1909-04-28

Mr. PARDEE moved:: That Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company be placed on the ciders of the day for Committee of the Vi uole, on Monday next.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I scarcely understand the purport of this motion and perhaps the hon. gentleman ought to explain it. Does he intend to move on Monday that it be again referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce? That to my mind is the proper course to take, as the House cannot deal with this Bill until it has been again dealt with by the Committee on Banking and Commerce. If the hon. gentleman's intention is simply to bring the matter before the House his motion is quite in order, but it would seem to me that the
proper motion now would be that Bill (No. 56) be referred to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, in order that it may be dealt with there and subsequently by the House. The Canada Life Insurance Company has had this Bill readvertised, and I should say it is the duty of the House to give the general public the advantage of that advertising and allow them an opportunity of appearing before the Committee on Banking a'nd Commerce to state their objections to or approval of the Bill before it is considered by the House. The hon. gentleman says it is not his intention to move on Monday that it be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. Then I certainly think that his motion is not the proper one, as the general public, the policy-holders, who may have objections to the Bill, should have an opportunity of appearing before the Banking and Commerce Committee and stating their objections, if they have any, to this measure.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: This is only a notice of motion. I express no opinion at this moment as to the course which ought to be taken when the Bill comes up on Monday.


David Henderson: Then I understand it is still open to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no, I express no opinion on that. This is simply a notice of motion to be moved on Monday; I express no opinion at all on it.


David Henderson: I understand that this is only a motion to put it on the Order Paper.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I understand that this motion is unnecessary, that the Bill will appear on the Order Paper.


David Henderson: It is on the Order Paper, and it may be dealt with on Monday.



QUESTIONS.


SESSIONAL CLERKS-EE'WARD S.


Mr. DANIEL asked:: 1.	Is one Edward S. Carter employed as sessional clerk or in any other capacity by the government or House of Commons?
2.	If so, what remuneration does he receive. and what are his duties?
3.	Has he been paid, or is he to be paid, for the time he has been absent from Ottawa ?
4.	Is His Honour the Speaker aware that toe said Edward S. Carter has been recently

spending a great deal of time in St. John, N.B., in connection with the civic election recently held there?
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER
{Prime Minister):
1.	Mr. Carter has been temporarily employed in typewriting and secretarial work in the House of Commons during the present session.
2.	He receives when employed $4 per diem and his duties are to perform such work as may be directed, principally secretarial work and typewriting.
3.	He has not been paid, nor is to be paid, for any time during which he has been absent from Ottawa.
4.	The Speaker is informed that Mr. Carter was absent during and a few days after the Easter vacation. Mr. Carter states that he took no part in the election referred to and wad in St. John only three days during his absence.



ALEX. MUIR MEMORIAL.

Mr. MACDONELL asked:: Has the government been requested to aid the Alexander Muir Memorial Fund? If so, is it the intention of the government to place something in the estimates this year for such purpose?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: A request of that nature has been received and the matter is under consideration.	. i



TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-J.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Was J. Aylen at one time employed as a district engineer on the Transcontinental Railway, or in any capacity ?
2.	Is Mr. Aylen still engaged on this railway as district engineer or otherwise?
3.	If his services have been dispensed with, for what cause?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	John Aylen was assistant district engineer of District ' D ' from February, 1905, until October, 1907, acting district engineer from October, 1907, until September, 1908, and assistant for the remainder of 1908.	.
2.	No.
3.	Voluntarily resigned, December, 1908.



MARKET GARDEN PRODUCE.

Mr. WALLACE asked:: What was the total imports of market garden produce for 1900, 1901,[DOT] 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908, and what was the amount of duty collected on them ?
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister
of Customs):
A'statement is submitted herewith.


Mr. DANIEL.: 



QUANTITY AND VALUE AND DUTY COLLECTED ON THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES, MARKET AND GARDEN PRODUCE.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal years.	Melons.	Potatoes.	Tomatoes, Fresh.	Vegetables, Fresh or Dry Salted, N.O.P.	Number.	Value.	Duty.	Bushels.	Value.	Duty.	Bushels.	Value.	Duty.	Value.	Duty.$	$ cts.	$	8 cts.	$	$ cts.	$	$ cts.1900	212,989	10,370	2,592 40	101,468	68,753	15,220 57	14,583	26,161	5,529 63	194,215	48,531 781901	156,413	9,604	2,401 00	136,171	88,501	20,425 68	21,787	37,507	8,007 43	211,795	52,448 051902	189,394	12,247	3,061 75	81,197	87,259	12,179 55	19,343	53,906	9,259 20	182,293	45,489 511903	262,281	16,331	4,082 75	407,487	228,848	61,114 80	31,786	69,014	13,258 60	210,983	52,726 291904	271,219	21,486	5,371 50	77,520	78,219	11,623 05	51,291	103,591	20,617 30	340,254	85,080 921905	511,820	29,256	7,314 00	513,927	228,367	77,082 70	46,810	103,560	19,718 00	415,900	103,927 701906	505,689	35,087	8,771 75	223,639	123,643	33,475 86	51,454	116,586	21,949 40	352,699	88,270 061907 (9 months) 	532,758	37,901	9,462 60	94,504	70,956	14,652 85	33,140	58,070	12,756 74	224,577	60,733 611908	435,24G	47,122	13,058 23	245,042	192,560	49,003 92	49,335	128,771	38,631 30	541,171	162,281 855097	APRIL 28, 1909

Mr. McCRANEY moved:: That the following Bills from the Senate be placed on the Order Paper amongst private Bills for second reading on Friday next.
Bill (No. 157) for the relief of John Dennison Smith.
BiR (No. 158) respecting the Bank of
Winnipeg.
Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society.
^ Bill (No. 161) to incorporate the Equity Fire Insurance Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Hon. Mr. Fielding the House went into Committee on Ways and Means.
135b. Raw sugar as described in tariff item 135, when imported to be refined in Canrt
Z* .
S.2w
0)
[Stage Direction]
PhPQH
a
'*a
a & h H
!h Fh © rf 08
ada by Canadian sugar refiners, to the extent of twice the quantity of sugar refined during the calendar years 1909, 1910, and 1911, by such refiners from sugar produced from Canadian beet root, and an equal quantity of sugar to that refined during the calendar years 1912 and 1913 by such refiners from sugar produced in Canada from Canadian beet root-the whole under regulations by the Minister of Customs.
Per one hundred pounds testing not more than seventy-five degrees by the polariscope	
And per one hundred pounds for each additional degree over seventy-five degrees..
Provided that sugar imported under this item shall not be subject to special duty.
This item to expire December 31, 1914.
311	311	311cts.	cts.	cts.1	1	1ct.	ct.	ct.
['In answer to that question, I may say that, had I been here I would have voted against that proposal, not so much because I considered it unfair in itself, but on account of its being sprung by surprise on the people. I am not called upon to discuss that question just now; I have referred to it by the way and not with any idea of criticism. It seems to me that in connection with questions of such importance, it would be advisable to consult the people. The manner of consulting the people which the government have adopted is not the ideal one to my mind. It is in accordance neither with the spirit nor with the letter of the constitution. It is an arbitrary and antiliberal mode of procedure; it is neither generous nor frank, and surely it is not manly.\nThat sovereign people in whose presence, during the elections, politicians are so apt to take a cringing attitude, is deserving of more consideration.\nAs will have been noticed, the extra expenditure on this undertaking will be enormous. As stated by the \' Witness \' that road will entail on the Dominion an expenditure, not of thirteen millions, not of a hundred millions, but rather of $250,000,000 or possibly $280,000,000. This government is going to supply all the funds for this undertaking from Moncton to Prince Rupert, from ocean to ocean, for all sections east and west, and the prairie and mountain sub-sections, including the Quebec bridge, and these amounts will be returned when there are funds available.\nWith whom are we dealing? Is it with the Grand Trunk Pacific, or with the Grand Trunk Company of Canada, or with a third company which has made its appearance under the name of the Grand Trunk Town Site and Development Company; or lastly, is it with the fourth company, the "Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Line Company"? All these companies are apparently amalgamated ; the directors are the same in every case, they constitute in reality a single moral person; and I say that parliament should under the circumstances show great caution in granting them favours. They are endeavouring to secure privileges, while avoiding all risks. These companies are much more anxious to make money out of us than to endure the welfare of the country.\nThe hon. Minister of Railways stated a minute ago how important it was from our point of view to have an entirely Canadian line of railway, over an all-Canadin route. Now, do all these companies which seem so anxious to provide us with an all-Canadian Mr. ETHIER.\nTranscontinental Railway, have as stock holders and directors Canadian citizens, oi at any rate foreigners intending to become citizens of Canada. Are they not rather strangers, Americans, anxious to make money at our expense, without even going to the length of getting naturalized?\nWhen I heard the Minister of Railways and his friends booming the West, I remember what the Liberals had to say in this connection in 1880 and 1884. It is important, I think, to recall the past, for fear certain incidents in the history of our country should be too soon consigned to oblivion. It was not usual then to boom the West, to speak of it as destined to become the world\'s great storehouse. I shall quote presently some of the sayings of these gentlemen in that connection, when the Canadian Pacific Railway was applying to parliament for help towards the completion of their undertaking.\nHowever, as regards this proposed second transcontinental, it was launched prematurely, with inexplicable haste, in the full blast of a session, when parliament was drawing to an end, and against all expectations. It should be no matter for surprise if in the end the expenditure is found to be enormous. Arrangements were taken as if the matter had been of very little importance, without going to the pains of getting precise information in regard to the physical features of the country through which the railway was to be built, nor as regards the expenditure, and the cost of the road in stead of amounting to $13,000 per mile or $30,000 per mile, reaches $35,000 and even $80,000 per mile.\nThat is not surprising; it was bound to happen, and the best evidence of it I find in a speech of the right hon. Prime Minister, delivered on July 30th, 1903. He said:\nI do not expect even the most fastidious of our critics will ask us that we should have had an exploration across the prairies. They are satisfied that we have enough information now to deal with this question so far as the prairies are concerned. But I shall be asked: What about the Rocky mountains? My answer in regard to the Rocky mountains is that we have mountains of information. We have mountains of books, pamphlets and reports-books, pamphlets and reports from traders, from explorers, from engineers.\nAnd he mentioned Samuel de Champlain, Robert Cavelier de la Salle, La Verendyre, Alexander Mackenzie, Captain Butler and many others who at that early date, in their travels on land and sea, had not the least idea of making surveys or specifications and estimates for railways. No wonder that with such data, the government should have been out in their calculations.\nAt six o\'clock the House adjourned.']
David Henderson: I understand this is the same resolution we have now in the tariff, the only difference being that the time is extended.


William Stevens Fielding: I would have to qualify that slightly. As respects the three years the resolution is the same; as respects the two succeeding years the resolution is modified.
Mr. PATERSON


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What is the purpose of the provision that sugar imported under this item shall not be subject to special duty.


William Stevens Fielding: Special duty is what is commonly called the dumping duty, and this does not come within the class of matters as to which the dumping duty was deemed expedient.


Robert Laird Borden: Has it any application to the surtax P


William Stevens Fielding: None whatever; the surtax is not touched in any form by this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
135c. Raw sugar as described in tariff item 135, when imported to be refined in Canada by any sugar refining company not engaged in refining sugar from the product of Canadian beet root, to the extent of one-fifth of the weight of sugar refined from raw sugar by such refining company in Canada during the calendar year in which such raw sugar is imported-under regulations by the Minister of Customs.
Per one hundred pounds testing not more-than seventy-five degrees by the polariscope	
And per one hundred pounds for each additional degree over .seventy-five degrees..
Provided that sugar imported under this item shall not be subject to special duty.
311	311	311cts.	cts.	cts.1	1	1ct.	ct.	ct.
['None whatever; the surtax is not touched in any form by this amendment.']
Mr. FOSTER.: Will the minister explain what advantage this clause gives over the present law?


William Stevens Fielding: In the event of a shortage of the West India sugar, which shortage is alleged for various causes, the refineries would be at liberty to import this small proportion of foreign sugar at the preferential duty. They would get no advantage in respect to the rate of duty, unless we assume that they would necessarily be obliged to import foreign sugar and pay a higher duty. If they should be obliged to do that we think they would be placed at a disadvantage.


David Henderson: I understood from the minister a few days ago that the shortage is not the whole matter complained of. The complaint was that the West India planters enhance the price of their sugar on account of the double duty and compel the Canadian refiners to pay a higher price

than they ought to pay and that the British refiners pay. Would this amendment of the tariff apply only in the case of a shortage, or could the refiners make their purchases under this clause of the tariff even if there was no shortage?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. The percentage we allow is comparatively small and they would have the right to import that percentage unconditionally.


Mr. AMES.: I understand that although the matter is in dispute as to the existence of such a combine, whether it be found that a combine does exist or does not exist this law goes into effect just the same.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. If it were absolutely certain and beyond debate that there was a combine and that if. was likely to continue I think we should probably be obliged to apply a more drastic remedy. To the extent of this limited importation they are permitted to import the sugar at the preferential rate unconditionally.


Herbert Brown Ames: If it should be discovered there was no _combine the law would be on the statute books just the same?


William Stevens Fielding: Then it would be a proper matter for consideration at another session.
Mr. AMES'. I understand that the West Indian sugar exporters deny that there is any such combine.


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct.


Herbert Brown Ames: And they consider that we have given them cause for a grievance against us; and the remarks made by the minister in the House the other day are regarded by the West Indian exporters as detrimental to them and to the general entente cordiale which should exist between British colonies and which we hope will lead in the future to a large interchange of products. Is there not a commission sitting or about to sit of which the hon. Minister of Finance is or is about to become a member, that will determine the truth or falsity of these allegations as to a combine?


William Stevens Fielding: The commission to which my hon. friend alludes was mentioned by me in the budget speech. It is proposed by the imperial authorities to appoint a royal commission for the purpose of inquiring into trade relations between Canada and the West Indies; and the Colonial Secretary, Lord Crewe, was good enough to express a wish that I should take a place on that commission. That has not yet been officially determined. At all events, Canada will be represented on the commission. The purpose of the commission is not particularly to inquire into this point which has come up, but into the 1614
question of trade generally, though I have no doubt that incidentally this matter will be investigated. Since the introduction of these resolutions, I am aware that it is contended by the exporters from the West Indies that no such combine exists. It is, however, an established fact that a very considerable quantity of foreign sugar was imported last year, I think by the Montreal refiners, on which they paid the higher rate of duty, for the reason, as they alleged, that they could not obtain the West Indian sugar.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has the minister taken into consideration the fact that the trial and conviction and penalizing of the West Indian exporters just on the eve of a gathering in which different parts of the British empire propose to discuss how they may increase their friendly exchange of trade, may have a prejudicial effect in the way of their making a bargain with one another?


