1914-05-18

INTERNATIONAL PURITY CONGRESS.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) laid on the table of the House the report of the delegates appointed by the Government of Canada to attend the International Purity Congress held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 7-12, 1913. He said: There does not appear to have been any formal published official report of the congress as a whole, but what is understood to be a report of the proceedings has been published in successive numbers of a magazine in the United States. These have been bound and are placed upon the table of the House for the information of the members.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 200, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act. He said:
Several amendments have been prepared to the Yukon Placer Mining Act, but owing to the advanced stage of the session it has been deemed advisable to drop them all save one, the purpose of which is more particularly to facilitate the carrying out of the intention of the existing Act. The existing Act provides that any number of claims owned by one individual company or group of individuals included in a registered partnership may be grouped for
[Stage Direction]
operation, but subsection 2 of the section of the Act which so provides, grants the grouping privilege to large holders of placer mining property companies and registered partnerships, which cannot be taken advantage of by groups of individual miners operating together, and the amendment is for the purpose of extending the scope of the Act so as to provide that the grouping privilege shall extend to groups of individual operators as well as to companies and registered partnerships.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Robert Markle Richardson.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of George Andrew Crooks.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Florence Merritt.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon.W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance): The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) asked me to obtain for him certain information with regard to La Banque du Peuple, La Banque Ville Marie, and La Banque St. Jean. I find that La Banque du Peuple suspended payment in 1895. No liquidator was ever appointed. By special legislation, chapter 75 of the Acts of 1897, and chapter 123 of the Acts of 1899, the affairs of the bank were wound up by the directors. The Act of 1899 confirmed a composition at the rate of forty-five cents on the dollar with the creditors, and this composition was paid. There is no available information as to the number of depositors. With respect to La Banque de St. Jean, I find that the amount due ordinary depositors at the time of the suspension, 1908, was $301,000. The liquidator advises that the probable dividend will be between twenty and thirty per cent of this amount. He further advises that the approximate number of depositors was
3,000.	With respect to La Banque Ville Marie, I find that the deposits at the time of failure, 1899, are reported to have been $1,504,665. Seventeen and one-half per cent was received by the depositors. The liquidation was closed and the liquidator is dead. There is no information available as to the number of depositors. I am unable to obtain any further information for my hon. friend.
[Mr. Roche 1

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: On the 16th of March an Order of the House was passed
For a copy of all recommendations, protests, petitions and representation received by the Government or any department or minister thereof, regarding the appointment of the present collector of customs at Antigonish and of air the letters, telegrams and correspondence relating thereto.
Yesterday what purported to be a return in answer to this order was placed on the table of the House from the Department of Customs. That return consists only of a letter dated 22nd October, m3, signed by John McDougald, commissioner of customs, addressed to Wm. Chisholm, Antigonish, N.S., informing him that the Minister of .Customs has been pleased to authorize his appointment as acting collector of customs at Antigonish, N.S., ,at a salary of $1,100 per annum. I desire to say that I never received such an appointment or such a letter, nor have I any expectation of receiving an .appointment. This return is certainly not a compliance with the order of the House. I happen to know that there are on file in the Department of Customs petitions and representations respecting the appointment that was made. There is a representation from the president of the Conservative Association, and I happen to know what it contains. The order is so worded as to call for the production of any correspondence or documents from any department of the Government, and, as I happen to know that this letter of the president of the Conservative Association was written as an official document from that association and not as a private or confidential letter, it should be produced.
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: The return as brought down by me contains all the official documents in the department. IE there is any other correspondence it is private and confidential and my own.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: I want a compliance with the Order of the House so far as the other departments are concerned.
I suppose the same protection will be sought by the other departments, of saying that the documents are private.


Mr. SPEAKER:: An hon. member in asking for a return to be brought down cannot enter into a discussion any further than to explain the matter so that the minister will understand it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member complained the other day that the return had been asked for some time ago and had not been brought down. I find that on March 18 it was sent to the Secretary of State. His attention was called to it. I laid the return from the Customs Department on the table yesterday. This morning I handed in the return from the Secretary of State and it is now in the hands of the Clerk, with any other correspondence, if there i3 any, from any other department.


William Chisholm: I would ask the miinr ister whether a document relating to a public appointment, not marked personal or confidential, is considered by him to be of a private character?


John Dowsley Reid: I judge whether a document addressed to me is private or official when I receive it.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George E. Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) Bill No. 170, to amend the Canada Grain Act, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Louis Codenre (Secretary of State), Bill No. 177, to amend the Companies Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: I understand that the principal feature of this Bill is the creation of share warrants. Would the hon. minister kindly explain?


Mr. CODERRE:: The memorandum attached to the Bill explains it pretty well, I think. It says:
A share warrant Is a share certificate transferable by delivery without any record of such transfer being made in the books of the company. The warrant usually provides that when dividends are declared by the company, an advertisement thereof setting out the rate and time of payments must be inserted in certain newspapers, and also that the dividend coupon attached to the warrant may be cashed at certain banks. On the appearance of an advertisement of a particular dividend the holder of the warrant may then present the coupon for that dividend and obtain payment thereof. Share warrants may at any time be exchanged for ordinary share certificates. This section was first enacted in Great Britain in 1867 and is taken without substantial change from section 37 of the present Imperial Companies' Act. It is similar to sections 61-69 of the Ontario Companies' Act. The main object of the section is to enable a company to issue a kind of security which is probably the most important
dealt in on the European exchanges. This kind of security is particularly popular in France with small investors, and the French law renders share warrants more easily dealt with. There is no change from the Imperial Act except where the necessities of our Act demand verbal changes.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



REGULATION OF EXPLOSIVES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CODERRE moved the second reading of Bill No. 189, to regulate the manufacture, testing, storage and importation of explosives.
Mr. DEVLIN:: Would the minister kindly explain?


Louis Coderre: In 1908 the attention of the Government was directed to the many fatalities that had occurred through explosives in railway camps and mines throughout the country. Dr. Haanel, Director of Mines, considered it advisable to have Mr. Desborough, one of His Majesty's inspectors of explosives, look into the matter. Mr. Desborough visited the provincial Ministers of Mines, and various construction camps and mines throughout the country, and made a report containing some very valuable data. In 1909 a conference met in Ottawa at which were present Dr. Haanel, Mr. Desborough, representatives of mine owners and manufacturers of explosives, and delegates from some of the labour unions in the country. The conference listened with great interest 10 the memorandum read by Mr. Desborough, and, acting on the suggestion contained therein, Mr. Templeman, ex-Minister of Mines, drafted a Bill which was brought down in the last session of the old Parliament. The Bill reached the committee stage, and ten clauses were passed, but it was found impossible to get the Bill through that session. The present Government realize that this is a very important matter, and steps were taken last year to bring a Bill before the House, but on account of the length of the session it was impossible to do so. It is the desire of the Government to get this Bill through this session. The officers of the department and Mr. Desborough believe that by the enactment of such a law the number of fatal accidents through explosives would be considerably lessened, although of course the danger can not be entirely eliminated. To give the House an idea of the risks undergone by those who use explosives in mines and on railway construction work, I may

quote some figures taken from the Labour Gazette. In the year 1912-13, 92 fatal accidents occurred in this country through explosives; 19 in mines, 47 in railway construction, and 26 in other employments. We believe that if this law had been on the statute book many of these accidents would not have occurred.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does it in any way affect provincial laws?	*


Louis Coderre: This Bill, before being introduced, into Parliament during the session of 1911 by Mr. Templeman, was examined by Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and he gave the following opinion with regard to it:
I have examined the draft Bill respecting explosives which you left with me a few days ago and return the same herewith.
The point which you particularly submitted for my consideration was as to the constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada to enact such a Bill. The Bill contains a variety of provisions, many of which are doubtless of a general character, while there are others, such as for instance, those providing the precautions to be observed in the manufacture of explosives which have a local aspect. In respect to such provisions, and possibly in its entirety, the Bill covers debatable ground, but I should anticipate that the Bill if enacted by Parliament would upon the principles of construction of the British North America Act already laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, be upheld as competent Dominion legislation. If the Government consider that it is expedient for the peace, order and good government of Canada to enact such a measure, I see no sufficient reason to advise that they should refrain from promoting the Bill for any reason based upon doubt of the constitutional authority of Parliament to enact it.
I may add that the Minister of Justice concurs in the view above expressed.
Mr. Newcombe had some doulbt as to whether clause 11, as it originally appeared in the Bill, came within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. But this section will not be found in the Bill at the present time, as, at the suggestion of the present hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), it has been struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 2-interpretation:
Mr. CARROLL:: Are there any inspectors at the present time, appointed by the Department of Mines, for the purpose of looking after explosives?


Louis Coderre: No, there is at present no law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I called the attention of roy hon. friend the other day to a very serious fatality which took place at Beloeil two years ago at a manufactory of explosives, when, I think, ten people were killed. Coming and going between here and Montreal, my hon. friend may see, on lie Perrot, another manufactory of explosives. I do not know what manufactory it is, but it is close to the track of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway, and it is common talk among travellers when trains are passing that a fatality may occur at any time. Sparks from the engine may cause an explosion, which would be most serious in its consequences. I beg to call the attention of my hon. friend to this and to remind him that if his inspectors do not see at once that this manufactory is removed from near the railway tracks the Government will be held responsible. I do not say the Government will be held responsible in law, but the Government will certainly be held morally responsible. It is located at a very dangerous place. We have already suffered in our province from two or three fatalities, and I think the time has come when such a danger should be removed.


Louis Coderre: Is my hon. friend speaking of the manufactory on lie Perrot?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Louis Coderre: It belongs to the Canadian Explosives Company, I am told by Mr. Hudson of the department. My hon. friend will find in subsection (j) of section 19 that the Government will have power by regulation to act in cases such as this. The subsection provides that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations-
(D governing the establishment, location and maintenance of factories and magazines, and the manufacture and storage of explosives.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will this Bill be retroactive?


Louis Coderre: An Order in Council
can be passed regulating such a case as that which has been mentioned by my hon. fr;end.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It should be very
clearly stated that the section is retroactive. I would like to hear from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice on this point.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I see no reason why it should be retroactive. We cannot make it

an offence to have had a magazine where it has been, but we can pass a regulation determining that in future no magazine shall be allowed to remain within a certain distance of railway tracks without the law being retroactive. From the passing of the regulations the existence of magazines in such places will be prohibited.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to injure the company at all, 'but I think in the public interest my hon. friend should not allow this manufactory to be maintained right beside the tracks. A spark from a locomotive might cause an explosion and consequent disaster. There have been explosions at Isle Perrot, Hull, Beloeil, causing loss of life. This powder mill on the railway track near Vaudreuil is a constant danger to all who have to pass in that vicinity.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3:
This Act shall not apply to the Department of Militia and Defence or the Department of the Naval Service.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Who regulates the carriage of explosives on railways?


Louis Coderre: The Board of Railway
Commissioners is empowered to make regulations.	*


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am told that some
railway companies take great risks and that explosives have been carried even on passenger trains. The most stringent regulations should be enforced.


William F. Carroll: I can quite understand that these departments should be excepted, but I would like to know if there are any regulations governing the carriage and storage of explosives belonging to the Militia and the Naval Service Departments.


Louis Coderre: These departments have their own regulations which are given effect to.


William F. Carroll: There should be regulations in these departments as stringent as those which apply to mines. In the mines we have experts who understand explosives and even under the present law accidents in Nova Scotia, where mining is carried on to a greater extent than in any other province, are comparatively few. In other provinces forty per cent of the injured in mines are injured through explosions while in Nova Scotia it amounts to only one per cent.
On section 4-explosives prohibited unless authorized:


William F. Carroll: Is it the intention of
the department to pass regulations declaring what are explosives?


Louis Coderre: Yes.
On section 7-licenses:


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will this section if passed
do away with the necessity which exists at present of applying to the different provincial authorities for certificates to establish powder magazines in any locality ?


Louis Coderre: The provinces will still legislate within the scope of their powers. This will not apply to cases already provided for by the provincial law, but to other cases which evidently would fall under the jurisdiction of this Parliament.
Mr. DEVLIN': Section 7 of this Bill provides:
The minister may issue licenses for factories and magazines, and no one shall manufacture, either wholly or in part, or store explosives except in licensed factories and magazines.
In the Revised Statutes of the province of Quebec, article 1269 reads:
Every person keeping a magazine for the storage of powder, or who sells or holds for sale any quantity of powder, must obtain from the collector of provincial revenue a license to that effect.
Article 1270 provides:
Powder magazines shall be constructed in the manner and at the place determined for each such magazine by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council with the consent of the council of the municipality within which said magazine is situated, and no license shall be granted for keeping a powder magazine unless such magazine be constructed in conformity with the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
Article 1268 enacts:
* Powder magazine ' means every building used for the storage or keeping of any quantity of powder more than twenty-five pounds in weight.
It appears to me there is a direct conflict between the provincial regulations and the regulations which we are seeking to pass now. If this section 7 be passed, then any person wishing to keep a powder magazine will have to apply to the federal minister, and when he comes to the province of Quebec to build that magazine he will find that the permit he has received from the minister is practically useless, because he is confronted with sections 1269 and 1270 of the Quebec law. He will find further that, under the British North
38G4

America Act, section 92, subsection 16, among the matters assigned to the control of the provinces are:
Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
I would call the minister's attention to the fact that a powder magazine located in the province of Quebec is entirely under the provincial law which I have just read, and it should not fall under any law or regulation of this Parliament. I would point out also that the parties most interested in this legislation are the municipalities concerned, and the minister is taking away all their protection.


Mr. LAMAECHE:: My hon. friend will
notice also that in certain municipalities they have certain regulations on this subject, and it seems to me that when a company wishes to operate a powder magazine hr a powder factory it must comply with those regulations.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They must first, as I understand it, get the permission of the municipality before they can even apply to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Section 1270 of the Quebec law reads :
"Powder magazines shall be constructed in the manner and at the places determined for each magazine by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, with the consent of the council or municipality within which such magazine is situate.
The municipalities are well protected now, but I think that under the law proposed by the minister they would lose that protection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There cannot be any question of the right of the province to require licenses for businesses of this kind. But that is given them under power conferred upon them for the" purpose of raising a revenue-the power to issue licenses. But we are dealing with the question of importation, manufacture and storage of explosives with a view to meeting dangers that present themselves equally all over the Dominion generally, the dangers that attend the presence of explosives. There is certainly no intention to interfere with such regulations as, under a provincial authority, the municipality may be authorized to make for its own special protection, but rather a general provision that the provincial authorities may regard as supplementary. If necessary, we might add to this Bill a clause specifically providing that its requirements shall not obviate the necessity of complying with any local regulations.
[Mr. Devlin "|


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would suggest that the minister add some such words as these in section 7:
The minister may, subject to provincial laws and regulations, issue licenses-
And so on. That would cover the difficulty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That might mean that we could not issue any licenses. What is contemplated is that the party shall have the two licenses-from us and also from the province. The province has the right, by means of its license, to collect revenue, while this is not a revenue measure but is for general protection. Un-
12 noon, questionably, the province has power to make regulations or conditions upon which its license shall issue. I think that probably the better way to do would be, not by adding something to this particular clause but by another clause declaring that the provisions of this Act shall not so operate as to relieve any person from the obligation to comply with the requirements of local laws on the subject.


Sir WILFEID LAUEIEE:: But there is more than that in it. This Bill is intended for the protection of the public. The local legislatures, in Quebec at all events, have also that in view. They provide that no powder magazine shall be established in any locality except with the consent of the municipal authority. There are some municipalities in which it would be very dangerous to have a powder magazine established, and therefore the provision subjecting the matter to local consent seems wise. It would be .better that we should provide that before a powder magazine is established anywhere the consent of the municipality must be obtained.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The object is not to put us in a position of interfering with the provincial law. The suggestion of the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had also presented itself to my .mind; but it appeared to us that to put a clause in this Bill requiring the consent of the municipality might subject our law to the suggestion of interference. We could hardly undertake to deal with special local conditions from the point of view of the protection of a particular municipality. I am inclined to think that if that were the sole purpose, then the whole affair would be a local matter, to be dealt with by the provinces. But what we were trying to deal with were the general oon-

ditions that exist everywhere, regardless of the presence of municipalities, leaving to the provinces their power and right to deal with special requirements in special localities. For instance, it was suggested that we should put into this Bill a provision that there should toe no powder magazine within a fixed distance of a town or village. But after consideration, we thought that it would be more proper to leave to the municipal authorities, acting under the authorization of the local legislature, the determination of what distance from the town a factory would be considered dangerous, because what might be necessary with regard to one village or town might not be, for one reason or another, necessary with regard to another. As I have said, there is no intention and no desire under this Act to relieve any person of the obligations imposed upon him for the protection of the public. What we want to make is a law that will be of general application where the province may fail to legislate or, at all events, of general application to protect the public of the Dominion against the dangers connected with this matter. As I have suggested, It seems to me that 'any possible objection would be overcome if there were added to this Bill a general provision stating that nothing in this Act shall so operate as to relieve any person of any obligation of that nature imposed upon him by the laws of the province or by the municipal authorities acting under the law.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understand that under
the provisions which my hon. friend suggests putting in, section 1271 of the law of the province of Quebec, to which my right hon. frieind the leader of the Opposition referred a moment ago, will be protected. It is as follows:
A municipal council desiring, for valid reasons, the removal from within its limits or from one part of its territory to another, of an existing powder magazine, shall have the right to obtain such removal upon payment to the company or person owning the magazine, of an indemnity to be determined by arbitrators appointed by the interested parties, subject to the decision of the provincial treasurer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a provision giving power to a municipality to enforce removal from one place to another for the protection of the people of the municipality. The added clause may easily be so worded as to preserve that provision, as well as similar dispositions made by a provincial authority or by a municipal authority authorized by the legislature.


William F. Carroll: I wish to draw attention to subsection g of the Interpretation Act, which is as follows:
Magazine means and includes any building, storehouse, structure or other place in which any explosive is kept or stored, other than at or in and for the use of a mine or quarry in a province in which provision is made by the law of such province for the efficient inspection of mines and quarries.
It seems to me that this 'section excludes the inspection of explosives in the mines in the province of Nova Scotia, because in that province we have an efficient law for the inspection of mines and quarries. In the short time which I devoted to the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia this morning, I could not find that we have any laws dealing with the inspection of explosives that are used in or about or around these mines. The minister will readily see that if the Act remains as it is, it will exclude inspection of explosives in and 'around the mines in the province of Nova Scotia and I do not think that that would be desirable.


Mir. SHEPHERD:: I would suggest to
the hon. member that in all Coal Mines Regulation Acts, it is provided that no explosive shall be stored in any mine. This section, so far as I can read it, will not prevent the provincial Government of Nova Scotia from passing such regulations as the hon. member refers to.


William F. Carroll: I understand that very well.


Francis Henry Shepherd: The Coal Mines Regulation Acts usually deal w:tb the use and storage of explosives in mines, and there is nothing in this section which interferes with the passage of such regulations by the Government of Nova Scotia.


William F. Carroll: I understand that. My point is that perhaps the Government will say that it is the intention to exclude the mines in Nova Scotia. If that is the intention and they are doing that under this Act, all well and good; but this Act, notwithstanding that we have not efficient inspection of explosives in that province, will not apply there. I agree with the hon. member from British Columbia that the Government of Nova Scotia may have regulations and may pass very stringent law?; but I want to find out if it is the intention of the department to exclude from its operation the mines in the province of Nova Scotia. That is the effect of this subsection as I read it.


Louis Coderre: My hon. friend alluded to the use of explosives in mines and to the inspection of these explosives. The words * use of explosives ' have been eliminated as far as possible from the Bill with a view to preventing conflict of authority where provisions have already been made under the Provincial Mines Acts regulating the use of explosives. On railways, canals or other construction work not so governed federal Orders in Council will be issued to provide for the proper use of explosives, so that adequate protection will be given to the men employed and also the general public.


William F. Carroll: The word ' magazine ' is defined here and it excludes from the provisions of this Act the storage place of explosives in and around a mine where there is an efficient inspection by the legislative authorities of the province of such mines and quarries. Thus the place where those explosives would be stored around a mine in Nova Scotia would not be called a magazine at all, and would not come under the operation of the Act.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I think the power of inspecting the conditions under which explosives are stored in and about the mining industry of our province is vested in the general inspector of mines, in the general power that is contained in the Mines Regulation Acts. I know, as a matter of fact, that in all the mining districts especially prepared magazines exist in and about the mines. I was going to ask him whether or not this Act had been submitted to the mining authorities, that is the executive authorities, of the different provinces.


Louis Coderre: It has


William John Macdonald: And what was their position in regard to it?


Louis Coderre: Mr. Hudson, one of the officers of the department, went through all the provinces to meet the ministers of mines of the several provinces. He saw Mr. Duncan, the deputy minister, in Nova Scotia, who approved of the law submitted to him, that is substantially the law as it is before the committee to-day.


William John Macdonald: I am inclined to agree with the hon. member from Cape Breton that the Act will not apply to Nova Scotia in regard to mining.


William F. Carroll: In connection with the definition of 'magazine,' it certainly does not apply to the mines of Nova Scotia. Has Nova Scotia been purposely exempted

or have the officials, in drafting the section, unintentionally exempted Nova Scotia from the Act?


Louis Coderre: I do not think that this section particularizes Nova Scotia; it Tefers to all the provinces.


Francis Henry Shepherd: If I understand correctly, the hon. member contends that this does not interfere with the provisional regulations in regard to magazines around mines, but that the exemption might empower a colliery company to erect a magazine that would be in conflict with this Act. Is that the idea? I agree with the hon. gentleman that provision should be made that no colliery magazine should be erected unless it conforms to the federal statute.


William F. Carroll: It is exempted from the statute as it now reads. It is the intention of the department to exempt the magazines, storage places of explosives around mines, from the operation of this Act, or is it not? If you have good reason for the legislation as it stands all very well, but I wish to know if a mistake has been made in the drafting of the Act?


Louis Coderre: I do not think so.


William F. Carroll: Was it the intention of the minister to exempt mines?


Francis Henry Shepherd: Around all collieries and mines there is a daily storage magazine, which must be provided for, wherein a certain amount, only enough for the 24 hours' use, is allowed to be stored nearer towns or habitations than is allowed for in this federal statute.


William F. Carroll: My trouble is that the laws of Nova Scotia do not cover the matter at all.


Louis Coderre: Then, of course, the subsection will not apply.


William F. Carroll: That is what I say, that in Nova Scotia, even if we have no law at all that requires inspection of explosives, we have a law which is for the efficient inspection of mines and quarries. The Minister of Justice follows me in that? And therefore the word ' magazine ' will not cover any province where there is an efficient inspection of mines and forests, but no inspection, efficient or otherwise, in regard to explosives. This is a very technical point, probably.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not quite clear that I grasp the point of my hon. friend. I

understand that what he suggests is that powder and explosives used in connection with mines in Nova Scotia would be exempt from any inspection at all under the operation of this Act, combined with the provisions of the provincial Act. Is that the suggestion?


William F. Carroll: Will the minister follow me while I read the interpretation of the word ' magazine '?
' Magazine ' means and includes any building, storehouse, structure or place in which any explosive is kept or stored-
Then comes the exception:

other than at or in and for the use of a mine or quarry in a province in which provision is made by the law of such province for the efficient inspection of mines and quarries.
-not for the efficient inspection of explosives, but for the efficient inspection of mines and quarries. If there is no law in the province of Nova Scotia in regard to explosives, the storage of explosives around mines would not be covered by the word * magazine '.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that objection is sound, and we could cover the case by adding after the word quarries in the twelfth line, the words ' or of explosives used in connection therewith.'


Louis Coderre: I beg to move that the words ' or of explosives used in connection therewith be added after the word * quarries in the twelfth line on page 2, section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. HENDERSON:: I would like to ask the minister as to the condition of inspection in the province of Ontario. Has Ontario an efficient inspection or is it the intention that this law shall apply to the province of Ontario?


Louis Coderre: I have a letter here from Mr. Miller, provincial geologist for Ontario, regarding explosives, in which he says:
The Mining Act of Ontario only regulates the storage and use of explosives at the mines. There is no regulation regarding the manufacture or statistics to show the amount used.
The manufacture of explosives is a matter of trade and commerce, and as the explosive remains in the form of a commodity which is open to purchase and sale, it is subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the Dominion Government. As soon as it is brought for use on the mining property, regulations passed by the provincial legislature govern.
It has been felt for some time that the Dominion Government should bring in legislation respecting the manufacture and sale of
explosives in Canada, in view of the numerous accidents resulting from explosives.


David Henderson: What I had reference to was not the use of explosives at the mines, but at the works; say, at a quarry. I would like to know whether we shall have to rely on this Bill for guidance in this matter, or whether there is a law in the piovince of Ontario regulating the use of explosives at the works. I speak of this matter because I have personal knowledge of what is being done; in fact, I am interested, and I think this is the easiest way for me to find out just what the law is on that point. By the way, in the definition of explosives I see no reference to the word ' rack-a-rock,' a very common explosive used in the quarrying of stone. I am unable to determine from the definition, either special or general, whether rack-a-rock is covered.


William F. Carroll: Is it in the shape oi rockets ?


David Henderson: Yes; it is in the shape of a Roman candle.


William F. Carroll: I think it would be covered by this definition.


David Henderson: It may be. Rack-arock is practically a non-explosive unless interfered with, and I do not think there is any danger at all from it in storage. It is regarded as a very harmless explosive, and very easily handled. I never heard of any accidents resulting from the use of it. It is used very extensively.


Louis Coderre: In answer to the hon. gentleman's first question as to the storage and use of explosives in connection with quarries, I believe, after reading Mr. Miller's letter that this Bill would cover that point, and I think it is also covered by the Ontario regulations. In regard to my hon. friend's other question, rack-a-rock is manufacured by a Sherbrooke company. I have a letter in reference to this Bill written by Mr. White of that company. It will show the reason of a certain amendment which will be found in clause 7. The letter is as follows:
I represent two companies, the principal one of which is the company which manufactures an explosive known as Rack-a-Rock. This explosive has a great many advantages over any of those manufactured by the trust, one of the principal reasons being that it is absolutely harmless up to the very time of its being used. It consists (when shipped from the factory) of two parts, a solid and a liquid, the first being in the form of a fine powder. These two substances can be shipped by freight or express In the same manner as ordinary merchandise,

Inasmuch as until they are mixed in the proper proportions, they are absolutely non-explosive.
The consumer is able to purchase Rack-a-Rock in this form in a great many places where it is very difficult to obtain dynamite, owing to the great danger of transporting the latter. Under the proposed Act, you will see section 1, subsection (e) says:
'Factory' means and includes any building, structure or premises in which the manufacture or any part of the process of the manufacture of an explosive is carried on, and any building or place where any ingredient of an explosive is stored during the process of manufacture.
Section 7 provides:
'The minister may issue licenses for factories and magazines, and no one shall manufacture, either wholly or in part, or store explosives except in licensed factories and magazines'.
I am afraid that under the wording of these two sections it might he held that the place where, for instance, a farmer wishing to blow up stumps mixed the solid with the liquid would be held to be a factory and consequently he would be unable to do it except under the conditions provided for by the Act. An interpretation of this kind would put both of my companies out of business. My clients tell me that at a meeting of the explosive manufacturers and the late Government, when it was contemplated to draft an Act, they were promised that the Act would be drafted in a most elastic form to begin with. Under the Act as drafted there is little or no elasticity at all. I am told that the English Act contains a clause under which, by Order in Council, an explosive may be declared not to be an explosive within the meaning of the Act.
The Bill has been amended to meet the cases referred to by Mr. White, and this amendment will be found in subsection 2 of section 7 as follows:
2. Notwithstanding any provisions contained in this Act the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister based upon the report in writing of the deputy minister accompanied by certificates from the chief inspector and chief chemist of explosives approving of the nature of the components and of the final explosive product, may allow the inexplosive component parts of an authorized explosive from licensed factories and magazines to be assembled and blended at or near the point of use and such place of blending shall not be deemed a factory or magazine within the meaning of this Act.


David Henderson: I think I understand it.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: I understand that, while you might have an explosive that was not dangerous, such as Rack-a-Rock, it would be treated either in transportation, in manufactories, or in magazines, just the same as if it were very dangerous. My hon. friend has just read a letter from the attorney of the Rack-a-Rock Company, Mr. White, and I understand that he refers to the regulations in England as to explosives. The regulations in England provide for different grades of explosives, that is,

grades are established not according to the explosive force but with reference to the amount of danger of such explosive in transportation. In Canada and the United States there are different kinds of explosives. Some of them are very powerful, but they are found to be absolutely without danger while in transportation. Some others are less powerful, but are very dangerous if you transport them, and very dangerous especially in the case of concussion. Others cannot be exploded unless by the use of detonators or percussion caps. I do not know whether it would not be well to provide in our law for a certain class of explosives; that is, apply very stiff regulations to some of them, and to be a little more generous with regard to others. I agree with my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) in that respect.


Louis Coderre: Does not the hon. gentleman think that this point might be met by paragraph A of section 18 concerning regulations?
The Governor In Council may make regulations-
(a) for classifying explosives, and for prescribing the composition, quality and character of explosives.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: Yes, but this would apply to the terms of the certificate to be given to the different classes of explosives. I would like to ask the minister by what process or procedure the regulations of the Bureau of Explosives are made to apply in this country. I understand that these regulations, although I do not question the merits of them, are made and modified in the United States, and that we have no control whatever over them. If you want to deal with a railway in regard to the transportation of explosives, they will always refer you to the regulations made by the Bureau of Explosives. I would like to know if these regulations are applicable to this country as the result of an agreement between the railway companies, or if they come under the Railway Act or any regulations made thereunder. I have never been able to elucidate this point.


Louis Coderre: In conformity with the Railway Act, the Board of Railway Commissioners have issued regulations for the transportation of explosives.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: But these regulations are the same as the regulations made by the Bureau of Explosives which emanate from a United States body. What control

have we over those regulations in the way of making or modifying them?


Louis Coderre: The Bureau of Explosives is an American body located in New York. It has its own regulations, but they do not apply here.


Paul-Émile Lamarche: If you apply to a
railway company they will tell you that you have to comply with the regulations of that American body. I do not object to these regulations, but I would like to see a procedure of some kind emanating from this Government so that we would have some control over the regulations. I do not dispute the merits of these regulations, but it is awkward to have to comply with regulations that we have no control over whatever.


Louis Coderre: I do not know that our people should be forced to follow those American regulations unless they are applicable to merchandise shipped from a point on the other side of the line. As far as transportation in this country is concerned, we have our own regulations passed by the Board of Eailway Commissioners under the Eailway Act.
On section 8-permits for importation:


Mr. AETHUES:: This section will possibly have an effect not contemplated by the framers of the Act. In the interpretation clause it says:
-and includes fireworks, fuses, rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridges, ammunition of all description.
Then, section 3 says:
The minister may issue permits for the importation of authorized explosives.
That, it seems to me, would include cartridges for small arms and prohibit the importation of cartridges even by tourists, without a permit. This would work a great hardship. In subclause (j) of the Interpretation Act, safety cartridges mean cart-rages for gun3, rifles, pistols, revolvers and other small arms, of which the case can be extracted from the small arm after firing. 1 would suggest that the words * other than safety cartridges ' he inserted in clause 3 after the word ' permit ', so as to make it read:
The minister may issue permits for the importation of authorized explosives, and no one shall import any explosive into Canada without such permit, other than safety cartridges.


Louis Coderre: There is no objection to adopting that suggestion.
Section as amended agreed to.


William F. Carroll: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint local inspectors at centres where explosives are very much used?


Louis Coderre: That seems to be a good suggestion, but I cannot say now if it is contemplated by the Deputy Minister of Mines.


William F. Carroll: An official at Ottawa would not be in a position to inspect explosives lin the mines of British Columbia or of Nova Scotia.


Louis Coderre: I will consider that.


