1914-05-15

PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 195, to incorporate the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts Association.-Mr. Currie.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (acting Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 196, respecting ithe Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the GTand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. He said:
I have a memorandum here prepared by the deputy minister explaining this Bill, and perhaps the reading of that will be the briefest explanation I could give to the House of this measure:
In the Toronto Viaduct Act of 1913, chapter 11, 3-4 George V., the description of the property which may be expropriated is given as follows:
All or any lands and lands covered by water in the city of Toronto lying within the district south of the existing right of way of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company from Yonge street east to the prolongation southerly of Berkeley street and south of the existing right of way of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada from the prolongation southerly of Berkeley street east to Cherry street and extending out to the present Windmill line, and also a strip of land not exceeding one hundred and fifty feet in width, immediately south of the Windmill line and extending from the prolongation of Parliament street in the west to Cherry street in the east.
On February 25, 1914, the general solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway system wrote as follows:
We have just discovered that there is a mistake in the description of the lands referred to in the Toronto Viaduct Act, that is, chapter 11 of the Statutes of 1913. The mistake is caused by the draughtsman thinking that the Windmill line terminates at Cherry street instead of Parliament street. The result of that the lands described have no southerly boundary between Parliament and Cherry streets. In co-operation, therefore, with the Canadian Pacific railway, I have re-drafted the Act with a correct description and we have thought it more convenient to have a new Act instead of amending the Act of last year. I inclose copy of draft Bill and have omitted from it the clause providing for the Act being brought into force by proclamation.

The description of the property as described by the proposed Bill is as follows:
All or any lands and lands covered by water in the city of Toronto lying within the areas bounded on the west by the easterly limit of Yonge street, on the north by the southerly limit of the existing right of way of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company from Yonge street eastward to the easterly limit of Berkeley street, and by the southerly limit of the existing right of way of the Grand Trunk Railway Company from the aforesaid limit of Berkeley street eastward to the southerly prolongation of the limit between lots 8 and 9 on the south side of Mill street, formerly Front street, according to a plan of the Toronto hospital property filed number 108 in the registry office for the said city, on the east by the said southerly prolongation of the limit between the said lots 8 and 9, and on the south by a line drawn along the southerly limits of water lots granted by the Crown to Gooderham and Worts and to William Good-erham, and by the new or present Windmill line, such boundary limits of the lands of the Crown. Also the whole or any part of the northerly one hundred and fifty feet of the lands and lands covered by water, granted to the National Iron Works, Limited, by the said city of Toronto, by deed dated the 21st day of August, 1909.
The draft Bill has been approved by the Canadian Pacific Railway Cumpany, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Toronto Harbour Commission, the corporation of the city of Toronto, and the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN moved:: That this House shall meet on Saturday the 16th instant and on all Saturdays until the end of the session, the hours of sitting and the order of precedence for business shall be the same as on Fridays.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The motion
that the House should sit On Saturday as a rule is not brought down until all the Government programme has been laid upon the table. The programme is still incomplete, in this at all events, that the Supplementary Estimates have not yet been laid before the House. If that were all, I would not object to sitting on Saturday, because I am as anxious as anybody else to facilitate the ending of the work we have on hand. I am not aware, however, that that is all; perhaps my right hon. friend has other things to bring down. But, even aside from that, there is objection to sitting on Saturday.
As the season is far advanced, I do not object to the taking of Saturday as a sitting day; but I would suggest to my hon. friend that at all events we should not sit tomorrow. The notice that we have had has been too short; only yesterday we heard

for the first time that it was the intention of the Government to sit to-morrow and the following Saturdays. I interpose this objection to our being called upon to sit to-morrow that many members of the House, myself included, have made other engagements for that day. If we have, however, notice that we shall sit the next and following Saturdays, hon. gentlemen will be able to make arrangements accordingly. I hope therefore that my right hon. friend will modify his motion in order that it may take effect not from to-morrow but from the following Saturday.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate what my
right hon. friend has said with regard to laying the programme of the Government before the House, but I am not aware of anything else at the moment which is to be brought down except the Supplementary Estimates. So far as sitting on Saturday is concerned, I hope that my right hon. friend will not press his objection. I shall be very glad to arrange that nothing shall be taken up on Saturday except matters of a non-controversial character; indeed, nothing to which my right hon. friend has any objection. I think we shall make some progress in that way. As to how long we shall sit on Saturday, I shall be prepared to meet the views of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I think we can get some work done without any detriment to the public interest in the absence of those gentlemen who have already made *other arrangements. If that would meet the views of my right hon. friend, I would be glad if the motion would pass at it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: In view of this explanation, I shall not interpose my objection. I understand from my right hon. friend that he does not contemplate bringing up during the remainder of the session anything more than the Estimates. As to the business of the House to-morrow. I am quite satisfied that we should take up noncontentious matters and expedite business as much as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: If my right hon. friend will give me a memorandum of what he thinks may conveniently be taken up tomorrow, I shall be very glad to meet his views.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: I have received several letters this morning inquiring about the
position of the Government with regard to the depositors of the banks I have already named-La Banque du Peuple, the Ville Marie bank and La Banque St. Jean. I would urge upon my hon. friend to get a list of the depositors of these banks before we proceed with the Farmers Bank Bill.


Hon. W. T. WHITE:: The request that my hon. friend prefers this morning is similar to that which he made within the last day or so. I find that we have not in the department any list of the depositors of the banks in question, and I am not sure that we shall be able to obtain one. My deputy has, however, communicated with the liquidator of one or more of these banks with a view to seeing whether or not such a list can be obtained. I shall not promise it to my hon. friend, because I am not certain that we can obtain it. At all events, the matter is having consideration.



DEATH OF HON. F. D. MONK.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are
called, it is my painful duty to announce to the members of the House the death of the Hon. Frederick Debartzch Monk, who for many years was a member of this House and who was also a member of the present Administration. I met Mr. Monk for the first time in 1896, when we came here as members of the Parliament elected in that year, and from that time up to the present I have, as hon. members know, been associated very closely with him in public affairs and have also during that time had the very great privilege of enjoying hi3 personal friendship. I am happy to say that although sometimes there was a marked difference of opinion between us with regard to public questions and although that difference did result in his retirement from the Government more than a year ago, these differences never interfered in the slightest degree with the full friendship which always existed between us. Mr. Monk was a man of very distinguished qualities. He was an eminent constitutional lawyer, a great parliamentarian, a man of high ability and a commanding figure in Parliament and in public affairs. His character and his temperament in some respects were not suited to public life, for the reason that he was a man of singularly sensitive disposition, much more sensitive than, perhaps, those who did not know him inti-

mately may have realized. His course throughout his public career was marked by a high sense of duty and a desire to discharge to the utmost of his ability what he conceived to be his duty to the people of this country. His death leaves a great blank in the public life of Canada and no one mourns it more than I do. For many weeks and even months past it has been known that he was not likely to recover from the illness which confined him to his house. I am sure that, in common with all the members of this House and with all the people of this country who knew him, I can assure those of his family who survive him that they have in this loss the most profound sympathy of the Parliament of Canada and of the people of this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, the sad intelligence which has just been conveyed to the House by my right hon. friend was not altogether unexpected, because, as he has stated, foT many months and even for many years past Mr. Monk had been in failing health and his recovery was not hoped for, although the end has come, perhaps, more suddenly than we had reason to suppose it would. Those of us who knew Mr. Monk-it was my privilege to know him almost from the days of his youth-are aware that the qualities that have been attributed to him by my right hon. friend he had in abundance. It is perhaps not generally known that his failing health can be traced back to the day when he lost a most charming wife, who had been to him not only a friend and companion but a most valuable advisor as well. I do not suppose that he ever fully recovered from the blow which he then suffered. Mr. Monk was well known in Quebec as belonging to a family which has been the adornment of the Bench and of the public life of ouir province. He was himself endowed in many ways with the talents of his distinguished father, and I agree with my right hon. friend that in temperament and ability he was more suited to the duties of the Bench than to participation in public life.
Everybody who saw Mr. Monk in this House will share my conviction that, if it had been his lot to be on the Bench, as his father was, he would have added great dignity to that position, and would have brought to the discharge of the duties devolving upon him commanding ability as a jurist and wide experience as a con-

st-itutional lawyer. Speaking on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House, and whose misfortune it was to have to differ from him upon many questions, I can say that in conveying to his family the condolence of his friends, the right hon. Prime Minister can also, in the same degree, convey the condolence of his opponents.


Mr. PELLETIER (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, following on the right hon. Prime Minister and on the right hon leader of the Opposition, I trust I may be allowed to add a few words to the encomiums and tributes of praise which have fallen from their lips in memory of the one who has just departed from our midst.
Mr. Monk loomed large in the political world and in the hearts of the people of the province of Quebec. Friends and opponents alike held him in high esteem. He was a man of high standing, a man of whom the whole province of Quebec was justly proud. Even those who differed from him could not help acknowledging that he was reflecting great honour on our race.
I was his colleague in this Government, and even after he left the Cabinet, our intercourse continued to be of the most cordial nature. His death for me, as for the whole of the province of Quebec, has been a source of deep and sincere grief. The place he occupied will not be easily filled.
One of his last deeds is very characteristic of his whole career. When he found that the ailment which terminated in his demise was an impediment to the fulfilment of his parliamentary duties, sucn as he conceived them, and that he would no longer be in a position to carry out the mandate which the electors of Jacques Cartier had entrusted to him, he was unwilling to let events follow their course, and preferred sending in at once his resignation, such was his high sense of duty.
However, subsequent to that resignation, I for one recommended postponing for some time the issuance of the writ, in the hope that this distinguished gentleman would be in a position to take once more his place in our midst as member for Jacques Cartier. God has decided otherwise, and it only remains for us to submit to His superior will.
I join with the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition in offering to his family the expression of my deepest sympathy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed to pay my respects to my former colleague who has just died. We owe an expression of our grief to the departed statesman, and, to his family, an assurance of our heartfelt sympathy.
Frederick DeBartzch Monk has played an important part in this Parliament, and his demise is a grievous loss not only to his native province but to Canada as a whole.
A professor at Laval University, he moulded the minds of a whole generation of professional men, and his pupils, even those who did not agree with him in politics, held him in high esteem.
We, his former colleagues, are aware to what extent his knowledge of constitutional law had made of him an incomparable parliamentarian. He was listened to in this House and elsewhere; his eloquent utterances captivated his hearers.
Our regretted colleague was of distinguished lineage. Through his mother he was connected with the old Canadian noblesse. The De Bartzch family played an eminent part at the time the seignorial regime was in force.
On his father's side, he was related to a family of distinguished jurists. His father, of English extraction, had for many years past thrown in his lot with the French-Canadians, in whose midst he lived. He was one of the striking personalities of our Court of Appeal. And through his wife, whose premature death has been the occasion of such deep grief, he was connected with the Cherrier family, whose head, Come Seraphin Cherrier, was under the Union the friend and counsellor of Lafontaine, and later of Dorion.
Mr. Monk had inherited the attainments of the former and profited by intercourse with the latter. His death deprives us of one of our superior men.
The Government, no doubt, will be represented at his funeral. Those who opposed him because their views differed radically from his will also be there, for the grim reaper leaves in his wake no harsh feelings; only pleasant memories remain.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, in the death of Mr. Monk Canada suffers no ordinary loss. We all know how he gave to the service of this country the best years of his life and we all realize to what extent he brought to that service abilities that qualified him to take the foremost place in the ranks of
her public men, that place which he so easily attained and so worthily held. We all feel too, that, what is perhaps greater and more rare, he brought to that service an unselfish devotion that, I am sure, all who witnessed it admired. A man whose standards were of the very highest, and whose unfailing industry drew from the exceptional gifts with which nature had endowed him the largest measure of usefulness to his country. Canada may well mourn his loss. Born in the same year, and in the same city, we were boys together and grew up in a lifelong friendship, and great as is the loss to the country it is perhaps more the sense of personal grief in the loss of an esteemed and admired and beloved friend that has made it impossible for me not to say a word expressive of sympathy in the great grief of those who were dearest to him. That is my excuse for adding a word, at least, to what has already been said.



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY AGREEMENT.

[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, resumed from Thursday, May 14.
Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few observations on what I regard as one of the most important matters that have come up for consideration by the Parliament of this country. I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech that was made yesterday by my hon. friend the member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), and I do not purpose to follow him so far as the personal element in that speech is concerned. I feel it would have been of some advantage to this House if the hon. member had told us who made the report as to the condition of this railroad, which must have taken at least a couple of months to prepare and cost a considerable sum of money. It would have been interesting to know what group of men paid for this report, and furnished it to the hon. gentleman; and also interesting if, when making his anonymous attack, he had read to the House the letter that the engineer said to have been formerly in the employ of Mackenzie and Mann had given him. Anonymous attacks that come from sources not given are not, in my humble judgment, proper methods of dealing with a subject of this importance, on which we are entitled to the best possible evidence

and the fullest disclosure. I do not admit that my hon. friend from Calgary has a monopoly of the public conscience of this country, or that he alone of the members of this House is anxious and desirous to see done what is best in the interests of Canada at the present time. My hon. friend has spoken of a lobby extending over a great many years, and which he says is the most disgraceful that has ever taken place in any country. Does my hon. friend wish to imply that this Government has been lobbied in respect of this measure? Is that the charge? If so, it should be made boldly and clearly here and now. But there is not a man within the sound of my voice, or in the country, that believes that the present Government, either directly or indirectly, has been lobbied in respect of this most important matter. There is not a man in this country, in my humble judgment, that does not believe that if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other member of the Government had been lobbied, it would have been a great deal worse in the final result for the people doing the lobbying. That is as far as we need to go into the question of parliamentary corruption. If it has not existed in this House, this House is not concerned. If it existed at an earlier stage in the hon. gentleman's career, he had the knowledge, the ability, and, apparently, the language to place the facts before the people of this country at a proper time and before a proper tribunal. I think with these observations I may dismiss that matter, and leave it to the hon. gentlemen to diiseuss at a place where it may properly be considered.
The Government of this country were confronted with this condition: they had a transcontinental railway in process of completion, not connected up. They found that the various provinces, with one exception, had guaranteed portions of the bonds of this line; that the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier had guaranteed bonds and had given subsidies to the extent of $58,000,000. Consequently, the road had the status not merely of a provincial railway, but of a transcontinental system endorsed by this Parliament and in a public fashion, so that investors abroad could regard it as a transcontinental system which was as much favoured by the people of this country as was the National Transcontinental railway, the child of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). That being the condition of affairs, I am going to deal just for a moment with the hon.
	.
member's charge of reckless guarantees, made in his three and a half hours of discursive statements, more or less vigorous and going from San Francisco to the North Pole. The western provinces must have branch lines of railway; they have either to build them themselves by Government construction or get contractors to build them by means of Government guarantees of bonds. We have one striking example of Government construction in this country, and, in my humble opinion, the people of this country are quite satisfied to allow private enterprise to construct the railways under Government guarantees, and under proper supervision; particularly, when all the railway has to sell later on is transportation, which is controlled by the people of this country through the Railway Commission. It was for the provinces themselves to determine the best way to get branch lines to the settlers. The settlers had to have branch lines, and at once if immigration was to continue, and the farms of the West were to be occupied by those who make a living growing grain. I venture to say that the system of Government guarantees for railway construction has been more beneficial as regards the Canadian West than any system so far devised by any government or person. There are two things in favour of Government guarantees. First of all, they enable the contractor to get his money for the road at a lower rate of interest than he otherwise could get, because the endors-ation of the Government conveys to the investor abroad that it is a portion of a railroad system that the' Government believes should be built; and it has this further benefit: the road, when constructed, has lower fixed charges, because the bonds thus guaranteed carry a lower rate of interest, and the road has consequently to earn less to pay the guaranteed bond interest, and that means less charges upon the settler. It is idle, therefore, for a western man to tell us that these guarantees have been reckless. I venture to say that the hon. gentleman would not make such a statement in Alberta, because he knows the settlers of that country are very anxious indeed for branch lines; and we have also the statement of the hon. gentleman from Macleod, and of the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan, as to their necessity. That being the condition of affairs, the Government of Canada were confronted with this situation: they had a partially completed railway system that had been guaranteed by both the provinces and

the Dominion as a transcontinental line, and the question before them was: Shall we assist that line to become a transcontinental railway, or let it go into the hands of a receiver; or, as the hon. gentleman said yesterday, pool the stock, eliminate Mackenzie and Mann, and appoint some gentleman to run the road? What did the Government do first? The first thing they did was to make a thorough investigation into the affairs of the company. My hon. friend complains that it was not under.oath. Well, we have investigations made into companies affairs continuously in this country. When any question arises in regard to any of these large mergers, you employ a firm of accountants to inquire into the affairs of a company before you take it over, and I have never heard that, when any of these large corporations were formed, any inquiry was made other than an audit such as the Government has made in this case.
The people before us are not criminals, they are not people who are unknown and the Government employed the Comptroller of the Finance Department, the Comptroller of the Kailway Department, and the Comptroller of the Intercolonial railway to make that investigation. On top of their examination, you have the oath of two officers of the road who say that as far as Mackenzie and Mann are concerned they have not made one dollar out of this enterprise. I had the pleasure of 'being at a banquet in the city of Toronto on the 14th of December, 1906. It was a banquet given by the Board of Trade to the two distinguished gentlemen who control the interests of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Sir Mortimer Clarke, then Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, presided at that banquet. The most distinguished men in the province of Ontario. Senators, premiers, ex-premiers and others, were present on that occasion, and before that assembly, as long ago as 1906, Mr. Z. A. Lash made this statement:
Now, gentlemen, I will tell you another secret. During all these years neither Mr. Mackenzie nor Mr. Mann has drawn from the railway company or the Canadian Northern Railway system one single dollar in cash for themselves, whether for contractors' profits on construction or otherwise. They have given their invaluable time and services without salary; and though they have in the interests of the railway probably done more travelling than any other two men in Toronto, yet they have not drawn one dollar for travelling expenses. On the contrary, they have advanced out of their own private means and credit, millions of dollars for this railway system, and have in the earlier stages 239	) i



BEVISED

[Stage Direction]
risked their whole fortunes and future for the benefit of the undertaking.
My hon, friend has been pleased to oast some slurs upon, or to make some remarks about, Mr. Z. A. Lash. I venture to say in the presence of any lawyer in the province of Ontario, and I think of the Dominion of Canada, there is no man in the legal profession who is more highly regarded by the profession than Mr. Z. A. Lash. He has been a distinguished member of a leading firm in the province of Ontario for a generation. He has been counsel for the Bankers' Association for a great many years. He has been connected with the Law Society and he has looked after the legal affairs of the province of Ontario for a generation. His word would be taken by any man in the province of Ontario, by any business man, -any banker, and I venture to say that that statement made at that time in that fashion is a statement that every gentleman in this House will accept without question as being true. I am reminded by an hon. gentleman that he was also deputy Minister of Justice in this country.
The audit which the Government made, and which they made, I am satisfied, with the greatest possible care, is only corroborative evidence of what has been well-known to those who have known what this work was, the men who were carrying it on and why they were carrying it on, and the Government have taken care in this matter that no claim shall be made and no profit other than common stock. My hon. friend stretches out his hand and says: Why, it passes the credulity of man that they could do such a thing. When you have a great undertaking to carry on, can you commence to milk it at the start as the hon. gentleman would have us believe? For one thing, the bank would never in the world allow it. I am quite satisfied that the Canadian Bank of Commerce, when they made Mackenzie and Mann put up every security, personal and otherwise, at their command for the carrying on of this enterprise, would never have allowed these gentlemen to take one dollar out of it. These men were ambitious to build a great transcontinental railway and they were willing to wait until the completion of this enormous enterprise before receiving the profi.ts which they would be so justly entitled to and which, I am sure, nobody will begrudge them when the facts are known. Therefore, I think it may be taken as a fact that, in so far as Mackenzie and Mann are concerned, they have not received one dollar

[Stage Direction]
profit out of this enterprise and that their sole profit will he that which may be derived out of the common stock, which is all they get in connection with the arrangement which is now being made by the Government.
The Government having made this audit and having ascertained this state of facts, it would be reasonable for them to consider the whole situation. In considering the whole situation, it was reasonable for them to look into the matter and see who the applicants were and what right they had to come to the people of Canada for assistance. My hon. friend says that these gentlemen are the prize mendicants of this country. I did not know that it was mendicancy to ask a loan from a bank when you put up security and pay for it by common stock. It is to my mind a most ordinary business transaction. Instead of going to a banker it was very natural to go to the Government because no one is more vitally interested in the success of the road than the Government is and if it was a good financial proposition for a banker it certainly was much more so for the Government. It was much more so in the interests of the people of the country because the aid which the Government could give to this enterprise could obviously be obtained at a cheaper rate than if it were obtained from a private banker. The Government, while aiding the road were also aiding the people of the country, and it was much better that they should grant this aid than that Mackenzie and Mann should go to the bankers and allow them to distribute this common stock because if any common stock was going it was desirable that the people should get it.
The Government having ascertained the position of this matter, and having met the applicants, it is only fair, it is only just to these men to show what they had put into this enterprise which entitles them to the consideration of this country. These men gained their first experience in construction work on the Canadian Pacific railway in the Canadian West. I do not think there is a man within sound of my voice who does not believe that they know more about railway construction than any other people in this country to-day. I do not think there is a man who is informed upon these matters who believe that there is any set of men in Canada to-day with the same amount of skill and ability in the construction of railways, cheaply, safely and economically as the two men who control the interests of the Canadian Northern railway. Having got their experience in the Canadian West they
[Mr. Bristol.J
began to build railways for themselves practically only from 1896. I want you all to bear in mind that in 1896 only 21,000 immigrants came into this country. I want you to bear in mind that that great, powerful system, the Canadian Pacific railway, would not build one branch line of railway, would not put up one dollar for branch lines. Why? Because they did not have the faith in Canada's future that these two men had. They are entitled to consideration because they had faith, in Canada and they realized that the construction of the branch lines in the Northwest was necessary in order that that country might be settled and that Canada might become one of the greatest countries of the world. How do I know that? There were, in 1896, three charters kicking around Manitoba, that had been kicking around there for these many years, and nobody would touch them, land grant or anything else. The Canadian Pacific railway would not touch them at all. Obviously it was thought that there was no necessity for them to do so because they no doubt argued that if anybody was willing to be a big enough fool to build a branch line the traffic would come to the main line and they would get the branch lines in the end at their own price. And they would have got them but for the genius of these two men, who succeeded in connecting up Port Arthur and Winnipeg. They built a line there, so that, when the Manitoba Government had an opportunity to buy the Northern Pacific, there were only two men outside of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company who were able to handle the matter and to carry grain to the Great Lakes, thus giving the West the one thing for which its people had asked for years, namely, railway competition. It is idle to say that the Manitoba Government did it. I am willing to give my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works all the credit that is so justly due to him; but it takes two men to make a bargain; and it is due to the fact that Mackenzie and Mann put their energy and capital into that railway enterprise that there was a railway from Winnipeg to Port Arthur able to deal with the Manitoba government independently of the Canadian Pacific. There was no one else who could have leased the Northern Pacific Manitoba railway, and in that way given railway competition to the Canadian West except the Canadian Northern. That is the first thing that occurred.
In connection with the construction in 1896 of these roads that nobody else would

have anything to do with, Mackenzie and Mann got 4,100,000 acres of land. Apparently they took 100,000 acres of that land for themselves, and turned in the other 4,000,000 acres for the benefit of the Canadian Northern railway. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) says that some of these lands were later on exchanged, and that the newr grant was made to the Canadian .Northern railway and not to Mackenzie and Mann or these other companies that originally earned the land grant, as if that were of any consequence. The only reason that was so was because these earlier roads had been amalgamated with the Canadian Northern railway, and the Canadian Northern railway had absorbed the lands granted to these railways and was therefore at that time the company entitled to receive those exchange lands. There is no particular mystery in regard to the fact that other land than the particular land that they got was given to them. A portion of the land originally granted was found to be unfit for settlement; and where it was not fit for settlement, the Government were bound to give them land fit for settlement. The Canadian Pacific railway got land fit for settlement in exchange for lands originally granted which were unfit, and it was perfectly fair and proper to give the Canadian Northern railway lands fit for settlement, seeing that the grant called for that class of land. So much for that *situation.
I want it to be borne in mind that 1 accept the statement of the Prime Minister, who has investigated this matter through the accountants, as to the value of that land which these gentlemen were entitled to put into their pockets; in the same way as other gentlemen in the Canadian West put into their pockets land grants in connection with the construction of railway lines in that country, as is well known to every one here. Mackenzie and Mann had precisely the same right to retain these land grants for their own use and profit but they turned the lands over to the Canadian Northern. Wheii the Prime Minister says that that land is of the value of $30,000,000, I accept his statement, and I will deal with it later on. It is of importance in regard to what the people of Canada must do, because they must deal fairly with these gentlemen, just as they must deal fairly with themselves. We are too great a people not to rise to an occasion of this kind, and deal well and fairly with those who have dealt well and fairly with us.
* I will now leave these land grants for the moment and come to the question of freight rates and freight competition and the benefit the people of Canada have already derived in this regard by the work of Mackenzie and Mann. I have here Chapter 39 of the Statutes of 1901 of Manitoba; and section 8, subsections (a) and (b) read as follows:
(a) Reductions amounting to more than four cents per hundred pounds on the tariff rates in force on the date of said indenture for the carriage of grain from Manitoba to a lake Superior port and,
(b) Reductions amounting together to more than fifteen per cent on the tariff rates in force on the said date for the carriage of all other freight from and to points in Manitoba, and from and to points in Manitoba to and from Fort William and Port Arthur.
I also call attention to section 10 of the schedule to this statute, which says:
Commencing when this agreement takes effect, the company shall reduce its passenger rates in Manitoba to not exceeding three cents per passenger per mile.
I may say for the information of some hon. gentlemen that the former rate was four cents, so that the reduction has been 25 per cent, an enormous reduction.
I am now going to read some testimony as to the benefits the people of the West and of Canada generally have received from this undertaking, from a paper of which some of us have certainly heard. I refer to the Globe, published in Toronto.
Wilfrid Laurier: We
12 noon, have heard of it before.


Edmund James Bristol: An article in that paper under date of March 24, 1914, says:	^
The Canadian Northern railway has a part to play, and no insignificant part, in the development of Canada. It has already been of value in providing lower passenger and freight rates over wide sections of the prairies than were obtainable under monopoly conditions.
Railway experts state that ninety per cent of these reductions originated on Canadian Northern railway lines during the past ten years. The reductions in the grain rates from railway stations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to lake Superior made by the Canadian Northern railway in 1903 and followed by the Canadian Pacific railway represent a saving to the farmers on the crops of 1903 to 1913, both inclusive, of $17,000,000, or four per cent on nearly $39,000,000 per year. And this is not all. There were large reductions in the rates from Port Arthur and Port William not only to stations in Manitoba, but to Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the Canadian Pacific also had to reduce its rates. There were substantial reductions in the rates on coal from Port Arthur and on lumber from various points. There was a reduction of 15 per cent in the

local rates in Manitoba and 7i per cent in Saskatchewan and Alberta. It would be difficult to compute the amount of the reductions made by the Canadian Northern railway and forced on the Canadian Pacific railway, but outside of the reductions of $17,000,000 on grain to lake Superior the saving in the rates on freight from eastern Canada and the United States, and locally between provincial and interprovincial points, would be twice, possibly even three times, the sum above-mentioned.
I am content to take it at twice, and leave it at $50,000,000. (Reading):
In over twenty years the only reductions in the grain rates to Fort William made by the Canadian Pacific were those made under the Crowsnest Pass agreement in 1898 and 1899 (three cents per 100 pounds), and the reductions forced on it by the Canadian Northern railway in 1903. The rates on grain and flour from stations on the Canadian Pacific in Saskatchewan and Alberta are higher to-day than twenty years ago.
They have since been reduced, I believe, by the Railway Commission. (Reading):
It is argued that the West would be j ust as well off with one strong road like the Canadian Pacific railway as with competing lame ducks that cannot compete because of overcapitalization or poor physical condition. The facts presented above prove this to be a specious fallacy. The Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific have a great work to do in the West, and no one desires to see either of them so financially hampered as to be forced to the wall or sold out to the Canadian Pacific railway.
I asked the Department of Railways to verify those facts for me, and I will read a part of the statement. I think the statements made to the Globe are substantially accurate as to the savings in the Canadian West.


Wilfrid Laurier: As always.