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt those connected with the exporting of West India sugar would rather prefer that this item should not be in the tariff; but still they have not much reason to complain. We have been granting them this preference for a good many years, and we have not received anything in return. While we do not complain of that, they have no reason to complain if it suits us to withdraw some small portion of the concession that we have given to them in the past. I do not think that our friends in the West Indies have any reason to say that this is evidence of any unfriendliness on our part towards them.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister, then, regards this rather as a precaution taken than as a penalty inflicted?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. If it were a penalty, I think we would have to make the privilege to the refiners very much largeT. If a combine exists, this will rather cause the West Indian exporters, I think, to consider seriously whether or not it is wise for them to adopt that policy, while if it be found that there is no combine, I do not think they can suffer very much from having this small portion of foreign sugar imported at the preferential rate.


George Eulas Foster: Would the Finance Minister say whether or not there has been any negotiations or correspondence between the Canadian government and the United States government with reference to an interchange of logs, pulp and lumber between the two countries? This has formed the subject of a great deal of discussion in the United States, and it is one of the items variously placed in the tariff now being discussed in the United States congress. Can the Finance Minister give us any information with reference to that?


William Stevens Fielding: 1 would not like to speak too positively lest some of my colleagues may have received something; but subject to that qualification, I would say that there has been no correspondence with the United States authorities.


George Eulas Foster: Has the government or any responsible member of it given reason for supposing that if the United States made a proposition for an interchange on that line, it would be favourably considered by the Canadian government?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not aware of anything of the kind, and would think it exceedingly improbable that anything of the kind occurred. There has been no correspondence on the subject, the Prime Minister reminds me.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 162) to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907. He said: This Bill simply confirms the resolution which has just been adopted, with the customary clause that it shall come into force on the morning after the day on which the budget speech was made, that is, the 21st day of April.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
['I am not aware of anything of the kind, and would think it exceedingly improbable that anything of the kind occurred. There has been no correspondence on the subject, the Prime Minister reminds me.\nResolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.\nMr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 162) to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907. He said: This Bill simply confirms the resolution which has just been adopted, with the customary clause that it shall come into force on the morning after the day on which the budget speech was made, that is, the 21st day of April.']
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask whether or not the government has taken into consideration its attitude respecting the matter alluded to by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and whether or not it is prepared to make any announcement on the subject during the present session?


William Stevens Fielding: We have not had that under consideration with the view of taking any immediate action. There are yet so many uncertainties in connection with the American tariff that it would not be wise tc base any action on it at present. After it has become law, there may be aspects of it which will demand the attention of this government; but we do not think that, in the present state of the Bill in Congress, it would be wise to take any action at present or found any future action on it.
Bill reported, read the second and third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved second reading ol Bill (No. 128) to authorize a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
Mr.   R L. BORDEN@: Before the Bill passes, I would like to address a few observations to the House respecting the position of this matter as it stands, having re-


George Eulas Foster: gard to the debate which has already taken place on the resolution. A good many things have happened since the 30th of July, 1903, when the right hon. the Prime Minister delivered, on the first reading, of the Bill, a very lengthy address covering about forty columns of ' Hansard,' without doing us the courtesy of sending us an advance copy of the Bill, but contenting himself with presenting to us, at the conclusion of the speech, a copy of the Bill which, of course, we had no opportunity of examining or considering at that stage before replying to that speech. The Tight hon. gentleman indulged on that occasion in a great many predictions-predictions with regard to the outcome of the enterprise and predictions with regard to its cost ; and it is said that this particular enterprise is to be regarded as his special political monument. Well, I have only to say that if any monument should be erected in this connection, I would suggest that it ought to be in duplicate-one containing the predictions as to cost, should be erected at Moncton ; and the other, giving the actual cost, at Prince Rupert, so that no one could see the two except at very considerable intervals of distance and time.
, When one comes to consider five years later that we were solemnly told in the first place that this government possessed mountains of information, the most absolute and accurate information that could be desired -I presume that is what that term was intended to express-not only with regard to the merits of the enterprise when once completed, but with regard to the cost of that enterprise, one is amazed at the discrepancy between the predictions based on this absolute information and the results which have obtained thus far. When we contrast the solemn statement made to the House upon those mountains of information, upon the reputation and knowledge of the Prime Minister of Canada, that the mountain section would cost $18.000,000-when we contrast that with the latest report of the officer of this government, charged with the supervision of the western division, who informed the House and country that the same mountain division, instead of costing $18,000,000, will cost $67,000,000, we are reminded of the works of a celebrated German thinker and writer :	' Nothing is so terrible as ignorance in action.'
Now, Mr. Speaker, the project of constructing a transcontinental railway across this country is a very great enterprise, and I thoroughly understand that the people of Canada ought not to be backward in dealing with the great problem of transportation, whether in the east or west of Canada, or whether covering Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But there are some people in this country who seem to take it for granted that any great railway corporation entering upon an enterprise of this

kind has an absolute vested right to all the assistance that the resources of this country can give. I do not so regard the situation. It may be very much in the interest of the people of this country, as sometimes it has been in their interest in the past, that public assistance should be given to great schemes of transportation. That was done in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It has been done in the case of the Canadian Northern. And last, but not least, it has been done in connection with the enterprise we are now discussing. But it is not too late, it seems to me, to emphasize once more the importance of the statement made to the House by the Prime Minister, in 1903, and again in 1904, namely, that the Grand Trunk Railway Companv were in this enterprise and were of it and formed the whole thing ; and the proposal which confronts the people of Canada to-day is that the same Grand Trunk Railway Company being in this enterprise and of it and forming the whole thing, are asking the people of Canada to hand back to them $7,000,000, which they have invested in it. Well, it may even be in the interests of the country to do this, although it .is a rather stiff propositon, considering what was promised and declared to us in 1903-4 -it may be in the interests of the country to do that rather than allow this work to stop, and the credit, not only of this company, but of Canada as a whole, to be thereby affected; but I desire, before the Bill is read the second time, to point out that not only is the Grand Trunk Pacific in difficulties over this enterprise, but that, looking a little ahead into the future and having Tegard to the terms of this bargain, we can very readily foretell that the government itself will be in difficulties over it before long. One of my objects in speaking on the second reading of this Bill, before it goes to committee, is to point out what I deem some of these difficulties to be, and to inquire from the government whether or not they have had these under consideration and whether or not they propose, or have proposed, to arrive at any understanding or agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the purpose of preventing certain unfortunate consequences to this country that, it seems to me, are very likely to occur.
I have already emphasized the probable cost of this road. Roughly speaking, from the best information I can gather from the utterances of hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches themselves, the entire road will cost in the vicinity of $300,000,000. The eastern division will cost at least $180,000,000, and probably $190,000,000, all of which must be paid out of the revenues of Canada. The western division will cost *-if my estimates are correct-and I have based them on information afforded by the
government itself, between $110,000,000 and $120,000,000. And if you look for a moment at the details of the expenditure,, you will find about this result. The government provides in cash, in respect of interest on the mountain section-interest paid by the people of this country without any recourse-$13,413,750; the government provides in guarantees and bonds for both the prairie and mountain sections $66,658,000; then there is the loan now proposed of $10,000,000. If you sum these up, you will find the total to be $90,101,750, and you will find also that the Grand Trunk Railway will guarantee bonds, according to the information brought down by the government, to the extent of about $28,750,000.
Now, it must be obvious to any person, that the only real security we have for this loan and these guarantees will be the success of the enterprise. If the enterprise is not successful, we have no real security; if the enterprise is successful we shall have good security. So far_ as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that it is my sincere hope that the enterprise will ultimately be successful. But in the meantime, if there be any risk-and n,o one can say, in a great enterprise of this kind there is not some risk at least- we are assuming about nine-tenths of that risk and the Grand Trunk Railway about one-tenth. Now, the road, it is needless to remind hon. gentlemen on both sides, is being built out of moneys derived from two sources. The greater part of the money for the building of the road was provided by the people of Canada, or upon their credit, and the remainder by the influence and financial support of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. If you consider this as one great railway enterprise, one Transcontinental Railway extending from Moncton in New Brusnwick to Prince Rupert in British Columbia, the country is financing this enterprise to the extent of nine-tenths and the Grand Trunk Railway Company is financing it to the extent of one-tenth. Now what advantage and what benefit do the people of this country as represented by the government receive on the one hand and what does the Grand Trunk Railway on the other hand, receive from the enterprise? I am not speaking for the moment of the benefit that may accrue to the people of this country from having a great line of transportation extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I do not overlook that, nor do I desire to minimize it. But, looking at the direct financial advantage and results which can be derived from this railway enterprise, you will observe that the Grand Trunk Railway, in return for the financial support and backing which it is giving to this enterprise, is receiving-nay, has

already received-common stock of this company to the amount of $25,000,000, common stock handed over otherwise for a mere nominal consideration. You do not find the people of Canada, who have given their financial support to this enterprise to the extent of nine-tenths of the money necessary for the building of the whole line, in this regard at least you dp not find them receiving a single dollar of profit from this enterprise-not a single dollar is Canada to receive of the great future profits which will accrue from the operation of this road if it proves successful, as we all hope it may, not only in the distant but in the immediate future. Now, is there any _ particular reason why a result of that kind should accrue from this proposition? Has the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway corporation, or any other corporation in Canada any vested right to government assistance for the purpose of building a road through the very best portion of Canada so that, although it receives such splendid, such enormous financial support as that just being given by the people of this country to the enterprise of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, they shall receive $25,000,000 of common stock, and the people of Canada represented by this government shall receive absolutely no return or compensation of that kind ?
Mr. Speaker, we did make an argument in 1904 and we proposed a resolution in that respect from which I, for one, do not recede to-day. I think that if our proposition had been accepted by the government it would have resulted in very much greater benefit to the people of this country than any which is likely to accrue to them from the proposition as carried out. We said in 1904 that as the people of Canada were providing nine-tenths of the financial support necessary to construct this great transcontinental railway there was every reason for believing that the wise course would be to go one step further and provide ten-tenths instead of nine-tenths and	own the
road from the Atlantic to the Pacific as a great national highway in every sense of the term. I, for one, have never been able to appreciate the arguments of the government in that regard. I should not dignify what was said in opposition to that proposal by the name of argument, because, speaking in all sincerity from my place in this House, I have never heard anything from the other side in opposition to the proposal which deserved the name of argument. If you are pledging your credit or handing over your money for the construction of a great public utility what especially is the object in handing that public utility over to a railway corporation ? I am distinguishing sharply, just now, between government ownership and government operation. I am bound to admit that government operation of the Intercolonial has not Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
been very successful, and I do not think we have had, in the past ten years especially, any such object lessons from the operation of the Intercolonial as would suggest that we should move forward along that line until we have demonstrated-as I believe we can demonstrate-that the Intercolonial Railway or any other state-owned railway in Canada can be operated as economically and efficiently as any corporation-owned road in this country or any other. We have not done so up to the present time. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals proposes to take some steps which he believes may result in important advances and benefits, and I sincerely hope and trust that his expectation may be fuilly realized.
But reverting for a moment to the argument on the point I have just suggested, why should you hand over a great public utility that we have paid for? Why should the government, in 1904, have desired to do that? Is it in the interest of the people of this country that we should hand over all our forests to a private corporation, formed for speculative purposes or for operating purposes? Is it desirable that we should hand over all our water-powers? Is it desirable that we should hand over all our mines and minerals? Is not the true course, the wise oolicy rather that which is being pursued by the provincial government of Ontario, when it retains its forest wealtli and its mineral wealth under such conditions that royalties, bonuses and rentals should be received proportionate to the increasing value of that public domain, as it does increase in value year after year? So it does not seem to me the height of wisdom, to say the least, that the government of this country should have pledged the country's credit, as they did pledge that credit in 1903 and 1904, to almost the whole extent necessary to build this great transcontinental railway, merely for the purpose of handing it over to a private corporation, and so that such private corporation shall enjoy all the fruits, advantages and benefits which may result from the- increasing value of that road, when the great west of Canada has a population of 10,000,000, 15,000,000 or perhaps 25,000,000 people. Well, that contract has been made, we cannot undo it now except with the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company; and I presume it would be rather too much to expect that either one or the other of those companies would be willing to consent to a proposal of that kind.
But it does not seem to me to be too late,
when we come to some other considerations, for the government to have regard to the true interest of the people. There are $20, 000,000 of preferred stock of the Grand

Trunk Pacific Company still. If we are to finance this road to the further extent of $10,000,000, would it be absolutely out of the question that we should say to the Grand Trunk- Pacific Kailway Company. 'Very good, hand us over $10,000,000 of that preference stock, and we will be very glad indeed to assist this enterprise, because we thoroughly realize the misfortune which would be entailed, not only upon the company but upon the people of this country, if any stoppage should occur in that work.' Let us look at it for a moment. The Grand Trunk Company finances the road to the extent of one-tenth of its total cost, receiving $25,000,000 of common stock. The people of this country finance this road tc the extent of nine-tenths of its total cost, to the extent of $275,000,000. Would it be too audacious, would it be trenching too much upon the rights and privileges of railway promoters in this country, if the government of Canada should at this juncture say, 'You are receiving $25,000,000 of common stock for financing this road to the extent of one-tenth of its cost; give us $10,000,000 of preference stock for financing this road to the extent of the remaining nine-tenths of the total cost. Has the government made any proposal of that kind to the Grand Trunk Railway Company? If not, are they absolutely oblivious of what the true interests of the people are?
My hon. friend has spoken during this session of the land grant to the Canadian Pacific Kailway Company. Does he doubt that the men who were at the back of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at that time, would have taken 75 cents per acre for that land, and been glad to get it in those days? I have it on the best information that they would have been ready and willing to compound their land grant of 25.000,000 acres at 75 cents on the dollar. Why was the land valueless at that time? Because of its inaccessibility. What makes that land valuable at the present time? The building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, founded mainly upon the faith, hope, courage, and foresight of the great statesmen of those days, who realized what the splendid future of that great western country was going to be.
Then it seems to me that there are some other considerations the government might very well have had in mind. I will not allude to all of them just now, because it would be better perhaps that some of those subjects should be adverted to in committee. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance considers this is a banking transaction. If it is to be regarded as a banking transaction, and if we are to take the ground that a government, in conducting a banking transaction with a great railway enterprise of this kind, should make
no profit, at least the government ought to keep the people whole; we ought not surely to loan money to the Grand Trunk Pacific at a lower rate of interest than that which we have to pay.
But there is another matter, and I alluded to it in a question which I addressed to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways a day or two ago. I would like to know whether the government has taken into consideration what its position will be with respect to the line from Quebec to Moncton before the completion of the Quebec bridge. In the first place I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals whether he is prepared to set any date upon which that bridge is likely to be completed?


