1909-03-08

Mr G.   E.@: McCRANEY (Saskatoon! moved:
That the first report of the Select Standii Committee on Standing Orders, presented c tne 5tn inst., be now concurred in.
He said: On Friday last when this report was presented, the hon. leader of the opposition made some inquiry as to whether any undertaking would be required from the promoters of the Bill. I have received from the clerk of the Committee on Standing Orders the following memorandum:
?ouse might be informed that the clerk of the Railway Committee, in the case of special reports being made by the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders in connection with notices found defective, usually directs the attention of the chairman of the former committee, and I presume the same course will be followed in the present case when the Bill comes up for consideration.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The memorandum contains some information which is of value, but I would not be inclined to re-Mr. LENNOX.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Frederick Tennyson Congdon, Esq., for the electoral district of the Yukon territory.	i



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 93) representing patents of Ammonal Explosives (1908), Limited.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 94), respecting the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company. -Mr. Boyer.
Bill (No. 95) to incorporate the Royal Guardians.-Mr. Lachance.
Bill (No. 96), respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 98), to amend the Exchequer Court Act.-Mr. Aylesworth.
Bill (No. 99), to amend the Railway Act. -Mr. Conmee.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 97) respecting Insurance. He said: Mr., Speaker: This Bill is to a very large extent the Bill which was presented to the House last session and held over for further consideration. It is not, however, the same in all respects. The Bill of last year was the subject of a protracted hearing and inquiry before the committee on Banking and Commerce, during which many suggestions were offered by way of amendment. We have had the benefit of that inquiry, and the benefit of the further study which has been had of the Bill in consequence of the delay; and with the better light which has come to us we have endeavoured to make some improvements in the Bill. I shall call the attention of the House to the points in which, the Bill differs materially from that of last year. We do not make any change in the existing law with respect to the assessment insurance companies. A proposal in relation to these institutions was made in the Bill of last year; but even if we had gone on with that Bill, that proposal, as was stated; at the time, would have been withdrawn.
The principal companies engaged in that line of business represented to us that they recognized the necessity for strengthening their position, that they were going about it in their own way and desired to be left to themselves for that purpose. We are aware that efforts are being made in that direction and so we do not propose in this Bill to make any change in the existing law with respect to these organizations. Probably the question of investments is the one which engaged the most attention before the committee last year We have made some changes with respect to the provisions on that subject to which I shall invite the attention of the House. Section 60 of the new Bill will read:
Any life insurance company which derives its corporate powers, or any of them, from an Act of the parliament of Canada, or which is within the legislative power of the parliament of Canada, may invest its funds, or any portion thereof, in the purchase of-
(a) The debentures, bonds, stocks, or other securities of or guaranteed by the government of the Dominion of Canada, or of or guaranteed by the government of the United Kingdom, or of any colony or dependency thereof, or of or guaranteed by the government of any foreign country, or state forming a portion of such foreign country, wherein the company carries on or is about to carry on business, provided the Treasury Board has signified its approval of such securities, or of any municipal or school corporation in Canada, or elsewhere where the company is carrying on business.
That is substantially the same as in the Bill of last year.
Subsection (b) 1 includes among the securities in which a company may invest
The bonds of any company which bonds are secured by a mortgage to trustees or a trust corporation, or otherwise, upon real estate or other assets of such company.
The former Bill required that these bonds should be outstanding for at least five years. In the present Bill we have dropped the time condition; if the bonds are secured by mortgage they are deemed to be good and may be used as a field for investment. The former Bill restricted these bonds to the bonds of a corporation incorporated in a country in which the insurance company v as carrying on business. We have, after the discussion which has taken place, removed that restriction. Subsection 2 of subsection (b) reads:
The debentures or other evidences of indebtedness of any Company, which has been doing business for a term of not less than five years prior to the date of such investments, provided default shall not have been made by such company in the interest payments upon its debentures or other evidences of indebtedness within the said period of five years prior to such investment.
In the former Bill it was required that such debentures should be of seven years' standing. In the present Bill we apply the time limit not to the debentures but to the standing of the company which issues the debentures. If a company is of five years' standing and has made no default it is presumed that its debentures may be treated as good.
Subsection 3 of subsection (b) reads:
The preferred or guaranteed stocks of any company which has paid regular dividends upon such stocks or upon its common stocks for not less than five years preceding the purchase of such preferred or guaranteed stocks.
Last year's Bill provided that such stocks should have paid 4 per cent for seven years. The present year drops the 4 per cent condition and provides that the company shall have paid regular dividends for five years on this class of stock but does not specify the rate. The argument is that this is a high class of stock which may in some instances not pay as much as 4 per cent, and that it is not wise to insist upon the 4 per cent rate.
Subsection 4 of subsection (b) reads:
The common stocks of any such company upon which regular dividends of at least 4 per cent have been paid for the seven years next preceding the purchase of such stocks: Provided that not more than 20 per cent of the common stocks and not more than 20 per cent of the total issue of the stocks of any company shall be purchased by any such life insurance company, and that no company shall be permitted to invest in its own shares

or in the shares of another life insurance company.
Last year's Bill provided that the common stock should have paid at least five per cent dividends for ten years. The present Bill recognizes the stock as good if it has paid four per cent for seven years.
There is a proviso here as to the percentage of money which may be invested in the securities of any one company. The object of that was to provide that the company should not create a subsidiary company and obtain a controlling interest in it. It was found, however, that the words of the clause seemed to be too broad, and we have now amended it. Last year's Bill limited the investment to twenty per cent of all the stocks or securities of the company. In the present Bill we are distinguishing between the stocks and bonds and our proviso is that the investment may not exceed twenty per cent of the sto'cks of any company, but we leave the company free to invest in the bonds if they are deemed to be good security.
Subsections (c) and (d) of this clause recognize ground rents or mortgages on real estate, and life and endowment policies as proper subjects for investment, but these are not changes and it is not necessary to say anything concerning them.
A question arose as to what action should be taken respecting any investments of a company in securities which might not come within the new law. Provision was made that in the case of securities not recognized by the new Bill the securities should be disposed of within a certain time. We have changed that to provide that where the investments were made in securities which at the time of their purchase were legal and proper the company shall be free to dispose of them at such time as it may find most convenient. In the case of securities which, at the time of their purchase were not strictly within the terms of the old Insurance Act-this applies in one or two instances-provision is made that such securities shall be disposed of within a period of five years.
A question which has received great attention in the discussion of insurance matters is the expenses of management. In the last Bill provision was made for a limitation of the expense on new business, and at one stage it seemed that such a rovision was called for, if not by what ad occurred in Canada by the developments in other countries. In the investigations abroad great importance was attached to this question but when it came to be discussed with insurance men here before the committee it was urged that it would be exceedingly difficult to apply a limitation of that kind without interfering with the volume of insurance. It was held that the proposed limitation would so hamper the insurance agents that they


Mr. FIELDING.: would not be able to make a respectable income and would not enter the field, so that there would be a falling off in the amount of insurance, which is not desirable, because we all feel that the encouragement of life insurance is a good thing. We have inserted a provision in the present Bill not to put any limitation on the expense of new business particularly but to provide a limitation upon the expenses generally. If this proviso were not qualified, it might prove a great handicap to new companies. The expenses of management of a new company are necessarily greater in proportion than the expenses of an old company with a large volume of business, so we propose that the limitation of expenses shall apply to old companies which have a standing of fifteen years, or to any company so soon as it comes to the age of fifteen years, and that in the case of new companies to be incorporated hereafter, this limitation shall begin when they have had ten years of existence. Last year's Bill required that the returns should show the expense of new business separate from ordinary business. Such a division has been found difficult and we have dropped this provision and substituted one providing for a return of what is technically called a gain and loss exhibit which it is thought might to some extent serve the same purpose. Last year's Bill proposed that each class of insurance should be dealt with in a separate policy.
This year's Bill continues that provision, with, however, this qualification,-that accident and sickness insurance may be deemed as practically one, and these two may be included in one policy.
There is a provision with regard to what I may call the exchange of securities; that is to say where a company is required by the terms of the proposed legislation to dispose of securities within a given time, it may be found convenient that they should exchange these securities for some others which, while not coming within the class approved by the Bill, would still be desirable securities and of a better class than those now held by the company. The conditions are somewhat exceptional, and we think it well to make a provision which will meet those conditions.
There is a provision that no life insurance company shall loan any of its funds to any director, shareholder, officer or clerk thereof. That should not be held to interfere with the ordinary loan to any policy-holder who is entitled to receive it, merely because he is an officer of the company. Possibly this clause needs to be made a little clearer on that point.
With regard to the election of directors by the shareholders and the policy-holders, some of the companies now provide for policy-holders' directors. It is proposed that there shall be a general law in that

respect, and that all life insurance companies, shall provide for their policy-holders, as well as for their shareholders, having directors. It was represented to us before the committee that a few people might possibly acquire the power of directors and bring about hasty, radical changes in the management, a thing that certainly would not be desirable. To guard against this, it is proposed to provide that a certain number shall retire annually, so that there shall not be, at any time, a radical change in the directorate.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the proportion of policy-holders' directors?


William Stevens Fielding: The same number of each; policy-holders and shareholders have an equal number of directors, and two of each class retire every year. In the Bill of last year it was provided that proxies should be recognized. This is continued, with the proviso that proxies shall not be good for more than three months.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Will a shareholder be eligible as a policy-holders' director?


William Stevens Fielding: No, every director must he chosen from his own class.


David Henderson: But a shareholder may be also a policy-holder. What I desire to ask is whether a shareholder will be eligible as a policy-holders' director? No shareholder should be eligible for that position.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the provision of the Bill. Provision is made that a company may withdraw itself from Dominion jurisdiction. A case has arisen recently of a company that has a Dominion license, but wishes to confine its business to one province only, and so desires to withdraw its Dominion deposit and have it transferred to the Insurance Department of the province. There seems to be no objection to such a procedure, but we have no machinery in the Insurance Act to deal with it, and we propose to insert a clause granting that power.
Now, a question that was brought to the notice of the committee last year is that of publicity. It was urged by the representatives of the companies that some of the restrictions proposed to be placed upon them were not necessary, but that the best guarantee the public could have was adequate publicity. One of the features we inserted in the Bill was that the returns should show the sums received by any officer or agent of the company in excess of a moderate amount-that is, in excess of $4,000. It was presumed that the ordinary life insurance agent, the great bulk of them, would receive less than that amount, and that, though a limited number might receive a larger sum, there would not be any
trouble in providing a return .of that character. It is but fair to say that we were not aware of any serious difficulty having occurred in Canada in relation to that point, though it is well known that one of the abuses shown up in the investigation in the United States was that very large sums were paid to officers of the company. Our contention is that if any such large sum be paid for good and sufficient reason, the public should be made aware of the fact through the return. It was, however, pointed out to us that such a return, when made public, might be misleading, inasmuch as many of the insurance agents have to pay their subagents, and therefore the amounts that might be placed opposite their names would not represent their own earnings, but only money that had passed through their hands. We continue the clause in the Bill, with the proviso, however, that, wherever the agent referred to us in receipt of money which he has in part to pay to subagents, that shall be indicated by a remark in the return, so that those who read will be made aware that the amount received by the agent is not entirely for himself.
A change is made in the tables used for the valuation of policies. The table in use for many years was what is known as the Hm. table of the Institute of Actuaries of Great Britain. A more modern table is the British Offices Life Table which has come into more general use. It is proposed to adopt this table.
We have added another part to the Bill, part 5, for the purpose of including in the Act a number of the clauses which are to he found in the Companies' Clauses Act, which, as hon. members who have had experience in the Banking and Commerce Committee know, are frequently referred to, a common provision in a private Bill being that such and such clauses of the Companies' Clauses Act shall apply and others shall not apply. That is often confusing. We propose to import into this Bill all the clauses of the Companies' Clauses^ Act that are useful for the purposes of insurance companies. We have added a form of model Bill, which it is hoped will be adopted, and will facilitiate the insurance legislation of the future. So many things have been carried into the charters of companies that sometimes they become embarrassing. We have thought it best that everything should be gathered into one Bill, and then a company's charter should be, as bank charters are, a simple measure.
The Bill is a somewhat lengthy one, com-pi ising, including the schedule, 94 pages. It is to be remembered, however, that it is not quite so ponderous as it seems, for the bulk of it is merely a consolidation of the existing law.
I propose, at an early day, after the Bill is in the hands of hon. members-as it will

be immediately-to move the second reading and ask that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. It has been suggested by an hon. member who is much interested in this measure, that we could effectively deal with it by 'appointing a small sub-committee of the Banking and Commerce Committee to consider it. That ccmmends itself to my judgment, but the motion for that purpose would have to be made in the Committee on Banking and C< mmerce itself.


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

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 98) to amend the Exchequer Court Act. He said: The purpose of this Bill is simply to make the Civil Service Amendment Act, which was passed last session, apply to the registrar of the Exchequer Court. It is probable that such was the intention when the Act of last session was passed. The status and the salary of the registrar are fixed by special Act, and his position not being mentioned specially in the Act amending the Civil Service Act the special Act would still continue to apply to him, unless we pass legislation of the character I am introducing.


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

Mr.   J.@: CONMEE (Thunder Bay) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 99) to amend the Railway Act. He said: The object is to amend the Act in respect of the maintenance of fences and cattle guards in certain sections where, under the present law, the onus is thrown entirely upon the settler. If his land is inclosed and .an accident occurs he may recover damages, but if his land is not inclosed, damages cannot be recovered. Parliament must have intended the law to work a little differently, but that seems to be the effect, and my information is that the courts have held that such is the case. That is a matter which ought to be remedied.


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

Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: About a year ago the freight clerks in Halifax and St. Johns had some difficulty with the Intercolonial Railway management. After some little time, it was decided to refer the matter to arbitration under the conciliation clause of the Act known as the Lemieux Act. There was a board of arbitration Mr. FIELDING.
which sat in Halifax and in Ottawa during the summer, and whose finding, I understood, was in favour of the clerks. But nothing has since been heard of it and no settlement has been made. I would like to know why the finding of that arbitration has not been carried out.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: It is very doubtful whether the finding is in favour of the clerks or not. It is the finding to which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) referred previously, and it has been referred to in questions and answers several times since. That finding in brief was to the effect that the number of the clerks could be diminished and the salary of the remainder increased without increasing the expenditure of the railway in that connection. _ If it had been simply a question of increasing the salaries, there would have been no difficulty, but there is also question of depriving several men of their employment, and the department had to ascertain all the information possible, as to the dates of the appointments of these men, their salaries and ability as clerks. That work is not yet completed. As soon as we can get the full information, we shall make up our minds.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. BRADBURY.: The return brought down regarding the quantity of summer caught fish is not complete. It only gives the amount of fish shipped during the summer, but there is a large amount caught during the summer and shipped during the winter.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: It was the intention to give exactly what the hon. gentleman wanted and I will talk the matter over with him.


George Henry Bradbury: I would draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact that the return brought down regarding a survey made by Mr. Vaughan is not complete. I have not his plans or his correspondence.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: It should be stated in the return that up to the time of bringing it down we were not able to find the files concerning that part of the answer to the question. Search is still being made.


Mr. FOSTER.: I want to call attention to the fact that a number of returns ordered are still missing. On January 25, a return was ordered showing the armouries built, also with reference to certain publications, also with reference to Transcontinental Railway employees on January 26, and permanent loans and temporary loans. Also

with reference to lands sold along the route of the Grand Trunk Pacific for terminals on February 1, also with reference to dredging in New Brunswick on February 10.


William Stevens Fielding: As to the loans, I hope to bring them down to-morrow.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: With regard to the armouries, I spoke the other day to my deputy and he said that as far as my department was concerned it would he ready almost immediately.


Mr. DANIEL.: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to a motion with regard to some returns which passed the House on the 10th or 11th of February and which are not down.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Regarding what subject?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Relating to dredging, tenders and things of that' kind.


William Pugsley: I will have it looked into.



PRIVATE BILLS-CANADIAN, LIVERPOOL AND WESTERN RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 44) to incorporate the Canadian Liverpool and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Mr. NANTEL moved that the following be inserted as section 14:
The company shall print in both the English and French languages the time tables and bills of lading which are to be used for its line uithin the limits of the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to.
On the question: shall the Bill be reported?
George Eulas Foster: May be I am a little late but there is a little unsatisfied curiosity in my own mind yet. I have not had the pleasure of listening to the explanation. It may have been given but I would like the promoter of the Bill to give me a satisfactory reason for the inclusion of the word ' Liverpool ' I want to know what the meaning of it is.


Mr. GIRARD.: That question has been discussed in the Railway Committee and before this House and the House has been informed with regard to it. However, I have no objection to repeating the explanation. The word ' Liverpool ' is in the Bill on account of the intention of the company to have a steamship line between St. Catharine's bay and Liverpool.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 29) respecting the Winnipeg and North Western Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.
On section 1:
Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL.: Mr. Chairman,
I have just a word to say in regard to this Bill. If you will permit me to digress just for the space of one minute I will give you the reason why I was not here when the Bill was before the House on Friday last. I was at that time in what is called room 89, the room set aside for the Conservative members, in committee considering a proper change of name for that room and on which the committee came to the decision that perhaps it would be well to call it the Saragossa Sea. The reason of that was because, like the Sea of Saragossa, all the relics, wreckage, debris, flotsam and jetsam are gathered there. I would point out to the minister who is in charge of the furnishing of that room that it would be well that he should send these ancient relics of the time of Alexander Mackenzie to a museum instead of leaving them there for the use of members. There are fourteen kinds of chairs hardly a table with four legs and I think this is very unfair treatment to be accorded to the loyal opposition in this House.
With regard to this Bill, I will say a few words which will not only be my words but which will voice the opinions of the people whom I have the honour to represent. This charter has been objected to by every municipality through which this proposed railway is projected to run. The objections were taken in the proper way, through the municipal officers and by petition to the government, copies of which petitions were sent to me. I will read you. sir, because I want in ' Hansard,' what one of these petitions sets forth:
Whereas, the Winnipeg and North Western Railway Company have given notice of intention to apply at the next session of the parliament of Canada for an Act extending the time for the construction and completion of this railway;	. .	...	.	_
And whereas the municipality of bte. Rose is interested in the matter;
(This happens to be the petition of Ste. Rose in Ochre river, Dauphin, Gilbert Plains, Grand View and Shell River; all the municipalities concerned, are associated with this petition).
And whereas the speedy construction and completion of a railway along the proposed route will he a great he no lit to the people of this district;	.
And whereas the speedy construction and completion of such a railway is desirable;
And whereas, the privilege that has from time to time been granted to railways through-


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: How did the other men vote; on party lines too?


Glenlyon Campbell: I beg your pardon, Sir, you were not there and you are not in a position to know. Unfortunately for my presentation of the case before the committee some of my Conservative friends voted against me, but all the Liberals voted solid also against me. It is a great mistake that partyism should be allowed to enter into the affairs of that committee. Later on, when I saw that this amendment which I had the committee insert for the benefit of the people and at their request, was to be cut out, I did not want to waste the time of the committee and I had to accept my defeat as gracefully as I could, but that does not prevent me from saying a few words here. I had put in this amendment that the company be compelled to Mr. CAMPBELL.
build 25 miles in the first year in order to show its bona fides. The promoters of the road had said through their solicitor that they had the money and that they were willing to complete the road in five years and considering that they were chartered to build from 1,500 to 2,000 miles and that they undertook to complete that in five years, surely it was not a hardship on them to ask that they should build at least 25 miles in the first year.


An hon. MEMBER.: How long had they the charter?


Glenlyon Campbell: For two years. I wish now to enter my protest. There is hardly a member from the west who does not express the opinion in private conversation that something ought to be done to compel these hot air lines to either get out of business and let some one get into business or compel them to show their bona fides right away. The only argument put up by gentlemen on the other side is that it has been customary to allow this, but if in the past we have done wrong is it not time to make a change and let us do right now?


Mr. GUTHRIE.: At the first meeting of the Railway Committee at which this Bill was discussed it was stated that certain petitions had been sent to the government, and it was intimated that the government had taken no action in the matter. The deputy minister who was present, stated that no petitions had been received, and subsequently it turned out that the petitions referred to my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) did not go to the Department of Railways and Canals, but to the Board of Railway Commissioners, so that these petitions had never been before the Department of Railways and Canals. They were, however, before the committee when the Bill was finally considered and passed upon.


Mr. LENNOX.: That is rather important. The hon. member for Dauphin stated in the committee that petitions had been sent in and that it was the duty of the Minister of Railways to acquaint the committee of any petitions that had been received against the passage of the Act. It now appears that the Railway Board received these petitions instead of the minister, and I venture to say it was the duty of the Railway Board to forward these petitions to the proper authorities. No one could be in any doubt as to what the proper distinction is for petitions of that kind and no one could doubt the importance of the committee being acquainted with such petitions before we proceed to deal with a Bill of this kind. Of course, in this particular instance, no hardship has occurred, because the hon. member for Dauphin reminds me that he read a copy of the peti-

tion at the time; but it is well to have impressed upon whoever is responsible for the matter in the Railway Board that it would be regarded as their duty to forward these petitions promptly when they come in.