William F. Carroll: Before the third reading of the Bill I would like the minister to give due consideration to section 20.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that the Bill be
amended by adding as section 27:
Nothing in this Act shall relieve any person of the obligation of complying with the requirement of any license law, or other law, or by-law, of any province or municipality, lawfully enacted with regard to the storage, handling, sale, or dealing with explosives, nor of any liability or penalty imposed by such law or by-law for any violation thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
David Henderson: A serious accident
occurred some years ago at Essex Centre in connection with railway carriage of explosives. I am unable to say just now what the provision in the Eailway Act is with respect to that, but I have in my hand a memorandum which I shall pass to the minister and ask him to consider it before the Bill is finally disposed of.
Bill reported.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock. MONTEEAL HABBOUB COMMISSION.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 191, to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am in sympathy with this legislation brought down by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I am glad to hear that the members of the Harbour Board are back to work after their



visit to the various ports in England. When I remarked upon their absence a few weeks ago, my hon. friend, I hope, understood that I did not wish to reflect upon their conduct, because I am bound to say that generally speaking these commissioners are following in the footsteps of their predecessors, and everybody knows that their predecessors administered most efficiently the work carried on in the harbour of Montreal. The hon. gentleman has himself declared on various occasions that if it had been possible for him to retain their services he would have been only too pleased to do so. I understand that the season of navigation of 1913 was marked "by several important works carried on in the harbour of Montreal. Some work has been done in connection with the harbour railway line from Molson's creek to Racine pier. My hon. friend will probably be able to give us a synopsis of what has been accomplished in that direction. Two permanent transit sheds on the Tarte pier have been completed, also elevator No. 2 and its conveyor system in the central part of the harbour. I would like to know what addition^ have been made to elevator No. 1, and what area of reclaimed land has been provided in connection with the dry-dock and the shipyard. 1 understand that last year new quay walls of standard crib-work, substructure and complete superstructure have been built. My hon. friend will be able to tell us briefly what work has been done in this connection. I should like to know also what is the mileage of railway track in connection with the harbour proper and how far the tracks will be extended this year. I understand that the commissioners have removed some artificial work at Moffat's island, and that there has also been carried on the construction of what is called the industrial wharf at Point aux Trembles. Is that industrial wharf to be used by a private company, or is it for the general use of the public? I understand that two sheds on the high-level shore wharfs, sections 24 and 25, are under construction. My hon. friend will be able to tell us if they are going to proceed this year with the work on those .sheds, and whether, in order to expedite matters, they will work during the winter as well as during the summer months. My hon. friend might give also some details about the electric hoist on the Alexandra pier and the paving on the wharfs. Is this work completed, and if not, 
when is it intended to be completed? There are some wooden piers still left in the harbour of Montreal. I would like to know if it is the policy of the department to transform these wooden piers into concrete piers. I would like also some information with regard to the additions and improvements to the construction and operating plant With regard to the dredging of the harbour, I would like my hon. friend to give me the pay-list and to tell me how many men are employed, and how the materials are purchased.
Everybody knows that the harbour of Montreal is possibly the most important point in our whole transportation system. Being at the head of oceanic transportation, it has become practically, de facto, the national port of Canada. A few figures will show its importance in connection with our whole transportation system. The total quantity of grain handled during the last eight years by the Montreal Harbour-Commissioners elevator system, exclusive of the grain handled by the Grand Trunk and other local elevators, shows what im proved facilities have accomplished. The figures are shown in the following table:
Total quantity of grain handled or transferred.
Year.	Bushels.
1906		 944,321
1907		 1,078,289
1098	 8,661,350
1909		 11,691,071
1910		 21,526,727
1911		 21,007,164
1912		 25,561,655
1913		 44,000,000
This enormous figure for 1913 shows what modem improvement can accomplish in the handling of our western grain.
Let us take now the total quantity of grain received at the Grand Trunk and Harbour Commissioners elevators. I spoke of the quantity of grain exclusive of the Grand Trunk. The total quantity received at the Grand Trunk and Harbour Commissioners elevators, including the floating elevators, which are sloiwly but surely disappearing, has measured up to 62,562,549 bushels, of which 53,351,388 bushels were exported, as compared with 37,800,000 bushels in 1912, an increase of 15,551,388 bushels.
The maintenance of the channel is of great importance. So far, the material dredged by the Harbour Commissioners' dredges, and most of that dredged by Government dredges, has been saved and used in the construction of embankments

and in reclaiming land areas for the ' harbour.
The following table gives the average monthly depth of water in the ship channel in the harbour during 1913 as compared with the reports for 1912:
	1913.	1912.
May	... 35' 8"	35' 5"June	... 33' 3"	35' 10"July	... 31' 8"	32' v 0"August. . ..	... 30' 91"	30' 11"September.. .	. . . 30' 4"	30' 8"October. . . .	. . . 30' 6"	30' 8"November. .	. . 31' 5"	32' 2"In connection	with this, I	might recall
to my hon. friend what was said by the president of the Shipping Federation, Mr. Andrew Allan, in addressing the powerful corporation of which he is the head. I quote from the Montreal Daily Mail of a few -weeks ago. This address was made on the occasion of the re-election of Mr. Andrew Allan. 'In it he referred to the report of Mr. -Arthur Surveyer, a member of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, upon the water levels in the port of Montreal. Mr. Allan said:
Last year I had occasion to refer to the probable lowering of the water in the river, as a result on the proposed Chicago drainage scheme. I now call your attention to a report by Mr. Arthur Surveyor, dealing with this matter. I might state that the federal Government have appointed a commission, consisting of Dean Haskell, of Cornell University; Mr. Porneret, superintendent of the Ship channel, and Mr. Stewart, chief hydrographer, to inquire into and report on the whole matter.
In his report on the depth of water in the St. Lawrence channel, Mr. Surveyer says:
The lowest water occurred in November. 1911, when the level receded to less than 28 feet in the so-called 30-foot channel. It is evident that we are still far from the 35-foot channel and, with the lowest water plane steadily receding, it will take probably more than dredging before a 35-foot channel is obtained.
Mr. Surveyer goes on to eay that he is convinced that the low water plane has subsided in the last forty years anywhere *from two and a half to three feet, and that this fall has practically all taken place in the last twenty-five years. He thinks the three causes of the subsidence are the deforestation of the St. Lawrence basin, the enlarging by dredging of the controlling sections of the river, and the diversion towards the Mississippi river by the Chicago main drainage canal of a large volume of water which formerly passed to the sea via the St. Laiwrence river.
I have read carefully the report pre-2444
pared by Mr. Surveyer, and it is appalling to think that the river St. Lawrence may show further decreases in water level, so that possibly the interests of Montreal may be endangered and navigation between Quebec and Montreal may -suffer seriously. I hope my hon. friend can give the House the benefit of his latest information on the subject and give some heart to the people of Montreal. The intelligence that the two new Allan liners, the Calgarian and the Alsatian, cannot come up to Montreal has created a sensation in shipping circles not only in Montreal but the country at large. After the millions and millions^ that have been spent in equipping Montreal harbour, and dredging the channel between Montreal and Quebec, it would be a thousand pities if this strategical point in our transportation system should now be jeopardized. I do not wish to delay the business of the House any longer, and I simply offer these remarks in order to get some assurance from the hon. gentleman that under his care the harbour of Montreal will be well looked after.


Mr. HAZEN:: I will endeavour to give my hon. friend, as far as I can, the information which he asks regarding the Harbour Commissioners, the work they did last year, what they propose 'doing this year, and, generally, the information he is very properly seeking from me at this time. My hon. friend has very properly referred to the great growth that has taken place in the business of the port of Montreal. It is in order to continue that work, and to provide further facilities for the port that this Bill has been introduced. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a further advance to the Harbour Commissioners of $9,000,000 to defray the cost of additional facilities that have become imperative by reason of the very great expansion of trade at that port, which is the great entrepot of Canada. The development has been very rapid indeed, as may be understood by referring to the revenues of the commission. In 1909 the total revenue derived from all sources amounted to $687,772; in 1912, it had increased to $1,049,311; and for the year ending December 31, 1913, $1,361,964; and, as my hon. friend pointed out, during that period there has been an enormous increase in the total quantity of grain handled by the commission, increasing from 565,355 bushels in 1904 to 43,349,291 bushels handled in 1913. The increase in 1913, over the grain handled in 1912, was between 17,000,000

and 18,000,000 bushels, which is an indication of the great improvement that has recently taken place in the facilities for handling grain at that port.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the prospects at present?	(	|


John Douglas Hazen: It largely depends on the
harvest in the West.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that there is more grain there now than they can handle.


John Douglas Hazen: The present facilities will be able to handle that grain. As to the quantity that will be taken out during the year, that depends largely upon the crop that is produced in the Northwest during the present season. We are all glad to know that the prospects for a bountiful harvest are very good indeed. The increase in traffic in 1913 was particularly gratifying, but with additional facilities the growth will be even more marked. It is anticipated that with the extra facilities that are being provided the revenue of the harbour at the close of 1917 will reach the $2,000,000 mark, and that is without the imposition of tonnage dues on shipping. The various rates charged by the commission compare more than favourably with those charged at competitive ports in the United States. 1 might read a short extract from the report of the commissioners and one or two extracts from the report of the old commission bearing on this matter. In this year's report the commissioners say:
Notwithstanding the marked depression in trade in the commercial world during the latter part of the season, due to which it was not expected that the tonnage of the port would show great increase, it is most gratifying for the commissioners to be able to announce that the past year has been a record one, as far as shipping is concerned, returns eclipsing by far those of any previous year, as may be seen from the statements appended hereto, showing respectively, for the past ten years.
I have here the last report made by the old commission, Messrs. Stephens, Ballan-tyne and Geoffrion, and I think it might be well to place one or two quotations on ' Hansard ' for the information of the House. On the first page of the report the commissioners say:
It is perhaps pardonable to restate here that the development plan authorized by the Canadian Government in the progressive enlargement of her seaport facilities at Montreal, has met with the approval of the highest authorities on transportation.
To quote the words of Calvin Tomkins, commissioner of dock and ferries of the port of

New York: ' I believe at the present time, while suffering from the disadvantage of ice obstruction in winter, Montreal nevertheless affords the best example of modern seaport organization.'
In point of monthly volume of business, the port of Montreal takes its place as the second largest port in North America. Without imposing tonnage dues upon the ships, with a tariff of charges one-half of what existed twenty-five years ago, with a handling cost on all her through business reduced 50 per cent in six years, the port of Montreal though only at the inception of its development and far from realizing its ultimate economic possibilities, is able to pay out of a modest revenue all charges of maintenance, running expenses and the interest on every dollar invested in its development.
Canada's national port is, therefore, being developed by money borrowed from the national treasury and upon which the current rate of interest is being paid out of the revenues from the port's business.
Its boundaries have been extended, and the people of Canada now own, in fee simple, 16 miles of water front on either side of the river, untrammelled by a foot of vested interests.
Not alone has an attempt been made to meet the requirements of the great shipping interests in the development of port facilities, but the great railways of Canada have been afforded access to the ships and sheds; the cartage companies have been provided with accessible means of reaching the merchandise warehouse within the harbour limits; while plans have been laid for the creation of an industrial harbour that will afford to all great industries taking advantage of the facilities of rail and water access to their own establishments on an economic basis that will bring power to the prestige of the port.
There has, therefore, been achieved, with a measurable degree of success, a solution of one of the biggest problems which transportation presents, in the co-ordination of rail, river and road traffic, all meeting at a point of interchange, with possibilities of assembling cargo with economy and dispatch.
Passing over to page 249, I might read this, under the heading of General:
Though something has been done to equip the port of Montreal in a manner befitting its importance as the head of ocean navigation, it must be remembered that many problems of great import yet remain to be worked out. In carrying on this work it will be wise to maintain the authority of the port executive in a manner which will permit of all interests using its facilities receiving equal and fair treatment. The administrative staff must understand that upon loyal service and merit alone depend their positions and advancement, and that no outside authority can appoint, promote or dismiss them.
The report is a very interesting one and would repay reading by gentlemen who are interested in the development of the great port of Montreal:
Some years ago the question of providing port facilities at Montreal was referred to a board of consultative engineers. In 1909 this board submitted a report outlining a definite programme of harbour improve-

ments and in the following year legislation was obtained authorizing an advance on account of this programme of $6,000,000. Immediately thereafter plans, specifications, etc., were approved for work estimated to cost $5,242,207.
In 1912 authority was obtained from this Parliament for a further advance of $6,000,000 and subsequent to this, plans, etc., were approved estimated to cost the whole amount of $12,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the debt of the port now?


John Douglas Hazen: Up to the 31st March last $9,150,706 of this amount had been advanced. There was some debt on the harbour then with regard to which I will get the figures for my hon. friend. This left a balance available at the first of the present fiscal year of $2,849,294 and as the result of the progress made upon the various items of harbour improvements, this amount will be all expended before the end of the present fiscal year. The present proposal to advance an additional $9,000,000 is considered sufficient to meet all requirements up to 1918, and it is not considered necessary that the expenditure of any one year shall exceed $3,000,000.
To meet the requirements of the traffic offering at the port of Montreal, it will be necessary to undertake, and, if possible, complete during the year 1914, an extension to the elevator system. The proposal is to add to elevator No. 1 an extension with a capacity of 1,400,000 bushels and at the same time to improve the unloading facilities there.
It will also be necessary during the present year to extend the railway system to meet the growing traffic. The construction of additional sheds in order to furnish accommodation for the increased needs of the various steamship lines will also have to be undertaken at once. Speaking more in detail, I may say to my hon. friend that the proposed programme for 1914 is about as follows:
Harbour grain elevator system . . $ 800,000
Harbour railway system	 282,674
Victoria pier and market basin ..	293,000
Permanent wharf transit sheds . . ..	477,990
Warehouse, Beaudry street	 200,000
Shore wharfs sections 24 to 30.. ..	764,789
Dredging and filling in general ..	..	284,738
Paving and railway tracks on
wharfs	 150,000
Improvements to eastern section, below St. Mary's current, floating
dock site	 165,000
General improvements and plant	..	200,000Permanent sheds, Tarte pier ..	..	28,474Pointe-aux-Trembles wharf..	..	.. $ 130,000
St. Bambert-Longueuil road and
sewer	 100,000
Retiring maturing debentures	. .	..	200,000
Traffic department plant ....	192
Aylwin street subway		50,000
Unforeseen items	 47,660
Total	?3,674,517
As to what has been done during the past year I might call the attention of my hon. friend to the report of the Harbour Commissioners for the year ended 31st December, 1913, which is not printed in the Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries yet. We have printed, in this year's report, the report of the Harbour Commissioners to the 31st December of the previous year. This report, which I hold in my hand, has just recently come into the office. With reference to the progress of the harbour improvements perhaps I could not do better than to read selections from this report to my hon. friend. At page 11 they say:
Harbour Improvements.
A successful construction season, no serious accidents in the port, satisfactory labour conditions and the best season on record with regard to the operation of harbour facilities.
The Harbour Commissioners' railway line was completed to high level along the river front from Molson's creek to Racine pier.
Two permanent transit sheds were finished and opened for traffic on Tarte pier.
The Harbour Commissioners' elevator No. 2 and its connecting conveyer system to all the berths in the central part of the harbour, was operated during the whole of the season with perfect success.
Harbour Commissioners' elevator No. 1, situated in the most favourable position in the harbour for receiving and delivering grain was fully operated during the season, although an addition of one and a half times its present storage capacity was being constructed.
The dry-dock site, providing a large basin for the floating dock 'Duke of Connaught' and a large area of made land for the shipyard, was advanced almost to completion.
New quay walls of standard cribwork substructure and concrete superstructure were completed, having a total length of over 2,200 lineal feet and 2,000 lineal feet partly constructed.
Railway tracks to the extent of about four miles were constructed and an additional one mile improved and relaid.
The removal of the artificial works at Moffat's island was greatly advanced and its ameliorating effect on the St. Mary's current towards the close of the season was very marked.
One of the important items of new work commenced was the construction of a large industrial wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles.
Another new work commenced was the construction of two new transit sheds on the high level bulkhead wharfs, sections 24 and 25.
A new electric hoist, with bridges, connecting with the upper stories of the sheds on the Alexandra pier was constructed during the season.

Important items of paving on the wharfs were completed and the roadways were put in a very much improved condition.
A commencement was made towards the reconstruction of the superstructure of the wooden piers in the central part of the harbour, consisting of the substitution of concrete for the portion of the quay walls above low water level.
Important additions and improvements were made to the Harbour Commissioners' construction and operating plant.
Then details of the work are given which it would take a very considerable time to read. My hon. friend also made some inquiries regarding the machine shops and shipyards which form part of the work, I find these matters referred to at page 33 of
the report:
Machine shop and shipyard.
The machine shop and shipyard, situated on the Mackay pier, are fitted up specially for the construction and maintenance of the dredging and construction plant.
The shop is an old wooden structure, but well equipped with excellent tools and machinery. There is also an excellent smith shop and boiler shop, both equipped for building and repairing.
The shipyard is very conveniently located for the hauling out as well as the construction and repairing of vessels.
Since 1910, the entire machinery of the two dredges has been built, as well as the hull and machinery of a floating derrick, a tug and eight large flat scows.
The usual maintenance and repairs to the commissioners' fleet were well and economically carried out during the year.
My hon. friend asked in regard to the expenditure on the Harbour Commissioners' railway tracks to the end of 1913. The figures are given in detail, but the grand total of the tracks is placed at 37-3042 miles or about 374 miles. Then my hon. friend also asked about the number of people who were employed. I find a table showing the maximum and average number of workmen employed directly by the Harbour Commissioners during the season of 1913. The maximum number employed was 1,797 and the average 1,283. They are divided as
follows:
Construction of wharfs, etc	
Maintenance, cleaning, removing ice,
Harbour yard, carpenters, blacksmiths,
Sawmill and timber room, sawyers
and handymen	
Machine shop, machinists, blacksmiths,
etc	
Shipyard, carpenters, labourers, etc. Dredging fleet, crews of dredges,
tugs, etc	
Grain elevators, foreman and operators. Floating elevators, foreman and operators	
Shed repairs and maintenance	
Average.
58
26
85
76
10
The disbursements on capital account were $2,461,794.62. The principal works of improvement carried out were:
Harbour dredging	$252,742	61Real estate	
99,671	35Wharfs, piers and basins	
779,052	80Plant	
90,544	09Shops and buildings	
14,924	12Railways	
118,007	52Permanent sheds	
190,100	70Electric hoists, etc	
31,213	49Grain eleavtors	
884,837	93
The debenture debt of the commission on the 31st of December, 1913, was $21,542,000 of which $1,672,000 is due to the public, and $19,850,000 to the Dominion Government. The average rate of interest on these debentures is 3-344 per cent,
The level of the water in the harbour is a most important matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) probably recollects that last year I got authority from Parliament for the appointment of a commission to consider the question of the effect the dredging in the St. Lawrence is having upon the level of the water in the harbour of Montreal. The commission was composed of Dean Haskell who has had large experience in that work on the Mississippi and other large rivers in the United States, W. J. Stewart, head of the Hydrographic Survey, and Mr. Forneret, superintendent of the work on the St. Lawrence channel. It was hoped that the report would be ready for discussion in Parliament this session, but the work was more complicated than expected, and the report will not be ready before next session. We will then have scientific data which will enable us to decide what should be done. If it should be found that the work going on in the ship channel is lowering the level of the water in Montreal harbour, then the question of constructing compensating works to hold back the water will have to be dealt with promptly, because it affects the trade of Montreal, which is a matter of great importance to the Dominion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The explanation of the hon. gentleman is very satisfactory. What proportion of the work in Montreal harbour is done by the commissioners themselves and what proportion by outsiders ? Are tenders called for all the work which is not done by the commissioners ?
Total .. 
1,283


John Douglas Hazen: All the work is done under the direction of the commission, but for the erection of the last sheds they called for tenders and awarded the contract to the lowest tenderers. The last elevator was built on the same principle as that adopted by the Canadian Pacific railway in constructing its elevators. They get a reputable firm of elevator-builders to do the work for the cost of labour and material, and above that a commission for their services. The former commission built one of the elevators in the same way. I doubt very much myself whether it is the wisest course to follow. The Quebec Harbour Commissioners recently asked for tenders and made a contract for a lump sum, and I think perhaps the result may be more satisfactory.
I talked the matter over with Mr. Ballan-tyne, who is a sound business man, and he believes that the system gives splendid work and is in the end more satisfactory, and the fact that a great corporation like the Canadian Pacific railway, which conducts its business on most approved lines, builds its elevators on the same principle, is no doubt a strong argument in its favour. All the work in the harbour is d^ae by the commission, with the exception' of that part of the St. Lawrence channel which runs through the harbour, and that is charged against the appropriation for the deepening of the St. Lawrence channel.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The debt of the harbour of Montreal is at present $19,000,000?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much will it be if this legislation passes ?


John Douglas Hazen: They probably will have spent this money in four years from now and the debt then will be $28,000,000.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will this be enough to finally equip the port of Montreal?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think it will. If the country continues to grow we will have to be working all the time at the port of Montreal. The progress of this country wiil to a great extent be measured toy the volume of the business in the port of Montreal. If we have only sufficient facilities for doing the business of to-day, then if the country develops these facilities will have to be increased. I have no doubt that whatever Government happens to toe in power the commissioners will be asking Parliament to make provision for advances so as to keep the harbour at Montreal abreast of the times. I sincerely hope that will be the case.


John Howard Sinclair: We shall all be glad to see that happen. I would not, however, like to see the idea go abroad that the Government should toe responsible for all the expenditures at these ports. In improving the port of Montreal we increase the value of every house and every business stand and every piece of property in the city, and the city of Montreal should bear some part of the burden. I understand that at present that is the system adopted in Montreal, and so far I am in accord with it. We are borrowing money and lending it to the Harbour Commissioners, and they pay interest at the rate of three and a half per cent on the loan. I think that is the proper policy. We sometimes hear people advocating that the Dominion at large should bear the expense of equipping what are called the national ports, but that is not the policy in vogue in Great Britain. The harbour trust in Glasgow looks after the equipment of the port in that great city, and it is one of the best equipped ports in the world. The port of Glasgow does not depend upon the Government to sustain it, and the trade of the port pays the interest on the money expended. I am not objecting to the present Bill; it is largely in the line I would advocate, and I simply want to place myself on record in favour of a policy by which the trade of the port of Montreal should bear the greater portion of the expenditure necessary in order to provide for the necessities of that trade.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If I mistake not the
harbour of Montreal is the only harbour in Canada that pays the interest on its debt.


John Douglas Hazen: It is the only port that is self-sustaining. When the Government constructs wharfs in other harbours the dues on these wharfs are collected under the Harbour Masters' Act and they go into the consolidated revenue of the country. The port of Montreal is absolutely self-sustaining. On every dollar that is advanced by the country the Harbour Commissioners, out of the revenues of the harbour-elevator charges, shunting charges and other items of revenue-have paid the interest.


John Howard Sinclair: It is not altogether selfsustaining, because we loan them the money at three and a half per cent, and we are paying more than that.
On section 3-interest on debentures:


Rodolphe Lemieux: Following the line of the remarks of my hon. friend from Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair), the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries may know that action was taken lately by the city of Montreal against the Harbour Commissioners for the payment of taxes. So far the Harbour Commission has always contended that it, being a commission receiving its power from the Crown, was not liable for taxes. I understand that action was taken and judgment .rendered, Mr. Justice Weir declaring that the Harbour Commission was not liable. Has there been an appeal from that judgment, or has the city of Montreal agreed to accept it?


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that it is the intention of the city of Montreal to appeal from the judgment of Mr. Recorder Weir, who decided that the commissioners' property is not liable to taxation. It certainly seems to me that some action will have to 'be taken about the matter if the decision should ultimately be that the property is liable to taxation. It has never paid a dollar of taxation in the past, nor has any attempt been made to levy taxes upon it. While, in a sense, this is the property of the Harbour Commissioners, it is public property in the broader sense of the term, and it would be a monstrous thing, it seems to me, if this Parliament should be asked to make these large appropriations for the port of Montreal and for the enlargement and improvement of the harbour, and then find itself faced with charges to a very large amount-for it would reach a very large amount-for taxes. I understood from the previous Board of Harbour Commissioners that they discussed this matter with the civic authorities, those authorities took the position that they could not do otherwise than impose taxes upon the Harbour Commissioners' property, but that 4 p.m. they are quite willing, if the courts decided that the property was subject to taxation, themselves to apply to the Quebec Legislature for an Act exempting it from assessment. I understand, however, that that is not the attitude of the present civic government in Montreal. That being so, the matter is still in our hands. We are not obliged to make advances to the Harbour Commissioners, and I think we should carefully consider the matter before making advances, and ascertain whether the civic authorities intend to make us pay large sums in taxation. Every citizen of Montreal with whom I have spoken about the matter feels that it is not right that the property should be asked to pay taxes, but that it should be

regarded the same as any other property belonging to the Crown.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 192, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1:
John Douglas Hazen: The purpose of this Bill is to authorize a loan to the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec of $2,000,000 to continue the plan of harbour improvements which was commenced under the authority of the legislation of last session. It will be recalled that during the last session authority was obtained for an advance of $3,500,000 to the commission. Immediately following the passage of that measure plans for a comprehensive scheme of harbour improvements were prepared under the direction of the commission, which, in turn, received the approval of my department. In carrying out the work contemplated by this scheme some $2,960,363 was expended up to the end of March last. This left a balance unexpended of $539,637 available for the operations of the present season. Up to the present time very satisfactory progress has been made with the work undertaken by the commission, and * it is confidently expected that before the expiration of the present year there will be available at Quebec accommodation that will substantially assist the growing need of shipping at that port. One of the most important items of the scheme of harbour improvements is the construction of a first-class modern elevator with storage capacity of 1,000,000 bushels. This elevator, including a complete electric power plant, is now practically in readiness to receive grain. Substantial progress has also been made with the extension of the pieTS at the Louise embankment which, when completed, will afford much needed berthing accommodation for the additional ocean steamships coming to the port.
As the result of what the commission has been able to accomplish in the short time that they have been in charge of operations, a very satisfactory increase in the traffic, as evidenced by the increased revenue, is to be noted. For the year 1912, the gross earnings of the harbour were $126,131.39.

For the year ending the 31st December last, the earnings had increased to $176,020.80, exclusive of an annual rental the commissioners propose to charge for the site occupied by the new Dominion Immigration building of $50,000. When the improvements contemplated by the proposed loan are completed there is every reason to believe that the increased traffic will yield ample revenue to provide for operating and interest charges.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To cover the old debt?


John Douglas Hazen: Not the old debt; I am
afraid it will be some years before they will be able to discharge the old debt.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the amount of the old debt?


John Douglas Hazen: I will give my hon. friend the figures in a moment. There are certain amounts owing not only to the Government but to individuals, and these latter were made a charge ahead of the interest charges on last year's advance. The revenues last year anid this year will, we expect, be ample to pays interest on the advance of last year and this; but not for many years to come will they be able to pay the interest on the *eld debt, which has been standing for quite a, number of years and which amounts to a considerable sum. The expenditures last year were made up as follows: Foundation and channel work under contract with the Dominion Dredging Company, $642,361.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many dredges are employed by the Dominion Dredging Company?


John Douglas Hazen: Two. The next item is
that of the quay extension, Louise embankment, providing for bulkhead, engineering, timber for new crib, general plant and bulkhead contingency, amounting to $764,000. The amount of expenditure upon grain elevator under contract with, the Canadian Stewart Company was $739,000, and upon oar ferry terminals, $117,523.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are these car ferry terminals?


John Douglas Hazen: That work is being done
under arrangement with the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway. There will be, as I understand it, a considerable sum of money, on the settlement of accounts between them, to be paid back to the Harbour Commissioners iby the Commissioners of the Transcontinental, an amount
that will run up to about a quarter of a million dollars. Other expenditures were Heating crane, $51,000; service boat, $22,000; Heating fenders, labour, timber, etc., $3,000; dredging plant, $271,000; crib-work at Fly bank, $92,000; elevator dredge, $57,000; new dump-scows, $72,000, and so on, amounting to the sum which I have mentioned.
As to the work which is to be done this year, the dredging contemplated includes a trench for the proposed quay wall and the channel approach. This work involves the removal of 2,000,000 cubic yards of material. The estimated cost of this dredging amounts to $400,000. With regard to the quay extension, Louise embankment, this item covers the construction of 1,818 lineal feet of substructure and 1,200 feet of superstructure, of a crib-work retaining wall extending along the northern face of Princes* Louise embankment on the lines laid down * by Messrs. Coode, Matthews, Fitzmorris & Wilson, together with the necessary filling in. Then there are railway tracks on two other properties amounting to -$50,000; purchases of Indian Cove property, purchase of new locomotives and the construction of conveyor galleries. The latter will probably not be required this year, but the contract will probably have to be entered into this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will that be covered by the $2,000,000?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. I may say that the old debt, exclusive of the loans of last session and this, is about $5,415,722.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is very satisfactory.
I wish to call the attention of my horn, friend to a statement which he made not very long ago, and which was received with great satisfaction by Canadians at large, namely, that, as far as possible, any ship or any material required by the Government in connection with shipping would be purchased or built in Canada. I was very much surprised to learn that the Quebec Harbour Commission had recently placed orders abroad for a large crane, a large dredge, a floating grain elevator, and a steam tug. The value of this equipment will amount to several hundreds of thousands of dollars, in fact, my hon. friend, in answer to a question which I put lately, stated that this will entail a very large expenditure. All of this equipment could have been constructed at different Canadian works, at Levis, near Quebec, or at Montreal, at the Vickers' works, or on the Great Lakes at Collingwood, or elsewhere. There

are several structural steel companies in Canada fully prepared to accept an order for the construction of such vessels. There is a plant at Levis, the Davey plant, one at Kingston, one at Montreal, one at Colling-wood, one at Toronto, one at Port Arthur, capable of building the whole of these different appliances. There are more than a dozen engine builders and boiler builders in Canada fully equipped to produce the engine plant and boiler plant required, of the highest possible quality. In fact, we know that lately possibly the largest grain carrier ever built was launched at Colling-wood on the Great Lakes. As a Canadian and a moderate protectionist, I cannot see why this Government of high protectionists should go abroad to get the appliances and the ships and the dredges and the engines and boilers required for the Harbour Commission of Quebec, or any other commission in the country. We have the Canadian Westinghouse Company, the Canadian General Electric Company, each of them having an output equal to the largest British companies, each fully prepared to deliver all electrical appliances required on the shortest notice, of the very highest quality, not to speak of several other electrical works in Canada. Every dollar's worth of material and every day's wages that have been put on, the building of these harbour appliances abroad for the harbour at Quebec could have and should have been provided in Canada. It is true my hon. friend may say that after tenders were called he found that the prices in England were a shade cheaper than the prices in Canada, but it has always been the policy of this Government and of former Governments to give the preference to Canadian firms. You must bear in mind the Customs duties which enter into the account, and in that way you can give our Canadian firms the preference. The Marine Department has recently announced, through a statement of my hon. friend in the House, that it is the policy of the Dominion of Canada to place all orders of the Department of Marine, for shipbuilding, in Canadian works. Does this rule not also apply to other public works, and will not the Government state that instructions will be given to all harbour commissioners and all bodies having authority to place orders for marine or other appliances to be used in harbour improvements or other public works, that all such orders must be given to Canadian manufacturers. We have the Westinghouse Electric Company at Hamilton, the Steel Company of Canada, also at Hamilton, the Bridge Works
[Mr. I.einioux. [
at Hamilton, the General Electric Company, the Poison Iron Works at Toronto, the Col-lingwood Shipbuilding Company at Colling-wood, the Western Dry Dock Company at Port Arthur. So, not going outside the province of Ontario, these appliances could have been supplied by the firms which I have already mentioned. These works, with the capacity for employing 50,000 workmen, are curtailing their operations and discharging their workmen because of lack of orders, while these public bodies, like the harbour commission, are sending public money abroad to employ foreign workmen in the same occupations. The Vickers Company, of Montreal, could have filled the whole order in its own works for these harbour appliances.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think they could then, as their works were not ready. They could now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With all due deference, I met the other day one of the members of the firm, who had read the answers given to pay questions on the Order Paper. He said that he felt very sorry that his firm had been forgotten in the distribution of orders and that the Vickers in Montreal could have supplied all those appliances. At all events, I simply call the attention of my hon. friend to the announcement made some months ago that in future his policy would be to give the preference to Canadian firms as regards Canadian ships, and, generally speaking, Canadian appliances for our Canadian public works and for the use of the harbour commission, etc.
There is another point about the harbour commission in Quebec. Of course we all have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Price, the chairman of that board; but some facts have come to public notice lately which lead me to believe that it would be a good thing if Mr. Price could be at the office every day because these facts would lead to the belief that the administration is somewhat lax. I shall give an instance. The Harbour Commission purchased lately a quarry at a place called St. Nicholas in the county of Levis, just across the river. The property, three acres by five, approximately, was purchased on the 2nd of April, 1913, from a gentleman by the name of Jules Giroux. The price paid was $4,500. This Jules Giroux had purchased the property from a man named Desjamin Demers, on the 29th of March, 1913, for $2,000; that is to say, in less than a week a profit of $2,500 was realized on a property which

had been bought just a few days before foT $2,000. That may be a small amount, but it enables one to judge of the other things that are being done by the Harbour Commission. I do not wish to detain the House at any length because every minute of out time probably costs $2,500, but I simply leave this fact with my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and the hon. gentleman who is leading the House, the Minister of Public Works; $2,500 made out of the people of this country in less than five days. Surely there is a nigger in the fence.


Mr. ROGERS:: In the quarry, you mean.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This man, Jules Giroux, who sold the property to the commission, states in the deed of sale that he received no consideration, that he is only a go-between ; but it is known that he is a brother-in-law of the son of one of the Harbour Commissioners, Mr. Gravel. Far be it from me to impute motives, but I say to my hon. friend that he had better tell Mr. Gravel, that his son has a brother-in-law who is rather costly to the country, because in four days he was able to shave off a nice little profit of $2,500. If we must judge Mr. Gravel in big things as he has been acting in small things, I say to my hon. friend be careful of this $2,000,000 that you are advancing. That is a large amount of money, and I say: keep your eye wide open, Mr. Minister. I hope my hon. friend will read the Riot Act to Mr. Gravel and tell him to stop all such nonsense. This little graft of $2,500 is unworthy of the Quebec Harbour Commission. I am sure that if Mr. Price had known of this deal he would not have sanctioned it. On the whole, the explanations of the hon. gentleman are quite satisfactory, and I leave him with this little grab of $2,500.


John Douglas Hazen: I may say to my hon.
friend that he and I agree entirely as to the policy of having Canadian ships built in Canada, and to show how that policy is being carried out I may say that all tenders that are now being asked for, for the construction of ships for the Canadian Government contain the clause that the ship must be built in Canada. We have given notice to the woUd to this effect. We gave the contract for that great icebreaker we are having built for the St. Lawrence to the Canadian Vickers Company, Montreal, who were the lowest tenderers complying with the clause that the vessel must be built in Canada. In regard to the vessels to which my hon. Mend has referred, the Quebec Harbour Commissioners tell me that they were not aware of our policy of having all Government vessels built in Canada at the time they gave those contracts, and they said it would have been impossible for any shipyard in Canada to have delivered the boats in time. That is the statement made by Mr. Price, through the secretary of the board, and I have no doubt it is correct. With regard to the sale of property to which my hon. friend has referred, I might say that as soon as I heard of it I at once brought it to the attention of the chairman of the Quebec Harbour Commission. Mr.' Price tells me that he is satisfied that Mr. Gravel, who has, I believe, an admirable reputation in Quebec, and is one of its leading business men, had no knowledge whatever of the transaction; that, so far as he was concerned, there was no wrong-doing at all, and that he did not in any way convey the information which led to the persons speculating in and making a profit out of this land. The matter has not come up for the first time now. It was first brought to my attention in a newspaper article, .and I at once communicated with Mr. Price, who said that he was satisfied that there was no wrong-doing on the part of Mr. Gravel.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does not my hon. friend think it .strange that a property bought on the 29th March, 1913, for $2,000 should be sold four days afterwards to the Harbour Commission for $4,500? Does not my hon. friend think that that increase is rather questionable?


John Douglas Hazen: I admit it was a pretty
rapid increase.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a half-confessed sin, ana I forgive my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-plans, etc., to he approved before work is commenced:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Going hack for a
moment to the Calgarian and the Alsatian: whereabouts are they going to dock at Quebec? Will they lie at the old Allan wharf or the Empress wharf?


Mr. PELLETIER:: Next to the Empress wharf.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it a permanent arrangement that the new Allan liners shall stop at Quebec instead of coming up to Montreal. I should like to know, because some little surprise has been caused at Montreal by this change.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is nothing in the mail contract to the effect that those steamers should come to Montreal.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend knows that the Empresses have stopped at Quebec for years past.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is said that the new liners cannot come to Montreal because they draw too .much water. As a matter of fact, the Laurentic and the Megantic have a greater draught, and they come up to Montreal. I may just as well frankly say that the impression in Montreal is that the Allan people were told that the mail contract would not be increased unless the new steamers made Quebec their terminus, instead of Montreal. I do not know whether it is true or not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is not a word of truth in it. I suppose my hon, friend saw that in the papers. No such suggestion was made; the steamship companies are absolutely free to go to whichever port they like. There is no pressure, and I do not see why my hon. friend should begrudge Quebec the privilege of having one or two ships stop there. I understand that my hon. friend represented the district of Quebec in the late Government for some years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And this is the second time this afternoon that he complains of these two ships stopping at Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I do not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It looks like it. At all events, the Government, or the Post Office Department, has nothing to do with it-
Bill reported.