Mr. GRAHAM.: In reply to my hon. friend, it is impossible to do that until the board have fully completed their plans and have reported them. We have not interfered with them in any way, as we want to put upon them the full responsibility of getting a complete set of plans for the bridge, the building and permanency of which will be absolutely assured. I hope the time will come when we can give that information, but at the present moment I am not able to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: Could not the hon. gentleman state an approximate date?


George Perry Graham: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I am without any information from the government. But I have been informed by an authority for which I have some respect, that the very earliest date at which that bridge can be completed would be 1915 or 1916. I am informed further-and the Minister of Railways will correct me if I am wrong, because it is a matter of which I have no personal knowledge-I am informed further that the line from Quebec to Moncton will be completed in 1910; so there you will have a period of five ot six years at least during which the line from Moncton to Quebec will be upon the hands of the government. The estimates already brought down show that that road will cost about $29,000,000. I am informed on authority for which I have a good deal of regard, that that road will probably cost well up to $35,000,000 before it is completed. But I am not going to argue on that assumption. I will assume that the road will cost $30,000,000. I would ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) or the Prime Minister whether they have at present any idea as to what they would do with the road during that period?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend can clearly understand that the conditions which have arisen were entirely and wholly unexpected, that they have to be treated

as unexpected conditions and cannot very well be criticised from the standpoint of a premeditated arrangement of the government or the country. Conditions having arisen which are wholly unexpected, the government have under consideration the establishment, if it be possible, of a ferry across the river at that point. My hon. friend smiles. Possibly from a practical standpoint he has a right to smile, as he understands some of the difficulties that would ensue.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not smiling.


George Perry Graham: I would not at all complain if he did smile.


Robert Laird Borden: I thoroughly realize that the government did not anticipate the fall of the Quebec bridge. I do not want my hon. friend to imagine that I do not appreciate the fact that this situation is entirely unexpected. The fact that it is unexpected has left the government face to face with a certain condition, and I think the House ought to be made acquainted with the proposals of the government in this connection, because, while the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is in difficulties with respect to the financing of the prairie section, this government is also in difficulties with respect to the operation of that road for five or six years between Quebec and Moncton. Therefore, when one party to the contract, being in a certain difficulty, comes to the other party to the contract, also in a very considerable difficulty, it might have been regarded as a matter of reasonable prudence that both difficulties should have been considered at the same time and that some arrangement should have been made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to lift the government out of the difficulty occasioned by the fall of the Quebec bridge. Has the Minister of Railways and Canals made any estimate of what percentage the interest and depreciation upon the line from Quebec to Moncton will amount to per annum?


George Perry Graham: I have not.


Robert Laird Borden: I 'am unable to get any information from my hon. friends opposite, but I have endeavoured to obtain some information from outside, and I am informed, upon authority for which I have a good deal of respect, that the interest and depreciation upon that road during those five years will amount to at least 7 per cent ner annum, in other words $2,100,000 per annum, or, if you estimate a period of five years, $10,500,000. This country has great resources, but still a condition which involves an amount of that kind during a period of five years might, it seems to me, invite the attention even of my right hon. friend who claims that his soul is turned to higher things than considerations of this kind.


George Perry Graham: Then I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I am giving him this notice now in order that we may discuss the matter in committee upon the most ample notice, whether or not he imagines that that line from Winnipeg to Moncton, with a ferry across the St. Lawrence river, can be operated as a through line, for the transportation of wheat for example? I have no knowledge upon that subject except that which comes to me from persons who, as I think, are qualified to judge, and they entertain a very great doubt unon the subject, in fact they are rather inclined to laush at the idea. Would the minister propose to operate his ferry there during the winter? Has he undertaken to consider the expense of that? Does he remember the language to which we listened from a certain hon. gentleman in this House put up by the government in the debates of 1903 and 1904 as their great authority upon this subject? Does he remember that Mr. Charlton, the gentleman to whom I refer, spoke of trains a mile long, hauled over grades not exceeding four-tenths of one per cent, trains which, according to his estimation, would be able to haul grain from Winnipeg to Quebec in competition with water carriage? Does he imagine that these trains a mile long, going over grades of that kind from Winnipeg to Quebec, can be transported across the St. Lawrence in winter and go on to Moncton, and that all this can be done upon a profitable basis according to the view placed before the people of Canada in some of the glowing speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1903 and 1904?
Then there is another consideration. What about the local traffic on the line from Quebec to Moncton? Has my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) any information which would indicate that the local traffic upon that line can be of any appreciable value considering the enormous cost of the road between those two points? If he has any information of that kind I can only say it is entirely dissimilar to any information I have been able to collect from authorities to whom I have applied for information on this subject.
Another consideration in connection with the line from Quebec to Moncton concerns the operation of the road not only before but after the Quebec bridge shall have been built. I gave the government credit, when I spoke on this subject during the *present session, for a saving of 29 miles in distance between Quebec and Moncton as compared with the Intercolonial Railway. That was on the government's statement and I am bound to assume that it is a correct statement; if there is any variation from it later on, it will be a matter for criticism. In the debate of 1903, the government claimed that the Intercolonial Rail-

way was wholly unsuitable lor transcontinental traffic on account of its excessive grades. Mr. Charlton, who was put up to reply to the criticism of the late Mr. Blair, elaborated this point very fully, as may be seen by any gentleman who will refer to page 8481 of 'Hansard' of 1903. That gentleman then said:
What are the grades on the Intercolonial
Railway? There are 62J feet grades, and 50 foot grades to the mile. No road can claim lo be a first-class road with grades more than cne-half per cent or 26 feet to the mile. In the construction of this short line

Because at that time you will remember the Prime Minister estimated that there would be a saving of at least 120 miles in the distance between Quebec and Moncton.
-in the construction of this short line and in the construction of the line from Quebec to Winnipeg it should he an absolute condition that the road should be first-class in point of grades, in point of construction and ih point of weight of rails. The object of the building of a short line from Chau-diere Junction to Moncton is to correct the costly mistake that the country made when
the Intercolonial Railway was constructed____
Why should we shorten, straighten and improve the Intercolonial Railway? It is simply because we have set out with the purpose of securing trade for our own seaports, and if we are to secure that trade we must have the best obtainable conditions with regard to our lines of transportation. We must not have to go away around by the sea 120 miles further than a short line would take us. We must not have grades 62J feet to the mile, but we must reduce the distance, reduce the grades, improve the efficiency of the road and secure the necessary conditions so far as it is possible to do so in order to get the trade. That, we aim to get.
Now, I understand that the government has obtained this advantage of 29 miles in distance by the adoption of what are called pusher grades. In that connection it is not out of place that I should give to the House what information I have as to the grades of both the Intercolonial Railway and the National Transcontinental Railway between Quebec and Moncton. The Intercolonial Railway follows the St. Lawrence for some two hundred miles east of Quebec to St. Flavie and while it is true it has grades of one per cent at a few points in this distance a large proportion of the two hundred miles is comparatively level road.
From St. Flavie on the St. Lawrence it crosses the summit between the Quebec and New Brunswick waters at an elevation of 751 feet above sea level or 485 feet above St. Flavie and 25 miles in distance therefrom. For the next 150 miles to Gloucester Junction the line follows the Metapedia lake, the Metapedia river and the Bay Chaleur and the grades are exceedingly favourable.
For the next 117 miles to Moncton the line runs nearly at right angles to the river and consequently the grades are not so favourable. There is one summit of 500 feet between Bathurst and Newcastle and three others of about 300 feet each between Newcastle and Moncton.
The National Transcontinental Railway begins to rise directly after leaving Quebec and steadily climbs for about 105 miles to a summit of between 1,400 and 1,500 feet above sea level and then drops 1,000 feet, in the next one hundred and ten miles to Edmundston on the St. John river in New Brunswick, to within 470 feet of sea level.
Then it rises and falls and passes over some considerable summits for about 100 miles when it reaches the Tobique river at an elevation of about 500 feet above sea level. From that point it rises almost continuously to an elevation of about 1,400 feet above sea level at the head waters of the Miramichi river, a distance of 116 miles F. Then it falls about 1,300 feet in 100-miles to an elevation of 100 feet above sea level at the crossing of the Salmon river at Chipman.
From Chipman to Moncton, 56 miles, there are no high summits to cross and altogether the grades on this section are favourable.
In the net result, so far as^ the National Transcontinental Railway is , concerned, there are at least two pusher grades upon that road as I am informed; one against western traffic and one against eastern traffic. One of these is in New Brunswick, it is about 12 mile slong, it is against western traffic, it rises southerly from the Tobique river to the head waters of the Miramichi, the Tate of rise being 1 l-10th per cent or 59 feet in the mile, or in all 708 feet. The other pusher grade to which I allude is in the province of Quebec and is with the western traffic and against the eastern traffic. It occurs in getting down from the Quebec summit to the St. John waters; it is of about the same length as the other and the grade is about the same, namely,1 l-10th per cent. I do not know whether these grades have been adopted, but I am placing this information before the Minister of Railways in order that he may correct me if I am wrong and that he may place an exact statement of the position in that regard before the House and before the country. I observe by reference to the National' Transcontinental Railway Commissioners' Report for 1907, pages 5 and 6, that there is some comparison of cost between the three surveyed lines between Grand Falls and Chatham, and I assume the one which has been adopted is the central pusher grade which is alluded to in that report. Now, if the comparative merits of the Transcontinental Railway and the Intercolonial Railway between Quebec

and Moncton are estimated on the basis which is adopted in the report of the Transcontinental Commissioners for 1907, there are people in this country who have some knowledge of the subject and who are very much of the opinion that the Intercolonial Railway will have the greater advantage of the two roads. What I desire the Minister of Railways to do is to place before parliament during the committee stage on this Bill such full and complete information as to distances, grades, curvatures, and otherwise both on the Intercolonial Railway and on the National Transcontinental Railway between Quebep and Moncton as would enable an expert to make a correct estimate of the cost of haulage over each road. I think that is a fair and reasonable request, and indeed I do not think that I should be obliged to make it, because I would have thought that if the National Transcontinental Railway possesses that abundant merit which the government claim for it in respect to the section between Quebec and Moncton, during the very first days of the present session we should have had exactly such a statement as I now ask to be placed upon the table of the House. And more than that, we should have had expert opinion submitted which would indicate to the people of Canada what advantage they are to receive from the exxpenditure of $30,000,000 of public money upon the line between Quebec and Moncton. I have already asked the Minister of Railways for his estimate as to deterioration and interest on the line between Quebec and Moncton; I have asked for his views as to the local traffic on that line between Quebec and Moncton; I have asked as to the date of the completion of the Quebec bridge.
I now revert to the question which I dwelt upon a moment ago, and that is as to whether or not the government have made any proposal to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company with respect to the operation of the Quebec-Moncton line during the five or six years before the completion of the Quebec bridge. If you look at the statute and contract of 1904 you will find by section 3, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company is entitled to obtain a lease of any portion of the road which may have been complet'd in advance of the whole line. I do not find that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is bound tc take a lease of any such portion of the road. I find they are entitled to do it; they have an option there as they have under nearly every one of the provisions of this contract. Thus they are not bound to take it, and therefore the Grand Trunk Pacific Company if they see fit can absolutely decline the operation of that road until the Quebec bridge is completed. That is the contract as I Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
understand it. If hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have a different appreciation of the meaning and effect of that contract, and if they will pledge themselves to this House that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company concurs iq any view different from that which I have just now expressed, then of course the question which I am raising goes by the board to a certain extent and has not the importance 1 am now placing upon it. But as I understand it, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will not be bound to operate that road until the completion of the Quebec bridge, they being only bound to operate the line as a through line from Winnipeg to Moncton. It would appear that they are not bound to operate it with that link left out. In the very last report of the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway, Mr. Lumsden says 'The Quebec bridge is an essential link in the line from Winnipeg to Moncton.' Mark the words ' essential link.' Suppose you take one and a half miles or two miles out of this line anywhere between Moncton and Winnipeg; is the Grand Trunk Pacific bound to operate the two ends of the road or are they only bound to operate the line as a whole. Could they not similarly set up the contention, and will they not set it up, that if you take out of that line one and one-tenth miles at Quebec they cannot operate it as a through line from Winnipeg to Moncton, and in that way may there not be five or six years during which time they will not be obliged to take over this line but leave it upon the hands . of the government. Either this is a difficulty or it is not a difficulty; it seems to me to be a difficulty. If it is a difficulty, it is a very serious difficulty which confronts the government of this country. Again I ask, whether or not under the conditions which have been disclosed to the House by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in introducing this measure, the government have been so occupied with the difficulties of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company that they have absolutely forgotten their own difficulties, and have paid not the slightest attention to the point I am now discussing.
There are just one or two other matters upon which I would like to ask for information from the government, and I give them notice now, so that we may be supplied with it at the earliest possible moment after reaching the comjnittee stage. How is it that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway .Company has been, enabled to provide the money for the building of its branch from Port Arthur to its main line without any assistance from the government, and must needs come to the government for assist-

ance upon the prairie section? We all realize that the branch from Port Arthur to the main line of the National Transcontinental Railway is a very important line to the company. We recall the provisions of the contract under which, so far as the disposition of these branch lines is concerned, the result, roughly speaking, is this, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company can keep what they desire, and compel this country to take the rest. I have no idea that they will ever ask the government of this country to take over the branch from Port Arthur to the main line. That is regarded by people who can speak with authority on the subject, as a key to the operation of the whole Transcontinental Railway system, and it seems rather peculiar that the funds should have fallen short so far as the prairie section is concerned, and that the funds should have been so abundant so far as the branch from Port Arthur to the main line is concerned.
Then, I would like a little more definite reply to the question which has already been proposed across the floor of this House, whether or not the government is prepared to state, in connection with this loan, that it will be the last application for assistance to be made to the people of this country by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, or whether we are to expect a succession of applications for assistance, especially when the construction of the mountain section is begun in earnest. I think the government could not have been so remiss in its duty as not to have put that question fairly and frankly to these gentlemen when they came forward with their application. It is to be presumed that there was some answer, and parliament, while engaged in the consideration of this additional assistance to the amount of $10,000,000, is surely entitled to know what that answer was, and whether this is the last as well as the first application, or whether we are to expect a series of applications covering the whole amount of assistance that will be required in the construction of the mountain section.
As I have said, the country has embarked on this project, it has been ratified by the people of this country as well as by parliament in 1904, and I agree that the work must not stop. If this loan is absolutely necessary, it must be made, in order that the work shall not stop; hut in investigating the terms on which that loan shall be made, the interests of the people of this country ought to be considered in respect of the matters which I have brought to the attention of the House, and ought to be conserved and safeguarded to the fullest possible extent.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who
has just resumed his seat has maintained his reputation very well for giving the government a large order by way of inquiry. We will endeavour to satisfy his appetite in this respect as far as it is at all possible. It seems to be a difficult one to satisfy, as he comes up hungry on every occasion.


