1909-05-04

[Stage Direction]
On orders of the day being called.
Mr. FOSTER.: If my right hon. friend would allow me, I intended to make a motion. I move for leave to lay on the table of the House a copy of the findings of the Royal Commission appointed by the government of New Brunswick to look into the Central Railway affairs and report thereon.


Mr. CASH.: 


George Eulas Foster: It depends on whose ox is gored.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Would the hon. gentleman kindly state what motion was made without notice?


Mr. HENDERSON.: The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) was allowed to move to drop an order from the Order Paper.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: He was allowed not to add to the load on the Order Paper, but to remove an item from it.


David Henderson: The motion was out of order without notice.


Wilfrid Laurier: It depends on the object.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I asked if the hon. member had the consent of the House to make the motion.


David Henderson: I am not objecting to your action, Mr. Speaker; I think you were quite right. What I say is, that the right hon. gentleman should not give consent in one case and not in another.


Wilfrid Laurier: It depends on the object altogether.


Mr. J. D. REID.: And the man.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 128), to authorize a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific.-Mr. Fielding.
On the preamble.
George Eulas Foster: I asked several questions of the Minister of Finance when we were last in committee, and he said he would endeavour to get the information. I asked whether the $205,000 which is mentioned as having been paid on the Grand Trunk Pacific stock went into the actual construction

of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and how it was paid.


Mr. FIELDING.: While reference was made in the debate to a number of points,
I do not recall that any specific question was put on which I was expected to procure additional statements, hut I shall have the matter looked into further.


George Eulas Foster: Several questions were asked about the $9,000,000 said to have been invested in the railway by the Grand Trunk Pacific, and whether that included the $9,000,000 invested in equipment or rolling stock? The minister was not sure, but he was of the opinion that the rolling stock could only be provided for by an issue of equipment bonds, and that, therefore, it could not be called an investment.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not understand I was to get further information. I gave my hon. friend the information I had, and thought with that he was content; that is to say, that the rolling stock was provided by an issue of equipment bonds, and that, therefore, it could not refer to the item which he mentioned. The chief engineer of the government informs me that is his idea of the matter also. I would not consider that an investment by the company of the company's funds; it is an investment by the people who purchased the bonds.


George Eulas Foster: Then, the $9,000,000 would be the amount of money invested by the Grand Trunk Pacific in the construction of the road. Does that $9,000,000 invested in the construction of the road include the advance of the Grand Trunk Pacific of more than $7,000,000, and when this Bill is passed and the loan got, and the Grand Trunk is repaid by the Grand Trunk Pacific, will the Grand Trunk Pacific then have $9,000,000 of an investment, or will it own $9,000,000 minus this $7,000,000, which may be simply in there as an advance they have got from the Grand Trunk? It makes a great deal of difference. We want to know what this Grand Trunk Pacific, with its moneyed men, its immense influence and its great resources, has actually put into this road, and we do not know that at present.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not understand that the Grand Trunk corporation-we are not dealing with individuals, but with the corporation-are expected to put in, out of the Grand Trunk treasury, a single dollar. What they agreed to do was to guarantee the Grand Trunk Pacific Company's bonds, to assist the subsidiary company in raising money. If they have in the meantime advanced any money out of their treasury, as would seem to be indicated by the papers, I would regard that as a temporary advance, and not as a contribution
of the Grand Trunk to the enterprise. All the Grand Trunk agreed to do was to guarantee the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, within certain limitations. That is what they have been doing, that is what they are still doing under this legislation, and therefore, I would not consider that in the sense I understand my hon. friend's question, they have contemplated any investment at all.
The investment they are to make is not an investment of funds of the treasury of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It is the credit of the Grand Trunk Company which they pledge by way of guarantee, and the proceeds of that guarantee go into the railway. I do not understand that the Grand Trunk Railway Company ever intend or propose to aid the railway in any other way.


George Eulas Foster: The Finance Minister has hardly caught the drift of my question. We have incorporated the Grand Trunk Pacific Company-I am not now talking of the Grand Trunk Company at all; they have their directors, their shareholders, their influence. The statement is made that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company have invested $9,000,000. Now what I wanted to know is whether they have invested $9,000,000 outside of the advance which the Grand Trunk Railway Company made to them of over $7,000,000, or if, when this loan Bill is passed, and when the money is paid over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Company gets back its advance of $7,000,000, the minister will be able to say that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has invested $9,000,000 in it, or whether he will have to say that they have invested $9,000,000 minus this advance which they will have paid back to the Grand Trunk Railway Company; that is, will their investment then be $9,000,000 or less.


William Stevens Fielding: The investment of which company? .


George Eulas Foster: Of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not understand that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company have any $9,000,000 invested except the money that was raised by issue of public securities. Certainly I have had no such understanding.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister's answer says that the Grand Trunk Pacific have invested $9,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I think not. I think the investment my hon. friend mentions must refer to the Grand Trunk Company itself and not to the Grand Trunk

Pacific Company. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company moneys are derived almost entirely, except as respects a moderate sum, from the issue of public securities, one set being guaranteed by the Dominion and one set by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I do not understand there are any other funds available. My hon. friends opposite asked a number of questions which did not seem to me to be of very great importance; nevertheless I have brought down the information as desired. I do not in every case admit that it is essential to the discussion of this question, but I thought it desirable to meet so far as I could the questions of my hon. friend. I think he will find that it has relation to the investment of the Grand Trunk Company. But I have sent for my officer, and I will have the papers in a moment.


George Eulas Foster: The company, as I understand it, is the National Transcontinental Railway Company, and the answers must be_ in reference to that company. I find in this statement one of the answers is as follows:


William Stevens Fielding: Is that an answer to one of the questions asked?


George Eulas Foster: No, not in this case. But there was a question on the Order Paper, and those two answers were given. There is an answer about the investment of rolling stock; the amount expended in rolling stock by the Grand Trunk Pacific was said to be $8,273,000. But I am quite certain that the question with reference to the total investment was as to the investment of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I am quoting now the answer to one of these questions from the statement brought down by the minister on page 2. Now, the minister says that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has made no investment in it. Money has been raised for the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and paid over to that company, and that becomes the Grand Trunk Pacific Company's investment, though raised by bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Company. They are primarily Grand Trunk Pacific bonds, they are therefore Grand Trunk Pacific bonds when guaranteed after they have on them the endorsement of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and when the bonds are transmuted into cash it is the cash of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and therefore it is an investment of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I want to know whether the $9,000,000 the minister said the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had invested, includes the advance of the $7,000,000 made to them by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which advance has been paid back.


William Stevens Fielding: 
George Eulas Foster: The question was asked by the leader of the opposition and answered by the minister. I find it quoted on page 5406 of the ' Hansard ' by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro):


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: In reply to a question put by the leader of the opposition the following answer was given by the government :-
The company state that the total amount invested bv the promoters in the undertaking is $9,597,149, and that the total amount invested in the rolling stock is $8,273,454.
Now, what I desired to know was whether that $9,597,149 invested by the promoters in the undertaking includes the advance of over $7,000,000 made by the Grand Trunk Railway. I imagine that it does.


William Stevens Fielding: The question is; Does the $9,700,000 odd include the $7,000,000 advanced by the Grand Trunk Company? I understand that it does. Now, on the rolling stock I desire to confirm my previous statement that the rolling stock is purchased by a separate issue of bonds, and I do not understand that it is referred to in that item at all.


George Eulas Foster: That is what I took it to be. We have that answered satisfactorily.

Now, can the minister give me any more satisfaction than he has heretofore as to the amount invested in the rolling stock, which is $8,273,000? That is raised by equipment bonds and that is the rolling stock which has been loaned or leased to the Grand Trunk on the conditions which have been named? I suppose that is a fact?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. My hon. friend's present question relates entirely to the rolling stock?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.	.


William Stevens Fielding: 
George Eulas Foster: That is satisfactory. Now, if the minister can tell me equally satisfactorily how that $205,000 is got at I would be very glad. I understood before that there are certain directors who got a certain amount of stock and paid up a small percentage upon it-$5,000 odd being the total amount paid, while $249,000 worth of shares stands in the name of Smithers and some others. I suppose that is held in trust?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The statement is made somewhere that on that $205,000 has been paid. How has that $205,000 been paid? Has any portion of the stock been sold or has any portion of it been given as security on which $205,000 has been raised? How has the $205,000 been got and once it was got where did it go to?


William Stevens Fielding: I find that my officer has asked one of the officers of the company for information which would enable us to answer that as far as possible and that he has not received their Teply. I would hope to have it during the day.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask the Finance Minister if he can supply the committee, either to-day,, or at some early day, with a list of the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and of the other companies that are connected with this undertaking? There are four or five companies.


William Stevens Fielding: It would help me very much to get the information if the hon. gentleman would kindly enumerate the companies the names of whose directors he desires to know. As to the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific we have that information before us. The names of the directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company can easily be found. There was an annual meeting a few days ago and the directors were chosen. I could get it from the public press if my hon. friend has not seen it. What others does he desire?


Richard Blain: The Grand Trunk Pacific Townsite Company?


William Stevens Fielding: I am informed that information has already been given in the House in answer to a question. The directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Townsite Company are Chas. M. Hays, E. J. Chamberlin, Wm. Wainwright, W. H. Biggar and E. H. Fitzhugh. These are all officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


Richard Blain: Now the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company?


William Stevens Fielding: I presume the Act incorporating them would give the provisional directors. I really do not know what steps have been taken in that respect. If my hon. friend regards it as important I w'ill ask the company to give the names of the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company. I would expect to find these companies composed of the principal officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Are there any other companies in regard to which my hon. friend desires information?


Richard Blain: Yes, the Grand Trunk Pacific Construction Company, -whose directors are members of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


William Stevens Fielding: I will be glad to get them, but I am sure my hon. friend will find that they are composed of the principal officials of the Grand Trunk Railway.


William Sora Middlebro: We also desire to know who are the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Company.


William Stevens Fielding: All right.


Richard Blain: I suppose we might expect to have these names brought down before the third reading of the Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: If I do not get the information before the third reading I will promise to give it to my hon. friend afterwards. I do not suppose the point is of sufficient importance to delay the measure.


Richard Blain: No.


William Sora Middlebro: If there are any other Grand Trunk Pacific companies my

hon. friend the Minister of Finance might bring down the names of the directors of these companies as well.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to give me the names.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: I do not clearly understand the financing of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as stated by the Minister of Finance. All the assets of the Grand Trunk Pacific, as I understand it, must be derived from the sale of bonds or stock. The total amount that has been realized and belongs to the Grand Trunk Pacific, according to the returns brought down, is about $9,000,000. The sale of the bonds alone amounts to nearly $9,000,000. How could the $9,000,000 include the $7,000,000 which is owing to the Grand Trunk Railway?


William Stevens Fielding: The seven million dollars do not represent bonds.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that perfectly well. The $9,000,000 includes, the minister states, $7,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: If it includes the $7,000,000 the Grand Trunk Pacific do not get credit for the amount of bonds they have sold.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a separate account.


John Graham Haggart: But you say they are the same.


William Stevens Fielding: I have given my hon. friend the particulars of it.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but I cannot understand it. The whole of the assets of the Grand Trunk Pacific must come either from the sale of stock or of bonds?


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


John Graham Haggart: The total amount realized by the sale of bonds amounted to about $9,000,000. The amount sold for the purpose of building the prairie section and a part of the mountain section realized in the neighbourhood of $9,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. for one section.


John Graham Haggart: Then the total amount that the Grand Trunk Pacific have put into the construction must be the amount of bonds they have sold, plus the amount that they got from the sale of stock, which is a small amount.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken; there are two sums mentioned in these papers which each happen to be about $9,000,000 but they are not the same sum at all. The $9,000,000 referred to under the issue of bonds is shown on the first page and it certainly does not represent the same sum as the $9,000,000 shown farther on. They are two different things although they happen to be about the same amount of money.


George Eulas Foster: That brings us to another query. What other resources has the Grand Trunk Pacific out of which it has realized $2,000,000? If the $9,500,000 are investments of the Grand Trunk Pacific, not including the proceeds of the bonds, and if the $9,500,000 include the $7,000,000 of an advance, that means that $2,500,000 have been invested by the promoters and that this money has been got from some other source. What other source?


William Stevens Fielding: I would naturally assume it was got by borrowing on the credit of the Grand Trunk Pacific for the various forms of its work. That is the most natural explanation. It is an investment in the sense that the company has raised the money and owes it. We know that they have no sources for deriving money except those mentioned by the member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) but in the meantime, like any other business enterprise, can raise money through banks and financial arrangements.


George Eulas Foster: Does it seem reasonable that the Grand Trunk Pacific, having no securities, has been able to raise $2,500,000 as a loan? What securities can it give? Is that also an advance from the Grand Trunk Railway which has to be paid out of the $10,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: The information, of course is not in the possession of the government; it had to be obtained from the company. As we were not asked to crossexamine them and find out the details which my hon. friend asks, I am not able to give the information. I give my hon. friend my own impression of how they would raise it, by the ordinary commercial methods.
Bill reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the third reading of the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: That is shown in the information.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but the minister stated, in answer to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), that the $9,000,000 of bonds includes the $7,000,000. It cannot possibly include it.


William Sora Middlebro: 


George Eulas Foster: Before the Bill is read the third time I desire to make a few remarks, not having said much on the Bill during its progress through committee but having tried from close attention to the questions and answers to find out from the government the exact position of affairs. It seems

to me, speaking generally, that the government shelters itself in certain ways from criticism in this House and in the country. It shelters itself first behind the name of a Transcontinental Railway and in answer to criticisms of great expense or any cognate criticism it simply gives the general answer:	'Oh, we are engaged in
building a great transcontinental railway.' That appeals to the imagination of the people and stifles the proper voice of the people and to a certain extent their criticism as to the ways and means by which the Transcontinental Railway is being built. Then again, I think the government shelters itself behind what they call the ' on all-fours ' position with the loan made to the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1883 and 1884. It needs nothing but a mere statement of the facts to show that there is no all-fours comparison between the loan made to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the year 1908-9 and the loan made to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the year 1883-4. Not only is there no parallel in the conditions prevailing then and now, but there is no parallel between the securities that were given by the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1884 and the securities given by the Grand Trunk Pacific in 1909. It seems sufficient to say:	'Oh, the Conservatives
made a loan of $30,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway and we are only making a loan of $10,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific.' That disarms criticism and shuts the mouth willing to be shut, of the partisan, and confounds to a certain extent the criticisms of the man who is not a partisan. Then the government shields itself behind the argument of national necessity. The Minister of Railways took a leaf in a humble way, from the book of the Prime Minister in 1903 and in 1909 he urged as a condonation of the offence, if offence it be, that there was a great national necessity. He even went so far as to employ the argument made by an hon. gentleman in this House not long ago that it was an instrument of national defence. I think some one in the House calculated the $180,000,000 of our country's contribution to this road, divided it by ten and came to the conclusion that it is equal to building eight-teen ' Dreadnoughts ' and putting them on the North sea as a first line of defence, against any attacks that might be made on British supremacy.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: So the Minister of Railways at this late hour revamped the argument of the necessity of this road on the ground of defence. I think it well to let in a little light on that. I suppose that if a line of railway is to be of value as a means of defence it must be from some pre-eminent conditions inherent in it which
are not inherent in the lines we now have. Let us see what these are? In the first place, the Grand Trunk Pacific road commences at Halifax, at St. John or at Moncton, as you please. It passes again at Quebec, if you please; it touches the great city of Winnipeg and then goes to Edmonton, and so through. If a road is to be of value as a line of defence it must be partly because it possesses some advantages in the way of the seaports with which it connects, but the very same seaports of Halifax, St. John and Quebec and a similar seaport on the Pacific coast, in a similar condition of lack of defence or ability for defence, are connected by the Intercolonial, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. These railways in their branches and connections commence at the same ports on the Atlantic and end at similar undefended ports upon the western shore. Then a railway might have value as a means of defence, owing to its being situated in the interior of the country, remote from the frontier. If the minister will take the outline map of the Grand Trunk Pacific he will find that it is not the northernmost railway, that from Moncton to Quebec the Intercolonial lies further north than west of Winnipeg, the Canadian Northern is really the railway which goes farthest north, so that whichever way you look at it, as a line of defence there is no force in the argument of the Minister of Railways that it is of sufficient national value to justify this House in criticising it lightly, or to lead the people to bear the burden of this heavy debt without repining. But the great defence of the government and their followers is silence. No matter what criticism is made, they meet it by silence or calling: Carried. No matter what extravagance is shown, they meet it by silence or crying: Carried-the more active ones being the ones who cry: Carried. No matter wbat argument is .advanced with reference to the carrying out of the project, they meet it by utter and absolute silence. Show the Prime Minister that the statement he made in 1903 was as absolutely outside of the mark as a statement could be, he meets it with silence. There is not even the poor penance of repentance, even although it be tardv. made by the minister who deceived this House in 1903 and 1904 by making a representation of conditions which have been proved to be absolutely unreliable. And so silence in the last is the resort. But the Prime Minister and the government must believe themselves that in respect to all these things it is the duty of the opposition and of the country to criticise the methods by which this great scheme has been put on to the country, the methods by which it has been carried on and the

ultimate result which we see in part now, but only in part, which every year reveals to us as something more grievous, more burdensome and more menacing. Thus the duty of the House and the country is not to be misled by the glamour of a great railway or statements as to lines of defence and the like of that, their duty is not to be diverted from the proper and healthy and sane criticism of the methods by which it was conceived and the methods by which it has been carried on, and the ruinous result in some respects in the ultimate fulfilment of the project.
Let me draw the attention of the government and of the House to one thing. Suppose that in 1903 the government, or the Prime Minister representing it, had stated to the House the whole facts of the case as they are to-day deployed in the public light and a matter of record. Does my hon. friend the Prime Minister think that the country would have taken that scheme from him at that time and would have put it through? If the Prime Minister had stated at that time that a simple business proposition had been made to him and this government to aid the construction to a reasonable extent of a railway from the Great Lakes up to Winnipeg and out through a portion of the Northwest, already more or less settled and more or less served by existing and constructing railways, and if he had stated all the facts connected with the scheme which he introduced, the difficulties to be overcome, the unproductive nature of a large portion of the district to be traversed, would he have received the acclaim of the House and the support of the country? I do not think he can convince himself that this would have been the case. The fact is simply this: The first statement of a proposition is apt to carry the mind of the country. Once that is made and the country fully imbued with that statement, you can afterwards undermine that first statement until there is scarcely a vestige of the original scheme left and you [DOT] cannot overtake the first impression that was made. It was under the glamour of that first impression that the Prime Minister carried his scheme. Neither this parliament nor the country would have given adhesion to it if he had stated it in all its bare nakedness in 1903 and 1904 when he brought this proposition before the House. Would he have received support if he had stated, for instance, not only that a business proposition had been made to him which could have been carried out with the minimum of public investment and with but a small amount of obligation by the country, which would have done everything that this costly project has done or can do for many years? Would he have received support if he had Mr. FOSTER.
said in addition that although some man might rise and declare that $13,000,000 would measure the amount the country would have to expend, he must dissent from that statement as being 300 per cent too small? Here is the Prime Minister's own statement on that point:
The sum total of the money to he paid by the government for the construction of the line from .Monoton to the Pacific will be in the neighbourhood of twelve millions of dollars or thirteen millions of dollars and not a cent more.
He went to the country with that statement and he meant that statement to go to the country for in the hand-book of the Liberal party, on which they ran the elections of 1904, we find:
A Transcontinental Railway for $13,000,000.
And in the text this authorized publication says:
It is an actual fact, an indisputable fact, that $13,000,000 will cover every cent of the country's expenditure in connection with the railway.
That is the statement made first by the responsible minister to the House, and made known by the minister's assent to the country on the eve of a general election, in each case positive, in neither case qualified, in each case an absolute pledge to the country that that road would be built and cost the country not one cent more than $13,000,000. Suppose that the Prime Minister in 1903 had said:	'Any
man who says that it would cost this country only $13,000,000 to build this road is either a lunatic or an ignorant man; it will cost this country before we are through with it, not $13,000,000 but $180,000,000 or $200,000,000; if the man's statement is that this $13,000,000 will not be the whole advance and amount but only the balance of cash that the country will have to pay, it is equally absurd, for the balance the country will put up in the end will be nearer $50,000,000 than' $13,000,000.' Suppose that the Prime Minister had stated that in 1903, would he have been able to put his scheme through as easily? But look at it again. In support of this scheme the Prime Minister took an unusual course; he went behind the responsible Minister of Railways, he hatched this scheme without the knowledge of that minister. After it had been hatched and the chicken was able to run about and make itself visible, it was introduced to the notice of the then Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair), whereupon that minister declared that the product was too costly, that the undertaking would cost this country $139,000,000, and he took the course-the course of a man who knew his responsibility as Minister of Railways in my right hon. friend's cabinet-of resigning from the cabinet and

going back to his seat as a private member. If the Prime Minister had not deceived the House at that time, if he had made it apparent as his Minister of Railways did, that this scheme would cost $139,000,000 at least, would he have got his scheme through so easily?
My right hon. friend had another argument. He declared that this country was under the imminency of dire peril. The United States, our powerful neighbour to the South, were threatening us, he said, with the extinction of the bonding system. We were not safe, and he prayed God that we might not have delayed too long in taking action, because even then, we had delayed almost too long. If he had stated what he knew to be the truth that there was not the slightest vestige in existence of any threat or menace from the United States in that respect, and no ground for our anticipating any national peril or calamity from that quarter, he would have been lacking in another of his strong arguments in favour of his scheme.
Another plea which he made use of was that it would open up a new route through our rich prairie regions in the Northwest, He said this knowing quite well or he should have known the contrary to be the case. There can be no doubt about his having used that argument. The impression he left, the impression he meant to leave, on the members of this House, the impression he intended to create in the country, was that this railway would give us an entrance into an undeveloped portion of our great heritage in the Northwest and open to settlement an immense area of virgin territory. But if he had told the truth, he would have told parliament and the country that that railway, starting from Winnipeg, lay in and out along the lines of existing railways, for every mile of its course, until it reaches Battle river. But in that case, he would not have got through his scheme on the glamour created by this prospect of opening up a new great prairie region. Take the map lately published by the Railway Department, take the railway map issued by the Department of the Interior, and follow the course of this railway after it touches Winnipeg. When it goes into the Northwest from Winnipeg, it runs thence to Portage la Prairie, from Portage to Saskatoon, and from Saskatoon to Battle river and along every mile it is cheek by jowl with railways already built. It is not the opener up of a new country. The road which opens up the new7 country north of the River Saskatchewan is the Canadian Northern. But the statement of the Prime Minister was that we were undertaking this burden in order to open up a new zone in the Northwest. My right hon. friend cannot shelter himself behind the statement that this railway scheme of his has opened
up a new country in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It was not launched on that ground. The main thing it was to do was to open up new territory to provide homes for thousands of new settlers in the west. Its main object was to open up new wheat fields in remote and unutilized portions of our western territories, which would contribute to the wealth, progress, and prosperity of this country. But had he stated exactly what was going to hanpen, he would have been bereft of that very strong position wdiich he took before the House and the country.
So much with reference to the inception of the scheme. But when we come to its working out, let us look at the Laurier work in that respect. All through the late campaign the cry raised by the right hon. gentleman's supporters was that Laurier should be allowed to finish his work. What was that work? It was the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway. That was the monument which my right hon. friend was building for himself and which he desired to finish. Let us then look at the work of the right hon. gentleman, not only in its inception, but in its carrying out. I have shown that every bit of the edifice built so far is built upon a false foundation. Let us come now to the working out of his scheme. My right hon. friend told this House and the country over and over again that the liability of Canada would be protected, that the advances of Canada would be secured, and that the security would be a first guarantee upon the undertaking. That was to be one of the first things provided for in the legislative work. To a certain extent that was provided for in the first contract. But the first contract was not signed by the Grand Trunk Pacific. It was signed only by the government; and in 1904 the chief work of my right hon. friend, the builder of this great monument, was to undermine and lessen the securities of Canada for her advances and increase the advances she was to make. There can be no doubt about that. The first mortgage we were to have had was entirely taken out. The second mortgage is now on a parity with the first. The preference of the first mortgagee was entirely eliminated from the Bill, yet my right hon. friend had gained the support of the House and the country on the ground that we were to be protected as first mortgagee and not as second. What ' was done? Our liabilities were raised by subsequent legislation. At first we were only to guarantee three-quarters of the actual cost in the mountains beyond the prairies, and that actual cost was limited by a maximum sum, but the legislation introduced later raised our liabilities to three-quarters of the actual cost, unlimited by any maximum sum, with the exception of the prairie section. It raised our liabilities by millions of dollars in both the prairie

and mountain sections as well. Not only were they raised in that way, but in addition, the rights we had as first mortgagee were postponed and depreciated until they became virtually of no effect. Under the legislation, as it exists to-day, this is the condition of Canada. In the first place we pay interest on the mountain section for seven years. In the second place, the Grand Trunk Pacific can make default of interest three years after that seven years have expired, and that can be capitalized and added to their indebtedness. That makes ten years, and then, after that ten years is over, they have a period of five years during which, if they are in default, we cannot take over the road. The only recourse we have is to put in a manager to administer it; and if there be not sufficient income to pay for the management, the people have to foot the deficit. We can put in a receiver, it is inconceivable that we can allow that road to stop, and if the income be not sufficient to operate it, who pays the difference? The Dominion government. It is the people who are responsible. But if it should pay a surplus, then we have to divide that surplus between ourselves and the Grand Trunk Railway bond-holders. If it should become paying, then our receiver hands it back to the Grand Trunk Pacific. And so on ad infinitum until every vestige of our rights as mortgagee has passed away entirely under the constructive policy in the legislative line of my right hon. friend the Prime Minster. Every step of that policy adds to the responsibility of Canada and takes away from the security which Canada in the first instance had. Again, by the legislation of my right hon. friend, we are bound to build the eastern section, and when we had built that section, professedly in connection with one great transcontinental line, that legislation failed to provide that the Grand Trunk Pacific should lease that eastern section which we built. And I contend to-day, as I have always done, that if after this eastern section is built, the Grand Trunk Pacific do not choose to exercise their option of leasing and operating the road and paying us three per cent on its cost, there is no power in that legislation to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to exercise its option and to enter into a lease of that eastern section or any part of it. They are given the option to take out any portion they please and run that portion and leave any portion they please. That is the position in which my right hon. friend, in his constructive work as a legislator, has left this country after we have built the eastern section from Winnipeg to Moncton.
Let us go a step further. If the right hon. gentleman was strong in anything, he was strong, in his inception of the legislation and in his canvass before the country on this point, that what he wanted to do Mr. FOSTER.
was to open up the Northwest and bring the great traffic of the country down through Canadian channels to our own seaports. That was a good drawing card. That was a very mesmeric policy to lay before the people. We have been spending many of our precious millions on east and west lines of communication with the idea of ultimately building up our seaports and our Canadian merchant marine; and my right hon. friend said to the House and the country: 'Here is a scheme by which we propose to tap the great Northwest and bring its rich products through Canadian channels and through Canadian seaports, to the benefit of our own people and our Canadian marine/ He there stuck a good cord which sounded sweet music to the people. But how has he carried that policy out? Why, he absolutely refused to complete that idea by the legislation necessary. Although this side of the House urged him to do so, he brought his political support to the point of refusing any legislation which would make it certain that that stated prin-cinle, upon which he founded his scheme and the immense burden the country was to assume in regard to it, would be fairly carried out. What happened? Fie entered into a contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific that, with the exception of freight routed by the shippers of their own stuff, the Grand Trunk Pacific was, to the best of its ability, to see that western freight should go through Canadian channels and Canadian ports. But then what happened? No provision was made to meet the very important position taken by the Grand Trunk Railway. The Grand Trunk Railway taps the Grand Trunk Pacific at the junction north of Lake Superior 220 miles. Every ounce of freight which is gathered up in the Northwest and which is unrouted when it comes down to Lake Superior junction, goes directly over the Grand Trunk Railway tu that company's terminals, and ports, on the lakes. Every ounce of it. The moment it leaves the Grand Trunk Pacific line and goes into the transportation system of the Grand Trunk Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific is not of the slightest account as regards ' the direction of that traffic. There is no provision against that in the present legislation. Will my right hon. friend hazard, in the light of his preceding statements, the further assertion that in" the years to come the greater part of the products of the Northwest will go over * the Grand Trunk Pacific system on its long overland route through the north of Ontario and the north of Quebec and the portion of New Brunswick which it traverses? Will he hazard the statement that such products will take that route? Will it not, on the contrary, the moment it reaches the Lake Superior junction, take the short cut off to the water,