TORONTO TERMINALS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (acting Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 196, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners was read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (acting Minister of Railways and Canals), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the chair:
IMr. Lemieux.]
Resolved, that It is expedient to provide for the cost of building three railway bridges in the province of New Brunswick, one across the St. John river at or near Andover, in the county of Victoria; one across the St. John river at or near Mistake, in the county of Kings; and one across the Kennebecasis river, at or near Perry Point, in the said county of Kings.
John Dowsley Reid: In the year 1912 the Dominion Parliament passed an Act by which they agreed to guarantee the bonds on the bridges mentioned in this resolution in connection with the St. John Valley Railway Company in New Brunswick. The railway company and the province of New Brunswick have found on further investigation that the railway company will not be able to build the bridges for the amount originally estimated by them. They are unable to proceed with the construction of the bridges without further assistance from the Dominion Government. As it is the intention of the Government to take this railway over and operate it in connection with the Intercolonial railway when it is completed, the Government have decided to give further aid towards the bridges mentioned. However, instead of guaranteeing the bonds, as was originally done in the Act of 1912, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be much better for them to build the bridges themselves. They will call for tenders and let the contract and the work will be carried to completion through the Department of Railways and Canals. When the bridges are completed, they will be owned entirely by the Dominion, Government. In the former agreement the Dominion Government agreed to allow the railway company to use all the bridges for fifteen years without interest, and after that the provincial Government was to get a certain percentage of the earnings on the St. John Valley railway, and the St. John Valley Railway Company were to get any profit there might be over and above the earnings and the payment of the interest on the bonds that will be issued against the bridges in connection with this railway. In this Bill it is proposed that the bridges, including all necessary approaches, will be built by the Dominion Government and that they shall belong to and be the property of His Majesty. After the bridges are completed the Minister of Railways may enter into an agreement with the Government of the province of New Brunswick and the St. John and Quebec Railway Company, under which agreement it will be

provided that for the fifteen years after the bridges are completed no charge shall be made in respect to the cost of construction of the bridges. In other words, the original arrangement of allowing the bridges to be used for fifteen years free of interest will be carried out, but after the fifteen years His Majesty shall be entitled to the gross earnings of the bridges; being such proportion of the said gross earnings of the railway, exclusive of the railway and of the bridges, a3 the cost of the bridges bear to the combined cost of the railway and of the bridges. The earnings of the bridges in proportion to the total cost of the railway will be paid to the Dominion Government.


Mr. CARVELL:: I am happy to say that the minister and myself are very nearly in agreement over this Bill, and I congratulate the minister and the Government on the course they have taken in absolutely eliminating the St. John and Quebec Railway Company from having anything whatever to do, either directly or indirectly, with the construction of these bridges. I only wish it were possible to go to the same extent in the province of New Brunswick, that my hon. friend the minister is going in so far as the federal Government is concerned. I do not like to say to him, that I told him to do this, but I want to say to the people of this country that in the speech I delivered here three or four weeks ago I advised him to do it, in view of the great scandal that is going on in the province of New Brunswick at present.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He put it in the Bill on account of what you said.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will not go to the extent of saying that, and I give the minister credit for wanting to do what is. right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do not give him too
much credit.


William John Macdonald: You will spoil him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I pointed out that things were not going on properly in our province in respect to this railway question and I say so now, but if the minister carries out the proposals in the Bill-an advance copy of which he was good enough to send me a few moments ago-I am satisfied that so far as the bridges are concerned the thing will be carried out fairly and honestly. I know the minister will carry it out according to his promise, and that he will call for public tenders, and I believe there will be no boodling so far as that part of the transaction is Concerned. I have not had time to examine the details of the Bill, but they will come up for discussion later. The Bill, of course, is not yet before the House, but I call the attention of the minister to that clause in it with reference to the proclamation which would mean that the construction of these bridges might be postponed for a year.


John Douglas Hazen: The Government could proclaim it at any time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They cannot proclaim
this Act until after legislation is passed in New Brunswick and that might be a year hence.


John Douglas Hazen: Would it not be sufficient, if there was an Order in Council passed by the provincial Government agreeing to bring in legislation at the next session? There would have to be legislation by the province, and of course my hon. friend sees the difficulty there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We want this work finished as quickly as possible, so that we may be able to forget this thing altogether. We want these bridges built now. When the Bill comes to its second reading, possibly some arrangement can be made with respect to that. I am satisfied that the Minister has worked out this scheme properly. The original scheme was that the Government was to guarantee the bonds to the extent of one million dollars, upon which the federal Government was to pay the interest for fifteen years; now the federal Government owns the bridges, and the same idqp will be carried out by charging no rental to the railway company for fifteen years. After the fifteen years the Government will charge the railway company along the same lines as those in the original agreement. I think the minister has his Bill properly drawn along these lines, and I therefore have great pleasure in congratulating the minister and stating that he has my hearty approval for this resolution, subject of course to the necessary amendment to which I have called attention.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I congratulate the acting Minister of Railways, and I am sure he is filling well the position of the Minister of Railways during his absence, in so far as these bridges are concerned. I am glad to see by this Bill that the building of three bridges means that one bridge will be built over the St. John river at Andover, in my constituency, which means that the

railway will be built as far as Grand Falls. Last year we endeavoured to get a subsidy from this Government to build the railway from Andover to Grand Falls, but the Minister of Railways refused, telling us that it was not advisable to build a railway parallel to the Canadian Pacific railway for that distance. The fact that they are going to build a bridge across the St. John river at Andover means that the St. John Railway Company will run on the other side of the river, and it will not necessarily parallel the Canadian Pacific railway. Like the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) I believe in the good will of the acting Minister of Railways. I hope he will endeavour to see that these bridges will be constructed as soon as possible, and if the Bill is not what it should be with regard to the proclamation, we have his assurance that nothing will be allowed to interfere with the speedy construction of these bridges. I hope that will be the case.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill has been prepared with that very object in view, and it shows very plainly that our intention is to carry out this work.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is this not a new departure? Is there a precedent for action of this kind ? The Government propose to build and own bridges on a line of railway which is under different ownership, and on which they will own nothing except the bridges. If there is precedent for this in Canadian railway building, I am not aware of it.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know if the hon. member is aware that it is the intention of the Government that* the Intercolonial railway should operate the St. John Valley road-that is, this road when completed will be really a. part of the Intercolonial Railway system. The original arrangement was that a bridge company was to be formed to build these bridges, which were then to be leased to the railway, and we were to guarantee the bonds. But it has been decided that we should build the bridges on this line, which as I say, will be part of the Intercolonial railway, so far as operation is concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But I understand that no part of this railway becomes a part of the Intercolonial railway.


John Dowsley Reid: Under lease.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: By agreement between the company and the Government on a percentage basis, the Intercolonial Railway system is to operate this road. That is all.

Now, it strikes me as peculiar, and a very radical departure, for the Government to build expensive bridges upon a road which they do not own. Certainly, these bridges will be a white elephant on their hands if the road should prove unsuccessful. I cannot understand why the bridges could not be built under an agreement similar to that made with regard to the rest of the road. There may be good reasons for it, but I do not know what they are. If the building of these bridges means the difference between New Brunswick having this road and not having it, I should be glad to see the Government assist in building the bridges. But I think it must appear to the acting Minister of Railways himself that it is an anomaly to have a railway partly owned by the Government and partly owned by others.
I must say also to the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) that while he is dealing with - a lavish hand with the province of New Brunswick so far as railways are concerned, he is, I fear, neglecting his own province.
The province of New Brunswick 5 p.m. has advantages in railway facilities which the province of Nova Scotia never had. The further you go east, the further you go out on what has been called the ' Long Wharf ' of the Dominion, the province of Nova Scotia, the further you go from the railway centre. The province of New Brunswick is crossed and recrossed by lines of railways. In Quebec they have very great advantages in the extent of their railway facilities; and, when you come to Ontario, you find that from east to west, it is gridironed with railways. When the Prime Minister proposes that this extraordinary course should be adopted to give further railway facilities to a province that is already well served, he should not forget his own native province. He must not forget that we have no other representative in the Cabinet but himself, nobody else to whom we can go about such matters. I know that his attention is burdened with great questions of many kinds, but his native province looks to him and expects him to see that its railway interests are not neglected. He is making a new step in the history of railway building under this measure. And while he is assenting to dispositions of this kind for railway development in one part of the country, I hope that the railway projects of his own province, which we have been putting before the House and before himself, will receive serious consideration at his hands.


Mr. BORDEN:: I shall bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. friend and shall endeavour to see to it that the interests of my own province are not neglected. As to this particular case, we had undertaken to guarantee the bonds for $1,000,000. It turned out that nearer $3,000,000 was required. We had' the choice of one of three courses:	First, to do nothing; second, to
increase the guarantee of bonds to $3,000,000 or thereabouts, and, third, to build the bridges ourselves. Upon consideration of the whole question, a question that was not without difficulties, we concluded that the last-named course was the best. And while I am mindful of the claims that my own province has upon me, I can hardly refrain from what seems reasonable in this case, merely for the reason that I did not happen to be born in the province of New Brunswick.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the acting minister tell us if he has estimates of what these bridges will cost?


John Dowsley Reid: I am informed that they will cost less than $3,000,000; I think the estimate is something like $2,800,000; but we ask for $3,000,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Was that an estimate
made by an engineer?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the estimate was made by Mr. Montserrat, chairman of the Quebec Bridge Commission, who is supposed to be one of the best bridge engineers in Canada. He made a careful investigation and a report with an estimate of the cost.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand that
we have the promise of the minister that these bridges will be built by contract after public tender?


John Dowsley Reid: By tender, with public competition.	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to hear that. For fear of agreeing with the minister to too great an extent to suit some of my hon. friends around me, I wish to say that' I cannot agree with him in the statement he made some time ago that they found the million-dollar guarantee not sufficient to build these bridges.
I wish to congratulate my hon. friend upon this. I think the Prime Minister put it very fairly when he said that three courses were open: the first was that of doing nothing; the second was that of carrying out the bond guarantee or increasing it, and the third was that of building the
bridges themselves. I think that they ha.e done just what they ought to have done. I want to tell the committee that it was not necessary to increase the bond guarantee, and it was not necessary to change this legislation one iota, because if the money which had been voted by the province of New Brunswick had been honestly accounted for, there would have been enough money to have built the road. However, I congratulate my friends for taking the next best step with a view to creating some sort of order out of chaos.


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot allow my hon. friend to make the assertion which he has made before this committee without saying that h>
has no justification or warrant for making it. Certain charges have been made in connection with the Valley railway and the party who made that charge in the legislature of New Brunswick asked that a committee be appointed to investigate the matter. The legislature, composed almost entirely of supporters of the present local Government, amended the resolution and provided that a commission should be appointed to investigate these charges. A commission was named consisting of Sir Frederick Barker, ex-chief justice of the Supreme Court of the province of New Brunswick, Hon. H. A. McKeown, judge of the Supreme Court and Mr. W. S. Fisher, a leading merchant of the city of St. John. Unfortunately, owing to the state of his health, Sir Frederick Barker declined to act, although he expressed his entire willingness to do so when approached on the subject before the commission was appointed. Another commissioner is to be appointed to take Sir Frederick Barker's place; I understood that he was to be appointed this week. Who he is, I do not know. That commission is to inquire into these charges and I think that until these charges are inquired into and until	the evidence	is brought
before the commission my hon. friend is not warranted in making the assertion that he has made before this committee. This whole matter, therefore, is now under consideration and will be inquired into by this independent commission composed of gentlemen in no sense partisan; gentlemen on one side or the other of politics, who have the confidence of the people of New Brunswick. In view Oif these circumstances, I do not think that my hon. friend ought to make such assertions as he has .made and I do not feel that I ought to allow 'them to go unchallenged. With regard to the cost of the bridges, I

may say that the estimate made by Mr. Montserrat for the bridge crossing the St. John river is about $2,063,000. The bridge is expensive because of the great difficulty experienced in getting satisfactory foundations, Mr. Montserrat, after having inspected the different sites along the river, has made the estimate which I have mentioned. It is estimated I believe, that the crossing of the Kennebecasis river will cost something in the neighbourhood of $500,000. These are the facts and figures as I have them; I have seen Mr. Montserrat's report and I can speak (with absolute accuracy as to his estimate of the cost of the bridge. Probably $3,000,000 will be more than enough to cover the cost of all these bridges.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the little
lecture which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has given me, but I do not know that it was entirely unexpected, because this is a rather sore point with my hon. friend. I do not wonder that he objects to having these skeletons dragged out into the open, but the skeletons are there just the same. It is all very well for my hon. friend to .say that the committee of the legislature, because it was practically all on one side, did not think it fair to investigate the thing. Let me tell my hon. friend that the gentleman who took the responsibility oif making these charges wanted to have them investigated by that very same unfair tribunal. It is rather a remarkable thing that when the man who made the charges wanted them investigated by that tribunal, that tribunal (was not willing to grant the investigation. It is another remarkable thing that six weeks after the charges were made no other tribunal has been appointed far purposes of investigation. I do not intend to quarrel with my hon. friend about this matter here; we may quarrel about it elsewhere, but I do want to tell him that he cannot find another instance where a man having laid certain charges against members of a provincial Government, after a lapse of six weeks there are still no signs of the charges being investigated.


Mr. FOWLER:: I thought that there was some prospect of the dawn of a millenium so far as the hon. member for C'arleton is concerned because of his having approved anything done by this Government, but that prospect is as far away as ever. The hon. member could not possibly voice his approval without putting in what might be

called a joker; without dragging in some extraneous matter that has absolutely nothing to do with what is before the House, but which is introduced simply to display to the committee the fact that the hon. gentleman still retains all that virulence of feeling .and violence of language that is so characteristic of him. My hon. friend seems to experience some suspicion because the legislature of. the province of New Brunswick saw fit, instead of appointing a. committee of the House to investigate the charges that have been made against the provincial Government by a member of the legislature, to appoint a Royal Commission. They appointed upon that Royal Commission men, one of whom at least was not of their own political faith. My horn, friend cannot understand, it seems, that men in political life may be actuated by a spirit of absolute fairness to an opponent and so he attempts to cast some suspicion upon that commission, because there are upon it two judges of the Supreme Cburt of the province of New Brunswick, one a retired chief justice, Sir Frederick Barker, a man who stands high in the estimation not only of the people of the province which has been honoured by his services but by the whole of Canada; a man who is known from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that he
has refused to act.


George William Fowler: I am speaking now of the men who were appointed, as showing the desire for absolute fairness on the part of the legislature of New Brunswick, so that there should he no -abuse cast upon them by reason of the fact that practically all the members of the legislature of the province are of one political stripe. But my hon. friend would not he very glad if a committee of the House had been appointed, all of whom would not be Conservatives, and if their findings were adverse to the side which he represents. My hon. friend, in this House and everywhere else would say that it was a packed committee. He knows-and .hence his bitterness-that that excuse is taken from him because of the fact that the gentlemen who have been appointed on that commission are men of high standing, men absolutely removed from politics, men whose findings will be received by this country as based upon absolute facts and fully justified. Is that what is the matter with my hon.

friend, and is that why he could not even allow this harmless Bill, which he admits is in the best interests of the country, to pass without sneering at the Legislature and the Government of New Brunswick?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Fortunately, the somewhat violent exhibition of temper on the part of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fowler) will not defeat this legislation. I am very glad indeed for that. I have been dressed down by the hon. member three or four times during this session, and I am still living. I am not sure that this thing can go on forever without something being said in return. I wish to tell my hon. friend that I do not often have suspicions that I do not voice, and my friend knows too much about what has taken place in New Brunswick in the last six or eight weeks to talk very much in this House. There is no necessity for him and me quarreling over what has taken place down there in the past, we will have something to say about that in the future. I agree with him in one thing, and that is the complete suitability of Sir Frederick Barker to act as commissioner. I am somewhat surprised that he should have been appointed one evening at eight o'clock and that he should have declined the next day to act. It may be that there was a good excuse. It may be that the Government believed that Sir Frederick Barker would act, and had he been able to act no one would have been better pleased than I. It may surprise the hon. member for Kings, when he talks about my not having the ability to appreciate a fair man, that I was the first person to name Sir Frederick Barker to the Government. I stated before it was decided to appoint a Royal Commission, that if a commission were appointed I would be willing to accept Sir Frederick Barker as sole commissioner. There is no gentleman in Canada for whom I have a higher regard than for Sir Frederick Barker, and there is not a man in New Brunswick, liberal or Conservative, who does not feel great regret that that gentleman has not been able to act upon the commission. I know there was not a newspaper in New Brunswick that did not approve in the heartiest manner of the personnel of the commission. The fault I find with the Government of New Brunswick is the delay in filling up the breach. Surely they should be able to get some man in New Brunswick to take Sir Frederick Barker's place, because it is now nine or ten days since he 245
was appointed. I think that is too long to wait in the case of an important matter like this.


George William Fowler: I do not think my hon. friend is entitled to claim credit for suggesting the appointment of Sir Frederick Barker, as, when the appointment of a royal commission was first suggested, practically everybody suggested Sir Frederick Barker for that position. My hon. friend must share the credit with a great many people in New Brunswick. If Sir Frederick Barker does not act, it is simply because the condition of his health prevents him. The position may be filled by a judge who also holds the full respect of the people of New Brunswick. I do not know of any judge on the Bench who does not hold that respect, but I am sure that the gentleman who will take the place of Sir Frederick Barker, who is unable to act, will be just as well deserving of respect as Judge Barker himself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That might be quite a
contract. However, that is all that we want.


George William Fowler: That is quite a contract, but I think there are also other judges who hold the respect of the people of New Brunswick, and that this commission will be one with which no one can find fault. As far as any disclosures that are to be made, of which my hon. friend speaks, I am always glad to have these things come out if there are any things to come out. There is nothing that can affect myself in Tegard to the matter and I expect to meet my hon. friend at the investigation, where we will be able to thresh out a whole lot of things.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say if he has consulted the general manager of the Intercolonial in Tegard to the structures to be built under this Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I have not.


John Howard Sinclair: I wished to know that as we have had the doctrine laid down by Mr. Gutelius that we ought to have wooden trestles on roads of this construction, that it is a mistaken policy to erect steel bridges on a road such as we are building in New Brunswick. I am surprised that my hon. friend did not draw that matter to the attention of the general manager and have his advice, as this road was to be erected by the Intercolonial. I have no doubt he would be very much opposed to the expense of erecting steel bridges on a road of this character, in New Brunswick or anywhere



else. The minister should explain why he has adopted steel in place of wood in this case.


John Dowsley Reid: I am acting on the report of the engineer who was sent down to look into the matter, Mr. Montserrat.


Mr. OLIVER:: Is it the intention, in the construction of these bridges, to have provision on them for highway traffic? If so, will the Dominion Government supply that, or will it be provided by the provincial government? I am not particularly interested in these bridges, but in the West we find that there has been a great waste of public resources in building railroad bridges across large rivers when a small additional expenditure would have provided traffic facilities and furnished a tremendous advantage to the people of the locality. I quite appreciate that it is not the business of the railway company or of the Dominion Government to do that, but there would be such a tremendous advantage and economy in using the main structure of the railroad bridge for the carrying of the roadway that I would think it would be sound policy, wherever such a bridge is being constructed within the knowledge or on the responsibility or in any way under the aid of the Dominion Government, that the government of the province in which the bridge is situated should be approached with the offer that they would have the privilege of making arrangements for the adding of traffic facilities on fair terms.
I do not urge that the Dominion Government is responsible for this matter, but it has a general interest in everything that concerns the welfare of the people of this country, and I would suggest as a matter of policy in the public interest that when such cases arise, particularly in the West, the provincial authorities be given an opportunity of making some such arrangement.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course an agreement will foe made between the province of New Brunswick, this Government, and the railway company in connection, with the building of these bridges. I think the point taken by my hon. friend is a good one. I understand him to mean that provision should be made for traffic teams alongside the railway. I would be glad to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to my hon. friend's suggestion, and if it is at all feasible in this particular instance I have no doubt the minister will carry it out.


Frank Oliver: I am not particularly interested in this case. I just wish to bring
[Mr. Sinclair.!
the idea to the public mind with a view to instances that might arise later on in the western provinces.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 201) to amend the St. John and Quebec Railway Company Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill no. 190, to amend the Judges Act was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been suggested
to me that a difficulty has arisen in the Maritime Provinces under the provisions of the present Judges Act. What is complained of is that certain judges who do not reside in the county town-and they aTe not bound by law to reside in the county town-are, under the present Act, precluded from receiving the travelling allowance for holding court in a county town, and also precluded from receiving the travelling allowance when they hold court in the town in which they reside. It has been represented that there are two or three cases where the judge resides in a town other than the county town, but in which the business to be dealt with is as large as, or possibly larger than, the business to be dealt with in the county town. Those being the facts, the result is that that judge has to go to the county town to do his work and gets no travelling allowance; while he is also exempting the country from paying him any travelling allowance when he does the work in the town in which he has chosen to reside. I quite realize that under those circumstances the country is getting an unfair advantage because of the fact that the judge does not reside in the county town. Of course, if he were bound by law to reside in the county town, there would be nothing more to be said, but he is not. I think that is a situation that in fairness to the judge ought to be met, and to meet it I am proposing, and I move now, to amend the present Bill by adding as section 5, the following:
5. Subsection (c) of section 18 of the principal Act is repealed, and the following substituted therefor:
(c) No judge of a county court shall receive any travelling allowance for courts or chambers held at the county town of the county or union of counties wherein he resides-provided,

however, that this subsection shall not apply to any such judge residing at a town (other than the county town) at which the volume of court or chamber work done is established to the satisfacttion of the Minister of Justice to he as great or greater than that done at the county town.


Mr. KYTE:: Inasmuch as I happen to be the person who brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice, I thank him for the consideration that he has given to it. While his amendment to some extent meets the objection that I raised against the existing provisions, I think it throws on the Minister of Justice a certain amount of responsibility, and perhaps attention, that he ought to be relieved of. I think that if his amendment were to the effect that where the town in which the judge resides is larger in point of population than the county town, it would fairly meet the objection that has been raised. Where the population is larger the presumption is, of course, there is more legal business to be done, and I would suggest that he accept the change in the amendment that I have proposed.


Mr. PEOULX:: I think it would be preferable to specify the particular cases instead of making the application general, because it might open the door to judges living elsewhere than in the county towns. Conditions in the Maritime provinces are a little different from those of Ontario. I understand that a judge in the Maritime provinces has to look after two or three counties, whereas in Ontario there is only one county town for each district. I think that if the law is made general it will militate against the county town.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the provision I have suggested the judge would have no pecuniary object in living in any other town than the county town, because this amendment would only apply to him if he selected a town where there was at least as much judicial work to do as in the county town itself. He would be giving at least as much of his time without any travelling allowance charged to the country as he would be if he lived in the county town. He would not in any way benefit if he lived elsewhere than in the county town. Whether there are other temptations to take judges away from county towns I do not know. Of course, this would not affect any judge in any province where his residence is fixed by law. He will have to live where the law tells him to live. But I understand that in the Maritime provinces the present 245i
law does not determine where the judge must reside, and I understand there are actually existing cases where a judge lives-in some other place than the county town-where the business is greater than it is-in the county town. I am told that the judge of the county in which Campbellton is situated resides in Campbellton, that some other place is the county town, and that the business done at Campbellton is as large, or larger, than that in the county town. If these facts are correct, then the judge is being unfairly treated. I think the same thing happens in regard to Dorchester, and also in New Glasgow and Pictou. My hon. friend from Kings tells me that the same thing happens in his county. We ought to make provision to meet every case wherever it arises. I cannot, nor can the members of the House, verify the cases in which it happens. The suggested amendment will entitle a judge to his allowance at the county town wherever he satisfies the department that there is no loss to the country by reason of his residing elsewhere than at the county town because there is as much work at the town he resides in as at the county town. I think that in the province of Ontario the residence of judges is fixed by statute, so that this legislation would not affect the judges of that province in any case.


Edmond Proulx: The residence of the judge is fixed by the Ontario statute in the-county for which he is appointed, and under the Judges' Act he is not entitled to any travelling allowance if he takes up another place of residence than the county town.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the way it
stands at present. A judge is not allowed anything at all if he does not live at the county town. If he chooses to go and live elsewhere he forfeits any allowance for work done in the other place that he has gone to. When he chooses to live elsewhere no doubt the country escapes paying him an allowance if he works in either one of the two places. If he chooses to live in the county town, he has his allowance if he goes elsewhere. If he chooses not to live in the county town, he forfeits his allowance in the place where he resides and also in the county town. That is the penalty of his not living in the county town. Where the fact is that at his place-of residence he is called upon to devote just as much of his time to judicial work as he would be in the county town, the

country suffers in no way if he is paid his allowance when he is at the county town. The country is put in the same position as if he had lived in the county town. I understand that in the particular cases that are referred to, the places where the judges do actually live, are now, whatever they may have been in the past, more important centres than the county towns actually are.


Edmond Proulx: I do not dispute that but I am afraid that if you make the law general it will induce judges in other counties to reside elsewhere than in the county town and we do not want to encourage them to do that. I think that we should encourage them to live in the county town where most of the business is done. When judges sit in chambers they leave the papers to be filed with the clerk of the court. It is much more convenient to do legal business in the county town than in "other places.


William John Macdonald: I think the proposition submitted by my hon. friend, from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) solves the difficulty that the minister wants to overcome. In a great many cases it would be almost impossible to ascertain the amount of work that is done in one town as compared with another. But speaking for the situation in the Maritime provinces, and particularly for my own county, I think the criterion of population is one which ought to satisfy the department and one which is eminently fair.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The population could
not be regarded as a very good indication of the time that a judge has to spend in holding court. If we allowed the judge to go away from the county town to a place where there might be very little judicial business, when there was a great deal to do in the county town, it might result in the country having to pay a great deal more for allowance than if he lived in the county town. I am willing to meet the judges if I can meet them without imposing on the country a larger burden than the country would have to bear if they did live in the county town. Population would be a very unreliable basis to go upon because a great deal of business will have to be done at the county town, because it is the county town, without regard to population. For instance, the criminal business will have to be done there and it is a large item. I feel that in making this suggestion I have gone as far as I can to meet the wish and desire of the judges.
I Mr. Doherty.]


William John Macdonald: In my own county
the judge lives ten miles away but communication between the two points is very easy. You go to where the judge resides and get an ex parte order, or you have an unopposed motion to make in chambers, the judge initials the order and then you take the order back to the county town and the clerk signs it there. It would be impossible to get any data as to where the greatest amount of business is done; in fact, it is just where the judges happen to sit and where they happen to be when they make the order. The judge may hear a motion in the town in which he resides, he may send his judgment to the county town, the order would be taken out and consented to, perhaps, and would be dated from the county town, and the seal would be affixed there. Naturally, a difficulty would arise under these circumstances. But I do not see where the difficulty could exist if you made population the criterion because more population naturally produces more business. I remember that some time ago an attempt was made in our province to get some data to indicate the relative amount of business in the town for the purpose of making some representations to the Justice Department and the Bar had the greatest possible difficulty in getting that data together. I repeat, I do not see where the difficulty could arise if my hon. friend would make the population the criterion because, prima facie, the more population the more litigation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Unfortunately for that
theory, one of the learned judges who is interested in this legislation, makes his case on the strength of the fact that, not living in the county town, he had to go there a large number of times and get nothing for it. I think it is the very judge that my hon. friend refers to. His letter says that there is more criminal work in his county than in the town he actually lives in. He is able to ascertain that. I think we ought to give a certain amount of credence at least to what a judge represents to us. We pay these bills now on the judge's own certification, or practically we do so, because we have no reason to suspect the Information which a judge gives us. I think I have gone as far as I would be justified in going.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the understanding of the minister that a county court judge residing in a county town is entitled to his travelling expenses if he has to go

to another town in the same county to hold a court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, under this amendment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister say he would not be so entitled now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the section as
it stands the judge gets no allowance for work done in his county town, and no allowance for work done in the town in which he resides.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My question was: If
the judge is residing in the county town now and there is another large town in the county where he holds court, is he entitled to his travelling expenses, under the law as it now stands, if he has to go to that town and hold a court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the legislature of any province imposes a duty upon a county court judge of an important character and creates a county.court judge's court, a particular tribunal, to deal with that matter, and when the judge goes there holding his court under that statute, I should think there should be no question in the world, about his being paid his travelling expenses as a judge of the county court. I have a case in mind where the judge of a county court had to go outside of his county to hold a court, under a statute of our province in connection with a municipal election petition, and I am sorry to say he was not paid, although he sent in his bill. I cannot appreciate where the line is to be drawn. I think he should be paid for work of that kind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The legislature of that
province attributed that work to the judges and attributed pay to them for doing it, so that the legislature dealt with it as something quite outside of the functions of the county court. It provided that these gentlemen should do that work and	provided pay for	them for
doing it. I should think that one would have to draw the line between duties attributed to a county court judge which are properly of a judicial nature and duties which may be of a kind that might well have been assigned to any other intelligent person. What the hon. gentleman is discussing is something that does not bear upon any amendment to the law; it is a .matter that would have to be determined in accordance with what would be determined
tc- be a judicial duty. Does the hon. member suggest that if the legislature chooses to say that a county court judge shall do work that has no connection with any judicial proceeding, we should pay his travelling expenses for doing it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think the
minister will contend that the trial of election contested cases is a matter that could be assigned to any one but a judge or some-' one learned in the law. In the revision of the Nova Scotia statutes a few years ago, the parties who had charge of that revision made the trial of election petitions, in connection with municipal elections, Dominion elections, and provincial elections, precisely the same, so that the man who sits on the Bench to try a question as to a municipal election is adjudicating on exactly the same law as if he were trying a petition against a member of this House. Surely the minister would not think that work of that kind could be entrusted to a layman?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does not the province
pay for it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like the Prime Minister to pay attention to this because it is a matter affecting his province of Nova Scotia. Before the Judges' Act of 1905 there was a provision in our law that the county court judge should get a standing allowance of two hundred dollars a year for the outside work he did, and for many years there was a petty allowance of two and a half dollars a day for a judge in Nova Scotia when he went to try these election cases. Under the Judges' Act of 1905 the two hundred dollars' allowance was wiped out and a new provision took its place. It so happened that the province of Nova Scotia did not repeal its two and a half dollar a day business when the new Judges' Act came in, and up to the instance I have in mind I think the judges were always allowed travelling expenses when they went outside their own county. I do not know of a single instance, except this one, where the line was drawn. I submit that when a county court judge has to do important work of this kind he should be allowed his travelling expenses. I shall take care to ask the Legislature of Nova Scotia to repeal this tuppeny-hapenny allowance of two and a half dollars a day, if that is all that stands in the way of judges getting their travelling expenses under certain circumstances.


Edmond Proulx: This amendment changes the law in another respect. It says: that

no judge of a county court shall receive travelling expenses for courts or chambers held in the county court or of the union of counties in which he resides, whereas the present law says: where he is obliged by law to reside. The senior judge of my district resides in Ottawa. He would not toe entitled to an allowance for sitting in chambers at Ottawa, but under this amend-[DOT] ment he would be allowed for sitting in chambers in the county town of Prescott and Russell.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If toy law his residence is fixed in Ottawa then that is the place where by law he is bound to reside, and therefore he gets no allowance in Ottawa. The intention of the law was that there should be one place where a judge would not toe entitled to an allowance, namely, the place where the law says he must live in, or, if he lives at some different place then the place in which he actually lives. Where the law prescribes no place of residence the assumption is that he should live at the county town and therefore he gets nothing for services at the county town and nothing at the town he does reside in if he wishes to reside away from the county town. Where the law fixes the place where he does reside, then the section applies to that place and to no other place.


Edmond Proulx: His residence is in Ottawa, but it is not recognized by law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is not, then he has no right to live here.


Edmond Proulx: He has been charging travelling expenses for sitting in Three Rivers and Ottawa. He asked for permission by Order in Council of the Lieutenant Governor to sit in Chambers in Ottawa, and he has been charging travelling allowances for sitting in Ottawd, though he resides here, pretending that he was residing in the county town of Prescott and Russell.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will look into the facts. If they are as stated, the judge is wrong.


Edmond Proulx: He claims he is right, and I claim he is practising a fraud on the Government.
Bill, as amended, reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before dealing with this amendment, I desire to say that it appears to me, in the short time I have had to give attention to it, that it is scarcely regular.
It would increase the expenditure of money
IMr. Prouix.]
beyond that contemplated both in the resolution and in the original Bill. Bourinot says:
It is not allowable at this stage, more than at any other, to increase or alter the destination of a grant of money recommended by the Governor General.
I would suggest, therefore, as the Bill is not likely to be read just now, that the amendment be allowed to stand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I concur in your view, that the amendment is not covered by the resolution; and, more particularly as it does not seem to have met with the approval of the hon. gentleman at whose suggestion it was made, I do not wish to press it now.
Report of committee stands for consideration.



QUEBEC BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 193, to amend the Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 2-seven commissioners ap-pointable toy Order in Council:
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
object of this change? I understood the hon. minister to say on introducing the Bill that it was the intention to increase the number of commissioners from five to seven, but he gave no reason for it.


Mr. WHITE:: The Government has
thought it desirable that the commission should be enlarged to seven. In the first place, there are, I think, three residing outside the city of Quebec. In addition to that the commission has no member or members who have been appointed by this Government. I have discussed the matter with the chairman, Sir George Garneau, and,he agreed that so far as he was concerned, there should be an increase. We have not interfered with the commission, which, I think, is proper. The commission consists of men of high standing, including Sir
6 p.m. Edmund Walker, Hon. Mr. Taschereau, Hon. Mr. Turgeon, and Mr. Bickerdike. Nevertheless it has appeared to the Government desirable that there should be an increase.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reason
given by my hon. friend is not much of a reason-simply that the Government desires

to increase the number. He says he has conferred with the chairman on the subject. Has there been any official communication, or has there been only verbal communication, between my hon. friend and the chairman?


William Thomas White: There has been no official communication from the commission desiring an increase in the number. But I have discussed the matter with the chairman, and so far as he is concerned, he is agreeable that the number should be increased. And, for the reasons I have given, we are of opinion that the number should be increased.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry,
but I cannot share that opinion. I cannot see any good reason, even after hearing my hon. friend, why the commission should not be composed as it is composed at present. He admits that the commission is one of high standing, and I do not think he can improve the commission in that respect. Of course, we shall have to submit, but I do not think this is an improvement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is this also to be said: the personnel of the commission was made by the late Administration irrespective of politics. Sir Byron Walker is a member of the commission, and I understand Colonel Dennison is on it. And is not Colonel Hendry on this commission also?


William Thomas White: He is officially by law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That shows, as I have
said, that the personnel was made irrespective of politics. But this Bill shows that politics is gaining ground in that commission. I see by the papers of Quebec constantly that the commissioners are approached in the awarding of contracts and expropriation proceedings. But every one who knows the personnel of the commission knows that in such a body there is no patronage question. Of course, there are people who think that if they were appointed members of the commission, it would mean for them the millenium. It is a great pity indeed that the personnel of the commission has to be changed. There is no necessity for it, and the change is only a mark of want of confidence on the part of the Government in the present incumbents.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 3-purchase of lands:


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
meaning of this?.


William Thomas White: At present the commission is authorized to purchase land after obtaining the authority of Parliament and after it has funds at its disposal. But it must obtain the consent of the Governor in Council. It has been found in the practical working out of the plans, that there have been delays which have resulted in loss of favourable opportunities to buy. As I have said, the commission is one of high standing in which the Government has full confidence, and we have thought it advisable, at their express request, to change the Act so as to permit them to buy land without obtaining the approval in each particular case of the Governor in Council.
There are two provisos which safeguard the matter: first, they must be authorized by Parliament before purchasing these particular lands, and second, there must have been appropriated and be available for the purpose, the necessary funds. That is to say, Parliament must give authority to purchase the land and Parliament must, have provided the money which must stand at the credit of their capital account for that purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood my hon. friend to say that the previous consent of the Governor in Council has been the cause of delay, and that the amendment is to allow the commissioners to make purchases without the previous consent of the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is some error in this section in its reference to sections 10 and 11. I will read section 10 of the original Act for the information of the right hon. gentleman:
No land or removable property shall be purchased or acquired by the commission except with previous authority of Parliament, and no expenditure shall be made by the commission until it has been approved by Parliament.