George Eulas Foster: Get your menu card
ready.


George Perry Graham: I thought our menu card was pretty comprehensive on previous occasions. However, the hon. gentleman is entitled to all the information we can possibly get. The hon. gentleman asks if there will be any other request from the Grand Trunk Pacific for aid. For myself I am not prepared to say; I would not like to accept the responsibility of what any person might do in the future. But this much my hon. friend ought to consider. He says that this enterprise must not stop, and that if it be necessary to make this loan of $10,000,000, it must be made. Suppose the Grand Trunk Pacific Company said to the government and to this House to-day, 'This is the last time of asking, as well as the first;' and suppose that in a few years they forgot or ignored that and asked us for further aid, would not my hon. friend be in exactly the same position that he is in to-day? Would he not have to say: 'Well, the work has commenced, we are partners in the work to a large extent, we may not like to do it, and you promised that you would not ask us; but if it be necessary to complete the work, we must do it.' That is practically the situation we might be in. Therefore I would not like to express an opinion one way or the other. The conditions have to be taken as they arise; and while we are in hopes that the Grand Trunk Pacific, the great project in which we are all so much interested, will now go on to completion successfully, it would be more than human, it would be approaching the prophetic attributes of a higher power to say what might be in the mind of a railway man a few years hence. My hon. friend remarked that the branch from Superior junction to Fort William bad not received any government aid. So far as a guarantee is concerned, that is true. I think it has received a subsidy from this House, and to that extent my hon. friend's information would be incorrect.


Robert Laird Borden: I was speaking of applications to the government for assistance.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend's meaning. What he said was that that branch had not received any assistance from the government.


Mr. LENNOX.: Had not made any application at the present time for assistance.


Mr. GEAHAM.: That is a different matter. Well, we understand the hon. gentleman's meaning now. I want to make it clear to the House, what they understand without an explanation, that few railways of that extent are constructed without coming to the government for aid, and they generally get it.


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: How much did you grant it?


Duncan Graham: The usual government subsidy, and they got something from the Ontario government as well. With reference to the pusher grades east of Quebec, the only object of having good gradients, as I understand it, is for the benefit of transportation. If a condition arises in a particular part of a railway where the use of a pusher grade may be adopted without interfering with transportation, and so as to reduce the cost of the railway, probably it would be right to adopt it. But this much must be borne in mind, that through the long summer months a good deal of the shipment of grain from the west will probably take place through Quebec, and the pusher grade interferes with the transportation only of a very heavy load. The ordinary train does not need to have a pusher to take it over the grade, but it is in developing the transportation problem to the extent of hauling a very large train that a pusher grade is used. I may be asked what a pusher grade means. It simply means a grade where a second engine is used to help to push the train over the summit. East of Quebec there is one pusher grade against east bound traffic and a similar grade against west bound traffic. It is immaterial what are the various meanderings of the railway from this point to another point, from the summit to the depth, except so far as it affects the grade. And notwithstanding the very interesting description of the line, read by my hon. friend, and the various heights it has to climb, it resolves itself into the fact that there are two pusher grades, one against eastbound traffic and the other against westbound traffic. The other facts dwelt on by my hon. friend would simply mean it was an expensive line to build to get rid of the grades. The more uneven the country, the more hills there are to cross, the more mountains to climb and the more valleys to get over, if the grade is to be got rid of, the greater the expenditure in the building and it is true that the expense of building a line in the east is considerable. In district A at the Tobique river there is a pusher grade against the eastbound traffic, for 12-65 miles. That saves in the length of the line 17-2 miles and in the cost of construction approximately nearly $2,000,000.


Frederick William Borden: What is the grade there?


Haughton Lennox: 


Duncan Graham: I think my hon. friend described it properly.


Frederick William Borden: One and one-tenth?


Duncan Graham: I think that is right. In district B near the New Brunswick boundary, there is one against the westbound traffic, JO-7 miles long, said to save a distance of about 18 miles, and a saving in expense of over a million dollars.


Herbert Brown Ames: What would be the total length of the road between Quebec and Moncton provided the pusher grades were eliminated and the grade was what was originally expected?


Duncan Graham: There might not be any difference in length if they went to the expense of getting over the pusher grade by cuttings or fillings at that particular point.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that the elimination of these two pusher grades would add 35 miles to the length.


Duncan Graham: If you got rid of the pusher grade by making a circuit, by going around the acclivity and adding to the length, that might happen.


Herbert Brown Ames: That would make the road six miles longer than the Intercolonial Eailway, would it not?


Duncan Graham: We may go on figuring out if this should be the case, and if the other is the case, the following will be the result; but I have not admitted my hon. friend's starting point. If you went round another hill or two, you would make the road considerably longer.


Frederick William Borden: Was the grade I mentioned correct?


Duncan Graham: I think so. The only question is whether to accept the two pusher grades, considering the traffic from Quebec to Moncton, with the saving that would involve, or remove them. The engineer reports that it is better in those instances to have the pusher grades and save the money.


Mr. NOETHEUP.: Are there any pusher grades on the Intercolonial Eailway?


Duncan Graham: There would be if we had the very large trains these are intended to haul, when they have the western traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific. There are three very steep grades, as my hon. friend has remarked, on the Intercolonial Eailway. There is one at the Bedford grade,
1 -80, at Folleigh, 1 -22, at Metis, 1 -29. These might be called pusher grades.


Mr. JOHN HAGGAET.: That is in both directions.


Duncan Graham: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: How many west and how many east?


George Perry Graham: I could not tell that at the moment.


Haughton Lennox: Has the minister any actual report from the engineers that they could have avoided those pusher grades in any way except by lengthening the line some 35 miles?


George Perry Graham: I have not got them at hand.


Haughton Lennox: Has the hon. minister any such report?


George Perry Graham: That would be a report from Mr. Lumsden, and my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, has the three reports to which the hon. gentleman refers. Now, we come to the Quebec bridge. It is easy enough, under present conditions, to raise all kinds of criticisms as to the effect of the destruction of the Quebec bridge. But this House is supposed to be composed of practical men, who are not following shadows. No doubt, the collapse of the bridge was a great calamity and we have to face the results. There is no escape from the situation by raising all kinds of possible objections and pointing out the result of the calamity. We admit at once that it was a calamity, and the inconvenience it will cause, and the difficulties which have arisen, are not to be minimized. I do not quite agree with my hon. friend, although I will not say, speaking from memory, that hi is altogether wrong, when he says that the Grand Trunk Pacific will not be compelled to operate the eastern section without the Quebec bridge. The question of the Quebec bridge being a link in the railway is indisputable, so far as the operation of the railway is concerned, but it does not follow that it is a part of the railway itself. The bridge was undertaken before the railway project was outlined, and there would have been a Quebec bridge had there never been a transcontinental railway. But for practical purposes, and for the operation of the line, the bridge is an integral part of the railway.


John Graham Haggart: Under the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific, are you obliged to build the Quebec bridge?


George Perry Graham: I would not put it as strongly as that, but that is the understanding.


John Graham Haggart: Is it in the contract?


George Perry Graham: Possibly it is. But the Quebec bridge was to be constructed without any Grand Trunk Pacific contract and was undertaken before that railway was thought of. Consequently that does not add to the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The
Quebec bridge would have been built had there been no contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific. My hon. friend may be sure the government has not at all overlooked the difficulties arising on account of the absence of the Quebec bridge. Not only will that bridge be finished as rapidly as possible, but the difficulties which are arising and which will continue to arise, owing to its not being completed as early as was anticipated, are not being overlooked by the government. Coming to the question of the Grand Trunk Pacific, my hon. friend has outlined that project at great length, and he made one statement, which I think is perhaps the keystone of the whole situation. He said that the government or the country io a partner with the railway company in this great project. My hon. friend makes it a greater partner than, I think, he is entitled to make it, when he names its proportions of holdings as nine-tenths, _ or ninety per cent. But that is immaterial; the foundation of the request for the loan and the granting of it by this government is that the Dominion of Canada is a partner with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in the carrying out of this great project. It is our project as well as theirs, and the interests of Canada and the Canadian people are paramount even to the interest of the railway company in the completion of this line.
Now, this leads me to one or two questions that have arisen. My hon. friend will pardon me if I go back for a moment. The question has been discussed in this House, and has been referred to mildly to-day of the necessity of this road. My hon. friend agrees that there was a necessity for the construction of this line. Let me look for a moment at the remarks made by the Prime Minister in 1903 when he was introducing this measure, and see if there is any part of these remarks which should be retracted by the Prime Minister or by any member of the government or of this House on his behalf. He said that a railway was a national as well as a commercial necessity.


George Eulas Foster: ' A railway.'


George Perry Graham: ' A railway.' And my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will remember that by ' a railway ' he meant, not a line from North Bay westward, but a line from the eastern part of Canada to the western part of Canada all the way on Canadian soil. No person will say to-day, looking at it from a national standpoint, that Canada was not justified and is not now justified in pushing this project to completion as rapidly as possible. Our position as a country is something of which we should be proud. Some hon. members, properly, grew eloquent over the defences of Canada, the necessity for being prepared to defend Canada against intruders who would

attempt to molest her trade, or interfere with her freedom and happiness, or drag her from the position she holds in the British empire. Sir, taking it from that standpoint, one of the first things necessary was a line of railway on Canadian soil over which troops could be carried without interference.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: We had that already.


George Perry Graham: Will my hon. friend (Mr. George Taylor) tell me where?


George Taylor: The Intercolonial from the sea-board to Montreal and the Canadian Pacific from Montreal to the Pacific coast.


George Perry Graham: That is two lines of railway. My hon. friend is partially correct, but very much wrong.


Haughton Lennox: And practically all right.


George Perry Graham: As I said before, and my hon. friend cannot contradict it, we had not a great line of railway from eastern Canada to western Canada over which Canadian and British troops could be Car-Tied from one ocean to another without passing over foreign soil. This is looking at _ the question from the national standpoint. But, after all, that is only minor, to my mind. From the commercial standpoint it was necessary to have another through line. This House and this country may think I am altogether too optimistic, but I believe when this line is completed it will be taxed to its utmost capacity with the carrying trade of Canada and the carrying trade from the Orient to Europe. I believe that before many years are over we shall have to look for greater transportation facilities in order to accommodate the increasing trade of this great country. Sir, the words of the Prime Minister are not to be taken back, they stand to-day not only true but fortified by the events that have taken place since they were spoken in 1903. Let me point out one or two things showing the necessity for this road from a commercial standpoint, and as showing the prospects for its success as a transcontinental line. The annual output of coal in the west now is about
4.000.	000 tons. A good authority estimates -and I think he is within the' mark-that thirty years hence there will be at least
50.000.	000 tons of coal to be transported in the west. In the valley of the Saskatchewan, there are about 200,000,000 acres of land, and in the valley of the Mackenzie about 55,000,000 acres. Thirty years ago there were no wheat fields in that vicinity, and scarcely a hamlet in the valley of the Saskatchewan or the valley of the Mackenzie. Let hon. members think of the


George Perry Graham: west as it is to-day and of the west as it was thirty years ago, and then prophesy, if they can, what, a few years hence, this great and growing west will be, if we do our duty and give the people we are bringing in there proper facilities for getting their products to market. These plains produce to-day, it is no extravagant estimate to say, 100,000,000 bushels of grain yearly.
Now, let me point out the bearing of that as showing the great part that Canada is to play, as I believe, in feeding the nations of the world. The world's population, it is estimated, doubles in fifty years, and the present population of the world is
1,700,000,000 people. We may believe that, in the next fifty years, there will be added to the world's population at least 900,000,000 people. But, while the world's population is increasing, man cannot add one acre to the land on the face of the earth. We may discover other wheat fields, w'e may open up territory that is now lying waste and make it productive in years to come, but the fact remains that poor humanity cannot create one acre of land. So, while the consumption and the demand go on increasing, the land for the production of food remains what it is to-day. Now, Sir, to-day half the population of the world never see any flour of wheat. It is estimated that there are fully 100,000,000 white people who never get enough flour to eat. The demand for this flour among these people is continually growing, and there is this demand to be allowed for as the demand arising out of the increase^ of population in this and other countries. To-day, the prospects are, Canada will be the main wheat field of the world. Should there be any pessimism in the outlook in the minds of people who are today and will be in the future the proprietors of those fields which must feed the people of the world? As the west develops and these millions of acres become productive, Canada will be, to a large extent, the world's granary. I point this out to impress on the minds of the neople of Canada that in our conduct of public affairs, in our dealings with just such questions as this, we must ever keep in mind not the present only, but the great future and the development of the mightv heritage Providence has given us. For, with all our criticism of one another, this stands true, that the Canadian people to-day have one of the most productive countries in the world. Should we hesitate? Should we not have courage in carrying out this great undertaking that the people of Canada have twice said should be carried out? We may disagree on details, as men of common sense wiil always disagree. I appeal to western representatives as well as eastern: Should we not approach such questions as