Edmund James Bristol: member listening to me does not understand it, I hope he will let me clear away his misunderstanding. To me it is so obvious that I should think even the hon. member for Calgary ought to be able to understand it.
Then there was another matter that was going to turn into a terrific scandal-the Imperial Rolling Stock Company. I have asked for information, and I find that the Imperial Rolling Stock Company was precisely as it had Ibeen described. In order to prevent the rolling stock coming under the main railway mortgage, the Rolling Stock Company intervened and bought the rolling stock, when they had credit enough for it, and sold it to the railway company with their tag upon it, so that it did not pass under the main bond mortgage. I have the information from the Government that not one dollar of profit was made out of that concern and not one dollar has ever been paid in dividends in respect of the rolling stock of the company. I almost thought, however, that the hon. gentleman was going to throw a fit when he was dealing with that rolling stock company. He picked up this- Eleventh Annual Report of the Canadian Northern and held up his hands in holy horror at this item that he found among acquired securities in Canadian Northern Prairie Lands Company $483,393.35. Let me call attention to the fact that is precisely the value of that stock on the London market at that time, about $12 per share. It was bought for $5 a share, or rather was received in exchange for land which they sold at $3 per acre. The amount simply represents land which they put in and which they took stock for. They sold some of the stock, and got the money, which went into the road, and this is simply the value of the balance of the stock exchanged for land-it is put under acquired securities-of the stock which they still hold.
My hon. friend said: Since when did a fraudulent misrepresentation form the basis of an agreement for further aid? I assume that this remark had reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister last year, in which he said:
The Canadian Northern Railway Company professes itself able, under ordinary conditions, to raise all the money that may be necessary for the completion of the line. I
I am sure that no man in this country will contend that conditions are ordinary in Canada, in Great Britain, in the United States, or in the money markets of the

world. War, fear of war, decreased railway earnings, lack of confidence, have made conditions extraordinary. Financial people have told me that financial conditions are worse than they have been for the last fifty years, and they have grown steadily worse since these gentlemen were here a year ago. I myself know a little of the law, and I do not believe that a statement of intention may constitute fraudulent misrepresentation. I am sure that legal gentlemen of the House will bear me out in saying that an untrue statement of fact may constitute fraudulent misrepresentation, but not a statement of future intention to do something. My hon. friend, however, is sometimes as mixed in his law as he is in his facts.
My hon. friend dealt with the question of $70,000,000, and $77,000,000 of stock, and the ten per cent. I will not follow him in that matter, except to say that I understand that the Government, for their own protection, preferred to make that $7,000,000 of stock paid up by Act of Parliament. Without any consultation with the Canadian Northern railway or Mr. Z. A. Lash, who was not in this country at the time, a measure so providing was put through Parliament. So that if there were $7,000,000 extra issued last year and if the per cent were eleven instead of ten, the Government of this country take the responsibility; they wanted to be sure that the stock .was fully paid up, and they asked Parliament so to provide. In my judgment, this was quite the proper thing to be done.
My hon. friend speaks of this road as a bankrupt road and, speaking of its physical condition, refers to dirt ballast and things of that kind. He did not give us his authority for the assertions which he made, though he did tell us that he went through British Columbia and that he was afraid he would fall into the Fraser river. That seems unfortunate. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. We have had the evidence of the Railway Department of this country, not forgetting the Toronto Globe, that this system has been good enough to save the people of this country $50,000,000 since it was created; consequently it must have been good enough to carry traffic. My hon. friend really makes no distinction between a main line and a. branch line. Obviously the people do not spend large amounts of money on branch lines of railways if they can avoid it. Why? If you have a branch line on the prairies of the Canadian West that is operated three months in the year for special traffic, would

you spend money on any special ballast? Would you make the railroad anything better than was necessary for the purposes of carrying gTain? Is that not what the farmeT wants? I have seen in the South, railway tracks laid right over the cane-lands without ballast and taken up again after the sugar cane was harvested. The whole theory of this class' of transportation is to provide such facilities as will enable the train to get to the main line of railway and get there safely. This railway which is called a bankrupt and useless Tailway, carried over one-third of the grain of the Canadian West last year to Port Arthur. What else did it do? It carried 1,681,760 passengers in 1912, with only one person killed, and carried nearly two million passengers in 1913, with none killed. Is that not a magnificent record for a railroad? My hon. friend says these people do not know how to operate a railroad. They do not kill anybody; they carry the traffic; they provide competition. They show a surplus in earnings in the West even while under construction; but, in his opinion, they do not know how to operate a railroad. They must go to Sir Thomas Tait to learn how to do that. Did any one ever hear such nonesense?
Let me give you one more illustration. Do you know that this line of railroad, during the last four months of the year 1913, September, October, November and December, carried over 40,000 cars of grain at the rate of 335 ears a day? I have the figures from the Railway Department, and I am talking by the book. The .best record the Canadian Pacific railway ever made on a single track road was 250 cars a day. The Canadian Northern this year has run 335 cars a day for a period of four months: 12 trans a day, with 30 cars each, and, in respect of passenger trains, four .more on top of that. Yet the hon. gentleman has the audacity to say that these people do not know how to operate a railroad. I think the performance of this road, under the conditions which have existed, is remarkable, and something of which any one may well be proud. What are they coming to Parliament for? They are coming to Parliament for a guarantee of $45,000,000, of which some $27,000,000, as was suggested, is wanted for rolling stock, and $10,000,000 for betterments. What is that $10,000,000 for betterments -for? It is to put 80-lb. rails on the road from Winnipeg to Edmonton, where for 620 miles they now have 60-lb. rails; it is to put up a proper balast on the line and to bring it
up to the standard of the National Transcontinental line. No road can be built in a day. The National Transcontinental is the best road that has ever been built in this country, so far as construction is concerned, and the Government of this country are requiring that the new portions of this line, from Port Arthur to Montreal and from Yellow Head Pass to Vancouver, shall be built up to the standard of the National Transcontinental in respect of ballast and rails, and that it shall be in all general respects sufficient for the purposes of fast transportation.
What else have these gentlemen done? Why is this road in the future going to be of greater benefit to Canada than it has been in the past? The railway profiles show that the Canadian Northern transcontinental line through the mountain section has even a better profile than the Transcontinental railway in the ratio of -07 to 1 per cent; has a better grade than the Canadian Pacific railway, in the ratio of -07 to 2-4; has a better grade than any transcontinental railway in the United States as well, over this most difficult section; and in other respects the grades and curves of the Canadian Northern railway are superior to those of the Canadian Pacific railway as they exist to-day. What does that mean ? That means that as this road gradually settles down in two or three years and gets re-ballasted in places and filled in as a road does, because you cannot make it in a day, you must have use and weather conditions and time for structures to be filled in and brought up to standard, you will find a road which in grades and in curves will be superior to any road on this continent. What does a [DOT]7 per cent grade mean through the Rocky mountains as against a 2 4 per cent grade ? It means that a train of sixty cars can be hauled by one engine as against a train of thirty cars by two engines. What does that mean in getting traffic between Edmonton and Vancouver? It means according to experts a saving of $1,200,000 and upward on every 6,000,000 tons of freight hauled. The Canadian Northern Railway line is only 762 miles from Edmonton to Vancouver. The Transcontinental line is 952 miles from Edmonton to Prince Rupert. Consequently the Canadian Northern railway is nearer the sea. The western system of this line, over 5,000 miles, is earning its fixed charges., it has been successful, it has paid and since its inception has had surplus earnings amounting to $6,778,384.65 which have gone ird*

betterments. It is in no sense bankrupt. It is prosperous. But when my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, made up his mind to have another transcontinental railway, in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway system, the Canadian Northern railway either had to get from ocean to ocean or they had to lose all through traffic which at that time they were getting through the Grand Trunk system. Their existence as a railroad was at stake, and they were compelled to become a transcontinental system. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) enjoyed himself very thoroughly over the Bay of Quinte road and the deficit of that poor little road. I happen to come from that part of the country; I know the road and it doee not deserve the abuse my hon. friend gave it. As a matter of fact, that road was bought because it was to form part of the system of the Canadian Northern railway between Montreal and Toronto, and the value of the thirty miles which the Canadian Northern railway acquired will be a great deal more than two or three times the deficit when it is a part of a connected-up system. The same thing applies to the Canadian Northern Quebec. My hon. friend took Poor s Manuel and showed, very properly, that a branch line railway, without -any connections, was not paying. No one would argue that such a line would pay in this country. But, as part of this transcontinental system, connecting Montreal and Quebec, it was a vital railway for the Canadian Northern railway to have, and it was. worth many times to that system the amount of the deficit of which my hon. friend speaks. That is why these branch lines have been bought, and that is why you get no statement as regards the eastern lines. Why? Because the eastern lines in Ontario -have been and are to-day under construction. But I say that it is one of the miracles of modern railway construction and operation that the Canadian [DOT]Northern railway in the Canadian West was able, through all these years, to build -and construct railways and operate them without one deficit and without costing one dollar to the people of Canada or to the Canadian West during the actual construction period of the railroad in respect of the Government guarantees. That has never been done before in any country. I think when the hon. member for Calgary is so anxious to change the personnel of the must be some other reason than the reason 
gentlemen in control of this road, there that he does not believe that they are able to construct and operate railroads. The eastern system will be connected up with the western system, with the result that instead of the company having, as they now have, a branch line in the Canadian West, dependent on practically one set of crops or one kind of merchandise, they will have a well balanced -system, they will be able to take the manufactures of eastern Canada, so far as they are required, to the West, they will be able to bring the products of the West here. They will be able to bring the timber and fish and coal of British Columbia into the western prairie country, where it is so much needed. I venture to state that -the history of the success of the Canadian Pacific railway in this country, of which we are -all proud, will, in the future, attend the Canadian Northern railway, once the system is connected up and properly put in operation.
We have heard a great deal on this question of capital stock. It it is really a very simple question and not at all complicated. I think it will do no harm to go over it. The Canadian Northern Railway system proper to-day has $77,000,000 of capital stock issue, $70,000,000 controlled by Mackenzie and Mann, and $7,000,000 by the Government of Canada. Some $68,000,000 of the capital stock of *the subsidiary companies is outstanding. My hon. friend from Calgary pointed out that $45,000,000 of that $68,000,000 was held by, or in trust for, the Canadian Northern railway. That is true to this extent, that the Canadian Northern railway will be ultimately entitled to it when they comply with the trust ot pay the necessary money. But the effect of what the Government are doing in this case is that they take the $68,000,000 of outstanding stock belonging to companies other than the Canadian Northern railway and they say that those stocks shall go into the treasury of the Canadian Northern railway, and be held there for all time and in return for that there will be issued $23,000,000 of fully paid-up stock of the Canadian Northern railway. That stock does not go to Mackenzie and Mann except as Mackenzie and Mann are legally entitled to that $68,000,000 as anybody is entitled to any stock which he may buy and pay for. The Government of Canada, in the bargain they aTe making, after taking the $68,000,000 of stock and selling it to the Canadian Northern railway for $23,000,000, say to Mackenzie, Mann and

Company and the Canadian Northern railway: That $23,000,000 must be transferred, with $10,000,000 more that you now have, to the people of this country. The capital stock has been reduced, obviously, because if that $145,000,000 were left outstanding, that would be the stock on which these companies would have to earn dividends. The hon. member for Edmonton in referring to these companies said that, for instance, the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway capitalization was $10,000,000, and that they would have to earn dividends on that. My hon. friend is entirely mistaken, because that $10,000,000 of stock goes into the hands and becomes the property of the Canadian Northern Railway system, and it is only the $100,000,000 of stock, oustanding, that will ever be in the hands of the public or on which any dividends can ever be declared or paid. That is another reason why it is idle to follow my hon. friend from Calgary through his long oration on these various roads and their capitalization. It becomes quite unnecessary, because the only capitalization that the people and Parliament of Canada have to consider is the $100,000,000 capital which now constitutes the capital of the Canadian Northern railway. One hon. gentleman makes the suggestion that there was $25,000,000 more in respect of convertible stock. That is quite true for this reason, that the convertible stock is convertible into common stock, and if it is taken out of convertible stock and changed into common stock it means that the fixed obligations of the Canadian Northern Railway system are decreased by $25,000,000 and the common stock is increased by $25,000,000. No one can have objection to a change of that character. If a man went to the Canadian Northern railway with convertible stock and changed it for common stock, there could be no objection. But let it be clear that the $25,000,000 of convertible stock no longer remains a fixed charge on the Canadian Northern Railway system, but becomes common stock. We have nothing to do with that, it has been sold in England and is out of this country. But there is $100,000,000 of stock that this country has to deal with.


Mr. AMES:: Do I understand that the
$25,000,000 of convertible stock, if exchanged for common stock, would carry with it voting power?


Edmund James Bristol: Obviously, I think, I
cannot understand that theTe could be more than one kind of common stock.


Herbert Brown Ames: So that there would be $125,000,000 of common stock carrying voting. power, if it fell into the hands of the general public.


Edmund James Bristol: Precisely.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then the Government or
general public would have the controlling interest.


Edmund James Bristol: That is quite true. As
that $25,000,000 of convertible .stock has been sold abroad and the money put into that road, I think that so far as this debate is concerned we cannot deal with that matter; but there is $100,000,000 of stock which we can deal with, and it is the only stock that affects the people of this country, as it is the only stock on which dividends will be paid. I put the proposition to you in this fashion. Here is an enterprise which, when completed, will have cost about $375,000,000, including about $70,000,000 for rolling stock and about $25,000,000 for terminals the people of Canada have got the benefit of every dollar of that vast expenditure. I want just a moment to compare its cost with the cost of the main line of the Transcontinental. The main line of the Canadian Northern railway costs $106,000,000 without the terminals, which figure out at $34,000 a mile. The Transcontinental costs $305,000,000-my hon. friend from South Renfrew will correct me if I am wrong-which figures out at about $80,000 or $84,000 a mile. The importance of that comparison is this:	Giving the former
Government of Canada every credit for desiring to construct a transcontinental railway in the cheapest possible fashion, the result practically is that it cost the Government about $45,000 a mile more to construct the Transcontinental than it cost Mackenzie and Mann to construct the Canadian Northern railway. Look at the proposition in this way:	The people of Canada are interested in the construction of this Toad at the cheapest possible price. That is vital in order to give competition and cheaper rates. The fixed charges of the Canadian Northern railway will amount to about $12,000,000. The hon. member for Calgary made that statement, and I quite agree with him. The fixed charges of the Canadian Pacific Tailway aire about $10,000,000; but the Canadian Pacific has about $260,000,000 of common stock outstanding on -which it is paying 10 per cent dividends, and if it failed to pay these dividends fiman-

cial disaster would come on the railway and the people of this country, as no stock is more highly regarded than Canadian Pacific, and properly so. The Canadian Pacific, then, has to earn, including the $10,000,000 of fixed charges and the $26,000,000 of dividends on the common stock outstanding, $36,000,000 in order to keep its stock before the public in the proper shape. The Canadian Northern railway has only $12,000,000 of fixed charges, and only $100,000,000 of capital stock; so that when the day comes when this capital stock is earning 10 per cent it will have $22,000,000 of fixed charges, and dividends of which the Government will be getting $4,000,000 a year. The fixed charges and dividends will still be $14,000,000 less than the fixed charges and dividends of the (Canadian Pacific, because I think it is only fair in this connection to take into account the dividends on the common stock outstanding of the Canadian Pacific. What has this road to show for that expenditure? When the $375,000,000 are spent, they will have 10,000 miles of railway throughout Canada -an enormous railway system. The Canadian Pacific railway mileage is rather larger, about 14,000 miles, I think. The point I want to make is this: Here is $100,000,000 of common stock to be dealt with, and here are two gentlemen who admittedly have put into the enterprise over $30,000 in land value, quite apart from anything else, and who if they were to be dismissed and, as my hon. friend from Calgary says, sent about their business, would surely be entitled to a claim for their work as contractors in this enterprise; and is there any man in this country that believes that less than ten per cent on the cost of the enterprise would be allowed by any board of arbitrators? If you take that figure, these gentlemen would be legally entitled to $37,500,000, which anybody in this country, on an arbitration, would give them for their work in connection with this railway as contractors and $30,000,000 cash for lands. These two sums for land and contractors services. That, in my humble judgment, more than pays in cash for the $60,000,000 of stock. How idle it is to talk of the printing press, and of water, when you have to face facts of that kind that cannot be contraverted. But that is not all. What did these gentlemen do in addition? The Government of Canada says: Coming in at this last stage, we are to be entitled to $33,000,000 of your stock 
for the $45,000,000 guarantee. If that is a fair price for a guarantee, what price should be paid Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, for guaranteeing every ' dollar invested in this enterprise from its inception to the present day, and putting their personal guarantee behind it? My hon. friend from Calgary says that Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, are worth $50,000,000. They have guaranteed this investment. What price would they get in common stock for that guarantee? Does anybody think that they can get a guarantee for ten per cent on an investment? Any hon. gentleman who has had any experience in the construction of railways knows that first of all you have to get your charter; then you have to make your surveys; then your plans have to be laid out; then you have to get a contractor to do the work/ and you go to a bank and say:	Will you finance this road during
construction; we have certain subsidies, and So-and-So is the contractor? If the contractor is Mackenzie and Mann you will get along all right, because the bank knows they are able to pay for the cost of the railway to completion whether the subsidies are sufficient to complete it or not; but if he is not a substantial contractor, some one has to be found to endorse that paper before the bank will advance the money. That is the only way in which these things are done, and anybody who knows anything about financing a matter of this kind knows that you must give either money or stock to the person who guarantees that the railway will be completed, that the enterprise is all right, and that the securities can, and will, later on be marketed. That is another item that has not been considered in the $60,000,000. There is a further item: these gentlemen have created and promoted a great enterprise. You may scoff at promoters, you may use the word in any discreditable sense that you like, but, believe me, there has been no great enterprise of any size since the world began that has not had to be promoted and worked out by the enthusiast who believed in it. Every great enterprise requires faith, optimism, and imagination, and there is not a man who does not think that a person who has the genius to plan and carry out a great enterprise, who influences capital to take stock in an enterprise which is a great national benefit for any country, should be paid for his services. But where is the payment for that? I venture to say that $100,000,000

would not be regarded by any arbitrator as anything else than the cash value of the services of these gentlemen in connection with this enterprise, when we consider that the sum of $375,000,000 has been honestly and carefully expended over a period of eighteen years without one dollar of graft being taken by the contractors- or profit, if you prefer to call it so. But are they getting $100,000,000 of cash? Are they getting $30,000,000 of cash? Are they getting any cash? They are getting stock to the amount of $60,000,000 and they have to take their chance upon that with the Railway Commission to fix rates. The assistance that the Government is giving them is this. They say:	we are
going to guarantee your securities to the extent of $45,000,000, we are going to give you three years to try and operate this road after completion; we know you can build railways but we are not sure whether you can operate them, we do not know whether you will make default and if you make default after three years we will take the railway away from you with every dollar you put into it and we need not give you one dollar compensation. That, in short, is the bargain which the Government have made with these people m respect to this business.
I venture to say that no firm of bankers in this country, the United States, or England, could have dealt with this matter in a more businesslike fashion, in a more statesmanlike fashion, in a more patriotic fashion, for the interests of the people of Canada than the Government have done on this occasion. My hon. friend from Calgary waves his hand and says that the people must have their rights and that the people's rights must be protected. Since when did the hon. gentleman become the only champion of the people in this country? The long training that my hon. friend had in defending the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the West and fighting the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I am afraid, has slightly warped his judgment in connection with this matter and has prevented him from bringing to the consideration of it the same fair-minded treatment that he otherwise would have devoted to the subject. But as I state it was the Canadian Northern that he spent most of his life in fighting in the Canadian Northwest, and I fear his mind has become biased.
In dealing with this matter the Government, in my humble judgment, have considered every possible phase of the situation. They did not create the situation, out they have to deal with it. Obviously, in view of the past history of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the cost of construction, it would have been the heigh of folly for the Government to have changed the method of construction or completion of this railway at the present time. Obviously, no two men in this country are better qualified to complete this great enterprise than they who had the honour of fathering it. The Government did wisely in not taking away from these men the natural incentive that they would have to complete this great railway system in the best possible fashion, to make it a paying system, a credit to this country and a momument to themselves, their friends, their families and the people of Canada. Under these circumstances I think it would have been most unwise if the Government had insisted on more than one director upon the board of the company or of taking any control in this way. It would have taken from these men the greatest possible incentive they could have to complete this railway and make it a success.
When you reflect, Mr. Speaker, upon the length of time that they have spent in developing this great transportation system, when you reflect that the people have already received reduced rates as the result of the introduction of a railway system which is a real competitor, when you reflect that the Canadian Northwest has been covered with branch lines which have made the settlement of that great country possible, when you reflect that, to their credit, these two men have opened up the great Saskatchewan valley and made it clear to the world that this valley is fit for settlement and that the land is of such a character that the settler can raise wheat profitably upon it, when you reflect that every government of this country has endorsed this enterprise, that every government has an undoubted interest in its success, that the people of Canada have had the full benefit of the vast expenditure and are as vitally interested in the success of this railway as even the owners of the stock. I think you will agree that when the Government of this country took forty per cent of the capital stock of the company for giving this guarantee, which if history repeats itself will cost the country not a dollar, they assuredly performed an act of statesmanship which will be remembered in the history of this country and which will redound to their credit. It

marks a new era in the dealings between governments and railways for the benefit of the people. If the railway is a success the people will be $40,000,000 richer and if it fails they will own a transcontinental line and branches 10,000 miles in extent at its cost to the builders.
At One o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at Three o'clock.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) : Mr. Speaker, in the light of modern history, it will not be unwelcome news to the House if I intimate in the -beginning that I am not going to follow an established precedent of speaking at -any great length- I refer to a precedent established by myself.
The question of transportation- is one to which I have given a little attention during my term of. public -life. While I am not vain enough to imagine that I have mastered this great problem, I have devoted some attention to it, and think I have discovered some of the difficulties that we encounter in the Dominion of Canada in working out the problem.
In the first place, we have a territory as large -as the United States, comparatively sparsely populated. We have undertaken, in a manner not undertaken by any other country in the world of the same population as Canada, to afford as far as possible transportation facilities, not only to our own native Canadians, but to those whom we have asked to come from other countries to join in our citizenship. The task has been one of greater magnitude than possibly we thought in the beginning. When the Canadian Pacific railway was first discussed, honest differences of opinion arose as to the best method of carrying out the desire of the fathers of Confederation to unite the West, that was to become great, with the East, which at that time had reached greater developments. That was on the one hand. On the other hand, in the far East we had the problem of giving to the Maritime provinces railway connection with older Canada. In the latter case, the Government undertook and carried out the construction of a railway which has since remained Government-owned and Government-managed. A great deal of criticism has taken place year after year, not only in this House, but in the press, as to the benefits derived by the people not only from the construction of the Intercolonial but from its management as well. I have never de-

parted from the idea, that first seized me when I entered into an investigation of the Intercolonial railway, namely, that it is a road of a great benefit to the people and should remain their property, not as a money-m-aking investment but as a part of the terms of ' give and take ' entered into between the various parts of the Dominion of Canada in order to round out Confederation, and make those who became a part of that great Confederation content and prosperous.
Into the far West was extended the Canadian Pacific railway, a work of great magnitude, and one that required, not only vision into the future, foresight as to the Canada that was to be, but financial courage ami financial sacrifice. At least at the time of its construction many there were who thought it would entail financial sacrifice. I am not one of those who feel sorry that the men who took a great risk in the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway became wealthy after some years. It is a credit to the development of Canada that such has -been the case; and it is an incentive to other men to invest capital in order that this new country of ours may be developed, because, unless capital has some security, development will cease.
Years after the Canadian Pacific railway came into operation, the Canadian Northern railway came into being, as has been described by several other speakers. As the result of the work of the Canadian Northern railway and its ramifications and the men connected with it, there is west of the Great Lakes what is, to my mind, the best gathering system in that territory. By ' gathering system ' I mean ramifications and network of branch lines that extend into the most productive parts of the plains. This work was carried out first with the assistance of the Manitoba Government, then with that of the Dominion and the provincial Governments. Finally it developed into a transcontinental system or ambitions for a transcontinental system. It has been said to me on several occasions by persons connected with the Canadian Northern railway that the National Transcontinental or Grand Trunk Pacific railway have usurped some of the territory that the Canadian Northern thinks belonged to them originally, and through which their lines were intended to operate. I do not know as to that, but I know that the Canadian Northern railway has developed into a very large system.

I may say, without being considered partial, that the Canadian Northern, on the whole, even through its proposed main line, traverses territory as rich as that traversed by either of the other two transcontinental lines, to put it mildly. I do not agree with some hon. gentlemen who have stated that the line east of Port Arthur passes through a wilderness that will not be productive. That statement applied to the Canadian Pacific railway is partially true, because that railway but fringes the great fertile territory of Ontario that, at the time of its construction, was practically unknown. It is known, however, that in the northern part of Ontario there are millions of acres' of very fertile land. The Grand Trunk Pacific railway traverses a portion of this territory and the Canadian Northern railway traverses equally as rich a portion of it. Not only are there millions of acres of very fertile land, but the mineral wealth of the neweT portions of Ontario, to my mind, is not yet known. The timber wealth is not yet exhausted. It may be that the massive pine that raised its top skyward has been reduced in quantity;, but theTe are in the newer portions of Ontario many million cords of pulp-wood and other timber of great value, which will become of greater value as the years go by. I do not at all agree, again I say, with those who insist that, from Port Arthur east, these two new transcontinental lines traverse territory that will not produce traffic. In the years that are to come, when some of the men who. are in this House look back, I believe they will be surprised at any one thinking that that portion of Ontario and Quebec would be unproductive. Already there are springing up hundreds of farms, hundreds of farmers going into that country, pulp-mills arising, other industries that will arise, which point to a great development that will not only be of great benefit to the railways concerned, but to the two provinces and to the Dominion of Canada at large.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman-purely for information, and because I know he must have made something of a study of this while he was Minister of Railways and Canals-do the observations which have just fallen from him apply to that portion of the territory immediately north of lake Superior, where, as we know, the Canadian Pacific railway runs through a very rocky country? I mean, does he think that north of that
there is a good country such as he has described?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Not, perhaps, directly north; but a very few miles east of that the good country does begin.
Mr. GEO. E. FOSTER: And runs eastward?


George Perry Graham: Yes. I have been told that in conversatibn on many occasions. And in studying the investigations of officials of the Ontario Government particularly, I have arrived at the conclusion that in that northern country we shall find -we have already begun to find-minerals that will develop a great traffic even just north of lake Superior. As I have pointed out, the Canadian Pacific railway fringes the lake, and has only one side, while the other railways will have traffic on two sides.
M. J. D. REID: They run many miles back of the lake?


George Perry Graham: Now, the Canadian Northern Railway Company-and I speak of it for the moment as a whole-desire to have a Transcontinental line. That was not an uncommendable ambition. And, speaking for myself, I think there is room in Canada for the three transcontinental lines. If not, we are building on a false foundation, and are making a mistake as to the future greatness of this country. Because, if, with our immense territory, as large as that of the United States, we are forever to continue on the basis of a population of ten millions, then Canada can never be the great country that we have believed Canada is to be., In laying the foundation of these great transcontinental systems, 1 believe the people of Canada acted wisely. I am not going to criticise the gentlemen behind any of these projects, for we are concerned more with what we ourselves have done in this Parliament, and what we need to consider is whether what we did in what we thought was the interest of the people was really in the interest of the people. So, if our population is to increase, as I believe it will-as everybody believes u will-if the great West of Canada, the fertility of which we have only begun to use, is to produce from the millions of acres still undeveloped, we shall need all the transportation facilities we have provided; and I believe we shall need the water transportation as well as rail transportation. For it is a well known fact that where you have the com-

petition of water transportation you increase traffic. If hon. gentlemen will look at the history of transportation companies, if they will consider the movements of commerce to markets, they will find that where there has been water competition it has not decreased the traffic by rail, but that in nearly every instance the traffic has increased as the traffic by water has increased. And that stands to reason. For, no matter how many boards of railway commissioners may be appointed, it still remains true that carriage by water is a great regulator of freight rates. That is evidenced by the fact that as soon as summer arrives and the boats begin to run the railways reduce their rates and bring into force rates that do not prevail when navigation is closed.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) took a little shot at the National Transcontinental. I do not blame him; I suppose it was natural, and possibly I should have done the same had I been in his place. But we are not discussing the Transcontinental; we did that at some length several weeks ago. But I would, gently remind the Solicitor General of the fact that in these very resolutions he is asking for money to do on the Canadian Northern railway what he said should not have been done on the Transcontinental-money to provide steel structures, heavier rails, better grades, easier curves. Why P To bring this road up to standard so that it can compete with the Transcontinental and the Canadian Pacific railway. That is a pretty good vindication of my position and the position of the late Government. I wish to refer to one other thing the Solicitor General said and that my hon. friend from Central Toronto (Mr. Bristol) discussed this morning. He made a comparison between the Canadian Northern Railway system and the National Transcontinental. I think it would be out of place to go at length into that comparison but I would like to make one remark about it: There is no.t a comparison there is a contrast. There is no pretence made that the Canadian Northern Railway system, even with this grant will be brought up to the high standard of the Transcontinental. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto pointed to the line through the mountain and said that the Canadian Northern railway would have better grades through the mountain section than the Transcontinental. That is-begging his pardon-superficial, and I will show the House why. It is true that a.t one point in the mountains the Canadian Northern
[Mr. Graham. 1
railway has an 0-7 grade where the Grand Trunk Pacific has a one per cent grade. But all the rest of the Grand Trunk Pacific in that section has a grade of 0-6 against westbound and 0-4 against eastbound, and at the one point where there is a one per cent grade, a pusher grade is provided, Therefore, the ruling grade on the Grand Trunk Pacific eastbound is 0-4, -while the ruling grade on the Canadian Northern railway is 0-7, and it is the ruling grade that governs, not the grade at one particular point. If hon. gentlemen will ask any railway man they will find out that what I. say is correct. I do not wish to pursue these comparisons, because that is not the point under discussion.
Now, I want to say in beginning that I agree with the Prime Minister and I agree with the leader of the Opposition-which may be considered a somewhat difficult thing to do. I believe that the completion of this road must not only not be stopped, but it must not be delayed. I go, perhaps, a little further than some of my friends; I say that I am not in favour of putting the company into liquidation. I need not make any long explanation to make my position clear. In the first place, if we need the Canadian Northern Tailway-and we all agree that we do need it-then the sooner that we get it the better for the transportation service of Canada and the sooner we shall begin to get a return for our money. Again: Should we put this company into liquidation? I think not. Why? The situation in Canada to-day is such that the fewer liquidations of great concerns we have the better for the standing of the people of Canada. There must be a continuous construction o, this road without liquidation, if possible. Now, let me speak just for a moment of what has been done by the Canadian Northern railway, and so lead up to the present situation. What the previous Government did in relation to the Canadian Northern railway has been referred to. The Solicitor General made some comparisons which I will not follow in detail for the moment. But briefly, and from memory, in 1908 the bonds of certain lines were guaranteed, and, if I remember correctly, in these guarantees for 1908 a first mortgage was taken on the lines guaranteed, and an over-riding charge on the other lines belonging to the Canadia. Northern railway and in addition the tolls, revenues and so on. I say that, 'because the Solicitor General, if I understood him correctly,

said that we did not have these in the mortgage.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether the Solicitor General was correct or not, but, as I understood him, the mortgage to which he alluded was the mortgage of 1911.