George Henry Bradbury: As one who took an interest in this matter before the committee, I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin with regard to the desirability of having some clause to protect ihe people of that district. When this Bill was before the committee, I supported that clause, but I am surprised to find that the Bill was brought back for consideration. I agreed to the compromise that was made on the strength of the statement by the gentleman promoting the Bill, and I think by the chairman of the committee, that a charter over the same route would be granted to any other person applying for it. As a member from the west, I do not feel that I ought to say one word that would make it hard for a promoter to obtain a charter if he means to build the road; but knowing what has occurred in the past, I feel that we have had too many charters that have tied up the district for years and prevented the people getting a much needed road. I notice in the railway committee that a great many gentlemen voted for the reconsideration of the Bill who practically knew nothing at all about it or about the district through which the road was to run or the hardships of the people. If what my hon. friend from Dauphin has said is correct, and it is admitted by the chairman of the Railway Committee that petitions have come in from every municipality of that district asking the government and their representatives to protect their interests, then I feel that the committee has been a little hasty in dealing with the Bill as they have. With the understanding of the committee that the promoters were prepared to complete the road in five years, it is not too much to ask that the people of the district should have some guarantee that they mean business, and I confess frankly that I was a little surprised that there were not more members of the committee who felt as I did. I feel that we have been too liberal in the past in granting railway charters-that we have not tried in any way to restrict the promoters and to make them go on with the work of construction. I think a clause should be put in every charter requiring the promoters to build a certain number of miles each year or to put up fifteen or twenty-five per cent of the cost of the railway as a guarantee. A Bill of that kind is proposed by one of the members from the west, and when it comes before the House, I shall have much pleasure in supporting it. But I think _ the committee were hasty in rushing this Bill through
in the manner they did without taking into consideration all these petitions from the people directly interested.


Mr. McCRANEY.: 'The speeches which have been made by my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) indicate a point of view which we hear discussed very much at meetings of the Railway Committee. What the people of Dauphin are after is to have railways constructed. How are we to get that done? Is it by stopping railways, or is it by helping them? I know that there is a very prevalent opinion throughout this country that- a railway charter is a special privilege, giving an exclusive right to a corporation to build a railway from one point to another. I think that parliament can do a great deal to disabuse the minds of the public on that point. When I first came here I largely shared that view; but from my experience in this House, I have come to the conclusion that parliament does not give exclusive rights. The only right it gives is the right to go on and build, and anybody else who comes to this parliament can acquire the same right, and the right is only vested when the plans are approved of by the Minister of Railways.


George Eulas Foster: Would they get the right over the same route?


George Ewan McCraney: I should say that there is no reason why any company should not be given the right to build a railway from any one point to any other point.


George Henry Bradbury: Does the hon. gentleman mean that if anybody else asked for a charter for a railway running over the same route that this railway runs over, he would be able to obtain such a charter?


George Ewan McCraney: I can only speak as a member of this House; but my own attitude would be to support such a measure.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: What does the minister say?


George Ewan McCraney: There is also a prevalent idea that when a company is given a charter which permits it to build a railway from one point to another point, it is enter ing into a contract with the government to build; that it is in the position of contractors with the government for any other public work, and that when it comes here asking for an extension of time, it should be treated as any other government contractor. The point is altogether left out of consideration that the government is not supplying the money for the work, and therefore parliament cannot force the company to build where it does not want to build.


Glenlyon Campbell: The hon. gentleman states that a franchise of this kind is not a special privilege. I want to ask him if it is not often a very valuable privilege, and one that is sold.


George Ewan McCraney: It is a special privilege, but not an exclusive privilege. It is not a privilege which is refused to any person who comes here and asks for similar legislation. My hon. friend asks: Is this not a right which is sometimes sold-is there not speculation in charters? Perhaps there has been in the past. I would like to see the policy laid down by this parliament of granting charters so freely that there would not be any value in a railway charter except perhaps the value that any railway might have because a certain amount of money has been expended to solicitors and others in getting the legislation through parliament. It is only by having parliament grant unrestricted charters that we can deprive charters of their value. The only way in which the government or parliament can compel the building of railways is to supply the money, but that means government ownership, and I do not think that is a subject for discussion upon this occasion. We have had discussion in this House with reference to paper charters. There is talk of the country being blanketed with charters, talk that one hears perhaps with regard to claims on coal areas or something of that kind, as though when a certain territory is shown as having a railway chartered to go into it, no one else could enter it. If this discussion has only one result, to disabuse the public mind of that idea, it will be justified.


Robert Laird Borden: Could the hon. member state just what the practice in reference to that is, I think it is just as well we should understand it. Suppose a charter is given to certain promoters for a railway between two given points. They are allowed by the terms of their charter a certain period within which to commence and a certain other period within which to complete the construction of their line. Every one understands, of course, that there is no technical reason why parliament should not give exactly the same kind of charter to another set of promoters, but in actual practice does the Railway Committee do that ?


Haughton Lennox: No, never.


George Ewan McCraney: I am not an old enough member of this House to say what the practice has been.


Glenlyon Campbell: Nor any one else.


George Ewan McCraney: My hon. friend is hardly in a position to say that. Since I have been a member, for the last four


George Ewan McCraney: years, I am not aware of any charter having been refused for a line which has already been granted by Act of parliament.


Haughton Lennox: Have any been granted ?


Mr. CONMEE.: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. member say that any charter has been granted to a second company for exactly the same line for which charter has been granted to the first company ?


James Conmee: Generally, practically the same ground.


Haughton Lennox: I would like the hon. member to mention any. It has never been
done.


George Ewan McCraney: It has also been said that because a railway is chartered from one point to another, maps are got out by speculators and settlers are induced to go into the district and establish their homesteads along the proposed line of railway. I must say that in my own riding I have never had to deal with any case of that kind. The only case I know of is that of the Canadian Pacific Railway which in 1907 got a charter for a line from Moosejaw to Lacombe. They advertised for tenders and on the strength of what they had undertaken to do settlers did go out into the country and did settle, then they abandoned what work they had done, they did not go on with their tendering and there certainly was a great protest from my own portion of the country and from the Moosejaw district. Many farmers felt that if they had to go to the next winter without the facilities of a railway and the means of bringing in fuel there might be a great deal of distress.
But it is a different case altogether when a railway like the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern or the Grand Trunk Pacific, all of which are railways of standing in this country and all of which have had assistance from parliament, give assurances and undertake a work, because people expect that that work will be done. I must say that in my own part of the country we have never been misguided because some body obtained a charter for a railway from one part of the country to another. If we in this parliament should make the restriction pro posed, we would make it possible only for those who can meet the conditions placed upon the corporations to build railways, and that would prevent any new corporation from going into the railway business in this country. I think there is a very general impression throughout the country that it is the common stockholders who build roads and perhaps this parliament may disabuse the public mind of that idea also; we will learn that it is not the common stockholders that build railroads but

the bondholders who negotiate for the construction on terms favourable not to the government or to the population to be served by the railroad but to themselves. That is the only way in which money for these undertakings can be raised. This particular case is one of the best cases to bring before this House because it is an extreme case and because the principle can best be discussed in view of the fact that this company has been incorporated for less than two years. I think my hon. friend stated too strongly what the promoters of the Bill said in the Railway Committee. My recollection was not that the promoter of the Bill who appeared before the Railway Committee said that they have the means in hand to go on with this; what he did say was that they were doing their very best to get the money.


Haughton Lennox: I think he said it was in sight


George Ewan McCraney: He said they expected to get it, but he gave no assurance that the money had been secured. What would be the position of affairs if the restriction desired by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) were imposed? If the bonds were floated and if less than twenty-five miles were built in one year what would happen? I am sure the bondholders would feel very insecure, and with that prospect in sight would be very unwilling indeed to invest their money in this enterprise.
I have been discussing the case of m\ hon. friend's constituency. I have a paper before me now which I received this morning and which gives a case in my own constituency which well illustrates 'the point. I have here the minutes of the Fertile Valley Liberal Association. I shall read one resolution:


Mr.  F. R.@: Stephens moved and was seconded by iMr. G. H. McKague, that the Association place before the government an objection to an extension of time to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the completion of their Moosejaw-Lacombe line; that they recommend the government to refuse to grant such extensions and that W. Kennedy and the secretary draft a protest and ask Mr. Knowles and Mr. Mc-Craney to take up the matter with the government and the Railway Commission. Carried unanimously.
The Liberal Association of Fertile Valley want to accomplish the same result as do the friends of the hon. member for Dauphin, they want to get the railway and they want me to do what my hon. friend's, friends want him to do, to secure a refusal of the extension of time except on conditions. A year ago the Canadian Pacific Railway declined to go on with this very road and at the last session this House voted $3,200 a mile for this extension to a distance of 123 miles. That was the reason the road was built, it was not because they
had a charter. As a matter of fact I think that the Canadian Pacific Railway did not' want to build the road, that they had concluded that, for some time at least, the traffic in that particular part of the country would not warrant its construction. The reason the road was built was because this parliament voted $3,200 per mile. To my mind the way to get this road built is not to refuse an extension of time but to help the railway company. That is to be my answer to my own constituents who want me, in this and other cases, to refuse the extension of time. If there is anything this government can do to help the railways by assisting them financially, that is what I would support, and I would support it with reference to my hon. friend's constituency as well as with reference to my own. I think that is the only way in which this question can be dealt with, and that we should accomplish nothing by putting restrictions upon the applications for charters which come before this House.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member (Mr. McCraney) has not met the question quite squarely. Nobody has proposed to refuse this company an extension of time. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) was as urgent in desiring that this company should have an extension of time as any other member of the committee. But he desired that the people should be served by a railway, and so he proposed that conditions should be provided which he thought reasonable and in the public interest to bring about the construction of the road. He succeeded in convincing the committee at its first sitting that he was right, and his amendment was carried. But a majority of the committee saw fit to reconsider the question and proposed the modification which, as I recollect, was not proposed at the first meeting but which is in harmony with our general practice. I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCraney) does not wish it to go abroad, or to be suggested in this House, that the hon. member for Dauphin, or any other member of the committee, refused this company a reasonable extension of time. What the hon. member for Dauphin and those who supported him voted for was that the company should have a reasonable time to carry out their undertaking, having regard to the statement made that they had money ready to carry on their work. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney) spoke as if he was going to tell something of the inner life of the Railway Committee, which, I think, it might be well to have told in this House. But as to this question of paralleling lines, we need hardly discuss it, because it is not the policy of this parliament. When the Transcontinental line was under discussion, we were emphatic in saying that we did not want parallel lines, and ought to

keep every railway a certain distance from another. In fact, I should not be surprised if, in the statute-book, we had a provision that lines should not approach each other closer than within certain limits.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Was not that in reference to construction lines?


Haughton Lennox: We would not grant a charter to parallel an existing line except at a certain distance.


James Conmee: That is a line already built.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, but the policy of parliament is that it is better to have one line of railway with large traffic than two struggling for existence, each with a small traffic. For that reason it would be unwise for us to grant a charter to parallel a line for which a charter had already been granted. It would be absurd to expect the Minister of Railways or any other responsible adviser of the Crown to sanction the granting of a charter to a new company to build over practically the same ground the right to build over which had already been granted to an existing company. We do not do it, and we would not do it. In spite of what the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) says, I venture to say he cannot find an instance where we have granted a charter to cover ground already covered to a company that is not in default. The people have to pay the freight rates, and the Board of Railway Commissioners will fix those rates according to the traffic. If you divide the traffic by two, and then divide it by two again, making four lines where there is traffic for only one, you increase the burdens of the people, and it is folly to say that when we grant a charter to such a company as this with three or four alternative routes we do not cover that country and prevent other companies coming in to build so long as that charter exists. The consequence is that the company that has obtained a charter has a franchise which can be sold in the market. The proof is that it has been done over and over again and is being done all the time. We have no objection to a renewal of the charter, but we do object to their obtaining it on terms not in the interests of the public.


Mr. TURRIFF.: If there is any impression that the Railway Committee refuses to grant charters because charters have been granted over the same ground, I can only say that it is a very erroneous impression. In the past five years I have never known a charter to be refused by a railway company^ because a charter had already been issued. But I may point out to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) Mr. LENNOX.
that not only does the Railway Committee and this House, grant such charters, but the Railway Department has, in several cases, approved the plans and allowed the railways to build, paralleling .each other over the same ground. You have only to look at the map of the country west of Winnipeg-I do not at this moment speak of the eastern portion of Canada-and you will (find railway after tailway running arallel to another for miles. West of askatoon, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific parallel each other within a stone's throw. West of Edmonton, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific run parallel to each other for over a hundred miles, practically on the same territory. In my own constituency the Canadian Pacific Railway branch lines parallel each other for nearly 80 miles. I vcted against the amendment of the hon. member for Dauphin, and did so because this is the first time that this company has come before parliament asking for an extension of time. And it is not altogether asking an extension of time, because in its application it asks for a charter covering two or three other branch lines that it had not before ; so_ that, to some extent, it is a new application altogether. And we we were assured by the representatives of the company that they were in a fair way to get the money to build the road next year, but if that clause was put in this year, it would prevent them getting the money, and so prevent their going on. This road is chartered among a number of existing branches of the Canadian Northern. I do not know how it is in this case, but I know that in other cases, railway companies have engineered just such petitions as have come in here, and if we had knocked this charter out, the effect would have been to leave that company with absolute control of all the roads in that part of the country. I agree with my hon. friend from Dauphin that a railway company should be made to build each year, but I claim that this should apply to every railway company and not to one in particular-not to pick out and penalize one company. I trust that when I get my Bill, now on the Order Paper, to the right point, I should receive the general support of both sides. The Bill would make it incumbent on all these railway companies to build at least twenty-five miles in the first two years-that is if the road chartered is less than 250 miles long-then in the third and fourth years an additional twenty-five miles each, and complete in five years, and, if they do not do this, they will be compelled to come back to this House and get an extension of time.


Mr. WRIGHT.: The hon. gentleman made the statement that it has not been the practise of the Railway Committee to duplicate charters from one given point to another,

and he gave us an illustration in the Grand Trunk Pacific. But every one knows that the Grand Trunk Pacific was given a special charter with special conditions and with a distinct promise to the country that it would not parallel any existing line but be a great colonization road. We learn now, however, that it is simply a parallel line to two or three others and is not serving the purpose for which it was intended.


Mr. BARKER.: I want to say a few words on this matter because I have given a good deal of attention to what goes on in the Railway Committee. If the right hon. gentleman who leads the House could occasionally give enough time to visit that committee, he would see that there is an absolute need for reform. Every hon. gentleman who is on that committee knows that every day a considerable percentage of its members sit at the far end of the room swap stories with one another and pay no attention whatever to the subject before the committee. Then when the gentleman who has charge of the Bill-especially if he happens to be a government whip-stands up, they vote straight every time. I do not think there is an hon. gentleman on either side who will contradict me.


Haughton Lennox: Do you say they vote straight?


Samuel Barker: They vote according to the wishes of the promoter of the Bill without considering anything else. The hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill seems to think that there can be no harm even if you do give several charters in the same district. He would advocate free trade in railways and let every company be incorporated and build if it pleases. But anybody, who has any practical knowledge of the methods of getting money to construct such works, will know that there could be no more effective way to prevent capital being invested in railway construction in the northwest. What the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Glen Campbell) said in the committee is perfectly right. He said he had no desire to obstruct the particular company referred to in the Bill and he wanted to see the railway built, but he wanted to get rid of hot air companies, and he argued that if the company in question professes to be able to construct 1,500 miles of railway in five years, it surely will be able to construct 25 miles in one, and he proposed to put that in the Bill.
The counsel who was there representing the directors said they had been endeavouring to get the companies floated in Paris or London but had not been able owing to the financial crisis. Now, however, they thought they were in the way of getting it placed and were confident they could do so. Any one who saw the project laid out on the map like a great spider, with its arms projecting in all directions
over some 1,500 miles of railway, would see that instead of that company assisting in a construction of railways in that district, it would have the opposite effect. If any other people wanted to take any section of that territory and build 500 or 200 miles of railway, they would be met at once by the fact that these people had mapped out the whole district and covered it with projected branches in all directions, so that no one would advance a cent for other lines. That is just where hot air companies, by holding up their territory from year to year, can delay the construction of a railway in every inch of the territory thus covered. For that -qo o^ po^uim eq osneooq iou pun uosum struct or delay-he wants just the opposite -the hon. member for Dauphin objected to these charters being renewed as a matter of course. One gentleman will say, what is the harm ? They have only applied once or twice. Their charter perhaps was given some ten years ago, and not a dollar has since been expended, yet they remain quite confident they can build the road. Any one who sees what is going on knows that as long as such charters are renewed, so long will they cherish the hope of making something out of it, and while there is the remotest chance of their doing so, they will apply for a renewal.


James Conmee: I do not think the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is quite) fair in the reference he made to the committee. It is true that many of the members of the committee do not take a very active part in its work, but that is the case with all committees. The same may be said of this House. A great many members do not take part in any of the debates and a very limited number only take part in the debates upon general subjects, but I do not think that would warrant any one saying that the members of one political party merely followed their leader. I do not think that is more true of the Liberals than of the Conservatives, because I know of several Bills in regard to which the members of the Conservative party in the Railway Committee were lined up on certain occasions and followed their leaders very closely. But I am not prepared to say that the Conservatives voted for party purposes. I do not think that the hon. member for Dauphin really meant that the Liberals who voted against his view did so for party purposes, because if that were true his own Conservative friends were removed by similar motives. I wish to say that we canot build railways by legislation. If by an Act of parliament we could cause a railway to be constructed in this or that direction, but that we cannot do. There are occasions, when, if restrictions are put on railway charters which are promoted by individuals, you hamper these individuals and defeat the very purpose you have in view.

The hon. member for Dauphin expressed the opinion that if a company were compelled to build a certain number of miles during a certain number of years, that would bring about more rapid construction of railways.
I am quite satisfied that the reverse would be the case. I know of more than one railway undertaking that has been wrecked by premature expenditure. Take this case. I do not know the local conditions ; therefore I am not going to speak as if I did, but I will ask my hon. friend to assume this condition of things:	Suppose
they build twenty-five miles and there is no traffic there would be perhaps nearly a million of money expended. If there is no traffic, the undertaking is not successful, there is no good purpose served by the expenditure of the money that is invested. What good is that going to do anybody ? That does not do the country any good and it embarrasses the company because they are not in the same position to go into the money market and obtain capital. The hen. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) stated that nothing would embarrass a company more than the granting of a charter in the vicinity of this line. I cannot agree with him. Nothing will help the company more. It will give the investing public knowledge that that section of the country is important when some other company wants to build a line of railway. It is just a case of the survival of the fittest. Let those build who can build. If you put restrictions upon the charter, if you take away the opportunity from one set of men who have perhaps spent a great deal of money and devoted a great deal of energy and time to the undertaking to proceed with the work you are not advancing the construction of the railway. The reasonable thing would be to give to any others who wish it the opportunity to build the road. If they have the capital, or if they can procure it more quickly then, they will build the road. There will not be two lines built. Our country has not yet got into that condition where our railways are injured by competing lines. I can remember-and I will not admit that I am very old yet-when the Grand Trunk thought they were the objects of a severe attack because it was proposed to build another line between Montreal and Toronto. The line was built and it did the Grand Trunk good. The prosperity of the country was increased. These railways bring traffic; they do not take traffic away from each other, except at competitive points. It is just so in other sections of the country.'' The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) says that we do not grant charters to lines paralleling other lines. We are doing it every day. There has been hardly a year in the last four or five years but what, for fifty miles or a hundred Mr. CONMEE.
miles, or in some cases, for the entire length of the line, charters have been given practically in the same territory as that occupied by previous charters and no evil has resulted from it that I know of. There is no danger of_ getting toe many lines constructed in this country. We need railway lines paralleling each other at a distance of twenty miles even in prairie country, and we need them worse than in mining sections in even closer contact. We need transportation in all parts of Canada. There is nothing that we need so much. I would approve of a law that would be very much more liberal with regard to the construction of railways than our present Act is. I approve of the law in the state of Minnesota because there any four or five gentlemen can organize themselves into a railway company and they can obtain a charter from; the Secretary of State and start to build the railway in three days. 1 had occasion to go there to get an extension of the Port Arthur, Duluth and Western Railway charter in the state of Minnesota and I found that we would have to organize a new company. I went to Minneapolis and left there in five days with the charter in my possession. This system has worked well in that state. The law protects private property. People obtaining charters only get the right to build a railway in a certain section of country. They cannot take the property of any company or individual and they cannot injure the property of any company or individual unless they pay for it. There is no grievance, but there is a free invitation to capitalists to build railways wherever they are wanted, wherever the railways would pay and wherever the people need the services of railways. In my judgment it would be a mistake to act upon the suggestion which some hon. gentlemen have made in this case. I want to tell hon. .gentlemen who are now advocating the imposition of conditions with regard to the building of this railway that they will find, if that principle is adopted, that they have given a monopoly that they little dreamed of to the big lines and to the big corporations who will build this road whenever they please and as they please. Hon. gentlemen in this House know-in fact I need not hesitate to state it -that a great many important lines that we have to-day in operation are not the work of great corporations or of great capitalists. They are the work of the local community who agitated for them, who organized them, who went before the public and who besieged parliament with deputations until they obtained their charters and the necessary aid, and until they got their enterprises into a position to attract capital and the larger operator into whose hands the roads finally passed. If it were not for that class of promotion we would