and thereafter be in the hands of and at the will of freight carriers over whom we have no influence whatever. The Prime Minister was asked by us to make good his original proposition by binding the Grand Trunk Railway under the same conditions as the Grand Trunk Pacific, so that when the Grand Trunk Railway received its rich freights from the west at Lake Superior junction, it should be bound to send all, except the routed freights, through Canadian channels to Canadian ports. He refused to do this. This year he was given another opportunity to do the same thing. This year he is granting a favour to the Grand Trunk Railway. The Grand Trunk Railway, according to his statement, was to receive $25,000,000 as capital stock from the Grand Trunk Pacific. According to his statement, that stock was to be used for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, so that when the Grand Trunk Pacific wanted money, it could call upon the proceeds of that stock at par for the money it needed.
My right hon. friend stated that, he adhered to that, he went to the country on that, and got his election on that, in connection with other things. Now he comes into the House, and his Finance Minister states in so many plain words: 'Not a dollar of that stock need be called upon, or ought in equity to be called upon, to supply money to build the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway; that stock belongs to the Grand Trunk Railway, and is a payment for guaranteeing the bonds which, under contract, it has agreed to guarantee.' Now what can be made of a position so diametrically opposed to the position of pre election times? And what becomes of the solemn statement of the Prime Minister when, a few years afterwards, he has the absolute contradiction made to it by his own Finance Minister, and he himself by his legislation coincides with that contradiction of the Finance Minister? So that to-day he is doing for the Grand Trunk Railway a favour by becoming their banker, under that condition of things loading up the country with $10,000,000 more, because he. repeatedly stated in this House that we would not be called upon for another cent, that the Grand Trunk Railway was a responsible company, the Grand Trunk Railway got the stock, and got it for the purpose of financial aid, and our liabilities were limited by the contract, and whatever other money was necessary would have to be provided by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which was able, responsible and bound by the contract to carry it out. Today he nullifies his statement by his legislation, he loads the country in the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Now when he comes to-dav with a favour to the Grand Trunk Railway Company,
and is asked again:	'Will you put in a
clause now by which the Grand Trunk Railway Company will be bound to forward all unrouted freight through Canadian channels and through Canadian seaports,' what is the answer of my right hon. friend? Mr. Speaker, will I be out of order if I say, a quibble, and nothing better than a quibble? He says, 'Oh, this is not the time to do it.' Is it not a time at which it could be done? Are we not doing a favour to the Grand Trunk Railway Company over and above everything we were bound to do? When a $10,000,000 loan is made as a favour, when the invitation is held out to the same company, by the Minister of Railways and Canals and by the Minister of Finance: 'Come again next, year if you are in difficulties, and we will do the same,' is it not an opportune time when, if my hon. friend were honest in his desire to assure the passage of the great west products through Canadian territory and out of Canadian ports, he could make that certain in the only way in which he could make it certain? But he will not do it, this is not the opportunity.
Then he went one step beyond what was necessary, a case of a witness volunteering more than the simple answer to his question, and he said, 'There will be an opportunity.' When? When the lease is made by the Grand Trunk Pacific for the entire portion of the eastern section. But when a lease is made for the entire portion of the eastern section, with whom is that lease made ? With the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and not with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. And though you duplicate the present arrangement when you make that lease with the Grand Trunk Pacific, what power have you got over the distributor of this freight, which is the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself? So he knew, if he knew the- law, that when that opportunity came he would be absolutely powerless to tack on any condition binding the Grand Trunk Railway Company. He will be making a lease with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the only thing he could do would be to try to modify their contract. But their contract is plain in that respect now, and he could not make it any stronger than it is at present. So that an apparent answer was really deceptive to the people of this country and to the House. That is the condition in which we are today, and to-day I charge upon the right hon. gentleman that his main argument that the rich products of the west should be directed through our own seaports and our own Canadian channels, is not guarded or guaranteed by any- legislation to that effect, and the right hon. gentleman refuses to guarantee it, now when he has the op-

portunity of his life for attaching a condition to the great favour we are giving to the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
Let me go a step farther and let me ask my right hon. friend, as he has been asked by the leader of the opposition, to view the situation of things in the east, and my right hon. friend did not deign to answer. It was put up to him as specifically, as categorically, as any man could put it. What did he propose to do in view of the condition of things in the east, with the Quebec bridge nowhere, not to be finished until 1915, a part of the eastern section almost entirely built, and which will be finished within a year's time-what did he propose to do in that condition of things? What was my right hon. friend's answer? 'It must not surprise the House,' he said, 'if I inform them that I and my colleagues have been thinking that matter over.' Well, perhaps it might not surprise the unthinking portion of the House, but even that might surprise some of the members in the House who are cognizant of the haphazard way in which my right hon. Iriend entered into this great scheme, and into cognate schemes in reference to it. He has been considering it. But when he came to give a definite idea as to what would be done, the right hon. gentleman had not an idea; he simply said, 'I do not know what can be done; somebody has mentioned a ferry-' and he stopped there. Nobody had mentioned anything else, but somebody had mentioned a ferry, but he did not know what could be done about it, and in the end he took the ground of non-possumus: 'I cannot say w'hat we will do, I have not any plans, i can only say that we have been considering it.' But it does not strike my right hon. friend that there is trouble in store for him there? Would it not have been the part of a cautious man, of a man who was husbanding the resources of this country, to have been very careful as to how he spent thirty-five million dollars of the people's money on that end of the road from Quebec down to the city of Moncton? What was the condition of things? You had a government road into which we had put $80,000,000 or $90,000,000 of the people's money; you had a road which was under almost annual deficits, due to lack of trade, or lack of management, and it would be clemency to my right hon. friend to say that it was due to lack of traffic. $80,000,000 or $90,000,000 of the peopl'es money invested in a road from Levis down to Moncton, St. John and Halifax. Would it not have been the part of caution to go very slow, not duplicating that road until a necessity had been shown therefor? But my hon. friend would not wait, would not be cautious, would not consider the matter at all, and the thing was carried through. Start it, build it, think about it, ponder Mr. FOSTER.
about it afterwards. Now what did my right hon. friend do? When it was objected that that ought not to be duplicated, he said: 'Distance is the essence of the matter, we will save from 120 to 140 miles from Levis to Moncton.' Did my hon. friend say that?-no doubt [DOT]about it. Did it go to the country with his impress?-no doubt about it. Did it help to elect him?-no doubt about it, in connection with other things. My right hon. friend had not even the reasonableness to take time enough to put a tape line over the country before he involved the country in an expense which is now amounting to $35,000,000. How does it come out after a tape line has been put on? What did you want to get? You wanted to get a four-tenths grade. The whole argument was-no good without a four-tenths grade. Will my right hon. friend be surprised if I tell him two things? First, that, as the road has been decided upon, he does not save 120 to 140 miles, but he saves only 29 miles. Will he take the other fact that if he had carried out his provision of having a four-tenths grade his road would have been two miles longer than the present Intercolonial Railway? How did he avoid the making it two miles longer? How did he save his 29 miles? He saved it by the device of murdering the grade. He has no road and never will have with a four-tenths grade, for the accomplishment of which he pledged his word and pledged the money of this people. An arithmetical calculation will have to take place. You have saved 29 miles, you have sacrificed your grade, you have to have two pusher grades of 10 and 12 miles and you have the permanent and perpetual cost of the operation of the pusher grades. Just the mere precaution of laying the tape over the ground would have told my hon. friend that he could not have saved 140 miles. But, he refused to wait for that. Now, what have we?- just what I have stated. I will put a question which was put before and to which we have had no reply. Would it not have been wise, when my right hon. friend saw the immense expenditure which was being put upon this country, to have gone slow upon that Quebec and Moncton end? Has he gone slow? When the Quebec bridge fell and he knew that it would be five, six or seven years before it could be built and of no use to him or to the road, would it not have been reasonable then to have gone slow? But my right hon. friend did not go slow. Up to this date he has spent $28,000,000 on that end. He told this House that it would not cost more than $10,000,000; yet, when it is finished, it will cost $35,000,000. In a year's time my right hon. friend, who is constructing a monu-

ment for himself, will have a disconnected end of a road through a locality which will give little or no local traffic, and a road which will compete with and starve to the extent that it gets traffic the government railway, into which we have put $80,000,000, and he will have it there at a cost of $35,000,000 more of this people's money. What will he do with it? Well, there are different kinds of monuments, but that is a kind of monument that I would not like to have pressing down on my remains. At the end of next year it will be built. Does my right hon. friend propose to put rolling stock upon it? That will be another great expense to the country. Does he propose to run it and have another parallel -Intercolonial railway with another parallel and still greater deficit in proportion to its length? So then we will have this delightful alternative, either to let it remain there silent, useless and depreciating or to work it at a loss, find the rolling stock, make all the expenditure and add again by deficits to the burden of the country. That is the simple alternative. Why, a man of business instinct and of business methods would have stopped that great expense even although a few millions had been spent, until the road had been brought within the reach and purview of practical operation. However, there my right hon. friend is. Just a little while ago a deputation waited upon him asking for aid for the Georgian Bay canal. Other deputations have asked for great public improvements which would have done good to the country. That section of territory had the Intercolonial Railway through it. My right hon. friend is only saving 29 miles and that at the expense of two costly pusher grades. He has taken $35,000,000 of the people's money, tied it up there forever, and he has to turn the cold face and the cold hand to propositions for the real and active development of this country in useful ways. There it stands. What is my right hon. friend going to do about it? How much better would it have been if he had taken a few millions of money and made the Intercolonial Railway just as good a road for freight hauling as he is making that new road from Levis down to Moncton. Why was not that done? That was our road, we had $90,000,000 or $100,000,000 in it, it was a burden upon us and a source of deficits, and it was that because of the lack of traffic and the difficulty of transport over it. Why would it not have been the part of prudence to have made it for all time to come a road, in grades and curves, which would compare with any Canadian railway and so utilize it, feed it and fatten it by the product of the west, which would be trained over the 500, 600,
or 700 miles of our own road? Why would not that have been the part of prudence? But instead of that my right hon. friend has got what he has got. Now, I must hurry on, but I want to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) to an argument that the Minister of Railways and Canals made and which was incidentally made by my right hon. friend as well. The Minister of Railways and Canals says that the paramount thing is to get the products out from the west. The Minister of Railways and Canals made a fine and flowery argument just about as near to the point as Timbuctoo is to the capital of this country. He said: 'Look at the homesteads which have been taken up in the Northwest; 13,000-15,000 homesteads have been taken up. Look at the people who are going into the Northwest; look at the grain that they will be raising for the sometimes starving peoples of the world in keeping with the advancing rate of wheat bread consumption.' It did not occur-or did it?-to my genial friend the Minister of Railways and Canals to inquire if there would have been one single homestead less taken up in the territory traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific if never a dollar had been expended upon the eastern extension from Superior down to Moncton, which has involved us in $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 of absolute expenditure. Has a single homesteader gone in there because the country is spending $35,000,000 to parallel the Intercolonial Railway in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick? Not a single one. Will a single bushel of wheat be raised other than is raised now by the fact that we are building that road there at enormous expense? It all comes back to the fatal error, the error was this, that when a business man put before the Prime Minister a business proposition, the political instinct got the better of the business instinct and a political rather than a business railway was built.
A few million dollars in cash, maybe only a few million dollars of guarantee, would have built every mile of that line from the Great Lakes through to Winnipeg and through to the Pacific ocean, would have built every mile of it and we would have had everything that we have to-day with reference to the development of the west and the carriage of freight. This vast burden of $150,000,000 or more which was then assumed lightly and without forethought, to-day weighs upon us and burdens us, with no benefit commensurate with the expense. These northern regions of Ontario and Quebec might have been opened up but they might have been opened up later and gradually, and to the great benefit of Canada. For what

happpens to-day? To-day the Prime Minister has put clogs on the free feet of this Dominion-and heavy clogs they are. The Prime Minister went into this with a statement that $13,000,000 would build the road and yet before it is completed he will have added $180,000,000 to the	debt of this country, he will
strain the credit of this country, he puts himself and the country into this position that in order to carry out such a wild goose scheme he is sealing up the coffers, paralyzing the power of the Dominion of Canada to go on in other and useful ways of development. For many years to come there will knock at the gates of the Cabinet propositions which would be of the utmost benefit to us, demanding aid, and the Prime Minister's answer will have to be:	'Impossible. We have incurred such
an enormous expenditure with reference to this eastern section that we cannot aid you, we cannot aid you.'
Suppose that the alternative had been something like this: Take a few millions and make your Intercolonial Railway a good road. Take a few millions more if you like and subsidize the Grand Trunk Pacific from the lakes to the Pacific ocean -guarantees would have done it, there is not a foot of soil after that road leaves Winnipeg until it reaches almost the Rocky Mountains, there is not a mile of country which it passes through that will not, the moment it is opened, give the road its paying commerce. Hon. members talk about this loan being on all fours with the loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Why, you have put this line right in between two great lines of communication from Winnipeg west. The road is built through a country which in the main would have been served and served well by existing lines. But the point I wish to make now is that you put it through a country which was rich and which would offer traffic the moment that the transport was ready for it. A few millions of dollars would have done both of these things, a scratch of the pen on Mr. Hays' proposition to you would have put the traffic, when it came out of the Northwest, at the disposal of your Intercolonial Railway. Is there any doubt about that? There is Mr. Hays' proposition, there is what the Grand Trunk was willing to do, and to pledge itself to. That is what the hon. gentleman refused to have done. By adopting that plan you would have had the traffic secured, a line secured from the waters of the Great Lakes out to the Pacific and you would have it secured with very little pressure upon this country financially. Then if the Georgian Bay canal is a great economic and national undertaking, which would redound to the great benefit of this country in opening up deep water carriage Mr. FOSTER.
from the west down to the sea, if that is admitted, and if $100,000,000 would have built that canal, put that amount on one side. Then there is a demand that the Welland canal shall be deepened to a proper depth so as to accommodate the commerce on these lower lakes. That would cost somewhere about $40,000,000 and the two $140,000,000 against $180,000,000 or $200,000,000 that the government have bound around the neck of this country and for what outside of the great western branch of that line? You would have been able to contemplate that great line of internal canal transportation by the Georgian Bay canal and the southern line by the Welland canal, and you would still have been $40,000,000 better off than you are with neither of them completed, and with this burden of the eastern section upon the shoulders of this country. Can any one doubt as to which would inure most to the development and the benefit of Canada. The cheapening of the transport of the products of the great west, in this time of world-wide competition, which makes a cent a bushel almost the consideration which shall impel trade and which shall make the profits for the people who produce the grain, is a probleih of the greatest national importance. But instead of that you have this useless burden.
Let me make clear before I sit down, one point. Let no man say that my argument is an argument against the building of this line into and through the great Northwest and to the Pacific ocean. That is a matter about which there was no difference of opinion. It was the political ends that were tacked on to the project that we have objected to. They entailed great expense and were ahead of their time, they were not productive and will not be productive. What local products, from Moncton up to Quebec, will feed a railway? What local products from Quebec up to Lake Superior Junction will feed a great railway which in its maintenance and operation will be the most costly of any of the great railways of the Dominion? All that has been gained in the opening up of the great Northwest, in providing means of transportation and increased markets for Canadian products, would have gained by the alternative project of which I have spoken. Later on these adjuncts might have been built, but the country will ponder, more and more as the years pass on, the question whether it was necessary that, this costly addition, this costly duplication, should have been made at this time. One word more and it is this. If my hon. friend had not the privilege of being a member of this House and were carrying on this enterprise outside, if he were simply the promoter of a great company to build this road, and if, in his prospectus, he had stated the alleged facts that he has put

forth with reference to this great national undertaking, and had signed his name to that prospectus as he signed his name and gave his imprimatur to the public measure before the House, and had induced people to invest their money to the tune of $200,000,000, he would have found himself in the clutches of the law for issuing a prospectus entirely falsified by the facts. There are some advantages in being a member of parliament and, my right hon. friend will never have occasion to cease thanking his stars that he launched that scheme under the shelter of the privileges of parliament instead of outside parliament as a director and promoter.


Wilfrid Laurier: The course taken by my hon. friends opposite is not at all a cause of surprise to me, nor, do I believe, to any body else. It is in keeping with their attitude from the first towards the great work in which we are now engaged. That attitude has been one of hostility and blind hostility, and it is manifest that the results of two elections have not yet opened the eyes of these hon. gentlemen. When in 1903 we brought into this House a Bill for the construction of another transcontinental railway, the object of which was to connect the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific, every inch of which would be on Canadian ground, we were met from the other side with a storm of objections - objections to the terms granted, objections to the route selected, objections to the expenditure, objections to everything. They objected to the spirit and the letter of the Bill, to every line and every word of it, from the first to the last syllable. These objections were urged on this House, but they failed to make any impression. We were then told, however, that if we only dissolved the House and consulted the people, our project would be torn to pieces by an indignant electorate. When that legislation was completed in 1904, we thought that, in a project of this magnitude, it was due to the country that we should, before entry upon it, ask the opinion of the people. We dissolved parliament and then we had the question fought over again on the hustings as it had been on the floor of this House. All the arguments which had been urged in parliament against the project were urged on the hustings and with no greater success than before parliament. All the objections were thrust aside, and the public answer came clear, decisive and emphatic: go on with the work. With this high sanction, we started the enterprise; but as the work progressed, we found that we would have to revise our estimates. We found that our calculations had been too low and that the obstacles were greater even than we anticipated. The matter came up more 174
than once in the House. It has been thi3 session the subject of more than one debate, and my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) frankly admitted that the cost would be much greater than we expected. Again we dissolved parliament and went before the people. Again the subject was discussed. Again all the new calculations were made before the public; and with all these facts before them, the electors gave the emphatic, decided answer:	go on and finish the work.
We thus have a double verdict. That verdict, twice given, ought to convince my hon. friends opposite that the people believe as we do and as we asserted in 1903, that this road is a political and a commercial necessity. And my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Foster), and who has put the case in as false a colour as he could, has not been able to say that our scheme was ill conceived, that it is not a good commercial enterprise. All he could say was that it was premature, that there was no immediate necessity for the line from Moncton to Quebec or from Quebec to Winnipeg. He did not say that it should not be built. On the contrary, if his argument amounted to anything, he said that it must be built. And in concluding his remarks he said: 'Let me be understood as not hostile to the enterprise; all I say is that it came too early; we might have put our money into building railways more likely to pay dividends and later on build the line from Quebec to Winnipeg.' His whole argument was to that effect. If we had come, he said, to the House with a scheme for a continuation of the Grand Trunk Railway system from North Bay across the prairies to the foot of the Rockies, or across the Rockies to the Pacific ocean, the opposition would have gladly supported it. Well. I have only this to observe, that this mongrel idea of his was not the spontaneous inspiration of the moment. It came at a time when the opposition realized how deeply our scheme had gone into the minds and hearts of the people, and my hon. friends had to suggest something to save their faces. It was not the spontaneous act of the moment, but whether it came late or early, we would not accept the proposition. The proposition was made by the Grand Trunk Railway that we should favour a scheme to extend their railway from North Bay to the Pacific ocean. But we were opposed to that idea. Must I point out that the Grand Trunk Railway was built some 60 years ago, and built, not with regard to the future, but simply the needs of the moment. If we had adopted that suggestion, we would have had, not a national railway, but a hybrid railway, half Canadian and half American. The Grand Trunk Railway was built some 60 years ago simply for the needs of the day without any



thought of the morrow, and we are told that we should be as blind to-day as they were 60 years ago and commit the same grave errors. If that be the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, it is not ours. Our policy is to have a national railway all through Canadian territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That was the idea we put before the people, and that is a policy which should appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. Our policy is to bind the east and the west - the east, which was the cradle of the nation, and the west, which is now the hope of the nation-by means of that tie which commercial relations always create. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not favour that policy. Why? Because, in their opinion, a part of the route to be traversed by this road is not as good land as the prairies, because a part is barren, uninviting, unfit for settlement and incapable of maintaining a population. But, even if it were, would that be an argument against the scheme? In that case you never would have a national railway crossing the continent because the continent is not all fertile prairie. There are mountains, morasses and swamps, but the national idea is to have a Canadian railway from one ocean to the other. At 811 events that is our policy.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I may be pardoned if I repeat the last thought to which I gave utterance before the recess, to the effect that the argument put forward by the opposition against the building of the Transcontinental Railway is no argument whatever. I stated that if it were an argument we never should have built a transcontinental railway; if it were a valid argument it was a mistake to build the Canadian Pacific Railway, since the section of that railway around Lake Superior runs for hundreds of miles upon a bed of granite rock upon which, as every body knows, there is not soil enough for grain to germinate or for trees to obtain firm root. If this were an argument we would have to consent submissively and impotently to take a position subordinate to and dependent on a foreign country. In the face of all this, I repeat that the policy which we adopted six years ago for the building of a transcontinental railway, is a commercial and a national necessity and if it suits the convenience of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to contest and deny this proposition they are welcome to do so, and the more they deny it the more welcome they are to it. Is it true, as a matter of fact, that the whole section of country between the valley of the St. Lawrence and the prairies of the west, is, as has been represented,


Wilfrid Laurier: predict, and never in election time, that the day is not far distant when the skeptics whom I see before me will also have to acknowledge the error of tneir way; but I am not certain whether they will do so or not.
But, Sir, even since we have started this project the events which have taken place amply justify the policy which we introduced nearly six years ago. Since 1903, when we introduced the grand project of building a transcontinental railway which should pass north of the Laurentian mountains, there has been, in those very mountains at Gowganda and at Cobalt, a discovery of minerals the like of which has never been found perhaps in any other part of the world. We have been accustomed to hear of the wonderful silver mines of Mexico, of Colorado, of Nevada, but what are they compared with the silver mines of Cobalt and Gowganda? And is it to be supposed that nature has exhausted her efforts in Gowganda and Cobalt? Is it to be supposed that she has not in her womb other Gowgandas and other Cobalts. Why Sir, the geological formation in which Gowganda and Cobalt are situated extends for hundreds of miles in all directions, and it is certain that we shall find other similarly rich districts. Already you have railways built or contemplated to reach those mineral claims, already you have railways running south and north to reach those valuable deposits. Suppose we had no transcontinental railway, those 'mines would have no permanence, they would have no outlet; but now they will be connected by railway communication with the Grand Trunk Pacific which runs east and northeast, and the cycle will be completed.
All these remarks apply in a like manner to other sections of the road, the section between the St. Lawrence and the maritime provinces, or to put it in exact words, the section between Quebec and Moncton. This is the section that has been made the special point of attack as absolutely useless, as a waste of money. I confess to some disappointment in the abbreviation of the distance over the existing railway; it is not as large as I had expected, it is not as large as I had believed. Looking over the map, which my hon. friend referred to this morning, I confess to some disappointment in that direction. Although the abbreviation is not as large as we had expected, still there is no reason to regret our enterprise. It is beyond doubt that the section of country which is to be covered by this railway is of the same character as the section of country which I have described. It is not all good, but there is in it some very valuable land. All this section which is in the counties of Levis, Dorchester, Bellechasse, Mont-magny, L'Islet and part of Kamouraska,


Sir WILFRID LA  DRIER@: is a character equally as good as the best part of the eastern townships. It has the same formation, it has the same range of mountains, the Ailleghanies, which traverse the eastern townships; and what you have to-day in the eastern townships you will have in that section of the country, that is to say, fruit, dairy and cereal products, and valuable timber, everything which an agricultural community requires. In the counties of Kamouraska and Temis-couata, I understand, the country is rougher. In New Brunswick the country is fairly good. I cannot do better at this point than to give you the testimony of the engineer, which the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission has kindly furnished me at my request. Mr. Foss, one of the engineers, writes as follows:
Report of the nature of the country and soil through that part of New Brunswick traversed by the Transcontinental Railway.
Generally the soil is fairly good and the country well fitted for agriculture.
From Moncton to Chipman, mile 0 to 59, about 10 miles, is through a cultivated region, and the balance is fairly well wooded, with a mixed growth of soft and hard wood, soil for the most part fairly good. From Chipman to the crossing of the Canada Eastern Branch of the Intercolonial Railway, mile 57 to 97, about 10 miles, through (a cultivated country, the balance fairly well wooded with a mixed growth of soft and hard wood, soil for the most part fairly good.
From the Canada Eastern Railway to the Tobique, mile 97 to 165, through a heavily wooded country, with soft wood in the low lands and heavy hard wood on the ridges. These ridges are good farming land, and the hard wood of value as soon as the railway is built. From the Tobique to Grand Falls, mile 165 to 197, about 12 miles, through farming lands or skirting along the edges of farms, the balance through heavy timber and land of mixed growth, the most of it excellent farming and grazing land.
From Grand Falls to the boundary of Quebec, mile 197 to 266, mostly in the St. John river valley, through a well settled country, with good soil.
This report is based on the personal knowledge of the writer, who has travelled over nearly every foot of the line in New Brunswick.
Very respectfully submitted,
(Signed) C. O. FOSS, District Engineer, District A.
This is as satisfactory as it can be. This is not, however, the reason why we built that section of the line, it was not for the development of that section that we built it. We built it rather for commercial and national reasons, because we believed, as I said, that this transcontinental railway, to be effective, must extend from one Canadian

water to the other Canadian water. I gave seme of these reasons when I introduced this project in 1903, and one of the reasons which I gave at that time was that we wanted to become absolutely independent of the bonding privilege, which at the present time makes us dependent upon the United States. This reason then put forward by myself has been strongly attacked; it was attacked this morning by the hon. member for. North Toronto, it was attacked the other day by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who no doubt thought he had demolished my statement, at least to his satisfaction. In order to do him no injustice I will quote the very language which he made use of. I will give it just as it is in all its pointedness:
Six years have passed, and in the interim, as the right hon. gentleman well knows, we have not heard the slightest whisper or word about the repeal of the bonding privilege, and so it is that two-thirds of the speech which the right hon. gentleman then made before this parliament in reference to this matter stands as mere idle wind, designed as an excuse for undertaking this enterprise with such haste and such want of consideration.	_
It is very true that during the past six years there has been nothing to mar our good relations with the United States, but, is that a reason why we should not guard against the danger always existing, even although it is not always imminent? I might go much farther than the language of my hon. friend. It is very true that we have not had any trouble with our neighbours m the last six years. It is even truer, and I am glad of it, that our relations never were more cordial or more friendly than they have been in the last six years. It is also true, and I am proud of it, that since we have been in office we have had no difficulty with our neighbours. We have had sometimes small bickerings, which will occur occasionally in the best^ families, but we have had no serious conflict. We have had no serious quarrel with any one, and yet we are spending every year millions of dollars to defend our territory against a possible invasion. We spent $6,000,000 last year, and we have been spending $6,000,000 a year for some years past. I never heard this policy challenged by anybody. If 1 may refer to a past debate for a moment I might remind the House that ^ -my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) spoke against the frills and feathers but, as to the substance of the expenditure no one nas ever ventured to cTititcise it. More than this, the hon. member for North Toronto, who', this morning, repeated this argument, introduced a motion into this House in order to induce us-to compel us-if possible, not only to provide for our defence on land but for our defence on sea as well. I agree with him that it is part of the duty of the nation to provide for its defence both by
land and on sea. But, is it any less a duty that we should secure our commercial independence against any possible interference with it? That is the motive which has impelled this course, and if my hon. friend takes issue with me upon this question, all I can say is so much the worse for my hon. friend.	...
Then, another reason why my hon. friend challenged our action in this respect was, that, in his estimation-at all events this was the statement which was made by him, this was the position which was taken by him and his friends when we introduced this project, the line which we are building between Moncton and Quebec will be absolutely barren of results, that it will be absolutely useless, that when the trade from the west had reached Quebec it would be as near Portland as it would be St. John. This sentiment was also shared by my gallant friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes). I would have expected that sentiment from anybody else but himself, but I am sure that I was shocked and scandalized when I beheld the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton taking such an unpatriotic attitude. I would have hoped that he would have stood by Canada and that he would have insisted that Canada should have an independent line to the sea.