George Perry Graham: I will take that up in a moment. There were two other securities, but in each instance there was a first mortgage. In 1911 another guarantee was given on the line from Montreal to Port Arthur, approximately, I think, 1,000 miles. The line from Montreal to Ottawa was partially constructed, but, I think, was not up to the standard of a transcontinental line. However, a first mortgage was taken on the line from Hawkesbury to Port Arthur, excepting two small sections on which there was a previous charge and on the stock of which a first mortgage was taken to the extent of $35,000 a mile. In addition to that, there was a blanket charge on the line from Ottawa to Niagara, a part of the line which is now being constructed from Toronto to Niagara, which will, perhaps, be one of the best paying portions of the . road. Laying down these premises, I want to discuss the situation as we find it today.
I agree with what the hon. member for St. Antoine said with regard to the Canadian Northern coming to us continually. When 1 was in a position to speak with some authority, I said to them: Why not let us sit down and decide what you want to finish this road; why should we not discuss it thoroughly, obtain complete reports and make up our minds as to what should be done? Like the present Government, I was assured on one or two occasions that a certain amount would finish the road. 1 must say, though, that what these gentlemen always referred to in discussing the matter with me was the line from Yellow-head Pass east and not the line from that point west. There are one or two things in connection with the present situation which it would be well for us to look at. Should we do anything under the present circumstances? I think I have indicated my view in that regard. What are we asked to give under these resolutions and what is it proposed that we should get? If I read the resolutions aright-and they are very	intricate*-<
we are asked to give a guarantee of $45,000,000 and running rights on Government railways. My hon. friend in
discussing the Government railways, referred entirely to the Intercolonial. The provision in this regard may be one solution of the difficulty of getting the Canadian Northern into the Maritime provinces or of connecting it with the other lines in the Maritime provinces, but I would point out to the Government that to give running rights for a long haul of several hundred miles will not mean much unless the railway company that gets the running rights aTe allowed to carry on local traffic. If they are allowed to carry on local traffic they will reduce the amount of the local business handled by the Intercolonial railway and just to that extent make the Government road less prosperous than it is at the present time, unless-and I am not pessimistic -unless the increase in traffic will be sufficient to carry on both lines. But the running rights are not over the Intercolonial railway only. Hon. gentlemen must not forget that the Government is building a railway to Hudson bay and this agreement gives the Canadian Northern railway and its subsidiary companies the right to operate on the Hudson Bay railway. That I am not objecting to at all; but it may be possible that giving the Canadiaon Northern railway operation of the Hudson Bay railway may mean handing over that project with its steamship connections to the Canadian Northern railway. It struck me, in reading over the agreement, that perhaps the Canadian Northern people had more ini the back of their heads than, one might think when they obtained this arrangement for running rights over Government railways, because, as I have pointed out, Government railways would include not only the Intercolonial railway but the Hudson Bay railway as well.
We are asked to give $45,000,000 by way of guarantee. Why give a guarantee, under the circumstances? It is a well-known fact that this Government can borrow money more cheaply than any second party can, even with a Government guarantee, and if this money is to be given to the Canadian Northern for a term of years-it may be returned, but there is a possibility that it may not-why should it not be wiser, under existing conditions, for the Government to borrow the money itself, and save the difference in the discourb and in the carrying charges between what the Government would pay directly and what this company would pay, with the Government guarantee ? The Finance Minister will at once raise the point that

guaranteeing a bond would not affect our borrowings in the market as much as borrowing direct would; that it would not add to our direct liability. That is true, in a measure, but nevertheless, under the present conditions and in view of the discussion which has taken place, I have very grave doubts that it would not enhance the financing ability of Canada if the Government should borrow this money direct, rather than go on the bonds of the Canadian Northern.
What are we going to get for this guarantee ? I have looked over the various companies and the various securities and, although the statements are quite intricate, I think I have arrived at a fair knowledge of what they mean. I think I am not going astray when I say that the securities offered to the Government are not securities at all in the real sense of the term. We have a certain amount of stock on which a first mortgage is given, and a certain number of securities on which a second or third or fourth mortgage is given, subject, of course, to underlying obligations. If these were good securities, quite a large amount of money could be raised by the company without coming to this Government at all. I think it is fair to say that these are not considered good securities in the money markets of the world. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, that, if I have read the resolution aright, the only first mortgage on real property that the Government gets is a first mortgage on the Brockville and Westport railway. A mortgage on securities may or may not be any security at all, and there is prima facie evidence, to begin with, that these are not good securities, or the Government would not be asked to advance this $45,000,000. The Government is not getting a first mortgage on any real property except upon forty-five miles of the Brockville and Westport railway, running from Brockville north. That road is not really such good security for very much, I mean when we are speaking of millions. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has travelled over that road with me to the village of Athens, on an occasion when vre were not on political business. It is a road from forty-four to forty-five miles long, with fifty-six pound rails. Heavy traffic could not be carried over that line, yet this is one of the lines of the Canadian Northern railway system that is to be part of its transcontinental line. But if that road is to carry any heavy traffic, it will have to be rebuilt from end to end, new rails, new ballast, new ties,

steel structures instead of wooden structures; so that the mortgage on real property does not add very much to the value of the securities. As I said, I think I am not putting the case very strongly when I say that the securities offered are not securities at all, outside of the Brockville and Westport railway, which is not security for a great deal of money. True, we have the land companies, the equity of redemption in certain other properties. But in these times of financial stringency, when real estate is going down instead of going up, the equity of redemption in a land company is purely speculative-and you must spell ' speculative with a capital ' 8". If I went through this House and quietly touched the members on the shoulder and asked them if they could .dispose of at a profit the real estate which they have been holding for a year or two, they would say: We cannot sell it at all. Nobody wants to buy real estate. The speculative spirit drove real estate beyond the limits of prudence, both in the East and in the West, and it will take some years before the people return to sanity on real estate. The equity of redemption of a company dealing in real estate is certainly speculative, and of very little value. I think I am not going too far when I say it could not be put up for security anywhere in the money markets of the world to-day. Let me point out another thing about the security. Hon. gentlemen say, in reference to this stock and securities of the subsidiary and constituent companies:	We are placing all that security
in the hands of the Canadian Northern railway and making that company the proprietors of the stock in the subsidiary companies. That is true. Then the Government take another step and they say: We will hold for our own, forever, four-tenths of the stock of the Canadian Northern railway. Consequently this Government now, if these resolutions become law, will own four-tenths of all the stock in the subsidiary companies, and then they say: We are taking a mortgage on our own property to secure ourselves. Owning four-tenths of the Canadian Northern Railway stock means that they own four-tenths of all the property of the Canadian Northern railway, which includes the stock of these subsidiary companies. Now they are putting a mortgage, and calling it security, on four-tenths of the stock of the subsidiary companies, which stock is the property of the Government under the statute. They are not getting any security at all, they are counting

it twice. They say:	We own four-tenths
of the stock of the Canadian Northern railway and four-tenths of the stock of the subsidiary companies, so that we are taking that stock as our own; and in the next paragraph they are taking the credit for putting a mortgage on the very stock which they say belongs to the Canadian Government. So far as the stock of the subsidiary companies is concerned, that is wiped out because the Government will own it anyway and they cannot possibly add to the security by taking a mortgage on their own property. As to the stock, I was glad to hear the hon. member for Centre Toronto to-day admit that the capital stock was not limited to $100,000,000 hut could be made $125,000,000 under the statute. $100,000,000 is the amount named for capital stock. The provision that allows the company to issue $25,000,000 additional capital stock, to be exchanged for debenture stock, does not add, it is true, to the liability of the company; it is merely an exchange of securities. But it does add to the capital stock of the company and does change the balance of control as between the parties holding the stock, because those who now hold debenture stock will, if the exchange is made, hold $25,000,000 of the common stock, and instead of the Government of Canada owning 40 per cent they will only own $40,000,000 of that $125,000,000 when it comes to controlling the company; and should the time come for taking over the control by the purchases of stock, the Government will have to take that into consideration. I am not arguing as to the difference that it will make in the liabilities because, as I have said, we all understand that it is only a change in the name of the liability from debenture stock to capital stock; but it does make a difference in the balance of control, so far as the stock of the company is concerned. Hon. gentlemen must not become impressed with the idea, as the press seems to have been, that the Government are taking four-tenths of the stock of the Canadian Northern railway. They are not getting four-tenths of the stock if this other $25,000,000 is issued which the company is given the right to issue under the resolutions now before the House.
We have been told that the Government, under this resolution, are getting $40,000,000 of stock. That is not correct. The Government, under this resolution, are getting $33,000,000 of stock, because last year, 240
under a statute, the Government got $7,000,000 in connection with a subsidy. That $7,000,000 must be added to the $33,000,000 to make the $40,000,000, so that under this resolution let us remember that the Government are getting $33,000,000 of stock and, in order to get that $33,000,000 of stock from Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, they are giving them $23,000,000 in the first place and then taking it back and $10,000,000 more with it. You ask me how that i.3. Well, if you have read the resolution carefully you will have discovered, that in exchange for Mackenzie and Mann, representing the subsidiary companies, handing over to the Canadian Northern railway the stock of these companies in their possession, to be part of the Canadian Northern system on which a mortgage can be placed, they are getting $23,000,000 of Canadian Northern Railway stock. In the face of the fact that the Government are becoming a live partner with the Canadian Northeirn railway, I think the Canadian Northern Railway' is making a mighty good bargain in making the trade. But the Government give them $23,000,000 and then take it back and $10,000,000 more with it. So, to make it clear, we are getting $33,000,000, $23,000,000 of which is given to Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann and outside of that nearly-'a-gift to Mackenzie and Mann, we are getting $10,000,000 in connection with these resolutions. We are told that we are getting, in addition, running rights over the Canadian Northern railway and a traffic arrangement. The running rights over the Canadian Northern railway may be of some benefit, or they may be of little benefit. My remarks as applied to the running rights of the Canadian Northern railway over the Intercolonial railway will apply with the same force to the running rights of the Intercolonial railway over the Canadian Northern railway. It makes all the difference in the world what the arrangement is, wiiat the distance is. But for every train that is put on for a long distance, local traffic must be given to the lessee, or else they cannot do business, and that will decrease the traffic of the parent company unless traffic increases very materially.
I come to the traffic arrangement. I am not sure whether it was the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General who spoke of the traffic	arrangement-and rightly so-as
quite a concession. Of course, I am very humble and modest, but as a matter of fact, under the statute of 1911 the Canadian
IEVISED edition

Northern railway was compelled to make an arrangement for exchange of traffic with the Intercolonial railway whenever the Government should demand it. Chapter 6 of the Statutes of 1911, subsection (b) of section 14, reads:
On the request of the Government, to make arrangements with the Intercolonial railway for the interchange of traffic between the company and the Intercolonial railway at Montreal, for such period as the Governor in Council determines, and upon such terms as are agreed upon between the parties, and if the parties fail to agree, the terms shall he fixed by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
After a great deal of discussion with the owners of the Canadian Northern railway, this clause was inserted compelling the Canadian Northern railway, whenever the Government should demand it, to make a traffic arrangement with the Intercolonial railway subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners if the Government and the company could not agree.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: At Montreal.


George Perry Graham: Which would make it absolutely necessary to have an interchange of traffic all along the line, because you could not very well have two or three exchanges. The reason why the. statute did not provide that the Canadian Northern railway should immediately give an interchange of traffic was that there was not much traffic to interchange at that time, as the Canadian Northern railway was not completed. In the second place, there is a contract at the present time for the interchange of traffic between the Intercolonial railway and the Grand Trunk railway, which it would not be easy to break, and perhaps not desirable. The Government of that day did that, and I think the present Government will agree that the Grand Trunk railway, itself, when the Grand Trunk Pacific railway is finished, will probably want to make some arrangement to have its freight carried from Montreal to Quebec, and the eastern ports, over the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. An arrangement was made that when the Government should express a desire for a contract, the Canadian Northern railway would be compelled to exchange traffic with the Intercolonial railway. I am not finding fault with the arrangement in this respect at all, but some hon. gentlemen have expressed the view that that was forgotten in 1911. Nothing of importance was forgotten in 1911, as I will try to show my hon. friend. My hon. friend referred to another point, and that is the shipment of goods to Canadian ports. I do not agree here with the

Prime Minister, who rather thought that leaving out the words ' unless otherwise routed ' makes it compulsory for the Canadian Northern railway to carry the traffic to Canadian ports. That is an omission of words that makes no difference in actual practice. If I ship a bushel of grain from the West, I am the owner of that grain and I say how it is to go. I select the route. If I desire to ship it by one particular route the Canadian Northern railway cannot take my grain by any other route. They have to carry it to the designated port by the route I choose. That is what the statute of 1911 says. Every business man in the House will agree with me that a shipper has perfect control over the routeing of his goods. If I order some goods from John Brown, and send them by the Canadian Northern railway to Winnipeg, and then on by the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, do you think I am not the controller of those goods ? The Canadian Northern railway must hand them over to the party whom I designate. So that leaving out the words ' unless otherwise routed ' makes it read a little more smoothly but does not alter the meaning at all. Let me read the statute of 1911, and lest a wrong impression should go abroad, I want to point out that there is nothing in this that was not in the statute of 1911 when the bonds were guaranteed on the line from Port Arthur to Montreal. The statute reads:
It is hereby declared that the aid herein provided for is granted by the Government for the express purpose of encouraging the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. Before such aid is granted the Governor in Council shall require the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company to enter into an agreement undertaking that all freight originating on the line of the Canadian Northern Railway Company or its branches, or on the line of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined to points in Canada be carried over the Canadian Northern railway or the Canadian Northern Ontario railway, or the connections of either of them, or over any railway within Canadian territory; and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports; and that the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company shall not in any matter within their powers directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use their utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely, the development

of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
Those conditions were imposed when aid was granted to the Canadian Northern in 1911, and although the wording is not exactly the same in this case, the meaning is identically the same. No railway or transportation company can take goods of mine contrary to my directions, and they are liable to a penalty if they do so. If goods be shipped without being specifically routed, it is the duty of the Canadian Northern railway, and has been ever since 1911, to take them to Canadian ports. It is the same in 1914 as it was in 1911. If the shipper routes his goods one way the Canadian Northern railway, as the carrying company, has no power to carry them by a different route. I think it was the Solicitor General who ridiculed this 1911 arrangement, saying that if we had taken the road over we would have had no terminals and consequently could not operate. I think that was the trend of his argument. I am afraid my hon friend has not read the statute. Even that wa3 provided for, and I think when Mr. Lash was working this out he had this in his mind before he discussed it with the Solicitor General. The terminals were specifically provided for in the statute of 1911. The terminal companies were separate companies, and I say to my hon. friend and to the House that with the indebtedness against the terminal companies I did not think the second or third mortgage on them would have been any security at all. Let me read what provision we made in 1911 in case the road should come under that mortgage. Subsection c of section 14, chapter 6 of the statutes of 1911, provides:
That in the event of default, and of the consequent acquisition by the Government, or by any railway company other than the company, of the line hereby aided, neither the company nor the Canadian Northern Railway Company will oppose any application to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada for an order providing for the use by the Government, or by such other railway company, of terminals at Port Arthur, Ottawa, and Montreal, or either or any of them, owned or controlled by the company or by the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
So that it was provided that if the line defaulted and became the property of the Government the Canadian Northern would not oppose any application to the Board of Bailway Commissioners to let either the Government or the new owner of the railway use their terminals at Montreal, Ottawa, and Port Arthur. My hon. friend says that 2401
is not as good as we have it. Why? The terminal companies are separate companies and the road now has to make arrangements with separate companies if they want to use the terminals no matter whether the stock is controlled by the same people or not. They are a separate entity and they have to make their arrangements as to what it will cost the Canadian Northern, or the Canadian Northern Ontario, to use these terminals. In the statutes of 1911 we were placing the Government, if it came into possession of the railway, in exactly the same position as the railway itself in regard to the use of these terminals.
Let me turn to some of the securities of 1911. My hon. friend rather drew a distinction between the bargain of 1911 and the proposed bargain of this year as outlined in the resolutions. Perhaps I may be blunt in my expression but I would say that there is no use of beclouding the *situation with words, words, words and pages, pages, pages. The securities outlined in this resolution, to my mind, are nothing but words and sentences and do not form any real security. I would rather have a first mortgage on 500 miles of the Canadian Northern railway than all the securities that my hon. friend has gathered together in this resolution. In 1908 the Government of the day got a first mortgage on the line then aided. In the succeeding year it got, in addition to a blanket mortgage on other lines, a first mortgage on the line aided. In 1911 it did not take mortgages On stock, except in two small instances, 'it did not take stock that had no value, but it did take a first mortgage on the line aided and that first mortgage is worth more than the value of the full amount of this guarantee by the Government in 1911. The line from Ottawa to Port Arthur, when it is completed, will be the best part of the Canadian Northern system up to date and it will take many thousands, yes, many millions, of dollars, to bring other parts of the system up to the standard of the road between Ottawa and Port Arthur, if it is built up to the standard. When that guarantee was given there were conditions as to the standard of the road comprised in the guarantee. In the first place, heterodox as it may seem on the other side of the House, we stipulated that they must build steel and concrete bridges and that for the smaller streams they could for the time being use wooden trestles but that the Governor in Council would see that they were replaced by steel structures as soon as possible. The 1 soon as possible '

has come now and we are asked to supply the money to make all these improvements and to bring the road up to standard. I am not pointing out these things about the policy in 1911 in any fractious way but I want to make it clear from the standpoint of the late Government, and from my own standpoint, as I was directly responsible, that in a first mortgage on the line from Ottawa to Port Arthur we had a far better security than is Proposed now in this list of securities that has been placed before the House. In fact, there is no first mortgage on any real estate in these resolutions except a first mortgage on the 4 p.m. Brocltville and Westport railway, running 45 miles from Brockville north with a 56-pound rail.
Ever since I entered this House we have been discussing the question of branch lines. I have taken the ground, sometimes disagreeing with members of the House and, I think, possibly disagreeing with some of my own friends, that it is the duty of the Government, in connection with a Government-owned road, not only to provide branch lines where they will pay, but to provide branch lines where the people have been in the country for years and require the transportation because that is the only way more people can be brought into the country. I have taken that ground. But now in this discussion one of the reasons .given why these roads were not amalgamated is that some branch lines which do not pay might be cut off. That is a retrograde policy. I think the Government's duty, in dealing with this great enterprise and in announcing their policy was to declare that they would take over these branch lines whether they were paying propositions or not if the necessities of the people-settled in the districts served by the lines required it. Instead of that they gave, as a reason why these roads should not be amalgamated, that if the time came to take them over, they would be in a position to cut off the lines which were not paying a profit. That announcement will not be encouraging to the settler in the East or the West and I think the Government will have to revise that policy when the Bill comes up for discussion and will have to admit that that is not the reason for the non-amalgamation, as I think it is not.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: What are the reasons?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend wants to know what are the reasons?


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend *could give very good reasons himself.


George Perry Graham: province of Ontario a law under which the assessor asks us to make certain affidavits and statements as to our income, and there is not much opportunity of getting around that. We could do something similar in this case, without prying into matters that perhaps might be considered private affairs, and I think the gentlemen interested in this enterprise, namely, Messrs. Lash and Mackenzie and Mann, should make an affidavit as to the amount of their personal property over and above their indebtedness, and that amount ought to be risked on their part. It is not fair to ask the people of Canada to keep continually putting up money, unless the men who are as deeply interested, to put it mildly, as we are, dig down into their pockets and .stake every dollar they have to put this enterprise through. The men behind the Canadian Pacific railway did so before they came to the Government asking for a loan of some thirty million dollars. I remember, as a very young man, reading the history of that great undertaking; and even if I thought the methods adopted were all wrong and should have been different from what they were at that time, I always admired the courage of those men who, before they come to the Government for aid, had pledged every dollar they were worth of their personal property, not their collective property as a company, to the banks. Therefore the first thing I would ask i3 that Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann .and Lash, be their property great or toe it small, take their share in this undertaking by pledging every dollar of personal property they have for the completion of this line, and then we shall step in and do something too. Perhaps that is a policy.
Another thing that I think is not unfair- and perhaps there will be differences of opinion in regard to it-is this: The gentlemen interested in the Canadian Northern Railway 'Company have worked hard, it is true. I think, however, they have had some reward. I would not like to say how much or how little, but I think they are able to pay their coal bills anyway, without pinching. But what I do say is that this is not the guarantee of two years ago or three years ago, each of which was supposed to toe final. This is not the guarantee of 1913, which was supposed to be final. This is an extra circumstance under which the Government is appealed to that this pro-fMr. Graham.]
ject must stop unless the Government comes to its rescue, and this is over and above everything else that has been granted, which it was said at the time would complete this great undertaking. The conditions are different from those existing at any time before, because the line is approaching completion, more than half of it having been constructed. Now, the Government, the trustees of the people of Canada, have invested in this road millions of dollars. In putting up the guarantee now proposed, they get no first mortgage on real property. On the other hand, they are guaranteeing every underlying charge against the Canadian Northern Railway system, they are guaranteeing the payment practically of all the indebtedness of the Canadian Northern railway and making sure all the bonds heretofore issued on that line and by subsidiary companies. Under these circumstances, I think it is not unfair that Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann should band over, at least for the time being, the control of this enterprise to the Government of Canada. I know theTe are difficulties in the way, from the Government's standpoint, of the Government taking oveT the controlling interest. But as I said before, the conditions are peculiar, the conditions are most exacting; and I do not believe that the people of Canada will be satisfied that at this time their credit should be again extended to the amount of $45,000,000 unless the men who represent them have a controlling voice in the expending of this money. You say to me: We will not allow a dollar to be expended unless in a manner satisfactory to us. I know the routine. This is how it runs: Certain construction takes place on one of the lines, a certain standard of construction being fixed. When this work is done, the company, whichever one it is, comes to the Government with the Government engineer's report, and on this report the money is handed over. It ought to be ' right about face ' under present circumstances. The Government ought to say to the company what work is to be done, what the prices are to be and what money is to be expended before the liability is created, not after the money has been expended. That would make it stronger, that would protect the people who are expecting lines to be built in certain localities not now served by a railway. That would give the Government of Canada the right to say that these lines shall be completed before anything else is undertaken. The Government would have control before

the money is expended, instead of merely confirming each expenditure after it has been made.
But, I am told, we have a man on the board. Well, the Prime Minister, I think, wii'll agree with me that that is not much of a safeguard-I think he will agree with me down in his heart. On the Grand Trunk Pacific they had a board with a Government representative. I have not seen his report for a year or two, but I know that under the old Government there was a man on the board. Well, one man does not form a majority by a great deal.
1 say without any fear of contradiction .that the value to the country of having one man on this board will be absolutely nil so far as the protection of the people of Canada is concerned. The Government has a responsibility, a heavy responsibility. If we are going to give this money or guarantee these bonds, the Government ought to have an amount^ at least equal to what added to their own will form a majority, placed in the hands of trustees, to be automatically handed over to give them control at any moment they like-they ought to have at least that. .My contention is that the Government ought to insist on control until the work is completed and the operation of the Canadian Northern railway begun from ocean to ocean. But I am not unreasonable, I am not an extremist; and if the Government thought it wise to put in a provision that when that time ^arrived that portion which they took to give them control should be disposed of in some other way, I should not object. But, for the present, with the financial condition as it is, when there are attacks .on these great undertakings in Canada, when the work is near completion, when we are dn the particular condition in which we now are, the people of Canada will not be satisfied to give $45,000,000 more of their money to this enterprise unless the people who pay shall control absolutely and directly every dollar of that money.
I think I have made myself clear, but to recapitulate. In the first place, to my mind, the Government has no security, in a practical sense, no security whatever.
In the second place, if they are going to give the money, they might better borrow it and hand it over direct, because they can borrow at a cheaper rate than any company, even with the Government guarantee. This would save millions, and would mean a great deal at this time.
In, the third place, I think that before the resolutions go further the Government ought to have a clause inserted that .Mackenzie, Mann, Lash, or whoever are the stockholders or beneficiaries of these companies, ought to pledge every dollar of their personal property in this undertaking.
Fourth, the Government is not justified in granting aid to the Canadian Northern railway, unless they get control, at least until such time as the enterprise is placed on its feet and the road is in operation.


Mr. J. J. GARRICK (Thunder Bay and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak of this question not only from the standpoint of the district which I have the honour to represent, but from the larger and more important standpoint of its relation to the Dominion. As the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said, the problem of railway transportation has been one of the most important questions in Canada since Confederation. In fact, through railways Confederation was made possible and without railways the United Canada that we are so proud of to-day would be only a dream. The Intercolonial united Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with Upper and Lower Canada and its earlier history is replete with the difficulties and hardships of pioneer railway development. Then came the Canadian Pacific project which was for years the all-absorbing political and administrative problem of the time. What other question in Canada has engaged public attention so long? The Government initiated and inaugurated the policy of building the Canadian Pacific railway. Elections were fought and won over this issue alone. It was turned over to a private company which became financially embarrassed and would have failed and gone into liquidation had not the Government of Canada come to its rescue with cash loans and subsidies. And to-day the question of paramount importance throughout Canada is the Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian Northern railways. The former we must save and protect, but what are we going to do with the latter?
It may be stated that I am interested. Of course I am interested, and so is everyone in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. If it were not for Mackenzie and Mann and the Canadian Northern railway we would have no Port Arthur as we have it to-day. Only a few years ago Port Arthur was a small hamlet consisting of a mere handful of people and known as Prince Arthur's Landing. It had the lIn the third place, I think that before

honour of being named after our distinguished Royal Governor General. Kail-road construction and development was undertaken and as a direct consequent result we have to-day in the adjoining cities of Port Arthur and Fort William a population of fifty thousand as industrious and prosperous citizens as are to be found in Canada.
If it were not for the railways we would have no Port Arthur or Fort William. The Canadian Pacific railway-the greatest railway system in the world-a national undertaking that we are all proud of-has converted a wilderness into the thriving city of Fort William. The Canadian Pacific railway originally had its lake terminals at Port Arthur, but on account of a dispute with the town officials, who held up an engine for arrears in taxes, it moved its terminals to Fort William, and Sir William Van Horne said that he would make the grass grow in the streets of Port Arthur. The grass did grow in the streets of Port Arthur. Mackenzie and Mann came along and mowed it down; built their railway, and transformed Prince Arthur's Landing into a busy commercial and industrial city which, on account of its geographical location at the head of Canadian navigation- the silvery gateway of the golden West-is destined, especially under this enterprising Government's policy of fostering the iron and steel industry, to be the Chicago of western Canada.
Not only are the citizens of the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William interested in this matter, but the farmers and settlers as well of the surrounding districts are interested. The Canadian Northern railway has opened up and developed the whole Rainy Kiver district. According to Mr. Whitson, Ontario's Good Roads Commissioner, its line traverses the most fertile section of the province of Ontario. Railway development is producing for that district the same beneficial results as were claimed for it in the British House of Commons in 1854, when it was stated that the essence of a railway system is to increase its own traffic, adding twenty-five per cent to the value of every farm within fifty miles of the track; doubling the value of those near the track and quadrupling the value of the farms in the district through which it passes. Interest in this matter is not merely local; it applies not only to Port Arthur and Fort William, but to all the cities and towns which are tributary to this great national highway. It applies more or less 
to every part of the Dominion of Canada. Not only are we interested as individuals; we are interested collectively, for the provinces, from Quebec to British Columbia, have all guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern railway. The credit of thousands of individual citizens, the credit of the provinces and the credit of the Dominion is so interwoven with the Canadian Northern railway that the proper solution of the problems affecting its completion is a question of paramount importance to all Canadians.
For many years it has been fully realized and appreciated that railway construction is necessary to the development of Canada. It was an important condition of Confederation that the Intercolonial railway should be built to unite Upper and Lower Canada with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. British Columbia made it a condition of its entry into Confederation that a line of railway should be built to the coast, and the importance of railway construction was so very forcibly impressed upon the British House of Commons that they guaranteed the bonds of the Intercolonial to the extent of $15,000,000. It has been the long-accepted policy of all political parties and of Canadian Governments to assist and foster railway development. The Conservative party jealously takes credit for the Canadian Pacific railway and the Liberal party for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, but until this resolution was introduced, no one seemed to want to father the Canadian Northern railway. It is true that this road was conceived and born under the Liberal regime; it is the elder brother of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, but the laws of primogeniture did not prevail, and the Grand * Trunk Pacific railway, with its aristocratic godfather living in London, was the younger and favoured son and received the blessing and inheritance of the Liberal chieftain, while the less fortunate brother was left to struggle alone in a cold, hard world. That is why the newspapers sometimes refer to Bill and Dan as Canada's two lone orphans. As I said, it has long been the policy of the Canadian Government to foster and stimulate rail- . way development, because Canada's prosperity is intertwined with its network of railways, and through its arteries pulsates the industrial life of our commercial existence.
Why not assist in the completion of this great national enterprise at the present time ? Have Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann used the funds which they have procured

