between North Bay and Winnipeg. My hon. friends must remember that this is the point at issue between us ; that is their policy as against ours. The policy which hon. gentlemen opposite have, is the extension of the Grand Trunk system from North Bay to Winnipeg ; our policy is the construction of the road from Winnipeg to Quebec and Moncton. So long as we are at issue on this point, my hon. friends cannot expect, with reason, that we should accept this amendment, which would have the effect of defeating the whole policy of the government. My hon. friends' oppo-s te say that the road frem Winnipeg lo North Bay will be constructed first. I do not agree that anything of the sort is to take place. I apprehend that the whole road is to be constructed simultaneously. Even if the road is constructed from Winnipeg to a point north of North Bay, I cannot see any obj ction whatever to the commissioners leasing that part of the line to the Grand T.unk Pacific Company. We have no desire to prevent the trade going to North Bay if that is the natural channel-


James Clancy: Is it the intention of the government that in such an event the Grand Trunk Pacific shall pay rental ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, it is , and that is what our agreement provides for. According to the amendment, if the commissioners lease a part of this road to the company, they shall be under an obligation to give it to them for seven years for nothing. On that point we are at variance with our hon. friends. We say that is a preposterous construction to put upon the terms of the agreement-that no such arrangement is in contemplation. All you would have to compare it with would be the lease of ihe "hole line.


James Clancy: And not more onerous ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is not the lease that is to be more onerous ; it is the terms. What is to be compared is the lease of a part for a limited period with the lease of
1he whole line for fifty years ; and you have also to compare the lease of that part subject to the paramount right of the commissioners: So that it is impossible to provide at the present time for the terms of that lease, because no man can now foresee the extent to which the commissioners may use it or the partial use to be given to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ; and if you do not know the extent of the user, or the period, it is impossible to determine the conditions of the lease. All these things will be determined when the time comes to use the road, and when the conditions under which it is to be used are determined. I say this amendment puts in issue the two policies-the policy of the opposition, which is the extension of the Grand Trunk system from North Bay into the Northwest


James Clancy: No, no.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, yes ; and against the policy of the government, which involves the construction of the eastern extension as one road from Winnipeg to Moncton.	.
Amendment (Mr. Clancy) negatived on the same division.


Mr. G. O. ALCORN (Prince Edward).: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the 7t!>
section, being in fact the same amendment which I had the honour of moving when the House was in Committee of the Whole. It reads as follows :
That the Bill he not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend the same .by adding to section 7 of the Bill, the following as subsection ' d ' :-
Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in the Act hereby amended, or in the scheduled agreements contained, His Majesty the King acting as aforesaid, shall not be bound or obliged to perform, carry out or fulfil any of the covenants, conditions or stipulations in the said scheduled agreements contained on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, unless and until the Grand Trunk Company shall have entered into an agreement with His Majesty the King acting as aforesaid, by which the said Grand Trunk Company shall covenant and agree as follows :-That neither the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company nor the Grand Trunk Company shall in any manner within its power, directly or indirectly, permit, advise or encourage the transportation of traffic bv routes or at rates other than those provided in the said agreement, and that each of the said companies shall, in all respects and in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted and accepted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and to Canadian ocean ports.
When this motion was moved in Committee of the Whole, the hon. Minister of Justice, in answer to the observations which l then had the honour of making upon it, said that it went upon the assumption that the Grand Trunk Company would be inteiested

in ruining the business of the Pacific Company. It appears to me to be a sufficient reply to that to say, as I in fact said when moving the amendment, that the two companies are the same entity, and, therefore, while the Grand Trunk Pacific may gather and receive the traffic in the west, that same interest, composed of the two companies, and being largely the same personnel, will, in any event, get possession of the traffic. It will b.e of no consequence to the joint railroad interest by what route the traffic shall reach the Atlantic, and therefore they will take it where the terminals and the ships are best provided. It appears to me that that is a sufficient answer to that objection. Unless this amendment is accepted, the Grand Trunk Company will remain unbound, as it is at present, to endeavour to route the traffic by the Pacific line. It will be at perfect liberty to take either, alternative route-by Chicago or by North Bay ; and both companies, being the same interest, so long as they get possession of the traffic, will take it by the route by which they will make the greatest amount of freight, and which will best answer the purpose of the service' they are performing for the public. But we are asking ill this amendment that not only shall the Pacific Company come under these agreements and be bound by both Bills, .but that the Grand Trunk Company shall enter into like covenants and be equally bound. Thr Minister of Justice also objected that it was not shown that there were any American connections by which the traffic could be sent by way of Chicago. I am informed, and I have heard it frequently asserted in this House, that there are American lines in which the Grand Trunk Company is interested, which can be connected by a short link of some sixty miles, by which Chicago can be reached by the Grand Trunk from Winnipeg. A further objection which the hon. minister urged was that the Grand Trunk Railway have to guarantee the second issue of Grand Trunk Pacific bonds, and he asks how will they pay the interest on thosr bonds if they ruin the earning capacity of the Grand Trunk Pacific. In reply allow me to observe again that the companies are practically one. Even the personnel of the companies is, to a large extent, one and having the same interest, the same observations apply to what is in fact the same objection.
Another answer by my hon. friend was that the Grand Trunk Railway will hold the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific and must pay for it, and having paid money for it, he again asks will they ruin the earning capacity of the company whose stock they hold ? This point has been debated at very great length during the various stages of this measure, both in the Bill of last year and that presented this year. On the government side it has been persistently urged that this stock must and will be paid for by the Grand Trunk Rail-Mr. ALCORN.
way ; but if we turn to the agreement we find that the covenant into which the Grand Trunk Railway enters is not that it will acquire and pay for this stock. It it not that that company will purchase it as an ordinary purchaser. The words used are that it will ' receive and take.' Surely there is no imputation there that it will pay cash at the market or any other price. Had that been the intention, had both the government and the Grand Trunk Railway meant purchase, surely some such words as ' purchase and acquire ' or ' purchase and pay for ' would have been used instead of the words ' receive and take.' In my experience, I have never known that when it was intended to bind a person to pay for a thing, he was simply requested to receive and take it. And we have a formal notice, in the most explicit terms, given us by the president of the Grand Trunk Railway, that this construction of the contract is the one on which he intends his company shall act, and that they will take this stock as a consideration for guaranteeing the second issue of bonds and will not pay for it. If that is their idea of the obligation. Once that stock is transferred to them in consideration of their guaranteeing the bonds, it will become their property, and it follows as a matter of course that whatever money consideration they may obtain for it, when they dispose of that stock, will go into the coffers of the Grand Trunk Railway and never become the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific. These appear to me sufficient answers to the objections stated by the hon. minister to this amendment. I am not disposed to go again over the arguments forming the grounds which I have already assigned as the proper ground on which the minister could accept this amendment, and I leave the matter with these observations in the strong hope that further consideration will induce the hon. minister to accept the amendment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend proceeds on the assumption that the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway will be at variance with those of the Grand Trunk Pacific. In the view of the government, they will be identical. They will be identical, in the first place, because the Grand Trunk Railway will guarantee the second issue of bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and in the second place because the Grand Trunk Railway will hold over $22,000,000 of the common stock of the latter company, for which it must pay either money or money's worth. My hon. friend is not quite correct in assuming that I at any time said that the Grand Trunk Railway was under obligations to pay cash for this stock. What I said was that it was obliged to pay cash or its equivalent. My hon. friend must bear in mind in addition that the Grand Trunk Railway, at its very inception, sought