Mr. HUGHES.: Will the right hon. gentleman be good enough to show where, either directly or indirectly, I have ever failed to stand by Canada? I have never gone to Washington and been kicked out.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will show why, I think, the hon. member put the question he did a moment ago.


Samuel Hughes: I was admiring the attitude of the Prime Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: But, it has been stated that this line would be of no avail because the Grand Trunk would turn away the trade from Quebec towards Portland. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, like everybody else, is animated by interest, and if we make it to the interest of the Grand Trunk, if we have a better railway than it can have from Quebec to Portland, I am sure that it will not prefer the inferior road. It is true that the railway does not come up to the standard that we had expected, but we are building from Quebec to Moncton a Tailway which generally will have a 4-10ths of one per cent grade. There is a pusher grade one way and a pusher grade the other way, but a train would be able to ascend the ridge with the help of one more engine-that is all- it is only for a short distance. So, on the the whole, we have a better road. But, is that the only way we can force trade through our own territory? We have already taken measures to have trade pushed in our own territory. Two years ago this House pass

ed a resolution unanimously, with the concurrence of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), with the concurrence of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the concurrence of everybody who had a seat in this House, to this effect:
That on and after a date to be mentioned by the Governor in Council the British preference shall apply only to goods brought into Canada if shipped through a Canadian port.
That is a measure we have taken to compel trade to come to our own ports. Parliament has not exhausted its powers in this respect, and all I have to say upon this point is that the question of confederation has not been dealt with on geographical lines. It has been dealt with in a manner to give effect to the national idea, the political idea, the idea being to found upon this zone of the American continent a new nation endowed with British institutions, and everything that stands in the way of a realization of that idea must be overcome. That is the policy' of this government.
Another objection which I did not hear today but which I heard some few years ago from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was that we did not make use of the Intercolonial Eailway. Yes, I also heard it from my hon. friend from North Toronto to-day, He asked:	Why did you
not make use of the Intercolonial Railway in order to extend the Transcontinental Railway to the maritime provinces? Why did we not make use of the Intercolonial Railway? For the same reason that the Conservative government of that day refused to make use of the Intercolonial Railway to extend the Canadian Pacific Railway to the maritime provinces? It is a matter of history as well that when the Canadian Pacific Railway had been extended from Callandar to Ottawa, from Ottawa to Montreal and from Montreal to Quebec, great pressure was brought to bear upon the government of that day to have the new National Railway extended from Quebec to the maritime provinces. The pressure was strong upon the government of the day and a legitimate pressure it was. They had to give way to it but did they take advantage of the Intercolonial Railway to carry out this extension of the National Railway to the waters of the Atlantic in Canadian territory? No, instead of that they subsidized a new line from Montreal to a maritime province port and subsidized it through the state of Maine. Why did they do that? Because it was found that the Intercolonial Railway was unsuited to the purpose of the Canadian Pacific Railway. What existed then exists to-day, and what was a good condition for the Canadian Pacific Railway is an equally good consideration for the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now, Sir, this is the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
justification , of our policy, and I believe it is a sufficient and reasonable answer to all the objections which have been raised under this head.
A new objection is now brought to our attention. We are told: 'You are giving a favour to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, you are modifying the contract which you entered into with them in 1903 and 1004, and therefore it is legitimate that you should ask a price, that you should ask a compensation from the company for what you are giving to them. I have to repeat here what I stated a few days ago: that by this loan which we contemplate granting, we have made no modification whatever of the contract. We have not in any way modified the terms which were granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in 1903 and 1904. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition stated that it was not a formal but it was a practical modification of the contract, and my hon. friend from Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) went further-he never does anything by halves-and he stated it was not only a modification of the contract but a repudiation of the contract.


Mr. LENNOX.: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend adheres to his opinion?


Haughton Lennox: That is what I say.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, if the idea which my hon. friend has in his mind, but which he has not given utterance to be correct; and if this be a clear gift to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, then my hon. friend is right that this would be a modification or a repudiation of the contract. But if it be not a gift but a loan; if the money is repaid, as I feel sure it will be repaid, what modification or repudiation of the contract will there be? I know my hon. friend's argument; he has stated that there is a repudiation, of the contract because the Grand Trunk Pacific Company has not undertaken to provide for the building of the railway out of their stock. He says they have $25,000,000 worth of stock, that they do not use that stock for the carrying out of the enterprise and that therefore it is a repudiation of the contract. But, as I said in 1903 I say now: time will not wait; we must go on with the enterprise. Does my hon. friend believe that in the present state of the money market the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would be able to raise a great deal of money upon that $25,000,000 of stock? Does he believe that if they were to put it on the market now they would be able to raise sufficient capital to carry on the enterprise? Why, the hon. gentleman knows that at the resent time the stock would possibly not e saleable, and therefore the company has to wait until the market has sufficiently appreciated to make it to its interest and

to the interest of the country to realize upon it. Under such circumstances, and in view of the existing financial crisis the only manner in which the company could carry on the enterprise upon fair terms was to do what was done by the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1884 and come to the government and ask for the credit of the country to Taise the necessary money. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) stated this morning that this operation was not on all fours with the operation in 1884. What is the difference, let me ask him? In 188*1 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company found themselves in exactly the same position that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company find themselves in to-day. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company could not raise the money on the market and it therefore had to come to the government and co ask the credit of the government to carry on their project. I was struck with the argument used the other day by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and I shall refer to that argument now. By way of showing how much better were the terms that the government in 1884 made with the Canadian Pacific Railway than the government of to-day is making with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, he went on to give the value of the securities which were placed in the hands of the government at that time by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and he used these words:
In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, we had a first mortgage on 3,393 miles of railway, at, $50,000 a mile equal to $170,000,000; we had 21,000,000 acres of land, at $1.50 an acre, $31,500,000, a total of $201,500,000. Against that there was only a mortgage in respect of the Canada Central and other branch lines of $5,333,000; and land bonds outstanding to the net amount of $1,123,000; making a total enoumbrance of $6,456,000. Deducting this from the total value of the security received, leaves $195,044,000 of clear absolute security for the loan of $30,000,000. In addition to that, we had a first lien on the company's postal subsidies, on their steamships, on their after-acquired land, on the branch lines that they might thereafter build, and Dominion, provincial, or municipal subsidies, and upon all the property that they owned. So I think I am safe in saying that we had a security valued at $200,000,000 on which wt proposed to lend $30,000,000.
I have not a word to say against that statement; I have not the slightest exception to take to what the hon. gentleman says there; I believe that the securities which were offered to the Canadian government at that time are fully worth $200,000,000 today. But what were the conditions that faced the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in 1884? It was a young company composed of able and active men, and yet it was offering $200,000,000 in securities in order to borrow $30,000,000, and notwithstanding that company sought in vain to borrow one dollar from all the financial institutions of the world. It is a matter of history that in Montreal they exhausted their credit, that they went to New York without avail, that they went to the money markets of London and Amsterdam without success, and that having exhausted all their efforts they had to come to the government of Canada, and Canada had to lend them its credit to extricate them from the difficulty in which they found themselves. Is it extraordinarv, therefore, that if in 1884 the Canadian ' Pacific Railway Company could not raise $30,000,000 upon securities valued at six times that amount, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company should to-day find it better financing and better business to come to the government and ask the credit of the govenment rather than to put their securities on the market at a very substantial loss. It seems to me that this is an argument which will appeal to the fairness and the common sense, even of my hon. friend from North Grey, and I feel sure he will apologize to the House for the very bad argument he made upon one point, even though he made a good argument on another point. It is true that we have not from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the same amount of securities that the government obtained from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Well, if we had been as generous to the Grand Trunk Pacific as the government of that day was to the Canadian Pacific Railway we might also have lots of securities to take as a pledge. If we had given to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company 25,000,000 acres of land; if we had given to the Grand Trunk Pacific some hundreds of miles of railway already built; if we had built for them the mountain section and the section along the north shore of Lake Superior, then we could have had from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company far better security than they are able to give us to-day. But, nevertheless, though they cannot give us their own security they give us an endorser in the person of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, which I think is quite solvent and quite able to answer for the amount which we are going to loan. I have heard this matter discussed; I know that there are skeptics on the other side of the House-I stated a moment ago that bad as it is, skepticism is the least of all the faults of hon. gentlemen opposite. For instance, my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is satisfied that this loan will never be repaid, although it is guaranteed by both the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself. Does my hon. friend believe for one moment that the Grand Trunk Railway Company will make default on these bonds? They will be honoured, every cent of them.


Haughton Lennox: I did not assert in any shape or by any inference that this loan would never be repaid; but if my right hon. friend asks me the question, I say, judging from the experience of the past, that there is great doubt whether it will ever be paid or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is exactly what I meant. I was sure my hon. friend would say that. I do not pretend to be a mind reader, but it is not difficult to read his mind. We know his way of thinking, and therefore the conclusion is not difficult to reach.
There is only one question as to which I think we can have reasonable discussion: it is as to the cost of the road. As to this there may also be some unreasonable criticism. The road is far more expensive than for my part I had calculated; but I will ask hon. gentlemen to name one of the great enterprises that go beyond the ordinary business of every day, in regard to which the estimates of the engineers have not been exceeded. It seems as if these gigantic enterprises, in the immensity and variety of their details, are never fully conceived in the minds of engineers, and almost invariably experience shows that there have been obstacles which were not thought of at their inception. The last century has been prolific in great enterprises, and I think I am safe in saying that it is not possible to single out one of them in which the estimate of the engineers has not been greatly exceeded. Perhaps the greatest work conceived during the last century was the digging of the Suez canal. The estimate of the engineers was that it would cost $20,000,000, and the canal was commenced in 1859 and was to be completed in 1864. It was not completed until 1869, and its cost turned out to be $80,000,000. In England one of the great works of the country was the building of the bridge over the Firth of Forth, which was built by two of the most eminent engineers of England, which of all countries is perhaps the most eminent in engineering science-I refer to Sir John Fowler and Sir Benjamin Baker. The estimate of the cost in our money was $6,400,000, and the cost of the work when completed exceeded $10,000,000. Coming to the United States, we find that the bridge over the East river between New York and Brooklyn cost 47i per cent more than the original estimate. If we come to Canada, the Victoria bridge is a monument of scientific engineering, a work of which we have reason to be proud, built by that eminent engineer, Robert Stevenson, and its cost was 35 per cent more than the original estimate. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in discussing this matter the other day, referred to the Panama canal; he also alluded to it a moment ago. It so happens that there is in the current Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
i	

issue of ' McClure's ' magazine an article on the Panama canal from the pen of no less a person than President Taft himself, who, as we know, had a good deal to do with that great work; and this is what he has to say as to its cost:
The second circumstance is with reference to the cost of the work. The estimate of the cost of the canal, exclusive of the interest during construction, sanitation, and expense of zone government, and the $50,000,000 paid Panama and the French Company, was $139,705,200. The present estimate of the cost of the canal as now projected, exclusive of the same items, is $297,766,000, or a grand total of $375,000,000.
So that the present estimate of the cost of the canal is over 100 per cent more than the original, and the canal is not built. When it is built, we shall know its real cost.
As I have said, the cost of the Transcontinental Railway has been in excess of what we had anticipated, but my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has given to the House what I think is the paramount reason for this. This road has been built upon a different plan altogether from the plan on which such roads are usually built. Railroads have usually been built first of all in as cheap a manner as possible-with heavy grades, inferior curves, wooden trestles and light rails; and afterwards the road is built and rebuilt. In this case the company has thought it better, and I believe it is wise economy on their part, instead of building a cheap road at first, to build at once a solid permanent road, instead of rebuilding the road three or four times over as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has done. That is the reason the cost of the road has been greater tl an the estimate. I do not say this as an excuse, for whatever the cost of the road is, we must go on with the enterprise; but I am glad to say that there has been no extravagance, that every dollar of the money has been honestly expended. If we compare the cost of this road with the cost of similar enterprises, we find after all that the cost has not been excessive, but absolutely normal. A. friend of mine, an engineer, has collated ,for me the following figures as to some other great roads:
Mile-
Railway.	age.
Southern Pacific Railway	9,834
Southern Railway.. .. 6,051 St. Louis and San Francisco Railway	6,000
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway.. 9,430 Great Northern Railway	 6,636
Northern Pacific Railway	 6,284
Average
cost
Total per cost.	mile.
711.000.	000 $72,400
293.000.	000 48,900
280.000.	000 46,600 534,176,000 56,600
319.000.	000 48,000
500.000.	000 79,000

I understand, however, that the cost of this railway, as finally adjusted, will not be $79,000 a mile, but about $60,000 a mile.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: That includes watered stock, I presume.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have deducted the watered stock when I say that the cost will be $60,000 per mile instead of $79,000. Comparing the figures Dn our road with those, there is no reason why we should not be satisfied. These figures show that it compares very favourably with the standard railways.
Before I sit down, I wish to allude once and for all to the statement, which has been repeated for the thousandth time, that when I introduced this scheme I said all the road would cost would be $13,000,-
000.


Some hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are men who assert in all seriousness that I said we were going to build a railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, on the western section of which we were to contribute a guarantee for three-quarters of the cost, and build the eastern section from Winnipeg to Moncton, and that all this would be done for $13,000,000. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) repeated that this morning without a blush or a smile. He was quite serious; well, if he did not deceive anybody, perhaps he deceived himself, and I am not sure of that either. I said in laying the project before the House that we were going to build the eastern section ourselves and lease it to the Grand Trunk Pacific for 3 per cent of the cost; we were going to assist in the western to the extent of three-quarters of the cost and for this also we were going to 'receive 3 per cent, but that on the two sections, we would give the company an abatement of interest for seven years, and that would represent the amount which would eventually come out of the Canadian people. Let me read the words once more to my hon. friends, not that I expect that they will change their tune, but to see if there be any sense of decency left in them:
When completed the company will lease the road and pay us a rental at the rate of 3 per cent per annum upon the cost of construction, whatever that may he. The same abatement of rent is provided also as in the case of interest on the western section. During seven years the company will be exempt from the payment of rent. For three years the company will be bound to pay the revenues and the tolls of the road if they amount to 3 per cent, and if they fail to amount to 3 per cent, then the difference between the revenues gathered and the 3 per cent will be capitalized and added to the cost of construction, and the company will pay interest upon it. So that here again the whole of the liability which is incurred by
the government for the building of that section from Moncton to Winnipeg is simply seven years of interest.
We had to advance the money but all the treasury would be mulcted for in the end would, be the seven years' interest, and I estimated that at $13,000,000.- 1 agree that this was a mistake because the road will cost much more; but to pretend that I said we would build the railway for $13,000,000 is something which would never come out of the brains of any one though it has come very often from the mouth of some. On this point, however, I claim no vindication. The facts are there, and I leave them once more with all confidence to the judgment of the Canadian people.
My hon. friend was kind enough to say that this railway would be a monument to my memory. I confess that I feel deeply upon it, I did my best to have the project accepted, not only by my colleagues but by parliament and the people, but I never heralded it as a monument to myself, though some people say I did. But I say the time will come when that policy will be vindicated to its fullest extent and to the very letter. The Canadian people little realize at this moment what is the future of this great enterprise. Is there a man, in or out of the House, who does not believe that it has a great future, or that it is not only a commercial but an absolute actual necessity.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Like every other hon. gentleman in this House, I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the eloquent address delivered by the right hon. the Prime Minister. During his remarks he accused hon. gentlemen on this side of skepticism. I can only say that, having regard not only to the address we have just heard but to other statements made by the right hon. gentleman, I for one must plead guilty to the charge of being skeptical with regard to any statements made by him respecting this transaction. His charming language and fascinating manner would almost persuade one to become a skeptic, even if he were to rely upon that address alone. But this is not the first eloquent speech the right hon. gentleman has delivered on this question. He has delivered several on the question of the Transcontinental Railway and on many other subjects, and I do not propose to follow him through his somewhat lengthy utterances, but to touch merely on one or two points which he endeavoured to make at the opening of his remarks. One was that he was very anxious the products of this country should reach the sea-board wholly through Canadian territory. Let me congratulate the hon. gentleman upon his conversion to that doctrine. Only a few years ago he nailed the colours of unrestricted reciprocity to the ship of

state. At that time he was not only in favour of sending a portion of our products to the United States, but waxed eloquent in favour of sending all of them. I am very glad the right hon. gentleman has returned to the fold and recanted those opinions, *and congratulate him on having become a convert to the east and west lines of communication. But we always have some skepticism when listening to the eloquence of a new convert. We know that he is apt to be more enthusiastic than those who have borne the heat and burden of the day and are inclined to take what he said with more than a grain of salt. It is not surprising therefore that we should be a little skeptical.
The next position he took was that this transaction had on two or three different occasions received the endorsation, not only of this House, but of the country. Let me say that, in my humble opinion, neither the representatives of the people in this House nor the people themselves have had an opportunity of expressing an unprejudiced opinion on this scheme of the national transcontinental railway. What was the modus operandi? A contract was entered into at first with the Grand Trunk Pacific by the government, subject to the ratification of this House. The leader of the House came down here with a signed contract, and the question with his followers was whether they should support that contract and have the government remain in office or reject it and have the government resign from office. It was a question of confidence or non-confidence, and the followers of the government voted, not on the merits of the case, but in order that their party might remain in power. But, Mr. Speaker, when the matter first came before this House for ratification, did the right hon. gentleman present the facts, or anything within reasonable distance of the facts regarding this contract? I remember the eloquent speeches that he delivered in those days. We remember him telling the people of this country that we had mountains of information. At page 7680 of ' Hansard ' of 1903, he said.
In that year, 1872, the Canadian government undertook a systematic and scientific exploration of the whole northern region from Lake Abitibi westward to the Pacific ocean. Prom the year 1872 to the year 1880 no less than twenty-eight expeditions were organized to visit, explore, and report upon that country. . . . Mr. Marcus Smith, Mr. Cambie, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Horetzky, and several others, all engineers of eminence, crossed and recrossed that territory and became as familiar with it as they were with the streets of Ottawa.
We are all proud of the Prime Minister, proud that we have a poet as Prime Minister, as is evident in this very sentence: Mr. CROTHERS.
'Crossed and recrossed that territory and became as familiar with it as they were with the streets of Ottawa.' And his followers behind him cheered him to the echo.
Any one who to-day would care to look into the reports now accumulated in the archives of the Railway Department will know that country, just as he may know his own home.
So the right hon. gentleman knew this country and he was speaking of that portion of the road. He spoke of the portion east of Lake Abitibi in the province of Quebec which he said had been explored several times. Now with all that information touching that road, knowing it as he knew his own home, or the streets of Ottawa, he told the people of Canada that this road would cost us only $13,000,000. That, of course, was not to be the total cost of constructing this road, but the sum that the people of Canada would have to pay by way of interest. I understood that at the time and I do not think the people of Canada were misled on that point.


Mr. PATERSON.: Hear, hear.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Prime Minister took the position that if the people of Canada were to borrow hundreds of millions to put into this road, they would only be required to pay that amount of interest. I am only surprised that with his eloquence, with his ingenuity, with his capacity, the Prime Minister did not go a little further and prove to the people of Canada not only that it would only cost $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, but that it would not cost them a cent to construct the road. Why? Because the minister proposed to go to England and borrow the money. He might have gone a step farther and have said to the people of Canada: 'It will not cost you a cent because at the end of each year, when the interest comes due, I will go to England and borrow the money. The Prime Minister based his statement that it would not cost the country more than $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 upon figures supplied to him by the Minister of Finance, who estimated that the eastern section of the road would cost $51,300,000. That estimate was arrived at after very close calculation on the part of that great financier, the Finance Minister of Canada. He knew then, as he knows now, that these great enterprises always cost two or tree times as much as the original estimate, but he made that statement and it was repeated by every one of his followers throughout the country. Yet the Prime Minister has the courage to announce in this House that he received the endorsation of the people of Canada. I do not wish to say anything offensive or to accuse the Prime Minister of intentionally making a statement that was not true or of intentional misrepresen-

tation, but I do say that when these statements were made to parliament and through parliament to the people, parliament and the people of Canada were both grossly misled. I am surprised at the courage of the Prime Minister, after admitting to-day that that section will cost at the least $150,000,000, in saying that in 1904 he received the approval of the people of Canada with regard to this measure.
Coming down to the election campaign of 1908, the right hon. gentleman visited the province of Ontario and he was apparently so busy there in satisfying the people of Ontario that he was a straight Grit, that he had no time to discuss the Grand Trunk Pacific. He said, as reported in the 'Globe':
I am a straight Grit. Not an independent Grit (cheers), but a Grit out and out, and the man who is nearest my heart is the man who is a Grit like myself and it is as a Grit that I ask you all, ladies and gentlemen, to give your support to my friend Mr. Smith.
Mr. Speaker, statesmanship, elegance, dignity and patriotism:	No appeal to intelligence, no appeal to the judgment of the people, no appeal to conscience, no appeal to patriotism, no argument in favour of constructing the Transcontinental Railroad, but: ' I am a straight Grit, not an independent Grit, but a Grit out and out.' The right hon. gentleman's experience satisfied him that this was the most effective style of argument. He might have said not only that he was a straight Grit, but that he was a fossilized Grit and that he appealed to fossilized Grits in the province of Ontario, not that he appealed to their judgment, to their conscience, or that he appealed to them on high national principles for their votes. Then he went down to the province of Quebec. Did he there tell anything about the cost of the Transcontinental Railway? Did he give such an eloquent description of what it will do for the country as he has done to-day? Did he appeal to the conscience, the independence, the patriotism of the people of Quebec? What was his appeal?
The same blood flows through my veins that flows through yours.
And, Mr. Speaker, when he came to Ottawa, he saw a report of a speech delivered by his colleague and the only thing that struck him in that speech was the opinion of his colleague touching the increase in the salaries of the Civil Service in Ottawa. He wrote a letter to his colleague saying: 'I quite endorse your opinion touching the increase of the salaries of the Civil Service, and you have my permission to say so.'
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada, the man standing at the head of the nation, the man whose office we all admire and respect and esteem and Tevere, might have been expected to have appealed to the people on a higher plane than that. We
would have expected the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada, if his colleague in Ottawa had suggested to him the propriety of writing such a letter to the people of Ottawa, we would have expected him to say, 'No, Mr. McGiverin, I am not running this election on a peanut policy. I am at the head of the government of Canada. The interest of Canada, the great transactions in which we are engaged, are of more importance than your success or mine. I do not propose to discuss with you at this time such a small question as the salaries of the civil servants at Ottawa. There are great national questions at issue. My sentiments, my interest in the people of this country, my patriotism, force me to say to you that I will not descend to these insignificant questions.'
Now, Mr. Speaker, when we had that campaign in Quebec, when we had that campaign in Ontario, when we had that campaign in Ottawa, does it not require considerable courage on the part of the Prime Minister to stand up before us and boast of the people of Canada having on several occasions approved of what he has done in regard to the Transcontinental Railway? Now with these mountains of information, we had the right hon. gentleman telling U3 in eloquent terms-because he is always eloquent, we are always delighted to hear him, we are always proud of him. His charming language and his fascinating manner, as I said a moment ago, almost convert those who are sitting opposite to him-but with all this information, with the knowledge he then had of the diflerent parts of this country, equal to the knowledge he had of his own home, as familiar with these different sections as he is with the streets of Ottawa, he told the people of Canada that the eastern division would only cost $51,300,000. He has cited two ot three other cases here to-day where the actual cost was a great deal more than the first estimate. I think the largest difference he mentioned was 100 per cent. Now we have it admitted that this eastern division will cost $150,000,000. 50 in 150 goes three times. How much percentage is that? 300 per cent. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that he is not able to find a parallel in the whole railway history, in all modern engineering, where the real cost so far exceeded the estimates. We were told also that we were going to save from 120 to 140 miles by the construction of this road through New Brunswick; and to-day it is admitted that we are saving about 29 miles. The right hon. gentleman was familiar, from the explorations, from the documents in the archives, as familiar with the whole road across to the Pacific as he was, he told us, with his own home, with the streets of Ottawa. The right hon. gentleman told us that the mountain sec-