through the sale of iheir debentures for the construction of the road, or have they diverted the money to other purposes ? Have they devoted the Canadian Northern railway funds to Mexican, Brazilian or street railway purposes ? Have they used the credit of Canada and the credit of the provinces for their own personal emolument ? Have they made large fortunes for themselves out of the proceeds of railway issues ? These, Mr. Speaker, are questions which the public w'ant answered. Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann have presented a full statement to the Government. The Government have appointed, I understand, a com- -mittee of the Cabinet to investigate the matter fully. The Government have asked their railway experts, under the able guidance of Mr. Gutelius, to conduct an investigation. The legal part of the matter was entrusted to the hon. Solicitor General, and I think we are all proud of the agreement which he has made. Expert accountants and auditors have been sent to Toronto to look into the books, and what do they find ? They find that every dollar that has been raised by the debenture issues guaranteed by the provinces and the Dominion has gone into the construction of the road and that not one single dollar of Canadian Northern railway funds has gone into Mexican, Brazilian or street railway operations. They find further that nearly $100,000,000 not guaranteed by the provinces and the Dominion has all gone into the construction of this railway, and they find that Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann have not taken for their services the money to which they are justly entitled. According to the affidavit recently made by Mr. A. J. Mitchell, comptroller of the company, since the road assumed the proportions of a transcontinental system, Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann have taken no profits out of the company, save and except certain common stock. What else do they find? They find that these men devoted their own personal resources and their own assets to the building of this road; that they turned over to the company 4,000,000 acres of land grants which they secured in respect of the Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company, the Manitoba and Southeastern Railway Company, and the Winnipeg and Hudson Bay Railway Company, which under the terms of the charters became their own personal property upon completion of the railways. Part of these lands have already been sold for $17,000,000, and the remainder is worth, at the prevailing
price of adjoining lands, $13,000,000. This money, to which the contractors were personally entitled, has now become part of and is included in the assets of the Canadian Northern railway. They turned their lands and the proceeds of sales over to the railway company without receiving a single dollar in return, and they also turned over d great number of other assets which belonged to the Mackenzie and Mann Company, such . as transport contracts, Lake Superior terminals at Port Arthur, elevators, docks, holdings of the Canadian Northern Telegraph Company, the Canadian Northern Express Company, the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake Railway Company, the Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway Company, the Port Arthur, Duluth and Western Railway Company, and the St. Boniface and Western Land Company. According to the statement presented, these assets are worth $50,000,000. What did they receive for these cash assets? They received common stock, which is not worth one dollar unless the railway is a success. Does this look as if the object of Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann was to exploit railroad building in Canada, to exploit the credit of the provinces and to exploit the credit of the Dominion for their own personal gain? No, Mr. Speaker; if their object had been personal gain and personal emolument they would not have turned over to the Canadian Northern Railway Company millions of dollars in land grants, transport contracts, elevators and telegraph and express companies. No, Mr. Speaker; they have a higher and a worthier ambition; not an inordinate ambition for personal gain or personal enrichment, but an ambition as Canadian-born citizens to develop Canada and to leave behind them a monument that will transmit their memory to posterity and redound to the credit of Canada. Small minds cannot appreciate high motives, but, let me ask whether Sir John A. Macdonald devoted a life to service to Canada for personal gain? Has the right hon. leader of the Opposition devoted forty years of his life to Canada for personal emolument? Is the present Prime Minister devoting every energy, every ability, and every faculty with which he is endowed to the service of his country for the sake of personal gain? Is there not a loftier, higher and nobler ambition among our great men? Sir, there is, and as Canadians we are proud to acknowledge it. Our public men of to-day are just as capable of disinterested endeavours, noble conceptions and self-sacrifices as

were the splendid characters that adorn the pages of our history. Let us not be ungenerous in the motives we assign to two of our greatest Canadians, Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann.	.
Who are the detractors of these two distinguished Canadians? I am very sorry for the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), and I regret that he is not in his seat that I might express my personal sympathy with him in his unfortunate position. Disappointment in politics is somethng like disappointment in love: it is liable to embitter the sweetest and most amiable disposition and turn the vials of wrath upon one's own party and associates. At the present time the province of Alberta has no representative in the Cabinet, which is a bitter disappointment to the would-be Cabinet minister from Calgary. One could see by his speech in the House that bitter jealousy animated his personal attitude towards the Solicitor General, because he himself was anxious for that position. What a source of strength he would have been to the Cabinet!
He said, two or three weeks ago, that when he made his speech in the Commons, the Government dare not give any assistance of the Canadian Northern railway; the stampede would be transferred from Calgary to Ottawa and the bucking broncho would kick down all the Government bars and create consternation in the camp. The words of the dramatist are very appropriate when he says:
But man, proud man!
Brest in a little brief authority,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high Heaven
As make the angels weep.
It is the irony of fate that we should be sent down here to follow Mr. Borden and not a bucking broncho from the West. What an anomalous position for the bon. gentleman to fulfil, to be a back-bencher with would-be Cabinet aspirations, and how amazing it is that the Government has beep able to get on without such a great railway authority, the greatest living railway expert out of captivity. Here the dramatist again describes him:
What a piece of work man is ! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty, in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god !
I understand that there has been a new party formed called the Bull Moose party; that the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) is the leader, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) the first lieuten-[Mr Carrick. ]
ant. I understand that the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Hepburn) was unanimously elected chief whip of the Bull Moose party; but after full consideration and much talk he declined the honour, deciding that it would be better to remain a barnacle on the good old ship of state. Like Horatius of old, Theodore the Second then cried:
Who will stand on my left hand
And keep the bridge with me?
And up stepped Don Quixote, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins), but, after taking a good look at the Government forces, he decided that discretion was the better part of valour; whereupon he purchased a ticket to parts unknown, sanctimoniously remarking to his three associates in caucus assembled:
He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day.
What is the business side of the proposition? The Toronto Globe discussed it editorially, and said that it was quite natural that the competing companies did not want the Government to assist the Canadian Northern railway. It also stated that the Canadian Northern railway, whilst yet an uncompleted road, had saved the farmers of this country on grain shipments alone $17,000,000 by the reduction of freight rates, and had saved to the shippers of the Dominion of Canada a total of $50,000,000. Part of this editorial was read this morning by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr Bristol), but another part was not; so I will read the entire editorial. It is as follows:
The suggestion that opponents of the Canadian Northern railway raid on Ottawa are ' playing the game ' of the Canadian Pacific railway is most unworthy. The Canadian Pacific railway is playing its own game openly and above board. The Canadian Northern railway promises to become a powerful rival of the original transcontinental. It may prove a much more effective competitor than it otherwise could hope to be if the Government of Canada continues to provide the money or pledge the credit of the people for its completion and up-to-date equipment. Were any other shrewd business man in Sir Thomas Shaugh-nessy's place he would probably protest as vigorously as the president of the Canadian Pacific against further aid to the Canadian Northern railway.
Sir Thomas is actuated by an Intelligent selfishness and conveniently forgets that the Canadian Pacific railway during the construction stage usually paid dividends upon the common stock out of moneys that should have gone to construction; that the North American Construction Company, composed of directors and officials, occupied the position of favoured con-

will become one of the great national highways of Canada.
Ever since Confederation there has been a popular demand for railways. The different provinces have been eager for colonization roads to open up and develop their respective provinces. They have been vying with each other for railway development. Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have all given subsidies or bond guarantees to the Canadian Northern railway, and the Dominion Government has given both. They did not give assistance simply to satisfy a whim of Mackenzie and Mann to build railways. They gave assistance because the people wanted and demanded railways. The provinces asked and solicited Mackenzie and Mann to build through districts where it will be years before the returns are commensurate with the investment. They have built through my constituency from Port Arthur to Sudbury, a distance of 500 miles. The line traverses the great clay belt of New Ontario, consisting of sixteen million acres of as fertile agricultural land as can be found in Canada; but which according to Ontario's Commission of 1900 is a territory larger than the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware combined', and nearly all of which is well adapted for cultivation, with a climate not much different from that of the province of Manitoba. The territory possesses an abundance of wood for fuel, building and commercial purposes, and many falls on the rivers and streams, which may be used with advantage in the creation of electrical energy "when the country comes to be opened up.
The Ontario Government Commissioners estimated that in the district of Nipissing there were at least twenty million cords of pulpwood; in Algoma, one hundred million ; and the Thunder Bay, one hundred and fifty million; a total of two hundred and seventy million cords of pulp-wood. In addition there is a very considerable quantity of merchantable pine timber.
The district immediately adjoining Sudbury contains the largest known deposits of nickle, and is to-day the world's centre of the nickle industry. There are many millions of tons of iron ore deposits in this northern country. We have heard ior years and years of the great undeveloped resources of Canada and this phrase has a very pleasing sound; but Canadians cannot afford to live much longer with the charge that they have great undeveloped re-
sources. That which was once a boast has become almost a reflection on our national character. The Government of Canada has a trust to perform and that trust lies in the development of our natural resources, and the first step towards development is transportation. This great clay belt belongs to the people of Canada. Without railway facilities, it is of very little value; with railways, it is worth millions of dollars. There is no settlement in this district yet; no local traffic to help pay the interest on the bonds. But, in a few years, this great agricultural clay belt will'be settled with prosperous farmers; towns will spring up and the products of the farm will be exchanged for the wares of the artisan to the mutual advantage of both. In the meantime Mackenzie and Mann have built the railway and are carrying the burden, while the benefit of opening np the country and the enhancement in the value of the land inures to the credit of the people of Canada. Surely none of the provinces, or the Dominion, will take the position that they granted assistance simply at the solicitation of Mackenzie and Mann. They gave assistance at the solicitation and demand of the people to open up the country and provide railway facilities; and in the present application of Mackenzie and Mann this should receive every consideration.
What about the physical character of the Canadian Northern railway? Has it a good road bbd? Is it well constructed? It is very difficult to compare railway systems from the standpoint of cost and expenditure. This has been amply demonstrated in the recent lengthy debate on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway when numerous figures were given showing comparative costs of different systems. Date of construction, nature of territory, wages paid, rate of interest and general economic conditions, are all contributing factors in computing cost. Without giving interminable figures I think it can be readily shown that the Canadian Northern Railway system has cost less per mile than any other system in Canada; and at the same time, in order to receive the subsidies, it has been built to the very high standard required by Dominion Government specifications. What does this mean to Canada? It means, if cost of construction is a factor in determining tariff rates, that the Canadian Northern railway when completed will be instrumental in reducing rates throughout Canada; and according to the Globe this railway, while yet uncompleted, has already reduced rates and saved

the farmers of western Canada $17,000,000 on grain alone, and a total of $50,000,000 to the shippers of Canada in the last ten years.
Last year I travelled over the Canadian Northern railway from Port Arthur to Winnipeg, a distance of 438 miles, and our running time for the whole distance averaged over fifty miles an hour. This rate could not be maintained over a poorly constructed line, and I think the roadbed and equipment can compare favourably with any other road in western Canada. Mr. Angus Sinclair, who is a well known civil engineer and contractor and familiar with the whole Canadian Northern system says:
When the system Is completed, with its easy grades and curvatures, its completely new equipment, and Its high standard of construction, it will be without exception the finest railway in America.
When Sir Richard McBride was in Ottawa recently he stated in an interview that there is no better road in the whole of British Columbia.
The Canadian Northern railway crosses the Rocky mountains through the Yellow-head pass at the lowest grade line on the American continent. The Union Pacific crosses the Rocky mountains at a height of 8,000 feet, with a grade of 2i per cent; the Northern Pacific at 7,000 feet; the Great Northern at 6,000 feet; the Canadian Pacific main line at 5,300 feet; the Canadian Pacific Crow's Nest Pass line at 4,300 feet; the Canadian Northern at 3,700 feet. The Canadian Pacific maximum grade through the Rockies is 2.2 per cent; the Great Northern 2 per cent; the Grand Trunk Pacific 1 per cent, and the Canadian Northern 7-10th of 1 per cent. So the Canadian Northern crosses the Rockies at the lowest and best grade on the whole American continent, and thus has a great advantage over competing systems.
What is the nature cf the country that the Canadian Northern traverses? Mr. S. J. McLean, railway commissioner, in his article on national highways, says that the Canadian Northern is built through the most fertile wheat sections in western Canada, and this fact is amply demonstrated by last year's statistics, which show that it carried nearly one-third of the grain shipped from the West to the lake ports of Port Arthur and Fort William.
Mr. Speaker, I think Mackenzie and Mann are entitled to the earnest consideration of this Government. During the past twenty years they have been one of the greatest factors in the development and
prosperity of Canada. They have brought to Canada, and expended in Canadian development, over three hundred millions of dollars. They have built railroads and colonization branches at the request and solicitation of the provinces and the Dominion. They have given employment, directly and indirectly, to hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens. Their monthly pay roll runs into millions of dollars. They have saved the people of Canada in freight rates in the past ten .years $50,000,000. Where can we find two other Canadians with such a record? They are the greatest all-star team that has ever been produced in Canada. One is a past master in the art of finance; the other a past master in the art of construction. I happened to be in the old country last year when they were on their annual quest for money. Times were very hard and money difficult to secure. A Canadian, Sir Max Aitken, expressed the general feeling in England when he said it was most important to Canada for Sir William to get money for the Canadian Northern. Leading British financiers said he could not get it; but he did get it, and then they said no man could have got it but Sir William Mackenzie. No man in London has the confidence of the financial interests to a greater degree, because he has always faithfully and honourably discharged all his obligations and every time they exchange their gold for his securities they give him another certificate of sterling integrity and honour of which the Canadian people should be proud.
And, Mr. Speaker, the characteristic traits as exemplified in our two distinguished Canadians-power of initiative, capacity for work, sterling integrity and character- constitute the most precious heritage of any people; and I am firmly convinced that it is this asset, intangible if you will, that has placed Canada in the position she occupies among civilized nations. For, in the last analysis, it is not wealth, natural resources, material things, that make a nation, but it is the virility and national characteristic traits of the men born and bred in a country that, in the final court of appeal, determine its status. Capacity and character must be fostered and stimulated before our natural resources can be developed and great achievements accomplished.
In conclusion, I believe it will greatly redound to the credit of Canada to enable Mackenzie and Mann to finish their railway

system. They are Canadian born citizens who are building for the benefit of Canada, and it is truly stated in the preamble of their charter that the work is for the general advantage of Canada. It is Canada, not Mackenzie and Mann, that gains or loses by any assistance the Government may or may not give. They have not sought-their own personal gain and emolument, by withholding land grants, elevators, town-sites, but have a higher and nobler ambition, and any assistance we can give at the present time will redound to the credit of this Government and the people of Canada as it redounded to the credit of Canada under Sir John A. Macdonald's Government when he came to the rescue of the Canadian Pacific railway and enabled that company to complete its road. Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate this Government upon rising to the occasion, protecting the fair name and credit of Canada and helping complete this great national highway.


Mr. B. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Carrick) is always listened to with pleasure on the all too rare occasions upon which he addresses the House. His enthusiasm for this proposition is natural and genuine, but I am free to say that I think the conditions under which my hon. friend approached this subject are such that he can hardly be said to apply to its consideration that keen business judgment which is usually inseparable from him in other matters. We are in a peculiar position in the consideration of this measure. We have had the spectacle, within the last two days, of two of the cleverest young publie men in this country supporting the Government, openly declaring that upon a -very fundamental and important proposition, the legislation submitted by the Government to the House, they are unable to support that Government and that they have decided to vote against the proposition. Differences in regard to public matters may sometimes exist under the system of party government, but it has rarely occurred in the history of this Parliament that men possessing the integrity and occupying a position in which they can be said to be absolutely disinterested in their view, have broken away from all those ties that have carried them along in life hitherto and have taken a position of antagonism to everything with which they have up to the present time been associated. The indictment which these hon. gentlemen presented to this House, in giv-

ing the reasons why this measure should not receive the support of this Parliament and of the country, were of such serious and grave import that I submit that this Government cannot disregard them, that this House cannot fail to direct attention to them, and that the country will be awakened by so serious a proposition as that which the Government are submitting to Parliament at the present time.
When we have such a situa-5 p.m. tion in regard to the matter as is presented in reference to this Canadian Northern Railway proposition, in view of the history which is familiar to every one of us, in view of the events of last year when gentlemen representing the Canadian Northern railway came to the Prime Minister of the country and said to him: If you will only give us #15,000,000 we can complete this third transcontinental railway; when the Prime Minister of this country, on the faith ef that statement, stood up in this House and justified to his friends and to the country a presentation of this measure to Parliament by the statement made by such an authority that the great railway would be completed if this aid were given; when we find that that statement was absolutely and unqualifiedly untrue, we have a condition that warrants the strong language which was adopted in this House by the two hon. gentlemen supporting this Government to whom I have referred. But when you have the hon. the Finance Minister (Mr. White), as he did last year, disregarding all the appeals which were made to him from this side of the House to stop and investigate the financial position of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, to make an inquiry into their assets, their liabilities, and their standing in Canada and elsewhere before he purchased #7,000,000 of their stock and paid them #15,000,000 of Canadian money therefor, when you find the Minister of Finance absolutely disregarding all these entreaties and stating that, as he had been informed, if the aid that was then proposed was given, the whole system would be completed by the year 1914, and when we find in one short year afterwards these two hon. gentlemen coming back to this House to admit that they were deceived, to admit that they should have investigated, to admit that they should have gone into the situation of the Canadian Northern railway with the greatest possible care and exactitude last year, and that because they did not do so the Government, the House and the country were deceived, you, Sir,

will agree with me that when these gentlemen come back to this House and ask us to go into a partnership with the men and with the enterprise which indulged in, that fraudulent misrepresentation, to use the language of my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett), we have a curious spectacle indeed. As to the deceit, there can be no question. My hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), who is the amicus curiae, the man outside but still within the confidence of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden), who leads this House, to whom has been committed some of the influence possessed by hon. gentlemen who have seats in the Cabinet, who, from time to time on important questions, gives the House his suggestions as to what our friends opposite would do, and which he has always done since this Government came into office, said yesterday in the apology -not the argument-which he presented in regard to this measure, and it is as well that we should recall it, because it was language of great significance:
Those of us who remember the legislation of last session, when we were given to understand that the aid then advanced would mean the completion of the road and that nothing further would be demanded, while we feel that those who made those representations in this House were sincere in believing that the evidence laid before them was in accordance with the facts, cannot help feeling that to some extent they were deceived, and purposly deceived,-
Mark the significance of the language.
-and that this House acted on a supposition which further events have shown to be unfounded. Therefore, we cannot altogether get away from a feeling of annoyance at the way in which we were treated.
The mild and gentle member for St. Antoine, strong and faithful party man as he is, mustered up sufficient courage in his apology for this measure to suggest that we could not help getting a little bit annoyed over this deception. Is the House to be content simply with this mild expresision of annoyance? When we are proposing to form a positive and lasting partnership with the Canadian Northern railway, under which we bind ourselves, if not in a bond, yet in absolute reality to furnish all the finances that this company will require to complete this enterprise, are we to content ourselves with being somewhat annoyed at being deceived; or is my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) right when he declares that, before Parliament enters into a partnership with these gentlemen, there should be a full and complete investigation into all the circumstances connected
with this enterprise, so that we may find out why that misrepresentation was made last year.
I am sure the House was struck with the fact-and the country is not aware of it yet -that, when Mackenzie and Mann came to this Government with the stock for which they paid $210 for every $100 last year, instead of giving to the Government of this country $7,000,000 out of the $70,000,000 worth of stock that was supposed to have been issued, they proceeded to issue $7,000,000 more stock. To use the somewhat extreme language of my hon. friend from Calgary, they started a printing press and rolled [DOT] off $7,000,000 more stock, and gave it to the unsuspecting Minister of Finance, who did not know that he was getting this new stock that was being issued to him, but who thought, in all his childish innocence, that he was getting $7,000,000 out of the $70,000,000. Not until the autumn did he discover that he had been sold like a child by these great financiers, who had buncoed him by giving him this $7,000,000 worth of stock which was never issued until they ran it in the printing press.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is asking this Parliament to reimburse the men who invested in the Farmers Bank certain sums of money as deposits, alleging an error in judgment on the part of the previous Minister of Finance. I venture to say there has never been a Minister of Finance since Confederation who has been guilty of such gross negligence and disregard of the interest of Canada as the present Minister of Finance was when he allowed himself to be deceived by these people last year, and when he allowed them to palm off on him this $7,000,000 worth of stock that never existed until the printing press was started once more. Is it any wonder that my hon. friend from St. Antoine is. somewhat annoyed? Is it any wonder that even he, while he cannot permit himself to take the stern position which his friends from Calgary and Kingston have taken, is bound to express dissatisfaction with such conduct and to indicate to the House and to the country that he is swallowing this dose of medicine with a very bad grace? '
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance did not care to have anything to do with these people. What are the facts in regard to the situation this session? Everybody who has been in Ottawa since the session began knows that, when Mackenzie and Mann came here in February looking for aid, the word went up and down that no

aid was to be given. It was stated that hon. gentlemen in the Government had declared that Mackenzie and Mann might as well go into bankruptcy now as three years from now. After Sir William Mackenzie had consulted the Minister of Finance and gone back to Toronto and given an interview to a paper, in which he said that he had made a presentation to the Government for aid, we had the spectacle of the hon. Minister of Finance declaring in this House that nothing of the kind had happened. I refer to ' Hansard ' of March 3, when my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition had called the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to what Sir William Mackenzie had said. The Minister of Finance, who was smarting under, and who is still smarting under, the deception practised on him last year, and who has handed over to the youthful Solicitor General the task of being toyed with by that shrewd legal genius, Zebulon A. Nash, because he does not want to run the risk of being toyed with this year, on the 3rd of March replied to the right hon. leader of the Opposition as follows:
Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) : X can give an explanation of the statement which I made to the press, but as to the statement of Sir William Mackenzie, or as to any remarks that may he attributed to him, of course I cannot speak. My hon. friend has correctly read what X stated to the press, namely, that no application had been received for assistance by way of loan to any railway company, nor was any expected to be received. So far as I am aware, that is a correct statement of the facts.
Mr. hon. friend the Minister olf Finance was clearly annoyed, like the member for St. Antoine, over the situation of last year. Hon. members will note that up-to-date he has had nothing whatever to do with the matter. Newer and cruder hands have been given the task of initiating this country into partnership with Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann.
After it was clearly understood that no further aid was to be given, it was said: But Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann owe $21,000,000 to people in this country; to carmen, to railway contractors, to men who have worked with the spade and shovel out in the northlands, and these poor fellows will be destitute unless Parliament intervenes. But insidiously were the outworks pushed forward until there came to be a feeling quite clearly existing in the arena of the House that, after all, perhaps it would be better to do something for these poor fellows who were entitled to their money. Al-

though there was created in the ranks of my right hon. friend a feeling of sympathy and that something ought to be done in that regard, the ridiculous part of the matter is that there is no provision, as I shall show, in these resolutions for the payment of that $21,000,000 to the railroad contractors and to the men who have sold materials to this railway.
The Minister of Finance, on March 3, said that there had been no application for a loan; that there was nothing doing. In the blue-book which has been brought down, I find the following letter:
Ottawa, March 5, 19X4. To the Xtight Honourable It. D. Borden, Premier of Canada.
Dear Sir,-For the reasons mentioned in the memoranda and statements respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system, submitted it is essential that the company should receive further Government aid. The amount required is forty-two million dollars ($42,000,000).
Recognizing the difficulties in the way of a cash loan, I beg to apply for a guarantee of securities to the extent of forty-five million dollars ($45,000,000), par value. The discount on the disposal of these securities would probably reduce the proceeds below the forty-two million dollars ($42,000,000).
I have the honour to be,
Tour obedient servant,
Wm, Mackenzie,
President-
Now, we are asked to believe that Sir .William Mackenzie came to the Government on the 5th of March, two days after .the Minister of Finance had made his statement to the country, and without any paore data, without more reasons given than the statement to the effect that it was essential-'essential'-that	this money
should be found for him, this Government proceeded to get it. I asked the Prime .Minister a few days ago where was the memorandum that accompanied this letter. He indicated that he thought that the memorandum was contained in these financial statements that have been submitted. But I apprehend from the correspondence attached to the documents that these statements were furnished subsequently to the application being made by Sir William Mackenzie, before the employment of the auditors, and after the Solicitor General had written the correspondence in the latter portion of this book directing what should be done.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman please repeat.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said I asked the Prime Minister a few days ago what was

the memorandum that accompanied this letter of the 5th of March-


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the statements were furnished after the report of the auditor.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 1 said it would seem so.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not correct. The statements were furnished and we then sent the auditor to inquire into their accuracy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The information is
furnished in extremely crude form. Apparently a large part of the knowledge that we are supposed to depend upon is in the head of the Solicitor General, as was indicated by the encounter between that hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) yesterday. The information is not of such a character as would warrant Parliament, without further investigation, in entering upon this momentous proposition and becoming a partner in this . great enterprise. If this information about the length of the line, what it cost to build, what is necessary to finish, if that was the . only information Sir William Mackenzie gave when he made this application of the 5th of March, then I say that Sir William Mackenzie gave this Government no information to warrant them in coming to Parliament with these resolutions) even though their auditors verified the statements that he submitted. When Sir William Mackenzie stated to the Prime Minister la^t year that with $15,000,000 he would complete the railway why should he be given more money now for that purpose merely on his statement that it was ' essential ' he should have the money? There was no allegation that he was unable to pay his bills or that he had difficulty in financing in London-no data such as any other enterprise that ever came to Parliament for assistance has been called upon to give. My right hon. friend's great predecessor in the leadership of the Conservative party acted differently in 1884 when the Canadian Pacific railway came asking for relief. The preamble of the Act by which that relief was granted sets out in detail the reasons why Parliament was asked for this aid-ample and sufficient reasons, if they were true, why Parliament should interfere. Compare with this, the one statement on the part of Sir William Mackenzie that it was ' essential ' for him to get the money, and that my right hon. friend should take the step he does on that statement seems ludicrous and incomprehensible. It is no wonder that his supporters from Kingston 241
and Calgary should leave him on this question. Here is the preamble of the Bill of 1884:
Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have represented, that although possessed of property and assets, which, if realized, would be sufficient for the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway w'ithin one-half of the time contemplated by the contract between the Government and the company, namely, by the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, yet that in consequence of the state of the market for railway securities, and of other circumstances beyond their control, and notwithstanding the agreement made with the Government on the seventh day of November last, for securing for ten years from the seventeenth day of August last, a three per centum dividend upon their outstanding stock, they are unable to procure the funds required for proceeding with the work of construction as rapidly as is necessary to complete the railway within the said earlier period, and have applied for certain modifications of the contract of construction and of the said agreement, and for an advance upon the security of their entire railway, branches, equipment and property in order to assist them in so proceeding with such work; and whereas it is expedient, in furtherance of the early settlement of the Northwest territories and of the completion of transcontinental communication by railway through Canada, that the early completion of the said railway should be ensured: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
But this document of the 5th of March contains no such allegations. One hon. gentleman tells us that this company will go into liquidation if this money is not provided. But the Solicitor General-I think it was-argued that that was not the state of affairs at all, but that so far as the Canadian Northern railway was concerned and so far as Mackenzie and Mann were concerned, they had ample funds but that it was the duty of the country in the premises to assist in this enterprise. When we look at the preamble of the resolution which my right hon. friend introduced, we find that he simply alleged that:
Whereas the Canadian Northern Railway Company hereinafter called the ' Canadian Northern ' has represented that the several companies set forth in the first schedule to these resolutions, and their railways and undertakings, rolling stock, equipment, assets and properties are intended to constitute a transcontinental railway system to be denominated the 4 Canadian Northern System ' and that the Canadian Northern desires to control said system by the ownership or control of the shares or majorities thereof in the capital stock of the said companies, and that it now own or controls the shares or majorities thereof in the capital stock of certain of the said companies, and that the several companies are desirous that aid should be granted for the purpose of completing the construction and equipment of the works and undertakings of the Canadian



Northern system and for the betterment thereof.
That is all. Mark the difference between the way Sir John Macdonald proceeded in 1884-Sir John Macdonald, whose name and record, my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) invoked, and the method by which the present leader has proceeded in the matter in which he is handing out $45,000,000 more of money with lesser security, and is embarking in a partnership venture under which Canada makes herself liable in addition for $312,000,000 that we know of and for other millions the number of which nobody can yet estimate.
Now, it was essential that Sir William Mackenzie get this aid. The Minister of Finance (Mr. White) did not want to have anything to do with it, so the task was given to my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). And that hon. gentleman received his first lesson in how to draw up a railway contract from Mr. Z. A. Lash. On the one side is my hon. friend acting for the Government and on the other that astute railway lawyer, who has been drawing contracts, agreements and trust deeds of the most artistic shapes all his life. Indeed, I have heard of several members of the Bar who have not had the opportunity of seeing a trust deed such as Mr. Z. A. Lash could draw until they were placed on the table, taking them home to . preserve them for examination and record and for the instruction of students in various portions of the Dominion. That astute railway solicitor, who has ploughed through many a stormy sea of litigation and difficulty, was put up to make an agreement with my hon. friend the Solicitor	General-and he took the hon.
gentleman into camp in splendid shape. That is what was to be expected. The Solicitor General has had his head turned since he got into that office. He is being touted and talked of all over the country- the Federal News Bulletin circulating its half-page photograph and biography of this Daniel come to judgment whose deliverance on the Transcontinental put even my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) in the shade-why even the Prime Minister and every other hon. gentleman on that side are paling into insignificance before this new light that has come. When he rose the other night we thought that he was going to explain to the House this wonderful agreement that he had made with Mr. Z. A. Lash, who, being one of the noble eighteen, would be supposed to have special influence with this Government.