William Thomas White: That has, I think, been changed in subsequent legislation.


Wilfrid Laurier: The minister says that the law to-day is that no purchase can be made by the commission unless it is authorized by Order in Council. This has caused delay and the delays have caused losses, and, in order to obviate these delays and losses, it is proposed now that the commission shall be authorized to make purchases without the consent of the Governor in Council.


William Thomas White: Provided that the lands
purchased are lands whose purchase has been authorized by Parliament and provided, consequently, that money has been appropriated by Parliament and is at the disposal of the commission for the purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: At all events, you take away one of the restrictions placed by Parliament upon the commissioners and
I	do not think that that is an improvement.


Robert Laird Borden: The section as it is at the present has a reference to sections 10 and
II	of the Acts, which are repealed. Section
10	of the Act consists of a section and a subsection. It seems to me that section 10 alone ought to be repealed, because section
11	is repealed by the terms of this section which says that previous to the commission from time to time making expenditures under this Act they must suibmit detailed estimates to the Finance Minister. I think that the form of this amendment will require to be looked into.


William Thomas White: The Bill was drafted by
the assistant deputy minister and Mr. Gisborne, the parliamentary counsel, so that every care has been taken. Speaking only from recollection, I think that there is an amending statute to the section that has been read by the right hon. Prime Minister. With regard to this particular section, which gives the commission permission to purchase without the consent of the Governor in Council, I may say that it was introduced upon the express and repeated^ requests of the commission. However, I am quite content to let the matter stand, because it is important.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at six o'clock.
Monday, May 18, 1914.
The House .met at Eleven o'clock, the Speaker in the Chair.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. AIKINS:: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct attention to a remark concerning myself that was made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick), on Friday last, during the dis-
[Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1
cussion of the Canadian Northern resolution. The hon. member said that I, 'after . taking a good look at the Government forces, decided that discretion was the better part of valour; whereupon he purchased a ticket to parts unknown, having said:
He who fights and runs away,
May live to fight another day.
This statement is absolutely untrue, and equally silly, nevertheless calculated to do mischief, for this House is a deliberative assembly, and every member who speaks [DOT] on the floor of the House is supposed, and properly supposed, by the people to speak forth the words of truth and soberness. The statement made by the hon. .member for Thunder Bay was devoid of both.



THE LABOUR SITUATION.

Frank Oliver: I wish to inquire if the Government have received a communication from the civic relief officer at Edmonton, and if any conclusion has been reached upon the matter referred to.


Robert Laird Borden: The telegram which was received from Edmonton was as follows:
Edmonton, Alberta, May 14, 1914. Premier Borden,
Ottawa, Ont.
The Welfare League consisting of merchants and profession men of Edmonton petitioned the city council as follows:	Therefore this
association respectfully urges upon the council of the city of Edmonton to take up the matter with the Dominion Government with a view to securing legislation. 1. Providing for the establishment of free employment bureaus throughout the Dominion for the purpose of supplying reliable information regarding the demands for labour in any particular locality and to give every man a free and equal opportunity to secure employment and to safeguard those already employed; and, (2) To restrict immigration by holding back from entrance into the country or by discouraging in the country from which they come all who belong to the unskilled labouring class except bona fide agricultural labourers, and, (3) To provide work for the unemployed by utilizing the surplus labour now in the country for the construction of public works. The City Council of Edmonton therefore urge you to use your influence to have the Government by grants of money or by furnishing work assist the western cities to care for the unemployed.
Thos. R. Turnbull,
Civic Relief Officer.
The first suggestion in the telegram, that free employment bureaus should be established for the purpose of supplying reliable information regarding demands for laboui in any particular locality, would, of course, require more consideration than the Government have been able to give to it in

the interim. So far as the question of immigration is concerned, I understand that, not only under this Administration but under the former Administration, the ideal which is set forth in the second clause of the memorial has been followed; there has been no change made in that regard under the present Administration. The third suggestion is that work for the unemployed should be provided, as far as possible, by utilizing surplus labour for the construction of public works. We shall, of course, give that the very best consideration that can be given to it, and such attention as may be possible in the public interest. The reply which I have sent to Mr. Turnbull is as follows:
Ottawa, Ont., May 18, 1914. Thos. R. Turnbull,
Civic Relief Officer,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Telegram received. Your suggestions will received immediate careful consideration of Government. Meantime representations of City Council as to providing work for unemployed have been placed before such departments of Government as employ labour to considerable extent and have been commended to consideration and attention of the ministers of those departments.
R. B. Borden.
Immediately on receipt of the telegram on Saturday, I addressed letters to the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and two other ministers I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was one-commending to their attention the suggestions contained in Mr. Turnbull's telegram.


Frank Oliver: I think it would be well for a special official of the Government to make an investigation into the conditions referred to in the telegram.


Robert Laird Borden: I think a suggestion of that kind also came to us in another telegram on Friday. It was at once transmitted to the Minister of Labour, to whose attention it was commended.



ALLEGED INCOMPLETE RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
William Chisholm: I desire to call the attention of the House to a case of com-tempt of the high court of Parliament by the Minister of Customs. On the 16th of March last, an order was passed:
For a copy of all recommendations, protests, petitions, and representations received by the Government or any department or minister thereof, regarding the appointment of the present collector of customs at Antigonish, and of all the letters, telegrams and correspondence relating thereto.
The return brought down by the Minister of Customs contains only one letter from the Commissioner of Customs, and the minister justifies the non-production of the papers by stating that he regards them as private, and that he is the judge of what is private. The recommendation of the collector of customs cannot be considered a private document, nor can the protest that was made against that appointment; and I submit that it would not detract from the dignity of the position which the hon. minister occupies, and would only be treating the House with proper respect, if he would comply with the order of the House.
I think it would also facilitate the business of the House very much. I do not think any minister has the right to say that he is to be the sole judge of documents which have been received in regard to public appointments, protests, etc., and to defy this House by refusing to comply with one of its orders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is
certainly out of order in discussing this at the present time.


William Chisholm: I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister and the House on another occasion, unless the order is complied with in the meantime.



THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the Minister of Railways inform me whether any new . arrangement has been made with the Grand Trunk Pacific for taking over the Transcontinental or any portions of the line that have been completed?


John Dowsley Reid: No.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 195, to incorporate the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Robert Markle Richardson.-Mr. .Stewart.
Bill No. 198, for the Telief of George Andrew Crooks.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McCREA:: 1.	What arrangements have been made by the Militia Department, who have leased Mrs. Worthington's house as quarters for the accommodation of the officers of the 53rd, with the St. George's Club who were occupying the property?
2.	Is the St. George's Club still occupying the building? If so, under what conditions or terms?
Mr. 8. HUGHES: The officers of the 53rd Regiment have not yet 'been provided with quarters in their armoury, and, upon the recommendation of the officer commanding the 4th Division, the house referred, to was temporarily rented. The members of the St. George's Club, who had quarters therein, were allowed the use of the building pending the completion of their new dub house, now under construction, and for this privilege, the officers of the 53rd were to have, meanwhile, the use of certain room3 in the building absolutely to themselves, also the use of the club furniture, reading room, etc., until the club moves out in the course of some weeks.


DEPOSITORS OP DEFUNCT BANKS.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to refund, in future, all the losses arising out of the failure of all the great commercial corporations in which the public have lost money?
2.	What amount of money was lost by the derositors of La Banque de Saint Jean, and what was the number of depositors?
3.	What amount was lost by the depositors of La Banque Ville Marie, and what was the number of depositors?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	It is not.
2.	The obligation of the Banque de St. Jean at the time of its failure to ordinary depositors was $301,000. The liquidator now reports that between twenty and thirty per cent will be payable to them when the liqui da'tion is completed. The number of depositors, the liquidator states, is approximately three thousand.
3.	The Banque Ville Marie had deposits of $1,504,665 at the time of its suspension in 1899. The ordinary depositors were paid 174 per cent of their claims. On this basis the loss to depositors was $1,241,349. There is no available information as to the number of depositors. '


Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to indemnify the depositors of the Farmers' Bank?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to indemnify the depositors of the Banque de St. Jean and La Banque Ville Marie? If not, why not?

3.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the directors of the latter two banks for several years submitted false reports to the Minister of Finance as to the financial conditions of these banks?
4.	If so, was the failure of said banks caused, in whole or in part, on that account?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to propose an amendment to the banking laws to the end that the Association of Banks and the Government shall be equally and mutually responsible for losses caused in future by similar failures?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. There are no grounds which would justify such action on the part of the Government.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by answer to No. 3.
5.	No.


Mr. BARRETTE:: Besides La Banque Ville Marie, La Banque du Peuple and La Banque St. Jean, are there any other Canadian banks that have failed without the depositors thereof being refunded their losses? If so, what are the names of those banks?


William Thomas White: Yes. Bank of
Acadia, Mechanics' Bank of Montreal, Bank of Liverpool, Bank of Prince Edward Island, Exchange Bank of Canada, Maritime Bank of Dominion of Canada, and Central Bank of Canada.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY.
John Howard Sinclair: Referring to the statement made by the Minister of Militia and Defence, as found on page 3644 of Hansard, to the effect that approximately 300 claims for the bounty to Fenian Veterans in Nova Scotia have been disallowed, have these applicants whose claims have been disallowed been notified of the fact?
Mr. 8. HUGHES: Yes, and in most oases amended applications have been received, which will be considered at a later date.


L'ASSURANCE DE RIMOUSKI.
*Mr. OAUYREAU:: 1.	When was the first deposit made by the l'Assurance de Rimouski with the Government treasury and what did it consist of?
2.	If that deposit was made in currency, is it still in the treasury, or have any other securities been substituted therefor?
3.	If so, what was the nature of such securities, what is the value thereof and are they still in the possession of the Government?
4.	Has anybody tried to have these securities abandoned? If so, who did, and by whose authority?
5.	Is the Government aware that during the year 1913-1914, the La Compagnie l'Assurance de Rimouski has, as alleged, been paid over $300,000 in premiums, and that at the time of the winding up of said company a sum of

about $100,000 was due, arising from unsettled losses?
6.	When was the last inspection of the books of said company by Government officials made?
7.	How long after that inspection did this company continue to issue policies and collect premimums?
8.	Is the Government aware that this company is said to be insolvent, and is it the intention of the Government to cancel its license?
9.	When and at whose request was the license of said company maintained?
10.	Is it the intention of the Government to protect the insured and the shareholders?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	July Is), 1907:	$1)5,000 debentures of
the town of St. Germain de Eimouski.
2.	Deposit was not made in currency.
3.	The $55,000 St. Germain de Eimouski debcntuies were accepted at $51,680. They are still on deposit with the Eeceiver General.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	February 7, 1914.
7.	License was withdrawn March 14, 1914.
8.	The Government is aware of the insolvency of the company. License has been cancelled.
9.	License was continued until March 14 to give the company an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the provisions of section 41 of the Insurance Act and to permit the company, if possible, either to secure reinsurance or to obtain additional capital, for both of which reasonable hopes were at the time entertained and negotiations in progress.
10.	The assets of the company will be distributed by the liquidator by order of the court under the Winding-up Act.


Mr. BELAND:: May I ask the hon.
Minister of Finance whether the inspection he refers to in February was the regular yearly inspection or a special inspection of the books of the company?


William Thomas White: I understand that it was
the yearly inspection; but if, upon further inquiry, I find that it was a special inspection, I shall take the opportunity of informing my hon. friend.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Knowles.-For a copy of all letters, reports, memoranda, recommendations, telegrams, and other papers in connection with the northeast quarter of section 22, township 11, range 5, west 3rd meridian, subsequent to the 9th February, 1914, and exclusive of a copy of the evidence taken at Gravelbourg on the 8th April, 1914.
M. A. K. Maclean.-For a return showing the details of moneys paid to J. F. Farrington,
$248.25, B. H. Smith, $469.50, and H. C. Dash, $182.40, as set forth in 'Hansard' of this session, page 3071.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a return showing the names and post office addresses of all Fenian Raid veterans in Nova Scotia whose claims have been presented and disallowed.
Mr. Hugh Clark.-For a return showing all cases in which Charles Seager, of Goderich, acted as Government commissioner in the investigation of officials charged with partisanship, or other offences, from and including the year 1896 to the year 1900; and the names of all officials dismissed by reason of the reports of the said Charles Seager, the positions held by such officials, and when such dismissals took place; with a copy of the evidence taken in all such cases, together with the commissioner's reports thereon, and also showing what fees were paid to the said Charles Seager for conducting such investigations.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Alex. McRea, late lighthouse keeper at Point Prim, Prince Edward Island, and the appointment of his successor.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a return showing the names of the men who have been appointed to positions in the Prince Edward Island Railway service from the 1st January, 1912, to the 1st May, 1914 ; the positions held by such appointees and the salary or wages attached to each position.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all papers, documents, reports and evidence relative to the dismissal or proposed dismissal of W. A. Case of the Government Quarantine service at Halifax, N.S.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, tenders and documents of ail kinds in possession of the Post Office Department received since 1913 up to the present date in any way referring to the mail contract from Mabou to Wycocomagh.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, papers, tenders and other documents in any way referring to the transfer from J. A. Campbell to Alexander Macdonnell of the contract for carrying the mail from Port Hood to Southwest Port Hood.

Mr. BOEDEN moved:: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday next, the 20th instant, it stand adjourned to Friday next, the 22nd instant.


David Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention to adjourn over Monday next, the 25th instant ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 189, to regulate the manufacture, testing, storage and importation of explosives.-Mr. Coderre.
Bill No. 192, to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec.-Mir. Hazen.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the sum of two hundred thousand dollars per annum be appropriated and paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for five consecutive years from the first day of April, 1914, to aid actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of highway crossings at rail level, in existence on the first day of April, 1909.
Wilfrid Laurier: Has the minister any programme as to how this money will be expended ?


John Dowsley Reid: The expenditure is under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners foT Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am aware of that, but has any programme been laid down ?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Mr. MURPHY:: When does the original Act authorizing this expenditure expire ?


John Dowsley Reid: On the 4th of April, 1914,
and this Bill 'extends the time for five years.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 204, to amend the Railway Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Borden that the House go into Committee to consider certain resolutions respecting the Canadian Northern railway and the amendment of Mr. Macdonald thereto, resumed from Friday, May 15.
Mr. WILLIAM GERMAN (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, considerable has already been said on these proposed resolutions, and it probably will be difficult to introduce any new matter. However, as I feel somewhat strongly on the question, I believe that I should say something regarding not only the resolution, but as well the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). Last session, when the promoters of the Canadian Northern came to Parliament for a grant of
[Mr. Hazen.3
$15,000,000, they stated that they believed that amount would be sufficient to enable them to complete the line, and the Government so informed the House. I took the liberty at that time of predicting that $15,000,000 would be but as a drop in the bucket to these gentlemen, and that it would be practically worthless to them as a sufficient amount for the completion of the Canadian Northern railway. And, Sir, notwithstanding the statements of the Prime Minister and the gentlemen supporting him, made this session on the introduction of these resolutions, and notwithstanding what has been said by the promoters of this enterprise to the effect that $45,000,000 will be sufficient to enable them to complete the line, I venture to predict, in my humble judgment, that $45,000,000, or the proceeds of the guarantee, will not be more than half sufficient to put this line on the standard of a transcontinental railway, and it will not be more than two years, or three years at the outside, when these gentlemen will be back to Parliament again asking for further aid, and one of the strong arguments they will then make in favour of their request will be that the Government of Canada is a partner with them in this enterprise to the extent of $40,000,000.
I think there should have been a very much more sweeping investigation by the Government than there has been, as to whether or not this $45,000,000 will be sufficient to complete this Canadian Northern Railway system. The Government have really made no investigation into that matter, as they made no investigation during the last year or two into the statement made by -these promoters that $15,000,000 would be sufficient. Last year they accepted the statement of the promoters, and this year they have accepted their statement and have come to Parliament saying that $45,000,000 will be sufficient. I have heard gentlemen, who are railway men and who know the condition of the Canadian Northern lines of railway, say that this amount of money will not be more than half, if half, enough to complete these1 lines to the standard of a transcontinental railway, and I have no doubt that such is the case. This summer there should be a thorough investigation to discover whether or not this is the last call of these promoters. I submit that as one strong reason ivhy the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) should prevail in regard to these resolutions.

The hon, member for ISouth Ontario (Mr. Smith), in his speech on Friday afternoon, stated that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pictou, indicated that there was a difference of opinion on this side of the House. A similar statement has appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. If hon. gentlemen opposite are taking any consolation to themselves from the supposition that there is a difference of opinion on this side of the House with regard to these resolutions, they had jbetter disabuse their minds of that at once, because there is absolutely no difference of opinion on this side of the House with regard to what should be done with these resolutions. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition stated that we were in favour of coming to the aid of this great enterprise and that it should not be allowed to fail; the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) took practically the same position; but there is no difference of opinion on this side of the House that before any *aid is given there should be a thorough investigation into the whole undertaking and positive knowledge on the part of the Government that this aid not only is required but, when granted, will be sufficient to complete the line. I believe that that same opinion prevails throughout the country. So far as I have been able to ascertain, in going about the country, there appears to be very little difference of opinion in regard to the matter. I believe that the people, with great unanimity, are of the opinion that the stand taken by the Opposition in regard to these resolutions is the correct one, and that this money should not be voted without a full and searching investigation, and that, if it is voted, the Government should have a greater security than they are taking by these resolutions.
I feel that the people of Canada are getting tired of this continual bleeding of the finances of Canada for the exploitation of railway charters. Canada has invested enormous sums of money and has given heavy guarantees in aid of railways; and the people, I believe, are of the opinion that no further aid should be given to this undertaking until it is decided by the most thorough investigation that such aid is necessary, and that the moneys heretofore granted by the Parliament of Canada and by the provincial legislatures have all been devoted exclusively to the construction of this road, and that none of them
have gone into holes and corners where they should not have gone. I have no quarrel with Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, nor with the enterprise. They have been energetic Canadians, and they have entered upon the building up of an enormous system of railways. I, for myself, am perfectly willing to aid them in a proper manner, as I have by my vote in this House assisted to aid them in the past. But I do not think that these gentlemen should object if they are seriously and strongly criticised in this House. They have received enormous subventions; they have received great aid from the Parliament of Canada, and that money has been spent by them without any supervision on the part of the Parliament or the Government of Canada. There is a strong feeling throughout the country, true or untrue- for myself, I believe it is very largely true [DOT]-that these men, notwithstanding the statement of the Prime Minister that they have made no profits out of the construction of these railways, have made enormous sums of money, not perhaps out of the construction of these railways as out of their dealings with them.
I do not know that it is necessary to say anything very harsh about the resolutions, as it.is not necessary to say anything harsh about Mackenzie and Mann. The resolutions in themselves are bad enough, even clothed with the bright colours painted by the right hon. the Prime Minister, without our casting any reflections upon them. In my opinion, the conduct of Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann in regard to this undertaking should be fully investigated and thoroughly understood.
One objection raised by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition was that, by reason of the agreement entered into between the British Columbia Government and the Canadian Northern Pacific management, this transcontinental railway would be tied up in such a way as to be detrimental. to the people of Canada. The Solicitor General rather impugned that proposition, saying that section 6 of the Railway Act was sufficient in scope to override that agreement and to give the Parliament of Canada exclusive jurisdiction, irrespective of the agreement. Section 6 says:
Where any railway, the construction or operation of which is authorized by a Special Act passed by the legislature of any province, is declared, by any Act of the Parliament of Canada, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, this Act shall apply to such railway, and to the company constructing or operating the same, to the exclusion of such

of the provisions of the said Special Act as are inconsistent with this Act, and in lieu of any general railway Act of the province.
That is, the Special Act of Incorporation. Section 6 does not say: to the exclusion of any special agreement that may have been entered into between the British Columbia Government and the particular railway. Therefore, as a matter of law, this Parliament has no jurisdiction to deprive the people of the province of British Columbia of any rights which they have under the agreement entered into between them and the Canadian Northern Pacific railway. It would be absolutely ultra vires of this Parliament to pass legislation which they might consider might affect that agreement. It is absolutely impossible for legislation to be passed in this Parliament which will prevent the operation of that agreement, whatever its operation may be.
The agreement is there, made between a railway incorporated by the province of British Columbia and the British Columbia Government and ratified by the legislature of that province, and under these resolutions nothing can deprive the British Columbia Government of the advantages which they have under that 'agreement, whatever those advantages may be. I submit that before the Bill to be based upon these resolutions becomes law, the province of British Columbia should consent to the withdrawal of their agreement with the Canadian Northern Pacific railway or that some means should be taken, either by testing the matter in court or otherwise, to ascertain definitely what are the rights of this Parliament in regard to the matter. Surely the Government of Canada should not become a partner in a railway concern a portion of which railway is under the control or supervision of one of the provinces of Canada. If we are to have a transcontinental railway in which the Government is to be a shareholder, that transcontinental railway should be exclusively and in every particular under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and under that jurisdiction only; no part of it should be in any particular under the jurisdiction of a provincial government or a provincial legislature. For that reason I say that further consideration of these resolutions should be postponed until the matter is fully and finally settled.
There is no doubt that the chief considerations in this matter are financial considerations. The Government states, and the right lion. Prime Minister stated, as *well as his Solicitor General, that this en-
terprise is bankrupt. At page 3799 of 'Hansard,' May 13, the Prime Minister says:
It became apparent some months ago that the enterprise could not be carried to successful conclusion without further assistance.
And then he states the various reasons why that assistance is necessary. The Solicitor General, as reported on page 3823 of ' Hansard,' says:
But the fact remains that the system at present stands in a position where it cannot, in the nature of things, be made a paying investment, be made a turn on the way to success and away from the road to failure, unless funds are provided to take care of the completion of that road.
The Government is proposing to go into partnership with a bankrupt concern, as hon. gentlemen opposite them-
12 noon, selves say, in order to relieve that concern from insolvency by the use of the money of the people of Canada. If this concern, as the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General have said, is insolvent, I cannot for myself understand where they can get security for the moneys which they propose to advance. The Solicitor General says they are taking ample security, yet in the next breath he says that the concern is insolvent and cannot be made to turn to success and away from the way to failure unless funds are provided to take care of the completion of the road. It seems to me that the Government are taking a peculiar position. They say in one breath that the enterprise is a failure and in the next breath they say: have no fear; the assets on which we are taking a mortgage will amply protect the people of Canada for the investment of this money. If hon. gentlemen opposite can work that out consistently, they can do something moje than I can. Why should this concern be bankrupt? Bonds representing millions of money have been guaranteed by the federal Government and by provincial governments; why should this enterprise be bankrupt? Has the Government made any investigation as to why it is bankrupt? I venture to think that they have not. The Government to-day are as ignorant as I am of the reasons why this enterprise is, as they say, in a bankrupt condition, and perhaps more so, because they are not, perhaps, as suspicious as I am of the reasons for its being bankrupt. I have my own opinion as to why the promoters of this railroad enterprise are coming to Parliament now for money. I submit- that they have received sufficient aid up to the present time to have enabled them to complete

the road. I do say-and I hope that the promoters will not take umbrage, because their conduct is entitled to criticism, considering the amount of money which they have received-that this enterprise has been milked to too great an extent by its promoters to permit of the completion of the road with the money which has been put into it. The prevailing impression throughout the country is that Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann are multi-millionaires1, and 1 am of the opinion that they are. They	started this	enterprise, I
believe, in 1896, by taking over a small line of railway in the province of Manitoba. At that time these gentlemen were far from being wealthy, and when men in this country suddenly spring from a position of small financial standing to a position of enormous wealth, the general public usually arrive at a fairly correct idea as to where the money came from. It cannot be controverted that these men, as I have said, when they first started this enterprise and took over the railroad in Manitoba in 1896,i were far from being wealthy, and that they are exceedingly wealthy to-day. They have devoted their time, as stated by the Prime Minister, and as the lact is, from then until now in railroad construction. In what way would these men acquire this enormous wealth except in the construction of these railways and in the manipulation and investment of the moneys which they have received from the Parliament of Canada and from the provincial legislatures throughout the length and breadth of this country? My right hon. friend said that Mackenzie and Mann have made no profits out of the construction of this railroad. If they made no profits out of the construction of the railroad, I fail to see how they have acquired the wealth which they are credited with having at the present time. My right hon. friend read an affidavit of a clerk in the office of the promoters, a Mr. Mitchell, I believe, which is set out on page 3803 of ' Hansard/ Mr. Mitchell swears that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, these gentlemen have made no profits out of the construction of this railway, and have taken no profits. It struck me as being a most peculiar thing that if this was the case Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann did not make the affidavits themselves. If these gentlemen had made no profits it would have done them no harm to make an affidavit to that effect. Sir William Mackenzie did publish a statement in the Ottawa Citizen some time
ago refuting a charge which he said had been made that moneys which had been raised for the purpose of the construction of these lines had been devoted to other purposes. I do not know that I ever heard that the moneys had been devoted to other purposes, but he says nothing in that connection of profits made by himself and Sir Donald Mann; and they take very good care not to make any affidavits, just to put up a clerk in their office to make an affidavit that, according to the best of his knowledge and belief, they took no profits out of the construction of this work. I submit that if there is one thing more than another which should cause this Parliament to approve of the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that this matter be postponed for six months, it is the very fact that these gentlemen have not seen fit to repudiate that statement. There should be a full, frank and complete investigation of these whole proceedings, and if these men have had profits unduly, and if the moneys have been devoted to purposes for which they should not have been used, this Parliament should be fully seized of all those facts. The Prime Minister further stated that these gentlemen had the right to take certain public lands in Manitoba. The right hon. member said:
It is, however, proper to say that it has been represented to us that Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann have put into this enterprise very large assets which they might, under the law of the land, have retained for their own benefit in the early stages of the development of this system.
I think it ought to be said in justice to these men that all those lands, which under the law of the land they might have retained if they had desired to do so as their own property absolutely, were not retained by them, with the except'on, I believe, of one hundred thousand acres.
I wish to join issue with the Prime Minister on that subject. Those lands were appropriated by the provincial legislatures for what? To belong to Mackenzie and Mann? Not at all; to be used for the construction of these roads, and it was the duty of these men not to own these lands themselves unless they put up their own money to build the railroad. Will any one say they did that, that they have put up and have been putting up from the beginning of this enterprise one dollar of their own money, either in construction or otherwise? They used these lands, or should have used them, and I suppose did use them, with the exception of one hundred thousand acres, which they

apparently have kept to themselves, and which they had absolutely no right to keep unless they earned them under the provisions of the Act by which they were appropriated, for the construction of these lines. To say that these gentlemen are so particularly philanthropic that they, in their great liberality, gave back to the country or for the purposes of the country, four million acres of land which they could have kept themselves and out of which they could have made great fortunes, I say is insulting the intelligence of this Parliament and the intelligence of the people of Canada; because they had no right from the beginning to take those lands for their own purposes. They were to be used for the construction of their railroads and, with the exception of one hundred thousand acres which they kept, they have been used, I presume, for that purpose. I understand that from a part of these lands they have already realized 817,000,000, and that there is enough left to realize some $12,000,000 more to be used in the enterprise of the construction of these lines. What further ? It is contended, and I contend, and it is generally believed that Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann have made very large fortunes out of their manipulation of these railways and that they have got the money either in cash or in enterprises outside altogether of the Canadian Northern Railway system. But what more have they got ? There is issued of capital stock of this whole enterprise, $158,611,000. The Solicitor General contends that that stock is a valuable asset. He has taken credit to himself for securing a mortgage on that stock in connection with these resolutions. Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann own, I say, practically every dollar of that stock. It is turned over under these resolutions to the Canadian Northern railway, and Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann own the Canadian Northern railway. Out of $77,000,000 of capital stock issued by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann own $70,000,000, and last year, as one hon. member said, they started the printing press and turned out a certificate of $7,000,000 stock for the Government of Canada; so that they practically own, outside of any wealth which they may have acquired in the construction and manipulation of these railroads, $158,-
611,000	capital stock of these companies, subsidiary and otherwise. Why should not these gentlemen go on and build this railroad ? The Solicitor General says, in speaking of these securities and stocks:
Consequently the Canadian Northern own all these companies, both the bonded indebted-

ness and the stock issues, subject only to the charge created by that trust deed or mortgage of 1903.
Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, it is conceded, own the Canadian Northern railway . Consequently, Mackenzie and Mann own the whole enterprise here, from one end to the other, and why should they not use some of this wealth, acquired in the construction and manipulation of these railways, to complete the railways? They have not paid one dollar of their own money for any of this stock, which they have acquired through their manipulation of railroad charters; and I venture to say that if Messrs. Mackenzie aDd Mann were placed on the stand, under oath, neither of them would swear that they had paid one dollar of their own money for any of this stock. Then why should they keep it and ask the Government for $45,000,000 more to increase the value of the interest they obtained for nothing. To me, it is inconceivable. Why should not the stock be used for the purpose of constructing the railway? Why is the issue of stock authorized by this Parliament or the pro-vinicial legislatures? A company is incorporated by Parliament with capital stock of a certain amount, and with power to issue stock certificates to a certain amount, in order to allow the promoters to raise the money necessary to complete their enterprise-not to allow the promoters to put the certificates in their own pockets, as has been done in this particular case. This stock should be used for the purposes for whicli it was intended, and used to the fullest extent to which it can be made available. I have been told on good authority-I believe on just as good authority as the Government have on this matter-the authority of Mackenzie and Mann themselves-that these two gentlemen two years ago could have secured on the London market all the money that was necessary to complete this line if they had been willing to give up the controlling interest in tfie stock, but they insisted on controlling the enterprise themselves. I am strongly of the belief that to-day, on those terms, they could get all the money necessary to complete the line. In regard to this phase of the situation the Premier spoke frankly. He said:
X am free to confess that I think it would have been better, when the idea of that enterprise became fixed in the minds of Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann, if they, by means of their large holdings of common stock and by their almost sole proprietorship of the enterprise, had seen fit in years gone by to

associate themselves with large financial interests which, I think, could have been brought in to the enterprise, so that the condition which confronts the country at this time might not have been before us to-day.
I give the Prime Minister credit for that very frank statement, and that is exactly the position which the people of this country have had in their minds continually: that Mackenzie and Mann couild have associated financial interests with them in this undertaking sufficient to complete the line-and perhaps it could have been completed by now-but for their inordinate greed-their pride, perhaps-to hold the majority of the stock themselves. The stock has not been used for the purpose for which it was intended, that of raising money to complete the line. I believe they could have got the money to do that- but no, they keep the stock themselves. They wish to own the road themselves, and they are endeavouring by their .manipulations through these resolutions to own the Government as welll; and that they will pretty nearly do if they get the Government tied up in this enterprise as a minor shareholder, with $45,000,000 or more invested, the controlling interest of which is in the hands of Mackenzie, Mann and Company.
Assuming that the Government must come to the rescue, what should be done? The Solicitor General states that they have done everything that could be done. In criticising the statement of the right hon. leader of the Opposition that the security which had been taken was illusory, the Solicitor General said: 'Can the right hon. gentleman name anything possessed by the Canadian Northern or by the other companies that we do not take security on?'
I am free to say that, so far as these companies themselves are concerned, the Government has taken security on everything they have in the way of corporate property, but, notwithstanding that, I claim that the statement of the right hon. leader of the Opposition that these securities are illusory is well founded. On page 9 of the blue book is given the total mileage in operation of the whole system, amounting to 7,236.51 miles. One of those railways I know something about, and if this blue book is no more accurate in regard to the other lines than it is in regard to (the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto railway, it is rather unreliable. The mileage in operation of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto railway is given in the blue book as 75 miles. This
246	REVISED
road runs through a portion of the county of Welland. It runs from Port Dalhousie on lake Ontario to Port Golbome on lake Erie, a distance not exceeding 24 miles. It runs from the town of Thorold in Welland county to Niagara Falls, a distance of about 10 miles. There is also a line, recently completed-whether in operation, I do not know-between the city of St. Catharines and the old town of Niagara at the mouth of the Niagara river, a distance of about 12 miles. That totals up to 46 miles. The same company owns street railway lines:	one between Thorold and St.
Catharines, and one operating in Niagara Falls, which, I presume, are included in this 75 miles. These .car lines are from four tto five miles in length. The mileage probably also includes certain sidings in St. Catharines of a very minor and inexpensive character.	Including all these,
the total mileage of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto railway will probably not exceed 50 miles. I venture this statement against anybody, that 55 miles will cover the	entire mileage in
operation of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto railway, including terminals, sidings and street railways. They are out twenty miles in their length there. If the same proportion of error, or misstatement, is applied to the entire length of the line in operation throughout the whole country they are only out about 3,000 miles, I presume, because, if in fifty-five miles they are out twenty miles, what would they be out in 7,236 miles? It would be something over 3,000 miles. But taking their statement as being correct, what do we find? On page 30-32 we find a statement that the securities against these lines amount to $312,818,910 and the fixed charges against this mileage. The securities issued amount to $312,818,910 and the fixed charges are $12,927,983 or a total of securities and fixed charges of $325,746,893. This total is somewhat higher than the figures given by the Prime Minister but these are the figures contained in the blue book. On the 7,236 miles in operation we find that there are securities issued and fixed charges outstanding of $325,746,893 which would represent over $46,000 a mile against the various parts of the line which are in operation. Then, in this statement, certain lines have been eliminated; for instance, the Niagara and St. Catharines railway is not included and there must be fixed charges in connection with that line. Whether there are bonds or securities issued against that line


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
I do not know. The Canadian Northern Saskatchewan is not included in this statement with reference to fixed charges and securities. Why these lines are not included it is impossible for me to toll.
What security is there in the mortgage? You have $46,000 a mile or more of securities and fixed charges against the railway and I venture to say that these cannot be considered to be any very great security for this mortgage. You also have a first mortgage on the stock as set out in sub-clause (a) of section 2 of the resolution:
Grant a first, fixed, and specific mortgage or charge upon the shares mentioned in the first part of the second schedule hereto.
The total amount of shares mentioned in that schedule is $62,487,500. I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he will be kind enough to tell me what value he places on these shares or if he places any value at all? There are certain companies which apparently have not yet issued any stock; for instance, the stock of the Canadian Northern Manitoba railway and the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company is to be handed over when issued.
Mr. ME1GHEN:	No separate valuation
has been made of them.
William Manley German: Does the Solicitor General put no value upon them?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Undoubtedly; the value is a value depending on the success of the system and any valuation you might fix upon them now would be of very little assistance.


William Manley German: So that the Government is lending $45,000,000 on the security of something that is to be made valuable by the money which the Government advances?


Arthur Meighen: That is partly true.