tion was about 600 miles in length, and his colleague the Finance Minister put it at 480 miles. What have we now? It is now stated by the Finance Minister that the mountain section is 839 miles, and in a letter which Mr. Hays wrote to the Finance Minister on the 16th of November last, this prairie section has been extended 130 miles further west than it was contemplated at the time the agreement was made; 839 and 130 will give you 969 miles as the length of that mountain section at that time. And yet we have the right hon. gentleman putting it at 600 miles, with his mountains of information; and we had the Finance Minister putting it at 480 miles, with his mountains of information. So, Mr. Speaker, what is one of the most discouraging and humiliating features of this whole transaction, is the utter unreliability of the statements that are made by hon. gentlemen opposite, not only the unreliability with reference to the original statements they made buit the unreliability of, "the statemen(ts they have recently made. I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how hon. gentlemen in this House can vote on this question, and vote intelligently, how they can be otherwise than in the condition in which the right hon. gentleman describes us, that of skeptics. Why, no longer ago than the 13th day of April, 1908, just one year ago, the Minister of Railways brought down a return to this House stating that the prairie section would cost $21,873,000-only one year ago. What have we now? We have it stated now that the $11,000,000 we raised has all been expended except I think $1,000,000; the $10,000,000 raised by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on guarantees given by the Grand Trunk Railway Company will make you over $20,000,000; the Grand Trunk is to get back $7,000,000 now of this sum we are advancing, and that makes up about $27,000,000, and there are about 600 miles of it constructed. When I saw this letter that was sent to the Finance Minister on the 16th day of November, I supposed in my innocence,- and I think the people supposed, that that $10,000,000 was asked for to enable the company to continue the construction of the prairie section on to the mountain section. I will read a sentence or two from that letter:
By reason of the extension of the prairie section 130 miles further west than was contemplated, it is found that an additional sum of $10,000,000 will be needed to complete the section to Wolf Creek which is the dividing line between the prairie and mountain sections. To raise this additional sum it will be necessary to make a further issue of bonds as contemplated by section 34 of the agreement of the 29th July,' 1903. . . . Further legislation will be required to enable the company to fully carry out what was contemplated by these agreements respecting the issue of bonds to provide the balance rerequired-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: To provide the balance required.
-(above the proceeds of the government guarantee) for the completion of the prairie section of the western division, and we desire to have an assurance that your government will, at the forthcoming session of parliament, introduce and support such legislation at the earliest date practicable. . . . Under such circumstances and in view of the urgent desire of the government that the enterprise shall be prosecuted without any delay, we ask the government to assist us in the utilizing of these bonds.
And so on. Near the end of the letter he says, speaking of this sum required for the completion of the prairie section:
I would therefore urge that such measures of immediate relief he given as will enable us to do this and avoid the disastrous effect on the credit of both the railways and the country which would necessarily result from a stoppage of the work.
Now, Mr. Speaker, reading that letter any one would come to the conclusion that the work already done had been paid for, and that $10,000,000 was required to continue the construction work. I submit that that was a misleading statement to make, misleading to members of this House and misleading to the people of this country. We all understood at that time that the $10,000,000 was required to continue the work on to the mountains. And what are we told now? We are told that about $7,000,000 of the $10,000,000 is already expended, and that there will be only $3,000,000 left. Then, Mr. Speaker, it has been in substance admitted by the right hon. gentleman and by the Minister of Finance, that negotiations were afoot with the officers of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company prior to the 26th of October last. Why did not the right hon. gentleman and why did not the Finance Minister mention that in discussing these matters or in discussing any other matters with the people of Canada? Was the little sum of $10,000,000 too small and too insignificant for them to submit to the people of Canada? Why did they withhold it? Is it not in keeping with their whole conduct in regard to this matter? Does it not appear to have been the well settled policy that this government should humbug the people in reference to this Transcontinental Railway? The Minister of Finance was up in our province during the elections. These negotiations were going on with the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but he never uttered a sentence to the people of Ontario with respect to them. He was too busy telling the people of Ontario, why he had expended such large sums of money. He told them that he had expended these large sums of money because he had them to expend. The most reckless spendthrift in the country might say: ' I have spent all

I had because I had it to spend.' The prodigal son might have said: ' I have squandered the substance which my father gave me, in riotous living because I had it to spend.' But the time came when he fain would have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat, and no man gave unto him. Yet, in the face of this we find the right hon. gentleman coming to this House, and, through this House, saying to the people of Canada that they should approve of this loan of $10,000,000, that they have already approved of it two or three times, that his soul is so lofty that he is thinking only now of keeping our products out of the United States and that he has reformed since; a few years ago, he nailed the colours of unrestricted reciprocity to the mast and declared that he would never tear them down until they waved triumphant. As far as I am concerned I confess that I plead guilty to being a skeptic. I also submit that the conduct and the statements of these hon. gentlemen in 1903 and 1904, and often and often repeated since, would convert the firmest believer into the most pronounced skeptic.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker before the Bill is read a third time I desire very briefly to present some considerations to the House in connection with the proposal. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has referred to the supposed skepticism of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House with regard to the resources of this country and he has repeated the parrot-like cry that has resounded throughout this country from one end of it to the other, whenever a Liberal orator ascended a Grit platform, that the Conservative party, in 1903 and 1904, opposed the project of the Transcontinental Railway. I take issue with the right hon. gentleman on that point as I take issue with him on some other points and I say that we declared then, as we declare now, that the Conservative party which carried to a triumphant issue the proposition to build a transcontinental railway across this continent in days gone by, have always shown that they had and have the courage, the faith and the belief in the resources of this country that should characterize every patriotic citizen of Canada. I was a little surprised at the audacity of the right hon. gentleman in reference to the skepticism of the Conservative party in regard t-o the resources of Canada. I think that it indicated that the right hon. gentleman's nervous system is increasing in force and vitality as the years go by.


William Paterson: That is good.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. CONMEE.: Will the hon. gentleman state the date of that report?


Robert Laird Borden: 1902. My right hon. friend has referred to the speech of my hon. friend from North Toronto and has said that he spoke of some hybrid scheme. As far as I can understand the only hybrid scheme to which he has alluded was the proposition of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the first instance. The Prime Minister said that that scheme was half Canadian and half American. What do you think of a scheme for a national transcontinental railway upon which this country has paid out, or will contribute in cash and credit, perhaps $225,000,000 or $250,000,000, and which has its winter port, as far as we can understand at the present time, in the United States of America and not within the limits of Canada at all, a point to which I will direct attention again and to which I will ask the consideration of the House by a resolution I shall move.	_
But my right hon. friend excelled himself when he came to deal with the bonding privilege. The chief consideration placed before the House by the right hon. gentleman in 1903 was the imminence of danger by reason of the possible or probable abrogation of the bonding privilege by the government of the United States. He admitted to-day that we have not heard much about the abrogation of the bonding privilege since he made that famous speech in 1903, but he still persists in asserting that Canada has been saved from some great impending danger by the course he took at that time. Let me ask the right hon. gentleman three questions. Did or did not the Intercolonial Railway exist before the 30th day of July, 1903? Is or is not the Intercolonial Railway built wholly upon Canadian territory? Does or does not the Intercolonial Railway connect at Montreal with the Canadian ' Pacific Railway system? These are three pertinent questions which I have the rght to put to the right hon. gentleman, and which touch the very essence of his argument that the $30,000,000 or $35,000,000 expended on the National Transcontinental Railway from Quebec to Moncton has been of any real service to Canada with respect to the bonding privilege. And, Sir, the net result of it all is that Canada has been saved from this tremendous danger in connection with the bonding prvilege by the construction of a railway line at an Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
expense of $30,000,000, which saves 29 miles of distance between Quebec and Moncton. It is thus that in the mind of the right hon. gentleman Canada has been saved from such dangers as he pointed out in 1903, and reaffirmed this afternoon. Can absurdity go farther? The Intercolonial Railway is upon Canadian territory. The Intercolonial Railway, according to the statement of the Minister of Railways this very session, desires and requires all the further traffic that can be placed upon it, but the right hon. gentleman persists in saying that we have been saved from some awful danger by the mere fact that we have shortened the line between Quebec and Moncton by 29 miles.
My right hon. friend further stated that in 1903, I declared that the line from Quebec to Moncton was absolutely absurd and useless. I did not make any such declaration. I did not then have sufficient information tc enable me to judge one way or the other, nor, as the results have shown, did the right hon. gentleman possess any such information at that time. What I said then and what I repeat now is :
As to my attitude with regard to the Que-bec-Moncton line, I say that if there is to be found a better and shorter line between Riviere du Loup, or any other point on the Intercolonial, and Moncton, a line which will give to Halifax and St. John, and the maritime provinces generally, a better fighting chance for western traffic than that which they have at present, I will support its construction. But I will not support it with the object for which this Bill provides. I will support the construction of that line a9 part of the Intercolonial Railway. I do not believe in constructing that better and shorter line for the purpose of handing it over to the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other railway company, but I do believe in constructing it and keeping it for the people's railway. That is my position, and it is a position which I am ready to discuss in the maritime provinces or anywhere else.
I went on to elaborate the argument, but I will not weary the House by quoting further. My right hon. friend also referred to a resolution passed by this House some sessions ago with respect to goods admitted to Canada, and claiming the British preference, but I would point out to him that if the statement of his own Minister of Railways is to be taken at its face value, and if the Intercolonial Railway requires all the traffic it can get, it is rather singular that the right hon. gentleman does not put that policy into force at once and give to the Intercolonial Railway a better chance of getting traffic than it enjoys to-day.
The right hon. gentleman told us that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company could not raise anything upon its stock ; but I would point but that if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in 1882, in view of the denunciation of the scheme by the Liberal party of that day, at a time when that

western country was unknown, when the land was inaccessible, when the people of Canada and of the world at large had not that faith and confidence in it which they have to-day; if the Canadian Pacific Railway at that time could induce the promoters of the enterprise to take its stock at 25 cents on the dollar and afterwards at 50 cents on the dollar, it is to say the least peculiar that in these later days when that country has been populated to a very considerable extent, when immigration is pouring into it, when this enterprise is declared to be a paying enterprise from the very moment it commences to carry freight; it is I say a remarkable thing that the promoters of that enterprise 'have not put a dollar of their money into the road, but are depending absolutely upon bond issues, moneys raised by the guarantee of the government and of the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
Then the right hon. gentleman referred to the 250,000,000 acres of land granted by the government of Canada to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but he very discreetly omitted to mention that the government of which he was a member offered a very much larger quantity of land for the purpose of constructing that railway and were not able to get it constructed.
Leaving the speech of my right hon. friend for a moment and coming to what I have more immediately in mind, I recognize, as I have already said, that this enterprise upon which so much money has been spent both in eastern and western Canada, must be carried to a conclusion, and that it would be a misfortune that any stoppage of the work should take place. But we have to consider the object of this enterprise, and that object is set forth in the agreement of 1903 as follows:
Whereas it is in the interest of Canada that a line of railway, designed to secure the most direct and economical interchange of traffic between eastern Canada and the provinces and territories west of the great lakes, to open up and develop the northern zone of the Dominion, to promote the internal and foreign trade of Canada, and to develop commerce through Canadian ports, should be constructed and operated as a common railway highway across the Dominion, from ocean to ocean, and wholly within Canadian territory.
I need not again allude to the fact that paragraphs 42 and 43 of this agreement declare specifically that aid was granted to the enterprise by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and transportation of goods through Canadian channels to Canadian ports. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company was pledged to the fulfilment of that condition and to use its best efforts for the purpose of carrying it out. But, in the first place the method by which the government sought to accomplish this was by selecting a company
which had its chief winter port in the United States. That was an extraordinary feature of the whole enterprise. The object of this enormous public aid being that we should build up our own Canadian ports both in summer and winter, it does seem remarkable that a company was selected which has its winter ports altogether in the United States. I say that with no desire to cast any discredit upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It has its own commercial interests to serve; it has built up Portland, it has enormous interests there, it has expended enormous sums of money at that port, and I am not blaming the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for endeavouring to make the best bargain it could with this government or with any one else with respect to its business enterprises. But the initial difficulty, a difficulty from which this government and this country can never get away, was that the company selected to assist the government in carrying out this enterprise was a company that had its winter port in the United States and not in Canada.
The next feature of the enterprise to which attention may be directed is that the undertaking was not to be carried out by means of a contract with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. If that company had been a party to this contract, it would have been forced by the voice of the Canadian people, as any government entering into such a contract would have been found to accept effective stipulations to use Can-dian ports during the winter months. But that was not done. It was the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company alone which entered into the stipulations in regard to the development of Canadian trade through Canadian channels.
Another feature was that the promoters were not required to put any money into the enterprise themselves, but were allowed to build it by bond issues-I am speaking of the western division-guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and by the government, while the government undertook the entire financing of the construction of the eastern division. There has been an enormous drain upon the resources of our country for this work. Its purpose is to bring the enormously increasing traffic of the west to Canadian ports instead of leaving it to be diverted to ports in the United States; and yet what will be the inevitable result of the conditions which I have presented to the House?
My right hon. friend said he presented this enterprise to the people of this country with a firm heart. Does he present to-day with a firm heart the imminent danger that all that traffic will be carried in the winter to Portland instead of to St. John and Halifax? Is it for this purpose that the people of this country have supplied their cash and pledged their credit to the extent of $250,000,000? What was

my right hon. friend's answer when I put this question to him in the most pointed manner a few days ago? What was his answer when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) put it to him to-day and asked him what he was going to do about it? His answer to me was that the clause should be carried; and his answer to the hon. member for West Toronto was a complete avoidance of the question. There will be a lease of the section from Winnipeg to the Port Arthur branch and western traffic will he delivered to the Grand Trunk Railway, which, under the conditions as they stand at present, will be at liberty during the winter months to carry it to Portland instead of to St. John or Halifax. My right hon. friend tells us that he will select a more favourable occasion-when the lease will be granted to this company of the line from Winnipeg to the Port Arthur branch-for dealing with this question. I have already pointed out that the terms of the lease are already settled-that any lease of a portion of the line must, so far as the company is concerned, be on terms not more onerous to them than those of the lease of the entire line. I have pointed out further that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has the option of taking or not taking a lease of any portion of the line. Is there any answer to my argument that under these conditions the traffic is bound to go to Portland in the winter months? My right hon. friend says that the insertion of any necessary stipulation binding upon the Grand Trunk would be a modification of the contract. On that matter there may be a legitimate difference of opinon ; but I adhere to my view that although there has been no formal modification of the contract, there is by the proposal of the government a practical modification of the contract. But if I accept my right hon. friend's assurance in that regard, then he is open to this retort, that if his proposal is not a modification of the contract, no more would it be a modification of the contract to insist that the Grand Trunk Railway Company should bind itself by some effective stipulation. It is not a party to the contract, and therefore to insist that it shall enter into some stipulation of that kind would be, according to the reasoning of my right hon. friend, no modification of the contract, and there is no reason why it should not be done. Therefore it seems to me that this is a time for action by the government; and, as they do not seem disposed to take any action in behalf of the maritime ports of Canada, I propose to make a suggestion by the terms of a resolution which I shall offer. Mr. Blair in this House, in 1903, pointed out, and with good reason, that in days to come the expenditure, which he put at that time at Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
$15,000,000, now swollen to $30,000,000 or $35,000,000, would be taken into consideration as an expenditure for the transportation requirements of the maritime provinces in the future. But the feeling in the minds of the people of the maritime provinces will be that this expenditure should not be placed against them in the records of the country's expenditure when they find that this great national transcontinental highway will be utilized for carrying the trade of Canada to Portland instead of to the ports of the maritime provinces. That will be the net result, and is it a Tesult to which my right hon. friend looks forward with a firm heart? I do not believe that the people of the maritime provinces will _ look forward to it with a firm heart, or with a rejoicing heart, but I think they will be firm in heart against proposals which _ look to a continuance of any such condition. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the order for the third reading be discharged and that the said Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole House with power to amend the same by adding effective provisions binding the Grand Trunk Railway Company as well as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to fulfil the conditions upon which aid has been granted to this enterprise, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports and forbidding the diversion of Canadian traffic to foreign ports except when specifically routed thereto by the shipper.


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to have taken any part in this debate, but some observations have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite which are quite contrary to my conception of this enterprise and to the advisability of making the loan under the circumstances which have been presented to the House. It has been argued that the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern offers as great security, from a military point of view, for connections between the west and the east as does the Grand Trunk Pacific. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that the Grand Trunk Pacific was not the most northerly road, that there were other lines extending farther north, and that consequently it was not as well located as regards military use or that it would be of as much advantage to the country in case of need as some of the existing lines. Well, while the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is usually very logical and very well informed on any subject he discusses, I do not think he did himself justice in dealing with this matter, because I cannot but think that if he had made himself fully acquainted with the positions of the several lines of railway to which he referred, he would not have contended that there is

any comparison, from a military point of view, between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the National Transcontinental. What are the conditions? It was said, why, the Transcontinental starts at Halifax, at Quebec, at Winnipeg, and so on from point to point across the country. That is true, but it is also true that from Quebec to Winnipeg its line is much more northerly situated than the Canadian Pacific Railway, and also that in this section it is a trunk line of communication between the east and west. That is to say it is the heart of the connection between the east and the west, and cannot be left out of the calculations if you have any regard for maintaining connection between the east and the west, assuming that we might unfortunately be involved in a contest with our neighbours to the south. The conditions are these: The Canadian Pacific Railway skirts for 250 miles the north shore of Lake Superior. I am not posing here as a military expert by any means, but I know sufficiently of military tactics, and national defence, to make this assertion, that, as a means of maintaining communication between the west and the east, in the event of trouble, the Canadian Pacific Railway is almost valueless. With anything like a powerful enemy, that line would be almost impossible to defend. It could be attacked at a hundred points during any night at all, whether bright or dark, with certainly, so far as the attacking force might be concerned, and with uncertainty so far as regards the defence, so that, from a military point of view, it would be particularly vulnerable. The Canadian Northern is not yet constructed in that section. It will be further inland than the Canadian Pacific Railway, but, after all, if it follows the line already located, it will be within very easy striking distance of the lake shore, whereas the Transcontinental runs 200 miles north, and at no point much less than 150 rhiles north. In my opinion this government would be justified in spending every dollar that this line will cost, if for no other reason than that they will thereby make Canada more capable of defending her liberty and national rights in case of attack. But that is not the object altogether of building the road. The hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Poster) said that the railway started from Quebec. Let me submit that Quebec is a pretty safe point to start from. There is not a stronger fortification on the continent and therefore it mav be taken as a very good point to start from, regarded in the light of national defence. Then between Quebec and Winnipeg, when we consider the rugged character of the country and its local conditions, there is no nation on this globe that could dislodge the Can-175
adian people from that position if they chose to defend it.
There are other features of the debate in which I cannot agree. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) have pointed out on several occasions that, in their opinion, there is a weakness in the agreement because there is a connection from Fort William and Port Arthur by a branch line to a junction with the Transcontinental of some 200 miles, and they represented that traffic routed to Fort William, and delivered at the head of the lakes and by the Transcontinental, will be routed from there over the Grand Trunk Railway system to American ports. I cannot agree in that contention. When traffic reaches Port Arthur and Fort William, it is not necessarily the traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Grand Trunk Railway. It is everybody's traffic.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


James Conmee: It is the traffic of the common carriers of the country, and they will take part in it. The Canadian Pacific Railway does not carry through its own line, by any means, all the traffic it delivers at these ports today, and neither will the Grand Trunk Pacific after it is built. Let me contrast that position with the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. They say it would have been better had the Grand Trunk Railway been permitted to build from North Bay to the western prairie and thus carry out the scheme to which these hon. gentlemen say they are still wedded. But where would the traffic go then? If the Grand Trunk Pacific carried it over its trunk line, to its connection with the eastern system, at North Bay. we would not have as much power of preventing the routing of that traffic through American ports in the interests of their own line as we now -have in the case to which I have referred. There is the other alternative, that during the winter months freight may go, not to the head of the lake, but over the line to Montreal or Qeubec or other points in Canada through the Grand Trunk Railway system, and that therefore it may possibly be routed to American ports. I do not agree in that. There may be something in it, I do not say it is a thing to which we should shut our eyes by any means, but let me ask hon. gentlemen how they can contend that even in these circumstances it would be more likely to be carried through or routed to an American port than it would be if the connection was made at North Bay instead of at Quebec or Montreal. I cannot understand that logic, I do not think the conditions of traffic lend themselves to that argument by any means.



The prediction in regard to the eastern section of the line has been discussed on former occasions. Hon. gentlemen opposite predict that there will be a deficit, that the eastern section of the line will not pay. We have heard similar predictions on former occasions. I remember that when the Canadian Pacific Railway proposed to build a line from Toronto to Montreal, many people predicted that the road would be bankrupt, that it would never pay; but we have seen that it has paid, it is doing a good business to-day and it has not destroyed the Grand Trunk Railway. The contention was that to build a parallel line was unjust to the Grand Trunk and that both lines would be unremunerative to the shareholders and deter capital from coming to this country. I heard those arguments upon the political platform then, but those gloomy predictions have not been fulfilled. That^ line has done a good business from the time of its construction. The history of railway construction and of transportation is that these lines of railway not only beget traffic, but they create such prosperity, such development, such incre.ase in the product and in the ability to travel on the part of the people in the adjoining country, that the building of one line even paralleling another line, assists the line whch it parallels. Let me give a case in point. The best paying railway on this continent, or for that matter on the continent of Europe, is the line of railway that parallels the cheapest line of transportation, I refer to the New York Central, which, for 440 miles, parallels the Erie canal, practically from the shores of the great lakes to the city of New York. Why is it the best paying line? It is not a single track line, it has four tracts and is doing the greatest business in relation to its mileage of any road in the world. It competes with the Erie canal, which is the cheapest means of transportation to the ocean port of New York. The people in its vicinity are able to make more money out of their energies owing to the existence of that cheap transportation, and therefore they are able to pay greater sums in travel, in commerce and in all that goes to support a system of railways.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend then disagree with the argument which has been put forward by more than one Minister of Railways in my hearing that the bad results on the Intercolonial Railway are in part due to the fact that it has to contend with competition by water carriage?


James Conmee: I would not agree with that if the line of railway paralleled for any great distance the line of water communication, for instance from a terminal point, a competitive point. If there was a circuitous water route the population along which did not contribute to the traffic of the rail-Mr. CONMEE
way, then the water-traffic would no doubt come into competition with the railway and perhaps injure it; but if the railway parallels a water route anywhere closed where the same community can contribute to both systems, I contend that the world's history ' shows that such railways are the best paying railways. It is so in Europe. The railways paralleling the Danube, which is the cheapest water channel of carriage in Europe, are the best paying systems of railway on the European continent. A very eminent authority in the United States, Mr. Lyman E. Cooley, one of the most eminent engineers in that country, stated in my hearing that the people of the United States would be paid for the investment they made in the improvement of the Mississippi river, even if not a pound of freight was carried on the Mississippi. It may be that the railway is a more convenient means of transportation, a more convenient utility than the vessel route, but he made this statement, and I think it was fully justified, that the river was there as a regulator to bring down the combination of the railways in case they charged too much, and he said it was not alone the interest upon the capital that was to be considered, but that the improvements saved to the producers of the Mississippi valley $100,000,000 a year in their freight and passenger traffic. I do not think the argument advanced this afternoon as to the possibility of the line between Moncton and Quebec being unremunerative is one that can be well maintained. It has not been borne out by history. I do not know of any case in which the building of a new line has been unremunerative, either to the company or to the people of the district traversed by the railway. Generally speaking, these lines of railway have proved successful.
My hon. friend asked about the Intercolonial Railway. I have my own view about the Intercolonial Railway. My opinion is that in the early days of the Intercolonial Railway and during the term of office of the political party to which he belongs that party was not faithful to the Intercolonial Railway. They allowed other systems of railway to rob it of the traffic which it should naturally have. Instead of reaching out for that traffic as a business firm would do if managing the railway, they allowed other systems of railway to tap its territory and draw away from it that traffic which should have been secured for it and brought to it by the business management of the government of the day. I am not saying that either of the two Liberal governments have been absolutely Tight in all their policy in reference to the Intercolonial Railways, but I do say that the loss and the deficits upon the Intercolonial Railway today and throughout its entire history lie entirely at the door of the Conservative party under the leadership of Sir John

A. Macdonald. That is my opinion, I give it for what it is worth. They did not manage it as it should be managed. It is said: 'Why could not the government manage a railway as well as a company?' Where has any government managed a railway as well as a company? It has not been our experience. Neither political party has been able to make a success of the Intercolonial, and I think for very obvious reasons. We did not carry out the scheme to its full extent. It should have been extended to competitive points, it should have been started from a business standpoint and not from a political standpoint. We have not reached the millenium yet; and I am afraid that even if my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was in power, surrounded by the best men he could choose, and he was still operating the Intercolonial, he would have to adopt a much more radical policy than any government has yet adopted, or he would find the Intercolonial pretty near as unremunerative as it is to-day. Of course the country is developing, and it may do better. But I want to point out that a railway at the distance which the Transcontinental runs from the Intercolonial, will not be, strictly speaking, a competitive line. It will assist and not damage the Intercolonial. That has been the history of other lines in this country. We have had evidence to-day of the character of the country, its value in timber, its value in agricultural lands and in general resources. There is no doubt that these resources will be utilized and give prosperity to that section of the country.
Now, let me give my hon. friend a little bit of history. Both political parties I think were mistaken in their views as to the result of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will say that the Liberals were mistaken in their policy in regard to that great enterprise. Well, I am not going to say they were not mistaken in some respects, because I think they were; but I do say that the Conservatives were mistaken, and very grievously mistaken. Let me remind the hon. gentleman of the contention of his leader in the past. During this and other debates a great- deal of importance has been attached to a branch line from the junction to the head of the lakes. It was pointed out that that line would take from the Transcontinental Railway a great portion of the traffic and divert it at the junction and carry it down to the head of the lake. There is no doubt that it will carry down a great deal of traffic from the west to the head of the lake. I admit that, that is what it is built for. Nature has given to Canada a great waterway, the greatest inland water system of any country in the world; of course, our American friends enjoy the same system. But 175i
no other nation, or no other set of nations, enjoy as great inland waterways as these two countries enjoy. Therefore, it is quite natural that there should be a great deal of traffic to and from the head of navigation. Now, when the government of hon. Alexander Mackenzie proposed to build the Thunder Bay branch, that is the line between Port Arthur and Winnipeg, it was opposed by the Conservatives, it was opposed by the leaders of the hon. gentleman.
I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman was then a member of this House. But I propose to make a quotation from the debates of that time. A strong attack was made on the government because of the proposition to build what is now the Canadian Pacific Railway between the head of the lakes and Winnipeg, and the country was asked to turn the Liberals out of power because they were squandering the people's money in building a portion of the line then called the Thunder Bay branch. But to-day we find our hon. triends calling attention to the great value of the line which this company are allowed to build from the junction to the head of the lakes, the very reverse of their policy at that time. Sir Charles Tupper moved a resolution of want of confidence in the government on that very question. In the debate he decried the expense, he decried the character of the country, and he pointed out that the line if built would be of no value. Their contention was that the traffic from eastern Canada to the west would go through the United States by way of Duluth. Here are the words of Sir Charles Tupper:
But suppose the works to be built, what then? Does any one assume that with a railway from Duluth to Red river a single ton of 'freight would be carried by that route?
That is the Thunder Bay branch. Now, that was the prediction of a great political leader, a man of a great deal of force, one of the men whom hon. gentlemen opposite look up to, and one of the men, I say, that bears a high reputation for ability, for good judgment, for public enterprise throughout the whole country.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Was not the proposition of the Mackenzie government a line part rail and part steamboat, being a different proposition altogether from an all-rail route?