But, instead of explaining the agreement, the hon. gentleman chided the right hon. leader of the Opposition because he did not know all about it. The Solicitor General was the only one who did know all about it, and he found fault with my hon. friend, saying:	You admit
the necessity and the desirability of completing a third transcontinental railway, and you propose to give these people a certain amount of money by way of loan without any security. It does seem to me that a gentleman having the aspirations possessed by the hon. Solicitor General should, in dealing with questions of this kind, approach their consideration upon some basis of fairness. If you refer to my hon. friend's assertion you will find that he reiterated the charge that the right hon. leader of the Opposition proposed to loan this money without taking any security whatever. This is what he said:
If it appears to the leader of the opposition that the Canadian Northern Railway Company were not at the present time ahle to carry on their enterprises without assistance, he would loan them the money out of the treasury of the country and he would take no compensation in return.
That is not what my right hon. friend said at all. My right hon. friend said that ho would deal with the matter as Sir John A. Macdonald dealt with the Canadian Pacific railway in 1884. Yet the hon. Solicitor General, carried away by the applause of hon. gentlemen opposite, some of whom have never read the agreement, reiterated the statement that the leader of the Opposition was proposing to give this money without any compensation whatever. If my hon. friend the Solicitor General had followed the lines of the agreement made in 1884 with the Canadian Pacific railway he would not have been compelled to submit to the desertion of two distinguished members of 'his party, the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Kingston. Had my ben. friend the Solicitor General attempted in any court in this country to make a case on such a statement as he made to this House with regard to the merits of this proposed agreement, any judge would decide against him on his opening. Outside of what the hon. Solicitor General has said, what information has been given to this House and the country with regard to the proposed agreement? Who has answered the assertions of the hon. member for Kingston and the hon. member for Calgary? The House still waits

for some hon. gentleman on the other side to deal with this question, if it can be dealt with, in some practical way, in order that we may know, at least, what the view of the Government is in regard to it.
My hon. friend failed to explain who was going to pay this $21,000,000. I made the statement that the one and only reason why there developed in this House a sympathy for this Canadian Northern proposition was the theory that there was $21,000,000 owed throughout this land and that it was not fair that the people who claimed this money should be without it. What is the situation? I wish to give some figures, and I hope the hon. Solicitor General will correct me if I am wrong. I find, in going through the return which has been brought down- I have not the advantage of any private information, as my hon. friend has-that the financial condition . of the Canadian Northern people to-day is this: as shown on page 43 of the blue book, their floating liabilities amount to $10,408,128. As shown on page 42, the amount due on construction is $21,262,527. As shown on page 10, they require $41,905,117 to complete the construction of the railway. Then, we have the further indebtedness to the banks of this country, which was exposed by my right hon. friend and leader, to the amount of $20,703,865.


Mr. GERMAN:: Where is that to be found?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not in the
printed books, but it is in the statement which the right hon. leader of the Opposition found in the return and which was admitted in the discussion a few days ago. The figures which I have given make a total indebtedness of $94,279,637.56.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon.. gentleman give the figures again ? I do not see how he makes the $94,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Floating liabilities, $10,000,000; due on construction, $21,262,000; balance necessary for completion, $41,905,000.


Arthur Meighen: That is not a liability.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking of the amount of money which this company requires in order to complete the railway, and I am including in that the liabilities which exist to-day and the amount of money which they state they require, after giving credit for all the assets set out on page 9 of the blue-book. I add to that $20,703,000, the amount which is owing. to the banks, and I make a total of $94,279,637. It is
stated that $24,000,000 are pledged to the company as security for this $21,000,000. Supposing these securities have a par value; there would be to the credit of the company, coming from the banks, $3,396,135.


Arthur Meighen: Just to correct the hon. gentleman, I may say that the $24,000,000 is not on the basis of a par value; it is on the basis of the quoted value in the market at the time.	u


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the light of the fact that a good deal of information about this bargain is in my hon. friend the Solicitor General's head, and not in these
books-


Arthur Meighen: That is on paper.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to ask my hon. friend the Solicitor General to lay upon the table of the House at once a statement of the securities that have been pledged to the banks and what their normal value is.	.


Arthur Meighen: It is tabled.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not in the books. If there is a statement tabled, I have no doubt that the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Kingston had it, in view of their speeches of yesterday. At any rate, it was rather difficult for hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to get it.


Arthur Meighen: If I may explain-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will tell me this: At what does he value the securities that are pledged to the banks?


Arthur Meighen: I will get that in a moment. In the meantime, let me say that everything was printed that was asked to be printed; the rest was laid on the table of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am asking my hon. friend only one question.


Arthur Meighen: I have a right to say that, whether my hon. friend desires it or not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has a right to say nothing which I do not permit him to say during the course of my speech; he may as well understand that. I asked my hon. friend what he gives as the value of the securities now pledged to the banks for the loan of $20,000,000?


Arthur Meighen: $24,324,029.10. The
price of each one is given in the statement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend need not have corrected me, because I was .giving him exactly that amount.


Arthur Meighen: That is correct, but it is not on a par value.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Whether or not it is On a par value, is entirely unimportant; what we want to get at is the actual value. From what my hon. friend says, it can be seen that there is a margin of $3,396,135 over and above the amount owing to the banks. I deduct that $3,396,000 from the $94,000,000, which shows that, taking into consideration the $41,000,000 necessary to complete the road, the Canadian Northern enterprise, or the Mackenzie and Mann Company, Limited, require $90,000,000 to pay their debts and to complete the road, after making allowances for all the securities which are credited on page 10 of the blue book. My hon. friend apparently agrees with that. If they require $90,000,00 to complete the road, this country is only giving them one-half of that amount, $45,000,000, and the net value of that $45,000,000 is $42,000,000, which means that there is $48,000,000 of debt and of money necessary for the completion of the road that have to be found somewhere. Where does my hon. friend in this agreement provide for that? We find first, in regard to this money owing to the banks, that Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, or the Canadian Northern railway, undertake that that $20,000,000 will be paid out of $24,000,000 of securities that have been put by. So we will assume that one crosses the other. Then, in regard to floating liability, we have the covenant here that Mackenzie and Mann themselves will, within one year, retire or reduce that $10,000,000 down to a floating amount, in the judgment of the Government. We will assume that they can do that, but where does my hon. [DOT]friend find $21,262,000 to pay the implement men, the contractors and sub-contractors and the men who worked with the pick and shovel all over the country? Where does my hon. friend say they are going to get that?


Arthur Meighen: They get the proceeds of $45,000,000 of the guaranteed securities; but, in addition to that, they have, in unsold and unearned securities, $58,000,000 besides, which totals $100,000,000 odd. In

that $100,000,000 odd the $21,000,000 is included, and consequently the $21,000,000 must be got out of those two. .


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend says that out of this $58,000,000 of securities that exist the $21,000,000 is going to be paid?


Arthur Meighen: Out of the $45,000,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend say that this $21,000,000 of debt is included in the statement of requirements to complete on page 10?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know about the page, hut there is a total of $100,000,000. Yes, it is included in that $100,379,099.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How can that be? Take, for instance, equipment. There is owing for general equipment $1,539,863. The only item for equipment on page 10 is item No. 5, rolling stock, equipment for transcontinental, and maturing equipment notes, $27,000,000. Will my hon. friend say that the $1,539,863 is included in the $27,000,000?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and the whole $21,000,000 is included, spread over these items.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has my hon. friend any statement showing that?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I have -seen a statement, I am pretty sure it is filed. I can produce it to you.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is as well that my hon. friend should personally undertake to give it to me.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Because I am interested in the case of those to whom this money is owing. I want to know whether they will get the money out of the $45,000,000 the Government are going to give them, or where they are going to get it.


Arthur Meighen: The indebtedness of
$21,262,000 is to be liquidated out of the $45,000,000 and the $58,000,000. I cannot say in what proportion it will be, but it must be done out of both, if that is the way it is to go.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend, for the Government, say that it will be the business of the Government, under this clause which gives control of the payment out of this money, to see that these men to whom this money is now owing will be paid?


Arthur Meighen: The Government follow this money to destination and the Govern-

ment only have control of the $45,000,000 and of such proportion of the other as is guaranteed by the Government. The Government will see that that money, so under its control, goes first to debts. Now, on the other hand, there will be a proportion of debt doubtless that will be applicable to the unguaranteed securities but which will be paid in due course without question before the non-guaranteed securities and the Government securities are expended.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are people in
this country who are owed money by the Canadian Northern railway whose claims are included in the $21,000,000. We have seen them around this Parliament, and they have told members of Parliament that there are people suffering financially today by reason of the fact that they have not received their money from the Canadian Northern railway. The condition of affairs is this, if I understand my hon. friend aright. This Government are giving securities which will net $42,000,000. Will he undertake to say that one-half of that amount will go to pay those debts or will he not?


Arthur Meighen: I have made the statement as clearly as I can make it, that is always in the power of the Government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Government declines to give and absolute assurance upon this question and I want to say that hon. gentlemen in this House know that were it not for the representations made here and throughout the country that it was necessary to make this advance in order that the people who were owed this money would get it, this Government would never have had the temerity to come to this Parliament, in view of the opposition which has been exhibited from their own friends. And it also shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the $45,000,000 of security, to which the country ip being committed under this measure, is but the beginning of further and much greater grants which of necessity will have to be made by this governmental partner of this railway. My hon. friend the other night, in dealing with this question, evaded the point with skill. He declared that the $21,000,000 owing to the banks was to be protected with securities; and with considerable finesse, which he is gradually assuming, he proceeded to demand of my honoured leader, after declaring that they had thrown on the table every atom of information in regard to the matter, what he would say as to where this money was
to be found that was to pay the people to whom the Canadian Northern railway was indebted. Then my hon. friend drifted away from the subject and you will not find, from one end of his speech to the other, the information which for the first time we have been able to abstract from him to-day, as to how the men who aTe owed the $21,000,000 are to get their money. My hon. friend the other night, extolled to the House the virtues and the advantages and the glory of the Canadian Northern railway. Why, he said, we advance the money, the whole $45,000,000, upon the guarantee of the Canadian Northern railway and we will be better off than this country was under the arrangement made by the ex-Minister of Railways when an advance was made to the Canadian Northern Ontario railway. He said that if you added the $45,000,000 to the total amount of the bond indebtedness of the Canadian Northern railway you would have an amount which would be less or practically the same as the $35,000 a mile given to the Canadian Northern railway. My hon. friend knew that he was about $8,000 or $10,000 to the mile out.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will find that the bond issue of the Canadian Northern to-day is $191,933,000 odd. My hon. friend advances the proposition that if you added the $45,000,000 which you are loaning to this company to the $191,000,000 you would only be in the vicinity of $35,000 a mile. If my hon. friend will figure it up, he will find that the cost is about $44,000 a mile.


Arthur Meighen: The figures given by my hon. friend are correct if he includes the equipment bonds. Had the old Government any security on the equipment?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
dodging the point.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. Eliminate the security on the lands and the equipment, as it should be eliminated, and it figures out at $35,000 a mile.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend, as
usual, is avoiding the point. Instead of coming to Parliament and explaining this agreement, as an associate member of the Government, a rightly constituted minister should do, he goes off into side issues. I have taken his figures from the blue book to show that instead of the road being mortgaged for $35,000 a mile it is

mortgaged for $44,000 or $45,000. He is only out by $9,000 or $10,000 a mile. Then in regard to this mysterious equipment trust. My hon. friend was rather in doubt about this trust from the very beginning. If you turn to the Votes and Proceedings of the 28th April, when this great measure first saw the light, you will find that in the first schedule my hon. friend had included the rolling stock and equipment of any of the companies mentioned therein, and he also included the Manitoba railway (former name: Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway). After the Prime Minister had explained that somebody, by mistake, had sent a rough draft instead of the final document to the printer, my hon. friend cut out this rolling stock and equipment and since the 30th April it has not appeared in the resolutions. My hon. friend knows that. He also knows that this security for the proposed guarantee does not attach to a single car or locomotive. He also knows that if there is an equipment trust in regard to the railways mentioned in Part 1 of the second schedule, this country gets no security on even an engine or box car in any one of those companies.


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not. We get security on just the same property, as if those words had been left in. We get security on the Canadian Northern rolling stock because we have a floating mortgage.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Since my hon. friend is beginning to explain, perhaps he will tell us why he put those words in, in the first irrstance.


Arthur Meighen: Nothing was in my mind in the first instance because I did not put them in. The Manitoba leased lines were there just by way of indicating that they were to come in as part of the Canadian Northern property. They come in as part of the physical assets of the Canadian Northern, just as does the line between Portage and Winnipeg.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have you equipment mortgages upon the line?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, there are
equipment mortgages, and we get security on the equity of the Canadian Northern in them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend knows very well that when the hon. member for Calgary discussed with him yesterday as to what was done with the surplus, he started a discussion on the equipment. Mackenzie

and Mann go to the car men, buy the cars from them and give them their notes, and then sell the cars to the Imperial Rolling Stock Company at a profit.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is my hon. friend willing to give a guarantee that they do not make a profit? Why do not the Imperial Equipment Trust go to the implement men in the first place to buy rolling stock like any other great railway?


Arthur Meighen: Every other railway does not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Excuse me, my information upon that point is quite as accurate as my hon. friend's. I say that the great railroads purchase through their equipment companies from the car people and implement men, and in this respect there is a very great difference between the Canadian Northern and other companies. I disagree with my hon. friend's views on this point. Under the terms of this arrangement, whereby we only get a mortgage on the shares, and where equipment is not specially set out, I submit that we do not get a lien upon a single box car, passenger car, or locomotive in any one of those companies. The Prime Minister told us that one of the things this country was getting was a traffic arrangement with the Canadian Northern railway. Sir William Mackenzie's letter of March 6 is a very astute document. On March 5, he wrote the right hon. Prime Minister saying that it was essential for the reasons mentioned in the memoranda that the Canadian Northern receive further Government aid. Things moved quickly after that. Although on the 3rd of March the Finance Minister knew nothing whatever about the business, Sir William Mackenzie wrote to the right hon. Prime Minister on March 6, as follows:
Dear Sir,-It has been suggested that an agreement should be made between the Canadian Northern railway and the Government in connection with the company's application for assistance, providing for an exchange of traffic between the company's lines of railway and the Intercolonial railway at Quebec. To an arrangement of this kind, the company is agreeable, and it is suggested that the arrangement should be of such nature that the Intercolonial would secure all the benefits, from traffic originating on the company's lines and consigned to points on the Intercolonial railway, that it would have were it the eastern part of the Canadian Northern Railway system. Naturally, the Canadian Northern would expect the same benefits from

traffic originating on the lines of the Intercolonial railway.
I am convinced that an arrangement of this kind is practical and would result in benefit to the two railway systems affected, and if the members of your Government are of the same opinion, I would suggest that provision be made in such legislation as may be passed in connection with the company's application for aid, empowering the interested parties to enter into the necessary agreements.
Tours very truly,
ffm. Mackenzie,
President.
Mark the delightful candour and kindness of the Canadian Northern. They are willing to assent to this traffic arrangement. Sir William Mackenzie and the Canadian Northern have been trying for the last five or six years to get running rights over the Intercolonial. They were hoping to get to Quebec, and the height of their ambition was to' get running Tights over the Intercolonial railway from there down to the sea, and so, on March 6, after Mr. Lash had been mesmerizing the Solicitor General for a little while and had got him into a proper frame of mind, the astute president of the Canadian Northern comes along and says: If you people want me to make an arrangement of this kind, I am agreeable. The Canadian Pacific railway for the last ten years have been trying to get running rights over the Intercolonial railway from St. John to Halifax, but the Government would not consent. Sir William Mackenzie has been wanting this traffic arrangement for years, and now he kindly says: We are going to give all the freight that originates on the Canadian Northern to the Intercolonial. Of course he is. Who else would he give it to? To the Canadian Pacific railway, his rival? Certainly not. He always wa3 going to give it to the Intercolonial railway. He would be delighted to accept the return traffic. He would expect the Intercolonial to give him the return traffic. He was delighted to get it. To get all the traffic of the Intercolonial railway that comes to Quebec handed over to the Canadian Northern railway to go west was a very important achievement for the Canadian Northern Railway Company. They had been endeavouring to get that for years. Graciously waiting for Sir William Mackenzie to accept it is the presentation of the Solicitor General and it is really as good as a play. One of the things that this Government has obtained as a result of this great achievement is that the Canadian Northern railway get an interchange of traffic with the Intercolonial railway. That is really a most interesting phase of this situation. Whatever the country does or does not get in regard to the question of financial terms, there is one thing that Mackenzie and Mann do get out of this agreement and that is running powers over the Intercolonial railway that they had been trying for the last seven or eight years to get and under such conditions that they are obliging the Government to accept the arrangement.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 132, respecting W. C. Edwards and Company, Limited-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 172, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Mac-donell.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 162, respecting Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Carvell. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-extension of time for construction :
Mr. OLIVER:: What is the extension of time?	.


Mr. CARVELL:: Two and five years.


Mr. BLAIN:: The matter was discussed in the Committee, and it was unanimously agreed that this extension of time should be given.


Frank Oliver: The Bill stood over at the
request of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney). I am informed that he has been communicated with and that he is willing that the Bill go through as it now stands.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 186, respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, and to ratify and confirm its purchase of a portion of the property of the Carillon and Grenville Railway Company.-Mr. Guil-bault.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 187, respecting the North Shore Power, Railway and Navigation Company, and to change the name thereof to Gulf Pulp and Paper Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Georgina Beatrice Boyd.-Mr. Fripp.

Mr. MACDONALD (resuming):: I was
pointing out the grace and ease with which Sir William Mackenzie responded to the proposition that he should have the running rights over the Intercolonial railway and all other Government railways. Some hon. members who have endeavoured to defend this proposition on behalf of the Government have taken the position that this was a concession in the interests of the country, an offer on the part of the Canadian Northern railway that they would be delighted to carry the traffic that originated on Government railways on the one hand, while the Government railways, more particularly the Intercolonial railway, would be given the opportunity of carrying Canadian Northern railway traffic that might be routed by the shipper. My hon. friend from South Renfrew very pointedly and very ably showed the fact to be that the clause which was put forward by the Prime Minister as being a tangible advantage to Canadian ports and to the Government railways amounted absolutely to nothing, that the clause contained no more, so far as beneficial results were concerned, than was amply provided for under the legislation of 1911. But hon. gentlemen who have been defending this proposition have either chosen to forget or have never seen the delicious irony of the letter of Sir William Mackenzie of the 5th of March. It is really a classic, that document; it deserves to go down to future generations as a specimen of diplomatic negotiations. Its reception is a tribute to the ability of Mr. Lash, who unquestionable penned this document -the solicitor, close adviser and fidus Achates of Sir William Mackenzie. He dealt with the Solicitor General upon whom the whole responsibility of having to do with this measure was placed, the Minister of Finance having absolutely renounced all connection with it-and he put forward the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) to declare that every one was annoyed at the deception practised last winter and the easy way in which he had fallen under the wiles of the Canadian Northern railway. Mr. Lash led the Solicitor General [Mr. Guilbault.3
to believe that the country was getting something especially beneficial; hence we find this covenant in the agreement:
The Government covenants with the Canadian Northern that it will from time to time enter into agreements with the Canadian Northern or with any constituent company, giving running rights over such parts of the Government railways as may be desired and the terms and conditions of every such agreement shall be such as the parties thereto may agree upon, or in default of agreement, as may be settled by the Railway Board.
Now, the Canadian Northern railway, as I have stated, had been for years yearning to get the Atlantic connection for their railway. With all the assiduity and with all the ability-the unquestioned ability- which has characterized their methods in every province of the Dominion, they were able. to get down to the province of Quebec and down to the city of Quebec. But how were they going to get down to the Maritime provinces was a conundrum which they had never been able to solve. And they took advantage of their very necessity for aid, and in order that they might create a complete transcontinental system, to seduce the Solicitor General into giving them absolutely what they had long sought and had been unable to get from any other Government in this country. By these running rights over the Intercolonial railway they will be able to make valuable the property known as the Halifax and South Western. But the Hudson Bay railway from Winnipeg to Hudson bay is also a Government railway. And this company own to Le Pas, as is well known. So this Government is committed to the policy of giving to this company practically the exclusive right of operating over that Hudson bay road ahead of any other transcontinental line. And if the Hudson Bay railway is to be what hon. members from the western provinces have declared it to be, then among the things that have been given up by the country, in addition to entering into partnership with these gentlemen, has been the guarantee to the Canadian Northern railway of practic-a'ly exclusive rights to operate the Hudson Bay railway from Le Pas to the bay. After the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries have spent the huge sums of money that must be spent in rendering Hudson Bay straits navigable and in providing terminals on the bay, the Canadian Northern railway will be given, by virtue of this agreement, running rights over that railway to the bay, the use of the terminals and consequently the

navigation of the bay and straits. So that, instead of an advantage being gained by the Government under this agreement with regard to running rights, as was asserted in the antecedent notice given to the press, these astute gentlemen have befooled the Solicitor General and have obtained from him, in respect of the Intercolonial railway and the Hudson Bay railway, rights which are practically priceless to the country, and which, if Mackenzie and Mann did not secure them under these conditions, they could never obtain under any other circumstances. As I say, this letter, in which Sir William Mackenzie delicately hints that he may be forced to accept this proposition, is the most delicious piece of composition that has ever formed part of any diplomatic correspondence in any communications between contractors and the Government of this or any other country. I am aware that my hon. friend the Solicitor General, who alone, we are told, with many eulogies on his behalf on the part of the Conservative press, conducted these negotiations, had very little knowledge with regard to the Intercolonial railway. Had he consulted the acting Minister of Railways; had the Minister of Finance dealt with this question; indeed, I am free to say that if the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries had had anything to do with the initiation or the carrying on of these negotiations, it would not have been found that that which the Canadian Pacific railway for the last ten years has been unable to obtain upon any terms would be given absolutely for nothing to the Canadian Northern Railway Company. As my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has for many years been endeavouring to obtain running rights from St. John to Halifax, and has been willing to pay for them, but they have been unable to get them. Yet when these gentlemen, whom my friend the hon. member for Calgary has characterized as mendicants, come here and ask this Government to enter into partnership with them and to rescue them from their difficulties, they are able to mislead the Government to such an extent that they succeed in obtaining, in respect of the Intercolonial and Hudson Bay., railways, these advantages upon terms which have never before been dreamed of. This is but another evidence of the lack of shrewdness which characterizes this agreement.
The hon. member for Calgary last nig'it
pointed out very aptly the summary methods by which the Government in 1884 were able, in case of default of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to obtain absolute control of that system without the application of any such complicated provisions as are to be found in this document. Mr. Lash, the astute solicitor, provides in this agreement 'that if default is had and the country comes to the conclusion that it is not possible for the Canadian Northern to pay the interest upon its bonds and that it must go into the hands of a receiver, there shall be given to them a further lease of life. After the Government has taken the extreme step of entering into possession; after they have assumed all the responsibilities of mortgagee in possession, it is provided that they are bound to account for everything that they do in the interim until Parliament meets, perhaps in the following year, and undertakes to deal with the matter. Supposing default takes place after Parliament rises in June and it becomes necessary for the Government, in order to carry on the operation of the railway, to exercise their powers in respect of default and to enter into possession, the railway may be operated by the Government until Parliament meets in the succeeding winter, when, perchance, the gentlemen who control the Canadian Northern will be in a position to make financial arrangements which will compel the Government once more to restore them to the position of management. In that event, they can, if they are dealing with gentlemen unlike the hon. members for Calgary and Kingston, be able to put through an arrangement with their former partners under which they may resume possession and the Government of this country will be bound to account for every cent of receipts and will have thrown upon them the onus and responsibility for every day's operation from the time they assume possession until the time Parliament undertakes deliberately to declare an absolute foreclosure. The hon. Solicitor General, when he distorted the remarks of my honoured leader in regard to the attitude of the Opposition on this question the other night; when he said that we were perfectly willing to give the Canadian Northern the money without any compensation, entirely ignored the position which was taken by the right hon. gentleman, who, on account of his long experience in Parliament, knows better than anybody in this House the powers and rights which were vested in the Crown in 1884 when the loan was given

to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That power, which could be summarily exorcised under the clause contained in the Act of 1884, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary, should be made a provision of this legislation or of any other agreement made between this company or any other company and the Government under like conditions. The hon. member for South Renfrew pointed out this afternoon conditions which every hon. gentleman on this side of the House and, indeed, every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, and every man in the country, will contend should be attached to any agreement with this company at the present stage. We are told that we have a mortgage upon so many shares of so many subsidiary companies. We are told that we have mortgages upon other shares which have been mortgaged two or three times over. We are told that we have mortgages upon land companies in respect of which no statement has been laid upon the table of the House to show how many bonds have been issued or in whose possession these bonds are-bonds the right of foreclosure under which may be exercised at any moment to the exclusion of the Government of Canada. What about the other companies in which these gentlemen are interested? This Government has agreed to give to the Intercolonial Railway Company running rights over the Intercolonial. In the province of Nova Scotia we have a railway known as the Inverness Coal and Railway Company, a railway which is controlled and operated by the firm of Mackenzie and Mann Company, Limited, or the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Why did not the astute Solicitor General insist upon that railway forming part of this security? As a security it is very much better than tile Halifax and Southwestern. Why did he not include in the security to be given the large coal properties in the county of Inverness? Why is it that such companies, for instance, as the Toronto, Niagara and Western and the Toronto, .Niagara and St. Catharines railways, which are owned by Mackenzie and Mann-or by this Canadian Northern system group who are asking for this $45,000,000 and entering into partnership with the Canadian Government; why is it that these properties are not included in the list of securities? The Halifax and Southwestern railway runs from Halifax to Yarmouth, in competition with what is known as the Dominion At-
Ian tic railway. We have a railway running from Port Hawkesbury through the county of Inverness, which, together with large coal properties in that county, is controlled by Mackenzie and Mann, and which are of the utmost value to any railway system offering securities to the Government of Canada under such an agreement as this. I do not find that these properties are taken into security; no attention has been paid to them. As the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) very ably pointed out this afternoon, that which we on this side of the House say, that which the people of the country are saying, that which the two gentlemen who sit behind the Treasury benches said is: Why should not these two gentlemen, Mackenzie and Mann, able as they are, having ideals if you will, ambitious as they may be; why should not they, controlling the Canadian Northern Railway system, when they ask the Dominion of Canada to go into partnership with them, do that which the men who were interested in the Canadian Pacific railway did in the early days, have enough faith in the project to put their resources behind the proposition and to stand by it? When they did that they would have a right to come to the Canadian people and ask for consideration. The Solicitor General did not seem to think that that was a necessary and important factor in regard to this matter. We are told in the Conservative press that this agreement was so cleverly drawn, so ably dealt with, that it was impossible for any other man in the Dominion of Canada than the Solicitor General to fool Mr. Zebulon A. Lash, with the same astuteness. Is there any man on the other side of the House who believes that? I am sure after the eulogy of the hon. member for Centre Toronto upon Mr. Lash, in view of the opinion that every hon. gentleman from Ontario entertains about that gentleman, while it is all very well for the subsidized Conservative press of this country to laud the extreme astuteness of my hon. friend the Solicitor General, all such talk is poppy cock and the practical men of this country know just how far Zebulon A. Lash could deal with the hon. gentleman. My right hon. friend who leads the Government, before the honours and responsibilities of office were thrust upon him, was a man of the very highest ideals. Up and down this land he talked about the control that railways exercised

over the Government of this country. He lamented, in tones of the most lachrymose character, the frightful condition into which Canada was thrust when the Liberal Government, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, made the arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. He stood for a Government-owned railway ini place of a railway-owned Government, and he rang the changes on that all up and down this land. If ever there was a railway-owned Government in this country, from 1867 down to this time, it is this combination that happens to sit on your right, iwho have gone into partnership with a rauway 'by which there is fastened on this country for all time a mortgage of $312,000,000 to start with, which is going to place upon it another mortgage of $45,000,000 and which owes to-day in the vicinity of $90,000,000 more, which this country will have to pay before it gets through with it. Where is the railway-owned Government to-day? My right hon. friend dilated upon the glories and the advantages and the beauty of Government ownership in this country. Why, if the people are going to pay foT a railway should they not own and operate it? That was the sentiment, that was his promise. Starting from that promise, the right hon. gentleman dilated on the rights of the free people of this country whose money was to be placed behind the enterprise and who were giving this untold amount in order that a few men might sit in control of the rates upon the farmers of the West and upon every other business in the country. That was the burden of his song. Of course my right hon. friend, in the platform which he promulgated previous to 1911, laid down a great many other propositions of that kind. After two and one-half years of responsibility he has not even ventured to fulfil a single one of the assurances he gave the Canadian people. After his blunder of last year, after his failure to make the inquiries which ordinary prudence would have demanded when they came asking the sum of $15,000,000, still when these gentlemen came to him in extremis this year, declaring appealingly that this money was essential to them, without giving any reasons, my right hon. friend forgot all he had ever said about a railway-owned Government and a Government-owned railway and capitulated through the Solicitor General to Zebulon A. Lash, one of the eighteen men who had given him support
in the elections of 1911. Why did not the right hon. gentleman, if he believed in all he said about the desirability of a Government-owned railway, apply himself with assiduity to the task, when the opportunity came to him, of obtaining control over this enterprise, and not palter with the situation and give us this talk about putting up $45,000,000 and obtaining $33,000,000 of stock in return, of putting Canada and her credit in partnership with and under the control and dictation of two men in this country? Why did not my right hon. friend, when these people came to him, as his supporter said, as mendicants, be true to himself and fulfil at least one of the promises that he gave to the Canadian people in regard to this whole question of railway management? And yet this House and this country are seriously asked to accept this proposition. There is not an hon. gentleman outside of the Ministry who has spoken on this question, but who has apologized for the bargain. I venture to say that hon. gentlemen who sit behind this Government will not venture to come before the House and the country and declare that this agreement is the best one which the Government could have made under the circumstances. I fear that we have at last in this country reached that stage when, for the Canadian people, for the world in general, at last we have a railroad-owned Government in reality. Had this Government no sense of responsibility after their experience of last year, after the Minister of Finance had been fooled, after the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister had been misled? If they had learned the lesson which the hon. gentleman from St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) indicated they should have learned,, why did they not have a full and complete investigation into the affairs of the Canadian Northern railway? Why do they not have it now? It is ail very well, after the Minister of Finance on the 3rd of March declaring that there was nothing doing, after the Prime Minister on the 6th of March, in answer to a question which I placed upon the Order Paper, declaring that if there was any announcement to be made it would be made in due time, it is all very well with this letter of Sir William Mackenzie declaring that $45,000,000 was essential to him, to come to us and tell us that they had sent their auditors from the Railway Department and the Finance Department and had looked over the statements which the company submitted and that the auditors had told them that these