these with the larger outlook of what Canada is to be in the future? I believe that I will live, if I reach the ordinary span of life, to see Canada, and the west particularly, developed to such an extent that we who now look back fifteen or twenty years and think the development has been great, will be astonished at the increase that will have taken place in the next few years.
Sir, we talk about wheat. Fifteen years ago we sold our wheat for 50 cents, to-day wheat is worth $1.20. Some person may say: That is only the result of a panic, or a corner. I believe that wheat will continue to move upward. It may have its reverses through adverse circumstances; owing to the fact that the wheat producing area is limited, and the consumption is ever increasing, millions of bushels more will be required every year. Sir, I believe that the world, and Canada, has seen the last of cheap wheat, that the price will continue to advance, and I believe that in a few years hence we will be discussing wheat from a $1.50 standpoint rather than $1 standpoint. With this end in view, it seems to be our duty to the people whom we induced to come in and develop our country, to allow them to get their products to the markets of the world in the speediest possible way, at the lowest price, and in the best possible condition. But some one will say; 1 Has the bringing of this railway into the Northwest helped any?' I believe that the projected line has already made a marked improvement in the condition of the western people so far as transportation facilities are concerned. I had intended to place on the table of the House a railway map of 1905 and a railway map of 1909, to let hon. gentlemen see just the number of homesteads that have been taken up in that country since the Grand Trunk Pacific project was introduced into this House. But you say: ' The other railways did that.' Certainly. I wanted also to point out the number of branch lines shown on the map, belonging tc other railway companies that were not there when the Grand Trunk Pacific project was first introduced. You ask me what has that to do with the Grand Trunk Pacific? It has this to do, and every practical man knows, every man from the west, and every man who has been in the Railway Committee of this House, will bear me out in saying that the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific was to go through certain portions of the west induced other great companies to extend their branch lines in every possible direction in order to compete with the Grand Trunk Pacific. If the Grand Trunk Pacific never carried a pound of freight from the west to the east or from the east to the west, the launching of that project has been to a
large extent justified by the improved facilities that other lines have given to the people on account of the proposed construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. But you ask me: ' Have not the people come in along tlie line of the Grand Trunk Pacific? ' Let me point out a thing or two in that connection. In a carefully prepared statement of Mr. R. E. Young, superintendent of railway lands for the Department of the Interior, he estimates that 15,389 homesteads have been taken up in a belt of 12 miles on either side of the Grand Trunk Pacific, 15,389 homesteads on a strip of land 24 miles wide, 12 on either side of the railway, or on a belt of land 8 miles less on each side than were exempted from taxation under the old contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Herbert Brown Ames: Since how long?


George Perry Graham: Since the projection of the Grand Trunk Pacific. My hon. friend should know that people go ahead of the line, when they once discover in what direction it will run. As a direct result of the Grand Trunk Pacific, to say nothing of the branch lines, to say nothing of the general influx that has been taking place in other parts of that country, since the projection of this line, on 12 miles on each side of the railway 15,389 homesteads have been taken up, equal to 2,461,928 acres. If I had time to go into the details, I might figure out what the cultivation of 2,461,928 acres means to the people of the west, if no more were taken up.


Herbert Brown Ames: You might also figure out how large a porportion of these homesteads are within a nearer distance of another parallel line of railway.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will remember that this parallel line of railway was there before, but the people were not; and he will remember the fact that they went there because they are 'to have the Grand Trunk Pacific competition, which they otherwise would not have had. Now, Sir, we have also prepared a statement of the population, and I trust the House will not weary with me if I give it, because it has a bearing on the advisability of seeing that this project is put through with all necessary speed. In 1906, Manitoba had 365,688; in 1908, 462,569. In 1906, Saskatchewan had 257,763; in 1908, 335,721. In 1906, Alberta had 185,413; in 1908, 265,820. This shows an increase of over 25 per cent. Sir, with the population of the west increasing so ranidly, this government could not hesitate, if the proposition of the Grand Trunk Pacific were less favourable than it is, and the people of this country would not allow us to hesitate, in seeing to it that nothing is left undone to give proper

facilities to this ever increasing population.
Now, I think I have shown fairly well that the words of my right hon. friend, the leader of the government, in introducing this project into the House have been more than justified by the influx of people into the west. A great deal has been said about the cost of the line, and that seems to be the chief complaint made against this project. We even find our friends from the west complaining that we are building lines that are too poorly constructed, that will not carry the traffic they have, the bridges of which are not strong enough, the rails of which are not heavy enough, the ballast of which is not well enough placed, the curvature and grades of which are not of the proper kind. Sir, that is not the criticism that we hear of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The only criticism we hear of this Grand Trunk Pacific line from railway men is that we are building it of too high a standard, that it would be better to build it of a lower standard and improve it as the years went by. That is one method of building railways, but I think I will be able to show that that would be poor economy. I think the best economy is to build a line that will be able to carry its full freight, at the proper price, the first day a train is run over it, rather than to carry small trains and be obliged to improve the road year after year, robbing it of its income, as well as its capital expenditure, and getting, perhaps, after 20 years, as good a road as we now mean to make it on the first day it is run. Now the question of cost comes in.
I need not again traverse in detail the statement made time and again as to the increased cost of material and wages, the higher standard of the road and the benefits to be derived. I know my hon. friend will say: Yes, the road is of a very high standard, but the people of Canada were told in 1903 that it was to be of the standard of the line of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto. Sir, the standard of the Transcontinental line is a higher standard than the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto. The grades are less and in every respect the standard is as high and in some respects higher than that of the Grand Trunk between those two cities at the time this contract was made. Some people will say: 'Yes, but they have laid steel rails of 100 pounds to the yard and double tracked the line between Toronto and Montreal.' But there were no steel rails of 100 pounds to the yard at the time the contract was made and the specification in the contract as to the standard referred to conditions then existing. Any Mr. GRAHAM.
man who has travelled from Montreal to Toronto on the Grand Trunk line knows that it is one of the best lines on the continent, and will agree that this is a very high standard, but as far as grades are concerned, it is not as high as the Transcontinental line between Moncton and Winnipeg or even Moncton and the eastern side of the Rocky mountains.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not answer the hon. gentleman in the way he suggests, because I have quoted already the language of the Minister of Finance in 1903 or 1904 when he said he was estimating on a four-tenth per cent grade. He will find that language at page 3687 of this year's ' Hansard.'


George Perry Graham: The contract, I think, will bear out my statement that the standard was to be the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto.


Robert Laird Borden: That is quite so, but I was -speaking of the estimates.


George Perry Graham: A good deal has been said about the estimates. Mr. Schreiber's estimate was made in 1903 before the contract was made. Whatever difference of opinion there may be, there is no doubt that Mr. Schreiber had not in his mind the high standard which the country has exacted in making the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific, but rather had in mind a road like the Intercolonial Railway with its gradients and lighter rail, of 65 pounds instead of 80 pounds. But there are other factors which tend to increase the cost. Labourers' wages, which were $1.25 to $1.50 per day at that time have increased to $2.25. Ties, which were 25 cents and 28 cents, have increased to 50 and 60 cents. Timber and lumber for use in culverts, trestles, &c., has increased from 30 and 32 cents to 38 cents and 40 cents. Steel rails have increased in price from $25 or $28 a ton in 1903 to $35 or $36 in 1908 and a duty has been added since then of some $7 per ton. Then the rails used, instead of being 65 pounds are 80 pounds to the yard, a difierence of 23 tons to the mile. These facts account for a portion at least of the increase in the cost of the road.
I do not wish to go further with this comparison but to simply point out that the cost of all kinds of material and labour has increased and that the road is of a higher standard than was anticipated by Mr. Schreiber. Further than that, I make the statement without any fear of contradiction that for a transcontinental line or one approaching a transcontinental line the standard of the Grand Trunk Pacific is the highest on the continent of America. Of the mountain section about 100 miles is under construction and a good deal of dif-

ference of opinion exists as to its cost.
I have an opinion by a gentleman who I think has a fairly good knowledge of the conditions, that he believes that the mountain section, with the exception of one or two points, will not average a higher cost than the cost of the Lake Superior pertion of the eastern section. He believes the construction is not any heavier in the greater part of the mountain section than it is in portions of the eastern section being built by the government. The suggestion that it would cost $100,000 per mile is altogether out of reason.


John Graham Haggart: The minister must see that in order to understand that, we must have an idea as to what the eastern section would cost.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will find that information in returns I have brought down as to the different sections. I have the contract price according to sections.
But, speaking of the advanced cost,_ is this the only line, is this the only project in which the cost has greatly exceeded the estimate? I need not refer to large undertakings, I need only refer any hon. gentleman who has built a house to his own experience. If he looks up his accounts he will find that the house has cost him a good deal more than he estimated. I wish to make one other comparison. We have heard the Panama canal quoted as a sample of what could be done and the economies that could be effected by the appointment of a good commission. In speaking of the cost of building the Transcontinental Railway by a commission, the question of the personnel of such a commission would naturally come under review. I wish to point out that in the criticisms of the Transcontinental Commission I have not yet found anything which would lead me to believe that this commission have not performed and are not performing their work in an able and conscientious manner. When the American government undertook the construction of the Panama canal, they selected certain commissioners who were said to be very efficient. But these commissioners remained only a short time, they were not allowed to complete the canal, and were replaced by other men. The men who replaced them were again replaced by other men so that a comparison of the selection of commissions on the Panama canal and on the Transcontiental Railway does not reflect discredit on the Transcontinental Commission. The commission now entrusted with the construction of the Panama canal is composed of military engineers on the staff of the United States War Department, with the addition of one or two other men, and it is now directly under government control. Being members of the military staff the present Panama 162
Canal Commission are not so open to criticism and fault-finding and tale-bearing, if I might use that expression, they are under more thorough discipline both as to work and talk than they otherwise would be.
As to the cost of the Panama canal, may I point out that with all the care that was exercised by the first commission, the second commission and lastly the government commission, the original estimate will be greatly exceeded. The first estimate for the Panama canal was $140,000,000. The sum did not include the purchase price of $50,000,000 nor the cost of sanitation and civil government of the canal zone, $27,000,-
000.	By putting all this in-which for arugment sake might be compared if omitted to omitting the Quebec bridge from the Canadian project-by putting all this in we have $217,000,000. But the board of experts with Mr. Taft reported in February, 1909, that the cost would be not $217,000,000, but $360,000,000, or an increase of $143,000,000. And Colonel Boutelle, chief engineer, before the House committee on appropriations placed the estimate not at $360,000,000 but at $375,000,000, and if we take the interest during construction as is taken in the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, we will find that the Panama canal project which has been cited as an example, of economy and good management was at first estimated to cost $217,000,000, and that the present estimate when it is not merely completed, is $400,000,000 or nearly twice as much as the original estimate. I will cite some other instances to show to the country that all this talk about increased cost over the estimate is not peculiar to the National Transcontinental Railway alone but is common to every project private or public in this or any other country. The New York Erie barge canal was estimated in 1899 to cost $61,536,788, but two years afterwards the board of experts estimated the cost at $94,000,000, a difference of $32,764,484 or an increase between 1899 and 1901 of something over 50 per cent. But in 1903, two years later again, the state engineer revised that estimate and raised it from $94,000,000 to $100,562,993, and in chapter 147 of the laws of New York you will find an act authorizing them to borrow $100,000,000 for this canal which originally was estimated to cost $61,000,000. And, if we include the interest as is done in the case of the National Transcontinental Railway it is safe to say that the Erie barge canal which was estimated to cost $61,000,000 will exactly cost $125,000,000, or more than 100 per cent extra.


Robert Laird Borden: You must estimate the interest in both cases.


Haughton Lennox: That should be a warning against your predictions.


George Perry Graham: It should be a warning against any hon. gentleman citing the Panama canal as an example.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Surely the Minister of Railways does not pretend to say that the engineering work on the Transcontinental Railway can be compared in difficulty with the engineering work on the Panama canal.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman will understand that the engineers of the Panama canal were engaged as experts to give the people of the country an estimate of what it would cost including all the engineering difficulties. Let me point out further that taking the details day in and day out, the difficulty of estimating a line through the Rock mountains and from one end of Canada to the other is approximately as great as estimating the cost of the Panama canal, and I think you will find some competent engineers who will say it is more difficult to estimate the cost of the Transcontinental Railway. Now, Sir, I want to make this statement which may be considered a strong statement, and I w ant it to be considered strong; I say that not only will we have the highest standard transcontinental line on this continent, but we will have a line that will cost no more than any line similarly situated under like circumstances which has been built anywhere during the last 15 years. Let me cite as an example the cost of one or two other lines of railway. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Company are building a line from Evarts, South Dakota, to Seattle, Washington, 1,500 miles long. They started that line about the same time as the Transcontinental Railway and the maximum grade is 52 feet to the mile as compared with 21 feet on the National Transcontinental Railway. It is estimated that road will cost over $60,000 per mile on the authority of the 'Financial Chronicle,' and a large portion of that road is through territory, I am informed by engineers, comparatively speaking on a par with the prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Herbert Brown Ames: What will their prairie section cost?


George Perry Graham: If I were to make the statement as strong as my informant makes it, I would say that it is nearly all prairie section, but I would not like to say that.


Herbert Brown Ames: Surely it has to pass through the Rocky mountains to reach Seattle.


George Eulas Foster: It can't get there any other way.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is certainly not all prairie.


Robert Laird Borden: 


George Perry Graham: I certainly admit that it will have to run through the Rocky mountains.


Mr. BURRELL.: Between what points did you say the line ran?


Mari GRAHAM.: From Evarts, South
Dakota, to Seattle.


Martin Burrell: You will not find much prairie section there.


George Perry Graham: My statement is on the authority of engineers who say they have been over that territory. At all events the cost of that road is $60,000 per mile as given by the ' Financial Chronicle ' which is considered to be an absolute authority.


Mr. HUGHES.: Do not the Rocky mountains intervene between these two points?


George Perry Graham: Most assuredly they do. Nature has not removed the mountains, and I do not attempt to make a prairie section over the mountain portion. The Western Pacific is building a line from Salt Lake City, Utah, to San Francisco, California, 929 miles, and although the maximum grade is 52 feet to the mile as against our 21 feet, that road will cost over $70,000 per mile.


Herbert Brown Ames: All in the mountains.


George Perry Graham: Not all in the mountains.


Herbert Brown Ames: With a cut-off across Salt lake.


George Perry Graham: Approximately speaking my hon. friend may say that a large portion of that line is in the Rocky mountains but it is not all in the mountains.


Herbert Brown Ames: What about the cut-off?