not have to-day many of the railways that are serving the people of the country and we would not have had them at such an early stage as we did. I say to the gentlemen who are advocating this restriction that they will be making a mistake in the interest of the community that they are seeking, honestly, I have no doubt, to help. Now, our Railway Act is not altogether without conditions. A company which obtains a charter must expend fifteen per cent of its capital within a limited time or it must give back the charter. The Act provides for forfeiture if it does not carry out its provisions, and that is all that w'ould happen in the case of the condition as to a specific number of miles, only it would, in my judgment, destroy the opportunity of securing capital for carrying on the enterprise.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I do not know if the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat had me in his mind, but he was looking over here and I therefore desire to say a word or two upon this question. I endorse a very great deal of what he said. He warned us in the west to be cautious about limiting these railway corporations. We have no desire to do that at all. If a man is running a corner grocery and an individual comes in and makes some statement in an effort to do business with him, as a business man he wants some evidence of the man's bona fides. My time is, I think, valuable to me, and I hope it is valuable to the people who have sent me here. I do not want to go up to the Railway Committee room and have gentlemen get up there and say:	We have two millions of dollars and we are going to commence work to-morrow. If the chairman of the Railway Committee or the Minister of Railways and Canals will get up and say that these gentlemen have satisfied me that they mean business and that they have the capacity to carry out the undertaking, then I will support it. I am desirous of advancing any scheme which will result in the building of railways in this country, but I do not want any gentlemen to come into the Railway Committee room with a set of plans saying that they are willing to run through the Rocky mountains where they can never build a railway. I have in mind two instances in which plans have been exhibited for railways that they could never attempt to build, and this fact is evidence to me that these men have not investigated the situation at all. I am not opposed to charters. I have talked long upon this matter in the Railway Committee and talked hard upon it. There is a principle involved. Are we going to give charters to everybody who wants them, and such is really the contention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee). If so I will have to be satisfied, but I do not want to go back to my con-68
stituents and have to say that I have been voting blindly for railway charters through my own district without having made some effort to discover the standing of the men who promote these charters and their capacity to carry out the railways they undertake. One hon. gentleman has stated that this omnibus chartering_ of railways is misleading to the people in the west. There is no doubt about that. I have said so before, and I say again that the settlers are deceived by this chartering of railways which may never be constructed. Since this Bill came before the railway committee a gentleman in my district wrote me ask-in'* my advice about going into a certain section of country and in his letter he says:
The great drawback seems to be the great distance from a railway. I should like your opinion very much indeed as to railway building through this district. If one can believe all that the papers say and what the various plans show it would seem that it would soon be a network of railways and very little room left to grow grain.
This gentleman seems to have hit off the situation pretty accurately. We get some very valuable settlers into that country from the United States; they meet the land man who sends them out 30 or 40, or 50 miles from a railway; he shows them the plans of railways running through their location and the fact of the matter is that these people are simply humbugged. As their representative I object to that kind of thing. If those who ask for charters satisfy the Minister of Railways or some other competent authority of their ability and their intention to proceed with the construction of these railways, then they should have a charter and I shall do all that I can to help them along; but if a certain number of men apply to this parliament for a charter simply for the purpose of exploiting it then I am most determinedly opposed to any such proceedings.
Bill reported; read the third time and passed.



LONDON AND LANCASHIRE PLATE GLASS COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 27) to incorporate the London and Lancashire Plate Glass and Indemnity Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Henry Robert Emmerson: As we all know there is a great English company known as the London and Lancashire Insurance Company and I notice that the incorporators^ of this Bill reside in the city of Toronto which would lead to the inference that the company we are now chartering is not a subsidiary company to the London and Lancashire of England. Was the question of the similarity of name discussed in the Banking and Commerce Committee? Of course,



the objects sought are different, but there very_ readily arises in the minds of people a misapprehension as to the character of the company, and it seems to me that those who are promoting this Bill should come with a different name from the one proposed. Of course, if that was discussed in committee and fully decided upon, it is not for me at this moment to raise any objection; but I simply ask that question.


William Stevens Fielding: This question of the similarity of names very often comes before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and sometimes it is exceedingly difficult to decide on the proper view. However, there is no difficulty in the present case, because the incorporators are in Toronto, the company is practically a subsidiary company to the English company. It is promoted by that company, and the first gentleman named among the incorporators is the manager of that company in the province of Ontario. So I think we may safely assume that in this case at all events there will be no objection.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



BANK OF VANCOUVER.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 52) respecting the Bank of Vancouver.-Mr. Cowan.
On section 1,
Haughton Lennox: This Bill seems in effect to be a repeal pro tanto of the General Banking Act. Sections 14 and 16 of the Banking Act, which are referred to in this renewal, are express in saying that if the certificate is not obtained within a year, all the power ceases. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if this is the way renewals are granted, by a partial repeal of the general Act.


William Stevens Fielding: It would be a repeal of the general Act so far as this bank is concerned. I believe this is the usual form in which extensions are granted.
On section la,


Haughton Lennox: Is not this a very substantial amendment to make in a Bill- to add to the board of directors names that were not in the original Bill? What about advertising in a case of this kind?


William Stevens Fielding: I would think that it was a matter that concerned only the gentlemen engaged in the promotion of the Bill. If they wished to add to the list of provisional directors, I do not see how any public interest could be served by preventing them from doing so.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	I


Henry Robert Emmerson: 



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Ralph Smith.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 75) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 77) respecting a Patent of the Submarine Company.-Mr. Proulx.
Bill (No. 79) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company.-Mr. Geo. Taylor.
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 82) respecting the Monarch Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Athabaska Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 85) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Geo. Taylor.
Bill (No. 86) respecting the Cobalt Range Railway Company.-Mr. Hodgins.
Bill (No. 87) to incorporate the Arnprior and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. Hod-gins.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a message from the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Grey :
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a copy of a supplementary convention respecting the commercial relations between France and Canada entered into at Paris on the 23rd day of Jan., 1909, Between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister the correspondence ready?


William Stevens Fielding: I thought I would be able to bring the correspondence with the convention, but I shall have it ready tomorrow.



QUESTIONS.


George Eulas Foster: What was the total payment in 1896 to the permanent Civil Service employees of the in-
2149.

side service at Ottawa, and of those employees in the then Inside Civil Service, who were paid out of lump votes and Civil Goverment Contingencies, respectively in the branches and departments added to the Inside Civil Service by the Act of 1908, and what is ' ie sum estimated for the similar divisions for the year 1909-10?	[DOT]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of
State):
Estimated
2.	From whom were tenders received for construction of same and the amount of each?
3.	When was the contract awarded, to whom, at what price and covering how
much?	,	,	,	, ,
4.	What is the cost of the building to date,
what is the estimated total cost of the building, fittings and furnishings complete and ready for use?	...	,
5.	Has any of the work been let without tender? If so, to whom and to what amount
Civil gover n m e nt
salaries	$
Civil govern inent contingencies ..	..
Outside salaries and lump votes .. ..
1895-96 for 1909-10. 967,771 72 $2,732,504 25 48,153 78 18,550 00 284,598 57 703,335 77


$1,300,524 07 $3,454,390 02 CANADA EASTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. AMES asked:: 1.	What was the price originally paid by
the government for t(ic Canada Eastern Railway?	.
2.	Since the acquisition of the line between Fredericton and Chatham, what has been spent each year for betterment, and what does the government expect to spend under this head during 1909-1910?
3.	What is the approximate value of the rolling stock that has been added to that previously in service on this branch?
4.	What has been each year, since its acquisition by the government, the approximate expenditure for running expenses and the approximate revenue in connection with this branch ?
He said: I was in hopes the information asked for in this question would be down in time for the debate which I expected to take place this afternoon.


George Perry Graham: I was also, but the accounts are kept in such a way that it is difficult to get the particulars for any one section of road. I find it is the same on all railways.


William Pugsley: The answer to all these questions would be in the negative. While upon my feet I should explain that there is an item in the main estimates this year which no doubt led my hon. friend to ask the question. The item is an error. An amount of $1,500 was asked for at the last session for a veterinary hospital but I had made up mv mind, after consultation with the Minister of Militia, to drop that item By a mistake of the printer, an item of $15,000 was carried out opposite the $1,500 vote of last year, the mistake being made by reason of the item immediately above, for barrack accommodation I think, being $15,000. It is a mistake and upon concurrence I am going to move that the item will be struck out so the whole answer will be in the negative. Nothing has been done in regard to a veterinary hospital.


THE ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ECREMENT-by Mr. Devlin-asked:
1.	What is the width and depth of the St.
Lawrence channel between Montreal and Quebec?	, , ,	.	.
2.	What amount was expended last year in
dredging it?	,	,
3.	What was the number of dredges and workmen employed during the past year?
4.	Does the government intend to continue these works next spring, especially to have the River St. Lawrence dredged in front of Berthierville, for the purpose of making its waters navigable at this place through the whole season of navigation?

George Eulas Foster: What amount of the total expenditure made upon the new wing of the parliament building and consequent alterations was paid to the department staff for (a) labour, (b) supervision ?


William Pugsley: (a)	$16,161.43.
(b)	$990.00.
VETERINARY HOSPITAL, KING iTON.


Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1. What are the dimensions of the veterinary hospital at Kingston, and how many horses is it intended to accommodate?
68i


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	There is now a complete channel to a depth of 30 feet at extreme low water from Montreal to Cap Levrard, four miles below Batiscan, a distance of 105i miles below Montreal. Below this advantage is taken of the tide during low water season to obtain this depth to pass Cap a la Roche and Cap Charles. The completed channel has a minimum width in the straight portions of 450 feet and on the curves 500 to 800 feet. The widening has all been completed except for a distance of five miles in the straight portion of Lake St. Peter, between The White Buoy and No. 3 curves, the present width there being 300 feet. In the incompleted channel


Hon WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: The answer to section 4 of this question is partly in my department.
4.	Dredging was performed at Berthierville during season of 1907. making a channel to a depth of from 9 to 12 feet at low water, which was considered sufficient for navigation at the time. If further dredging is required, the matter will have due consideration.


LIQUIDATION OF CENTRAL BANK OF CANADA.
Mr. DONNELLY asked :: , h JJas. the Receiver General received from the hqu.dator of the Central Bank of Canada, through the registrar of the court the balance 1 o t? 10 hands of said liquidator?
2;	^at is the amount of said balance,
and what is it charged with?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$3,668.15, of which $776.17 was to meet amount of dividends declared by the liquidators of the bank unclaimed; and $2,891.98, representing the balance in the hands of the liquidators at the time of their discharge for distribution pro rata to claimants showing themselves entitled thereto.


Mr. BRODEUR.: 


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CALVIN
[Stage Direction]
McKenzie.
Mr. RHODES-by Mr. Jameson-asked :
1.	Is Calvin McKenzie, of Eureka, Pictou county, an employee of the Intercolonial Railway, or of any other department of the government?
2.	If not at present such an employee, was he at any time during 1908?
3.	If so, how long was he employed and what was his employment?
his' duties? iS at present emP]oyed what are
; '5;,Wlla,t ,rate of pa7 k® receive, and what is the total amount paid him?
Hon. GEO P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Calvin McKenzie is employed on the
Intercolonial Railway.	[DOT]
2.	Employed on the Intercolonial Railway, since January, 1905, as boiler maker's helper.
3.	Answered by number two.
4.	Answered by number two.
5.	His rate of pay is sixteen cents per hour and the total amount paid him up to 31st January last, was $2,407.39.


TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND .JAPAN, 1894.
Mr. BORDEN asked:: 
CAUSEWAY BETWEEN CARIBOO AND CARIBOO ISLAND.
Mr. CROSBY asked:: 1.	What is the amount expended in each year since 1896 on the breakwater or causeway, between Cariboo and Cariboo island Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the total amount expended since 1896?
3.	Is the work completed? If not in what condition is it at the present time?

4.	When is it intended to complete the work, and what is the estimated expenditure required to do so?


Hon. WM. PUGSLBY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	1896-97 no exnenditure.
1897-	98	"1898-	99	"1899-	1900	"1900- 01	$1,305 601901- 02	
256 251902- 03	650 061903-	04	
1,552	071904-	05	
1,224	441905-	06 no expenditure.1906- 07	"1907- 08	"1908-	09	(to date)	
5,107	99
2. $10,096.41.
3.	(a) No. (b) Up to the end of December last, the causeway had been raised to a proposed height of three feet above extreme high water, over a distance of 700 feet from the mainland and to about two feet above high water for the remaining 630 feet; piles had also been driven in _ a proposed pile and brush work, 555 feet in length, to protect the middle third of the causeway.
4.	(a) So soon as the appropriation is obtained. (b) $3,000.


HOLLAND RIVER CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons, which gives all information.
4.	See answer given in reply to question asked by Mr. Wallace, page 1980, Unrevised ' Hansard,' March 3, 1909, for money
expended:
Average number of men employed during last week in August, 280.
Average number of. men employed during last week in September, 259.
Average number of men employed during during last week in October, 250.
Average number of men employed during last week in November, 210.
Average number of men employed during last week in December, 110.
5.	No date fixed.
6.	It is not under consideration.
7.	The water level in the canal at Newmarket will be 43-09 feet above the low water level of Lake Simcoe.
8.	No. The department has no information other than that shown in the returns to the House.
9.	The census of 1901, gives population as 2,125. The postal revenue for year ending March 31, 1908, was $5,297.22. The industries: office furniture, flouring mills, wooden ware, printing, foundry, brick and tile works, aerated waters, canning plant and monuments.
10.	The usual business that seeks water transportation.
Mr. SHARPE asked:: 1.	Did a deputation from North York wait upon the government to advocate the construction of the Holland river or Newmarket canal? If so what was the date of the meeting of such deputation with the government?
2.	Did the engineer report? If so, on what date?
3.	How many engineers reported at what
dates and what was the substance of such reports ?	.
i.	How much money has heen expended each year since the work began, how many men were employed on the w-orks during the months of August, September, October November and December 1908?
5.	When is it expected the works will be completed ?
6.	Does the government contemplate making any further extensions beyond Newmarket or from the main direction of the present canal ?
7.	How high is Newmarket above the level of Lake Simcoe?
8.	Is Newmarket the highest point between Lake Simcoe and Toronto? If not, where is the highest point situated and how high is this point above the level of Lake Simcoe?
9.	What is the population of Newmarket, what are the chief industries and what is the postal revenue from the post office?
10.	What is the nature and quantity of the traffic expected to be served by this canal?


George Perry Graham: For questions 1, 2, and 3. see return brought down, No. 2.


EMPLOYEE THOMAS FAGIN.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Is Thomas Fagin in the employ of the Department of Marine and Fisheries or of any other department of the government?
2.	If so employed, is Thomas Fagin a temporary or permanent employee, and -what is his salary and what are his duties?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	T. A. Fagan is employed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
2.	Salary, $1,000 a year. His duties are to act as assistant to the superintendent of works for the district between Montreal and Quebec.


Mr. MONK.: The hon. minister (Mr. Bro-deur) lias not stated whether this officer is a temporary or a permanent employee.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: His salary is by the year, $1,000.


WELLAND CANAL-COST OF TRAFFIC.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCALL asked
1.	What is the total cost to date of the Welland canal and feeder, and other work used therewith?
2.	What has heen the amount of tonnage or quantity of freight carried through the Welland canal in the last five years, from 1903 to 1908. and what amount thereof was
[Stage Direction]
Canadian produce, and what amount from the United States?
3.	What was the total amount of tonnage or quantity of freight carried through the said canal during the five years immediately following the enlargement of the said canal, and what amount thereof was Canadian produce and what amount from the United States ?
4.	What has been the cost of maintenance and operation of the said canal for the five years now last passed?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. Capital expenditure to 31st
of March, 1908	$28,082,629 82
Capital total expenditure 1st of April to 31st of January, 1909	 214,944 13
Total	$28,297,573 99
Income renewals total expenditure to 31st of March
1908	$ 1,153,560 56
Income renewals total expenditure 1st of April to 31st of January, 1909. . ..	104,565 76

Grand total	$29,555,700 31


Canadian.  U. S.@: Total.
2.	1904	$ 811,371
1905		 1,092,050
1906		 1,201,917
1907		 1,614,132
1908		 $776,245 $927,208 1,703,453
Note.-No information can be given as to the quantity of Canadian and American produce passing through the canal from 1903 to 1907.
	Total.
3. 1888			 878,800
1889			 1,085,273
1890		 .		 1,016,165
1891			 975,013
1892			 955,554
4.	Maintenance staff and repairs-expenditure for the past five years ending fiscal year 31st of March, 1908, $881,659.36.
Note.-Only nine months included in fiscal year 1906-7
Information given above will be found in the annual report issued by the Department of Railways and Canals, and canal statistics.


FISHERIES CRUISER FOR PACIFIC COAST.
Mr. RALPH SMITH asked:: 1.	When was the appropriation made for the building of a fisheries cruiser for the Pacific coast?
2.	Have tenders been called for the building of the same?


Mr. McCALL.: 3.	If so, how many tenders were presented, from whom, and what were the amounts?
4.	Has the government accepted any of the tenders yet? If so, what is the firm?
5.	When are the builders supposed to have the vessel completed?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	In 1907-8.
2.	Yes.
3.	Seven. Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson, Wallsend-on-Tyne, Eng. Col-lingwood Shipbuilding Company, Colling-wood, Ont. Fleming and Ferguson, Paisley. Vickers Sons and Maxim, Barrow-in-Furness. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Works, Clydebank. London and Glasgow Engineering and Iron Shipbuilding Company, Glasgow. Poison Iron Works, Limited, Toronto.
4.	No. The tenders are still under consideration.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


IMPORTS OF NAILS, 1907-8.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LALOR-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	How many pounds of nails were imported into Canada during the years 1907 and 1908?
2.	By whom were they imported and at what ports of entry?
3.	Where were they shipped from, and what is the name of the shippers?
4.	What was the price per pound?
5.	Are nails free of duty?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs):: 1.	The trade and navigation tables show the principal imports of nails for the year ended March 31, 1908, as follows:
Average
Lbs. Value, value per lb. Cents.
Iron or steel cut nails
and spikes	412,400	$10,359	2|
Wire nails of all
kinds, n.o.p	 787,400	27,035	3	4-10th
Nails, brads, spikes, and tacks, n.o.p. .. 271,631 16,443	6
Composition and sheathing nails and spikes	 16,595	2,632	15%
2,	3 and 4. It is not usual to publish the details asked for in questions 2, 3 and 4, and the information cannot be furnished at present. I fancy the hon. member (Mr. Lalor) will not press for it. I do not know whether I could get the information, and, even if it could be collected, it would be a long time.
5.	Nails are not free of duty.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES BY CLASSES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by	Mr. Herronasked :
1. How many clerks are employed on the Intercolonial and what is their average pay per day?

2. How many class employees are there on the Intercolonial Railway, what is the name of each class?
S. Where do the clerks stand as compared with the other employees in regard to pay?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. Four hundred and sixty at $1.85 per
day, average pay.
2.	Class	Number.
General officers	 7
Other officers	 82
Station agents	 236
Other station men	 681
Engine men	 356
Firemen	 435
Conductors	 265
Other trainmen	 998
Machinists	 473
Carpenters	 493
Other shop men	 875
Section foremen	 263
Other trackmen	 1,028
Switch tenders etc	 86
Telegraph operators and despatches	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]	273
Employees, floating equipment	 44
All other employees	 1,868
Total	 8,923
3. They stand thirteen on the list of the others shown.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES.
Mr. RHODES asked:: 1.	Were the claims of any person or persons in Nova Scotia against the government, by reason of personal damages or losses of animals or damages to property on account of the Intercolonial, settled or paid between June 1 and December 31, 1908?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of such persons, the nature of their claims, how was settlement effected, and on what date was settlement effected in each case?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands as motion for return.
SOUTH AFRICAN PATRIOTIC FUNE. Mr. WALLACE asked :
1.	Has the government any knowledge of the existence of the South African patriotic fund? If so, how much of this fund is left in the treasurer's hands, and who is the treasurer ?
2.	Who have benefited by this fund, and to what amount?
3.	What is the intention of the government with regard to this fund?
4.	Are any salaries paid to any person out of this fund ?


William Pugsley: At the request of the Minister of Militia, I beg to say that as the government have not control over this fund, they are unable to answer^any of these questions. The Canadian Patriotic Fund Association was incorporated by chapter 92 of the Act of 1901 and the Act of incorporation was amended in 1908.


MR. R. J. WATSON.
Mr. SEXSMITH asked :: 1.	Has Mr. R. J. Watson, ex-M.P., been appointed to an office under this government?
2.	If so, what is the work he will have in charge, when does he commence, what are his particular duties, and what salary?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Watson is being employed to make an inspection of certain timber berths in the railway belt of British Columbia, with a view of deciding what portions of these berths may be withdrawn as being suitable for settlement. He has already left for the west and his salary during employment will be at the rate of $2,500 a year.


OPPORTUNITIES IN CANADA, 1909.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy -by Mr. Herron-asked :
Who are the publishers of the book; intituled : ' Opportunities in Canada, 1909 ' ?
Frank Oliver: The publisher is Mr. Ernest Heaton, of Toronto.