statements were all right, and because they were all right the Government did not propose to take control of this railway but to practically go out and buy some more stock in it. They say: we bought $7,000,000 last year for which we paid over $200. Now we are going to buy $33,000,000 worth and we are getting it cheaper than last year, we are only going to pay $45,000,000 or about $150. Everybody in Canada should take off their hats and thank Heaven that we have a Government of such splendid erudition, such great business capacity, who come forward and say:	It
is true we were fooled last year; it is true we have made no investigation although Parliament insisted that it should be made; but, after all, we ask this House and the country to adopt this agreement. And why? Because some untold evil that nobody suggests the nature of may happen to this country. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) gave the lie to the Finance Minister yesterday who has been asserting all along that this country is wonderfully prosperous, and that Canada had stood up under stress better than any other country in the world. The hon. member for St. Antoine said that financial conditions and the stagnation throughout the country were such that a problem, had been created which called for solution. Practically the position of the Government is this:	Although the Canadian Northern make no representations in any of the documents that have been laid before Parliament that they need this money other than the fact that Sir William Mackenzie says it is ' essential ' that the Canadian Northern railway should have it, although no statement such as the Canadian Pacific railway made in 1884 has been presented,' this railway-owned Government proceeds to do something, and we are asked to fall dowm and worship this agreement. Before we go into a partnership of this kind we should have a full and complete investigation into the financial position of this company. I need not urge upon this House the necessity of that; the arguments that have been made by gentlemen on the other side of the House are ample and sufficient to warrant us on this side asserting the absolute necessity of having that done in the interests of the country. We are asked to commit ourselves absolutely to finance this proposition for all time to come, because that is what it means; and, financing this proposition to permit the gentlemen who are in control of the Canadian Northern to-day to spend the money after we have provided it. We are asked to 
give them this money on no further information than is contained in the pages of this little blue book. We are asked to assume that times are hard on the other side, and that these gentlemen are in financial difficulties. Although they do not say so in this report we are told that they cannot pay the $21,000,000 that they owe, and that this moment nobody can say, after having heard the Solicitor General deal with this question, whether their creditors are going to get the money or not. Parliament is supposed to give them $45,000,000 under this peculiar agreement. We on this side of the House want to see this transcontinental Tailway protected. We have as much faith, perhaps more, than hon. gentlemen on the other side. I recall the occasion just ten years ago when the proposition was made by my right hon. leader that we should build a second transcontinental railway in Canada, and how the gentlemen who happen to be in power to-day, then sitting-on your left, Mr. Speaker, went up and down this land declaring that it was a totally unnecessary and frightfully extravagant proposition; and hon. gentlemen who came to Parliament in 1904 will recall that they had to fight their way here against hon. gentlemen of the party opposite, who declared that their future and that of their children was being mortgaged for all time to come for a totally unnecessary proposition in this country. Not only do we on this side of the House believe in Canada, but we believe in a third transcontinental as well. We have faith that in the days to come the men and women not only of the western plains, but of all the provinces of our fair Dominion, will produce conditions under which this giant of the north will march forward with more rapid strides than did the country to the south of us. Our great leader twenty years ago told us that the twentieth century was Canada's, and every one of us on this side of the House believe that it will be so. But in order to obtain a third transcontinental, we do not propose to take any gambling chance such as is being submitted to the country at this time. We on this side of the House do not believe that Canada should be saddled with the consequences of this agreement, and that belief is shared by men of promise and ability on the other side of the House. We are proud to know that upon this question the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Kingston, to whom I referred at the inception of my remarks-men whom we on this

side of the House have always respected for their high ideals and true Canadian-ism, although we differ on certain questions of politics-have gone so far as to leave their party, and to declare that this Government shall not have their confidence when they come before this House with such a proposition. Not only that, but last night the Evening Telegram, of Toronto, that citadel of Toryism, gave this note of warning to the gentlemen who sit opposite. Referring particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston, the Telegram says:
A clear-eyed cynic wrote the foregoing words into the terms of his tribute to a House of Commons other than the assemblage addressed by W. F. Nickle, M.P., yesterday. 'He made rather a spectacle of himself,' was the reward Mr. Nickle earned from a Conservative visitor who does not share the ideals, admire the policies, or serve the interests of the Clan Mackenzie. God help Canada if the old men who should see visions and the young men who should dream dreams are to forever glorify cowardice and despise courage.
Ontario, including Toronto, seems to he represented at Ottawa by seventy-two rubber stamps in the hands of Right Hon. R. L. Borden, whose Government seems to be a rubber stamp in the hands of Sir William Mackenzie. The Canadian Northern Railway bungle and the Grand Trunk Pacific bungle must be straightened Out by heads and hands that had no leading part in the making of these bungles. The situation of the Borden Government is inexpressibly disappointing to Canadians who rejoiced in the results that armed Right Hon. R. I,. Borden with the power of Ontario's progressive enthusiasm. The disappointment of progressive Canadians is aggravated by the spectacle that Ontario Conservatism made of itself in its passive approval of Sir William Mackenzie's attempt to bludgeon and bulldoze the Parliament of Canada.
That is what the Evening Telegram, one of the old-fashioned Conservative pauers in the city of Toronto, says.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Since when was John Ross Robertson read out of the party? I listened this afternoon with some amazement to the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) reading out of the Conservative party the doughty member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), who, from the Maritime provinces, went into western Canada and carried aloft the banner of Conservatism in the dark days when it was not fashionable to be a Conservative out there. He and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), who glories in the fact that he learned his politics at the knee of Sir John A. Macdonald, were read out of the Conservative party because they would
not bow the knee to this agreement. And now, forsooth, John Ross Robertson is to be read out of the party because he chooses to believe that the hon. member for Kingston and the hon. member for Calgary have a right to speak their minds in this House. The appreciation of the enormity of this proposition that is put before the Canadian people by this Government will grow as the days go by. This Government attempted to gag public opinion by sending broadcast through the country a false and distorted statement as to the terms of this agreement, before the document was laid on the table of the House. We were told that a most satisfactory, splendid, beneficial agreement in the interests of the Canadian people had been arranged by the astute Solicitor General. The hon. member for Kingston has led the way in pointing out the enormities of this proposition, and I say that the people of Canada will at last learn that we have a railway-owned Government in this country-a Government that, forsooth, was always to stand for the rights of the people, and that was always going to provide for a Government-owned railway. This proposition is one which the Canadian people will not ratify, will not stand for, and we on this side of the House, feeling that we want to put our views at the inception of the discussion upon record in regard to it, I desire, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Murphy, to move:
That the Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that this resolution be considered six months hence.
Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxfordl: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the resolution and the amendment, I am not going to refer at any great length to the gentlemen who are the proprietors of the Canadian Northern railway and of the subsidiary companies that are interested in this resolution. If all we have heard about Mackenzie and Mann is true, they certainly are entitled to a great deal of admiration for the ability they have shown, to say the least. If it is true that they have nearly completed a transcontinental railway with money secured from various governments, both Dominion and provincial, from municipal corporations and by the bonds that they have sold to the various financial markets of the world, it certainly must be regarded as a tribute to their business acumen and financial skill. Not only, according to the statements made here, have they been able to do that, but they have been able to enrich themselves to

certain extent, that he had a certain control over it. But that would be purely imaginary, we should have really no control; and the presence of our representative there would put us, as a country, in a false position.
If the Canadian Northern railway, no matter by whom controlled, is able to carry its enterprise to a success, every one would be willing that they should make well out of it. I am sure no one in this country grudges to the originators of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the immense means that they nearly all control through the success of that road. And if the Mackenzie-Mann people are able to carry their enterprise through to success, I am sure no one in this country will be jealous; of them. But I do not think we ought to enter into partnership with them. My right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said he would be willing to loan them the money. And he was criticised severely by the Solicitor General for suggesting such a thing. But the Solicitor General was unfair in his criticism; he put words into my right hon. leader's mouth that that gentleman never used. The unfairness of this course showed in all the worse light because the Solicitor General is a young man and because of the high standing of my right hon. friend and leader,-I am sure that when the Solicitor General thinks it over, he will think so himself. I absolutely agree with my leader that we should assist the Canadian Northern railway, but that we should assist them in such a way that, while they are enabled to carry out their project, we also shall maintain our position, so that in case of default at any time we shall have absolute control of everything there is in the road. And the only way to do that is to have the stock put in the hands of the Government, to be forfeited in case of default. And I am one who would like to see the stock very materially reduced.
Now, my right hon. friend referred to clause (b), at page 14 of the agreement with Mackenzie and Mann, and drew attention to the fact that the Dominion Railway Board were given control over the various railways that went to make up the Canadian Northern Railway system, but that there was a clause reading:
Provided always that any agreement respecting interchange of traffic shall be subject to any agreements now existing with any other company or companies.
I noticed that the Solicitor General was rather amused that the right hon. gentleman should think that that or any agree-

ment could hinder the Dominion Railway Board from having absolute control. But I would refer him to the case of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in which the Railway Board had made an order that conflicted with an agreement which the Canadian Northern railway had made with the province of Manitoba at the time that province guaranteed the company's bonds. That appeal came to the Supreme Court, and it was decided in favour of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta on the ground that the order was contrary to the agreement with the province of Manitoba. That will answer, so far as I am concerned, both clauses (b) and (c) of the agreement. I am not sure that he was right that that only refers to the agreements for the exchange of traffic. Without seeing the agreements that have been made by the various governments with the Canadian Northern railway, I am sure that no lawyer, be he ever so capable, could decide whether the Railway Board would have power or not.
Now, as to the agreement proposed, that the Canadian Northern railway should send all freight over the Government railways, that strikes me as a bit ridiculous. No consignee can be bound by any railway as to how he shall consign his freight. The Canadian Northern railway 'would be absolutely helpless. If any of us were shipping a carload of freight over that road and wanted it carried to a certain point, they would have to carry it to that point or not take the freight at all.
Let me say in a word, I have no objection to Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann making some money out of this enterprise if they can, but I agree with the hon. member for South Renfrew that, if these gentlemen have some means, large or small, and if they are in dead earnest over getting this railway built and are satisfied that this $45,000,000 will finish the road, then it is asking no more than is reasonable, no more than any member of this House, I am quite sure, would ask if he were making a loan privately, that they should pledge their property. There is no reason why the Government should not insist on that. On the other hand, there is every reason why the Government should not be a partner in this enterprise. I ask the Government-with all due deference to this learned and grave agreement-before it is too late to consider their position. I am going to vote for the amendment, because I do not think that the agreement proposed by this resolution is at all satisfactory

to the people. While I am absolutely inf earnest in wishing to see this railway built, and while I absolutely agree with my honoured leader that the country, if not today, then to-morrow or next day, will be quite capable of sustaining this additional transcontinental railway, at the same time we should be cautious about the assistance we give. We should drive the best bargain we can. Or, rather, it is not a case of us driving a bargain; it should be a case of our stating our terms and the people who want assistance coming to those terms.
1 am not in favour of the Government's undertaking the finishing of the road. I believe that the Government, in so far as the letting of contracts is concerned, could ido just as well as private individuals in any part of the work that had still to be completed. But if we were to take the work out of the hands of the present proprietors it would be necessary that we should operate the road when it is completed, or get some person else to operate it. If Mackenzie and *Mann have the ability attributed to them by the various speakers during the course of this debate, then I say that if we search the country with any kind of comb we will be unable to find any one more capable of carrying on this work after it is completed than they are. I for one would much rather let Mackenzie and Mann or some private corporation do the work than have the Government operate the road. I have not the slightest faith in government operation of a work of this kind. No one can tell when the Government may change, and even if the Government does not change, the Minister of Railways of any government would have to be born with a heavenly insight into railway management to be able to take charge of the railway and carry on its operation without making mistakes. All the great railway corporations of America-and they are the only ones with which we can compare ours- are managed entirely by men who have risen from the ranks; men who know the business from A to Z. No matter what party is in power, how are they going to ap-. point a Minister of Railways who has the experience necessary to enable him properly to manage a great transcontinental road? Every man sitting behind the Government would be compelled day and night to have positions available on the railway for persons applying for them. Naturally, we would think that the fellows in our constituency who applied for these positions were quite worthy of them; we would be 342
very inhuman if we did not think so. For these reasons I am absolutely opposed to any government system of operation of rail-[DOT]ways. I hope, therefore, that this Government will reconsider these resolutions and put them into such shape as will enable the Government to give the assistance necessary to ensure the completion of this road. I believe there will be traffic for it, and traffic that will make it pay. I believe also that the country will sustain it. I do not look to see a setback in the West for any length of time, nor do I anticipate any setback in the East. I do believe that the Government will be forced, no matter whether they are willing or not, to give the people of the West some of the things that they have asked for and demanded during the last few years, and the sooner it is done the better. I have much more faith in the Canadian Northern Railway Company, so far as their earning powers are concerned, than I have in the Hudson Bay railway, and I have immensely more faith in the Canadian Northern railway, so far as their earning powers are concerned, than I have in the Georgian Bay canal, which 500 and sometimes 1,000 men at a time, coming here in a body, are asking us to build. I believe that the Canadian Northern railway, properly handled after it is finished, will not only earn interest on the securities that are against it but will earn more than sufficient to pay interest on the securities and give a reasonable rate for freight both east and west as well.
Let me refer for a few moments to some comparisons and nasty insinuations that have been thrown out as to the cost of constructing the National Transcontinental railways. Some hon. gentlemen the other night compared the cost of the Canadian Northern-I am not sure that it was not the hon. Solicitor General-after the $45,000,000 goes into it, with the cost of the National Transcontinental. Let us be fair in this discussion; there will be no earthly comparison, after these roads are finished, between the physical conditions of the Canadian Northern and those in respect of the National Transcontinental railway. Why, then, compare their respective cost? The section of the Transcontinental railway built by the Government runs through an inaccessible country and it was very difficult to convey the supplies and the machinery necessary for the building of the road. This line, however, opens up a new country. Let me say also in support of what my hon.



friend the hon. member for South Renfrew and the hon. member for Port Arthur said, that the Canadian Northern opens up a very much better territory after it leaves Port Arthur coming east than does the Canadian Pacific railway. I have been over some sections of that country and I would not be surprised if a sound earning power on that section of the road from Port Arthur to Montreal were established after the road is completed. I believe that the project will be successful enough once it is carried through, but there is a right and a wrong way to carry this project through, and the wrong way is the present proposition. I offer these few remarks for the consideration of the Government before they try to force this Bill through Parliament against the wishes of the members on this side of the House.


Mr. WILLIAM SMITH (South Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very patiently to the speeches of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House upon perhaps one of the most important questions that has engaged our attention this session. I do not propose to talk about millions or about bonds to-night, because these are things outside of my knowledge. I may be allowed to express some little surprise at the position taken by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). He was in this House last year when the legislation authorizing the granting of $15,000,000 to the Canadian Northern railway was before Parliament. And what did the hon. member do? If my memory serves, me rightly, he walked out of the House rather than vote on the question.


Mr. NESBITT:: The hon. member will, I hope, allow me to say that his memory is in fault.


William Smith: The hon. gentleman will
not find his name upon the record in connection with that matter. I propose to discuss this resolution to-night from a standpoint different, perhaps, from that which has been taken by any of the previous speakers. I happen.' to be only an ordinary farmer, and I am inclined to ask this question: has this railway ever done anything for us? If it has, then it seems to me that the proposition now before the House is one which is in the interests of Canada generally. If not then I may be taking a wrong position.

This railway company started a number of years ago by building one hundred miles of railway out of Portage la Prairie to the north, practically through a virgin territory. It then commenced to open up the valley of the Saskatchewan river, where the settlers naturally drifted in. The land was somewhat rolling, slightly wooded, and naturally adapted for mixed farming. I made a statement to the House in the Budget debate that the hope of the Northwest was in mixed farming. Settlers naturally followed the building of this line. Homesteads were taken up. Men were able to perform their homestead duties and work upon the railroad, and out of their savings they purchased implements and live stock, and many of these men became the principal agriculturists of the great Northwest. I believe that not only the Dominion but provincial governments have asked the company to continue their building, because it would be in the interests of the farmers of Canada. The people of the Northwest, especially in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, have reaped considerable returns from the building of this road. This was pointed out, I think, admirably to-day by the hon. membeT for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), who said tnat $15,000,000 had been saved to the farmers of the Northwest. In Alberta they reduced the rates upon live stock and grain 15 per cent, and in Manitoba 7i per cent, and 3 cents per 100-lbs, on their rate to the head of the Great Lakes.
An advantage has also been secured to the people of the Northwest in the competition which was afforded by this railway. We all know what that means. We know what it means in the older portions of our Dominion, and we know what it means to the success of our Northwest territory. The new line which they are building from Edmonton to Vancouver will afford to the farmers of the Northwest great opportunity of sending their -grain and livestock into that province, while the railway will bring back lumber, fish and fruit from [DOT] British Columbia for their use. The Canadian Northern railway last year handled 30 per cent of the grain and 70 per cent of the livestock of the Northwest.
One of the great difficulties in the building of the railroads has been the municipal aid which has been given io them. This is one thing which I think has been overlooked to a great extent in the building of the Canadian Northern railway. Outside of Port Arthur and the Parry

Sound district, where they received in the neighbourhood of $70,000, as far as I know not one single dollar has been given by any municipality in aid of the Canadian Northern railway.
Coming to the Canadian Northern railway in the older parts of Ontario, the hon. member for Calgary last night skipped over from Montreal to Winnipeg very lightly. He seemed to forget that there were hundreds of miles between Montreal and Winnipeg. The great province of Ontario was practically forgotten. This line from Toronto to Ottawa and then east passes through the richest portions of the province of Ontario. It passes through the county that I have the honour of representing, and I may say from my own experience and knowledge, running as it does between the Grand Trunk to the south and the Canadian Pacific railway to the north, it is doing a splendid work for that portion of the province of Ontario. The Canadian Northern railway will run away to the north in the newer portions of the province of Ontario. The land, I understand, is admirably adapted for settlement. It will afford great opportunities for our young men, who instead of having to go to our Northwest or to the country to the south, can go on that land and still remain in the province of Ontario. That land will be admirably adapted for mixed farming. The Dominion Department of Agriculture has been doing splendid work. They have been developing the live-stock interests especially in the Peace River district, in British Columbia, and in other portions of the Dominion. It is here that the Canadian Northern railway will play a considerable part in being able to market the produce of the work which has been done by the Agricultural Department. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in the older and more settled portions of Ontario, the Canadian Northern railway has been doing splendid work. We find that where it has perhaps been impossible for them to continue their steam road, they have been building electric lines as feeders to the main line. These are doing splendid work for the farmers of Canada. I believe that the farmers of Canada fully realize this fact, and when the time comes, and this party and this Government need not hesitate to say when it shall come, that the farmers of Canada will rally around the Government and say: You did wisely and 2421
well when you came to the assistance of the Canadian Northern railway.
1 have listened to the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on both sides, and whilst we may have difficulties upon our side, I venture to make this statement, that when the vote comes to be recorded, we will be able to point out that our oppnents too have their difficulties. I listened to the hon-member for Pictou as carefully as I could to-night. I listened to his speech, forcibly given as it was, and I could not help drawing a contrast between his speech and that of his leader. But it seemed to remain for one of the principal lieutenants of the party to propound their policy. What did the right hon. leader of the Opposition say the other night? He said he was in favour of assisting, in some form or other, the Canadian Northern railway. That was repeated by his lieutenant, the hon. member for South Renfrew, and yet the hon. member for Pictou comes and says: We will do that in six months or later if possible. Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen to be honest, if that would be parliamentary, should remember their record of 1903 and 1908 and 1911, when they came to the assistance of this railroad.
Are they going to let this almost transcontinental Toad go down? Are they going to ruin the prosperity of this country by not coming to the assistance of this road? Or, on the other hand, shall we adopt the policy propounded by the right hon. the Prime Minister the other evening? Have we not security for the proposition that we make? Can any hon. gentleman put his finger upon one single thing that we could have done more than we have? We have practically tied up the road in every possible way.. To-day, the people of Canada are looking to this Parliament because they believe that part of the prosperity of Canada depends upon what shall be done in connection with this third transcontinental railway. I do not say that it was absolutely necessary that this road should have been started, but if any one is to blame because the Grand Trunk Pacific came in between, it is hon. gentlemen opposite. We have these roads, and to-day we cannot do without them. They touch so many vital points not only in the older portions of this Dominion, but in the newer territory as well, that it would be suicidal for this Government to allow these roads to go down. I have an abiding faith that the Canadian Northern with all its difficulties, and despite all its trials in the past, will come out all right,

and that it will play a very great part in the carrying of the products of this country in the years that are to come.
On motion of Mr. A. K. Maclean, the debate was ajourned,



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the chair.
Post office, outside service-Salaries and allowances, mail service, miscellaneous, Yukon territory, $13,958,564.25.
Mr. CARROLL:: I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General the dismissal of the postmaster at Bridgeport, in the riding of South Cape Breton. I wish to place on ' Hansard ' and before the House the correspondence that took place between the Post Office Department and the postmaster at Bridgeport, Mr. Joseph McMillan, and some other correspondence. On April 9, 1912, the Postmaster General received the following telegram:
Please investigate Joseph McMillan, postmaster, Bridgeport. Official political partisan. If dismissed beg to recommend Daniel Cameron, Bridgeport, to succeed him.
(Sgd) J. W. Maddin.
In reply to that, Mr. Verret, the assistant Deputy Postmaster General, wrote to Mr. Maddin stating that the usual course was to write to Mr. McMillan first, and afterwards to have the matter investigated. On April 11, 1912, the following letter was sent to Mr. Jos. McMillan, postmaster at Bridgeport:
Sir,-I am directed to inform you that it is represented to this department that you have taken a more active part in elections, federal or provincial, than quietly polling your vote since the date of your appointment as postmaster. The Postmaster General desires to know, therefore, what you have to say in reply to the charge in question.
That letter is signed by William Smith, the secretary, I presume, of the Postmaster General. Mr. McMillan answered this letter on April 15, 1912:
To the Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,-In reply to your communication, No. 54747, dated April 11, I beg leave to say that I know of no reason why such a charge as stated should be made against me, and I further submit that I have performed my duties as postmaster honestly, faithfully and impartially, and without fear or favour.
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd) J. McMillan.
In answer to that letter, Mr. Hector B. Verret wrote Mr. McMillan on the 23rd of April, 1912, as follows:

Sir,-With reference to the communication addressed to you from this department, under date of 11th instant, in regard to the representations made to the department that you had been guilty of active political partisanship, and to your reply thereto, dated the 15th instant, I beg to say that in view of the statements made in your letter, it is presumed that you will have no objection to sign the solemn declaration herewith enclosed, which should be attested before a Justice of the Peace.
The declaration to which Mr. Verret refers was signed by Mr. McMillan, and reads as follows:
1.	That I was appointed postmaster in the year 1908;
2.	That since my appointment as postmaster, I have taken no active part in federal or provincial elections ; I have not canvassed or taken any voters to the polls, nor have I offered or given any money or liquor, or represented any candidate at any polling division; I have not checked or verified any list of voters outside any polling station; neither did I take part in any committee of organization or address a meeting in favour of any candidate, and I did not interrupt any public speaker during the course of any meeting.
3.	All I did was to quietly cast my vote.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
And I have signed,
(Sd) Joseph McMillan.
Declared before me at Bridgeport, N.S., this 26th day of April, 1912.
(Sgd) Alex. O. McDonald,,
Justice of the Peace in and for the county of Cape Breton, N.S.
The letter that accompanied that affidavit has no bearing on the case, but the following letter was addressed to Mr. McMillan by Mr. Hector Verret in answer to the letter covering the declaration I have read:
Ottawa, April 30, 1912.
Dear Sir,-I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your solemn declaration, denying the charges of political partisanship which have been preferred against you.
You are no doubt aware that this declaration is as binding as any statement made under oath, and in view of the statements made to this department as to your political activity, your declaration seems inexplainable.
Under the circumstances, it becomes necessary to ascertain who is telling the truth, and the department will consequently proceed to make the necessary inquiries towards this end.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) Hector B. Verret, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.
The department, then, undertakes to ascertain who is telling the truth as between the gentleman who made the charge against McMillan, and McMillan, whose declaration exonerates him, so far as I

can see, from ever having taken any part in politics since the date of his appointment. Then, there is the following letter, dated Ottawa, May 21, 1912:
Acting under authority of an Order in Council dated the 27th November, 1896, copy of which is herewith, X beg to request that you will undertake a judicial inquiry into certain charges which have been made against Mr. Joseph McMillan, postmaster at Bridgeport, Nova Scotia, in the county of South Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, of political partisanship during his incumbency of that office.
Tour allowance will be $15 per diem, in addition to your actual travelling expenses, and $3 per diem for living expenses. It will not be necessary to employ a shorthand writer or copyist. You will hear the witnesses pro and con and base your report on the evidence.
You will please give Mr. Thomas Callant, Inverness, N.S., and the postmaster due notice of the date on which the investigation is to be held.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) L. P. Pelletier.
H. P. Duchemin, Esq., K.C.,
Sydney, N.S.
Mr. Duchemin acknowledged the receipt of that in a letter dated Sydney, May 25, 1912, in which he says that he will give the matter his very early attention. There are a few other letters in connection with this matter which do not have very much bearing on it. It seems that the gentlemen who made the charges against Mr. McMillan of political partisanship were unable to bring forward any evidence to show that he was guilty. Here is a letter dated Ottawa, August 12, 1912. Apparently it should be dated Sydney:
Hon. W. B. Nantel,
Acting Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir:
I am in receipt of your favour of the 18th instant, wherein you ask me to report at the earliest possible moment, the result of the investigation into charges against Mr. Joseph McMillan, postmaster at Bridgeport, N.S.
In reply I beg to state that no evidence has yet been offered me; that about a month ago, I wrote Mr. J. W. Maddin, advising him that this case was in hand, and that I have received no intimation from him that he has any evidence to offer; also, that Mr. J. C. Douglas, M. L.A., of Glace Bay, in answer to my inquiry regarding this case a fortnight ago, stated that he thought it would be better not to go ahead with it at the present time.
The case is still on my list, and as Bridgeport is so near at hand, I am prepared to take it up at any time the local complainants have evidence to submit. It is entirely in their hands.
Trusting that this explanation will be satisfactory, I remain,
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) H. P. Duchemin.
Next, there is a letter from Mr. Hector B. Verret, assistant Deputy Postmaster
General, dated Ottawa, August 17, 1912, as follows:
I beg to ackowledge your letter of the 12th instant, stating that you have not yet taken up the investigation into the charges preferred against the postmaster of Bridgeport, N.S., Mr. Joseph McMillan, owing to the fact that you have not yet been advised by Mr. Maddin as to what evidence he may have to offer in the case.
In regard to this matter I am to say that a petition has been received for the removal of the Bridgeport post office to a more convenient location, and that this phase of the question will be investigated. In the meantime, you will hold your commission to investigate the political charges against this postmaster, in abeyance.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) Hector B. Verret,
Assistant Deputy Postmaster General. H. P. Duchemin, Esq.,
Barrister,
Sydney, N.S.
Apparently, when they found that they could not substantiate any charge against the postmaster of Bridgeport of political partisanship, the Conservative politicians down in that part of the country decided that they might get around it in another way and on August 17, 1912, they sent a memorial to the Post Office Department asking for the removal of the post office from the site it then occupied to another place in the village, which is really a part of the town of Glace Bay. With this object in view they sent to the Postmaster General, or his department, a petition signed by a great many people. I was rather surprised to see certain names on this petition. I am finding fault with the Postmaster General in this particular-and I asked three or four gentlemen whom I did not think would sign any petition of this kind what they did it for and their answer was that they had never signed
10 p.m. it. I find there are the names of ten persons on this petition who do not get their mail in the Bridgeport post office at all and who would have no reason for asking for the removal of the Bridgeport post office from the former to the present location.


Richard Blain: What does the petition say?


William F. Carroll: The petition says:
We, the undersigned residents of Bridgeport in the town of Glace Bay, do humbly petition you to cause the post office at Bridgeport on the South riding in the county of Cape Breton to be changed from its present location to one which will be more convenient to the great majority of the residents of this section.


Richard Blain: Is that it all?


William F. Carroll: Then it gives the prayer of the petition and the signatures. There is a report and it is on this report that I want to say something that perhaps may be offensive to certain gentlemen who are in the Post Office Department. I do not wish to say anything that may hurt their feelings in any way but I do not believe that the gentleman who presumed to make a sketch of the situation of the post office, and a general sketch of the village itself, ever saw the place or, if he did, he must have known that he was making a sketch that was absolutely wrong. I do not charge Mr. W. E. MacLellan with it but I do charge somebody in his department.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Have you the request of the inspector asking him to report?