James Conmee: No, that was not the proposition. In the discussion to which I refer there was such an issue as my hon. friend mentions, but it had no reference to that proposition. Sir Charles Tupper was contending for a main line running away north, nearly where the Transcontinental line now runs practically in the same section of country, and would not go to the head of the lakes at all. When a business company got hold of the enter-


Some hon. MEMBERS: '. Oh.


James Conmee: I mean that they are not responsible for the actions of their

party in the past. During my late election this very question came up, and as I say now I said to the people in the good city of Fort William: If there is a Conservative in this city that will stand up in this meeting and show his face to his fellow townsmen and endorse the policy of the Conservative party as regards the bargain with the Canadian Pacific Railway, I will buy him a new hat. I gave the history of the Conservative government in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway and how they failed to protect the rights of the people in controlling rates and there was not a man there who would stand up and endorse that policy. I believe there is to-day not a man on the opposite side of the House, except perhaps one or two, who will stand up and approve of the policy of his leaders in the past. He must condemn them for the improvident bargain they made, and when that bargain is compared with the bargain made by this government which retains not only the ownership of the railway, but the control of the rates on the main trunk system, still further clinches the advantages of that system to the people of Canada by connecting it with the Grand Trunk and its branch lines, and its lines extending to every important city and town in the land and to every manufacturing centre, and building up the prosperity of the country-when, I say, the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway as compared with this contract, the contract the Conservatives made with the Canadian Pacific Railway is a poor thing indeed.


Richard Blain: Did not the Hon. G. W. Ross, now senator, approve of the policy of the Conservative party and compliment them on their foresight in constructing the Canadian Pacific Railway?


James Conmee: He may have done so. I have myself congratulated Sir John Macdonald upon some of his policies. I think he was a great Canadian, I think he did some good things for the country, but I say that in the bargain he made on behalf of the people of Canada with the Canadian Pacific Railway he was not faithful to his trust, or he had not that business capacity which he should have had in the position he occupied. If Senator Ross congratulated the Conservatves, I am sure he did it upon some other ground than the matter we are discussing here to-day. Now, I have nothing more to say further than that there will be no hesitation on my part in giving my hearty support to the policy of the government in this regard. We on this side of the House are not filled up with suspicion; we have confidence that this government is anxious to make the very best bargain it can for Canada, and, that while not imposing impossible or too onerous conditions upon the company they will Mr. CONMEE.
at the same time protect the interests of the people of Canada.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: There can be no doubt that the leader of the opposition, since he has once more obtained a seat in the maritime provinces, has been anxious to let the House and the country feel that he is somewhat interested in the development of trade through our national ports. But the solicitude of the hon. gentleman on that point is worthy of a short examination. I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would have done much better service for the eastern provinces if he and the gentlemen who support him had seen to it, that in the course of these debates they had not on every possible occasion intimated that the construction of the eastern section was a fatal mistake. If the policy of the opposition party to-day is that the eastern section of the Transcontinental Railway should not be built, then it is wholly inconsistent and beside the question for the hon. leader of the opposition to attempt to mislead the people down by the sea by saying to them that though they opposed the construction of this railway altogether, they have offered a resolution which means nothing in particular so far as creating further obligations upon this company when they operate the road. If my hon. friend and his party were sincerely desirous of adopting a Canadian policy which would enable the eastern provinces to share in the progress of this Dominion as the years go by, and become more and more the means by which the developed trade of western Canada is to flow to the nations across the sea, then my hon. friend and his party would be standing strongly by the proposition that the eastern section of the Transcontinental Railway should be built. My hon. friend knows the provisions contained in the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. All that was threshed out in this House some six years ago when the proposal was first brought to the attention of parliament. My hon. friend knows, and the country knows, that as a result of the views which the government held, and which led them to consider this proposition for the development of Canadian trade through Canadian channels, the government incorporated in the agreement which they made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company conditions so ample, definite and clear that my hon. friend has not been able to improve upon them in the slightest degree by any resolution which he has submitted to this House then or since. Conditions were,' embodied in the contract, which bind the company, once the railway is operated by them, to carry out the intent of the government in relation to this important project; and it might be well to

place on record just where this government stood on this question six years ago, and where they stand to-day by those conditions. Section 42 of the agreement provides :
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports that via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
That is the kernel of the proposition which led to the incorporation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the making of this agreement, and this whole programme. If my hon. friend's policy had been adopted we would have had no line of railway touching Canadian Atlantic seaports at all. We would have a line of railway built from North Bay to Manitoba and westward, which would bring the grain trade of the western country down to Lake Superior. Not a pound of grain nor a dollar's worth of the trade developed in western Canada would reach the Atlantic ocean if my hon. friend's policy of 1903 had prevailed, and if his policy of to-day were carried into effect, and my hon. friend knows it. Therefore, what is the use of misleading the people in this matter? I desire to emphasize the disparity between the hon. gentleman s policy and that of the government on this question. My hon. friend's resolution proposes that there should be effective provision by the Grand Trunk Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to fulfil the conditions of the agreement. My hon. friend does not venture to submit to the House what he understands as effective provision. I submit that there is in the agreement an express and definite covenant, which is so clear that there could be no difficulty about its enforcement in a court of law. It binds the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to see that all traffic not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports. But that is not all. The next section of the agreement renders this condition still more definite and more clear, because it provides:
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly
or indirectly advise or_ encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which the public aid is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
Now, our friends opposite who have discussed the proposition before the House have a very peculiar attitude. After lamenting and bewailing the necessity for the aid which this government is to give to this company, after decrying the enterprise, after intimating that a colossal debt has been placed on this country as the result of carrying on this enterprise, after endeavouring to lead Canadians everywhere to believe that because the government entered into this project they have placed on the necks of Canadians a burden which i3 going to bear them down for many years to come, these hon. gentlemen will tell you that they are not opposed to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Why do they say that? They say that because they have gone to the country twice in the attitude of opposition to this project. They went in 1904, talking about this government going into a reckless enterprise, building a railway through a country about which nobody knew anything, and injuring the credit of Canada by pledging her to millions of expenditure, without any knowledge ot proper investigation of the subject. They received the answer of the people in 1904, and they received it again last year. . My hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Crothers) digressed a little this afternoon to indicate that the people of this country did not know what they were voting on. If they did not know what they were voting on in 1904, then our hon. friends who sit on the left of the Speaker must admit that they made a very poor attempt at presenting what th^y called a great big issue when they went before the people at that time. All over this country they had but the one song to sing. More especially was this the fact in the central provinces. Ihey declared that this government was engaging recklessly in the enterprise and asked the people to turn them out, and we had a statement to the effect that if the Conservative party had come in power in 1904, they would have cancelled the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Yet the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has the termerity to say that the Canadian people never voted confidence in this government or project. We heard the same remark last year. Whenever an enthusiastic Conservative supporter or orator was tired talking scandal, he reverted to the theory that this government was perpetrating a tremendous wrong in building this

eastern section, that they should only have built from North Bay to the west; and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, with his friends who sit behind him, coming from the smaller provinces by the sea, were willing to forego all the hopes and aspirations of these provinces to share in the great development which is bound to follow the completion of this railway, if they could obtain some other portions of Canada to support the theory that the Transcontinental should begin at North Bay and go to the west and never reach either Quebec or the eastern provinces at all.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
premier of Ontario still objecting to the Bill. Under these circumstances I do not think there is anything to be gained or fny good purpose to be served by holding this Bill back until the premier of Ontario sees fit to send some further communication. There was no such understanding, I deny that most emphatically.


Richard Blain: On what pretense was the Bill left over if that was not it?


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman is perhaps better able to answer that than I am, I do not know exactly. The hon. gentleman made a request and pledged their honour that if the Bill stood over then when it came up again in regular order it should go through without factious opposition.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company.-Mr. Conmee.
Haughton Lennox: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why?


James Conmee: This measure was allowed to stand over upon an understanding. The Minister of Finance was here and he stated to me that it was agreed by hon. gentlemen on the other side that if the Bill was then allowed to stand over there would be no particular discussion on it when it next came up, beyond what would be necessary if hon. gentlemen wanted to press the question to a vote. That was mentioned by the minister and assented to by the principal whip of the opposition and other gentlemen on that side of the House, so I do not think there can be any questfbn as to the Bill going on now.


Richard Blain: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, that was not the agreement at all; the Bill was allowed to stand over so that communication could be had with the Ontario government to ascertain their view upon the proposed amendments. My hon. friend could not expect that we should have received any communication from the Ontario government in one day.


James Conmee: That was mentioned. The discussion that took place is on 'Hansard. There could be no pretense that it is necessary to have a communication from the Ontario government for the hon. member himself stated last evening that he had sent to the Ontario government a copy of the reprinted Bill with the proposed amendments and that he had a letter from the1


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


Richard Blain: No.


James Conmee: I say, yes.


David Henderson: There need not be any particular dispute about this; it is all in 'Hansard.' Mr. Lennox said:
My hon. friend does not mean that we shall be precluded from any legitimate discussion?


William Stevens Fielding: Provided that discussion be short and quite within reasonable limits.
That is the way we always act, always within reasonable limits. The minister surely does not mean to say that we are unreasonable-


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly not.
Mr. HENDERSON-in advocating anything that- is in the public interest. Mr. Fielding continued:
But if it be a discussion-I do not want to use the word obstruction

The minister was wrong, there was no obstruction.


Haughton Lennox: Speaking for myself and probably all the other members, I can assure the hon. minister that there will be nothing in the nature of obstruction.


Richard Blain: It will be understood that a meeting of the Private Bills Committee will be convened.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Richard Blain: Well, yes. But how would it be possible for the representatives of Ontario to appear before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that the gentlemen representing Ontario will have abundant opportunity of presenting their views through my hon. friend, or anybody else who might be interested in the matter.


George Taylor: I might also say that we reserve the right to divide the House upon it.


James Conmee: I understand, from what the Minister of Finance and other gentlemen have said, that it is not to be assumed that if the reply from the Ontario government is unfavourable, that is to be made a ground of still further opposition, similar to what we have had before.

Now we must await Mr. Whitney's reply and see whether it is favourable or unfavourable. I think the Bill should not go on to-night until we receive that reply, in accordance with that understanding.


Haughton Lennox: At one time I would have been amazed at the remarks made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy RiveT (Mr. Conmee). With the qualifications that have been read by the hon. member for Halton we accepted the proposition of the hon. Minister of Finance. We had a little obstruction I will admit for about five minutes yesterday.


Wilfrid Laurier: Only five?


Haughton Lennox: I do not think it would exceed five. I hate to take up time, but we were allowing a discussion to take place between the hon. member for Rainy River and the hon. Minister of Finance, and during that time I undertook to interest the House with a few pertinent remarks for five minutes or so. I was talking to keep the ball rolling. Then the Minister of Finance said:
As we are not likely to make much progress on the present lines, and as I understand the suggestion to he thav, in view of the objections raised by the Prime Minister of Ontario, there should be several days delay to enable him to present his views, I am prepared to accept that suggestion provided that assurance is given that the matter will then be dealt with without further difficulty according to the discretion of the House.
And then I made the remarks already read. My point is that the suggestion of the Finance Minister was that there should be a delay of several days, not until tonight, because that of course would serve no useful purpose, and as soon as the reply comes from the Ontario government. I have no desire it should be delayed. I do not think there will be any undue opposition, and we will endeavour to present our views when the time comes in as concise a way as we possibly can. It would be idle to think of discussing this matter to-night. We could discuss it but it would not be in accordance with the agreement come to and would be only waste of time.


James Conmee: I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that this Bill has stood over on many occasions. It has stood over now nearly all session. The session is drawing to a close and if the Bill is to become law it has to go to the Senate. I do not think any good purpose can be served by making any further pretense that the Bill is to stand over on the understanding of last evening, because I made this remark after the remarks that have been read by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). Mr. Blain had asked:
Would not that be good ground?
Meaning that if the Ontario government objected it would be good ground. My reply was:
It may be in the opinion of my hon. friend, but not in the opinion of other hon. gentlemen. I am merely saying that I do not understand the arrangement in that way, and I want to know if it is so understood across the House,


William Stevens Fielding: I do not so understand it. Hon. gentlemen might feel as strongly as they do now on the subject, but I do not understand they would consider it a ground for delaying the matter in order that it might be dealt with in a reasonable time.
Then the discussion was continued. I spoke particularly to the Minister of Finance and asked him if any objection would be taken to the Bill when the next order for private Bills came up on Tuesday and his answer to me was that unless hon. gentlemen permitted this Bill to go through without unnecessary discussion or delay they would be breaking faith with him. That was his reply to me, and that is my reply to the request for delay to-night.


Richard Blain: May I ask my hon. friend to explain the paragraph immediately above the first paragraph, the one that was read by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson).


James Conmee: I did say in that paragraph :
I understand from what the Minister of Finance and other gentlemen have said that it is not to be assumed that if the reply from the Ontario government is unfavourable that is to be made a ground for further opposition.


Richard Blain: What does that mean?


James Conmee: That simply means that there would be no misunderstanding, that if hon. gentlemen chose to say that because the Ontario government is not favourable to this Bill, we are bound in honour not to allow it to go through.


Richard Blain: Does not that answer by my hon. friend mean that we are to wait until the reply from the Ontario government has reached us?


James Conmee: Not at all. What a piece of humbug that would be, with the letter of the Ontario government in the hon. gentleman's possession. We had this answer from the leader of the House last night, stating that if the Ontario government had taken that ground, after knowing the amendments to be made, he would take issue with them. Let me ask the hon. gentleman what good purpose is to be served by this procedure. They cannot expect me to give way further, I think I have done all that is reasonable. They cannot expect me to allow the Order Paper to be cleared and put myself in a worse position than I am now. We have had a discussion, hon. gentlemen have put themselves on record,

there is no mistake about thir position. I think they have said all they are able to say. Let me remind them that the system of our government is that the majority rules. Hon. gentlemen cannot serve any good purpose, either for themselves or for any other interest they choose to champion, by going further than they have gone. If they consider that this measure is not in the public interest they have a right to challenge it by vote. I do not think they have any doubt but that a majority of this House is in favour of it.


Richard Blain: I wish to make my position clear, and I think the position generally on this side of the House. There was a distinct understanding between the two parties that this Bill was to be left over in order that communication could be had with the Ontario government. My hon. friend made his own statement in the House when this matter was up for discussion, and he- has qualified it by saying that, no matter what the reply of the Ontario government would be, it would not be a ground for delaying the Bill unnecessarily when it came up again for discussion. I am not going to plead with my hon. friend or with the House not to take up the Bill, if the hon. gentleman wishes to press it. If he thinks it is in the interest of his Bill and in the interest of an early prorogation, to press the matter to-night, he has that privilege, and from this side there will be no complaint. But I want my hon. friend and the House to understand that when we make an agreement between the two sides of the House, we intend "to live up to it. Communication was made with the Ontario government by the first mail after this understanding was reached, and there has been no time to get an answer. As my hon. friend from South Simcoe has said, as soon as that answer is received in respect to the proposed amendment, then on this side of the House we will be prepared to discuss the question, and to finish the discussion, and mv hon. friend can divide the House on the Bill if he wishes. But if he-presses the matter pow, I shall appeal to the Finance Minister to look over the record of the discussion, and he will say whether his record does not prove that it was fairly understood by both sides, including the hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill, that this matter was to stand over until an answer was received from the Ontario government.


James Conmee: I see the Finance Minister now in his place, and I repeat what I stated a few moments ago, that I did not understand it in that way; and I tried to make it clear by calling attention to the fact that even if the Ontario government did disapprove, that should not be a cause for delay. But my hon. friend is not at Mr. CONMEE.
liberty to put his own conclusions upon what I said, and tell me that I agreed to wait until we received a reply from the Ontario government. I am not so innocent as that. If they had any idea that I would agree to a proposition of that kind, I am sorry they have that opinion of me.


Haughton Lennox: The Finance Minister discussed the matter, as we see by the record, with the promoter of the Bill, and then made an announcement of what he proposed, and this is what he said-I read it again because he was not present when I read it at first:
We are not likely to make much progress on present lines, and as I understand the suggestion to be that, in view of the objections raised by the Prime Minister of Ontario, there should be several days delay to enable him to present his views, I am prepared to accept that suggestion provided that assurance is given that the matter will then be dealt with without further difficulty, according to the discretion of the House.
Then I got up and made some suggestions. But it is not a question; of what I said or any other hon. member said, it is the understanding that was come to across the floor of the House, and that understanding must be lived up to. I appeal to the Finance Minister; I submit that it is his duty to see that this agreement is lived up to.


William Stevens Fielding: The quotation which my hon. friend has made from my remarks appears to be substantially correct. At the time the conversation occurred I did not have it in my mind that the next time for calling this Bill would be to-night. I did understand that hon. gentlemen opposite wished for a day or two, no particular date was mentioned; they asked for a short postponement to afford an opportunity to communicate with the Prime Minister of Ontario. Then my hon friend interposed the very natural remark that he did not propose to be bound by any conclusion of the Prime Minister of Ontario, that we were not to postpone the matter and to make it dependent on the will of the Prime Minister of Ontario, but merely that he was to have reasonable time to communicate his views to hon. gentlemen and to others. But if it be contended on the basis of that understanding that the Bill should not go on to-night, I cannot say that from my point of view that would be a breach of faith.


Haughton Lennox: I think the Minister of Finance said several days, and we replied that we did not want any longer time than was necessary. But it would be idle to postpone it last night for the purpose of having it come up to-night.


James Conmee: I do not agree with that. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain)

stated last night that he had sent to the Ontario Premier the Bill ag approved by the committee and the proposed amendment on the subject; and he had the premier's letter in reply stating that he was still opposed. I do not think anybody expects the premier of Ontario to take any different position from that. We had a case since that time, we had a case last night, in which the premier of Ontario, not only opposed by a letter to a friend but by an order in council, the Bill that was under discussion last night. That did not prevent the Bill from going on and it did not make any changes. I cannot agree that any good purpose would be served by this sort of delay. Hon. gentlemen, now that they have had ample opportunity of consulting the Ontario government, must agree that it is unfair to ask me to put myself in a worse position than I am in to-night and under the circumstances they should allow the Bill to go on.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I am surprised to hear the hon member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) make the assertion that he does. I was present during the last hour of the discussion and I distinctly remember the statement of the Minister of Finance and the anxiety with which he went about and adjusted matters as they were finally arranged. The hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River knows full *well that it is impossible for my hon. friend from Peel to have communication with the premier of Ontario inside of twenty-four hours.


James Conmee: Could not the hon. member for Peel have called him up on the phone? Could not he have wired him? He has had ample time to have communication with him the same as I had. I got a telegram.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman may have his own way of doing things but he will understand that we stated distinctly yesterday, that it was necessary for some representative of the Ontario government to meet with members of parliament, to discuss this question and to lay before them the views which they intended to take in regard to it.


Mr. GRAHAM.: In order not to have any misunderstanding as to the arrangement made by the Prime Minister with the chief whip of the party to the left of Mr. Speaker, I have turned up ' Hansard ' and I see the Prime Minister is reported as saying that ' The Canada Life Bill will be taken up on Friday night.' This Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) is on the Order Paper ahead of the Canada Life Bill. There certainly would be sufficient time, if any reply is to come from the Ontario government, to take it up before Friday night.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, that is a reasonable time.


George Perry Graham: The next night we have private Bills is Friday night?


James Conmee: Yes.


George Perry Graham: It is understood that Friday night will be a sufficient length of time?


Haughton Lennox: Quite sufficient.


George Perry Graham: We might take the Bill pp then on Friday night?


Haughton Lennox: We might go beyond the hour.


George Perry Graham: We could go beyond the hour perhaps and get through all these Bills.


James Conmee: I cannot very well consent.


George Perry Graham: I am not asking my hon. friend to, but I am just pointing out what was said in regard to it.
. Mr. CONMEE. I know. I cannot consent to being put in a worse position than I am now. I want to be agreeable. I do not want to take a course which hon. gentlemen will think unfair or that would indicate a breach of faith on my part-far from that. But, I am satisfied that hon. gentlemen will agree with me when I say that there was nothing further from my mind than that they should set up the contention which has been set up here to-night, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance must agree with me in that because I discussed it with him. It must be quite clear to him that I had no idea of it. I would not have consented if it had dawned upon me in that way. Under these circumstances I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will not press the position they take now. What difference does it make whether this Bill goes through to-night or some other time? If these hon. gentlemen are going to challenge a vote on it why not have it now? It will have to go to the Senate. If the views of the Ontario government are to prevail they are not going to make any difference here, in my opinion. The opponents of this Bill will have an opportunity of challenging it in the Senate. Nobody is being shut out, there is no good purpose being served by the delay and I think hon. members ought to permit the Bill to go through.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the hon. gentleman see that he does not stand to gain anything for his Bill by not living up to the agreement that was made in good faith by the Minister of Finance? He must not think that he can go against that agreement and hope to make any progress with his Bill to-night. He is simply taking up that

touch of the time which cannot do any good to him and which will preclude something else being done to-night. I certainly think it would be advisable for him, for the sake of his Bill, even though he did hot quite approve of the agreement with the Minister of Finance, not to press it to-night. The Minister of Finance did make the arrangement, the arrangement held, and there is a good deal to be gained by having these arrangements and carrying them out.


James Conmee: I would be perfectly willing that the committee rise now and that we suspend private Bills for this evening, but I am not willing to agree that some other Bills should be advanced and this one held back.


George Eulas Foster: That does not seem reasonable.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) is naturally apprehensive that if his Bill is put over to next Friday and if there is only one hour on Friday for the consideration of private Bills it will have a poor chance of being-put through during that time. We already have an understanding in regard to another Bill which is to come up on Friday and it was suggested that if the hour was not sufficient for that Bill we might extend it. So, I propose to move that instead of limiting the consideration of private Bills to an hour on Friday we take up the consideration of private Bills and continue it until the Order Paper is exhausted. I will move that to-morrow. That will give my hon. friend his opportunity on Friday night.


James Conmee: Does that mean that the committee now rise and that no other private Bills will be gone on with to-night?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it means that your Bill stands over, that the other Bills will be proceeded with and I will move on Thursday that on Friday, instead of having an hour, we will take the whole night if necessary. We shall have the whole Order Paper exhausted before we take up other business. Your Bill will have its place.


James Conmee: I will have to agree to it, of course, but I cannot help but think that it is unfair to me because notwithstanding that we may have the whole of Friday night it must be remembered that this is a contentious Bill. If hon. gentlemen will say that they will allow this Bill to go to a vote within an hour-


George Taylor: You are ahead of the Canada Life Bill.


James Conmee: Perhaps that is all the worse for me. If you want to delay the Canada Life Bill you will perhaps delay my Bill.	'


George Eulas Foster: 


Haughton Lennox: No, we think yours is the worse.


James Conmee: Well, I do not know about that. Unless the leader of the House insists upon his view I would be rather inclined to hold to the position that I now occupy.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not insist on my view. My hon. friend may take his choice. I will move that on Friday night we go through with private Bills before we take up any other matter.


David Henderson: I might remind the right hon. First Minister that as it was understood that the Canada Life Bill was to go through before the end of this week it may not be well to put anything in its way because I apprehend that there will be a very extended discussion on that Bill yet, and if the hon. gentleman's Bill comes before it it may mean that we will be sitting here until Sunday morning.


Wilfrid Laurier: It has been agreed that we shall have a legitimate discussion and nothing else and that the sense of the House shall be taken thereafter.


David Henderson: I can assure the right hon. gentleman that the discussion will be perfectly legitimate. We gave up a night on the understanding that we would have an opportunity again. We have certain views to present and we do not want to be restricted but we are quite willing to be restricted within the arrangement that the Bill was to go through before the end of the week.


Wilfrid Laurier: I assume that if the discussion upon this Bill and upon the other is legitimate they will be disposed of one way or the other long before Sunday morning.


Haughton Lennox: I move that the committee rise.


Mr. MILLER.: Perhaps it might be arranged that private Bills could be taken up at dieven o'clock on Friday morning


James Conmee: I cannot agree to that motion. Let me again suggest that all the private Bills stand over for to-night.


Haughton Lennox: We will do nothing of the kind; we won't play dog in the manger.


James Conmee: I don't know where the dog in the manger is, but he is not on this side of the House.


Mr. BARR.: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman should take a vote on it.


James Conmee: That is just what I want.


Richard Blain: I do not think there has been such a case as this before the House

for many years. Here is the hon. gentleman pressing a Bill that has not been printed and distributed among the members.


James Conmee: Oh.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend wants to press this Bill through without it being printed or circulated, and although the amendments are in the Votes and Proceedings, a number of hon. gentlemen have asked me where they are to be found, as they cannot be found in the Bill, where they ought to be printed. But, as the hon. gentleman will not take the advice of his own leader and the Minister of Railways I cannot hope to convince him.


William Stevens Fielding: It is quite evident there was some little misunderstanding between the promoter of the Bill and myself last night. I have nothing to find fault with in the hon. gentleman's attitude to-day. It is quite evident he did not catch the expression that I used, that this matter would have to stand over for a day or two or for several days. If his attention had been drawn to these words he would probably have taken exception, but he did not notice them and probably I must take the blame. My hon. friend, however, cannot make progress in the next twenty minutes, and I should think that in the interest of his own Bill he had better take the suggestion of the Prime Minister. I hope he may get it through in that way, but he certainly cannot get it through to-night.


George Taylor: We would not have time to hear from the Ontario government. My hon. friend from Peel sent them a copy and we expect to hear from them.


Mr CONMEE.: May I repeat the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) that private Bills be taken up at eleven o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Henry Horton Miller: Why not?