William Manley German: If the $45,000,000 does not make this security valuable they will come back and say that the $45,000,000 is not sufficient and next year the Government will have to go down into the treasury and dig up another $45,000,000 to further make these securities valuable.
The balance of the property, excepting as stated <by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), is at this minute mortgaged for all it is worth. I will venture to say that there is no man who knows anything about the situation who will not say so, or will not also say that the security is illusory. I am inclined to think that it is too illusory to form a shadow. Let us take the mortgage already existing against the

property. There are securities outstanding at the present time to the extent of over $47,000 a mile, and then you are taking a first mortgage on $60,000,000 of stock which d;d not cost Mackenzie and Mann one penny, at least of their own money, and which the Solicitor General at the present moment cannot give a value to. Then, you have a second or third mortgage on other securities, which are at this moment under the trust deed of 1903, and which are mortgaged for every dollar they are worth. That is the position and that is the security which the Government have taken for their grant of $45,000,000. The Solicitor General makes a further statement at page 3825 of ' Hansard,' and it is this:
In that way we take everything these companies have and we place it under our mortgage as our security against our guarantee. "Who is there who can suggest anything more that we can do?
Mr. Speaker, I think I can suggest something more that they can do and do to advantage. I would like to know from the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General why, if they thought the shares in any of these companies were of value or were likely to be of value, they did not include in the mortgage the $60,000,000 of stock that Mackenzie and Mann hold in the Canadian Northern Railway Company. They take a mortgage on companies that are not in operation, on the stock of companies which are not worth one dollar, as to which the Solicitor General cannot say there is a dollar of value, and they leave out of the securities only such stock as might become valuable and that is the $60,000,000 which Mackenzie and Mann will hold in the Canadian Northern proper if this scheme goes through. I would like to know from the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General why they did not include that $60,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: Because, in effect, we
have it anyway. If it has any value we have security now on all that represents value, and on foreclosure we have in fact everything the Canadian Northern railway has. What advantage would there be in doing it the way the hon. gentleman suggests?


William Manley German: What was the advantage of taking a mortgage on the $62,000,000 of other stock which is just exactly in the same position? It is handed over to the Canadian Northern.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Manley German: My hon. friend says no, but he has it in the same way because that

stock is all handed over to the Canadian Northern and covers every asset the Canadian Northern has, which would include that stock, and the $60,000,000 belongs to Mackenzie and Mann and not to the Canadian Northern railway. The Government does not cover it with their mortgage, and Mackenzie and Mann can do with it what they like. If the interest is paid, Mackenzie and Mann hold the $60,000,000 and they can control not only the company but they can control the Government as well.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I can say
something that will make it clear to the hon. gentleman. It is quite true that by taking a mortgage against the Canadian Northern, that mortgage would ordinarily cover everything the Canadian Northern own including the $62,000,000; but there is this difference: by taking it the way we do and impressing it with our mortgage we have the first charge on these stocks. By doing it in the way the hon. gentleman suggests, the stocks would first become subject to the $312,000,000, and we would come next. There is that difference. By this method we get a fixed mortgage on the equities of these companies, represented by their stocks, and if we did not do that we would only get physical mortgages on the individual companies to the extent to which they get the money.


William Manley German: With all due deference to the Solicitor General, I feel that his explanation is as illusory as the security he is taking, because Mackenzie and Mann own this $60,000,000 stock and they can mortgage that stock to this Government and clear from any prior charge of any kind. If the Government said: We want that stock included in this mortgage, it could have been included as a prior incumbrance against any thing and any body.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Manley German: There is where the Solicitor General and I differ, and how he can put forth that proposition 1 cannot understand. Mackenzie and Mann own the stock. There is nothing against that stock. This $60,000,000 is the most valuable stock in the whole concern, because that stock, issued by the Canadian Northern, the parent company, is the stock of a company which the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister have both said is the stock in that part of the line which runs right through the heart of Canada and is indeed the only paying portion of the whole outfit, namely, that 246i
part of the system from Port Arthur to Edmonton. Mackenzie and Mann own $60,000,000 of the stock of that company, and they own the subsidiary companies, and still the Solicitor General says that the Government, at the instance of Mr. Z. A. Lash, consented to leave that $60,000,000 stock belonging to Mackenzie and Mann out of these securities. If the hon. gentleman wants a suggestion as to what more he can do, I advise him to include that $60,000,000 in the mortgage, the same as all other stock. There is another thing that can be done, as was suggested by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and that is to tell Mackenzie and Mann to put some of their own money into this enterprise. I make the [DOT]statement without fear of contradiction: That not only have Mackenzie and Mann made enormous profits out of this railroad manipulation, but they have never from the beginning to this present hour yu't one dollar of their own money into the enterprise, and notwithstanding that they control it from one end to the other. They control the subsidiary companies and the parent company, and now they are seeking in this way to get from the Government $45,000,000 and to hand over $40,000,000 stock, and thereby to a large extent control this Government at least, if they do not control subsequent Governments. They should be compelled to put some of their own money into this enterprise. My hon. friend, the Solicitor General, appears to make light of, or to show indifference as to the question of control. As a matter of fact, the stock of all these subsidiary and constituent companies is being handed over to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company is increased from $92,000,000 to $100,000,000. The Government is to have $40,000,000 of that stock, and Mackenzie and Mann are to have $60,000,000. The hon. gentleman has probably occupied the position of a minority shareholder in some company, and he knows as well as any one else that the majority shareholders control the situation. Assuming that there is no default, and that the interest on these guaranteed securities is paid up, what is the position? Mackenzie and Mann control not only the parent company but the Canadian Northern and all subsidiary companies, and the Government has one director on the Canadian Northern and no director on any of the subsidiary or constituent companies.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we have.


William Manley German: You have one director on each of these companies?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Manley German: You can have two directors in each company if you want to, but that would be of absolutely no use to the Government, because there would be a voting power against them. Mackenzie and Mann control the whole situation, and you see how easy it is for them to simply divert as have been diverted and very likely will be diverted, all the profits of these concerns to purposes, not illegitimate or illegal purposes, but to such purposes as would prevent these companies from ever paying a dividend on that 140,000,000. If it were all in one concern there might be a different consideration, but you- have here twenty-nine different, separate entities, including the Canadian Northern, and there are separate boards of directors and separate managements, and separate supervision, and the dividends earned, if any, by each of these companies, will he devoted to such purposes as the majority directors of these separate entities choose to devote them. Wherein can the Government ever secure any compensation for their investment in an enterprise such as that?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the control of these enterprises means everything, and that the Government should take control. I have made the statement and I reiterate it, that Mackenzie and Mann could have borrowed the money in the open market from capitalists in London, to have completed this line of railway, had they seen fit to give up control. But they feel so strongly the benefit of having control that they are ready to risk entire failure rather than give up that control. They calculated, I suppose, that they could come to the Government, and having full confidence in their influence over the Government, get the Government to give them this money and still retain control of these enterprises. I submit that it is of the greatest importance that the Government should have control before they go further with these resolutions. I say that the consideration of these resolutions should be postponed, first, because there is great doubt in regard to the agreement and the effect of the agreement between the province of British Columbia and the Canadian Northern railway, and that should be settled clearly and definitely before the Government goes into partnership

with these concerns. I say further, that the consideration of the resolutions should be postponed until there is a thorough and complete investigation of the dealings of Mackenzie and Mann with these enterprises from the beginning, and as to whether or not there has been, any misappropriation of funds as is alleged very openly throughout the country. I say that the consideration of these resolutions should be postponed until the value of these securities is more definitely and fully ascertained, and then when that is found, it should be ascertained whether the amount of money now proposed is sufficient to complete the line. As I have said, I have been told on good authority that this sum is not half enough to complete the line up to the standard of a really good transcontinental railway. If it is not sufficient, the Parliament of Canada should know that before we invest in this enterprise by giving this company a guarantee of $45,000,000. If it is found, after a thorough investigation, that it is necessary or expedient to guarantee the bonds for Mackenzie and Mann to enable them to complete this line, the Government should take a controlling interest, if not $60,000,000, at least 51 per cent of the stock of the company, so that the Government will have it in their own hands, through their own directors, to see that the earnings of this company hereafter go to pay dividends on this enterprise and not into the hands of speculators who will divert them for their own purposes.
For these reason, imperfectly stated a3 they have been, I believe that this Parliament should support the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou, and postpone the further consideration of these resolutions until this investigation has been held and until Parliament meets again six months hence.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the privilege of supporting the resolution now before the House. I am sure that the people of Canada appreciate the fact that the. most thorough investigation has been held in regard to this enterprise, and that the Government have done everything possible to present to Parliament all the facts in regard to it. My hon. friend (Mr. German) states that a further investigation is necessary, but he suggests that we should investigate the private affairs of Mackenzie and Mann to a very large extent. We cannot hold an investigation into the private -affairs of Mackenzie and Mann. The Canadian North-

ern Railway Company is a public corporation, and we have made the most thorough investigation in regard to the proposition now before Parliament. The comptroller of the Department of Railways, the comptroller of the Intercolonial railway, the comptroller of the Department of Finance, and all the best financial men in the Government service were placed at the disposal of the gentlemen who had the preparing of these resolutions. They have made a thorough investigation into the whole proposition, and it ill becomes any hon. member to state that the Government have not investigated the matter thoroughly.
Canada, my hon. friend says, has invested heavily in railway enterprises. That is very true. Since 1825, when the first boat passed through the Lachine canal; since 1848, when the first boat passed through the St. Lawrence canal; since 1853, when the first railway was opened up in Ontario, up to the present day, the people of Canada have been deeply interested in the transportation facilities of our country, both on water and on land, until to-day they have invested in railway facilities $774,000,000, the total capital invested in railways being double that amount, namely $1,548,000,000. In our canal system we have invested over $135,000,000, and by 1920 we shall have $200,000,000 at least invested in them. It is very true, as my hon. friend has said, that the people take a very great interest in the development of the resources of the country, especially, as regards transportation.
every hon. member on the other side of the to aid Mackenzie and Mann, and practically
My hon. friend has said that he is willing House, who has spoken on this subject, has made that statement. They have recognized the fact that Mackenzie and Mann afe sterling Canadians, who have had the backbone and integrity and the stick-to-itiveness to carry out these great projects and to develop this great Canada of ours as it would not have been developed had they not taken a hand in the work. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition has already made the statement that the charters that Mackenzie and Mann took up in the first instance in Manitoba went begging through the streets of the capital of that great province. He recognized the fact that, had these men not taken up these charters and had they not secured from practically every province in the Dominion guarantees for their bonds in order that they might sell the securities in the markets
of the world, we would not have had today this great undertaking with its 10,000 miles of railway spread throughout our fair land, covering the best possible territory. If you go through the Northwest territories, you will find that this railway runs through the very best agricultural sections of those western plains. The railway from Edmonton to Vancouver is built by the very best possible route; it is 200 miles shorter than the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and its grades are better than the grades of any other road on this continent from the prairie to the Pacific ocean. Therefore, we may feel proud and glad to know that we have such men as have undertaken such an enterprise as the Canadian Northern Railway system.
My hon. friend has apparently no fault to find with the manner in which the resolutions have been framed, and he admits that the assistance is necessary. He asks, however, whether this amount will complete the road or not. The hon. gentleman knows full well, if he will read the resolutions, that it is represented to the Government that this amount will be sufficient to complete the road. In addition to that, the resolutions show clearly that the money which is going to be paid for the completion of the road will be paid out on the advice of the Minister of Finance, and that not a dollar of it will be paid out until his agents have satisfied him that, as far as that money is concerned, it has been earned by this corporation.
The provinces have helped this great enterprise, and I want to emphasize this point especially by placing upon ' Hansard ' the correct statement as to what the financial interests of the provinces are in this great undertaking. As regards the cash subsidies, I have had prepared a memorandum that has not been previously placed upon ' Hansard.' The provinces are deeply interested in this great enterprise, and we should have the fullest possible information in regard to the assistance they have given. The table I have prepared is as follows:
Canadian Northern Railway System. Cash Subsidies, 31st December, 1913. Dominion of Canada-
Granted.	Paid.
Canadian Northern
Pacific Railway. $ 6,300,000 Canadian Northern
Alberta Railway. 3,120,000 Canadian Northern
Railway	 2,000,332
Canadian Northern
Ontario Railway. 14,762,832 Canadian Northern
Quebec Railway. 707,568


$ 4,349,930 2,832,024 2,000,332 10,122,470 707,566 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Halifax and South Western Railway	 1,364,210	1,364,210
Total	$28,254,942
Province of Ontario-
Canadian Northern
Ontario Railway.	1,072,800
Province of Nova Scotia- Halifax and South Western Railway	 2,804,450
Municipalities-
Canadian Northern
Railway	 50,000
Canadian Northern
Ontario Railway.	20,000
[Stage Direction]
Total	$32,202,192	$25,323,779
Although horn, gentlemen opposite take objection to the attitude of the present Government in this matter, this statement goes to show that the Dominion of Canada is vitally interested in this road and it is our duty to uphold it under the present circumstances.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: At one
o'clock I was calling attention to the development of transportation facilities and to the responsibilities of the Dominion towards these transportation facilities. I was able to show that the Dominion had already invested in this road over $25,000,000 and that in addition to that the provinces had a very great responsibility. Should this road be forced into the hands of a receiver, as hon. gentlemen opposite are desirous it should be forced, there is no question or doubt about the responsibility of the provinces; they will be compelled to pay the interest on the guaranteed bonds, and I shall be able to show that that will amount to a very laTge sum. The responsibilities of the provinces in connection with this road can be seen from the following table:
Canadian Northern Railway System.
Guaranteed Securities -31st December, 1913.
Guaranteed By.	Total Guaranteed.	Bonds Sold or Pledged.	Proceeds Earned and Paid.	Cash Paid.British Columbia	
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	$ 42,865,000 29.475.000 21.150.000 30,141,950 7,860,000	$ 29,273,330 18,407,083 10,463,333 25,338,102 7,860,000	$ 21,235,342 12,837,634 8,695,043 23,824,485 6,556,977	$ 1,072,800Dominion of Canada	$131,491,950 59,746,582	$ 91,341,848 59,473,252	$ 73,149,481 39,937,822	21,376,529Totals	$191,238,532	$150,815,100	$113,087,303	
Nova Scotia cash subsidy paid. . Municipalities cash subsidy paid
2,S04,450
70,000
Cash subsidies total

This goes to show that the various provinces have a very great responsibility in connection with this matter. The prosperity of the settlers along the right of way has been greatly brought, about by the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway system in the various provinces. The hon. member for Welland said this morning that the Canadian Northern had now sufficient money to complete the road, and that there was no reason why further aid should be granted. The hon. gentleman is well aware though that with the aid granled by this resolution the total cost of the road will not exceed $40,000 a mile. The express, telegraph and telephone companies, the and and terminal companies are in excess. If the Canadian Northern had been built through country such as the Grand Trunk Pacific runs the cost would have been much less. The cost of a large portion of the Grand Trunk Pacific is $102,000 a mile, and yet the hon. member for Welland would have it that these men should complete the road for $40,000 a mile.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is my hon. friend sure about the $102,000 a mile? Those are the biggest figures I have heard yet.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Without a doubt. The statement has been made time and again, and never refuted. The road from Winnipeg to Moncton cost $102,000 a mile.


George Perry Graham: This is the first time I ever heard that figure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: adian Pacific railway. Ask yourselves the question whether the 'Canadian Pacific railway would have developed the country to a greater extent than it has. The Canadian Pacific railway has developed it along a different line but I do not believe that had the Canadian Pacific railway been left to itself in that great country it would have developed as rapidly as it has during the past few years.
If you drive the 'Canadian Northern into the hands of receivers you retard the development of Canada for a generation. The Government were not responsible for the conditions brought about by the Canadian Northern. The old Government-I do not seriously blame them-assisted that road in order to enable it to bring the products of the West to the Bast. The Canadian Northern with their 5,000 miles of road on the western plains, were compelled to get, if possible, to the eastern provinces in. order that they might be able to carry the manufactured products of the East to the great West for distribution. The building of the Grand Trunk Pacific compelled them, in order to protect their interest, to build the line between Winnipeg and the East, and I do criticise the action of hon. members opposite who will now try to retard the completion of this line to the East.
Where could Mackenzie and Mann have gone to obtain money at the present time? -only to the Dominion Government. Their credit has been exhausted, and the only _ place for them to come was to the Dominion Government. Let me call attention to another fact; not only have towns and cities on the right of way been bnilt up and developed, but industries along the right of way have been materially assisted by the building of this road. Consumers, producers, manufacturers, and others will be materially benefited and will endorse this resolution. The people of England must say that we are doing the right thing in submitting the present resolution to Parliament. By the reduction of the stock from $145,000,000 to $100,000,000 the Board of Railway Commissioners will be in a position to reduce the freight and passenger rates both in the East and in the West, because the general fixed charges on the lines of this railway will amount to two million dollars less than they otherwise would when the road is completed. Another material part of the securities taken by the Government consists of the

steamships belonging to the company, and 1 am informed that the Royal George and the Royal Edward are two of the fastest steamers engaged in the Atlantic service. There are 300 townsites included amongst these securities, as well as the express and telegraph lines belonging to the company. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) tried to make us believe that the $12,000,000 of annual fixed charges on this road should be included in the indebtedness of the road to the people of Canada, but he must understand that a large portion of that amount is going to be earned by the road. If he looks at page 14 of the documents brought down, he will find that up to the present the provinces and the Dominion have never been asked to pay one dollar of interest on the guarantees they have given. He will find also that the surplus of the road last year amounted to $1,500,000 and the estimated earnings for 1916 will show a surplus of $1,200,000, and for 1917, $2,400,000, and for 1918 $4,000,000. These are estimated surpluses, it is true, but it is a fact that the road is more likely to be a paying proposition because of the Government coming to its assistance at the present time, than if it were forced into the hands of a receiver. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) compares the Canadian Northern and its fixed charges with the Canadian Pacific railway, he must take into consideration that while it is true the fixed charges of the Canadian Pacific railway amount to only about $10,000,000 per annum, they pay ten per cent on $260,000,000 of stock in that road, whereas there is only $100,000,000 of stock in the Canadian Northern. If the time ever comes when the people will be compelled to pay the ten per cent on the $100,000,000 stock, in addition to the $12,000,000 of interest charges, then there will be only $22,000,000 per annum to he paid as compared with the $36,000,000 which is yearly paid by the Canadian Pacific railway. I wish to call attention to the attitude of the premiers of the different provinces with respect to granting aid to the Canadian Northern railway, and it is important that the provinces of this Dominion should realize that they have a very great responsibility in connection with this matter. I quote from a letter sent to the Hon. R. L. Borden by the Hon. Mr. Murray, Prime Minister of Nova Scotia:
Halifax, N.S., March 14, 1914. Hon. R. L. Borden,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
Nova Scotia Government realizes that Can-

adian Northern contributed very largely to railway development in this province, operating at present over four hundred miles. We feel that this progressive railway situation could only have been brought about by the enterprise of such a concern, and the province, by reason of accepting their guaranteed bonds for large sums is vitally interested in the future of this company. Government feels that any reasonable assistance consistent with public interests that can be afforded by the Dominion to the Canadian Northern would be a policy which would be acceptable to our people as it would enhance provincial credit.
(Sgd) G. H. Murray.
Is not this a strong statement from the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia? Does it not show that so far as he and his government are concerned they are ready and willing to back up the proposition placed before Parliament by the federal Government? There is also a letter from Sir Richard McBride, Premier of British Columbia, strongly supporting this Government in the position they have taken. I quote from a letter of the Hon. J. A. Calder, one of the ministers in the Saskatchewan Government, addressed to the Right Hon. R. L. Borden:
April 17, 1914.
Hon. R. L. Borden,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Borden:
Viewing the matter, therefore, from this standpoint, It seems to me that if there is any likelihood that the Canadian Northern railway, on account of the magnitude of its through line undertakings may without additional federal assistance, be left In such a position as to compel it to curtail or hold back its branch line development, the loss to western Canada would be very great indeed.
At present we have thousands of settlers who have been patiently waiting for some of these lines for years, and it would be exceedingly unfortunate, under conditions now prevailing, should there be any further delay in providing the branches required.
To sum up, therefore, it seems to me that not only the West but the whole of Canada is directly interested in the early completion of the through lines of the Canadian Northern railway, as well as the building of those branches so urgently required through large settlements that are at present without adequate railway facilities. If, therefore, upon thorough investigation by your Government, it is ascertained that the company in question must have further federal aid to enable it to complete the undertakings to which it and the country are already committed, it appears to me that there is but one course to follow, namely, to grant the aid required.
Tours truly,
(Sgd) J. A. Calder.
That is a strong statement coming from the province of Saskatchewan, and the members from the West must appreciate the fact that they need branch line development as suggested by the Hon. Mr. Calder, and that he is voicing the sentiments of the people of the West when he urges upon this Government the need of granting assistance to this railway. I read a cablegram sent from Paris to the Right Hon. Mr. Borden by Hon. Arthur L. Sifton, Premier of Alberta:
Paris, 20th March, 1914.
Premier Borden,
Ottawa, Canada.
With present financial conditions would consider advisable federal guarantee with proper safeguards sufficient to ensure the completion and operation main line Canadian Northern. Prosperity settlers on present and prospective branch lines Alberta and west generally should be greatly enhanced by early completion.
(Sgd) Arthur L. Sifton.
Most hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this question have urged the early completion of this road, and I ask them how can we better proceed to do that than by supporting the resolution now under discussion. If the amendment presented by the Opposition were carried, it would retard the development of this road, it would create financial panic in Canada, paralyse the system, and injure our credit abroad; whereas if this road is carried to early completion the general prosperity of the country will be increased.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Prime Minister and his Cabinet on the businesslike manner in which they have brought about this splendid arrangement, and I urge on hon. gentlemen opposite that instead of constantly crying blue ruin they should come forward like men and support this resolution. Not a single man of them is able to make a suggestion that would be better in the interests of the country than the proposal now before us. I accuse hon. gentlemen opposite of, during this whole session, crying blue ruin to the detriment of our country. If there are men out of employment in different parts of the country, these hon. gentlemen rush to Parliament to CTy blue ruin. I can only suggest that these hon. gentlemen, who are in the habit of doing this, should join Coxey's army in the country to the south of us. Coxey is marching on to the great city of Washington to-day with some 50,000 followers. Coxey himself claims that there are 5,000,000 idle men in the United States to-day; but, if we have a few idle men in the Dominion of Canada, hon. gentlemen opposite are ready and willing to damage the fair name of this Dominion and interfere with its development.
I can only say again that I strongly suppoxt the resolution presented to Parlia-

ment by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The Right Hon. R. L. Borden is right on this question, as he has been right on all the great questions that have affected the people of Canada in the past, and I can assure him of my very hearty support on this resolution.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my hon. friend from East Lambton expects me to reply to the latter part of his remarks or not. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to expect him to congratulate the Premier, whom he follows so blindly; and probably he may convince himself that the Premier has made the best trade possible under the circumstances. I do not think, however, it was necessary so severely to castigate the hon. members of the Opposition for preaching blue ruin; but, as this has nothing to do with the matter under discussion, I do not propose elaborating the subject. Perhaps if the hon. members from the western portions of Canada had told the truth about the actual condition of affairs, my hon. friend might have had some cause to complain; but I am afraid conditions have been so bad in that part of the country as to render it necessary to conceal the real facts. I am not going to spend very much time in showing the reasons for the changed condition of affairs in this country in the last three years, but it is most remarkable that, when this Government came into power three years ago, the country was prosperous; the West was booming; the manufacturers of the East were running overtime and on Sundays; the Canadian Northern Company were not begging us for Heaven's sake to save them from blue ruin and bankruptcy; everything was going on in a prosperous, happy condition. Two and a half years of Tory rule in Canada have seen a wonderful transformation in the actual conditions. I say ' have seen ', because I do not want to say that all of this is absolutely due to the bad management of my hon. friends opposite; but I am afraid that, when the history of Canada comes to be written, my hon. friends must be blamed for a great deal of the changed conditions of affairs which have taken place in the last two and a half years.
It is not my intention this afternoon to discuss the general conditions of affairs in Canada. I wish to discuss the condition of Mackenzie and Mann in so far as it relates to the Dominion of Canada; and it seems to me that a discussion of this one

phase of Canadian financial affairs is quite sufficient for any one's attention on one occasion, and that it is not necessary to travel over the whole realm of Canadian financial affairs in order to prove that this Government is in perhaps the worst position in which any Government of Canada has been placed since Confederation. My hon. friend from East Lambton has been very fair in his remarks, as he always is. My hon. friend has done the very best he could to bolster up the position taken by his Premier, and I do not find any fault with him for that. My hon. friend has eulogized the Canadian Northern Railway system, I think, a great deal beyond the actual merits of the case, and has tried to show that no better trade could have been made than the one made by the Government. Again, I would rather expect him to take that course; but notwithstanding all these arguments of my right hon. friend, there are millions of people in Canada who will not be convinced by the arguments put forward by my hon. friend from East Lambton.
There has been a most remarkable absence of authoritative statements from the members of the Government, especially the gentlemen who are really responsible for these proposals. My right hon. friend the Premier gave a general statement of what construction he placed upon the resolutions, and satisfied himself with that. The Solicitor General gave a very learned statement of what he thought were the advantages of the contract, but he spent most of his time in trying to show what a wonderful asset the Canadian Northern railway system was. Since then we have not had a word from any member of the Government. It is a most remarkable thing that about the only speeches we have heard from the Government side of the House since then have been the two wonderful speeches made by my hon. friend the member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and my hon. friend the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I watched with a good deal of interest the attitude of the old warhorse of the Conservative party, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) during the great speech of the hon. member for Calgary. It was a study; it was worth spending two hours in the House of Commons to see, not to say anything about the wonderful array of facts and arguments presented by the hon. member for Calgary. It was amusing to watch [DOT]the face of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. I have not seen such an unholy

gleam in the eye of that hon. .gentleman since I came to Parliament as I saw when he was listening with such rapture to the arguments put forward by these two hon. members. Any person could see the great amount of gratification in the mind of the Postmaster General at the scathing rebuke which his party was receiving from these two hon. gentlemen, who have been described by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) as the Bull Moose members of the Conservative party.
We have heard nothing from my hon friend the Minister of Finance, although I understand we are to be favoured with a statement from him this afternoon, to which we are all looking forward with the greatest amount of pleasure. My hon. friend assured the House only one short year ago (that iif we gave the Canadian Northern Railway Company a subsidy of $15,000,000 their troubles would all be over, and this great transcontinental system would be completed. That was the substance of his words. The hon. Minister of Finance will attempt to explain those words away; and we shall await with a great deal of interest the manner in which he will explain away the fact that, instead of $15,000,000 settling all the troubles of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and putting them on the highway to prosperity -I am almost afraid to state the amount of money which, in my judgment, from a consideration of the undigested mass of documents which have been thrown to us in the promiscuous manner in which the information asked for has been given to this House, will be necessary to complete the road; but I am safe in saying that $100,000,000 will not do what my hon. friend told us a year ago would be done by the payment of $15,000,000; and the company have already got the $15,000,000. If my hon. friend's arguments and assurances this afternoon have no .more basis of fact than had his arguments and assurances of <ai year ago, I am afraid this House will not pay very much attention to them. Therefore I expect my hon. friend to back up the statements he makes this afternoon by something more than a mere assertion of facts coming from, as I believe, Mackenzie and Mamin, as they came from them last year. I would be the last person to accuse my hon. friend the Minister of Finance of having attempted to mislead this House last year. I have too much respect for my hon. friend to do that. What I do fear is that my hon. friend was
misled by the statements, not so much of Mackenzie and Mann as of a gentleman who has been referred to here a great many times, a gentleman well known to the Minister of Finance; a gentleman very closely associated with him on a memorable occasion in the year 1911; a gentleman who, with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, led the noble army of martyrs, the eighteen noble patriots who attempted to save Canada to the British Crown and prevent its annexation to the United States; a gentleman who, if common report be true, is responsible for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance occupying the high and exalted position which he occupies in the Government to-day. It is needless to say that I refer to Zebulon A. Lash.


William Thomas White: I thought you were referring to the Prime Minister.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was referring to Z. A. Lash, something stronger than the Prime Minister. I am afraid that the mis-statements made by his friend Zebulon A. Lash a year ago put my hon. friend the Finance Minister in the position in which he finds himself to-day. I only hope that the information which he will give us on this occasion will come from a better and less interested source than did the information which he received a year ago from Mr. Z. A. Lash.
Another hon. gentleman from whom we have not heard, and who should know something of this matter, is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). I think the hon. minister ought to get far enough away from his old friends the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in order to give some reason for the faith which is in him in supporting these resolutions. I say that it is most remarkable that, with the exception of the remarks of the gentleman to whom I have referred, we have . not been favoured with any statement from members of the Government who are on the inside and who should know something about this matter. I do think that we are entitled to more information along these lines than we have received up to the present time.
I feel that it is unnecessary that I should say anything uncomplimentary about Mackenzie and MJann or about any other person in discussing these resolutions; nor do I (think it is necessary that members of the Government should spend so much time in eulogizing these two wizards of finance, as they are called; these two empire builders; these two men who have devoted their lives to making Canada the great

and prosperous country that it is to-day. This is purely a financial transaction; it is purely a question of whether, in the first place, we should give aid to the Canadian Northern system, and whether, in the second place, the Government are proposing to give this aid in .a manner which will be in the (best interests of the people of the country as a whole. Therefore, as I have said, I am here neither to praise nor to condemn Mackenzie and Mann; I am here to discuss, very briefly indeed, the financial position in which I find this company placed to-day, and in which I find the Government placed by reason of their yielding to the solicitations of these two railway magnates. I know that we cannot find in Canada another instance of where two men have accomplished such wonders in the financial world as have Mackenzie and Mann in connection with the Canadian Northern railway system; in fact, I doubt very much whether the case has a parallel on the American continent. Just think of what they have accomplished. Without putting in one 4 p.m. dollar of private funds; without [DOT] becoming responsible for the payment of one dollar; without doing anything but beg from everybody whom they met, these two gentlemen have succeeded in getting from the people of Canada, from the Dominion and from the provinces, over $200,000,000 either of money or of money's worth. I say that this is something unique in the history of Canada, and, I believe, in the history of the American continent: over $200,000,000 in hard cash begged from the people of Canada, who were cajoled, and, in some cases, I am afraid, almost threatened into giving this money in order to enrich these gentlemen and make them a pair of millionaires. When hon. gentlemen opposite talk about Mackenzie and Mann being patriots, I am almost compelled to say something unpleasant. My hon. friend the Solicitor General smiles; it is no wonder, because I am afraid that the intercourse which my hon. friend hag* had with these gentlemen and their solicitor during the last two months has given him an insight into the real condition of affairs which makes him smile in his sleep when Mackenzie and Mann appear to him in his dreams. When attorneys and counsel come into court with a case they take it as it is presented to them and make the best they can of it, and I think that my hon. friend the Solicitor General, who always makes the 
best of a bad case, bias done the beat he could in this case. iBut my hon. friend knows that so much of this story has not been told that he cannot help smiling when the names of Mackenzie and Mann are mentioned to him.
These men have been referred to as patriots: these men who have almost buccaneered $200,000,000 out of the people of Canada. I went over the matter very hurriedly a few moments ago and, according to the figures which the Government have given us, we find that Mackenzie and Mann have obtained, in the first place, over $25,000,000 in cash and, in the second place, lands in the Northwest which they admit are worth $30,000,000. Further, they have obtained the guarantee of bonds and securities by the Dominion Government to the extent of $58,000,000 and by the provincial Governments to the extent of $76,000,000. This makes a total of $180,000,000 in round figures. In addition to that, they have lands in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia, roads which have been built and purchased by them-but all of which have been (built practically by public money-all over the eastern portion of Canada and, to some extent, in the province of Manitoba; roads built in the province of Quebec and in the province of Nova Scotia. Adding the sum total of the value of these properties you find that at least $220,000,000 or $225,000,000 of actual money or moneys worth has been given to these two gentlemen for the purpose of building this railway system. They conceived, perhaps, one of the boldest schemes which was ever thought of in America. Two men, who at the time had, I imagine, very few dollars of private funds, but who did not put in a dollar, no matter what they may have had, conceived the idea of building a great transcontinental railway. We are told that we should consider them as patriots because they 'had imagination sufficient to induce them to go into this great scheme. I do not suppose that there is a member in this House who has not had sufficient imagination during his lifetime to induce him to go into some financial scheme or other. Some of them, I presume, have turned out satisfactorily; many of them have turned out unsatisfactorily. I know that I have gone into financial schemes during my lifetime; many of them, I am sorry to say, turned out unsatisfactorily, but probably the schemes that other members and I myself have entered into are just as important so far as our communities are concerned as is

the Mackenzie and Mann scheme so far as Canada is concerned. But when our schemes go wrong, do we go to our municipal authorities, to our city and town councils or to our provincial Governments and say: We conceived the idea of establishing a great institution of some' kind, but the thing 'has gone wrong; we are up against the wall. It is true that we have spent not a dollar of our own money; it is true that we 'have spent all the money that we have been able to borrow; it is true that we have spent all the money which the people have given us, that we cannot borrow more and that nobody will give us any more money. We cannot go on with this work; therefore it is up to you to finance it for us. Would our people call us patriots, call us magnates, if we did this, or would they call us idiots? I have been all through the mill ; I have had financial transactions that have gone bad but I did not find any government or corporation or municipality coming to my aid and putting up thousands of dollars for me. They say:	If you are fool enough
to undertake a thing that you cannot carry through, put up your own money, put up your own securities; if you cannot pay your way, go to the wall, and let somebody else take it up. That is what you find in the ordinary affairs of life, that is what probably one-half the members of this House have found in ordinary business experience. The hon. member for Lambton says that these gentlemen are patriots and are absolutely bankrupt. The words he used were:	They have gone to the extent
of their credit, then he says there is no other source to which they can go for money except the Dominion Government; and because these men are bankrupt, and because there is no other source to which they can go, and because they come here and ask us to grant them an enormous sum of money, it is our duty to grant it. This is the logic, and I think the hon. member for Lambton pretty nearly stated the logic of all the members on the Government side of this House who have supported this measure up to the present time. Perhaps you might say that it would be only fair that I should state what my own views are on this matter, and for fear that ony one should claim that I am not frank in discussing it, I wish to admit that this matter has assumed such gigantic proportions that I do not see how the Government of Canada can do otherwise than do something in order to prevent the
enterprise going entirely to smash, because that would be a very serious matter for Canada. But when I say that, I am not agreeing in any manner whatever to the scheme proposed by the Government in order to work out a solution to this very unfortunate condition of affairs.
I now want to discuss very briefly the scheme proposed by the Government. A large number of documents have been laid upon the table of the House. Some of these have been printed in a blue-book and some have not. I do not think that I have spent more real time in trying to understand any subject that has come before the House since I have been in Parliament than I have spent on this Canadian Northern scheme; and I am compelled to admit, although it may not be very much of a compliment to my ability, that I have rarely attempted to speak upon a matter about which I could so little understand many things connected with it. If there is any more light to be thrown upon these things, it is the duty of the Government to give us more explicit explanation than we have received. In so far as I have .been able to go, and I have read over every word in the blue book and every document laid upon the table of the House, I find that there are present liabilities upon this road amounting to about $42,540,000, not for the purpose of building the road, not to extend the road, not to complete the system, but to pay their debts and put them in a position where it will be safe to run engines and cars over the road. That is the position as I find it, if I am right in my figures. I have made up these figures largely from sessional paper N'o. 269 I, a portion of Which has been printed and a portion not. I find that the liabilities at present outstanding and the immediate necessities are as follows:
British Columbia, loans and debts due, $10,141,780; Canadian Northern Railway lines, (i.e. the lines from Port Arthur to the Yellow-head Pass), $8,348,290 ; Canadian Northern Ontario lines, debts due, $4,727,698 ; Toronto and Ottawa lines, debts due, $1,878,726 ; Equipment trust, debts due, $7,441,086 ; betterments on all lines, $10,000,000 ; making a total of $42,540,580.
I was a little in doubt whether I was justified in putting in the $10,000,000 of betterments as a portion of the money to be taken out of the $45,000,000 of guarantee, but if the hon. member for Lambton knows what he is talking about, and I am satisfied he does, then I -was right in putting in that $10,000,000 because he makes the positive statement that:

I understand Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann intend taking $10,000,000 out of this grant to pay for betterments.
Therefore I have the story complete so far as that is concerned. The sum of $42,540,580 is to be taken out of this money to pay the debts and to pay for betterments in order to make the road safe to operate. My friend the Solicitor General shakes his -head. I tell him I have not given a statement that I cannot prove by his documents. Every figure I have given I have worked out from these documents. My hon. friend knows that they are there, he can take the documents and verify them. At page 13 of this file he will find a statement regarding the British Columbia road, and he will find that they owe there, of debts, $10,141,170. That is right, is it not.