William F. Carroll: That is here but I did not read it. The report is as follows:
I enclose a sketch of the district showing the present and proposed sites of the office, the line of the Sydney and Louisburg railway, the line of the Sydney and Glace Bay Electric Tramway, the Bridgeport colliery, etc. The two sites are little more than one-eighth of a mile apart, but it will he seen from the sketch that the present site is not on the main road,-
That is falsehood No. 1.
-but on a side road and out of the way for the miners and the majority of the population. The proposed site is almost directly opposite the railway station-
That is correct.
and in the immediate vicinity of the colliery.
That also is correct.
The office is served from the Electric Tramway which has stopping places near the present site and also near the proposed site. The contract for carrying the mails between the post office and the tramway is, held by the present postmaster, J. McMillan, for which he is paid $40 per annum. In the event of the transfer being authorized, the service would have to be put into the hands of the proposed postmaster, Dan. Cameron.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) W. E. MacLellan,
Post Office Inspector. The Hon. the Postmaster General,
Ottawa
When the papers were brought down, a copy of the sketch which Mr. McLellan said he enclosed in this letter, was not brought down.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What is the date of Mr. McLellan's report ?


William F. Carroll: The 21st of September, 1912.
I want to point out that the post office, where it was originally, was on the only 
main street in that section of the town. It was on the line of the Sydney and Glace Bay Tramway company; the cars stopped in front of it and always put the mails off there. The present locality is not on the main road; it is now not even on a public road, but on a road used by the Dominion Coal Company. So far as accommodating the people is concerned, the post office where it was, was in the only business section of the town. There are five or six stores in that section of Glace Bay, every one of which circles the post office where Mr. McMillan kept it; tout where it is at present, there is no business carried on except in the railway station across the way of the Sydney and Louisburg Railway Company, which is a steam road.
Then comes a letter, dated September 26, from the hon. Postmaster General to Mr. J. W. Maddin. I want to be fair in the matter, and I do not know that I have any other criticism than this to make of the Postmaster General. In the first place, Mr. Maddin asked for the dismissal of Mr. McMillan on the grounds of political partisanship. The Post Office Department asked Mr. McMillan if he was a partisan and he replied that he was not. Oh, well, said Mr. Verret, of the Post Office Department, either one or the other is not telling the truth. Then Mr. McMillan was asked to make a. declaration; and he did so, declaring that he had never, since the time he was installed as postmaster at Bridgeport, taken any part either directly or indirectly in political matters, and I believe him. He was appointed to that position, not because he was a Liberal-because he did not vote Liberal previous to that, although he may have voted Liberal after that -but on account of being a friend of a certain gentleman in that district and on account of his place of business being in a central locality. I hardly thought there was a man in this country who could sign such a declaration ; but Mr. McMillan having signed it, I believe that he swore to what was absolutely the truth. Then Mr. Verret, an officer of the department, says:	Mr. Maddin said
that you acted in a partisan manner; you have sworn to the contrary; we will investigate the matter, and find out who is telling the truth. That was in the ordinary course of business, but the department although they searched high and low, could not find any evidence against Mr. McMillan to convict him of political partisanship. This is the criticism I have to make of the Department of the Postmaster General, that, those gentlemen having started to secure the dis-

missal of this man on the grounds of political partisanship and having failed in that, as shown by their own letters to the department, the Postmaster General and his department should have shown more caution in accepting the reports that came to them in connection with the second ruse that was being played for the purpose of getting this gentleman out of his position. When this . matter was brought to my attention, I went to the trouble of writing to Mr. McMillan, asking him for a sketch of this particular part of the town. I knew it pretty well myself, but I wanted to have it in case it was ever asked for. I have the sketch now, and there is absolutely no truth in the statement made in the letter of Mr. MeLellan, that this sketch would show that the present site of the post office was better than the last. As a matter of fact, there are false statements contained in that report. I do not say that Mr. MeLellan made the false statements; I do not even say that the gentleman who reported to Mr. MeLellan did so; but they were made somehow. That is evident to any man who knows the town of Glace Bay. The most startling thing is this, that, when I asked for this return, I asked for a report of the gentleman who investigated this matter, namely Mr. H. P. Duchemin of Sydney. I also asked how much the investigation cost. I think I have shown to the House that no investigation was ever held in connection with this matter at all. Yet the Department of the Postmaster General brings down a return showing that the cost of the investigation against the postmaster at Bridgeport was $17.75. This amount is not given in detail, and I am not very much surprised at that. A charge of $17.75 was made by the gentleman who was asked to investigate this matter and who in his own letter said that the matter was not investigated because there was no evidence forthcoming and because he was told by the officer of the department, Mr. Verret, that this matter should be held in abeyance, and because it was held in abeyance, where then comes the charge of $17.75 for making an investigation when no investigation was made?


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Scores of
similar cases.


William F. Carroll: If there are, I take the ground that a most rigid investigation should be held into all these matters; and I think that I am only doing my duty in bringing to the attention of the Postmaster
General, first, that he and his department should have exercised more caution in having this man dismissed on the ground that his post office was in a certain position, when the thing was started first on the ground that he was a political partisan; secondly, that Mir. Duchemin has charged $17.75 for investigating this case which, on his own testimony and on the testimony of letters from the department, is shown never to have been investigated.
It is outrageous that men should be allowed to lose their offices on pretences of this kind. There are many people in my constituency who have lost postmasterships and other offices; but I am making no great complaint about that; if they have taken part in politics. If they are officials of the Government, and take an active part in politics, they should be willing to pay the penalty. The most of those who have been dismissed, with some notable exceptions, about which I am not going to say anything, are satisfied to pay the penalty by losing any little positions they may have had.	.
I think I have put this case plainly and quite mildly before the House. The Postmaster General should investigate this matter of Mr. Duchemin making a charge of $17.75 for work he never did. While I do not pretend to be in a position always to advise the Postmaster General, I would advise him in cases of this kind, which on their faces are suspicious, that he and the officers of his deparment should take care to see that no injustice is done as certainly has been done in this case.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The fact that there was a bill put in and the amount paid, $17.75, is not explained on the file, and I shall be glad to look into it. If there was no investigation, if Mr. Duchemin did not go to Glace Bay, certainly there was no justification for the charge. We must have had an account of some kind. The fact that he wrote to the department letters about it and looked into the matter and obtained information would take him a full day at all events, and the instructions were that he should have $15 a day. This is a small matter, but still my hon., friend has th.e right to know facts, and I will certainly look into it.


William F. Carroll: This man never got
any summons to appear, never was asked to appear, and did not appear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend has read the instructions given Mr. Duchemin and knows that he was instructed to notify the postmaster if he held an investigation. If the postmaster did not receive a notice, clearly there was no investigation. My hon. friend has gone over a whole file, and I understand that there is no report by Mr. Duchemin that the case was investigated. Now, that the department should have been told that thie postmaster should be dismissed for partisanship and yet no evidence adduced is a fact to be regretted. I myself have written letters which were easy to .understand telling people who made charges, yet who did not come forward and prove them, that their action was unfair.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Locking the door after the horse is stolen.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman does not understand what I say. When people have made charges of partisanship against officials, yet have not done anything to prove those charges when the time came, I myself have reproached them for it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You did not bother your head very much about that in my constituency.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have bothered my head about it wherever it occurred. I do not think it is faiT to the department or to myself to make charges against an official which cannot be sustained. And it looks like striking below the belt besides. Whether done by my political friends or others, I say it is not fair. Whether this is a case of that kind I do not know. From what was read by the hon. member for South Cape Breton, I should infer that these people, when the time came to prove their charges, said that the time was not opportune.


William F. Carroll: No, there was simply no evidence forthcoming.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: At all events, the
letter will appear on 'Hansard/ It may be that the witnesses who could prove the charges were away at the time. But, let it be remembered, this man was not dismissed on account of these charges; the charges not having been sustained, the man was not dismissed on that account. But we find that a largely signed petition was sent to the department, in which it was alleged that the post office was not at the point where it ought to be. I did not act in this

matter, but the action was taken in this case which js invariably taken-it was referred to the post office inspector. Now, officers of the department are not entrusted as a tuIs with the inveetigation of the charges of partisanship. But invariably, or with very few exceptions, allegations about the management of the offices or their location are investigated, not by outsiders, but by officers of the department, and almost always by the post office inspector. In this case requests for the change in the site of the post office was referred to the post office inspector in Halifax, Mr. Maclellan. I will not say anything either in favour of or against Mr. Maclellan; I have not the pleasure of knowing him. But I appeal to hon. members of this House from Nova Scotia, and I think that there is not one but will tell me that Mr. Maclellan is a reliable officer and an honest man. .He was simply asked to report, and no pressure was put upon him. His report practically says that there should be a change in the site of the post office for the reasons he gives.


William F. Carroll: But his facts are not correct.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend says the facts are not given correctly and that the sketch accompanying the letter is not right.


William F. Carroll: I am not in a position to speak as to the sketch, not having seen it. Mr. Maclellan may have been misled as to the facts by some one in the locality.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: But are the facts correct?


William F. Carroll: No.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If they are not correct the department will have reason to doubt the efficiency of that officer. This I would regret very much, for I have always been told that Mr. Maclellan is an absolutely trustworthy and reliable official. The hon. member for South Cape Breton says that he has no fault to find with Mr. Maclellan, but Mr. Maclellan is responsible.


William F. Carroll: I take the ground that if he is responsible he should be held responsible for the false report which he has made to the department, and he should be asked to give the Postmaster General a reason for that false report.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not going to disagree with that view. Having been informed by a member of this House, who is

familiar with the place in question, that a report made by one of my officers is not correct, I shall certainly send a copy of ' Hansard ' to this officer and ask him for an explanation. If what my hon. friend says is true, we have been deceived by that officer. Mr. Maclellan had no business to write to the department anything which was not true. His report shows that this post office should be changed; if- we have made a mistake, we have made it because of this report made by our inspector.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose you will
reinstate the dismissed official if you find that the report is wrong?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly, if we have been deceived by our officer. The hon. member for South Cape Breton will agree with me when I say that this man was dismissed because the site was changed and for no other reason. If Mr. Maclellan deceived us in sending the document upon which was based the changing of the site; if the statements he made are not true, we shall certainly see that the matter is righted.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: The minister is very
angry-at least, he pretends to be very angry-about getting incorrect information, but the fact that these two matters followed one another in direct sequence is a very suspicious circumstance. When my hon. friend attempts to dismiss a postmaster and is unable to do so for one reason, he invariably finds another reason for taking action. I wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to a similar case which occurred in my own constituency. He says it is not fair that the people in the country should complain about postmasters and then fail to substantiate their complaints. According to my view of the way the Postmaster General administers his department, it is a foolish waste of energy for persons to make these partisan complaints, because the Postmaster General is so fertile in resources that he will find some way of getting rid of the officer whether there is a complaint or not. The case to which I wish to direct my hon. friend's attention is the dismissal of Charles McPherson, a postmaster at North Riverside in the county of Guysborough. I had a good deal of difficulty in finding out the name of the man who made the complaint against Mr. McPherson ; I suppose that the name McPherson makes my hon. friend a little suspicious because, no doubt, he had in mind the
celebrated case of the McPherson whom he tried to dismiss four years after he had departed this life. If my hon. friend would consult us on this side about these matters it would be better for himself. The hon. member for South .Cape Breton could have told the Postmaster General all the details about the facts in relation to the matter to which he has referred: If the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to ask me about the case of the late John McPherson of Tracadie Road I would have been able to inform him that Mr. McPherson had been dead four years and the Postmaster General would have escaped the odium of being charged with digging around in a graveyard and attempting to dismiss a man who had long since departed this life. I want, however, to be permitted to point out how this man Charles McPherson happened to be dismissed. The first communication on the subject is a letter from a man by the name of James R. McPherson, written to the Right Hon. R. L. Borden, Prime Minister of Canada. It is as follows:
Honourable Sir,-Charles McPherson, postmaster of this place, was appointed postmaster on the eve of the last election under the Laurier Administration and he is a strong Grit, always was and always will be. And he supported the Liberal councillor on the 4th of November last. Ever since the Conservative Government came into power X have been looking for his dismissal and I want to be appointed postmaster myself. I have been a Conservative all my life and a near neighbour of Mr. Charles McPherson and as yet I have not got much satisfaction concerning his dismissal and my appointment. Enclosed please find last letter from Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings, which speaks for itself.
Mr. Rowliugs w.as the defeated candidate in the constituency in the last election, and resides in the city of Sydney, N.S. (Reading):
Now, Sir, I wish you to look in this matter and see that this Grit is removed from office.
I am, Sir,
your obedient servant,
(Sgd) James R. McPherson.
This man evidently is not afraid to speak up to the Prime Minister of this country. He charges the man who holds the office with being a strong Grit and with having voted at the municipal election for a Liberal candidate. The following letter was written by Mr. Rowlings:
Sydney, N.S., December 13, 1913. Mr. James R. McPherson,
South Intervale,
Guysborough county, N.S.
Dear Sir,-I have had considerable correspondence with the department about the North

Riverside post office, but I regret to say that I have not had any attention as vet, I have asked for an investigation and they have told me that they would like to know what specific acts of partisanship can be proved. Of course I have submitted the fact that the present postmaster got his position on the eve of the last election.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) G. A. R. Rowlings.
This letter does not seem to have been answered by the Prime Minister. It is answered by the Deputy Postmaster General, on January 22, 1914, as follows:
Sir,-It is represented to this department that since your appointment as postmaster at North Riverside, you have taken an, active part in federal, provincial and municipal elections.
I am therefore directed to request that you will be good enough to say whether this is true. If the accusation is not well founded I presume you will have no objection to signing the solemn declaration herewith enclosed which should be attested before a justice of the peace. An early reply is requested.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) R. M. Coulter, Deputy Postmaster General. Mr. McPherson had apparently had no difficulty in making the declaration asked for because there had not been an election since the date of his appointment. It happened this office was open about the time of the last general election and there was no postmaster. The office had been opened but no one had been appointed. After the defeat of the late Government, and about a fortnight before the present Government came into power, I was asked to recommend a gentleman for the post office and I recommended Charles McPherson. His place was centrally located, and he was acceptable to the people, both Liberals and Conservatives. Mr. McPherson makes this affidavit:
I,	the undersigned, postmaster at North Riverside, do solemnly declare:
1.	That I was appointed postmaster in the year one thousand nine hundred and eleven.
2.	That since my appointment as postmaster,
I have taken no active part In federal or provincial elections.
I have not canvassed or taken any voters to the poll, nor have I offered or given money or liquor, or represented any candidate at any polling division. I have not checked or verified any list of voters outside any polling station, neither did I take part in any committee or organization or address a meeting in favour of any candidate and I did not interrupt any public speaker during the course of any meeting.
3.	That I have taken no part in the Liberal interest in the municipal election held on the 4th November, 1913.
4.	All I did was to quietly cast my vote. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing

that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
And I have signed,
(Sgd) Charles McPherson,
Postmaster.
Declared before me at Boylston this 27th January, 1914.
(Sgd) William G. Simpson,
A Justice of the Peace, for the county of Guysborough.
This postmaster was able to comply with all the stringent rules of my hon. friend. He swore that since his appointment he had taken no part in federal, provincial or municipal elections, except to quietly poll his vote. But that does not seem to have helped him very much. Then we have a letter written to the department by Mr. Rowlings. There is consternation now in the department because all the props have been knocked from under their feet and there does not seem to be any way of getting this Liberal postmaster out of office. A letter was written from Ottawa on February 5, 1913, to Mr. Rowlings:
Ottawa, Ont., February 5, 1914.
Dear Sir,-This department lately received through the Prime Minister a communication from Mr. James R. McPherson charging the postmaster of North Riverside with political partisanship and also a letter addressed to Mr. McPherson on the subject by you.
The postmaster, I may say, was asked to sign a solemn declaration in connection with the charge, and he has returned the declaration duly signed. A copy of the declaration is enclosed herewith for your information and for any observations which you may care to make in the matter.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Hector B. Verret,
.	Assistant Deputy Postmaster General.
G. A, R. Rowlings, Esq.,
Sydney, N.S.
To this, Mr. Rowlings makes this reply:
Sydney, N.S., March 3, 1914. Hector P. Verret, Esq.,
Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Referring to your favou; of February 5, I beg to say that I would recommend that the application of Mr. James R. McPherson for the appointment of postmaster at North Riverside, Guysborough county, he granted. The establishment of this post office was made after the defeat of the late Administration and the present officials appointed several days after the late Government was defeated at the polls There is little doubt that the present official, Mr Charles McPherson, received the appointment as a reward for political services, and I hardly see how the present Administration can endorse his appointment and ratify the same under the circumstances mentioned.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) G. A. R. Rowlings.

You will see that he shifts his ground now and tries to find some other reason that will satisfy the Postmaster General for dismissing this man. He makes no reference to the affidavit, but knowing that there is always some way of getting Liberals out, either by changing the site of the post office or otherwise, he thinks of this device and presents it to my hon. friend. Then we have the order to dismiss Charles McPherson. There is a letter of protest, however, from William A. McDonald, who describes himself as a staunch Conservative. Mr. McDonald says:
North Riverside, March 27, 1914. The Post Office Inspector,
Halifax.
Dear Sir,-I am taking the liberty of writing you a few lines concerning our post office here at North Riverside, which was established about two years ago, it being one of the acts of John Sinclair when the Liberals were going out of power. This office is situated about midway between Boylston and Intervale, about three and a-half miles from each. The present postmaster is Charley McPherson, who had been a Liberal in politics. I may say of him he has kept the office in an honest and trustworthy manner, it has been a benefit to us. Now, a word about myself.
I am a staunch Conservative, and was appointed a delegate by the Conservatives of this polling district, and the Conservatives of this community have asked me to speak in our defence.
There is a man by the name of James McPherson agitating for to get this office for nearly two years. He reports now that he will have it first of April. Now, I will reluctantly have to tell you the truth. The office is in a central place, convenient to the people, held by a Liberal, and Liberals at both sides of it for some distance.
The Conservatives are in the west corner, and just at present we are satisfied where it is, as we sometimes get more flies with honey than vinegar.
In the meantime, if any good honest Conservative will take the office we are satisfied.
I am going to send you a list of property owners so you may know if you receive the right names.
David O'Connor, Thomas Gillie, James Clarey, William A. McDonald, James A. McDonald, John McDonald, Angus McDonald, William McPherson, Edmond McDonald-all Conservatives.
James Fraser, Charles McPherson, Thadeus Leet, Alex. Delroy, Joseph Delroy, C. Bryner, Cris. McDonald, William Cleary, William McPherson-Liberals.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) William A. McDonald.
It appears the Mr. McDonald's appeal had no effect on the Postmaster General. The facts that this office was in a central place and convenient to the public and that there was no Conservative in the centre of the district who could take this office, seemed to have no influence at all with the Postmaster General.
I have cited this case to show the methods applied by the Postmaster General in getting rid of Liberal postmasters. There was no pretence of any complaint against this man. He was satisfactory not only to the Liberals of the district but to most of the Conservatives- as well. The office was in a central place and everything was going along first rate until this man, James McPherson, cropped up who says that he has been a Conservative all his life and wants the job. There is no evidence that a single person wanted that man removed from office, except McPherson who wanted the job for himself.


Mr. STEELE:: What salary is attached to the office?


John Howard Sinclair: I have no doubt it is
$35. The salary does not amount to much; the point is the inconvenience that is caused the people of the district by having to go to the west end in order to get their mail, whereas the former office was central. I am only bringing this up as a sample case.
I have a number of other such cases in my desk showing the fertility of resource of the Postmaster General in finding reasons for dismissing Liberal officials who are not guilty of partisanship.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend has
explained the facts pretty well, I think, and I do not need to add much to what he has said. I think this office can be regarded as the legitimate patronage of the party coming into power.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska). -Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up the question of the dismissals of postmasters in my constituency, as most of them have been relieved of office for various reasons. Let me refer briefly to one case: that of Miss Paradis, of Kamouraska, who was dismissed on account of her political leanings, and also because on the evening of polling day she had put up lights in her window to celebrate the victory of the member for Kamouraska.
Before going any farther and launching into any crilticism of his management of the Post Office Department. I would like to enquire from the Postmaster General whether he will be so kind as to consider an application which I myself submitted, in the course of last summer, for the opening of a post office at a certain point of Kamouraska county called River Menie. That thriving centre is situated on the line of the Transcontinental railway and has a great future in store,, for people are bound to settle

within a few years in numbers at that point where large sawmills are already in existence. I forwarded to the department a petition bearing many signatures. The locality referred to is situated within the limits of the municipality of St. Bruno where the River Menie Pulp Company has a mill.
I fail to see why that petition has not been granted. It seems to me a post office in that locality would be as much in the public interest as the numerous post offices which have been granted to my hon. friend from L'Islet (Mr. Paquet), whom-though I do not see him at his seat just now-I wish to congratulate on the activity he has shown in the matter of the opening of post offices throughout his constituency. I have in hand a report showing that during the year 191213, fourteen new post offices have been opened in the county of L'Islet.
The hon. Postmaster General stated the other day that he managed his department on business lines. However, I do not think the report I have in my hand supports his contention, at any rate as concerns the county of L'Islet. These fourteen post offices bear historic names for the most part. My hon. friend is entitled to our encomiums, the selection of the names bearing testimony to his literary, political and even military tastes. We have, in the first place, Chapais, a beautiful name, well known in the county of Kamouraska. Then we have Rerryer and Artois, the latter I imagine, to satisfy his warlike disposition; Begin, as evidence of his religious faith, La France, Frenette, Ozanam, Deniau, Bourgault, Botrel, the French national bard, Pasteur, the great healer of hydrophobia. However, when 1 reached Pinquet, I was astounded, and also Lachance.
Of course these are beautiful names, but from a business standpoint, I fail to perceive how the department will make a success of it. The total revenue forthcoming from these post offices was $710.81; salaries paid amount to $549.05, and the total expenditure for the carrying of the mails reached $1,093.99. So that the expenditure under all heads made up a total of practically $1,600, while the revenue barely reached $700. As regards some of these post offices, the revenue accruing from the sale of postage stamps reached for a period of two years the fabulous amount of $22. In another office, the revenue from that source did not exceed $19.50, while the carriage of the mails cost $37.50, to which should be added $21.50 for the salary of the postmaster.
I should add that more post offices have been opened since. I am not jealous of the. favours granted to the county of L'Islet, and

I am pointing out the fact solely for the purpose of showing that the department is not managed in a business way and to show how constituencies represented by liberals are dealt with in comparison. Subsequent to the date of that report, the Gia&son post office, among others, has been opened in the parish of St. Aubert. The application was made by my hon. friend from L'Islet, and I cannot do any better than read his letter.
St. Aubert, April 1, 1914. Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General.
Dear Sir,-I recommend the opening of a post office at a point situated one mile and a half to the east of the St. Aubert central post office, at the place of Mr. Georges Fournier, farmer. There are eight families residing at distances of four miles and four miles and three-quarters from the church and central office. On account of the peculiar way in which the settlement is laid out, the new post office cannot be located any further from the central office.
Close to Mr. Fournier's place there is a settlement of labourers, without means of conveyance. We have a storekeeper, a school, a real estate man, a flour mill and fifteen labourers living there. That office would be helpful more particularly to the labourers who, in winter time, cannot easily get their mail. I suggest the name of Giasson. I suggest that the service be daily and the contract awarded to Mr. St. Pierre, at 25 cents per trip, $77.50. 1 am sending the names of those who are asking for that new post office. Thanks.
Tours,
Dr. E. Paquet.
And the hon. member followed up that letter with a list of names. It is not the signatures of residents of St. Aubert that appear on that list, it is merely a list of names supplied by the hon. member.
Mr. PAQUET.-Will the hon. gentleman read the names?
Mr. LAPOINTE.-I say that these are not the signatures of these people.


Mr. PAQUET:: Will the hon. gentleman take note that in one instance the application is signed by Cyrias Dube?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Abondance !


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, Abondance Thibault.
M. Daigle, labourer; George Pelletier, mill-owner ; J.-B. Pelletier, mill-owner; Silva Riou, storekeeper, School House.
The hon. member for L'Islet will not contend that he got the school house to sign.
(Reading)-
Joseph Fortin, sr., labourer.


Eugène Paquet: Does the hon. gentleman say that I got the signatures of these people?


Ernest Lapointe: I am only reading the names which have been forwarded to the department.
(Reading)-
Joseph Fortin, jr., labourer; Cyrias Dube, labourer ; Calixte Fournier, labourer; Frangois D'Aigle, labourer; DfsirS D'Aigle, labourer; Saliuste D'Aigle, real estate agent; Georges Fournier, farmer; Calixte Jieais, farmer; David Jeais, farmer; AmSdfie Langlois, jr., labourer; Arthur Fournier, farmer; Gaspard Caron, farmer ; Georges Tremblay, labourer.
St. Aubert, January 3, 1914.


Eugène Paquet: Does the hon. member contend that I got the signatures of those people?


Ernest Lapointe: I contend nothing of the sort; I am simply reading the names supplied to the department.
To that letter the Postmaster General replied on January 10, 1914, stating that he was instructing the inspector to prepare a report on the matter. Forthwith the post office was opened a mile or a mile and a half away from the office already in existence at St. Aubert.
I now find included in the report a letter addressed to the Postmaster General protesting against the decision,, and giving reasons in support. That letter is signed by Mr. Cyrias Dube and eighteen other citizens of St. Aubert. The letter reads as follows:
Quebec, March 17, 1914. To the Hon. Louis Philippe Pelletier, Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I beg to forward to you herewith a petition from twenty ratepayers of St. Aubert, all affected by the opening of the new post office in that parish, below the church, and designated 'Giasson.' The residents in that township never requested the opening if that town-office, which far from accommodating them is a nuisance, and that, for the reasons stated in the petition I am forwarding to you.
I trust you will have the . kindness of duly considering our request and that you will do away with that post office, which is of no use to us and is rather an inconvenience,
I have the honour to be, sir,
Tour most humble servant,
(Signed) Cyrias Dub A
Province of Quebec,
Parish of St. Aubert.
The undersigned ratepayers of the parish of St. Aubert beg to submit to the consideration of the honourable Postmaster General the following facts:-
(1)	That they are residents in the district wherein a new post office bearing the name of Giasson has been opened.
(2)	That they never requested the opening of that post office, which is of no service, and is rather an inconvenience.
(3)	That it is much easier for the residents in that vicinity to receive and deliver their mail at the post office close to the church, as that has always been the case heretofore, their business calling them at frequent intervals to the village.
(4)	That on Sundays especially, the necessity under which they are put of calling at that post office to get their mail, instead of getting it at the post office next the church, after service is over, is of great inconvenience to them, as it occasions delay on their way home and impedes circulation.
For the above reasons the undersigned request that the honourable Postmaster General close that post office and allow the undersigned to get their mail at the post office next to the church, as they have always done heretofore.
(Sgd.) Cyrias DubA his x mark; Philias DubS, Joseph C. Bernier, Joseph Gagnon, Omer Gagnon, Aubert Fournier, Prudent D'Aigle, D6sirS D'Aigle, Frangois D'Aigle, Auguste Dube, Joseph Dube, Honors Robichaud, Wilfrid Ro-bichaud, Xavier Robichaud, Frangois Pelletier, Amable Pelletier, Jean-Bap-tiste Pelletier, Octave Picard, Joseph Picard.
St. Aubert, March 16, 1914.
As will be noticed, nineteen residents have signed that protest. The representative of L'Islet stated in his letter requesting the opening of that post office that there are not more than twenty persons interested, and, out of that number, nineteen have signed a petition requesting that this post office be closed.
I see by the return that this request was immediately forwarded to the hon. member for L'Islet under cover of a departmental letter dated March 24, 1914. To that letter I find the following answer addressed to the department by the member for L'Islet:
To Mr. H. B. Verret,
Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter in reference to the opening of the Giasson post office. I shall take the first opportunity of passing at your office.
Tours,
. Dr. E. Paquet.

The return contains nothing further, which goes to show that he is responsible for the opening of that post office, and that he had been begging to get that post office opened. There is no politics in this connection, and the member for L'Islet will admit that, barring one or two exceptions, all these people supported him at the last election and belong to the Conservative party. That post office was opened with the sole object of enabling some one to earn a few dollars as postmaster and in the shape of house rent. And it is known that in a locality such as this where there is no need for it -whatever, the opening of further post offices is rather harmful. As a matter of fact those interested have been refused their mail at the St. Aubert post office, where they go every Sunday to attend at church, and they are obliged to stop at Giasson to get it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the minister's answer to that protest?


Ernest Lapointe: The answer was as follows :
Ottawa, March 19, 1914.
Mr. Cyrias Dub#,
St. Aubert, L'Islet Co., Quebec.
Sir,-I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, enclosing a petition in reference to the Giasson post office, in the Parish of St. Aubert, county of L'Islet.
I have the honour, etc.,
A. W. Throop,
Secretary.


Eugène Paquet: Will the hon. gentleman hand me over the papers?