DREDGING ST. JOHN HARBOUR.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	On what date was dredging work begun by Mr. Gregory at Ballast wharf, St. John harbour ?
2.	On what date was dredging work begun by the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company at Beacon Bar, St. John harbour?
3.	Have any contracts been made for dredging in St. John harbour since August, 1908, other than mentioned by the minister on page 1983, revised ' Hansard '? If so, what, with whom, at what rates, what tenders, if any, were invited and received therefor, and what are the names and prices of the tenderers?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	February 17, 1909.
2.	February 26, 1909.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Dredging at York Point.
(c)	Maritime Dredging and Construction Company.
(d)	Prices per cubic yard :
Towed to dumping grounds.
Rock.	Other materials.
$6 00.	$0 90.

Cast over.
Rook-	Other materials.
$6 00.	$o 90.
(e) Tenders called for by public advertisement and only one received, that of the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company with the above mentioned prices.


BRIDGE AT ST. ANDREWS LOCKS MANITOBA.
Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1. Does the present contract for the bridge over the dam at St. Andrews locks, Manitoba, provide for a proper connection being made with the highways on both sides of the river so as to make the bridge practical for traffic?
-* If not, is it the intention of the government to have this work done at once, so as to connect the highway with the bridge by a practical road for general traffic?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	No.
2.	It is considered that this is a work which should be undertaken by local government and municipality.


RAILWAY CROSSING AT PEMBROKE.
Haughton Lennox: Referring to a return brought down on the 4th instant on motion of Mr. Lennox sessional papers No. 99, and to a list of cases de-oided by the Railway Board, marked 'A,' in this feturn, and it appearing by the return that in (8 of the total of 69 railway crossings cases decided, the railway companies paid all or a great part of the cost, what are the special circumstances in connection with the only case in which the government was interested, namely, the crossing at Pembroke, order 192, which made it proper that the railway company in this case should be exonerated and that the total cost of protection should be borne by the country, represented by the Department of Public Works?


George Perry Graham: In reply the board begs to state that an error has occurred in the memorandum submitted by the board marked 'A' and referred to in the above inquiry in citing the order as No. 192. The order in question is order No. 3,244, and is dated July 4, 1907. Order No. 192, dated October 18, 1904 was signed by the late Chief Commissioner, the Hon. A. G. Blair, but was not in fact issued. The order was not issued until subsequently, but in substance the two orders are identical. Referring, therefore, to the inquiry, the application was made to the board on October 4, 1904. Subsequently, on May 5, 1905, the application was heard at a public sitting of the board in Ottawa, Mr. White, K.c!)
Mr- J. E. McMullen appearing on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Mr. U. Valiquet, engineer of the Mr. PUGSLEY.
Department of Public Works, appearing for the Department of Public Works. The board, after hearing what was alleged, as set forth in the notes of proceedings, volume 16, pages 1684 to 1696, reached the following decision, namely, that the applicants (that is, the Department of Public Works of Canada) be granted leave to cross, at rail level, with the proposed wharf the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's tracks, opposite the town of Pembroke, as shown on the plan filed, and that the crossing be protected by an automatic bell, the cost of the installation and maintenance to be borne by the applicants, that is, the Department of Public Works. It appears from the evidence that the contention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was that the streets of the town of Pembroke did not extend beyond the water line of the Ottawa river; that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had constructed their line on a trestle in the water; that the wharf, having been constructed outside the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's trestle, the approach to it from the town side and the crossing of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's tracks was something the company should not be held liable for the cost of the protection of. It would appear that the issuance cf the order was delayed to enable the Department- of Public Works to decide whether they would take the order subject to the condition that they paid for the protection, or to endeavour to arrange with the town to pay for the cost of protection. Finally, however, at the request of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, under date of a letter of April 3, 1907, an order was issued.	.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing:
1.	How many licenses to fish and pack lobsters in the coast waters of Prince Edward Island have been issued by the Dominion government since January 1, 190!, to this date, and to whom same were issued.
2.	A copy of any petitions, requests, or correspondence received by the government from anv person or persons, or corporations since January 1, 1904, asking for licenses to fish and pack lobsters in said province.
3.	The number of new licenses likely to be issued by the government during the present year.

Mr. Fraser.
For a return showing the names and addresses of the several immigration agents in Canada whose duty it is to locate or settle immigrants upon their arrival in Canada; what salary or remuneration has been paid to each such agent for the fiscal year 1908 and up to the first of February, 1909; and on what basis they are paid.-Mr. Macdonell.
For a return showing the names and addresses of the several inspectors of immigrants employed by the government; what salary or remuneration has been paid to each

such inspector during the fiscal year 190S and up to the 1st of February, 1909; and on what basis they were paid.-Mr. Herron.
For a copy of all correspondence, communications in writting and documents from the grand secretary, or any officials of the Fisherman^ Union of Nova Scotia, or any branch ci station of the said union, to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or to any official of the department, and the replies or communications from the minister or any official of the department since the 1st of January, 1907? -Mr. R. L. Borden.
For a return showing what expenses under the following heads: (a) bank commission, (b) underwriting charges, (c) brokerage, and (d) advertising, were incurred by the government on each of the following loans, and to whom the several amounts were paid, viz.
£ s. d.
1874 loan extended to 1911, 4 per
Cent	 1,753,830 4 10
1875-8 public works guaranteed
loan, 4 per cent	 3,200,000 0 0
Loan of 1884, 3J per cent	 5,000,000 0 0
Canada reduced 1885, 4 per cent. 6,443,136 2 9
Loan of 1885, 4 per cent	 4,000,000 0 0
C'.P.,R. land grant loan 1888, 3i
per cent	 3,093,700 0 0
*l per cent loan of 1908-12, 4 per
cent	 1,379,600 0 0
31 per cent loan 1908 (February
issue) 3i per cent	 3,000,000 0 0
3J per cent loan 1908, 3| per
cent	 5,000,000 0 0
3i per cent loan 1908 (October
issue) 3£ per cent	 5,000,000 0 0
3| per cent loan 1909, 3f per cent	 6,000,000 0 0
Payable in Canada.
Reduced loan of 1883, extended 3) per cent	$1,425,800	00
Dominion stock issue.
A reduced in 1897, 31 per cent.. ..	58,899	67B reduced in 1897, 31 per cent.. ..	325,900	00C reduced in 1897, 31 per cent..	49,066 34
E extended for 10 years, from 1st
July, 1906, 3§	per cent	 2,500,000	00
Dominion stock issue 1891, 3) per
cent	
404,202	00$5,000,000 for one month; Bank of Montreal, Ottawa; March 2,	1909; 4 per cent.-Mr. S.	Sharpe.
ing and payment of the railway subsidy authorized under 6-7 Edward VII., chapter 40, section 1, subsection 16.-Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all applications, advertisements, tenders, leases, correspondence and papers of every description, with respect to timber berths Nos. 1316, 1317, 1318, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1S64 and 1365.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a copy of all applications, correspondence, reports, documents and papers relating to the establishment and service of a post office at Hand Hills, Alberta-Mr. Magrath.

John Waterhouse Daniel: With regard to the motion of the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Ernmerson) relating to the leasing of branch lines, I might say that it would appear to me rather inadvisable for him to bring it up just now, because the House is awaiting the return of several documents that have been ordered to be printed directly bearing upon this subject, being the report of the Intercolonial Railway Commission, and also of the commission appointed by the New Brunswick government, and other information relating to the question. It appears to me, therefore, that the House is hardly in a position to discuss it intelligently without. that information before it I do not think it would interefere at _ all witn the hon. gentleman, or do his motion any harm, if he would postpone it for a week, or until that information is laid before tne House.


Mr EMMERSON.: The report alluded to has been printed and is before the House.


Mr. HUGHES.: It was presented only ten minutes ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, this afternoon, and it is now in the hands of members. I desire to go on with the motion this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess. After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
For a copy of all reports, specifications, oners, tenders, contracts, alterations of contract, correspondence and documents of every description relating to or in connection with the contract of Thadee Desbiens for an extension to the Chicoutimi pier; and the same in connection with the contract of the General Construction Company, for work done by the dredge f Algonquin J at or near said pier. -Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all petitions, reports, specifications, offers, tenders, contracts or papers of any description in connection with the protection pier at Riviere du Moulin, near Chicoutimi, Saguenay county, P.Q.-Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all reports, correspondence, statements, receipts, vouchers and documents of every description with respect to the grant-


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-BRANCH LINES.
Henry Robert Emmerson: That in tke opinion of this House it is desirable in furtherance of the transportation interests of this Dominion, that the sphere of influence of the Intercolonial Railway as a government operated railway should he widened and extended by securing by lease or otherwise such of the branch lines of railway now connecting the Intercolonial as will serve as direct and profitable feeders to tne traffic of said railway.
He said : Mr. Speaker, I trust I take no exaggerated view of the subject involved

in this motion which I have the honour to present to the House when I state that I consider it of the very greatest importance not only to eastern Canada but to the whole Dominion. It is a question which has a direct bearing on that very great problem of affording the best means of transportation for the commerce of our country. I regret Sir, that I am unable to approach the subject with that ability and comprehensive knowledge which it undoubtedly demands. I feel that I cannot deal with this particular subject of the branch lines connecting with the Intercolonial Railway without in some way reviewing the transportation history of the past, and for convenience sake I shall divide that history into four periods. First of all, at the very dawn of confederation the problem which confronted the people of that day was the construction of the Intercolonial Railway to connect the eastern and western provinces which then constituted Canada, and allied with that was the question of the extension and completion of our canal system. It is not mere tradition to say that in the confederation compact the construction of the Intercolonial Railway was placed as a set off against the extension of the canal system. Rightly or wrongly it was viewed that the canal system of Canada appertained more directly to the transportation interests of what was known as Upper and Lower Canada and that the Intercolonial Railway was conceived as a means of solving the transportation problem for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which were then the other two provinces in the confederation. The second period in our transportation history commenced with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The third period was that in which the government of the day dealt with the transportation question by aiding the building of railways throughout Canada by the granting of money and land subsidies and co-related to that same period was the governmental guarantee of bonds (in addition to the subsidies granted) of railways that were deemed to be in the general interest of the country.
The fourth period may well be referred to as the period of the National Transcontinental Railway or Grand Trunk Pacific period. That great work was dealt with by the last parliament, with a view to meeting the larger transportation questions that have arisen by reason of the additions to our territory and the expansion and development of our commerce. I shall, as briefly as I can, deal with these four periods before I come to discuss the immediate question submitted to the House by my resolution.
The Grand Trunk Pacific period involved not merely a direct expenditure on the part of the Dominion, but also aid towards the construction of a railway owned by a pri-Mr. EMMERSON.
vate corporation by the guaranteeing of its bonds, a policy which had previously been carried out with respect to other railways, particularly in western Canada. It will be interesting to note just how much money the people of Canada have been obliged to spend in connection with each of these periods. We recognize the Intercolonial Railway as a great work, the undertaking of which was discussed prior to the days of confederation. Beginning with the late forties and extending down to the consummation of confederation the construction of the Intercolonial Railway was .deemed a question of importance to British North America as a whole and particularly to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. I need not recount the number of conferences that were held; I need not refer to the great work performed by the revered Joseph Howe ; I need not name the men who in those upper provinces took such a great interest in the carrying out of this project, destined to bind together the provinces which then constituted Canada. It will be borne in mind that at the time of the conference at Charlottetown the very first question that had to be settled was the question of the proposed construction of the Intercolonial Railway-how it was to be done and the purpose which it would serve; and it was undoubtedly held out as an inducement to the eastern provinces to form a part of the Dominion that had been conceived in the minds of the statesmen of that day.
I need not say that in the selection of a route for the railway there were great differences of opinion. There was a discussion as to whether the construction of the railway would not be beyond the powers of the new Dominion. There were strong objections on the part of the people of Ontario in particular to so great an undertaking. Ontario at that period was, as she is to-day, one of the first provinces of the Dominion- her population far in excess of the combined populations of the maritime provinces, her natural wealth far beyond that of any other province. In population, in wealth, in area, in every thing which goes to make a country great, Ontario was far ahead of any of the other provinces; and naturally her people thought that the burden of the construction of the railway would fall very largely upon their shoulders, and they did not think it was a matter of prime importance to them even that there should be such a railway. In the selection of a route many interests were involved. There was first the political consideration that could not be ignored; there were the sectional interests that are ever with us, and there was the imperial interest, the military interest of the motherland, in the colonies of British America. When it was determined to se-
2165 MARCH 8, 1909 2166	
lect what was known as the Robinson route, 1 the northern route, the route along the c southern shores of the St. Lawrence river, and thence crossing the divide to the north- c ern shores of New Brunswick, it was asserted on all sides that such a railway could not be made a commercial success. It was described as traversing large areas sparsely if at all populated, as passing through a section that was bleak and barren. But the railway was thus routed and it was thus constructed; and the fathers of confederation said: Even though it does not prove to be a commercial success, we would rather build one, two, three, four-and one .hon. member said even six-such railways if their construction would bring about the confederation of Her Majesty's colonies in British North America under the government of one great Dominion. And that was the general opinion; it was the opinion of every shade of political thought; and it was decided that the railway should be thus constructed by the Dominion of Canada as an off-set to the construction of new canals and the improvement of old ones, so that there could be facilities of transportation for the people of both eastern and western Canada. , . , The Intercolonial Railway was constructed. I need not go further into its history. I shall not further elaborate the objections that were raised. I will simply invite your attention to the cost of that railway as it. stands to-day to the people of Canada: The Origiua! Intercolonial Rail- ^ ^ M The Cape Breton Railway	 3,860,679 14 The Oxford and New Glasgow Railway	 1,919,063 21 The Eastern Extension Railway 1,324,042 81 The Montreal and European Short Line Railway	 333,942 72 The Drummond Counties Railway 1,464,000 00 The Canada Eastern Railway.. 800,000 00 Total	$82,744,937 89 This is the total amount invested by the people of Canada up to this time in the Intercolonial Railway. Now, I am not going to discuss in detail the question of the dollars and cents of advantage that has accrued to the people of this Dominion from the expenditure of that very large sum of money. It will undoubtedly be admitted by every hon. member of this House, and by every man outside of this House, thal the Intercolonial has been of immense advantage to the people of this country, even though its annual credit balances have not shown large in its book-keeping, by reason of the very low rates of freight that have prevailed and the encouragement whicl those low rates have given to the^ trade anc navigation of the country. I think it wil be admitted on all sides that the advan	ages that have been derived by the people f Canada directly from the construction >f the railway are beyond calculation in ollars and cents. It has cemented the irovinees together; it has brought the oeople in closer touch with each other. I need not say that at the time of confederation the people of Ontario and the peoule of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were aliens and foreigners to each other; there was no communication between them; they were as wide apart as were_ the Jews and Samaritans in days of old-indeed, farther apart; while at that time the people of eastern Canada were in close touch with the people of the New England states, both as to trade and as to social intercourse. They knew each other and that is one of the reasons why there are so many Canadians to-day in the eastern cities of the United States and in the western cities as well The construction of the Intercolonial Railway led to an interchange of ideas between Canadians. The traffic was diverted this way partly by the low freight rates on that Tad way, and the fact that the people-in the maritime provinces to-day are familiar with the people in Ontario and the west is due very largely, in my judgment, to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. But during that period we made other expenditures. Starting out as the twin sister of the Intercolonial Railway was the canal system of Canada. Up to the time of confederation there had been expended m the construction of canals something in the vicinity of $20,000,000. These canals, which were situated in Ontario and Quebec, _ were designed to carry on an interprovincial traffic between Upper and Lower Canada as well as to contribute to the export traffic of the ports of Montreal and Quebec, and 1 am bound to say that the people of the east rejoice in the fact that these canals have been an immense success in the accomplishment of that object, although it cannot be denied that the traffic thus created and carried by those canals in no sense reached the maritime provinces nor did it banefit their trade in any respect. The Intercolonial Railway has been the medium of practically all the traffic between eastern and western Canada; it certainly was up to the time of the construction of the Canadian Pacific short line from Montreal to Meta-wamkeag and the city of St. John. The canals have done a great work for Canada. They have contributed to its export trade; they have made its traffic rates lower and they have made possible the great export and commercial trade of Montreal and Quebec with the ports beyond the seas. . How much have we contributed in that direction? Canada has invested $91,734,718.21 during the period between the 1st of July. * 1867 and the close of our last fiscal year.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Samuel Barker: With the hon. gentleman's permission, I would like to ask him a question. His figures are very interesting. He is comparing the cost of various great national undertakings. He has given us the capital expenditure-made originally, made many years ago-he has given us the Canadian Pacific Railway grants multiplied by the present value, and so on. But he has not given us what the cost of the Intercolonial would be, capitalized up to date. If he will give that, we should be better able to judge its comparative value.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave the capital invested. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) would seek now to incorporate into this another question entirely.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) has multiplied the grant to the Canadian Pacific Railway by five.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite see the diversion my hon. friend seeks to make. I have not taken into consideration the question of annual deficits on the Intercolonial, nor have I taken into consideration the deficits on the canal system of Canada.


Samuel Barker: I am not asking that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the hon. gentleman does not wish to know anything about that, nor would it be a matter of importance from his standpoint.


Samuel Barker: Nor from yours.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One offsets the other, so far as the discussion of this question is concerned.


Samuel Barker: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) in his argument. I am not going into the question of losses. But he is dealing with the original expenditure. He has given us the original expenditure on the Intercolonial and the original expenditure, including lands, on the Canadian Pacific Railway. But he multiplies the grant to the Canadian Pacific Railway by the present value, which is about five times the original estimate, and leaves the other at the original cost.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was self-evident. I did not hide the facts; I presented them. I simply said that we had expended on the Canadian Pacific in cash $87,425,000, and, in addition, we had given nearly 28,000,000 acres of land, and I mentioned that it was simply a question of arithmetic what value you should put on those lands-whether one dollar, two dollars, three dollars, four
dollars or five dollars an acre. Just for the purposes of calculation, I put the valuation at $5 an acre, but I did not take into consideration some other things. I have not in the past taken into consideration the fact that after we had constructed the Intercolonial Railway, we aided in the construction of a competing line, a short line, to St. John, and that we have been paying annually for twenty years the sum of $186,000 towards the operation of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to St. John. And I have not invited attention to the cash subsidies which we have given, and properly given. But I want it distinctly understood that when you give any attention to the Intercolonial Railway and its results, particularly its financial results, you must bear in mind that when we constructed the Intercolonial Railway, we aided, but a very few years afterwards, the construction of a comneting line to take away from the Intercolonial Railway a large portion of its traffic and make it operate at a disadvantage. Nor did I refer to the fact that the Intercolonial Railway was constructed along a route where it was brought at every point in competition with water carriage. I have not referred to these facts because time calls on me to shorten this preface to the resolution which I have the honour to move.
There is a third period, that of subsidies and the guarantee of bonds in aid of railways. I find that after the government of Canada has invested its money in the Intercolonial Railway, in its canal system and in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, there was inaugurated a new policy-wisely no doubt in the interests of the country-the policy of aiding the construction of railway lines throughout Canada by means of subsidies granted at the rate of so much per mile. This policy adopted by the Dominion, was followed by the provinces, and followed, I think, very unwisely. If there was one defect in the British North America Act, it was in giving the provinces the power to aid the construction of railways; and I think I can fairly make this argument, that the fathers of confederation never contemplated that the provinces themselves would aid the construction of railways. The terms of the British North America Act would seem to bear out that view. The financial arrangements made for the carrying on of the provinces certainly could never have contemplated their going into the railway business. We know what the discussion was at the time of confederation with respect to the . amount of money which would be required to carry on the ordinary affairs of government in the respective provinces; and when the cry went forth in 1865, particularly throughout the eastern provinces, that the people were being purchased by the upper Canadians at eighty cents per head, it car-

ried with it the idea that the people of the respective provinces were simply to have eighty cents per head for the maintenance of provincial government. But that is a digression. The important fact is that the policy was inaugurated by the Dominion. Railways were promoted in every section, their construction was commenced and that construction has from time to time been continued down to the( present. We have expended, apart from the $25,000,000 given as a cash bonus to the Canadian Pacific Railway, upwards of $36,000,000 in subsidies in aid of the construction of railways, and that $36,000,000 does not include $2,294,000 which was placed to the credit of the province of Quebec in our debt account with that province, and upon which we have been paying interest every year since at the rate of five per cent per annum, making an annua] expenditure of $119,700 per year. We not merely give this amount in cash to these respective railways, but we gave in lands about 4,000,000 acres as subsidies to aid in the construction of railways which have not been since absorbed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I find that we have given to all railways, inclusive of the Canadian Pacific Railway and its branch lines, 31,864,074 acres. Deducting the Canadian Pacific Railway land, 27,924,190 acres, that leaves to the Canadian Northern and other railways 3,989,884 acres. You can figure out those lands at any price you please, but whether at one dollar, two dollars, or five dollars per acre, the amount is very considerable; and I think it might fairly be said that we have invested in all other railways, of which we do not own a single fragment, an amount equal to our investment in the canals, greater than our investment in the Intercolonial Railway, and very considerably reaching the larger figure which we gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I make this statement, sir, that if you figure the amount that we have paid towards the construction of railways, other than the Intercolonial Railway, either in' cash or in lands, we have invested in these privately owned railways throughout Canada, an amount exceeding $457,000,000. Now, that $457,000,000 is represented by our indebtedness, it is represented by the earnings of the people of Canada thus expended, but the people of Canada have had the benefit, and I do not ask your consideration of the figures with any idea that I am condemning the course that was adopted, but I wish the facts placed before us so that we can make a comparison when we come to consider perhaps the smaller question-the question involved in the resolution now under consideration.
Now, Sir, I come to the fourth period, a period so recent in our history that we are all at once familiar with it, and I need not take up any of the time of the House in considering this period, which I have Mr. EMMERSON.
been pleased to term as the Grand Trunk Pacific period in the transportation history of Canada. We know what was done in this parliament in 1903 and 1904. We know the agitation that has been created through the country, and we know that on every hustings throughout Canada this question has been discussed. It is fresh in the minds of the people at this moment, and the questions to what that railway has cost up to this moment and as to what it may cost when it is a completed work, are questions which I will not now undertake to solve, but they are questions worthy of consideration.