Arthur Meighen: I have no reason to
doubt it.
Mr. -CARVELL: If he will go over to page 19 of this file, he will find that there are $8,348,290 due in loans, sub-contractors' drawbacks, and accounts for material on the western lines. At page 20 he will find that on the Canadian Northern lines there are due $4,727,698 for loans, sub-contractors' drawbacks, and accounts for material. On the same page he will find for the Toronto and Ottawa road, loans, sub-contractors' drawbacks, and accounts for material, $1,878,728. On page 24, he will find that in the equipment statement the amount required to pay outstanding accounts and principle due on equipment trust securities in the -hands of the public for the year 1913-14 is $7,441,096 And then he has the confession of my hon. Mend from Lambton, if it foe correct, that the whole of these betterments will be paid out of this amount. Add these together you have $42,045,580.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry I was not present when the hon. member for Lambton spoke, but I scarcely think he was correct in stating that the whole of the $10,000,000 for betterments will come out of the $45,-000,000._ The whole of the $10,000,000 for betterments, and the items read by my hon. friend, will come out of the proceeds of the $45,000,000, plus the proceeds of the $58,000,000; that is to say, out of the whole $100,000,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But there is a lot of
other things to come out of the proceeds of the $58,000,000. No man knows better than the Solicitor General that you have got to spend the $10,000,000 for betterments or you cannot run your trains over these lines in the West. No man know that better than

my hon. friend. He knows that there are hundreds of miles

yes, thousands-that have not a shovelful of ballast on them except what is called dirt ballast; that it will take millions of dollars to replace the wooden trestles, and to fill up the fills; that the roads are in such a bad condition that it is not safe to run a train at more than 10 miles an hour and the Railway Commission has been compelled to reduce the speed of the trains. And yet my hon. friend tells me that they do not intend to take this $10,000,000 for betterments.


Arthur Meighen: Out of the $100,000,000,
yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They will take it out of the only money available, and the only money available is the proceeds from the $45,000,000 worth of bonds.


Arthur Meighen: That is no more available than any other proceeds.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend knows
better. He knows that a Government guarantee makes the bonds saleable, and that they are going to be sold. These 4 per cent, bonds will not sell at par, perhaps, even with the Government guarantee. I doubt if they will bring very much more than $42,500,000. Some gentlemen have said we are going to have a completed system; we are going to have a wonderful transcontinental extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific which will do transcontinental business. But I think I have proved from this document that it will take all the $45,000,000 bond issue to pay the debts owing and to put the road in running shape. That is the difficulty. Mackenzie and Mann or Lash has put it all over somebody; I do not want to say the Solicitor General because I d-o not hold him responsible more than the rest of them. The fact remains that this $45,000,000, with the other available assets, will not complete the road or anywhere near it. And next year or two years- from now, for they will probably wait till after the next elections, they will come back here and tell us the tale they told us last year, that they are telling us now, and that they will probably tell us on two or three future occasions: for God's sake give us some money [DOT]that we may complete the road; if you give it to us this time we will never come back any more. But they will come back just the same.


George Perry Graham: This Government does
not expect to have to -meet them again.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the Government
expects the burden will fall on other shoulders, and acts on the principle that ' sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.' They relieve present necessities, and then hand the matter over to their successors.
Another thing is revealed by this document-and I do not think my hon. friend will disagree with me in this, because I am quoting the figures practically as they are given on page 10 of the blue-book, which seems to be the financial statement of the company. I figure that to complete the road will take as follows:
British Columbia lines	$111,505,712
Canadian Northern lines	 6,694,606
Ontario lines-main line. $11,387,324 Toronto-Ottawa line . .	258,143

 11,645,467

According to the estimate that Mackenzie and Mann have given to the Solicitor General, it will take almost $31,000,000 or $32,000,000 to complete the road, not including all the branch lines, as stated by my hon. friend from Lambton-not by any means. That amount will only cover the main line and the branch lines at present under construction. To that I have added what I think I am perfectly justified in adding, $20,000,000 for equipment, making a total of $51,845,785 required, according to the admission of the Government themselves, to complete the road at present under construction. Does any man on this side of the House or the other, or in the country, who knows anything about railway construction, believe that the estimate given by Mackenzie and Mann is correct?
I do not say that offensively. Possibly they may believe it is a reasonably correct estimate, but the history of every railway in Canada and of practically every other great work shows that nothing in this world is so unreliable as engineers' estimates. It is almost a disease with these gentlemen. I never could understand why it is that while they are never right, they always err on the one side; they always estimate these works to cost less than they actually do cost, and when these gentlemen tell you it will take $50,000,000 to $51,000,000 to complete the road, you will be almost safe in adding fifty per cent to that. Take the Grand Trunk Pacific for instance. Estimate after estimate was made and exceeded, and the same with the Canadian Pacific railway, the Intercolonial railway, and every other great work in Canada. Take the Welland canal. I venture to say that 247


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
when the Welland canal is completed it will cost twenty-five per cent more than the Government say it will cost.
Mr. EMMERSON:: And the Soulanges
canal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I tell my hon.
friends that $52,000,000 will not complete this work. And besides that there are thousands of miles of branch lines to be constructed, which aire not commenced at the present time. If the people demand them, they must be built, and this Government must ibuild them, as I will try to show. The moment this Government becomes a partner in this enterprise-the only partner who has any money-no matter what improvements, extensions, or betterments are required, the partner with the money must furnish them because you cannot get blood out of a stone nor money out of a partner that has not any. To my mind, that is one of the greatest objections I have to the whole scheme.
In the blue-book I find a sort of a summary of my figures with certain additions. It shows that for debts due and betterments, $42,540,580 is required; amounts necessary to complete lines under construction, $51,845,785; floating liability, $10,408,128; loans secured by pledged securities, as I figure it out, $15,423,170, but against that there are securities as collateral; loans due to banks, $20,703,865, there being collateral -securities against these too. These total up to $140,921,528 of debts due, including certain debts which are covered to some extent by securities, and amount required to complete. But you have the enormous sum of $141,000,000 of debts due by this concern; and they are asking this Government to step into the breach and become the junior partner. We are asked to put ourselves in the position where, no matter what happens this amount must be paid by the people of Canada. In order to place the matter fairly before the House, I want to state that there are securities held against the two last amounts.


Mr. BUENHAM:: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of granting these people anything at all ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: To put it in a very terse way, I am not at all in favour of granting Mackenzie and Mann anything at all. I am in favour of keeping the Canadian Northern Railway system as a going con-


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
eern in Canada. I hope my hon. friend understands me.
John Hampden Burnham: I do, because your statement contradicts your leader.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: insert in section 4 of the resolution that covenants or undertakings on behalf of the contractors will be given to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council, we then would have something to go on; we would have Mackenzie and Mann responsible that these guaranteed debts would be paid and responsible that the floating indebtedness of ten million dollars would be brought down to three million dollars.
The more one considers these resolutions and the documents which have been flung at us, the more he must be convinced that there is a deliberate attempt here by somebody to save Mackenzie and Mann harmless. Mackenzie and Mann are entirely out of it when it comes to paying anything, but Mackenzie and Mann are entirely into it when it comes to receiving anything.


Arthur Meighen: What are Mackenzie
and Mann receiving?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will come to that in a little while.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think you
will.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I will; it is early in the day yet. I admit that the evidence is very incomplete as to what they have received up to the present time. I wish I had the evidence which the Solicitor General possesses, or, better still, the evidence which his friend Lash kept away from him. If the Solicitor General has the information which Lash has, and if he will give it to us, then I can answer the question as to what Mackenzie and Mann have received, with a great deal more certainty than 1 can now. The Solicitor General listened on Thursday last with a great deal of attention to the statement of the member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) as to what Mackenzie and Mann had received. I do not need to go	into that question in the exhaustive manner in which the member for Calgary treated it; in fact I have not	the	ability to do so, if 1wanted	to. The hon. rnembe.	fe:
Calgary disposed of that question, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat his arguments. The hon. gentleman gave to the Government certain statements as to where Mackenzie and Mann have received something, and I want to know if there is any member in this House, including the learned Solicitor General who is so innocent, who belives that Mackenzie and Mann have handled $244,000,000 of hard cash obtained from the people of this country and from their unguaranteed securities, and

have acted the part of two magnanimous patriots. Does any one believe that they have simply acted as agents, to whom this money was paid, that they did not receive a dollar out of the whole transaction, and that every dollar of that $244,000,000 is represented in the undertakings referred to in this resolution. Why, even the Solicitor General does not believe that. Why on earth did they create these subsidiary companies, if the whole thing was a bona fide transaction and there was no money being made out of it? You sometimes can argue backwards, and when you have not the evidence it is the only way you can argue, and we know that there has not been a mile of road built in Canada by the Canadian Northern system. We at all events have no evidence that there has been, and I think I am safe in making that assertion. Money by the millions, the ten of millions, and the hundreds of millions, have been granted to the Canadian Northern Ontario, the Canadian Northern Alberta, the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan, the Canadian Northern Pacific, and all the rest of the Canadian Northerns, but not tine of these Canadian Northerns has ever built a mile of railway. What did they do with the money? They have handed $244,000,000 of that money over to themselves, only under a different name, the name of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, and William Mackenzie and Donald Mann own all the stock.


Air. PARDEE:: And Lash.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says
' Lash,' and he is no doubt a little deeper in it than some of us think he is. But on the surface it is Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann. All this money is handed over by Mackenzie and Alann and the Canadian Northern Railway Company, to Mackenzie and Mann as a contracting company, and neither of them has built a mile of road. Mackenzie and Mann, as a contracting company, go out through the world and make bargains with every person they can find to build the road as cheaply as possible. It is all very well to bring an affidavit of a clerk in their office stating that he believes no money should be made out of it. On what does he base that belief? Why does he not give us some information as to his belief? As was said so forcibly by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German), why did not Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann make affidavits that they would receive no portion of this money.


Arthur Meighen: Would that satisfy you?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be more satisfactory than the declaration of a clerk in their office.


Arthur Meighen: It would not satisfy
my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Arthur Meighen: The Canadian Northern Railway Company are actually doing it in the way my hon. friend describes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That only shows the necessity of an investigation. We have no evidence of that, and it is the first time we have ever heard of it. If all this is true, how does it come that Mackenzie and Mann hand over these millions to themselves, without a contract, without even an agreement ?


Arthur Meighen: They do not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The evidence here is that they do.


John Hampden Burnham: Would it not be possible to summon Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann before the Public Accounts Committee, by virtue of the guarantees formerly given by this Parliament ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It might be possible.


John Hampden Burnham: Then, why not try it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will tell you what I would rather do. I would rather put a firm like Price, Waterhouse and Company on their books for a month or six weeks, and then have a Royal Commission or a Committee of this House investigate the matter. I would like first to get some information, and then bring them here. My hon. friend speaks about summoning them before the

Public Accounts Committee. It is late in the session, and I am afraid we would not get very far before the Public Accounts Committee this session in unravelling this monstrous financial transaction.
To come back again. Why do they not call for tenders ? Why do they hand over these millions of dollars to themselves without asking for tenders ? Would it not be interesting to know the prices which the *Canadian Northern paid to Mackenzie and Mann, Limited, and the prices which Mackenzie and Mann, Limited, paid to the contractors ? No man need tell me, in the absence of pretty good sworn testimony, backed up by documents, that there is not an enormous difference between the amount of money paid to Mackenzie and Mann, Limited, and the amount of money paid by Mackenzie and Mann, Limited, to their contractors. You can take all these subsidiary companies; you can take all the manipulations of the bonds and stock referred to by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) the other day, and you can show in eveiry one of them that there is no reason for creating these subsidiary companies beyond the fact that they axe the mere agents to register the transactions-because the Canadian. Northern Railway Company is an entity, the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company is an entity, and the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company is an entity; they are all entities; they all have the power to contract; they all have the right to sue and to be sued; they all have the rights and powers which all other public corporations in Canada have; and there is no necessity for handing over these contracts and building the line in the way in which it was done, unless it is to cover up something.


Mr. BLAIN:: Has my hon. friend no
faith whatever in Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann?	*


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I have. They are two of the shrewdest men who have ever [DOT]lived in Canada. But my hon. friend forgets that Messrs. Mackenzie iamd Mann are coming to Parliament as suppliants. They say:	We have come to the end of our
tether; we cannot get any more money; we have come to you, and we ask you to furnish the money. What I am complaining about is that we have not a statement before us at the present time which justifies us in giving them the money. IJnder this resolu-

tion, all this $45,000,000 will go to Mackenzie and Mann. They aire the men who will handle that money, mot the Government of Canada. They say that they have not made any profits; at least, an affidavit to that effect by some gentleman, connected with the Northern Construction Company has been read here. It says that there have been no profits made by Mackenzie and Mann on the construction of the British Columbia end of the road. That may be very true; but that is not saying that Mackenzie and Mann will not get profits out of it in the end. The Northern Construction Company is the same family in the end:	it comprises Sir Donald
Mann's brother and Sir William Mackenzie's nephews, who are no doubt very estimable gentlemen. I give these men credit for being big men. I am afraid they are a little too big for the men with whom they are dealing. They say that they have not made any money out of this thing yet; but my hon. friend does not realize that it is going to take between ten and eleven million dollars to pay their debts, and about thirteen million dollars to finish the work. I just ask my hon. friend to have a little patience and wait until Mackenzie and Mann get the $10,000,000 of our good money to pay their debts with and the $13,000,000 more to complete the road. Then I would like to have an affidavit from Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann that they have not made any money out of this transaction. These are the things we are complaining about. We object to this enormous amount of money being handed over to the men who have made a failure of the whole thing. We consider that the money should be handled by the Government; and I think we are paying a compliment to this Government of spendthrifts when we say that they should have the handling of this money. We are taking chances in so doing, but the chances are nothing compared with the chances we are taking in handing the money over to Mackenzie and Mann. That is the point we are trying to make and the fault we are finding.
I want to go back to the question of the equipment trust; I am afraid that I was only too truthful when I stated a few minutes ago that Mackenzie and Mann had not properly instructed the Solicitor General; and, that certain important matters had been withheld. I will say this, that my hon. friend is not the first counsel in the world who has been misled by his clients. Any gentleman in this House who has had

experience in counsel work knows that the great and almost insuperable difficulty is to get his client to tell him the whole truth. We have all had the experience of going into court and getting into difficulties because the client did not tell the whole story, and I am afraid that the Solicitor General is in that position; in fact, I know he is. It was proved by a remark made by him the other night when the hon. member for Pictou was referring to the equipment trust. The hon. member for Pictou was asking why in the world it was necessary that this equipment should be bought by Mackenzie and Mann and not by the trust, and my hon. friend the Solicitor General said, that is not true.
I want to tell my hon. friend the Solicitor General that it is true.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understood my hon. friend to say that. It is true. The Imperial Rolling Stock Company do not buy the rolling stock; the rolling stock is bought by the Mackenzie and Mann Company, Limited, who give their notes for it and then transfer it to the equipment trust. Why is that necessary?


Arthur Meighen: Because the rolling
stock company is a mere intermediary. The Mackenzie and Mann Company, Limited, purchase because they have sufficient .assets; they merely turn it over to the rolling stock company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a plausible explanation, but it is hardly effective, because the rolling stock company issue bonds, and they are the men who ought to have the money to pay for this rolling stock. Every time my hon. friend the Solicitor General attempts to explain the matter, he shows that he has not been properly instructed. He shows that these men are intermediaries for the purpose, I believe, of making money out of the transaction. I would like to have the chance to examine them; I would like to have the chance of bringing here the Canada Car Company and other oar companies in Canada and the United States from whom Mackenzie and Mann have bought equipment in recent years; I would like to have the opportunity of examining this transaction and seeing whether or not this rolling stock has been handed over to the equipment trust at exactly the same price which the Mackenzie and Mann Company, Limited, paid the manufacturers for it.
It may be possible it has been, but we ha-e oor doots.
Let me now come back to the financial statement on page 10. My hon. friend admits that they are going to take the whole of the proceeds of the bonds to pay their debts. But, he says, they are going to complete the road out of the 158,000,000. Let us for a moment examine that assertion. The $16,496,332 of equipment bonds are put in as an asset. How can the equipment company have $16,000,000 of 5 p.m. bonds at the present time to put up on the market? If they had $16,000,000 of bonds upon the old worn-out material of the Canadian .Northern, railway, at what price do you think they would sell? Although I admit that this $16,000,000 is a mere bagatelle in the financing of the Canadian Northern Railway system, it is $16,000,000 out of the $100,000,000 which they set forth as being the amount required to complete the work. It is put forth as a gilt-edged security, worth dollar for dollar, and if it does not produce dollar for dollar then they are far astray in their figuring.
We come next to the Canadian Northern Tunnel and Terminal bonds, $5,995,734, or practically $6,000,000. It is true that they put that in as the amount required to complete the Montreal terminals, and that they have $6,000,000 worth of bonds. But who is going to buy these bonds and pay par for them? Who is going to buy these bonds at any price? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance-he knows something about the financial side of the matter, and that is why I appeal to him-will not tell us that these two last items are worth anything at all like the amount of money which is set forth in this statement. Then, in addition tc that, they have $36,000,000 of bonds at par value which might produce $30,000,000, possibly a little less, but how are you going to get it? The remainder of those bonds, $35,981,960 of par value, worth possibly $30,000,000, they say they are going to earn-from whom? From the people of Canada. That is, the people of Canada put up $45,000,000 in order to put Mackenzie and Mann in a position to earn $35,000,000 more from them; some of it in subsidies from the federal Government apd some from the provincial governments by way of bond guarantees and subsidies. Thus it goes on; it is like an immense snowball; the more you roll it the bigger it gets; the more money these people get out of the coffers of the Government the

more money they are going to get out of the people. They say they have $312,000,000 of outstanding securities at the present time. I want to tell my friend that he is a little wrong in his addition; as I make it, the amount is $314,000,000 or $315,000,000. The error may be found in connection with the British Columbia four per cent debenture stock. I took the trouble to look the matter up and I find from the stock exchange hook of 1913 that while the proceeds were $17,418,000 they are given here as being $19,500,000. They could not get that much out of $16,412,000 worth of securities. Of course, it is only an error.


Arthur Meighen: There is no error; the explanation is this: other items mentioned in that same column are placed with that one to produce that total. These items do not alone produce the amounts set opposite them in every case; that is on account of the combining of the itf ms which are necessary for the purpose of financing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thank my hon. friend for that information; with the documents that I had I could not figure it out. We start now with the assertion that there are $312,818,910 of securities issued against this road at the present time. We are going to issue $45,000,000 on that and then we are going to issue $30,000,000 on other securities after that, because by furnishing $45,000,000 we put these people in a position to earn the additional amount from the provinces. The result is that we are going to have a mortgage of practically $400,000,000 against the road as at present constructed and under construction.


Arthur Meighen: There is just one point that my hon. friend overlooks. The securities that we enable them to issue are for loans on lines on which there has been practically no construction: for example, the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan railway.
I understand that the Saskatchewan Government have guaranteed bonds for some 600 or 700 miles. That road is just being commenced. Consequently the mileage will be very much increased and will be away above the 9,000 miles that was in our lease, when that is all expended.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I see, but it makes very little difference because somebody has to furnish the money to build the road before they are of any value, and there must be a prior mortgage on them before our mortgage comes in, bo it makes little difference.


Arthur Meighen: There will be more mileage.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I see what you mean. We will have liabilities of $400,000,000, but a little more mileage.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say that the figures are right, but the principle is right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the load that we are assuming, that is the load which my friends say is a good business transaction.
Let us go back for a moment. In my judgment the worst mistake which the Government has made is to take the $40,000,000 of common stock. I look upon that partnership business as being the most vicious portion of the whole transaction. See what happens. Here are $400,000,000 of securities or mortgages, to use plain English, against this institution. We become partners and we take four-tenths of the common stock. We have got to make that common stock pay because Mackenzie and Mann Company, who are the big end of the show, will say:	You have got to make it pay,
you have got to keep up the rates where it will pay; you dare not cut the rates, because if you do it will not pay and then you will foreclose your mortgage and we will lose our equity. Therefore the Government will foe compelled to keep the rates up. If I lived in western Canada, there is no part of this whole bargain that I would vote against with as good relish and with such a feeling that I was doing the Lord's service and the service of the country, as I would against assuming that $40,000,000 of common stock, because from the moment we become partners in this scheme we will be compelled to keep rates up, and if we keep them up on the Canadian Northern railway so as to pay dividends on the common stock, the Grand Trunk Pacific will have an absolute right to keep up their rates and the Canadian Pacific railway must keep up theirs, so that every railway company in Canada must keep its rates up and1 the people of the West, instead of getting the reduction on freight rates for which they have been praying for ten years, will find themselves saddled with a condition of affairs which makes it absolutely impossible to reduce rates in the future because the Government have assumed the position of partner in this concern. We are practically third or fourth or fifth mortgages of this concern. We all know the position of the second or third mortgagee. He is at the meroy of the first mortgagee in every instance. The moment the first mortgagee wants his money the second mortgagee must

pay it. If there is one thing which I think is the result o.f this transaction more than anything else, and this may not be an unmixed evil, it is that all the provinces who have assumed liabilities for the Canadian Northern railway are absolutely wiped out, so far as liability is concerned, and it is handed over on the shoulders of the Dominion. Take British Columbia, which is perhaps the most outrageous example of guaranteeing railway bonds in Canada or any other country in the world. That little province of considerably less than half a million people, although it has a vast area and great natural resources

although the resources are not of very gTeat value without people and I am sorry to say the province of British Columbia is not increasing in population to anything like the extent it ought considering its natural resources

has assumed liabilities of $48,000,000 in order to help out the Canadian Northern Railway system. A debt of $48,000,000 is placed upon the heads of les-s than half a million people, to build a Toad which is absolutely unnecessary, which is the worst piece of railway building I have ever heard of, a road which parallels- the Grand Trunk Pacific foT the first two hundred miles and which parallels the Canadian Pacific railway for the last two hundred miles or more-, and which has only about one hundred and fifty miles in the middle between the two which goes through new territory. Nearly $40,000,000 of our money are being expended to build that road, which is>
practically all the way paralleling existing lines; and there is no doubt that the British Columbia Govern-inent have been in a terrible position during the last year on account of it. We know that they have guaranteed bonds to a large amount on this railway, during the last year for $10,000 a-mile additional, making $45,000 a mile of bond guarantee upon this road-. I am told, and I do not think that my friends opposite will deny, that this last $10,000,000 has been advanced very largely for the purpose of providing interest charges. The Government will have to pay it in the end, but we will provide the bonds and we will borrow the money to pay the interest with, and it will not look so bad to the people of British Columbia. What is true of British Columbia is true of the other prov-inceato some extent, although not nearly to as great an extent as in that province. When you come down to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, I do not look upon the assistance given there as- being so vicious, because, while they have gone into the matter pretty largely, yet they have roads in the
prairies which are of some value and the roads go through a country where there are people and where- there will be more people, and the more people there are the more dividends there will be, and, therefore, even if the Canadian Northern railway defaulted in these provinces- I imagine that the first mortgages which the provinces hold on the road would probably be all right. But when we come to British Columbia, if the Canadian Northern railway defaulted on these bonds, I do not believe you could sell that road for onedialf of what they are putting into it, not to say anything of the enormous amount which the Dominion has put into it. What is- the result? We are taking the load off the shoulders of the British Columbia people, we are assuming the entire responsibility. Just imagine for a moment what will happen when they attempt to foreclose the bonds and the mortgage held by the province of British Columbia if the interest is not paid. We will have to pay the money. If we do n-ot they will foreclose the mortgages, -and if they foreclose the mortgages who will pay them? Not Mackenzie and Mann Company, Limited, because- they have nothing to pay. Not the Canadian Northern railway, because they have no -money. Who but the people of Canada will be compelled to stand in -and pay the mortgages if they are foreclosed- and rather than have them foreclosed we will pay up the interest and the result is that -the Do-mini-on of Canada -are assuming the entire interest charge, not only of British Columbia, but of tall the other provinces in Canada. This brings us back to my original proposition. We are -assuming a burden of $400,000,000 for which the Dominion of Canada is liable and responsible in order to help out -this concern. I wonder if the game is worth the candle. It looks to me as if no financial transaction has ever been carried out that will compare with it for a moment for lack of business ability. When I heard my h-on. friends compare this road with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific railway, when I considered the condition o-f -affairs existing -to-day as compared with the condition in 1884 when the Canadian Pacific railway came to this Parliament for assistance, the condition of affairs so graphically described by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) on Thursday of last week, when those great railway magnates who had put up every doll ar they had in the worl-d when they had almost gone to the extent of putting

up securities which they did not have to put up, when they had pledged the credit of the Bank of Montreal for every dollar it would stand, when those people came here and said they would put up every cent *they had, when they 'became personally responsible for it, when they had advanced every dollar they had in buying stock-compare the attitude of those great men with the attitude of those two patriots, who are coming here to-day. These patriots have had $300,000,000 out of the people of Canada and the lending public of England. They have never put up a dollar themselves, and are not willing to pledge their own personal property even to the extent of a guarantee of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare these two conditions of affairs and then say whether there is any parallel between the conditions when the Canadian Pacific railway came to us thirty years ago and the present state of affairs. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway system. Let any man travel over the Canadian Northern railway and the Canadian Pacific railway, and see if he can find any parallel in the physical condition of these two undertakings. The Canadian Pacific ra''-way has some roads, I admit, which are second or third class, but it has thousands and thousands of miles of the finest road on the continent. In the last ten years they have spent millions of dollars on their roadbed from the Atlantic to the Pacific-a road which must be worth twice as many dollars per mile as the Canadian Northern railway. And yet my hon. friend talks about comparing these two ! He talks about the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific. A man would only have to ride over the Grand Trunk Pacific and look over the other road in order to form an appreciation of the character of the Grand Trunk Pacific as compared with the Canadian Northern railway. My hon. friends admit that there is not a road in America to equal the Grand Trunk Pacific. They complain of the cost, but I say that if they multiplied this $45,000,000 three or four times, they would never make the Canadian Northern railway into a road the equal of the Grand Trunk Pacific. They could hardly have such a road. It is true the Canadian Northern railway has about as good grades through the mountains as the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Arthur Meighen: Better.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I deny that. The Canadian Northern railway's grade going east

is seven-tenths of one per cent, except for a twenty-mile stretch where it is seven-tenths, the Grand Trunk Pacific grade is orly six-tenths.


Arthur Meighen: The Canadian Northern railway is seven-tenths for only a short stretch of less than eight miles.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will accept my hon. friend's figures.


Arthur Meighen: Now compare the grades going west.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not the figures.


Arthur Meighen: The Canadian Northern has no grade at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all right; I want to give this concern every credit that is due. There are so many items on the other side of the scales, that we should not refuse to gratify my hon. friend with the few little crumbs of comfort that may fall to him. When you come to compare the cost of these roads for the whole system, there is no comparison at all, and no man knows it better than the Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: I thoroughly agree.
There is no comparison at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend will admit that the Grand Trunk Pacific through the prairies has cost an average of $40,000 to $42,000 a mile. In the case of the Canadian Northern railway what have we: sleepers almost laid upon the prairie; no ditches; hundreds and thousands of wooden trestles and wooden culverts; one and one-half to two per cent grades; a mere surface road.


Arthur Meighen: No, no. I have the profile here if you wish to see it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am talking about the branch lines, not the main line, and there are hundreds of miles of the character I have described. They all go to make up the 5,350 miles in the central section. My hon. friend admitted that even with hundreds of miles of that character to make up the 5,350 miles in the central section, there are securities outstanding to the extent of $35,000 a mile.


Arthur Meighen: With this $45,000,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: None of this $45,000,000 is going on that section.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes; about


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; $8,000,000 is. going to pay off their debts, but that does not im-

prove the physical condition of the road at all.


Arthur Meighen: It has been already
helped.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And it is still in the
deplorable condition I have described. In addition to that $8,000,000, $6,694,000 goes towards betterments, and when you take that into account you have a mud road, costing $35,000 a mile, and you are going to pay interest on it. Is there a man in this House that will say that a road like that could have cost $35,000 a mile?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has made an error, perhaps unintentionally. How does he say that this whole $45,000,000 is to be charged against that section to make up the $35,000 a mile.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I took the $6,694,000,
which is all that goes into the road.


Arthur Meighen: You cannot make it
$35,000 a mile. Start in to do it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have my hon. friend's statement for it.


Arthur Meighen: Show it to me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He will find it in his
renraiks.


Arthur Meighen: Never in the world. I said, including all this $45,000,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the use of talking like that? My hon. friend knows that that $45,000,000 is not going into that part.


Arthur Meighen: I said that if it all went there, it would only be $35,000 a mile.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend said
$40,000 a mile, although ' Hansard ' has it at $35,000 a mile; I do not know why. I know my hon. friend said $40,000, because I isent him a note asking him how he made it up.


Arthur Meighen: No, $35,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have the note here in my desk.


Arthur Meighen: I did not make it up
to $40,000; you cannot show me my note.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what you 'stated,


Arthur Meighen: No, I did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I knew I would bother my hon. friend when I came to this.


Arthur Meighen: Not a bit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend knows
the weak spots. He knows he has a cheap mud road.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the hon. member ever see the road?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I have_ not been
west of Winnipeg.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, you do not know anything about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are oceans of proof that the road is of the character I have described, and thousands of miles of it are not as good.


John Dowsley Reid: Produce your proof.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is easy to say, produce your proof. The proof is in the minds of millions of people in Canada, and in the minds of all those who have lived in the Northwest, and it is in the minds of dozens of members of this Parliament. It all comes back to this question. We are taking over a road of that character and 'are agreeing to pay fixed charges up to pretty nearly $35,000 a mile. It cannot be done. At the very moment we enter into partnership there will be a demand from the people to have these roads brought up to the proper standard, and the Dominion Government will simply have to put up millions of dollars to Ibring the road up to a decent standard. There will be a demand for additional branch lines-a perfectly proper demand, which must be complied: with-, which will cost the Dominion Government millions of dollars. Would it not be better to take the railroad over now than to allow these men to manipulate this $100,000,000 of funds for three or four years longer, and then come back and say: We cannot carry it on any longer, we must have further aid or you must take it over. What happens when we do take it over? If there was one portion of the address of my hon. friend from Calgary which impressed me more than anything else, it was that in which he described the foreclosure of this mortgage. I thought that my hon. friend got down to the existing facts and to real human nature a little closer than in any other portion of his great speech. As the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), stated: It is true these men have been pretty bold actors; it is true these men have had very grave charges laid against them; it is true these men have
392*

been tried by the Government and have been found wanting, but we are going to give them one more chance, and, if they default again, down comes the axe and off go their heads. 'Balk about toying to foreclose this mortgage; you would see a lobby around here such as had never been heard of in Canada before. There would not be a contractor, a [business man, a politician, anybody in Canada who had ever done business with these people but would be brought here in order to appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to prevent this taking place. In the end, if it did take place, instead of foreclosing on $60,000,000 worth of stock we would be more likely to have to pay them $15,000,000 or $25,000,000 to get rid of them. That is the true inwardness of giving them this $60,000,000 of stock. It gives them absolute control of this money; it gives them the right to manage the business; it gives them the right to keep rates up against the western producer, and, more than that, if we want to attempt to foreclose this mortgage, it will give them the right to come here and demand from $15,000,000 to $25,000,000 in payment for their equity.


Arthur Meighen: Would my hon. friend prefer the ordinary methods of foreclosing mortgages as embodied in the agreement of 1911?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I prefer the kind of agreement that the Government entered into with the Canadian Pacific railway thirty years ago.


Arthur Meighen: I am asking my hon. friend if he would prefer the ordinary methods of 1911?
Mr. OARVlELL: My hon. friend must remember that in 1911, when we guaranteed the bonds, we had a mortgage upon this road. We had a security that there was something in; we had something which noibody could allow to be foreclosed. But here my hon. friend has as security merely a bankrupt concern. My hon. friend is putting up $45,000,000 when he knows that there is not more than 75 or 50 per cent of actual value behind it. There is as much difference between the North Pole and the South Pole as between the deal in 1911 and that in 1914. If my hon. friend wants a parallel, let him go back to the agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway in 1884. When the Canadian Pacific railway came here and said: We are up against the wall; we cannot

sell our bonds and we cannot get any more money, Sir John Macdonald did not say: We-will foreclose this mortgage if you come back to Parliament again, hut Sir John Macdonald and the Conservative party of that day provided that automatically all their rights, all their equity of redemption, -were gone if they defaulted upon the bonds.