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly. I have
found fault with the policy followed^ by the department as regards the opening of further post offices in the county of L'Islet. I have notv to find fault with the opening of a post office-it was not opened on any application from me-in the parish of St. Philippe de Neri, in the county of Kamour-aska. That parish, according to the last census, has a population of about nine hundred souls. I am sure that the hon. gentleman is well posted on the question. Following on the last election, in that parish as well as in all others, it was deemed proper to dismiss the postmaster if he happened to be a Liberal. The postmaster I refer to did not await dismissal, he resigned at once. A Mr. Roy was recommended by Mr. Potvin, my opponent who was defeated at the polls. The majority in the parish were in favour of appointing some one else, a Mr. Lebrun. Mr. Potvin's

nominee was appointed all the same. But a protest was forwarded to the hon. minister. Matters remained at that point until the month of May, 1912, when the provincial elections took place. My hon. friend the Postmaster General remembers no doubt the trip he made in company with the Minister of Railways, to hear complaints and endeavour to create a better feeling. In the parish of St. Philippe de Neri, an ultimatum was delivered to the leader of the Conservative party, intimating, that, unless the post office was removed from Mr. Roy's to Mr. Lebrun's, forty-five Conservatives, to say the least, would abstain from voting. Those who are familiar with that constituency know what that meant. There followed an exchange of messages between Ottawa, Quebec and St. Philippe de Neri, and finally, on the eve of polling day, an official of the Post Office Department arrived from Quebec, and to the utter surprise of all, a new post office was opened at a distance of about four arpents from the other, under the name of St. Philippe de N6ri West. So that, in a parish with a population of nine hundred souls, comprising a small village, of thirty or forty households, as is to be found in all parishes of that size, there are two post offices. East and West, within an area of a few arpents only. I imagined that would last only until after the election; but I must congratulate the hon. gentleman, he was persevering, and both post offices are still in operation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What- was the effect on the result of the election?


Ernest Lapointe: $200. That is another instance of the minister's unbusinesslike management of his department.
Mr. PELLETIER.-In the case of St. Philippe do Neri, there is room for discussion, but this one is perfectly clear. Here is a man who has a contract at the rate of $220. It should be noticed that the rule of the department is to renew these contracts a long time before the date of expiry is at hand. In this instance we have a service which costs $220 and we find a man who is ready to do it for $200. The distance to be covered would even justify a contract for a larger amount, and even $220 was not too much pay, considering the work to be performed. When the former contractor learned that we had made arrangements whereby that work was to be done for $20 less, he wrote to the department offering to carry on the service for $150. At that price the man could not make a living.
Mr. LAPOINTE.-Why did you not call for tenders?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Because tenders are never called for in connection with contracts for $200 or less. The cost of advertising, etc., would not justify such a course. Our rule is always to award the contract whenever we are satisfied that the price asked for is reasonable. In the case referred to by my hon. friend, we renewed the contract at $20 below the price paid the previous year. That is why Mr. Anderson answered that our arrangements were concluded.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Was the contract
signed?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, but that does not make any difference, provided the head of the branch has committed himself, it is not necessary that the contract be signed, to bind the department; the contract may be signed only a month or two later, it makes no difference. My hon. friend spoke of what we had done at St. Philippe de Neri-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Your patron saint.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, that may explain why I was generous in my dealings with that parish and granted two post offices. There are many localities with no more than 900 souls and where two post offices are in operation.


Pius Michaud: There are many places with a population of 900 souls and that have only one post office.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If my hon. friend
from Kamouraska has requests to forward for more post offices, it would be a mistake on his part to believe that I would refuse because the county is represented by a Liberal. I would not think myself justified in so doing. My hon. friend from Rouville stated last year that in following that policy I was only doing my duty. That may be, but I would like people to realize that such is the case. There are a good many constituencies in the province of Quebec where we cannot hope to win, because the Liberal majority is so overwhelming, that it seems impossible that we should overcome it. I shall not give out any names; I would rather continue entertaining some hope. Take for instance rural mail delivery. Is it not a fact that this service is being carried on in constituencies strongly supporting the liberal party as well as in others?
Mr. LEMIEUX.-It is no doubt because liberal constituencies are more enlightened.
Mr. LAFORTUNE.-I have been applying for such a route for two years past and as yet have not obtained anything.
Mr. PELLETIER.-The rules laid down by the department should be complied with. Let us take the county of St. Johns and Iberville for instance, that is one of the constituencies in the province of Quebec where rural mail delivery is organized on the widest scale. That service is not managed to subserve party ends, but on a strictly business basis. When I made that statement last year, my hon. friend from Rouville replied that I was only doing my duty. I know it, and that is my policy on every occasion.
My hon. friend from Kamouraska may rest assured that if he shows that more post offices are required in his constituency, the fact of his being the representative of the county will not by any means be in the way of granting his request.
Mr. LAPOINTE.-There are too many in some places, while there is a deficiency of them in others.
Mr. PELLETIER.-That is a matter of opinion. But as regards the question of deficiency, my hon. friend is not the only one to complain. We take into consideration to a certain extent the question of expenditure and probable earnings of the office; but when the opening of a new post office appears to be needful, particularly in a locality where vehicles are wanting and the distance to go over considerable, to reach the nearest post office, we take the view that

the Post Office department exists to cater to the wants of the public, and we are not overweening on the question of the earnings exceeding the expenditure. For example, if it were shown that twelve or fifteen families are cut off from the rest of the world, their small number would not prevent us from coming to their assistance, and I think that is the right conception of the duties incumbent upon me.
Mr. LEMIEUX.-An application has been made by St. Jean Baptiste de Rouville. Number of citizens have signed that application and are willing to comply with the conditions laid down the the department for the establishment of a rural mail delivery route. However, nothing as yet has been done, and I would ask the minister to be so kind as to look into the matter as soon as possible.
Mr. GAUVREAU.-Before the Minister leaves this subject, I would like to ask for some information. Was there a petition forwarded to him on behalf of the residents of the western portion of L'lle Verte, known as Riviere des Vases, for the opening of a post office?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot say offhand.


Mr. ETHIER:: Mr. Chairman


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for L'Islet wishes to offer some explanation in reference to the opening of those new post offices in his constituency, and I trust the hon. gentleman will allow him to address the House for a few moments.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Very well, provided the hon. gentleman agrees not to move for the adjournment of the House previous to my being heard.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly, you will
have plenty of time left to address the House.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I see the hon. gentleman from L'Islet is better acquainted with what is going on in the Post Office Department than the minister himself apparently is; why not appoint him deputy minister?
Mr. PAQUET.-I must thank the hon. member for Kamouraska who takes such warm interest in the welfare of the people in the county of L'Islet. If only he interested himself to the same extent in the experimental farm of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the hon. gentleman think that my suggestions would be favourably considered by this Government?


Eugène Paquet: I regret that my hon. friend should have thought fit to speak sneeringly of the names of electors in my constituency. It is not the privilege of many to be known under the name of Lapointe. I must say that I represent a county comprising many new settlements, a thriving region, and I am not backward in requesting the opening of post offices in sufficient numbers. Long enough that county had been negleoted; long enough our friends on the other side had dismissed all applications, however reasonable, submitted by the representative of L'Islet. Since the coming of the Conservatives into power, I found in the hon. Postmaster General, a man who understands what are the needs of the settlers in the county of L'Islet.
Before we reached power, the settlers and farmers of the county of L'Islet, in order to get to a post office, had to travel over distances varying between seven and twelve miles. That was satisfactory to the member for Kamouraska, but as regards farmers and settlers, the story was a different one. I thought the Postmaster General would be able to do something in their behalf, and I congratulate and thank him for having given some relief to that class of sturdy workers. That may be the reason why the member for Kamouraska is so sour on the Postmaster General and the member for L'Islet who both work in their interest.
In cities such as Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and others, the people a^e not any better than those I represent, notwithstanding which the mail is distributed from house to house. Why should we not have in our rural districts as many post offices as are required to dispense people of the necessity of travelling over distances of ten miles to get their mail, as was the case under the Liberal rule. The county of L'Islet is progressing, and I am ready to discuss that question with the hon. member for Kamouraska; let him come into my county and upbraid the minister for having done his duty towards that fine agricultural class.


Ernest Lapointe: If the hon. member
heard what I said, he must know that far from criticising him, I congratulated him on wielding such influence over the Postmaster General, as evidenced by the fact of his obtaining fourteen new post offices with a resulting total deficit of $1,000 per annum.


Eugène Paquet: I stated and I repeat that the county of L'Islet had been shamefully



neglected under the Liberal rule. To-day a work of regeneration is 'being carried on, since we have icome into power. The hon. gentleman has referred to my parish. The non. member for L'Islet is a genial fellow, but he made a sad mistake when he tried to cast ridicule on the names of my fellow citizens. I would not advise him to repeat the experiment in the parish of St. Aubert. When a man puts his name to a petition hut has not the courage to himself sign it with his own name, I say I have a perfect right to wait until the session is over to personally investigate the facts. And if the Giasson post office should be closed, I shall be the first to call on the minister to do it. I am up against a plot engineered by a Liberal who wanted to get both the post office and the mail contract. Through spite, he got that petition signed, and forwarded it under cover to the hon. minister; however, he had not the courage to sign his own name to the petition, only putting his cross thereto, while he duly signed the covering letter. Under the circumstances, it seems I am justified in postponing until after the session is over the settlement of that matter, and finding out whether the Giasson post office should be closed.
I propose following up the work of providing postal facilities throughout the constituency, so as to put our poor settlers on a footing of equality with city people. I wish to work with all my might in the interest of my electors and let them enjoy the advantages of rural mail delivery.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish to protest
against the statement made by my hon. friend that I sneered at the names of those Who signed the petition. I did nothing of the sort, and if the hon. gentleman gathered that meaning from my utterances, he is utterly at sea. As regards Cyrias Dubd whom he taunts for not having had the courage of signing his name to the petition, contenting himself with putting his mark, well the Postmaster General will tell him that one is just as good as the other.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Not when a man is able to sign.


Ernest Lapointe: But somebody else
writing to the minister in Dube's name, may have signed for him.


Eugène Paquet: Is not that sufficient
reason for me to delay giving the decision which should be taken under the circumstances?


Ernest Lapointe: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the names of the nine-

teen persons who are mentioned in that petition are not actually voters of the parish of St. Aubert?


Eugène Paquet: They are voters of St.
Aubert, but I do not know whether these are their signatures; as a matter of fact, I see that Cyrias Dube who signed the letter addressed to the minister, has not signed his name to that petition, but merely put his mark.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the hon. gentleman should put forward such a contention. So far, I have had only complimentary references to make to him, but now I am bound to find fault with him. The hon. gentleman was advised by the department that a petition had been received bearing a certain number of signatures and asking that the said post office be closed. His reply to that letter was that he would take the matter up and call at the department. How is it that he has not yet been there, and has not secured the requisite information?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Mr. Chairman since we are dealing with the dismissals of postmasters, I may be allowed to enquire from the minister whether he recalls the incident which took place on Tuesday evening when the removal of the Ste. Scholastique postmaster was considered. I complained on that evening of the action taken by the department on the petitions sent in by certain parties, asking for the emoval of Mr. Raymond and recommending as his successor two persons, the present postmaster, Mr. Presseault, and Mr. Sauve, who, by the way, is not related to Mr. Sauve, M.L.A., at Quebec. The minister answered me as follows:
Mr. Pelletier: I will look into that.
Mr. Ethier: There were many persons surprised that these petitions were not on the file. I am certain they are not of a private character.
Mr. Pelletier: I will instruct the officer in charge of the branch to look into it to-morrow.
It is now Friday, and we have not yet had the promised information. That same evening the Postmaster General, basing himself on the precedent and principle laid down by the former Prime Minister, to-day leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), that all letters addressed to the department and marked 1 Personal," should in no case be brought down on an order of the House for a return, declared himself to be in perfect sympathy with the views then expressed. That is actually the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Without the consent of the writer. Occasionally, I have had letters marked 1 Personal,' which I brought down after getting the consent of the party who wrote them.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Well, since Tuesday I
have not yet had an answer to my request for the bringing down of those petitions, which are in the hands of the minister or filed in the department.
Here is a second question. In the return which was handed to me in connection with the removal of Mr. Raymond, I see there is a letter marked ' Personal.' Now, either the minister has been deceived or is trying to deceive others. How explain the inclusion of that letter in the return, if the rule is not to lay before the House a letter marked ' Personal ' ? Even the copy I have in my hands is marked ' Personal.' That letter is dated December 10, 1913. Again I ask, why is it included in the return? I fancy that when it suits the convenience of the department letters are sent down; if not, they are withheld.
This letter was laid before the House on March 6 last and it reads as follows:
Montreal, December 10, 1913.
(Personal)
The Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General, Ottawa.
My Dear Sir,-In answer to your letter of the 3rd instant, I must say that the gentleman I recommend to succeed Mr. Raymond as postmaster at Ste. Scholastique, is Mr. Wilfrid Presseault. I have no doubt that the aforementioned gentleman will make an excellent postmaster.
Please accept, &c.
G.	A. Pauteux.
This Mr. Fauteux is the same who failed in securing his election, because he did not even know how to prepare his nomination papers. Now, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which the removal was effected of the postmaster of Ste. Scholastique, which is the chief town of the district of Terrebonne. I might explain that removal was effected through the intervention of the hon. member for Terrebonne, and if Mr. Nantel were present, he might be in a position to enlighten us.
In the redistribution of electoral seats which is being effected, it is proposed to annex the whole or part of the county of Two Mountains to that of Laval. Well I accept that proposal, for I am satisfied that I would get along very well with the good people of Laval. But it would have been a much simpler proposition to unite my county with that of Argenteuil, my 243i
natural neighbour. I invite the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) to come and discuss that question in my constituency, and he will be quite nonplussed at the result.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He might take a lesson in the art of securing an election by acclamation.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Now let us come down to business, I mean let us revert to Ste. Scholastique. Is there a rule laid down for Ste. Scholastique and another for Kamour-aska? In this matter as in the matter of banks, is the principle to be laid down that what is fair as regards Ontario is not fair as regards Quebec? But let us stick to the question, that is, the removal of Mr. Raymond, and let us see under what circumstances it was demanded. In 1896, the postmaster of the district town of. Terrebonne was Mr. Antoine Fortier-what I am about to narrate is a matter of history in the county of Two Mountains. Mr. Fortier was revising officer under the Electoral Franchise Act and he had been appointed by Mr. Ohapleau. Mr. Fortier was postmaster, he was also a Conservative leader in the county. In 1896, when the Liberals reached power, he was, in consideration of his advanced years, retained from 1896 to 1898, the year of his demise. After his death, was he replaced by a Liberal? No, Mr. Minister. You are familiar with Quebec, but you are not quite so familiar with the district of Terrebonne, concerning which you might be posted by your colleague, Mr. Nantel, that silent Mr. Nanitel, who is never seen in the House.
In 1898, we appointed notary Forest, a Conservative also, who had always worked against the Liberal party. He kept the position some time, and then resigned to be replaced by his brother-in-law, Vincent Fortier, always in the same family, and also a Conservative. He resigned for reasons, which I do not wish to state here, and the Government appointed his sister, Miss Annie Fortier, to take his place. In 1903, Miss Fortier got married. I recall these facts in order to show to the Postmaster General that the Liberals did not show any spite, as you are showing against the Liberals.


Mr. BLONDIN:: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman address the Chair, and not the minister.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I beg your pardon, Sir, I thought I should address the superior.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Such is the rule of the House.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: After Miss Fortier married, we appointed Mr. Felix Raymond, who was a Liberal. But, please note, Mr. Chairman, that we dismissed no one to appoint Mr. Raymond. Between 1896 and that date Conservatives had been appointed, and they were people who gave no cause for complaint, and properly fulfilled their diuties. Whejfn Mr. Felix Raymond was appointed, the position was vacant and we did not remove any one to find a place for him. He is a respectable citizen, and the only fault to be found with him is that of being a Liberal.
After the elections of 1911, the Conservatives asked for his removal through the petition a copy of which I applied for the other evening. Mr. G. A. Fateaux, the would-be candidate in the county of Two Mountains, thus expressed himself on November 19, 1912, in a letter addressed to the minister:
Montreal, November 19, 1912. The Hon. Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
My Dear Sir,-The post office of the village of Ste. Scholastique is at present under the care of Mr. Felix Raymond. That gentleman received that appointment from the -Liberal party on account of exceptional services rendered to that party, and he has been in the meantime maintained in office owing to his constant participation to the Liberal organization in the county. My desire would be that in future that post office be confided to the care of Mr. Wilfrid Presseault, of Ste. Scholastique.
I trust therefore that you will give the requisite instructions to have my request complied with under the shortest notice.
I have the honour to remain, &e.,
G. A. Fauteux.
On the other hand, I had never asked for the removal of any one. On December 21, 1912, the department wrote as follows to Mr. Raymond:
Ottawa, December 21, 1912. Mr. Felix Raymond,
Postmaster,
St. Scholastique, Que.
You are charged with having, since your appointment as postmaster, taken part in the Dominion and Provincial elections. I am directed by the Post Office Department to inquire whether that is a fact. If the charge is foundationless, I imagine you will have no objection to signing the inclosed solemn declaration, which should be received before a justice of the peace or a notary.
Should there not be any justice of the peace or notary in your locality, the declaration may be received before the mayor of the parish.

Kindly forward me your answer without delay.
I remain, &c.
H.	B. Verret,
Asst. Deputy Minister.
It will be noticed that the form never varies. That printed form was submitted to me, and I advised Mr. Raymond not to sign it, and to return it to the department.
The following is the declaration which Mr. Raymond sent to the department:
Solemn declaration made under the Act for the prevention of extrajudiciary oaths.
I,	the undersigned, Felix Raymond, postmaster of Ste. Scholastique, Quebec, do solemnly declare:
(1)	I was appointed postmaster in the year 1907 ;
(2)	Since the date of my appointment as postmaster, I have not taken an active part in the elections, whether Dominion or Provincial, I have not done any canvassing or taken voters to the polls, or offered or given money or liquor ; neither have I represented any candidate at the polls, except at the Provincial election of 1908, when I represented a candidate late in the afternoon. Neither have I voted, checked off voters at the door of any poll. Neither have I taken part in any organization committee. I did not address any meeting in favour of any of the candidates, and I did not interrupt any public speaker at any public meeting.
(3)	All I did do was to peacefully record my vote. In 1908, and at the elections, Dominion as well as Provincial, of 1911 and 1912, I abstained from voting.
And I make this declaration knowing it conscientiously to be true and to have the same effect as if given under oath under the Evidence Act of Canada.
And I have signed,
F. Raymond.
Then an inquiry was ordered. On December 30, 1912, after a year's delay, Mr. Bergeron was appointed to inquire into the charges brought against Raymond. It will be noticed that there were about fifteen similar cases. Postmasters whose salaries did not exceed $30 were dismissed, and for what purpose? Mr. Bergeron was employed as investigating commissioner at a salary of $15 per diem, plus $3 per day for his living expenses, besides his travelling expenses. It cost $75 to remove some poor fellows, whose only offence was that they were Liberals. In every case, it is always the same form which the minister uses:
Your fees will be $15 per day, plus your actual travelling expenses and $3 per day as a living allowance. It will not be necessary to employ a stenographer or copyist; you will hear the witnesses brought forward for and against, and you will base your report on the evidence.
Please advise Mr. G. A. Fauteux, barrister, 97 St. James street, Montreal, and the interested postmaster, of the date at which you will proceed with the inquiry.

I give herewith the report of Mr. Bergeron, in the case of Ste. Scholastique, dated January 30, 1913. Mr. Raymond had been dismissed in December, 1912.
Montreal, Jjanuary 30, 1913.
To the Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Re Felix Raymond, postmaster of Ste. Scholastique, county of Two Mountains.
Sir,-Acting under your instructions received on December 30 last, X proceeded to Ste. Scholastique, where, on Tuesday the 28th instant, I conducted an inquiry into the charges brought against Postmaster Raymond, for political partisanship. X had advised Mr. G. A. Fauteux, barrister, and Mr. Felix Raymond of the date and place when and where I would proceed with such inquiry. I had assigned as witnesses Mr. J.-Bte. Legault, Mr. Wilfrid Presseault and Mr. Guillaume Sauvii, all three of the village of Ste. Scholastique. These witnesses have sworn that Mr. Raymond was a Liberal in politics. Mr. Legault swore that Mr. Raymond discussed politics at Mr. Barsalou's on the evening of the votation in 1911, stating that the Laurier government was going to remain in power as strong as it was previous to the elections. He swears, moreover, that Mr. Raymond went to congratulate Mr. Ethier, member elect, following on the decision rendered in June, 1912, confirming him in the possession of his seat.
Mr. Guillaume Sauv6 corroborates Mr. IjO-gault's statement as to Mr. Raymond congratulating Mr. Ethier after the judgment of June, 1912. Mr. Felix Raymond who has been postmaster for the last ten years, he says, though very active in politics, previous to his appointment as postmaster, swears that he has not taken any part in politics in the meantime. He does not deny having met Mr. Fauteux, the Conservative candidate, at the registrar's in 1911, during election time, and having expressed his views. He does not recall the conversation with Legault at Barsalou's, but he will not deny the truth of Legault's statements. There is no doubt that Mr. Raymond, a former Liberal leader, has in a great measure altered his ways since becoming postmaster, but he did not refrain from expressing his views in the presence of Mr. Fauteux, Conservative candidate, at the registrar's as also in the presence of Messrs. Legault and Sauv6 at Mr. Barsalou's.
I have the honour to he, &c.,
J. G. H. Bergeron.
The elections had been held in 1911, and that report came out only two years later.
On January 30, 1913, Mr. Fateaux wrote as follows to the minister:
Montreal, January 13, 1913. To the Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
My Dear Sir,-Mr. Bergeron, who has been appointed by you to carry on an investigation at Ste. Scholastique into the charges of political partisanship brought against Mr. Raymond, has given me communication of the report which he is addressing to you. Will you be so kind as to suspend all further action in
the matter until I see you again in this connection ?
Please accept, &c.
G. A. Fauteux,
Since when has a judge the right to communicate his decision to an outsider before sending it to the proper authority? We have witnessed that once before in the saloon prosecutions in Montreal; but Mr. Justice Charbonneau quashed the decision of the license commissioners.
Is there a word in the report of Mr. Bergeron, stating that he recommends the removal of Raymond? No, Mr. Bergeron's report is rather favourable. But it was Sauve who made use of this report. The following is the copy of a letter he wrote to the minister on December 16, 1913:
Mr. Minister,-I have just learned that the postmastership is vacant. I have applied many a time for the position. You invariably answered that it was not vacant, but that my request would be considered. I hope to receive a satisfactory answer, as one of the principal leaders of the party in my county had promised that in the case of a change taking place,
I would get it. That is my reason for applying once more. X have been for many a year a supporter of the Conservative party, and I trust it will grant me this favour now, as I was given to understand that it would be, ever since a change is being talked about.
An answer will oblige.
William SauvS.
On the 28th of November, Mr. Fateaux, who had been carrying on an ex parte investigation, sent to the minister the following letter:
My Dear Minister,-Herewith you will find two statements, one signed by Mr. Jean-Bte. Legault, and the other by Mr. Wilfrid Presseault, both electors of Ste. Scholastique, showing that Mr. Ethier has been making political capital out of the fact that we are not taking action towards removing Mr. Raymond, the present postmaster of Ste. Scholastique.
Trusting that these statements will prove the correctness of what I asserted in a previous letter and will justify you in effecting the removal which I urge, I beg of you to accept the, expression of my most cordial feelings.
Yours, &c.,
G. A. Fauteux.
Presseault and Legault are two retired gentlemen who -never go to Montreal unless somebody else pays their expenses, and it will be seen that their statements are headed Montreal. They read as follows: Montreal, November 24, 1913. On or about the last days in May, 1912, while we were three or four people congregated in front of the court house at Ste. Scholastique, Mr. Calixte Ethier, of the village of Ste. Scholastique, advocate and member of parliament, came towards us, unprovoked, and addressing Mr. Wilfrid Presseault, who was one of our group, he said sarcastically: ' Are you going

to get the post office? If you get it, you won't keep it long. There is going to he a change of Government within six months, and I shall not defer the matter for a year or two. On the day following you will he put out. If I were in your place, it would not take twenty-four hours.'
(Sgd) J. B. Legault.
Sworn before me at Ste. Scholastique, this 25th day of November, 1913.
(Sgd) Narcisse Forest,
Notary.
Montreal, November 24, 1913. On or about the last days in May, 1912, while we were three or four people congregated in front of the court house at Ste. Scholastique, Mr. Calixte Ethier, of the village of Ste. Scholastique, advocate and member of parliament, came towards us, unprovoked, and addressing Mr. Wilfrid Presseault, who was one of our group, he said sarcastically: 'Are you going to get the post office? If you get it, you won't keep it long. There is going to he a change of Government within six months, and I shall not defer the matter for a year or two. On the day following you will be put out. If I were in your place, it would not take twenty-four hours.'
(Sgd) Wilfrid Presseault. Sworn before me at Ste. Scholastique, this 25th day of November, 1913.
(Sgd) Narcisse Forest,
Notary.
As a matter of fact, I may have littered those words, but would that he sufficient ground to dismiss Mr. Raymond? It was no fault of his. Political turncoats are to be found everywhere, at Ste. Scholastique as in Quebec. One sure thing is that Wilfrid Presseault was the man who took the cake. That is the whole story of Mr. Raymond's removal. Who asked for it? Andr6 Fauteux, the defeated candidate. Mr. Bergeron had not recommended his dismissal, as his report clearly shows.
So I say that the removal of Mr. Raymond is an insult to the whole county of Two Mountains, and particularly to the parish of Ste. Scholastique. As no one had been removed to make place for Mr. Raymond, there was no occasion for reprisals. It is a case of gross injustice and the people will keep it in mind for the next general elections.
. I might mention all the post offices in the county. It is well known that in Two Mountains there is no patronage to distribute, however, I never got a single postmaster removed, even of those who were appointed previous to 1896. In 1897, a post office was opened at the Cdte St. Vincent, at the request of the public; the postmaster, Foisy, did not replace any one, nevertheless he was removed. Everywhere it was on the part of our opponents a revelry of dismissals.
Now, I wish to refer to an incident which occurred the other day in this House, while I was absent, in reference to the Oka postmastership. The question was raised by the hon. member for Rouville and the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who inquired from the Postmaster General whether he would not do something for the widow of the postmaster of Oka, who lost his life in the autumn of 1911, on the lake of Two Mountains while transporting the mails. The member for Rouville recalled to the memory of the minister that I had made an application to that effect.
I must admit that $1,000 has been granted to the widow; but my hon. friend was right, I had applied for it, and the minister told me at the time that was too late. Call later on, he said, and we shall see what can be done. I did not fail to do so, and at the session of 1912, there was in the supplementary estimates a thousand dollar vote intended for the widow. Reference was made to a Jettre of thanks from the family addressed to the minister. It was the member for Two Mountains who made the request, and it is the minister who gets the thanks.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is understood you gave the money.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: No, but it is understood that if I had not asked for it you would not have allowed anything. Any way that
81,000	does not come from your pocket, but from the Dominion Treasury. If it is expected that some political capital is to be gained at Oka through the granting of that $1,000, that is a mistake. In 1896, there were only four people who voted Liberal; but in 1908, there were 95, and there will be 150 or 200 at the next general elections. That $1,000 will not change the Liberal majority of the parish of L'Annonciation d'Oka.	'
I now resume my argument. The hon. Postmaster General stated further in reply to the hon. member for Rouville, that instead of granting her a ' compassionate allowance,' he had appointed her postmistress. However, he did not state that he had deprived her of the mail contract, though she had horses and vehicles which had cost her between $1,500 and $1,800, so as to let a Conservative get the advantage of it.
That is not all, the minister has fixed matters so that her son will not be able to do the work which his father used to do; the father was a baker by trade, and the son used to carry the mail. The minister

says he appointed her, but she was postmistress already.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: That is mere word play.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Not at all, her husband had the post office.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: But the post office was in Mrs. Laherge's house, and since when was she separated from her husband? I notice the sneering smile of the minister, but if ever he comes to Oka, Mrs. Laberge will tell him: You ruined me, even if you did leave the post office to me. As postmistress she draws $36 per annum, but she has been deprived of the mail contract between Oka and Como, and Como and La Trappe, a contract which brought a good deal more. That is what I would have stated the other day, had I been present, and I wish to lay these facts before the House and the electors of Two Mountains, so that all may know what it amounts to.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I might refer to other dismissals which have taken place in the county of Two Mountains, and particularly, that of Mr. Lalonde, at Cote Double, that of a Emile Brazeau at C6te Rouge, that of Amedee Vaillancourt at Cote St. Etienne, who was replaced by Xavier Desjardins; of Louis Vermette, at Cote St. Vincent; of N. Laviolette, at Petit-Brule; of Edmond Lalonde, at St. Benoit; of A. Labelle, at St. Canut-East; of Edmond Lacroix, at St, Joseph du Lac; of Zephirin Raymond, at St. Placide. Mr. Zephirin Raymond was hit harder than anybody else, because he happened to be the uncle of the member for Two Mountains.
All those dismissals are mentioned in Report No. 44, of the Department of the Secretary of State, brought down on January 22, 1914.
In all that correspondence relative to those dismissals, it is always the same Mr. Bergeron who is investigating eommis

 sioner, and who receives letters signed L. P. Pelletier, stating that he will be paid 15 per diem, plus his travelling expenses, plus $3 per day as living allowance. Before ordinary courts of justice-I appeal in this connection to the Crown prosecutor for the district of Montreal (Mr. Lafortune)- no such bills were ever filed.
Mr. Chairman, I revert once more to the case of Mr. Zephirin Raymond, of St. Placide, and I assert that he was persecuted even when on his death bed. He had tendered his resignation, it was not accepted; they waited until he had gone to the hospital in Montreal, to notify him of his dismissal. He had been postmaster 44 years. He was the oldest postmaster in the county. He had carried on a large trade at one time. Such has been the work of the Postmaster General in the county of Two Mountains, and if ever he shows himself again in that county he will get a thrashing such as that he got on a former occasion and which he richly deserved.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I shall send a copy of ' Hansard ' in the county of Two Mountains and to Mrs. Laberge, so that she may read what the hon. gentleman stated to-night and judge for herself.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: She knows it all.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Pelletier, the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, May 16, 1914.