James Conmee: Hon. gentlemen ought to be fair.	[DOT]


John Barr: If the hon. gentleman does not see that the Bill is printed by Friday night there may be trouble. '


James Conmee: The Bill is perfectly in order as to printing. The rules of the House are strictly complied with so far as that is concerned. However, under the circumstances, I am willing to accept the suggestion made by the premier.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Is the motion of the hon. gentleman to report progress on all the Bills or simply on this Bill?


Haughton Lennox: This Bill.


James Conmee: I assume that this Bill will retain its place on the Order Paper.


George Taylor: Certainly.


David Henderson: I draw attention to the fact that there was an understanding last night, implied if not expressed, that the Canada Life Bill would be the first order on Friday night. We should not be asked to sit here discussing this Bill until midnight and then take the Canada Life Bill afterwards. I am quite sure that the words of the Prime Minister in 'Hansard' would carry out that idea and that good faith is to be kept between both sides. I trust that the First Minister will see that there will be nothing in the way of going on with the Canada Life Bill at eight o'clock on Friday night.


William Stevens Fielding: I will not say anything as to the Canada Life Bill, because the Prime Minister has dealt with that. It was understood with Tegard to this Bill that at the moment we should reach it- I will not say whether it was meant for to-night or some other night-there would be a moderate amount of discussion and a division would thereupon take place. I am, therefore, quite sure that on that Bill there would not be any protracted discussion so as to seriously interfere with the progress of the other Bill.


David Henderson: There will be several amendments moved.
Mr. FIELDING On which Bill?


David Henderson: The Canada Life Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I am speaking of what is commonly called the Conmee Bill, and the understanding was that when that Bill was reached there should be legitimate discussion on it and a division taken. If that is carried out there will then be abundant time to take up the Canada Life Bill.


Mr. TALBOT.: Perhaps they won't agree to carry that out.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) need not make any nasty insinuations; we are just as liable to keep good faith as he is. I do not think there is any misunderstanding between the Minister of Finance and ourselves. The understanding is that when this Bill comes up there will be honest discussion on it and no intention to unduly delay its progress.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: How will that be proved?


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to talk across the floor of the House to you.


Mr. BOYCE.: I desire to draw attention to a statement made in my absence with regard to some supposed arrangement on this Bill between the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) and myself. For the purpose of bring-

ing the matter more fully before the committee I quote from ' Hansard,' page 5428:


Richard Blain: Since my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) has given us a very full explanation of the Bill and the proposed amendments, I would suggest that he allow it to stand for further consideration, particularly as my hon. friend from Algoma West (Mr. Boyce), who took such an active part in the discussion of this Bill when it was before the House some time ago, is absent.


James Conmee: If the hon. gentleman will allow me. I met the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) yesterday and showed him my amendments and discussed them with him. I understood him to say that he was satisfied. There is only one point of difference.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Louder.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I might repeat what was said by my hon. friend from Cape.Breton, that these gentlemen who are calling ' louder ' have such very long ears that they might have heard the first time. Now, although it has been stated emphatically in ' Hansard ' by the contradiction made by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) on the authority of a memorandum which I had the foresight, having an intimate knowledge of the hon. member from Rainy River-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The words of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) convey an insinuation that is not allowed by the rules of the House.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: With the utmost deference tc>
your ruling, I do not think there is anything unparliamentary in my words.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. The hon. gentleman will please resume his seat. The hon. gentleman must accept the ruling of the Chair unless he appeals to the House; he is not at liberty to comment on the ruling of the Chair.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: May I ask what words of mine are out of order?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: He has the right to know what words of his are out of order.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I desire to know what words I have spoken are out of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have ruled that the words the hon. gentleman used with regard to the member for Rainy River -I cannot at this moment recall the exact words


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I should like to know what
they are.	,	.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Unfortunately I cannot recall at this moment the exact words as some conversation intervened, but I ruled at the moment that the words conveyed an insinuation that appeared to my mind not to be within the rules of parlia-Mr. BOYCE.
ment. They reflected, I believed, upon the honour of one of the members of this House. That is not permissible.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I will repeat, Mr. Chairman, in order to refresh your memory. You have stated that you are unable to recall my words, although you have made a ruling upon them. I desire to submit with the utmost respect to any ruling you make; but, at the same time, I desire to point out that the words upon which you ruled were these, that I had the foresight- when you, Sir, interrupted me with the ruling that I was out of order


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the words of the hon. gentleman were clear enough in their intent. If I did not properly interpret his meaning, then his words would not be out of order. They did convey to my mind the impression that the hon. gentleman expected that the hon. member for Rainy River would do some act not in consonance with an hon. member's proper method of conducting himself in this House, and therefore I felt it my duty to state that that language did not appear to be in order. The hon. gentleman is at liberty to explain his words, and if they were not intended to convey such an impression, they would not be out of order.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Chairman, I had not risen to that height of hypothesis, and did not venture a possibility upon a possibility. All I ventured to assert was that having had a discussion with my hon. friend, and having been obliged to leave the House, knowing that I could not be present when the Bill was again under discussion, I had the foresight-that was all I said-to place in a memorandum for my hon. friend from South Simcoe what my exact understanding of the conversation with my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy 'River was. That, Sir, was what I was proceeding to explain when you ruled that I was out of order. I am now in the judgment of the chair.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: With the explanation that the hon. member gives, I will not further delav his remarks. He is at liberty to proceed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then, Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that my hon. friend has placed me in rather an unfortunate position. I was not in the House when my hon. friend said that there was an agreement between himself and me with regard to the provisions of this Bill.


James Conmee: No, I did not.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have read from 'Hansard' at page 5428, where the hon. gentleman says:
I met the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) yesterday and showed him my amendments

and discussed them with him. I understood him to say that he was satisfied. There is only one point of difference.
I desire to say that there was never any agreement about any provision of this Bill between my hon. friend and myself, no matter what idea he may have derived from any conversation that took place between himself and me. My hon. friend came to me and desired to hold out the olive branch in regard to this Bill. He found himself in rather a difficult position, sandwiched between the opposition and his leader, and he said that he desired to suggest some amendments to me. I did not assent to anything, did not say there was only one point of difference remaining between us, but I said that what suggestions he made should receive the consideration of myself and my colleagues, and I have not seen or heard from the hon. gentleman since.


James Conmee: I am quite positive that I made no statement that the hon. gentle-! man had agreed to anything, and he is quite mistaken if he thinks that I ap-' proached him with any view of olivet branching. I met him on the street and had a discussion with him on the Bill and showed him the amendments which were practically adopting the amendment of which he had given notice, and I said to him that I did not think any good purpose would be served by his pressing again for two years instead of three years.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend would not like me to say what he did say, would he?


James Conmee: I am quite willing that the hon. gentleman should state anything he ever heard me say. I did not say last night that the hon. gentleman had agreed to that. Even if it is not correct in 'Hansard', I have a right to correct it. This is the language which the hon. gentleman refers to:
If the hon. gentleman will allow me. I met the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) yesterday and showed him my amendments and discussed them with him. I understood him to say he was satisfied. There is only one point of difference, and that is on this point-I will be fair about it. The hon. member's amendment would strike out the word 'three' in section 8 and substitute the word ' two.' That would mean that the company shall commence operations within two years instead of within three years. I pointed out that this company had to get legislation from Washington before it could proceed with its works -it had to go to another country to obtain the privilege of carrying on these works on the Pigeon river. I pointed out that it was more or less a difficult undertaking and that the company ought not to be hampered by narrow conditions, but ought to be allowed a reasonable time, and I do not think that three years is unreasonable. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he would not press that point.	jj j_|_i
I do not say that the hon. gentleman agreed. I quite admit that he did not agree. What I say is that I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he was satisfied with the amendment in regard to cutting out the Nipigon river and retaining the Pigeon river.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Did my hon. friend understand that there was only one point of difference between us, and that was as to whether there were to be two years or three years for the commencement of the work?


James Conmee: That is a lawyer's quibble. My hon. friend only gets the better of me on those little side issues. I cannot draw as fine a distinction as my hon. friend can. If my hon. friend will tell me what difference there is between his amendment, so far as the Nipigon river is concerned, and my notice of amendment given by me then probably I shall be able to explain in my simple way but not having a legal training, I assumed that there was no difference. Because I happened to say in the heat of the discussion-not being on my guard and not supposing that a different construction would be put on my words-that there was one point of difference, I am now brought to book for it. I think I was right. There was one point, and that was the main point, as I understood it. What is the difference between this motion as regards the Nipigon river and my proposed amendment, if I do not accept the hon. gentleman's amendment?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
James Conmee: I have asked the hon. gentleman a question; and having regard to the courtesy due the House, I think he ought to answer.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have declared the motion carried.



THE THESSALON AND NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 104) respecting the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Smyth.
On section 1,
James Conmee: I would like to get an explanation from the promoter. The company was originally incorporated in 1895 by Act of the Ontario legislature for a railway line starting near the shore of the Georgian bay or the Soo river and extending northerly by way of Thessalon, entirely within the limits of the province of Ontario. The present Bill provides that the company may extend that line, following the same course.

to a connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it contains the declaration that this work is for the general advantage of Canada. I profess to be a consistent advocate of provincial rights as I understand them and it sems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite, who have been strongly professing and advocating that principle, cannot possibly support this Bill with that declaration in it.


Mr. MACDONELL.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman who is promoting the Bill is not present. I understand it is not to be gone on with, and therefore it is out of order to discuss it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That is not a point of order. The hon. gentleman is in order.


James Conmee: This puts the consistency of hon. gentlemen opposite, who have have been professing and advocating provincial rights, to the test, and they ought, every man of them, to oppose the Bill. That is not the worst feature about it. Here is a Bill that invades provincial rights, which takes away from the province its control over a railway wholly within that province, and you have no intimation from the premier of Ontario regarding it. I submit that this Bill should stand until there is a declaration from the premier of the province of Ontario as to whether this legislation infringes on provincial rights. Hon. gentlemen who are members of the Railway Committee know that the province of Ontario had a legal representative at that committee who objected to this Bill on the ground that it is an infringement on provincial rights; yet, without a line from the premier of the province of Ontario, without an order in council, without a letter, without a telegram, without any permission whatever, hon. gentlemen opposite want to go on with this Bill, in defiance of the views of the Prime Minister of Ontario. I am surprised at their attitude.
Progress reported.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed debate on motion for the third reading of Bill (No. 128) to authorise a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific.- Mr. Fielding.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the House rose at six o'clock, I was endeavouring to point out the very anomalous position occupied by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in the amendment he has proposed on the third reading of this Bill. I ventured to point out some reasons why, without being at all unfair or unkind to that gentleman, every man who would like to see the com-
Mr. CONMEE
mercial independence of Canada established might well be suspicious of tbe motives which actuate that hon. gentleman. When one recalls that six years ago the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite was opposed to building a railway from one end of the country to the other or constructing a transcontinental line which would have connections with the sea-board at both ends of Canada, when we recall that hon. gentlemen opposite proposed to build, not a transcontinental line, but a line beginning at North Bay and stretching from the western country to the Pacific ocean, thereby absolutely excluding any ocean ports on our Atlantic coast, I repeat that those who want to see the commercial independence of this country asserted might well be suspicious of the motives of the mover of the resolution we are now discussing. Do you find that these hon. gentlemen, after the lessons they must have learned from the two last elections as to what are the views and aspirations of the Canadian people, have abandoned the position they took six years ago and accept the policy that we should have a national line from sea to sea. Is that their position to-day? If it were, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, might be supposed to have some faith in the proposition he submits. But that is not their position. They stand to-day where they stood six years ago. They still declaim against the absurdity of building what is known as the eastern section and talk about the tremendous burden placed on the people as a result of its construction. Every word they utter is a direct protest against our providing on the Atlantic coast of Canada railway connection by the transcontinental with these ocean ports which we desire to build up and make prosperous. Yet, in the face of that well known opposition of his party, the leader of the opposition, simply because he happens now to represent a constituency down by the sea, endeavours to lead the people to believe, by this resolution, that he is in favour of some effective provision which will aid in the development of our maritime ports.
The policy of my hon. friends opposite in 1903 and 1904 and again in 1909 is a policy of developing trade only and solely through the ocean ports on the Pacific coast. The truth of that position is so clear that it cannot be questioned. Only to-day the hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) lamented the premature burdening of the people of this country by the debt which was being incurred in the construction of the eastern section of the Transcontinental Railway, without which section none of the traffic of this railway would touch Canadian Atlantic ports. Another reason why I think we have a right

to be suspicious of the candour of hon. gentlemen opposite upon this question is that we have heard them sneer at the position taken by the Prime Minister that it had become imperativelv necessary for Canada to protect herself by having an all-Canadian line in order that our trade might not be dependent upon the bonding privileges accorded to our railways through the United States, privileges which might be withdrawn at any moment with great loss to Canadian interests. The Prime Minister in 1903 asserted that if Canada desired to maintain a position of commecial independence she should at once free her trade fom its condition of dependence^ by haying a line entirely within Canadian territory. Hon. gentlemen sneered at the leader of this government on1 that account and only two years ago, during the discussion of the resolution submitted by the then member for Cumberland, that the advantages of the preferential tariff should be accorded only to imports that came into this country through Canadian ports, the hon. member for East Toronto, a not unimportant member of the opposition declared that the bonding privilege was of the greatest possible advantage to Canada, and that Canada should do everything in her power to preserve that privilege, thus taking the position, to which no objection was raised by the hon. gentlemen around him, that it was right and proper for Canada always to sit under the control of the United States in relation to transcontinental traffic. My hon. friends holding that belief can hardly be deemed to be serious or candid when they talk about providing for the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports. They are perfectly satisfied to continue a condition under which our trade relations will remain under the direct control of the United States so far as the bonding privilege is concerned. The words of the premier six years ago, that time would not wait in relation to removing Canadian trade from that position of dependency and placing Canada in a position of commercial independence were absolutely true and we are beginning to realize that to-day. Hon. gentlemen who study the position and who recognize the commercial conditions of the country must come to the conclusion that if Canada is to have a future, her commercial independence from the United States in relation to transportation must be asserted, attained and maintained.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been accustomed to attribute to the right hon. the premier, especially in their partisan newspapers and on occasions when they are free from contradiction, the statement that the Transcontinental would cost Canada only $13,000,000. It was rather refreshing to hon. gentlemen on this side who knew the attitude of some Conservative members 176
and newspapers, and I know it was not pleasant to hon. gentlemen around him, to hear the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) this afternoon franklv and honestly declare there was nothing in the assertion that the leader of this House had said that the Transcontinental Kailway could be built for $13,000,000. I am reminded that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) reiterated that statement to-day. I can fairly leave my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) to determine which of them is accurate in his interpretation of the Prime Minister's words.
I submit that the policy of hon., gentlemen opposite six years ago and their policy to-day being not to build a transcontinental line but to stop half way across the continent, it is an anomaly for the leader of the opposition to make this motion because if my hon. friends had their way no modicum of trade would ever trickle its way down from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic seaports with such a railway as they proposed. A little might find its way by barge to Montreal or Quebec in summer but for the rest of the year not a pound would reach the Atlantic seaports of Canada. We know their policy in regard to the bonding privilege and we know that the government have wisely provided in the most absolute terms by sections 42 and 43 of the original contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific for the routing of freight by Canadian ports and when we find them asking to have this Bill sent back to the committee to add 'effective provisions' to the Bill binding these companies to the very thing they were bound to do effectively, certainly and surely by the agreement of six years ago we are reminded of the phrase used by the hon. gentleman in his trade policy, 'adequate protection'. I read this afternoon these two sections of the agreement which showed what the government had done upon this question. It is a fair and definite statement. The very basis of the policy out of which grew this transcontinental line was the theory that Canada should develop her trade through her own channels and ocean ports. That is why this government entered into this agreement, that is why the Grand Trunk Pacific was conceived, that is why aid was given to this line and that is why this agreement was made, an agreement which this government propose to carry out. Let me say as one ambitious to see the commercial independence of this country from sea to sea, tnat that commercial independence would not be secured by hon. gentlemen opposite who, by a policy of constructing a railway only half way across the continent, would make the great development of our western country contributory to the



interests of the country to the south for all time to come. I submit further that those of us who are interested in seeing our trade go through Canadian channels and seaports have a right to suspect these Trojan oppositionists who come bearing their gifts. This proposition of our hon. friends might almost be said to have all the signs of a death-bed repentance. After six years of opposition to a transcontinental line intended to develop trade through Canadian channels and Canadian seaports, only one construction can be placed on the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition if he is candid and honest in proposing it to this House and that is that notwithstanding the declarations made by hon. gentlemen who sit behind and around him, notwithstanding the position adopted by the party during the last six years he has at last come to recognize the merit of the proposition made by tile leader of^ the Liberal party six years ago and to believe that this transcontinental scheme was intended to and will provide for the development of trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ocean ports. I wish to say in conclusion that I believe that those who have faith in this enterprise, faith in the ideas which prompted it, and faith in its ultimate success, will look to the men who proposed it to implement the promise which is contained in this agreement. To them they will look to see that the conditions in the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be carried out. We will expect more from them than we would from hon gentlemen opposite who, if they had their way, would never have built a railway touching any of the Atlantic seaports I believe that where ocean ports are to be developed, where men expect to reap an advantage in the great development which Canada has made, and will make in the next few years, all those interests will regard with suspicion the resolution of the leader of the opposition, and will rely on the leader of this government and the hon. gentlemen who sit around him, believing that their policy will lead to the fruition of the idea which lies at the very basis of this new transcontinental railway.


Mr.  F. B.@: Or, if he had proposed that when the line is constructed from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Levis to Moncton a grant should he made by the government, or some means should be taken in order to provide a ferry across the river so as to put the Grand Trunk Pacific in the same position that it would be in if the Quebec bridge were completed, then again we would have been happy to have discussed ic with him, because these would have been practical measures which in the end would have inured to the benefit of the maritime ports. But, what did he propose? He proposed that in some way we shall compel the Grand Trunk Pacific to route their height through Canadian sea-ports. Now, let us see what that means. It means that when you get the freight down to Montreal it has to diverge in one of two directions, that it has either to go by the Canadian Pacific Bailway, or perhaps by the Grand Trunk to Sherbrooke and then by the Canadian Pacific Bailway from Sherbrooke to St. John, or it has to go from Montreal to St. John or Halifax by the Intercolonial Bailway. Take either of these propositions and see the absolute ridiculousness of them when you analyse them from the railway standpoint. When a car load of freight from the Bocky mountains or Edmonton, shipped to the sea coast, arrives at Montreal it is handed over to the Canadian Pacific Bailway, or to the Intercolonial Bailway, and then.the Canadian Pacific Bailway, or the Intercolonial Bailway only get their proportionate charge according to the mileage of the whole route. If the Grand Trunk Pacific brought a car load of freight from Edmonton to Montreal and then asked the Canadian Pacific Bailway to transport it from there to St. John on the proportionate mileage, which would figure out according to railway arrangements, why, the Canadian Pacific Bailway would laugh at them. To make it worse, if you asked the Intercolonial Bailway to carry that to the sea-board at that rate, and if that went on for five years, which time might elapse before the Quebec bridge would be available, instead of having an annual deficit of $300,000 or $400,000, you would have a deficit of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 every year. Yet, that is the proposition which, for political purposes, the hon. gentleman wants this House to adopt. As far as I am concerned, and I speak with a full sense of the responsibility of the position which I occupy in this House as a maritime member, I have no hesitation in saying that I purpose voting against this amendment.
I have no hesitation in saying that, according to my judgment, it does not appear to be a proposition that we should accept, either from the standpoint of common sense or from the railway or any other standpoint. It is only advanced with a political object. It is cnly put up as a scheme by which my hon. friend thinks he can obtain Mr. CARVELL.
some political support in the maritime provinces, but I want to tell him that the people of the maritime provinces have listened to this bogey of the Grand Trunk Pacific too long to be caught by such a shadow as he puts before us to-day. In 1904 the campaign in the maritime provinces yvas fought upon the question of the Grand Trunk Pacific and nothing else. Then the Conservative party did not take the ground which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) takes now that the road should not be built, but they said that the trouble was that the eastern section from Quebec to Moncton would not be built. They said that it would stop at Quebec, that the government never intended to huild the road from Quebec or that they were building the road to Quebec in order to build up the'port of Portland. Cartoons were published in the papers and circulated all over Canada showing how Portland was to benefit at the expense of Canada. The scheme, according to their contents, never intended to go beyond Quebec. An hon. friend of mine here says that they declared it was not intended to go beyond Gravenhurst. They asked the people to vote for them because the government did not intend to carry out their promise when they said they were going to build the road to Moncton. Now, they have built the road to Moncton. They have built a road the like of which does not exist in Canada to-day. If some of my hon. friends would go over that work, as I have gone over a large portion of it, and look at the character of the work and the grades which they have adopted, they would come to the conclusion that the government at least meant business when they told the people of the maritime provinces that they intended to build the road. The people of the maritime provinces know that it has been built to the ports of St. John and Halifax. They know who have been their friends and who are trying to assist them. The people of the maritime provinces know that the majority of the members of this House who have forced this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme through, notwithstanding the violent opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite, will continue to force it. through and will take whatever means are necessary and wise in order to see that this railway scheme is carried out as it was intended to be carried out, and that Canadian freight is transported over Canadian routes and through Canadian seaports and no others. Having this faith in the Prime Minister- and I am satisfied that the people of the maritime provinces have faith in him and his government-I have no hesitation in voting against this proposition, and I am satisfied that I will be justified' by the great majority of the voters of the maritime provinces in voting against an amendment which is put up simply as a political scheme and not with any honest^desire to

promote the interests of the people of the maritime provinces.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: I did not intend to say a word on the motion before the House to-night, but, having listened to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the references made to Nova Scotia I think it would not be fair to the constituency that I represent to give a silent vote on this question. The matte? of this transcontinental railway has been well threshed out, particularly in 1904, when the people of the maritime provinces were instructed to believe that within ft very limited time indeed, long before 1908, we would have the transcontinental railway right down to the city of Halifax and that the province of Nova Scotia would benefit by the road. There was an alternative proposition but I do not propose to delay the House to-night by going into that. The whole province of Nova Scotia was carried in 1904 in the interest of the government and why? Because of the grand and glowing pictures that were painted by the Liberal leaders and candidates as to what was going to happen to the province when that scheme was carried out. The people were deceived to a certain extent and they supported these hon. gentlemen. The result was that we did not have a Liberal Conservative returned in Nova Scotia. In 1904 the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) carried Pictou by 432 of a majority; in 1908 he carried it by 309, and when he goes back again there is very good evidence that He will not be returned at all, particularly when the people hear the story of the manner in which the Grand Trunk Railway Company has treated the Intercolonial Railway. The Minister of Railways will find that in the maritime provinces the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not looked upon with very great favour. The hon. minister made a statement not very long ago to this House that the Grand Trunk Railway had not treated the Intercolonial Railway very well. He knows that when that notable agreement was made by Mr. Blair between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Intercolonial Railway great things were expected, but I would ask any hon. member in this House whether these great things have been accomplished, or whether the Intercolonial Railway is not in a worse position now than it was when that agreement was made. The people of the province of Nova Scotia do not look with any great hope to what may come to them through the Grand Trunk Railway Company unless the government will undertake to make provision by which the province of Nova Scotia and the port of Halifax will get a fair share of the trade. I believe that there is sufficient trade in Canada for St. John, Halifax, and Sydney
if you like, if we can only get it brought to the east. In 1904 the city of Halifax returned two Liberals and Mr. Roche was elected by 600 majority, but in 1908 Mr. Borden was returned by the handsome majority of 750. Does that indicate that the people of Nova Scotia have very much confidence in this scheme or in the Grand Trunk Railway Company? It certainly does not tend to show that the people of Halifax, who are an intelligent people and who know their own interests, have much faith in the scheme. In 1904, Colchester returned a Liberal with 190 majority, but in 1908 a Conservative was elected with about the same majority. The county of Cumberland in 1904 sent a Liberal to this House with upwards of 700 majority, but in 1908 it returned a Conservative with nearly 500 majority. Does that look as if the peple of Nova Scotia were right in line with this proposition? I have listened to the debates here and there is no doubt in the world that after all the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific arc one and the same thing; the only difference being that the Grand Trunk Company dominates the whole business and what the Grand Trunk desires to be done will be done unless the government undertakes to insert such a clause in the agreement as is asked for by this side of the House to-night. In the county of Lunenburg in 1904 the member sitting for that constituency was returned with 451 majority, but in 1908 he could only get 200 majority. The county of Antigonish was represented in the last parliament by a Liberal who had 800 majority but the gentleman representing that constituency at the present time could only get about 20 majority. In Cape Breton South a Conservative was returned in 1908 with a substantial majority, but in 1904 the county was represented by a Liberal whose majority was upwards of 300. The sitting Liberal member for Cape Breton North comes here with a very much reduced majority. A very strong effort was made to get a recount in that constituency and it is now claimed that had a recount been allowed the possibilties are that the gentleman who now represents that county would not be here to-night. In the last parliament Dig-by was represented by a Liberal who had 800 majority but a Conservative represents it in this parliament and his majority was 200.


Mr. BLACK.: What about Inverness?


Adam Brown Crosby: The sitting member for Inverness represents that county as much by the Conservative vote as he does by the Liberal vote, and perhaps if things had not happened as they did happen there might be another story to tell about Inverness, as the hon. member for Inverness knows.


Mr. LAW.: What about Yarmouth?


Adam Brown Crosby: Well, Yarmouth is an annexationist county and it naturally belongs to the Liberal side of the House.


Judson Burpee Black: What about Hants?


Adam Brown Crosby: My hon. friend (Mr. Black) knows what saved him in Hants and it is not likely he will ever be saved again in the same way. He has nothing to boast about in Hants; his majority is not worth speaking about any how.


Judson Burpee Black: I got the largest majority ever given since confederation.