Samuel Barker: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My ho'n. friend (Mr. Barker says, 'hear, hear.' Is it because he thinks that was not a solution of the problem that confronted the people of Canada? Is it because he thinks we are to pay too dearly for the solution of such a problem, or is it merely the hon. gentleman's partisan colour that leads him to say 'hear, hear' in respect to that? I am endeavouring to deal with this question in the cold light of facts. I do not wish to ineonporate into it one iota of partisan feeling. I do not wish it to be coloured by any political bias or any partisan thought. If it is incorporated into it, it will be by persons other than myself. I am dealing, in this resolution, with a business problem, one that I conceive, rightly or wrongly, to be in the interest of all Canada, one that is of paramount importance, in my judgment, to the people of eastern Canada, and I cannot refrain, and if I did refrain, I would be recreant to what I conceive to be my duty, from inviting the attention of the Hcuse and of the country to just what has occurred with respect to our transportation expenditures since the dawn of confederation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot very well take into consideration the declaration of this resolution without assuming one fact, which fact, if you take it from under this resolution, permits the resolution to be so absolutely futile and nugatory that its consideration even would be a waste of time by this House, and I would be but wasting your time and my own time and energy if I were to continue without the basis of that fact. I have declared in this resolution:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable in furtherance of the transportation interests of this Dominion, that the sphere of influence of the Intercolonial Railway as a government operated railway should be widened and extended by securing, by lease or otherwise, such of the branch lines of railway now connecting with the Intercolonial Railway, as will serve as direct and profitable feeders to the traffic of said railway.
It must be taken as an assumed fact, and it is not and should not be a violent

assumption that the Intercolonial Railway is to continue as a government-owned and government-operated railway, that that is to be the policy of this parliament and of this government, as it has been the policy of past parliaments and past governments. I have the right to assume that. I need only refer to the political history of this country, the history of this parliament and the history of all governments, ' to lead me to the conclusion that it is a fair assumption that the Intercolonial Railway is to be continued as it was conceived-a government road, operated by the government and the people of Canada. If it is not to be, if the assumption is too violent, then, Sir, my remarks are of no avail, they have no point and they are without foundation either in fact or fiction. Let me, therefore, invite your attention to what has occurred since confederation. Take the history of the Conservative party, the attitude of all Conservative administrations down to 1896, and I am bound to say that on its face it was not an attitude of hostility, but an attitude of friendliness. If you turn to the debates of parliament in 1883, when Sir Charles Tupper was Minister of Railways, and refer to the votes and estimates of that period you will there recognize that in all of the works proposed, connected in any way with the Intercolonial Railway, whether it was the subsidizing of a branch line, whether it was the construction of terminals, whether it was the building of breakwaters or wharfs, the basis of the application to parliament for these money votes was the extension of the Intercolonial Railway and the improvement of its traffic that its earnings might be benefited. Sir Charles Tupper, in proposing to parliament line after line to be subsidized, said:	It is a
feeder to the Intercolonial Railway, part of the government system. Even that railway, known now as the Atlantic and Lake Superior, more generally known as the Baie des Chaleurs, when it was first brought to the notice of this House, was brought forward in the form of a resolution providing money for the construction of that railway by the government as a branch line of the Intercolonial Railway. Later the aid was changed to a subsidy to a railway company.
The branches thus constructed, the wharfs and breakwaters and harbours and terminals built and improved were all for the purpose of enabling the Intercolonial railway to continue its work. There were additions to the road; a short line was built from Oxford Junction to Stellarton, other lines were built in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, the St. Charles branch from St. Charles to Levis was constructed and other extensions and improvements were made. It is true that about 1896 there were rumours that it was the intention of the Con
servative government of that day to transfer the Intercolonial Railway to a private corporation. I know not if these rumours were well or ill founded, but I do know that if there was any truth in them, the Liberal party of Canada gained advantage to the extent that these rumours were believed in. However, so far as the proceedings of this House will demonstrate the Conservative party was committed to the continuance of the Intercolonial as a government railroad. At all events, from the year 1896 when the Liberal government assumed power down to the present moment, every Act of that government was such as to impress the people of Canada with the idea that the Liberal party as a party is a friend of the Intercolonial and bent on' it? continuance as a government operated railway. Every act of the Liberal government: the construction of lines, the improvement of the Intercolonial itself, its extension into Montreal, the leasing for a long period of years of part of the Grand Trunk line and access to its Montreal terminals, the purchase of the Canada Eastern Railway; a thousand and one acts of the Liberal government demonstrate that it was in favour of maintaining the present status of the Intercolonial. Read over the acts of 1903 and 1904 in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway; read them over carefully and there is hardly a clause or a line which does not indicate that provision is made by the government and by the parliament of Canada for the future of the Intercolonial as a government road. The possibility of forfeiture, the possibility of failure on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific, are safeguarded in every direction by provisions that the government shall be in a position to nullify any disaster that may accrue by the absorption of the portion of the line that may be forfeited as a part of the Intercolonial railway system. There can be no question but that down to this period the attitude of the Liberal government, and the attitude of all parliaments in which I have sat indicate no other thought than that the Intercolonial should be continued as a railroad owned and operated by the government of Canada. I think therefore that I have the right to assume that there is no other intention on the part of the government or the parliament of Canada. I remember, when I had the honour to preside over the Department of Railways and Canals, there were similar rumours with respect to the Intercolonial Railway. There are always rumours set afloat for this purpose or for that and generally because of some ulterior purpose to be served. I remember that on one occasion a rumour was circulated (for what purpose I know not) that the Intercolonial Railway was to cease as a government operated road and to become the property of a private corporation. I remember,

speaking for the government-and I do not think I have ever exceeded my authority [DOT]-I remember making the statement that the government of Canada as then constituted had no intention of disposing of the Intercolonial Railway, that on the contrary that they were determined to maintain it in its entirety and in its present status as a portion of the transportation system of Canada, and that in so doing they were also determined that it should be made a paying asset.
Now, Sir, before discussing the direct question of the acquisition of the branch lines, I must ssume that this railway is to continue as a government railway to be operated by the government. If I were not able to assume that then there would be no point to my resolution and no object to be served by it. Taking that assumption as correct I would therefore bring to the notice of this House the question of the absorption of the branch lines connected within the Intercolonial Railway as a part of the Intercolonial Railway system. I shall bring it to the notice of the House purely as a business proposition; a proposition designed to be of advantage to the Intercolonial itself of advantage to the people served by the Intercolonial, of advantage to Canada, and incidentally of advantage to the communities served by these branch lines. Let me analyse the meaning of this resolution.. It does not involve the purchase of a single line of railway unless the parliament of Canada so authorizes. It does not declare that the government shall purchase all the branch lines, or even one of them. It does not involve any addition to the public debt. It simply declares that power should be taken by the government of Canada to extend the Intercolonial railway by acquiring by lease or otherwise such of the branch lines as would be deemed to be of advantage as feeders to the Intercolonial.
Now, we have the benefit of a declaration by the right hon. leader of this House with respect to this question. It will be borne in mind that I had the honour to move at the last session of the last parliament a resolution which covered the resolution which I am moving to-night, but which went further and involved the extension westward of the Intercolonial, with a view to facilitating the import and export trade of the Dominion through Canadian channels. There was some discussion in this House on that resolution and incidentally we had the benefit of a declaration by the Prime Minister on the question of the absorption of the branch lines. He stated that if the Intercolonial were owned and operated by a company, unquestionably it would be a part of its business to absorb the branch lines, and that any well-managed railway company would so do. He did raise the question as to whether govem-Mr. EMHERSON.
ment operation was elastic enough. That was simply raised as a doubt; but we had this declaration, that if the Intercolonial were to be run as a business proposition the branch lines would be so absorbed. We had also a declaration from the Minister of Railways; but he went much further and was much stronger in his declaration of policy, stating that during the interim between the last session of the last parlia- _ ment and this first session of this parliament he would cause to be had an inquiry with respect to the advantages of these branch lines to the Intercolonial, the possibilities of their traffic, and the extent to which they would contribute to the traffic of the Intercolonial. It seems that such an inquiry has been had, and although we have not had the benefit of having laid before this House a copy of the report of the commission appointed for that purpose, we know the nature of their report-a report which was deemed to be of such importance by the government of Canada that mention was made of it by His Excellency in the speech from the Throne, with a view undoubtedly of its being laid before parliament so that it might receive the consideration of parliament.
Now, Sir, does the resolution propose any new thing in the history of railways either in this country or in any other country? We find that everywhere in Canada where the Grand Trunk Railway has been brought into contact with a branch line it has absorbed that line if it could. We find that throughout Canada, both in the east and in the west, wherever the Canadian Pacific Railway has had an opportunity of securing a branch line of railway, it has secured it. The history of all countries demonstrates the same thing. The railways in Great Britain were originally many. A few of the larger ones absorbed the smaller ones and the branches, and they became systems. In the United States we find great railway systems which have become so by means of absorption. The New York Central started out as a very puny railway, but by extending its influence and absorbing its branches it has become one of the great railway systems of the world. The same is true with respect to the Pennsylvania system. The Grand Trunk has absorbed the Buffalo and Lake Huron, the Midland with eight branches, the Great Western with five branches, the Northern, and Pacific Junction, the Hamilton and Northwestern, the Lake Erie and Georgian Bay, the Hamilton and Lake Erie, the Canada Atlantic and Parry Sound, and others. The number of branch lines absorbed by the Canadian Pacific is innumerable; I shall not attempt to recite them. If you go into the United States, you will find the same conditions prevailing there, in the Vanderbilt system, the Gould system, the Harriman system. It is true, in many instances these are con-

solidations of other railways, but they are as well the gathering in of the shorter branches, the more insignificant railways. In Great Britain the history of railways points to the same result. The Midland railway, originally a small railway in the neighbourhood of Derby and Nottingham, is now one of the great railways of the world. It absorbed several other railways, and numerous branches and feeders. I need not attempt to give the details. I simply point to the fact that in all countries the history has been that the trunk lines secure the feeders

for what purpose?
For the benefit of the trunk lines as well as of the feeders themselves. No argument is needed to convince any one that it is to the advantage of the people resident in the districts traversed by these branch lines that there shall be a consolidation, so that they will have to deal with but one system. It would be an advantage pecuniarily in respect of freight rates to the patrons of those railways, it would be an immense advantage in the assembling of the product and the traffic within the zone of influence of these trunk lines. In the province of New Brunswick, wherever the Canadian Pacific Railway was brought in contact with branch lines of railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway at once seized upon the branch lines to the advantage of these lines and, as I submit, to the greater advantage of the Canadian Pacific Railway itself. This is submitted to this House as a business proposition in the interests of the Intercolonial Railway, in the interests of the people of all Canada, in the interests of the people in the eastern sections of Canada, and particularly in the interests of the people served by these branch lines. I hold no brief on the part of any branch lines in Canada, I have no interest direct or indirect, near or remote in any branch line in Canada connected with the Intercolonial Railway, but I have an interest in the people of that section of Canada who are served by these branch lines. I recognize the disadvantage they are under, the discrimination against them with respect to freight rates. I recognize that they are practically shut off from the investment of capital, I realize that in my own province of New Brunswick you cannot get a dollar of capital invested in industries to be established on branch lines. Why? Because of want of permanency, because of insecurity, because of the existing double freight rates, because of the inability to get through traffic rates for the benefit of any branch of industry. The natural resources of the counties of Albert, Kings, Gloucester and Kent, of all the counties of New Brunswick, are at a great disadvantage and their values are discounted to-day. Why? Because of the lack of transportation in some cases and of imperfect transportation in
others. There are latent resources in some of those counties that would be brought to life, and would form the basis of important industries if these branch lines were so consolidated as to afford an efficient system of transportation. Why should1 not the government of Canada take this matter into their seirous consideration? In the earlier years of Canada's history, it was thought wise to aid in the construction of railways for the benefit of these communities. We have these immense sums of money invested there, and surely if we recognized the values of those communities then we should not forget their values to-day or the advantages that would accrue to them from the absorption by the Intercolonial Railway of such of these branch lines as are of value and there are a number of them that have a great value.
Some hon. members of this House may not know that a great proportion of the traffic that originates on some of these branch lines of railway finds its outlet from the maritime provinces via the Canadian Pacific Railway, although the branch lines connect with the Intercolonial Railway, and in a measure are a part of the Intercolonial Railway system because of that point of contact. Even on the Kent Northern Railway, which runs from Kent Junction, north of Moncton, to Rexton, in Kent, a large proportion of the express traffic, the passenger traffic and even the freight traffic destined to Montreal and other western points is brought down to Moncton, carried to St. John and there transferred to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Intercolonial Railway losing the long haul because it ha,s not control of that road, as it would have if the objects which I have in view in this resolution were carried out. The same thing is true with respect to lines in Nova Scotia. Take what is known as the Joggins Mines Railway running from Maccan Junction down to Joggins mine, traversing a very rich district and furnishing transportation facilities to no less than four or five coal mines. There are situated along that railway the mines of the Canada Coal and Railway Company, which owns what is known as the Joggins mine, the Menudie mine, the Fundy mine, the Strath-cona mine, the Jubilee mine and one or two others. These mines all have to look to this railway, owned by another competing company for transportation facilities, and a great proportion of the traffic that_ finds an outlet to the Intercolonial Railway at Maccan, destined for western points, goes to St. John, travels over the short line through Maine and is not hauled by the Intercolonial Railway up to Levis and Montreal, although the rates are supposed to be the same and although the Intercolonial Railway has every advantage. Take, for instance, the Cumberland Coal and Railway



Company, known as the Springhill Railway and Springhill Coal Mine. I am informed on the highest authority that almost all the traffic that originates on that railway goes over the Canadian Pacific Railway and not over the long haul of the Intercolonial Railway. What I have stated as true with respect to these railways is true with respect to nearly every one of the branch lines through Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Should this be? Would it be if the Intercolonial Railway were owned by a private corporation? If the government of Canada confessed their impotence, their inability to operate the Intercolonial Railway as a business proposition, then I could quite understand that it would be futile to attempt to carry out the objects of this resolution. But I cannot believe that, and my personal knowledge of the operating of the Intercolonial Railway convinces me that that railway can be as well operated with respect to its branch lines by the government of Canada as it can be by a company. 1 wouid.be very sorry to have the Minister ot Railways obliged to confess that it would be an impossibility and that the Department of Railways could not do this. The absorption of these branch lines means the gathering up of the traffic that is within the sphere of influence of the Intercolonial Railway, the traffic that of right belongs to the Intercolonial Railway and a traffic that if it were within the sphere of influence of the Canadian Pacific Railway would be jealously guarded, would be watched, would be taken hold of, and I hold that it is the duty of the government controlling and operating the Intercolonial, to so act that it can get for the advantage of the Intercolonial all the traffic that of right belongs to her, all the traffic which would be destined to go over that route, and, I am sure, was destined to so go when we ^*ided in fh e construction of these railways. The Intercolonial, in my judgment, has been made the packhorse. I do not think it has received fair treatment. It seems to me that efforts have been made in every direction to discredit it at every time in its history. Go back to the days when it was controlled by a Conservative government, and you will find that ulterior purposes led many to discredit that road arid do everything to its disadvantage. To-day, history is repeating itself: The Intercolonial is being operated by a Liberal government, and-though I do not say it rises from party antagonism or from any political bias-to-day, for purposes ulterior to the main purpose, in my judgment, the Intercolonial is being discredited.
I have adverted to the fact that this route was, perhaps, not the correct one from a commercial standpoint. But there are so many elements that have contributed to the disadvantage of the Intercolonial, Mr. EMMERSON.
that I am at a loss tq point them out within the time I can fairly claim the attention of the House. The Deputy Minister of Railways has called the attention of parliament to the fact that annually the Intercolonial loses $100,000 merely in the transportation of the English mail, that sum not appearing to the credit of the Intercolonial. In former years. I have referred to the fact that rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway in eastern Canada were from 25 per cent to 100 per cent higher than those on the Intercolonial. I repeat that statement, and if any one asks for proof, I refer him to the tariff sheets of these respective railways which I presented to this House in March, 1907. and had placed on record. They show that discrepancies between the rates charged by the Intercolonial on the one side and by the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk on the other, to range, as I have stated, from 25 per cent to 80 per cent, and, I think, in one or two instances, to 100 per cent.
Now, the only answer I have heard made to the carrying out of this policy of absorption of branch lines is that Canada has invested a very large amount in the Intercolonial to place it in its present position and has received no adequate financial return. I could readily ans-wer that by pointing out that Canada has received a full return for every dollar invested. I admit that it would be no answer to say that the canals of Canada stand in precise-Iv the same position. But when you consider the Intercolonial was built as an offset to the canals, I say it is an answer. And I go further and say that not only the national life of Canada has been advantaged by the Intercolonial, but that individual life has been advantaged also.
The people who do not run railways know all about running them


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals says 'Hear, hear' with gusto. I suppose he has received more advice within the last six months than would satisfy a young nation. I have read with considerable interest the discussion that has taken place in connection with the Intercolonial, particularly the newspaper discussion. I think there has been more
editorials on the Intercolonial than could be described in one short evening. One independent journal, (?) published in Toronto, says that there are 1,500 too many men employed on the Intercolonial, and that all the ills of the system are due to its being overmanned. It declares that over $1,000,000 could be saved by dispensing with the services of these men and so stopping this leak. Statistics show that the number of

employees on the Intercolonial is far less per mile than on the American railways, and less than on any other Canadian railway, except the Canadian Pacific Railway which runs for a large part of its length through an unsettled territory with stations at long distances apart. The following are the figures:
Average number of men employed per mile of railway.
Intercolonial	4.65	men per mile.
Grand Trunk Railway.. ..6.5 Canadian Pacific Railway. 4.29	"
American railways	6.11
I hear some body whisper ' double track.' Well, in the first place, there is not very much double track in Canada, but in the figures the double track mileage is taken into consideration, for each roadbed requires so many men to look after it, and these cannot be reduced in number because the necessities of the railway demand a certain proportion of men per mile. The cost of operating the Intercolonial Railway is less, according to its traffic and mileage, than that of any other Canadian railway. In view of the attacks upon the existing system and conditions and the senseless barking against the Intercolonial railway, this may seem to be an incredible and an astounding statement, but it is incontro-vertibly true. The unit of calculation, in discussing the cost of railway transportation, is the cost of hauling an average train over a mile of road. A railway hauls so many trains a year over so many miles of road and its total operating expenses are so much. You divide the one into the other, and you have the operating cost per train mile. In 1907 the operating cost per train mile on the Canadian Pacific Railway was $1.45. the Grand Trunk Railway $1.77 and the Intercolonial Railway $1.21, and the average in Canada of all railways was $1 -249 or say $1.25. I have also mentioned the fact that the rates on the Intercolonial Railway were much less than on any other Canadian or American railway. 1 indeed go so far as to say that the freight rates of the Intercolonial Railway are the lowest of any known railway in the civilized world, and I have taken pains to verify this statement. We hear much about the Australian system and the French and German railways and European railways generally, but the Intercolonial Railway stands ahead of them all with respect to the rates it imposes on traffic. The average gross earning per train per mile is an index for comparison. In 1907 the average on railways generally was $1 953. On the Intercolonial Railway it was $1.02. On the United States railways, the average is $1.88; and as I observe by a return in connection with the Australian railways, the rates charged by them are three times as great as those charged on 691
American or Canadian railways generally and three and a half times greater than those charged on the Intercolonial Railway We hear very much about the great success of the operation of government railways in Australia. How could it be otherwise? They have a monopoly of the traffic. The government own all the railways and they charge a freight rate three and a half times as large as the rate charged on our Intercolonial Railway system. Including the terminal charges, the freight receipts per ton mile in New South Wales in 19071908 were 2.4; in the United States, .75; and on the Intercolonial Railway the rate was less than in the United States, so that any comparison is entirely in favour of the Intercolonial Railway.
The railways of Canada aTe a very important factor as they are in the life of any nation. The United States railways are in magnitude almost staggering. When we realize that they have in mileage approximately 225,000 and employ 1.675,000 men, and their gross earnings are $2,585,913,000 or more than $7,000,000 per day. Figures of this magnitude can be better comprehended by comparison, and it may be said that the number of employees on the pay rolls of the American railways in 1907 was only about 80,000 less than the standing army of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France and Japan combined. Their gross earnings were three times the total revenue of the United States government, twenty-nine times the total gold production, and six times the total gold production of the
world.	..
The mileage of Canadian railways was approximately 23,000, and the_ men employed was 124,000. The gross earnings were $147,000,000, or for each day of the 365 days about $403,000, and they employ more men than the total population of Prince Edward Island with that of Halifax added.
The business of the railways practically equals our total money circulation; and out of each one hundred dollars earned in Canada by the railways, over $41, are directly and immediately paid out to employees About $12 is paid for fuel, waste, oil, and water, and $10 of these $12 go for labour to produce these supplies. About $18 foT rails, ties, cars, engines, structural steel, and a few other things required for the operation of the line; and of these $18, approximately $16 go for labour. . Five go for permanent improvements, such as additions to yards, terminals, tracks, extensions of shops, round houses and the like. And $4 of these $5 are paid for labour, so that approximately in Canada $71 out of every $100 earned by the railways are distributed in payment 'for labour, or equipment and material in which labour forms by far the largest component part. The railways receive more and keep less almost than any depart-