George Perry Graham: 
INDEBTEDNESS OF GRAND TRUNK RAIL- WAT TO DOMINION GOVERNMENT.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR asked:: 1.	In what amount, if any, is the Grand Trunk Railway Company indebted to the Dominion of Canada?
2.	How much is owing for principal and interest, respectively, upon the said indebtedness ?
3.	How many years' interest is due?
4.	On what date was interest last paid?


William Stevens Fielding: This deals with a very old and complicated account. It might be more convenient to put it as a motion for return, but as I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. George Taylor) might regard it as having a bearing on proposals of this ssesion, I have brought down the answer:
1, 2, 3 and 4. In the year 1862, five years prior to confederation, a reorganization of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada was . fleeted under chapter 56 of the Statutes of Canada of that year.
Provincial debentures of the provinces of Canada to the amount of $15,142,633.34 had been issued, prior to the passing of this Act, in aid of the company. These debentures carried interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.
By section 19, of the chapter referred to, the province of Canada consented to allow its claim for interest due and accruing in respect of these debentures to be postponed to the payment of certain charges which were made prior by the statute. The section provided that after the payment of the working expenses of the railway the balance of earnings was to be appropriated and applied in payment:-(a) of interest on

equipment mortgage bonds; (b) of interest on first preferential bonds and tbe dividend due on first preference stock; (c) of interest due on second preferential bonds and the dividend due on second preference stock; (d) cf dividend due on third preference stock; ;e) of dividend due on fourth preference siock; (f) of dividend of 3 per cent per annum for ten years on the ordinary stock of [DOT]tne company and thereafter at the rate of i per cent per annum; (g) of further dividend on one per cent per annum on the third preference stock; (h) of further dividend of one per cent per annum on the fourth preference stock; (all the above were given priority over the government claim for interest) ; and then: (i) in payment of the interest for the time being due and accruing, subsequent to the 1st January, 18(52, on the provincial debentures issued in aid of the company, before the passing of the Act, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
The interest on the provincial debentures referred to amounted, at the time of confederation, to $10,457,458.01. Amounts, represented by these province of Canada debentures, $15,142,633.34 and this interest of $10,457,458.01 were, at confederation, taken over by the Dominion from the province of Canada, and have since then carried in the balance sheet without change under the heading ' Railway Accounts/ but these amounts have not been included in the statement of assets of the Dominion.
As the net earnings of the company never met all the prior charges, as provided by the Act, no part of this interest has ever been payable.
There was also carried in the province of Canada accounts and taken over at confederation a special interest claim of $7,302.18, which has been continued in the balance sheet. This special interest claim arose from an adjusted balance of various accounts made between the province of Canada and the C- rand Trunk Railway Company which balance was confirmed by an order in council cf the 18th October, 1866.
Besides the above, the province of Canada was, at the time of confederation, the holder of fourth preference stock of the company, (converted, by section 11, chapter 18, Act of 1873, into third preference stock), of the par \alue of $121,739.65. Dividends have been paid to the Dominion on this stock on several occasions as follows;
During year 1881	$ 608 70
1883	
1,643	481884	
1,978	26"	1902	
1,217	40"	1903	
2,434	80"	1905	
2,434	801906	
3,652	201907	
3,652	20
This fourth preference stock was accepted by the province of Canada in payment of a certain part of the accounts adjusted by the order in council referred to.
Coming now to the loan, which is the subject of the Bill 1. if ore vhe (louse, the whole question is this-not what has the Transcontinental Commission done between Moncton and Winnipeg, not what has the Mr. GRAHAM.
government done, not whether the Quebec bridge has fallen down, not whether the gradients of the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific are pusher grades or four-tenths of one per cent or six-tenths of one per cent, not whether the ferry will be run at Quebec, not whether there will be local traffic on the Transcontinental east of Quebec. The question before the House and the country is: Under the conditions existing, is it in the interest of the people of Canada to grant a loan of $10,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company? I say most unhesitatingly it is. My bon. friend says we ought to ask them for $10,000,000 of preference bonds. I say we are not presenting the Grand Trunk Pacific Company with anything. We are allowing them to issue bonds, which we will take as security, guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and we will hold those bonds, as the Minister of Finance has remarked, merely as security for the payment of this loan; and if on the issue of these bonds they were put on the market and sold, all the liability the government has and all the risk it is taking is the difference between what they would sell at and their par value. We are not giving the company a loan without security; we are not taking security on a piece of railway either; but we are taking security which is guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, which, if it is getting so much as hon. gentlemen say, if it is being placed in such a position of affluence and wealth as they represent, is gilt edge securitv for this loan. It should be remembered too that the stock which my hon. friend proposes as security would only be valuable after the bonds held by the government are provided for. The government, as I have said, is a partner in this great undertaking, and no matter what the conditions might be, the Dominion of Canada could not allow the Grand Trunk Pacific project to fail. It has undertaken it, and what Canada has undertaken Canada is prepared to carry out, whether this government or hon. gentlemen opposite are in power. As they deemed it wise when in power to come to the aid of the Canadian Pacific Railway, although they had aided it bountifully in the first place, so I believe they will not take the position that it would be wise on the part of the Dominion of Canada at the present moment to refuse to grant the request of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, for in granting that request we are making secure the carrying out of a project in which the hon. leader of the opposition himself said we have nine-tenths interest while they have one-tenth.


Robert Laird Borden: If we are partners, why don't we get some of the stock?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend forgets the principle upon which aid has been

given to railways in the Dominion of Canada. Did we get any stock in the Canadian Pacific Railway?


William Barton Northrup: We were not partners.


George Perry Graham: Yes, we are partners, speaking broadly. Why was the Canadian Pacific Railway aided if it was not in the interest of the people?


William Barton Northrup: Who said anything about interest of the people? My hon. friend must not put in my lips words which I did not utter. I said not a word about interest of the people. I said we were not partners with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


George Perry Graham: If the country was not a partner with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the benefits it was receiving from the railway, then the people of Canada gave the Canadian Pacific Railway Company benefits for which it got no return.


William Barton Northrup: Does the minister believe that?


George Perry Graham: I do not believe it, but my hon. friend tries to get around it by a play on words. He has great ability, I know, in the use of language; but I do not propose to let him get away with a play on words. The people of Canada are partners in every railway that helps the development of the country; if they are not, they have no right to aid railways. Do we aid railways for the amount of stock we are going to get in them? No. We give them money, municipalities give them bonuses, provincial governments give them subsidies-and sometimes land grants, as in Ontario during the last few weeks-provincial governments guarantee their bonds, Dominion governments guarantee their bonds. This government gave the Canadian Pacific Railway 25,000,000 acres of land, a large stretch of line already constructed and $25,000,000 of money; and if that does not make the country a partner with the company, then nothing at all can make a partnership so far as the development of Canada is concerned. When i speak of a partnership, I do not mean a partnership which provides that the government must get stock for stock and share for share, but a partnershio in this Tespect, that our interests run parallel with those of the railways in the development of the country, and in order to get that development and to benefit ourselves we grant aid in different ways to the construction of railways, and thus in the broad sense become partners with them, are responsible to the people of Canada and the British empire for the development of this part of the empire. We give a certain amount of aid.


William Barton Northrup: Who are the 'we' ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is one of them. We are the people of Canada.


William Barton Northrup: But my hon. friend says: We are responsible to the people of Canada; and then he says we are the people of Canada.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend disputes that he is one of the 'we,' I will excuse him.


William Barton Northrup: I hope I am. But I want my hon. friend to explain what he means when he says: We are responsible to the people and we are the people.


George Perry Graham: Well, I will give another example that perhaps is a better one. I will take my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and say that he is representing the other 'we.' We, the representatives of the people in this House, are responsible to the people of Canada for the development of this country.


William Barton Northrup: Certainly, but I do-not see anything about partnership in that.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to get
away any further from the point, even though it may displease my hon. friend to find that he is unable to draw me any from the question under discussion.


William Barton Northrup: You could not.


George Perry Graham: Not from what is Teally a good example. I do not think any one has misunderstood me. In speaking of partnership, I mean distinctly, and I have said it in this House before, that you cannot disassociate the interests of the transportation companies from the interests of the people. We aid them in order to benefit ourselves. We aid the transportation companies and become, practically speaking, partners in the construction of railways and canals and in all those things which procure for the people the benefit of transportation facilities, and in which we have invested the public money.


Mr. SPROULE.: In a sense, we own part of this road, and the company owns the other part.


George Perry Graham: We do own 1,800 miles of this road, and we do not own a mile of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have an interest in the development of transportation, and although we do not get a return in cash for the aid we give, if we do not get value otherwise, then the policy of this country in aiding the building of railways has Been a lamentable failure. Every mile of railway that we add to our transportation facilities adds that much to the facilities of getting our goods to market and enables our people to get higher prices for their products, and the return we are to get from the construction of this line, as ' in the case of the others, is not the amount

of stock we are to procure or the money to go into the exchequer, but the benefit that will go into the pockets of the people from the improvements of their transportation facilities.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend allow me? The idea originally expressed by Mr. Hays, the president of the Grand Trunk Railway, was to this effect, that we were partners of the Grand Trunk Railway, and as both the Grand Trunk Railway and the country were supporting the enterprise and might in that sense be regarded as partners, both and not one partner alone, should be entitled to some share of the profit, the direct profit.


George Perry Graham: I was not dealing with the partnership from that standpoint but
we aid all railways, the only difference being that in this project that aid is given in a different form. But in the one form or the other, we are in partnership with this road as with all railway lines, although as my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) says there is another way in which we are partners in it, and that is they are to operate both portions of the road, including 1,804 miles which the government has built and owns.
At the present stage of the project, should we lend this $10,000,000? Looking to the past, the people, through their representatives in this House, entered into the project of building the Grand Trunk Pacific. The method of doing that was fully discussed. It was fully discussed on the hustings in 1904 and in 1908, and op both occasions the people said they wanted the Grand Trunk Pacific constructed. I know that conditions have arisen largely since the undertaking that did not exist when the project was started. No one needs figures to show that the cost of the road is considerably greater than was expected. It was thought that the cost of the prairie section would be $17,000 to $18,000 per mile and it has been found to cost $32,000 to $33,000 per mile. The mountain section will cost considerably higher than was anticipated. It was considered that the $13,000 per mile guaranteed on the prairie section would be practically three-quarters of the cost of construction. The contract provides a guarantee of three-quarters the cost of construction, not exceeding $13,000 per mile, which would imply that the three-quarters might be a little less. But conditions have changed and the cost has been much greater. The Grand Trunk Pacific then come to us and ask for a loan and offer security. We think that the security is good. We merely act as other bankers would. We take their bonds and place them in the treasury until they can be sold to advantage. If they were sold by the Dominion to-dav our risk w7ould be the difference between the par value and the price they


George Perry Graham: would realize, which would be a very small amount. You ask how we arrive at the $10,000,000? Well, we arrive at it as follows.
On the prairie section, the proceeds of the government guaranteed bonds on $13,000 per mile, amount to $10,335,482.91:
' A ' bonds guaranteed by the
Grand Trunk Railway	$ 9,601,926 30
Balance due on proceeds of 3 per cent government guaranteed
_ bonds	 1,572,517 08
Construction equipment	 1,000,000 00
Total	$22,509,926 29
Government proposed loan.. .. 10,000,006 00
Total	$32,509,926 29
Now', Mr. Schreiber's estimate, including interest to January, 1910, is $33,007,449. And the estimates of the Grand Trunk Pacific, including the same interest, is $32,198,351 -30. This sum of $10,000,000 then, for which the government is becoming the banker of the Grand Trunk Pacific, will place them in a position to proceed with the construction oi that portion of the road with all possible speed. It is in the interest of the country that no delay should take place. Although a large portion of the prairie section is constructed and running, it is necessary that the entire portion should be completed as rapidly as possible. It is also necessary that the Grand Trunk Pacific should make provision as rapidly as possible, not only that its line across the prairie over the productive section where there will be paying traffic, should be completed, but also for the extension of branch lines, not only for the benefit of the people by providing them with railway facilities, but in order that the Grand Trunk Pacific mav get feeders which will bring it the traffic it needs for its through trains.
Sir, I appeal to the hon. members of the opposition, I appeal to the House, I anneal to the Dominion of Canada at large, on this question of giving this loan v. the Grand Trunk Pacific. I believe that it is in the interest of the country; I believe that the country is safe in giving it. As I have already said our national interest and the success of our transnort-ation system are bound up in the success of this undertaking. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that members of this House on both sides will support the proposition of the Minister of Finance to give this $10,000,000 as a loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister can conveniently do so, I wish he would answer a question. What proportion of the prairie section is now built, and how much will it require to complete it?


George Perry Graham: The road is constructed from Winnipeg to a point near Edmonton. When I say 'constructed,' I would not like to be understood as meaning that it is entirely perfected. It is constructed so that they have been operating as a construction company, and I may say, as a matter of encouragement, that the net recepits for which they have been given credit in our statement amount to $29,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The answer of the minister does not coyer what I wanted to know. What percentage of the work is done?- three-quarters, two-thirds?


Wilfrid Laurier: The road is completed to Battle River, and it is expected to run to Edmonton in .Tune.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What expenditure will be required in order to finish the prairie section? I think the minister ought to be able to tell us this. We are asked to give them $10,000,000. But of that $7,000,000 is to be paid back to the Grand Trunk, leaving $3,000,000. Will that amount finish the prairie section?


George Perry Graham: I will be able to give my hon. friend details in committee. I have made a statement in a general way on that subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that we had already spent $23,000,000 and that the estimate of the engineers was that it would take $33,000,000 for the entire work. That means that $10,000,000 more is required. But of the $10,000,000 now proposed to be given them, $7,000,000 is to go to the Grand Trunk Railway, leaving only $3,000,000, apparently, to finish work that will cost $10,000,000. Would it not apear that the company will again be in trouble very soon? If our object is to hurry on the completion of the road, have we any assurance that the assistance we are giving will bring about its completion?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is wrong about my statement. I said that over $1,500,000 was due them on the proceeds on the three per cent bonds.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do the government intend to exact from the Grand Trunk Pacific the same rate of interest that they will be compelled to pay on the bonds when they are purchased on the market?


William Stevens Fielding: I have discussed that. There is a possibility that we may have to pay a shade higher rate, but there is also a possibility that we may get the money at a lower rate. That is not a point on which we can answer definitely.