Arthur Meighen: After a year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, after a year. My hon. friend provides that there cannot be any default for three years. They can go on and ask the Dominion of Canada to pay the interest for three years, and they will ask us to pay every cent of it. We do not give them only $45,000,000, but we are compelled to pay the interest on that amount for three years, and all they have to do is to pay the interest upon the rest of the securities. After three years, if the interest is not paid upon these or any other securities, we cannot forclose them; we cannot cut their heads off, but they will simply come back to Parliament, and we are going to go through all this lobby again that many of us here have been watching for the last three months. We shall again have the lobby at work, but to a much greater degree than we have had it before, and, instead of foreclosing their equity, we will be compelled to pay them an enormous amount of money to get rid of them I have taken longer than I had intended, but this subject is so fascinating that one is apt to be carried away by it. When you see the blunders made by hon. gentlemen opposite, when you see how Mr. Z. A. Lash has taken these hon. gentlemen into camp and disposed of the whole of them, when you see the great benefits that he will get out of it as contrasted with what we get out of it, if you have any interest in this country you must find it a fascinating subject. I have tried to point out that we are not giving Mackenzie and Mann enough money to finish this road. We are only giving them money enough to pay their debts, and, worse than that, we are allowing them to handle this money and to pay these debts themselves. We are giving them the right to pay construction accounts about which we know nothing. We are giving them the right to use this money for betterments about which we know nothing. W7e are giving them the right to the use of this money and to the use of it at once, and yet the road will be left in the same position as it is. I do not know where

they are going to get money, but if they can get the money, we are giving them the right to go on and finish the road which will take from $25,000,000 to $40,000,000 more. We are giving them the right to take $35,000,000 more out of the people and they own the road, or they own 60 per cent of it while we own 40 per cent. We are giving them the right to control freight rates and to keep them at any point they have a mind to. We are assuming (the responsibility not only of paying $400,000,000 of a mortgage, but of paying the interest and of the foreclosure of these securities as they mature.
I say that we ought to have some light on this subject. We ought to "have an investigation. We ought to know where the money has gone and to whom it has gone,
[DOT] how much has gone into the railway and how much into somebody's pocket. We want to know how much these two gentlemen have got out of it. We are giving them $60,000,000 of stock and up to the present time not one dollar of their own has gone into it. We ought to have an investigation into that. We ought to know what the road has cost. We ought to know what it is going to cost to complete the system, what it is going to cost to build new branch lines and where this money is going. Then, Sir, I am satisfied that the condition of affairs will not only be shown to be bad, but that it will be shown to be so bad that this company will be compelled to come back to this Parliament in two years from now and ask for further advances. My hon. friends opposite ought to give us some light upon these matters, they ought to have an investigation and find out the true condition of affairs and, if they are as we suspect they are, they ought to eliminate these two men. I am not finding fault with Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann; they are big actors, they are men who have played the game and lost. They gambled in the biggest way that men ever did in the Dominion of Canada. They gambled and lost, and now my hon. friends come to the rescue and say: Let them go on and gamble and win. If my hon. friends opposite are putting up. the money to help them to gamble, we should have the equity and not they, and that would mean that the people of Canada would get it.
While I have never been very much enamoured of government ownership, and while I would not look forward to the adoption of that principle with any great degree of comfort, still I would rather see this
handed over to a commission to be operated by this Government than that it should be handed over to these two gentlemen. It is better for us, it is better for the people, ft is better for the farmers in the western country to reduce the freight rates on the system, because it will not have earned sufficient money to pay dividends. You give Mackenzie and Mann this $60,000,000 of stock and you are compelled to keep the rates where they can earn dividends. If you take over the road, and if you put it in the hands of a commission, you can run it as you are running the Intercolonial railway-at cost. You do not have to earn dividends, you only have to charge sufficient rates to pay the fixed charges, and while you are bringing down the rates on the Canadian Northern railway you are at the same time bringing down the rates on the Canadian Pacific railway and Grand Trunk Pacific. You give the people transportation at the cheapest possible cost under existing circumstances. For these reasons, and considering the -very great paucity of information we possess, the terrible responsibilities we assume, and the condition of affairs which is likely to ensue, I shall have great pleasure in voting for the amendment of my hon. friend from Pictou,


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I must crave the indulgence of the House; a bronchial cold has almost robbed me of my voice and what I have to say must necessarily be said briefly. My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) has commented upon the fact that hitherto no minister other than the Prime Minister has spoken on this question, but that only goes to show how unreasonable my hon. friend can be at times. It shows his lack of appreciation of a very delicate compliment on our part, because we desired to have the benefit of the lucubrations of the hon. gentleman from Oarleton on this question. We knew he would illumine it. It is not my intention to follow him in his excursion into the realm of figures. My hon. friend is always interesting as a dialectician, but as a mathematician he is a hopeless failure. His literary training I think was reasonably good, but he has grave cause for dissatisfaction with the teacher of his youth who instructed him in arithmetic. I have no doubt the Solicitor General will straighten out all the tangles which befog his brain when we get into Committee on the Resolution.
The issue before the House is simple: shall the Government afford aid to the

Canadian Northern system? Is this the time to afford it, and if so have we adopted the best method of affording it, and has the public interest been sufficiently safeguarded by the proposals of the Government? These are in general terms the questions which are involved in the consideration of the resolutions now before the House.
It is customary in dealing with financial legislation affecting railways to dilate upon the importance to the people of Canada of the transportation problem. That problem is of vital and paramount importance; it is common ground to both political parties, and there is no necessity to touch upon it now.
There is another question which has been much controverted;-has our railway policy in Canada been mistaken; have we aimed too high; have we sought to accomplish too much; have we, as has been said by some, one transcontinental railway too many in Canada? Are there too many lines traversing the north shore of lake Superior?
Much can be said for this view, but the time has gene by for debating the question. We have three transcontinental railway systems, one the greatest in the world; the other two nearing completion. The past is irrevocable. The book is closed, no matter whether its pages may have been writ well or writ ill. The die has been cast, and we have to deal with the situation as we find it. Whether mistakes have been made or have not been made, it is idle now to discuss. It is, in my judgment, the wisest policy to make the best of things, to accept what is inevitable, and above all to strongly believe that with courage and with hope and with resolution affairs can be made to work out satisfactorily. I firmly believe that the railway situation of Canada will work out. This country has resources illimitable; wealth beyond the dreams of avarice for those who will succeed in it. The various geographical sections of Canada are empires in extent, and variety of natural production capable of sustaining a population many times as numerous as that we have inhabiting our Dominion to-day. Is the population of Canada to remain fixed, crystallized, and stereotyped, and is the transportation policy of Canada to have regard to the present only? Is imagination to play no part in our policy? Must the railway follow the plough rather than the plough the railway? Would the Canadian Pacific railway ever have been constructed had the vision of its builders seen only the

population of the eighties? Would the Northwest be the Northwest of to-day, or the boundless and barren prairie of years ago, had it not been for the vision of statesmen and of railway builders who, with enterprise unparalleled, have carried their lines of railway to its uttermost parts, bringing colonization and civilization in their train? Situated as we are geographically, what has the opening of the West meant to the Bast? I say, Sir, that it has meant advantage incalculable. We have manifold return for the money spent in railway development, even though millions may have been needlessly and mistakenly expended. We are only on the threshold of our great adventure in the extension of civilization to the vast plains of the Canadian West.
Shall we stop now? Shall we lose courage upon the very verge of success? Shall we lose sight of the millions of population still to come? As for me, I have an abiding faith in the destiny of this country. No other creed can permanently be in keeping with the spirit, the determination, and the aspirations of the Canadian people. Parliament, I am sure, will never be wanting in imagination in dealing with the larger problems of this great Dominion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the existing railway situation in Canada? What is the situation with which this Government has found itself confronted? We have had to finish the eastern section of the National Transcontinental railway; the money has been found and will be found as required. The road is almost completed. The year before we came into power the late Government had taken a step which determined that the Canadian Northern railway should be a transcontinental system, by guaranteeing securities to the extent of $35,000,000 upon the line of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway, from Montreal	to Port	Arthur.Construction upon this and other lines of the Canadian Northern Ontario was well advanced. There was then the action of the Government of British Columbia in guaranteeing securities upon the line of the	Canadian	NorthernPacific, which	was then	under
way through the Rocky mountains from the Yellowhead Pass to New Westminster, a most expensive line, costing in some places $100,000 per mile. During our first year in office we granted a subsidy at the rate of $12,000 per mile to this line, and I say that if under any circumstances

whatever railway subsidies are justifiable, the subsidy of $12,000 per mile which we granted to the Canadian Northern Pacific in respect to its lines through the Rocky mountains, was abundantly justified. This brings me to the year 1913, a year of stress, a year of strain, a period of financial stringency the most severe-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend may laugh. I do not know whether he understands the severity of the financial stringency, the most severe, the most widespread, that has been experienced I believe during the lifetime of any member of this House. That stringency was due to world-wide causes which stopped the supply of capital at its source, the great international money centres, causing retrenchment and embarrassment to enterprises in all parts of the world. It was in this posture, in this extremity of affairs that the Canadian Northern Railway Company last year made application for aid by way of subsidy and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for aid made application by way of loan. The subsidy in the one case amounted to thirteen or fourteen million dollars and the loan amounted to fifteen million dollars. The subsidies were given by this Government and the loan was made. Had the Government not taken the action it did, railway construction must have ceased in Canada upon the two lines in question. What the result would have been to Canadian securities in London and, by consequence, upon Canadian credit and prosperity, I leave to the imagination of this House. There is no need to apologize, and I do not apologize for the action of the Government last year. I say that it was strong, courageous, timely, necessary action. Had it not been taken, those of the public who have criticised us for taking it would have to-day execrated us for not having taken it. In connection with these subsidies, we obtained stock in the Canadian Northern Railway Company to the extent of $7,000,000, par value. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), for whom I always cherish, as he knows, a high, regard, the other evening indulged in some caustic witticism at my expense with reference to the issue of the stock certificate covering these 70,000 shares. I think he said that they had turned on the printing press.


William John Macdonald: That is what the hon. member from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) said. I just adopted his statement.


William Thomas White: I thought my hon. friend had not only adopted it, but made it his own. If he has not made it his own, I will consider it withdrawn and will forget it.


William John Macdonald: No.


William Manley German: Is not that what they did ?


William Thomas White: I will come to what they did.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They turned on the printing press later on.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says that they turned on the printing press in order to print a stock certificate. I have had some experience with stock certificates; and as a general thing they aTe printed or engraved, so far as I know'. I think my hon. friend will agree with me so far. Let us see what happened with regard to this issue of stock certificates for 70,000 fully-paid shares of the Canadian Northern Railway Company stock. There was absolutely no deception of this House on the part of either the Canadian Northern Railway Company or Mackenzie, Mann and Company. The Subsidy Bill showed as clearly as words could show the intention of the Government, the intention of Parliament, in the legislation relating to the issue of the 70,000 shares of the Canadian Northern Railway Company stock, that it was in part consideration of the subsidy which the Government was granting to the system. I am going to put on ' Hansard,' because this matter has been discussed very widely, and because some most unjust statements have been made respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company with regard to the issue of this certificate, sections 8 and 9 of the Subsidy Act of last session, which is a* follows:
8.	No subsidy shall be granted under this Act unless and until there shall have been issued and transferred upon the books of the Canadian Northern Railway Company to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada, in trust for His Majesty, shares in the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company of the par value of $7,000,000, which said stock and all rights appurtenant thereto shall be held for the benefit of His Majesty absolutely, and shall be deemed to be fully paid up, non-assessable and not subject to calls; provided that the said stock or any part thereof may be disposed of under the authority ot Parliament upon such terms and conditions as it may determine and the proceeds of the sale thereof paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
9.	The Canadian Northern Railway Company is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and transfer to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada, in trust as aforesaid, from and out of the authorized capital

shares of its common stock of the par value of seven million dollars fully paid up and nonassessable and not subject to calls as aforesaid, upon the consideration of the Governor in Council undertaking to grant to the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company the subsidies referred to in section 2 of this Act upon the terms aforesaid, and such stock when so issued and transferred shall be deemed fully paid without further or other consideration.
What was the position? The Government of Canada gave $15,000,000 by way of subsidy to the Canadian Northern Railway system, and the Canadian Northern in part consideration issued $7,000,000 par value of fully paid shares of its stock. If any stock in the world was fully paid, that was, because it was paid in full in part consideration of the subsidy granted by Parliament to the Canadian Northern system. I wish to clear up that point, because a great deal too much has been made of it.


William John Macdonald: Will my hon. friend go on record as telling the House and the country last year that the stock he was getting, apart from the technical interpretation of the Act, was entirely new stock that was to be issued, or that it was to be part of the stock already in existence?


William Thomas White: I certainly didi not tell the House or the country that it was part of the stock already existing.


William John Macdonald: You did not tell the House that it was not.


William Thomas White: The legislation was before the House. It was open to my hon. friends. Every section in the Act, including the two sections I have read, were discussed in committee. There was absolutely no mystery about the matter whatever; and it is unjust to the Canadian Northern Railway Company that it should be spread broadcast throughout the country, under the authority of so eminent a parliamentarian as my hon. friend from Pictou, that they had printed stock certificates and given illusory stock, because, as a matter of fact, the Parliament, of which he is a member, enacted that the stock was fully paid and issued as part payment for the subsidy granted by Parliament.


William Manley German: Was the $7,000,000 worth of stock issued to the Government part of the $70,000,00 that had already been issued?


William Thomas White: I do not know what my
hon. friend had in his mind?


William Manley German: Did not my hon. friend have that in his mind?


William Thomas White: I had this in my mind,
that the Canadian Northern Railway Company was to issue this stock as fully paid, as set forth in the legislation already before the House.


William Manley German: Of that which had already been issued ?


William Thomas White: The legislation is absolutely contrary to the views expressed by my hon. friend from Welland. He was in this House and the legislation was before him. The legislation expressly stated that the 70,000 shares were to be issued from the authorized capital. There is a difference between authorized capital and issued capital. There is not one word in the statute to say that it was to be from the issued capital; it wras to be from the authorized capital.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend did
not say that to the House.


William Thomas White: The stock certificate was
issued in accordance with the legislation of Parliament. What I did say to the House was that the Government would hold one-tenth. There was $70,000,000 worth of stock outstanding; and if I had taken into consideration the additional $7,000,000 which we would receive, it would then be one-eleventh. That would be a difference of one-one hundred and tenth. If my hon. friend in his debates in this House will come within a fraction of one-one hundred and tenth of the1 truth, he will be doing much better that is usual for him.
What is the position to-day? The Canadian Northern Railway Company comes before the Government and shows a condition of affairs in which $100,000,000 is required to finish their line. Of this they have resources to provide $58,000,000, and they ask for a guarantee sufficient to produce the balance of $42,000,000. I desire to point out that this is the actual position of affairs. Here is a road in the condition disclosed in the financial statement which has been laid before the House. The Government has been confronted with a condition, not with a hypothesis. It is not very often that I tell a story in this House; but I believe it is allowable. When I consider the railway situation bequeathed by my right hon. friend for the solution of this Government, I am reminded of the story of a beneficiary of an estate the affairs of which were much complicated. She said:
' If I had known that we would have so much trouble with the affairs of this estate, I would much rather that uncle, had never died.'

At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Thomas White: When the
House rose at six o'clock, I was dealing with the railway situation with which we were confronted, I said that we had to deal with a condition and not a hypothesis. The Canadian Northern Railway system requires $100,000,000 to complete it3 enterprise. It is prepared to provide $58,000,000 and it has asked the Government of Canada to provide the additional $42,000,000 by guarantee of an issue of 4 per cent bonds of the par value of $45,000,000, which may be expected to realize in the neighbourhood of the required $42,000,000. The question, therefore, before the House is whether we shall grant the aid which is sought by the Canadian Northern Railway system or allow it to go into default. Let us consider (for a moment the railway system in question. It has main lines extending from Quebec to Vancouver. It has feeders in almost every province. It has the constituent and subsidiary companies specified in the schedules to the resolutions, exceeding, I think, thirty in all, a system of railway, express, transfer, telegraph, steamship, land and tunnel and terminal companies. It represents at present 7,000 miles of railroad and when it is completed it will represent 10,000 miles. Upon this system some $300,000,000 of securities have been issued and it is to-day confronted, as I have said, with the necessity of obtaining further aid from the Government of Canada or a receivership. A system so vast and complicated as the Canadian Northern Railway system has necessarily involved itself with the vita] interests of the country and we find iron and steel companies, rolling stock companies, supply companies, great mercantile and manufacturing establishments, all dependent in some measure, and some in large measure, upon the continuance of the immense activities of this system. The Canadian Northern Railway system has received sums exceeding $20,000,000 in subsidies, has received in guarantees some $130,000,000 from the federal and provincial governments, and has raised in the neighbourhood of $170,000,000 on its own securities. Almost every province in Canada has pledged its credit in connection with the securities of this road and therefore we have the situation that, by reason of the interest which 248
they have in this system, the Dominion and provincial governments and the industrial and other establishments I have mentioned, are all vitally interested in this company and its system being maintained as a going concern. Of its securities there are hundreds of millions upon the London and European markets. It has done much to develop the West, and the West to-day is calling for more rolling stock, for better service and for extension of the Canadian Northern railway to the unsettled districts. The question, therefore, which we have to determine, and which the Government has determined, is whether this system, which is on the very verge of completion, shall be allowed to default on its securities and go into the hands of a receiver. I say that no thinking man in Canada can answer that question in the affirmative. I say it is unthinkable that the Canadian Northern railway, with these thirty subsidiary companies, railway, express, telegraph, steamship line and terminal companies, shall be allowed to go into the hands of a receiver, having regard to the interest that I have described of the Dominion and of the provincial governments in the road, and to the importance of the continuance of the activities of this system to all the manufacturing and business interests in Canada. Can the matter be allowed to stand for six months? I say the answer to that is supplied by the financial statement which has been laid upon the table. I say that prompt and immediate action by the Government and by Parliament is required in this matter. It is true that this road has been generously helped by the Dominion and other governments in Canada, in other words by the public, in the past. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) this afternoon said that they had 'buccaneered ' $200,000,000 out	of the people of Canada.
Well, they have not buccaneered any such sum out of the people of Canada since this Government has been in power. I would like to point out to my hon. friend that the late Government gave guarantees to the Canadian Northern railway to about $58,000,000. One of the last acts of the late Government was to give a guarantee of $35,000,000 upon the securities of the Canadian Northern Ontario line from Montreal to. Port Arthur. That sum is only $10,000,000 less than the guarantee that we are giving to-day, so that if the promoters of this road have buccaneered the people of Canada out of $200,000,000, my hon. friend must assume responsibility

for his share of complicity in respect to the guarantees so given.
There has been a great deal of confusion of thought in this matter. Attention has been fixed upon Mackenzie and Mann. I desire to say that Mackenzie and Mann as individuals are of absolutely no interest or concern to this Government. ,If the question at issue related only to the advantage or disadvantage of Mackenzie and Mann the Government would not waste a moment upon it. The only basis of the action of the Government is the interests of the people of Canada, and I say that it is in the interests of the people of Canada that this system-the Canadian Northern with all its subsidiary and constituent companies, 7,000 miles of completed line, and, later on, 10,000 miles-should receive the aid which it seeks in order that the road may be completed. The personal vicissitudes of Mackenzie and Mann, enterprising railway builders as they have been, are of no interest to us; if no public interest were at stake there would be no basis for action on the part of the Government. I repeat that the foundation of the action of the Government in this matter is the public interest. It is in the interests of the people of Canada that this vast system should be completed, linked up, and made productive.
There is another consideration. Shall we allow the general credit of Canada to he impaired in the London market by default on the part of this railway company, and shall the provinces he1 called upon for their guarantees? That is a question of interest to every member of this House. I have heard men speak lightly of putting a system like this into a receivership. Considering the many classes of securities which have been issued by this company, ranking as they do in their several orders, I put forward the assertion that in the event of a receivership for this system it would be years before the road was on its feet again. Does any member of tnis House seriously say that a receivership of this complicated body of corporate enterprises could he carried out without enormous legal and other costs, and without a most injurious influence upon the business of this country as a whole, because you find this company's lines in every province, and I have explained that this Government and the provincial governments, and all the manufacturing and mercantile establishments of Canada, are interested in the continuance of the

activities of this system. I sometimes think we do not realize how vastly complicated a system the Canadian Northern railway is. I say, therefore, that if any other solution can be found a receivership should be unthinkable, and I am glad that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and other gentlemen opposite agree with	me	in	that. I say,	andthey	say,	that	the road must	goon	to	completion in	the interestsof the people of Canada. In the case of a single corporation where no question would arise as to constituent or subsidiary companies a receivership would be serious, but it	would be	infinitely more seriouswhere	you	have	not one company	buttwenty or thirty to be dealt with under the slow process of a receivership. Only one thing could happen:	The dispersal or disintegration of the whole system. Even with the Government as a receiver, as one hon. gentleman has suggested, damage beyond repair would be done to the credit of the company.
The Government has given the question prolonged and painstaking attention and consideration. I venture to say that no question that has ever come before a government of Canada has received more profound and more serious consideration than this application of the Canadian Northern Railway Company for aid. Upon a review of the whole situation, of all the considerations involved, we have come to the conclusion that I believe every thinking man has come to who has had the facts before him that it is the clear duty of the Dominion of Canada to come to the assistance of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. We were not without precedents for such action. As I have said, in 1911, the Government under the leadership of the right hon. leader of the Opposition gave the Canadian Northern railway a guarantee to the extent of $35,000,000 upon its line from Montreal to Port Arthur, and when they did that they cast the die that determined the Canadian Northern railway as one of the transcontinental systems of Canada. My hon. friend from Garleton talks about ' buccaneering ' the country by getting these guarantees. Did he protest in 1911 against that $35,000,000 guarantee? Where, where was Roderick then? He may have been in the House, but he did not act like Roderick;. So far as I can make out, he said very little.

My hon. friend the Solicitor General says he spoke eleven words. Well, sometimes silence is golden, and I am not sure that my hon. friend was not as wise in giving utterance to those eleven words as he was in his discourse of an hour and a half this afternoon, although I listened to him with much pleasure. What about the Grand Trunk Pacific?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All right.


William Thomas White: 
William John Macdonald: How much will the Canadian Northern cost?


William Thomas White: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How much did the Grand Trunk Pacific people put into the road themselves?
Mr. WHITEi: I can tell my hon. friend. In addition to the guarantee of $13,000 a mile, the Grand Trunk Pacific people put in the balance themselves up to the cost, say $45,000 a mile, which it will probably amount to before it is taken out of the construction stage.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: $45,000 when equipped?


William Thomas White: $45,000 a mile.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When equipped?


John Dowsley Reid: No, not equipped.


William Thomas White: The Government of Canada has guaranteed securities to an amount equal to three-quarters of the cost of the mountain section. There is only one-quarter of the cost supplied by the Grand Trunk Pacific and that' is the place where the cost is greatest. Then my hon. friend from Carleton probab'y knows that the late Government gave the Grand Trunk Pacific interest for seven years upon the securities issued with respect to the mountain section without recourse. Next year I must begin paying $1,500,000 or $2,000,000 per year at the rate of three per cent upon the Government securities outstanding in respect to the mountain section of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I do not know whether my hon. friend will apply the term ' buccaneering ' to the assistance given to the Grand Trunk Pacific. If so, I would like to know how he differentiates it from the assistance which has been given, not only by this Government, but by the late Government,


William John Macdonald: It -would exceed it
by $9,000 a mile.


William Thomas White: No; my hon. friend is good st rhetoric, but bad at figures.


William John Macdonald: I put the figures ou ' Hansard ' the other night.


William Thomas White: I know that, but that would not make them Tight if they were wrong before you put them on.


William John Macdonald: You cannot prove
that they are wrong.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend gave
a guarantee of $35,000,000 or $35,000 a mile upon thousand miles from Montreal to Port Arthur. I am not criticising him for it, but let me say that we did not then hear-at least I did not hear-of ' bucaneering ' on the part of the promoters of the road. The matter seemed to have gone quite peacefully through the House, so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned.


Wilfrid Laurier: Unanimously.


William Thomas White: Well, we will say unanimously. I am always distrustful of measures in respect of which both parties are unanimous, hut I accept my right hon. friend's word that it was unanimous. I would point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that $85,000,000 is only $10,000,000 less than we are giving, and was upon the line between Montreal and Port Arthur.


George Perry Graham: First mortgage.


William Thomas White: First mortgage, I agree;
but $35,000 a mile. I ask my hon. friend to look at the bond issuing powers of the Canadian Northern and to look at the mortgage securing the perpetual debenture stock of the Canadian Northern in respect of its lines in the prairie provinces and I ask him after he has looked at these to come back and tell me which is the better security. I know which is the better security; there is no question about that, but as a matter ot fact it was intended that the different parts of the line should be linked up and that the line between Montreal and Port Arthur,
1,000	miles, should be joined up into a transcontinental .system between Quebec and Vancouver.


George Perry Graham: In addition to the first
mortgage upon the line from Montreal to Port Arthur there was a general charge on the line from Ottawa to Niagara and then a guarantee of the Canadian Northern on top of that again before the Government would become liable.


William Thomas White: I agree with my hon.
friend, but let me say that if this Government brought down the legislation which he brought down, with as little information as the Solicitor General says he brought down with it in 1911, and if this Government contended that the security was not only a first mortgage upon the 9 p.m. line between Montreal and Port Arthur but a general charge upon another line between Ottawa and Niagara and then a guarantee of the Canadian Northern railway on top of that, I can well imagine how my hon. friend the member for Carleton, New Brunswick, would criticise the value of that guarantee. He would point out all the bond issues that he talked about to-day and he would say: This is held up as conclusive evidence that the security is absolute. I can just imagine the hon. member for Carleton cutting loose, to use a vulgar expression, upon such a situation as that if it had developed under this Government, but under the other Government, of course, he is mute and voiceless. As I said, it is a case of: Where, where was Roderick then? I am sure I do not know where he was; perhaps he himself knows where he was.
We have, therefore, taken a charge upon the stocks; we have taken a charge upon the undertaking of the Canadian Northern proper. Further than that, this money is to be used for the purpose of completing several constituent undertakings, and the further provision is made that to the extent that this money is used for the construction and betterment and improvement of these constituent railways, a charge shall be taken back upon their physical assets, upon their corporate undertakings, to the trustee as part of the mortgage premises which we shall have as security for this $45,000,000 guarantee. In addition to that, we have insisted that the Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, shall pledge as part of the mortgage premises $10,000,000 of stock of the town site companies connected with the Canadian Northern Railway system.
The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German)-I am sorry that he is not here tonight, because he has a strong, vigorous, masculine understanding-spoke about taking a mortgage upon an insolvent concern, and I think the hon. member for Carleton also said something along that line. I would like to cite an illustration-and the hon. member for Carleton will appreciate the point as quickly as anybody will-

drawn from a situation that is close to the hon. member for Welland. Let us assume that the development of power by a great power company at Niagara Falls is to cost $10,000,000 before it is completed and becomes profitable or fruitful. Let us say that, by reason of some financial or other conditions, after expending $5,000,000 they find themselves unable to pay their contractors and to raise additional money, and have to seek assistance from bankers. If they do not obtain that assistance, what is their position? The enterprise is confronted with a receivership. But would anybody call that an insolvent concern? Would it not rather be said that if they could obtain the additional $5,000,000, the enterprise, would be able to pay the interest upon the cost of installation and possibly produce dividends upon stock? The cases are not quite analogous, but I would point out to my hon. friend that one reason and one justification for our action so far as security is concerned is this: that if by the joining up of these isolated or detached links of the Canadian Northern Railway system the Canadian Northern gets a transcontinental line with all its feeders in full operation, what at present looks like a losing venture may and probably will be turned into profitable enterprise. It is commonplace to remark that if you have a railway system consisting of isolated units scattered throughout a country as large as Europe, it is not to be supposed that you are going to get the earning power before these units are joined up; you do not get the earning power until they are all linked up and in this case it is to link up and to complete these undertakings that this aid is required. They cannot become fully productive: they cannot pay their fixed charges; they cannot yield any profit to capital invested in them; they cannot serve the people of Canada until they are all joined together and until the system is in operation as a transcontinental road, serving the people of Canada to the best of its capacity both as to through and local traffic.
(My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) this afternoon drew attention to the list of securities which are held as collateral for the temporary loans. He called attention to the perpetual debenture stock of the Canadian Northern railway, and he said: Does anybody suppose that can be sold? I do not quarrel too much with my hon. friend for that remark, for this reason, that the situation has been
that that stock and other securities of the Canadian Northern railway have not been saleable; they have not been saleable for many reasons. In the first place, there is the reason of the financial stringency of last year, and, further than that, it has become known that the Canadian Northern railway would require assistance from the Government before its enterprise could be completed. I point out that once the aid is given, once the road is on its way to completion, with the prospect of the earnings that its directors and management expect, this debenture stock, which has not lately been saleable, will become saleable. In other words, as soon as the credit of the system is restored, the collateral becomes available which in the recent past has not been available for the liquidation of debts.
I pointed out to the hon. member for Carleton that, according to the balance sheet of the Canadian Northern railway of Lime 13, 4 per cent perpetual consolidated debenture stock of the Canadian Northern railway to the amount of $48,000,000 has been issued and is outstanding. My hon. friend is intelligent enough to know what that means. He knows that that has been the standard security of the road, and that that has been for some time on the market, and if the company could have continued to sell that security, in all probability it would not have been necessary for them to come here to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If they could sell enough of it.


William Thomas White: If they could sell enough of it. But my hon. friend knows the market conditions well enough to know that they could not sell that stock all at once; it has taken them a long time to put that out. But the effect of the Government guarantee, insuring completion of the road, will be to make that perpetual debenture which in the immediate past has not been saleable again saleable, and consequently the temporary loans will be cleared up. The question has been raised: Who is going to spend this money that is to be raised by this $45,000,000 guarantee. I am quite sure my hon. friend could not have been in the House in 1911 or he would have asked that same question then. He wants to know why the Government should not Spend it instead of the Canadian Northern railway or Mackenzie and Mann. It is going to be spent on the same principle as the money was spent under the mortgage which he approved as a member of this House in 1911.
.3942


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no.


William Thomas White: The language is almost identical. I ask my hon. friend to look as I did this morning at the statute authorizing the guarantee of $.35,000,000 per mile upon the line from Montreal to Port Arthur. He will find that in almost identical words, and in substance not in the least degree different. The same provision is in here as to the mortgage which is to secure this guarantee of security.


William John Macdonald: How much more is against the enterprise now than then ?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows that there is more against the enterprise now than then, but there is a greater mileage that has been completed since that time. My hon. friend must not think that the progress of Canada stopped in 1911.


William John Macdonald: Pretty near, it has not gone ahead much this year.


George Perry Graham: It is hesitating a great deal.


William Thomas White: I am dealing with the disposition of the proceeds of these guaranteed securities, and I say to the hon. member for Carleton that if he looks at the measure introduced by the hon. member for South Renfrew, then Minister of Railways, in 1911, he will find the words almost identical:
The forms and terms of the new trust deed, and the times and manner of the issue of the guaranteed securities, and the dispositions of the moneys to be raised thereon by sale, pledge or otherwise, and the forms and manner of guarantee or guarantees shall be such as the Governor in Council approves, and such terms, provisions and conditions as the Governor in Council may consider expedient or necessary shall be included In the new trust deed.
What does that mean? It means that these moneys will be paid out for the purpose for which they have been provided according to the terms of this resolution, that they will be paid out according to the provisions of a trust mortgage which will ensure control of their destination in the hands of the Government. We pay out money from month to month under the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway mortgage which was given to the Government in respect of the $35,000 a mile guarantee on that line of which I am speaking. How is it done? All possible safeguards are thrown around it. I have taken great pains to inquire from the Railway Department how the inspection is made on the strength of which the certificates are given upon which the Finance Department acts

in paying out these moneys in connection with the issue of $35,000,000 upon the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway line. The proceeds went into a bank, and have been checked out in the last two years. There are several millions lying to the credit of the account to-day which will become available in due course for the completion of the line in respect of which the guaranteed securities were issued. The inspecting engineer of the railway with the chief engineer goes carefully into the question of the cost of construction of the line. He sees the profile, he knows the quantities, he makes his calculation, he estimates that the line will cost so many million dollars, let us say $45,000,000, between Montreal and Port Arthur. The guarantee is at the rate of $35,000 a mile. Let us say that yields $31,000 a mile, because it is a three and one-half per cent security. Now, when $2,000,000 worth of work has been done on the construction of that line from Montreal to Port Arthur, the inspecting engineer certifies, after making his inspection, to the chief engineer. The chief engineer, after giving the matter his attention, reports to the Minister of Railways that $2,000,000 of work has been done upon that line; that the total cost of the line will be, let us assume, $45,000 per mile; that the proceeds of the guaranteed securities is only $31,000 a mile, and that therefore the road is entitled to have paid out of the proceeds standing to the credit of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, thirty-one forty-fifths of $2,000,000. I ask if there could be any greater safeguard thrown by Parliament around a situation of that kind, that is if you can rely upon your officials? You have your inspecting engineer taking out his quantities, making his calculations, and saying that the road will cost so much, whether built by Mackenzie and Mann or by anybody else. You have, in addition to that, the chief engineer revising his work, and reporting to the minister and, finally, there is paid out only the proportion that the amount realized of that $35,000 of securities per mile bears to the actual cost, the $45,000 per mile which has been assumed to be the cost arrived at by the engineer. Therefore, so far as the destination of this money is concerned, hon. gentlemen opposite did not worry in 1911, and here are provisions identical with those of the statute of 1911, under which these moneys will be paid out. The same officials are going to make the inspections and reports.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has very
correctly -described the manner in -which the proceeds of the guaranteed bonds are paid out. Will he now describe how the company is- going to pay out something like $31,000,000 or $32,000,000 of this money that is required to meet pressing liabilities at the present time.


William Thomas White: There are not $30,000,000
of pcessing liabilities at the present time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I tell the minister there afe.	I


William Thomas White: The Solicitor General told my hon. friend this afternoon there were not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


William Thomas White: I will take a ticket on the Solicitor General.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like some figures to prove it.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is so bad at arithmetic that I might waste half an hour teaching him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Teach the rest of the
House then.


William Thomas White: They do not need it. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) does not need to be taught anything in arithmetic. My right hon. friend is a past master in the subject. He never dealt with figures at all, whereas my hon. friend from Carleton wasted an hour and a half this afternoon talking figures. Of course, he was mistaken throughout his computation. There is no sense in discussing figures unless you get a common basis; I might say $10,000,000 and my hon. friend $30,000,000 and we could go on asserting and reasserting without making 'any progress at all. I want to be serious now, although occasionally I am playful. My hon. friend knows there are temporary loans to the extent of $20,000,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not talking about temporary loans. There are $30,000,000 of debt.


William Thomas White: Then, you are all wrong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I am right.


William Thomas White: This is the debate on the resolution, and when we get into committee I have no doubt at all that my hon. friend the Solicitor General will show my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) without my aid, and
if he needs it he will get it, that he is entirely wrong; that is, if my hon. friend keeps an open mind.


William John Macdonald: You cannot show
him now or any other time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Describe the manner in which you are going to pay whatever is owing.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend had a fair field and no favours this afternoon. I did not disturb him in his discussion, and if he does not mind I am going to direct the course of my own speech. I do not say that in any offensive way, but when a man is making a speech of this kind the symmetry should not be marred by interjections even although my hon. friend may have no such design.


George Perry Graham: Then there is trouble.
Mr. WHITE': I have dealt with the question of securities, and come now to the question of remedy upon default. Some hon. gentlemen have said: why do you not take security upon the stock? I need not tell the lawyers of this House that a creditor stands in a higher position than a stockholder, and that except for convenience it is not at all necessary to take the stock of any company for security. If I have a mortgage on a company's undertaking I do not care very much for the stock as security except that it is advisable to have the stock in order that I can take possession of the company, put in my own receiver, and operate the company with my own board of directors. That is the only advantage. The stock does not give any higher security, but it makes the realization of the security a little more convenient. What security have we? I have seen a good deal of financing in my time, and I know something of law although my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) does not think so, and I want to say this: I have never seen as effectual a means of entering into possession of a property upon which a mortgage is held as has been devised by the Solicitor General in connection with this transaction. And further-he will not mind this, coming from me-I take off my hat to the Solicitor General for the way in which he has performed the legal work in connection with this transaction, which is one of the most complicated that has ever come before the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend says ' hear, hear '. I say it is one of the most complicated transactions ever dealt with in Canada, and necessarily so, and the Solicitor General deserves the greatest possible credit for the pains and surpassing ability he has bestowed on the legal work of this transaction,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do not forget Mr. Lash.