to obtain connection with the Northwest through North Bay and in that way to Winnipeg. Any failure on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific to carry out any part of its obligations, and the whole of the eastern section is to be dealt with and operated as a whole, will cause the lease to be inoperative. These are the reasons why the amendment is not necessary. It would be idle to go over them again. I cannot convince my hon friend, and I am sure he has not convinced me. and I must ask the House to reject the amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: The interests of the Grand Trunk Railway may be the same as those of the Grand Trunk Pacific, so far as the eastern section is concerned, but possibly they may not. A condition of affairs might arise, under which it would be more in the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway to send its freight by some other route than by the eastern division. That is not at all impossible. In the first place, the Grand Trunk Railway at some future time may be able, by the exercise of the same influence which has procured these concessions, to get rid of the eastern division. or have the terms of the lease modified. In that case one can readily see that any safeguard arising from the necessity of their using the eastern division is absolutely gone, but if you have the Grand Trunk Railway bound by a stipulation in this contract, while you may not obtain a perfect safeguard, you have a very much better one than at present. This is exactly in the line of the amendment voted down not many minutes ago by which we sought to place upon the statutes the declaration that parliament can be invoked if the Grand Trunk Railway should not in good faith carry out the stipulations of this contract, although not formally bound by it. This amendment attempts to accomplish the same object by another means, namely, by imposing directly on the Grand Trunk Railway stipulations in the contract which are at present only legally binding on the Grand Trunk Pacific. In this view, while we do not wish to emj)liasize the fact that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has not convinced us, nevertheless we must persevere in our amendment and ask the vote of the House upon it.
Amendment (Mr. Alcorn) negatived on the same division.
Mr. CLARE moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R, L. BDRDEN. As I understand, it is the inpntixm of my hon. friend the First Minister to ask. with the consent of the House, that'we adjourn until Wednesday instead of until to morrow, and, as I have been informed by hon. gentlemen who are more familiar with such matters than I am, that there are certain private bills, leave to present which has been granted, which have not yet been presented, and as the time for presenting private bills expires, as I understand, to-morrow, I desire to move for the extension of the time. I move, seconded by Mr. Taylor :
That, as the time for presenting private Bills expires to-morrow, 20th instant, the same he extended until Friday, the 27th instant.
These three Bills to which I have referred -I do not personally know anything about them-are, as I understand, under consideration of the proper committee, or are about to be reported upon, and would be presented to the House to-morrow. Therefore. it seems to me we should give this extension of time in order that our adjourning over to-morrow should not prejudice the interest of those concerned in these Bills.
Wilfrid Laurier: That is perfectly reasonable, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: Before moving the adjournment of the House, to carry out the wish which has been generally expressed, I move
That when the House adjourns this day, it do stand adjourned until Wednesday next, 25th instant.


Robert Laird Borden: In view of the very excellent, progress we have made to-day. I think there is no reason why we should not adjourn until Wednesday next, especially as we have been working fairly hard during the past two or three weeks. But, before the House adjourns. I would like to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in the absence of the Minister of Finance, to give us the date when we may expect the budget. Of course we expect that some reasonable notice will be given of it. Even if the Prime Minister cannot indicate very exactly the date, he may be able to give a date before which we will not expect it, or in some other way give us an idea of the time when the budget will be brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: As it has been agreed that we shall complete the third reading of the National Transcontinental Railway Bill on Thursday next, I may say, without absolutely binding ourselves, that it is expected that the budget will de delivered the following week. Of course, I have not had the advantage of conferring with the Minister of Finance on this sub-

ject, but, knowing his views, I think I am safe in speaking as I have done.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 9.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 25, 1904.