John Graham Haggart: I do not intend to discuss very fully the question at present before the House. There
is a good deal of information which will be needed for the purpose of a full discussion, and that information, I suppose, will be given us in committee. The question before the House is a very simple one. The government come down with a proposal to give $10,000,000 to assist the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to finish the prairie section which they contracted with this government in 1904 to build. In order to understand the matter fully, it would be necessary to consider the whole position in relation to the railway. It was only a few short years ago that the government came to this House with a proposal to build a transcontinental railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific with modern grades, through our own territory. They told us what the road would cost. I stated at the time that the cost would be largely in excess of the government's estimate. My friend the leafier of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stated-and so did the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding)- that the total cost to the country would be $13,000,000 or less. We laughed at the idea. We have now an acknowledgment that this road from Moncton to Winnipeg will cost in the neighbourhood of $180,000,000, by the time you get not only the road but the Quebec bridge and terminals required for operation of the railway all paid for. A very pertinent question was put by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) as to the gradients on the road between Levis and Moncton, and as to the need for building this road. I remember stating, when the question was before the House, that a better line could not be found between Moncton and Levis than that over which the Intercolonial was built. The line they propose to take had been surveyed by the Intercolonial engineers, but it was not accepted. We find now that they have got a line barely 29 miles shorter than the Intercolonial between Levis and Moncton. And the gradients are the same, because there are two pusher grades, one of 1 and one of l-10th, on this new line, and there are only three on the Intercolonial. And the cost of this new line is over $30,000,000. If one-tenth of the money had been expended in bettering the grades on the Intercolonial, we should have had a better line than either and the country would have saved $27,000,000. But what is $27,000,000 to these gentlemen? The object of this road from Moncton to Winnipeg, they say, is to bring the western grain to our maritime province ports. But is there any one in this country foolish enough to believe that a single bushel of grain-well, perhaps, a few bushels, but any considerable proportion of the crop-will come from Winnipeg to St. John or Halifax over the Grand

Trunk Pacific Railway? However, we are in for it. The Minister of Railways boldly says that we are partners in the road that is now under construction. We are obliged to come to the assistance of the company. We have already pledged ourselves for eight-tenths of the amount to build the road, and now we are asked to supply the remainder. And, after all, we have no interest in the road. True, the road comes to us after a certain number of years of working, but if there is any profit in the undertaking, that profit goes to the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


George Taylor: We are partners but without profits.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, as my hon. friend (Mr. George Taylor) says, we are partners, but without profits.


William Barton Northrup: The other party takes the profits, and we take the losses.


Haughton Lennox: And they want us to be silent partners.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Railways justifies his course by saying that we are partners in this railway. He says we are partners, not only in this undertaking, but in every railway we have built in Canada. When I was Minister of Railways, we assisted railways to the extent of $3,200 per mile; we gave this assistance to such railways as were not able to be constructed without it. That was the price put upon the rails. The company had to grade the road, build the bridges, and do everything else, and they virtually owned it. The view taken by the government at that time was that whatever amount we expended on railways, we got it back indirectly in customs taxes, and other benefits which accrued to the country within two or three years after the money was spent. Now admitting the premises of the Minister of Railways, what are we called upon to give this $10,000,000 for? The Minister of Railways says that it is necessary to help them on the prairie section. There is no necessity for anything of the kind. According to the statements of the Grand Trunk Pacific people themselves, they only require a couple of million dollars to help finance them to build that section of the road.
Now, I want the Minister of Railways to tell us why we are called upon to return to the Grand Trunk Railway Company $7,-
100,000	which they alleged they expended on the road. Where did the Grand Trunk Railway Company get the $7,100,000 to loan on the prairie section? That information should be given; the people are entitled to it, this House is entitled to the details of that $7,100,000. I do not believe the Grand Mr. J. G. HAGGART.	[DOT]
Trunk ever advanced $7,100,000, they never had this sum in their possession to advance. If they had it in their possession, they would be committing a fraud by ad-advancing it, without the consent of the stock-holders, to such an undertaking as this. And yet, on the meagre information brought down by the Minister of Finance, he asks us for $10,000,000, of which $7,-
100,000	is to recoup the Grand Trunk Railway Company for an advance. We ought to have detailed information in regard to that, we have not a bit of information. Can the Minister of Railways give us a detailed statement of what that $7,100,000 con-sists_ of, or is he unable to give us the details because he does not know them? It may be explainable, but it is not explainable on the statement the Minister of Finance has brought down to this House. He says that the amount advanced to the Grand Trunk Pacific was $7,094,000. I am curious to know where the Grand Trunk got the $7,094,000; and if they had it, how they could loan it to the Grand Trunk Pacific. If it is for the purpose of purchasing bonds which have been issued by the Grand Trunk Pacific, we have no right to return it, because if we return it we are making a present of $7,094,000 to the Grand Trunk Railway. Is that not so, Mr. Finance Minister?


William Stevens Fielding: We do not propose to pay one dollar to the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the way my hon. friend suggests. As a matter of fact, the Grand Trunk Railway Company have put that amount of money into the enterprise. As to where they got it, and their authority for it, that is for them to consider. We will only pay out of this $10,000,000 the money certified by our engineers as having gone into the work. As a matter of fact, we will not pay it to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, we will pay it in the usual way to the Grand Trunk Pacific. As to their arrangements between themselves, and the Grand Trunk Company and their bankers, we are not concerned to meddle in that, so long as we pay the money out on the certificates of pur engineers that the money has gone into the work.


John Graham Haggart: The Grand Trunk Pacific borrowed that $7,094,000 from the Grand Trunk, the minister says. It is a most extraordinary transaction, I do not understand it. This company is coming here to borrow $10,000,000, a company that is in the position of the Grand Trunk Company, having a couple of million of preference securities. They have been paid interest for a number of years. I cannot understand how they arrange to borrow $7,094,000. However, with the assurance of

the Minister of Finance that the government will see that the $7,000,000 has been laid out on the work

	>


William Stevens Fielding: We will see that this $10,000,000 is laid out on the work.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know in what form it has been laid out on the work. It may have been laid out for the purchase of rolling stock.


William Stevens Fielding: No, this is not for rolling stock, this is for the work of construction.


John Graham Haggart: It has gone into the actual construction work of constructing the road?


William Stevens Fielding: Sure.	-


John Graham Haggart: Some time ago when the Bill came before the House, the government assured us that the prairie section would not cost over $17,000 a mile, and the maximum amount to be paid was $13,000 per mile, leaving us to believe that it would cost less than that. Now the estimate is in the neighbourhood of $33,000 per mile, or more than double the original estimate. Engineers make mistakes, the Minister of Finance says, the price of labour has gone up, there has been a duty on steel rails. Every one who knows the condition of the country now and the condition in 1904, is aware that there is no jurisdiction for the statement of the Minister of Finance that the increased expenditure is_ due to an increase in the cost of material. He could easily find out what railroads cost on the prairie, he has only to write to the directors of the Northern Railway. He quoted the report of Sir Thomas Shaughnessy to his directorate as to the cost of that Toad north of Toronto. He could just as easily have ascertained what the cost of the prairie section was likely to be, which is similar. The Grand Trunk Pacific are building a road from Winnipeg to Edmonton, a road of similar character to this, that will not cost in excess of $25,000 per mile. Yet we are called upon to pay $32,000 per mile. What is the position? We were to have a first security on the prairie and on mountain sections for the money advanced, but by the legislation of last year we were piaced pari passu with parties who had mortgages second to ours on these two sections. We have now no preferential claim, we cannot take over that road and work it by a receiver or in any other way except in the interest of the other bondholders who rank pari passu with us, and after putting the bondholders of the road m that position we are to advance them $10,000,000. The Minister of Railways says: . Oh look at the glorious prospect in the Northwest, 200,000,000 acres of land to be opened up on the Saskatchewan river and I do not |
know how many more on the Mackenzie river; think, he says, of the prospect of that immense country that empire that will yet furnish the world with food stuffs within a time which we may expect to see. You would think that all these things would strike investors in an undertaking of this kind and render it more easy for the railway company to raise money. The strongest possible reason which the government could urge for not advancing $10,000,000 to this railway company is that they are building a road through a magnificent section of the country. We pay eight-tenths of the cost of the road and interest for a number of years upon it. Why is it not possible, with such grand prospects, before them for the company to raise the $10,000,000? One.would think that the government in advancing this money would take all the securities which the company have to offer. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) asks the government why they do not get possession of the stock of the company. That might not be of very great benefit after all but we have a right to it. We have also a right to a claim or lien such as the Grand Trunk Railway possesses upon that road from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, which is the key to the situation, but that is left out of our security altogether, we have no claim upon it. What would a road leading from Winnipeg or Edmonton down to this section of the country be without a branch to Lake Superior? It would be a useless undertaking. The hon. gentleman pictures to himself immense trains of grain crossing over this Grand Trunk Pacific from the fertile prairies to the maritime provinces. Does he or any man in this section of the country think that any large quantity of grain will pass the head of Lake Superior by rail? The grain will naturally seek the channel of cheapest transportation, and that is the water route to the sea-coast. The construction of the road to Quebec and Moncton does not promise to be profitable. I hope sincerely that the development in that section of the country from the discovery of minerals, timber and good lands may be such that it will have a bright future, but I do not believe in the manner in which that road is being constructed. The same system of construction should be adopted as is pursued in the case of other roads built through sections of the country which do not at the time of construction furnish sufficient products to afford a profitable traffic. The road should be built as the Canadian Pacific Railway was built, and all other roads in the United States and then as the country developed and traffic increased the road should be improved. But this gentleman says that all these immense crops from the Northwest can be transported to the maritime provinces on a four-

tenths per cent grade from the mountains to the' Atlantic, and that this through traffic will pay the cost of the road. But the cost of the road is not simply the interest we have to pay; we have to consider the danger that the road may be thrown on our hands in the future, especially that portion of it from Winnipeg to Moncton so that we will_ lose not only the interest on its construction but also the immense sum annually which our experience in the government operation of railroads leads us to expect will be lost in its operation.
I observe that the Grand Trunk say they want only $9,400,000 but the chief engineer of our railways says that $10,000,000 and some odd thousands will be required to finish it. That is a difference of only about a million dollars. This money apparently is needed to recoup the bankers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for money which they advanced to the Grand Trunk for the building of this road. I do not think we are called upon to complete the section of the road with the amount of money and bonds remaining unsold. According to the statement of the Grand Trunk people themselves it will require about $2,000,000 to finish the western section. There will shortly be available $1,-
400,000	of rolling stock and construction rolling stock which can be transferred over from the prairie section to the mountain section as $1,000,000 worth has already been transferred, and the prairie section will get credit for that so that we will have at the most $1,000,000 to provide for. This then is a loan not to assist the Grand Trunk Pacific to construct their road but to recoup the Grand Trunk Railway for money advanced by them to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in a manner which the Finance Minister says he does not quite understand, they borrowed the money from some bank in order to put it into the undertaking. I shall reserve further criticism until we reach the committee stage and have more detailed information.


Mr. F. D. MONK.: I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I wish to enter my dissent against this transaction as strongly as I possibly can. Those who were in the House will recall that when the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme was first brought to the notice of the House and of the public there was a universal agreement among the members that further railway accommodation across the continent was necessary. Attempts have been made to show that the Conservative opposition of the day were opposed to the building of a national transcontinental railway, but every one who has followed the debates knows that we were agreed as to the necessity of another transcontinental line, although we absolutely differed from the government as to the method of supplying it.


John Graham Haggart: Under ordinary circumstances it is possible that I for my part would approve of this loan, but under the circumstances in which it presents itself to us I must emphatically enter my dissent. I remember declaring in this House that the scheme submitted by the government was not the scheme suggested by the Grand Trunk Railway Company at all, and the Minister of Finance will remember that at the end of the lengthy debate on the National Transcontinental Railway Bill he was obliged to produce before the House a document setting forth what the Grand Trunk Company had proposed. The Grand Trunk Railway had a net work of railways in Ontario and Quebec with extensions into the United States, but it lacked an entry into the rich territory of the Northwest, and it proposed to extend to the Pacific ocean so as to provide western connections for its eastern system. Had the plans submitted by the Grand Trunk originally been carried out it would have cost us comparatively little money, and to-day we would easily be able to meet the demands of the company, instead of having to provide for the fearful expenditure which now faces us. Instead of adopting the proposal of the Grand Trunk the government decided to construct this serpentine, circuitous, extraordinary railroad which is going to saddle the country with an expenditure of over $150,000,000. It was plain to everybody at the time, that the project of the government could not be carried out except at enormous expense. The Prime Minister who has a great many admirable qualities but who is neither a railroad builder nor a financier, told us with pathos that the project would cost us $13,000,000 and he added with a wave of the hand that it was only the surplus of one year, and this government glories in its surpluses.