William Thomas White: Mr. Lash has often been
mentioned in this House, and considering our many years of friendship, I think it is only proper for me to say that there is not a more respected man in the city of Toronto than Mr. Z. A. Lash.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Nor an abler lawyer.


William Thomas White: Nor an abler lawyer in Canada. I was dealing with the question of remedy upon default, and was pointing out that we have a much better control than would be afforded by the security of a majority or all of the stock of the Canadian Northern. What have we? Upon default, the Order in Council at once becomes a rule of court, and is absolutely beyond question so far as its authority is concerned. We can displace the board of directors of any or all of the companies by directors of our own choice, who are given power to carry on the road as provided in the resolutions, and it is open to the Government through Parliament to deal with that road by way of sale or otherwise, as may be expedient and in the public interests. It can be sold in whole or an part to a corporation, or it can be operated in the interests of the public of Canada. I repeat there never was a simpler or more effectual method devised of realizing a security than has b.een worked out in connection with this transaction. The hon. member for Carleton says: Parliament will be lobbied, and you will not be able to deal with the property at all. I have greater faith in this Parliament than has the hon. member for Carleton, and if I had not I wo-uld sitill say this: A stream cannot rise higher than its source; Parliament is the supreme authority in this country, and if Parliament will not act, I have very little hope for the Canadian people. Parliament will act, and my hon. friend is simply begging the question when he says that Parliament will not act. I ask him, in what better form this transaction could be left, so far as the realization of this security is concerned, than by providing that the property of these companies shall be at the disposal of Parliament? What higher authority could

we appeal to, or invoke? It is preposterous. We cannot raise ourselves by our boot tops. If we do not leave the supreme power of dealing with this with Parliament, where shall it be left? I do not know, and my hon. friend from Carleton does not know.
I have indicated the grounds upon which the Government decided it was its duty in the interests of the public of Canada to render aid to this road at this time. I have shown the security which we have taken, and mentioned the remedy in case of default. I now come to a further consideration, which I regard as one of the most important in the transaction, notwithstanding the opinions to the contrary of the hon. member for Carleton. My hon. friend from Carleton and some other gentlemen say that we should not have taken any of the common stock of the Canadian Northern because that at once makes us a partner. Before dealing with that argument, just let me say, in developing my discourse, that we get $33,000,000 of stock which we have exacted as consideration for our guarantee. The public would not believe at first that we had got that except by way of security, but we insisted that we should have $33,000,000 of stock outright as the property of the Dominion of Canada or of His Majesty in the right of this Dominion. Nothing of the kind has ever been done by a Government before except last year when we took $7,000,000 of stock in part consideration of the subsidies which we then granted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now you are paying
$45,000,000 because of that.


William Thomas White: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No.


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend
(Mr. McKenzie) is right; it is not a partnership, or, if it is a partnership, it is one of a limited character. If it is a partnership, it is a partnership as to loss only, and no consideration comes to the Government in respect to the building of the line.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If I endorse a man's note and he fails to pay up and I have to pay the note, am I in partnership with him?


William Thomas White: Legally speaking, that is
not a partnership.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly not. Why
then claim that it is a partnership as to loss? It is no partnership at all.


William Thomas White: 
Frank Oliver: Sure.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says that it would have been a partnership. Does my hon. friend seriously say that such a partnership would be objectionable?


Frank Oliver: Sure.


William Thomas White: You have taken the risk; the Government stands to lose if the enter-

prise does not succeed and the other party would stand to gain.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You would have to meet that by charging higher freight rates.


William Thomas White: We will come to that in a moment. Before I get through I will have boxed the compass and the hon. gentleman will be fully answered. My hon. friend from Edmonton says that would be a partnership, and that such a partnership would be objectionable. He says that it would not be a partnership to guarantee $70,000,000 of securities, and my hon. friend from South Cape Breton could tell my hon. friend from Edmonton that the word 'partnership' could not legally be applied to this resolution. But if you come to apply the word 'partnership' to a proposition of this kind, it must mean that the Government gives everything and gets nothing. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition gave a guarantee of $35,000,000 to the Canadian Northern Ontario and got no common stock. The right hon. leader of the Government (Mr. Borden) gives a guarantee of $45,000,000 to the Canadian Northern, exactly the same thing, and gets $33,000,000 of common stock, and yet my hon. friend from Edmonton says it is objectionable. He says, in substance-that is the logic of his argument- there is no objection to your giving a guarantee, but I protest against you getting any common stock; I want Mackenzie and Mann to get the whole $100,000,000 of common stock. That is precisely what' we do not intend to let them do. The people of the country are going to get 40 per cent of the fully paid up common stock, and Mackenzie, Mann and Company can have the 60 per cent of stock in the Canadian Northern and subsidiary and constituent companies. That must be regarded as a most laudable transaction on the part of this Government. Let me put it in this way: the only difference between a partnership and a non-partnership, on the argument that is put forward by the hon. gentleman, is that if the Government becomes entitled to share in the enterprise, it is a partner, but if it only shares in the losses or risks of the enterprise it is not a partner. Then I ask: Will the hon. member for Edmonton, or any other hon. member in this House, stand up and affirm this transaction in every other respect, but say: Give back the $40,000,000 of stock to Mackenzie and Mann? I do not believe there is a man who will stand up and

say: I affirm the transaction in every other respect; give back the stock; give your guarantees but by no means take this fully-paid common stock; we agree you should give the guarantee but thrust back upon Mackenzie and Mann the thirty-three million dollars of common stock. I tell you, you will make two hearts beat as one if you could induce the Government to do that; there will be two glad men in Canada if the thirty-three million dollars are thrust back upon them by a reluctant and unwilling government, and these two men are Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann. But neither my hon. friend nor any other man dare stand up and tell the people of Canada that he affirms this transaction in regard to the guarantees and at the same time that he will not have placed in the Dominion treasury the forty million dollars of common stock.
The railway legislation of this country in the past has been fatuous in the extreme. I admire the enterprise of the Canadian Pacific railway. One of the most marvellous transactions in the history of the world was the carrying out of the Canadian Pacific railway in the eighties, linking up the East and West, rounding up Confederation and making it possible. These men had courage. But supposing the Government of that time, in consideration of what had been done for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, had said: we will take forty million or fifty million dollars of stock in the Canadian Pacific railway, what would the result be to-day. Suppose the Grand Trunk Pacific should turn out to be the great success my right hon. friend prophesied for it when he brought down his legislation; suppose it come up to the vision of his imagination which he has told us of on more than one occasion, and suppose the right hon. gentleman when he brought in the legislation had said he would take for the Dominion treasury twenty-five million dollars of the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific, would there be any wrong in his doing that? I think not. Let me say to my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that notwithstanding what he says about the undesirability of the Government of Canada becoming a partner with a railway company, the Government of Canada in a sense has become a partner with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and on a much more logical basis than the holding of common stock, because if he will turn to the National Transcontinental Railway agreement ne will find that the Government of Canada appoints a direc-

tor on the Grand Trunk Pacific. Am I right?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Thomas White: And yet my hon. friend
now holds up both hands in holy horror and says: do not be a partner with shareholders in these railway enterprises, but at the same time he defends the action of the Government of which he was a member in nominating a director of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Surely we have reduced the argument about partnership to an absolute absurdity.
I say that the people of this country would never hear of the Government giving back this stock. If this enterprise succeeds that stock will become valuable; if this enterprise does not succeed notwithstanding the aid we are affording it, then of course we have incurred the risk and will have to take over the system. And if we did not take the common stock and it succeeded, the beneficiaries of our action which will enable the Canadian Northern to complete its enterprise, would not be the people of Canada-our action would result only in the aggrandizement of Mackenzie and Mann, the holders of $100,000,000 of common stock, $40,000,000 of which the Government is taking and leaving them $60,000,000. As I said, if our credit saves the road, then Mackenzie and Mann should not be the beneficiaries alone, but the people of Canada should share in whatever benefit will come to the stockholders in this great enterprise.
My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) was greatly concerned about the freight rates and he said: it follows as the night the day that if you take this forty million dollars of fully paid stock of the Canadian Northern you are going to prevent the freight rates from being reduced. Remember, he is dealing with two situations: one in which we do not take the stock and the other in which we do take it. If we do not take it Mackenzie and Mann will have $100,000,000-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


William Thomas White: How much will they have?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would give them about $10,000,000 of stock in that agreement.


William Thomas White: I did not think my hon.
friend would be so generous as to give them $10,000,000 stock, but he was more generous to the Grand Trunk when he allowed them to get $25,000,000 in consideration of their guarantee. I am afraid my hon. friend
(Mr. Carvell) is not consistent. His argument this afternoon went along the line: if you do take this stock then you are in a much worse position than if you do not; if you have the $40,000,000 of stock the people of Canada will be in a much worse position as to freight rates than if the Government did not take the stock. But if that were the only thing in the world that stood in the reduction of freight rates, I could understand some big Prime Minister o\ Canada saying: if our $40,000,000 of stock stands in the way of a reduction in freight rates then we can do several things with it: we can, for example, surrender it for cancellation if we want to. So that my hon. friend need not worry about the Government going to impose burdens on the people of Canada by holding $40,000,000 of Canadian Northern fully-paid up stock. And if that contingency does not arise which he dreads, then the Government of Canada will hold	this	$40,000,000	of fullypaid	up	stock in the	Canadian
Northern, and they will be able to take whatever benefits may come from that ownership. Then the hon. gentleman asks: What would happen if Mackenzie and Mann should come back? Well, there are the resolutions, and hon. gentlemen can interpret them just as well as we can. I know what power we have under these resolutions in case of default, in case of receivership, in case of the road being unable to carry on its enterprise. It means that the Government of Canada could at once enter possession of the whole line, to be disposed of as Parliament may direct at its next session. I say that this is the most progressive legislation that has ever been introduced into this Parliament affecting the giving of any guarantees or aid to any railway company.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I started out I said I had been suffering from a severe bronchial cold, which has almost deprived me of the power of speech; but my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) seems to have stimulated me to super-exertion, and I have spoken at much greater length than I had originally intended. It only shows the resources of the human voice when it is properly exercised and in a good cause, as this is. I remember that the late Sir John Macdonald once expressively said that a parliamentary speech should be animated conversation. In the remarks which I have addressed to the House this afternoon I have been grave and gay by turns.
I desire now, at the end, to be serious

because this is one of the most important questions that has ever been before the Government or the Parliament of Canada. We realized that when it was first presented for our consideration, and, speaking for myself, and speaking for the Prime Minister, because I know the earnest, painstaking, and sleepless consideration he has given to this matter, I say that no question which has ever come up in Canadian politics has been given more full, more sincere, or more conscientious consideration than these resolutions which are now before this House. We have not had to deal with an hypothesis, we have had to deal with an actual condition. It is easy to criticise but it is hard to create, and the Government must take constructive action notwithstanding any criticism that may be brought against it.
I have shown what the enormous and far-flung activities of this tremendous railway system means to the Dominion of Canada; I have shown that it embraces over thirty companies, subsidiary and constituent; I have shown that it has 7,000 miles of completed line and 3,000 miles still to complete; I have shown numerous industrial companies in Canada are interested in its continuance-steel companies, rolling stock companies, manufacturing and other companies from Halifax to Vancouver-are	all interested in the
continuance of this great enterprise. It has involved itself with the very vitals of this country. Almost every province in Canada is upon its securities and concerned in its success. The Dominion of Canada has given no less than $58,000,000 of guarantees in connection with it, and between the Dominion and the provinces the people of Canada have paid over $20,000,000 in subsidies. I say that, having regard to this vast and complicated system, with its ramifications extending in every province of Canada, with the pressing demand of the West, as my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) knows, for more rolling stock, for better service, for extensions to the newer districts, with all these conditions, it is unthinkable that the Government should allow a system such as this to go into the hands of a receiver, if it can be saved. It is not a question of Mackenzie and Mann; it is a question of the interest of the people of Canada. For months past the Canadian Northern situation has troubled the money market of London, affecting adversely all Canadian securities and stopping the sources of supply of capital needed for our many enter-

prises. It has hung like a cloud over the business situation in Canada, just recovering from the terrible financial experience of last year. The most severe financial depression that has ever been known in my time we are now merging from; and in due course I hope to see the normal activities of the nation resumed, as we have reason to expect, on the experience and analogy of the past. The sooner that this situation is cleared up, the betteT for this and all other Canadian enterprises. I am speaking not only as a member of this Government; I am speaking as a Canadian and, I hope, as a patriot. I am satisfied that the sober business sense of this House and of this country will approve the proposals of the Government as the best solution of a trying and most difficult problem.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have some hesitation in following the hon. Minister of Finance in this debate; but I have followed his extended remarks on the financial side of this agreement, and I expected that he would deal with that side of the question, because there is no doubt that, as the Minister of Finance, he should have a wide knowledge of the financial features of this agreement. But what I would like to have heard and what the country would like to have heard from his lips is a statement as to the financial capacity of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the financial abilities of the men behind that company, because that is more important to the people to-day than the financial terms of this agreement. The Minister of Finance says that the Government inherited the Canadian Northern difficulties. I think that when the Minister of Finance left the Liberal party, he was anxious to assume all the inheritance possible from that Government. During the time he was a member of the Liberal party,
I do not know that he ever offered advice to the members of that party that they should deal with the Canadian Northern railway in any other way than they did at that time. Yet he says to-day that we are responsible for the creation of this transcon- , tinental line. Conditions have changed in the last four years. During the time that the Liberal party in this country was dealing with the railroad problem, this country was developing very rapidly, and we were assured in 1911, as I understand it, that once the thirty-five million dollars was given to the Mackenzie and Mann interests, they would be able to complete their transcontinental railway, and

that no further requests would be made. Since that time the Conservative party has come into power and the Canadian Northern railroad has made demands every year and those demands have been yielded to. The country has gone through a crisis, as the hon. minister has mentioned. He says that we are merging from it. I come from western Canada and I see no signs whatever of an emergence from the crisis of 1913. I think we are in just as serious a financial crisis now as we were a year ago; and I do not see that this Government is doing anything to relieve the conditions which exist throughout this country at the present time and which have existed for the last year or two. But I say that the Government lacks foresight in continuing to follow a policy in western Canada that has caused more or less stagnation. That condition is one of the reasons why the railroads are finding it difficult to make their lines profitable and to continue the work of building new lines, and why this railway is finding it difficult to continue the construction of this particular line. The Minister of Finance finds himself and the Government confronted with a condition of their own making. If I were to place the credit for this particular arrangement, I would place the credit at the door of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), and of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. NicMe), Who have started a revolt against the Government and have indicated to them that the public demands that, if anything is given to the Canadian Northern railway, something should be given in return. If it had not been for that movement on the part of the supporters of the Conservative party, the Government would not have had any arrangement of this character to boast of, although it is one which is not satisfactory either to members on the Government side of the House or to the mass of the people of the country. But I believe the creation of the desire to have an arrangement with the Canadian Northern Railway Company was started by the movement within the party, by the knowledge that the people did not want any more trafficking with the Canadian Northern railway unless the country got something in return out of that particular road. I do not think, however, that this Government has gone about the matter in such a way as to get what they should have got out of the Canadian Northern railway.
Before going any further, I want to give credit to the position taken by my hon.
friend from Calgary, because be cQmes from a part of the country where railroads are in demand and where in the past we have made many sacrifices in order to get railway lines. I believe that the position taken by the hon. member for Calgary is the position of the western people. The Minister of Finance boasts of this partnership as though it were something to be proud of. I believe that the opinion of the people of this country is that there is nothing to be proud of in a partnership with Mackenzie and Mann or with the Canadian Northern railway, especially when it is a minor partnership in which we have no control over this concern owing to the amount of stock we hold. That is the objection I have to this partnership. I would rather have a partnership with the Grand Trunk railway, which is an old and respectable railroad corporation which has been in this country for years, and which has met the demands of the people to a very large extent. But, if I were to express my opinion of the Canadian Northern railway, and the way in which it has been financed, and the way in which its promoters have dealt with the people of this country, I do not think that my language would be parliamentary. The hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Garrick) spoke of the hon. member for Calgary as a bucking broncho. As we know, bucking bronchos in the West are inclined to throw people; and I would not be a bit surprised that the attitude taken by the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Kingston on this particular occasion would be very much the same as that of a bucking broncho, and that the Government might be thrown as a result of their particular policy on this question at this particular time.
I desire to state my views on this question as briefly as possible; but before doing so I would like to refeT to the assertion of the Finance Minister that the Canadian Northern railway cannot wait for this aid for six months. I believe that if this Parliament had met last fall and this demand had been made, it would have been considered as an urgent demand and that the help would have been needed at that time. There is no question that the demand has been made for the last six months, and the Canadian Northern is still in existence, still doing the same construction work and still creating more debts throughout this country. I think that the people of this country are prepared to accept a delay of six months if it will enable them to get



more accurate information as to the financial position of the Canadian Northern railway and of the men behind it. The men behind this railroad claim that they are almost bankrupt, and the Government joins with them as junior partner and lends its credit for $45,000,000 and takes $40,000,000 of stock in a concern controlled by two or three men who are, might I say, of the Get-rich-quick Wallingford type. I object as a citizen of this country and as a citizen of western Canada to this country being linked up as junior partner with men of that type. My view is this: That if we have to assist this railway and if further money is to be voted for the completion of the Canadian Northern system, the best way out of the difficulty is either control of the stock or complete ownership of the system by the people of Canada. We were reminded by the hon. member for Kingston in his speech the other evening of the policy in 1904 of the then leader of the Opposition, the present leader of the Government, when he declared in favour of government ownership of railways. He declared that that was a proper policy, and now when the opportunity comes for him to carry out the policy which he then believed in, he links the people of Canada up as junior partner with the Canadian Northern railway when he could just as well demand control and ownership of the road for the people of this country. This promise is very much like other promises which the leader of this Government has made; it is a promise made to the electors and a promise which he is not prepared to carry out when the party
10 p.m. which he leads comes into power. I say that if this country is to be a partner with this railroad, it should be a senior partner; if it can be only a junior partner, it is better for Canada that it should not be a partner at all.
I want to say something along the line of what I consider to be the public sentiment with regard to the men behind this particular railroad-and I believe that the members on the other side of the House realize this. The sentiment of the people of Canada is that the men who control the Canadian Northern railway have made vast fortunes; that individually they are in strong financial positions and that they are ambitious to control and possess, practically to own, a transcontinental road. The people of Canada believe that those men should sacrifice their private fortunes in the effort to realize their ambition. This Government has not established to the satis-

faction of any one in this House that the persons behind the Canadian Northern railway have made any attempt to sacrifice their interests in other large concerns in an effort to save this railroad. All they have done is to use their influence with this Government with a view to inducing them to take such steps as will save them and leave them in control of the stock of the company. Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann and others associated with the Canadian Northern railway have vast interests throughout this country, apart from the Canadian Northern railway. We know that they control the street railways of the cities of Toronto and Winnipeg. They control large coal mining interests on the Pacific coast and they are interested in large mines on the north shore of lake Superior. They are interested in the fisheries and in the timber of British Columbia. They have vast private holdings of real estate. They are interested in power companies and radial roads in the province of Ontario. They are interested in very large enterprises in Mexico and in Brazil.	The conclusion of the
people of Canada is that they should get rid of their other interests; and, if they want to	retain the Canadian
Northern railway and to save it from *bankruptcy, let them save it by using the financial interests which they have in other concerns throughout Canada, and throughout the North and Boutb American continents. That is my view, and I believe it is the popula'r view of the people of this country. Pressure should have been brought to bear on these men to force them to use all their private fortunes to save the road if they wanted to possess control of it, and if they would not do that, then if Canada was to give any assistance to the road, it should mean control and ownership of it. That is my position, and I desire to place it before the House, because I believe it is a position which represents the views of the majority of the people, at least of western Canada.
One feature of the arrangement proposed to be made by the Government with the Canadian Northern railway which is most disappointing to the people of western Canada is the fact that no provision is made for branch line construction. What we want in the West are branch lines, and in my view, if it was the intention to have a third transcontinental railway in this country, the Canadian Northern could have held back for some years the construction of that portion of their line

over the Eocky mountains to Vancouver. If they had devoted to the construction of branch lines in western Canada, the money which has been raised for the construction of that portion of the Transcontinental line, it would have been much better for this country, and would have meant a greater development of and probably more prosperity in western Canada. They might have waited until they had developed their branch line system, fed by the lines already constructed, and then, as they made that particular part of the system profitable, they would have been able to complete the main line to the Pacific coast by their own resources, practically without assistance from the people of Canada. I have had occasion in this House to point out the system under which the Canadian Northern operates with regard to projected branch lines in western Canada. I have told the House of the hardships which the men and women who have gone to that country have had to put up with by reason of the promises made year after year by the Canadian Northern Eailway people to build branch lines and their failure to carry them out. The head of the Canadian Northern railway is the best promiser in the country; but I do not know of a man who fails to carry out his promises to the same extent as Sir William Mackenzie. When we are sitting in this House, when Canadian Northern railway legislation is before us, we have many requests to assist that legislation. Me happen to be in control of things, and they come to us on bended knees and ask us to do certain things. Then they say what they will do in return. I am speaking now about the construction of lines. Last year I had occasion to see the head of the Canadian Northern railway and speak of the construction of a branch line which had been promised for a certain number of years into a country where people had been living and trying to develop land fifty, sixty and seventy miles away from a railway. I went to him and urged that something should be done to construct that particular line. His argument to me was: We have not the money, we are trying to get it-practically telling me that if I supported that particular measure, they would do something on that particular line. That might be the interpretation of his reply. I find that they got the money and did nothing whatever in regard to the construction of that particular line. What the people in my part of the country want to know from this Govern-2491
ment is:	With this $45,000,000, do they
intend to do something for the construction of branch lines where they are absolutely needed and have been promised for some years? That is the position I take on this particular question, which is a vital one with my people and with the people of southern Alberta. The head of the Canadian Northern railway is very anxious to meet our wishes when we were at Ottawa. But I want to point out the position taken by that gentleman when we are away from Ottawa. Petition after petition, signed by hundreds and hundreds of the people in that particular district, was presented to me. I forwarded these petitions to the president of the Canadian Northern railway. I happened to attend a demonstration there last July, 'between sixty and seventy miles away from any existing railroad. There were over 1,200 people in attendance at that particular demonstration and I think I can safely say that ninety per cent of them were fifty miles away from a railroad. They were in a district through which a Canadian Northern railway branch line that had been promised from year to year would go. I had ia photograph of that group taken which I sent to Sir William Mackenzie with a letter saying that these people were gathered in the part of the country which the Canadian Northern Eailway Lethbridge-Maryfield line would serve, 1,200 people, the majority of whom were fifty miles from a railway. I have not yet received an acknowledgment of either the photograph or the petitions. I point that out to show that the heads of the Canadian Northern railway are not showing any anxiety to serve the people of western Canada. The great anxiety they are showing is to complete a transcontinental road that will give distinction to Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann. I say that if they had abandoned the idea of completing a transcontinental railway, in so far as the line from Alberta through the Eockies to the Pacific coast is concerned, and had used the money devoted to that purpose to the construction of branch lines in Aloerta and Saskatchewan, they would have been serving the people of Canada much better than by the transcontinental railway proposition, which could have waited for a while. We have been told that branch lines may be completed under this arrangement. My own judgment and the judgment of other speakers who have opposed this particular agreement is that prac-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I do not propose at this time to go particularly into the figures that have been quoted so many times by members on both sides of the House, but for a little while I want to review this matter in a general way. The manner in which this bargain was put upon the table of the House in the resolution now before us, appeals to mv mind. I was very much struck by the speech of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) in that nearly the whole plaint of it was that greater consideration should
be shown to Mackenzie and Mann. With that statement I entirely disagree. It appears to me that the history of the Canadian Northern railway since its inception, during the many yeaTs they have come to this House and to the legislatures and municipal and township councils of this Dominion, has been one long train of consideration shown to Mackenzie and Mann. The Canadian Northern railway has been practically fondled and petted and nursed up to what it is to-day. Therefore, when an hon. member asks the House to favourably consider this resolution because Mackenzie and Mann should receive some slight consideration, it does appear to me, with all due deference, that that argument ought not to hold water for a single moment, seeing that every consideration that could be shown to human beings has been given to Mackenzie and Mann for the carrying on of a project in which they never put a dollar of their own hard cash.
The one thing this House has to consider is whether or not this bargain is a good one. The Minister of Finance may, if he sees fit, split hairs on the question of partnership. I am not going to quarrel with him along those lines, hut, at any rate, there can be no partnership unless it is entered into for the sake of making profits; and from the information that has been laid on the table of the House it cannot very well be said to be a partnership because the Canadian Northern shows no profit at all in any of its branches. But it is a partnership in the sense that these two men in control of this great undertaking, with all its ramifications, have come to this House-as has been ably shown by the hon. member for Calgary, the hon. member for Kingston, and other members on this side of the House-and held up both hands and said: come and save us, without your aid we are absolutely gone. Therefore, the Government stands in the position of entering into a partnership with a concern that is "absolutely broken. The Government are the rich people coming to the aid of the Canadian Northern railway at the present moment, and the more they put into that railway the more they will have to put in, in order to save their necks. That is the whole story, in short. How good are the promises and the statements that have been made by these men in times gone by? If I mistake not, the Minister of Finance stood in the same place last year as he did to-night, and what did he say: Mackenzie and Mann want $15,000,000 of a cash gift;

give them that and the road will be completed. The words are hardly out of his mouth before Mackenzie and Mann come back, and this time they do not want $15,000,000, but three times $15,000,000. Again they say that the road will be completed. I do not believe that $45,000,000 will complete the road, and I propose to give figures in support of that to-night; and if $45,000,000 will not complete the road we are going to have the same spectacle in this House next year. Mackenzie and Mann will come back with the same old story, the same statements will be laid on the table of the House and information will be dragged up by the hair of its head just as it has been to-day.
Ah, this splendid Government, this far-seeing, astute Government, with all the acumen possessed by every one of its members, including the Solicitor General, have made a bargain with these people. A prominent part has been taken in this transaction by tlhe Solicitor General, and a great many of the wisest people in this Dominion are wondering how such a head could carry all the knowledge he possesses.
The argument that has been put up by the Minister of Finance, and the one argument that he seems to base his whole case on, is that you must not appoint a receiver. Nobody says you should appoint a receiver. It is not necessary to appoint a receiver. We do say that there should be control of the stock of the Canadian Northern, and that the allied companies should be given into the hands of the Government, that the Government should appoint a majority of the directors, persons who are actually railway men and not contractors, and that the money should be expended under their supervision. There is no necessity of a receiver. Nobody is anxious to see the Canadian Northern go to the wall. I do not want to see the Canadian Northern go to the wall, but I do want to see it managed as a railway ought to be, instead of the money being squandered here, there and everywhere, and perhaps devoted to purposes extraneous to the railway altogether.
Hon. gentlemen say that they are going to get stock and mortgages on stock as security, and that they cannot lose. Of what value are the stocks that have been offered to the Government by way of security? Does anybody know? We have only security upon one property, and that is the Brockville road, upon which we get a first mortgage. I defy Mackenzie and 
Mann to stand on the floor of this House and tell us how many mortgages and encumbrances there are on the rest of the stock offered to us. I do not believe they know, because I do not believe they have a proper system of audit in their business. Mackenzie and Mann told us last year that $15,000,000 would complete the road, and if they tell us this year that $45,000,000 will complete it, to my mind that is the best evidence that Mackenzie and Mann know not where they stand themselves. This action is being taken by the Government wholly on their say so. There is an agreement, they say, but it has been drawn by two of the most skilful lawyers in the city of Toronto, who have inserted conditions which ought not to have been agreed to. Mackenzie and Mann are handing over stocks, the value of which nobody knows, and they are getting from the people of Canada $45,000,000 in cash. How much have the people of Canada already contributed to this Canadian Northern railway?
Land. Cash. Guarantees., Acres.
Ontario	.... 2,000,000 $ 1,825,000 $	7,860,000
Quebec	 3,526,000
Manitoba	 641,000	24,408,000
Saskatchewan	 8,258,000
Alberta	 8,719,000
British
Columbia	 33,175,000
Dominion. .. 4,000,000	28,354,000	104,746,000
From beginning to end the Canadian Northern railway has got out of the people of Canada, besides $70,000,000 from the rural municipalities, $337,100,000. Do they need consideration ? Do they need still to be nourished ? It only goes to show that if we had Mackenzie and Mann, practical railway men, as operators, and not as contractors, the road would have been completed and completed well, and the people of Canada would have been getting a return for the money that they had given to them. If you look at the list of securities which the Government is to get a mortgage upon, it would rather strike you that the Canadian Northern, coming and asking as they are, would give to the Government mortgages on all their assets. I am not talking of personal assets that they may have, but I should like to know why it is, that, when you look over the list of assets, contained in part 1 of the second schedule, the Toronto, Niagara and St. Catharines railway, a paying proposition, the Toronto, Niagara and Western railway, a paying

proposition, and the Inverness Railway and Coal Company, with a coal mine attached to it, a very paying proposition, are left out. Why is not the Government given the benefit of these securities and why is the Halifax and South Western left in which has never paid, and upon the bonds of which the Government has to pay $190,000 yearly interest P Why not put them all in ? Why not come, if you come at all, with clean hands ? Why not come here and say: We will give you such securities as you like but we will take ample care that the good ones are retained ? They are allowed to select the securities which they hand over to this all-wise Government with all its business acumen. Why does the Government not get the rest ? Does the Government, as a matter of fact, know today just what Mackenzie and Mann have and what they could give, or have Mackenzie and Mann simply come and said: We will give you this, you can take it; we must have the money, and the Government capitulate .and practically accept Mackenzie and Mann's terms ? That is exactly what happened.
What else happened P We advance the money and we take the securities. But this money that they are asking for will not complete the road. Then what happens ? We take on, by reason of the money that we are putting in, a present indebtedness upon the Canadian Northern amounting to $312,000,000. We have to stand behind it in order to save the money the people of Canada are putting in. But we have to put somebody to operate that road in order that the money may be got out of it by proper operation, something that Mackenzie and Mann have amply shown they are not able to do. We have to go on and practically take hold of the road and operate it in order that there may be a chance of getting our money back. When you consider the fact that the moneys that are to be advanced and have been advanced, represent a liability for every man, woman and child in Canada of $26, with ,a benefit coming back of only $5 in the shape of worthless sto ck, you realize exactly to what length the Government of this country has gone. They say that $45,000,000 will complete the road. Now, Sir, as you will see by looking at page 42 of the blue-book, their floating liabilities are $10,408,000; there is due on construction $21,262,000; there is balance for completion $41,905,000; there are amounts owing to the banks, $20,703,000; or, in other words, for completion these people need absolutely $94,279,000. Even, if as good a
mathematician as ini his own mind the Minister of Finance is, can show me where he can pay up $94,000,000 indebtedness with a paltry $45,000,000, then I will take off my hat to him as he did to the Solicitor General. The figures are there and they cannot be got away from. It will take, to complete the Canadian Northern railway, $94,279,000, and yet Mackenzie and Mann aire telling this Government, and this Government are attempting to tell the people of Canada, that $45,000,000 will complete the road. Why, it is the veriest buncombe; it is nothing more; it is nothing less. The Government know, and Mackenzie and Mann know better than the Government, that with this $45,000,000 they are dealing out one more sop to these raiilroad contractors, and the people of the country are getting in further and further, and that sooner or later they will have to take over the road and operate it themselves in order to save the money they have already put into it. The Government isay that the $40,000,000, with the right they would receive by reason of any default that may take place, is better than $51,000,000. I say that the right of default cannot come until after three years, because the Government has guaranteed the payment of the loans for that period, and in three years Mackenzie and Mann may have squandered the road over again and the $45,000,000 with it. Why should not the Government now take control themselves, and put iin a majority board of directors to operate that road? If the evil day is to come for the people of the	Dominion why	may not the
people of the Dominion just as well, have the evil day come now, rather than give more money to Mackenzie and Mann day after day and year after year as they are doing. There is no sense in {making two bites of a cherry in regard to this matter. By no method that the Finance Minister or the Solicitor General can devise can they 'make $45,000,000 do the work of $90,000,000, and by no method can you complete this Tailroad with the money that is now being given to it.
I repeat, Sir, that there ought to be a majority of this stock given to the people of Canada and that the people should operate the road. It is a well known fact that so far as Mackenzie and Mann are concerned, they are not railroad operators at all, and they admit that themselves. They are .Duraly contractors in every sense of the word, and the operation of a railroad is not

in their line at all. I say, Sir, that to allow men who have not put one single dollar of their own money into this enterprise to have control of this stock is an absolute breach of faith on the part of this Government, and in permitting it they are not standing Iby the interests of the people. We have had cited to us to-night the advances that were made in aid of the Canadian Pacific railway in years past, and the Minister of Finance told us he admired the courage of the men who built the Canadian Pacific railway. So does everybody admire their pluck, but it must not be forgotten that the men of the Canadian Pacific railway proved to the country the faith that was in them because they put up their own (money in it to as great an extent as they were able to, and they risked their all for that railroad. But far be it from Mackenzie and Mann to advance one single dollar of their own personal security, and in the agreement, as drawn with the Government, mighty good care is taken that Mackenzie and Mann should be clear so far as their personal securities are concerned.
In conclusion, I say, Sir, that the contract as drawn is not calculated to protect the interests of the people of Canada. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) and with those who have spoken bn this side of the House, that in so far as the figures go they show to a definite conclusion that these people are involved to such a hopeless extent that I doubt if they know just where they stand themselves. I say that Mackenzie and Mann in coming to this House to-day are absolutely groping in the dark; they are asking for $45,000,000 knowing they will get it and knowing well that all they will have to do is to come back again and another advance will be made by this Government because the money already invested in the road-will have to be protected. That is my belief,-and I say, therefore, and I cannot say it too strongly, that so far as this agreement is concerned it is bad from beginning to end. I say that Mackenzie and Mann are in all probability getting something for nothing. Again, I repeat, that in only one of those securities do we get a first mortgage, and that the securities taking them all in all are of no intrinsic value whatever. Mackenzie and Mann are not putting a five cent piece of their own money into the venture. They are afraid themselves to come m wJiere they ask the people of Canada to

enter. They have not the courage of their own convictions, and before one single dollar is given them under this resolution Mackenzie and Mann should be told in the strongest tones: if you say that $45,000,000 will complete the road; if you believe that the road when completed will be a paying proposition, then show your own faith in it by pledging your own securities, do not ask the people of Canada to get in and assume the whole load which is almost too heavy to bear now, while you, Mackenzie and Mann, keep out there and save your own hides; at least have the courage of men and show your own faith in the proposition.
On motion of Mr. Bradbury, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Tuesday, May 19, 1914.