Adam Brown Crosby: Your turn over from the Conservatives to the Liberals was so quick that some of them did not know you were a Liberal. I want to say, sir, that the people of Nova Scotia and of the maritime provinces generally have no other desire than to see the Transcontinental Railway built. We are not, as the hon. member for Pictou tries to make out, opposing the construction of another transcontinental railway, but we are opposing the extravagant manner in which it is being constructed. We are here to suggest other methods of giving accommodation, and less extravagant methods than the one by which this government is constructing this road. Even though this government may build this road, we demand that it shall be a road for Canada, and Canada alone, not a road that shall have its terminus in the city of Portland. We demand that this government will insert a clause in the agreement that will compel, not the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the Grand Trunk Railway to carry the products of the west down to St. John and Halifax and the other Atlantic ports. What we want is fair play, Canada for the Canadians. That cry is taken up so much by hon. gentlemen opposite that we can hardly get it out first now. There was a time when we did not hear- it so often from them; but now we have to get up pretty early before we can get ahead of some of the men on the other side of the House. That is, when they are voicing the sentiment; when it comes to dealing with the facts and seeing that Canadian products shall go out through Canadian ports, and that foreign goods coming to Canada shall come in through Canadian ports, that is a different proposition. I want to say in conclusion that we in the eastern part of Canada have done all we could, and are willing to do more, to build up the west; we have always sent men to parliament who have been ready to stand behind the great propositions in the interest of Canada. We are to-day as strong as ever in that desire. If Canadian goods ^re exported through Canadian Atlantic ports and imported goods are brought in through Canadian Atlantic ports, the In-


Mr CROSBY.: tercolonial Railway will be benefited as well as the whole country. The trouble with the Intercolonial Railway to-day is that it does not get goods either from the east or the west, because it is in a very awkward position, and I am afraid it will continue in that position if the present course is continued. But if we are to have two roads, let us be sure that the trade originating in the west shall come down to Canadian Atlantic ports, so that we shall be getting a fair share of that trade.


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, New Brunswick).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Crosby) seems to have wandered very far from the proposition before the House, carrying us through the political issues in the late contest in many of the counties of his province; but he has not placed before the House any good reason why the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition should be adopted. I wish to make a few remarks on that motion One of its propositions is that we should compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company to route traffic through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports, and forbid the diversion routed thereto by the shipper. He has not given us one fraction of evidence to show what power we have over the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We are not, as I understand the present proposition, lending one dollar to the Grand Trunk Railway Company and if the Grand Trunk Railway Company is not receiving anything from this parliament, why should we seek to bind it to do something for us? The hon. gentleman does, however, hold that we should bind the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to carry the traffic through Canadian channels. It is scarcely necessary to remind the hon. gentleman that the Grand Trunk Pacific is already bound by a signed and sealed contract to do so, and therefore it seems to me that placing this amendment before the House on this occasion is, as one hon. gentleman already said, a catch-vote and a vote of want of confidence in the administration. As I understand it, if the principle of the contract, or the amended contract of 1904, had been applied to the prairie section as it was to the mountain section, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would not be here to-day asking us for a loan. When this project was presented to us, it was expected that the company would bear 25 per cent of the cost of construction; but unfortunately for them, they estimated the cost of the prairie section at about $19,000 per mile, and therfeore asked for a maximum of $13,000 per mile. A good reason has been given why the cost has been more than was anticipated, but because of that limitation to $13,000 per mile instead of

75 per cent of the actual cost, they are here to-day asking us practically to put the prairie section on the basis of 75 per cent of the actual cost. We have been told today by the hon. leader of the opposition that there is imminent danger of the wheat traffic arising in the western provinces being carried to the American seaports, suggesting that it will be diverted at Superior Junction and taken to Port Arthur, thence by water to Midland, and over the Grand Trunk Railway to American ports. To my mind that is the most effective answer to the hon. gentleman's original proposition, that we should aid in building a road to North Bay, and then hand the traffic over to the Grand Trunk Railway. If there is danger to-day of the traffic that goes to Midland being carried on to Portland, would there not be danger of all the traffic that the Grand Trunk Pacific handled for all time to come being handed over at North Bay to the Grand Trunk Railway? Under such circumstances the Intercolonial Railway would become a commercial impossibility, for there would be good reason to fear that all the traffic would go to American seaports instead of to maritime province seaports. Was it not the part of wisdom for this government, when such a proposition was presented to it, to turn it down? My hon. friend is very much concerned about the traffic going temporarily to American seaports because of the unfortunate happening to the Quebec bridge or the non-completion of the road from Lake Superior to the seaboard. The hon. gentleman puts this question to us, but does he show us how that can be done except the Intercolonial Railway forsooth should haul the grain for nothing? He talks about its hauling wheat at two cents a bushel from Montreal to Halifax. But when we realize that two cents a bushel is about four cents per 100 pounds, or $16 for a 40,000 car, we can understand that we cannot successfully manage any great railway with such rates.


Robert Laird Borden: I was quoting from the answer given by the government. It is not my statement.


William Stewart Loggie: The hon. gentleman was quoting from the answer given by the government, but he must realize that at such rates, we could not carry very much traffic and come out on the right side of the ledger. It is not practical. How could we haul grain 800 miles as against 150 miles? And that would have been exactly the result if the railway had originally gone to North Bay and then have the freight go over the Grand Trunk Railway and the Intercolonial Railway to our maritime seaports. The very dangers which my hon. friend speaks about is the best answer why the government were wise in not adopting
the policy he advocates, and we ought to congratulate the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues on the fact that they _ were sufficiently astute politicians and businessmen not to consent to any such project as was proposed by the Grand Trunk Pacific, namely, to build to North Bay.
Let me now give one or two reasons why it was wise to build the road through the northern portion of Ontario and Quebec, in order that the wheat from our western field should go to our maritime ports. Leaving Winnipeg, we have a railway practically level. A four-tenths grade, I understand, is such that an engine which can start a train on the level will haul it with the same power over a four-tenths grade. Therefore we have a road from Winnipeg to Quebec practically level. We can therefore have grain from the west hauled by rail from Winnipeg to Quebec at practically as low a cost as to Superior Junction and thence to Port Arthur, as you can have it hauled by water to Midland and thence by rail to Montreal. We can deliver it to Quebec by rail at practically as low a rate as we can haul it by the other route and deliver it in the port of Montreal. Again after we get the grain to Quebec, we can send it to our maritime ports. The distance. I admit, is greater than between Quebec and Portland, but what have we to offset that? And that is the pertinent point in having that wheat hauled over the level from Winnipeg to Quebec. When you get it to Quebec, you have placed it very much nearer our maritime ports than if you brought it to Montreal and handed it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Intercolonal Railway. How do you offset the difference as compared with the route between Quebec and Portland? The distance between Quebec and Portland is very much less than between Quebec and our Atlantic sea-board. But we have this to compensate for that difference. Let me give you the words of Mr. Butler, who was at the time the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Commission. In the sessional papers of 1905. we find he tells us that you can haul ten fully loaded trains each way per day on the Transcontinental Railway 486 miles for $2,970,864.54. To -do this same business on the Intercolonial Railway with the 1 per cent grade costs how much? It will cost $5,128,409.06, a difference of $2,157,554 in the operating in one year of ten loaded trains each way per day, and then there will be the difference besides on the passenger freight. What does that mean? We have heard to-day unfavourable criticism on the cost of the division between Quebec and Moncton. I thought that the cost was $30,000,000. but the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says it will reach $35,000,000. Is not that a profitable investment for the Grand Trunk Pacific? If they have to pay interest at 3 per cent

on $35,000,000, that will amount to about $1,050,000. and they save in operating expenses over $2,000,000, so that they could, by the building of the division between Quebec and Moncton, save $1,000,000 a year over what it would cost them to ship by the Intercolonial Railway, even if they got it for nothing. So that' they will save on operating expenses the interest on the actual cost of the road between Quebec and Moncton.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said to-day, had we not better go slow and not invest quite so much in the section between Quebec and Moncton? I say no, we should hurry along that section and also the section bet-ween Winnipeg and Quebec. My right hon. friend, the leader of the government, says it is our duty at present to hurry on the prairie section. So far as I can see, I say we ought to hurry on every mile of the whole line from Moncton west, and the sooner that is done the better for the transportation interests of this country.
It is not my purpose to take up much of the time of the House, but I thought it my duty to speak on this important matter affecting the maritime provinces. No doubt this resolution of the leader of the opposition will be in the press to-morrow in great headings such as the Conservative^ party conserving the interests of the maritime provinces and the government opposing them. The hon. gentleman is no more earnest in his desire to have the wheat from the western provinces shipped through Canadian Atlantic ports than I and every other hon. gentleman from the maritime provinces. The scheme which he has presented, for the transporting of wheat Tefers only to that which is held over at Midland because it cannot be transported to Montreal before the close of navigation. The question of transport by a martime province port or an American port arises only in connection with winter transportation, and the quantity involved cannot be large, but the benefit that will accrue to our ocean ports when the Transcontinental Railway is completed is incalculable. It is true that a large amount of money is invested in the construction of this road. The leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said that the net cost of the road to the country on account of interest would be about $13,000,000. As he explained to us to-day, that estimate was based on the cost of the road as then estimated by the engineers, it was not an estimate of cost by the minister but by the engineers in charge. According to the revised estimates we will have a railway of the highest standard from ocean to ocean for a subsidy of about $40,000,000. On all other money which we invest in this road we receive interest, it is as if we got our money


William Stewart Loggie: back, put in the bank and drew out interest on it. Comparing this bargain with the bargain for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, this seems to me far the better bargain in the interest of the country.
I hope that the hon. gentleman opposite who has proposed this amendment will see his way clear to withdraw it as he could well afford to do under the circumstances. I would commend that suggestion to his consideration.
House divided on amendment (Mr R L Borden).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Barr,
Beattie,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Bristol,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Cowan,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Foster,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Nipissing), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Lake,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
MacCall,
McCarthy,
Maddin,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Owen,
Perley,
Porter,
Price,
Reid (Grenville), Roche,
Russell,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster),
Thoburn,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Lennox and Addington), Worthington, Wright.-70.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Borden (Sir Fred'k), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness),
McCoig,
McColl,
MoCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre
(Strathcona),
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, St.
Mary's),
Mayrand,
Meigs,

Clark (Red Deer),	Michaud,
Clarke (Essex),	Miller,
Congdon,	Molloy,
Conmee,	Nesbitt,
Currie	Neely,
(Prince Edward),	Oliver,
Delisle,	Papineau,
Demers,	Pardee,
Dugas,	Parent,
Ecrement,	Paterson,
Etliier,	Pickup,
Fielding,	Prowse,
Fisher,	Rankin,
Fortier,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fowke,	Richards,
Gauvreau,	Rivet,
Geoffrion,	Robb,
Gervais,	Ross,
Girard,	Roy (Montmagny),
Gladu,	Savoie,
Graham,	Schell,
Guthrie,	Sealey,
Harris,	Sifton,
Hodgins,	Sinclair,
Knowles,	Smith (Middlesex),
Kyte,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Stratton,
Napierville),	Sutherland,
Lapointe,	Templeman,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tobin,
Lavergne,	Todd,
Law,	Tolmie,
LeBlanc,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Lemieux,	Turcotte (Quebec
Loggie,	County),
Lovell,	Turgeon,
Low,	Verville,
Macdonald,	Warburton,
MacNutt,	White (Victoria, Alta).
McAlister,	Wilson (Laval).-106.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
German,	Haggart (Lanark),
Dubeau,	Lortie,
Proulx,	Blondin,
Talbot,	Rhodes,
Maclean (Lunenburg),	Broder,
Murphy,	Maclean (York, S.), >
Pugsley,	Clare,
Gordon (Kent),	Stewart,
Harty,	Osier,
Emmerson,	Monk,
Beland,	Paquet,
Turriff,	Forget,
Chew,	Lalor,
Rutan,	Barnard,
Martin (Regina),	Kidd,
Martin (Wellington).	Thornton.
Amendment negatived.


Mr. CALVERT.: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) has not voted.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Shall the main motion now be adopted?


Mr. H. B. AMES (Montreal, St. Antoine).: Before the motion is put 1 desire to submit
another amendment of so simple and reasonable a character that it will take but a very few minutes to explain it. This Bill which stands for a third reading provides in its first clause that a loan of $10,000,000 shall be granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and that the same shall bear interest at the rate of four per cent per annum. Now I desire to submit to the House an amendment that will provide:
That the rate of interest and charges payable by the company to the government upon and in respect of said loan, should not be iess than the rate of interest and charges which the government should pay in obtaining funds for the purpose of said loan.
As I have said, the proposition I now submit is I think a simple and reasonable one. The Minister of Finance has stated in his introduction that we are to act in the capacity of a banker towards the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and that we are to make them a loan at a stipulated rate of interest. Now if we are to act as their banker, unfortunately we shall ourselves have to borrow before we shall have the money to lend them, and as is well known, when we are borrowing the nominal rate of interest is not all that it costs to secure money. There are other charges as well, and these other charges add no inconsiderable amount to the cost we have to pay to secure the money. So what is known as the average effective rate of interest per unit which takes into consideration all these various costs, is always somewhat above the nominal amount of the loan. I think that if we are to act as banker for this company, and if we must go into the money markets of the world to secure this money, we certainly should ask those who borrow from us to pay us what we have to pay to get that money.
Now the Finance Minister has stated that he expects to be able to borrow this money at a Tate sufficiently below four per cent to cover the cost, so that there will be no money lost on this transaction. If that be the case, then there can be no possible harm in accepting the amendment suggested, and there certainly will be some advantage in passing such an amendment and putting it into the Bill as a precautionary measure. As is stipulated in the Bill, the company will have to pay interest semiannually, and they will not be called upon to pay the first semi-annual instalment until at least six months from the time when the first payment of funds is made to them, and during that period we will obtain the money which we intend to loan to them and we shall have had ample time to calculate what that money will cost us. So by the time the company is first called upon to pay interest there will be no difficulty on our part to ascertain just what that money has cost us, and consequently no difficulty


Herbert Brown Ames: 
William Stevens Fielding: We have already discussed this matter at an earlier stage and I do not imagine that anything very new or important can be added to the stock of information in the possession of the House. The hon. member (Mr. Ames) has correctly quoted me as stating that this was a banking transaction-a very proper illustration. If anybody goes into a bank to borrow money he will be rather surprised if the banker should say to him: 'Well, I will lend you this money at four per cent, but if I should happen to have to pay a little more than four per cent I will come back on you for it.' That is not banking business. The banker forms his idea of the value of the money and he fixes the rate which he supposes will coyer his needs. The very first consideration would be that the banker should determine what would be a fair rate of interest. He fixes the rate of interest to his customer, but how he may get the money and what rate of interest he may have to pay the depositor would form no part of the negotiation with his customer; consequently, in fixing a definite rate on this loan, we are certainly acting in accordance with common banking business.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. gentleman is speaking as a banker. Does he imagine for a moment that a banker would lend money at a rate on which he could not possibly gain but would make a loss?


William Stevens Fielding: That is not the point. I shall come to that in a moment. The question is whether or not there shall be a fixed rate, not what the rate is. That is another branch of the question. My friend (Mr. Ames) is introducing into this question the proposition of an uncertain rate. The point I am making is that the banker would charge his customer a fixed rate. Whether it would be considered a high rate or a low rate is another question. My hon. friend wishes to interrupt?


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not think the minister has quite read the amendment correctly. The amendment says 'the rate of interest and charges.' The rate of interest can be fixed now by the minister. The minister knows what rate he would pay for his loan.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not.


Herbert Brown Ames: Well, he could probably say what rate the company should pay.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: And that the charge for obtaining the loan should be the same charge to the company.


William Stevens Fielding: The charges are always included in a statement of the net rate of interest. In any statement I make to this House as to what a loan costs I would feel bound to include all the charges in it so as to come as near as I could to what my hon. friend described as the effective rate per unit. The point that 1 desire to make is that when a man goes to a bank to borrow money the banker always makes a fixed rate for the transaction. Whether or not that is considered a high rate or a lew rate, that is another question. I say it is desirable that there should be a fixed rate because we have taken a mortgage as a security,-a security which is desirable to have though not one of immediately great value, and if we are to have a transaction of that character it certainly is desirable that the mortgage should bear a fixed rate of interest and not an uncertain rate of interest. I think, therefore, it is clear that for these various reasons, we ought to have a fixed rate of interest.
Now, in fixing that rate of interest the banker would naturally fix a rate which he believed would be satisfactory to him. He would aim to have a profit. That is the chief business of the banker, but, that is not necessarily our chief business., in the present instance. Nevertheless, it would be the part of wisdom that we should have a definite fixed rate of interest which we might reasonably believe would ooyeT the cost of the money to us and we have fixed that rate at four per cent. My hon. friend assumes that the rate of interest that we will have to pay will be more than four per cent. I have all through carefully guarded this point, and I have given no definite assurance as to what the money will cost. My hon. friend says that I cannot tell at what rate of interest the bonds will be issued. No man can say that in advance. All through this discussion I have insisted respectfully that the proper course for a Finance Minister to take is to hold himself free to issue securities at such time, at such Tate and for such terms as the condition of the money market may require. Therefore, I think it is unwise to found any argument on the assumption that we should have a higher rate. Nevertheless, we should to a certain extent, foresee the conditions of the market. I say there is as much reason to believe that we will make a profit out of this transaction as there is to believe that we will make a loss. I do not think the theory of my hon. friend that we are

likely to make a loss has anything to warrant it. Is there not just as much reason to believe that we may secure a profit? He does not, in moving this amendment, assume that we are going to make a profit. He has no confidence that we will make a profit and he does not say that we must give back to the Grand Trunk Railway any profit we may make. This motion is to no purpose at all. It is based upon the assumption that should the loan cost more than four per cent, we ought to make the Grand Trunk pay more. Why should we do so?


Herbert Brown Ames: As a precautionary measure.


William Stevens Fielding: In fixing the rate at four per cent we are taking a reasonable precautionary measure. We are satisfied that the element of risk in the matter is of exceedingly small proportions, of such small proportions that there i# no need practically of our being concerned about it at all. Then I will cite the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The only way you can get over that is by saying that they were wrong. Looking back over the transaction I am not prepared to say they were wrong. I would rather say that they were right. It was wise to fix a definite rate, and if four per cent were not enough, they might have fixed a higher rate, but the fact that they afterwards went to the money market and paid a little more than four per cent will not, in the light of history, be held up against them.
Looking back over the whole transaction I believe it was wiser for the government to fix a rate which they thought would cover the transaction than to have introduced such an element of uncertainty as it proposed to introduce to-day. I do not give that transaction as conclusive evidence but I do say that it is of some value in presenting to the House my argument. I would rather believe that what was done in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway was a fair and reasonable transaction, than that it was an act of imprudence on the part of the government of the day. My hon. friend (Mr. Ames) went away from the loan and he told us that we are going to receive only 3 per cent from the Grand Trunk Pacific on the lease whereas we will have to pay a higher interest rate. That is true, and to that extent we are undoubtedly doing something for the company. Six years ago when the transaction was negotiated 3 per cent was thought to be the fair value of money, but money has since increased in cost and we shall probably find that we may have to pay for some considerable time more than 3 per cent. In that respect we are giving something to the Grand Trunk Pacific. But there are a great many things the government are not giving to the Grand Trunk Pacific. They are not giving them $25,000,000 cash or Mr. FIELDING.
25,000,000 acres of land anywhere in''this Dominion ; they are not giving them miles and miles of completed railway which cost the Dominion many millions of dollars ; they are not giving them exemption ; they are not giving them any of the favours which were lavished upon the Canadian Pacific Railway. When my hon. friend says that we are giving the Grand Trunk Pacific some slight advantage on the interest rate, I would ask him to remember that the Grand Trunk Pacific is far froip. receiving the spendid liberal grants that were given to the Canadian Pacific Railway years ago, and that we are giving to this Transcontinental Railway less, immensely less, than was given to the other corporation by our predecessors in office. Then my hon. friend says that before we lend money we must be sure that we are losing nothing, and that we will at least have our loan returned. The hon. gentleman does not seem to think kindly of this loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but as a representative of the great city of Montreal he is interested in the fact that we are lending money liberally to the harbour commissioners of his city, not at one-eighth per cent less than we pay for it but at one and one-eighth per cent less, if I take the same basis that he applies to this case. The hon. gentleman has told us that we are paying four and one-eighth for some money lately borrowed, and I can tell him that we have been occasionally lending money to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners at 3 per cent. What then becomes of this principle that if we are to lend money we must be sure we are to lose nothing ? The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, are all public bodies interested in the development of the trade and commerce of this country. On what principle do we grant a subsidy to a railway and receive not one cent back?


Mr. BRISTOL.: Can the harbour commissioners of Montreal make a profit in the operation of its works in the same way that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will make a profit put of their line?


William Stevens Fielding: I am delighted to have the assurance of my hon. friend that the Grand Trunk Pacific is going to make a profit.


Edmund James Bristol: The Minister of Finance has great imagination. I did not say the Grand Trunk Pacific would make a profit,
I merely asked as to the possibility of the Harbour Commissioners making a profit out of their works in the same way as a railway company might.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Edmund James Bristol: Then what is the object of the comparison?


William Stevens Fielding: When we grant a subsidy to a railway company does that company make profit for the government or profit for themselves? When we grant a subsidy to a railway company we get our return in the development of the trade of the country.


Edmund James Bristol: Does the Minister of Finance see no distinction between a railway company that operates a public service for profit, and a harbour commission which operates a public service as a trust?


William Stevens Fielding: Of course they 'are serving the public in a different way. But the policy of the Dominion of Canada has recognized the fact that a railway company is interested in developing the trade and commerce of the country and that in granting aid to that railway company and not getting a cent back, we are getting our profits through the development of the commerce of the country.


Herbert Brown Ames: I know the Minister of Finance wants to be perfectly fair; will he allow me one word?


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is one essential difference between the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the coast and the harbour of Montreal. The railway line is the property of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company while the harbour of Montreal is the property of the Canadian government and every dollar spent on Montreal harbour is spent on the property of the government.


William Stevens Fielding: I have already said there is a distinction, but all these corporations are serving the country although in different ways and by different means. As a matter of principle I say that every railway in this country is recognized by the parliament of Canada as a public corporation serving public interests, and were it not so upon what ground could the payment of a single dollar in subsidies be justified? Whether it be the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Grand Trunk Railway, or any other railway that comes to this parliament for aid, we never look upon it as a personal transaction for the individual gain of somebody, but in every case it is considered a transaction associated with public interest, and for the sake of the public interests and not for the saae of private gain we grant aid in one form or another. My hon. friend (Mr. Ames) will see at once that if we apply to the Montreal Harbour Commission the rule that in lending money we must first provide that we shall lose nothing, then, the great works which have been successfully carried on in the harbour of Montreal and of which my hon. friend I am sure is as proud as I am, would never have been completed. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Ames) further said that the government had no right to lend money to anybody unless it had money to lend. Again that rule would be unsatisfactory if applied to the Montreal Harbour Commission, because we have advanced money to that body when we did not have it in our treasury. It was, however, a proper obligation on us to assist such a great public work and we borrowed the money when the necessity arose as we will have to do in this case. We are assisting an enterprise in which this parliament feels a warm interest, because it is one closely identified with the progress and development of the country. We have granted aid to assist that enterprise, but small aid in comparison with what was granted to the other company in former years; and in granting this loan we do not consider that we are giving the Grand Trunk Pacific Company any great favour at all. We are looking after the credit of the Dominion as much as after the credit of the Grand Trunk Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. They could go out and get this money, as their bonds have a commercial value; but we feel that if they went on the market and forced the sale of those securities, they would have to accept a price which would be most unfortunate for the enterprise and would diminish the funds for the construction of the railway. Therefore, in view of the fact that the interests of this great enterprise are so closely blended with the general interests of the Dominion, any sacrifice of the securities of these companies would be a misfortune not only to the companies themselves, hut to the credit of the Dominion. For all these reasons I am satisfied that this loan is no great favour to these companies, but is a fair and reasonable business proposition. We are much more likely to make a profit than a loss so far as our mere interest is concerned; but above all that we are assisting one of the great corporations of the country to carry forward one of the greatest works ever undertaken in the history of the Dominion.


Samuel Barker: I do not intend to occupy the time of the House more than a few minutes in an effort to set the Minister of Finance right. The hon; gentleman puts this transaction on the footing of a banking transaction in order that he may fix the rate of interest, and the transaction is put in such a shape that the country can never by any possibility make a profit on it, but may lose. That is what he calls a banking transaction. I doubt whether the hon. gentleman could enter the office of any bank in this world and convince the manager that that was a banking transaction. I take it, so far as the debate has gone, that the country desires to make this loan; but I have yet to learn that the coun-

try either wants to make a profit or desires to make a loss. The hon. gentleman seems to think that because he calls it a banking transaction, it is absolutely essential to put in the contract a fixed rate of interest. Well, I have had, not the experience of the hon. gentleman, but something like a quarter of a century of experience in dealing with some such loans on a smaller scale, and I have never yet heard that there was the slightest difficulty in arranging with a bank for a loan at variable rates of interest or for variable charges according to the conditions of the market from time to time. Whv should there be any difficulty in our helping this Tailway company by making an advance of millions to them and saying to them :	' We desire to make no
profit out of you, but we want you to sign a contract that what we pay you shall return to us.' Is there any mystery about a banking transaction that stands in the way of that? Why, Sir, millions of dollars have been loaned on a contract by which the borrower agreed to pay the current rate of interest from time to time to the Bank of England plus i per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: In this case there will be only one transaction, and that at the moment when the loan is made.


Samuel Barker: It is going to be a pretty long contract if you are looking forward to getting your money back. There was not the slightest difficulty in the Finance Minister going to the company and saying :
' We can borrow this $10,000,000 cheaper than you can; we can get the money on better terms; we want to make no money out of you; all we ask is that what we pay you shall return to us, and even then you will make money by it, that is a banking transaction. It is just as simple as a large railway company going to a bank in London and saying. ' We want $2,000,000 from you, and we will pay you from time to time until we repay the loan at current rates month after month or quarter after quarter, plus i per cent of profit to you.' That also is banking, just as much as if there was a fixed rate. The Finance Minister could have done the same in this case, except that the country does not desire that the government should make a profit out of the transaction. We do not ask for i per cent more than the cost, but we do say that we should not be asked to pledge the credit of this country by borrowing $10,000,000 at a time when it requires all we can do to get all that we need for ourselves, without getting back every cent that it cost us. That is all that we ask. But the hon. gentleman is so wedded to the expression banking transaction that he thinks we must not get back all we advance, but he must agree to a fixed rate and take all the risk of loss without any chance of profit.


Samuel Barker: Amendment of Mr. Ames negatived on the same division.