George Eulas Foster: However it gets them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: However it gets them, and no matter what may be the opinion of political economists as to the surpluses. We on this side argued that the road would cost us over $100,000,000, and the Minister of Railways has to admit that it must cost us $113,000,000. I think we are fairly safe in saying now that the country will have spent over $160,000,000 on the National Transcontinental Railway by the time we have it completed. It was stated when the project was launched in this parliament that this railway would develop the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, and during the elections which followed, the Conservatives were attacked in Quebec because we had denounced this absurd scheme and declared that it threatened to ruin the country. We were told that we were antagonistic to this railway because we had a hatred of the province

of Quebec and were opposed to its development. I remember arguing at the time in the House that the two older provinces of Ontario and Quebec were certainly entitled to railway development, and that if we had the money there were other expenditures that might better be made. I said that what we required in my native province was the development of colonization lines which beginning at the valley of the St. Lawrence would extend north and south into these portions of the province which had no railway. I said that in Quebec we required colonization roads which would open up that province and bring the traffic down to the St. Lawrence which is the natural outlet for our trade. I presented motions to that effect but these motions were voted down. Can anything more ridiculous be imagined than the construction of a rival road to the Intercolonial Railway between Quebec and Moncton? Is there a man in Canada outside of this House, who does not point out at once this radical objection which vitiates this part of the scheme? We all know that in the territory between Quebec and Moncton there are companies incorporated to build railways which if they were properly assisted would infinitely better develop that district of the province of Quebec than does that section of the Transcontinental Railway. But, instead of encouraging by money grants and otherwise the construction of these railways which would be feeders to the Intercolonial Railway, we are building a rival road, 29 miles shorter between Quebec and Moncton and paralleling for a considerable distance the present government owned road. Well, we prophesied in 1903 that this scheme would not stand, and we are prophesying to-day that the proposal now before us is but the first of a series which will impose further obligations upon the country. The fact will remain that when this line is finally built the country will have paid for it but will not own it, a thing which is contrary to the principles I hold in reference to such public utilities. In the following year, I think,- 1 am speaking from memory-the National Transcontinental was placed by an enactment of this legislature in this situation. We are told that we are going to lease it, that we have a good tenant for the road, and therefore that although we are expending these hundreds of millions upon its construction, we are sure to recover the interest out of the rental which the road will yield. Where is our tenant, and what certainty have we that we shall ever collect one dollar of that rental, under the second step which we made in the evolution of this very unfortunate scheme which we have not seen the end of by any means.
As I understand it, we are in this position. The Grand Trunk Company will become the user of that road when we shall have expended 180 millions upon it. If the Grand Trunk, under its exploitation, cannot pay the rental, what becomes of our tenant? He is absolved from any obligation to pay the rent to this extent, that if the Grand Trunk Railway cannot pay it, the only recourse the country has under that statutory enactment is to place the whole concern in the hands of a receiver, who will distribute what money he can make out of it in certain indicated ways.
When I hear that this railroad is going to become a great grain-carrying road to our sea-board, I entertain very serious doubts. In the first place, as between rail carriage and water carriage, there never will be any competition possible, because water carriage will always be cheaper, and in winter I cannot conjure up, whatever effort of imagination I may make, the idea that any considerable portion of the grain of the west is going to be carried over that road to the Atlantic. There is nothing to prevent the Grand Trunk from realizing the idea which it had in the very inception of this enterprise, and which I regret very much was not carried out, after traversing the plains of the west, and coming into Ontario, to connect with its own system; and does anybody think that with the branch lines 'that will tap the Transcontinental, in the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, the Grand Trunk will bring any grain it may carry, not to its own network of railways and over its usual route, but through this vast wilderness of the north and down to the lower provinces? I do not believe it. Neither will the Canadian Northern nor the Canadian Pacific. Their interests are all to bring the grain to their own systems of railway and their own ports, and they will do it; and this will never be a graincarrying road. Under these circumstances, it is proper for one who at that time foresaw what is happening to-day, to recall the attitude taken at the time, and to base on that attitude a protest against this loan. Because in an enterprise of this magnitude, where there has been such an entire difference as to the method of carrying it out-I say the method advisedly, because our hon. friends opposite are always asserting that we are against the completion of new and improved means of communication between the east and the west-I say it is proper for one who was opposed to that method at that time, to say that he does not believe in this loan. This loan is a consequence of what was done then, and I as one who -was opposed to the scheme at that time, am opposed to the consequences of that scheme. Now, the loan itself does not commend itself to me on account of the circumstances and

conditions that surround it. If we now have to break up the contract that was made solemnly a few years ago, why are we not given the very best conditions? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, when he first presented this project, told us that he placed very small reliance upon the mortgage security. I entirely concur in that view. I have very little reliance on a fourth mortgage. I would place more, as my hon. friend did at the time he made the announcement, upon the hope that the road will pay, and that our personal recourse against the road will become good. But can we not get anything better? Here is a company that has in its treasury $20,000,000 of common stock. Who owns it? The shareholders of this company. The stock is_ held in trust by three of them, and it is better than a fourth mortgage. Everybody admits that. No man will rise in this House to deny it. Why can that not be given to us as a security, as it could if the company wished it? Why are we not given preference stock? There is no possible difficulty about that stock, as it is in the company's treasury. Then, there is a company composed, I think, of men who are interested in this enterprise, and formed for the purpose of purchasing town sites along the line of this railway, which of course will become daily more valuable as the line is constructed. That would be good security for our loan. That company is going to enrich these fortunate men. They .are going to become millionaires by the construction of this railway and by the re-sale of these town sites along the line of a road which, as the hon. leader of the opposition has said, we are financing almost entirely with our own money. There are three kinds of securities that are infinitely better than the one mentioned in this Bill.
Aj.e we now getting the very best security since we are asked to depart from the terms of the original contract. That is the second reason why I wish to enter my dissent to this transaction. At present we have urgently needed public works, the construction of which should not be delayed. We have to provide increased accommodations for our friends in the west. That was the original plan of Mr. Hays when he came here to ask government assistance in order to place the vast net work of the Grand Trunk Railway system in contact with that rich region. We have to increase our canal facilities. Since we have thrown into the waste paper basket the report of the Transportation Commission, with all its practical suggestions, our American neighbours have awakened to the necessity of increasing their facilities for water transport; and while we are neglecting our plain duty they are building and deepening canals to tap our trade. Not only was the report of that commission unanimous in recommending the immediate construction of the Mr. MONK.
v Georgian Bay canal, but when the presi-s dent, Mr. Reford, got the information that 3 our American neighbours were taking action ! he wrote an additional letter which was i published, saying that we had not a mot ment to loose in building the Georgian 3 Bay canal, if we wished to keep control 1 of the great traffic of the west. At the 1 present moment, we ought to start that 3 canal at the Montreal end. If we do not, 3 the cost we will have to pay when we ulti-3 mately build it will be increased fourfold.
*	We should at any rate begin at that end [DOT] and the other, and the intervening space 3 might be kept in abeyance for a time, since J we have no money. Our ocean ports ought _ to be made free. We have American rivals 3 in that respect who will otherwise take the
*	traffic from us. They are increasing their
*	facilities in Boston, New York and Balti-; more. In some of their ports they are I actually bonusing the traffic while we are ( increasing the burdens on our own. The ! Transportation Commission reported that [ certain of our ports should be made free ' to enable us to properly carry out the im-1 mense traffic we have with Europe, but
we have not taken one step to give effect ; to that recommendation. Instead we have taken upon our shoulders this National Transcontinental Railway, which must for many - years to come absorb all our re-1 sources. That was the scheme we condemned at the time and I condemn it now. Experience has justified what we said at the time, and I wish to enter my protest against this transaction under the circumstances. *


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I am bound, like my chieftain for the province of Quebec, to protest against the proposition which is now laid down before us. I was against that project of railway from the very beginning, and in 1904 I have fought indeed against that project of railway because it was untimely and not enough elaborate.
I consider to-day that we must accept the accomplished fact, that we are too much involved, that we cannot turn back and that we cannot frustrate the endeavours made nor the expenditure incurred. But in another point of view, it does not follow that we are bound to approve of every thing which has been made.
The Conservative party has never been against the construction of railways; it has been on the contrary, always identified with all these undertakings in our country. It has built the Canadian Pacific Railway -the first transcontinental-and that line was built, I can say it, in spite of the persisting hostilities of the Liberal party as a whole.

I am speaking for myself but I am satisfied that the Conservative party, as a party, will not try to kill that enterprise and will not fall into the exaggerations of the Liberal party from 1880 to 1884.
However the conservative party is entitled to see through this matter, and as a matter of fact we are only beginning to get an insight into it.
When we are told that the people have approved in 1904, and ratified in 1908 this undertaking on the part of the government I fail to see on what grounds such a statement is made. In 1904, the people endorsed the building of a railway which, according to the right hon. gentleman himself was to cost about thirteen millions or thereabouts. They endorsed the building of a railway, which according to the Minister of Finance-a man who should have been well posted on the matter-was to cost $11,512,325.
What do we see now? That same undertaking is to cost two or three hundred millions, at any rate over two hundred millions; which goes to show that the people had not been supplied with sufficient information in 1904. I find some further evidence on that point in the columns of the Witness, a paper generally well informed and whose loyalty to the liberal party is well known. The quotation is -is follows:
The following is a brief summary of the principal facts to date; Expended on National Transcontinental Railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, $50,000,000; required to complete it, $66,000,000; required to build prairiesec-tion of Grank Trunk Pacific, $32,000,000; required to build mountain section of Grand Trunk Pacific, $68,000,000; total probable cost from coast to coast, $250,000,000; original estimated cost, $100,000,000; length of line east of Winnipeg, 1,752 miles; under construction, out of 3,556 miles, 2,000 miles. It will be seen from these figures that very much remains to be done, and that the original figures are very far astray indeed. If there were any chance of similar disparity between the estimated cost of building the Georgian Bay canal and the actual cost, the country would be likelv to hesitate very long indeed before embarking on that enterprise.


Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse).: What about the remarks that your honourable chief (Mr. Borden) made a few days ago about the construction of the Georgian Bay canal?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Allow me to get to the end of this quotation.
It is interesting in this connection to note that the Canadian Pacific Railway, with over twelve thousand miles of railway, with big fleets on two oceans and the great lakes, with a chain of big hotels across the continent, enormous workshops and a rolling stock unsurpassed in the world for size and quality,
only has an issued capital stock of $150,000,000, preference stock $48,800,000, debenture stock $115,650,000, and mortgage bonds of $39,620,000, or a total indebtedness of about $350,000.-
000.
Compare this with the Grand Trunk Pacific's 3,556 miles and its debt of $250,000,000, and the conclusion will soon be reached that if all this money were only honestly expended there is every reason why the Grand Trunk Pacific should be the 'finest and most substantial' railway on the continent. The Canadian Pacifio Railway, however, runs no risk of losing its well won laurels.
So the ' Witness,' a faithful organ of the Liberal party, has criticised this undertaking, and that shows that the people had not been sufficiently enlightened at its outset in 1903.
It is contended that the people have approved of this undertaking. The people in this country are sometimes consulted in odd fashion; that is they are consulted after the matter has gone through, and not at all before it is decided and the contracts awarded. The people are fooled, and later on the government boasts of having obtained their approval. As I have already said, there are two ways of consulting the people, before or after deciding. It seems to me it would be more manly and fairer on the part of the government to consult the people before taking their decision, instead of waiting until that decision has been taken. For instance, in the case of that undertaking, which was launched towards the end of the parliament of 1900, it would have been a very easy matter indeed to submit it to the electorate at the election of 1904, previous to starting the work.
In connection with the increase of the salaries of the ministers and members of parliament the proposal was brought forward immediately after the general election of 1904, although the people had not had the least inkling of it in the course of the elections. It seems as though the people had approved that measure, but in that case again they accepted a state of things already in existence.
In regard to this important proposal for the granting of an amount of $10,000,000 to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, it would have been an easy matter to submit it to the people at the last general elections. But nothing of the sort has been done. It would have been necessary to enlighten the people, to acquaint them with the facts and circumstances; but it was thought preferable to leave them under the false impression of 1904.


Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER. (Translation).: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Does he accept, as concerns himself, the increase of the members' sessional indemnity which has been voted?

Is he willing or not that it should be maintained?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: In answer to that question, I may say that, had I been here I would have voted against that proposal, not so much because I considered it unfair in itself, but on account of its being sprung by surprise on the people. I am not called upon to discuss that question just now; I have referred to it by the way and not with any idea of criticism. It seems to me that in connection with questions of such importance, it would be advisable to consult the people. The manner of consulting the people which the government have adopted is not the ideal one to my mind. It is in accordance neither with the spirit nor with the letter of the constitution. It is an arbitrary and antiliberal mode of procedure; it is neither generous nor frank, and surely it is not manly.
That sovereign people in whose presence, during the elections, politicians are so apt to take a cringing attitude, is deserving of more consideration.
As will have been noticed, the extra expenditure on this undertaking will be enormous. As stated by the ' Witness ' that road will entail on the Dominion an expenditure, not of thirteen millions, not of a hundred millions, but rather of $250,000,000 or possibly $280,000,000. This government is going to supply all the funds for this undertaking from Moncton to Prince Rupert, from ocean to ocean, for all sections east and west, and the prairie and mountain sub-sections, including the Quebec bridge, and these amounts will be returned when there are funds available.
With whom are we dealing? Is it with the Grand Trunk Pacific, or with the Grand Trunk Company of Canada, or with a third company which has made its appearance under the name of the Grand Trunk Town Site and Development Company; or lastly, is it with the fourth company, the "Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Line Company"? All these companies are apparently amalgamated ; the directors are the same in every case, they constitute in reality a single moral person; and I say that parliament should under the circumstances show great caution in granting them favours. They are endeavouring to secure privileges, while avoiding all risks. These companies are much more anxious to make money out of us than to endure the welfare of the country.
The hon. Minister of Railways stated a minute ago how important it was from our point of view to have an entirely Canadian line of railway, over an all-Canadin route. Now, do all these companies which seem so anxious to provide us with an all-Canadian Mr. ETHIER.
Transcontinental Railway, have as stock holders and directors Canadian citizens, oi at any rate foreigners intending to become citizens of Canada. Are they not rather strangers, Americans, anxious to make money at our expense, without even going to the length of getting naturalized?
When I heard the Minister of Railways and his friends booming the West, I remember what the Liberals had to say in this connection in 1880 and 1884. It is important, I think, to recall the past, for fear certain incidents in the history of our country should be too soon consigned to oblivion. It was not usual then to boom the West, to speak of it as destined to become the world's great storehouse. I shall quote presently some of the sayings of these gentlemen in that connection, when the Canadian Pacific Railway was applying to parliament for help towards the completion of their undertaking.
However, as regards this proposed second transcontinental, it was launched prematurely, with inexplicable haste, in the full blast of a session, when parliament was drawing to an end, and against all expectations. It should be no matter for surprise if in the end the expenditure is found to be enormous. Arrangements were taken as if the matter had been of very little importance, without going to the pains of getting precise information in regard to the physical features of the country through which the railway was to be built, nor as regards the expenditure, and the cost of the road in stead of amounting to $13,000 per mile or $30,000 per mile, reaches $35,000 and even $80,000 per mile.
That is not surprising; it was bound to happen, and the best evidence of it I find in a speech of the right hon. Prime Minister, delivered on July 30th, 1903. He said:
I do not expect even the most fastidious of our critics will ask us that we should have had an exploration across the prairies. They are satisfied that we have enough information now to deal with this question so far as the prairies are concerned. But I shall be asked: What about the Rocky mountains? My answer in regard to the Rocky mountains is that we have mountains of information. We have mountains of books, pamphlets and reports-books, pamphlets and reports from traders, from explorers, from engineers.
And he mentioned Samuel de Champlain, Robert Cavelier de la Salle, La Verendyre, Alexander Mackenzie, Captain Butler and many others who at that early date, in their travels on land and sea, had not the least idea of making surveys or specifications and estimates for railways. No wonder that with such data, the government should have been out in their calculations.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.


29, 1909 HOUSE OF COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 29, 1909.