ment of business activity in Canada. I only mention this as incidental to the importance of the subject involved, even in the matter of branch lines of railways of eastern Canada. This proposition does not involve a dollar of burden or addition to the public debt. It does not add in any respect a future burden on the people. If hon. members had an opportunity of referring to the reports with respect to these branch lines, they would learn that many of them are selt-sustaining even to-day, and most of them have great possibilities as to their future and the development of the country. The traffic is there only to be developed and cultivated, and the mere act of attempting to operate involves no great additional expense, even in the matter of bridges. I hold there is material enough along side the Intercolonial Railway in the shape of old rails and bridges to have every branch line connected with the Intercolonial Railway that could be thought of as proper to be absorbed, improved and bettered, and have bridges placed where required.
Why is this so? Because, during the past fifteen years, the Intercolonial has been undergoing a very great change. There has been a new class of rails used, there have been new bridges, a new type of locomotive, larger and heavier rolling stock, the whole character of the railway has been changed and the material that was removed and replaced by larger and more modern material is there lying in the yards and along the line. It is not saleable, it is of no advantage to the government to-day and it can be made of advantage to these' lines if they were operated as a part of the Intercolonial. In that direction alone, it would be money saved to the people of Canada, because money that has been prevented 1 from being wasted is money saved. The : cost of the betterments that would be neces- : sary would be infinitesimal. We are start- 1 ing out in Canada with the idea that we 1 are going to be a success as a nation. It is 1 wise to be prudent and cautious. It is wise 1 to be economical and to study economy, * but it is not wise economy to have the In- 1 tercolonial kept in the position in which it 1 is now and without giving it the advantages 6 that would accrue to it as a great railway ' system if there were connected with it these 1 various branch lines in the several provin- 6 ces. I hold that the Intercolonial should ? control every coal road along its line, I hold f that it should control every railway that * connects with the remote sections, i hold 1 furthermore that there is not one of these V lines to which I have just now presently , referred but what would be a paying pro- j position. The question was asked with res- j pect to the Canadian Eastern, how much it a cost. The cost of it was a little over $6,000 o per mile, and I venture to say that the pur- t


Henry Robert Emmerson: ' chase of that railway was of immense ads vantage to the Intercolonial as a traffic line, 1 that it preserved to the Intercolonial the traffic that long ere this would have been seized by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that as a money proposition the absorption of the Canada Eastern has in no sense been a loss either to the Intercolonial or to the people of Canada.
There are many other matters to which I Might refer. I hold that the government of Canada must, if it is true to the interests of the people, true to the pledges of the past, continue the Intercolonial as a government operated road. I go further, Sir, and I say that this parliament has no mandate to dispose of the Intercolonial to a private corporation. I go farther even than that, and I say that it would be beyond the powers of this parliament to so transfer or dispose of the Intercolonial. I do not pretend to be a very great constitutional lawyer, but if I understand that 147th clause in the British North America Act wherein provision is made for the construction of the Intercolonial, I say that there is to be read within that section the obligation not merely to construct by the government of Canada but to operate by the government of Canada. The great constitutional authorities in the United States and in other countries, in so far as I have been able to read them, convince me that that is clearly constitutional. I do not profess to be able to anlyse the great Dartmouth College case in the United States, but if I can gather anything from it and from the argument in that case, it clearly points to this fact that the government of Canada or this parliament cannot dispose of the Intercolonial unless indeed the pact of confederation and the British North America Act are amended to enable them to do it. Therefore, I assume, in the first instance, that the government will retain the Intercolonial; I assume, further, that it has no mandate from the people of Canada to dispose of it, that it would not dispose of it until it first submitted such a question to the people and that if it did it would be committing a breach of faith with the people of Canada. I know this and I want to speak candidly with respect to the matter when I say that at every election from 1878 inclusive down to the present moment in eastern Canada, on every platform, Liberal speakers have put forth, in the interests of their party, the idea and the fact that the Liberal party were the friends of government ownership as far as the Intercolonial was concerned. It has been my privilege during that period of time, commencing with 1878, to take part in every general and in almost every by-election that has been held in the east, and from every platform and on every occasion and in every election one of the vrave issues always was as between the Conservatives, on the one hand,
2185 MARCH 8, 1909 2186	
and the Liberals, on the other, that the Liberal party would be true to the Intercolonial, that they would support its retention and that they would continue it as a government operated road. It has been pointed out, time and again with respect to this railway, that it was a part of the compact of confederation. Reference was always made to the government system. I do not dwell so much upon that but these are facts that you cannot get over. If there be any point in the idea that the Intercolonial cannot be disposed of, if I am to gather an inference that cannot be ignored by reason of the attitude of all parties and governments in the past, I would conclude that there is no intention, that no such idea would grow up, of disposing of the Intercolonial and that we will hold that which we have regardless of what may be done in other directions with respect to public utilities. Taking it to be an accepted fact that the railway is to continue a government-owned road, I shall not discuss now, because I do not think it quite germane, the question as to how it shall be conducted or by what form of management. I may have an opportunity of saying a few words later on during this session with respect to that, but if there is to be a continuance of that railway there surely must, from a business standpoint, be an absorption of these branch lines. I am sure, if you listen to the voice of the people, that these branch lines will be absorbed. Take the last general elections in New Brunswick, and if there was one issue pre-eminent before the people in almost every county of that province, and especially in the northern and eastern counties, it was the question of the acquisition of the branch lines. Mr. BLACK. And the same in Hants county. Mr. EMMERSON. I believe the same to be true of the maritime provinces generally. The people of the province of New Brunswick particularly, pronounced with no uncertain sound in favour of that policy. I cannot conceive that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) could possibly have any other idea in his mind than that the branch lines should and will be absorbed, for, was it not my hon. friend who when Prime Minister of his province carried through the legislature a resolution unanimously pronouncing in favour of the absorption of these branch lines by the Intercolonial Railway. The legislature of Nova Scotia^ also pronounced in favour of the proposition. Every board of trade in the province of New Brunswick, and most of ^the boards of trade in the province of Nova Scotia have pronounced in favour of this policy ; almost every municipal council in New Brunswick and every Liberal organization	in the eastern counties of that province have forwarded to me resolutions in favour of it. The people demand it, the interests of the country require it, and the interests of the Intercolonial Railway proclaim it to be a necessity. My idea about the future of the Intercolonial Railway is that it shall be enlarged, that it shall grow, that it shall expand, that it shall be worthy of the people whom it serves, that it shall be commensurate with the needs of the country which it traverses. The very moment it is expanded, the very moment that business principles are applied with respect to that expansion, that very moment, new life and new energy will be given to the Intercolonial Railway. That it is a great national asset to-day no man can deny, the very fact that private corporations are looking with anxious eyes towards securing the Intercolonial convinces me that the railway magnates of Canada attach a great money value to it. We hear rumours of what may occur [DOT] I have heard it said that the northern division of the Intercolonial is sought bv the Canadian Northern Railway Company Well, I would not blame the Canadian Northern Company for seeking to secure that portion of the road. Side by side with that rumour goes the further rumour that the Intercolonial south and east of Moncton is to be the common property of the three great railway systems: The Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific Railway, to be operated by the Canadian Northern for the benefit of the three. I say, Sir, that I do not blame the Canadian Northern for looking anxiously at the possession of the Intercolonial. The Canadian Northern is a system which controls and operates and owns railways in the west and in the east, they are seeking foT a connecting line between Port Arthur and Sudbury and soon the benefit of! the three. I say sir, that 1 from Sudbury to Quebec. And, when they get to Quebec they will be in the winter time cut off from an open seaport; they will so to speak be in a cul de sac. I do not blame them for seeking to acquire the Intercolonial Railway. But, Sir, if the government of Canada were in any way to attempt to hand over to that great corporation, either by means of operating rights which would take from the Intercolonial Railway the intermediate traffic or by any other means, I would condemn this government or any government that would adopt such a policy as that. Of course, if the Canadian Northern had the Intercolonial Railway they would connect it with the railway system which they own in Nova Scotia and thus be enabled to have a transcontinental line of railway. Small blame then to the Canadian Northern Company for coveting the Intercolonial Railway if they can get it. But the very fact that this corpora-

tion wants the Intercolonial; the very fact that other great corporations are trying to acquire portions of that railway, confirms the statement I have made to this House in times past, that the Intercolonial Railway is the greatest national asset we have to-day. I have heard it said, Sir, that there are men who are willing to come forward and offer practically all that we have invested on capital expenditure in the Intercolonial-a further proof of the fact that railway experts recognize that the Intercolonial is worth the money and that we have good value to show for the $82,000,000 we have expended on it.
I have taken up more of the time of the House than I had intended to, but my apology is that my heart and my soul are in this subject. I want to see the Intercolonial Railway made a success, I want to see it expanded. I know that the people whom I have the honour to represent; I know that the people of other constituencies in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia deem this issue of paramount importance to them for the present and in the future. I would, therefore, urge upon the government to reach a decision with respect to the matter. It is true we are passing through a period of financial stress, but that does not prevent the government from announcing the policy of deepening and widening the present Welland canal, or building a new one. True, the government have said they cannot undertake such a work this year, but they have announced their intention to do it. That announcement has been made in parliament ; it has been reported in the press, it has gone broadcast throughout the country. Let the same announcement be made with respect to the enlargement and expansion of 'the Intercolonial Railway, and why should it not. I do not ask that under existing financial conditions the government of the country should rush forward with this project which I advocate, but if the government is to continue to operate the railway, then, from time to time as the conditions will permit, let them do what the Canadian Pacific Railway would do: let them absorb these branch lines or such of them as will be of value. If they do not, while the storehouse of my regrets is pretty full, yet I think I could find room for one more very great regret. And, I think the regret f would have at their want of action in this respect, and of their lack of progress, would be shared in by the very great majority of the people of eastern Canada. And, Sir, let me say that I am not speaking from a sectional standpoint; let me say that I believe there are as many hearty and warm supporters of this idea in Ontario and the western provinces as there are to be found in the east. I believe, Sir. that while there are a great many in Mr. EMMERSON.
the west who would not go so far as to declare that we should have a great expansion of government ownership, yet, a very great proportion of the people in the west would declare: what we have we'll hold. I take it that the great organs of public opinion in western Canada and in Ontario know whereof they speak when they pronounce in favour of the retention of the Intercolonial Railway by the government and of its operation from a business standpoint. And, if the railroad in obedience to the demand of public opinion east, and west, and north, and south, be retained by the government, it follows that if there is to be an application of business principles the railway must be carried on in the manner and after the methods adopted by the great privately-owned railway systems of Canada. I want as a last word to ask to be excused by the House for having taken up so much of their' time. I have presented my case from no partisan standpoint, but from the standpoint of the whole people, and I trust that there will be, as I know there will be, given to the consideration of this question, all that its merits demand.
GEO. W. KYTE (Richmond, Nova Scotia). Mr. Speaker, I recognize the obligation that rests on new members to refrain from frequent participation in the debates of this House, and I regard this obligation as particularly binding upon myself, inasmuch as I cannot hope to add one single jot or tittle, in Tespect of either thought or language, to the common fund of knowledge of public questions that is now enjoyed by hon. gentlemen who are good enough to listen to me. I desire, however, Mr. Speaker, to trespass on your time for a few moments while I submit one or two considerations which appeal to me as being in support of the principles enunciated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson), who has moved this resolution. It is entirely fitting and to be expected that this resolution should be moved by one final voice in the hon. member for Westmoreland. We m the maritime provinces remember with appreciation and admiration his splendid efforts on behalf of the Intercolonial while he presided over the department having charge of that important public utility. He looked to the general good of the whole country, so far as the influence of the Intercolonial extended and he showed a heroic disregard at all times of petty, local and sectional desires. I do not approach this question from the standpoint of one who is familiar with the conditions which existed at the time the Intercolonial Railway was first conceived and carried through by those responsible for the great constitutional movement that resulted in the confederation of the Dominion of Canada. I am rather disposed to rivet my eyes

upon the future than to turn them towards the past. Looking to the future with that hopefulness which I trust is characteristic of all the youth of Canada, I sincerely hope that the government will take this question into its consideration and give effect at the earliest possible moment to the resolution which has been moved by my hon. friend from Westmoreland. The chief objection which I understand is urged against the absorption of these branch railways has reference to the cost which it will entail on the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman who moved this resolution went very fully into that question. He pointed out the immense amount of money which has been expended by the people of Canada for the purpose of constructing the canals as auxiliaries to the great transportation business of this country. He did not, however, refer to the fact that when the canals were built there were tolls levied on every person who used them, on every ton of freight and every vessel that passed through them; but it is conceded that the full benefit of these great arteries of commerce did not accrue to the people of Canada while their use was restricted by the tolls which were levied, and some ten years ago this government, with the unanimous consent of parliament, abrogated the tolls on all the canals, and made them free to every person in Canada. It was not then considered necessary or desirable that the canals of Canada should afford a revenue to this country, or considered undesirable that they should be made free, notwithstanding the fact that their operation entailed large deficits on the country: and I am at a loss to understand why the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway should appeal so strongly to some people when we consider its vast importance and usefulness. I intimated a moment ago that I was looking to the future. I have no very strong or well considered ideas at the present moment as to what ought to be the future of the Intercolonial Railway. To my mind, the government should continue to own and operate it, with this one condition, that it should be operated with the same spirit of improvement as characterizes the operation of the large railway systems throughout western Canada. If the government of Canada are to continue in the railway business, I think it is only right and fair that they should adopt such a progressive policy in respect to railway transportation as makes the large railway systems of Canada profitable as well as advantageous to the country at large. If the government of Canada are going to continue in the railway business, I do not think they should be content to stop where they are at the present moment, but should extend the Intercolonial into those sections of the
country which are now debarred from the advantages enjoyed by other sections.
The hon. gentleman who moved the resolution has pointed out that the Intercolonial Railway has been carrying freight at a very much lower rate than that charged by the other railway systems of Canada. If the government of Canada are to operate railways I cannot understand why they should adopt different business methods from those which have made a success of the other railways of this country. I do not think there is any justification in the government of Canada carrying freight and passengers at lower rates than are recognized as a proper remuneration for carrying freight and passengers by the other railways of Canada. I am well aware that I am not enunciating a proposition that will find favour with hon. gentlemen who live along the line of the Intercolonial Railway; but I desire to speak from the point of view of those who are not so fortunately circumstanced. It would be most unfortunate if we who do not live along the line of the Intercolonial Railway should have to suffer for all time to come because forsooth the further extension of the Intercolonial Railway might add to the deficits of the railway. If there are deficits existing at the present time, it is due to the fact that the government, in their railway business, have not adopted the principles pursued with respect to the railways operated by the large railway corporations of Canada. It would be most unfortunate if the mere circumstance of the selection of the route for the Intercolonial Railway forty years ago should deprive all other sections of the maritime provinces of those advantages enjoyed by the people living along that route. It may be said that the branch lines of railways suggested to be taken over by my hon. friend are not such profitable railways as would justify the government in taking them over. My reply is that if they are not, that is due to the unfortunate circumstance that they are at the present time in competition with the Intercolonial Railway. Having a short mileage, they are unable to carry on a general business in through traffic, because the moment a ton of freight carried by them reaches its terminus, it is held up for an additional rate. There is another circumstance that appeals to me as having some bearing on this question, that is that the Intercolonial Railway in the maritime provinces finds itself in competition with water carriage, which does not redound to its advantage, so far as its profits are concerned. This is a situation that must be grappled with, and that should not be permitted for all time to operate to the detriment of those districts which have branch railways. I was very much struck in reading one of the reports of the Canadian Pacific Railway

Company, in which was set forth a proposal that the company should enter upon the construction of a branch railway in the western part of Canada. We are all delighted that the conditions in the west justify our great railways in engaging in further enterprises. But these railways do not wait for business before they build the road, they build the road first and depend upon traffic coming afterwards. I notice in a report of the Canadian Pacific Railway for the year ending July 30, 1907.
That authority was given for the continuation of a branch line from a point on the main line in Saskatchewan extending for a distance of 50 miles, but it is not unlikely that in the near future circumstances will make it desirable that this branch line should be continued 100 miles further.
That is the policy that has made for the success of the great railway corporations; whenever they see a prospect of traffic being developed they pre-empt the territory and depend upon the settlers coming in to create business for the road. I admit that while the Intercolonial Railway is operated by the government of Canada they cannot enter into all the different phases of the development of their system to be found in the operations of these great corporations but it would be a most unfortunate circumstance if the mere accident of the Intercolonial Railway being owned by the government of Canada should debar the people of the maritime provinces for all time from any hope or expectation of further railway advantages. I have in mind the conditions existing in eastern Nova Scotia, which illustrate the point I desire to make. When the Intercolonial Railway was built through the island of Cape Breton 26 years ago, it was built along the northern side of Bras d'Or lake, leaving the great expanse of fertile and mineral producing country in the southern part of that island without railway accommodation .Some seven or eight years ago a company was formed to build from Port Tupper on the Intercolonial Railway through the southern section of the island to tap the important mining areas lying in that section of the island. Unfortunately adverse circumstances arose, as they sometimes do with respect to the operations of private companies, and after that road was built for thirty miles from Port Tupper to the town of St. Peters, the company were for some reason unable to carry out their financial obligations and the road has not been extended further. They are operating a very excellent system of railway for that 31 miles, but as already intimated, the haul is so short that they are unable to get any through traffic, because every ton of freight they would get would be held up at Port Tupper for additional freight tolls and the consequence is that all that freight is carried by water transportation in competition with the ex-


Mr. KYTE.: isting road. But all the country east from St. Peters through the richest part of the island of Cape Breton along to Louisburg, and the large and important mining and industrial centres of Glace Bay, Bridgeport and Dominion No. 4, is at present without a vestige of railway accommodation, so far as the government of Canada is concerned. The only railway in that part of the country is a road owned by the Dominion Coal Compnay, built to carry coal from their mines to the winter port of Louisburg. That company will not undertake to perform the functions of a common carrier, and no other coal company operating there is permitted to have the products of its mine carried to Louisburg or Sydney; the consequence is that these mines, which are of immense value are still undeveloped and will continue undeveloped until the government of Canada adopt the policy enunciated by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) and acquire the Cape Breton railway and extend it into these centres of population. Glace Bay has a population of 20,000, and it is almost incredible that that large town is to-day practically without any railway communication except the accommodation permitted to them by the coal company operating the coal mines. The same thing is true of all the other centres of population in the southern part of Cape Breton, and I am sure hon. gentlemen listening to me will not say that the prospect of building a railway through the southern part of Cape Breton into these mining centres offers no prospect of remuneration. Hon. gentlemen who are familiar with the conditions existing in that part of the country will admit that there is no part of eastern Canada that offers greater prospects of remuneration to a railway than these mining centres in southern Cape Breton, but not for fifty years can it be hoped that any new mines will be opened in southern Cape Breton for the reason that the Intercolonial Railway has pre-empted the most profitable part of the carrying trade at one end and the Dominion Coal Company at the other. It is not to be expected that another company would go in there to build a railway to operate in that limited territory. The solution of the difficulty, so far as that section of thd country is concerned, would be in the policy enunciated by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), the acquisition of the Cape Breton Railway and its extension into southern Cape Breton, giving easy access to the centres of Canada which would afford a ready market for the products of that particular district. I must apologize for giving my argument a sectional illustration but I think the illustration is so pointed and so well calculated to give effect to the argument I am endeavoring to make that I could not resist the temptation to use it.