William Sora Middlebro: At the next meeting of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, which probably was held a few days ago, no doubt they were authorized to issue a large proportion of this $25,000,000 stock, and if they are going on the market with that stock the probability is they will be in the market just as soon as the Finance Minister in his efforts to raise the proposed loan of $10,000,000, so I think the argument that this loan was given to the Grand Trunk Pacific in order to obviate the necessity of going on the market falls to the ground because the company are themselves going into the market for loans probably larger than this one. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has alluded to the amount of the security given by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the object of my resolution to-night is, if possible, to increase, at least to some extent, the amount of the security which we are to get from the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am sure that no hon. gentleman ip this House can object to the Grand Trunk Pacific giving us more security if they can get it." If they honestly intend to repay this loan, they could have, no legitimate'excuse for not giving us such other and further security as they themselves possess. What can we get from them, what do they own? The first point I touch on is in connection with the Lake Superior branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific. As we all know this branch runs for about 198 miles from the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the towns of Fort William and Port Arthur. That branch line has been financed without any assistance whatever, except the ordinary railway bonus, from the Dominion government, and in what shape are they? They have financed that branch and to-day it is practically running and in operation. As the hon. gentleman from Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) said, that will be one of the most lucrative portions of the branch lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific-and it will be the more lucrative because of the fall of the Quebec bridge. Owing to that disaster we know that for many years to come the grain from the west will necessarily have to go by that route, so that this branch line will have the carrying trade practically of all grain from the west that cannot be carried by other railways. In what position is that branch line? It received a railway subsidy from the Dominion government of $1,209,-. 000; it received a subsidy in cash from the provincial government of $378,000; it received from Fort William and Port Arthur, or one of them, $300,000 in cash and $50,000 to assist in building a bridge, or $350,000; in all it has received from Dominion, provincial and municipal authorities, $1,937,000, practically $2,000,000 in hard cash. In addition to that it received from the Ontario government 675,000 acres of land, which I value at $2 an acre, making $1,350,000 the value of that land. Thus alto-Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
gether it has received from the Dominion, provincial and municipal authorities $3,-
287,000.	In addition to that, surely the Grand Trunk Pacific or those behind it, the Grand Trunk, have put some of their own money into that institution. There must be a very valuable. equity in the Lake Superior branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific; upon the admission of the Finance Minister there is no doubt that a large proportion of the stock in the Lake Superior branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific is held by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and it is only right, when .this company is asking this government for $10,000,000 more, that they should give us what little security they can in the Lake Superior division. That is along the line of my resolution.
I come now to the Grand Trunk Pacific Townsite Development Company. This company was instituted in order to take from the Grand Trunk Pacific Company something which legitimately belonged to that company in order to take the cream of the institution and put it in the hands cf a; private company. We find the directors of that company are Charles N. Hays, with two shares, $200; E. J. Chamberlin, with two shares, $200; William Wainwright, with two shares, $200; W. H. Biggar, two shares, $200; E. M. Fitzhugh, two shares, $200. In all these directors of that company have ten shares upon which they paid $1,000. The company is incorporated at $5,000,000;	$3,000,000 of this is paid
up and has been issued. Who owns the balance of that $3,000,000? Of the 30,000 shares of the stock issued, ten shares have gone to the directors, who are also the directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific and intimately connected with the Grand Trunk. Ten of these shares belong to them and the remaining 29,990 belong to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and why should not we, when the Grand Trunk Pacific own 29,990 shares in that company say to them :	' If you intend to repay this loan,
give us an assignment or a mortgage on the 29,990 shares.' They have 78,000 acres of land, a large proportion of which is in townsite. They own 86 townsites between Winnipeg and Edmonton and we do not know how many more they will own between Edmonton and the coast. I quote an extract from a pamphlet issued by the Grand Trunk Pacific in November:
The Grand Trunk Town and Development Company (Limited), a majority of the capital stock of which i9 held by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company

And when they say a majority they mean 29,990 shares out of 30,000.
-has acquired land for 86 townsites, between Winnipeg and Edmonton, which have been subdivided into lots and placed on the market for sale; there has been an interest displayed in these townsites most gratifying to the

company, and thousands of lots have already been sold. Thriving towns are springing up where a few months ago there was nothing but the bare prairie; grain elevators, warehouses, dwellings, stores and other evidences of remarkable activity are presented immediately following the laying of the track. The growth is especially astonishing at the division points or terminals of which there are five between Winnipeg and Edmonton, namely:	at Rivers, Manitoba, Melville, Watrons
and Biggar, Saskatchewan, and Wainwright, Alberta, and there are many other towns which given promise of notable development.
As the construction of the railway prpceeds westerly from Edmonton, townsites will be established along the line, and these will be on the market in 1909.
Hon. gentlemen will see that these town-sites are not worth more than $2 or $3 an acre except for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and were it not for the assistance of the government which has contributed practically nine-tenths of the cost of the construction of that road, those townsites would be practically valueless. Is it not right and just that they should give to us as security what legitimately belongs to the Grand Trunk Pacific in respect of the increment which should go to the Grand Trunk Pacific if these town-sites had been allowed to remain under the control of that railway where they properly belonged. When the Grand Trunk Pacific come to us for a $10,000,000 loan we should say: You, as the Grand Trunk Pacific Coni-pany own 29,990" shares in that townsite company. You have the control and you can, if you will, and you should give to us a mortgage upon your interest in the Townsite and Development Company. In addition to this they own three-quarters of the townsite of Prince Rupert and we all know that in the course of a few years their interest in Prince Rupert will bo worth probably millions of dollars.
In addition to that they have the Grand Trunk Pacific Telephone Company. Wherever a profit is going to be made out of the transactions of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company there is some subsidiary company to reap it. We have the Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Company, and in a prospectus relating to it, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company say:
The Grand Trunk Pacific Telegraph Company was incorporated by Act of parliament, 1906, with a capital stock of $5,000,000, for the purpose of constructing a telegraph system along the Grand TrunkJPaoific Railway. The company has broad powers and may establish, construct or acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, and may maintain and operate any overhead, underground or cable line or lines of telegraph or telephone, or any system of wireless telegraphy, &c.
You have there the telegraph company, which the gentlemen who belong to the Grand Trunk Pacific also control and operate by a separate corporation. Now we say 177
that these institutions, if not the telegraph company, certainly the other two companies which the Grand Trunk Pacific control, should be pledged to this government as security for this loan. We find that the Grand Trunk Pacific has been shorn of all these necessary adjuncts which enable it to be translated from a supine vertebrae into a useful, healthy and legitimate corporate *entity capable of earning a decent livelihood. That being the case, we, say the mortgage should contain a provision creating a lien upon the assets of these other two companies which the Grand Trunk Pacific itself controls. So far as I can see, there is no logical reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific controlling the interest of these two companies should not pledge them to us as further security for the loan. We desire to get all the security we can; we desire to get this transaction placed as near as possible to that of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company loan of 1884 for the purpose of making it to the interest of the Grand Trank Pacific to pay back this loan. One of the reasons why the Canadian Pacific Railway Company paid back the loan was because we had an undoubted security of $200,000,000. The Finance Minister himself admits that as a direct security the mortgage which we are getting from the Grand Trunk Pacific is practically worth nothing, because there are ahead of us three other prior mortgages. So we are in the position of getting a fourth mortgage which the minister himself practically admits is valueless, and we fall back then upon the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. As I said before, I do not place so much value upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company's guarantee, as the government do, because according to admission we have $121,000,000 of mortgage bonds which form the first mortgage against the Grand Trunk ahead of us; we have $19 000,000 rentals capitalized ahead of us, and we have this Bill passed this year for $12,000,000 more. The Grand Trank are issuing these bonds to the extent of $12,000,000 which will also be a prior charge to the present guarantee. That is to say we have directly ahead of us $152,000,000 on the Grand Trunk guarantee. But that is not all. According to the figures brought down by the Finance Minister, the Grand Trunk Company has already guaranteed $30,000,000 more to other creditors and that $30,000,000 more stands exactly in the same position as we do with respect to the present $10,000,000 guarantee. So we have $152,000,000 of direct mortgage security ahead of our Grand Trank Railway guarantee and the $30,000,000 guarantee standing side by side with the present guarantee. So I ask hon. gentlemen, in view of these figures, do they not think it is right that the Grand Trunk Pacific should hand over



to us as further security the interest in these two other companies, which interest they control. I have therefore much pleasure in moving:
That the order of the third reading be discharged, and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with power to amend the same by providing that the security to be taken and held by the government for the proposed loan should include a mortgage covering the interests of the company (a) in paid-up stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Townsite and Development Company; and (b) in the branch line from Port Arthur to the main line of the National 1 ranscontinental Railway; subject, however, to any charges or liens now outstanding there-


William Stevens Fielding: My objection to the motion of my hon. friend is that, in the judgment of the government, which we respectfully ask the House to confirm, there is abundant security for the loan of $10,000,000 which is proposed by this legislation. I think I should not be wrong if I stated that there has never been any loan transaction made by this government in which we had such good security for our money. My hon. friend refers to the alleged securities, which he says were worth $200,000,000, put up in one form or another by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. My hon. friend must know at once that if they could have realized $200,000,000, or one-tenth of that sum on these securities, they would not have come to the government for help at all. The value of any security is the immediate value; the value of any security is the value you can realize upon it in the markets of the world. Though these securities proved themselves in the end to be of great value, it was self-evident that if they had been of great financial value at the time, the company would have raised the money in the money market, and would not have come to the government of Canada at all. It is perfectly evident that at the time the Canadian Pacific Railway Company produced these securities they had little or no substantial value; therefore as a security for the time being they are not worthy of the commendation that "y ho?, friend awards to them. Ultimately they did become valuable, ultimately the loan was paid back. But if we look at the transaction as it occurred at the time the loan was made, it is quite evident that if these securities had had any substantial security in the money market, the company would have raised the money on the money market and would not have come to the government of Canada at all. So in that sense the securities were not valuable, and the government did not have proper security for its money. The government loaned the money upon the faith that the country would be improved, the government loaned the money upon the faith that Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would prove a success, and happily that expectation proved correct. But as a money security, as a market security, as a banking transaction, the securities which they put up had no substantial value 'Comparatively speaking, because if they had, the company would not have been obliged to aPPly to the treasury of Canada.
Now turn to the security we are putting up. I put aside the question of the mortgage which, as I have said, while it is of value for the future, has no immediate value. I do not attach great importance to it, but I hold that we have the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. My hon. friend speaks of the immense amount of securities of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I shall not follow him in that, I gave the figures before, showing that after all these securities were provided for there was a surplus in the Grand Trunk Railway Company's affairs which would have abundantly protected this loan; and the later reports of last year's transactions confirm that statement and make it even stronger than I did. But we need not go into the question of the value of the securities. The money market watches all these things, and the value of a security can be found at almost any time in the financial journals. But the point I desire to call attention to is that these securities have a financial value, they have a eomnrercial value, they have a value fixed by the men who know how to value these things. All the securities outstanding are well known, all the obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway Company are well known, all the guarantees are well known, and in face of it all the money market fixes the value on securities of a similar character. In the 'Economist' of the 24th April I find that the four per cent bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, issued for the prairie section and which bear the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, are quoted at from 92 to 94. That is the value of this class of bonds in the money market to-day. That is the value on the counters of the bankers in London. Cut off a small percentage to represent the difference between an ordinary quotation and what they would receive for a large issue, and I would be justified in stating that you could take these $10,000,000 of bonds, go to any reputable banking house and perhaps get 90 cents on the dollar to-dav. What is the use of talking about having no security for this loan? The most that can be said is that we take the risk of a margin of possibly 10 per cent. Any man who knows anything of the history of the Grand Trunk affairs, any man who knows the standing of the Grand Trunk in the money markets of the world, will say at once that, when we have for

our security the Grand Trunk guarantee, which is quoted in the money market at from 92 to 94, it is preposterous to assert that this government have not an excellent security for this loan.
My hon. friend has had a good deal to say about the town sites. He wants to know about the town sites. At an earlier stage of this discussion several hon. members on the otheT side of the House had a good deal to say about rake-offs, about some individuals getting a profit out of this. We were told that individuals were skimming this business and making money out of it for their personal profit. No attempt has been made to sustain any charge. It was suggested that in connection with the Town Sites Company there were some individuals who were making money at the expense of the company. My hon. friend now says that the stock of the Town Sites Company, a subsidiary company, is held by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of Canada, and therefore my hm. friend will see that the suggestions offered at an earlier stage of this debate that some individual officials of the Grand Trunk Railway Company were making money privately out of this trans, action were entirely unjustified. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have formed a Town Site Company for purposes which are entirely legitimate. We were told that the government had given them a great deal of land. The government sold them that land at $3 an acre, but we reserved a quarter interest in the profits of the Town Site Company, a fact which my hon. friend has not mentioned at all. There is nothing in any transaction between the Grand Trunk Pacic Railway Company and the Town Sites Company that any one can say is not perfectly legitimate and fair. There is nothing in any transaction between the government and the Town Sites Company but is fair and proper and in the interests of the Dominion.


William Sora Middlebro: Did the hon. gentleman ask the Town Site Company to give us security for this loan, their interest in that company?


William Stevens Fielding: No. I think that when we have got a security of $9 out of $10_j)f the highest mercantile value, it is nonsense to ask them to give us other security. And then reference has been made to the common stock. The common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to-day has little or no commercial value. There is some $25,000,000 of it, but if any hon. gentleman can get. possession of it and if he will take it to any of the banks and ask them to loan him one per cent of the whole amount I do not think he can get the money. It is worth substantially nothing at the present time. The stock of a new railway company has no immediate commercial value. Its value de-1774	.
pends on the future. Its value depends on the enterprise. It would be no good to us to-day as a security, and if at any time, by the development of the enterprise, that common stock becomes valuable, we do not want it as a security because it cannot be worth anything until the obligation of the Grand Trunk Pacific has been met. If then, by the development of the enterprise, this common stock becomes of value, at that moment our loan and every other debt against that enterprise will have been fully protected. Believing then that we have abundant security for our loan, better security than a government usually gets, and immensely better than we got in the case .of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I have to ask the House not to agree to my hon. friend's amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Middlebro) negatived on the same division.


Mr. G. H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance objects very strongly to asking this company for any further security but I have a suggestion to make on lines which have already been discussed and an amendment to propose which, I think, will probably meet the views of the hon. gentleman and of the several members of the government. The Grand Trunk Railway Company own a large quantity of the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. In the Act passed in 1903 it was provided that the Grand Trunk Pacific should take and pay for this stock as it was needed and hold it all. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said that time that every dollar of the money that was received for this common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific would be used in the construction of the railway. It was for the purpose of enabling the Grand Trunk to receive some common stock for which they were to put up some money for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific that provision was made in 1903. This, however, did not suit the Grand Trunk, or the Grand Trunk Pacific and in 1904 they came again to this parliament and got a change made in the Act by which the Grand Trunk Pacific were allowed to issue to the Grand Trunk common stock as fully paid up stock, not in return for cash or money, but in return for services to be Tendered to the Grand Trunk and especially for a guarantee of Grand Trunk Pacific bonds. The Grand Trunk guaranteed these bonds and now they find themselves unable to float these bonds on the London market at a satisfactory price and they therefore come to this government and ask them for this loan. Do the Grand Trunk at the same time offer to give back this common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific which they have received in return for their guarantee? Not

at all. They propose to keep it all the same. What I am going to suggest in regard to this stock will not hurt anybody, *will not hurt the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific. It will simply protect us in case this loan of $10,000,000 is not repaid. Every hon. member of this House knows the difficulty there is in foreclosing a mortgage when a large enterprise fails. There is always a lot of trouble about it and it takes a long time. If we got the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific transferred to us in the meantime it would relieve us of all this trouble in case the mortgage had to be foreclosed. The Act provided for the guarantee of the government on a so-called first mortgage, and for the guarantee of the Grand Trunk on a so-called second bond mortgage. But they really were on a par with each other and it was provided that if there is a default in the payment of either of these issues of bonds _a receiver shall be appointed.
The duty of the receiver is to pay, first the working expenses, and after that to divide pro rata any surplus he may have between the holders of the first and second mortgage bonds so called. I would like to see any such difficulty avoided. It seems to me this is a most unwise provision in the original. Act and that we ought to try to safeguard ourselves against similar trouble in connection with this loan. I suggest that the Grand Trunk Bailway Company should transfer to the government all the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific at present in its possession. I do not suggest this as a security, for the Minister of Finance is perfectly right when he says that the stock has no value at the present time. But I ask that it be transferred in order that we may have it in our possession in case of default in the payment of these bonds. At the same time provision would be made so that the voting power in this stock should remain with the Grand Trunk Company so long as there is no default in the payment of bonds or interest. What I suggest is a simple precaution to protect the people of the country. The government are the trustees of the people of Canada, but it would seem that the arguments advanced by government supporters have all been in favour of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk Bailway Companies, and that the interests of the people have been lost sight of. I enter my protest against the evident desire on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to make the people of the country believe that we on this side of the House are in some way opposed to the completion of this Grand Trunk Pacific Bailway. Difference of opinion did exist when the original scheme was brought before- parliament, but it has been sanctioned by the people and Mr. PERLEY.
we quite realize that the road must be completed as promptly as possible. The amendment which I offer will not in any way interfere with the credit of the Grand Trunk Bailway or the Grand Trunk Pacific. It will still allow the voting power on the stock and complete control of the railway, so that when the $10,000,000 is paid back the stock will be transferred to the present holders. In case of default, however, the government will have the common stock in their possession and they will be able to assume the road subject to the other liens on it without process of law and without all the trouble which would otherwise be necessary to assert their rights. I beg to move:
That the order of the third reading be discharged, and that the said Bill be referred back to Committee of the W hole House with power to amend the same by providing that all tho stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in the control of the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall be conveyed and pledged to the government, to be held until the amount advanced has been repaid with interest, but subject to any necessary or reasonable provision as to power to vote on the said stock in the meantime.
Amendment of Mr. Perley negatived on the same division.	,


Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: I have also an amendment to offer, but before making any remarks directly bearing on that amendment, I shall say a few words with reference to the construction work on the Grand Trunk Pacific, particularly in western Canada. I do not conceive that at this ilate hour it would be proper for me to take up the time of the House at length. The matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the House in the first place is in regard to the nationality of the individuals to whom the money of this country has gone in connection with the construction of that line in the west. For some two years this has been a burning question, in the west. On the 22nd of March last certain questions were put to the Minister of- Railways by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) on this very subject, and I quote from ' Hansard ': '
Mr. Sifton-by Mr. A. H. Clarke-asked:
1.	What is the total number of employees upon the operating staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway above the rank of brakemen?
2.	Of the total number how many are British subjects, and how many are citizens of the United States?
3.	What is the total number of employees upon the engineering staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific, exclusive of labourers?
I. Of the total how many are British subjects, and how many are citizens of the United States ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. The information to answer this question is furnished by the vice-president and geuer-

al manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bailway, as follows: Total number of men above the rank of brakesmen, is 135.
2.	It would seem to be impossible to secure information as to the nationality of the men mentioned without making a complete canvass from Edmonton to Prince Rupert, where many of the employees are in practically inaccessible locations at this time of the year.. The correspondence indicates that it would take at least three months to get the information. It is also stated that 90 per cent of the employees referred to are British subjects or have been residents of Canada for from three to ten years, this assertion being based on the March pay-rolls and from information at hand.
3.	231.	. .
4.	Answered by Number 2, in addition to which it is stated that the following are British subjects: Second vice-president, chief engineer, bridge engineer, freight traffic manager.
And so on through a list of about 15 officials. The House will observe that in these answers the government announced to the country that the percentage, so far as they can estimate, of the operating staff of that road west of Lake Superior, above the rank of brakeman, is 90 per cent of British subjects, that the same figures apply to the engineering staff and that in addition there are two others whom they state are British subjects as well. It would appear from the statement of the department that in the whole list of the engineering staff given only two are British subjects.


George Perry Graham: Will my hon. friend allow me to point out that the statement of the department is not the department's information, but is information furnished to us by the company.


Arthur Meighen: I hope my language could not be interpreted as challenging the bona fides of the department or of the minister in the statement he gave. I do, however, wish, on such information as I have, to challenge its correctness. The answer to the second part of the series of questions is particularly subject to challenge. The engineering staff of the Grand Trunk Pa'cific in western Canada, from what information I have, and I venture to say that it is very complete, is practically dominated by American citizens. To say that 90 per cent of that staff are Canadian citizens is to say what the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities, who furnished that information, could not possibly have had reasonable grounds for asserting. There has been furnished to me to-day, and I can give it to the House, a list of 56 employees of that road, of whom the great majority are engineers; the list is furnished by a gentleman who is an engineer himself and who has been connected with the Tailway; and of those 56, no less that 40 are citizens of the United States of America. In
the list which has been furnished to the Minister of Railways, numbering those on the engineering staff at 231, the company have doubtless taken advantage of the question as put to include in that number those far down in the grade, such as chain-men, perhaps servants, and other employees in minor capacities. Among those who receive the larger remuneration on the railway, the complajnt is very prevalent, and has been for some time past, throughout the western country, that a very decided preference has always been given to citizens of the United States over citizens of Canada. If there were not civil engineers, architects and others of kindred professions actually idle on the streets of Canada today, and competent men at that, this state of affairs would not be so bad. But, Sir, there are highly trained, competent and tried civil engineers idle on the streets of western Canada to-day, and I am informed and believe that the systematic policy of this company is to leave these engineers and give a preference to citizens of foreign lands. There is a double objection to that in this case: In the first place, because the road is being financed practically and entirely by the Dominion of Canada; and, secondly, because the conditions prevailing in this country are peculiarly suited and peculiarly well known to Canadian engineers trained in this country. Instances could be given where the employment of foreign engineers has been highly detrimental to the interests of the road, where serious mistakes have been made entailing heavy loss, and in consequence heavy liabilities to this country, simply by reason of the fact that the engineers employed were trained under conditions that do not prevail in the northern zone of this continent.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will my hon. friend be good enough to tell us if he knows of any engineer or architect of repute who is today idle in any city in Canada?


Arthur Meighen: I certainly do. I hope my hon. friend will not be so personal as to ask me the name.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I will push the question harder. I would like to know the name.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend, I am afraid, displays a lack of something; the House will have to judge what it is. The system which has resulted in the state of affairs to which I have called attention is known to me in some degree. I cannot say that I know many instances, but I know of more than one. A citizen of the United States, perhaps known to some one high in authority on the road, who is likewise a citizen of that country, writes to the engineering department applying for a

position. The answer is given, out of deference to the provisions of our alien labour law, that it is impossible to employ him in this way, but that if he reports to the city of Winnipeg or somewhere else before a certain individual on a certain date, it is more than likely or possible that he will receive employment. That is a very neat way of getting around the alien labour law. The result has been, as 1 have stated, that a feeling very far from content prevails among the profession in this country, particularly in the western part of the country with which I have some personal acquaintance. Now, I submit, especially at this juncture, when we are called upon to vote more money for this road, that it would not be amiss to inquire where that money is going in this regard. I believe that some three or four years ago Judge Winchester was appointed a commissioner to look into the observance of the alien labour law on the part of this company, and that it was found that serious breeches of the law were committed, or methods of getting around it were employed, by the company.
I believe that considerable improvement took place as the result of that action by the government. I believe from reports that I have received that there exists today a condition of affairs which would justify a repetition of that action.
Having said this much, I shall proceed, very briefly, to a statement of the principles of the amendment which I propose to lay before the House. The government have pronounced, as the outstanding merit of this Grand Trunk project, that it was altogether a Canadian project, designed as set out in the very recital of the contract originally entered into in 1893 to build up and protect Canadian ports. But when a resolution is moved by this side of the House with that object, and that alone in view, it is voted down by the other side and voted down on the avowed reason, as stated by the leader of the government, that another time will come when we can introduce perhaps a clause of that kind, but that time stated by the right hon. gentleman is the very time when this very clause in the contract will forbid its being introduced.
Another pardonable principle submitted as the basis of this proposed loan, is that it is a banking proposition; but when we endeavour to infuse into the Bill some principle of banking, by providing that we shall at least_ not_ lose on the transaction, that proposition is voted down at the instance of the Finance Minister who declares that he has an abstract, theoretical horror of a fixed rate of interest but fails to give us any reason, sound or otherwise, for his invincible repugnance.
And when we endeavour to infuse into Mr. MEIGHEN.
this measure the principle of greater security, as a sound principle of banking, we are answered that we have abundant security. The argument of the Minister of Finance on that point was very peculiar. He instanced the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in which it was shown by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro) that we had $200,000,000 of security on a valuation at that time-not a valuation to-day-for the $30,000,000 we advanced. The hon. minister argued that if the Canadian Pacific Railway had a valuation of $200,000,000 at that time, they would not have had to come to the government of that day for a loan. The very fact, he said, that they were forced to do so argued that the security they had to offer was of no value then in the money markets of the world. But in speaking of the present case, he said we have abundant security. If, however, we apply the same argument to this case of the Grand Trunk Pacific as we did to that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, what is the result? The letter of Mr. Hays, the president of the Grand Trunk Railway, to the Finance Minister practically admits that the company was forced to come to this government for a loan. He said in that letter that if this government did not grant the loan the work would have to stop. Could he more plainly say that he could not get the money any where else? Applying then to that case the reasoning of the Finance Minister in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, we must come to the conclusion that the security the Grand Trunk Pacific have to offer is not considered good in the money markets of the world. Thus in one breath the Finance Minister argues that the security which the Grand Trunk Pacific has to offer is absolutely good, and in the other that it is no good at all. That is the only logical deduction to be made from his argument.
Aside from that point, I have endeavoured to take the government at their word and infuse the principles of banking into this Bill, but they decline my proposition. They put forward an alternative proposition and say we are in partnership with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Well, I am endeavouring to infuse some of the principles of partnership into this Bill since they reject the principles of banking. One of the principles of partnership is that those who contribute to the capital of a business shall also share in its proprietorship. Surely if there is a cardinal principle of partnership, it is that which is embodied in the amendment I beg to move. In section 26 of the Act of 1903, it is set out that the Grand Trunk Pacific shall be capitalized at $45,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be

represented by the preference stock and the balance by common stock, and that the common stock shall go to the Grand Trunk Railway as one of the partners. For that $25,000,000 the Grand Trunk Railway said they would give their guarantee, which unfortunately has turned out not to be worth very much. Still they get that $25,000,000 common stock for that guarantee. And inasmuch as we have to give our guarantee for this loan, as we have to raise the money, why should we not get our share of stock as well as the Grand Trunk Railway? True the $25,000,000 of common stock has already been allotted the Grand Trunk Railway, but there is still $20,000,000 of the preference stock untouched, why should we not have a share in that? Why should we not let the Grand Trunk Pacific have one half of that stock and have the government take the other half, and thereby share in the partnership when we share so largely in the liability. I therefore beg to move, Mr. Speaker, the Mowing amendment:
That the said Bill he not now read a hird time, hut that it be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole with power to amend the same by providing that the Dominion of Canada, in consideration of the financial aid which it contributes o his underaking, shall receive paid up preference stock of the Company to the amount of $10,000,000.
Amendment negatived on the same division.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is moved that the Bill be read the third time.-Carried.


William Stevens Fielding: Carried on the same division reversed.


Robert Laird Borden: No one called out 'no.'


William Stevens Fielding: There are no ' no's,' all right.
Motion agreed, and Bill read the third time and passed.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business tomorrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will take up the civil service resolutions if convenient. Otherwise we will take up Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be well to go into Supply at once, and take up the civil service resolutions another day. We can take them up any day after to-morrow that the right hon. gentleman suggests.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Wednesday.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 5, 1909.