There are other aspects of this question which have been dealt with by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmer-son), and I do not desire to trespass further on the time of the House than to exhort the members of the government, so far as I am able, to take into their serious consideration the questions brought up by the hon. gentleman and enunciated in his resolution. As I said, I believe that if the future of the Intercolonial Railway is to continue as a road owned and operated by the government of Canada, it is only right and proper that the people of eastern Canada should expect that the government will perform their functions in respect to the operation of that road and the carrying on of the railway business as it is carried on by the other railway corporations of Canada. If, on the other hand, the government of Canada are content with existing conditions, I do fear that a very strong and intense movement will take place among the people of eastern Canada to hand over the Intercolonial Railway to a company that will afford them some prospect of better communication with the trunk systems operating in this country.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough).: Mr. Speaker, I regard this discussion as the most important from the standpoint of the maritime provinces that has taken place during this session. It is of such importance to the constituency that I have the honour to represent and to the province from which I come that I feel I would not be doing my duty if I did not express my views in regard to it. I am in accord, in the main, with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Em-merson) and his remarks in support of it. I would not indiscriminately take over all the branch lines that exist along the Intercolonial Railway. I would select such branches as show apparent prospects of paying the expenses of operation. No doubt that there are some branches along the Intercolonial Railway that would not pay running expenses. I can well understand that a branch railway, weighted down with a head office staff and all the other adjuncts of a railway, might not pay expenses and might be a losing venture, whereas, when it is run as a part of a great system like the Intercolonial Railway, it might be a profitable railway. But I would go further than my hon. friend has gone in his resolution and I would amend it by providing that we should not only take over such branch lines as already exist along the line of the Intercolonial Railway but that we should build branch lines where they do not now exist. In fact, Sir, it appears to me that this is our first duty in regard, to the question that comes before us in this resolution. The people who live along these branches that are now being operated
by a company have some kind of accommodation, they have a railway service. But
I	had in mind certain parts of the province of Nova Scotia that had not these disadvantages at all. I submit, Sir, that it will be the first duty of the government, not to take over the branh lines and weigh the Intercolonial down with them, but to provide for those sections of the maritime provinces that have not yet been given the advantages of railway communication.
A great many proposals have been made during the last few months in the newspapers as to what should be done with the Intercolonial Railway. My hon. friend from Westmoreland referred to the reso lution passed by the various boards of trade throughout the country. One of the proposals made by the board of trade of Halifax was that the Intercolonial between Moncton and Halifax should be doubletracked, to provide for the increased traffic that will seek an outlet in that direction on the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific. It was found, however, that there wrere objections to the proposal to doubletrack the main line of the Intercolonial, partly, chiefly, on account of the fact that the grades on the Intercolonial are very heavy. Another proposal was made that the road should be diverted around by Parrsboro in an endeavour to find grades suitable as a continuation of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We have not yet the report of the surveys made by way of Parrsboro, but it is reported that engineering difficulties were found in that direction. No doubt the grades on the Intercolonial are very heavy at certain places. Any person familiar with the topography of Nova Scotia, will know that the Intercolonial crosses a mountain range known as the Cobequid mountains. This mountain range extends across the counties of Cumberland and Colchester. Amherst is almost at sea level, and so is Truro, but, in order to get across the range of mountains from Amherst even the best engineering skill available when the Intercolonial was built was compelled to rise 618 feet to the summit before the descent to Truro could be begun. This rise involves grades, in some cases, I understand,
II	per cent. It would not be a business proposal to spend the enormous sums we are spending in building the line from the Pacific ocean to Moncton with grades of four tenths of one per cent, and then continue that railway along a road with grades of 1-5 per cent. I have a proposal to make to the Minister of Railways, and through him to the government, by which this road could reach the Atlantic sea-board with grades similar to those by which it crosses the rest of Canada. Besides the grades of the Cobequid mountains, there is another heavy grade near Dorchester, New Brunswick. My proposal is to divert the Intercolonial at some


Mr.   J.@: HAGGART I never said that or anything pointing in that direction. What I was referring at the time was the charging of expenditure to capital instead of to income.


John Howard Sinclair: If I have misrepresented my hon. friend, I have been led astray by the language he himself used. Here is what he said:
What do the people of this country care about investing their money in capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway?
W hat they want to know is how the money which is taken out of their pockets is expended. They believe that capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway should cease. Yet there has been a drain on the resources of the country on that account of over $3,000,000 a year since these hon. gentlemen went into power. What possible asset to the people has been the expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway for the last ten years? When I was managing the Intercolonial Railway in 1896 and the years preceding, I insisted that the expenditure on capital account should cease, as a capital expenditure, and that it should be charged to the revenue of that road.
Now whaft does that language mean? The hon. gentleman asks ' what do the people care about investing their money in capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway.' Evidently, if these words mean anything, they mean that in investing their money in capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, the people were making a bad bargain and throwing away their money.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Not at all. Surely the hon. gentleman knows better.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend asks ' what do the people care about investing their money in the Intercolonial?' Does that mean that they are in favour of it?

<*.. -


John Graham Haggart: What I meant was that it made no difference to the people whether the expenditure was charged to capitial or to income. The mjoney was spent on the road and what I was contending was that it ought properly to be charged to income and the capital account closed. I never made any such absurd statement as that no money should be spent on the Intercolonial Railway, nor is there anything in the context which will give that meaning.


John Howard Sinclair: I am taking the hon. gentleman's own words.


John Graham Haggart: You can read them over half a dozen times, but perhaps you do not understand them.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman says that the people of Canada believe the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway should cease.


John Graham Haggart: So it should, and that is what the late Alexander Mackenzie himself said in this House. He said that the capital account ought to be closed on the Intercolonial Railway and that the expenditure on that account should he charged to income. But to conclude from that, that I argued, or that Mr. Mackenzie argued, there should be no more capital expenditure on the road is absurd.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like my hon. friend to tell me how he is going to charge the capital expenditure to income when there is no income?


Samuel Barker: He will then show the actual deficit. That is all.


John Howard Sinclair: When this policy of my hon. friend was announced, we from the maritime provinces knew very well it would be very unpopular among our people. We must have additional capital expenditure on the Intercolonial from time to time. I have no sympathy either with the statement we so often hear that the Intercolonial Railway is a burden to this country, that we have to meet parliament every year with a deficit, and certain of our hon. friends make a great deal of political capital out of the small deficit which exists from year to year on the Intercolonial Railway.


George Eulas Foster: A small deficit? $1,750,000 in one year.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) forgets that in other years there were surpluses. It was never intended that the Intercolonial Railway should pay dividends. When it was built it was well known by the people of Quebec and Ontario that it would be a losing speculation from a monetary point of view. In the discussions in parliament and in the press of that day it was stated over and over again that these provinces went into this venture with their eyes open, knowing there would be a loss of money from year to year, but expecting other advantages to counter-balance that loss, which advantages they have since realised. As my hon. friend from Westmoreland has said, the Intercolonial Railway was built as a part of compact of confederation, and if the House will permit me, I will read the clause in the British North America Act which authorizes the building of the Intercolonial Railway:
Inasmuch as the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation of the union of British North America and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that provision should be made for its immediate construction by the government of Canada: therefore, in order to give effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the government and parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement, within six months after the union, of a railway connecting the river St. Lawrence with the city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable speed.
There is nothing there about dividends. And there is nothing in the discussions which took place at the time to show that the opinion was then entertained that the Intercolonial Railway would be a paying venture. On the contrary, they show just the opposite. Permit me also to read an extract from the Toronto ' Globe ' of that date to show what that great organ of public opinion then thought of the Intercolonial Railway. The date of this editorial is the 26th of September, 1865, after the date when the conference was held but prior to the date when confederation was consummated:
The scheme of the government for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway opens an account that never will be closed. Every storm of snow in the inhospitable regions below Riviere du Loup will lay a new burden on the people of Upper Canada. The tax payers will watch the passenger travel and freight traffic with the liveliest interest as indicating the extent of	the demands
upon them for the year. It is a dream of many persons in Nova Scotia that this Halifax	and	Quebec Railway will draw to itheir harbour the trade of the west, but it is a dream and nothing more. No passenger, no shipper of freight will ever think of going to Halifax when he can find shipping at Quebec or Portland.
With Upper Canada decidedly opposed to the scheme, and Lower Canada divided, we are happv to say that we do not see any great danger of hasty action. We are only astonished that the ministry should have committed themselves to a scheme which finds

bo little support in any part of the province, the lower province delegates humbugged them beautifully. It is evident that the Kiuenose is a sharp fellow. He is rubbed bright on his rocks. We shall have to be careful in our dealings with him. If Lower Canada is afraid of him because he is British, we must learn to watch him because he is not very rich, but is very keen and shrewd. -Toronto ' Globe/ Sept. 26, 1865.
That was the opinion /of the Toronto ' Globe ' of that day.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman agree with that?


John Howard Sinclair: The ' Globe ' itself will
not make that statement to-day. As a matter of fact, every one knows that the poor blue nose was victimized in the bargain. This was acknowledged later by the fact that the maritime provinces were given afterwards much better terms than they were accorded in the original bargain of 1867. In.looking over the debates in parliament at the same time I find that the opinion prevailed that the Intercolonial Rail-wav would not be a paying venture. The Hon. Geo. Brown, in the legislature of Canada, in 1865, made the following statement:
As a commercial enterprise the Intercolonial has not, I apprehend, any considerable merit. As a work of defence it has however many advocates, but if the union of the provinces is to go on, it is an absolute necessity and as the price of the union, were there no other arguments in its favour, I heartily go for it.
That was the opinion of the Hon. Geo. Brown prior to the time the road was built. Allow me also to give you an expression of opinion from the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in his speech on supply in parliament in 1870, when the question of the construction of the Intercolonial was up. Mr. Mackenzie said:	,
Everybody knows that the Intercolonial Railway would be utterly valueless in a commercial point of view, it was to be built because they had bargained to build it and they should keep to their bargain.
I also find in a speech by the late Walter Shanly, M.P., in 1870, in this House, a gentleman who was, at that time, I believe, the member for Grenville, that the following language was used:
The railway project by itself was not popular in Upper Canada. But when the greater question assumed shape and form after the conference at Quebec, and when it became apparent that in order to bring about the Confederation of the British North American provinces each of the parties to the compact would be called upon to make some sacrifice of local prejudice or local interest, then Upper Canada accepted of the Railway part of the project as a political and social necessity. A leading politician of Upper Canada, generally recognized as an exponent of the public opinion of the day and said * Rather than not have


John Howard Sinclair: confederation he would agree to build ten Intercolonial Railways/ That very fairly expressed the sentiment of Upper Canada.
At confederation there were two courses open to the people of the maritime provinces. Prior to that time the trade of the maritime provinces was with the United States. The provinces were prosperous. They had had the advantages of reciprocal trade with the United States, and they were enjoying a large degree of prosperity. They had their choice of continuing their trade with the United States, having little or no trade with the upper provinces, or building the Intercolonial and changing the course of their trade altogether. They embarked upon this project of building the Intercolonial. Everybody knows that the flour that fed the 800,000 people who were then living in the maritime provinces came from Boston, or some other port in the United States, that it was ground at American mills, from wheat that was probably raised on the western prairies of the United States, and that they received very little from the upper provinces at that time. The agricultural implements used on the farms of the maritime provinces were made in the factories of the United States. Yankee mowing machines, rakes, pitchforks, axes and buckets were to be found on every farm in the maritime provinces, and the question was whether we were going to continue that condition of affairs or try to find means of carrying on a trade with the other provinces of Canada. We embarked on the construction of the Intercolonial with these ideas. We knew very well that it would cost us money. The people of the upper provinces were quite well aware that it would be a long time before it would be a prosperous venture and I submit that the price is not a heavy price that we have paid. There have been deficits in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, but they have not been large deficits. Some of my hon. friends on the other side of the House look surprised at that statement, but if they will add up all the deficits that have occurred on the Intercolonial Railway since it was constructed about thirty-one years ago, and strike an average, they will find that the average annual deficit was $245,434-not a very large sum of money each year when we consider what we have received from this great national asset. Take the population of Canada at six and a-half millions, it is the price of two postage stamps for every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada. Four cents apiece each year will give us more than the amount of the average annual deficit on the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: What would be Dm amount, adding in the capital expenditure?


John Howard Sinclair: I do not regard the capital expenditure as a deficit, I have not made that a calculation. Of course, that would be much larger, but my hon. friend must remember, which he always seems to forget, that while we have spent $80,000,000 in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway we have a slendid investment for our money. When this road was built there were certain things expected of it. It was not expected that it would make money, but there were' certain other things that were more valuable than money that were expected to result from the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. It was expected that it would bind the provinces of Canada more closely together, that it would unite the provinces into one great Dominion. It was also expected that the maritime provinces would become a profitable market for the manufactures of Ontario and Quebec. It was expected that the New England manufacturer would be driven from the field and that he would be replaced by the manufacturer of Ontario and Quebec. We also thought in the maritime provinces at that time that we might be able to sell our goods, our coal, our iron and our fish to the people of the upper provinces. That was looked forward to by the people of the maritime provinces. We expected that the ports of the maritime provinces would be used, instead of the ports of the United States, in the shipment of goods from the western provinces. All these things have come about to a certain extent. These provinces have been united together, they have been cemented as we expected they would be, and I suppose there is not a man within the hearing of my voice that would not stand up for a united Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you could not have had a united Canada without the construction of the Intercolonial. Is not that worth the price of two postage stamps each year to the people of Canada? I think everybody will agree that the deficit is a mere bagatelle compared with the great results that have come from the construction of the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How much did the deficit on the canals amount to ?


John Howard Sinclair: I am not talking about the canals now. I am talking about the Intercolonial Railway on its merits. The provinces have been united and the maritime provinces have become a profitable market for the goods of the western provinces. In this connection, I had the honour, a few days ago, to move in the House for a return showing the amount of trade we had east bound and the amount of trade west bound on the Intercolonial and I got certain figures. I was not able to get them as complete as I would like to have had them,
but I find that in the year 1902, 54-03 of the traffic on the Intercolonial was east bound; in 1903, 51 -36 per cent of the traffic was east bound; in 1904, 48-83 per -cent; in 1905, 51-20 iper cent; in 1906, 44-32 per cent; in 1907, 44-44 per cent; in 1908, 44-55 per cent. A small increase has taken place within the last few years in west bound traffic, I think, owing to the shipment of large quantities of steel from Cape Breton to the west.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend mean through traffic by west bound and east bound ?


John Howard Sinclair: I mean the total traffic going east and the total traffic going west. It will be found on pursuing this inquiry further that the Intercolonial has done even more for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec than it has done for the maritime provinces. It has done more to develop the trade of the western provinces than it has done for the east.


John Graham Haggart: Unless you can quote the through traffic, that does not prove that a single ton went to Ontario.


John Howard Sinclair: My argument is that goods come from Ontario to the maritime provinces in very much greater quantity than we have been able to send goods to Ontario, and hence I contend that the representatives of Ontario ought to have a more friendly feeling towards the Intercolonial Railway if they truly represented the interests of their province. The New England manufacturer has been driven from the maritime provinces; all the implements, all the machinery used on the farms of the maritime provinces to-day are of Canadian manufacture and the Yankee product has disappeared. I repeat that all the goods we use in the maritime provinces of nearly every class are manufactured in Canada, and largely in Ontario and Quebec. We are somewhat disappointed in the maritime provinces that our trade with the west has not expanded in a greater degree; we are disappointed somewhat that the markets of Ontario and Quebec have not taken as much of our fish, of our coal, and of our iron as we had hoped, but nevertheless a good trade is being worked up. On the whole, all that it was expected the Intercolonial would achieve for the people of Canada has come about, and I believe we have made a good investment even though we have to pay four cents a head every year to meet the bagatelle of a deficit which accrues. Now, why is it that the Intercolonial Railway during the thirty years of its existence has not developed more traffic and made more money. There must be some good reason for it, and were I to be frank I would express the opinion that the Intercolonial Railway has not been run with that energy and enterprise which ought to have marked its management. Of course,

this remark applies with more force to the government that existed prior to 1896 than it does to the present administration. The present administration has done much to build up the Intercolonial; they have extended it into Montreal and brought it into the heart of the commercial capital of Canada so as to enable it to get a share of the traffic which comes through that great city. They have improved the Intercolonial, they have given it heavier rails, modern rolling stock, and better trains and in other ways have enabled it to become the great national asset it is. But, at the same time I fear that that energy which characterises the management of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway is not to be found in the management of the Intercolonial. That of course may be an incident of government ownership but whatever the reason it seems to be the case. For example, the Intercolonial touches the sea at only a few points: at St. John, at Halifax, at Mulgrave, and at the Sydneys.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And Shediac and Chatham.


John Howard Sinclair: I might mention some other places.


Henry Robert Emmerson: A good many.


John Howard Sinclair: The illustrations I have taken will suffice for my argument. The population of that part of the maritime provinces is chiefly found along the coast and a vigorous administration of the Intercolonial would have had steamers plying on the adjacent waters and collecting traffic at these ports. I have in my mind the town of Mulgrave, in my own constituency, where for many years there was no attempt made to collect traffic from the adjacent shores east and west of the point where the railway strikes the sea and where the people are located. After a while private enterprise assisted by small subsidies from the government placed boats on these waters and as a result a splendid business for the Intercolonial Railway has grown up. But, the point I make is that the_ Intercolonial management itself did not think of putting the steamers there and collecting the traffic. I am told that when the Reid Railway was built in Newfoundland the Reid Company put on quite a number of steamers to connect with the railway and to deliver to it the traffic from the fishing villages along the coast, without which the railway could not have been made a financial success. No attempt .of that kind was made by the management of the Intercolonial to concentrate traffic at these points where the railway touches the sea. This is only one illustration among others that might be given to show that the road has not been managed with that same business ability which Mr. SINCLAIR.
might be applied to it and which would probably be applied to it were it conducted as a private venture. Let me point out as an illustration of what I mean, that last year the small boats which run into Mulgrave called ' The Cann ' boats carried 7,898 passengers, most of whom took the Intercolonial Railway to points of destination, and 5,708 tons of freight which constituted a very profitable business for the railway that it otherwise would not get. Then again, there has not been the energy displayed that should have been displayed in the building of branch lines. Like my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) I can point to a special instance to prove my case. I have in mind a territory between the city of Halifax and the Strait of Canso, comprising about 150 miles in my own constituency, and possessing great resources in lumber, and mines, and fish, and agriculture, and although the Intercolonial has skirted the northern side of that territory for 30 years, not even an engineer has been sent into that district to survey it, nor has an agent of the Intercolonial gone there to discover its resources. Were the Intercolonial owned by a great private corporation I feel certain that long ere this something would have been done to give railway accommodation to the 40,000 people who inhabit that territory. As did my. hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte)'i ask:	Is this to go on for ever?
That country has been inhabited for over 100 years; the people living there have contributed their full share of the $400,000,000 that we have paid out for transportation facilities of various kinds in this country, but they have been shut off from participation in any share of that expenditure. In view of these facts the House will not be surprised when I urge that the government should not only consider the question of securing the railways already built but that they should deal first with the question of constructing railways in those parts of the maritime provinces which have never had railway communication. I think myself that this question is more important even than the securing of the branch lines, because while the people living on the branch lines have some kind of railroad servicp, the people I speak of are absolutely without any. We have been paying out millions of dollars for building canals; we have been spending millions more in deepening the St, Lawrence; we are now investing millions in building another great railway across the continent, and what I am advocating tonight is but a part of the great transportation system of Canada which has been made a part of the policy of this government, as it has of previous governments. Let us not deal with this question in any narrow spirit; let us not hesitate to embark on any

expenditure that may be necessary to perfect the Intercolonial system by building tributary lines which will develop the country through which they pass and by acquiring such branch lines as may prove to be feeders to the traffic of that system. If we do this, we will be developing the Intercolonial and making it what it is destined to be, a great national asset; we will be carrying out the policy that the people of this country endorsed with so much enthusiasm on the 26th of October last: the policy of keeping Canadian trade in Canadian channels and providing transportation facilities by which that trade can find an outlet to the sea by way of Canadian ports.


Mr. JUDSON BURPEE BLACK (Hants).: It is getting late, it is nearly midnight, but I have hopes that the House will listen to a word or two from me all the more readily because I speak rarely, and that I do not speak at all unless I think I have something to say. This question oi taking over branch lines is a very important question in the constituency which I represent. It is a question that is affecting almost every man in the county of Hants. I may say that it is a very important question all through western Nova Scotia. I do not propose to attempt to make a speech upon this question. I rose more for the purpose of making an appendix to this report which has been handed to me to-day, although I have no mandate from the Minister of Railways to make an appendix. I may say that I agree with a great deal that has been said by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmer-son). I endorse his policy of taking over all these branch lines. I would endorse what he probably would not endorse-the policy of giving running powers over the Intercolonial from Moncton to Halifax to the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern Railway, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and any other railway that will bring traffic into Nova Scotia. .Before the dissolution of parliament last year, I understood that the government were in sympathy with the proposal toi take over the branch lines of the Intercolonial, and a commission was appointed to examine those lines and to report upon them. I found, after the report had been made, that the commission had not examined the Dominion Atlantic Railway. I may say that I live in the ancient town of Windsor on that line of railway, I found that the commission had not reported on it, although they had been ordered to do so, I learned that when they went to the manager of the railway and he demanded a sum of money-I do not think it was an unreasonable sum-for transporting them over his railway, a dispute arose, and the commission declined to examine his road at all.
I was afterwards told, although I do not think it was said in earnest, that the Dominion Atlantic Railway was not a branch of the Intercolonial. Now, if a branch means a shorter road going into a larger one, the Dominion Atlantic is not only a branch in the true sense, but it is more than an ordinary branch, because it empties its traffic into the Intercolonial by two mouths-first, by what is known as the Windsor branch of the Intercolonial, which is leased, I may say under the most unbusinesslike contract that) any government ever gave to a private company. I am glad to say that it was not the work of this government, but the work of the Conservative government, and I only hope that this government in 1914 will cancel that lease as promptly as it matures.
I was saying that the Dominion Atlantic empties its traffic into the Intercolonial by two mouths: the Windsor branch extending from Windsor to Windsor Junction, and the Midland Branch extending from Windsor to Truro. Would it be of advantage to the Intercolonial to purchase this road? I will reply in the language of the report of the engineer of maintenance, who says: ' The more branch lines the Intercolonial can gather, the better it will be for the Intercolonial; the more grist it will bring to their mill '-that is the expression. I know of no branch line from Montreal to Halifax that will bring more grist to the mill of the Intercolonial than the Dominion Atlantic. It runs through one of the most magnificent countries in Canada, and one of the richest agricultural districts, populated by an intelligent people, and the road, even managed as it is, is doing a most thriving business. This road I may say, is owned by a private company, a foreign company. I hope nobody will misunderstand me: when I say foreign I mean out of Canada. It is owned by a company in London who care nothing for Nova Scotia or the country it runs through except to get all the money possible out of everybody who uses the railway. That is patent to every one who knows the management of the railway, and I have known it ever since it was built. This road is 298 miles long by all its tracks. It runs from the town of Yarmouth in the west end of Nova Scotia to Halifax. It originally ran from the town of Annapolis to the town of Windsor. It afterwards became possessed of a branch line running from Windsor to the Intercolonial, a distance of forty-six miles. It also became possessed of the Western Counties Railway running from Digby to Yarmouth, and also of what was called the missing link between Digby and Annapolis, twenty miles in length, built I believe wholly by the government of Canada. The capital invested in the Dominion Atlantic Railway is nearly $8,000,000. According to the report of 1907, its passenger

earnings for that year were $341,981. Its passenger and miscellaneous earnings amounted to $380,157; its freight earnings amounted to $398,413. Its total earnings were $778,571, and its total operating expenses $569,985, showing net earnings of $208,586. It carried 334,805 passengers and 362,497 tons of freight. This is a railway already doing a most profitable business, and it would be one of the most important feeders of the Intercolonial. It would be of great advantage to the Intercolonial to have that road, and it would be of very great advantage to the people of the country through which the road runs. It might be assumed that at the present time all the traffic over that road goes to the Intercolonial, but that is not the case. No traffic, either freight or passenger, that it can divert from the Intercolonial is given to it. The timetables are so arranged that passengers can be accommodated off the Dominion Atlantic Railway on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and so that it is very inconvenient for them to get from the Dominion Atlantic to the Intercolonial Railway. Trouble arises between the two roads over the freight; there is friction between them constantly, the Dominion Atlantic working all the time in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The great disadvantages under which the people in the counties of Yarmouth, Digby, Kings, Annapolis and Hants are resting in connection with this road are that they are obliged to pay two freights or two express charges on everything that goes out of Nova Scotia to New Brunswick or to Ontario. Our merchants and manufacturers are handicapped and discouraged. We have all the advantages there necessary for a manufacturing country. We have magnificent water-powers along the line of that railway, we have coal near at hand, we have everything that would go to establish and to make profitable manufacturers if we were not handicapped and discouraged as we are by this privately owned railway. As it is we are operating along that road, cotton mills, duck mills, foundries, and furniture factories, and we are sending our manufactures up through Ontario into the prairie provinces; we have sent our cotton clear out to China. But the manufacturers are discouraged and are not prospering as they should. Our agriculturists are not prospering as they should. Every farmer and every fruit grower is handicapped and as I said before we have one of the best agricultural counties in Canada.
I may surprise some people who think we are a people exclusively engaged in fishing off the rocks when I say that along the line of the Dominion Atlantic Railway we have river bottoms that have raised their annual crop of hay without one pound of fertilizer for over 200 years since the early days when the French threw up their Mr. BLACK.
dykes and reclaimed those river bottoms from the encroaching tide. We have everything there requisite to make a prosperous and happy country if we were not so badly handicapped in matters of transportation. Our factories would grow, our agricultural products would increase if there were not such a discouragement every day to the farmer and to the manufacturer, by that privately owned railway. We exported last year over that railway to London and Liverpool $1,000,000 worth of apples alone, and there are new orchards growing there that in ten years will be sending $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 worth of apples to the foreign markets. All I ask of the government, all I ask of the Minister of Railways, is that the Dominion Atlantic Railway shall be placed in the same category as the other branch lines. It ought to be treated with superior consideration, but I shall only ask that it shall have the same examination and consideration and receive as much support as its length, as its business and as the people of the country traversed by it deserve.


Mr. D. H. McALISTER (Kings and Albert).: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be good judgment for me at this late hour to attempt to say many words on this subject. It would be unfortunate for the other members of the House, physically and mentally, if this debate should be continued longer to-night; but I feel it my duty, I do not think I could go home and sleep well if I did not rise in my place even if I should say nothing more than 'Amen.' I feel that I particularly am justified in speaking to-night as I have in my constituency four branch lines. There is probably not another member who can say that. I declare from the bottom of my heart and not in any partisan spirit that I believe it would be a benefit to the Intercolonial Railway if it should take over the branch lines in Kings and Albert. I know that the branch line from Salisbury to Harvey runs through one of the most progressive agricultural district in New Brunswick, and if taken over by the Intercolonial Railway would be a paying proposition and would not bring a yearly deficit to the Intercolonial Railway. Another branch, the Elgin & Havelock, would certainly not produce a deficit. We have another branch called the St. Martin's and Hampton branch, which terminates in one of the most elegant summer resorts, the village of St. Martins. I would not be so sure about the old Central or the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company. I am ready and willing to do all in my power to secure the adoption of the principle of this resolution. I am satisfied that if this resolution had not been talked of in my constituency and if my constituents did not feel that I would support it enthusiastically, they would not

have returned me to this House. I am safe in saying that it was the means of my securing the majority which I did in Albert county.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester).: Mr. Speaker, I would not undertake at this late hour to follow the notes I intended to use this evening, but I believe I would be recreant to my duty if I did not rise before the conclusion of the debate to express my sentiment of admiration for the really excellent speech delivered this evening by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). He has spoken with eloquence of facts relating to the history of the Intercolonial Railway since its inception before confederation. He has shown by facts and figures which he has laid before the House that he was speaking on a subject on which he was well informed and the information he has given to the House and to the people through this House, will be of great value. I have admired especially the broad Canadian tone of his speech; he dealt with this great question of the Intercolonial Railway from the broad standpoint of Canadian interests. He reminded me of the speech delivered in this House last session by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), when he said he would deal with the Intercolonial Railway not from a sectional standpoint, not from the point of view of the maritime provinces, but from the point of view of Canada at large; and I am sure that the words of the Minister of Railways and Canals, coming as he does from the province of Ontario, have contributed largely to create or at least to strengthen the more favourable current of opinion which seems to permeate the public mind of that province.
It has been to the disadvantage of the Intercolonial, no doubt, that, owing to circumstances beyond the control of ministers or governments, the country could not expect great financial returns from the operations of the Intercolonial up to this time. As has been established by my predecessors in this debate, the fathers of confederation, and the great engineers who located the Intercolonial, saw that the advantage of this railway was, not in its possibilities of commercial returns, but in the fact that it would join together the eastern and the western provinces and would assist in building up Canada as a great nation. And to-day we find a realization of what Joseph Howe said years ago, that the great Atlantic ports of the maritime provinces were not there for the benefit of these provinces alone but to assist in the future greatness of all the British possessions in North America We have the testimony of Sir Sandford Fleming, the great British engineer. who himself located the Intercolonial, recommending the line which was afterwards adopted by the parliament of Canada, that for many years we could not expect 70
the Intercolonial to earn even its operating expenses, that the population of the eastern Drovinces was not dense enough to command financial returns, that it is not to be regarded from the commercial point of view but from the patriotic point of view, in its effect in building up the nation of which we are so proud and which we expect to see one of the greatest nations in the world before the end of the twentieth century. Though for years deficits have been accumulating, we should not lose sight of the national advantage of the railway and its important effect in the development of the country. Had the people and parliament of Canada early taken the stand taken by my hon. friend from Westmoreland to-night in this House, no doubt the deficits on the 1 Intercolonial would have been a thing of the past, surpluses would be the rule and the road would extend into many parts of the country which now it does not serve. But the parliament of Canada has not always taken a fair view of these deficits.
Now, undoubtedly, the time has come when the financial aspect of the Intercolonial is about to change. The railway magnates who are looking into the matter see that in the Intercolonial there is an estate which will undoubtedly bring in good financial returns in a very short time. I do not think that the deficits are due to any failure of administration on the part of the government-and in saying that I refer to former governments as well as to the present. These deficits necessarily followed from the condition of things. But better conditions will come with the time of greater expansion. Conditions have changed. The maritime provinces are part of a great *nation. They are on the threshold of an agricultural, commercial and industrial revival which will bring them to the prominent position which they are destined to occupy in this Dominion. The maritime provinces have now reached the threshold of an agricultural revival which will keep on the soil every child born under their blest heavens. Greater production will mean moTe wealth for the average individual, and greater comfort on the part of the people will mean more general travel and greater activity of commerce in every direction. Within five or six years, you will have the Intercolonial in a paying position, like any other great railway, whether managed by a government or by a corporation. We hear talk of a commission What does a commission mean? It is the combined wisdom of four or five men. I wonder why the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Deputy Minister of Railways, and three other men cannot form as good a body of management as any other that could be created. I have faith in the future of the Intercolonial and I sav it will be suicide for any government, whether Liberal or Conserva-



tive, to allow the people of Canada to think that they would entertain the idea of giving over to a private corporation this Intercolonial Railway for which we have sacrificed so much and which has made such good returns to the people of Canada.
I said that the maritime provinces are experiencing a new movement in commerce, industry and agriculture. Had we followed, in the first year of confederation, the advice of that great engineer, Sir Sanford Fleming, and developed at once the great advantages of the localities through which the Intercolonial Railway was built, we might from the very first have avoided these deficits which have confronted us # from year to year. Every foot of our land contains resources bound to be developed at some time or other. Those resources, which for years have been appealing to human intelligence and activity, are at last being developed, and we are finding out that every section of country through which the Intercolonial passes is one which will amply repay its exploitation. I do not wish to detain the House by reading quotations, especially as a couple of years ago I had occasion to express my views on this very question and urged on the government the taking over of those branches, which were not in the hands of people owning sufficient capital to operate them in a profitable manner and as they could be operated as parts of the trunk line. Had we listened to the advice given by Sir Sanford Fleming and established a fast mail and passenger service from the coast of Ireland to St. John's, Newfoundland, and thence to the north shore of New Brunswick over the Intercolonial Railway, where the seaports are open until the 15th of January, I have no doubt that we would have been spared all these deficits which have been accumulating from year kyyear. But I am not without hope that this great engineer, although now very old, will still live long enough to see the realization of his projects of "forty years ago.
It has been said that a bad choice was made in selecting the route of the Intercolonial Railway. No doubt had it not been for the unfortunate Ashburton Treaty which deprived us of a portion of our territory, another route would have been chosen. However, that was out of the question. In selecting the north shore the fathers of confederation wanted to favour the development of the Matapedia valley and the Gaspesia district. Had the government in 1882 or 1883, instead of paying a large subsidy to a company to build a railway from Matapedia station to Gaspg basin, built the railway themselves, they would have saved the people of that district all the trouble and losses they have had to suffer at the hands of a company unable to meet its engagements, and to-day Mr. TURGEON.
that district would be in a flourishing condition.	*
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Postmaster General that if, instead of giving bonuses to the railway from Matapedia to Gaspe Basin, the government had built the road themselves the people of that district, represented by the Postmaster General, would have been spared all the misfortunes which they have had to suffer owing to the inability of the companies to meet their engagements. The same condition applies to the north shore of New Brunswick. Notwithstanding all the mistakes of the past I claim that to-day the best policy is one of expansion and progress. Such a policy has been extended by the government to the whole country .except in so far as the Intercolonial Railway is concerned, and I hope that the government will adopt that policy and display the same activity and energy with respect to the districts traversed by the Intercolonial Railway and give them the service they require. Such a policy would stimulate the creation of industries large and small and create a trade for the Intercolonial Railway which will place it in a magnificent nosition, commercially, financially and patriotically. We have, on this portion of the north shore of New Brunswick, unknown perhaps to many of the Canadian people, certainly unknown to the people of the west, not sufficiently known yet by a great many hon. members coming from the province of Ontario and even by some of my good neighbours from the province of Quebec, resources of the most valuable character, the development of which will, in a few years, compare favourably with that which has taken place in any portion of this country. In addition to the activity of the people in that region resulting in bringing from the bottom of the sea millions of dollars worth of fish products we have immense resources in iron ore, the very best, I will not say in Canada, but on the continent of America. We have at Bathurst to-day an English syndicate joined with a Canadian syndicate, who are in possession of the greatest iron ore deposit on the continent of America, who, in a few weeks, perhaps in a few days, will commence the building of a railway from the mines to the Intercolonial at Bathurst, who will make a complete investigation of the mine and who will ship their product to different points along the Intercolonial Railway system which will not only be of immense benefit to the Intercolonial Railway but which will afford our population the means of living in comfort, as they should live in a great country like this. We should have comfort, sir, we should have a population which can find employment at home instead of going away every year to seek work. The enterprise of the people will be stimulated

because immense industries will be established in connection with these ore deposits which will certainly be the equal of any other similar industries in Canada.
I claim, therefore, that the time has come when the government of Canada must devote its best thought and energy to the benefit of the people along the Intercolonial Railway, keeping in mind always that the Intercolonial is not operated for the benefit of the maritime provinces alone, but that it is operated for the direct benefit of the province of Ontario. While the construction of that road has brought comfort and a large measure of prosperity to the people of eastern Canada it has also brought riches and wealth to the farmers and manufacturers of Ontario. Therefore, I claim that the government must give its best thought to the question of improving the service of this great railway and we should expect from western Canada and from the province of Ontario that favourable consideration to which I think this project is entitled. The Intercolonial Railway has been looked upon more favourably recently than in years gone by. As my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmer-son) has said, we do not expect the government to rush into the acquisition of these branch lines, but as soon as the financial conditions permit we say that it would be a wise policy to undertake. But first of all the government must look into the conditions with respect to these branches. I am prepared to admit that perhaps some of them would not appeal at first sight to the judgment of a railway expert. If I remember aright the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, at the last session of parliament, said that if he were the president of a corporation having control of the Intercolonial Railway, he would first of all try to take in such branches as, in his judgment, it would be to the advantage of the Intercolonial to secure. Let him adopt this policy to-day or as soon as the financial condition of the country will permit. I have in my county not four branches, as my good friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. McAlister) has; I have only one branch, but permit me to say that it is certainly the very best branch of any connected with the Intercolonialother sources of the lumber industry, of the grindstone quarries and of the iron mining industry which is bound to be one of the greatest industries in the Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am serious when I say so, Mr. Speaker, because it is well known that we have from Bathurst to Caraquet, Shippegan and Tracadie, a population of over 20,000 souls and it is among that population that we find the Gloucester fishermen who annually bring, upon the coast of that district, traffic to the Intercolonial Railway in the form of $1,500,000 worth of fish, taken from the bottom of the sea to be added to the 70i


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.).: At this late hour I shall not intrude for long on the patience of the House. Let me first of all extend my very hearty congratulations to the mover of this resolution (Mr. Emmerson) who supported his proposition by such a very logical and very eloquent speech. It gives me very great pleasure to endorse everything the hon. gentleman has said on this subject with which he is so familiar. In his opening remarks he carried us back to the days when the people of the maritime provinces were dealing with the New England states, and I can recollect very well that when I started housekeeping myself in the town of Chatham my furniture was bought in the city of Boston and brought around by schooner. Compare the conditions of trade in those days with the conditions of to-day and what a vast difference you will find. Instead of the merchandise which we use coming from the New England states it comes from Ontario and Quebec, to the great advantages of the industries in these manufacturing provinces. I agree also with what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) said, that if there be low rates on the Intercolonial Railway, it is not only the consuming population of the maritime provinces that enjoys the benefit, but that benefit is shared in by the producers of Ontario, so that there is a mutual advantage. I wish to place myself on record as being in favour of this resolution, and I endorse very strongly the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Guysbor-ough (Mr. Sinclair) who was not only in favour of taking over and operating the branch lines but who was in favour of developing those parts of the maritime provinces which have no railways and which if they had would contribute greatly to the traffic on the Intercolonial. I want specially to point out that there are two sections in my county which have been settled for 100 years and which would be splendid freight producing sections but which are still without any railway facilities whatever. I ask the Minister of Railways to bear in mind the petition that has been in his department for some time asking the government to fayourablv consider the extending of a branch line from a point near the town of Newcastle to Tabusintac. It is well known
to every one who is acquainted with the Miramichi river that this is a very rich part of the country and that a very valuable catch of fish is taken at the lower end of the river, which is at present from 15 to 20 miles from any railway point. I wish also to draw the attention of the minister to another petition which has been in his

department for a long time, asking for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Indiantown to Red Bank, a distance of 8 miles across the peninsula, between the two branches of the main river where there is at present a large saw-mill and that portion of my county is a rich agricultural district. That district has also been settled for the last 100 years and they are still without railway facilities. I would point out that when you have these branch lines operated by the Intercolonial you can get the long haul on the freight. I might mention that there are 200 carloads of fish originating at the stations of Chatham and Loggieville, and when the Canada Eastern was owned by a private corporation this freight was hauled to Fredericton and then delivered to the Canadian Pacific Railway. But now, the Intercolonial Railway instead of carrying that freight at 10 cents per 100 pounds from Chatham to Fredericton, as was the case with the private corporation, they charge 13 cents per 100 for the same mileage and they have such control over the freight that if you do not give them the long haul they charge practically a local rate for the short haul. The consequence is that the freight originating at Chatham and Loggieville now goes round the long haul on the Intercolonial Railway instead of going to Fredericton and thence over the Canadian	Pacific Railway. This
simply illustrates that every branch railway has a great deal to do with the routing of the freight that originates on it. For example, on the Kent Northern Railway the freight that originates at Rexton and Richi-bucto will go to Kent Junction and thence to St. John whence it is handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway, whereas if that branch was owned by the Intercolonial Railway and they could route the traffic originating on it they could divert it by way of Montreal and get the long haul. I heartily endorse what has been said by the mover of the resolution and I hope the day is not far distant when the financial conditions of the country will enable us to absorb and properly equip and maintain the branch lines as a portion of the Intercolonial, and to build such other branch lines not now in existence as will develop the traffic of that country and encourage industry and enterprise there.


Mr. WM. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: As the hour is late I rise simply for the purpose of putting myself on record as approving of the statement contained in the resolution. As I understand that resolution it does not commit the government in any way to the purchase of these branch lines'; it simply means that where it is good business policy, where it is in the best interests of the country and the Intercolonial Railway to acquire these lines, the government [ Mr. LOGGIE.
should have the endorsation of parliament in pursuing such a course. And while I endorse the policy of acquiring the branch lines I think the more important policy is to extend the Intercolonial Railway to districts where the conditions will justify such extension. I have in my mind a case in point; I have photographs which I intend to show the Minister of Railways when the opportunity arises, and I think I can convince him that if we have not a Cobalt we have something nearly approaching it. I will, when the opportunity comes, press on the minister the advisability of building a branch line from Merigomish to Antigonish via Arisaig and thence to Country Harbour. Possibly I shall take the opportunity of bringing this matter up when the House is in committee of supply.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the very valuable discussion that has taken place to-night has been of interest to every member of the House, not only to those who come from the maritime provinces, but equally so to us who live in other parts of the Dominion. I would feel a little diffidence, even if I had the time, about discussing this question after the very eloquent and able address which has been delivered by my hon. friend from Westmoreland. He has given to this question a great deal of study. Indeed, sir, he has given to the greater question of transportation a study perhaps not equalled by that of any other man in this House; and the grasp of the situation which he has shown to-night proves that he has not rushed to his conclusions but has reached them after the most careful and I believe honest and candid consideration. Such discussions in this House must be of interest to all Canada. Possibly sometimes they do not accomplish the object which we are seeking at the moment; but they do diffuse a large amount of information which leads the people to take a broader view of the questions which interest us all. I was particularly struck with the broad view my hon friend took of the situation. While he did point out what conclusions could be drawn if we took the sectional view, he discouraged this, and spoke from the broader view of carrying all the products of the country from the point where they are produced to the point where they are consumed, which is of general interest to all Canada, and does not pertain to any particular section of the country. I did not rise to go into this question to-night. It is not a question that can be brushed aside lightly, but is one of great interest to the west as well as to the east. With the permission of my bon. friend, I will not make a statement on behalf of the government to-night, but when 1 make the speech on the "intercolonial which is customary on going into Supply,

I will make a statement as to the position of the government on this question and on all other questions relating to the Intercolonial Railway, I will therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
John Graham Haggart: What business will the government take up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The House will go into Supply, and the Minister of Militia will make a statement in connection with his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 9, 1909.